{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_14780/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_14780","id":"gutenberg_14780","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14780","summary":null,"tags":["Apologetics -- Early works to 1800","Category: History - Religious","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY\n\nby\n\nWILLIAM PALEY, D.D.\n\nA New Edition\n\nLondon: Printed by W. Clowes and Sons, Stamford Street\n\n1851\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE HONOURABLE AND RIGHT REVEREND\n\nJAMES YORK, D.D., LORD BISHOP OF ELY\n\nMy LORD,\n\nWhen, five years ago, an important station in the University of\nCambridge awaited your Lordship's disposal, you were pleased to offer it\nto me. The circumstances under which this offer was made demand a public\nacknowledgment. I had never seen your Lordship; I possessed no\nconnection which could possibly recommend me to your favour; I was known\nto you only by my endeavour, in common with many others, to discharge my\nduty as a tutor in the University; and by some very imperfect, but\ncertainly well-intended, and, as you thought, useful publications since.\nIn an age by no means wanting in examples of honourable patronage,\nalthough this deserve not to be mentioned in respect of the object of\nyour Lordship's choice, it is inferior to none in the purity and\ndisinterestedness of the motives which suggested it.\n\nHow the following work may be received, I pretend not to foretell. My\nfirst prayer concerning it is, that it may do good to any: my second\nhope, that it may assist, what it hath always been my earnest wish to\npromote, the religious part of an academical education. If in this\nlatter view it might seem, in any degree, to excuse your Lordship's\njudgment of its author, I shall be gratified by the reflection that, to\na kindness flowing from public principles, I have made the best public\nreturn in my power.\n\nIn the mean time, and in every event, I rejoice in the opportunity here\nafforded me of testifying the sense I entertain of your Lordship's\nconduct, and of a notice which I regard as the most flattering\ndistinction of my life.\n\n                I am, MY LORD,\n        With sentiments of gratitude and respect,\n            Your Lordship's faithful\n                And most obliged servant,\n\nWILLIAM PALEY.\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\nPreparatory Considerations--Of the antecedent Credibility of Miracles.\n\nPART 1.\n\nOF THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY, AND WHEREIN IT IS\nDISTINGUISHED FROM THE EVIDENCE ALLEGED FOR OTHER MIRACLES.\n\nProposition stated\n\nPROPOSITION I.\n\nThat there is satisfactory Evidence, that many professing to be original\nWitnesses of the Christian Miracles passed their Lives in Labours,\nDangers, and Sufferings, voluntarily undergone in Attestation of the\nAccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their Belief\nof those Accounts; and that they submitted, from the same Motives, to\nnew Rules of Conduct.\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nEvidence of the Suffering of the first Propagators of Christianity, from\nthe Nature of the Case.\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nEvidence of the Sufferings of the first Propagators of Christianity,\nfrom Profane Testimony.\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nIndirect Evidence of the Sufferings of the first Propagators of\nChristianity, from the Scriptures and other ancient Christian Writings.\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nDirect Evidence of the same.\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nObservations upon the preceding Evidence.\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nThat the Story for which the first Propagators of Christianity suffered\nwas miraculous.\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nThat it was, in the main, the Story which we have now proved by indirect\nConsiderations.\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nThe same proved from the Authority of our Historical Scriptures.\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nOf the Authenticity of the historical Scriptures, in eleven Sections\n\n\nSECT. 1 Quotations of the historical Scriptures by ancient Christian\n        Writers.\nSECT. 2 Of the peculiar Respect with which they were quoted.\nSECT. 3 The Scriptures were in very early Times collected into a\n        distinct Volume.\nSECT. 4 And distinguished by appropriate Names and Titles of Respect.\nSECT. 5 Were publicly read and expounded in the religious Assemblies of\n        the early Christians.\nSECT. 6 Commentaries, &c., were anciently written upon the Scriptures.\nSECT. 7 They were received by ancient Christians of different Sects and\n        persuasions.\nSECT. 8 The four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles\n        of St. Paul, the first Epistle of John, and the first of Peter,\n        were received without doubt by those who doubted concerning\n        the other Books of our present Canon.\nSECT. 9 Our present Gospels were considered by the adversaries of\n        Christianity as containing the Accounts upon which the Religion\n        was founded.\nSECT. 10 Formal Catalogues of authentic Scriptures were published, in\n         all which our present Gospels were included.\nSECT. 11 The above Propositions cannot be predicated of those Books\n         which are commonly called Apocryphal Books of the New\n         Testament.\n\nRecapitulation.\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nOF THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY, AND WHEREIN IT IS\nDISTINGUISHED FROM THE EVIDENCE ALLEGED FOR OTHER MIRACLES.\n\nPROPOSITION II.\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nThat there is not satisfactory Evidence, that Persons pretending to be\noriginal Witnesses of any other similar Miracles have acted in the same\nManner, in Attestation of the Accounts which they delivered, and solely\nin consequence of their Belief of the Truth of those Accounts.\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nConsideration of some specific Instances\n\n\nPART II.\n\nOF THE AUXILIARY EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY,\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nProphecy\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nThe Morality of the Gospel\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nThe Candour of the Writers of the New Testament\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nIdentity of Christ's Character\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nOriginality of our Saviour's Character\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nConformity of the Facts occasionally mentioned or referred to in\nScripture with the State of things in these Times, as represented by\nforeign and independent Accounts.\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nUndesigned Coincidences.\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nOf the History of the Resurrection.\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nOf the Propagation of Christianity.\nSECT. 2 Reflections upon the preceding Account.\nSECT. 3 Of the Religion of Mahomet.\n\n\nPART III\n\nA BRIEF CONSIDERATION OF SOME POPULAR OBJECTIONS.\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nThe Discrepancies between the several Gospels.\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nErroneous Opinions imputed to the Apostles.\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nThe Connection of Christianity with the Jewish History.\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nRejection of Christianity.\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nThat the Christian Miracles are not recited, or appealed to, by early\nChristian Writers themselves, so fully or frequently as might have been\nexpected.\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nWant of Universality in the Knowledge and Reception of Christianity, and\nof greater Clearness in the Evidence.\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nSupposed effects of Christianity.\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nConclusion.\n\n\n\n\n\nPREPARATORY CONSIDERATIONS.\n\nI deem it unnecessary to prove that mankind stood in need of a\nrevelation because I have met with no serious person who thinks that,\neven under the Christian revelation, we have too much light, or any\ndegree of assurance which is superfluous. I desire, moreover, that in\njudging of Christianity, it may be remembered that the question lies\nbetween this religion and none: for, if the Christian religion be not\ncredible, no one, with whom we have to do, will support the pretensions\nof any other.\n\nSuppose, then, the world we live in to have had a Creator; suppose it to\nappear, from the predominant aim and tendency of the provisions and\ncontrivances observable in the universe, that the Deity, when he formed\nit, consulted for the happiness of his sensitive creation; suppose the\ndisposition which dictated this counsel to continue; suppose a part of\nthe creation to have received faculties from their Maker, by which they\nare capable of rendering a moral obedience to his will, and of\nvoluntarily pursuing any end for which he has designed them; suppose the\nCreator to intend for these, his rational and accountable agents, a\nsecond state of existence, in which their situation will be by their\nbehaviour in the first state, by which suppose (and by no other) the\nobjection to the divine government in not putting a difference between\nthe good and the bad, and the inconsistency of this confusion with the\ncare and benevolence discoverable in the works of the Deity is done\naway; suppose it to be of the utmost importance to the subjects of this\ndispensation to know what is intended for them, that is, suppose the\nknowledge of it to be highly conducive to the happiness of the species,\na purpose which so many provisions of nature are calculated to promote:\nSuppose, nevertheless, almost the whole race, either by the imperfection\nof their faculties, the misfortune of their situation, or by the loss of\nsome prior revelation, to want this knowledge, and not to be likely,\nwithout the aid of a new revelation, to attain it; under these\ncircumstances, is it improbable that a revelation should be made? Is it\nincredible that God should interpose for such a purpose? Suppose him to\ndesign for mankind a future state; is it unlikely that he should\nacquaint him with it?\n\nNow in what way can a revelation be made, but by miracles? In none which\nwe are able to conceive. Consequently, in whatever degree it is\nprobable, or not very improbable, that a revelation should be\ncommunicated to mankind at all: in the same degree is it probable, or\nnot very improbable, that miracles should be wrought. Therefore, when\nmiracles are related to have been wrought in the promulgating of a\nrevelation manifestly wanted, and, if true, of inestimable value, the\nimprobability which arises from the miraculous nature of the things\nrelated is not greater than the original improbability that such a\nrevelation should be imparted by God.\n\nI wish it, however, to be correctly understood, in what manner, and to\nwhat extent, this argument is alleged. We do not assume the attributes\nof the Deity, or the existence of a future state, in order to prove the\nreality of miracles. That reality always must be proved by evidence. We\nassert only, that in miracles adduced in support of revelation there is\nnot any such antecedent improbability as no testimony can surmount. And\nfor the purpose of maintaining this assertion, we contend, that the\nincredibility of miracles related to have been wrought in attestation of\na message from God, conveying intelligence of a future state of rewards\nand punishments, and teaching mankind how to prepare themselves for that\nstate, is not in itself greater than the event, call it either probable\nor improbable, of the two following propositions being true: namely,\nfirst, that a future state of existence should be destined by God for\nhis human creation; and, secondly, that, being so destined, he should\nacquaint them with it. It is not necessary for our purpose, that these\npropositions be capable of proof, or even that, by arguments drawn from\nthe light of nature, they can be made out to be probable; it is enough\nthat we are able to say concerning them, that they are not so violently\nimprobable, so contradictory to what we already believe of the divine\npower and character, that either the propositions themselves, or facts\nstrictly connected with the propositions (and therefore no further\nimprobable than they are improbable), ought to be rejected at first\nsight, and to be rejected by whatever strength or complication of\nevidence they be attested.\n\nThis is the prejudication we would resist. For to this length does a\nmodern objection to miracles go, viz., that no human testimony can in\nany case render them credible. I think the reflection above stated,\nthat, if there be a revelation, there must be miracles, and that, under\nthe circumstances in which the human species are placed, a revelation is\nnot improbable, or not to any great degree, to be a fair answer to the\nwhole objection.\n\nBut since it is an objection which stands in the very threshold our\nargument, and, if admitted, is a bar to every proof, and to all future\nreasoning upon the subject, it may be necessary, before we proceed\nfurther, to examine the principle upon which it professes to be founded;\nwhich principle is concisely this, That it is contrary to experience\nthat a miracle should be true, but not contrary to experience that\ntestimony should be false.\n\nNow there appears a small ambiguity in the term \"experience,\" and in the\nphrases, \"contrary to experience,\" or \"contradicting experience,\" which\nit may be necessary to remove in the first place. Strictly speaking, the\nnarrative of a fact is then only contrary to experience, when the fact\nis related to have existed at a time and place, at which time and place\nwe being present did not perceive it to exist; as if it should be\nasserted, that in a particular room, and at a particular hour of a\ncertain day, a man was raised from the dead, in which room, and at the\ntime specified, we, being present and looking on, perceived no such\nevent to have taken place. Here the assertion is contrary to experience\nproperly so called; and this is a contrariety which no evidence can\nsurmount. It matters nothing, whether the fact be of a miraculous\nnature, or not. But although this be the experience, and the\ncontrariety, which Archbishop Tillotson alleged in the quotation with\nwhich Mr. Hume opens his Essay, it is certainly not that experience, nor\nthat contrariety, which Mr. Hume himself intended to object. And short\nof this I know no intelligible signification which can be affixed to the\nterm \"contrary to experience,\" but one, viz., that of not having\nourselves experienced anything similar to the thing related, or such\nthings not being generally experienced by others. I say \"not generally\"\nfor to state concerning the fact in question, that no such thing was\never experienced, or that universal experience is against it, is to\nassume the subject of the controversy.\n\nNow the improbability which arises from the want (for this properly is a\nwant, not a contradiction) of experience, is only equal to the\nprobability there is, that, if the thing were true, we should experience\nthings similar to it, or that such things would be generally\nexperienced. Suppose it then to be true that miracles were wrought on\nthe first promulgation of Christianity, when nothing but miracles could\ndecide its authority, is it certain that such miracles would be repeated\nso often, and in so many places, as to become objects of general\nexperience? Is it a probability approaching to certainty? Is it a\nprobability of any great strength or force? Is it such as no evidence\ncan encounter? And yet this probability is the exact converse, and\ntherefore the exact measure, of the improbability which arises from the\nwant of experience, and which Mr. Hume represents as invincible by human\ntestimony.\n\nIt is not like alleging a new law of nature, or a new experiment in\nnatural philosophy; because, when these are related, it is expected\nthat, under the same circumstances, the same effect will follow\nuniversally; and in proportion as this expectation is justly\nentertained, the want of a corresponding experience negatives the\nhistory. But to expect concerning a miracle, that it should succeed upon\na repetition, is to expect that which would make it cease to be a\nmiracle, which is contrary to its nature as such, and would totally\ndestroy the use and purpose for which it was wrought.\n\nThe force of experience as an objection to miracles is founded in the\npresumption, either that the course of nature is invariable, or that, if\nit be ever varied, variations will be frequent and general. Has the\nnecessity of this alternative been demonstrated? Permit us to call the\ncourse of nature the agency of an intelligent Being, and is there any\ngood reason for judging this state of the case to be probable? Ought we\nnot rather to expect that such a Being, on occasions of peculiar\nimportance, may interrupt the order which he had appointed, yet, that\nsuch occasions should return seldom; that these interruptions\nconsequently should be confined to the experience of a few; that the\nwant of it, therefore, in many, should be matter neither of surprise nor\nobjection?\n\nBut, as a continuation of the argument from experience, it is said that,\nwhen we advance accounts of miracles, we assign effects without causes,\nor we attribute effects to causes inadequate to the purpose, or to\ncauses of the operation of which we have no experience of what causes,\nwe may ask, and of what effects, does the objection speak? If it be\nanswered that, when we ascribe the cure of the palsy to a touch, of\nblindness to the anointing of the eyes with clay, or the raising of the\ndead to a word, we lay ourselves open to this imputation; we reply that\nwe ascribe no such effects to such causes. We perceive no virtue or\nenergy in these things more than in other things of the same kind. They\nare merely signs to connect the miracle with its end. The effect we\nascribe simply to the volition of Deity; of whose existence and power,\nnot to say of whose Presence and agency, we have previous and\nindependent proof. We have, therefore, all we seek for in the works of\nrational agents--a sufficient power and an adequate motive. In a word,\nonce believe that there is a God, and miracles are not incredible.\n\nMr. Hume states the ease of miracles to be a contest of opposite\nimprobabilities, that is to say, a question whether it be more\nimprobable that the miracle should be true, or the testimony false: and\nthis I think a fair account of the controversy. But herein I remark a\nwant of argumentative justice, that, in describing the improbability of\nmiracles, he suppresses all those circumstances of extenuation, which\nresult from our knowledge of the existence, power, and disposition of\nthe Deity; his concern in the creation, the end answered by the miracle,\nthe importance of that end, and its subserviency to the plan pursued in\nthe work of nature. As Mr. Hume has represented the question, miracles\nare alike incredible to him who is previously assured of the constant\nagency of a Divine Being, and to him who believes that no such Being\nexists in the universe. They are equally incredible, whether related to\nhave been wrought upon occasion the most deserving, and for purposes the\nmost beneficial, or for no assignable end whatever, or for an end\nconfessedly trifling or pernicious. This surely cannot be a correct\nstatement. In adjusting also the other side of the balance, the strength\nand weight of testimony, this author has provided an answer to every\npossible accumulation of historical proof by telling us that we are not\nobliged to explain how the story of the evidence arose. Now I think that\nwe are obliged; not, perhaps, to show by positive accounts how it did,\nbut by a probable hypothesis how it might so happen. The existence of\nthe testimony is a phenomenon; the truth of the fact solves the\nphenomenon. If we reject this solution, we ought to have some other to\nrest in; and none, even by our adversaries, can be admired, which is not\ninconsistent with the principles that regulate human affairs and human\nconduct at present, or which makes men then to have been a different\nkind of beings from what they are now.\n\nBut the short consideration which, independently of every other,\nconvinces me that there is no solid foundation in Mr. Hume's conclusion,\nis the following. When a theorem is proposed to a mathematician, the\nfirst thing he does with it is to try it upon a simple case, and if it\nproduce a false result, he is sure that there must be some mistake in\nthe demonstration. Now to proceed in this way with what may be called\nMr. Hume's theorem. If twelve men, whose probity and good sense I had\nlong known, should seriously and circumstantially relate to me an\naccount of a miracle wrought before their eyes, and in which it was\nimpossible that they should be deceived: if the governor of the country,\nhearing a rumour of this account, should call these men into his\npresence, and offer them a short proposal, either to confess the\nimposture, or submit to be tied up to a gibbet; if they should refuse\nwith one voice to acknowledge that there existed any falsehood or\nimposture in the case: if this threat were communicated to them\nseparately, yet with no different effect; if it was at last executed; if\nI myself saw them, one after another, consenting to be racked, burnt, or\nstrangled, rather than live up the truth of their account;--still if Mr.\nHume's rule be my guide, I am not to believe them. Now I undertake to\nsay that there exists not a sceptic in the world who would not believe\nthem, or who would defend such incredulity.\n\nInstances of spurious miracles supported by strong apparent testimony\nundoubtedly demand examination; Mr. Hume has endeavoured to fortify his\nargument by some examples of this kind. I hope in a proper place to show\nthat none of them reach the strength or circumstances of the Christian\nevidence. In these, however, consists the weight of his objection; in\nthe principle itself, I am persuaded, there is none.\n\n\n\n\n\nPART I.\n\nOF THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY, AND WHEREIN IT IS\nDISTINGUISHED FROM THE EVIDENCE ALLEGED FOR OTHER MIRACLES.\n\nThe two propositions which I shall endeavour to establish are these:\n\nI. That there is satisfactory evidence that many professing to be\noriginal witnesses of the Christian miracles passed their lives in\nlabours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation\nof the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their\nbelief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same\nmotives, to new rules of conduct.\n\n2. That there is not satisfactory evidence that persons professing to be\noriginal witnesses of other miracles, in their nature as certain as\nthese are, have ever acted in the same manner, in attestation of the\naccounts which they delivered, and properly in consequence of their\nbelief of those accounts.\n\nThe first of these prepositions, as it forms the argument will stand at\nthe head of the following nine chapters.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nThere is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original\nwitness of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours,\ndangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the\naccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their of\nbelief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same\nmotives, to new rules of conduct.\n\nTo support this proposition, two points are necessary to be made out:\nfirst, that the Founder of the institution, his associates and immediate\nfollowers, acted the part which the proposition imputes to them:\nsecondly, that they did so in attestation of the miraculous history\nrecorded in our Scriptures, and solely in consequence of their belief of\nthe truth of this history.\n\nBefore we produce any particular testimony to the activity and\nsufferings which compose the subject of our first assertion, it will be\nproper to consider the degree of probability which the assertion derives\nfrom the nature of the case, that is, by inferences from those parts of\nthe case which, in point of fact, are on all hands acknowledged.\n\nFirst, then, the Christian Religion exists, and, therefore, by some\nmeans or other, was established. Now it either owes the principle of its\nestablishment, i. e. its first publication, to the activity of the\nPerson who was the founder of the institution, and of those who were\njoined with him in the undertaking, or we are driven upon the strange\nsupposition, that, although they might lie by, others would take it up;\nalthough they were quiet and silent, other persons busied themselves in\nthe success and propagation of their story. This is perfectly\nincredible. To me it appears little less than certain, that, if the\nfirst announcing of the religion by the Founder had not been followed up\nby the zeal and industry of his immediate disciples, the attempt must\nhave expired in its birth. Then as to the kind and degree of exertion\nwhich was employed, and the mode of life to which these persons\nsubmitted, we reasonably suppose it to be like that which we observe in\nall others who voluntarily become missionaries of a new faith. Frequent,\nearnest, and laborious preaching, constantly conversing with religious\npersons upon religion, a sequestration from the common pleasures,\nengagements, and varieties of life, and an addiction to one serious\nobject, compose the habits of such men. I do not say that this mode of\nlife is without enjoyment, but I say that the enjoyment springs from\nsincerity. With a consciousness at the bottom of hollowness and\nfalsehood, the fatigue and restraint would become insupportable. I am\napt to believe that very few hypocrites engage in these undertakings;\nor, however, persist in them long. Ordinarily speaking, nothing can\novercome the indolence of mankind, the love which is natural to most\ntempers of cheerful society and cheerful scenes, or the desire, which is\ncommon to all, of personal ease and freedom, but conviction.\n\nSecondly, it is also highly probable, from the nature of the case, that\nthe propagation of the new religion was attended with difficulty and\ndanger. As addressed to the Jews, it was a system adverse, not only to\ntheir habitual opinions but to those opinions upon which their hopes,\ntheir partialities, their pride, their consolation, was founded. This\npeople, with or without reason, had worked themselves into a persuasion,\nthat some signal and greatly advantageous change was to be effected in\nthe condition of their country, by the agency of a long-promised\nmessenger from heaven.* The rulers of the Jews, their leading sect,\ntheir priesthood, had been the authors of this persuasion to the common\npeople. So that it was not merely the conjecture of theoretical divines,\nor the secret expectation of a few recluse devotees, but it was become\nthe popular hope and Passion, and, like all popular opinions, undoubting\nand impatient of contradiction. They clung to this hope under every\nmisfortune of their country, and with more tenacity as their dangers and\ncalamities increased. To find, therefore, that expectations so\ngratifying were to be worse than disappointed; that they were to end in\nthe diffusion of a mild unambitious religion, which, instead of\nvictories and triumphs, instead of exalting their nation and institution\nabove the rest of the world, was to advance those whom they despised to\nan equality with themselves, in those very points of comparison in which\nthey most valued their own distinction, could be no very pleasing\ndiscovery to a Jewish mind; nor could the messengers of such\nintelligence expect to be well received or easily credited. The doctrine\nwas equally harsh and novel. The extending of the kingdom of God to\nthose who did not conform to the law of Moses was a notion that had\nnever before entered into the thoughts of a Jew.\n\n_________\n\n* \"Pererebuerat oriento toto vetus et contans opinio, esse in fatis, ut\neo tempore Judaea profecti rerum potirsatur.\" Sueton. Vespasian. cap.\n4--8.\n\n\"Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo\nipso tempore fore, ut valesecret oriens, profectique Judaea rerum\npotirentur.\" Tacit. Hist. lib. v. cap. 9--13.\n_________\n\n\nThe character of the new institution was, in other respects also,\nungrateful to Jewish habits and principles. Their own religion was in a\nhigh degree technical. Even the enlightened Jew placed a great deal of\nstress upon the ceremonies of his law, saw in them a great deal of\nvirtue and efficacy; the gross and vulgar had scarcely anything else;\nand the hypocritical and ostentatious magnified them above measure, as\nbeing the instruments of their own reputation and influence. The\nChristian scheme, without formally repealing the Levitical code, lowered\nits estimation extremely. In the place of strictness and zeal in\nperforming the observances which that code prescribed, or which\ntradition had added to it, the new sect preached up faith,\nwell-regulated affections, inward purity, and moral rectitude of\ndisposition, as the true ground, on the part of the worshipper, of merit\nand acceptance with God. This, however rational it may appear, or\nrecommending to us at present, did not by any means facilitate the plan\nthen. On the contrary, to disparage those qualities which the highest\ncharacters in the country valued themselves most upon, was a sure way of\nmaking powerful enemies. As if the frustration of the national hope was\nnot enough, the long-esteemed merit of ritual zeal and punctuality was\nto be decried, and that by Jews preaching to Jews.\n\nThe ruling party at Jerusalem had just before crucified the Founder of\nthe religion. That is a fact which will not be disputed. They,\ntherefore, who stood forth to preach the religion must necessarily\nreproach these rulers with an execution which they could not but\nrepresent as an unjust and cruel murder. This would not render their\noffice more easy, or their situation more safe.\n\nWith regard to the interference of the Roman government which was then\nestablished in Judea, I should not expect, that, despising as it did the\nreligion of the country, it would, if left to itself, animadvert, either\nwith much vigilance or much severity, upon the schisms and controversies\nwhich arose within it. Yet there was that in Christianity which might\neasily afford a handle of accusation with a jealous government. The\nChristians avowed an unqualified obedience to a new master. They avowed\nalso that he was the person who had been foretold to the Jews under the\nsuspected title of King. The spiritual nature of this kingdom, the\nconsistency of this obedience with civil subjection, were distinctions\ntoo refined to be entertained by a Roman president, who viewed the\nbusiness at a great distance, or through the medium of very hostile\nrepresentations. Our histories accordingly inform us, that this was the\nturn which the enemies of Jesus gave to his character and pretensions in\ntheir remonstrances with Pontius Pilate. And Justin Martyr, about a\nhundred years afterwards, complains that the same mistake prevailed in\nhis time: \"Ye, having heard that we are waiting for a kingdom, suppose\nwithout distinguishing that we mean a human kingdom, when in truth we\nspeak of that which is with God.\"* And it was undoubtedly a natural\nsource of calumny and misconstruction.\n\n_________\n\n* Ap. Ima p. 16. Ed. Thirl.\n_________\n\n\nThe preachers of Christianity had, therefore, to contend with prejudice\nbacked by power. They had to come forward to a disappointed people, to a\npriesthood possessing a considerable share of municipal authority, and\nactuated by strong motives of opposition and resentment; and they had to\ndo this under a foreign government, to whose favour they made no\npretensions, and which was constantly surrounded by their enemies. The\nwell-known, because the experienced, fate of reformers, whenever the\nreformation subverts some reigning opinion, and does not proceed upon a\nchange that has already taken place in the sentiments of a country, will\nnot allow, much less lead us to suppose that the first propagators of\nChristianity at Jerusalem and in Judea, under the difficulties and the\nenemies they had to contend with, and entirely destitute as they were of\nforce, authority, or protection, could execute their mission with\npersonal ease and safety.\n\nLet us next inquire, what might reasonably be expected by the preachers\nof Christianity when they turned themselves to the heathen public. Now\nthe first thing that strikes us is, that the religion they carried with\nthem was exclusive. It denied without reserve the truth of every article\nof heathen mythology, the existence of every object of their worship. It\naccepted no compromise, it admitted no comprehension. It must prevail,\nif it prevailed at all, by the overthrow of every statue, altar, and\ntemple in the world, It will not easily be credited, that a design, so\nbold as this was, could in any age be attempted to be carried into\nexecution with impunity.\n\nFor it ought to be considered, that this was not setting forth, or\nmagnifying the character and worship of some new competitor for a place\nin the Pantheon, whose pretensions might he discussed or asserted\nwithout questioning the reality of any others: it was pronouncing all\nother gods to be false, and all other worship vain. From the facility\nwith which the polytheism of ancient nations admitted new objects of\nworship into the number of their acknowledged divinities, or the\npatience with which they might entertain proposals of this kind, we can\nargue nothing as to their toleration of a system, or of the publishers\nand active propagators of a system, which swept away the very foundation\nof the existing establishment. The one was nothing more than what it\nwould be, in popish countries, to add a saint to the calendar; the other\nwas to abolish and tread under foot the calendar itself.\n\nSecondly, it ought also to be considered, that this was not the case of\nphilosophers propounding in their books, or in their schools, doubts\nconcerning the truth of the popular creed, or even avowing their\ndisbelief of it. These philosophers did not go about from place to place\nto collect proselytes from amongst the common people; to form in the\nheart of the country societies professing their tenets; to provide for\nthe order, instruction and permanency of these societies; nor did they\nenjoin their followers to withdraw themselves from the public worship of\nthe temples, or refuse a compliance with rites instituted by the laws.*\nThese things are what the Christians did, and what the philosophers did\nnot; and in these consisted the activity and danger of the enterprise.\n\n_________\n\n* The best of the ancient philosophers, Plato, Cicero, and Epictetus,\nallowed, or rather enjoined, men to worship the gods of the country, and\nin the established form. See passages to this purpose collected from\ntheir works by Dr. Clarke, Nat. and Rev. Rel. p. 180. ed. v--Except\nSocrates, they all thought it wiser to comply with the laws than to\ncontend.\n_________\n\n\nThirdly, it ought also to be considered, that this danger proceeded not\nmerely from solemn acts and public resolutions of the state, but from\nsudden bursts of violence at particular places, from the licence of the\npopulace, the rashness of some magistrates and negligence of others;\nfrom the influence and instigation of interested adversaries, and, in\ngeneral, from the variety and warmth of opinion which an errand so novel\nand extraordinary could not fail of exciting. I can conceive that the\nteachers of Christianity might both fear and suffer much from these\ncauses, without any general persecution being denounced against them by\nimperial authority. Some length of time, I should suppose, might pass,\nbefore the vast machine of the Roman empire would be put in motion, or\nits attention be obtained to religious controversy: but, during that\ntime, a great deal of ill usage might be endured, by a set of\nfriendless, unprotected travellers, telling men, wherever they came,\nthat the religion of their ancestors, the religion in which they had\nbeen brought up, the religion of the state, and of the magistrate, the\nrites which they frequented, the pomp which they admired, was throughout\na system of folly and delusion.\n\nNor do I think that the teachers of Christianity would find protection\nin that general disbelief of the popular theology, which is supposed to\nhave prevailed amongst the intelligent part of the heathen public. It is\nby no means true that unbelievers are usually tolerant. They are not\ndisposed (and why should they?) to endanger the present state of\nthings, by suffering a religion of which they believe nothing to be\ndisturbed by another of which they believe as little. They are ready\nthemselves to conform to anything; and are, oftentimes, amongst the\nforemost to procure conformity from others, by any method which they\nthink likely to be efficacious. When was ever a change of religion\npatronized by infidels? How little, not withstanding the reigning\nscepticism, and the magnified liberality of that age, the true\nprinciples of toleration were understood by the wisest men amongst them,\nmay be gathered from two eminent and uncontested examples. The younger\nPliny, polished as he was by all the literature of that soft and elegant\nperiod, could gravely pronounce this monstrous judgment:--\"Those who\npersisted in declaring themselves Christians, I ordered to be led away\nto punishment, (i. e. to execution,) for I DID NOT DOUBT, whatever it\nwas that they confessed, that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy ought\nto be punished.\" His master Trajan, a mild and accomplished prince,\nwent, nevertheless, no further in his sentiments of moderation and\nequity than what appears in the following rescript:--\"The Christians are\nnot to be sought for; but if any are brought before you, and convicted,\nthey are to be punished.\" And this direction he gives, after it had been\nreported to him by his own president, that, by the most strict\nexamination, nothing could be discovered in the principles of these\npersons, but \"a bad and excessive superstition,\" accompanied, it seems,\nwith an oath or mutual federation, \"to allow themselves in no crime or\nimmoral conduct whatever.\" The truth is, the ancient heathens considered\nreligion entirely as an affair of state, as much under the tuition of\nthe magistrate as any other part of the police. The religion of that age\nwas not merely allied to the state; it was incorporated into it. Many of\nits offices were administered by the magistrate. Its titles of pontiffs,\naugurs, and flamens, were borne by senators, consuls, and generals.\nWithout discussing, therefore, the truth of the theology, they resented\nevery affront put upon the established worship, as a direct opposition\nto the authority of government.\n\nAdd to which, that the religious systems of those times, however ill\nsupported by evidence, had been long established. The ancient religion\nof a country has always many votaries, and sometimes not the fewer,\nbecause its origin is hidden in remoteness and obscurity. Men have a\nnatural veneration for antiquity, especially in matters of religion.\nWhat Tacitus says of the Jewish was more applicable to the heathen\nestablishment: \"Hi ritus, quoquo modo inducti, antiquitate defenduntur.\"\nIt was also a splendid and sumptuous worship. It had its priesthood, its\nendowments, its temples. Statuary, painting, architecture, and music,\ncontributed their effect to its ornament and magnificence. It abounded\nin festival shows and solemnities, to which the common people are\ngreatly addicted, and which were of a nature to engage them much more\nthan anything of that sort among us. These things would retain great\nnumbers on its side by the fascination of spectacle and pomp, as well as\ninterest many in its preservation by the advantage which they drew from\nit. \"It was moreover interwoven,\" as Mr. Gibbon rightly represents it,\n\"with every circumstance of business or pleasure, of public or private\nlife, with all the offices and amusements of society.\" On the due\ncelebration also of its rites, the people were taught to believe, and\ndid believe, that the prosperity of their country in a great measure\ndepended.\n\nI am willing to accept the account of the matter which is given by Mr.\nGibbon: \"The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world\nwere all considered by the people as equally true, by the philosopher as\nequally false, and by the magistrate as equally useful:\" and I would ask\nfrom which of these three classes of men were the Christian missionaries\nto look for protection or impunity? Could they expect it from the\npeople, \"whose acknowledged confidence in the public religion\" they\nsubverted from its foundation? From the philosopher, who, \"considering\nall religious as equally false,\" would of course rank theirs among the\nnumber, with the addition of regarding them as busy and troublesome\nzealots? Or from the magistrate, who, satisfied with the \"utility\" of\nthe subsisting religion, would not be likely to countenance a spirit of\nproselytism and innovation:--a system which declared war against every\nother, and which, if it prevailed, must end in a total rupture of public\nopinion; an upstart religion, in a word, which was not content with its\nown authority, but must disgrace all the settled religions of the world?\nIt was not to be imagined that he would endure with patience, that the\nreligion of the emperor and of the state should be calumniated and borne\ndown by a company of superstitious and despicable Jews.\n\nLastly; the nature of the case affords a strong proof, that the original\nteachers of Christianity, in consequence of their new profession,\nentered upon a new and singular course of life. We may be allowed to\npresume, that the institution which they preached to others, they\nconformed to in their own persons; because this is no more than what\nevery teacher of a new religion both does, and must do, in order to\nobtain either proselytes or hearers. The change which this would produce\nwas very considerable. It is a change which we do not easily estimate,\nbecause, ourselves and all about us being habituated to the institutions\nfrom our infancy, it is what we neither experience nor observe. After\nmen became Christians, much of their time was spent in prayer and\ndevotion, in religious meetings, in celebrating the Eucharist, in\nconferences, in exhortations, in preaching, in an affectionate\nintercourse with one another, and correspondence with other societies.\nPerhaps their mode of life, in its form and habit, was not very unlike\nthe Unitas Fratrum, or the modern methodists. Think then what it was to\nbecome such at Corinth, at Ephesus, at Antioch, or even at Jerusalem.\nHow new! How alien from all their former habits and ideas, and from\nthose of everybody about them! What a revolution there must have been of\nopinions and prejudices to bring the matter to this!\n\nWe know what the precepts of the religion are; how pure, how benevolent,\nhow disinterested a conduct they enjoin; and that this purity and\nbenevolence are extended to the very thoughts and affections. We are\nnot, perhaps, at liberty to take for granted that the lives of the\npreachers of Christianity were as perfect as their lessons; but we are\nentitled to contend, that the observable part of their behaviour must\nhave agreed in a great measure with the duties which they taught. There\nwas, therefore, (which is all that we assert,) a course of life pursued\nby them, different from that which they before led. And this is of great\nimportance. Men are brought to anything almost sooner than to change\ntheir habit of life, especially when the change is either inconvenient,\nor made against the force of natural inclination, or with the loss of\naccustomed indulgences. It is the most difficult of all things to\nconvert men from vicious habits to virtuous ones, as every one may judge\nfrom what he feels in himself, as well as from what he sees in others.*\nIt is almost like making men over again.\n\n_________\n\n* Hartley's Essays on Man, p. 190.\n_________\n\n\nLeft then to myself, and without any more information than a knowledge\nof the existence of the religion, of the general story upon which it is\nfounded, and that no act of power, force, and authority was concerned in\nits first success, I should conclude, from the very nature and exigency\nof the case, that the Author of the religion, during his life, and his\nimmediate disciples after his death, exerted themselves in spreading and\npublishing the institution throughout the country in which it began, and\ninto which it was first carried; that, in the prosecution of this\npurpose, they underwent the labours and troubles which we observe the\npropagators of new sects to undergo; that the attempt must necessarily\nhave also been in a high degree dangerous; that, from the subject of the\nmission, compared with the fixed opinions and prejudices of those to\nwhom the missionaries were to address themselves, they could hardly fail\nof  encountering strong and frequent opposition; that, by the hand of\ngovernment, as well as from the sudden fury and unbridled licence of the\npeople, they would oftentimes experience injurious and cruel treatment;\nthat, at any rate, they must have always had so much to fear for their\npersonal safety, as to have passed their lives in a state of constant\nperil and anxiety; and lastly, that their mode of life and conduct,\nvisibly at least, corresponded with the institution which they\ndelivered, and, so far, was both new, and required continual\nself-denial.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nThere is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original\nwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours,\ndangers and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the\naccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief\nof those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives,\nto new rules of conduct.\n\nAfter thus considering what was likely to happen, we are next to inquire\nhow the transaction is represented in the several accounts that have\ncome down to us. And this inquiry is properly preceded by the other,\nforasmuch as the reception of these accounts may depend in part on the\ncredibility of what they contain.\n\nThe obscure and distant view of Christianity, which some of the heathen\nwriters of that age had gained, and which a few passage in their\nremaining works incidentally discover to us, offers itself to our notice\nin the first place: because, so far as this evidence goes, it is the\nconcession of adversaries; the source from which it is drawn is\nunsuspected. Under this head, a quotation from Tacitus, well known to\nevery scholar, must be inserted, as deserving particular attention. The\nreader will bear in mind that this passage was written about seventy\nyears after Christ's death, and that it relates to transactions which\ntook place about thirty years after that event--Speaking of the fire\nwhich happened at Rome in the time of Nero, and of the suspicions which\nwere entertained that the emperor himself was concerned in causing it,\nthe historian proceeds in his narrative and observations thus:--\n\n\"But neither these exertions, nor his largesses to the people, nor his\nofferings to the gods, did away the infamous imputation under which Nero\nlay, of having ordered the city to be set on fire. To put an end,\ntherefore, to this report, he laid the guilt, and inflicted the most\ncruel punishments, upon a set of people, who were holden in abhorrence\nfor their crimes, and called by the vulgar, Christians. The founder of\nthat name was Christ, who suffered death in the reign of Tiberius, under\nhis procurator, Pontius Pilate--This pernicious superstition, thus\nchecked for a while, broke out again; and spread not only over Judea,\nwhere the evil originated, but through Rome also, whither everything bad\nupon the earth finds its way and is practised. Some who confessed their\nsect were first seized, and afterwards, by their information, a vast\nmultitude were apprehended, who were convicted, not so much of the crime\nof burning Rome, as of hatred to mankind. Their sufferings at their\nexecution were aggravated by insult and mockery; for some were disguised\nin the skins of wild beasts, and worried to death by dogs; some were\ncrucified; and others were wrapped in pitched shirts,* and set on fire\nwhen the day closed, that they might serve as lights to illuminate the\nnight. Nero lent his own gardens for these executions, and exhibited at\nthe same time a mock Circensian entertainment; being a spectator of the\nwhole, in the dress of a charioteer, sometimes mingling with the crowd\non foot, and sometimes viewing the spectacle from his car. This conduct\nmade the sufferers pitied; and though they were criminals, and deserving\nthe severest punishments, yet they were considered as sacrificed, not so\nmuch out of a regard to the public good, as to gratify the cruelty of\none man.\"\n\n_________\n\n* This is rather a paraphrase, but is justified by what the Scholiast\nupon Juvenal says; \"Nero maleficos homines taeda et papyro et cera\nsupervestiebat, et sic ad ignem admoveri jubebat.\" Lard. Jewish and\nHeath. Test. vol. i. p. 359.\n_________\n\n\nOur concern with this passage at present is only so far as it affords a\npresumption in support of the proposition which we maintain, concerning\nthe activity and sufferings of the first teachers of Christianity. Now,\nconsidered in this view, it proves three things: 1st, that the Founder\nof the institution was put to death; 2dly, that in the same country in\nwhich he was put to death, the religion, after a short check, broke out\nagain and spread; 3dly, that it so spread as that, within thirty-four\nyears from the Author's death, a very great number of Christians (ingens\neorum multitudo) were found at Rome. From which fact, the two following\ninferences may be fairly drawn: first, that if, in the space of\nthirty-four years from its commencement, the religion had spread\nthroughout Judea, had extended itself to Rome, and there had numbered a\ngreat multitude of converts, the original teachers and missionaries of\nthe institution could not have been idle; secondly, that when the Author\nof the undertaking was put to death as a malefactor for his attempt, the\nendeavours of his followers to establish his religion in the same\ncountry, amongst the same people, and in the same age, could not but be\nattended with danger.\n\nSuetonius, a writer contemporary with Tacitus, describing the\ntransactions of the same reign, uses these words: \"Affecti suppliciis\nChristiani genus hominum superstitionis novae et maleficae.\" (Suet.\nNero. Cap. 16)  \"The Christians, a set of men of a new and mischievous\n(or magical) superstition, were punished.\"\n\nSince it is not mentioned here that the burning of the city was the\npretence of the punishment of the Christians, or that they were the\nChristians of Rome who alone suffered, it is probable that Suetonius\nrefers to some more general persecution than the short and occasional\none which Tacitus describes.\n\nJuvenal, a writer of the same age with the two former, and intending, it\nshould seem, to commemorate the cruelties exercised under Nero's\ngovernment, has the following lines: (Sat. i. ver. 155)\n\n\"Pone Tigellinum, taeda lucebis in illa,\nQua stantes ardent, qui fixo gutture fumant,\nEt latum media sulcum deducit arena\" (Forsan \"deducis.\")\n\n\"Describe Tigellinus (a creature of Nero), and you shall suffer the same\npunishment with those who stand burning in their own flame and smoke,\ntheir head being held up by a stake fixed to their chin, till they make\na long stream of blood and melted sulphur on the ground.\"\n\nIf this passage were considered by itself, the subject of allusion might\nbe doubtful; but, when connected with the testimony of Suetonius, as to\nthe actual punishment of the Christians by Nero, and with the account\ngiven by Tacitus of the species of punishment which they were made to\nundergo, I think it sufficiently probable that these were the executions\nto which the poet refers.\n\nThese things, as has already been observed, took place within thirty-one\nyears after Christ's death, that is, according to the course of nature,\nin the life-time, probably, of some of the apostles, and certainly in\nthe life-time of those who were converted by the apostles, or who were\nconverted in their time. If then the Founder of the religion was put to\ndeath in the execution of his design; if the first race of converts to\nthe religion, many of them, suffered the greatest extremities for their\nprofession; it is hardly credible, that those who came between the two,\nwho were companions of the Author of the institution during his life,\nand the teachers and propagators of the institution after his death,\ncould go about their undertaking with ease and safety.\n\nThe testimony of the younger Pliny belongs to a later period; for,\nalthough he was contemporary with Tacitus and Suetonius, yet his account\ndoes not, like theirs, go back to the transactions of Nero's reign, but\nis confined to the affairs of his own time. His celebrated letter to\nTrajan was written about seventy years after Christ's death; and the\ninformation to be drawn from it, so far as it is connected with our\nargument, relates principally to two points: first, to the number of\nChristians in Bithynia and Pontus, which was so considerable as to\ninduce the governor of these provinces to speak of them in the following\nterms: \"Multi, omnis aetatis, utriusque sexus etiam;--neque enim\ncivitates tantum, sed vicos etiam et agros, superstitionis istius\ncontagio pervagata est.\" \"There are many of every age and of both\nsexes;--nor has the contagion of this superstition seized cities only,\nbut smaller towns also, and the open country.\" Great exertions must have\nbeen used by the preachers of Christianity to produce this state of\nthings within this time. Secondly, to a point which has been already\nnoticed, and, which I think of importance to be observed, namely, the\nsufferings to which Christians were exposed, without any public\npersecution being denounced against them by sovereign authority. For,\nfrom Pliny's doubt how he was to act, his silence concerning any\nsubsisting law on the subject, his requesting the emperor's rescript,\nand the emperor, agreeably to his request, propounding a rule for his\ndirection without reference to any prior rule, it may be inferred that\nthere was, at that time, no public edict in force against the\nChristians. Yet from this same epistle of Pliny it appears \"that\naccusations, trials, and examinations, were, and had been, going on\nagainst them in the provinces over which he presided; that schedules\nwere delivered by anonymous informers, containing the names of persons\nwho were suspected of holding or of favouring the religion; that, in\nconsequence of these informations, many had been apprehended, of whom\nsome boldly avowed their profession, and died in the cause; others\ndenied that they were Christians; others, acknowledging that they had\nonce been Christians, declared that they had long ceased to be such.\"\nAll which demonstrates that the profession of Christianity was at that\ntime (in that country at least) attended with fear and danger: and yet\nthis took place without any edict from the Roman sovereign, commanding\nor authorizing the persecution of Christians. This observation is\nfurther confirmed by a rescript of Adrian to Minucius Fundanus, the\nproconsul of Asia (Lard. Heath. Test. vol. ii. p. 110): from which\nrescript it appears that the custom of the people of Asia was to proceed\nagainst the Christians with tumult and uproar. This disorderly practice,\nI say, is recognised in the edict, because the emperor enjoins, that,\nfor the future, if the Christians were guilty, they should be legally\nbrought to trial, and not be pursued by importunity and clamour.\n\nMartial wrote a few years before the younger Pliny: and, as his manner\nwas, made the suffering of the Christians the subject of his ridicule.\n\nIn matutina nuper spectatus arena\nMucius, imposuit qui sua membra focis,\nSi patiens fortisque tibi durusque videtur,\nAbderitanae pectora plebis habes;\nNam cum dicatur, tunica praesente molesta,\nUre* manum: plus est dicere, Non facio.\n\n*Forsan \"thure manum.\"\n\nNothing, however, could show the notoriety of the fact with more\ncertainty than this does. Martial's testimony, as well indeed as\nPliny's, goes also to another point, viz, that the deaths of these men\nwere martyrdom in the strictest sense, that is to say, were so\nvoluntary, that it was in their power, at the time of pronouncing the\nsentence, to have averted the execution, by consenting to join in\nheathen sacrifices.\n\nThe constancy, and by consequence the sufferings, of the Christians of\nthis period, is also referred to by Epictetus, who imputes their\nintrepidity to madness, or to a kind of fashion or habit; and about\nfifty years afterwards, by Marcus Aurelius, who ascribes it to\nobstinacy. \"Is it possible (Epictetus asks) that a man may arrive at\nthis temper, and become indifferent to those things from madness or from\nhabit, as the Galileans?\"  \"Let this preparation of the mind (to die)\narise from its own judgment, and not from obstinacy like the\nChristians.\" (Epict. I. iv. C. 7.) (Marc. Aur. Med. 1. xi. c. 3.)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nThere is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original\nwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed there lives in labours,\ndangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the\naccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief\nof those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives,\nto new rules of conduct.\n\nOf the primitive condition of Christianity, a distant only and general\nview can be acquired from heathen writers. It is in our own books that\nthe detail and interior of the transaction must be sought for. And this\nis nothing different from what might be expected. Who would write a\nhistory of Christianity, but a Christian? Who was likely to record the\ntravels, sufferings, labours, or successes of the apostles, but one of\ntheir own number, or of their followers? Now these books come up in\ntheir accounts to the full extent of the proposition which we maintain.\nWe have four histories of Jesus Christ. We have a history taking up the\nnarrative from his death, and carrying on an account of the propagation\nof the religion, and of some of the most eminent persons engaged in it,\nfor a space of nearly thirty years. We have, what some may think still\nmore original, a collection of letters, written by certain principal\nagents in the business upon the business, and in the midst of their\nconcern and connection with it. And we have these writings severally\nattesting the point which we contend for, viz. the sufferings of the\nwitnesses of the history, and attesting it in every variety of form in\nwhich it can be conceived to appear: directly and indirectly, expressly\nand incidentally, by assertion, recital, and allusion, by narratives of\nfacts, and by arguments and discourses built upon these facts, either\nreferring to them, or necessarily presupposing them.\n\nI remark this variety, because, in examining ancient records, or indeed\nany species of testimony, it is, in my opinion, of the greatest\nimportance to attend to the information or grounds of argument which are\ncasually and undesignedly disclosed; forasmuch as this species of proof\nis, of all others, the least liable to be corrupted by fraud or\nmisrepresentation.\n\nI may be allowed therefore, in the inquiry which is now before us, to\nsuggest some conclusions of this sort, as preparatory to more direct\ntestimony.\n\n1. Our books relate, that Jesus Christ, the founder of the religion,\nwas, in consequence of his undertaking, put to death, as a malefactor,\nat Jerusalem. This point at least will be granted, because it is no more\nthan what Tacitus has recorded. They then proceed to tell us that the\nreligion was, notwithstanding, set forth at this same city of Jerusalem,\npropagated thence throughout Judea, and afterwards preached in other\nparts of the Roman Empire. These points also are fully confirmed by\nTacitus, who informs us that the religion, after a short check, broke\nout again in the country where it took its rise; that it not only spread\nthroughout Judea, but had reached Rome, and that it had there great\nmultitudes of converts: and all this within thirty years after its\ncommencement. Now these facts afford a strong inference in behalf of the\nproposition which we maintain. What could the disciples of Christ expect\nfor themselves when they saw their master put to death? Could they hope\nto escape the dangers in which he had perished? If they had persecuted\nme, they will also persecute you, was the warning of common sense. With\nthis example before their eyes, they could not be without a full sense\nof the peril of their future enterprise.\n\n\n2. Secondly, all the histories agree in representing Christ as\nforetelling the persecution of his followers:--\n\"Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you, and\nye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.\" (Matt. xxiv. 9.)\n\n\"When affliction or persecution ariseth for the word's sake, immediately\nthey are offended.\" (Mark iv. 17. See also chap. x. 30.)\n\n\"They shall lay hands on you, and persecute you, delivering you up to\nthe synagogues, and into prisons, being brought before kings and rulers\nfor my name's sake:--and ye shall be betrayed both by parents and\nbrethren, and kinsfolks and friends, and some of you shall they cause to\nbe put to death.\" (Luke xxi. 12--16. See also chap. xi. 49.)\n\n\"The time cometh, that he that killed you will think that he doeth God\nservice. And these things will they do unto you, because they have not\nknown the Father, nor me. But these things have I told you, that when\nthe time shall come, ye may remember that I told you of them.\" (John\nxvi. 4. See also chap. xv. 20; xvi. 33.)\n\nI am not entitled to argue from these passages, that Christ actually did\nforetell these events, and that they did accordingly come to pass;\nbecause that would be at once to assume the truth of the religion: but I\nam entitled to contend that one side or other of the following\ndisjunction is true; either that the Evangelists have delivered what\nChrist really spoke, and that the event corresponded with the\nprediction; or that they put the prediction into Christ's mouth, because\nat the time of writing the history, the event had turned out so to be:\nfor, the only two remaining suppositions appear in the highest degree\nincredible; which are, either that Christ filled the minds of his\nfollowers with fears and apprehensions, without any reason or authority\nfor what he said, and contrary to the truth of the case; or that,\nalthough Christ had never foretold any such thing, and the event would\nhave contradicted him if he had, yet historians who lived in the age\nwhen the event was known, falsely, as well as officiously, ascribed\nthese words to him.\n\n3. Thirdly, these books abound with exhortations to patience, and with\ntopics of comfort under distress.\n\n\"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or\ndistress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?\nNay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that\nloved us.\" (Rom. viii. 35-37.)\n\n\"We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed,\nbut not in despair; persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not\ndestroyed; always bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus,\nthat the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body;--knowing\nthat he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise us up also by Jesus,\nand shall present us with you---For which cause we faint not; but, though\nour outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For\nour light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far\nmore exceeding and eternal weight of glory.\" (2 Cor. iv. 8, 9, 10, 14, 16,\n17.)\n\n\"Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the\nLord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience. Behold,\nwe count them happy which endure. Ye have heard of the patience of Job,\nand have seen the end of the Lord; that the Lord is very pitiful, and of\ntender mercy.\" (James v. 10, 11.)\n\n\"Call to remembrance the former days, in which, after ye were\nilluminated, ye endured a great fight of afflictions partly whilst ye\nwere made a gazing-stock both by reproaches and afflictions, and partly\nwhilst ye became companions of them that were so used; for ye had\ncompassion of me in my bonds, and took joyfully the spoiling of your\ngoods, knowing in yourselves that ye have in heaven a better and an\nenduring substance. Cast not away, therefore, your confidence, which\nhath great recompense of reward; for ye have need of patience, that,\nafter ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise.\" (Heb.\nx. 32-36.)\n\n\"So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God, for your\npatience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye\nendure. Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that\nye may be counted worthy of the kingdom for which ye also suffer.\" (2\nThess. i. 4, 5.)\n\n\"We rejoice in hope of the glory of God; and not only so, but we glory\nin tribulations also; knowing that tribulation worketh patience, and\npatience experience, and experience hope.\" (Rom. v. 3, 4.)\n\n\"Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to\ntry you, as though some strange thing happened unto you; but rejoice,\ninasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings.--Wherefore let them\nthat suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their\nsouls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.\" (1 Pet. iv. 12,\n13, 19.)\n\nWhat could all these texts mean, if there was nothing in the\ncircumstances of the times which required patience,--which called for\nthe exercise of constancy and resolution? Or will it be pretended, that\nthese exhortations (which, let it be observed, come not from one author,\nbut from many) were put in merely to induce a belief in after-ages, that\nthe Christians were exposed to dangers which they were not exposed to,\nor underwent sufferings which they did not undergo? If these books\nbelong to the age to which they lay claim, and in which age, whether\ngenuine or spurious, they certainly did appear, this supposition cannot\nbe maintained for a moment; because I think it impossible to believe\nthat passages, which must be deemed not only unintelligible, but false,\nby the persons into whose hands the books upon their publication were to\ncome, should nevertheless be inserted, for the purpose of producing an\neffect upon remote generations. In forgeries which do not appear till\nmany ages after that to which they pretend to belong, it is possible\nthat some contrivance of that sort may take place; but in no others can\nit be attempted.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nThere is satisfactory evidence that many professing to be original\nwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours,\ndangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the\naccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief\nof those accounts; and that they also  submitted, from the same motives,\nto new rules of conduct.\n\nThe account of the treatment of the religion, and of the exertions of\nits first preachers, as stated in our Scriptures (not in a professed\nhistory of persecutions, or in the connected manner in which I am about\nto recite it, but dispersedly and occasionally, in the course of a mixed\ngeneral history, which circumstance, alone negatives the supposition of\nany fraudulent design), is the following: \"That the Founder of\nChristianity, from the commencement of his ministry to the time of his\nviolent death, employed himself wholly in publishing the institution in\nJudea and Galilee; that, in order to assist him in this purpose, he made\nchoice, out of the number of his followers, of twelve persons, who might\naccompany him as he travelled from place to place; that, except a short\nabsence upon a journey in which he sent them two by two to announce his\nmission, and one of a few days, when they went before him to Jerusalem,\nthese persons were steadily and constantly attending upon him; that they\nwere with him at Jerusalem when he was apprehended and put to death; and\nthat they were commissioned by him, when his own ministry was concluded,\nto publish his Gospel, and collect disciples to it from all countries of\nthe world.\" The account then proceeds to state, \"that a few days after\nhis departure, these persons, with some of his relations, and some who\nhad regularly frequented their society, assembled at Jerusalem; that,\nconsidering the office of preaching the religion as now devolved upon\nthem, and one of their number having deserted the cause, and, repenting\nof his perfidy, having destroyed himself, they proceeded to elect\nanother into his place, and that they were careful to make their\nelection out of the number of those who had accompanied their master\nfrom the first to the last, in order, as they alleged, that he might be\na witness, together with themselves, of the principal facts which they\nwere about to produce and relate concerning him; ( Acts i. 12, 22.) that\nthey began their work at Jerusalem by publicly asserting that this\nJesus, whom the rulers and inhabitants of that place had so lately\ncrucified, was, in truth, the person in whom all their prophecies and\nlong expectations terminated; that he had been sent amongst them by God;\nand that he was appointed by God the future judge of the human species;\nthat all who were solicitous to secure to themselves happiness after\ndeath, ought to receive him as such, and to make profession of their\nbelief, by being baptised in his name.\" (Acts xi.)\n\nThe history goes on to relate, \"that considerable numbers accepted this\nproposal, and that they who did so formed amongst themselves a strict\nunion and society; (Acts iv. 32.) that the attention of the Jewish\ngovernment being soon drawn upon them, two of the principal persons of\nthe twelve, and who also had lived most intimately and constantly with\nthe Founder of the religion, were seized as they were discoursing to the\npeople in the temple; that after being kept all night in prison, they\nwere brought the next day before an assembly composed of the chief\npersons of the Jewish magistracy and priesthood; that this assembly,\nafter some consultation, found nothing, at that time, better to be done\ntowards suppressing the growth of the sect, than to threaten their\nprisoners with punishment if they persisted; that these men, after\nexpressing, in decent but firm language, the obligation under which they\nconsidered themselves to be, to declare what they knew, 'to speak the\nthings which they had seen and heard,' returned from the council, and\nreported what had passed to their companions; that this report, whilst\nit apprized them of the danger of their situation and undertaking, had\nno other effect upon their conduct than to produce in them a general\nresolution to persevere, and an earnest prayer to God to furnish them\nwith assistance, and to inspire them with fortitude, proportioned to the\nincreasing exigency of the service.\" ( Acts iv.) A very short time after\nthis, we read \"that all the twelve apostles were seized and cast into\nprison; ( Acts v. 18.) that, being brought a second time before the\nJewish Sanhedrim, they were upbraided with their disobedience to the\ninjunction which had been laid upon them, and beaten for their\ncontumacy; that, being charged once more to desist, they were suffered\nto depart; that however they neither quitted Jerusalem, nor ceased from\npreaching, both daily in the temple, and from house to house (Acts v.\n42.) and that the twelve considered themselves as so entirely and\nexclusively devoted to this office, that they now transferred what may\nbe called the temporal affairs of the society to other hands.\"*\n\n_________\n\n* I do not know that it has ever been insinuated that the Christian\nmission, in the hands of the apostles, was a scheme for making a\nfortune, or for getting money. But it may nevertheless be fit to remark\nupon this passage of their history, how perfectly free they appear to\nhave been from any pecuniary or interested views whatever. The most\ntempting opportunity which occurred of making gain of their converts,\nwas by the custody and management of the public funds, when some of the\nricher members, intending to contribute their fortunes to the common\nsupport of the society, sold their possessions, and laid down the prices\nat the apostles' feet. Yet, so insensible or undesirous were they of the\nadvantage which that confidence afforded, that we find they very soon\ndisposed of the trust, by putting it into the hands, not of nominees of\ntheir own, but of stewards formally elected for the purpose by the\nsociety at large.\n\nWe may add also, that this excess of generosity, which cast private\nproperty into the public stock, was so far from being required by the\napostles, or  imposed as a law of Christianity, that Peter reminds\nAnanias that he had been guilty, in his behaviour, of an officious and\nvoluntary prevarication; \"for whilst,\" says he, \"thy estate remained\nunsold, was it not thine own? And after it was sold, was it not in thine\nown power?\"\n_________\n\n\nHitherto the preachers of the new religion seem to have had the common\npeople on their side; which is assigned as the reason why the Jewish\nrulers did not, at this time, think it prudent to proceed to greater\nextremities. It was not long, however, before the enemies of the\ninstitution found means to represent it to the people as tending to\nsubvert their law, degrade their lawgiver, and dishonour their\ntemple. (Acts vi. 12.) And these insinuations were dispersed with so much\nsuccess as to induce the people to join with their superiors in the\nstoning of a very active member of the new community.\n\nThe death of this man was the signal of a general persecution, the\nactivity of which may be judged of from one anecdote of the time:--\"As\nfor Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and\ntaking men and women committed them to prison.\" (Acts viii. 3.) This\npersecution raged at Jerusalem with so much fury as to drive most of the\nnew converts out of the place,* except the twelve apostles. The converts\nthus \"scattered abroad,\" preached the religion wherever they came; and\ntheir preaching was, in effect, the preaching of the twelve; for it was\nso far carried on in concert and correspondence with them, that when\nthey heard of the success of their emissaries in a particular country,\nthey sent two of their number to the place, to complete and confirm the\nmission.\n\n_________\n\n*Acts viii. I. \"And they were all scattered abroad;\" but the term \"all\"\nis not, I think, to be taken strictly as denoting more than the\ngenerality; in like manner as in Acts ix. 35: \"And all that dwelt at\nLydda and Saron saw him, and turned to the Lord.\"\n_________\n\n\nAn event now took place, of great importance in the future history of\nthe religion. The persecution which had begun at Jerusalem followed the\nChristians to other cities, ( Acts ix.) in which the authority of the\nJewish Sanhedrim over those of their own nation was allowed to be\nexercised. A young man, who had signalized himself by his hostility to\nthe profession, and had procured a commission from the council at\nJerusalem to seize any converted Jews whom he might find at Damascus,\nsuddenly became a proselyte to the religion which he was going about to\nextirpate. The new convert not only shared, on this extraordinary\nchange, the fate of his companions, but brought upon himself a double\nmeasure of enmity from the party which he had left. The Jews at\nDamascus, on his return to that city, watched the gates night and day,\nwith so much diligence, that he escaped from their hands only by being\nlet down in a basket by the wall. Nor did he find himself in greater\nsafety at Jerusalem, whither he immediately repaired. Attempts were\nthere also soon set on foot to destroy him; from the danger of which he\nwas preserved by being sent away to Cilicia, his native country.\n\nFor some reason not mentioned, perhaps not known, but probably connected\nwith the civil history of the Jews, or with some danger* which engrossed\nthe public attention, an intermission about this time took place in the\nsufferings of the Christians. This happened, at the most, only seven or\neight, perhaps only three or four years after Christ's death, within\nwhich period, and notwithstanding that the late persecution occupied\npart of it, churches, or societies of believers, had been formed in all\nJudea, Galilee, and Samaria; for we read that the churches in these\ncountries \"had now rest and were edified, and, walking in the fear of\nthe Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied.\" (Acts\nix 31.) The original preachers of the religion did not remit their\nlabours or activity during this season of quietness; for we find one,\nand he a very principal person among them, passing throughout all\nquarters. We find also those who had been before expelled from Jerusalem\nby the persecution which raged there, travelling as far as Poenice,\nCyprus, and Antioch; (Acts xi. 19.) and lastly, we find Jerusalem again\nin the centre of the mission, the place whither the preachers returned\nfrom their several excursions, where they reported the conduct and\neffects of their ministry, where questions of public concern were\ncanvassed and settled, whence directions were sought, and teachers sent\nforth.\n\n_________\n\n* Dr. Lardner (in which he is followed also by Dr. Benson) ascribes the\ncessation of the persecution of the Christians to the attempt of\nCaligula to set up his own statue in the temple of Jerusalem, and to the\nconsternation thereby excited in the minds of the Jewish people; which\nconsternation for a season superseded every other contest.\n_________\n\n\nThe time of this tranquillity did not, however, continue long. Herod\nAgrippa, who had lately acceded to the government of Judea, \"stretched\nforth his hand to vex certain of the church.\" (Acts xii. 1.) He began\nhis cruelty by beheading one of the twelve original apostles, a kinsman\nand constant companion of the Founder of the religion. Perceiving that\nthis execution gratified the Jews, he proceeded to seize, in order to\nput to death, another of the number,--and him, like the former,\nassociated with Christ during his life, and eminently active in the\nservice since his death. This man was, however, delivered from prison,\nas the account states miraculously, (Acts xii. 3--17.) and made his\nescape from Jerusalem.\n\nThese things are related, not in the general terms under which, in\ngiving the outlines of the history, we have here mentioned them, but\nwith the utmost particularity of names, persons, places, and\ncircumstances; and, what is deserving of notice, without the smallest\ndiscoverable propensity in the historian, to magnify the fortitude, or\nexaggerate the sufferings, of his party. When they fled for their lives,\nhe tells us. When the churches had rest, he remarks it. When the people\ntook their part, he does not leave it without notice. When the apostles\nwere carried a second time before the Sanhedrim, he is careful to\nobserve that they were brought without violence. When milder counsels\nwere suggested, he gives us the author of the advice and the speech\nwhich contained it. When, in consequence of this advice, the rulers\ncontented themselves with threatening the apostles, and commanding them\nto be beaten with stripes, without urging at that time the persecution\nfurther, the historian candidly and distinctly records their\nforbearance. When, therefore, in other instances, he states heavier\npersecutions, or actual martyrdoms, it is reasonable to believe that he\nstates them because they were true, and not from any wish to aggravate,\nin his account, the sufferings which Christians sustained, or to extol,\nmore than it deserved, their patience under them.\n\nOur history now pursues a narrower path. Leaving the rest of the\napostles, and the original associates of Christ, engaged in the\npropagation of the new faith, (and who there is not the least reason to\nbelieve abated in their diligence or courage,) the narrative proceeds\nwith the separate memoirs of that eminent teacher, whose extraordinary\nand sudden conversion to the religion, and corresponding change of\nconduct, had before been circumstantially described. This person, in\nconjunction with another, who appeared among the earlier members of\nthe society at Jerusalem, and amongst the immediate adherents of the\ntwelve apostles, (Acts iv. 36.) set out from Antioch upon the express\nbusiness of carrying the new religion through the various provinces of\nthe Lesser Asia. (Acts xiii. 2.) During this expedition, we find that in\nalmost every place to which they came, their persons were insulted, and\ntheir lives endangered. After being expelled from Antioch in Pisidia,\nthey repaired to Iconium. (Acts xiii. 51.) At Iconium, an attempt was\nmade to stone them; at Lystra, whither they fled from Iconium, one of\nthem actually was stoned and drawn out of the city for dead. (Acts xiv.\n19.) These two men, though not themselves original apostles, were acting\nin connection and conjunction with the original apostles; for, after the\ncompletion of their journey, being sent on a particular commission to\nJerusalem, they there related to the apostles (Acts xv. 12--26.) and\nelders the events and success of their ministry, and were in return\nrecommended by them to the churches, \"as men who had hazarded their\nlives in the cause.\"\n\nThe treatment which they had experienced in the first progress did not\ndeter them from preparing for a second. Upon a dispute, however, arising\nbetween them, but not connected with the common subject of their\nlabours, they acted as wise and sincere men would act; they did not\nretire in disgust from the service in which they were engaged, but, each\ndevoting his endeavours to the advancement of the religion, they parted\nfrom one another, and set forward upon separate routes. The history goes\nalong with one of them; and the second enterprise to him was attended\nwith the same dangers and persecutions as both had met with in the\nfirst. The apostle's travels hitherto had been confined to Asia. He now\ncrosses for the first time the Aegean sea, and carries with him, amongst\nothers, the person whose accounts supply the information we are\nstating. (Acts xvi. 11.) The first place in Greece at which he appears to\nhave stopped, was Philippi in Macedonia. Here himself and one of his\ncompanions were cruelly whipped, cast into prison, and kept there under\nthe most rigorous custody, being thrust, whilst yet smarting with their\nwounds, into the inner dungeon, and their feet made fast in the\nstocks. (Acts xvi. 23, 24, 33.) Notwithstanding this unequivocal specimen\nof the usage which they had to look for in that country, they went\nforward in the execution of their errand. After passing through\nAmphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica; in which city the\nhouse in which they lodged was assailed by a party of their enemies, in\norder to bring them out to the populace. And when, fortunately for their\npreservation, they were not found at home, the master of the house was\ndragged before the magistrate for admitting them within his doors. (Acts\nxvii. 1--5.) Their reception at the next city was something better: but\nneither had they continued long before their turbulent adversaries the\nJews, excited against them such commotions amongst the inhabitants as\nobliged the apostle to make his escape by a private journey to\nAthens. (Acts xvii. 13.) The extremity of the progress was Corinth. His\nabode in this city, for some time, seems to have been without\nmolestation. At length, however, the Jews found means to stir up an\ninsurrection against him, and to bring him before the tribunal of the\nRoman president. (Acts xviii. 12.) It was to the contempt which that\nmagistrate entertained for the Jews and their controversies, of which he\naccounted Christianity to be one, that our apostle owed his\ndeliverance. (Acts xviii. 15.)\n\nThis indefatigable teacher, after leaving Corinth, returned by Ephesus\ninto Syria; and again visited Jerusalem, and the society of Christians\nin that city, which, as hath been repeatedly observed, still continued\nthe centre of the mission. (Acts xviii. 22.) It suited not, however, with\nthe activity of his zeal to remain long at Jerusalem. We find him going\nthence to Antioch, and, after some stay there, traversing once more the\nnorthern provinces of Asia Minor. (Acts xviii. 23.) This progress ended\nat Ephesus: in which city, the apostle continued in the daily exercise\nof his ministry two years, and until his success, at length, excited the\napprehensions of those who were interested in the support of the\nnational worship. Their clamour produced a tumult, in which he had\nnearly lost his life. (Acts xix. 1, 9, 10.) Undismayed, however, by the\ndangers to which he saw himself exposed, he was driven from Ephesus only\nto renew his labours in Greece. After passing over Macedonia, he thence\nproceeded to his former station at Corinth. (Acts xx. 1, 2.) When he had\nformed his design of returning by a direct course from Corinth into\nSyria, he was compelled by a conspiracy of the Jews, who were prepared\nto intercept him on his way, to trace back his steps through Macedonia\nto Philippi, and thence to take shipping into Asia. Along the coast of\nAsia, he pursued his voyage with all the expedition he could command, in\norder to reach Jerusalem against the feast of Pentecost. (Acts xx. 16.)\nHis reception at Jerusalem was of a piece with the usage he had\nexperienced from the Jews in other places. He had been only a few days\nin that city, when the populace, instigated by some of his old opponents\nin Asia, who attended this feast, seized him in the temple, forced him\nout of it, and were ready immediately to have destroyed him, had not the\nsudden presence of the Roman guard rescued him out of their hands. (Acts\nxxi. 27--33.) The officer, however, who had thus seasonably interposed,\nacted from his care of the public peace, with the preservation of which\nhe was charged, and not from any favour to the apostle, or indeed any\ndisposition to exercise either justice or humanity towards him; for he\nhad no sooner secured his person in the fortress, than he was proceeding\nto examine him by torture. (Acts xxii 24.)\n\nFrom this time to the conclusion of the history, the apostle remains in\npublic custody of the Roman government. After escaping assassination by\na fortunate discovery of the plot, and delivering himself from the\ninfluence of his enemies by an appeal to the audience of the\nemperor, (Acts xxv. 9, 11.) he was sent, but not until he had suffered\ntwo years' imprisonment, to Rome. (Acts xxiv. 27.) He reached Italy after\na tedious voyage, and after encountering in his passage the perils of a\ndesperate shipwreck. (Acts xxvii.) But although still a prisoner, and his\nfate still depending, neither the various and long-continued sufferings\nwhich he had undergone, nor the danger of his present situation,\ndeterred him from persisting in preaching the religion: for the\nhistorian closes the account by telling us that, for two years, he\nreceived all that came unto him in his own hired house, where he was\npermitted to dwell with a soldier that guarded him, \"preaching the\nkingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus\nChrist, with all confidence.\"\n\nNow the historian, from whom we have drawn this account, in the part of\nhis narrative which relates to Saint Paul, is supported by the strongest\ncorroborating testimony that a history can receive. We are in possession\nof letters written by Saint Paul himself upon the subject of his\nministry, and either written during the period which the history\ncomprises, or, if written afterwards, reciting and referring to the\ntransactions of that period. These letters, without borrowing from the\nhistory, or the history from them, unintentionally confirm the account\nwhich the history delivers, in a great variety of particulars. What\nbelongs to our present purpose is the description exhibited of the\napostle's sufferings: and the representation, given in our history, of\nthe dangers and distresses which he underwent not only agrees in general\nwith the language which he himself uses whenever he speaks of his life\nor ministry, but is also, in many instances, attested by a specific\ncorrespondency of time, place, and order of events. If the historian put\ndown in his narrative, that at Philippi the apostle \"was beaten with\nmany stripes, cast into prison, and there treated with rigour and\nindignity;\" (Acts xvi. 23, 24.) we find him, in a letter to a\nneighbouring church, (I Thess. ii. 2.) reminding his converts that,\n\"after he had suffered before, and was shamefully entreated at Philippi,\nhe was bold, nevertheless, to speak unto them (to whose city he next\ncame) the Gospel of God.\" If the history relates that, (Acts xvii. 5.)\nat Thessalonica, the house in which the apostle was lodged, when he\nfirst came to that place, was assaulted by the populace, and the master\nof it dragged before the magistrate for admitting such a guest within\nhis doors; the apostle, in his letter to the Christians of Thessalonica,\ncalls to their remembrance \"how they had received the Gospel in much\naffliction.\" (1 Thess. i. 6.) If the history deliver an account of an\ninsurrection at Ephesus, which had nearly cost the apostle his life, we\nhave the apostle himself, in a letter written a short time after his\ndeparture from that city, describing his despair, and returning thanks\nfor his deliverance. (Acts xix. 2 Cor. i. 8--10.) If the history inform\nus, that the apostle was expelled from Antioch in Pisidia, attempted to\nbe stoned at Iconium, and actually stoned at Lystra; there is preserved\na letter from him to a favourite convert, whom, as the same history\ntells us, he first met with in these parts; in which letter he appeals\nto that disciple's knowledge \"of the persecutions which befell him at\nAntioch, at Iconium, at Lystra.\" (Acts xiii. 50; xiv. 5, 19. 2 Tim. 10,\n11.) If the history make the apostle, in his speech to the Ephesian\nelders, remind them, as one proof of the disinterestedness of his views,\nthat, to their knowledge, he had supplied his own and the necessities of\nhis companions by personal labour; (Acts xx. 34.) we find the same\napostle, in a letter written during his residence at Ephesus, asserting\nof himself, \"that even to that hour he laboured, working with his own\nhands.\" (1 Cor. iv 11, 12.)\n\nThese coincidences, together with many relative to other parts of the\napostle's history, and all drawn from independent sources, not only\nconfirm the truth of the account, in the particular points as to which\nthey are observed, but add much to the credit of the narrative in all\nits parts; and support the author's profession of being a contemporary\nof the person whose history he writes, and, throughout a material\nportion of his narrative, a companion.\n\nWhat the epistles of the apostles declare of the suffering state of\nChristianity the writings which remain of their companions and immediate\nfollowers expressly confirm.\n\nClement, who is honourably mentioned by Saint Paul in his epistle to the\nPhilippians, (Philipp. iv. 3.) hath left us his attestation to this\npoint, in the following words: \"Let us take (says he) the examples of\nour own age. Through zeal and envy, the most faithful and righteous\npillars of the church have been persecuted even to the most grievous\ndeaths. Let us set before our eyes the holy apostles. Peter, by unjust\nenvy, underwent not one or two, but many sufferings; till at last, being\nmartyred, he went to the place of glory that was due unto him. For the\nsame cause did Paul, in like manner, receive the reward of his patience.\nSeven times he was in bonds; he was whipped, was stoned; he preached\nboth in the East and in the West, leaving behind him the glorious report\nof his faith; and so having taught the whole world righteousness, and\nfor that end travelled even unto the utmost bounds of the West, he at\nlast suffered martyrdom by the command of the governors, and departed\nout of the world, and went unto his holy place, being become a most\neminent pattern of patience unto all ages. To these holy apostles were\njoined a very great number of others, who, having through envy\nundergone, in like manner, many pains and torments, have left a glorious\nexample to us. For this, not only men, but women, have been persecuted;\nand, having suffered very grievous and cruel punishments, have finished\nthe course of their faith with firmness.\" (Clem. ad Cor. c. v. vi. Abp.\nWake's Trans.)\n\nHermas, saluted by Saint Paul in his epistle to the Romans, in a piece\nvery little connected with historical recitals, thus speaks: \"Such as\nhave believed and suffered death for the name of Christ, and have\nendured with a ready mind, and have given up their lives with all their\nhearts.\" (Shepherd of Hermas, c. xxviii.)\n\nPolycarp, the disciple of John (though all that remains of his works be\na very short epistle), has not left this subject unnoticed. \"I exhort\n(says he) all of you, that ye obey the word of righteousness, and\nexercise all patience, which ye have seen set forth before your eyes,\nnot only in the blessed Ignatius, and Lorimus, and Rufus, but in others\namong yourselves, and in Paul himself and the rest of the apostles;\nbeing confident in this, that all these have not run in vain, but in\nfaith and righteousness; and are gone to the place that was due to them\nfrom the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this\npresent world, but him who died, and was raised again by God for us.\"\n(Pol. ad Phil c. ix.)\n\nIgnatius, the contemporary of Polycarp, recognises the same topic,\nbriefly indeed, but positively and precisely. \"For this cause, (i. e.\nhaving felt and handled Christ's body at his resurrection, and being\nconvinced, as Ignatius expresses it, both by his flesh and spirit,) they\n(i. e. Peter, and those who were present with Peter at Christ's\nappearance) despised death, and were found to be above it.\" (19. Ep.\nSmyr. c. iii.)\n\nWould the reader know what a persecution in those days was, I would\nrefer him to a circular letter, written by the church of Smyrna soon\nafter the death of Polycarp, who it will be remembered, had lived with\nSaint John; and which letter is entitled a relation of that bishop's\nmartyrdom. \"The sufferings (say they) of all the other martyrs were\nblessed and generous, which they underwent according to the will of God.\nFor so it becomes us, who are more religious than others, to ascribe\nthe power and ordering of all things unto Him. And, indeed, who can\nchoose but admire the greatness of their minds, and that admirable\npatience and love of their Master, which then appeared in them? Who,\nwhen they were so flayed with whipping that the frame and structure of\ntheir bodies were laid open to their very inward veins and arteries,\nnevertheless endured it. In like manner, those who were condemned to the\nbeasts, and kept a long time in prison, underwent many cruel torments,\nbeing forced to lie upon sharp spikes laid under their bodies, and\ntormented with divers other sorts of punishments; that so, if it were\npossible, the tyrant, by the length of their sufferings, might have\nbrought them to deny Christ.\" (Rel. Mor. Pol. c. ii.)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nThere is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original\nwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours,\ndangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the\naccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief\nof those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives,\nto new rules of conduct.\n\nOn the history, of which the last chapter contains an abstract, there\nare a few observations which it may be proper to make, by way of\napplying its testimony to the particular propositions for which we\ncontend.\n\nI. Although our Scripture history leaves the general account of the\napostles in an early part of the narrative, and proceeds with the\nseparate account of one particular apostle, yet the information which\nit delivers so far extends to the rest, as it shows the nature of the\nservice. When we see one apostle suffering persecution in the discharge\nof this commission, we shall not believe, without evidence, that the\nsame office could, at the same time, be attended with ease and safety to\nothers. And this fair and reasonable inference is confirmed by the\ndirect attestation of the letters, to which we have so often referred.\nThe writer of these letters not only alludes, in numerous passages, to\nhis own sufferings, but speaks of the rest of the apostles as enduring\nlike sufferings with himself. \"I think that God hath set forth us the\napostles last, as it were, appointed to death; for we are made a\nspectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men; even unto this\npresent hour, we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are\nbuffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place; and labour, working with\nour own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it;\nbeing defamed, we entreat: we are made as the filth of the earth, and as\nthe offscouring of all things unto this day.\" (I Cor. iv. 9, et seq.)\nAdd to which, that in the short account that is given of the other\napostles in the former part of the history, and within the short period\nwhich that account comprises, we find, first, two of them seized,\nimprisoned, brought before the Sanhedrim, and threatened with further\npunishment; (Acts iv. 3, 21.) then, the whole number imprisoned and\nbeaten; (Acts v. 18, 40.) soon afterwards, one of their adherents stoned\nto death, and so hot a persecution raised against the sect as to drive\nmost of them out of the place; a short time only succeeding, before one\nof the twelve was beheaded, and another sentenced to the same fate; and\nall this passing in the single city of Jerusalem, and within ten years\nafter the Founder's death, and the commencement of the institution.\n\nII. We take no credit at present for the miraculous part of the\nnarrative, nor do we insist upon the correctness of single passages of\nit. If the whole story be not a novel, a romance; the whole action a\ndream; if Peter, and James, and Paul, and the rest of the apostles\nmentioned in the account, be not all imaginary persons; if their letters\nbe not all forgeries, and, what is more, forgeries of names and\ncharacters which never existed; then is there evidence in our hands\nsufficient to support the only fact we contend for (and which, I repeat\nagain, is, in itself, highly probable), that the original followers of\nJesus Christ exerted great endeavours to propagate his religion, and\nunderwent great labours, dangers, and sufferings, in consequence of\ntheir undertaking.\n\nIII. The general reality of the apostolic history is strongly confirmed\nby the consideration, that it, in truth, does no more than assign\nadequate causes for effects which certainly were produced; and describe\nconsequences naturally resulting from situations which certainly\nexisted. The effects were certainly there, of which this history sets\nforth the cause, and origin, and progress. It is acknowledged on all\nhands, because it is recorded by other testimony than that of the\nChristians themselves, that the religion began to prevail at that time,\nand in that country.  It is very difficult to conceive how it could\nbegin without the exertions of the Founder and his followers, in\npropagating the new persuasion. The history now in our hands describes\nthese exertions, the persons employed, the means and endeavours made use\nof, and the labours undertaken in the prosecution of this purpose.\nAgain, the treatment which the history represents the first propagators\nof the religion to have experienced was no other than what naturally\nresulted from the situation in which they were confessedly placed. It is\nadmitted that the religion was adverse, in great degree, to the reigning\nopinions, and to the hopes and wishes of the nation to which it was\nfirst introduced; and that it overthrew, so far as it was received, the\nestablished theology and worship of every other country. We cannot feel\nmuch reluctance in believing that when the messengers of such a system\nwent about not only publishing their opinions, but collecting\nproselytes, and forming regular societies of proselytes, they should\nmeet with opposition in their attempts, or that this opposition should\nsometimes proceed to fatal extremities. Our history details examples of\nthis opposition, and of the sufferings and dangers which the emissaries\nof the religion underwent, perfectly agreeable to what might reasonably\nbe expected, from the nature of their undertaking, compared with the\ncharacter of the age and country in which it was carried on.\n\nIV. The records before us supply evidence of what formed another member\nof our general proposition, and what, as hath already been observed, is\nhighly probable, and almost a necessary consequence of their new\nprofession, viz., that, together with activity and courage in\npropagating the religion, the primitive followers of Jesus assumed, upon\ntheir conversion, a new and peculiar course of private life. Immediately\nafter their Master was withdrawn from them, we hear of their \"continuing\nwith one accord in prayer and supplication;\" (Acts i. 14.) of their\n\"continuing daily with one accord in the temple\" (Acts ii. 46.) Of \"many\nbeing gathered together praying.\" (Acts xii. 12.) We know that strict\ninstructions were laid upon the converts by their teachers. Wherever\nthey came, the first word of their preaching was, \"Repent!\" We know that\nthese injunctions obliged them to refrain from many species of\nlicentiousness, which were not, at that time, reputed criminal. We know\nthe rules of purity, and the maxims of benevolence, which Christians\nread in their books; concerning which rules it is enough to observe,\nthat, if they were, I will not say completely obeyed, but in any degree\nregarded, they could produce a system of conduct, and, what is more\ndifficult to preserve, a disposition of mind, and a regulation of\naffections, different from anything to which they had hitherto been\naccustomed, and different from what they would see in others. The change\nand distinction of manners, which resulted from their new character, is\nperpetually referred to in the letters of their teachers. \"And you hath\nhe quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins, wherein in times\npast ye walked, according to the course of this world, according to the\nprince of the power of the air, the Spirit that now worketh in the\nchildren of disobedience; among whom also we all had our conversation in\ntimes past, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the\nflesh, and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even\nas others.\" (Eph. ii 1-3. See also Tit. iii. 3.)--\"For the time past of\nour life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when\nwe walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings,\nbanquetings, and abominable idolatries; wherein they think it strange\nthat ye run not with them to the same excess of riot.\" (1 Pet. iv. 3,\n4.) Saint Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, after\nenumerating, as his manner was, a catalogue of vicious characters, adds,\n\"Such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified.\" (1\nCor. vi. 11.) In like manner, and alluding to the same change of\npractices and sentiments, he asked the Roman Christians, \"what fruit\nthey had in those things, whereof they are now ashamed?\" (Rom. vi. 21.)\nThe phrases which the same writer employs to describe the moral\ncondition of Christians, compared with their condition before they\nbecame Christians, such as \"newness of life,\" being \"freed from sin,\"\nbeing \"dead to sin;\" \"the destruction of the body of sin, that, for the\nfuture, they should not serve sin;\" \"children of light and of the day,\"\nas opposed to \"children of darkness and of the night;\" \"not sleeping as\nothers;\" imply, at least, a new system of obligation, and, probably, a\nnew series of conduct, commencing with their conversion.\n\nThe testimony which Pliny bears to the behaviour of the new sect in his\ntime, and which testimony comes not more than fifty years after that of\nSt. Paul, is very applicable to the subject under consideration. The\ncharacter which this writer gives of the Christians of that age, and\nwhich was drawn from a pretty accurate inquiry, because he considered\ntheir moral principles as the point in which the magistrate was\ninterested, is as follows:--He tells the emperor, \"that some of those\nwho had relinquished the society, or who, to save themselves, pretended\nthat they had relinquished it, affirmed that they were wont to meet\ntogether on a stated day, before it was light, and sang among themselves\nalternately a hymn to Christ as a God; and to bind themselves by an\noath, not to the commission of any wickedness, but that they would not\nbe guilty of theft, or robbery, or adultery; that they would never\nfalsify their word, or deny a pledge committed to them, when called upon\nto return it.\" This proves that a morality, more pure and strict than\nwas ordinary, prevailed at that time in Christian societies. And to me\nit appears, that we are authorised to carry his testimony back to the\nage of the apostles; because it is not probable that the immediate\nhearers and disciples of Christ were more relaxed than their successors\nin Pliny's time, or the missionaries of the religion than those whom\nthey taught.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nThere is satisfactory evidence that many professing to be original\nwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours,\ndangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the\naccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief\nof those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives,\nto new rules of conduct.\n\nWhen we consider, first, the prevalency of the religion at this hour;\nsecondly, the only credible account which can be given of its origin,\nviz. the activity of the Founder and his associates; thirdly, the\nopposition which that activity must naturally have excited; fourthly,\nthe fate of the Founder of the religion, attested by heathen writers,\nas well as our own; fifthly, the testimony of the same writers to the\nsufferings of Christians, either contemporary with, or immediately\nsucceeding, the original settlers of the institution; sixthly,\npredictions of the suffering of his followers ascribed to the Founder\nof the religion, which ascription alone proves, either that such\npredictions were delivered and fulfilled, or that the writers of\nChrist's life were induced by the event to attribute such predictions\nto him; seventhly, letters now in our possession, written by some\nof the principal agents in the transaction, referring expressly to\nextreme labours, dangers, and sufferings, sustained by themselves\nand their companions; lastly, a history purporting to be written\nby a fellow-traveller of one of the new teachers, and, by its\nunsophisticated correspondency with letters of that person still extant,\nproving itself to be written by some one well acquainted with the\nsubject of the narrative, which history contains accounts of travels,\npersecutions, and martyrdoms, answering to what the former reasons lead\nus to expect: when we lay together these considerations, which taken\nseparately are, I think correctly such as I have stated them in the\npreceding chapters, there cannot much doubt remain upon our minds but\nthat a number of persons at that time appeared in the world, publicly\nadvancing an extraordinary story, and for the sake of propagating the\nbelief of that story, voluntarily incurring great personal dangers,\ntraversing seas and kingdoms, exerting great industry, and sustaining\ngreat extremities of ill usage and persecution. It is also proved that\nthe same persons, in consequence of their persuasion, or pretended\npersuasion, of the truth of what they asserted, entered upon a course of\nlife in many respects new and singular.\n\nFrom the clear and acknowledged parts of the case, I think it to be\nlikewise in the highest degree probable, that the story for which these\npersons voluntarily exposed themselves to the fatigues and hardships\nwhich they endured was a miraculous story; I mean, that they pretended\nto miraculous evidence of some kind or other. They had nothing else to\nstand upon. The designation of the person, that is to say, that Jesus of\nNazareth, rather than any other person, was the Messiah, and as such the\nsubject of their ministry, could only be founded upon supernatural\ntokens attributed to him. Here were no victories, no conquests, no\nrevolutions, no surprising elevation of fortune, no achievements of\nvalour, of strength, or of policy, to appeal to; no discoveries in any\nart or science, no great efforts of genius or learning to produce. A\nGalilean peasant was announced to the world as a divine lawgiver. A\nyoung man of mean condition, of a private and simple life, and who had\nwrought no deliverance for the Jewish nation, was declared to be their\nMessiah. This, without ascribing to him at the same time some proofs of\nhis mission, (and what other but supernatural proofs could there be?)\nwas too absurd a claim to be either imagined, or attempted, or credited.\nIn whatever degree, or in whatever part, the religion was argumentative,\nwhen it came to the question, \"Is the carpenter's son of Nazareth the\nperson whom we are to receive and obey?\" there was nothing but the\nmiracles attributed to him by which his pretensions could be maintained\nfor a moment. Every controversy and every question must presuppose\nthese: for, however such controversies, when they did arise, might and\nnaturally would, be discussed upon their own grounds of argumentation,\nwithout citing the miraculous evidence which had been asserted to attend\nthe Founder of the religion (which would have been to enter upon\nanother, and a more general question), yet we are to bear in mind, that\nwithout previously supposing the existence or the pretence of such\nevidence, there could have been no place for the discussion of the\nargument at all. Thus, for example, whether the prophecies, which the\nJews interpreted to belong to the Messiah, were or were not applicable\nto the history of Jesus of Nazareth, was a natural subject of debate in\nthose times; and the debate would proceed without recurring at every\nturn to his miracles, because it set out with supposing these; inasmuch\nas without miraculous marks and tokens (real or pretended), or without\nsome such great change effected by his means in the public condition of\nthe country, as might have satisfied the then received interpretation of\nthese prophecies, I do not see how the question could ever have been\nentertained. Apollos, we read, \"mightily convinced the Jews, showing by\nthe Scriptures that Jesus was Christ;\" (Acts xviii. 28.) but unless\nJesus had exhibited some distinction of his person, some proof of\nsupernatural power, the argument from the old Scriptures could have had\nno place. It had nothing to attach upon. A young man calling himself the\nSon of God, gathering a crowd about him, and delivering to them lectures\nof morality, could not have excited so much as a doubt among the Jews,\nwhether he was the object in whom a long series of ancient prophecies\nterminated, from the completion of which they had formed such\nmagnificent expectations, and expectations of a nature so opposite to\nwhat appeared; I mean no such doubt could exist when they had the whole\ncase before them, when they saw him put to death for his officiousness,\nand when by his death the evidence concerning him was closed. Again, the\neffect of the Messiah's coming, supposing Jesus to have been he, upon\nJews, upon Gentiles, upon their relation to each other, upon their\nacceptance with God, upon their duties and their expectations; his\nnature, authority, office, and agency; were likely to become subjects of\nmuch consideration with the early votaries of the religion, and to\noccupy their attention and writings. I should not however expect, that\nin these disquisitions, whether preserved in the form of letters,\nspeeches, or set treatises, frequent or very direct mention of his\nmiracles would occur. Still, miraculous evidence lay at the bottom of\nthe argument. In the primary question, miraculous pretensions and\nmiraculous pretensions alone, were what they had to rely upon.\n\nThat the original story was miraculous, is very fairly also inferred\nfrom the miraculous powers which were laid claim to by the Christians of\nsucceeding ages. If the accounts of these miracles be true, it was a\ncontinuation of the same powers; if they be false, it was an imitation,\nI will not say of what had been wrought, but of what had been reported\nto have been wrought, by those who preceded them. That imitation should\nfollow reality, fiction should be grafted upon truth; that, if miracles\nwere performed at first, miracles should be pretended afterwards; agrees\nso well with the ordinary course of human affairs, that we can have no\ngreat difficulty in believing it. The contrary supposition is very\nimprobable, namely, that miracles should be pretended to by the\nfollowers of the apostles and first emissaries of the religion, when\nnone were pretended to, either in their own persons or that of their\nMaster, by these apostles and emissaries themselves.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nThere is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original\nwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours,\ndangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the\naccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief\nof those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives,\nto new rules of conduct.\n\nIt being then once proved, that the first propagators of the Christian\ninstitution did exert activity, and subject themselves to great dangers\nand sufferings, in consequence and for the sake of an extraordinary and,\nI think, we may say, of a miraculous story of some kind or other; the\nnext great question is, whether the account, which our Scriptures\ncontain, be that story; that which these men delivered, and for which\nthey acted and suffered as they did? This question is, in effect, no\nother than whether the story which Christians have now be the story\nwhich Christians had then? And of this the following proofs may be\ndeduced from general considerations, and from considerations prior to\nany inquiry into the particular reasons and testimonies by which the\nauthority of our histories is supported.\n\nIn the first place, there exists no trace or vestige of any other story.\nIt is not, like the death of Cyrus the Great, a competition between\nopposite accounts, or between the credit of different historians. There\nis not a document, or scrap of account, either contemporary with the\ncommencement of Christianity, or extant within many ages afar that\ncommencement, which assigns a history substantially different from ours.\nThe remote, brief, and incidental notices of the affair which are found\nin heathen writers, so far as they do go, go along with us. They bear\ntestimony to these facts--that the institution originated from Jesus;\nthat the Founder was put to death, as a malefactor, at Jerusalem, by the\nauthority of the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate; that the religion\nnevertheless spread in that city, and throughout Judea; and that it was\npropagated thence to distant countries; that the converts were numerous;\nthat they suffered great hardships and injuries for their profession;\nand that all this took place in the age of the world which our books\nhave assigned. They go on, further, to describe the manners of\nChristians in terms perfectly conformable to the accounts extant in our\nbooks; that they were wont to assemble on a certain day; that they sang\nhymns to Christ as to a God; that they bound themselves by an oath not\nto commit any crime, but to abstain from theft and adultery, to adhere\nstrictly to their promises, and not to deny money deposited in their\nhands;* that they worshipped him who was crucified in Palestine; that\nthis their first lawgiver had taught them that they were all brethren;\nthat they had a great contempt for the things of this world, and looked\nupon them as common; that they flew to one another's relief; that they\ncherished strong hopes of immortality; that they despised death, and\nsurrendered themselves to sufferings.+\n\n_________\n\n* See Pliny's Letter--Bonnet, in his lively way of expressing himself,\nsays,--\"Comparing Pliny's Letter with the account of the Acts, it seems\nto me that I had not taken up another author, but that I was still\nreading the historian of that extraordinary society.\" This is strong;\nbut there is undoubtedly an affinity, and all the affinity that could be\nexpected.\n\n+ \"It is incredible, what expedition they use when any of their friends\nare known to be in trouble. In a word, they spare nothing upon such an\noccasion;--for these miserable men have no doubt they shall be immortal\nand live for ever; therefore they contemn death, and many surrender\nthemselves to sufferings. Moreover, their first lawgiver has taught them\nthat they are all brethren, when once they have turned and renounced the\ngods of the Greeks, and worship this Master of theirs who was crucified,\nand engage to live according to his laws. They have also a sovereign\ncontempt for all the things of this world, and look upon them as\ncommon.\" Lucian, de Morte Peregrini, t. i. p. 565, ed. Graev.\n_________\n\n\nThis is the account of writers who viewed the subject at a great\ndistance; who were uninformed and uninterested about it. It bears the\ncharacters of such an account upon the face of it, because it describes\neffects, namely the appearance in the world of a new religion, and the\nconversion of great multitudes to it, without descending, in the\nsmallest degree, to the detail of the transaction upon which it was\nfounded, the interior of the institution, the evidence or arguments\noffered by those who drew over others to it. Yet still here is no\ncontradiction of our story; no other or different story set up against\nit: but so far a confirmation of it as that, in the general points on\nwhich the heathen account touches, it agrees with that which we find in\nour own books.\n\nThe same may be observed of the very few Jewish writers of that and the\nadjoining period, which have come down to us. Whatever they omit, or\nwhatever difficulties we may find in explaining the omission, they\nadvance no other history of the transaction than that which we\nacknowledge. Josephus, who wrote his Antiquities, or History of the\nJews, about sixty years after the commencement of Christianity, in a\npassage generally admitted as genuine, makes mention of John under the\nname of John the Baptist; that he was a preacher of virtue; that he\nbaptized his proselytes; that he was well received by the people; that\nhe was imprisoned and put to death by Herod; and that Herod lived in a\ncriminal cohabitation with Herodias, his brother's wife. (Antiq. I.\nxviii. cap. v. sect. 1, 2.) In another passage allowed by many, although\nnot without considerable question being moved about it, we hear of\n\"James, the brother of him who was called Jesus, and of his being put to\ndeath.\" (Antiq. I. xx. cap. ix. sect. 1.) In a third passage, extant in\nevery copy that remains of Josephus's history, but the authenticity of\nwhich has nevertheless been long disputed, we have an explicit testimony\nto the substance of our history in these words:--\"At that time lived\nJesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man, for he performed many\nwonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with\npleasure. He drew over to him many Jews and Gentiles. This was the\nChrist; and when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us\nhad condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an\naffection for him did not cease to adhere to him; for, on the third day,\nhe appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold\nthese and many wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the\nChristians, so called from him, subsists to this time.\" (Antiq. I.\nxviii. cap. iii. sect 3.) Whatever become of the controversy concerning\nthe genuineness of this passage; whether Josephus go the whole length of\nour history, which, if the passage be sincere, he does; or whether he\nproceed only a very little way with us, which, if the passage be\nrejected, we confess to be the case; still what we asserted is true,\nthat he gives no other or different history of the subject from ours, no\nother or different account of the origin of the institution. And I think\nalso that it may with great reason be contended, either that the passage\nis genuine, or that the silence of Josephus was designed. For, although\nwe should lay aside the authority of our own books entirely, yet when\nTacitus, who wrote not twenty, perhaps not ten, years after Josephus, in\nhis account of a period in which Josephus was nearly thirty years of\nage, tells us, that a vast multitude of Christians were condemned at\nRome; that they derived their denomination from Christ, who, in the\nreign of Tiberius, was put to death, as a criminal, by the procurator,\nPontius Pilate; that the superstition had spread not only over Judea,\nthe source of the evil but it had reached Rome also:--when Suetonius, an\nhistorian contemporary with Tacitus, relates that, in the time of\nClaudius, the Jews were making disturbances at Rome, Christus being\ntheir leader: and that, during the reign of Nero, the Christians were\npunished; under both which emperors Josephus lived: when Pliny, who\nwrote his celebrated epistle not more than thirty years after the\npublication of Josephus's history, found the Christians in such numbers\nin the province of Bithynia as to draw from him a complaint that the\ncontagion had seized cities, towns, and villages, and had so seized them\nas to produce a general desertion of the public rites; and when, as has\nalready been observed, there is no reason for imagining that the\nChristians were more numerous in Bithynia than in many other parts of\nthe Roman empire; it cannot, I should suppose, after this, be believed,\nthat the religion, and the transaction upon which it was founded, were\ntoo obscure to engage the attention of Josephus, or to obtain a place in\nhis history. Perhaps he did not know how to represent the business, and\ndisposed of his difficulties by passing it over in silence. Eusebius\nwrote the life of Constantine, yet omits entirely the most remarkable\ncircumstance in that life, the death of his son Crispus; undoubtedly for\nthe reason here given. The reserve of Josephus upon the subject of\nChristianity appears also in his passing over the banishment of the Jews\nby Claudius, which Suetonius, we have seen, has recorded with an express\nreference to Christ. This is at least as remarkable as his silence about\nthe infants of Bethlehem.* Be, however, the fact, or the cause of the\nomission in Josephus,+ what it may, no other or different history on the\nsubject has been given by him, or is pretended to have been given.\n\n_________\n\n* Michaelis has computed, and, as it should seem, fairly enough; that\nprobably not more than twenty children perished by this cruel\nprecaution. Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, translated by\nMarsh; vol. i. c. ii. sect. 11.\n\n+ There is no notice taken of Christianity in the Mishna, a collection\nof Jewish traditions compiled about the year 180; although it contains a\nTract \"De cultu peregrino,\" of strange or idolatrous worship; yet it\ncannot be disputed but that Christianity was perfectly well known in the\nworld at this time. There is extremely little notice of the subject in\nthe Jerusalem Talmud, compiled about the year 300, and not much more in\nthe Babylonish Talmud, of the year 500; although both these works are of\na religions nature, and although, when the first was compiled,\nChristianity was on the point of becoming the religion of the state,\nand, when the latter was published, had been so for 200 years.\n_________\n\n\nBut further; the whole series of Christian writers, from the first age\nof the institution down to the present, in their discussions, apologies,\narguments, and controversies, proceed upon the general story which our\nScriptures contain, and upon no other. The main facts, the principal\nagents, are alike in all. This argument will appear to be of great\nforce, when it is known that we are able to trace back the series of\nwriters to a contact with the historical books of the New Testament, and\nto the age of the first emissaries of the religion, and to deduce it, by\nan unbroken continuation, from that end of the train to the present.\n\nThe remaining letters of the apostles, (and what more original than\ntheir letters can we have?) though written without the remotest design\nof transmitting the history of Christ, or of Christianity, to future\nages, or even of making it known to their contemporaries, incidentally\ndisclose to us the following circumstances:--Christ's descent and\nfamily; his innocence; the meekness and gentleness of his character (a\nrecognition which goes to the whole Gospel history); his exalted nature;\nhis circumcision; his transfiguration; his life of opposition and\nsuffering; his patience and resignation; the appointment of the\nEucharist, and the manner of it; his agony; his confession before\nPontius Pilate; his stripes, crucifixion, and burial; his resurrection;\nhis appearance after it, first to Peter, then to the rest of the\napostles; his ascension into heaven; and his designation to be the\nfuture judge of mankind; the stated residence of the apostles at\nJerusalem; the working of miracles by the first preachers of the Gospel,\nwho were also the hearers of Christ;* the successful propagation of the\nreligion; the persecution of its followers; the miraculous conversion of\nPaul; miracles wrought by himself, and alleged in his controversies with\nhis adversaries, and in letters to the persons amongst whom they were\nwrought; finally, that MIRACLES were the signs of an apostle.+\n\n_________\n\n* Heb. ii. 3. \"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation,\nwhich, at the first, began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed\nunto us by them that heard him, God also be bearing them witness, both\nwith signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy\nGhost?\" I allege this epistle without hesitation; for, whatever doubts\nmay have been raised about its author, there can be none concerning the\nage in which it was written. No epistle in the collection carries about\nit more indubitable marks of antiquity than this does. It speaks for\ninstance, throughout, of the temple as then standing and of the worship\nof the temple as then subsisting.--Heb. viii. 4: \"For, if he were on\nearth, he should not be a priest, seeing there are priests that offer\naccording to the law.\"--Again, Heb. xiii. 10: \"We have an altar whereof\nthey have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle.\"\n\n+ Truly the signs of as apostle were wraught among you in all patience,\nin signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.' 2 Cor. xii. 12.\n_________\n\n\nIn an epistle bearing the name of Barnabas, the companion of Paul,\nprobably genuine, certainly belonging to that age, we have the\nsufferings of Christ, his choice of apostles and their number, his\npassion, the scarlet robe, the vinegar and gall, the mocking and\npiercing, the casting lots for his coat, (Ep. Bar. c. vii.) his\nresurrection on the eighth, (i. e. the first day of the week,[Ep. Bar.\nc. vi.]) and the commemorative distinction of that day, his\nmanifestation after his resurrection, and, lastly, his ascension. We\nhave also his miracles generally but positively referred to in the\nfollowing words:--\"Finally, teaching the people of Israel, and doing\nmany wonders and signs among them, he preached to them, and showed the\nexceeding great love which he bare towards them.\" (Ep. Bar. c. v.)\n\nIn an epistle of Clement, a hearer of St. Paul, although written for a\npurpose remotely connected with the Christian history, we have the\nresurrection of Christ, and the subsequent mission of the apostles,\nrecorded in these satisfactory terms: \"The apostles have preached to us\nfrom our Lord Jesus Christ from God:--For, having received their\ncommand, and being thoroughly assured by the resurrection of our Lord\nJesus Christ, they went abroad, publishing that the kingdom of God was\nat hand.\" (Ep. Clem. Rom. c. xlii.) We find noticed, also, the humility,\nyet the power of Christ, (Ep. Clem. Rom. c. xvi.) his descent from\nAbraham--his crucifixion. We have Peter and Paul represented as faithful\nand righteous pillars of the church; the numerous sufferings of Peter;\nthe bonds, stripes, and stoning of Paul, and more particularly his\nextensive and unwearied travels.\n\nIn an epistle of Polycarp, a disciple of St. John, though only a brief\nhortatory letter, we have the humility, patience, sufferings,\nresurrection, and ascension of Christ, together with the apostolic\ncharacter of St. Paul, distinctly recognised. (Pol. Ep. Ad Phil. C. v.\nviii. ii. iii.) Of this same father we are also assured, by Irenaeus,\nthat he (Irenaeus) had heard him relate, \"what he had received from\neye-witnesses concerning the Lord, both concerning his miracles and his\ndoctrine.\" (Ir. ad Flor. 1 ap. Euseb. l. v. c. 20.)\n\nIn the remaining works of Ignatius, the contemporary of Polycarp, larger\nthan those of Polycarp, (yet, like those of Polycarp, treating of\nsubjects in nowise leading to any recital of the Christian history,) the\noccasional allusions are proportionably more numerous. The descent of\nChrist from David, his mother Mary, his miraculous conception, the star\nat his birth, his baptism by John, the reason assigned for it, his\nappeal to the prophets, the ointment poured on his head, his sufferings\nunder Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, his resurrection, the\nLord's day called and kept in commemoration of it, and the Eucharist, in\nboth its Parts,--are unequivocally referred to. Upon the resurrection,\nthis writer is even circumstantial. He mentions the apostles' eating and\ndrinking with Christ after he had risen, their feeling and their\nhandling him; from which last circumstance Ignatius raises this just\nreflection;--\"They believed, being convinced both by his flesh and\nspirit; for this cause, they despised death, and were found to be above\nit.\" (Ad Smyr. c. iii.)\n\nQuadratus, of the same age with Ignatius, has left us the following\nnoble testimony:--\"The works of our Saviour were always conspicuous, for\nthey were real; both those that were healed, and those that were raised\nfrom the dead; who were seen not only when they were healed or raised,\nbut for a long time afterwards; not only whilst he dwelled on this\nearth, but also after his departure, and for a good while after it,\ninsomuch that some of them have reached to our times.\" (Ap. Euseb. H. E.\nl. iv. c. 3.)\n\nJustin Martyr came little more than thirty years after Quadratus. From\nJustin's works, which are still extant, might be collected a tolerably\ncomplete account of Christ's life, in all points agreeing with that\nwhich is delivered in our Scriptures; taken indeed, in a great measure,\nfrom those Scriptures, but still proving that this account, and no\nother, was the account known and extant in that age. The miracles in\nparticular, which form the part of Christ's history most material to be\ntraced, stand fully and distinctly recognised in the following\npassage:--\"He healed those who had been blind, and deaf, and lame from\ntheir birth; causing, by his word, one to leap, another to hear, and a\nthird to see: and, by raising the dead, and making them to live, he\ninduced, by his works, the men of that age to know him.\" (Just. Dial.\ncum Tryph. p. 288, ed. Thirl.)\n\nIt is unnecessary to carry these citations lower, because the history,\nafter this time, occurs in ancient Christian writings as familiarly as\nit is wont to do in modern sermons;--occurs always the same in\nsubstance, and always that which our evangelists represent.\n\nThis is not only true of those writings of Christians which are genuine,\nand of acknowledged authority; but it is, in a great measure, true of\nall their ancient writings which remain; although some of these may have\nbeen erroneously ascribed to authors to whom they did not belong, or may\ncontain false accounts, or may appear to be undeserving of credit, or\nnever indeed to have obtained any. Whatever fables they have mixed with\nthe narrative, they preserve the material parts, the leading facts, as\nwe have them; and, so far as they do this, although they be evidence of\nnothing else, they are evidence that these points were fixed, were\nreceived and acknowledged by all Christians in the ages in which the\nbooks were written. At least, it may be asserted, that, in the places\nwhere we were most likely to meet with such things, if such things had\nexisted, no reliques appear of any story substantially different from\nthe present, as the cause, or as the pretence, of the institution.\n\nNow that the original story, the story delivered by the first preachers\nof the institution, should have died away so entirely as to have left no\nrecord or memorial of its existence, although so many records and\nmemorials of the time and transaction remain; and that another story\nshould have stepped into its place, and gained exclusive possession of\nthe belief of all who professed, themselves disciples of the\ninstitution, is beyond any example of the corruption of even oral\ntradition, and still less consistent with the experience of written\nhistory: and this improbability, which is very great, is rendered still\ngreater by the reflection, that no such change as the oblivion of one\nstory, and the substitution of another, took place in any future period\nof the Christian aera. Christianity hath travelled through dark and\nturbulent ages; nevertheless it came out of the cloud and the storm,\nsuch, in substance, as it entered in. Many additions were made to the\nprimitive history, and these entitled to different degrees of credit;\nmany doctrinal errors also were from time to time grafted into the\npublic creed; but still the original story remained, and remained the\nsame. In all its principal parts, it has been fixed from the beginning.\n\nThirdly: The religious rites and usages that prevailed amongst the early\ndisciples of Christianity were such as belonged to, and sprung out of,\nthe narrative now in our hands; which accordancy shows, that it was the\nnarrative upon which these persons acted, and which they had received\nfrom their teachers. Our account makes the Founder of the religion\ndirect that his disciples should be baptized: we know that the first\nChristians were baptized, Our account makes him direct that they should\nhold religious assemblies: we find that they did hold religious\nassemblies. Our accounts make the apostles assemble upon a stated day of\nthe week: we find, and that from information perfectly independent of\nour accounts, that the Christians of the first century did observe\nstated days of assembling. Our histories record the institution of the\nrite which we call the Lord's Supper, and a command to repeat it in\nperpetual succession: we find, amongst the early Christians, the\ncelebration of this rite universal. And, indeed, we find concurring in\nall the above-mentioned observances, Christian societies of many\ndifferent nations and languages, removed from one another by a great\ndistance of place and dissimilitude of situation. It is also extremely\nmaterial to remark, that there is no room for insinuating that our books\nwere fabricated with a studious accommodation to the usages which\nobtained at the time they were written; that the authors of the books\nfound the usages established, and framed the story to account for their\noriginal. The Scripture accounts, especially of the Lord's Supper, are\ntoo short and cursory, not to say too obscure, and in this view,\ndeficient, to allow a place for any such suspicion.*\n\n_________\n\n* The reader who is conversant in these researches, by comparing the\nshort Scripture accounts of the Christian rites above-mentioned with the\nminute and circumstantial directions contained in the pretended\napostolical constitutions,  will see the force of this observation; the\ndifference between truth and forgery.\n_________\n\n\nAmongst the proofs of the truth of our proposition, viz. That the story\nwhich we have now is, in substance, the story which the Christians had\nthen, or, in other words, that the accounts in our Gospels are, as to\ntheir principal parts, at least, the accounts which the apostles and\noriginal teachers of the religion delivered, one arises from observing,\nthat it appears by the Gospels themselves that the story was public at\nthe time; that the Christian community was already in possession of the\nsubstance and principal parts of the narrative. The Gospels were not the\noriginal cause of the Christian history being believed, but were\nthemselves among the consequences of that belief. This is expressly\naffirmed by Saint Luke, in his brief, but, as I think, very important\nand instructive preface:--\"Forasmuch (says the evangelist) as many have\ntaken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which\nare most surely believed amongst us, even as they delivered them unto\nus, which, from the beginning, were eye-witnesses and ministers of the\nword; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all\nthings from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent\nTheophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things\nwherein thou hast been instructed.\"--This short introduction testifies,\nthat the substance of the history which the evangelist was about to\nwrite was already believed by Christians; that it was believed upon the\ndeclarations of eye-witnesses and ministers of the word; that it formed\nthe account of their religion in which Christians were instructed; that\nthe office which the historian proposed to himself was to trace each\nparticular to its origin, and to fix the certainty of many things which\nthe reader had before heard of. In Saint John's Gospel the same point\nappears hence, that there are some principal facts to which the\nhistorian refers, but which he does not relate. A remarkable instance of\nthis kind is the ascension, which is not mentioned by St. John in its\nplace, at the conclusion of his history, but which is plainly referred\nto in the following words of the sixth chapter; \"What and if ye shall\nsee the Son of man ascend up where he was before?\" (Also John iii. 31;\nand xvi. 28.) And still more positively in the words which Christ,\naccording to our evangelist, spoke to Mary after his resurrection,\n\"Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go unto my\nbrethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father,\nunto my God and your God.\" (John xx. 17.) This can only be accounted for\nby the supposition that St. John wrote under a sense of the notoriety of\nChrist's ascension, among those by whom his book was likely to be read.\nThe same account must also be given of Saint Matthew's omission of the\nsame important fact. The thing was very well known, and it did not occur\nto the historian that it was necessary to add any particulars concerning\nit. It agrees also with this solution, and with no other, that neither\nMatthew nor John disposes of the person of our Lord in any manner\nwhatever. Other intimations in St. John's Gospel of the then general\nnotoriety of the story are the following: His manner of introducing his\nnarrative (ch. i. ver. 15.)--\"John bare witness of him, and cried,\nsaying\" evidently presupposes that his readers knew who John was. His\nrapid parenthetical reference to John's imprisonment, \"for John was not\nyet cast into prison,\" (John iii, 24.) could only come from a writer\nwhose mind was in the habit of considering John's imprisonment as\nperfectly notorious. The description of Andrew by the addition \"Simon\nPeter's brother,\" (John i. 40.) takes it for granted, that Simon Peter\nwas well known. His name had not been mentioned before. The evangelist's\nnoticing the prevailing misconstruction of a discourse, (John xxi. 24.)\nwhich Christ held with the beloved disciple, proves that the characters\nand the discourse were already public. And the observation which these\ninstances afford is of equal validity for the purpose of the present\nargument, whoever were the authors of the histories.\n\n\nThese four circumstances:--first, the recognition of the account in its\nprincipal parts by a series of succeeding writers; secondly, the total\nabsence of any account of the origin of the religion substantially\ndifferent from ours; thirdly, the early and extensive prevalence of\nrites and institutions, which resulted from our account; fourthly, our\naccount bearing in its construction proof that it is an account of facts\nwhich were known and believed at the time, are sufficient, I conceive,\nto support an assurance, that the story which we have now is, in general,\nthe story which Christians had at the beginning. I say in general; by\nwhich term I mean, that it is the same in its texture, and in its\nprincipal facts. For instance, I make no doubt, for the reasons above\nstated, but that the resurrection of the Founder of the religion was\nalways a part of the Christian story. Nor can a doubt of this remain\nupon the mind of any one who reflects that the resurrection is, in some\nform or other, asserted, referred to, or assumed, in every Christian\nwriting, of every description which hath come down to us.\n\nAnd if our evidence stopped here, we should have a strong case to offer:\nfor we should have to allege, that in the reign of Tiberius Caesar, a\ncertain number of persons set about an attempt of establishing a new\nreligion in the world: in the prosecution of which purpose, they\nvoluntarily encountered great dangers, undertook great labours,\nsustained great sufferings, all for a miraculous story, which they\npublished wherever they came; and that the resurrection of a dead man,\nwhom during his life they had followed and accompanied, was a constant\npart of this story. I know nothing in the above statement which can,\nwith any appearance of reason, be disputed; and I know nothing, in the\nhistory of the human species, similar to it.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nThere is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original\nwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours,\ndangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the\naccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief\nof those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives,\nto new rules of conduct.\n\nThat the story which we have now is, in the main, the story which the\napostles published, is, I think, nearly certain, from the considerations\nwhich have been proposed. But whether, when we come to the particulars,\nand the detail of the narrative, the historical books of the New\nTestament be deserving of credit as histories, so that a fact ought\nto be accounted true, because it is found in them; or whether they are\nentitled to be considered as representing the accounts which, true or\nfalse, the apostles published; whether their authority, in either of\nthese views, can be trusted to, is a point which necessarily depends\nupon what we know of the books, and of their authors.\n\nNow, in treating of this part of our argument, the first and most\nmaterial observation upon the subject is, that such was the situation of\nthe authors to whom the four Gospels are ascribed, that, if any one of\nthe four be genuine, it is sufficient for our purpose. The received\nauthor of the first was an original apostle and emissary of the\nreligion. The received author of the second was an inhabitant of\nJerusalem, at the time, to whose house the apostles were wont to resort,\nand himself an attendant upon one of the most eminent of that number.\nThe received author of the third was a stated companion and\nfellow-traveller of the most active of all the teachers of the religion,\nand, in the course of his travels, frequently in the society of the\noriginal apostles. The received author of the fourth, as well as of the\nfirst, was one of these apostles. No stronger evidence of the truth of a\nhistory can arise from the situation of the historian than what is here\noffered. The authors of all the histories lived at the time and upon the\nspot. The authors of two of the histories were present at many of the\nscenes which they describe; eye-witnesses of the facts, ear-witnesses of\nthe discourses; writing from personal knowledge and recollection; and,\nwhat strengthens their testimony, writing upon a subject in which their\nminds were deeply engaged, and in which, as they must have been very\nfrequently repeating the accounts to others, the passages of the history\nwould be kept continually alive in their memory. Whoever reads the\nGospels (and they ought to be read for this particular purpose) will\nfind in them not merely a general affirmation of miraculous powers, but\ndetailed circumstantial accounts of miracles, with specifications of\ntime, place, and persons; and these accounts many and various. In the\nGospels, therefore, which bear the names of Matthew and John, these\nnarratives, if they really proceeded from these men, must either be true\nas far as the fidelity of human recollection is usually to be depended\nupon, that is, must be true in substance and in their principal parts,\n(which is sufficient for the purpose of proving a supernatural agency,)\nor they must be wilful and mediated falsehoods. Yet the writers who\nfabricated and uttered these falsehoods, if they be such, are of the\nnumber of those who, unless the whole contexture of the Christian story\nbe a dream, sacrificed their ease and safety in the cause, and for a\npurpose the most inconsistent that is possible with dishonest\nintentions. They were villains for no end but to teach honesty, and\nmartyrs without the least prospect of honour or advantage.\n\nThe Gospels which bear the names of Mark and Luke, although not the\nnarratives of eye-witnesses, are, if genuine, removed from that only by\none degree. They are the narratives of contemporary writers, or writers\nthemselves mixing with the business; one of the two probably living in\nthe place which was the principal scene of action; both living in habits\nof society and correspondence with those who had been present at the\ntransactions which they relate. The latter of them accordingly tells us\n(and with apparent sincerity, because he tells it without pretending to\npersonal knowledge, and without claiming for his work greater authority\nthan belonged to it) that the things which were believed amount\nChristians came from those who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and\nministers of the word; that he had traced accounts up to their source;\nand that he was prepared to instruct his reader in the certainty of the\nthings which he related.* Very few histories lie so close to their\nfacts; very few historians are so nearly connected with the subject of\ntheir narrative, or possess such means of authentic information, as\nthese.\n\n_________\n\n* Why should not the candid and modest preface of this historian be\nbelieved, as well as that which Dion Cassius prefixes to his Life of\nCommodus? \"These things and the following I write, not from the report\nof others, but from my own knowledge and observation.\" I see no reason\nto doubt but that both passages describe truly enough the situation of\nthe authors.\n_________\n\n\nThe situation of the writers applies to the truth of the facts which\nthey record. But at present we use their testimony to a point somewhat\nshort of this, namely, that the facts recorded in the Gospels, whether\ntrue or false, are the facts, and the sort of facts which the original\npreachers of the religion allege. Strictly speaking, I am concerned only\nto show, that what the Gospels contain is the same as what the apostles\npreached. Now, how stands the proof of this point? A set of men went\nabout the world, publishing a story composed of miraculous accounts,\n(for miraculous from the very nature and exigency of the case they must\nhave been,) and upon the strength of these accounts called upon mankind\nto quit the religions in which they had been educated, and to take up,\nthenceforth, a new system of opinions, and new rules of action. What is\nmore in attestation of these accounts, that is, in support of an\ninstitution of which these accounts were the foundation, is, that the\nsame men voluntarily exposed themselves to harassing and perpetual\nlabours, dangers, and sufferings. We want to know what these accounts\nwere. We have the particulars, i. e. many particulars, from two of their\nown number. We have them from an attendant of one of the number, and\nwho, there is reason to believe, was an inhabitant of Jerusalem at the\ntime. We have them from a fourth writer, who accompanied the most\nlaborious missionary of the institution in his travels; who, in the\ncourse of these travels, was frequently brought into the society of the\nrest; and who, let it be observed, begins his narrative by telling us\nthat he is about to relate the things which had been delivered by those\nwho were ministers of the word, and eye-witnesses of the facts. I do not\nknow what information can be more satisfactory than this. We may,\nperhaps, perceive the force and value of it more sensibly if we reflect\nhow requiring we should have been if we had wanted it. Supposing it to\nbe sufficiently proved, that the religion now professed among us owed\nits original to the preaching and ministry of a number of men, who,\nabout eighteen centuries ago, set forth in the world a new system of\nreligious opinions, founded upon certain extraordinary things which they\nrelated of a wonderful person who had appeared in Judea; suppose it to\nbe also sufficiently proved, that, in the course and prosecution of\ntheir ministry, these men had subjected themselves to extreme hardships,\nfatigue, and peril; but suppose the accounts which they published had\nnot been committed to writing till some ages after their times, or at\nleast that no histories but what had been composed some ages afterwards\nhad reached our hands; we should have said, and with reason, that we\nwere willing to believe these under the circumstances in which they\ndelivered their testimony, but that we did not, at this day, know with\nsufficient evidence what their testimony was. Had we received the\nparticulars of it from any of their own number, from any of those who\nlived and conversed with them, from any of their hearers, or even from\nany of their contemporaries, we should have had something to rely upon.\nNow, if our books be genuine, we have all these. We have the very\nspecies of information which, as it appears to me, our imagination would\nhave carved out for us, if it had been wanting.\n\nBut I have said that if any one of the four Gospels be genuine, we have\nnot only direct historical testimony to the point we contend for, but\ntestimony which, so far as that point is concerned, cannot reasonably be\nrejected. If the first Gospel was really written by Matthew, we have the\nnarrative of one of the number, from which to judge what were the\nmiracles, and the kind of miracles, which the apostles attributed to\nJesus. Although, for argument's sake, and only for argument's sake, we\nshould allow that this Gospel had been erroneously ascribed to Matthew;\nyet, if the Gospel of St. John be genuine, the observation holds with no\nless strength. Again, although the Gospels both of Matthew and John\ncould be supposed to be spurious, yet, if the Gospel of Saint Luke were\ntruly the composition of that person, or of any person, be his name what\nit might, who was actually in the situation in which the author of that\nGospel professes himself to have been, or if the Gospel which bear the\nname of Mark really proceeded from him; we still, even upon the lowest\nsupposition, possess the accounts of one writer at least, who was not\nonly contemporary with the apostles, but associated with them in their\nministry; which authority seems sufficient, when the question is simply\nwhat it was which these apostles advanced.\n\nI think it material to have this well noticed. The New Testament\ncontains a great number of distinct writings, the genuineness of any one\nof which is almost sufficient to prove the truth of the religion: it\ncontains, however, four distinct histories, the genuineness of any one\nof which is perfectly sufficient.\n\nIf, therefore, we must be considered as encountering the risk of error\nin assigning the authors of our books, we are entitled to the advantage\nof so many separate probabilities. And although it should appear that\nsome of the evangelists had seen and used each other's works, this\ndiscovery, whist it subtracts indeed from their characters as\ntestimonies strictly independent, diminishes, I conceive, little either\ntheir separate authority, (by which I mean the authority of any one that\nis genuine,) or their mutual confirmation. For, let the most\ndisadvantageous supposition possible be made concerning them; let it be\nallowed, what I should have no great difficulty in admitting, that Mark\ncompiled his history almost entirely from those of Matthew and Luke; and\nlet it also for a moment be supposed that were not, in fact, written by\nMatthew and Luke; yet, if it be true that Mark, a contemporary of the\napostles, living, in habits of society with the apostles, a\nfellow-traveller and fellow-labourer with some of them; if, I say, it be\ntrue, that this person made the compilation, it follows, that the\nwritings from which he made it existed in the time of the apostles, and\nnot only so, but that they were then in such esteem and credit, that a\ncompanion of the apostles formed a history out of them. Let the Gospel\nof Mark be called an epitome of that of Matthew; if a person in the\nsituation in which Mark is described to have been actually made the\nepitome, it affords the strongest possible attestation to the character\nof the original.\n\nAgain, parallelisms in sentences, in word, and in the order of words,\nhave been traced out between the Gospel of Matthew and that of Luke;\nwhich concurrence cannot easily be explained, otherwise than by\nsupposing, either that Luke had consulted Matthew's history, or, what\nappears to me in nowise incredible, that minutes of some of Christ's\ndiscourses, as well as brief memoirs of some passages of his life, had\nbeen committed to writing at the time; and that such written accounts\nhad by both authors been occasionally admitted into their histories.\nEither supposition is perfectly consistent with the acknowledged\nformation of St. Luke's narrative, who professes not to write as an\neye-witness, but to have investigated the original of every account\nwhich he delivers: in other words, to have collected them from such\ndocuments and testimonies as he, who had the best opportunities of\nmaking inquiries, judged to be authentic. Therefore, allowing that this\nwriter also, in some instances, borrowed from the Gospel which we call\nMatthew's and once more allowing for the sake of stating the argument,\nthat that Gospel was not the production of the author to whom we\nascribe it; yet still we have in St. Luke's Gospel a history given by a\nwriter immediately connected with the transaction with the witnesses of\nit with the persons engaged in it, and composed from materials which\nthat person, thus situated, deemed to be safe source of intelligence; in\nother words, whatever supposition be made concerning any or all the\nother Gospels, if Saint Luke's Gospel be genuine, we have in it a\ncredible evidence of the point which we maintain. The Gospel according\nto Saint John appears to be, and is on all hands allowed to be, an\nindependent testimony, strictly and properly so called. Notwithstanding\ntherefore, any connexion or supposed connexion, between one of the\nGospels, I again repeat what I before said, that if any one of the four\nbe genuine, we have, in that one, strong reason, from the character and\nsituation of the writer, to believe that we possess the accounts which\nthe original emissaries of the religion delivered.\n\nSecondly: In treating of the written evidences of Christianity, next to\ntheir separate, we are to consider their aggregate authority. Now, there\nis in the evangelic history a cumulation of testimony which belongs\nhardly to any other history, but which our habitual mode of reading the\nScriptures sometimes causes us to overlook. When a passage, in any wise\nrelating to the history of Christ is read to us out of the epistle of\nClemens Romanus, the epistles of Ignatius, of Polycap, or from any other\nwriting of that age, we are immediately sensible of the confirmation\nwhich it affords to the Scripture account. Here is a new witness. Now,\nif we had been accustomed to read the Gospel of Matthew alone, and had\nknown that of Luke only as the generality of Christians know the\nwritings of the apostolical fathers, that is, had known that such a\nwriting was extant and acknowledged; when we came, for the first time,\nto look into what it contained, and found many of the facts which\nMatthew recorded, recorded also there, many other facts of a similar\nnature added, and throughout the whole work the same general series of\ntransactions stated, and the same general character of the person who\nwas the subject of the history preserved, I apprehend that we should\nfeel our minds strongly impressed by this discovery of fresh evidence.\nWe should feel a renewal of the same sentiment in first reading the\nGospel of Saint John. That of Saint Mark perhaps would strike us as an\nabridgment of the history with which we were already acquainted; but we\nshould naturally reflect, that if that history was abridged by such a\nperson as Mark, or by any person of so early an age, it afforded one of\nthe highest possible attestations to the value of the work. This\nsuccessive disclosure of proof would leave us assured, that there must\nhave been at least some reality in a story which not one, but many, had\ntaken in hand to commit to writing. The very existence of four separate\nhistories would satisfy us that the subject had a foundation; and when,\namidst the variety which the different information of the different\nwriters had supplied to their accounts, or which their different choice\nand judgment in selecting their materials had produced, we observed many\nfacts to stand the same in all; of these facts, at least, we should\nconclude, that they were fixed in their credit and publicity. If, after\nthis, we should come to the knowledge of a distinct history, and that\nalso of the same age with the rest, taking up the subject where the\nothers had left it, and carrying on a narrative of the effects produced\nin the world by the extraordinary causes of which we had already been\ninformed, and which effects subsist at this day, we should think the\nreality of the original story in no little degree established by this\nsupplement. If subsequent inquiries should bring to our knowledge, one\nafter another, letters written by some of the principal agents in the\nbusiness, upon the business, and during the time of their activity and\nconcern in it, assuming all along and recognising the original story,\nagitating the questions that arose out of it, pressing the obligations\nwhich resulted from it, giving advice and directions to these who acted\nupon it; I conceive that we should find, in every one of these, a still\nfurther support to the conclusion we had formed. At present, the weight\nof this successive confirmation is, in a great measure; unperceived by\nus. The evidence does not appear to us what it is; for, being from our\ninfancy accustomed to regard the New Testament as one book, we see in it\nonly one testimony. The whole occurs to us as a single evidence; and its\ndifferent parts not as distinct attestations, but as different portions\nonly of the same. Yet in this conception of the subject we are certainly\nmistaken; for the very discrepancies among the several documents which\nform our volume prove, if all other proof were wanting, that in their\noriginal composition they were separate, and most of them independent\nproductions.\n\nIf we dispose our ideas in a different order, the matter stands\nthus:--Whilst the transaction was recent, and the original witnesses\nwere at hand to relate it; and whilst the apostles were busied in\npreaching and travelling, in collecting disciples, in forming and\nregulating societies of converts, in supporting themselves against\nopposition; whilst they exercised their ministry under the harassings of\nfrequent persecutions, and in a state of almost continual alarm, it is\nnot probable that, in this engaged, anxious, and unsettled condition of\nlife, they would think immediately of writing histories for the\ninformation of the public or of posterity.* But it is very probable,\nthat emergencies might draw from some of them occasional letters upon\nthe subject of their mission, to converts, or to societies of\nconverts, with which they were connected; or that they might address\nwritten discourses and exhortations to the disciples of the institution\nat large, which would be received and read with a respect proportioned\nto the character of the writer. Accounts in the mean time would get\nabroad of the extraordinary things that had been passing, written with\ndifferent degrees of information and correctness. The extension of the\nChristian society, which could no longer be instructed: by a personal\nintercourse with the apostles, and the possible circulation of imperfect\nor erroneous narratives, would soon teach some amongst them the\nexpediency of sending forth authentic memoirs of the life and doctrine\nof their Master. When accounts appeared authorised by the name, and\ncredit, and situation of the writers, recommended or recognised by the\napostles and first preachers of the religion, or found to coincide with\nwhat the apostles and first preachers of the religion had taught, other\naccounts would fall into disuse and neglect; whilst these, maintaining\ntheir reputation (as, if genuine and well founded, they would do) under\nthe test of time, inquiry, and contradiction, might be expected to make\ntheir way into the hands of Christians of all countries of the world.\n\n________\n\n* This thought occurred to Eusebius: \"Nor were the apostles of Christ\ngreatly concerned about the writing of books, being engaged in a more\nexcellent ministry which is above all human power.\" Eccles. Hist. 1.\niii. c. 24.--The same consideration accounts also for the paucity of\nChristian writings in the first century of its aera.\n_________\n\n\nThis seems the natural progress of the business; and with this the\nrecords in our possession, and the evidence concerning them correspond.\nWe have remaining, in the first place, many letters of the kind above\ndescribed, which have been preserved with a care and fidelity answering\nto the respect with which we may suppose that such letters would be\nreceived. But as these letters were not written to prove the truth of\nthe Christian religion, in the sense in which we regard that question;\nnor to convey information of facts, of which those to whom the letters\nwere written had been previously informed; we are not to look in them\nfor anything more than incidental allusions to the Christian history. We\nare able, however, to gather from these documents various particular\nattestations which have been already enumerated; and this is a species\nof written evidence, as far as it goes, in the highest degree\nsatisfactory, and in point of time perhaps the first. But for our more\ncircumstantial information, we have, in the next place, five direct\nhistories, bearing the names of persons acquainted, by their situation,\nwith the truth of what they relate, and three of them purporting, in the\nvery body of the narrative, to be written by such persons; of which\nbooks we know, that some were in the hands of those who were\ncontemporaries of the apostles, and that, in the age immediately\nposterior to that, they were in the hands, we may say, of every one, and\nreceived by Christians with so much respect and deference, as to be\nconstantly quoted and referred to by them, without any doubt of the\ntruth of their accounts. They were treated as such histories, proceeding\nfrom such authorities, might expect to be treated. In the preface to one\nof our histories, we have intimations left us of the existence of some\nancient accounts which are now lost. There is nothing in this\ncircumstance that can surprise us. It was to be expected, from the\nmagnitude and novelty of the occasion, that such accounts would swarm.\nWhen better accounts came forth, these died away. Our present histories\nsuperseded others. They soon acquired a character and established a\nreputation which does not appear to have belonged to any other: that, at\nleast, can be proved concerning them which cannot be proved concerning\nany other.\n\nBut to return to the point which led to these reflections. By\nconsidering our records in either of the two views in which we have\nrepresented them, we shall perceive that we possess a connection of\nproofs, and not a naked or solitary testimony; and that the written\nevidence is of such a kind, and comes to us in such a state, as the\nnatural order and progress of things, in the infancy of the institution,\nmight be expected to produce.\n\nThirdly: The genuineness of the historical books of the New Testament is\nundoubtedly a point of importance, because the strength of their\nevidence is augmented by our knowledge of the situation of their\nauthors, their relation to the subject, and the part which they\nsustained in the transaction; and the testimonies which we are able to\nproduce compose a firm ground of persuasion, that the Gospels were\nwritten by the persons whose names they bear. Nevertheless, I must be\nallowed to state, that to the argument which I am endeavouring to\nmaintain, this point is not essential; I mean, so essential as that the\nfate of the argument depends upon it. The question before us is, whether\nthe Gospels exhibit the story which the apostles and first emissaries of\nthe religion published, and for which they acted and suffered in the\nmanner in which, for some miraculous story or other, they did act and\nsuffer. Now let us suppose that we possess no other information\nconcerning these books than that they were written by early disciples of\nChristianity; that they were known and read during the time, or near the\ntime, of the original apostles of the religion; that by Christians whom\nthe apostles instructed, by societies of Christians which the apostles\nfounded, these books were received, (by which term \"received\" I mean\nthat they were believed to contain authentic accounts of the\ntransactions upon which the religion rested, and accounts which were\naccordingly used, repeated, and relied upon,) this reception would be a\nvalid proof that these books, whoever were the authors of them, must\nhave accorded with what the apostles taught. A reception by the first\nrace of Christians, is evidence that they agreed with what the first\nteachers of the religion delivered. In particular, if they had not\nagreed with what the apostles themselves preached, how could they have\ngained credit in churches and societies which the apostles\nestablished?\n\nNow the fact of their early existence, and not only of their existence,\nbut their reputation, is made out by some ancient testimonies which do\nnot happen to specify the names of the writers: add to which, what hath\nbeen already hinted, that two out of the four Gospels contain averments\nin the body of the history, which, though they do not disclose the\nnames, fix the time and situation of the authors, viz., that one was\nwritten by an eye-witness of the sufferings of Christ, the other by a\ncontemporary of the apostles. In the Gospel of St. John (xix. 35),\ndescribing the crucifixion, with the particular circumstance of piercing\nChrist's side with a spear, the historian adds, as for himself, \"and he\nthat saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he\nsaith true, that ye might believe.\" Again (xxi. 24), after relating a\nconversation which passed between Peter and \"the disciple,\" as it is\nthere expressed, \"whom Jesus loved,\" it is added, \"this is the disciple\nwhich testifieth of these things, and wrote these things.\" This\ntestimony, let it be remarked, is not the less worthy of regard, because\nit is, in one view, imperfect. The name is not mentioned; which, if a\nfraudulent purpose had been intended, would have been done. The third of\nour present Gospels purports to have been written by the person who\nwrote the Acts of the Apostles; in which latter history, or rather\nlatter part of the same history, the author, by using in various places\nthe first person plural, declares himself to have been a contemporary of\nall, and a companion of one, of the original preachers of the religion.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nThere is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original\nwitnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours,\ndangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the\naccounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief\nof those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives,\nto new rules of conduct.\n\nOF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SCRIPTURES.\n\nNot forgetting, therefore, what credit is due to the evangelical\nhistory, supposing even any one of the four Gospels to be genuine; what\ncredit is due to the Gospels, even supposing nothing to be known\nconcerning them but that they were written by early disciples of the\nreligion, and received with deference by early Christian churches; more\nespecially not forgetting what credit is due to the New Testament in its\ncapacity of cumulative evidence; we now proceed to state the proper and\ndistinct proofs, which show not only the general value of these records,\nbut their specific authority, and the high probability there is that\nthey actually came from the persons whose names they bear.\n\nThere are, however, a few preliminary reflections, by which we may draw\nup with more regularity to the propositions upon which the close and\nparticular discussion of the subject depends. Of which nature are the\nfollowing:\n\nI. We are able to produce a great number of ancient manuscripts, found\nin many different countries, and in countries widely distant from each\nother, all of them anterior to the art of printing, some Certainly seven\nor eight hundred years old, and some which have been preserved probably\nabove a thousand years.* We have also many ancient versions of these\nbooks, and some of them into languages which are not at present, nor for\nmany ages have been, spoken in any part of the world. The existence of\nthese manuscripts and versions proves that the Scriptures were not the\nproduction of any modern contrivance. It does away also the uncertainty\nwhich hangs over such publications as the works, real or pretended, of\nOssian and Rowley, in which the editors are challenged to produce their\nmanuscripts and to show where they obtained their copies. The number of\nmanuscripts, far exceeding those of any other book, and their wide\ndispersion, afford an argument, in some measure to the senses, that the\nScriptures anciently, in like manner as at this day, were more read and\nsought after than any other books, and that also in many different\ncountries. The greatest part of spurious Christian writings are utterly\nlost, the rest preserved by some single manuscript. There is weight also\nin Dr. Bentley's observation, that the New Testament has suffered less\ninjury by the errors of transcribers than the works of any profane\nauthor of the same size and antiquity; that is, there never was any\nwriting, in the preservation and purity of which the world was so\ninterested or so careful.\n\n_________\n\n* The Alexandrian manuscript, now in the British Museum, was written\nprobably in the fourth or fifth century.\n_________\n\n\nII. An argument of great weight with those who are judges of the proofs\nupon which it is founded, and capable, through their testimony, of being\naddressed to every understanding, is that which arises from the style\nand language of the New Testament. It is just such a language as might\nbe expected from the apostles, from persons of their age and in their\nsituation, and from no other persons. It is the style neither of classic\nauthors, nor of the ancient Christian fathers, but Greek coming from men\nof Hebrew origin; abounding, that is, with Hebraic and Syriac idioms,\nsuch as would naturally be found in the writings of men who used a\nlanguage spoken indeed where they lived, but not the common dialect of\nthe country. This happy peculiarity is a strong proof of the genuineness\nof these writings: for who should forge them? The Christian fathers were\nfor the most part totally ignorant of Hebrew, and therefore were not\nlikely to insert Hebraisms and Syriasms into their writings. The few who\nhad a knowledge of the Hebrew, as Justin Martyr, Origen, and Epiphanius,\nwrote in a language which hears no resemblance to that of the New\nTestament. The Nazarenes, who understood Hebrew, used chiefly, perhaps\nalmost entirely, the Gospel of Saint Matthew, and therefore cannot be\nsuspected of forging the rest of the sacred writings. The argument, at\nany rate, proves the antiquity of these books; that they belonged to the\nage of the apostles; that they could be composed, indeed, in no other.*\n\n_________\n\n* See this argument stated more at large in Michaelis's Introduction,\n(Marsh's translation,) vol. i. c. ii. sect. 10, from which these\nobservations are taken.\n_________\n\n\nIII. Why should we question the genuineness of these books? Is it for\nthat they contain accounts of supernatural events? I apprehend that\nthis, at the bottom, is the real, though secret, cause of our hesitation\nabout them: for had the writings inscribed with the names of Matthew and\nJohn related nothing but ordinary history, there would have been no\nmore doubt whether these writings were theirs than there is concerning\nthe acknowledged works of Josephus or Philo; that is, there would have\nbeen no doubt at all. Now it ought to be considered that this reason,\nhowever it may apply to the credit which is given to a writer's judgment\nor veracity, affects the question of genuineness very indirectly. The\nworks of Bede exhibit many wonderful relations: but who, for that\nreason, doubts that they were written by Bede? The same of a multitude\nof other authors. To which may be added that we ask no more for our\nbooks than what we allow to other books in some sort similar to ours: we\ndo not deny the genuineness of the Koran; we admit that the history of\nApollonius Tyanaeus, purporting to be written by Philostratus, was\nreally written by Philostratus.\n\nIV. If it had been an easy thing in the early times of the institution\nto have forged Christian writings, and to have obtained currency and\nreception to the forgeries, we should have had many appearing in the\nname of Christ himself. No writings would have been received with so\nmuch avidity and respect as these: consequently none afforded so great a\ntemptation to forgery. Yet have we heard but of one attempt of this\nsort, deserving of the smallest notice, that in a piece of a very few\nlines, and so far from succeeding, I mean, from obtaining acceptance and\nreputation, or an acceptance an reputation in anywise similar to that\nwhich can be proved to have attended the books of the New Testament,\nthat it is not so much as mentioned by any writer of the first three\ncenturies. The learned reader need not be informed that I mean the\nepistle of Christ to Abgarus, king of Edessa, found at present in the\nwork of Eusebius,* as a piece acknowledged by him, though not without\nconsiderable doubt whether the whole passage be not an interpolation, as\nit is most certain, that, after the publication of Eusebius's work, this\nepistle was universally rejected.+\n\n_________\n\n* Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 15.\n+ Augustin, A.D. 895 (De Consens. Evan. c. 34), had heard that the\nPagans pretended to be possessed of an epistle of Christ to Peter and\nPaul; but he had  never seen it, and appears to doubt of the existence of\nany such piece either genuine or spurious. No other ancient writer\nmentions it. He also, and he alone, notices, and that in order to condemn\nit, an epistle ascribed to Christ by the Manichees, A.D. 270, and a short\nhymn attributed to him by the Priscillianists, A.D. 378 (cont. Faust. Man.\nLib xxviii, c,4). The lateness of the writer who notices these things, the\nmanner in which he notices them, and above all, the silence of every\npreceding writer, render them unworthy on of consideration.\n_________\n\n\nV. If the ascription of the Gospels to their respective authors had been\narbitrary or conjectural, they would have been ascribed to more eminent\nmen. This observation holds concerning the first three Gospels, the\nreputed authors of which were enabled, by their situation, to obtain\ntrue intelligence, and were likely to deliver an honest account of what\nthey knew, but were persons not distinguished in the history by\nextraordinary marks of notice or commendation. Of the apostles, I hardly\nknow any one of whom less is said than of Matthew, or of whom the little\nthat is said is less calculated to magnify his character. Of Mark,\nnothing is said in the Gospels; and what is said of any person of that\nname in the Acts, and in the epistles, in no part bestows praise or\neminence upon him. The name of Luke is mentioned only in St Paul's\nepistles,* and that very transiently. The judgment, therefore, which\nassigned these writings to these authors proceeded, it may be presumed,\nupon proper knowledge and evidence, and not upon a voluntary choice of\nnames.\n\nVI. Christian writers and Christian churches appear to have soon arrived\nat a very general agreement upon the subject, and that without the\ninterposition of any public authority. When the diversity of opinion\nwhich prevailed, and prevails among Christians in other points, is\nconsidered, their concurrence in the canon of Scripture is remarkable,\nand of great weight, especially as it seems to have been the result of\nprivate and free inquiry. We have no knowledge of any interference of\nauthority in the question before the council of Laodicea in the year\n363.  Probably the decree of this council rather declared than regulated\nthe public judgment, or, more properly speaking, the judgment of some\nneighbouring churches; the council itself consisting of no more than\nthirty or forty bishops of Lydia and the adjoining countries.+ Nor does\nits authority seem to have extended further; for we find numerous\nChristian writers, after this time, discussing the question, \"What books\nwere entitled to be received as Scripture,\" with great freedom, upon\nproper grounds of evidence, and without any reference to the decision at\nLaodicea.\n\n_________\n\n* Col. iv. 14. 2Tim. iv. 11. Philem. 24.\n+ Lardner, Cred. vol. viii. P.291, et seq.\n_________\n\n\nThese considerations are not to be neglected: but of an argument\nconcerning the genuineness of ancient writings, the substance,\nundoubtedly, and strength, is ancient testimony.\n\nThis testimony it is necessary to exhibit somewhat in detail; for when\nChristian advocates merely tell us that we have the same reason for\nbelieving the Gospels to be written by the evangelists whose names they\nbear as we have for believing the Commentaries to be Caesar's, the\nAeneid Virgil's, or the Orations Cicero's, they content themselves with\nan imperfect representation. They state nothing more than what is true,\nbut they do not state the truth correctly. In the number, variety, and\nearly date of our testimonies, we far exceed all other ancient books.\nFor one which the most celebrated work of the most celebrated\nGreek or Roman writer can allege, we produce many. But then it is more\nrequisite in our books than in theirs to separate and distinguish them\nfrom spurious competitors. The result, I am convinced, will be\nsatisfactory to every fair inquirer: but this circumstance renders an\ninquiry necessary.\n\nIn a work, however, like the present, there is a difficulty in finding a\nplace for evidence of this kind. To pursue the details of proof\nthroughout, would be to transcribe a great part of Dr. Lardner's eleven\noctavo volumes: to leave the argument without proofs is to leave it\nwithout effect; for the persuasion produced by this species of evidence\ndepends upon a view and induction of the particulars which compose it.\n\nThe method which I propose to myself is, first, to place before the\nreader, in one view, the propositions which comprise the several heads\nof our testimony, and afterwards to repeat the same propositions in so\nmany distinct sections, with the necessary authorities subjoined to\neach.*\n\n_________\n\n* The reader, when he has the propositions before him, will observe that\nthe argument, if he should omit the sections, proceeds connectedly from\nthis point.\n_________\n\n\nThe following, then, are the allegations upon the subject which are\ncapable of being established by proof:--\n\nI. That the historical books of the New Testament, meaning thereby the\nfour Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, are quoted, or alluded to, by\na series of Christian writers, beginning with those who were\ncontemporary with the apostles, or who immediately followed them, and\nproceeding in close and regular succession from their time to the present.\n\nII. That when they are quoted, or alluded to, they are quoted or alluded\nto with peculiar respect, as books 'sui generis'; as possessing an\nauthority which belonged to no other books, and as conclusive in all\nquestions and controversies amongst Christians.\n\nIII. That they were, in very early times, collected into a distinct\nvolume.\n\nIV. That they were distinguished by appropriate names and titles of\nrespect.\n\nV. That they were publicly read and expounded in the religious\nassemblies of the early Christians.\n\nVI. That commentaries were written upon them, harmonies formed out of\nthem, different copies carefully collated, and versions of them made\ninto different languages.\n\nVII. That they were received by Christians of different sects, by many\nheretics as well as Catholics, and usually appealed to by both sides in\nthe controversies which arose in those days.\n\nVIII. That the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles\nof Saint Paul, the first epistle of John, and the first of-Peter, were\nreceived without doubt by those who doubted concerning the other books\nwhich are included in our present canon.\n\nIX. That the Gospels were attacked by the early adversaries of\nChristianity, as books containing the accounts upon which the religion\nwas founded.\n\nX. That formal catalogues of authentic Scriptures were published; in all\nwhich our present sacred histories were included.\n\nXI. That these propositions cannot be affirmed of any other books\nclaiming to be books of Scripture; by which are meant those books which\nare commonly called apocryphal books of the New Testament.\n\n\n\n\n\nSECTION I.\n\nThe historical books of the New Testament, meaning thereby the four\nGospels and the Acts of the Apostles, are quoted, or alluded to, by a\nseries of Christian writers, beginning with those who were contemporary\nwith the apostles, or who immediately followed them, and proceeding in\nclose and regular succession from their time to the present.\n\nThe medium of proof stated in this proposition is, of all others, the\nmost unquestionable, the least liable to any practices of fraud, and is\nnot diminished by the lapse of ages. Bishop Burnet, in the History of\nhis Own Times, inserts various extracts from Lord Clarendon's History.\nOne such insertion is a proof that Lord Clarendon's History was extant\nat the time when Bishop Burnet wrote, that it had been read by Bishop\nBurnet, that it was received by Bishop Burnet as a work of Lord\nClarendon, and also regarded by him as an authentic account of the\ntransactions which it relates; and it will be a proof of these points a\nthousand years hence, or as long as the books exist.  Quintilian having\nquoted as Cicero's, (Quint, lib. xl. c. l.) that well known trait of\ndissembled vanity:--\"Si quid est in me ingenii, Judices, quod sentio\nquam sit exiguum;\"--the quotation would be strong evidence, were there\nany doubt, that the oration, which opens with this address, actually\ncame from Cicero's pen. These instances, however simple, may serve to\npoint out to a reader who is little accustomed to such researches the\nnature and value of the argument.\n\nThe testimonies which we have to bring forward under this proposition\nare the following:--\n\nI. There is extant an epistle ascribed to Barnabas,* the companion of\nPaul. It is quoted as the epistle of Barnabas, by Clement of Alexandria,\nA.D. CXCIV; by Origen, A.D. CCXXX. It is mentioned by Eusebius, A.D.\nCCCXV, and by Jerome, A.D.  CCCXCII, as an ancient work in their time,\nbearing the name of Barnabas, and as well known and read amongst\nChristians, though not accounted a part of Scripture. It purports to\nhave been written soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, during the\ncalamities which followed that disaster; and it bears the character of\nthe age to which it professes to belong.\n\n_________\n\n* Lardner, Cred. edit. 1755, vol. i. p. 23, et seq. The reader will\nobserve from the references, that the materials of these sections are\nalmost entirely extracted from Dr. Lardner's work; my office consisted\nin arrangement and selection.\n_________\n\n\nIn this epistle appears the following remarkable passage:--\"Let us,\ntherefore, beware lest it come upon us, as it is written; There are many\ncalled, few chosen.\" From the expression, \"as it is written,\" we infer\nwith certainty, that at the time when the author of this epistle lived,\nthere was a book extant, well known to Christians, and of authority\namongst them, containing these words:--\"Many are called, few chosen.\"\nSuch a book is our present Gospel of Saint Matthew, in which this text\nis twice found, (Matt xx. 16; xxii. 14.) and is found in no other book\nnow known. There is a further observation to be made upon the terms of\nthe quotation. The writer of the epistle was a Jew. The phrase \"it is\nwritten\" was the very form in which the Jews quoted their Scriptures. It\nis not probable, therefore, that he would have used this phrase, and\nwithout qualification, of any book but what had acquired a kind of\nScriptural authority. If the passage remarked in this ancient writing\nhad been found in one of Saint Paul's Epistles, it would have been\nesteemed by every one a high testimony to Saint Matthew's Gospel. It\nought, therefore, to be remembered, that the writing in which it is\nfound was probably by very few years posterior to those of Saint Paul.\n\nBeside this passage, there are also in the epistle before us several\nothers, in which the sentiment is the same with what we meet with in\nSaint Matthew's Gospel, and two or three in which we recognize the same\nwords. In particular, the author of the epistle repeats the precept,\n\"Give to every one that asketh thee;\" (Matt. v. 42.) and saith that\nChrist chose as his apostles, who were to preach the Gospel, men who\nwere great sinners, that he might show that he came \"not to call the\nrighteous, but sinners to repentance.\" (Matt. Ix. 13.)\n\nII. We are in possession of an epistle written by Clement, bishop of\nRome, (Lardner, Cred. vol. p. 62, et seq.) whom ancient writers, without\nany doubt or scruple, assert to have been the Clement whom Saint Paul\nmentions, Phil. iv. 3; \"with Clement also, and other my\nfellow-labourers, whose names are in the book of life.\" This epistle is\nspoken of by the ancients as an epistle acknowledged by all; and, as\nIrenaeus well represents its value, \"written by Clement, who had seen\nthe blessed apostles, and conversed with them; who had the preaching of\nthe apostles still sounding in his ears, and their traditions before his\neyes.\" It is addressed to the church of Corinth; and what alone may seem\nalmost decisive of its authenticity, Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, about\nthe year 170, i. e. about eighty or ninety years after the epistle was\nwritten, bears witness, \"that it had been wont to be read in that church\nfrom ancient times.\"\n\nThis epistle affords, amongst others, the following valuable\npassages:--\"Especially remembering the words of the Lord Jesus, which he\nspake teaching gentleness and long-suffering: for thus he said:* Be ye\nmerciful, that ye may obtain mercy; forgive, that it my be forgiven unto\nyou; as you do, so shall it be done unto you; as you give, so shall it\nbe given unto you; as ye judge, so shall ye be judged; as ye show\nkindness, so shall kindness be shown unto you; with what measure ye mete,\nwith the same shall it be measured to you. By this command, and by these\nrules, let us establish ourselves, that we  may always walk obediently\nto his holy words.\"\n\n_________\n\n* \"Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.\" Matt. v.\n7.--\"Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; give, and it shall be given unto\nyou.\" Luke vi. 37, 38.--\"Judge not, that ye be not judged; for with what\njudgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it\nshall be measured to you again.\" Matt. vii. 1, 2.\n_________\n\n\nAgain; \"Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, for he said, Woe to that\nman by whom offences come; it were better for him that he had not been\nborn, than that he should offend one of my elect; it were better for him\nthat a millstone should be tied about his neck, and that he should be\ndrowned in the sea, than that he should offend one of my little ones.\"*\n\n_________\n\n* Matt. xviii. 6. \"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which\nbelieve in me, it were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged\nabout his neck, and that he were cast into the sea.\" The latter part of\nthe passage in Clement agrees exactly with Luke xvii. 2; \"It were better\nfor him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into\nthe sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.\"\n_________\n\n\nIn both these passages we perceive the high respect paid to the words of\nChrist as recorded by the evangelists; \"Remember the words of the Lord\nJesus;--by this command, and by these rules, let us establish ourselves,\nthat we may always walk obediently to his holy words.\" We perceive also\nin Clement a total unconsciousness of doubt whether these were the real\nwords of Christ, which are read as such in the Gospels. This observation\nindeed belongs to the whole series of testimony, and especially to the\nmost ancient part of it. Whenever anything now read in the Gospels is\nmet with in an early Christian writing, it is always observed to stand\nthere as acknowledged truth, i. e. to be introduced without hesitation,\ndoubt, or apology. It is to be observed also, that, as this epistle was\nwritten in the name of the church of Rome, and addressed to the church\nof Corinth, it ought to be taken as exhibiting the judgment not only of\nClement, who drew up the letter, but of these churches themselves, at\nleast as to the authority of the books referred to.\n\nIt may be said that, as Clement has not used words of quotation, it is\nnot certain that he refers to any book whatever. The words of Christ\nwhich he has put down, he might himself have heard from the apostles, or\nmight have received through the ordinary medium of oral tradition. This\nhas been said: but that no such inference can be drawn from the absence\nof words of quotation, is proved by the three following\nconsiderations:--First, that Clement, in the very same manner, namely,\nwithout any mark of reference, uses a passage now found in the epistle\nto the Romans; (Rom. i. 29.) which passage, from the peculiarity of the\nwords which compose it, and from their order, it is manifest that he\nmust have taken from the book. The same remark may be repeated of some\nvery singular sentiments in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Secondly, that\nthere are many sentences of Saint Paul's First Epistle to the\nCorinthians standing in Clement's epistle without any sign of quotation,\nwhich yet certainly are quotations; because it appears that Clement had\nSaint Paul's epistle before him, inasmuch as in one place he mentions it\nin terms too express to leave us in any doubt:--\"Take into your hands\nthe epistle of the blessed apostle Paul.\" Thirdly, that this method of\nadopting words of Scripture without reference or acknowledgment was, as\nwill appear in the sequel, a method in general use amongst the most\nancient Christian writers.--These analogies not only repel the\nobjection, but cast the presumption on the other side, and afford a\nconsiderable degree of positive proof, that the words in question have\nbeen borrowed from the places of Scripture in which we now find them.\nBut take it if you will the other way, that Clement had heard these\nwords from the apostles or first teachers of Christianity; with respect\nto the precise point of our argument, viz. that the Scriptures contain\nwhat the apostles taught, this supposition may serve almost as well.\n\nIII. Near the conclusion of the epistle to the Romans, Saint Paul,\namongst others, sends the following salutation: \"Salute Asyncritus,\nPhlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with\nthem.\" Of Hermas, who appears in this catalogue of Roman Christians as\ncontemporary with Saint Paul, a book bearing the name, and it is most\nprobably rightly, is still remaining. It is called the Shepherd,\n(Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 111.) or pastor of Hermas. Its antiquity is\nincontestable, from the quotations of it in Irenaeus, A.D. 178; Clement\nof Alexandria, A.D. 194; Tertullian, A.D. 200; Origen, A.D. 230. The\nnotes of time extant in the epistle itself agree with its title, and\nwith the testimonies concerning it, for it purports to have been written\nduring the life-time of Clement.\n\nIn this place are tacit allusions to Saint Matthew's, Saint Luke's, and\nSaint John's Gospels; that is to say, there are applications of thoughts\nand expressions found in these Gospels, without citing the place or\nwriter from which they were taken. In this form appear in Hermas the\nconfessing and denying of Christ; (Matt. x. :i2, 33, or, Luke xli. 8,\n9.) the parable of the seed sown (Matt. xiii. 3, or, Luke viii. 5); the\ncomparison of Christ's disciples to little children; the saying \"he that\nputteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery\" (Luke\nxvi. 18.); The singular expression, \"having received all power from his\nFather,\" in probable allusion to Matt. xxviii. 18; and Christ being the\n\"gate,\" or only way of coming \"to God,\" in plain allusion to John xiv.\n6; x. 7, 9. There is also a probable allusion to Acts v. 32.\n\nThis piece is the representation of a vision, and has by many been\naccounted a weak and fanciful performance. I therefore observe, that the\ncharacter of the writing has little to do with the purpose for which we\nadduce it. It is the age in which it was composed that gives the value\nto its testimony.\n\nIV. Ignatius, as it is testified by ancient Christian writers, became\nbishop of Antioch about thirty-seven years after Christ's ascension;\nand, therefore, from his time, and place, and station, it is probable\nthat he had known and conversed with many of the apostles. Epistles of\nIgnatius are referred to by Polycarp, his contemporary. Passages found\nin the epistles now extant under his name are quoted by Irenaeus, A.D.\n178; by Origen, A.D. 230; and the occasion of writing the epistles is\ngiven at large by Eusebius and Jerome. What are called the smaller\nepistles of Ignatius are generally deemed to be those which were read by\nIrenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius (Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 147.).\n\nIn these epistles are various undoubted allusions to the Gospels of\nSaint Matthew and Saint John; yet so far of the same form with those in\nthe preceding articles, that, like them, they are not accompanied with\nmarks of quotation.\n\nOf these allusions the following are clear specimens:\n\nMatt.*: \"Christ was baptized of John, that all righteousness might be\nfulfilled by him.\" \"Be ye wise as serpents in all things, and harmless\nas a dove.\"\n\nJohn+: \"Yet the Spirit is not deceived, being from God: for it knows\nwhence it comes and whither it goes.\"  \"He (Christ) is the door of the\nFather, by which enter in Abraham and Isaac, and Jacob, and the\napostles, and the church.\"\n\n_________\n\n* Chap. iii. 15. \"For thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness.\"\nChap. x. 16. \"Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.\"\n\n+ Chap. iii. 8. \"The wind bloweth where it listeth and thou hearest the\nsound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it\ngoeth; so is everyone that is born of the Spirit.\" Chap. x. 9. \"I am the\ndoor; by me if any man enter in he shall be saved.\"\n_________\n\n\nAs to the manner of quotation, this is observable;--Ignatius, in one\nplace, speaks of St. Paul in terms of high respect, and quotes his\nEpistle to the Ephesians by name; yet, in several other places, he\nborrows words and sentiments from the same epistle without mentioning\nit; which shows that this was his general manner of using and applying\nwritings then extant, and then of high authority.\n\nV. Polycarp (Lardner, Cred. vol. i. 192.) had been taught by the\napostles; had conversed with many who had seen Christ; was also by the\napostles appointed bishop of Smyrna. This testimony concerning Polycarp\nis given by Irenaeus, who in his youth had seen him:--\"I can tell the\nplace,\" saith Irenaeus, \"in which the blessed Polycarp sat and taught,\nand his going out and coming in, and the manner of his life, and the\nform of his person, and the discourses he made to the people, and how he\nrelated his conversation with John, and others who had seen the Lord,\nand how he related their sayings, and what he had heard concerning the\nLord, both concerning his miracles and his doctrine, as he had received\nthem from the eyewitnesses of the word of life: all which Polycarp\nrelated agreeable to the Scriptures.\"\n\nOf Polycarp, whose proximity to the age and country and persons of the\napostles is thus attested, we have one undoubted epistle remaining. And\nthis, though a short letter, contains nearly forty clear allusions to\nbooks of the New Testament; which is strong evidence of the respect\nwhich Christians of that age bore for these books.\n\nAmongst these, although the writings of St. Paul are more frequently\nused by Polycarp than any other parts of Scripture, there are copious\nallusions to the Gospel of St. Matthew, some to passages found in the\nGospels both of Matthew and Luke, and some which more nearly resemble\nthe words in Luke.\n\nI select the following as fixing the authority of the Lord's prayer, and\nthe use of it amongst the primitive Christians: \"If therefore we pray\nthe Lord, that he will forgive us, we ought also to forgive.\"\n\n\"With supplication beseeching the all-seeing God not to lead us into\ntemptation.\"\n\nAnd the following, for the sake of repeating an observation already\nmade, that words of our Lord found in our Gospels were at this early day\nquoted as spoken by him; and not only so, but quoted with so little\nquestion or consciousness of doubt about their being really his words,\nas not even to mention, much less to canvass, the authority from which\nthey were taken:\n\n\"But remembering what the Lord said, teaching, Judge not, that ye be not\njudged; forgive, and ye shall be forgiven; be ye merciful, that ye may\nobtain mercy; with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you\nagain.\" (Matt. vii. 1, 2; v. 7; Luke vi. 37, 38.)\n\nSupposing Polycarp to have had these words from the books in which we\nnow find them, it is manifest that these books were considered by him,\nand, as he thought, considered by his readers, us authentic accounts of\nChrist's discourses; and that that point was incontestible [sic].\n\nThe following is a decisive, though what we call a tacit reference to\nSt. Peter's speech in the Acts of the Apostles:--\"whom God hath raised,\nhaving loosed the pains of death.\" (Acts ii. 24.)\n\nVI. Papias, (Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 239.) a hearer of John, and\ncompanion of Polycarp, as Irenaeus attests, and of that age, as all\nagree, in a passage quoted by Eusebius, from a work now lost, expressly\nascribes the respective Gospels to Matthew and Mark; and in a manner\nwhich proves that these Gospels must have publicly borne the names of\nthese authors at that time, and probably long before; for Papias does\nnot say that one Gospel was written by Matthew, and another by Mark;\nbut, assuming this as perfectly well known, he tells us from what\nmaterials Mark collected his account, viz. from Peter's preaching, and\nin what language Matthew wrote, viz. in Hebrew. Whether Papias was well\ninformed in this statement, or not; to the point for which I produce\nthis testimony, namely, that these books bore these names at this time,\nhis authority is complete.\n\nThe writers hitherto alleged had all lived and conversed with some of\nthe apostles. The works of theirs which remain are in general very short\npieces, yet rendered extremely valuable by their antiquity; and none,\nshort as they are, but what contain some important testimony to our\nhistorical Scriptures.*\n\n_________\n\n* That the quotations are more thinly strewn in these than in the\nwritings of the next and of succeeding ages, is in a good measure\naccounted for by the observation, that the Scriptures of the New\nTestament had not yet, nor by their recency hardly could have, become a\ngeneral part of Christian education; read as the Old Testament was by\nJews and Christians from their childhood, and thereby intimately mixing,\nas that had long done, with all their religious ideas, and with their\nlanguage upon religious subjects. In process of time, and as soon\nperhaps as could be expected, this came to be the case. And then we\nperceive the effect, in a proportionably greater frequency, as well as\ncopiousness of allusion.--Mich. Introd. c. ii. sect. vi.\n_________\n\n\nVII. Not long after these, that is, not much more than twenty years\nafter the last, follows Justin Martyr (Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 258.).\nHis remaining works are much larger than any that have yet been noticed.\nAlthough the nature of his two principal writings, one of which was\naddressed to heathens, and the other was a conference with a Jew, did\nnot lead him to such frequent appeals to Christian books as would have\nappeared in a discourse intended for Christian readers; we nevertheless\nreckon up in them between twenty and thirty quotations of the Gospels\nand Acts of the Apostles, certain, distinct, and copious: if each verse\nbe counted separately, a much greater number; if each expression, a very\ngreat one.*\n\n_________\n\n* \"He cites our present canon, and particularly our four Gospels,\ncontinually, I dare say, above two hundred times.\" Jones's New and Full\nMethod. Append. vol. i. p. 589, ed. 1726.\n_________\n\n\nWe meet with quotations of three of the Gospels within the compass of\nhalf a page: \"And in other words he says, Depart from me into outer\ndarkness, which the Father hath prepared for Satan and his angels,\"\n(which is from Matthew xxv. 41.) \"And again he said, in other words, I\ngive unto you power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and venomous\nbeasts, and upon all the power of the enemy.\" (This from Luke x. 19.)\n\"And before he was crucified, he said, The Son of Man must suffer many\nthings, and be rejected of the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified,\nand rise again the third day.\" (This from Mark viii. 31.)\n\nIn another place Justin quotes a passage in the history of Christ's\nbirth, as delivered by Matthew and John, and fortifies his quotation by\nthis remarkable testimony: \"As they have taught, who have written the\nhistory of all things concerning our Saviour Jesus Christ; and we\nbelieve them.\" Quotations are also found from the Gospel of Saint John.\nWhat moreover seems extremely material to be observed is, that in all\nJustin's works, from which might be extracted almost a complete life of\nChrist, there are but two instances in which he refers to anything as\nsaid or done by Christ, which is not related concerning him in our\npresent Gospels: which shows, that these Gospels, and these, we may say,\nalone, were the authorities from which the Christians of that day drew\nthe information upon which they depended. One of these instances is of a\nsaying of Christ, not met with in any book now extant.+\n\n_________\n\n+ \"Wherefore also our Lord Jesus Christ has said, In whatsoever I shall\nfind you, in the same I will also judge you.\" Possibly Justin designed\nnot to quote any text, but to represent the sense of many of our Lord's\nsayings. Fabrieius has observed, that this saying has been quoted by\nmany writers, and that Justin is the only one who ascribes it to our\nLord, and that perhaps by a slip of his memory. Words resembling these\nare read repeatedly in Ezekiel; \"I will judge them according to their\nways;\" (chap. vii. 3; xxxiii. 20.) It is remarkable that Justin had just\nbefore expressly quoted Ezekiel. Mr. Jones upon this circumstance founded\na conjecture, that Justin wrote only \"the Lord hath said,\" intending to\nquote the words of God, or rather the sense of those words in Ezekiel;\nand that some transcriber, imagining these to be the words of Christ,\ninserted in his copy the addition \"Jesus Christ.\" Vol. 1. p. 539.\n_________\n\n\nThe other of a circumstance in Christ's baptism, namely, a fiery or\nluminous appearance upon the water, which, according to Epiphanius, is\nnoticed in the Gospel of the Hebrews: and which might be true: but\nwhich, whether true or false, is mentioned by Justin, with a plain mark\nof diminution when compared with what he quotes as resting upon\nScripture authority. The reader will advert to this distinction: \"and\nthen, when Jesus came to the river Jordan, where John was baptizing, as\nJesus descended into the water, a fire also was kindled in Jordan: and\nwhen he came up out of the water, (the apostles of this our Christ have\nwritten), that the Holy Ghost lighted upon him as a dove.\"\n\nAll the references in Justin are made without mentioning the author;\nwhich proves that these books were perfectly notorious, and that there\nwere no other accounts of Christ then extant, or, at least, no other so\nreceived and credited as to make it necessary to distinguish these from\nthe rest.\n\nBut although Justin mentions not the author's name, he calls the books,\n\"Memoirs composed by the Apostles;\" \"Memoirs composed by the Apostles\nand their Companions;\" which descriptions, the latter especially,\nexactly suit with the titles which the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles\nnow bear.\n\nVIII. Hegesippus (Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 314.) came about thirty\nyears after Justin. His testimony is remarkable only for this\nparticular; that he relates of himself that, travelling from Palestine\nto Rome, he visited, on his journey, many bishops; and that, \"in every\nsuccession, and in every city, the same doctrine is taught, which the\nLaw and the Prophets, and the Lord teacheth.\" This is an important\nattestation, from good authority, and of high antiquity. It is generally\nunderstood that by the word \"Lord,\" Hegesippus intended some writing or\nwritings, containing the teaching of Christ; in which sense alone the\nterm combines with the other term \"Law and Prophets,\" which denote\nwritings; and together with them admit of the verb \"teacheth\" in the\npresent tense. Then, that these writings were some or all of the books\nof the New Testament, is rendered probable from hence, that in the\nfragments of his works, which are preserved in Eusebius, and in a writer\nof the ninth century, enough, though it be little, is left to show, that\nHegesippus expressed divers thing in the style of the Gospels, and of\nthe Acts of the Apostles; that he referred to the history in the second\nchapter of Matthew, and recited a text of that Gospel as spoken by our\nLord.\n\nIX. At this time, viz. about the year 170, the churches of Lyons and\nVienne, in France, sent a relation of the sufferings of their martyrs to\nthe churches of Asia and Phrygia. (Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 332.) The\nepistle is preserved entire by Eusebius. And what carries in some\nmeasure the testimony of these churches to a higher age, is, that they\nhad now for their bishop, Pothinus, who was ninety years old, and whose\nearly life consequently must have immediately joined on with the times\nof the apostles. In this epistle are exact references to the Gospels of\nLuke and John, and to the Acts of the Apostles; the form of reference\nthe same as in all the preceding articles. That from Saint John is in\nthese words: \"Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the Lord, that\nwhosoever killeth you, will think that he doeth God service.\" (John xvi.\n2.)\n\nX. The evidence now opens upon us full and clear. Irenaeus (Lardner,\nvol. i. p. 344.) succeeded Pothinus as bishop of Lyons. In his youth he\nhad been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John. In the time\nin which he lived, he was distant not much more than a century from the\npublication of the Gospels; in his instruction only by one step\nseparated from the persons of the apostles. He asserts of himself and\nhis contemporaries, that they were able to reckon up, in all the\nprincipal churches, the succession of bishops from the first. (Adv.\nHaeres. 1. iii. c. 3.) I remark these particulars concerning Irenaeus\nwith more formality than usual, because the testimony which this writer\naffords to the historical books of the New Testament, to their\nauthority, and to the titles which they bear, is express, positive, and\nexclusive. One principal passage, in which this testimony is contained,\nopens with a precise assertion of the point which we have laid down as\nthe foundation of our argument, viz., that the story which the Gospels\nexhibit is the story which the apostles told. \"We have not received,\"\nsaith Irenaeus, \"the knowledge of the way of our salvation by any others\nthan those by whom the Gospel has been brought to us. Which Gospel they\nfirst preached, and afterwards, by the will of God, committed to\nwriting, that it might be for time to come the foundation and pillar of\nour faith.--For after that our Lord arose from the dead, and they (the\napostles) were endowed from above with the power of the Holy Ghost\ncoming down upon them, they received a perfect knowledge of all things.\nThey then went forth to all the ends of the earth, declaring to men the\nMessage of heavenly peace, having all of them, and every one, alike the\nGospel of God. Matthew then, among the Jews, wrote a Gospel in their own\nlanguage, while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome, and\nfounding a church there: and after their exit, Mark also, the disciple\nand interpreter of Peter, delivered to us in writing the things that had\nbeen preached by Peter and Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a\nbook the Gospel preached by him (Paul). Afterwards John, the disciple of\nthe Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, he likewise published a\nGospel while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia.\" If any modern divine should\nwrite a book upon the genuineness of the Gospels, he could not assert it\nmore expressly, or state their original more distinctly, than Irenaeus\nhath done within little more than a hundred years after they were\npublished.\n\nThe correspondency, in the days of Irenaeus, of the oral and written\ntradition, and the deduction of the oral tradition through various\nchannels from the age of the apostles, which was then lately passed,\nand, by consequence, the probability that the books truly delivered what\nthe apostles taught, is inferred also with strict regularity from\nanother passage of his works. \"The tradition of the apostles,\" this\nfather saith, \"hath spread itself over the whole universe; and all they\nwho search after the sources of truth will find this tradition to be\nheld sacred in every church, We might enumerate all those who have been\nappointed bishops to these churches by the apostles, and all their\nsuccessors, up to our days. It is by this uninterrupted succession that\nwe have received the tradition which actually exists in the church, as\nalso the doctrines of truth, as it was preached by the apostles.\" (Iren.\nin Haer. I. iii. c. 3.) The reader will observe upon this, that the same\nIrenaeus, who is now stating the strength and uniformity of the\ntradition, we have before seen recognizing, in the fullest manner, the\nauthority of the written records; from which we are entitled to\nconclude, that they were then conformable to each other.\n\nI have said that the testimony of Irenaeus in favour of our Gospels is\nexclusive of all others. I allude to a remarkable passage in his works,\nin which, for some reasons sufficiently fanciful, he endeavours to show\nthat there could he neither more nor fewer Gospels than four. With his\nargument we have no concern. The position itself proves that four, and\nonly four, Gospels were at that time publicly read and acknowledged.\nThat these were our Gospels, and in the state in which we now have them,\nis shown from many other places of this writer beside that which we have\nalready alleged. He mentions how Matthew begins his Gospel, bow Mark\nbegins and ends his, and their supposed reasons for so doing. He\nenumerates at length the several passages of Christ's history in Luke,\nwhich are not found in any of the other evangelists. He states the\nparticular design with which Saint John composed his Gospel, and\naccounts for the doctrinal declarations which precede the narrative.\n\nTo the book of the Acts of the Apostles, its author, and credit, the\ntestimony of Irenaeus is no less explicit. Referring to the account of\nSaint Paul's conversion and vocation, in the ninth chapter of that book,\n\"Nor can they,\" says he, meaning the parties with whom he argues, \"show\nthat he is not to be credited, who has related to us the truth with the\ngreatest exactness.\" In another place, he has actually collected the\nseveral texts, in which the writer of the history is represented as\naccompanying Saint Paul; which leads him to deliver a summary of almost\nthe whole of the last twelve chapters of the book.\n\nIn an author thus abounding with references and allusions to the\nScriptures, there is not one to any apocryphal Christian writing\nwhatever. This is a broad line of distinction between our sacred books\nand the pretensions of all others.\n\nThe force of the testimony of the period which we have considered is\ngreatly strengthened by the observation, that it is the testimony, and\nthe concurring testimony, of writers who lived in countries remote from\none another. Clement flourished at Rome, Ignatius at Antioch, Polycarp\nat Smyrna, Justin Martyr in Syria, and Irenaeus in France.\n\nXI. Omitting Athenagoras and Theophilus, who lived about this\ntime; (Lardner, vol. i. p. 400 &  422.) in the remaining works of the\nformer of whom are clear references to Mark and Luke; and in the works\nof the latter, who was bishop of Antioch, the sixth in succession from\nthe apostles, evident allusions to Matthew and John, and probable\nallusions to Luke (which, considering the nature of the compositions,\nthat they were addressed to heathen readers, is as much as could be\nexpected); observing also, that the works of two learned Christian\nwriters of the same age, Miltiades and Pantaenus, (Lardner, vol. i. p.413,\n450.) are now lost: of which Miltiades Eusebius records, that his\nwritings \"were monuments of zeal for the Divine Oracles;\" and which\nPantaenus, as Jerome testifies, was a man of prudence and learning, both\nin the Divine Scriptures and secular literature, and had left many\ncommentaries upon the Holy Scriptures then extant. Passing by these\nwithout further remark, we come to one of the most voluminous of ancient\nChristian writers, Clement of Alexandria (Lardner, vol. ii. p. 469.).\nClement followed Irenaeus at the distance of only sixteen years, and\ntherefore may be said to maintain the series of testimony in an\nuninterrupted continuation.\n\nIn certain of Clement's works, now lost, but of which various parts are\nrecited by Eusebius, there is given a distinct account of the order in\nwhich the four Gospels were written. The Gospels which contain the\ngenealogies were (he says) written first; Mark's next, at the instance\nof Peter's followers; and John's the last; and this account he tells us\nthat he had received from presbyters of more ancient times. This\ntestimony proves the following points; that these Gospels were the\nhistories of Christ then publicly received and relied upon; and that the\ndates, occasions, and circumstances, of their publication were at that\ntime subjects of attention and inquiry amongst Christians. In the works\nof Clement which remain, the four Gospels are repeatedly quoted by the\nnames of their authors, and the Acts of the Apostles is expressly\nascribed to Luke. In one place, after mentioning a particular\ncircumstance, he adds these remarkable words: \"We have not this passage\nin the four Gospels delivered to us, but in that according to the\nEgyptians;\" which puts a marked distinction between the four Gospels and\nall other histories, or pretended histories, of Christ. In another part\nof his works, the perfect confidence with which he received the Gospels\nis signified by him in these words: \"That this is true appears from\nhence, that it is written in the Gospel according to Saint Luke;\" and\nagain, \"I need not use many words, but only to allege the evangelic\nvoice of the Lord.\" His quotations are numerous. The sayings of Christ,\nof which he alleges many, are all taken from our Gospels; the single\nexception to this observation appearing to be a loose quotation of a\npassage in Saint Matthew's Gospel.*\n\n_________\n\n* \"Ask great things and the small shall be added unto you.\" Clement\nrather chose to expound the words of Matthew (chap. vi. 33), than\nliterally to cite them; and this is most undeniably proved by another\nplace in the same Clement, where he both produces the text and these\nwords am an exposition:--\"Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven and its\nrighteousness, for these are the great things; but the small things, and\nthings relating to this life, shall be added unto you.\" Jones's New and\nFull Method, vol. i. p. 553.\n_________\n\n\nXII. In the age in which they lived, (Lardner, vol. ii. p. 561.)\nTertullian joins on with Clement. The number of the Gospels then\nreceived, the names of the evangelists, and their proper descriptions,\nare exhibited by this writer in one short sentence:--\"Among the apostles\nJohn and Matthew teach us the faith; among apostolical men, Luke and\nMark refresh it.\" The next passage to be taken from Tertullian affords\nas complete an attestation to the authenticity of our books as can be\nwell imagined. After enumerating the churches which had been founded by\nPaul at Corinth, in Galatia, at Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus; the\nchurch of Rome established by Peter and Paul, and other churches derived\nfrom John; he proceeds thus:--\"I say, then, that with them, but not with\nthem only which are apostolical, but with all who have fellowship with\nthem in the same faith, is that Gospel of Luke received from its first\npublication, which we so zealously maintain:\" and presently afterwards\nadds, \"The same authority of the apostolical churches will support the\nother Gospels which we have from them and according to them, I mean\nJohn's and Matthew's; although that likewise which Mark published may be\nsaid to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was.\" In another place\nTertullian affirms, that the three other Gospels were in the hands of\nthe churches from the beginning, as well as Luke's. This noble testimony\nfixes the universality with which the Gospels were received and their\nantiquity; that they were in the hands of all, and had been so from the\nfirst. And this evidence appears not more than one hundred and fifty\nyears after the publication of the books. The reader must be given to\nunderstand that, when Tertullian speaks of maintaining or defending\n(tuendi) the Gospel of Saint Luke, he only means maintaining or\ndefending the integrity of the copies of Luke received by Christian\nchurches, in opposition to certain curtailed copies used by Marcion,\nagainst whom he writes.\n\nThis author frequently cites the Acts of the Apostles under that title,\nonce calls it Luke's Commentary, and observes how Saint Paul's epistles\nconfirm it.\n\nAfter this general evidence, it is unnecessary to add particular\nquotations. These, however, are so numerous and ample as to have led Dr.\nLardner to observe, \"that there are more and larger quotations of the\nsmall volume of the New Testament in this one Christian author, than\nthere are of all the works of Cicero in writers of all characters for\nseveral ages.\" (Lardner, vol ii. p. 647.)\n\nTertullian quotes no Christian writing as of equal authority with the\nScriptures, and no spurious books at all; a broad line of distinction,\nwe may once more observe, between our sacred books and all others.\n\nWe may again likewise remark the wide extent through which the\nreputation of the Gospels, and of the Acts of the Apostles had spread,\nand the perfect consent, in this point, of distant and independent\nsocieties. It is now only about one hundred and fifty years since Christ\nwas crucified; and within this period, to say nothing of the apostolical\nfathers who have been noticed already, we have Justin Martyr at\nNeapolis, Theophilus at Antioch, Irenaeus in France, Clement at\nAlexandria, Tertullian at Carthage, quoting the same books of historical\nScriptures, and I may say, quoting these alone.\n\nXIII. An interval of only thirty years, and that occupied by no small\nnumber of Christian writers, (Minucius Felix, Apollonius, Caius, Asterius\nUrbanus Alexander bishop of Jerusalem, Hippolytus, Ammonius Julius\nAfricanus) whose works only remain in fragments and quotations, and in\nevery one of which is some reference or other to the Gospels (and in one\nof them, Hippolytus, as preserved in Theodoret, is an abstract of the\nwhole Gospel history), brings us to a name of great celebrity in\nChristian antiquity, Origen (Lardner, vol. iii. p. 234.) of Alexandria,\nwho in the quantity of his writings exceeded the most laborious of the\nGreek and Latin authors. Nothing can be more peremptory upon the subject\nnow under consideration, and, from a writer of his learning and\ninformation, more satisfactory, than the declaration of Origen,\npreserved, in an extract from his works, by Eusebius; \"That the four\nGospels alone are received without dispute by the whole church of God\nunder heaven:\" to which declaration is immediately subjoined a brief\nhistory of the respective authors to whom they were then, as they are\nnow, ascribed. The language holden concerning the Gospels, throughout\nthe works of Origen which remain, entirely corresponds with the\ntestimony here cited. His attestation to the Acts of the Apostles is no\nless Positive: \"And Luke also once more sounds the trumpet, relating the\nacts of the apostles.\" The universality with which the Scriptures were\nthen read is well signified by this writer in a passage in which he has\noccasion to observe against Celsus, \"That it is not in any private\nbooks, or such as are read by a few only, and those studious persons,\nbut in books read by everybody, That it is written, The invisible things\nof God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood\nby things that are made.\" It is to no purpose to single out quotations\nof Scripture from such a writer as this. We might as well make a\nselection of the quotations of Scripture in Dr. Clarke's Sermons. They\nare so thickly sown in the works of Origen, that Dr. Mill says, \"If we\nhad all his works remaining, we should have before us almost the whole\ntext of the Bible.\" (Mill, Proleg. esp. vi. p. 66.)\n\nOrigen notices, in order to censure, certain apocryphal Gospels. He also\nuses four writings of this sort; that is, throughout his large works he\nonce or twice, at the most, quotes each of the four; but always with\nsome mark, either of direct reprobation or of caution to his readers,\nmanifestly esteeming them of little or no authority.\n\nXIV. Gregory, bishop of Neocaesaea, and Dionysius of Alexandria, were\nscholars of Origen. Their testimony, therefore, though full and\nparticular, may be reckoned a repetition only of his. The series,\nhowever, of evidence is continued by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who\nflourished within twenty years after Origen. \"The church,\" said this\nfather, \"is watered, like Paradise, by four rivers, that is, by four\nGospels.\" The Acts of the Apostles is also frequently quoted by Cyprian\nunder that name, and under the name of the \"Divine Scriptures.\" In his\nvarious writings are such constant and copious citations of Scripture,\nas to place this part of the testimony beyond controversy. Nor is there,\nin the works of this eminent African bishop, one quotation of a spurious\nor apocryphal Christian writing.\n\nXV. Passing over a crowd* of writers following Cyprian at different\ndistances, but all within forty years of his time; and who all, in the\nperfect remains of their works, either cite the historical Scriptures of\nthe New Testament, or speak of them in terms of profound respect: I\nsingle out Victorin, bishop of Pettaw, in Germany, merely on account of\nthe remoteness of his situation from that of Origen and Cyprian, who\nwere Africans; by which circumstance his testimony, taken in conjunction\nwith theirs, proves that the Scripture histories, and the same\nhistories, were known and received from one side of the Christian world\nto the other. This bishop (Lardner, vol. v. p. 214.) lived about the\nyear 290: and in a commentary upon this text of the Revelation, \"The\nfirst was like a lion, the second was like a calf, the third like a man,\nand the fourth like a flying eagle,\" he makes out that by the four\ncreatures are intended the four Gospels; and, to show the propriety of\nthe symbols, he recites the subject with which each evangelist opens his\nhistory. The explication is fanciful, but the testimony positive. He\nalso expressly cites the Acts of the Apostles.\n\n_________\n\n* Novatus, Rome, A.D. 251; Dionysius, Rome, A.D. 259; Commodian, A.D.\n270; Anatolius, Laodicea, A.D. 270; Theognostus A.D. 282; Methodius\nLycia, A.D. 290; Phileas, Egypt, A.D. 296.\n_________\n\n\nXVI. Arnobius and Lactantius (Lardner, vol. viii. p. 43, 201.), about\nthe year 300, composed formal arguments upon the credibility of the\nChristian religion. As these arguments were addressed to Gentiles, the\nauthors abstain from quoting Christian books by name, one of them giving\nthis very reason for his reserve; but when they came to state, for the\ninformation of their readers, the outlines of Christ's history, it is\napparent that they draw their accounts from our Gospels, and from no\nother sources; for these statements exhibit a summary of almost\neverything which is related of Christ's actions and miracles by the four\nevangelists. Arnobius vindicates, without mentioning their names, the\ncredit of these historians; observing that they were eye-witnesses of\nthe facts which they relate, and that their ignorance of the arts of\ncomposition was rather a confirmation of their testimony, than an\nobjection to it. Lactantius also argues in defence of the religion, from\nthe consistency, simplicity, disinterestedness, and sufferings of the\nChristian historians, meaning by that term our evangelists.\n\nXVII. We close the series of testimonies with that of Eusebius, (Lardner,\nvol. viii. p. 33.) bishop of Caesarea who flourished in the year 315,\ncontemporary with, or posterior only by fifteen years to, the authors\nlast cited. This voluminous writer, and most diligent collector of the\nwritings of others, beside a variety of large works, composed a history\nof the affairs of Christianity from its origin to his own time. His\ntestimony to the Scriptures is the testimony of a man much conversant in\nthe works of Christian authors, written during the first three centuries\nof its era, and who had read many which are now lost. In a passage of\nhis Evangelical Demonstration, Eusebius remarks, with great nicety, the\ndelicacy of two of the evangelists, in their manner of noticing any\ncircumstance which regarded themselves; and of Mark, as writing under\nPeter's direction, in the circumstances which regarded him. The\nillustration of this remark leads him to bring together long quotations\nfrom each of the evangelists: and the whole passage is a proof that\nEusebius, and the Christians of those days, not only read the Gospels,\nbut studied them with attention and exactness. In a passage of his\necclesiastical History, he treats, in form, and at large, of the\noccasions of writing the four Gospels, and of the order in which they\nwere written. The title of the chapter is, \"Of the Order of the\nGospels;\" and it begins thus: \"Let us observe the writings of this\napostle John, which are not contradicted by any: and, first of all, must\nbe mentioned, as acknowledged by all, the Gospel according to him,\nwell-known to all the churches under heaven; and that it has been justly\nplaced by the ancients the fourth in order, and after the other three,\nmay be made evident in this manner.\"--Eusebius then proceeds to show\nthat John wrote the last of the four, and that his Gospel was intended\nto supply the omissions of the others; especially in the part of our\nLord's ministry which took place before the imprisonment of John the\nBaptist. He observes, \"that the apostles of Christ were not studious of\nthe ornaments of composition, nor indeed forward to write at all, being\nwholly occupied with their ministry.\"\n\nThis learned author makes no use at all of Christian writings, forged\nwith the names of Christ's apostle, or their companions. We close this\nbranch of our evidence here, because, after Eusebius, there is no room\nfor any question upon the subject; the works of Christian writers being\nas full of texts of Scripture, and of references to Scripture, as the\ndiscourses of modern divines. Future testimonies to the books of Scripture\ncould only prove that they never lost their character or authority.\n\nSECTION II.\n\nWhen the Scriptures are quoted, or alluded to, they are quoted with\npeculiar respect, as books sui generis; as possessing an authority which\nbelonged to no other books, and as conclusive in all questions and\ncontroversies amongst Christians.\n\nBeside the general strain of reference and quotation, which uniformly\nand strongly indicates this distinction, the following may be regarded\nas specific testimonies:\n\nI. Theophilus, (Lardner, Cred. part ii. vol. i. p. 429.) bishop of\nAntioch, the sixth in succession from the apostles, and who flourished\nlittle more than a century after the books of the New Testament were\nwritten, having occasion to quote one of our Gospels, writes thus:\n\"These things the Holy Scriptures teach us, and all who were moved by\nthe Holy Spirit, among whom John says, In the beginning was the Word,\nand the Word was with God.\" Again: \"Concerning the righteousness which\nthe law teaches, the like things are to be found in the prophets and the\nGospels, because that all, being inspired, spoke by one and the same\nSpirit of God.\" (Lardner, Cred. part ii. vol. i. p. 448.) No words can\ntestify more strongly than these do, the high and peculiar respect in\nwhich these books were holden.\n\nII. A writer against Artemon, (Lardner, Cred. part ii. vol. iii. p. 40.)\nwho may be supposed to come about one hundred and fifty-eight years\nafter the publication of the Scripture, in a passage quoted by\nEusebius, uses these expressions: \"Possibly what they (our adversaries)\nsay, might have been credited, if first of all the Divine Scriptures did\nnot contradict them; and then the writings of certain brethren more\nancient than the times of Victor.\" The brethren mentioned by name are\nJustin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clement, Irenaeus, Melito, with a general\nappeal to many more not named. This passage proves, first, that there\nwas at that time a collection called Divine Scriptures; secondly, that\nthese Scriptures were esteemed of higher authority than the writings of\nthe most early and celebrated Christians.\n\nIII. In a piece ascribed to Hippolytus, (Lardner, Cred. vol. iii. p.\n112.) who lived near the same time, the author professes, in giving his\ncorrespondent instruction in the things about which he inquires, \"to\ndraw out of the sacred-fountain, and to set before him from the Sacred\nScriptures what may afford him satisfaction.\" He then quotes immediately\nPaul's epistles to Timothy, and afterwards many books of the New\nTestament. This preface to the quotations carries in it a marked\ndistinction between the Scriptures and other books.\n\nIV. \"Our assertions and discourses,\" saith Origen, (Lardner, Cred. vol.\niii. pp. 287-289.) \"are unworthy of credit; we must receive the\nScriptures as witnesses.\" After treating of the duty of prayer, he\nproceeds with his argument thus: \"What we have said, may be proved from\nthe Divine Scriptures.\" In his books against Celsus we find this\npassage: \"That our religion teaches us to seek after wisdom, shall be\nshown, both out of the ancient Jewish Scriptures which we also use, and\nout of those written since Jesus, which are believed in the churches to\nbe divine.\" These expressions afford abundant evidence of the peculiar\nand exclusive authority which the Scriptures possessed.\n\nV. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, (Lardner, Cred. vol. vi. p. 840.) whose\nage lies close to that of Origen, earnestly exhorts Christian teachers,\nin all doubtful cases, \"to go back to the fountain; and, if the truth\nhas in any case been shaken, to recur to the Gospels and apostolic\nwritings.\"--\"The precepts of the Gospel,\" says he in another place, \"are\nnothing less than authoritative divine lessons, the foundations of our\nhope, the supports of our faith, the guides of our way, the safeguards\nof our course to heaven.\"\n\nVI. Novatus, (Lardner, Cred. vol. v. p. 102.) a Roman contemporary with\nCyprian, appeals to the Scriptures, as the authority by which all\nerrors were to be repelled, and disputes decided. \"That Christ is not\nonly man, but God also, is proved by the sacred authority of the Divine\nWritings.\"--\"The Divine Scripture easily detects and confutes the frauds\nof heretics.\"--\"It is not by the fault of the heavenly Scriptures, which\nnever deceive.\" Stronger assertions than these could not be used.\n\nVII. At the distance of twenty years from the writer last cited,\nAnatolius (Lardner, Cred. vol. v. p. 146.), a learned Alexandrian, and\nbishop of Laedicea, speaking of the rule for keeping Easter, a question\nat that day agitated with much earnestness, says of those whom he\nopposed, \"They can by no means prove their point by the authority of the\nDivine Scripture.\"\n\nVIII. The Arians, who sprung up about fifty years after this, argued\nstrenuously against the use of the words consubstantial, and essence,\nand like phrases; \"because they were not in Scripture.\" (Lardner, Cred.\nvol. vii. pp. 283-284.) And in the same strain one of their advocates\nopens a conference with Augustine, after the following manner: \"If you\nsay what is reasonable, I must submit. If you allege anything from the\nDivine Scriptures which are common to both, I must hear. But\nunscriptural expressions (quae extra Scripturam sunt) deserve no\nregard.\"\n\nAthanasius, the great antagonist of Arianism, after having enumerated\nthe books of the Old and New Testament, adds, \"These are the fountain\nof salvation, that he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles\ncontained in them. In these alone the doctrine of salvation is\nproclaimed. Let no man add to them, or take anything from them.\"\n(Lardner, Cred. vol. xii. p. 182.)\n\nIX. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem (Lardner, Cred. vol. viii. p. 276.), who\nwrote about twenty years after the appearance of Arianism, uses these\nremarkable words: \"Concerning the divine and holy mysteries of faith,\nnot the least article ought to be delivered without the Divine\nScriptures.\" We are assured that Cyril's Scriptures were the same as\nours, for he has left us a catalogue of the books included under that\nname.\n\nX. Epiphanius, (Lardner, Cred. vol. viii. p. 314.) twenty years after\nCyril, challenges the Arians, and the followers of Origen, \"to produce\nany passage of the Old and New Testament favouring their sentiments.\"\n\nXI. Poebadius, a Gallic bishop, who lived about thirty years after the\ncouncil of Nice, testifies, that \"the bishops of that council first\nconsulted the sacred volumes, and then declared their faith.\" (Lardner,\nCred. vol. ix. p. 52.)\n\nXII. Basil, bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia, contemporary with\nEpiphanius, says, that \"hearers instructed in the Scriptures ought to\nexamine what is said by their teachers, and to embrace what is agreeable\nto the Scriptures, and to reject what is otherwise.\" (Lardner, Cred.\nvol. ix. p. 124.)\n\nXIII. Ephraim, the Syrian, a celebrated writer of the same times, bears\nthis conclusive testimony to the proposition which forms the subject of\nour present chapter: \"the truth written in the Sacred Volume of the\nGospel is a perfect rule. Nothing can be taken from it nor added to it,\nwithout great guilt.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. ix. p. 202.)\n\nXIV. If we add Jerome to these, it is only for the evidence which he\naffords of the judgment of preceding ages. Jerome observes, concerning\nthe quotations of ancient Christian writers, that is, of writers who\nwere ancient in the year 400, that they made a distinction between\nbooks; some they quoted as of authority, and others not: which\nobservation relates to the books of Scripture, compared with other\nwritings, apocryphal or heathen. (Lardner, Cred. vol. x. pp. 123-124.)\n\nSECTION III.\n\nThe Scriptures were in very early times collected into a distinct\nvolume.\n\nIgnatius, who was bishop of Antioch within forty years after the\nAscension, and who had lived and conversed with the apostles, speaks of\nthe Gospel and of the apostles in terms which render it very probable\nthat he meant by the Gospel the book or volume of the Gospels, and by\nthe apostles the book or volume of their Epistles. His words in one\nplace are, (Lardner, Cred. part ii. vol. i. p. 180.) \"Fleeing to the\nGospel as the flesh of Jesus, and to the apostles as the presbytery of\nthe church;\" that is, as Le Clere interprets them, \"in order to\nunderstand the will of God, he fled to the Gospels, which he believed no\nless than if Christ in the flesh had been speaking to him; and to the\nwritings of the apostles, whom he esteemed as the presbytery of the\nwhole Christian church.\" It must be observed, that about eighty years\nafter this we have direct proof, in the writings of Clement of\nAlexandria, (Lardner, Cred. part ii. vol. ii. p. 516.) that these two\nnames, \"Gospel,\" and \"Apostles,\" were the names by which the writings of\nthe New Testament, and the division of these writings, were usually\nexpressed.\n\nAnother passage from Ignatius is the following:--\"But the Gospel has\nsomewhat in it more excellent, the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ,\nhis passion and resurrection.\" (Lardner, Cred. part ii. vol. ii. p.\n182.)\n\nAnd a third: \"Ye ought to hearken to the Prophets, but especially to the\ngospel, in which the passion has been manifested to us, and the\nresurrection perfected.\" In this last passage, the Prophets and the\nGospel are put in conjunction; and as Ignatius undoubtedly meant by the\nprophets a collection of writings, it is probable that he meant the same\nby the Gospel, the two terms standing in evident parallelism with each\nother.\n\nThis interpretation of the word \"Gospel,\" in the passages above quoted\nfrom Ignatius, is confirmed by a piece of nearly equal antiquity, the\nrelation of the martyrdom of Polycarp by the church of Smyrna. \"All\nthings,\" say they, \"that went before, were done, that the Lord might\nshow us a martyrdom according to the Gospel, for he expected to be\ndelivered up as the Lord also did.\" (Ignat. Ep. c.i.) And in another\nplace, \"We do not commend those who offer themselves, forasmuch as the\nGospel, teaches us no such thing.\" (Ignat. Ep. c. iv.) In both these\nplaces, what is called the Gospel seems to be the history of Jesus\nChrist, and of his doctrine.\n\nIf this be the true sense of the passages, they are not only evidences\nof our proposition, by strong and very ancient proofs of the high esteem\nin which the books of the New Testament were holden.\n\nII. Eusebius relates, that Quadratus and some others, who were the\nimmediate successors of the apostles, travelling abroad to preach\nChrist, carried the Gospels with them, and delivered them to their\nconverts. The words of Eusebius are: \"Then travelling abroad, they\nperformed the work of evangelists, being ambitious to preach Christ, and\ndeliver the Scripture of the divine Gospels.\" (Lardner, Cred. part ii.\nvol. i. p. 236.) Eusebius had before him the writings both of Quadratus\nhimself, and of many others of that age, which are now lost. It is\nreasonable, therefore to believe that he had good grounds for his\nassertion. What is thus recorded of the Gospels took place within sixty,\nor at the most seventy, years after they were published: and it is\nevident that they must, before this time (and, it is probable, long\nbefore this time), have been in general use and in high esteem in the\nchurches planted by the apostles, inasmuch as they were now, we find,\ncollected into a volume: and the immediate successors of the apostles,\nthey who preached the religion of Christ to those who had not already\nheard it, carried the volume with them, and delivered it to their\nconverts.\n\nIII. Irenaeus, in the year 178, (Lardner, Cred. part ii. vol. i. p. 383.)\nputs the evangelic and apostolic writings in connexion with the Law and\nthe Prophets, manifestly intending by the one a code or collection of\nChristian sacred writings, as the other expressed the code or collection\nof Jewish sacred writings. And,\n\nIV. Melito, at this time bishop of Sardis, writing to one Onesimus,\ntells his correspondent, (Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 331.) that he had\nprocured an accurate account of the books of the Old Testament. The\noccurrence in this message of the term Old Testament has been brought to\nprove, and it certainly does prove, that there was then a volume or\ncollection of writings called the New Testament.\n\nV. In the time of Clement of Alexandria, about fifteen years after the\nlast quoted testimony, it is apparent that the Christian Scriptures were\ndivided into two parts, under the general titles of the Gospels and\nApostles; and that both these were regarded as of the highest authority.\nOne out of many expressions of Clement, alluding to this distribution,\nis the following: \"There is a consent and harmony between the Law and\nthe Prophets, the Apostles and the Gospel.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. ii. p.\n516.)\n\nVI. The same division, \"Prophets, Gospels, and Apostles,\" appears in\nTertullian, the contemporary of Clement. The collection of the Gospels\nis likewise called by this writer the \"Evangelic Instrument;\" the whole\nvolume the \"New Testament;\" and the two parts, the \"Gospels and\nApostles.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. ii. pp. 631,574 & 632.)\n\nVII. From many writers also of the third century, and especially from\nCyprian, who lived in the middle of it, it is collected that the\nChristian Scriptures were divided into two cedes or volumes, one called\nthe \"Gospels or Scriptures of the Lord,\" the other the \"Apostles, or\nEpistles of the Apostles\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. iv. p. 846.)\n\nVIII. Eusebius, as we have already seen, takes some pains to show that\nthe Gospel of Saint John had been justly placed by the ancients, \"the\nfourth in order, and after the other three.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. viii.\np. 90.) These are the terms of his proposition: and the very\nintroduction of such an argument proves incontestably, that the four\nGospels had been collected into a volume, to the exclusion of every\nother: that their order in the volume had been adjusted with much\nconsideration; and that this had been done by those who were called\nancients in the time of Eusebius.\n\nIn the Diocletian persecution, in the year 303, the Scriptures were\nsought out and burnt:(Lardner, Cred. vol. vii. pp. 214 et seq.) many\nsuffered death rather than deliver them up; and those who betrayed them\nto the persecutors were accounted as lapsed and apostate. On the other\nhand, Constantine, after his conversion, gave directions for multiplying\ncopies of the Divine Oracles, and for magnificently adorning them at the\nexpense of the imperial treasury. (Lardner, Cred. vol. vii. p. 432.) What\nthe Christians of that age so richly embellished in their prosperity,\nand, which is more, so tenaciously preserved under persecution, was the\nvery volume of the New Testament which we now read.\n\n\nSECTION IV.\n\nOur present Sacred Writings were soon distinguished by appropriate names\nand titles of respect.\n\nPolycarp. \"I trust that ye are well exercised in the Holy\nScriptures;--as in these Scriptures it is said, Be ye angry and sin not,\nand let not the sun go down upon your wrath.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p.\n203.) This passage is extremely important; because it proves that, in\nthe time of Polycarp, who had lived with the apostles, there were\nChristian writings distinguished by the name of \"Holy Scriptures,\" or\nSacred Writings. Moreover, the text quoted by Polycarp is a text found\nin the collection at this day. What also the same Polycarp hath\nelsewhere quoted in the same manner, may be considered as proved to\nbelong to the collection; and this comprehends Saint Matthew's and,\nprobably, Saint Luke's Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles, ten epistles of\nPaul, the First Epistle of Peter, and the First of John. (Lardner, Cred.\nvol. i. p. 223.) In another place, Polycarp has these words: \"Whoever\nperverts the Oracles of the Lord to his own lusts, and says there is\nneither resurrection nor judgment, he is the first born of Satan.\"\n(Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 223.)--It does not appear what else Polycarp\ncould mean by the \"Oracles of the Lord,\" but those same \"Holy\nScriptures,\" or Sacred Writings, of which he had spoken before.\n\nII. Justin Martyr, whose apology was written about thirty years after\nPolycarp's epistle, expressly cites some of our present histories under\nthe title of Gospel, and that not as a name by him first ascribed to\nthem, but as the name by which they were generally known in his time.\nHis words are these:--\"For the apostles in the memoirs composed by them,\nwhich are called Gospels, have thus delivered it, that Jesus commanded\nthem to take bread, and give thanks.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 271.)\nThere exists no doubt, but that, by the memoirs above-mentioned, Justin\nmeant our present historical Scriptures; for throughout his works he\nquotes these and no others.\n\nIII. Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, who came thirty years after Justin,\nin a passage preserved in Eusebius (for his works are lost), speaks \"of\nthe Scriptures of the Lord.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 298.)\n\nIV. And at the same time, or very nearly so, by Irenaeus, bishop of\nLyons in France, (The reader will observe the remoteness of these two\nwriters in country and situation) they are called \"Divine\nScriptures,\"--\"Divine Oracles,\"--\"Scriptures of the Lord,\"--\"Evangelic\nand Apostolic writings.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 343, et seq.) The\nquotations of Irenaeus prove decidedly, that our present Gospels, and\nthese alone, together with the Acts of the Apostles, were the historical\nbooks comprehended by him under these appellations.\n\nV. Saint Matthew's Gospel is quoted by Theophilus, bishop of Antioch,\ncontemporary with Irenaeus, under the title of the \"Evangelic voice;\"\n(Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 427.) and the copious works of Clement of\nAlexandria, published within fifteen years of the same time, ascribe\nto the books of the New Testament the various titles of \"Sacred\nBooks,\"--\"Divine Scriptures,\"--\"Divinely inspired Scriptures,\"--\n\"Scriptures of the Lord,\"--\"the true Evangelical Canon.\"\n(Lardner, Cred. vol. ii. p. 515.)\n\nVI. Tertullian, who joins on with Clement, beside adopting most of the\nnames and epithets above noticed, calls the Gospels \"our Digesta,\" in\nallusion, as it should seem, to some collection of Roman laws then\nextant. (Lardner, Cred. vol. ii. p. 630.)\n\nVII. By Origen, who came thirty years after Tertullian, the same, and\nother no less strong titles, are applied to the Christian Scriptures:\nand, in addition thereunto, this writer frequently speaks of the \"Old\nand New Testament,\"--\"the Ancient and New Scriptures,\"--\"the Ancient and\nNew Oracles.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. iii. p. 230.)\n\nVIII. In Cyprian, who was not twenty years later, they are \"Books of the\nSpirit,\"--\"Divine Fountains,\"--\"Fountains of the Divine Fulness.\"\n(Lardner, Cred. vol. iv. p. 844.)\n\nThe expressions we have thus quoted are evidences of high and peculiar\nrespect. They all occur within two centuries from the publication of the\nbooks. Some of them commence with the companions of the apostles; and\nthey increase in number and variety, through a series of writers\ntouching upon one another, and deduced from the first age of the\nreligion.\n\nSECTION V.\n\nOur Scriptures were publicly read and expounded in the religious\nassemblies of the early Christians. Justin MARTYR, who wrote in the year\n140, which was seventy or eighty years after some, and less, probably,\nafter others of the Gospels were published, giving, in his first apology\nan account, to the Emperor, of the Christian worship has this remarkable\npassage:\n\n\"The Memoirs of the Apostles, or the Writings of the Prophets, are read\naccording as the time allows: and, when the reader has ended, the\npresident makes a discourse, exhorting to the imitation of so excellent\nthings.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 273.)\n\nA few short observations will show the value of this testimony.\n\n1. The \"Memoirs of the Apostles,\" Justin in another place expressly\ntells us, are what are called \"Gospels:\" and that they were the Gospels\nwhich we now use, is made certain by Justin's numerous quotations of\nthem, and his silence about any others.\n\n2. Justin describes the general usage of the Christian church.\n\n3. Justin does not speak of it as recent or newly instituted, but in the\nterms in which men speak of established customs.\n\nII. Tertullian, who followed Justin at the distance of about fifty\nyears, in his account of the religious assemblies of Christians as they\nwere conducted in his time, says, \"We come together to recollect the\nDivine Scriptures; we nourish our faith, raise our hope, confirm our\ntrust, by the Sacred Word.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. ii. p. 628.)\n\nIII. Eusebius records of Origen, and cites for his authority the letters\nof bishops contemporary with Origen, that when he went into Palestine\nabout the year 216, which was only sixteen years after the date of\nTertullian's testimony, he was desired by the bishops of that country to\ndiscourse and expound the Scriptures publicly in the church, though he\nwas not yet ordained a presbyter. (Lardner, Cred. vol. iii. p. 68.) This\nanecdote recognises the usage, not only of reading, but of expounding\nthe Scriptures; and both as subsisting in full force. Origen also\nhimself bears witness to the same practice: \"This,\" says he, \"we do,\nwhen the Scriptures are read in the church, and when the discourse for\nexplication is delivered to the people.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. iii. p.\n302.) And what is a still more ample testimony, many homilies of his\nupon the Scriptures of the New Testament, delivered by him in the\nassemblies of the church, are still extant.\n\nIV. Cyprian, whose age was not twenty years lower than that of Origen,\ngives his people an account of having ordained two persons, who were\nbefore confessors, to be readers; and what they were to read appears by\nthe reason which he gives for his choice; \"Nothing,\" says Cyprian, \"can\nbe more fit than that he who has made a glorious confession of the Lord\nshould read publicly in the church; that he who has shown himself\nwilling to die a martyr should read the Gospel of Christ by which\nmartyrs are made.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. iv. p. 842.)\n\nV. Intimations of the same custom may be traced in a great number of\nwriters in the beginning and throughout the whole of the fourth century.\nOf these testimonies I will only use one, as being, of itself, express\nand full. Augustine, who appeared near the conclusion of the century,\ndisplays the benefit of the Christian religion on this very account, the\npublic reading of the Scriptures in the churches, \"where,\" says he, \"is\na consequence of all sorts of people of both sexes; and where they hear\nhow they ought to live well in this world, that they may deserve to live\nhappily and eternally in another.\" And this custom he declares to be\nuniversal: \"The canonical books of Scripture being read every where, the\nmiracles therein recorded are well known to all people.\" (Lardner, Cred.\nvol. x. p. 276, et seq.)\n\nIt does not appear that any books, other than our present Scriptures\nwere thus publicly read, except that the epistle of Clement was read in\nthe church of Corinth, to which it had been addressed, and in some\nothers; and that the Shepherd of Hennas was read in many churches. Nor\ndoes it subtract much from the value of the argument, that these two\nwritings partly come within it, because we allow them to be the genuine\nwritings of apostolical men. There is not the least evidence, that any\nother Gospel than the four which we receive was ever admitted to this\ndistinction.\n\nSECTION VI.\n\nCommentaries were anciently written upon the Scriptures; harmonies\nformed out of them; different copies carefully collated; and versions\nmade of them into different languages.\n\nNo greater proof can be given of the esteem in which these books were\nholden by the ancient Christians, or of the sense then entertained of\ntheir value and importance, than the industry bestowed upon them. And\nit ought to be observed that the value and importance of these books\nconsisted entirely in their genuineness and truth. There was nothing in\nthem, as works of taste or as compositions, which could have induced any\none to have written a note upon them. Moreover, it shows that they were\neven then considered as ancient books. Men do not write comments upon\npublications of their own times: therefore the testimonies cited under\nthis head afford an evidence which carries up the evangelic writings\nmuch beyond the age of the testimonies themselves, and to that of their\nreputed authors.\n\nI. Tatian, a follower of Justin Martyr, and who flourished about the\nyear 170, composed a harmony, or collation of the Gospels, which he\ncalled Diatessaron, of the four. The title, as well as the work, is\nremarkable; because it shows that then, as now, there were four, and\nonly four, Gospels in general use with Christians. And this was little\nmore than a hundred years after the publication of some of them.\n(Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 307.)\n\nII. Pantaenus, of the Alexandrian school, a man of great reputation and\nlearning, who came twenty years after Tatian, wrote many commentaries\nupon the Holy Scriptures, which, as Jerome testifies, were extant in his\ntime. (Lardner, Cred. vol. i. p. 455.)\n\nIII. Clement of Alexandria wrote short explications of many books of the\nOld and New Testament. (Lardner, Cred. vol. ii. p. 462.)\n\nIV. Tertullian appeals from the authority of a later version, then in\nuse, to the authentic Greek. (Lardner, Cred. vol. ii. p. 638.)\n\nV. An anonymous author, quoted by Eusebius, and who appears to have\nwritten about the year 212, appeals to the ancient copies of the\nScriptures, in refutation of some corrupt readings alleged by the\nfollowers of Artemon. (Lardner, Cred. vol. iii. p. 46.)\n\nVI. The same Eusebius, mentioning by name several writers of the church\nwho lived at this time, and concerning whom he says, \"There still remain\ndivers monuments of the laudable industry of those ancient and\necclesiastical men,\" (i. e. of Christian writers who were considered as\nancient in the year 300,) adds, \"There are, besides, treatises of many\nothers, whose names we have not been able to learn, orthodox and\necclesiastical men, as the interpretations of the Divine Scriptures\ngiven by each of them show.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. ii. p. 551.)\n\nVII. The last five testimonies may be referred to the year 200;\nimmediately after which, a period of thirty years gives us Julius\nAfricanus, who wrote an epistle upon the apparent difference in the\ngenealogies in Matthew and Luke, which he endeavours to reconcile by the\ndistinction of natural and legal descent, and conducts his hypothesis\nwith great industry through the whole series of generations. (Lardner,\nCred. vol. iii. p. 170.)\n\nAmmonius, a learned Alexandrian, who composed, as Tatian had done, a\nharmony of the four Gospels, which proves, as Tatian's work did, that\nthere were four Gospels, and no more, at this time in use in the church.\nIt affords also on instance of the zeal of Christians for those\nwritings, and of their solicitude about them. (Lardner, Cred. vol. iii.\np. 122.)\n\nAnd, above both these, Origen, who wrote commentaries, or homilies, upon\nmost of the books included in the New Testament, and upon no other books\nbut these. In particular, he wrote upon Saint John's Gospel, very\nlargely upon Saint Matthew's, and commentaries, or homilies, upon the\nActs of the Apostles. (Lardner, Cred. vol. iii. pp. 352, 192, 202 & 245.)\n\nVIII. In addition to these, the third century likewise\ncontains--Dionysius of Alexandria, a very learned man, who compared,\nwith great accuracy, the accounts in the four Gospels of the time of\nChrist's resurrection, adding a reflection which showed his opinion of\ntheir authority: \"Let us not think that the evangelists disagree or\ncontradict each other, although there be some small difference; but let\nus honestly and faithfully endeavour to reconcile what we read.\"\n(Lardner, Cred. vol. iv. p. 166.)\n\nVictorin, bishop of Pettaw, in Germany, who wrote comments upon Saint\nMatthew's Gospel. (Lardner, Cred. vol. iv. p. 195.)\n\nLucian, a presbyter of Antioch; and Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, who\nput forth editions of the New Testament.\n\nIX. The fourth century supplies a catalogue* of fourteen writers, who\nexpended their labours upon the books of the New Testament, and whose\nworks or names are come down to our times; amongst which number it may\nbe sufficient, for the purpose of showing the sentiments and studies of\nlearned Christians of that age, to notice the following:\n\n_________\n\n* Eusebius ......         A.D. 315\nJuvencus, Spain .....          330\nTheodore, Thrace ....          334\nHilary, Poletiers ....         340\nFortunatus .....               354\nApollinarius of Loadicea       362\nDamasus, Rome .....            366\nGregory, Nyssen ....           371\nDidimus of Alex,  . . . .      370\nAmbrose of Milan .....         374\nDiodore of Tarsus .....        378\nGaudent of Brescia ....        387\nTheodore of Cilicia ....       395\nJerome ........                392\nChrysostom ......              398\n_________\n\n\nEusebius, in the very beginning of the century, wrote expressly upon the\ndiscrepancies observable in the Gospels, and likewise a treatise, in\nwhich he pointed out what things are related by four, what by three,\nwhat by two, and what by one evangelist. (Lardner, Cred. vol. viii. p.\n46.) This author also testifies what is certainly a material piece of\nevidence, \"that the writings of the apostles had obtained such an esteem\nas to be translated into every language both of Greeks and Barbarians,\nand to be diligently studied by all nations.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. viii.\np. 201.) This testimony was given about the year 300; how long before\nthat date these translations were made does not appear.\n\nDamasus, bishop of Rome, corresponded with Saint Jerome upon the\nexposition of difficult texts of Scripture; and, in a letter still\nremaining, desires Jerome to give him a clear explanation of the word\nHosanna, found in the New Testament; \"He (Damasus) having met with very\ndifferent interpretations of it in the Greek and Latin commentaries of\nCatholic writers which he had read.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. ix. P. 108)\nThis last clause shows the number and variety of commentaries then\nextant.\n\nGregory of Nyssen, at one time, appeals to the most exact copies of\nSaint Mark's Gospel; at another time, compares together, and proposes to\nreconcile, the several accounts of the Resurrection given by the four\nEvangelists; which limitation proves that there were no other histories\nof Christ deemed authentic beside these, or included in the same\ncharacter with these. This writer observes, acutely enough, that \"the\ndisposition of the clothes in the sepulchre, the napkin that was about\nour Saviour's head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped\ntogether in a place by itself, did not bespeak the terror and hurry of\nthieves, and therefore refutes the story of the body being\nstolen.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. ix. p. 163.)\n\nAmbrose, bishop of Milan, remarked various readings in the Latin copies\nof the New Testament, and appeals to the original Greek;\n\nAnd Jerome, towards the conclusion of this century, put forth an edition\nof the New Testament in Latin, corrected, at least as to the Gospels, by\nGreek copies, and \"those (he says) ancient.\"\n\nLastly, Chrysostom, it is well known, delivered and published a great\nmany homilies, or sermons, upon the Gospels and the Acts of the\nApostles.\n\nIt is needless to bring down this article lower, but it is of importance\nto add, that there is no example of Christian writers of the first three\ncenturies composing comments upon any other books than those which are\nfound in the New Testament, except the single one of Clement of\nAlexandria commenting upon a book called the Revelation of Peter.\n\nOf the ancient versions of the New Testament, one of the most valuable\nis the Syriac. Syriac was the language of Palestine when Christianity\nwas there first established. And although the books of Scripture were\nwritten in Greek, for the purpose of a more extended circulation than\nwithin the precincts of Judea, yet it is probable that they would soon\nbe translated into the vulgar language of the country where the religion\nfirst prevailed. Accordingly, a Syriac translation is now extant, all\nalong, so far as it appears, used by the inhabitants of Syria, bearing\nmany internal marks of high antiquity, supported in its pretensions by\nthe uniform tradition of the East, and confirmed by the discovery of\nmany very ancient manuscripts in the libraries of Europe, It is about\n200 years since a bishop of Antioch sent a copy of this translation into\nEurope to be printed; and this seems to be the first time that the\ntranslation became generally known to these parts of the world. The\nbishop of Antioch's Testament was found to contain all our books, except\nthe second epistle of Peter, the second and third of John, and the\nRevelation; which books, however, have since been discovered in that\nlanguage in some ancient manuscripts of Europe. But in this collection,\nno other book, besides what is in ours, appears ever to have had a\nplace. And, which is very worthy of observation, the text, though\npreserved in a remote country, and without communication with ours,\ndiffers from ours very little, and in nothing that is important  (Jones\non the Canon, vol. i. e. 14.).\n\n\nSECTION VII.\n\nOur Scriptures were received by ancient Christians of different sects\nand persuasions, but many Heretics as well as Catholics, and were\nusually appealed to by both sides in the controversies which arose in\nthose days.\n\nThe three most ancient topics of controversy amongst Christians were,\nthe authority of the Jewish constitution, the origin of evil, and the\nnature of Christ. Upon the first of these we find, in very early times,\none class of heretics rejecting the Old Testament entirely; another\ncontending for the obligation of its law, in all its parts, throughout\nits whole extent, and over every one who sought acceptance with God.\nUpon the two latter subjects, a natural, perhaps, and venial, but a\nfruitless, eager, and impatient curiosity, prompted by the philosophy\nand by the scholastic habits of the age, which carried men much into\nbold hypotheses and conjectural solutions, raised, amongst some who\nprofessed Christianity, very wild and unfounded opinions. I think there\nis no reason to believe that the number of these bore any considerable\nproportion to the body of the Christian church; and, amidst the disputes\nwhich such opinions necessarily occasioned, it is a great satisfaction\nto perceive what, in a vast plurality of instances, we do perceive, all\nsides recurring to the same Scriptures.\n\n*I. Basilides lived near the age of the apostles, about the year 120, or,\nperhaps, sooner. (Lardner, vol. ix. p. 271.) He rejected the Jewish\ninstitution, not as spurious, but as proceeding from a being inferior to\nthe true God; and in other respects advanced a scheme of theology widely\ndifferent from the general doctrine of the Christian church, and which,\nas it gained over some disciples, was warmly opposed by Christian\nwriters of the second and third century. In these writings there is\npositive evidence that Basilides received the Gospel of Matthew; and\nthere is no sufficient proof that he rejected any of the other three: on\nthe contrary, it appears that he wrote a commentary upon the Gospel, so\ncopious as to be divided into twenty-four books. (Lardner, vol. ix. ed.\n1788, p. 305, 306.)\n\n_________\n\n* The materials of the former part of this section are taken from Dr.\nLardner's History of the Heretics of the first two centuries, published\nsince his death, with additions, by the Rev. Mr. Hogg, of Exeter, and\ninserted into the ninth volume of his works, of the edition of 1778.\n_________\n\n\nII. The Valentinians appeared about the same time. Their heresy\nconsisted in certain notions concerning angelic natures, which can\nhardly be rendered intelligible to a modern reader. They seem, however,\nto have acquired as much importance as any of the separatists of that\nearly age. Of this sect, Irenaeus, who wrote A.D. 172, expressly records\nthat they endeavoured to fetch arguments for their opinions from the\nevangelic and apostolic writings. Heracleon, one of the most celebrated\nof the sect, and who lived probably so early as the year 125, wrote\ncommentaries upon Luke and John. Some observations also of his upon\nMatthew are preserved by Origen.  Nor is there any reason to doubt that\nhe received the whole New Testament. (Lardner, vol. ix. ed. 1788, pp.\n350-351; vol. i. p. 383; vol. ix. ed. 1788, p. 352-353.)\n\nIII. The Carpocratians were also an early heresy, little, if at all,\nlater than the two preceding. Some of their opinions resembled what we\nat this day mean by Socinianism. With respect to the Scriptures, they\nare specifically charged, by Irenaeus and by Epiphanius, with\nendeavouring to pervert a passage in Matthew, which amounts to a\npositive proof that they received that Gospel. Negatively, they are not\naccused, by their adversaries, of rejecting any part of the New\nTestament. (Lardner, vol. ix. ed. 1788, pp. 309 & 318.)\n\nIV. The Sethians, A.D. 150; the Montanists, A.D. 156; the Marcosigns,\nA.D. 160; Hermogenes, A.D. 180; Praxias, A.D. 196; Artemon, A.D. 200;\nTheodotus, A.D. 200; all included under the denomination of heretics,\nand all engaged in controversies with Catholic Christians, received the\nScriptures of the New Testament. (Lardner, vol. ix. ed. 1788, pp. 455,\n482, 348, 473, 433, 466.)\n\nV. Tatian, who lived in the year 172, went into many extravagant\nopinions, was the founder of a sect called Encratites, and was deeply\ninvolved in disputes with the Christians of that age; yet Tatian so\nreceived the four Gospels as to compose a harmony from them.\n\nVI. From a writer quoted by Eusebius, of about the year 200, it is\napparent that they who at that time contended for the mere humanity of\nChrist, argued from the Scriptures; for they are accused by this writer\nof making alterations in their copies in order to favour their\nopinions. (Lardner, vol. iii. P. 46.)\n\nVII. Origen's sentiments excited great controversies,--the bishops of\nRome and Alexandria, and many others, condemning, the bishops of the\neast espousing them; yet there is not the smallest question but that\nboth the advocates and adversaries of these opinions acknowledged the\nsame authority of Scripture. In his time, which the reader will remember\nwas about one hundred and fifty years after the Scriptures were\npublished, many dissensions subsisted amongst Christians, with which\nthey were reproached by Celsus; yet Origen, who has recorded this\naccusation without contradicting it, nevertheless testifies, that the\nfour Gospels were received without dispute, by the whole church of God\nunder heaven. (Lardner, vol. iv. ed. 1788, p. 642.)\n\nVIII. Paul of Samosata, about thirty years after Origen, so\ndistinguished himself in the controversy concerning the nature of Christ\nas to be the subject of two councils or synods, assembled at Antioch,\nupon his opinions. Yet he is not charged by his adversaries with\nrejecting any book of the New Testament. On the contrary, Epiphanius,\nwho wrote a history of heretics a hundred years afterwards, says, that\nPaul endeavoured to support his doctrine by texts of Scripture. And\nVincentius Lirinensis, A.D. 434, speaking of Paul and other heretics of\nthe same age, has these words: \"Here, perhaps, some one may ask whether\nheretics also urge the testimony of Scripture. They urge it, indeed,\nexplicitly and vehemently; for you may see them flying through every\nbook of the sacred law.\" (Lardner, vol. ix. p. 158.)\n\nIX. A controversy at the same time existed with the Noetians or\nSabellians, who seem to have gone into the opposite extreme from that of\nPaul of Samosata and his followers. Yet according to the express\ntestimony of Epiphanius, Sabellius received all the Scriptures. And with\nboth sects Catholic writers constantly allege the Scriptures, and reply\nto the arguments which their opponents drew from particular texts.\n\nWe have here, therefore, a proof, that parties who were the most\nopposite and irreconcilable to one another acknowledged the authority of\nScripture with equal deference.\n\nX. And as a general testimony to the same point, may be produced what\nwas said by one of the bishops of the council of Carthage, which was\nholden a little before this time:--\"I am of opinion that blasphemous and\nwicked heretics, who pervert the sacred and adorable words of the\nScripture, should be execrated.\" Undoubtedly, what they perverted they\nreceived. (Lardner, vol. ix. p. 839.)\n\nXI. The Millennium, Novatianism, the baptism of heretics, the keeping of\nEaster, engaged also the attention and divided the opinions of\nChristians, at and before that time (and, by the way, it may be\nobserved, that such disputes, though on some accounts to be blamed,\nshowed how much men were in earnest upon the subject.); yet every one\nappealed for the grounds of his opinion to Scripture authority.\nDionysius of Alexandria, who flourished A.D. 247, describing a\nconference or public disputation, with the Millennarians of Egypt,\nconfesses of them, though their adversary, \"that they embrace whatever\ncould be made out by good arguments, from the Holy Scriptures.\"\n(Lardner, vol. iv. p. 666.) Novatus, A.D. 251, distinguished by some\nrigid sentiments concerning the reception of those who had lapsed, and\nthe founder of a numerous sect, in his few remaining works quotes the\nGospel with the same respect as other Christians did; and concerning his\nfollowers, the testimony of Socrates, who wrote about the year 440, is\npositive, viz. \"That in the disputes between the Catholics and them,\neach side endeavoured to support itself by the authority of the Divine\nScriptures\" (Lardner, vol. v. p. 105.)\n\nXII. The Donatists, who sprung up in the year 328, used the same\nScriptures as we do. \"Produce,\" saith Augustine, \"some proof from the\nScriptures, whose authority is common to us both\" (Lardner, vol. vii. p.\n243.)\n\nXIII. It is perfectly notorious, that in the Arian controversy, which\narose soon after the year 300, both sides appealed to the same\nScriptures, and with equal professions of deference and regard. The\nArians, in their council of Antioch, A.D. 341, pronounce that \"if any\none, contrary to the sound doctrine of the Scriptures, say, that the Son\nis a creature, as one of the creatures, let him be an anathema.\"\n(Lardner, vol. vii. p. 277.) They and the Athanasians mutually accuse\neach other of using unscriptural phrases; which was a mutual\nacknowledgment of the conclusive authority of Scripture.\n\nXIV. The Priscillianists, A.D. 378, the Pelagians, A.D. 405 received the\nsame Scriptures as we do. (Lardner, vol. ix. p. 325; vol. xi p. 52.)\n\nXV. The testimony of Chrysostom, who lived near the year 400, is so\npositive in affirmation of the proposition which we maintain, that it\nmay form a proper conclusion of the argument. \"The general reception of\nthe Gospels is a proof that their history is true and consistent; for,\nsince the writing of the Gospels, many heresies have arisen, holding\nopinions contrary to what is contained in them, who yet receive the\nGospels either entire or in part.\" (Lardner, vol. x. p. 316.) I am not\nmoved by what may seem a deduction from Chrysostom's testimony, the\nwords, \"entire or in part;\" for if all the parts which were ever\nquestioned in our Gospels were given up, it would not affect the\nmiraculous origin of the religion in the smallest degree: e.g.\n\nCerinthus is said by Epiphanius to have received the Gospel of Matthew,\nbut not entire. What the omissions were does not appear. The common\nopinion, that he rejected the first two chapters, seems to have been a\nmistake. (Lardner, vol. ix. ed. 1788, p. 322.) It is agreed, however, by\nall who have given any account of Cerinthus, that he taught that the\nHoly Ghost (whether he meant by that name a person or a power) descended\nupon Jesus at his baptism; that Jesus from this time performed many\nmiracles, and that he appeared after his death. He must have retained\ntherefore the essential parts of the history.\n\nOf all the ancient heretics, the most extraordinary was Marcion.\n(Lardner, vol. ix. sect. ii. c. x. Also Michael vol. i. c. i. sect.\nxviii.) One of his tenets was the rejection of the Old Testament, as\nproceeding from an inferior and imperfect Deity; and in pursuance of\nthis hypothesis, he erased from the New, and that, as it should seem,\nwithout entering into any critical reasons, every passage which\nrecognised the Jewish Scriptures. He spared not a text which\ncontradicted his opinion. It is reasonable to believe that Marcion\ntreated books as he treated texts: yet this rash and wild\ncontroversialist published a recension, or chastised edition of Saint\nLuke's Gospel, containing the leading facts, and all which is necessary\nto authenticate the religion. This example affords proof that there were\nalways some points, and those the main points, which neither wildness\nnor rashness, neither the fury of opposition nor the intemperance of\ncontroversy, would venture to call in question. There is no reason to\nbelieve that Marcion, though full of resentment against the Catholic\nChristians, ever charged them with forging their books. \"The Gospel of\nSaint Matthew, the Epistle to the Hebrews, with those of Saint Peter and\nSaint James, as well as the Old Testament in general\" he said, \"were\nwritings not for Christians but for Jews.\" This declaration shows the\nground upon which Marcion proceeded in his mutilation of the Scriptures,\nviz., his dislike of the passages or the books. Marcion flourished about\nthe year 130.*\n\n_________\n\n* I have transcribed this sentence from Michaelis (p. 38), who has not,\nhowever, referred to the authority upon which he attributes these words\nto Marcion.\n_________\n\n\nDr. Lardner, in his General Review, sums up this head of evidence in the\nfollowing  words:--\"Noitus, Paul of Samosata, Sabellius, Marcelins,\nPhotinus, the Novatiana, Donatists, Manicheans (This must be with an\nexception, however, of Faustus, who lived so late us the year 354),\nPriscillianists, beside Artemon, the Audians, the Arians, and divers\nothers, all received most of all the same books of the New Testament\nwhich the Catholics received; and agreed in a like respect for them as\nwritten by apostles, or their disciples and companions.\" (Lardner, vol.\niii. p. 12.--Dr. Lardner's future inquiries supplied him with many other\ninstances.)\n\nSECTION VIII.\n\nThe four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles of Saint\nPaul the First Epistle of John, and the First of Peter, were received\nwithout doubt by those who doubted concerning the other books which are\nincluded in our present Canon.\n\nI state this proposition, because, if made out, it shows that the\nauthenticity of their books was a subject amongst the early Christians\nof consideration and inquiry; and that, where there was cause of doubt,\nthey did doubt; a circumstance which strengthens very much their\ntestimony to such books as were received by them with full acquiescence.\n\nI. Jerome, in his account of Caius, who was probably a presbyter of\nRome, and who flourished near the year 200, records of him, that,\nreckoning up only thirteen epistles of Paul, he says the fourteenth,\nwhich is inscribed to the Hebrews, is not his: and then Jerome adds,\n\"With the Romans to this day it is not looked upon as Paul's.\" This\nagrees in the main with the account given by Eusebius of the same\nancient author and his work; except that Eusebius delivers his own\nremark in more guarded terms: \"And indeed to this very time, by some of\nthe Romans, this epistle is not thought to be the apostle's.\" (Lardner,\nvol. iii. p. 240.)\n\nII. Origen, about twenty years after Caius, quoting the Epistle to the\nHebrews, observes that some might dispute the authority of that epistle;\nand therefore proceeds to quote to the same point, as undoubted books of\nScripture, the Gospel of Saint Matthew, the Acts of the Apostles, and\nPaul's First Epistle to the Thessalonians. (Lardner, vol. iii. p. 246.)\nand in another place, this author speaks of the Epistle to the Hebrews\nthus: \"The account come down to us is various; some saying that Clement\nwho was bishop of Rome, wrote this epistle; others, that it was Luke,\nthe same who wrote the Gospel and the Acts.\" Speaking also, in the same\nparagraph, of Peter, \"Peter,\" says he, \"has left one epistle,\nacknowledged; let it be granted likewise that he wrote a second, for it\nis doubted of.\" And of John, \"He has also left one epistle, of a very\nfew lines; grant also a second and a third, for all do not allow them to\nbe genuine.\" Now let it be noted, that Origen, who thus discriminates,\nand thus confesses his own doubts and the doubts which subsisted in his\ntime, expressly witnesses concerning the four Gospels, \"that they alone\nare received without dispute by the whole church of God under heaven.\"\n(Lardner, vol. iii. p. 234.)\n\nIII. Dionysius of Alexandria, in the year 247, doubts concerning the\nBook of Revelation, whether it was written by Saint John; states the\ngrounds of his doubt, represents the diversity of opinion concerning it,\nin his own time, and before his time. (Lardner, vol. iv. p. 670.) Yet\nthe same Dionysius uses and collates the four Gospels in a manner which\nshows that he entertained not the smallest suspicion of their authority,\nand in a manner also which shows that they, and they alone, were\nreceived as authentic histories of Christ. (Lardner, vol. iv. p. 661.)\n\nIV. But this section may be said to have been framed on purpose to\nintroduce to the reader two remarkable passages extant in Eusebius's\nEcclesiastical History. The first passage opens with these words:--\"Let\nus observe the writings of the apostle John which are uncontradicted:\nand first of all must be mentioned, as acknowledged of all, the Gospel\naccording to him, well known to all the churches under heaven.\" The\nauthor then proceeds to relate the occasions of writing the Gospels, and\nthe reasons for placing Saint John's the last, manifestly speaking of\nall the four as parallel in their authority, and in the certainty of\ntheir original. (Lardner, vol. viii. p. 90.) The second passage is taken\nfrom a chapter, the title of which is, \"Of the Scriptures universally\nacknowledged, and of those that are not such.\" Eusebius begins his\nenumeration in the following manner:--\"In the first place are to be\nranked the sacred four Gospels; then the book of the Acts of the\nApostles; after that are to be reckoned the Epistles of Paul. In the\nnext place, that called the First Epistle of John, and the Epistle of\nPeter, are to be esteemed authentic. After this is to be placed, if it\nbe thought fit, the Revelation of John, about which we shall observe the\ndifferent opinions at proper seasons. Of the controverted, but yet well\nknown or approved by the most, are, that called the Epistle of James,\nand that of Jude, and the Second of Peter, and the Second and Third of\nJohn, whether they are written by the evangelist, or another of the same\nname.\" (Lardner, vol. viii. p. 39.) He then proceeds to reckon up five\nothers, not in our canon, which he calls in one place spurious, in\nanother controverted, meaning, as appears to me, nearly the same thing\nby these two words.*\n\n\n_________\n\n* That Eusebius could not intend, by the word\nrendered 'spurious' what we at present mean by it, is evident from a\nclause in this very chapter where, speaking of the Gospels of Peter, and\nThomas and Matthias, and some others, he says, \"They the are not so much\nas to be reckoned among the spurious, but are altogether absurd and\nimpious.\" (Lardner, vol. viii. p. 99.)\n_________\n\n\nIt is manifest from this passage, that the four Gospels, and the Acts of\nthe Apostles (the parts of Scripture with which our concern principally\nlies), were acknowledged without dispute, even by those who raised\nobjections, or entertained doubts, about some other parts of the same\ncollection. But the passage proves something more than this. The author\nwas extremely conversant in the writings of Christians which had been\npublished from the commencement of the institution to his own time: and\nit was from these writings that he drew his knowledge of the character\nand reception of the books in question. That Eusebius recurred to this\nmedium of information, and that he had examined with attention this\nspecies of proof, is shown, first, by a passage in the very chapter we\nare quoting, in which, speaking of the books which he calls spurious,\n\"None,\" he says, \"of the ecclesiastical writers, in the succession of\nthe apostles, have vouchsafed to make any mention of them in their\nwritings;\" and, secondly, by another passage of the same work, wherein,\nspeaking of the First Epistle of Peter, \"This,\" he says, \"the presbyters\nof ancient times have quoted in their writings as undoubtedly genuine;\"\n(Lardner, vol. viii. p. 99.) and then, speaking of some other writings\nbearing the name of Peter, \"We know,\" he says, \"that they have not been\ndelivered down to us in the number of Catholic writings, forasmuch as no\necclesiastical writer of the ancients, or of our times, has made use of\ntestimonies out of them.\" \"But in the progress of this history,\" the\nauthor proceeds, \"we shall make it our business to show, together with\nthe successions from the apostles, what ecclesiastical writers, in every\nage, have used such writings as these which are contradicted, and what\nthey have said with regard to the Scriptures received in the New\nTestament, and acknowledged by all, and with regard to those which are\nnot such.\" (Lardner, vol. viii. p. 111)\n\nAfter this it is reasonable to believe that when Eusebius states the\nfour Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, as uncontradicted,\nuncontested, and acknowledged by all; and when he places them in\nopposition, not only to those which were spurious, in our sense of that\nterm, but to those which were controverted, and even to those which were\nwell known and approved by many, yet doubted of by some; he represents\nnot only the sense of his own age, but the result of the evidence which\nthe writings of prior ages, from the apostles' time to his own, had\nfurnished to his inquiries. The opinion of Eusebius and his\ncontemporaries appears to have been founded upon the testimony of\nwriters whom they then called ancient: and we may observe, that such of\nthe works of these writers as have come down to our times entirely\nconfirm the judgment, and support the distinction which Eusebius\nproposes. The books which he calls \"books universally acknowledged\" are\nin fact used and quoted in time remaining works of Christian writers,\nduring the 250 years between the apostles' time and that of Eusebius,\nmuch more frequently than, and in a different manner from, those the\nauthority of which, he tells us, was disputed.\n\nSECTION IX.\n\nOur historical Scriptures were attacked by the early adversaries of\nChristianity, as containing the accounts upon which the Religion was\nfounded.\n\nNear the middle of the second century, Celsus, a heathen philosopher,\nwrote a professed treatise against Christianity. To this treatise\nOrigen, who came about fifty years after him, published an answer, in\nwhich he frequently recites his adversary's words and arguments. The\nwork of Celsus is lost; but that of Origen remains. Origen appears to\nhave given us the words of Celsus, where he professes to give them, very\nfaithfully; and amongst other reasons for thinking so, this is one, that\nthe objection, as stated by him from Celsus, is sometimes stronger than\nhis own answer. I think it also probable that Origen, in his answer, has\nretailed a large portion of the work of Celsus:\n\n\"That it may not be suspected,\" he says, \"that we pass by any chapters\nbecause we have no answers at hand, I have thought it best, according to\nmy ability, to confute everything proposed by him, not so much\nobserving the natural order of things, as the order which he has taken\nhimself.\" (Orig. cont. Cels. I. i. sect. 41.)\n\nCelsus wrote about one hundred years after the Gospels were published;\nand therefore any notices of these books from him are extremely\nimportant for their antiquity. They are, however, rendered more so by\nthe character of the author; for the reception, credit, and notoriety of\nthese books must have been well established amongst Christians, to have\nmade them subjects of animadversion and opposition by strangers and by\nenemies. It evinces the truth of what Chrysostom, two centuries\nafterwards, observed, that \"the Gospels, when written, were not hidden\nin a corner or buried in obscurity, but they were made known to all the\nworld, before enemies as well as others, even as they are now.\" (In\nMatt. Hom. I. 7.)\n\n1. Celsus, or the Jew whom he personates, uses these words:--\"I could\nsay many things concerning the affairs of Jesus, and those, too,\ndifferent from those written by the disciples of Jesus; but I purposely\nomit them.\" (Lardner, Jewish and Heathen Test. vol. ii. p. 274.) Upon\nthis passage it has been rightly observed, that it is not easy to\nbelieve, that if Celsus could have contradicted the disciples upon good\nevidence in any material point, he would have omitted to do so, and that\nthe assertion is, what Origen calls it, a mere oratorical flourish.\n\nIt is sufficient, however, to prove that, in the time of Celsus, there\nwere books well known, and allowed to be written by the disciples of\nJesus, which books contained a history of him. By the term disciples,\nCelsus does not mean the followers of Jesus in general; for them he\ncalls Christians, or believers, or the like; but those who had been\ntaught by Jesus himself, i.e. his apostles and companions.\n\n2. In another passage, Celsus accuses the Christians of altering the\nGospel. (Lardner, Jewish and Heathen Test. Vol. ii. p. 275.) The\naccusation refers to some variations in the readings of particular\npassages: for Celsus goes on to object, that when they are pressed hard,\nand one reading has been confuted, they disown that, and fly to another.\nWe cannot perceive from Origen, that Celsus specified any particular\ninstances, and without such specification the charge is of no value. But\nthe true conclusion to be drawn from it is, that there were in the hands\nof the Christians histories which were even then of some standing: for\nvarious readings and corruptions do not take place in recent\nproductions.\n\nThe former quotation, the reader will remember, proves that these books\nwere composed by the disciples of Jesus, strictly so called; the present\nquotation shows, that though objections were taken by the adversaries of\nthe religion to the integrity of these books, none were made to their\ngenuineness.\n\n3. In a third passage, the Jew whom Celsus introduces shuts up an\nargument in this manner:--\"these things then we have alleged to you out\nof your own writings, not needing any other weapons.\" (Lardner, vol. ii.\np. 276.) It is manifest that this boast proceeds upon the supposition\nthat the books over which the writer affects to triumph possessed an\nauthority by which Christians confessed themselves to be bound.\n\n4. That the books to which Celsus refers were no other than our present\nGospels, is made out by his allusions to various passages still found in\nthese Gospels. Celsus takes notice of the genealogies, which fixes two\nof these Gospels; of the precepts, Resist not him that injures you, and\nif a man strike thee on the one cheek, offer to him the other also; of\nthe woes denounced by Christ; of his predictions; of his saying, That it\nis impossible to serve two masters; ( Lardner, vol. ii. pp. 276-277.) Of\nthe purple robe, the crown of thorns, and the reed in his hand; of the\nblood that flowed from the body of Jesus upon the cross, which\ncircumstance is recorded by John alone; and (what is instar omnium for\nthe purpose for which we produce it) of the difference in the accounts\ngiven of the resurrection by the evangelists, some mentioning two angels\nat the sepulchre, ethers only one. (Lardner, vol. ii. pp. 280, 281, &\n283.)\n\nIt is extremely material to remark, that Celsus not only perpetually\nreferred to the accounts of Christ contained in the four Gospels, but\nthat he referred to no other accounts; that he founded none of his\nobjections to Christianity upon any thing delivered in spurious Gospels.\n(The particulars, of which the above are only a few, are well collected\nby Mr. Bryant, p. 140.)\n\nII. What Celsus was in the second century, Porphyry became in the third.\nHis work, which was a large and formal treatise against the Christian\nreligion, is not extant. We must be content, therefore, to gather his\nobjections from Christian writers, who have noticed in order to answer\nthem; and enough remains of this species of information to prove\ncompletely, that Porphyry's animadversions were directed against the\ncontents of our present Gospels, and of the Acts of the Apostles;\nPorphyry considering that to overthrow them was to overthrow the\nreligion. Thus he objects to the repetition of a generation in Saint\nMatthew's genealogy; to Matthew's call; to the quotation of a text from\nIsaiah, which is found in a psalm ascribed to Asaph; to the calling of\nthe lake of Tiberius a sea; to the expression of Saint Matthew, \"the\nabomination of desolation;\" to the variation in Matthew and Mark upon\nthe text, \"the voice of one crying in the wilderness,\" Matthew citing it\nfrom Isaias, Mark from the Prophets; to John's application of the term\n\"Word;\" to Christ's change of intention about going up to the feast of\nTabernacles (John vii. 8); to the judgment denounced by Saint Peter upon\nAnanias and Sapphira, which he calls an \"imprecation of death.\" (Jewish\nand Heathen Test. Vol. iii. p. 166, et seq.)\n\nThe instances here alleged serve, in some measure, to show the nature of\nPorphyry's objections, and prove that Porphyry had read the Gospels with\nthat sort of attention which a writer would employ who regarded them as\nthe depositaries of the religion which he attacked. Besides these\nspecifications, there exists, in the writings of ancient Christians,\ngeneral evidence that the places of Scripture upon which Porphyry had\nremarked were very numerous.\n\nIn some of the above-cited examples, Porphyry, speaking of Saint\nMatthew, calls him your Evangelist; he also uses the term evangelists in\nthe plural number. What was said of Celsus is true likewise of Porphyry,\nthat it does not appear that he considered any history of Christ except\nthese as having authority with Christians.\n\nIII. A third great writer against the Christian religion was the emperor\nJulian, whose work was composed about a century after that of Porphyry.\n\nIn various long extracts, transcribed from this work by Cyril and\nJerome, it appears, (Jewish and Heathen Test. vol. iv. p. 77, et seq.)\nthat Julian noticed by name Matthew and Luke, in the difference between\ntheir genealogies of Christ that he objected to Matthew's application of\nthe prophecy, \"Out of Egypt have I called my son\" (ii. 15), and to that\nof \"A virgin shall conceive\" (i. 23); that he recited sayings of Christ,\nand various passages of his history, in the very words of the\nevangelists; in particular, that Jesus healed lame and blind people, and\nexorcised demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany; that he\nalleged that none of Christ's disciples ascribed to him the creation of\nthe world, except John; that neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor\nMark, have dared to call Jesus God; that John wrote later than the other\nevangelists, and at a time when a great number of men in the cities of\nGreece and Italy were converted; that he alludes to the conversion of\nCornelius and of Sergius Paulus, to Peter's vision, to the circular\nletter sent by the apostles and elders at Jerusalem, which are all\nrecorded in the Acts of the Apostles: by which quoting of the four\nGospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and by quoting no other, Julian\nshows that these were the historical books, and the only historical\nbooks, received by Christians as of authority, and as the authentic\nmemoirs of Jesus Christ, of his apostles, and of the doctrines taught by\nthem. But Julian's testimony does something more than represent the\njudgment of the Christian church in his time. It discovers also his own.\nHe himself expressly states the early date of these records; he calls\nthem by the names which they now bear. He all along supposes, he nowhere\nattempts to question, their genuineness.\n\nThe argument in favour of the books of the New Testament, drawn from the\nnotice taken of their contents by the early writers against the\nreligion, is very considerable. It proves that the accounts which\nChristians had then were the accounts which we have now; that our\npresent Scriptures were theirs. It proves, moreover, that neither Celsus\nin the second, Porphyry in the third, nor Julian in the fourth century,\nsuspected the authenticity of these books, or ever insinuated that\nChristians were mistaken in the authors to whom they ascribed them. Not\none of them expressed an opinion upon this subject different from that\nwhich was holden by Christians. And when we consider how much it would\nhave availed them to have cast a doubt upon this point, if they could;\nand how ready they showed themselves to be to take every advantage in\ntheir power; and that they were all men of learning and inquiry: their\nconcession, or rather their suffrage, upon the subject is extremely\nvaluable.\n\nIn the case of Porphyry, it is made still stronger, by the consideration\nthat he did in fact support himself by this species of objection when he\nsaw any room for it, or when his acuteness could supply any pretence for\nalleging it. The prophecy of Daniel he attacked upon this very ground of\nspuriousness, insisting that it was written after the time of Antiochus\nEpiphanes, and maintains his charge of forgery by some far-fetched\nindeed, but very subtle criticisms. Concerning the writings of the New\nTestament, no trace of this suspicion is anywhere to be found in him.\n(Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. i. p. 43. Marsh's\nTranslation.)\n\n\n\n\n\nSECTION X.\n\nFormal catalogues of authentic Scriptures were published, in all which\nour present sacred histories were included.\n\nThis species of evidence comes later than the rest; as it was not\nnatural that catalogues of any particular class of books should be put\nforth until Christian writings became numerous; or until some writings\nshowed themselves, claiming titles which did not belong to them, and\nthereby rendering it necessary to separate books of authority from\nothers. But, when it does appear, it is extremely satisfactory; the\ncatalogues, though numerous, and made in countries at a wide distance\nfrom one another, differing very little, differing in nothing which is\nmaterial, and all containing the four Gospels. To this last article\nthere is no exception.\n\nI. In the writings of Origen which remain, and in some extracts\npreserved by Eusebius, from works of his which are now lost, there are\nenumerations of the books of Scriptures, in which the Four Gospels and\nthe Acts of the Apostles are distinctly and honourably specified, and in\nwhich no books appear beside what are now received. The reader, by this\ntime, will easily recollect that the date of Origen's works is A.D. 230.\n(Lardner, Cred. vol. iii. p. 234, et seq.; vol. viii. p. 196.)\n\nII. Athanasias, about a century afterwards, delivered a catalogue of the\nbooks of the New Testament in form, containing our Scriptures and no\nothers; of which he says, \"In these alone the doctrine of Religion is\ntaught; let no man add to them, or take anything from them.\" (Lardner,\nCred. vol. ii. p. 223.)\n\nIII. About twenty years after Athanasius, Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem,\nset forth a catalogue of the books of Scripture, publicly read at that\ntime in the church of Jerusalem, exactly the same as ours, except that\nthe \"Revelation\" is omitted. (Lardner, Cred. vol. ii. p. 270.)\n\nIV. And fifteen years after Cyril, the council of Laodicea delivered an\nauthoritative catalogue of canonical Scripture, like Cyril's, the same\nas ours with the omission of the \"Revelation.\"\n\nV. Catalogues now became frequent. Within thirty years after the last\ndate, that is, from the year 363 to near the conclusion of the fourth\ncentury, we have catalogues by Epiphanius, (Lardner, Cred. vol. ii. p.\n368.) by Gregory Nazianzen, by Philaster, bishop of Breseia in Italy,\n(Lardner, Cred. vol. ix. p. 132 & 373.) by Amphilochius, bishop of\nIconium; all, as they are sometimes called, clean catalogues (that is,\nthey admit no books into the number beside what we now receive); and\nall, for every purpose of historic evidence, the same as\nours. (Epiphanius omits the Acts of the Apostles. This must have been an\naccidental mistake, either in him or in some copyist of his work; for\nhe elsewhere expressly refers to this book, and ascribes it to Luke.)\n\nVI. Within the same period Jerome, the most learned Christian writer of\nhis age, delivered a catalogue of the hooks of the New Testament,\nrecognising every book now received, with the intimation of a doubt\nconcerning the Epistle to the Hebrews alone, and taking not the least\nnotice of any book which is not now received. (Lardner, Cred. vol. x. p.\n77.)\n\nVII. Contemporary with Jerome, who lived in Palestine, was St.\nAugustine, in Africa, who published likewise a catalogue, without\njoining to the Scriptures, as books of authority, any other\necclesiastical writing whatever, and without omitting one which we at\nthis day acknowledge. (Lardner, Cred. vol. x. p. 213.)\n\nVIII. And with these concurs another contemporary writer, Rufen,\npresbyter of Aquileia, whose catalogue, like theirs, is perfect and\nunmixed, and concludes with these remarkable words:  \"These are the\nvolumes which the fathers have included in the canon, and out of which\nthey would have us prove the doctrine of our faith.\" (Lardner, Cred.\nvol. x. p. 187.)\n\n\n\n\n\nSECTION XI.\n\nThese propositions cannot be predicated of any of those books which are\ncommonly called Apocryphal Books of the New Testament.\n\nI do not know that the objection taken from apocryphal writings is at\npresent much relied upon by scholars. But there are many, who, hearing\nthat various Gospels existed in ancient times under the names of the\napostles, may have taken up a notion, that the selection of our present\nGospels from the rest was rather an arbitrary or accidental choice, than\nfounded in any clear and certain cause of preference. To these it may be\nvery useful to know the truth of the case. I observe, therefore:--\n\nI. That, beside our Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, no Christian\nhistory, claiming to be written by an apostle or apostolical man, is\nquoted within three hundred years after the birth of Christ, by any\nwriter now extant or known; or, if quoted, is not quoted but with marks\nof censure and rejection.\n\nI have not advanced this assertion without inquiry; and I doubt not but\nthat the passages cited by Mr. Jones and Dr. Lardner, under the several\ntitles which the apocryphal books bear; or a reference to the places\nwhere they are mentioned as collected in a very accurate table,\npublished in the year 1773, by the Rev. J. Atkinson, will make out the\ntruth of the proposition to the satisfaction of every fair and competent\njudgment. If there be any book which may seem to form an exception to\nthe observation, it is a Hebrew Gospel, which was circulated under the\nvarious titles of, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, the Gospel of\nthe Nazarenes, of the Ebionites, sometimes called of the Twelve, by some\nascribed to St Matthew. This Gospel is once, and only once, cited by\nClemeus Alexandrinus, who lived, the reader will remember, in the latter\npart of the second century, and which same Clement quotes one or other\nof our four Gospels in almost every page of his work. It is also twice\nmentioned by Origen, A.D. 230; and both times with marks of diminution\nand discredit. And this is the ground upon which the exception stands.\nBut what is still more material to observe is, that this Gospel, in the\nmain, agreed with our present Gospel of Saint Matthew. (In applying to\nthis Gospel what Jerome in the latter end of the fourth century has\nmentioned of a Hebrew Gospel, I think it probable that we sometimes\nconfound it with a Hebrew copy of St. Matthew's Gospel, whether an\noriginal or version, which was then extant.)\n\nNow if, with this account of the apocryphal Gospels, we compare what we\nhave read concerning the canonical Scriptures in the preceding sections;\nor even recollect that general but well-founded assertion of Dr.\nLardner, \"That in the remaining works of Irenaeus, Clement of\nAlexandria, and Tertullian, who all lived in the first two centuries,\nthere are more and larger quotations of the small volume of the New\nTestament than of all the works of Cicero, by writers of all characters,\nfor several ages;\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. xii. p. 53.) and if to this we\nadd that, notwithstanding the loss of many works of the primitive times\nof Christianity, we have, within the above-mentioned period, the remains\nof Christian writers who lived in Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt,\nthe part of Africa that used the Latin tongue, in Crete, Greece, Italy,\nand Gaul, in all which remains references are found to our evangelists;\nI apprehend that we shall perceive a clear and broad line of division\nbetween those writings and all others pretending to similar authority.\n\nII. But beside certain histories which assumed the names of apostles,\nand which were forgeries properly so called, there were some other\nChristian writings, in the whole or in part of an historical nature,\nwhich, though not forgeries, are denominated apocryphal, as being of\nuncertain or of no authority.\n\nOf this second class of writings, I have found only two which are\nnoticed by any author of the first three centuries without express terms\nof condemnation: and these are, the one a book entitled the Preaching of\nPeter, quoted repeatedly by Clemens Alexandrinus, A.D. 196; the other a\nbook entitled the Revelation of Peter, upon which the above-mentioned\nClemens Alexandrinus is said by Eusebius to have written notes; and\nwhich is twice cited in a work still extant, ascribed to the same\nauthor.\n\nI conceive, therefore, that the proposition we have before advanced,\neven after it hath been subjected to every exception of every kind that\ncan be alleged, separates, by a wide interval, our historical Scriptures\nfrom all other writings which profess to give an account of the same\nsubject.\n\nWe may be permitted however to add,--\n\n1. That there is no evidence that any spurious or apocryphal books\nwhatever existed in the first century of the Christian era, in which\ncentury all our historical books are proved to have been extant. \"There\nare no quotations of any such books in the apostolical fathers, by whom\nI mean Barnabas, Clement of Rome, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp, whose\nwritings reach from about the year of our Lord 70 to the year 108 (and\nsome of whom have quoted each and every one of our historical\nScriptures): I say this,\" adds Dr. Lardner, \"because I think it has been\nproved.\" (Lardner, Cred. vol. xii. p. 158.)\n\n2. These apocryphal writings were not read in the churches of\nChristians;\n\n3. Were not admitted into their volume;\n\n4. Do not appear in their catalogues;\n\n5. Were not noticed by their adversaries;\n\n6. Were not alleged by different parties, as of authority in their\ncontroversies;\n\n7. Were not the subjects, amongst them, of commentaries, versions,\ncollections, expositions.\n\nFinally; beside the silence of three centuries, or evidence within that\ntime of their rejection, they were, with a consent nearly universal,\nreprobated by Christian writers of succeeding ages.\n\nAlthough it be made out by these observations that the books in question\nnever obtained any degree of credit and notoriety which can place them\nin competition with our Scriptures; yet it appears from the writings of\nthe fourth century, that many such existed in that century, and in the\ncentury preceding it. It may be difficult at this distance of time to\naccount for their origin.\n\nPerhaps the most probable explication is, that they were in general\ncomposed with a design of making a profit by the sale. Whatever treated\nof the subject would find purchasers. It was an advantage taken of the\npious curiosity of unlearned Christians. With a view to the same\npurpose, there were many of them adapted to the particular opinions of\nparticular sects, which would naturally promote their circulation\namongst the favourers of those opinions. After all, they were probably\nmuch more obscure than we imagine. Except the Gospel according to the\nHebrews, there is none of which we hear more than the Gospel of the\nEgyptians; yet there is good reason to believe that Clement, a presbyter\nof Alexandria in Egypt, A.D. 184, and a man of almost universal\nreading, had never seen it. (Jones, vol. i. p. 243.) A Gospel according\nto Peter was another of the most ancient books of this kind; yet\nSerapion, bishop of Antioch, A.D. 200, had not read it, when he heard of\nsuch a book being in the hands of the Christians of Rhossus in Cillcia;\nand speaks of obtaining a sight of this Gospel from some sectaries who\nused it. (Lardner, Cred. vol. ii. p. 557.) Even of the Gospel of the\nHebrews, which confessedly stands at the head of the catalogue, Jerome,\nat the end of the fourth century, was glad to procure a copy by the\nfavour of the Nazarenes of Berea. Nothing of this sort ever happened, or\ncould have happened, concerning our Gospels.\n\nOne thing is observable of all the apocryphal Christian writings, viz.\nthat they proceed upon the same fundamental history of Christ and his\napostles as that which is disclosed in our Scriptures. The mission of\nChrist, his power of working miracles, his communication of that power\nto the apostles, his passion, death, and resurrection, are assumed or\nasserted by every one of them. The names under which some of them came\nforth are the names of men of eminence in our histories. What these\nbooks give are not contradictions, but unauthorised additions. The\nprincipal facts are supposed, the principal agents the same; which shows\nthat these points were too much fixed to be altered or disputed.\n\nIf there be any book of this description which appears to have imposed\nupon some considerable number of learned Christians, it is the Sibylline\noracles; but when we reflect upon the circumstances which facilitated\nthat imposture, we shall cease to wonder either at the attempt or its\nsuccess. It was at that time universally understood that such a\nprophetic writing existed. Its contents were kept secret. This situation\nafforded to some one a hint, as well as an opportunity, to give out a\nwriting under this name, favourable to the already established\npersuasion of Christians, and which writing, by the aid and\nrecommendation of these circumstances, would in some degree, it is\nprobable, be received. Of the ancient forgery we know but little; what\nis now produced could not, in my opinion, have imposed upon any one. It\nis nothing else than the Gospel history woven into verse; perhaps was at\nfirst rather a fiction than a forgery; an exercise of ingenuity, more\nthan an attempt to deceive.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nRECAPITULATION.\n\nThe reader will now be pleased to recollect, that the two points which\nform the subject of our present discussion are, first, that the Founder\nof Christianity, his associates, and immediate followers, passed their\nlives in labours, dangers, and sufferings; secondly, that they did so in\nattestation of the miraculous history recorded in our Scriptures, and\nsolely in consequence of their belief of the truth of that history.\n\nThe argument, by which these two propositions have been maintained by\nus, stands thus:\n\nNo historical fact, I apprehend, is more certain, than that the original\npropagators of Christianity voluntarily subjected themselves to lives of\nfatigue, danger, and suffering, in the prosecution of their undertaking.\nThe nature of the undertaking; the character of the persons employed in\nit; the opposition of their tenets to the fixed opinions and\nexpectations of the country in which they first advanced them; their\nundissembled condemnation of the religion of all other countries; their\ntotal want of power, authority, or force--render it in the highest\ndegree probable that this must have been the case. The probability is\nincreased by what we know of the fate of the Founder of the institution,\nwho was put to death for his attempt; and by what we also know of the\ncruel treatment of the converts to the institution, within thirty years\nafter its commencement: both which points are attested by heathen\nwriters, and, being once admitted, leave it very incredible that the\nprimitive emissaries of the religion, who exercised their ministry,\nfirst, amongst the people who had destroyed their Master, and,\nafterwards, amongst those who persecuted their converts, should\nthemselves escape with impunity, or pursue their purpose in ease and\nsafety. This probability, thus sustained by foreign testimony, is\nadvanced, I think, to historical certainty, by the evidence of our own\nbooks; by the accounts of a writer who was the companion of the persons\nwhose sufferings he relates; by the letters of the persons themselves by\npredictions of persecutions ascribed to the Founder of the religion,\nwhich predictions would not have been inserted in his history, much less\nhave been studiously dwelt upon, if they had not accorded with the\nevent, and which, even if falsely ascribed to him, could only have been\nso ascribed, because the event suggested them; lastly, by incessant\nexhortations to fortitude and patience, and by an earnestness,\nrepetition, and urgency upon the subject, which were unlikely to have\nappeared if there had not been, at the time, some extraordinary call for\nthe exercise of these virtues.\n\nIt is made out also, I think, with sufficient evidence, that both the\nteachers and converts of the religion, in consequence of their new\nprofession, took up a new course of life and behaviour.\n\nThe next great question is, what they did this FOR. That it was for a\nmiraculous story of some kind or other, is to my apprehension extremely\nmanifest; because, as to the fundamental article, the designation of the\nperson, viz. that this particular person, Jesus of Nazareth, ought to be\nreceived as the Messiah, or as a messenger from God, they neither had,\nnor could have, anything but miracles to stand upon. That the exertions\nand sufferings of the apostles were for the story which we have now, is\nproved by the consideration that this story is transmitted to us by two\nof their own number, and by two others personally connected with them;\nthat the particularity of the narrative proves that the writers claimed\nto possess circumstantial information, that from their situation they\nhad full opportunity of acquiring such information, that they certainly,\nat least, knew what their colleagues, their companions, their masters\ntaught; that each of these books contains enough to prove the truth of\nthe religion; that if any one of them therefore be genuine, it is\nsufficient; that the genuineness, however, of all of them is made out,\nas well by the general arguments which evince the genuineness of the\nmost undisputed remains of antiquity, as also by peculiar and specific\nproofs, viz. by citations from them in writings belonging to a period\nimmediately contiguous to that in which they were published; by the\ndistinguished regard paid by early Christians to the authority of these\nbooks; (which regard was manifested by their collecting of them into a\nvolume, appropriating to that volume titles of peculiar respect,\ntranslating them into various languages, digesting them into harmonies,\nwriting commentaries upon them, and, still more conspicuously, by the\nreading of them in their public assemblies in all parts of the world)\nby an universal agreement with respect to these books, whilst doubts\nwere entertained concerning some others; by contending sects appealing\nto them; by the early adversaries of the religion not disputing their\ngenuineness, but, on the contrary, treating them as the depositaries of\nthe history upon which the religion was founded; by many formal\ncatalogues of these, as of certain and authoritative writings, published\nin different and distant parts of the Christian world; lastly, by the\nabsence or defect of the above-cited topics of evidence, when applied to\nany other histories of the same subject.\n\nThese are strong arguments to prove that the books actually proceeded\nfrom the authors whose names they bear (and have always borne, for there\nis not a particle of evidence to show that they ever went under any\nother); but the strict genuineness of the books is perhaps more than is\nnecessary to the support of our proposition. For even supposing that, by\nreason of the silence of antiquity, or the loss of records, we knew not\nwho were the writers of the four Gospels, yet the fact that they were\nreceived as authentic accounts of the transaction upon which the\nreligion rested, and were received as such by Christians at or near the\nage of the apostles, by those whom the apostles had taught, and by\nsocieties which the apostles had founded; this fact, I say, connected\nwith the consideration that they are corroborative of each other's\ntestimony, and that they are further corroborated by another\ncontemporary history taking up the story where they had left it, and, in\na narrative built upon that story, accounting for the rise and\nproduction of changes in the world, the effects of which subsist at this\nday; connected, moreover, with the confirmation which they receive from\nletters written by the apostles themselves, which both assume the same\ngeneral story, and, as often as occasions lead them to do so, allude to\nparticular parts of it; and connected also with the reflection, that if\nthe apostles delivered any different story it is lost; (the present and\nno other being referred to by a series of Christian writers, down from\ntheir age to our own; being like-wise recognised in a variety of\ninstitutions, which prevailed early and universally, amongst the\ndisciples of the religion;) and that so great a change as the oblivion\nof one story and the substitution of another, under such circumstances,\ncould not have taken place: this evidence would be deemed, I apprehend,\nsufficient to prove concerning these books, that, whoever were the\nauthors of them, they exhibit the story which the apostles told, and for\nwhich, consequently, they acted and they suffered.\n\nIf it be so, the religion must be true. These men could not be\ndeceivers. By only not bearing testimony, they might have avoided all\nthese sufferings, and have lived quietly. Would men in such\ncircumstances pretend to have seen what they never saw; assert facts\nwhich they had no knowledge of; go about lying to teach virtue; and,\nthough not only convinced of Christ's being an impostor, but having seen\nthe success of his imposture in his crucifixion, yet persist in carrying\nit on; and so persist, as to bring upon themselves for nothing, and with\na full knowledge of the consequence, enmity and hatred, danger and\ndeath?\n\n\n=========================================\n\nOF THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\nPROPOSITION II.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nOur first proposition was, That there is satisfactory evidence that many\npretending to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed\ntheir lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undertaken\nand undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and\nsolely in consequence of their belief of the truth of those accounts;\nand that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of\nconduct.\n\nOur second proposition, and which now remains to be treated of, is, That\nthere is NOT satisfactory evidence, that persons pretending to be\noriginal witnesses of any other similar miracles have acted in the same\nmanner, in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely\nin consequence of their belief of the truth of those accounts.\n\nI enter upon this part of my argument, by declaring how far my belief in\nmiraculous accounts goes. If the reformers in the time of Wickliffe, or\nof Luther; or those of England in the time of Henry the Eighth, or of\nQueen Mary; or the founders of our religious sects since, such as were\nMr. Whitfield and Mr. Wesley in our times--had undergone the life of\ntoil and exertion, of danger and sufferings, which we know that many of\nthem did undergo, for a miraculous story; that is to say, if they had\nfounded their public ministry upon the allegation of miracles wrought\nwithin their own knowledge, and upon narratives which could not be\nresolved into delusion or mistake; and if it had appeared that their\nconduct really had its origin in these accounts, I should have believed\nthem. Or, to borrow an instance which will be familiar to every one of\nmy readers, if the late Mr. Howard had undertaken his labours and\njourneys in attestation, and in consequence of a clear and sensible\nmiracle, I should have believed him also. Or, to represent the same\nthing under a third supposition; if Socrates had professed to perform\npublic miracles at Athens; if the friends of Socrates, Phaedo, Cebes,\nCrito, and Simmias, together with Plato, and many of his followers,\nrelying upon the attestations which these miracles afforded to his\npretensions, had, at the hazard of their lives, and the certain expense\nof their ease and tranquillity, gone about Greece, after his death, to\npublish and propagate his doctrines: and if these things had come to our\nknowledge, in the same way as that in which the life of Socrates is now\ntransmitted to us through the hands of his companions and disciples,\nthat is, by writings received without doubt as theirs, from the age in\nwhich they were published to the present, I should have believed this\nlikewise. And my belief would, in each case, be much strengthened, if\nthe subject of the mission were of importance to the conduct and\nhappiness of human life; if it testified anything which it behoved\nmankind to know from such authority; if the nature of what it delivered\nrequired the sort of proof which it alleged; if the occasion was adequate\nto the interposition, the end worthy of the means. In the last ease, my\nfaith would be much confirmed if the effects of the transaction\nremained; more especially if a change had been wrought, at the time, in\nthe opinion and conduct of such numbers as to lay the foundation of an\ninstitution, and of a system of doctrines, which had since overspread\nthe greatest part of the civilized world. I should have believed, I say,\nthe testimony in these cases; yet none of them do more than come up to\nthe apostolic history.\n\nIf any one choose to call assent to its evidence credulity, it is at\nleast incumbent upon him to produce examples in which the same evidence\nhath turned out to be fallacious. And this contains the precise question\nwhich we are now to agitate.\n\nIn stating the comparison between our evidence, and what our adversaries\nmay bring into competition with ours, we will divide the distinctions\nwhich we wish to propose into two kinds,--those which relate to the\nproof, and those which relate to the miracles. Under the former head we\nmay lay out of the case:--\n\nI. Such accounts of supernatural events as are found only in histories\nby some ages posterior to the transaction; and of which it is evident\nthat the historian could know little more than his reader. Ours is\ncontemporary history. This difference alone removes out of our way the\nmiraculous history of Pythagoras, who lived five hundred years before\nthe Christian era, written by Porphyry and Jamblicus, who lived three\nhundred years after that era; the prodigies of Livy's history; the\nfables of the heroic ages; the whole of the Greek and Roman, as well as\nof the Gothic mythology; a great part of the legendary history of Popish\nsaints, the very best attested of which is extracted from the\ncertificates that are exhibited during the process of their\ncanonization, a ceremony which seldom takes place till a century after\ntheir deaths. It applies also with considerable force to the miracles of\nApollonius Tyaneus, which are contained in a solitary history of his\nlife, published by Philostratus above a hundred years after his death;\nand in which, whether Philostratus had any prior account to guide him,\ndepends upon his single unsupported assertion. Also to some of the\nmiracles of the third century, especially to one extraordinary instance,\nthe account of Gregory, bishop of Neocesarea, called Thaumaturgus,\ndelivered in the writings of Gregory of Nyssen, who lived one hundred\nand thirty years after the subject of his panegyric.\n\nThe value of this circumstance is shown to have been accurately\nexemplified in the history of Ignatius Loyola, founder of the order of\nJesuits. (Douglas's Criterion of Miracles, p. 74.) His life, written by a\ncompanion of his, and by one of the order, was published about fifteen\nyears after his death. In which life, the author, so far from ascribing\nany miracles to Ignatius, industriously states the reasons why he was\nnot invested with any such power. The life was republished fifteen years\nafterwards, with the addition of many circumstances which were the\nfruit, the author says, of further inquiry, and of diligent examination;\nbut still with a total silence about miracles. When Ignatius had been\ndead nearly sixty years, the Jesuits, conceiving a wish to have the\nfounder of their order placed in the Roman calendar, began, as it should\nseem, for the first time, to attribute to him a catalogue of miracles\nwhich could not then be distinctly disproved; and which there was, in\nthose who governed the church, a strong disposition to admit upon the\nslenderest proofs.\n\nII. We may lay out of the case accounts published in one country, of\nwhat passed in a distant country, without any proof that such accounts\nwere known or received at home. In the case of Christianity, Judea,\nwhich was the scene of the transaction, was the centre of the mission.\nThe story was published in the place in which it was acted. The church\nof Christ was first planted at Jerusalem itself. With that church others\ncorresponded. From thence the primitive teachers of the institution went\nforth; thither they assembled. The church of Jerusalem, and the several\nchurches of Judea, subsisted from the beginning, and for many ages;\nreceived also the same books and the same accounts as other churches\ndid. (The succession of many eminent bishops of Jerusalem in the first\nthree centuries is distinctly preserved; as Alexander, A.D. 212, who\nsucceeded Narcissus, then 116 years old.)\n\nThis distinction disposes, amongst others, of the above-mentioned\nmiracles of Apollonius Tyaneus, most of which are related to have been\nperformed in India; no evidence remaining that either the miracles\nascribed to him, or the history of those miracles, were ever heard of in\nIndia. Those of Francis Xavier, the Indian missionary, with many others\nof the Romish breviary, are liable to the same objection, viz. that the\naccounts of them were published at a vast distance from the supposed\nscene of the wonders. (Douglas's Crit. p. 84.)\n\nIII. We lay out of the case transient rumours. Upon the first\npublication of an extraordinary account, or even of an article of\nordinary intelligence, no one who is not personally acquainted with the\ntransaction can know whether it be true or false, because any man may\npublish any story. It is in the future confirmation, or contradiction,\nof the account; in its permanency, or its disappearance; its dying away\ninto silence, or its increasing in notoriety; its being followed up by\nsubsequent accounts, and being repeated in different and independent\naccounts--that solid truth is distinguished from fugitive lies. This\ndistinction is altogether on the side of Christianity. The story did not\ndrop. On the contrary, it was succeeded by a train of action and events\ndependent upon it. The accounts which we have in our hands were composed\nafter the first reports must have subsided. They were followed by a\ntrain of writings upon the subject. The historical testimonies of the\ntransaction were many and various, and connected with letters,\ndiscourses, controversies, apologies, successively produced by the same\ntransaction.\n\nIV. We may lay out of the case what I call naked history. It has been\nsaid, that if the prodigies of the Jewish history had been found only in\nfragments of Manetho, or Berosus, we should have paid no regard to them:\nand I am willing to admit this. If we knew nothing of the fact, but from\nthe fragment; if we possessed no proof that these accounts had been\ncredited and acted upon, from times, probably, as ancient as the\naccounts themselves; if we had no visible effects connected with the\nhistory, no subsequent or collateral testimony to confirm it; under\nthese circumstances I think that it would be undeserving of credit. But\nthis certainly is not our case. In appreciating the evidence of\nChristianity, the books are to be combined with the institution; with\nthe prevalency of the religion at this day; with the time and place of\nits origin, which are acknowledged points; with the circumstances of its\nrise and progress, as collected from external history; with the fact of\nour present books being received by the votaries of the institution from\nthe beginning; with that of other books coming after these, filled with\naccounts of effects and consequences resulting from the transaction, or\nreferring to the transaction, or built upon it; lastly, with the\nconsideration of the number and variety of the books themselves, the\ndifferent writers from which they proceed, the different views with\nwhich they were written, so disagreeing as to repel the suspicion of\nconfederacy, so agreeing as to show that they were founded in a common\noriginal, i. e. in a story substantially the same. Whether this proof be\nsatisfactory or not, it is properly a cumulation of evidence, by no\nmeans a naked or solitary record.\n\nV. A mark of historical truth, although only a certain way, and to a\ncertain degree, is particularity in names, dates, places, circumstances,\nand in the order of events preceding or following the transaction: of\nwhich kind, for instance, is the particularity in the description of St.\nPaul's voyage and shipwreck, in the 27th chapter of the Acts, which no\nman, I think, can read without being convinced that the writer was\nthere; and also in the account of the cure and examination of the blind\nman in the 9th chapter of St. John's Gospel, which bears every mark of\npersonal knowledge on the part of the historian. (Both these chapters\nought to be read for the sake of this very observation.) I do not deny\nthat fiction has often the particularity of truth; but then it is of\nstudied and elaborate fiction, or of a formal attempt to deceive, that\nwe observe this. Since, however, experience proves that particularity is\nnot confined to truth, I have stated that it is a proof of truth only to\na certain extent, i. e. it reduces the question to this, whether we can\ndepend or not upon the probity of the relater? which is a considerable\nadvance in our present argument; for an express attempt to deceive, in\nwhich case alone particularity can appear without truth, is charged upon\nthe evangelists by few. If the historian acknowledge himself to have\nreceived his intelligence from others, the particularity of the\nnarrative shows, prima facie, the accuracy of his inquiries, and the\nfulness of his information. This remark belongs to St. Luke's history.\nOf the particularity which we allege, many examples may be found in all\nthe Gospels. And it is very difficult to conceive that such numerous\nparticularities as are almost everywhere to be met with in the\nScriptures should be raised out of nothing, or be spun out of the\nimagination without any fact to go upon.*\n\n_________\n\n* \"There is always some truth where there are considerable\nparticularities related, and they always seem to bear some proportion to\none another. Thus, there is a great want of the particulars of time,\nplace, and persons in Manetho's account of the Egyptian Dynasties,\nEtesias's of the Assyrian Kings, and those which the technical\nchronologers have given of the ancient kingdoms of Greece; and,\nagreeably thereto, the accounts have much fiction and falsehood, with\nsome truth: whereas Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian War, and\nCaesar's of the War in Gaul, in both which the particulars of time,\nplace, and persons are mentioned, are universally esteemed true to a\ngreat degree of exactness.\" Hartley, vol. ii. p. 109.\n_________\n\n\nIt is to be remarked, however, that this particularity is only to be\nlooked for in direct history. It is not natural in references or\nallusions, which yet, in other respects, often afford, as far as they\ngo, the most unsuspicious evidence.\n\nVI. We lay out of the case such stories of supernatural events as\nrequire, on the part of the hearer, nothing more than an otiose assent;\nstories upon which nothing depends, in which no interest is involved,\nnothing is to be done or changed in consequence of believing them. Such\nstories are credited, if the careless assent that is given to them\ndeserve that name, more by the indolence of the hearer, than by his\njudgment: or, though not much credited, are passed from one to another\nwithout inquiry or resistance. To this case, and to this case alone,\nbelongs what is called the love of the marvellous. I have never known it\ncarry men further. Men do not suffer persecution from the love of the\nmarvellous. Of the indifferent nature we are speaking of are most vulgar\nerrors and popular superstition: most, for instance, of the current\nreports of apparitions. Nothing depends upon their being true or false.\nBut not, surely, of this kind were the alleged miracles of Christ and\nhis apostles. They decided, if true, the most important question upon\nwhich the human mind can fix its anxiety. They claimed to regulate the\nopinions of mankind upon subjects in which they are not only deeply\nconcerned, but usually refractory and obstinate. Men could not be\nutterly careless in such a case as this. If a Jew took up the story, he\nfound his darling partiality to his own nation and law wounded; if a\nGentile, he found his idolatry and polytheism reprobated and condemned.\nWhoever entertained the account, whether Jew or Gentile, could not avoid\nthe following reflection:--\"If these things be true, I must give up the\nopinions and principles in which I have been brought up, the religion in\nwhich my fathers lived and died.\" It is not conceivable that a man\nshould do this upon any idle report or frivolous account, or, indeed,\nwithout being fully satisfied and convinced of the truth and credibility\nof the narrative to which he trusted. But it did not stop at opinions.\nThey who believed Christianity acted upon it. Many made it the express\nbusiness of their lives to publish the intelligence. It was required of\nthose who admitted that intelligence to change forthwith their conduct\nand their principles, to take up a different course of life, to part\nwith their habits and gratifications, and begin a new set of rules and\nsystem of behaviour. The apostles, at least, were interested not to\nsacrifice their ease, their fortunes, and their lives for an idle tale;\nmultitudes beside them were induced, by the same tale, to encounter\nopposition, danger, and sufferings.\n\nIf it be said, that the mere promise of a future state would do all\nthis; I answer, that the mere promise of a future state, without any\nevidence to give credit or assurance to it, would do nothing. A few\nwandering fishermen talking of a resurrection of the dead could produce\nno effect. If it be further said that men easily believe what they\nanxiously desire; I again answer that in my opinion, the very contrary\nof this is nearer to the truth. Anxiety of desire, earnestness of\nexpectation, the vastness of an event, rather causes men to disbelieve,\nto doubt, to dread a fallacy, to distrust, and to examine. When our\nLord's resurrection was first reported to the apostles, they did not\nbelieve, we are told, for joy. This was natural, and is agreeable to\nexperience.\n\nVII. We have laid out of the case those accounts which require no more\nthan a simple assent; and we now also lay out of the case those which\ncome merely in affirmance of opinions already formed. This last\ncircumstance is of the utmost importance to notice well. It has long\nbeen observed, that Popish miracles happen in Popish countries; that\nthey make no converts; which proves that stories are accepted when they\nfall in with principles already fixed, with the public sentiments, or\nwith the sentiments of a party already engaged on the side the miracle\nsupports, which would not be attempted to be produced in the face of\nenemies, in opposition to reigning tenets or favourite prejudices, or\nwhen, if they be believed, the belief must draw men away from their\npreconceived and habitual opinions, from their modes of life and rules\nof action. In the former case, men may not only receive a miraculous\naccount, but may both act and suffer on the side, and, in the cause,\nwhich the miracle supports, yet not act or suffer for the miracle, but\nin pursuance of a prior persuasion. The miracle, like any other argument\nwhich only confirms what was before believed, is admitted with little\nexamination. In the moral, as in the natural world, it is change which\nrequires a cause. Men are easily fortified in their old opinions, driven\nfrom them with great difficulty. Now how does this apply to the\nChristian history? The miracles there recorded were wrought in the midst\nof enemies, under a government, a priesthood, and a magistracy decidedly\nand vehemently adverse to them, and to the pretensions which they\nsupported. They were Protestant miracles in a Popish country; they were\nPopish miracles in the midst of Protestants. They produced a change;\nthey established a society upon the spot, adhering to the belief of\nthem; they made converts; and those who were converted gave up to the\ntestimony their most fixed opinions and most favourite prejudices. They\nwho acted and suffered in the cause acted and suffered for the miracles:\nfor there was no anterior persuasion to induce them, no prior reverence,\nprejudice, or partiality to take hold of Jesus had not one follower when\nhe set up his claim. His miracles gave birth to his sect. No part of\nthis description belongs to the ordinary evidence of Heathen or Popish\nmiracles. Even most of the miracles alleged to have been performed by\nChristians, in the second and third century of its era, want this\nconfirmation. It constitutes indeed a line of partition between the\norigin and the progress of Christianity. Frauds and fallacies might mix\nthemselves with the progress, which could not possibly take place in the\ncommencement of the religion; at least, according to any laws of human\nconduct that we are acquainted with. What should suggest to the first\npropagators of Christianity, especially to fishermen, tax-gatherers, and\nhusbandmen, such a thought as that of changing the religion of the\nworld; what could bear them through the difficulties in which the\nattempt engaged them; what could procure any degree of success to the\nattempt? are questions which apply, with great force, to the setting out\nof the institution--with less, to every future stage of it.\n\nTo hear some men talk, one would suppose the setting up a religion by\nmiracles to be a thing of every day's experience: whereas the whole\ncurrent of history is against it. Hath any founder of a new sect amongst\nChristians pretended to miraculous powers, and succeeded by his\npretensions? \"Were these powers claimed or exercised by the founders of\nthe sects of the Waldenses and Albigenses? Did Wickliffe in England\npretend to it? Did Huss or Jerome in Bohemia? Did Luther in Germany,\nZuinglius in Switzerland, Calvin in France, or any of the reformers\nadvance this plea?\" (Campbell on Miracles, p. 120, ed. 1766.) The French\nprophets, in the beginning of the present century, (the eighteenth)\nventured to allege miraculous evidence, and immediately ruined their\ncause by their temerity. \"Concerning the religion of ancient Rome, of\nTurkey, of Siam, of China, a single miracle cannot be named that was\never offered as a test of any of those religions before their\nestablishment.\" (Adams on Mir. p. 75.)\n\nWe may add to what has been observed of the distinction which we are\nconsidering, that, where miracles are alleged merely in affirmance of a\nprior opinion, they who believe the doctrine may sometimes propagate a\nbelief of the miracles which they do not themselves entertain. This is\nthe case of what are called pious frauds; but it is a case, I apprehend,\nwhich takes place solely in support of a persuasion already established.\nAt least it does not hold of the apostolical history. If the apostles\ndid not believe the miracles, they did not believe the religion; and\nwithout this belief, where was the piety, what place was there for\nanything which could bear the name or colour of piety, in publishing and\nattesting miracles in its behalf? If it be said that many promote the\nbelief of revelation, and of any accounts which favour that belief,\nbecause they think them, whether well or ill founded, of public and\npolitical utility; I answer, that if a character exist which can with\nless justice than another be ascribed to the founders of the Christian\nreligion, it is that of politicians, or of men capable of entertaining\npolitical views. The truth is, that there is no assignable character\nwhich will account for the conduct of the apostles, supposing their\nstory to be false. If bad men, what could have induced them to take such\npains to promote virtue? If good men, they would not have gone about the\ncountry with a string of lies in their mouths.\n\nIn appreciating the credit of any miraculous story, these are\ndistinctions which relate to the evidence. There are other distinctions,\nof great moment in the question, which relate to the miracles\nthemselves. Of which latter kind the following ought carefully to be\nretained.\n\nI. It is not necessary to admit as a miracle what can be resolved into a\nfalse perception. Of this nature was the demon of Socrates; the visions\nof Saint Anthony, and of many others; the vision which Lord Herbert of\nCherbury describes himself to have seen; Colonel Gardiner's vision, as\nrelated in his life, written by Dr. Doddridge. All these may be\naccounted for by a momentary insanity; for the characteristic symptom of\nhuman madness is the rising up in the mind of images not distinguishable\nby the patient from impressions upon the senses. (Batty on Lunacy.) The\ncases, however, in which the possibility of this delusion exists are\ndivided from the cases in which it does not exist by many, and those not\nobscure marks. They are, for the most part, cases of visions or voices.\nThe object is hardly ever touched. The vision submits not to be handled.\nOne sense does not confirm another. They are likewise almost always\ncases of a solitary witness. It is in the highest degree improbable, and\nI know not, indeed, whether it hath ever been the fact, that the same\nderangement of the mental organs should seize different persons at the\nsame time; a derangement, I mean, so much the same, as to represent to\ntheir imagination the same objects. Lastly, these are always cases of\nmomentary miracles; by which term I mean to denote miracles of which the\nwhole existence is of short duration, in contradistinction to miracles\nwhich are attended with permanent effects. The appearance of a spectre,\nthe hearing of a supernatural sound, is a momentary miracle. The\nsensible proof is gone when the apparition or sound is over. But if a\nperson born blind be restored to sight, a notorious cripple to the use\nof his limbs, or a dead man to life, here is a permanent effect produced\nby supernatural means. The change indeed was instantaneous, but the\nproof continues. The subject of the miracle remains. The man cured or\nrestored is there: his former condition was known, and his present\ncondition may be examined. This can by no possibility be resolved into\nfalse perception: and of this kind are by far the greater part of the\nmiracles recorded in the New Testament. When Lazarus was raised from the\ndead, he did not merely move, and speak, and die again; or come out of\nthe grave, and vanish away. He returned to his home and family, and\nthere continued; for we find him some time afterwards in the same town,\nsitting at table with Jesus and his sisters; visited by great multitudes\nof the Jews as a subject of curiosity; giving, by his presence, so much\nuneasiness to the Jewish rulers as to beget in them a design of\ndestroying him. (John xii. 1, 2, 9, 10.) No delusion can account for\nthis. The French prophets in England, some time since, gave out that one\nof their teachers would come to life again; but their enthusiasm never\nmade them believe that they actually saw him alive. The blind man whose\nrestoration to sight at Jerusalem is recorded in the ninth chapter of\nSaint John's Gospel did not quit the place or conceal himself from\ninquiry. On the contrary, he was forthcoming, to answer the call, to\nsatisfy the scrutiny, and to sustain the browbeating of Christ's angry\nand powerful enemies. When the cripple at the gate of the temple was\nsuddenly cured by Peter, (Acts iii. 2.) he did not immediately relapse\ninto his former lameness, or disappear out of the city; but boldly and\nhonestly produced himself along with the apostles, when they were\nbrought the next day before the Jewish council. (Acts iv. 14.) Here,\nthough the miracle was sudden, the proof was permanent. The lameness had\nbeen notorious, the cure continued. This, therefore, could not be the\neffect of any momentary delirium, either in the subject or in the\nwitnesses of the transaction. It is the same with the greatest number of\nthe Scripture miracles. There are other cases of a mixed nature, in\nwhich, although the principal miracle be momentary, some circumstance\ncombined with it is permanent. Of this kind is the history of Saint\nPaul's conversion. (Acts ix.) The sudden light and sound, the vision and\nthe voice upon the road to Damascus, were momentary: but Paul's\nblindness for three days in consequence of what had happened; the\ncommunication made to Ananias in another place, and by a vision\nindependent of the former; Ananias finding out Paul in consequence of\nintelligence so received, and finding him in the condition described,\nand Paul's recovery of his sight upon Ananias laying his hands upon him;\nare circumstances which take the transaction, and the principal miracle\nas included in it, entirely out of the case of momentary miracles, or of\nsuch as may be accounted for by false perceptions. Exactly the same\nthing may be observed of Peter's vision preparatory to the call of\nCornelius, and of its connexion with what was imparted in a distant\nplace to Cornelius himself, and with the message despatched by Cornelius\nto Peter. The vision might be a dream; the message could not. Either\ncommunication taken separately, might be a delusion; the concurrence of\nthe two was impossible to happen without a supernatural cause.\n\nBeside the risk of delusion which attaches upon momentary miracles,\nthere is also much more room for imposture. The account cannot be\nexamined at the moment: and when that is also a moment of hurry and\nconfusion, it may not be difficult for men of influence to gain credit\nto any story which they may wish to have believed. This is precisely the\ncase of one of the best attested of the miracles of Old Rome, the\nappearance of Castor and Pollux in the battle fought by Posthumius with\nthe Latins at the lake Regillus. There is no doubt but that Posthumius,\nafter the battle, spread the report of such an appearance. No person\ncould deny it whilst it was said to last. No person, perhaps, had any\ninclination to dispute it afterwards; or, if they had, could say with\npositiveness what was or what was not seen by some or other of the army,\nin the dismay and amidst the tumult of a battle.\n\nIn assigning false perceptions as the origin to which some miraculous\naccounts may be referred, I have not mentioned claims to inspiration,\nilluminations, secret notices or directions, internal sensations, or\nconsciousnesses of being acted upon by spiritual influences, good or\nbad, because these, appealing to no external proof, however convincing\nthey may be to the persons themselves, form no part of what can be\naccounted miraculous evidence. Their own credibility stands upon their\nalliance with other miracles. The discussion, therefore, of all such\npretensions may be omitted.\n\nII. It is not necessary to bring into the comparison what may be called\ntentative miracles; that is, where, out of a great number of trials,\nsome succeed; and in the accounts of which, although the narrative of\nthe successful cases be alone preserved, and that of the unsuccessful\ncases sunk, yet enough is stated to show that the cases produced are\nonly a few out of many in which the same means have been employed. This\nobservation bears with considerable force upon the ancient oracles and\nauguries, in which a single coincidence of the event with the prediction\nis talked of and magnified, whilst failures are forgotten, or\nsuppressed, or accounted for. It is also applicable to the cures wrought\nby relics, and at the tombs of saints. The boasted efficacy of the\nking's touch, upon which Mr. Hume lays some stress, falls under the same\ndescription. Nothing is alleged concerning it which is not alleged of\nvarious nostrums, namely, out of many thousands who have used them,\ncertified proofs of a few who have recovered after them. No solution of\nthis sort is applicable to the miracles of the Gospel. There is nothing\nin the narrative which can induce, or even allow, us to believe, that\nChrist attempted cures in many instances, and succeeded in a few; or\nthat he ever made the attempt in vain. He did not profess to heal\neverywhere all that were sick; on the contrary, he told the Jews,\nevidently meaning to represent his own case, that, \"although many widows\nwere in Israel in the days of Elias, when the heaven was shut up three\nyears and six months, when great famine was throughout all the land, yet\nunto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta, a city of Sidon,\nunto a woman that was a widow:\" and that \"many lepers were in Israel in\nthe time of Eliseus the prophet, and none of them was cleansed saving\nNaaman the Syrian.\" (Luke iv. 25.) By which examples he gave them to\nunderstand, that it was not the nature of a Divine interposition, or\nnecessary to its purpose, to be general; still less to answer every\nchallenge that might be made, which would teach men to put their faith\nupon these experiments. Christ never pronounced the word, but the effect\nfollowed.*\n\n_________\n\n*One, and only one, instance may be produced in which the disciples of\nChrist do seem to have attempted a cure, and not to have been able to\nperform it. The story is very ingenuously related by three of the\nevangelists. (Matt. xvii. 14. Mark ix. 14. Luke ix. 33.) The patient was\nafterwards healed by Christ himself; and the whole transaction seems to\nhave been intended, as it was well suited, to display the superiority of\nChrist above all who performed miracles in his name, a distinction\nwhich, during his presence in the world, it might be necessary to\ninculcate by some such proof as this.\n_________\n\n\nIt was not a thousand sick that received his benediction, and a few that\nwere benefited; a single paralytic is let down in his bed at Jesus's\nfeet, in the midst of a surrounding multitude; Jesus bid him walk, and\nhe did so. (Mark ii. 3.) A man with a withered hand is in the synagogue;\nJesus bid him stretch forth his hand in the presence of the assembly,\nand it was \"restored whole like the other.\" (Matt. xii. 10.) There was\nnothing tentative in these cures; nothing that can be explained by the\npower of accident.\n\nWe may observe, also, that many of the cures which Christ wrought, such\nas that of a person blind from his birth; also many miracles besides\ncures, as raising the dead, walking upon the sea, feeding a great\nmultitude with a few loaves and fishes, are of a nature which does not\nin anywise admit of the supposition of a fortunate experiment.\n\nIII. We may dismiss from the question all accounts in which, allowing\nthe phenomenon to be real, the fact to be true, it still remains\ndoubtful whether a miracle were wrought. This is the case with the\nancient history of what is called the thundering legion, of the\nextraordinary circumstances which obstructed the rebuilding of the\ntemple at Jerusalem by Julian; the circling of the flames and fragrant\nsmell at the martyrdom of Polycarp; the sudden shower that extinguished\nthe fire into which the Scriptures were thrown in the Diocletian\npersecution; Constantine's dream; his inscribing in consequence of it\nthe cross upon his standard and the shields of his soldiers; his\nvictory, and the escape of the standard-bearer; perhaps, also, the\nimagined appearance of the cross in the heavens, though this last\ncircumstance is very deficient in historical evidence. It is also the\ncase with the modern annual exhibition of the liquefaction of the blood\nof Saint Januarius at Naples. It is a doubt, likewise, which ought to be\nexcluded by very special circumstances from those narratives which\nrelate to the supernatural cure of hypochondriacal and nervous\ncomplaints, and of all diseases which are much affected by the\nimagination. The miracles of the second and third century are, usually,\nhealing the sick and casting out evil spirits, miracles in which there\nis room for some error and deception. We hear nothing of causing the\nblind to see, the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, the lepers to be\ncleansed. (Jortin's Remarks, vol. ii. p. 51.) There are also instances in\nChristian writers of reputed miracles, which were natural operations,\nthough not known to be such at the time; as that of articulate speech\nafter the loss of a great part of the tongue.\n\nIV. To the same head of objection, nearly, may also be referred accounts\nin which the variation of a small circumstance may have transformed some\nextraordinary appearance, or some critical coincidence of events, into a\nmiracle; stories, in a word, which may be resolved into exaggeration. The\nmiracles of the Gospel can by no possibility be explained away in this\nmanner. Total fiction will account for anything; but no stretch of\nexaggeration that has any parallel in other histories, no force of fancy\nupon real circumstances, could produce the narratives which we now have.\nThe feeding of the five thousand with a few loaves and fishes surpasses\nall bounds of exaggeration. The raising of Lazarus, of the widow's son\nat Nain, as well as many of the cures which Christ wrought, come not\nwithin the compass of misrepresentation. I mean that it is impossible to\nassign any position of circumstances however peculiar, any accidental\neffects however extraordinary, any natural singularity, which could\nsupply an origin or foundation to these accounts.\n\nHaving thus enumerated several exceptions which may justly be taken to\nrelations of miracles, it is necessary, when we read the Scriptures, to\nbear in our minds this general remark; that although there be miracles\nrecorded in the New Testament, which fall within some or other of the\nexceptions here assigned, yet that they are united with others, to which\nnone of the same exceptions extend, and that their credibility stands\nupon this union. Thus the visions and revelations which Saint Paul\nasserts to have been imparted to him may not, in their separate\nevidence, be distinguishable from the visions and revelations which many\nothers have alleged. But here is the difference. Saint Paul's\npretensions were attested by external miracles wrought by himself, and\nby miracles wrought in the cause to which these visions relate; or, to\nspeak more properly, the same historical authority which informs us of\none informs us of the other. This is not ordinarily true of the visions\nof enthusiasts, or even of the accounts in which they are contained.\nAgain, some of Christ's own miracles were momentary; as the\ntransfiguration, the appearance and voice from Heaven at his baptism, a\nvoice from the clouds on one occasion afterwards (John xii. 28), and\nsome others. It is not denied, that the distinction which we have\nproposed concerning miracles of this species applies, in diminution of\nthe force of the evidence, as much to these instances as to others. But\nthis is the case not with all the miracles ascribed to Christ, nor with\nthe greatest part, nor with many. Whatever force therefore there may be\nin the objection, we have numerous miracles which are free from it; and\neven those to which it is applicable are little affected by it in their\ncredit, because there are few who, admitting the rest, will reject them.\nIf there be miracles of the New Testament which come within any of the\nother heads into which we have distributed the objections, the same\nremark must be repeated. And this is one way in which the unexampled\nnumber and variety of the miracles ascribed to Christ strengthen the\ncredibility of Christianity. For it precludes any solution, or\nconjecture about a solution, which imagination, or even which experience\nmight suggest, concerning some particular miracles, if considered\nindependently of others. The miracles of Christ were of various kinds,*\nand performed in great varieties of situation, form, and manner; at\nJerusalem, the metropolis of the Jewish nation and religion; in\ndifferent parts of Judea and Galilee; in cities and villages; in\nsynagogues, in private houses; in the street, in highways; with\npreparation, as in the case of Lazarus; by accident, as in the case of\nthe widow's son of Nain; when attended by multitudes, and when alone\nwith the patient; in the midst of his disciples, and in the presence of\nhis enemies; with the common people around him, and before Scribes and\nPharisees, and rulers of the synagogues.\n\n_________\n\n* Not only healing every species of disease, but turning water into wine\n(John ii.); feeding multitudes with a few loaves and fishes (Matt. xiv.\n15; Mark vi. 35; Luke ix. 12; John vi. 5); walking on the sea (Matt.\nxiv. 25); calming a storm (Matt. viii. 26; Luke viii. 24); a celestial\nvoice at his baptism, and miraculous appearance (Matt. iii. 16;\nafterwards John xii. 28); his transfiguration (Matt. xvii. 18; Mark ix.\n2; Luke ix. 28; 2 Peter i. 16, 17); raising the dead in three distinct\ninstances (Matt. ix. 18; Mark v. 22; Luke vii. 14; viii. 41; John xi.).\n_________\n\n\nI apprehend that, when we remove from the comparison the cases which are\nfairly disposed of by the observations that have been stated, many cases\nwill not remain. To those which do remain, we apply this final\ndistinction; \"that there is not satisfactory evidence that persons\npretending to be original witnesses of the miracles passed their lives\nin labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undertaken and\nundergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and\nproperly in consequence of their belief of the truth of those accounts.\"\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nBut they with whom we argue have undoubtedly a right to select their own\nexamples. The instances with which Mr. Hume has chosen to confront the\nmiracles of the New Testament, and which, therefore, we are entitled to\nregard as the strongest which the history of the world could supply to\nthe inquiries of a very acute and learned adversary, are the three\nfollowing:\n\nI. The cure of a blind and of a lame man of Alexandria, by the emperor\nVespasian, as related by Tacitus;\n\nII. The restoration of the limb of an attendant in a Spanish church, as\ntold by Cardinal de Retz; and,\n\nIII. The cures said to be performed at the tomb of the abbe Paris in the\nearly part of the eighteenth century.\n\nI. The narrative of Tacitus is delivered in these terms: \"One of the\ncommon people of Alexandria, known to be diseased in his eyes, by the\nadmonition of the god Serapis, whom that superstitious nation worship\nabove all other gods, prostrated himself before the emperor, earnestly\nimploring from him a remedy for his blindness, and entreating that he\nwould deign to anoint with his spittle his cheeks and the balls of his\neyes. Another, diseased in his hand, requested, by the admonition of the\nsame god, that he might be touched by the foot of the emperor. Vespasian\nat first derided and despised their application; afterwards, when they\ncontinued to urge their petitions, he sometimes appeared to dread the\nimputation of vanity; at other times, by the earnest supplication of the\npatients, and the persuasion of his flatterers, to be induced to hope\nfor success. At length he commanded an inquiry to be made by the\nphysicians, whether such a blindness and debility were vincible by human\naid. The report of the physicians contained various points: that in the\none, the power of vision was not destroyed, but would return if the\nobstacles were removed; that in the other, the diseased joints might be\nrestored, if a healing power were applied; that it was, perhaps,\nagreeable to the gods to do this; that the emperor was elected by divine\nassistance; lastly, that the credit of the success would be the\nemperor's, the ridicule of the disappointment would fall upon the\npatients. Vespasian believing that everything was in the power of his\nfortune, and that nothing was any longer incredible, whilst the\nmultitude which stood by eagerly expected the event, with a countenance\nexpressive of joy, executed what he was desired to do. Immediately the\nhand was restored to its use, and light returned to the blind man. They\nwho were present relate both these cures, even at this time, when there\nis nothing to be gained by lying.\" (Tacit. Hist. lib. iv.)\n\nNow, though Tacitus wrote this account twenty-seven years after the\nmiracle is said to have been performed, and wrote at Rome of what passed\nat Alexandria, and wrote also from report; and although it does not\nappear that he had examined the story or that he believed it, (but\nrather the contrary,) yet I think his testimony sufficient to prove that\nsuch a transaction took place: by which I mean, that the two men in\nquestion did apply to Vespasian; that Vespasian did touch the diseased\nin the manner related; and that a cure was reported to have followed the\noperation. But the affair labours under a strong and just suspicion,\nthat the whole of it was a concerted imposture brought about by\ncollusion between the patients, the physician, and the emperor. This\nsolution is probable, because there was everything to suggest, and\neverything to facilitate such a scheme. The miracle was calculated to\nconfer honour upon the emperor, and upon the god Serapis. It was\nachieved in the midst of the emperor's flatterers and followers; in a\ncity and amongst a populace before-hand devoted to his interest, and to\nthe worship of the god: where it would have been treason and blasphemy\ntogether to have contradicted the fame of the cure, or even to have\nquestioned it. And what is very observable in the account is, that the\nreport of the physicians is just such a report as would have been made\nof a case in which no external marks of the disease existed, and which,\nconsequently, was capable of being easily counterfeited; viz. that in\nthe first of the patients the organs of vision were not destroyed, that\nthe weakness of the second was in his joints. The strongest circumstance\nin Tacitus's narration is, that the first patient was \"notus tabe\noculorum,\" remarked or notorious for the disease in his eyes. But this\nwas a circumstance which might have found its way into the story in its\nprogress from a distant country, and during an interval of thirty years;\nor it might be true that the malady of the eyes was notorious, yet that\nthe nature and degree of the disease had never been ascertained; a case\nby no means uncommon. The emperor's reserve was easily affected: or it\nis possible he might not be in the secret. There does not seem to be\nmuch weight in the observation of Tacitus, that they who were present\ncontinued even then to relate the story when there was nothing to be\ngained by the lie. It only proves that those who had told the story for\nmany years persisted in it. The state of mind of the witnesses and\nspectators at the time is the point to be attended to. Still less is\nthere of pertinency in Mr. Hume's eulogium on the cautious and\npenetrating genius of the historian; for it does not appear that the\nhistorian believed it. The terms in which he speaks of Serapis, the\ndeity to whose interposition the miracle was attributed, scarcely suffer\nus to suppose that Tacitus thought the miracle to be real: \"by the\nadmonition of the god Serapis, whom that superstitious nation (dedita\nsuperstitionibus gens) worship above all other gods.\" To have brought\nthis supposed miracle within the limits of comparison with the miracles\nof Christ, it ought to have appeared that a person of a low and private\nstation, in the midst of enemies, with the whole power of the country\nopposing him, with every one around him prejudiced or interested against\nhis claims and character, pretended to perform these cures, and required\nthe spectators, upon the strength of what they saw, to give up their\nfirmest hopes and opinions, and follow him through a life of trial and\ndanger; that many were so moved as to obey his call, at the expense both\nof every notion in which they had been brought up, and of their ease,\nsafety, and reputation; and that by these beginnings a change was\nproduced in the world, the effects of which remain to this day: a case,\nboth in its circumstances and consequences, very unlike anything we find\nin Tacitus's relation.\n\nII. The story taken from the Memoirs of Cardinal de Retz, which is the\nsecond example alleged by Mr. Hume, is this: \"In the church of Saragossa\nin Spain, the canons showed me a man whose business it was to light the\nlamps; telling me, that he had been several years at the gate with one\nleg only. I saw him with two.\" (Liv. iv. A.D. 1654.)\n\nIt is stated by Mr. Hume, that the cardinal who relates this story did\nnot believe it; and it nowhere appears that he either examined the limb,\nor asked the patient, or indeed any one, a single question about the\nmatter. An artificial leg, wrought with art, would be sufficient, in a\nplace where no such contrivance had ever before been heard of, to give\norigin and currency to the report. The ecclesiastics of the place would,\nit is probable, favour the story, inasmuch as it advanced the honour of\ntheir image and church. And if they patronized it, no other person at\nSaragossa, in the middle of the last century, would care to dispute it.\nThe story likewise coincided not less with the wishes and preconceptions\nof the people than with the interests of their ecclesiastical rulers: so\nthat there was prejudice backed by authority, and both operating upon\nextreme ignorance, to account for the success of the imposture. If, as I\nhave suggested, the contrivance of an artificial limb was then new, it\nwould not occur to the cardinal himself to suspect it; especially under\nthe carelessness of mind with which he heard the tale, and the little\ninclination he felt to scrutinize or expose its fallacy.\n\nIII. The miracles related to have been wrought at the tomb of the abbe\nParis admit in general of this solution. The patients who frequented the\ntomb were so affected by their devotion, their expectation, the place,\nthe solemnity, and, above all, by the sympathy of the surrounding\nmultitude, that many of them were thrown into violent convulsions, which\nconvulsions, in certain instances, produced a removal of disorder,\ndepending upon obstruction. We shall, at this day, have the less\ndifficulty in admitting the above account, because it is the very same\nthing as hath lately been experienced in the operations of animal\nmagnetism: and the report of the French physicians upon that mysterious\nremedy is very applicable to the present consideration, viz. that the\npretenders to the art, by working upon the imaginations of their\npatients, were frequently able to produce convulsions; that convulsions\nso produced are amongst the most powerful, but, at the same time, most\nuncertain and unmanageable applications to the human frame which can be\nemployed.\n\nCircumstances which indicate this explication, in the case of the\nParisian miracles, are the following:\n\n1. They were tentative. Out of many thousand sick, infirm, and diseased\npersons who resorted to the tomb, the professed history of the miracles\ncontains only nine cures.\n\n2. The convulsions at the tomb are admitted.\n\n3. The diseases were, for the most part, of that sort which depends upon\ninaction and obstruction, as dropsies, palsies, and some tumours.\n\n4. The cures were gradual; some patients attending many days, some several\nweeks, and some several months.\n\n5. The cures were many of them incomplete.\n\n6. Others were temporary. (The reader will find these particulars\nverified in the detail, by the accurate inquiries of the present bishop\nof Sarum, in his Criterion of Miracles, p. 132, et seq.)\n\nSo that all the wonder we are called upon to account for is, that out of\nan almost innumerable multitude which resorted to the tomb for the cure\nof their complaints, and many of whom were there agitated by strong\nconvulsions, a very small proportion experienced a beneficial change in\ntheir constitution, especially in the action of the nerves and glands.\n\nSome of the cases alleged do not require that we should have recourse to\nthis solution. The first case in the catalogue is scarcely\ndistinguishable from the progress of a natural recovery. It was that of\na young man who laboured under an inflammation of one eye, and had lost\nthe sight of the other. The inflamed eye was relieved, but the blindness\nof the other remained. The inflammation had before been abated by\nmedicine; and the young man, at the time of his attendance at the tomb,\nwas using a lotion of laudanum. And, what is a still more material part\nof the case, the inflammation, after some interval, returned. Another\ncase was that of a young man who had lost his sight by the puncture of\nan awl, and the discharge of the aqueous humour through the wound. The\nsight, which had been gradually returning, was much improved during his\nvisit to the tomb, that is, probably in the same degree in which the\ndischarged humour was replaced by fresh secretions. And it is\nobservable, that these two are the only cases which, from their nature,\nshould seem unlikely to be affected by convulsions.\n\nIn one material respect I allow that the Parisian miracles were\ndifferent from those related by Tacitus, and from the Spanish miracle of\nthe cardinal de Retz. They had not, like them, all the power and all the\nprejudice of the country on their side to begin with. They were alleged\nby one party against another, by the Jansenists against the Jesuits.\nThese were of course opposed and examined by their adversaries. The\nconsequence of which examination was that many falsehoods were detected,\nthat with something really extraordinary much fraud appeared to be\nmixed. And if some of the cases upon which designed misrepresentation\ncould not be charged were not at the time satisfactorily accounted for,\nit was because the efficacy of strong spasmodic affections was not then\nsufficiently known. Finally, the cause of Jansenism did not rise by the\nmiracles, but sunk, although the miracles had the anterior persuasion of\nall the numerous adherents of that cause to set out with.\n\nThese, let us remember, are the strongest examples which the history of\nages supplies. In none of them was the miracle unequivocal; by none of\nthem were established prejudices and persuasions overthrown; of none of\nthem did the credit make its way, in opposition to authority and power;\nby none of them were many induced to commit themselves, and that in\ncontradiction to prior opinions, to a life of mortification, danger, and\nsufferings; none were called upon to attest them at the expense of their\nfortunes and safety.*\n\n_________\n\n* It may be thought that the historian of the Parisian miracles, M.\nMontgeron, forms an exception to this last assertion. He presented his\nbook (with a suspicion, as it should seem, of the danger of what he was\ndoing) to the king; and was shortly afterwards committed to prison; from\nwhich he never came out. Had the miracles been unequivocal, and had M.\nMontgeron been originally convinced by them, I should have allowed this\nexception. It would have stood, I think, alone in the argument of our\nadversaries. But, beside what has been observed of the dubious nature of\nthe miracles, the account which M. Montgeron has himself left of his\nconversion shows both the state of his mind and that his persuasion was\nnot built upon external miracles.--\"Scarcely had he entered the\nchurchyard when he was struck,\" he tells us, \"with awe and reverence,\nhaving never before heard prayers pronounced with so much ardour and\ntransport as he observed amongst the supplicants at the tomb. Upon this,\nthrowing himself on his knees, resting his elbows on the tombstone and\ncovering his face with his hands, he spake the following prayer. O thou,\nby whose intercession so many miracles are said to be performed, if it\nbe true that a part of thee surviveth the grave, and that thou hast\ninfluence with the Almighty, have pity on the darkness of my\nunderstanding, and through his mercy obtain the removal of it.\" Having\nprayed thus, \"many thoughts,\" as he sayeth, \"began to open themselves to\nhis mind; and so profound was his attention that he continued on his\nknees four hours, not in the least disturbed by the vast crowd of\nsurrounding supplicants. During this time, all the arguments which he\never heard or read in favour of Christianity occurred to him with so\nmuch force, and seemed so strong and convincing, that he went home fully\nsatisfied of the truth of religion in general, and of the holiness and\npower of that person who,\" as he supposed, \"had engaged the Divine\nGoodness to enlighten his understanding so suddenly.\" (Douglas's Crit of\nMir. p. 214.)\n\n_________\n\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\nOF THE AUXILIARY EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nPROPHECY.\n\nIsaiah iii. 13; liii. \"Behold, my servant shall deal prudently; he shall\nbe exalted and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonished at\nthee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than\nthe sons of men: so shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut\ntheir mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they\nsee; and that which they had not heard shall they consider. Who hath\nbelieved our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? For he\nshall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry\nground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there\nis no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of\nmen, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid, as it\nwere, our faces from him: he was despised, and we esteemed him not.\nSurely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did\nesteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded\nfor our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the\nchastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are\nhealed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to\nhis own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He\nwas oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is\nbrought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers\nis dumb, so he opened not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from\njudgment; and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out\nof the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he\nstricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in\nhis death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in\nhis mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to\ngrief. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see\nhis seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall\nprosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall\nbe satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many;\nfor he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a\nportion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong;\nbecause he hath poured out his soul unto death; and he was numbered with\nthe transgressors, and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession\nfor the transgressors.\"\n\nThese words are extant in a book purporting to contain the predictions\nof a writer who lived seven centuries before the Christian era.\n\nThat material part of every argument from prophecy, namely, that the\nwords alleged were actually spoken or written before the fact to which\nthey are applied took place, or could by any natural means be foreseen,\nis, in the present instance, incontestable. The record comes out of the\ncustody of adversaries. The Jews, as an ancient father well observed,\nare our librarians. The passage is in their copies as well as in ours.\nWith many attempts to explain it away, none has ever been made by them\nto discredit its authenticity.\n\nAnd what adds to the force of the quotation is, that it is taken from a\nwriting declaredly prophetic; a writing professing to describe such\nfuture transactions and changes in the world as were connected with the\nfate and interests of the Jewish nation. It is not a passage in an\nhistorical or devotional composition, which, because it turns out to be\napplicable to some future events, or to some future situation of\naffairs, is presumed to have been oracular. The words of Isaiah were\ndelivered by him in a prophetic character, with the solemnity belonging\nto that character: and what he so delivered was all along understood by\nthe Jewish reader to refer to something that was to take place after the\ntime of the author. The public sentiments of the Jews concerning the\ndesign of Isaiah's writings are set forth in the book of\nEcclesiasticus:* \"He saw by an excellent spirit what should come to pass\nat the last, and he comforted them that mourned in Sion. He showed what\nshould come to pass for ever, and secret things or ever they came.\"\n\n_________\n\n* Chap. xlviii. ver. 24.\n_________\n\n\nIt is also an advantage which this prophecy possesses, that it is\nintermixed with no other subject. It is entire, separate, and\nuninterruptedly directed to one scene of things.\n\nThe application of the prophecy to the evangelic history is plain and\nappropriate. Here is no double sense; no figurative language but what is\nsufficiently intelligible to every reader of every country. The\nobscurities (by which I mean the expressions that require a knowledge of\nlocal diction, and of local allusion) are few, and not of great\nimportance. Nor have I found that varieties of reading, or a different\nconstruing of the original, produce any material alteration in the sense\nof the prophecy. Compare the common translation with that of Bishop\nLowth, and the difference is not considerable. So far as they do differ,\nBishop Lowth's corrections, which are the faithful result of an accurate\nexamination, bring the description nearer to the New Testament history\nthan it was before. In the fourth verse of the fifty-third chapter, what\nour bible renders \"stricken\" he translates \"judicially stricken:\" and in\nthe eighth verse, the clause \"he was taken from prison and from\njudgment,\" the bishop gives \"by an oppressive judgment he was taken\noff.\" The next words to these, \"who shall declare his generation?\" are\nmuch cleared up in their meaning by the bishop's version; \"his manner of\nlife who would declare?\" i. e. who would stand forth in his defence? The\nformer part of the ninth verse, \"and he made his grave with the wicked,\nand with the rich in his death,\" which inverts the circumstances of\nChrist's passion, the bishop brings out in an order perfectly agreeable\nto the event; \"and his grave was appointed with the wicked, but with the\nrich man was his tomb.\" The words in the eleventh verse, \"by his\nknowledge shall my righteous servant justify many,\" are, in the bishop's\nversion, \"by the knowledge of him shall my righteous servant justify\nmany.\"\n\nIt is natural to inquire what turn the Jews themselves give to this\nprophecy.* There is good proof that the ancient Rabbins explained it of\ntheir expected Messiah:+ but their modern expositors concur, I think, in\nrepresenting it as a description of the calamitous state, and intended\nrestoration, of the Jewish people, who are here, as they say, exhibited\nunder the character of a single person. I have not discovered that their\nexposition rests upon any critical arguments, or upon these in any other\nthan in a very minute degree.\n\n_________\n\n* \"Vaticinium hoc Esaiae est carnificina Rabbinorum, de quo aliqui\nJudaei mihi confessi sunt, Rabbinos suos ex propheticis scripturis\nfacile se extricare potuisse, modo; Esaias tacuisset.\" Hulse, Theol.\nJud. P. 318, quoted by Poole, in loc.\n\n+ Hulse, Theol. Jud. p. 430.\n_________\n\n\nThe clause in the ninth verse, which we render \"for the transgression of\nmy people was he stricken,\" and in the margin, \"was the stroke upon\nhim,\" the Jews read \"for the transgression of my people was the stroke\nupon them.\" And what they allege in support of the alteration amounts\nonly to this, that the Hebrew pronoun is capable of a plural as well as\nof a singular signification; that is to say, is capable of their\nconstruction as well as ours.* And this is all the variation contended\nfor; the rest of the prophecy they read as we do. The probability,\ntherefore, of their exposition is a subject of which we are as capable\nof judging as themselves. This judgment is open indeed to the good sense\nof every attentive reader. The application which the Jews contend for\nappears to me to labour under insuperable difficulties; in particular,\nit may be demanded of them to explain in whose name or person, if the\nJewish people he the sufferer, does the prophet speak, when he says, \"He\nhath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him\nstricken, smitten of God, and afflicted; but he was wounded for our\ntransgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of\nour peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.\" Again, the\ndescription in the seventh verse, \"he was oppressed and he was\nafflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the\nslaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not\nhis mouth,\" quadrates with no part of the Jewish history with which we\nare acquainted. The mention of the \"grave\" and the \"tomb,\" in the ninth\nverse, is not very applicable to the fortunes of a nation; and still\nless so is the conclusion of the prophecy in the twelfth verse, which\nexpressly represents the sufferings as voluntary, and the sufferer as\ninterceding for the offenders; \"because he hath poured out his soul unto\ndeath, and he was numbered with the transgressors, and he bare the sin\nof many, and made intercession for the transgressors.\"\n\n_________\n\n* Bishop Lowth adopts in this place the reading of the seventy, which\ngives smitten to death, \"for the transgression of my people was he\nsmitten to death.\" The addition of the words \"to death\" makes an end of\nthe Jewish interpretation of the clause. And the authority upon which\nthis reading (though not given by the present Hebrew text) is adopted,\nDr. Kennicot has set forth by an argument not only so cogent, but so\nclear and popular, that I beg leave to transcribe the substance of it\ninto this note:--\"Origen, after having quoted at large this prophecy\nconcerning the Messiah, tells us that, having once made use of this\npassage, in a dispute against some that were accounted wise amongst the\nJews, one of them replied that the words did not mean one man, but one\npeople, the Jews, who were smitten of God, and dispersed among the\nGentiles for their conversion; that he then urged many parts of this\nprophecy to show the absurdity of this interpretation, and that he\nseemed to press them the hardest by this sentence,--'for the\ntransgression of my people was he smitten to death.'\" Now as Origen, the\nauthor of the Hexapla, must have understood Hebrew, we cannot suppose\nthat he would have urged this last text as so decisive, if the Greek\nversion had not agreed here with the Hebrew text; nor that these wise\nJews would have been at all distressed by this quotation, unless the\nHebrew text had read agreeably to the words \"to death,\" on which the\nargument principally depended; for by quoting it immediately, they would\nhave triumphed over him, and reprobated his Greek version. This,\nwhenever they could do it was their constant practice in their disputes\nwith the Christians. Origen himself, who laboriously compared the Hebrew\ntext with the Septuagint, has recorded the necessity of arguing with the\nJews from such passages only as were in the Septuagint agreeable to the\nHebrew. Wherefore, as Origen had carefully compared the Greek version of\nthe Septuagint with the Hebrew text; and as he puzzled and confounded\nthe learned Jews, by urging upon them the reading \"to death\" in this\nplace; it seems almost impossible not to conclude, both from Origen's\nargument and the silence of his Jewish adversaries, that the Hebrew text\nat that time actually had the word agreeably to the version of the\nseventy. Lowth's Isaiah, p. 242.\n_________\n\n\nThere are other prophecies of the Old Testament, interpreted by\nChristians to relate to the Gospel history, which are deserving both of\ngreat regard and of a very attentive consideration: but I content myself\nwith stating the above, as well because I think it the clearest and the\nstrongest of all, as because most of the rest, in order that their value\nmight be represented with any tolerable degree of fidelity, require a\ndiscussion unsuitable to the limits and nature of this work. The reader\nwill find them disposed in order, and distinctly explained, in Bishop\nChandler's treatise on the subject; and he will bear in mind, what has\nbeen often, and, I think, truly, urged by the advocates of Christianity,\nthat there is no other eminent person to the history of whose life so\nmany circumstances can be made to apply. They who object that much has\nbeen done by the power of chance, the ingenuity of accommodation, and\nthe industry of research, ought to try whether the same, or anything\nlike it, could be done, if Mahomet, or any other person, were proposed\nas the subject of Jewish prophecy.\n\n\nII. A second head of argument from prophecy is founded upon our Lord's\npredictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, recorded by three\nout of the four evangelists.\n\nLuke xxi. 5-25. \"And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned\nwith goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things which ye\nbehold, the days will come in which there shall not be left one stone\nupon another, that shall not be thrown down. And they asked him, saying,\nMaster, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when\nthese things shall come to pass? And he said, Take heed that ye be not\ndeceived; for many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and the\ntime draweth near; go ye not therefore after them. But when ye shall\nhear of wars and commotions, be not terrified: for these things must\nfirst come to pass; but the end is not by-and-by. Then said he unto\nthem, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and\ngreat earth-quakes shall be in divers places, and famines and\npestilences; and fearful sights, and great signs shall there be from\nheaven. But before all these, they shall lay their hands on you, and\npersecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues, and into prisons,\nbeing brought before kings and rulers for my name's sake. And it shall\nturn to you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts not to\nmeditate before what ye shall answer: for I will give you a mouth and\nwisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor\nresist. And ye shall be betrayed both by parents, and brethren, and\nkinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to\ndeath. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake. But there\nshall not an hair of your head perish. In your patience possess ye your\nsouls. And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know\nthat the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea\nflee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart\nout; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For\nthese be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be\nfulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child and to them that give\nsuck in those days: for there shall be great distress in the land, and\nwrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword,\nand shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be\ntrodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be\nfulfilled.\"\n\nIn terms nearly similar, this discourse is related in the twenty-fourth\nchapter of Matthew and the thirteenth of Mark. The prospect of the same\nevils drew from our Saviour, on another occasion, the following\naffecting expressions of concern, which are preserved by St. Luke (xix.\n41--44): \"And when he was come near, he beheld the city and wept over\nit, saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day,\nthe things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine\neyes. For the day shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a\ntrench about thee, and compass thee round and keep thee in on every\nside, and shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within\nthee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because\nthou knowest not the time of thy visitation\"--These passages are direct\nand explicit predictions. References to the same event, some plain, some\nparabolical, or otherwise figurative, are found in divers other\ndiscourses of our Lord. (Matt. xxi. 33-46; xxii. 1-7. Mark xii. 1-12.\nLuke xiii. 1-9; xx. 9-20; xxi. 5-13.)\n\nThe general agreement of the description with the event, viz. with the\nruin of the Jewish nation, and the capture of Jerusalem under Vespasian,\nthirty-six years after Christ's death, is most evident; and the\naccordancy in various articles of detail and circumstances has been\nshown by many learned writers. It is also an advantage to the inquiry,\nand to the argument built upon it, that we have received a copious\naccount of the transaction from Josephus, a Jewish and contemporary\nhistorian. This part of the case is perfectly free from doubt. The only\nquestion which, in my opinion, can be raised upon the subject is,\nwhether the prophecy was really delivered before the event?  I shall\napply, therefore, my observations to this point solely.\n\n1. The judgment of antiquity, though varying in the precise year of the\npublication of the three Gospels, concurs in assigning them a date prior\nto the destruction of Jerusalem. (Lardner, vol. xiii.)\n\n2. This judgment is confirmed by a strong probability arising from the\ncourse of human life. The destruction of Jerusalem took place in the\nseventieth year after the birth of Christ. The three evangelists, one of\nwhom was his immediate companion, and the other two associated with his\ncompanions, were, it is probable, not much younger than he was. They\nmust, consequently, have been far advanced in life when Jerusalem was\ntaken; and no reason has been given why they should defer writing their\nhistories so long.\n\n3. (Le Clerc, Diss. III. de Quat. Evang. num. vii. p. 541.) If the\nevangelists, at the time of writing the Gospels, had known of the\ndestruction of Jerusalem, by which catastrophe the prophecies were\nplainly fulfilled, it is most probable that, in recording the\npredictions, they would have dropped some word or other about the\ncompletion; in like manner as Luke, after relating the denunciation of a\ndearth by Agabus, adds, \"which came to pass in the days of Claudius\nCaesar;\" (Acts xi. 28.) whereas the prophecies are given distinctly in\none chapter of each of the first three Gospels, and referred to in\nseveral different passages of each, and in none of all these places does\nthere appear the smallest intimation that the things spoken of had come\nto pass. I do admit that it would have been the part of an impostor, who\nwished his readers to believe that this book was written before the\nevent, when in truth it was written after it, to have suppressed any\nsuch intimation carefully. But this was not the character of the authors\nof the Gospel. Cunning was no quality of theirs. Of all writers in the\nworld, they thought the least of providing against objections. Moreover,\nthere is no clause in any one of them that makes a profession of their\nhaving written prior to the Jewish wars, which a fraudulent purpose\nwould have led them to pretend. They have done neither one thing nor the\nother; they have neither inserted any words which might signify to the\nreader that their accounts were written before the destruction of\nJerusalem, which a sophist would have done; nor have they dropped a hint\nof the completion of the prophecies recorded by them, which an\nundesigning writer, writing after the event, could hardly, on some or\nother of the many occasions that presented themselves, have missed of\ndoing.\n\n4. The admonitions* which Christ is represented to have given to his\nfollowers to save themselves by flight are not easily accounted for on\nthe supposition of the prophecy being fabricated after the event. Either\nthe Christians, when the siege approached, did make their escape from\nJerusalem, or they did not: if they did, they must have had the prophecy\namongst them: if they did not know of any such prediction at the time of\nthe siege, if they did not take notice of any such warning, it was an\nimprobable fiction, in a writer publishing his work near to that time\n(which, on any, even the lowest and most disadvantageous supposition,\nwas the case with the gospels now in our hands), and addressing his work\nto Jews and to Jewish converts (which Matthew certainly did), to state\nthat the followers of Christ had received admonition of which they made\nno use when the occasion arrived, and of which experience then recent\nproved that those who were most concerned to know and regard them were\nignorant or negligent. Even if the prophecies came to the hands of the\nevangelists through no better vehicle than tradition, it must have been\nby a tradition which subsisted prior to the event. And to suppose that\nwithout any authority whatever, without so much as even any tradition to\nguide them, they had forged these passages, is to impute to them a\ndegree of fraud and imposture from every appearance of which their\ncompositions are as far removed as possible.\n\n_________\n\n* \"When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the\ndesolation thereof is nigh; then let them which are in Judea flee to the\nmountains; then let them which are in the midst of it depart out, and\nlet not them that are in the countries enter thereinto.\"--Luke xxi. 20,\n21.\n\"When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then let them which\nbe in Judea flee unto the mountains; let him which is on the house-top\nnot come down to take anything out of his house; neither let him which\nis in the field return back to take his clothes.\"--Matt. xiv. 18.\n_________\n\n\n5. I think that, if the prophecies had been composed after the event,\nthere would have been more specification. The names or descriptions of\nthe enemy, the general, the emperor, would have been found in them. The\ndesignation of the time would have been more determinate. And I am\nfortified in this opinion by observing that the counterfeited prophecies\nof the Sibylline oracles, of the twelve patriarchs, and, I am inclined\nto believe, most others of the kind, are mere transcripts of the\nhistory, moulded into a prophetic form.\n\nIt is objected that the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem is\nmixed or connected with expressions which relate to the final judgment\nof the world; and so connected as to lead an ordinary reader to expect\nthat these two events would not be far distant from each other. To which\nI answer, that the objection does not concern our present argument. If\nour Saviour actually foretold the destruction of Jerusalem, it is\nsufficient; even although we should allow that the narration of the\nprophecy had combined what had been said by him on kindred subjects,\nwithout accurately preserving the order, or always noticing the\ntransition of the discourse.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE MORALITY OF THE GOSPEL.\n\nIs stating the morality of the Gospel as an argument of its truth, I am\nwilling to admit two points; first, that the teaching of morality was\nnot the primary design of the mission; secondly, that morality, neither\nin the Gospel, nor in any other book, can be a subject, properly\nspeaking, of discovery.\n\nIf I were to describe in a very few words the scope of Christianity as a\nrevelation,* I should say that it was to influence the conduct of human\nlife, by establishing the proof of a future state of reward and\npunishment,--\"to bring life and immortality to light.\" The direct\nobject, therefore, of the design is, to supply motives, and not rules;\nsanctions, and not precepts. And these were what mankind stood most in\nneed of. The members of civilised society can, in all ordinary cases,\njudge tolerably well how they ought to act: but without a future state,\nor, which is the same thing, without credited evidence of that state,\nthey want a motive to their duty; they want at least strength of motive\nsufficient to bear up against the force of passion, and the temptation\nof present advantage. Their rules want authority. The most important\nservice that can be rendered to human life, and that consequently which\none might expect beforehand would be the great end and office of a\nrevelation from God, is to convey to the world authorised assurances of\nthe reality of a future existence. And although in doing this, or by the\nministry of the same person by whom this is done, moral precepts or\nexamples, or illustrations of moral precepts, may be occasionally given\nand be highly valuable, yet still they do not form the original purpose\nof the mission.\n\n_________\n\n* Great and inestimably beneficial effects may accrue from the mission\nof Christ, and especially from his death, which do not belong to\nChristianity as a revelation: that is, they might have existed, and they\nmight have been accomplished, though we had never, in this life, been\nmade acquainted with them. These effects may be very extensive; they may\nbe interesting even to other orders of intelligent beings. I think it is\na general opinion, and one to which I have long come, that the\nbeneficial effects of Christ's death extend to the whole human species.\nIt was the redemption of the world. \"He is the propitiation for our\nsins, and not for ours only, but for the whole world;\" 1 John ii. 2.\nProbably the future happiness, perhaps the future existence of the\nspecies, and more gracious terms of acceptance extended to all, might\ndepend upon it or be procured by it. Now these effects, whatever they\nbe, do not belong to Christianity as a revelation; because they exist\nwith respect to those to whom it is not revealed.\n_________\n\n\nSecondly; morality, neither in the Gospel nor in any other book, can be\na subject of discovery, properly so called. By which proposition I mean\nthat there cannot, in morality, be anything similar to what are called\ndiscoveries in natural philosophy, in the arts of life, and in some\nsciences; as the system of the universe, the circulation of the blood,\nthe polarity of the magnet, the laws of gravitation, alphabetical\nwriting, decimal arithmetic, and some other things of the same sort;\nfacts, or proofs, or contrivances, before totally unknown and unthought\nof. Whoever, therefore, expects in reading the New Testament to be\nstruck with discoveries in morals in the manner in which his mind was\naffected when he first came to the knowledge of the discoveries above\nmentioned: or rather in the manner in which the world was affected by\nthem, when they were first published; expects what, as I apprehend, the\nnature of the subject renders it impossible that he should meet with.\nAnd the foundation of my opinion is this, that the qualities of actions\ndepend entirely upon their effects, which effects must all along have\nbeen the subject of human experience.\n\nWhen it is once settled, no matter upon what principle, that to do good\nis virtue, the rest is calculation. But since the calculation cannot be\ninstituted concerning each particular action, we establish intermediate\nrules; by which proceeding, the business of morality is much\nfacilitated, for then it is concerning our rules alone that we need\ninquire, whether in their tendency they be beneficial; concerning our\nactions, we have only to ask whether they be agreeable to the rules. We\nrefer actions to rules, and rules to public happiness. Now, in the\nformation of these rules, there is no place for discovery, properly so\ncalled, but there is ample room for the exercise of wisdom, judgment,\nand prudence.\n\nAs I wish to deliver argument rather than panegyric, I shall treat of\nthe morality of the Gospel in subjection to these observations. And\nafter all, I think it such a morality as, considering from whom it came,\nis most extraordinary; and such as, without allowing some degree of\nreality to the character and pretensions of the religion, it is\ndifficult to account for: or, to place the argument a little lower in\nthe scale, it is such a morality as completely repels the supposition of\nits being the tradition of a barbarous age or of a barbarous people, of\nthe religion being founded in folly, or of its being the production of\ncraft; and it repels also, in a great degree, the supposition of its\nhaving been the effusion of an enthusiastic mind.\n\nThe division under which the subject may be most conveniently treated is\nthat of the things taught, and the manner of teaching.\n\nUnder the first head, I should willingly, if the limits and nature of my\nwork admitted of it, transcribe into this chapter the whole of what has\nbeen said upon the morality of the Gospel by the author of The Internal\nEvidence of Christianity; because it perfectly agrees with my own\nopinion, and because it is impossible to say the same things so well.\nThis acute observer of human nature, and, as I believe, sincere convert\nto Christianity, appears to me to have made out satisfactorily the two\nfollowing positions, viz.--\n\nI. That the Gospel omits some qualifies which have usually engaged the\npraises and admiration of mankind, but which, in reality, and in their\ngeneral effects, have been Prejudicial to human happiness.\n\nII. That the Gospel has brought forward some virtues which possess the\nhighest intrinsic value, but which have commonly been overlooked and\ncontemned.\n\nThe first of these propositions he exemplifies in the instances of\nfriendship, patriotism, active courage; in the sense in which these\nqualities are usually understood, and in the conduct which they often\nproduce.\n\nThe second, in the instances of passive courage or endurance of\nsufferings, patience under affronts and injuries, humility,\nirresistance, placability.\n\nThe truth is, there are two opposite descriptions of character under\nwhich mankind may generally be classed. The one possesses rigour,\nfirmness, resolution; is daring and active, quick in its sensibilities,\njealous of its fame, eager in its attachments, inflexible in its\npurpose, violent in its resentments.\n\nThe other meek, yielding, complying, forgiving; not prompt to act, but\nwilling to suffer; silent and gentle under rudeness and insult, suing\nfor reconciliation where others would demand satisfaction, giving way to\nthe pushes of impudence, conceding and indulgent to the prejudices, the\nwrong-headedness, the intractability of those with whom it has to deal.\n\nThe former of these characters is, and ever hath been, the favourite of\nthe world. It is the character of great men. There is a dignity in it\nwhich universally commands respect.\n\nThe latter is poor-spirited, tame, and abject. Yet so it hath happened,\nthat with the Founder of Christianity this latter is the subject of his\ncommendation, his precepts, his example; and that the former is so in no\npart of its composition. This, and nothing else, is the character\ndesigned in the following remarkable passages: \"Resist not evil: but\nwhosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other\nalso; and if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat,\nlet him have thy cloak also: and whosoever shall compel thee to go a\nmile, go with him twain: love your enemies, bless them that curse you,\ndo good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use\nyou and persecute you.\" This certainly is not commonplace morality. It\nis very original. It shows at least (and it is for this purpose we\nproduce it) that no two things can be more different than the Heroic and\nthe Christian characters.\n\nNow the author to whom I refer has not only marked this difference more\nstrongly than any preceding writer, but has proved, in contradiction to\nfirst impressions, to popular opinion, to the encomiums of orators and\npoets, and even to the suffrages of historians and moralists, that the\nlatter character possesses the most of true worth, both as being most\ndifficult either to be acquired or sustained, and as contributing most\nto the happiness and tranquillity of social life. The state of his\nargument is as follows:\n\nI. If this disposition were universal, the case is clear; the world\nwould be a society of friends. Whereas, if the other disposition were\nuniversal, it would produce a scene of universal contention. The world\ncould not hold a generation of such men.\n\nII. If, what is the fact, the disposition be partial; if a few be\nactuated by it, amongst a multitude who are not; in whatever degree it\ndoes prevail, in the same proportion it prevents, allays, and terminates\nquarrels, the great disturbers of human happiness, and the great sources\nof human misery, so far as man's happiness and misery depend upon man.\nWithout this disposition enmities must not only be frequent, but, once\nbegun, must be eternal: for, each retaliation being a fresh injury, and\nconsequently requiring a fresh satisfaction, no period can be assigned\nto the reciprocation of affronts, and to the progress of hatred, but\nthat which closes the lives, or at least the intercourse, of the parties.\n\nI would only add to these observations, that although the former of the\ntwo characters above described may be occasionally useful; although,\nperhaps, a great general, or a great statesman, may be formed by it, and\nthese may be instruments of important benefits to mankind, yet is this\nnothing more than what is true of many qualities which are acknowledged\nto be vicious. Envy is a quality of this sort: I know not a stronger\nstimulus to exertion; many a scholar, many an artist, many a soldier,\nhas been produced by it; nevertheless, since in its general effects it\nis noxious, it is properly condemned, certainly is not praised, by sober\nmoralists.\n\nIt was a portion of the same character as that we are defending, or\nrather of his love of the same character, which our Saviour displayed in\nhis repeated correction of the ambition of his disciples; his frequent\nadmonitions that greatness with them was to consist in humility; his\ncensure of that love of distinction and greediness of superiority which\nthe chief persons amongst his countrymen were wont, on all occasions,\ngreat and little, to betray. \"They (the Scribes and Pharisees) love the\nuppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and\ngreetings in the markets, and to be called of men Rabbi, Rabbi. But be\nnot ye called Rabbi, for one is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are\nbrethren: and call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your\nfather, which is in heaven; neither be ye called master, for one is your\nMaster, even Christ; but he that is greatest among you shall be your\nservant; and whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased, and he that\nshall humble himself shall be exalted.\" (Matt. xxiii. 6. See also Mark\nxii. 39; Luke xx. 46; xiv. 7.) I make no further remark upon these\npassages (because they are, in truth, only a repetition of the doctrine,\ndifferent expressions of the principle, which we have already stated),\nexcept that some of the passages, especially our Lord's advice to the\nguests at an entertainment, (Luke iv. 7.) seem to extend the rule to\nwhat we call manners; which was both regular in point of consistency,\nand not so much beneath the dignity of our Lord's mission as may at\nfirst sight be supposed, for bad manners are bad morals.\n\nIt is sufficiently apparent that the precepts we have tired, or rather\nthe disposition which these precepts inculcate, relate to personal\nconduct from personal motives; to cases in which men act from impulse,\nfor themselves and from themselves. When it comes to be considered what\nis necessary to be done for the sake of the public, and out of a regard\nto the general welfare (which consideration, for the most part, ought\nexclusively to govern the duties of men in public stations), it comes to\na case to which the rules do not belong. This distinction is plain; and\nif it were less so the consequence would not be much felt: for it is\nvery seldom that in time intercourse of private life men act with public\nviews. The personal motives from which they do act the rule regulates.\n\nThe preference of time patient to the heroic cheer, which we have here\nnoticed, and which the reader will find explained at large in the work\nto which we have referred him, is a peculiarity in the Christian\ninstitution, which I propose as an argument of wisdom, very much beyond\nthe situation and natural character of the person who delivered it.\n\nII. A second argument, drawn from the morality of the New Testament, is\nthe stress which is laid by our Saviour upon the regulation of the\nthoughts; and I place this consideration next to the other because they\nare connected. The other related to the malicious passions; this to the\nvoluptuous. Together, they comprehend the whole character.\n\n\"Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,\nfornications,\" &c. \"These are the things which defile a man.\" (Matt. xv.\n19.)\n\n\"Wo unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the\noutside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of\nextortion and excess.--Ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed\nappear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and\nof all uncleanness; even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men,\nbut within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity\" (Matt. xxiii. 25, 27)\n\nAnd more particularly that strong expression, (Matt. v. 28.) \"Whosoever\nlooketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her\nalready in his heart.\"\n\nThere can be no doubt with any reflecting mind but that the propensities\nof our nature must be subject to regulation; but the question is, where\nthe check ought to be placed, upon the thought, or only upon the action?\nIn this question our Saviour, in the texts here quoted, has pronounced a\ndecisive judgment. He makes the control of thought essential. Internal\npurity with him is everything. Now I contend that this is the only\ndiscipline which can succeed; in other words, that a moral system which\nprohibits actions, but leaves the thoughts at liberty, will be\nineffectual, and is therefore unwise. I know not how to go about the\nproof of a point which depends upon experience, and upon a knowledge of\nthe human constitution, better than by citing the judgment of persons\nwho appear to have given great attention to the subject, and to be well\nqualified to form a true opinion about it. Boerhaave, speaking of this\nvery declaration of our Saviour, \"Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust\nafter her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart,\" and\nunderstanding it, as we do, to contain an injunction to lay the check\nupon the thoughts, was wont to say that \"our Saviour knew mankind better\nthan Socrates.\" Hailer, who has recorded this saying of Boerhaave, adds\nto it the following remarks of his own:--(Letters to his Daughter.) \"It\ndid not escape the observation of our Saviour that the rejection of\nany evil thoughts was the best defence against vice: for when a\ndebauched person fills his imagination with impure pictures, the\nlicentious ideas which he recalls fail not to stimulate his desires with\na degree of violence which he cannot resist. This will be followed by\ngratification, unless some external obstacle should prevent him from the\ncommission of a sin which he had internally resolved on.\" \"Every moment\nof time,\" says our author, \"that is spent in meditations upon sin\nincreases the power of the dangerous object which has possessed our\nimagination.\" I suppose these reflections will be generally assented to.\n\nIII. Thirdly, had a teacher of morality been asked concerning a general\nprinciple of conduct, and for a short rule of life; and had he\ninstructed the person who consulted him, \"constantly to refer his\nactions to what he believed to be the will of his Creator, and\nconstantly to have in view not his own interest and gratification alone,\nbut the happiness and comfort of those about him,\" he would have been\nthought, I doubt not, in any age of the world, and in any, even the most\nimproved state of morals, to have delivered a judicious answer; because,\nby the first direction, he suggested the only motive which acts steadily\nand uniformly, in sight and out of sight, in familiar occurrences and\nunder pressing temptations; and in the second he corrected what of all\ntendencies in the human character stands most in need of correction,\nselfishness, or a contempt of other men's conveniency and satisfaction.\nIn estimating the value of a moral rule, we are to have regard not only\nto the particular duty, but the general spirit; not only to what it\ndirects us to do, but to the character which a compliance with its\ndirection is likely to form in us. So, in the present instance, the rule\nhere recited will never fail to make him who obeys it considerate not only\nof the rights, but of the feelings of other men, bodily and mental, in\ngreat matters and in small; of the ease, the accommodation, the\nself-complacency of all with whom he has any concern, especially of all\nwho are in his power, or dependent upon his will.\n\nNow what, in the most applauded philosopher of the most enlightened age\nof the world, would have been deemed worthy of his wisdom, and of his\ncharacter, to say, our Saviour hath said, and upon just such an occasion\nas that which we have feigned.\n\n\"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting\nhim, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?\nJesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy\nheart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind; this is the first\nand great commandment: and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love\nthy neighbour as thyself: on these two commandments hang all the law and\nthe prophets.\" (Matt. xxii. 35-40.)\n\nThe second precept occurs in St. Matthew (xix. 16), on another occasion\nsimilar to this; and both of them, on a third similar occasion, in Luke\n(x. 27). In these two latter instances the question proposed was, \"What\nshall I do to inherit eternal life?\"\n\nUpon all these occasions I consider the words of our Saviour as\nexpressing precisely the same thing as what I have put into the mouth of\nthe moral philosopher. Nor do I think that it detracts much from the\nmerit of the answer, that these precepts are extant in the Mosaic code:\nfor his laying his finger, if I may so say, upon these precepts; his\ndrawing them out from the rest of that voluminous institution; his\nstating of them, not simply amongst the number, but as the greatest and\nthe sum of all the others; in a word, his proposing of them to his\nhearers for their rule and principle, was our Saviour's own.\n\nAnd what our Saviour had said upon the subject appears to me to have\nfixed the sentiment amongst his followers.\n\nSaint Paul has it expressly, \"If there be any other commandment, it is\nbriefly comprehended in this saying, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as\nthyself;\" (Rom. xiii. 9.) and again, \"For all the law is fulfilled in\none word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.\" (Gal.\nv. 14.)\n\nSaint John, in like manner, \"This commandment have we from him, that he\nwho loveth God love his brother also.\" (1 John iv. 21.)\n\nSaint Peter, not very differently: \"Seeing that ye have purified your\nsouls in obeying the truth through the Spirit, unto unfeigned love of\nthe brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently.\"\n(I Peter i, 22.)\n\nAnd it is so well known as to require no citations to verify it, that\nthis love, or charity, or, in other words, regard to the welfare of\nothers, runs in various forms through all the preceptive parts of the\napostolic writings. It is the theme of all their exhortations, that with\nwhich their morality begins and ends, from which all their details and\nenumerations set out, and into which they return.\n\nAnd that this temper, for some time at least, descended in its purity to\nsucceeding Christians, is attested by one of the earliest and best of\nthe remaining writings of the apostolical fathers, the epistle of the\nRoman Clement. The meekness of the Christian character reigns throughout\nthe whole of that excellent piece. The occasion called for it. It was to\ncompose the dissensions of the church of Corinth. And the venerable hearer\nof the apostles does not fall short, in the display of this principle, of\nthe finest passages of their writings. He calls to the remembrance of the\nCorinthian church its former character in which \"ye were all of you,\" he\ntells them, \"humble-minded, not boasting of anything, desiring rather to\nbe subject than to govern, to give than to receive, being content with the\nportion God had dispensed to you and hearkening diligently to his word;\nye were enlarged in your bowels, having his sufferings always before your\neyes. Ye contended day and night for the whole brotherhood, that with\ncompassion and a good conscience the number of his elect might be saved.\nYe were sincere, and without offence towards each other. Ye bewailed\nevery one his neighbour's sins, esteeming their defects your own.\" His\nprayer for them was for the \"return of peace, long-suffering, and\npatience.\" (Ep. Clem. Rom. c. 2 & 53; Abp. Wake's Translation.) And his\nadvice to those who might have been the occasion of difference in the\nsociety is conceived in the true spirit, and with a perfect knowledge of\nthe Christian character: \"Who is there among you that is generous? who\nthat is compassionate? Who that has any charity? Let him say, If this\nsedition, this contention, and these schisms be upon my account, I am\nready to depart, to go away whithersoever ye please, and do whatsoever\nye shall command me; only let the flock of Christ be in peace with the\nelders who are set over it. He that shall do this shall get to himself a\nvery great honour in the Lord; and there is no place but what will he\nready to receive him; for the earth is the Lord's and the fullness\nthereof. These things they who have their conversation towards God, not\nto be repented of, both have done, and will always be ready to do.\" (Ep.\nClem. Rom. c. 54; Abp. Wake's Translation.)\n\nThis sacred principle, this earnest recommendation of forbearance,\nlenity, and forgiveness, mixes with all the writings of that age. There\nare more quotations in the apostolical fathers of texts which relate to\nthese points than of any other. Christ's sayings had struck them. \"Not\nrendering,\" said Polycarp, the disciple of John, \"evil for evil, or\nrailing for railing, or striking for striking, or cursing for cursing.\"\nAgain, speaking of some whose behaviour had given great offence, \"Be ye\nmoderate,\" says he, \"on this occasion, and look not upon such as\nenemies, but call them back as suffering and erring members, that ye\nsave your whole body.\" (Pol. Ep. ad Phil. c. 2 & 11.)\n\n\"Be ye mild at their anger,\" saith Ignatius, the companion of Polycarp,\n\"humble at their boastings, to their blasphemies return your prayers, to\ntheir error your firmness in the faith; when they are cruel, be ye\ngentle; not endeavouring to imitate their ways, let us be their brethren\nin all kindness and moderation: but let us be followers of the Lord; for\nwho was ever more unjustly used, more destitute, more despised?\"\n\nIV. A fourth quality by which the morality of the Gospel is\ndistinguished is the exclusion of regard to fame and reputation.\n\n\"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them,\notherwise ye have no reward of your father which is in heaven.\" \"When\nthou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door,\npray to thy father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in\nsecret shall reward thee openly.\" (Matt. vi. 1 & 6.)\n\nAnd the rule, by parity of reason, is extended to all other virtues.\n\nI do not think that either in these or in any other passage of the New\nTestament, the pursuit of fame is stated as a vice; it is only said that\nan action, to be virtuous, must be independent of it. I would also\nobserve that it is not publicity, but ostentation, which is prohibited;\nnot the mode, but the motive of the action, which is regulated. A good\nman will prefer that mode, as well as those objects of his beneficence,\nby which he can produce the greatest effect; and the view of this\npurpose may dictate sometimes publication, and sometimes concealment.\nEither the one or the other may be the mode of the action, according as\nthe end to be promoted by it appears to require. But from the motive,\nthe reputation of the deed, and the fruits and advantage of that\nreputation to ourselves, must be shut out, or, in whatever proportion\nthey are not so, the action in that proportion fails of being virtuous.\n\nThis exclusion of regard to human opinion is a difference not so much in\nthe duties to which the teachers of virtue would persuade mankind, as in\nthe manner and topics of persuasion. And in this view the difference is\ngreat. When we set about to give advice, our lectures are full of the\nadvantages of character, of the regard that is due to appearances and to\nopinion; of what the world, especially of what the good or great, will\nthink and say; of the value of public esteem, and of the qualities by\nwhich men acquire it. Widely different from this was our Saviour's\ninstruction; and the difference was founded upon the best reasons. For,\nhowever the care of reputation, the authority of public opinion, or even\nof the opinion of good men, the satisfaction of being well received and\nwell thought of, the benefit of being known and distinguished, are\ntopics to which we are fain to have recourse in our exhortations; the\ntrue virtue is that which discards these considerations absolutely, and\nwhich retires from them all to the single internal purpose of pleasing\nGod. This at least was the virtue which our Saviour taught. And in\nteaching this, he not only confined the views of his followers to the\nproper measure and principle of human duty, but acted in consistency\nwith his office as a monitor from heaven.\n\nNext to what our Saviour taught, may be considered the manner of his\nteaching; which was extremely peculiar, yet, I think, precisely adapted\nto the peculiarity of his character and situation. His lessons did not\nconsist of disquisitions; of anything like moral essays, or like\nsermons, or like set treatises upon the several points which he\nmentioned. When he delivered a precept, it was seldom that he added any\nproof or argument; still more seldom that he accompanied it with what\nall precepts require, limitations and distinctions. His instructions\nwere conceived in short, emphatic, sententious rules, in occasional\nreflections, or in round maxims. I do not think that this was a natural,\nor would have been a proper method for a philosopher or a moralist; or\nthat it is a method which can be successfully imitated by us. But I\ncontend that it was suitable to the character which Christ assumed, and\nto the situation in which, as a teacher, he was placed. He produced\nhimself as a messenger from God. He put the truth of what he taught upon\nauthority. (I say unto you, Swear not at all; I say auto you, Resist not\nevil; I say unto you, Love your enemies.--Matt. v. 34, 39, 44.) In the\nchoice, therefore, of his mode of teaching, the purpose by him to be\nconsulted was impression: because conviction, which forms the principal\nend of our discourses, was to arise in the minds of his followers from a\ndifferent source, from their respect to his person and authority. Now,\nfor the purpose of impression singly and exclusively, (I repeat again,\nthat we are not here to consider the convincing of the understanding,) I\nknow nothing which would have so great force as strong ponderous maxims,\nfrequently urged and frequently brought back to the thoughts of the\nhearers. I know nothing that could in this view be said better, than \"Do\nunto others as ye would that others should do unto you:\" \"The first and\ngreat commandment is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God: and the second\nis like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.\" It must also\nbe remembered, that our Lord's ministry, upon the supposition either of\none year or three, compared with his work, was of short duration; that,\nwithin this time, he had many places to visit, various audiences to\naddress; that his person was generally besieged by crowds of followers;\nthat he was, sometimes, driven away from the place where he was teaching\nby persecution, and at other times thought fit to withdraw himself from\nthe commotions of the populace. Under these circumstances, nothing\nappears to have been so practicable, or likely to be so efficacious, as\nleaving, wherever he came, concise lessons of duty. These circumstances\nat least show the necessity he was under of comprising what he delivered\nwithin a small compass. In particular, his sermon upon the mount ought\nalways to be considered with a view to these observations. The question\nis not, whether a fuller, a more accurate, a more systematic, or a more\nargumentative discourse upon morals might not have been pronounced; but\nwhether more could have been said in the same room better adapted to\nthe exigencies of the hearers, or better calculated for the purpose of\nimpression? Seen in this light, it has always appeared to me to be\nadmirable. Dr. Lardner thought that this discourse was made up of what\nChrist had said at different times, and on different occasions, several\nof which occasions are noticed in St Luke's narrative.\n\nI can perceive no reason for this opinion. I believe that our Lord\ndelivered this discourse at one time and place, in the manner related by\nSaint Matthew, and that he repeated the same rules and maxims at\ndifferent times, as opportunity or occasion suggested; that they were\noften in his mouth, and were repeated to different audiences, and in\nvarious conversations.\n\nIt is incidental to this mode of moral instruction, which proceeds not\nby proof but upon authority, not by disquisition but by precept, that\nthe rules will be conceived in absolute terms, leaving the application\nand the distinctions that attend it to the reason of the hearer. It is\nlikewise to be expected that they will be delivered in terms by so much\nthe more forcible and energetic, as they have to encounter natural or\ngeneral propensities. It is further also to be remarked, that many of\nthose strong instances which appear in our Lord's sermon, such as, \"If\nany man will smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also:\"\n\"If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him\nhave thy cloak also:\" \"Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with\nhim twain:\" though they appear in the form of specific precepts, are\nintended as descriptive of disposition and character. A specific\ncompliance with the precepts would be of little value, but the\ndisposition which they inculcate is of the highest. He who should\ncontent himself with waiting for the occasion, and with literally\nobserving the rule when the occasion offered, would do nothing, or worse\nthan nothing: but he who considers the character and disposition which\nis hereby inculcated, and places that disposition before him as the\nmodel to which he should bring his own, takes, perhaps, the best\npossible method of improving the benevolence, and of calming and\nrectifying the vices of his temper.\n\nIf it be said that this disposition is unattainable, I answer, so is all\nperfection: ought therefore a moralist to recommend imperfections? One\nexcellency, however, of our Saviour's rules is, that they are either\nnever mistaken, or never so mistaken as to do harm. I could feign a\nhundred cases in which the literal application of the rule, \"of doing to\nothers as we would that others should do unto us,\" might mislead us; but\nI never yet met with the man who was actually misled by it.\nNotwithstanding that our Lord bade his followers, \"not to resist evil,\"\nand to \"forgive the enemy who should trespass against them, not till\nseven times, but till seventy times seven,\" the Christian world has\nhitherto suffered little by too much placability or forbearance. I would\nrepeat once more, what has already been twice remarked, that these rules\nwere designed to regulate personal conduct from personal motives, and\nfor this purpose alone. I think that these observations will assist us\ngreatly in placing our Saviour's conduct as a moral teacher in a proper\npoint of view; especially when it is considered, that to deliver moral\ndisquisitions was no part of his design,--to teach morality at all was\nonly a subordinate part of it; his great business being to supply what\nwas much more wanting than lessons of morality, stronger moral\nsanctions, and clearer assurances of a future judgment.*\n\n_________\n\n* Some appear to require in a religious system, or in the books which\nprofess to deliver that system, minute directions for every case and\noccurrence that may arise. This, say they, is necessary to render a\nrevelation perfect, especially one which has for its object the\nregulation of human conduct. Now, how prolix, and yet how incomplete and\nunavailing, such an attempt must have been, is proved by one notable\nexample: \"The Indoo and Mussulman religions are institutes of civil law,\nregulating the minutest questions, both of property and of all questions\nwhich come under the cognizance of the magistrate. And to what length\ndetails of this kind are necessarily carried when once begun, may be\nunderstood from an anecdote of the Mussulman code, which we have\nreceived from the most respectable authority, that not less than\nseventy-five thousand traditional precepts have been promulgated.\"\n(Hamilton's translation of Hedays, or Guide.)\n_________\n\n\nThe parables of the New Testament are, many of them, such as would have\ndone honour to any book in the world: I do not mean in style and\ndiction, but in the choice of the subjects, in the structure of the\nnarratives, in the aptness, propriety, and force of the circumstances\nwoven into them; and in some, as that of the Good Samaritan, the\nProdigal Son, the Pharisee and the Publican, in an union of pathos and\nsimplicity, which in the best productions of human genius is the fruit\nonly of a much exercised and well cultivated judgment.\n\nThe Lord's Prayer, for a succession of solemn thoughts, for fixing the\nattention upon a few great points, for suitableness to every condition,\nfor sufficiency, for conciseness without obscurity, for the weight and\nreal importance of its petitions, is without an equal or a rival.\n\nFrom whence did these come? Whence had this man his wisdom? Was our\nSaviour, in fact, a well instructed philosopher, whilst he is\nrepresented to us as an illiterate peasant? Or shall we say that some\nearly Christians of taste and education composed these pieces and\nascribed them to Christ? Beside all other incredibilities in this\naccount, I answer, with Dr. Jortin, that they could not do it. No\nspecimens of composition which the Christians of the first century have\nleft us authorise us to believe that they were equal to the task. And\nhow little qualified the Jews, the countrymen and companions of Christ,\nwere to assist him in the undertaking, may be judged of from the\ntraditions and writings of theirs which were the nearest to that age.\nThe whole collection of the Talmud is one continued proof into what\nfollies they fell whenever they left their Bible; and how little capable\nthey were of furnishing out such lessons as Christ delivered.\n\nBut there is still another view in which our Lord's discourses deserve\nto be considered; and that is, in their negative character,--not in what\nthey did, but in what they did not, contain. Under this head the\nfollowing reflections appear to me to possess some weight.\n\nI. They exhibit no particular description of the invisible world. The\nfuture happiness of the good, and the misery of the bad, which is all we\nwant to be assured of, is directly and positively affirmed, and is\nrepresented by metaphors and comparisons, which were plainly intended as\nmetaphors and comparisons, and as nothing more. As to the rest, a solemn\nreserve is maintained. The question concerning the woman who had been\nmarried to seven brothers, \"Whose shall she be on the resurrection?\" was\nof a nature calculated to have drawn from Christ a more circumstantial\naccount of the state of the human species in their future existence. He\ncuts short, however, the inquiry by an answer, which at once rebuked\nintruding curiosity, and was agreeable to the best apprehensions we are\nable to form upon the subject, viz. \"That they who are accounted worthy\nof that resurrection, shall be as the angels of God in heaven.\" I lay a\nstress upon this reserve, because it repels the suspicion of enthusiasm:\nfor enthusiasm is wont to expatiate upon the condition of the departed,\nabove all other subjects, and with a wild particularity. It is moreover\na topic which is always listened to with greediness. The teacher,\ntherefore, whose principal purpose is to draw upon himself attention, is\nsure to be full of it. The Koran of Mahomet is half made up of it.\n\nII. Our Lord enjoined no austerities. He not only enjoined none as\nabsolute duties, but he recommended none as carrying men to a higher\ndegree of Divine favour. Place Christianity, in this respect, by the\nside of all institutions which have been founded in the fanaticism\neither of their author or of his first followers: or, rather, compare in\nthis respect Christianity, as it came from Christ, with the same\nreligion after it fell into other hands--with the extravagant merit very\nsoon ascribed to celibacy, solitude, voluntary poverty; with the rigours\nof an ascetic, and the vows of a monastic life; the hair-shirt, the\nwatchings, the midnight prayers, the obmutescence, the gloom and\nmortification of religious orders, and of those who aspired to religious\nperfection.\n\nIII. Our Saviour uttered no impassioned devotion. There was no heat in\nhis piety, or in the language in which he expressed it; no vehement or\nrapturous ejaculations, no violent urgency, in his prayers. The Lord's\nPrayer is a model of calm devotion. His words in the garden are\nunaffected expressions of a deep, indeed, but sober piety. He never\nappears to have been worked up into anything like that elation, or that\nemotion of spirits which is occasionally observed in most of those to\nwhom the name of enthusiast can in any degree be applied. I feel a\nrespect for Methodists, because I believe that there is to be found\namongst them much sincere piety, and availing though not always\nwell-informed Christianity: yet I never attended a meeting of theirs but\nI came away with the reflection, how different what I heard was from\nwhat I read! I do not mean in doctrine, with which at present I have no\nconcern, but in manner how different from the calmness, the sobriety,\nthe good sense, and I may add, the strength and authority of our Lord's\ndiscourses!\n\nIV. It is very usual with the human mind to substitute forwardness and\nfervency in a particular cause for the merit of general and regular\nmorality; and it is natural, and politic also, in the leader of a sect\nor party, to encourage such a disposition in his followers. Christ did\nnot overlook this turn of thought; yet, though avowedly placing himself\nat the head of a new institution, he notices it only to condemn it. \"Not\nevery one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom\nof heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.\nMany will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in\nthy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done\nmany wonderful works? And then will I profess unto you, I never knew\nyou: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.\" (Matt. vii. 21, 22.) So far\nwas the Author of Christianity from courting the attachment of his\nfollowers by any sacrifice of principle, or by a condescension to the\nerrors which even zeal in his service might have inspired. This was a\nproof both of sincerity and judgment.\n\nV. Nor, fifthly, did he fall in with any of the depraved fashions of his\ncountry, or with the natural bias of his own education. Bred up a Jew,\nunder a religion extremely technical, in an age and amongst a people\nmore tenacious of the ceremonies than of any other part of that\nreligion, he delivered an institution containing less of ritual, and\nthat more simple, than is to be found in any religion which ever\nprevailed amongst mankind. We have known, I do allow, examples of an\nenthusiasm which has swept away all external ordinances before it. But\nthis spirit certainly did not dictate our Saviour's conduct, either in\nhis treatment of the religion of his country, or in the formation of his\nown institution. In both he displayed the soundness and moderation of\nhis judgment. He censured an overstrained scrupulousness, or perhaps an\naffectation of scrupulousness, about the Sabbath: but how did he censure\nit? not by contemning or decrying the institution itself, but by\ndeclaring that \"the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath;\"\nthat is to say, that the Sabbath was to be subordinate to its purpose,\nand that that purpose was the real good of those who were the subjects\nof the law. The same concerning the nicety of some of the Pharisees, in\npaying tithes of the most trifling articles, accompanied with a neglect\nof justice, fidelity, and mercy. He finds fault with them for misplacing\ntheir anxiety. He does not speak disrespectfully of the law of tithes,\nnor of their observance of it; but he assigns to each class of duties\nits proper station in the scale of moral importance. All this might be\nexpected perhaps from a well-instructed, cool, and judicious\nphilosopher, but was not to be looked for from an illiterate Jew;\ncertainly not from an impetuous enthusiast.\n\nVI. Nothing could be more quibbling than were the comments and\nexpositions of the Jewish doctors at that time; nothing so puerile as\ntheir distinctions. Their evasion of the fifth commandment, their\nexposition of the law of oaths, are specimens of the bad taste in morals\nwhich then prevailed. Whereas, in a numerous collection of our Saviour's\napophthegms, many of them referring to sundry precepts of the Jewish\nlaw, there is not to be found one example of sophistry, or of false\nsubtlety, or of anything approaching thereunto.\n\nVII. The national temper of the Jews was intolerant, narrow-minded, and\nexcluding. In Jesus, on the contrary, whether we regard his lessons or\nhis example, we see not only benevolence, but benevolence the most\nenlarged and comprehensive. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the\nvery point of the story is, that the person relieved by him was the\nnational and religious enemy of his benefactor. Our Lord declared the\nequity of the Divine administration, when he told the Jews, (what,\nprobably, they were surprised to hear,) \"That many should come from the\neast and west, and should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in\nthe kingdom of heaven; but that the children of the kingdom should be\ncast into outer darkness.\" (Matt. viii. 11.) His reproof of the hasty\nzeal of his disciples, who would needs call down fire from heaven to\nrevenge an affront put upon their Master, shows the lenity of his\ncharacter, and of his religion: and his opinion of the manner in which\nthe most unreasonable opponents ought to be treated, or at least of the\nmanner in which they ought not to be treated. The terms in which his\nrebuke was conveyed deserve to be noticed:--\"Ye know not what manner of\nspirit ye are of.\" (Luke ix. 55.)\n\nVIII. Lastly, amongst the negative qualities of our religion, as it came\nout of the hands of its Founder and his apostles, we may reckon its\ncomplete abstraction from all views either of ecclesiastical or civil\npolicy; or, to meet a language much in fashion with some men, from the\npolitics either of priests or statesmen. Christ's declaration, that \"his\nkingdom was not of this world,\" recorded by Saint John; his evasion of\nthe question, whether it was lawful or not to give tribute unto Caesar,\nmentioned by the three other evangelists; his reply to an application\nthat was made to him, to interpose his authority in a question of\nproperty; \"Man, who made me a ruler or a judge over you?\" ascribed to\nhim by St. Luke; his declining to exercise the office of a criminal\njudge in the case of the woman taken in adultery, as related by John,\nare all intelligible significations of our Saviour's sentiments upon\nthis head. And with respect to politics, in the usual sense of that\nword, or discussions concerning different forms of government,\nChristianity declines every question upon the subject. Whilst\npoliticians are disputing about monarchies, aristocracies, and\nrepublics, the Gospel is alike applicable, useful, and friendly to them\nall; inasmuch, as, 1stly, it tends to make men virtuous, and as it is\neasier to govern good men than bad men under any constitution; as,\n2ndly, it states obedience to government, in ordinary cases, to be not\nmerely a submission to force, but a duty of conscience; as, 3rdly, it\ninduces dispositions favourable to public tranquillity, a Christian's\nchief care being to pass quietly through this world to a better; as,\n4thly, it prays for communities, and, for the governors of communities,\nof whatever description or denomination they be, with a solicitude and\nfervency proportioned to the influence which they possess upon human\nhappiness. All which, in my opinion, is just as it should be. Had there\nbeen more to be found in Scripture of a political nature, or convertible\nto political purposes, the worst use would have been made of it, on\nwhichever side it seemed to lie.\n\nWhen, therefore, we consider Christ as a moral teacher (remembering that\nthis was only a secondary part of his office; and that morality, by the\nnature of the subject, does not admit of discovery, properly so\ncalled)--when we consider either what he taught, or what he did not\nteach, either the substance or the manner of his instruction; his\npreference of solid to popular virtues, of a character which is commonly\ndespised to a character which is universally extolled; his placing, in\nour licentious vices, the check in the right place, viz. upon the\nthoughts; his collecting of human duty into two well-devised rules, his\nrepetition of these rules, the stress he laid upon them, especially in\ncomparison with positive duties, and his fixing thereby the sentiments\nof his followers; his exclusion of all regard to reputation in our\ndevotion and alms, and by parity of reason in our other virtues;--when\nwe consider that his instructions were delivered in a form calculated\nfor impression, the precise purpose in his situation to be consulted;\nand that they were illustrated by parables, the choice and structure of\nwhich would have been admired in any composition whatever;--when we\nobserve him free from the usual symptoms of enthusiasm, heat and\nvehemence in devotion, austerity in institutions, and a wild\nparticularity in the description of a future state; free also from the\ndepravities of his age and country; without superstition amongst the\nmost superstitious of men, yet not decrying positive distinctions or\nexternal observances, but soberly calling them to the principle of their\nestablishment, and to their place in the scale of human duties; without\nsophistry or trifling, amidst teachers remarkable for nothing so much as\nfrivolous subtleties and quibbling expositions; candid and liberal in\nhis judgment of the rest of mankind, although belonging to a people who\naffected a separate claim to Divine favour, and in consequence of that\nopinion prone to uncharitableness, partiality, and restriction;--when\nwe find in his religion no scheme of building up a hierarchy, or of\nministering to the views of human governments;--in a word, when we\ncompare Christianity, as it came from its Author, either with other\nreligions, or with itself in other hands, the most reluctant\nunderstanding will be induced to acknowledge the probity, I think also\nthe good sense, of those to whom it owes its origin; and that some\nregard is due to the testimony of such men, when they declare their\nknowledge that the religion proceeded from God; and when they appeal for\nthe truth of their assertion, to miracles which they wrought, or which\nthey saw.\n\nPerhaps the qualities which we observe in the religion may be thought to\nprove something more. They would have been extraordinary had the\nreligion come from any person; from the person from whom it did come,\nthey are exceedingly so. What was Jesus in external appearance? A Jewish\npeasant, the son of a carpenter, living with his father and mother in a\nremote province of Palestine, until the time that he produced himself in\nhis public character. He had no master to instruct or prompt him; he had\nread no books but the works of Moses and the prophets; he had visited no\npolished cities; he had received no lessons from Socrates or\nPlato,--nothing to form in him a taste or judgment different from that\nof the rest of his countrymen, and of persons of the same rank of life\nwith himself. Supposing it to be true, which it is not, that all his\npoints of morality might be picked out of Greek and Roman writings, they\nwere writings which he had never seen. Supposing them to be no more than\nwhat some or other had taught in various times and places, he could not\ncollect them together.\n\nWho were his coadjutors in the undertaking,--the persons into whose\nhands the religion came after his death? A few fishermen upon the lake\nof Tiberias, persons just as uneducated, and, for the purpose of framing\nrules of morality, as unpromising as himself. Suppose the mission to be\nreal, all this is accounted for; the unsuitableness of the authors to\nthe production, of the characters to the undertaking, no longer\nsurprises us: but without reality, it is very difficult to explain how\nsuch a system should proceed from such persons. Christ was not like any\nother carpenter; the apostles were not like any other fishermen.\n\nBut the subject is not exhausted by these observations. That portion of\nit which is most reducible to points of argument has been stated, and, I\ntrust, truly. There are, however, some topics of a more diffuse nature,\nwhich yet deserve to be proposed to the reader's attention.\n\nThe character of Christ is a part of the morality of the Gospel: one\nstrong observation upon which is, that, neither as represented by his\nfollowers, nor as attacked by his enemies, is he charged with any\npersonal vice. This remark is as old as Origen: \"Though innumerable lies\nand calumnies had been forged against the venerable Jesus, none had\ndared to charge him with an intemperance.\" (Or. Ep. Cels. 1. 3, num. 36,\ned. Bened.) Not a reflection upon his moral character, not an imputation\nor suspicion of any offence against purity and chastity, appears for\nfive hundred years after his birth. This faultlessness is more peculiar\nthan we are apt to imagine. Some stain pollutes the morals or the\nmorality of almost every other teacher, and of every other lawgiver.*\nZeno the stoic, and Diogenes the cynic, fell into the foulest\nimpurities; of which also Socrates himself was more than suspected.\nSolon forbade unnatural crimes to slaves. Lycurgus tolerated theft as a\npart of education. Plato recommended a community of women. Aristotle\nmaintained the general right of making war upon barbarians. The elder\nCato was remarkable for the ill usage of his slaves; the younger gave up\nthe person of his wife. One loose principle is found in almost all the\nPagan moralists; is distinctly, however, perceived in the writings of\nPlato, Xenophon, Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus; and that is, the allowing,\nand even the recommending to their disciples, a compliance with the\nreligion, and with the religious rites, of every country into which they\ncame. In speaking of the founders of new institutions we cannot forget\nMahomet. His licentious transgressions of his own licentious rules; his\nabuse of the character which he assumed, and of the power which he had\nacquired, for the purposes of personal and privileged indulgence; his\navowed claim of a special permission from heaven of unlimited\nsensuality, is known to every reader, as it is confessed by every writer\nof the Moslem story.\n\n_________\n\n* See many instances collected by Grotius, de Veritate Christianae\nReligionis, in the notes to his second book, p. 116. Pocock's edition.\n_________\n\n\nSecondly, in the histories which are left us of Jesus Christ, although\nvery short, and although dealing in narrative, and not in observation or\npanegyric, we perceive, beside the absence of every appearance of vice,\ntraces of devotion, humility, benignity, mildness, patience, prudence. I\nspeak of traces of these qualities, because the qualities themselves are\nto be collected from incidents; inasmuch as the terms are never used of\nChrist in the Gospels, nor is any formal character of him drawn in any\npart of the New Testament.\n\nThus we see the devoutness of his mind in his frequent retirement to\nsolitary prayer; (Matt. xiv. 23. Luke ix. 28. Matt. xxvi. 36.) in his\nhabitual giving of thanks; (Matt. xi. 25. Mark viii. 6. John vi. 23. Luke\nxxii. 17.) in his reference of the beauties and operations of nature to\nthe bounty of Providence; (Matt. vi, 26--28.) in his earnest addresses to\nhis Father, more particularly that short but solemn one before the\nraising of Lazarus from the dead; (John xi. 41.) and in the deep piety of\nhis behaviour in the garden on the last evening of his life:(Matt. xxvi.\n86--47.) his humility in his constant reproof of contentions for\nsuperiority:(Mark ix. 33.) the benignity and affectionateness of his\ntemper in his kindness to children; (Mark x. 16.) in the tears which he\nshed over his falling country, (Luke xix. 41.) and upon the death of his\nfriend; (John xi. 35.) in his noticing of the widow's mite; (Mark xii.\n42.) in his parables of the good Samaritan, of the ungrateful servant,\nand of the Pharisee and publican, of which parables no one but a man of\nhumanity could have been the author: the mildness and lenity of his\ncharacter is discovered in his rebuke of the forward zeal of his\ndisciples at the Samaritan village; (Luke ix. 55.) in his expostulation\nwith Pilate; (John xix. 11.) in his prayer for his enemies at the moment\nof his suffering, (Luke xxiii. 34.) which, though it has been since very\nproperly and frequently imitated, was then, I apprehend, new. His\nprudence is discerned, where prudence is most wanted, in his conduct on\ntrying occasions, and in answers to artful questions. Of these the\nfollowing are examples:--His withdrawing in various instances from the\nfirst symptoms of tumult, (Matt. xiv. 22. Luke v. 15, 16. John v. 13; vi.\n15.) and with the express care, as appears from Saint Matthew, (Chap.\nxii. 19.) of carrying on his ministry in quietness; his declining of\nevery species of interference with the civil affairs of the country,\nwhich disposition is manifested by his behaviour in the case of the\nwoman caught in adultery, (John viii. 1.) and in his repulse of the\napplication which was made to him to interpose his decision about a\ndisputed inheritance:(Luke xii. 14.) his judicious, yet, as it should\nseem, unprepared answers, will be confessed in the case of the Roman\ntribute (Matt. xxii. 19.) in the difficulty concerning the interfering\nrelations of a future state, as proposed to him in the instance of a\nwoman who had married seven brethren; (Matt. xxii. 28.) and more\nespecially in his reply to those who demanded from him an explanation of\nthe authority by which he acted, which reply consisted in propounding a\nquestion to them, situated between the very difficulties into which they\nwere insidiously endeavouring to draw him. (Matt. xxi. 23, et seq.)\n\nOur Saviour's lessons, beside what has already been remarked in them,\ntouch, and that oftentimes by very affecting representations, upon some\nof the most interesting topics of human duty, and of human meditation;\nupon the principles by which the decisions of the last day will be\nregulated; (Matt. xxv. 31, et seq.) upon the superior, or rather the\nsupreme importance of religion; ( Mark viii. 35. Matt. vi. 31--33. Luke\nxii. 4, 5, 16--21.) upon penitence, by the most pressing calls, and the\nmost encouraging invitations; (Luke xv.) upon self-denial, (Matt. v. 29.)\nwatchfulhess, (Mark xiii. 37. Matt. xxiv. 42; xxv. 13.) placability, (Luke\nxvii. 4. Matt. xviii. 33, et seq.) confidence in God, (Matt. vi. 25--30.)\nthe value of spiritual, that is, of mental worship, (John iv. 23, 24.)\nthe necessity of moral obedience, and the directing of that obedience to\nthe spirit and principle of the law, instead of seeking for evasions in\na technical construction of its terms. (Matt. v. 21.)\n\nIf we extend our argument to other parts of the New Testament, we may\noffer, as amongst the best and shortest rules of life, or, which is the\nsame thing, descriptions of virtue, that have ever been delivered, the\nfollowing passages:--\n\n\"Pure religion, and undefiled, before God and the Father, is this; to\nvisit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself\nunspotted from the world.\" (James i. 27.)\n\n\"Now the end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart and a\ngood conscience, and faith unfeigned.\" (I Tim. i. 5.)\n\n\"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,\nteaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live\nsoberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world.\" (Tit. ii. 11,\n12.)\n\nEnumerations of virtues and vices, and those sufficiently accurate and\nunquestionably just, are given by St. Paul to his converts in three\nseveral epistles. (Gal. v. 19. Col. iii. 12. 1 Cor. xiii.)\n\nThe relative duties of husbands and wives, of parents and children, of\nmasters and servants, of Christian teachers and their flocks, of\ngovernors and their subjects, are set forth by the same writer, (Eph. v.\n33; vi. 1--5. 2 Cor. vi. 6, 7. Rom. xiii.) not indeed with the\ncopiousness, the detail, or the distinctness of a moralist who should in\nthese days sit down to write chapters upon the subject, but with the\nleading rules and principles in each; and, above all, with truth and\nwith authority.\n\nLastly, the whole volume of the New Testament is replete with piety;\nwith what were almost unknown to heathen moralists, devotional virtues,\nthe most profound veneration of the Deity, an habitual sense of his\nbounty and protection, a firm confidence in the final result of his\ncounsels and dispensations, a disposition to resort upon all occasions\nto his mercy for the supply of human wants, for assistance in danger,\nfor relief from pain, for the pardon of sin.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE CANDOUR OF THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.\n\nI make this candour to consist in their putting down many passages, and\nnoticing many circumstances, which no writer whatever was likely to have\nforged; and which no writer would have chosen to appear in his book who\nhad been careful to present the story in the most unexceptionable form,\nor who had thought himself at liberty to carve and mould the particulars\nof that story according to his choice, or according to his judgment of\nthe effect.\n\nA strong and well-known example of the fairness of the evangelists\noffers itself in their account of Christ's resurrection, namely, in\ntheir unanimously stating that after he was risen he appeared to his\ndisciples alone. I do not mean that they have used the exclusive word\nalone; but that all the instances which they have recorded of his\nappearance are instances of appearance to his disciples; that their\nreasonings upon it, and allusions to it, are confined to this\nsupposition; and that by one of them Peter is made to say, \"Him God\nraised up the third day, and showed him openly, not to all the people,\nbut to witnesses chosen before of God, even to us who did eat and drink\nwith him after he rose from the dead.\" (Acts x. 40, 41.) The most common\nunderstanding must have perceived that the history of the resurrection\nwould have come with more advantage if they had related that Jesus\nappeared, after he was risen, to his foes as well as his friends, to the\nscribes and Pharisees, the Jewish council, and the Roman governor: or\neven if they had asserted the public appearance of Christ in general\nunqualified terms, without noticing, as they have done, the presence of\nhis disciples on each occasion, and noticing it in such a manner as to\nlead their readers to suppose that none but disciples were present. They\ncould have represented in one way as well as the other. And if their\npoint had been to have their religion believed, whether true or false;\nif they had fabricated the story ab initio; or if they had been disposed\neither to have delivered their testimony as witnesses, or to have worked\nup their materials and information as historians, in such a manner as to\nrender their narrative as specious and unobjectionable as they could; in\na word, if they had thought of anything but of the truth of the case, as\nthey understood and believed it; they would in their account of Christ's\nseveral appearances after his resurrection, at least have omitted this\nrestriction. At this distance of time, the account as we have it is\nperhaps more credible than it would have been the other way; because\nthis manifestation of the historians' candour is of more advantage to\ntheir testimony than the difference in the circumstances of the account\nwould have been to the nature of the evidence. But this is an effect\nwhich the evangelists would not foresee: and I think that it was by no\nmeans the case at the time when the books were composed.\n\nMr. Gibbon has argued for the genuineness of the Koran, from the\nconfessions which it contains, to the apparent disadvantage of the\nMahometan cause. (Vol. ix. c. 50, note 96.) The same defence vindicates\nthe genuineness of our Gospels, and without prejudice to the cause at\nall.\n\nThere are some other instances in which the evangelists honestly relate\nwhat they must have perceived would make against them.\n\nOf this kind is John the Baptist's message preserved by Saint Matthew\n(xi. 2) and Saint Luke (vii. 18): \"Now when John had heard in the prison\nthe works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him,\nArt thou he that should come, or look we for another?\" To confess, still\nmore to state, that John the Baptist had his doubts concerning the\ncharacter of Jesus, could not but afford a handle to cavil and\nobjection. But truth, like honesty, neglects appearances. The same\nobservation, perhaps, holds concerning the apostacy of Judas.*\n\n_________\n\n* I had once placed amongst these examples of fair concession the\nremarkable words of Saint Matthew in his account of Christ's appearance\nupon the Galilean mountain: \"And when they saw him they worshipped him;\nbut some doubted.\" (Chap. xxviii. 17.)  I have since, however, been\nconvinced, by what is observed concerning this passage in Dr.\nTownshend's Discourse (Page 177.) upon the Resurrection, that the\ntransaction, as related by Saint Matthew, was really this: \"Christ\nappeared first at a distance; the greater part of the company, the\nmoment they saw him, worshipped, but some as yet, i.e. upon this first\ndistant view of his person, doubted; whereupon Christ came up to them,\nand spake to them,\"+ &c.: that the doubt, therefore, was a doubt only at\nfirst for a moment, and upon his being seen at a distance, and was\nafterwards dispelled by his nearer approach, and by his entering into\nconversation with them.\n\n+ Saint Matthew's words are: kai proselthon o Iesous elalesen autois\n[and having come toward them, Jesus spoke]. This intimates that when he\nfirst appeared it was at a distance, at least from many of the\nspectators. Ib. p. 197.\n_________\n\n\nJohn vi. 66. \"From that time, many of his disciples went back, and\nwalked no more with him.\" Was it the part of a writer who dealt in\nsuppression and disguise to put down this anecdote? Or this, which\nMatthew has preserved (xii. 58)? \"He did not many mighty works there,\nbecause of their unbelief.\"\n\nAgain, in the same evangelist (v. 17, 18): \"Think not that I am come to\ndestroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to\nfulfil; for, verily, I say unto you, till heaven and  earth pass, one\njot, or one tittle, shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be\nfulfilled.\" At the time the Gospels were written, the apparent tendency\nof Christ's mission was to diminish the authority of the Mosaic code,\nand it was so considered by the Jews themselves. It is very improbable,\ntherefore, that, without the constraint of truth, Matthew should have\nascribed a saying to Christ, which, primo intuitu, militated with the\njudgment of the age in which his Gospel was written. Marcion thought\nthis text so objectionable, that he altered the words, so as to invert\nthe sense. (Lardner, Cred., vol. xv. p. 422.)\n\nOnce more (Acts xxv. 18): \"They brought none accusation against him of\nsuch things as I supposed; but had certain questions against him of\ntheir own superstition, and of one Jesus which was dead, whom Paul\naffirmed to be alive.\" Nothing could be more in the character of a Roman\ngovernor than these words. But that is not precisely the point I am\nconcerned with. A mere panegyrist, or a dishonest narrator, would not\nhave represented his cause, or have made a great magistrate represent\nit, in this manner, i.e. in terms not a little disparaging, and\nbespeaking, on his part, much unconcern and indifference about the\nmatter. The same observation may be repeated of the speech which is\nascribed to Gallio (Acts xviii. 15): \"If it be a question of words and\nnames, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such\nmatters.\"\n\nLastly, where do we discern a stronger mark of candour, or less\ndisposition to extol and magnify, than in the conclusion of the same\nhistory? in which the evangelist, after relating that Paul, on his first\narrival at Rome, preached to the Jews from morning until evening, adds,\n\"And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.\"\n\nThe following, I think, are passages which were very unlikely to have\npresented themselves to the mind of a forger or a fabulist.\n\nMatt. xxi. 21. \"Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto\nyou, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is\ndone unto the fig-tree, but also, if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be\nthou removed, and be thou east into the sea, it shall be done; all\nthings whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, it shall be done.\"\n(See also chap. xvii. 20. Luke xvii. 6.) It appears to me very\nimprobable that these words should have been put into Christ's mouth, if\nhe had not actually spoken them. The term \"faith,\" as here used, is\nperhaps rightly interpreted of confidence in that internal notice by\nwhich the apostles were admonished of their power to perform any\nparticular miracle. And this exposition renders the sense of the text\nmore easy. But the words undoubtedly, in their obvious construction,\ncarry with them a difficulty which no writer would have brought upon\nhimself officiously.\n\nLuke ix. 59. \"And he said unto another, Follow me: but he said, Lord,\nsuffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the\ndead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.\" (See\nalso Matt. viii. 21.) This answer, though very expressive of the\ntranscendent importance of religious concerns, was apparently harsh and\nrepulsive; and such as would not have been made for Christ if he had not\nreally used it. At least some other instance would bare been chosen.\n\nThe following passage, I, for the same reason, think impossible to have\nbeen the production of artifice, or of a cold forgery:--\"But I say unto\nyou, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be\nin danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,\nshall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool,\nshall be in danger of hell-fire (Gehennae).\" Matt. v. 22. It is\nemphatic, cogent, and well calculated for the purpose of impression; but\nis inconsistent with the supposition of art or wariness on the part of\nthe relator.\n\nThe short reply of our Lord to Mary Magdalen, after his resurrection\n(John xx. 16, 17), \"Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended unto my\nFather,\" in my opinion must have been founded in a reference or allusion\nto some prior conversation, for the want of knowing which his meaning is\nhidden from us. This very obscurity, however, is a proof of genuineness.\nNo one would have forged such an answer.\n\nJohn vi. The whole of the conversation recorded in this chapter is in\nthe highest degree unlikely to be fabricated, especially the part of our\nSaviour's reply between the fiftieth and the fifty-eighth verse. I need\nonly put down the first sentence: \"I am the living bread which came down\nfrom heaven: if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever: and\nthe bread that I will give him is my flesh, which I will give for the\nlife of the world.\" Without calling in question the expositions that\nhave been given of this passage, we may be permitted to say, that it\nlabours under an obscurity, in which it is impossible to believe that\nany one, who made speeches for the persons of his narrative, would have\nvoluntarily involved them. That this discourse was obscure, even at the\ntime, is confessed by the writer who had preserved it, when he tells us,\nat the conclusion, that many of our Lord's disciples, when they had\nheard this, said, \"This is a hard saying; who can hear it?\"\n\nChrist's taking of a young child, and placing it in the midst of his\ncontentious disciples (Matt. xviii. 2), though as decisive a proof as\nany could be of the benignity of his temper, and very expressive of the\ncharacter of the religion which he wished to inculcate, was not by any\nmeans an obvious thought. Nor am I acquainted with anything in any\nancient writing which resembles it.\n\nThe account of the institution of the eucharist bears strong internal\nmarks of genuineness. If it had been feigned, it would have been more\nfull; it would have come nearer to the actual mode of celebrating the\nrite as that mode obtained very early in the Christian churches; and it\nwould have been more formal than it is. In the forged piece called the\nApostolic Constitutions, the apostles are made to enjoin many parts of\nthe ritual which was in use in the second and third centuries, with as\nmuch particularity as a modern rubric could have done. Whereas, in the\nhistory of the Lord's Supper, as we read it in Saint Matthew's Gospel,\nthere is not so much as the command to repeat it. This, surely, looks\nlike undesignedness. I think also that the difficulty arising from the\nconciseness of Christ's expression, \"This is my body,\" would have been\navoided in a made-up story. I allow that the explication of these words\ngiven by Protestants is satisfactory; but it is deduced from a diligent\ncomparison of the words in question with forms of expression used in\nScripture, and especially by Christ upon other occasions. No writer\nwould arbitrarily and unnecessarily have thus cast in his reader's way a\ndifficulty which, to say the least, it required research and erudition\nto clear up.\n\nNow it ought to be observed that the argument which is built upon these\nexamples extends both to the authenticity of the books, and to the\ntruth of the narrative; for it is improbable that the forger of a\nhistory in the name of another should have inserted such passages into\nit: and it is improbable, also, that the persons whose names the books\nhear should have fabricated such passages; or even have allowed them a\nplace in their work, if they had not believed them to express the truth.\n\nThe following observation, therefore, of Dr. Lardner, the most candid of\nall advocates, and the most cautious of all inquirers, seems to be well\nfounded:--\"Christians are induced to believe the writers of the Gospel\nby observing the evidences of piety and probity that appear in their\nwritings, in which there is no deceit, or artifice, or cunning, or\ndesign.\" \"No remarks,\" as Dr. Beattie hath properly said, \"are thrown in\nto anticipate objections; nothing of that caution which never fails to\ndistinguish the testimony of those who are conscious of imposture; no\nendeavour to reconcile the reader's mind to what may be extraordinary in\nthe narrative.\"\n\nI beg leave to cite also another author, (Duchal, pp. 97, 98.) who has\nwell expressed the reflection which the examples now brought forward\nwere intended to suggest. \"It doth not appear that ever it came into the\nmind of these writers to consider how this or the other action would\nappear to mankind, or what objections might be raised upon them. But\nwithout at all attending to this, they lay the facts before you, at no\npains to think whether they would appear credible or not. If the reader\nwill not believe their testimony, there is no help for it: they tell\nthe truth and attend to nothing else. Surely this looks like sincerity,\nand that they published nothing to the world but that they believed\nthemselves.\"\n\nAs no improper supplement to this chapter, I crave a place here for\nobserving the extreme naturalness of some of the things related in the\nNew Testament.\n\nMark ix. 23. \"Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are\npossible to him that believeth. And straightway the father of the child\ncried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine\nunbelief.\" This struggle in the father's heart, between solicitude for\nthe preservation of his child, and a kind of involuntary distrust of\nChrist's power to heal him, is here expressed with an air of reality\nwhich could hardly be counterfeited.\n\nAgain (Matt. xxi. 9), the eagerness of the people to introduce Christ\ninto Jerusalem, and their demand, a short time afterwards, of his\ncrucifixion, when he did not turn out what they expected him to be, so\nfar from affording matter of objection, represents popular favour in\nexact agreement with nature and with experience, as the flux and reflux\nof a wave.\n\nThe rulers and Pharisees rejecting Christ, whilst many of the common\npeople received him, was the effect which, in the then state of Jewish\nprejudices, I should have expected. And the reason with which they who\nrejected Christ's mission kept themselves in countenance, and with which\nalso they answered the arguments of those who favoured it, is precisely\nthe reason which such men usually give:--\"Have any of the Scribes or\nPharisees believed on him?\" (John vii. 48.)\n\nIn our Lord's conversation at the well (John iv. 29), Christ had\nsurprised the Samaritan woman with an allusion to a single particular in\nher domestic situation, \"Thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou\nnow hast is not thy husband.\" The woman, soon after this, ran back to\nthe city, and called out to her neighbours, \"Come, see a man which told\nme all things that ever I did.\" This exaggeration appears to me very\nnatural; especially in the hurried state of spirits into which the woman\nmay be supposed to have been thrown.\n\nThe lawyer's subtilty in running a distinction upon the word neighbour,\nin the precept, \"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,\" was no less\nnatural than our Saviour's answer was decisive and satisfactory. (Luke\nx. 20.) The lawyer of the New Testament, it must be observed, was a\nJewish divine.\n\nThe behaviour of Gallio (Acts xviii. 12-17), and of Festus (xxv. 18,\n19), have been observed upon already.\n\nThe consistency of Saint Paul's character throughout the whole of his\nhistory (viz. the warmth and activity of his zeal, first against, and\nthen for, Christianity) carries with it very much of the appearance of\ntruth.\n\nThere are also some properties, as they may be called, observable in the\nGospels; that is, circumstances separately suiting with the situation,\ncharacter, and intention of their respective authors.\n\nSaint Matthew, who was an inhabitant of Galilee, and did not join\nChrist's society until some time after Christ had come into Galilee to\npreach, has given us very little of his history prior to that period.\nSaint John, who had been converted before, and who wrote to supply\nomissions in the other Gospels, relates some remarkable particulars\nwhich had taken place before Christ left Judea, to go into Galilee.\n(Hartley's Observations, vol. ii. p. 103.)\n\nSaint Matthew (xv. 1) has recorded the cavil of the Pharisees against\nthe disciples of Jesus, for eating \"with unclean hands.\" Saint Mark has\nalso (vii. 1) recorded the same transaction (taken probably from Saint\nMatthew), but with this addition: \"For the Pharisees, and all the Jews,\nexcept they wash their hands often, eat not, holding the tradition of\nthe elders: and when they come from the market, except they wash, they\neat not: and many other things there be which they have received to\nhold, as the washing of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.\"\nNow Saint Matthew was not only a Jew himself, but it is evident, from\nthe whole structure of his Gospel, especially from his numerous\nreferences to the Old Testament, that he wrote for Jewish readers. The\nabove explanation, therefore, in him, would have been unnatural, as not\nbeing wanted by the readers whom he addressed. But in Mark, who,\nwhatever use he might make of Matthew's Gospel, intended his own\nnarrative for a general circulation, and who himself travelled to\ndistant countries in the service of the religion, it was properly added.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nIDENTITY OF CHRIST'S CHARACTER.\n\nTHE argument expressed by this title I apply principally to the\ncomparison of the first three Gospels with that of Saint John. It is\nknown to every reader of Scripture that the passages of Christ's history\npreserved by Saint John are, except his passion and resurrection, for\nthe most part different from those which are delivered by the other\nevangelists. And I think the ancient account of this difference to be\nthe true one, viz., that Saint John wrote after the rest, and to supply\nwhat he thought omissions in their narratives, of which the principal\nwere our Saviour's conferences with the Jews of Jerusalem, and his\ndiscourses to his apostles at his last supper. But what I observe in the\ncomparison of these several accounts is, that, although actions and\ndiscourses are ascribed to Christ by Saint John in general different\nfrom what are given to him by the other evangelists, yet, under this\ndiversity, there is a similitude of manner, which indicates that the\nactions and discourses proceeded from the same person. I should have\nlaid little stress upon the repetition of actions substantially alike,\nor of discourses containing many of the same expressions, because that\nis a species of resemblance which would either belong to a true history,\nor might easily be imitate in a false one. Nor do I deny that a dramatic\nwriter is able to sustain propriety and distinction of character through\na great variety of separate incidents and situations. But the\nevangelists were not dramatic writers; nor possessed the talents of\ndramatic writers; nor will it, I believe, be suspected that they studied\nuniformity of character, or ever thought of any such thing in the person\nwho was the subject of their histories. Such uniformity, if it exist,\nis on their part casual; and if there be, as I contend there is, a\nperceptible resemblance of manner, in passages, and between discourses,\nwhich are in themselves extremely distinct, and are delivered by\nhistorians writing without any imitation of, or reference to, one\nanother, it affords a just presumption that these are what they profess\nto be, the actions and the discourses of the same real person; that the\nevangelists wrote from fact, and not from imagination.\n\nThe article in which I find this agreement most strong is in our\nSaviour's mode of teaching, and in that particular property of it which\nconsists in his drawing of his doctrine from the occasion; or, which is\nnearly the same thing, raising reflections from the objects and\nincidents before him, or turning a particular discourse then passing\ninto an opportunity of general instruction.\n\nIt will be my business to point out this manner in the first three\nevangelists; and then to inquire whether it do not appear also in several\nexamples of Christ's discourses preserved by Saint John.\n\nThe reader will observe in the following quotations that the Italic\nletter contains the reflection; the common letter the incident or\noccasion from which it springs.\n\nMatt. xii. 47--50. \"Then they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy\nbrethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and\nsaid unto him that told him, Who is my mother; and who are my brethren?\nAnd he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold\nmy mother and my brethren: for whosoever shall do the will of my Father\nwhich is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.\"\n\nMatt. xvi. 5. \"And when his disciples were come to the other side, they\nhad forgotten to take bread; then Jesus said unto them, Take heed, and\nbeware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they\nreasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no\nbread.--How is it that ye do not understand, that I speak it not to you\nconcerning bread, that ye shall beware of the leaven of the Pharisees\nand of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not\nbeware of the leaven of bread, but of the DOCTRINE of the Pharisees and\nof the Sadducees.\"\n\nMatt. xv. 1, 2; 10, 11; 15--20. \"Then came to Jesus scribes and\nPharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples\ntransgress the traditions of the elders? for they wash not their hands\nwhen they eat bread.--And he called the multitude, and said unto them,\nHear and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man,\nbut that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth the man.--Then\nanswered Peter, and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. And\nJesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do ye not understand\nthat whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is\ncast out into the draught? but those things which proceed out of the\nmouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the man: for out of the\nheart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts,\nfalse witness, blasphemies; these are the things which defile a man: BUT\nTO EAT WITH UNWASHEN HANDS DEFILETH NOT A MAN.\" Our Saviour, on \nthis occasion, expatiates rather more at large than usual, and his \ndiscourse also is more divided; but the concluding sentence brings \nback the whole train of thought to the incident in the first verse, \nviz. the objurgatory question of the Pharisees, and renders it evident\nthat the whole sprang from that circumstance.\n\nMark x. 13, 14, 15. \"And they brought young children to him, that he\nshould touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them:\nbut when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them,\nSuffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of\nsuch is the kingdom of God: verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not\nreceive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter\ntherein.\"\n\nMark i. 16, 17. \"Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon\nand Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea, for they were\nfishers: and Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you\nfishers of men.\"\n\nLuke xi. 27. \"And it came to pass as he spake these things, a certain\nwoman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is\nthe womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked: but he\nsaid, Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep\nit.\"\n\nLuke xiii. 1--3. \"There were present at that season some that told him\nof the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices;\nand Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye, that these Galileans\nwere sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things?\nI tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish.\"\n\nLuke xiv. 15. \"And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard\nthese things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in\nthe kingdom of God. Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great\nsupper, and bade many,\" &c. The parable is rather too long for\ninsertion, but affords a striking instance of Christ's manner of raising\na discourse from the occasion. Observe also in the same chapter two\nother examples of advice, drawn from the circumstances of the\nentertainment and the behaviour of the guests.\n\nWe will now see how this manner discovers itself in Saint John's history\nof Christ.\n\nJohn vi. 25. \"And when they had found him on the other side of the sea,\nthey said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither? Jesus answered them\nand said, Verily I say unto you, ye seek me not because ye saw the\nmiracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labour\nnot for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto\neverlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you.\"\n\nJohn iv. 12. \"Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who gave us the\nwell, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus\nanswered, and said unto her (the woman of Samaria), Whosoever drinketh\nof this water shall thirst again; but whosoever drinketh of the water\nthat I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the water that I shall\ngive him shall be in him a well of water, springing up into everlasting\nlife.\"\n\nJohn iv. 31. \"In the mean while, his disciples prayed him, saying,\nMaster, eat; but he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not\nof. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought\nhim aught to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of\nHim that sent me, and to finish his work.\"\n\nJohn ix. 1--5. \"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind\nfrom his birth: and his disciples asked him, saying, Who did sin, this\nman or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath\nthis man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be\nmade manifest in him. I must work the works of Him that sent me while it\nis day; the night cometh when no man can work. As long as I am in the\nworld, I am the light of the world.\"\n\nJohn ix. 35--40. \"Jesus heard that they had cast him (the blind man\nabove mentioned) out: and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost\nthou believe on the Son of God? And he answered and said, Who is he,\nLord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast\nboth seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I\nbelieve; and he worshipped him. And Jesus said. For judgment I am come\ninto this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which\nsee might be made blind.\"\n\nAll that the reader has now to do, is to compare the series of examples\ntaken from Saint John with the series of examples taken from the other\nevangelists, and to judge whether there be not a visible agreement of\nmanner between them. In the above-quoted passages, the occasion is\nstated, as well as the reflection. They seem, therefore, the most proper\nfor the purpose of our argument. A large, however, and curious\ncollection has been made by different writers, (Newton on Daniel, p. 148,\nnote a. Jottin, Dis., p. 218. Bishop Law's Life of Christ.) of instances\nin which it is extremely probable that Christ spoke in allusion to some\nobject, or some occasion then before him, though the mention of the\noccasion, or of the object, be omitted in the history. I only observe that\nthese instances are common to Saint John's Gospel with the other three.\n\nI conclude this article by remarking, that nothing of this manner is\nperceptible in the speeches recorded in the Acts, or in any other but\nthose which are attributed to Christ, and that, in truth, it was a very\nunlikely manner for a forger or fabulist to attempt; and a manner very\ndifficult for any writer to execute, if he had to supply all the\nmaterials, both the incidents and the observations upon them, out of his\nown head. A forger or a fabulist would have made for Christ, discourses\nexhorting to virtue and dissuading from vice in general terms. It would\nnever have entered into the thoughts of either, to have crowded together\nsuch a number of allusions to time, place, and other little circumstances,\nas occur, for instance, in the sermon on the mount, and which nothing but\nthe actual presence of the objects could have suggested (See Bishop Law's\nLife of Christ).\n\nII. There appears to me to exist an affinity between the history of\nChrist's placing a little child in the midst of his disciples, as\nrelated by the first three evangelists, (Matt. xviii. 1. Mark ix. 33.\nLuke ix. 46.) and the history of Christ's washing his disciples' feet,\nas given by Saint John. (Chap. xiii. 3.) In the stories themselves there\nis no resemblance. But the affinity which I would point out consists in\nthese two articles: First, that both stories denote the emulation which\nprevailed amongst Christ's disciples, and his own care and desire to\ncorrect it; the moral of both is the same. Secondly, that both stories\nare specimens of the same manner of teaching, viz., by action; a mode of\nemblematic instruction extremely peculiar, and, in these passages,\nascribed, we see, to our Saviour by the first three evangelists, and by\nSaint John, in instances totally unlike, and without the smallest\nsuspicion of their borrowing from each other.\n\nIII. A singularity in Christ's language which runs through all the\nevangelists, and which is found in those discourses of Saint John that\nhave nothing similar to them in the other Gospels, is the appellation of\n\"the Son of man;\" and it is in all the evangelists found under the\npeculiar circumstance of being applied by Christ to himself, but of\nnever being used of him, or towards him, by any other person. It occurs\nseventeen times in Matthew's Gospel, twenty times in Mark's, twenty-one\ntimes in Luke's and eleven times in John's, and always with this\nrestriction.\n\nIV. A point of agreement in the conduct of Christ, as represented by his\ndifferent historians, is that of his withdrawing himself out of the way\nwhenever the behaviour of the multitude indicated a disposition to\ntumult.\n\nMatt. xiv. 22. \"And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get\ninto a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the\nmultitude away. And when he had sent the multitude away, he went up into\na mountain apart to pray.\"\n\nLuke v. 15, 16. \"But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him,\nand great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of\ntheir infirmities; and he withdrew himself into the wilderness and\nprayed.\" With these quotations compare the following from Saint John:\nChap. v. 13. \"And he that was healed wist not who it was, for Jesus had\nconveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.\"\n\nChap. vi. 15. \"When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and\ntake him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain\nhimself alone.\"\n\nIn this last instance, Saint John gives the motive of Christ's conduct,\nwhich is left unexplained by the other evangelists, who have related the\nconduct itself.\n\nV. Another, and a more singular circumstance in Christ's ministry, was\nthe reserve which, for some time, and upon some occasions at least, he\nused in declaring his own character, and his leaving it to be collected\nfrom his works rather than his professions. Just reasons for this\nreserve have been assigned. (See Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity.)\nBut it is not what one would have expected. We meet with it in Saint\nMatthew's Gospel (chap. xvi. 20): \"Then charged he his disciples that\nthey should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.\" Again, and upon a\ndifferent occasion, in Saint Mark's (chap. iii. 11): \"And unclean\nspirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying,\nThou art the Son of God: and he straitly charged them that they should\nnot make him known.\" Another instance similar to this last is recorded\nby Saint Luke (chap. iv. 41). What we thus find in the three\nevangelists, appears also in a passage of Saint John (chap. x. 24, 25):\n\"Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost\nthou make us to doubt: If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.\" The\noccasion here was different from any of the rest; and it was indirect.\nWe only discover Christ's conduct through the upbraidings of his\nadversaries. But all this strengthens the argument. I had rather at any\ntime surprise a coincidence in some oblique allusion than read it in\nbroad assertions.\n\nVI. In our Lord's commerce with his disciples, one very observable\nparticular is the difficulty which they found in understanding him when\nhe spoke to them of the future part of his history, especially of what\nrelated to his passion or resurrection. This difficulty produced, as was\nnatural, a wish in them to ask for further explanation: from which,\nhowever, they appear to have been sometimes kept back by the fear of\ngiving offence. All these circumstances are distinctly noticed by Mark\nand Luke, upon the occasion of his informing them (probably for the\nfirst time) that the Son of man should be delivered into the hands of\nmen. \"They understood not,\" the evangelists tell us, \"this saying, and\nit was hid from them, that they perceived it not; and they feared to ask\nhim of that saying.\" Luke ix. 45; Mark ix. 32. In Saint John's Gospel we\nhave, on a different occasion, and in a different instance, the same\ndifficulty of apprehension, the same curiosity, and the same\nrestraint:--\"A little while and ye shall not see me; and again, a little\nwhile and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father. Then said some of\nhis disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us? A\nlittle while and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while and ye\nshall see me: and, Because I go to the Father? They said, therefore,\nWhat is this that he saith? A little while? We cannot tell what he\nsaith. Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto\nthem,--\" &c. John xvi. 16, et seq.\n\nVII. The meekness of Christ during his last sufferings, which is\nconspicuous in the narratives of the first three evangelists, is\npreserved in that of Saint John under separate examples. The answer\ngiven by him, in Saint John, (Chap. xviii. 20, 21.) when the high priest\nasked him of his disciples and his doctrine; \"I spake openly to the\nworld: I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the\nJews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou\nme? ask them which heard me what I have said unto them,\" is very much of\na piece with his reply to the armed party which seized him, as we read\nit in Saint Mark's Gospel, and in Saint Luke's:(Mark xiv. 48. Luke xxii.\n52.) \"Are you come out as against a thief, with swords and with staves\nto take me? I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me\nnot.\" In both answers we discern the same tranquillity, the same\nreference to his public teaching. His mild expostulation with Pilate, on\ntwo several occasions, as related by Saint John, (Chap. xviii. 34; xix.\n11.) is delivered with the same unruffled temper as that which conducted\nhim through the last scene of his life, as described by his other\nevangelists. His answer, in Saint John's Gospel, to the officer who\nstruck him with the palm of his hand, \"If I have spoken evil, bear\nwitness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?\" (Chap. xviii.\n23.) was such an answer as might have been looked for from the person\nwho, as he proceeded to the place of execution, bid his companions (as\nwe are told by Saint Luke; Chap. xxiii. 28.) weep not for him, but for\nthemselves, their posterity, and their country; and who, whilst he was\nsuspended upon the cross, prayed for his murderers, \"for they know not,\"\nsaid he, \"what they do.\" The urgency also of his judges and his\nprosecutors to extort from him a defence to the accusation, and his\nunwillingness to make any (which was a peculiar circumstance), appears\nin Saint John's account, as well as in that of the other\nevangelists. (See John xix. 9. Matt. xxvii. 14. Luke xxiii. 9.)\n\nThere are, moreover, two other correspondencies between Saint John's\nhistory of the transaction and theirs, of a kind somewhat different from\nthose which we have been now mentioning.\n\nThe first three evangelists record what is called our Saviour's agony,\ni.e. his devotion in the garden immediately before he was apprehended;\nin which narrative they all make him pray \"that the cup might pass from\nhim.\" This is the particular metaphor which they all ascribe to him.\nSaint Matthew adds, \"O, my Father, if this cup may not pass away from\nme, except I drink it, thy will be done.\" (Chap, xxvi. 42.) Now Saint\nJohn does not give the scene in the garden: but when Jesus was seized,\nand some resistance was attempted to be made by Peter, Jesus, according\nto his account, checked the attempt, with this reply: \"Put up thy sword\ninto the sheath; the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not\ndrink it?\" (Chap. xviii. 11.) This is something more than\nconsistency---it is coincidence; because it is extremely natural that\nJesus, who, before he was apprehended, had been praying his Father that\n\"that cup might pass from him,\" yet with such a pious retraction of his\nrequest as to have added, \"If this cup may not pass from me, thy will be\ndone;\" it was natural, I say, for the same person, when he actually was\napprehended, to express the resignation to which he had already made up\nhis thoughts, and to express it in the form of speech which he had\nbefore used, \"The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink\nit?\" This is a coincidence between writers in whose narratives there is\nno imitation, but great diversity.\n\nA second similar correspondency is the following: Matthew and Mark make\nthe charge upon which our Lord was condemned to be a threat of\ndestroying the temple; \"We heard him say, I will destroy this temple\nmade with hands, and within three days I will build another made without\nhands:\" (Mark xiv. 58.) but they neither of them inform us upon what\ncircumstance this calumny was founded. Saint John, in the early part of\nthe history, (Chap. ii. 19.) supplies us with this information; for he\nrelates, that on our Lord's first journey to Jerusalem, when the Jews\nasked him \"What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these\nthings? He answered, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise\nit up.\" This agreement could hardly arise from anything but the truth of\nthe case. From any care or design in Saint John to make his narrative\ntally with the narratives of other evangelists, it certainly did not\narise, for no such design appears, but the absence of it.\n\nA strong and more general instance of agreement is the following.--The\nfirst three evangelists have related the appointment of the twelve\napostles; (Matt. x. 1. Mark iii. 14. Luke vi. 12.) and have given a\ncatalogue of their names in form. John, without ever mentioning the\nappointment, or giving the catalogue, supposes, throughout his whole\nnarrative, Christ to be accompanied by a select party of disciples; the\nnumber of these to be twelve; (Chap. vi. 70.) and whenever he happens to\nnotice any one as of that number, (Chap. xx, 24; vi. 71.) it is one\nincluded in the catalogue of the other evangelists: and the names\nprincipally occurring in the course of his history of Christ are the\nnames extant in their list. This last agreement, which is of\nconsiderable moment, runs through every Gospel, and through every\nchapter of each. All this bespeaks reality.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nORIGINALITY OF OUR SAVIOUR'S CHARACTER.\n\nThe Jews, whether right or wrong, had understood their prophecies to\nforetell the advent of a person who by some supernatural assistance\nshould advance their nation to independence, and to a supreme degree of\nsplendour and prosperity. This was the reigning opinion and expectation\nof the times. Now, had Jesus been an enthusiast, it is probable that his\nenthusiasm would have fallen in with the popular delusion, and that,\nwhile he gave himself out to be the person intended by these\npredictions, he would have assumed the character to which they were\nuniversally supposed to relate.\n\nHad he been an impostor, it was his business to have flattered the\nprevailing hopes, because these hopes were to be the instruments of his\nattraction and success.\n\nBut what is better than conjectures is the fact, that all the pretended\nMessiahs actually did so. We learn from Josephus that there were many of\nthese. Some of them, it is probable, might be impostors, who thought\nthat an advantage was to be taken of the state of public opinion.\nOthers, perhaps, were enthusiasts, whose imagination had been drawn to\nthis particular object by the language and sentiments which prevailed\naround them. But whether impostors or enthusiasts, they concurred in\nproducing themselves in the character which their countrymen looked for,\nthat is to say, as the restorers and deliverers of the nation, in that\nsense in which restoration and deliverance were expected by the Jews.\n\nWhy therefore Jesus, if he was, like them, either an enthusiast or\nimpostor, did not pursue the same conduct as they did, in framing his\ncharacter and pretensions, it will be found difficult to explain. A\nmission, the operation and benefit of which was to take place in another\nlife, was a thing unthought of as the subject of these prophecies. That\nJesus, coming to them as their Messiah, should come under a character\ntotally different from that in which they expected him; should deviate\nfrom the general persuasion, and deviate into pretensions absolutely\nsingular and original--appears to be inconsistent with the imputation of\nenthusiasm or imposture, both which by their nature I should expect\nwould, and both which, throughout the experience which this very subject\nfurnishes, in fact, have followed the opinions that obtained at the\ntime.\n\nIf it be said that Jesus, having tried the other plan, turned at length\nto this; I answer, that the thing is said without evidence; against\nevidence; that it was competent to the rest to have done the same, yet\nthat nothing of this sort was thought of by any.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nOne argument which has been much relied upon (but not more than its just\nweight deserves) is the conformity of the facts occasionally mentioned\nor referred to in Scripture with the state of things in those times, as\nrepresented by foreign and independent accounts; which conformity\nproves, that the writers of the New Testament possessed a species of\nlocal knowledge which could belong only to an inhabitant of that country\nand to one living in that age. This argument, if well made out by\nexamples, is very little short of proving the absolute genuineness of\nthe writings. It carries them up to the age of the reputed authors, to\nan age in which it must have been difficult to impose upon the Christian\npublic forgeries in the names of those authors, and in which there is no\nevidence that any forgeries were attempted. It proves, at least, that\nthe books, whoever were the authors of them, were composed by persons\nliving in the time and country in which these things were transacted;\nand consequently capable, by their situation, of being well informed of\nthe facts which they relate. And the argument is stronger when applied\nto the New Testament, than it is in the case of almost any other\nwritings, by reason of the mixed nature of the allusions which this book\ncontains. The scene of action is not confined to a single country, but\ndisplayed in the greatest cities of the Roman empire. Allusions are made\nto the manners and principles of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews.\nThis variety renders a forgery proportionably more difficult, especially\nto writers of a posterior age. A Greek or Roman Christian who lived in\nthe second or third century would have been wanting in Jewish\nliterature; a Jewish convert in those ages would have been equally\ndeficient in the knowledge of Greece and Rome. (Michaelis's Introduction\nto the New Testament [Marsh's translation], c. ii. sect. xi.)\n\nThis, however, is an argument which depends entirely upon an induction\nof particulars; and as, consequently, it carries with it little force\nwithout a view of the instances upon which it is built, I have to request\nthe reader's attention to a detail of examples, distinctly and\narticulately proposed. In collecting these examples I have done no more\nthan epitomise the first volume of the first part of Dr. Lardner's\nCredibility of the Gospel History. And I have brought the argument\nwithin its present compass, first, by passing over some of his sections\nin which the accordancy appeared to me less certain, or upon subjects\nnot sufficiently appropriate or circumstantial; secondly, by contracting\nevery section into the fewest words possible, contenting myself for the\nmost part with a mere apposition of passages; and, thirdly, by omitting\nmany disquisitions, which, though learned and accurate, are not\nabsolutely necessary to the understanding or verification of the\nargument.\n\nThe writer principally made use of in the inquiry is Josephus.  Josephus\nwas born at Jerusalem four years after Christ's ascension. He wrote his\nhistory of the Jewish war some time after the destruction of Jerusalem,\nwhich happened in the year of our Lord LXX, that is, thirty-seven years\nafter the ascension; and his history of the Jews he finished in the year\nxciii, that is, sixty years after the ascension. At the head of each\narticle I have referred, by figures included in brackets, to the page of\nDr. Lardner's volume where the section from which the abridgment is made\nbegins. The edition used is that of 1741.\n\nI. [p. 14.] Matt. ii. 22. \"When he (Joseph) heard that Archclaus did\nreign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go\nthither:  notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned\naside into the parts of Galilee.\"\n\nII. In this passage it is asserted that Archclaus succeeded Herod in\nJudea; and it is implied that his power did not extend to Galilee. Now\nwe learn from Josephus that Herod the Great, whose dominion included all\nthe land of Israel, appointed Archelaus his successor in Judea, and\nassigned the rest of his dominions to other sons; and that this\ndisposition was ratified, as to the main parts of it, by the Roman\nemperor (Ant. lib. xvi. c. 8, sect. 1.).\n\nSaint Matthew says that Archclaus reigned, was king, in Judea. Agreeably\nto this, we are informed by Josephus, not only that Herod appointed\nArchclaus his successor in Judea, but that he also appointed him with\nthe title of King; and the Greek verb basileuei, which the evangelist\nuses to denote the government and rank of Archclaus, is used likewise by\nJosephus (De Bell. lib. i. c. 3,3, sect. 7.).\n\nThe cruelty of Archelaus's character, which is not obscurely intimated\nby the evangelist, agrees with divers particulars in his history\npreserved by Josephus:--\"In the tenth year of his government, the chief\nof the Jews and Samaritans, not being able to endure his cruelty and\ntyranny, presented complaints against him to Caesar.\" (Ant, lib. xii.\n13, sect. 1.)\n\nII. [p. 19.] Luke iii. 1. \"In the fifteenth year of the reign of\nTiberius Caesar--Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip\ntetrarch of Iturea, and of the region of Trachonitis--the word of God\ncame unto John.\"\n\nBy the will of Herod the Great, and the decree of Augustus thereupon,\nhis two sons were appointed, one (Herod Antipus) tetrarch of Galilee and\nPeraea, and the other (Philip) tetrarch of Trachonitis and the\nneighbouring countries. (Ant. lib. xvii. c. 8, sect. 1.) We have,\ntherefore, these two persons in the situations in which Saint Luke\nplaces them; and also, that they were in these situations in the\nfifteenth year of Tiberius; in other words, that they continued in\npossession of their territories and titles until that time, and\nafterwards, appears from a passage of Josephus, which relates of Herod,\n\"that he was removed by Caligula, the successor of Tiberius;\" (Ant. lib.\nxviii. c. 8, sect. 2.) and of Philip, that he died in the twentieth year\nof Tiberius, when he had governed Trachonitis and Batanea and Gaulanitis\nthirty-seven years. (Ant. lib. xviii. c. 5, sect. 6.)\n\nIII. [p. 20.] Mark vi. 17. \"Herod had sent forth, and laid hold upon\nJohn, and bound him in prison, for Heredias' sake, his brother Philip's\nwife: for he had married her.\" (See also Matt. xiv. 1--13; Luke iii.\n19.)\n\nWith this compare Joseph. Antiq. 1. xviii. c. 6, sect. 1:--\"He (Herod\nthe tetrareh) made a visit to Herod his brother.--Here, failing in love\nwith Herodias, the wife of the said Herod, he ventured to make her\nproposals of marriage.\"*\n\n_________\n\n* The affinity of the two accounts is unquestionable; but there is a\ndifference in the name of Herodias's first husband, which in the\nevangelist is Philip; in Josephus, Herod. The difficulty, however, will\nnot appear considerable when we recollect how common it was in those\ntimes for the same persons to bear two names. \"Simon, which is called\nPeter; Lebbeus, whose surname is Thaddeus; Thomas, which is called\nDidymus; Simeon, who was called Niger; Saul, who was also called Paul.\"\nThe solution is rendered likewise easier in the present case by the\nconsideration that Herod the Great had children by seven or eight wives;\nthat Josephus mentions three of his sons under the name of Herod; that\nit is nevertheless highly probable that the brothers bore some\nadditional name by which they were distinguished from one another.\nLardner, vol. ii. p. 897.\n_________\n\n\nAgain, Mark vi. 22. \"And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in\nand danced.\"\n\nWith this also compare Joseph. Antiq. 1. xviii. c. 6, sect. 4. \"Herodias\nwas married to Herod, son of Herod the Great. They had a daughter, whose\nname was Salome; after whose birth Herodias, in utter violation of the\nlaws of her country, left her husband, then living, and married Herod\nthe tetrarch of Galilee, her husband's brother by the father's side.\"\n\nIV. [p. 29.] Acts xii. 1. \"Now, about that time, Herod the king\nstretched forth his hands, to vex certain of the church.\"\n\nIn the conclusion of the same chapter, Herod's death is represented to\nhave taken place soon after this persecution. The accuracy of our\nhistorian, or, rather, the unmeditated coincidence which truth of its\nown accord produces, is in this instance remarkable. There was no\nportion of time for thirty years before, nor ever afterwards, in which\nthere was a king at Jerusalem, a person exercising that authority in\nJudea, or to whom that title could be applied, except the last three\nyears of this Herod's life, within which period the transaction recorded\nin the Acts is stated to have taken place. This prince was the grandson\nof Herod the Great. In the Acts he appears under his family-name of\nHerod; by Josephus he was called Agrippa. For proof that he was a king,\nproperly so called, we have the testimony of Josephus, in full and\ndirect terms:--\"Sending for him to his palace, Caligula put a crown upon\nhis head, and appointed him king of the tetrarchie of Philip, intending\nalso to give him the tetrarchie of Lysanias.\" (Antiq. xviii. c. 7, sect.\n10.) And that Judea was at last, but not until the last, included in his\ndominions, appears by a subsequent passage of the same Josephus, wherein\nhe tells us that Claudius, by a decree, confirmed to Agrippa the\ndominion which Caligula had given him; adding also Judea and Samaria, in\nthe utmost extent, as possessed by his grandfather Herod (Antiq. xix. c.\n5, sect. 1.).\n\nV. [p. 32.] Acts xii. 19--23. \"And he (Herod) went down from Judea to\nCesarea, and there abode. And on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal\napparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them: and the\npeople gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man;\nand immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God\nthe glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost.\"\n\nJoseph. Antiq. lib. xix. c. 8, sect. 2. \"He went to the city of Cesarea.\nHere he celebrated shows in honour of Caesar. On the second day of the\nshows, early in the morning, he came into the theatre, dressed in a robe\nof silver, of most curious workmanship. The rays of the rising sun,\nreflected from such a splendid garb, gave him a majestic and awful\nappearance. They called him a god; and intreated him to be propitious to\nthem, saying, Hitherto we have respected you as a man; but now we\nacknowledge you to be more than mortal. The king neither reproved these\npersons, nor rejected the impious flattery. Immediately after this he\nwas seized with pains in his bowels, extremely violent at the very\nfirst. He was carried therefore with all haste to his palace. These\npains continually tormenting him, he expired in five days' time.\"\n\nThe reader will perceive the accordancy of these accounts in various\nparticulars. The place (Cesarea), the set day, the gorgeous dress, the\nacclamations of the assembly, the peculiar turn of the flattery, the\nreception of it, the sudden and critical incursion of the disease, are\ncircumstances noticed in both narratives. The worms mentioned by Saint\nLuke are not remarked by Josephus; but the appearance of these is a\nsymptom not unusually, I believe, attending the disease which Josephus\ndescribes, viz., violent affections of the bowels.\n\nVI. [p. 41.] Acts xxiv. 24. \"And after certain days, when Felix came\nwith his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul.\"\n\nJoseph. Antiq. lib. xx. c. 6, sect. 1, 2. \"Agrippa gave his sister\nDrusilla in marriage to Azizus, king of the Emesenes, when he had\nconsented to be circumcised.--But this marriage of Drusilla with Azizus\nwas dissolved in a short time after, in this manner:--When Felix was\nprocurator of Judea, having had a sight of her, he was mightily taken\nwith her.--She was induced to transgress the laws of her country, and\nmarry Felix.\"\n\nHere the public station of Felix, the name of his wife, and the singular\ncircumstance of her religion, all appear in perfect conformity with the\nevangelist.\n\nVII. [p. 46.] Acts xxv. 13. \"And after certain days king Agrippa and\nBerenice came to Cesarea to salute Festus.\" By this passage we are in\neffect told that Agrippa was a king, but not of Judea; for he came to\nsalute Festus, who at this time administered the government of that\ncountry at Cesarea.\n\nNow, how does the history of the age correspond with this account? The\nAgrippa here spoken of was the son of Herod Agrippa, mentioned in the\nlast article; but that he did not succeed to his father's kingdom, nor\never recovered Judea, which had been a part of it, we learn by the\ninformation of Josephus, who relates of him that when his father was\ndead Claudius intended at first to have put him immediately in\npossession of his father's dominions; but that, Agrippa being then but\nseventeen years of age, the emperor was persuaded to alter his mind, and\nappointed Cuspius Fadus prefect of Judea and the whole kingdom; (Antiq.\nxi. c. 9 ad fin.) which Fadus was succeeded by Tiberius Alexander,\nCumanus, Felix, Festus. (Antiq. xx. de Bell. lib. ii.) But that, though\ndisappointed of his father's kingdom, in which was included Judea, he\nwas, nevertheless, rightly styled King Agrippa, and that he was in\npossession of considerable territories, bordering upon Judea, we gather\nfrom the same authority: for, after several successive donations of\ncountry, \"Claudius, at the same time that he sent Felix to be procurator\nof Judea, promoted Agrippa from Chalcis to a greater kingdom, giving to\nhim the tetrarchie which had been Philip's; and he added, moreover, the\nkingdom of Lysanias, and the province that had belonged to Varus.\" (De\nBell. lib. li. c. 12 ad fin.)\n\nSaint Paul addresses this person as a Jew: \"King Agrippa, believest thou\nthe prophets? I know that thou believest.\" As the son of Herod Agrippa,\nwho is described by Josephus to have been a zealous Jew, it is\nreasonable to suppose that he maintained the same profession. But what\nis more material to remark, because it is more close and circumstantial,\nis, that Saint Luke, speaking of the father (Acts xii. 1--3), calls him\nHerod the, king, and gives an example of the exercise of his authority\nat Jerusalem: speaking of the son (xxv. 13), he calls him king, but not\nof Judea; which distinction agrees correctly with the history.\n\nVIII. [p. 51.] Acts xiii. 6. \"And when they had gone through the isle\n(Cyprus) to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a\nJew, whose name was Bar-jesus, which was with the deputy of the country,\nSergius Paulus, a prudent man.\"\n\nThe word which is here translated deputy, signifies and upon this word\nour observation is founded. The provinces of the Roman empire were of \ntwo kinds; those belonging the emperor, in which the governor was called\nproprietor; those belonging to the senate, in which the governor was\nproconsul. And this was a regular distinction. Now it appears from Dio\nCassius, (Lib. liv. ad A. U. 732.) that the province of Cyprus, which, in\noriginal distribution, was assigned to the emperor, had transferred to\nthe senate, in exchange for some others; and after this exchange, the\nappropriate title of the Roman was proconsul.\n\nIb. xviii. 12. [p. 55.] \"And when Gallio was deputy (proconsul) of\nAchaia.\"\n\nThe propriety of the title \"proconsul\" is in this still more critical.\nFor the province of Achaia, after passing from the senate to the\nemperor, had been restored again by the emperor Claudius to the senate\n(and consequently its government had become proconsular) only six or\nseven years before the time in which this transaction is said to have\ntaken place. (Suet. in Claud. c. xxv. Dio, lib. lxi.) And what confines\nwith strictness the appellation to the time is, that Achaia under the\nfollowing reign ceased to be a Roman province at all.\n\nIX. [p. 152.] It appears, as well from the general constitution of a\nRoman province, as from what Josephus delivers concerning the state of\nJudea in particular, (Antiq. lib. xx. c. 8, sect. 5; c. 1, sect. 2.) that\nthe power of life and death resided exclusively in the Roman governor;\nbut that the Jews, nevertheless, had magistrates and a council, invested\nwith a subordinate and municipal authority. This economy is discerned in\nevery part of the Gospel narrative of our Saviour's crucifixion.\n\nX. [p. 203.] Acts ix. 31. \"Then had the churches rest throughout all\nJudea and Galilee and Samaria.\"\n\nThis rest synchronises with the attempt of Caligula to place his statue\nin the temple of Jerusalem; the threat of which outrage produced amongst\nthe Jews a consternation that, for a season, diverted their attention\nfrom every other object. (Joseph. de Bell lib. Xi. c. 13, sect. 1, 3, 4.)\n\nXI. [p. 218.] Acts xxi. 30. \"And they took Paul, and drew him out of the\ntemple; and forthwith the doors were shut. And as they went about to\nkill him, tidings came to the chief captain of the band that all\nJerusalem was in an uproar. Then the chief captain came near, and took\nhim and commanded him to be bound with two chains, and demanded who he\nwas, and what he had done; and some cried one thing, and some another,\namong the multitude: and, when he could not know the certainty for the\ntumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle. And when he came\nupon the stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the\nviolence of the people.\"\n\nIn this quotation we have the band of Roman soldiers at Jerusalem, their\noffice (to suppress tumults), the castle, the stairs, both, as it should\nseem, adjoining to the temple. Let us inquire whether we can find these\nparticulars in any other record of that age and place.\n\nJoseph. de. Ball. lib. v. e. 5, sect. 8. \"Antonia was situated at the\nangle of the western and northern porticoes of the outer temple. It was\nbuilt upon a rock fifty cubits high, steep on all sides.--On that side\nwhere it joined to the porticoes of the temple, there were stairs\nreaching to each portico, by which the guard descended; for there was\nalways lodged here a Roman legion; and posting themselves in their\narmour in several places in the porticoes, they kept a watch on the\npeople on the feast-days to prevent all disorders; for as the temple was\na guard to the city, so was Antonia to the temple.\"\n\nXII. [p. 224.] Acts iv. 1. \"And as they spake unto the people, the\npriests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon\nthem.\" Here we have a public officer, under the title of captain of the\ntemple, and he probably a Jew, as he accompanied the priests and\nSadducees in apprehending the apostles.\n\nJoseph. de Bell. lib. ii. c. 17, sect. 2. \"And at the temple, Eleazer,\nthe son of Ananias the high priest, a young man of a bold and resolute\ndisposition, then captain, persuaded those who performed the sacred\nministrations not to receive the gift or sacrifice of any stranger.\"\n\nXIII. [p. 225.] Acts xxv. 12. \"Then Festus, when he had conferred with\nthe council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt\nthou go.\" That it was usual for the Roman presidents to have a council\nconsisting of their friends, and other chief Romans in the province,\nappears expressly in the following passage of Cicero's oration against\nVerres:--\"Illud negare posses, aut nunc negabis, te, concilio tuo\ndimisso, viris primariis, qui in consilio C. Sacerdotis fuerant, tibique\nesse volebant, remotis, de re judicata judicasse?\"\n\nXIV. [p. 235.] Acts xvi. 13. \"And (at Philippi) on the Sabbath we went\nout of the city by a river-side, where prayer was wont to be made,\" or\nwhere a proseuche,  oratory, or place of prayer was allowed. The\nparticularity to be remarked is, the situation of the place where prayer\nwas wont to be made, viz. by a river-side.\n\nPhilo, describing the conduct of the Jews of Alexandria, on a certain\npublic occasion, relates of them, that, \"early in the morning, flocking\nout of the gates of the city, they go to the neighbouring shores, (for\nthe proseuchai were destroyed,) and, standing in a most pure place, they\nlift up their voices with one accord.\" (Philo in Flacc. p. 382.)\n\nJosephus gives us a decree of the city of Halicarnassus, permitting the\nJews to build oratories; a part of which decree runs thus:--\"We ordain\nthat the Jews, who are willing, men and women, do observe the Sabbaths,\nand perform sacred rites, according to the Jewish laws, and build\noratories by the sea-side.\" (Joseph. Antiq. lib. xiv. c. 10, sect, 24.)\n\nTertullian, among other Jewish rites and customs, such as feasts,\nsabbaths, fasts, and unleavened bread, mentions \"orationes literales,\"\nthat is, prayers by the river-side. (Tertull. ad Nat, lib. i. c. 13.)\n\nXV. [p. 255.] Acts xxvi. 5. \"After the most straitest sect of our\nreligion, I lived a Pharisee.\"\n\nJoseph. de Bell. lib. i. c. 5, sect. 2. \"The Pharisees were reckoned the\nmost religious of any of the Jews, and to be the most exact and skilful\nin explaining the laws.\"\n\nIn the original, there is an agreement not only in the sense but in the\nexpression, it being the same Greek adjective which is rendered \"strait\"\nin the Acts, and \"exact\" in Josephus.\n\nXVI. [p. 255.] Mark vii. 3,4. \"The Pharisees and all the Jews, except\nthey wash, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and many other\nthings there be which they have received to hold.\"\n\nJoseph. Antiq. lib. xiii. c. 10, sect. 6. \"The Pharisees have delivered\nup to the people many institutions, as received from the fathers, which\nare not written in the law of Moses.\"\n\nXVII. [p. 259.] Acts xxiii. 8. \"For the Sadducees say, that there is no\nresurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess\nboth.\"\n\nJoseph. de Bell. lib. ii. c. 8, sect. 14. \"They (the Pharisees) believe\nevery soul to be immortal, but that the soul of the good only passes\ninto another body, and that the soul of the wicked is punished with\neternal punishment.\" On the other hand (Antiq. lib. xviii. e. 1, sect.\n4), \"It is the opinion of the Sadducees that souls perish with the\nbodies.\"\n\nXVIII. [p. 268.] Acts v. 17. \"Then the high priest rose up, and all\nthey that were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees), and were\nfilled with indignation.\" Saint Luke here intimates that the high priest\nwas a Sadducee; which is a character one would not have expected to meet\nwith in that station. This circumstance, remarkable as it is, was not\nhowever without examples.\n\nJoseph. Antiq. lib. xiii. c. 10, sect. 6, 7. \"John Hyreanus, high priest\nof the Jews, forsook the Pharisees upon a disgust, and joined himself to\nthe party of the Sadducees.\" This high priest died one hundred and seven\nyears before the Christian era.\n\nAgain (Antiq. lib. xx. e. 8, sect. 1), \"This Ananus the younger, who, as\nwe have said just now, had received the high priesthood, was fierce and\nhaughty in his behaviour, and, above all men, hold and daring, and,\nmoreover, was of the sect of the Sadducees.\" This high priest lived\nlittle more than twenty years after the transaction in the Acts.\n\nXIX. [p. 282.] Luke ix. 51. \"And it came to pass, when the time was come\nthat he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to\nJerusalem, and sent messengers before his face. And they went, and\nentered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And\nthey did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to\nJerusalem.\"\n\nJoseph. Antiq. lib. xx. c. 5, sect. 1. \"It was the custom of the\nGalileans, who went up to the holy city at the feasts, to travel through\nthe country of Samaria. As they were in their journey, some inhabitants\nof the village called Ginaea, which lies on the borders of Samaria and\nthe great plain, falling upon them, killed a great many of them.\"\n\nXX. [p. 278.] John iv. 20. \"Our fathers,\" said the Samaritan woman,\n\"worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that Jerusalem is the place\nwhere men ought to worship.\"\n\nJoseph. Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 5, sect. 1. \"Commanding them to meet him\nat mount Gerizzim, which is by them (the Samaritans) esteemed the most\nsacred of all mountains.\"\n\nXXI. [p. 312.] Matt. xxvi. 3. \"Then assembled together the chief\npriests, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high\npriest, who was called Caiaphas.\" That Caiaphas was high priest, and\nhigh priest throughout the presidentship of Pontius Pilate, and\nconsequently at this time, appears from the following account:--He was\nmade high priest by Valerius Gratus, predecessor of Pontius Pilate, and\nwas removed from his office by Vitellius, president of Syria, after\nPilate was sent away out of the province of Judea. Josephus relates the\nadvancement of Caiaphas to the high priesthood in this manner: \"Gratus\ngave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus. He, having\nenjoyed this honour not above a year, was succeeded by Joseph, who is\nalso called Caiaphas.\" (Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 2, sect. 2.) After this,\nGratus went away for Rome, having been eleven years in Judea; and\nPontius Pilate came thither as his successor. Of the removal of Caiaphas\nfrom his office, Josephus likewise afterwards informs us: and connects\nit with a circumstance which fixes the time to a date subsequent to the\ndetermination of Pilate's government--\"Vitellius,\" he tells us; \"ordered\nPilate to repair to Rome: and after that, went up himself to Jerusalem,\nand then gave directions concerning several matters. And having done\nthese things he took away the priesthood from the high priest Joseph,\nwho is called Caiaphas.\" (Antiq. lib. xvii. c. 5, sect 3.)\n\nXXII. (Michaelis, c. xi. sect. 11.) Acts xxiii. 4. \"And they that stood\nby said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not,\nbrethren, that he was the high priest?\" Now, upon inquiry into the\nhistory of the age, it turns out that Ananias, of whom this is spoken,\nwas, in truth, not the high priest, though he was sitting in judgment in\nthat assumed capacity. The case was, that he had formerly holden the\noffice, and had been deposed; that the person who succeeded him had been\nmurdered; that another was not yet appointed to the station; and that\nduring the vacancy, he had, of his own authority, taken upon himself the\ndischarge of the office. (Joseph. Antiq. 1. xx. c. 5, sect. 2; c. 6,\nsect. 2; c. 9, sect. 2.) This singular situation of the high priesthood\ntook place during the interval between the death of Jonathan, who was\nmurdered by order of Felix, and the accession of Ismael, who was\ninvested with the high priesthood by Agrippa; and precisely in this\ninterval it happened that Saint Paul was apprehended, and brought before\nthe Jewish council.\n\nXXIII. [p. 323.] Matt. xxvi. 59. \"Now the chief priests and elders, and\nall the council, sought false witness against him.\"\n\nJoseph. Antiq. lib. xviii. e. 15, sect. 3, 4. \"Then might be seen the\nhigh priests themselves with ashes on their heads and their breasts\nnaked.\"\n\nThe agreement here consists in speaking of the high priests or chief\npriests (for the name in the original is the same) in the plural number,\nwhen in strictness there was only one high priest: which may be\nconsidered as a proof that the evangelists were habituated to the manner\nof speaking then in use, because they retain it when it is neither\naccurate nor just. For the sake of brevity, I have put down from\nJosephus only a single example of the application of this title in the\nplural number; but it is his usual style.\n\nIb. [p. 871.] Luke ill. 1. \"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of\nTiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Juries, and Herod\nbeing tetrarch of Galilee, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests,\nthe word of God came unto John.\" There is a passage in Josephus very\nnearly parallel to this, and which may at least serve to vindicate the\nevangelist from objection, with respect to his giving the title of high\npriest specifically to two persons at the same time: \"Quadratus sent two\nothers of the most powerful men of the Jews, as also the high priests\nJonathan and Ananias.\" (De Bell. lib. ix. c. 12, sect. 6.) That Annas\nwas a person in an eminent station, and possessed an authority\ncoordinate with, or next to, that of the high print properly so called,\nmay he inferred from Saint John's Gospel, which in the history of\nChrist's crucifixion relates that \"the soldiers led him away to Annas\nfirst.\" (xviii.13.) And this might be noticed as an example of\nundesigned coincidence in the two evangelists.\n\nAgain, [p. 870.] Acts iv. 6. Annas is called the high priest, though\nCaiaphas was in the office of the high priesthood. In like manner in\nJosephus, (Lib. ii. c. 20, sect. 3.) \"Joseph the son of Gorion, and the\nhigh priest Ananus, were chosen to be supreme governors of all things in\nthe city.\" Yet Ananus, though here called the high priest Ananus, was\nnot then in the office of the high priesthood. The truth is, there is an\nindeterminateness in the use of this title in the Gospel:(Mark xiv. 53.)\nsometimes it is applied exclusively to the person who held the office at\nthe time; sometimes to one or two more, who probably shared with him\nsome of the powers or functions of the office; and sometimes to such of\nthe priests as were eminent by their station or character; and there is\nthe very same indeterminateness in Josephus.\n\nXXIV. [p. 347.] John xix. 19, 20. \"And Pilate wrote a title, and put it\non the cross.\" That such was the custom of the Romans on these occasions\nappears from passages of Suetonius and Dio Cassius: \"Pattrem\nfamilias--canibus objecit, cure hoc titulo, Impie locutus parmularius.\"\nSuet. Domit. cap. x. And in Dio Cassius we have the following: \"Having\nled him through the midst of the court or assembly, with a writing\nsignifying the cause of his death, and afterwards crucifying him.\" Book\nliv.\n\nIb. \"And it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.\" That it was also\nusual about this time in Jerusalem to set up advertisements in different\nlanguages, is gathered from the account which Josephus gives of an\nexpostulatory message from Titus to the Jews when the city was almost in\nhis hands; in which he says, Did ye not erect pillars with inscriptions\non them, in the Greek and in our language, \"Let no one pass beyond these\nbounds\"?\n\nXXV. [p. 352.] Matt. xxvii. 26. \"When he had scourged Jesus, he\ndelivered him to be crucified.\"\n\nThe following passages occur in Josephus:\n\n\"Being beaten, they were crucified opposite to the citadel.\" (P. 1247,\nedit. 24 Huds.)\n\n\"Whom, having first scourged with whips, he crucified.\" (P. 1080, edit.\n45.)\n\n\"He was burnt alive, having been first beaten.\" (P. 1327, edit. 43.)\n\nTo which may he added one from Livy, lib. xi. c. 5. \"Pro ductique omnes,\nvirgisqus caesi, ac securi percussi.\"\n\nA modern example may illustrate the use we make of this instance. The\npreceding of a capital execution by the corporal punishment of the\nsufferer is a practice unknown in England, but retained, in some\ninstances at least, as appears by the late execution of a regicide in\nSweden. This circumstance, therefore, in the account of an English\nexecution, purporting to come from an English writer, would not only\nbring a suspicion upon the truth of the account, but would in a\nconsiderable degree impeach its pretensions of having been written by\nthe author whose name it bore. Whereas, the same circumstance in the\naccount of a Swedish execution would verify the account, and support the\nauthenticity of the book in which it was found, or, at least, would\nprove that the author, whoever he was, possessed the information and the\nknowledge which he ought to possess.\n\nXXVI. [p. 353.] John xix. 16. \"And they took Jesus, and led him away;\nand he bearing his cross went forth.\"\n\nPlutarch, De iis qui sero puniuntur, p. 554; a Paris, 1624. \"Every kind\nof wickedness produces its own particular torment; just as every\nmalefactor, when he is brought forth to execution, carries his own\ncross.\"\n\nXXVII. John xix. 32. \"Then came the soldiers and brake the legs of the\nfirst, and of the other which was crucified with him.\"\n\nConstantine abolished the punishment of the cross: in commending which\nedict, a heathen writer notices this very circumstance of breaking the\nlegs: \"Eo pius, ut etiam vetus veterrimumque supplicium, patibulum, et\ncruribus suffringendis, primus removerit.\" Aur. Vict Ces. cap. xli.\n\nXXVIII. [p. 457.] Acts iii. 1. \"Now Peter and John went up together into\nthe temple, at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour.\"\n\nJoseph. Antiq. lib xv. e. 7, sect. 8. \"Twice every day, in the morning\nand at the ninth hour, the priests perform their, duty at the altar.\"\n\nXXIX. [p. 462.] Acts xv. 21. \"For Moses of old time hath, in every city,\nthem that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day.\"\n\nJoseph. contra Ap. 1. ii. \"He (Moses) gave us the law, the most\nexcellent of all institutions; nor did he appoint that it should be\nheard once only, or twice, or often, but that, laying aside all other\nworks, we should meet together every week to hear it read, and gain a\nperfect understanding of it.\"\n\nXXX. [p. 465.] Acts xxi. 23. \"We have four men which have a vow on them;\nthem take, and purify thyself with them that they may shave their\nheads.\"\n\nJoseph. de Bell. 1. xi. c. 15. \"It is customary for those who have been\nafflicted with some distemper, or have laboured under any other\ndifficulties, to make a vow thirty days before they offer sacrifices, to\nabstain from wine, and shave the hair of their heads.\"\n\nIb. v. 24. \"Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges\nwith them, that they may shave their heads.\"\n\nJoseph. Antiq. 1. xix. c. 6. \"He (Herod Agrippa) coming to Jerusalem,\noffered up sacrifices of thanksgiving, and omitted nothing that was\nprescribed by the law. For which reason he also ordered a good number of\nNazarites to be shaved.\" We here find that it was an act of piety\namongst the Jews to defray for those who were under the Nazaritic vow\nthe expenses which attended its completion; and that the phrase was,\n\"that they might be saved.\" The custom and the expression are both\nremarkable, and both in close conformity with the Scripture account.\n\nXXXI. [p. 474.] 2 Cor. xi. 24. \"Of the Jews, five times received I forty\nstripes save one.\"\n\nJoseph. Antiq. iv. c. 8, sect. 21. \"He that acts contrary hereto let him\nreceive forty stripes, wanting one, from the officer.\"\n\nThe coincidence here is singular, because the law allowed forty\nstripes:--\"Forty stripes he may give him and not exceed.\" Deut. xxv. 3.\nIt proves that the author of the Epistle to the Corinthians was guided\nnot by books, but by facts; because his statement agrees with the actual\ncustom, even when that custom deviated from the written law, and from\nwhat he must have learnt by consulting the Jewish code, as set forth in\nthe Old Testament.\n\nXXXII. [p. 490.] Luke iii. 12. \"Then came also publicans to be\nbaptized.\" From this quotation, as well as from the history of Levi or\nMatthew (Luke v. 29), and of Zaccheus (Luke xix. 2), it appears that the\npublicans or tax-gatherers were, frequently at least, if not always,\nJews: which, as the country was then under a Roman government, and the\ntaxes were paid to the Romans, was a circumstance not to be expected.\nThat it was the truth, however, of the case appears from a short passage\nof Josephus.\n\nDe Bell. lib. ii. c. 14, sect. 45. \"But Florus not restraining these\npractices by his authority, the chief men of the Jews, among whom was\nJohn the publican, not knowing well what course to take, wait upon\nFlorus and give him eight talents of silver to stop the building.\"\n\nXXXIII. [p. 496.] Acts xxii. 25. \"And as they bound him with thongs,\nPaul said unto the centurion that stood by, Is it lawful for you to\nscourge a man that is a Roman and uncondemned?\"\n\n\"Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum; scelus verberari.\" Cic. in Verr.\n\n\"Caedebatur virgis, in medio foro Messanae, civis Romanus, Judices: cum\ninterea nullus gemitus, nulla vox alia, istius miseri inter dolorem\ncrepitumque plagarum audiebatur, nisi haec, Civis Romanus sum.\"\n\nXXXIV. [p. 513] Acts xxii. 27. \"Then the chief captain came, and said\nunto him (Paul), Tell me, Art thou a Roman? He said Yea.\" The\ncircumstance to be here noticed is, that a Jew was a Roman citizen.\n\nJoseph. Antiq. lib. xiv. c. 10, sect. 13. \"Lucius Lentulna, the consul,\ndeclared, I have dismissed from the service the Jewish Roman citizens,\nwho observe the rites of the Jewish religion at Ephesus.\"\n\nIb. ver. 28. \"And the chief captain answered, with a great sum obtained\nI this freedom.\"\n\nDio Cassius, lib. lx. \"This privilege, which had been bought formerly at\na great price, became so cheap, that it was commonly said a man might be\nmade a Roman citizen for a few pieces of broken glass.\"\n\nXXXV. [p. 521.] Acts xxviii. 16. \"And when we came to Rome the centurion\ndelivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard; but Paul was\nsuffered to dwell by himself, with a soldier that kept him.\"\n\nWith which join vet. 20. \"For the hope of Israel, I am bound with this\nchain.\"\n\n\"Quemadmedum cadem catean et custodiam et militem copulat; sic ista,\nquae tam dissimilia sunt, pariter incedunt.\" Seneca, Ep. v.\n\n\"Proconsul estimare solet, utrum in carcerera recipienda sit persona, an\nmiliti tradenda.\" Ulpian. l. i. sect. De Custod. et Exhib. Reor.\n\nIn the confinement of Agrippa by the order of Tiberius, Antonia managed\nthat the centurion who presided over the guards, and the soldier to whom\nAgrippa was to be bound, might be men of mild character. (Joseph. Antiq.\nlib. xviii. c. 7, sect. 5.) After the accession of Caligula, Agrippa\nalso, like Paul, was suffered to dwell, yet as a prisoner, in his own\nhouse.\n\nXXXVI. [p. 531.] Acts xxvii. 1. \"And when it was determined that we\nshould sail into Italy, they delivered Paul, and certain other\nprisoners, unto one named Julius.\" Since not only Paul, but certain\nother prisoners were sent by the same ship into Italy, the text must be\nconsidered as carrying with it an intimation that the sending of persons\nfrom Judea to be tried at Rome was an ordinary practice. That in truth\nit was so, is made out by a variety of examples which the writings of\nJosephus furnish: and, amongst others, by the following, which comes\nnear both to the time and the subject of the instance in the Acts.\n\"Felix, for some slight offence, bound and sent to Rome several priests\nof his acquaintance, and very good and honest men, to answer for\nthemselves to Caesar.\" Joseph. in Vit. sect. 3.\n\nXXXVII. [p. 539.] Acts xi. 27. \"And in these days came prophets from\nJerusalem unto Antioch; and there stood up one of them, named Agabus,\nand signified by the Spirit that there should be a great dearth\nthroughout all the world (or all the country); which came to pass in the\ndays of Claudius Caesar.\"\n\nJoseph. Antiq. 1. xx. c. 4, sect. 2. \"In their time (i. e. about the\nfifth or sixth year of Claudius) a great dearth happened in Judea.\"\n\nXXXVIII. [p. 555.] Acts xviii. 1, 2. \"Because that Claudius had\ncommanded all Jews to depart from Rome.\"\n\nSuet. Gland. c. xxv. \"Judeos, impulsero Chresto assidue tumultuantes,\nRoma expulit.\"\n\nXXXIX. [p. 664.] Acts v. 37. \"After this man, rose up Judas of Galilee,\nin the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him.\"\n\nJoseph. de Bell. 1. vii. \"He (viz. the person who in another place is\ncalled, by Josephus, Judas the Galilean, or Judas of Galilee) persuaded\nnot a few to enrol themselves when Cyrenius the censor was sent into\nJudea.\"\n\nXL. [p. 942.] Acts xxi. 38. \"Art not thou that Egyptian which, before\nthese days, madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four\nthousand men that were murderers?\"\n\nJoseph. de Bell. 1. ii. c. 13, sect. 5. \"But the Egyptian false prophet\nbrought a yet heavier disaster upon the Jews; for this impostor, coming\ninto the country, and gaining the reputation of a prophet, gathered\ntogether thirty thousand men, who were deceived by him. Having brought\nthem round out of the wilderness, up to the mount of Olives, he intended\nfrom thence to make his attack upon Jerusalem; but Felix, coming\nsuddenly upon him with the Roman soldiers, prevented the attack.--A\ngreat number, or (as it should rather be rendered) the greatest part, of\nthose that were with him were either slain or taken prisoners.\"\n\nIn these two passages, the designation of this impostor, an \"Egyptian,\"\nwithout the proper name, \"the wilderness ;\" his escape, though his\nfollowers were destroyed; the time of the transaction, in the\npresidentship of Felix, which could not be any long time before the\nwords in Luke are supposed to have been spoken; are circumstances of\nclose correspondency. There is one, and only one, point of disagreement,\nand that is, in the number of his followers, which in the Acts are\ncalled four thousand, and by Josephus thirty thousand: but, beside that\nthe names of numbers, more than any other words, are liable to the\nerrors of transcribers, we are in the present instance under the less\nconcern to reconcile the evangelist with Josephus, as Josephus is not,\nin this point, consistent with himself. For whereas, in the passage here\nquoted, he calls the number thirty thousand, and tells us that the\ngreatest part, or a great number (according as his words are rendered)\nof those that were with him were destroyed; in his Antiquities he\nrepresents four hundred to have been killed upon this occasion, and two\nhundred taken prisoners:(Lib. xx. c. 7, sect. 6.) which certainly was\nnot the \"greatest part,\" nor \"a great part,\" nor \"a great number,\" out\nof thirty thousand. It is probable, also, that Lysias and Josephus spoke\nof the expedition in its different stages: Lysias, of those who followed\nthe Egyptian out of Jerusalem; Josephus, of all who were collected about\nhim afterwards, from different quarters.\n\nXLI. (Lardner's Jewish and Heathen Testimonies, vol. iii p. 21.) Acts\nxvii. 22. \"Then Paul stood in the midst of Marshill, and said, Ye men of\nAthens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious; for, as\nI passed by and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this\ninscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship,\nhim declare I unto you.\"\n\nDiogenes Laertius, who wrote about the year 210, in his history of\nEpimenides, who is supposed to have flourished nearly six hundred years\nbefore Christ, relates of him the following story: that, being invited\nto Athens for the purpose, he delivered the city from a pestilence in\nthis manner;--\"Taking several sheep, some black, others white, he had\nthem up to the Areopagus, and then let them go where they would, and\ngave orders to those who followed them, wherever any of them should lie\ndown, to sacrifice it to the god to whom it belonged; and so the plague\nceased.--Hence,\" says the historian, \"it has come to pass, that to this\npresent time may be found in the boroughs of the Athenians ANONYMOUS\naltars: a memorial of the expiation then made.\" (In Epimenide, l. i.\nsegm. 110.) These altars, it may be presumed, were called anonymous\nbecause there was not the name of any particular deity inscribed upon\nthem.\n\nPausanias, who wrote before the end of the second century, in his\ndescription of Athens, having mentioned an altar of Jupiter Olympius,\nadds, \"And nigh unto it is an altar of unknown gods.\" (Paus. l. v. p.\n412.) And in another place, he speaks \"of altars of gods called\nunknown.\" (Paus. l. i. p. 4.)\n\nPhilostratus, who wrote in the beginning of the third century; records\nit as an observation of Apollonius Tyanseus, \"That it was wise to speak\nwell of all the gods, especially at Athens, where altars of unknown\ndemons were erected.\" (Philos. Apoll. Tyan. l. vi. c. 3.)\n\nThe author of the dialogue Philoparis by many supposed to have been\nLucian, who wrote about the year 170, by others some anonymous Heathen\nwriter of the fourth century, makes Critias swear by the unknown god of\nAthens; and, near time end of the dialogue, has these words, \"But let us\nfind out the unknown god at Athens, and, stretching our hands to heaven,\noffer to him our praises and thanksgivings.\" (Lucian. in Philop. tom.\nii. Graev. pp. 767, 780.)\n\nThis is a very curious and a very important coincidence. It appears\nbeyond controversy, that altars with this inscription were existing at\nAthens at the time when Saint Paul is alleged to have been there. It\nseems also (which is very worthy of observation) that this inscription\nwas peculiar to the Athenians. There is no evidence that there were\naltars inscribed \"to the unknown god\" in any other country. Supposing\nthe history of Saint Paul to have been a fable, how is it possible that\nsuch a writer as the author of the Acts of the Apostles was should hit\nupon a circumstance so extraordinary, and introduce it by an allusion so\nsuitable to Saint Paul's office and character?\n\n\nThe examples here collected will be sufficient, I hope, to satisfy us\nthat the writers of the Christian history knew something of what they\nwere writing about. The argument is also strengthened by the following\nconsiderations:\n\nI. That these agreements appear not only in articles of public history,\nbut sometimes in minute, recondite, and very peculiar circumstances, in\nwhich, of all others, a forger is most likely to have been found\ntripping.\n\nII. That the destruction of Jerusalem, which took place forty years\nafter the commencement of the Christian institution, produced such a\nchange in the state of the country, and the condition of the Jews, that\na writer who was unacquainted with the circumstances of the nation\nbefore that event would find it difficult to avoid mistakes, in\nendeavouring to give detailed accounts of transactions connected with\nthose circumstances, forasmuch as he could no longer have a living\nexemplar to copy from.\n\nIII. That there appears, in the writers of the New Testament, a\nknowledge of the affairs of those times which we do not find in authors\nof later ages. In particular, \"many of the Christian writers of the\nsecond and third centuries, and of the following ages, had false notions\nconcerning the state of Judea between the nativity of Jesus and the\ndestruction of Jerusalem.\" (Lardner, part i. vol. ii. p. 960.) Therefore\nthey could not have composed our histories.\n\nAmidst so many conformities we are not to wonder that we meet with some\ndifficulties. The principal of these I will put down, together with the\nsolutions which they have received. But in doing this I must be\ncontented with a brevity better suited to the limits of my volume than\nto the nature of a controversial argument. For the historical proofs of\nmy assertions, and for the Greek criticisms upon which some of them are\nfounded, I refer the reader to the second volume of the first part of\nDr. Lardner's large work.\n\nI. The taxing during which Jesus was born was \"first made,\" as we read,\naccording to our translation, in Saint Luke, \"whilst Cyrenius was\ngovernor of Syria.\" (Chap. ii. ver. 2.) Now it turns out that Cyrenius\nwas not governor of Syria until twelve, or at the soonest, ten years\nafter the birth of Christ; and that a taxing census, or assessment, was\nmade in Judea, in the beginning of his government, The charge,\ntherefore, brought against the evangelist is, that, intending to refer\nto this taxing, he has misplaced the date of it by an error of ten or\ntwelve years.\n\nThe answer to the accusation is founded in his using the word\n\"first:\"--\"And this taxing was first made:\" for, according to the\nmistake imputed to the evangelist, this word could have no signification\nwhatever; it could have had no place in his narrative; because, let it\nrelate to what it will, taxing, census, enrolment, or assessment, it\nimports that the writer had more than one of those in contemplation. It\nacquits him therefore of the charge: it is inconsistent with the\nsupposition of his knowing only of the taxing in the beginning of\nCyrenius's government. And if the evangelist knew (which this word\nproves that he did) of some other taxing beside that, it is too much,\nfor the sake of convicting him of a mistake, to lay it down as certain\nthat he intended to refer to that.\n\nThe sentence in Saint Luke may be construed thus: \"This was the first\nassessment (or enrolment) of Cyrenius, governor of Syria;\"* the words\n\"governor of Syria\" being used after the name of Cyrenius as his\naddition or title. And this title, belonging to him at the time of\nwriting the account, was naturally enough subjoined to his name, though\nacquired after the transaction which the account describes. A modern\nwriter who was not very exact in the choice of his expressions, in\nrelating the affairs of the East Indies, might easily say that such a\nthing was done by Governor Hastings; though, in truth, the thing had\nbeen done by him before his advancement to the station from which he\nreceived the name of governor. And this, as we contend, is precisely the\ninaccuracy which has produced the difficulty in Saint Luke.\n\n_________\n\n* If the word which we render \"first\" be rendered \"before,\" which it\nhas been strongly contended that the Greek idiom shows of, the whole\ndifficulty vanishes: for then the passage would be,--\"Now this taxing\nwas made before Cyreulus was governor of Syria;\" which corresponds with\nthe chronology. But I rather choose to argue, that however the word\n\"first\" be rendered, to give it a meaning at all, it militates with the\nobjection. In this I think there can be no mistake.\n_________\n\n\nAt any rate it appears from the form of the expression that he had two\ntaxings or enrolments in contemplation. And if Cyrenius had been sent\nupon this business into Judea before he became governor of Syria\n(against which supposition there is no proof, but rather external\nevidence of an enrolment going on about this time under some person or\nother +), then the census on all hands acknowledged to have been made by\nhim in the beginning of his government would form a second, so as to\noccasion the other to be called the first.\n\n_________\n\n+ Josephus (Antiq. xvii. c. 2, sect. 6.) has this remarkable message:\n\"When therefore the whole Jewish nation took an oath to be faithful to\nCaesar, and the interests of the king.\" This transaction corresponds in\nthe course of the history with the time of Christ's birth. What is\ncalled a census, and which we render taxing, was delivering upon oath an\naccount of their property. This might be accompanied with an oath of\nfidelity, or might be mistaken by Josephus for it.\n_________\n\n\nII. Another chronological objection arises upon a date assigned in the\nbeginning of the third chapter of Saint Luke. (Lardner, part i. vol. ii.\np. 768.) \"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius\nCaesar,--Jesus began to be about thirty years of age:\" for, supposing\nJesus to have been born as Saint Matthew and Saint Luke also himself\nrelate, in the time of Herod, he must, according to the dates given in\nJosephus and by the Roman historians, have been at least thirty-one\nyears of age in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. If he was born, as Saint\nMatthew's narrative intimates, one or two years before Herod's death, he\nwould have been thirty-two or thirty-three years old at that time.\n\nThis is the difficulty: the solution turns upon an alteration in the\nconstruction of the Greek. Saint Luke's words in the original are\nallowed, by the general opinion of learned men, to signify, not \"that\nJesus began to be about thirty years of age,\" but \"that he was about\nthirty years of age when he began his ministry.\" This construction being\nadmitted, the adverb \"about\" gives us all the latitude we want, and more\nespecially when applied, as it is in the present instance, to a decimal\nnumber; for such numbers, even without this qualifying addition, are\noften used in a laxer sense than is here contended for.*\n\n_________\n\n* Livy, speaking of the peace which the conduct of Romulus had procured to\nthe state, during the whole reign of his successor (Numa), has these\nwords: \"Ab illo enim profectis viribus datis tautum valuit, ut, in\nquaaraginta deiade annos, tutam proem haberet:\" yet afterwards in the\nsame chapter, \"Romulus,\" he says, \"septera et triginta regnavit annos.\nNuma tres et quadraginta.\" (Liv. Hist. c. i. sect. 16.)\n_________\n\n\nIII. Acts v. 36. \"For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting\nhimself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred,\njoined themselves: who were slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were\nscattered and brought to nought.\"\n\nJosephus has preserved the account of an impostor of the name of\nTheudas, who created some disturbances, and was slain; but according to\nthe date assigned to this man's appearance (in which, however, it is\nvery possible that Josephus may have been mistaken), (Michaelis's\nIntroduction to the New Testament [Marsh's translation], vol. i. p. 61.)\nit must have been, at the least, seven years after Gamaliel's speech, of\nwhich this text is a part, was delivered. It has been replied to the\nobjection, (Lardner, part i. vol. ii. p. 92.) that there might be two\nimpostors of this name: and it has been observed, in order to give a\ngeneral probability to the solution, that the same thing appears to have\nhappened in other instances of the same kind. It is proved from\nJosephus, that there were not fewer than four persons of the name of\nSimon within forty years, and not fewer than three of the name of Judas\nwithin ten years, who were all leaders of insurrections: and it is\nlikewise recorded by this historian, that upon the death of Herod the\nGreat (which agrees very well with the time of the commotion referred to\nby Gamaliel, and with his manner of stating that time, \"before these\ndays\") there were innumerable disturbances in Judea. (Antiq. 1. 17, c.\n12. sect. 4.) Archbishop Usher was of opinion, that one of the three\nJudases above mentioned was Gamaliel's Theudas; (Annals, p. 797.) and\nthat with a less variation of the name than we actually find in the\nGospel, where one of the twelve apostles is called, by Luke, Judas; and\nby Mark, Thaddeus. (Luke vi. 16. Mark iii. 18.) Origen, however he came\nat his information, appears to have believed that there was an impostor\nof the name of Theudas before the nativity of Christ. (Orig. cont Cels.\np. 44.)\n\nIV. Matt. xxiii. 34. \"Wherefore, behold I send unto you prophets, and\nwise men, and scribes, and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and\nsome of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them\nfrom city to city; that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed\nupon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of\nZacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the\naltar.\"\n\nThere is a Zacharias whose death is related in the second book of\nChronicles,* in a manner which perfectly supports our Saviour's\nallusion. But this Zacharias was the son of Jehoiada.\n\n_________\n\n* \"And the Spirit of God came upon Zacharias, the son of Jehoiada the\npriest, which stood above the people, and mid unto them, Thus saith God,\nWhy transgress ye the commandments of the Lord that ye cannot prosper?\nBecause ye hive forsaken the Lord, he hath also forsaken you. And they\nconspired against him, and stoned him with stones, at the commandment of\nthe king, in the court of the house of the Lord.\" 2 Chron. xxiv. 20, 21.\n_________\n\n\nThere is also Zacharias the prophet; who was the son of Barachiah, and\nis so described in the superscription of his prophecy, but of whose\ndeath we have no account.\n\nI have little doubt but that the first Zacharias was the person spoken\nof by our Saviour; and that the name of the father has been since added\nor changed, by some one who took it from the title of the prophecy,\nwhich happened to be better known to him than the history in the\nChronicles.\n\nThere is likewise a Zacharias, the son of Baruch, related by Josephus to\nhave been slain in the temple a few years before the destruction of\nJerusalem. It has been insinuated that the words put into our Saviour's\nmouth contain a reference to this transaction, and were composed by some\nwriter who either confounded the time of the transaction with our\nSaviour's age, or inadvertently overlooked the anachronism.\n\nNow, suppose it to have been so; suppose these words to have been\nsuggested by the transaction related in Josephus, and to have been\nfalsely ascribed to Christ; and observe what extraordinary coincidences\n(accidentally as it must in that case have been) attend the forger's\nmistake.\n\nFirst, that we have a Zacharias in the book of Chronicles, whose death,\nand the manner of it, corresponds with the allusion.\n\nSecondly, that although the name of this person's father be erroneously\nput down in the Gospel, yet we have a way of accounting for the error by\nshowing another Zacharias in the Jewish Scriptures much better known\nthan the former, whose patronymic was actually that which appears in the\ntext.\n\nEvery one who thinks upon the subject will find these to be\ncircumstances which could not have met together in a mistake which did\nnot proceed from the circumstances themselves.\n\nI have noticed, I think, all the difficulties of this kind. They are\nfew: some of them admit of a clear, others of a probable solution. The\nreader will compare them with the number, the variety, the closeness,\nand the satisfactoriness, of the instances which are to be set against\nthem; and he will remember the scantiness, in many cases, of our\nintelligence, and that difficulties always attend imperfect information.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nUNDESIGNED COINCIDENCES.\n\nBetween the letters which bear the name of Saint Paul in our collection\nand his history in the Acts of the Apostles there exist many notes of\ncorrespondency. The simple perusal of the writings is sufficient to\nprove that neither the history was taken from the letters, nor the\nletters from the history. And the undesignedness of the agreements\n(which undesignedness is gathered from their latency, their minuteness,\ntheir obliquity, the suitableness of the circumstances in which they\nconsist to the places in which those circumstances occur, and the\ncircuitous references by which they are traced out) demonstrates that\nthey have not been produced by meditation, or by any fraudulent\ncontrivance. But coincidences, from which these causes are excluded, and\nwhich are too close and numerous to be accounted for by accidental\nconcurrences of fiction, must necessarily have truth for their\nfoundation. This argument appeared to my mind of so much value\n(especially for its assuming nothing beside the existence of the books),\nthat I have pursued it through Saint Paul's thirteen epistles, in a work\npublished by me four years ago, under the title of Horae Paulinae. I am\nsensible how feebly any argument which depends upon an induction of\nparticulars is represented without examples. On which account I wished\nto have abridged my own volume, in the manner in which I have treated\nDr. Lardner's in the preceding chapter. But, upon making the attempt, I\ndid not find it in my power to render the articles intelligible by fewer\nwords than I have there used. I must be content, therefore, to refer the\nreader to the work itself. And I would particularly invite his attention\nto the observations which are made in it upon the first three epistles.\nI persuade myself that he will find the proofs, both of agreement, and\nundesignedness, supplied by these epistles, sufficient to support the\nconclusion which is there maintained, in favour both of the genuineness\nof the writings and the truth of the narrative.\n\nIt remains only, in this place, to point out how the argument bears upon\nthe general question of the Christian history.\n\nFirst, Saint Paul in these letters affirms, in unequivocal terms, his\nown performance of miracles, and, what ought particularly to be\nremembered, \"That miracles were the signs of an Apostle.\" (Rom. xv. 18,\n19. 2 Cor. xii. 12.) If this testimony come from Saint Paul's own hand,\nit is invaluable. And that it does so, the argument before us fixes in\nmy mind a firm assurance.\n\nSecondly, it shows that the series of action represented in the epistles\nof Saint Paul was real; which alone lays a foundation for the\nproposition which forms the subject of the first part of our present\nwork, viz. that the original witnesses of the Christian history devoted\nthemselves to lives of toil, suffering, and danger, in consequence of\ntheir belief of the truth of that history, and for the sake of\ncommunicating the knowledge of it to others.\n\nThirdly, it proves that Luke, or whoever was the author of the Acts of\nthe Apostles (for the argument does not depend upon the name of the\nauthor, though I know no reason for questioning it), was well acquainted\nwith Saint Paul's history; and that he probably was, what he professes\nhimself to be, a companion of Saint Paul's travels; which, if true,\nestablishes, in a considerable degree, the credit even of his Gospel,\nbecause it shows that the writer, from his time, situation, and\nconnexions, possessed opportunities of informing himself truly\nconcerning the transactions which he relates. I have little difficulty\nin applying to the Gospel of Saint Luke what is proved concerning the\nActs of the Apostles, considering them as two parts of the same history;\nfor though there are instances of second parts being forgeries, I know\nnone where the second part is genuine, and the first not so.\n\nI will only observe, as a sequel of the argument, though not noticed in\nmy work, the remarkable similitude between the style of Saint John's\nGospel and of Saint John's Epistle. The style of Saint John's is not at\nall the style of Saint Paul's Epistles, though both are very singular;\nnor is it the style of Saint James's or of Saint Peter's Epistles: but\nit bears a resemblance to the style of the Gospel inscribed with Saint\nJohn's name, so far as that resemblance can be expected to appear, which\nis not in simple narrative, so much as in reflections, and in the\nrepresentation of discourses. Writings so circumstanced prove\nthemselves, and one another, to be genuine. This correspondency is the\nmore valuable, as the epistle itself asserts, in Saint John's manner,\nindeed, but in terms sufficiently explicit, the writer's personal\nknowledge of Christ's history: \"That which was from the beginning, which\nwe have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked\nupon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life; that which we\nhave seen and heard, declare we unto you.\" (Ch. i. ver. 1--3.)Who would\nnot desire, who perceives not the value of an account delivered by a\nwriter so well informed as this?\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nOF THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION.\n\nThe history of the resurrection of Christ is a part of the evidence of\nChristianity: but I do not know whether the proper strength of this\npassage of the Christian history, or wherein its peculiar value, as a\nhead of evidence, consists, be generally understood. It is not that, as\na miracle, the resurrection ought to be accounted a more decisive\nproof of supernatural agency than other miracles are; it is not that, as\nit stands in the Gospels, it is better attested than some others; it is\nnot, for either of these reasons, that more weight belongs to it than to\nother miracles, but for the following, viz., That it is completely\ncertain that the apostles of Christ, and the first teachers of\nChristianity, asserted the fact. And this would have been certain, if\nthe four Gospels had been lost, or never written. Every piece of\nScripture recognizes the resurrection. Every epistle of every apostle,\nevery author contemporary with the apostles, of the age immediately\nsucceeding the apostles, every writing from that age to the present\ngenuine or spurious, on the side of Christianity or against it, concur\nin representing the resurrection of Christ as an article of his history,\nreceived without doubt or disagreement by all who called themselves\nChristians, as alleged from the beginning by the propagators of the\ninstitution, and alleged as the centre of their testimony. Nothing, I\napprehend, which a man does not himself see or hear can be more certain\nto him than this point. I do not mean that nothing can be more certain\nthan that Christ rose from the dead; but that nothing can be more\ncertain than that his apostles, and the first teachers of Christianity,\ngave out that he did so. In the other parts of the Gospel narrative, a\nquestion may be made, whether the things related of Christ be the very\nthings which the apostles and first teachers of the religion delivered\nconcerning him? And this question depends a good deal upon the evidence\nwe possess of the genuineness, or rather perhaps of the antiquity,\ncredit, and reception of the books. On the subject of the resurrection,\nno such discussion is necessary, because no such doubt can be\nentertained. The only points which can enter into our consideration are,\nwhether the apostles knowingly published a falsehood, or whether they\nwere themselves deceived; whether either of these suppositions be\npossible. The first, I think, is pretty generally given up. The nature\nof the undertaking, and of the men; the extreme unlikelihood that such\nmen should engage in such a measure as a scheme; their personal toils,\nand dangers and sufferings in the cause; their appropriation of their\nwhole time to the object; the warm and seemingly unaffected zeal and\nearnestness with which they profess their sincerity exempt\ntheir memory from the suspicion of imposture. The solution more\ndeserving of notice is that which would resolve the conduct of the\napostles into enthusiasm; which would class the evidence of Christ's\nresurrection with the numerous stories that are extant of the\napparitions of dead men. There are circumstances in the narrative, as it\nis preserved in our histories, which destroy this comparison entirely.\nIt was not one person but many, who saw him; they saw him not only\nseparately but together, not only by night but by day, not at a distance\nbut near, not once but several times; they not only saw him, but touched\nhim, conversed with him, ate with him, examined his person to satisfy\ntheir doubts. These particulars are decisive: but they stand, I do\nadmit, upon the credit of our records. I would answer, therefore, the\ninsinuation of enthusiasm, by a circumstance which arises out of the\nnature of the thing; and the reality of which must be confessed by all\nwho allow, what I believe is not denied, that the resurrection of\nChrist, whether true or false, was asserted by his disciples from the\nbeginning; and that circumstance is, the non-production of the dead\nbody. It is related in the history, what indeed the story of the\nresurrection necessarily implies, that the corpse was missing out of the\nsepulchre: it is related also in the history, that the Jews reported\nthat the followers of Christ had stolen it away.* And this account,\nthough loaded with great improbabilities, such as the situation of the\ndisciples, their fears for their own safety at the time, the\nunlikelihood of their expecting to succeed, the difficulty of actual\nsuccess,+ and the inevitable consequence of detection and failure, was,\nnevertheless, the most credible account that could be given of the\nmatter. But it proceeds entirely upon the supposition of fraud, as all\nthe old objections did. What account can be given of the body, upon the\nsupposition of enthusiasm? It is impossible our Lord's followers could\nbelieve that he was risen from the dead, if his corpse was lying before\nthem. No enthusiasm ever reached to such a pitch of extravagancy as\nthat: a spirit may be an illusion; a body is a real thing, an object of\nsense, in which there can be no mistake. All accounts of spectres leave\nthe body in the grave. And although the body of Christ might be removed\nby fraud, and for the purposes of fraud, yet without any such intention,\nand by sincere but deluded men (which is the representation of the\napostolic character we are now examining), no such attempt could be\nmade. The presence and the absence of the dead body are alike\ninconsistent with the hypothesis of enthusiasm: for if present, it must\nhave cured their enthusiasm at once; if absent, fraud, not enthusiasm,\nmust have carried it away.\n\n_________\n\n* \"And this saying,\" Saint Matthew writes, \"is commonly reported amongst\nthe Jews until this day\" (chap. xxviii. 15). The evangelist may be\nthought good authority as to this point, even by those who do not admit\nhis evidence in every other point: and this point is sufficient to prove\nthat the body was missing. It has been rightly, I think, observed by Dr.\nTownshend (Dis. upon the Res. p. 126), that the story of the guards\ncarried collusion upon the face of it:--\"His disciples came by night,\nand stole him away while we slept.\" Men in their circumstances would not\nhave made such an acknowledgment of their negligence without previous\nassurances of protection and impunity.\n\n+ \"Especially at the full moon, the city full of people, many probably\npassing the whole night, as Jesus and his disciples had done, in the\nopen air, the sepulchre so near the city as to be now enclosed within\nthe walls.\" Priestley on the Resurr. p. 24.\n_________\n\n\nBut further, if we admit, upon the concurrent testimony of all the\nhistories, so much of the account as states that the religion of Jesus\nwas set up at Jerusalem, and set up with asserting, in the very place in\nwhich he had been buried, and a few days after he had been buried, his\nresurrection out of the grave, it is evident that, if his body could\nhave been found, the Jews would have produced it, as the shortest and\ncompletest answer possible to the whole story. The attempt of the\napostles could not have survived this refutation a moment. If we also\nadmit, upon the authority of Saint Matthew, that the Jews were\nadvertised of the expectation of Christ's followers, and that they had\ntaken due precaution in consequence of this notice, and that the body\nwas in marked and public custody, the observation receives more force\nstill. For notwithstanding their precaution and although thus prepared\nand forewarned; when the story of the resurrection of Christ came forth,\nas it immediately did; when it was publicly asserted by his disciples,\nand made the ground and basis of their preaching in his name, and\ncollecting followers to his religion, the Jews had not the body to\nproduce; but were obliged to meet the testimony of the apostles by an\nanswer not containing indeed any impossibility in itself, but absolutely\ninconsistent with the supposition of their integrity; that is, in other\nwords, inconsistent with the supposition which would resolve their\nconduct into enthusiasm.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nTHE PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\nIn this argument, the first consideration is the fact--in what degree,\nwithin what time, and to what extent, Christianity actually was\npropagated.\n\nThe accounts of the matter which can be collected from our books are as\nfollow: A few days after Christ's disappearance out of the world, we\nfind an assembly of disciples at Jerusalem, to the number of \"about one\nhundred and twenty;\" (Acts i. 15.) which hundred and twenty were\nprobably a little association of believers, met together not merely as\nbelievers in Christ, but as personally connected with the apostles, and\nwith one another. Whatever was the number of believers then in\nJerusalem, we have no reason to be surprised that so small a company\nshould assemble: for there is no proof that the followers of Christ were\nyet formed into a society; that the society was reduced into any order;\nthat it was at this time even understood that a new religion (in the\nsense which that term conveys to us) was to be set up in the world, or\nhow the professors of that religion were to be distinguished from the\nrest of mankind. The death of Christ had left, we may suppose, the\ngenerality of his disciples in great doubt, both as to what they were to\ndo, and concerning what was to follow.\n\nThis meeting was holden, as we have already said, a few days after\nChrist's ascension: for ten days after that event was the day of\nPentecost, when, as our history relates, (Acts ii. 1.) upon a signal\ndisplay of divine agency attending the persons of the apostles, there\nwere added to the society \"about three thousand souls.\" (Acts ii. 41.)\nBut here, it is not, I think, to be taken, that these three thousand\nwere all converted by this single miracle; but rather that many who\nbefore were believers in Christ became now professors of Christianity;\nthat is to say, when they found that a religion was to be established, a\nsociety formed and set up in the name of Christ, governed by his laws,\navowing their belief in his mission, united amongst themselves, and\nseparated from the rest of the world by visible distinctions; in\npursuance of their former conviction, and by virtue of what they had\nheard and seen, and known of Christ's history, they publicly became\nmembers of it.\n\nWe read in the fourth chapter (verse 4) of the Acts, that soon after\nthis, \"the number of the men,\" i. e. the society openly professing their\nbelief in Christ, \"was about five thousand.\" So that here is an increase\nof two thousand within a very short time. And it is probable that there\nwere many, both now and afterwards, who, although they believed in\nChrist, did not think it necessary to join themselves to this society;\nor who waited to see what was likely to become of it. Gamaliel, whose\nadvice to the Jewish council is recorded Acts v. 34, appears to have\nbeen of this description; perhaps Nicodemus, and perhaps also Joseph of\nArimathea. This class of men, their character and their rank, are\nlikewise pointed out by Saint John, in the twelfth chapter of his\nGospel: \"Nevertheless, among the chief rulers also many believed on him,\nbut because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should\nbe put out of the synagogue, for they loved the praise of men more than\nthe praise of God.\" Persons such as these might admit the miracles of\nChrist, without being immediately convinced that they were under\nobligation to make a public profession of Christianity at the risk of\nall that was dear to them in life, and even of life itself.*\n\n_________\n\n* \"Beside those who professed, and those who rejected and opposed,\nChristianity, there were in all probability multitudes between both,\nneither perfect Christians nor yet unbelievers. They had a favourable\nopinion of the Gospel, but worldly considerations made them unwilling to\nown it. There were many circumstances which inclined them to think that\nChristianity was a divine revelation, but there were many inconveniences\nwhich attended the open profession of it; and they could not find in\nthemselves courage enough to bear them to disoblige their friends and\nfamily, to ruin their fortunes, to lose their reputation, their liberty,\nand their life, for the sake of the new religion. Therefore they were\nwilling to hope, that if they endeavoured to observe the great\nprinciples of morality which Christ had represented as the principal\npart, the sum and substance of religion; if they thought honourably of\nthe Gospel; if they offered no injury to the Christians; if they did\nthem all the services that they could safely perform, they were willing\nto hope that God would accept this, and that He would excuse and forgive\nthe rest.\" Jortin's Dis. on the Christ. Rel. p. 91, ed. 4.\n_________\n\n\nChristianity, however, proceeded to increase in Jerusalem by a progress\nequally rapid with its first success; for in the next chapter of our\nhistory, we read that \"believers were the more added to the Lord,\nmultitudes both of men and women.\" And this enlargement of the new\nsociety appears in the first verse of the succeeding chapter, wherein we\nare told, that \"when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there\narose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews because their\nwidows were neglected;\" (Acts v. 14; vi. 1) and afterwards, in the same\nchapter, it is declared expressly, that \"the number of the disciples\nmultiplied in Jerusalem greatly, and that a great company of the priests\nwere obedient to the faith.\"\n\nThis I call the first period in the propagation of Christianity. It\ncommences with the ascension of Christ, and extends, as may be collected\nfrom incidental notes of time, (Vide Pearson's Antiq. 1. xviii. c. 7.\nBenson's History of Christ, b. i. p. 148.) to something more than one\nyear after that event. During which term, the preaching of Christianity,\nso far as our documents inform us, was confined to the single city of\nJerusalem. And how did it succeed there? The first assembly which we\nmeet with of Christ's disciples, and that a few days after his removal\nfrom the world, consisted of \"one hundred and twenty.\" About a week\nafter this, \"three thousand were added in one day;\" and the number of\nChristians publicly baptized, and publicly associating together, was\nvery soon increased to \"five thousand.\" \"Multitudes both of men and\nwomen continued to be added;\" \"disciples multiplied greatly,\" and \"many\nof the Jewish priesthood as well as others, became obedient to the\nfaith;\" and this within a space of less than two years from the\ncommencement of the institution.\n\nBy reason of a persecution raised against the church at Jerusalem, the\nconverts were driven from that city, and dispersed throughout the\nregions of Judea and Samaria. (Acts viii. l.) Wherever they came, they\nbrought their religion with them: for our historian informs us, (Acts\nviii. 4.) that \"they that were scattered abroad went everywhere\npreaching the word.\" The effect of this preaching comes afterwards to be\nnoticed, where the historian is led, in the course of his narrative, to\nobserve that then (i. e. about three years posterior to this, [Benson,\nb. i. p. 207.]) the churches had rest throughout all Judea and Galilee\nand Samaria, and were edified, and walking in the fear of the Lord, and\nin the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied. This was the work of\nthe second period, which comprises about four years.\n\nHitherto the preaching of the Gospel had been confined to Jews, to\nJewish proselytes, and to Samaritans. And I cannot forbear from setting\ndown in this place an observation of Mr. Bryant, which appears to me to\nbe perfectly well founded;--\"The Jews still remain: but how seldom is it\nthat we can make a single proselyte! There is reason to think, that\nthere were more converted by the apostles in one day than have since\nbeen won over in the last thousand years.\" (Bryant on the Truth of the\nChristian Religion, p. 112.) It was not yet known to the apostles that\nthey were at liberty to propose the religion to mankind at large. That\n\"mystery,\" as Saint Paul calls it, (Eph. iii. 3--6.) and as it then was,\nwas revealed to Peter by an especial miracle. It appears to have been\n(Benson, book ii. p. 236.) about seven years after Christ's ascension\nthat the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles of Cesarea. A year after\nthis a great multitude of Gentiles were converted at Antioch in Syria.\nThe expressions employed by the historian are these:--\"A great number\nbelieved, and turned to the Lord;\" \"much people was added unto the\nLord;\" \"the apostles Barnabas and Paul taught much people.\" (Acts xi.\n21, 24, 26.) Upon Herod's death, which happened in the next\nyear, (Benson, book ii, p. 289.) it is observed, that \"the word of God\ngrew and multiplied.\" (Acts xii. 24.) Three years from this time, upon\nthe preaching of Paul at Iconium, the metropolis of Lycaonia, \"a great\nmultitude both of Jews and Greeks believed:\" (Acts xiv. 1.) and\nafterwards, in the course of this very progress, he is represented as\n\"making many disciples\" at Derbe, a principal city in the same district.\nThree years (Benson's History of Christ, book iii. p. 50.) after this,\nwhich brings us to sixteen after the ascension, the apostles wrote a\npublic letter from Jerusalem to the Gentile converts in Antioch, Syria,\nand Cilicia, with which letter Paul travelled through these countries,\nand found the churches \"established in the faith, and increasing in\nnumber daily.\" (Acts xvi. 5.) From Asia the apostle proceeded into\nGreece, where, soon after his arrival in Macedonia, we find him at\nThessalonica: in which city, \"some of the Jews believed, and of the\ndevout Greeks a great multitude.\" (Acts xvii. 4.) We meet also here with\nan accidental hint of the general progress of the Christian mission, in\nthe exclamation of the tumultuous Jews of Thessalonica, \"that they who\nhad turned the world upside down were come thither also.\" (Acts xvii.\n6.) At Berea, the next city at which Saint Paul arrives, the historian,\nwho was present, inform us that \"many of the Jews believed.\" (Acts xvii.\n12.) The next year and a half of Saint Paul's ministry was spent at\nCorinth. Of his success in that city we receive the following\nintimations; \"that many of the Corinthians believed and were baptized;\"\nand \"that it was revealed to the Apostle by Christ, that be had much\npeople in that city.\" (Acts xviii, 8--10.) Within less than a year after\nhis departure from Corinth, and twenty-five (Benson, book iii. p, 160.)\nyears after the ascension, Saint Paul fixed his station at Ephesus for\nthe space of two years (Acts xix. 10.) and something more. The effect of\nhis ministry in that city and neighbourhood drew from the historian a\nreflection how \"mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.\" (Acts xix.\n20.) And at the conclusion of this period we find Demetrius at the head\nof a party, who were alarmed by the progress of the religion,\ncomplaining, that \"not only at Ephesus, but also throughout all Asia\n(i. e. the province of Lydia, and the country adjoining to Ephesus), this\nPaul hath persuaded and turned away much people.\" (Acts xix. 26.) Beside\nthese accounts, there occurs, incidentally, mention of converts at Rome,\nAlexandria, Athens, Cyprus, Cyrene, Macedonia, Philippi.\n\nThis is the third period in the propagation of Christianity, setting off\nin the seventh year after the ascension, and ending at the\ntwenty-eighth. Now, lay these three periods together, and observe how\nthe progress of the religion by these accounts is represented. The\ninstitution, which properly began only after its Author's removal from\nthe world, before the end of thirty years, had spread itself through\nJudea, Galilee, and Samaria, almost all the numerous districts of the\nLesser Asia, through Greece, and the islands of the Aegean Sea, the\nseacoast of Africa, and had extended itself to Rome, and into Italy. At\nAntioch, in Syria, at Joppa, Ephesus, Corinth, Thessalonica, Berea,\nIconium, Derbe, Antioch in Pisidia, at Lydda, Saron, the number of\nconverts is intimated by the expressions, \"a great number,\" \"great\nmultitudes,\" \"much people.\" Converts are mentioned, without any\ndesignation of their number,* at Tyre, Cesarea, Troas, Athens, Philippi,\nLystra, Damascus. During all this time Jerusalem continued not only the\ncentre of the mission, but a principal seat of the religion; for when\nSaint Paul returned thither at the conclusion of the period of which we\nare now considering the accounts, the other apostles pointed out to him,\nas a reason for his compliance with their advice, \"how many thousands\n(myriads, ten thousands) there were in that city who believed.\"+\n\n_________\n\n* Considering the extreme conciseness of many parts of the history, the\nsilence about the number of converts is no proof of their paucity; for\nat Philippi, no mention whatever is made of the number, yet Saint Paul\naddressed an epistle to that church. The churches of Galatia, and the\naffairs of those churches, were considerable enough to be the subject of\nanother letter, and of much of Saint Paul's solicitude; yet no account\nis preserved in the history of his success, or even of his preaching in\nthat country, except the slight notice which these words convey:--\"When\nthey had gone throughout Phrygia, and the region of Galatia, they\nassayed to go into Bithynia.\" Acts xvi. 6.\n\n+ Acts xxi. 20.\n_________\n\n\nUpon this abstract, and the writing from which it is drawn, the\nfollowing observations seem material to be made:\n\nI. That the account comes from a person who was himself concerned in a\nportion of what he relates, and was contemporary with the whole of it;\nwho visited Jerusalem, and frequented the society of those who had\nacted, and were acting the chief parts in the transaction. I lay down\nthis point positively; for had the ancient attestations to this valuable\nrecord been less satisfactory than they are, the unaffectedness and\nsimplicity with which the author notes his presence upon certain\noccasions, and the entire absence of art and design from these notices,\nwould have been sufficient to persuade my mind that, whoever he was, he\nactually lived in the times, and occupied the situation, in which he\nrepresents himself to be. When I say, \"whoever he was,\" I do not mean to\ncast a doubt upon the name to which antiquity hath ascribed the Acts of\nthe Apostles (for there is no cause, that I am acquainted with, for\nquestioning it), but to observe that, in such a case as this, the time\nand situation of the author are of more importance than his name; and\nthat these appear from the work itself, and in the most unsuspicious\nform.\n\nII. That this account is a very incomplete account of the preaching and\npropagation of Christianity; I mean, that if what we read in the history\nbe true, much more than what the history contains must be true also.\nFor, although the narrative from which our information is derived has\nbeen entitled the Acts of the Apostles, it is, in fact, a history of the\ntwelve apostles only during a short time of their continuing together at\nJerusalem; and even of this period the account is very concise. The work\nafterwards consists of a few important passages of Peter's ministry, of\nthe speech and death of Stephen, of the preaching of Philip the deacon;\nand the sequel of the volume, that is, two thirds of the whole, is taken\nup with the conversion, the travels, the discourses, and history of the\nnew apostle, Paul; in which history, also, large portions of time are\noften passed over with very scanty notice.\n\nIII. That the account, so far as it goes, is for this very reason more\ncredible. Had it been the author's design to have displayed the early\nprogress of Christianity, he would undoubtedly have collected, or at\nleast have set forth, accounts of the preaching of the rest of the\napostles, who cannot without extreme improbability be supposed to have\nremained silent and inactive, or not to have met with a share of that\nsuccess which attended their colleagues.\n\nTo which may be added, as an observation of the same kind,\n\nIV. That the intimations of the number of converts, and of the success\nof the preaching of the apostles, come out for the most part\nincidentally: are drawn from the historian by the occasion, such as the\nmurmuring of the Grecian converts; the rest from persecution; Herod's\ndeath; the sending of Barnabas to Antioch, and Barnabas calling Paul to\nhis assistance; Paul coming to a place and finding there disciples; the\nclamour of the Jews; the complaint of artificers interested in the\nsupport of the popular religion; the reason assigned to induce Paul to\ngive satisfaction to the Christians of Jerusalem. Had it not been for\nthese occasions it is probable that no notice whatever would have been\ntaken of the number of converts in several of the passages in which that\nnotice now appears. All this tends to remove the suspicion of a design\nto exaggerate or deceive.\n\nPARALLEL TESTIMONIES with the history are the letters of Saint Paul, and\nof the other apostles, which have come down to us. Those of Saint Paul\nare addressed to the churches of Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, the\nchurch of Galatia, and, if the inscription be right, of Ephesus; his\nministry at all which places is recorded in the history: to the church\nof Colosse, or rather to the churches of Colosse and Laodicea jointly,\nwhich he had not then visited. They recognise by reference the churches\nof Judea, the churches of Asia, and \"all the churches of the Gentiles.\"\n(Thess ii. 14.) In the Epistle to the Romans (Rom. xv. 18, 19.) the\nauthor is led to deliver a remarkable declaration concerning the extent\nof his preaching, its efficacy, and the cause to which he ascribes\nit,--\"to make the Gentiles obedient by word and deed, through mighty\nsigns and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from\nJerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the\nGospel of Christ.\" In the epistle to the Colossians, (Col. i. 23.) we\nfind an oblique but very strong signification of the then general state\nof the Christian mission, at least as it appeared to Saint Paul:--\"If ye\ncontinue in the faith, grounded and settled, and be not moved away from\nthe hope of the Gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to\nevery creature which is under heaven;\" which Gospel, he had reminded\nthem near the beginning of his letter (Col. i. 6.), \"was present with\nthem, as it was in all the world.\" The expressions are hyperbolical; but\nthey are hyperboles which could only be used by a writer who entertained\na strong sense of the subject. The first epistle of Peter accosts the\nChristians dispersed throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and\nBithynia.\n\nIt comes next to be considered how far these accounts are confirmed or\nfollowed up by other evidence.\n\nTacitus, in delivering a relation, which has already been laid before\nthe reader, of the fire which happened at Rome in the tenth year of Nero\n(which coincides with the thirtieth year after Christ's ascension),\nasserts that the emperor, in order to suppress the rumours of having\nbeen himself the author of the mischief, procured the Christians to be\naccused. Of which Christians, thus brought into his narrative, the\nfollowing is so much of the historian's account as belongs to our\npresent purpose: \"They had their denomination from Christus, who, in the\nreign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the procurator\nPontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, though checked for a\nwhile, broke out again, and spread not only over Judea, but reached the\ncity also. At first they only were apprehended who confessed themselves\nof that sect; afterwards vast multitude were discovered by them.\" This\ntestimony to the early propagation of Christianity is extremely\nmaterial. It is from an historian of great reputation, living near the\ntime; from a stranger and an enemy to the religion; and it joins\nimmediately with the period through which the Scripture accounts extend.\nIt establishes these points: that the religion began at Jerusalem; that\nit spread throughout Judea; that it had reached Rome, and not only so,\nbut that it had there obtained a great number of converts. This was\nabout six years after the time that Saint Paul wrote his Epistle to the\nRomans, and something more than two years after he arrived there\nhimself. The converts to the religion were then so numerous at Rome,\nthat of those who were betrayed by the information of the persons first\npersecuted, a great multitude (multitudo ingens) were discovered and\nseized.\n\nIt seems probable, that the temporary check which Tacitus represents\nChristianity to have received (repressa in praesens) referred to the\npersecution of Jerusalem which followed the death of Stephen (Acts\nviii.); and which, by dispersing the converts, caused the institution,\nin some measure, to disappear. Its second eruption at the same place,\nand within a short time, has much in it of the character of truth. It\nwas the firmness and perseverance of men who knew what they relied\nupon.\n\nNext in order of time, and perhaps superior in importance is the\ntestimony of Pliny the Younger. Pliny was the Roman governor of Pontus\nand Bithynia, two considerable districts in the northern part of Asia\nMinor. The situation in which he found his province led him to apply to\nthe emperor (Trajan) for his direction as to the conduct he was to hold\ntowards the Christians. The letter in which this application is\ncontained was written not quite eighty years after Christ's ascension.\nThe president, in this letter, states the measures he had already\npursued, and then adds, as his reason for resorting to the emperor's\ncounsel and authority, the following words:--\"Suspending all judicial\nproceedings, I have recourse to you for advice; for it has appeared to\nme a matter highly deserving consideration, especially on account of the\ngreat number of persons who are in danger of suffering: for many of all\nages, and of every rank, of both sexes likewise, are accused, and will\nbe accused. Nor has the contagion of this superstition seized cities\nonly, but the lesser towns also, and the open country. Nevertheless it\nseemed to me that it may be restrained and corrected. It is certain that\nthe temples, which were almost forsaken, begin to be more frequented;\nand the sacred solemnities, after a long intermission, are revived.\nVictims, likewise, are everywhere (passim) bought up; whereas, for some\ntime, there were few to purchase them. Whence it is easy to imagine that\nnumbers of men might be reclaimed if pardon were granted to those that\nshall repent.\" (C. Plin. Trajano Imp. lib. x. ep. xcvii.)\n\nIt is obvious to observe, that the passage of Pliny's letter here\nquoted, proves, not only that the Christians in Pontus and Bithynia were\nnow numerous, but that they had subsisted there for some considerable\ntime. \"It is certain,\" he says, \"that the temples, which were almost\nforsaken (plainly ascribing this desertion of the popular worship to the\nprevalency of Christianity), begin to be more frequented; and the sacred\nsolemnities, after a long intermission, are revived.\" There are also two\nclauses in the former part of the letter which indicate the same thing;\none, in which he declares that he had \"never been present at any trials\nof Christians, and therefore knew not what was the usual subject of\ninquiry and punishment, or how far either was wont to be urged.\" The\nsecond clause is the following: \"Others were named by an informer, who,\nat first, confessed themselves Christians, and afterwards denied it; the\nrest said they had been Christians some three years ago, some longer,\nand some about twenty years.\" It is also apparent, that Pliny speaks of\nthe Christians as a description of men well known to the person to whom\nhe writes. His first sentence concerning them is, \"I have never been\npresent at the trials of Christians.\" This mention of the name of\nChristians, without any preparatory explanation, shows that it was a\nterm familiar both to the writer of the letter and the person to whom it\nwas addressed. Had it not been so, Pliny would naturally have begun his\nletter by informing the emperor that he had met with a certain set of\nmen in the province called Christians.\n\nHere then is a very singular evidence of the progress of the Christian\nreligion in a short space. It was not fourscore years after the\ncrucifixion of Jesus when Pliny wrote this letter; nor seventy years\nsince the apostles of Jesus began to mention his name to the Gentile\nworld. Bithynia and Pontus were at a great distance from Judea, the\ncentre from which the religion spread; yet in these provinces\nChristianity had long subsisted, and Christians were now in such numbers\nas to lead the Roman governor to report to the emperor that they were\nfound not only in cities, but in villages and in open countries; of all\nages, of every rank and condition; that they abounded so much as to have\nproduced a visible desertion of the temples; that beasts brought to\nmarket for victims had few purchasers; that the sacred solemnities were\nmuch neglected:--circumstances noted by Pliny for the express purpose of\nshowing to the emperor the effect and prevalency of the new institution.\n\nNo evidence remains by which it can be proved that the Christians were\nmore numerous in Pontus and Bithynia than in other parts of the Roman\nempire; nor has any reason been offered to show why they should be so.\nChristianity did not begin in these countries, nor near them. I do not\nknow, therefore, that we ought to confine the description in Pliny's\nletter to the state of Christianity in these provinces, even if no other\naccount of the same subject had come down to us; but, certainly, this\nletter may fairly be applied in aid and confirmation of the\nrepresentations given of the general state of Christianity in the world,\nby Christian writers of that and the next succeeding age.\n\nJustin Martyr, who wrote about thirty years after Pliny, and one hundred\nand six after the ascension, has these remarkable words: \"There is not a\nnation, either of Greek or barbarian, or of any other name, even of\nthose who wander in tribes, and live in tents, amongst whom prayers and\nthanksgivings are not offered to the Father and Creator of the universe\nby the name of the crucified Jesus.\" (Dial cum Tryph.) Tertullian, who\ncomes about fifty years after Justin, appeals to the governors of the\nRoman empire in these terms: \"We were but of yesterday, and we have\nfilled your cities, islands, towns, and boroughs, the camp, the senate,\nand the forum. They (the heathen adversaries of Christianity) lament\nthat every sex, age, and condition, and persons of every rank also, are\nconverts to that name.\" (Tertull. Apol. c. 37.) I do allow that these\nexpressions are loose, and may be called declamatory. But even\ndeclamation hath its bounds; this public boasting upon a subject which\nmust be known to every reader was not only useless but unnatural, unless\nthe truth of the case, in a considerable degree, corresponded with the\ndescription; at least, unless it had been both true and notorious, that\ngreat multitudes of Christians, of all ranks and orders, were to be\nfound in most parts of the Roman empire. The same Tertullian, in another\npassage, by way of setting forth the extensive diffusion of\nChristianity, enumerates as belonging to Christ, beside many other\ncountries, the \"Moors and Gaetulians of Africa, the borders of Spain,\nseveral nations of France, and parts of Britain inaccessible to the\nRomans, the Sarmatians, Daci, Germans, and Scythians;\" (Ad Jud. c. 7.)\nand, which is more material than the extent of the institution, the\nnumber of Christians in the several countries in which it prevailed is\nthus expressed by him: \"Although so great a multitude, that in almost\nevery city we form the greater part, we pass our time modestly and in\nsilence.\" (Ad Scap. c. iii.) A Clemens Alexandrinus, who preceded\nTertullian by a few years, introduced a comparison between the success\nof Christianity and that of the most celebrated philosophical\ninstitutions: \"The philosophers were confined to Greece, and to their\nparticular retainers; but the doctrine of the Master of Christianity not\nremain in Judea, as philosophy did in Greece, but is throughout the\nwhole world, in every nation, and village, and city, both of Greeks and\nbarbarians, converting both whole houses and separate individuals,\nhaving already brought over to the truth not a few of the philosophers\nthemselves. If the Greek philosophy he prohibited, it immediately\nvanishes; whereas, from the first preaching of our doctrine, kings and\ntyrants, governors and presidents, with their whole train, and with the\npopulace on their side, have endeavoured with their whole might to\nexterminate it, yet doth it flourish more and more.\" (Clem. AI. Strora.\nlib. vi. ad fin.) Origen, who follows Tertullian at the distance of only\nthirty years, delivers nearly the same account: \"In every part of the\nworld,\" says he, \"throughout all Greece, and in all other nations, there\nare innumerable and immense multitudes, who, having left the laws of\ntheir country, and those whom they esteemed gods, have given themselves\nup to the law of Moses, and the religion of Christ: and this\nnot without the bitterest resentment from the idolaters, by whom they\nwere frequently put to torture, and sometimes to death: and it is\nwonderful to observe how, in so short a time, the religion has\nincreased, amidst punishment and death, and every kind of torture.\"\n(Orig. in Cels. lib. i.) In another passage, Origen draws the following\ncandid comparison between the state of Christianity in his time and the\ncondition of its more primitive ages: \"By the good providence of God,\nthe Christian religion has so flourished and increased continually that\nit is now preached freely without molestation, although there were a\nthousand obstacles to the spreading of the doctrine of Jesus in the\nworld. But as it was the will of God that the Gentiles should have the\nbenefit of it, all the counsels of men against the Christians were\ndefeated: and by how much the more emperors and governors of provinces,\nand the people everywhere strove to depress them, so much the more have\nthey increased and prevailed exceedingly.\" (Orig. cont. Cels. lib vii.)\n\nIt is well known that, within less than eighty years after this, the\nRoman empire became Christian under Constantine: and it is probable that\nConstantine declared himself on the side of the Christians because they\nwere the powerful party: for Arnobius, who wrote immediately before\nConstantine's accession, speaks of \"the whole world as filled with\nChrist's doctrine, of its diffusion throughout all countries, of an\ninnumerable body of Christians in distant provinces, of the strange\nrevolution of opinion of men of the greatest genius,--orators,\ngrammarians, rhetoricians, lawyers, physicians having come over to the\ninstitution, and that also in the face of threats, executions and\ntortures.\" (Arnob. in Genres, 1. i. pp. 27, 9, 24, 42, 41. edit. Lug.\nBat. 1650.)\n\nAnd not more than twenty years after Constantine's entire possession of\nthe empire, Julius Firmiens Maternus calls upon the emperors Constantius\nand Constans to extirpate the relics of the ancient religion; the\nreduced and fallen condition of which is described by our author in the\nfollowing words: \"Licet adhue in quibusdam regionibus idololatriae\nmorientia palpitont membra; tamen in eo res est, ut a Christianis\nomnibus terris pestiferum hoc malum funditus amputetur:\" and in another\nplace, \"Modicum tautum superest, ut legibus vestris--extincta\nidololatriae pereat funesta contagio.\" (De Error. Profan. Relig. c. xxi.\np. 172, quoted by Lardner, vol. viii. p. 262.) It will not be thought\nthat we quote this writer in order to recommend his temper or his\njudgment, but to show the comparative state of Christianity and of\nHeathenism at this period. Fifty years afterwards, Jerome represents the\ndecline of Paganism, in language which conveys the same idea of its\napproaching extinction: \"Solitudinem patitur et in urbe gentilitas. Dii\nquondam nationum, cum bubonibus et noctuis, in solis culminibus\nremanserunt.\" (Jer. ad Lect. ep. 5, 7.) Jerome here indulges a triumph,\nnatural and allowable in a zealous friend of the cause, but which could\nonly be suggested to his mind by the consent and universality with which\nhe saw; the religion received. \"But now,\" says he, \"the passion and\nresurrection of Christ are celebrated in the discourses and writings of\nall nations. I need not mention Jews, Greeks, and Latins. The Indians,\nPersians, Goths, and Egyptians philosophise, and firmly believe the\nimmortality of the soul, and future recompenses, which, before, the\ngreatest philosophers had denied, or doubted of, or perplexed with their\ndisputes. The fierceness of Thracians and Scythians is now softened by\nthe gentle sound of the Gospel; and everywhere Christ is all in all.\"\n(Jer. ad Lect. ep. 8, ad Heliod.) Were, therefore, the motives of\nConstantine's conversion ever so problematical, the easy establishment\nof Christianity, and the ruin of Heathenism, under him and his immediate\nsuccessors, is of itself a proof of the progress which had made in the\npreceding period. It may be added also, \"that Maxentius, the rival of\nConstantine, had shown himself friendly to the Christians. Therefore of \nthose who were contending for worldly power and empire, one actually \nfavoured and flattered them, and another may be suspected to have joined himself to them partly from consideration of interest: so considerable \nwere they become, under external disadvantages of all sorts.\" (Lardner, \nvol. vii. p. 380.) This at least is certain, that, throughout the whole \ntransaction hitherto, the great seemed to follow, not to lead, the public \nopinion.\n\nIt may help to convey to us some notion of the extent and progress of\nChristianity, or rather of the character and quality of many early\nChristians, of their learning and their labours, to notice the number of\nChristian writers who flourished in these ages. Saint Jerome's catalogue\ncontains sixty-six writers within the first three centuries, and the\nfirst six years of the fourth; and fifty-four between that time and his\nown, viz. A. D. 392. Jerome introduces his catalogue with the following\njust remonstrance:--\"Let those who say the church has had no\nphilosophers, nor eloquent and learned men, observe who and what they\nwere who founded, established, and adorned it; let them cease to accuse\nour faith of rusticity, and confess their mistake.\" (Jer. Prol. in Lib.\nde Ser. Eccl.) Of these writers, several, as Justin, Irenaeus, Clement\nof Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Bardesanes, Hippolitus, Eusebius,\nwere voluminous writers. Christian writers abounded particularly about\nthe year 178. Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, founded a library in that\ncity, A.D. 212. Pamphilus, the friend of Origen, founded a library at\nCesarea, A.D. 294. Public defences were also set forth, by various\nadvocates of the religion, in the course of its first three centuries.\nWithin one hundred years after Christ's ascension, Quadratus and\nAristides, whose works, except some few fragments of the first, are\nlost; and, about twenty years afterwards, Justin Martyr, whose works\nremain, presented apologies for the Christian religion to the Roman\nemperors; Quadratus and Aristides to Adrian, Justin to Antoninus Pins,\nand a second to Marcus Antoninus. Melito, bishop of Sardis, and\nApollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis, and Miltiades, men of great\nreputation, did the same to Marcus Antoninus, twenty years\nafterwards; (Euseb. Hist. lib. iv. c. 26. See also Lardner, vol. ii. p.\n666.) and ten years after this, Apollonius, who suffered martyrdom under\nthe emperor Commodus, composed an apology for his faith which he read in\nthe senate, and which was afterwards published. (Lardner, vol. ii. p.\n687.) Fourteen years after the apology of Apollonius, Tertullian\naddressed the work which now remains under that name to the governors of\nprovinces in the Roman empire; and, about the same time, Minucius Felix\ncomposed a defence of the Christian religion, which is still extant;\nand, shortly after the conclusion of this century, copious defences of\nChristianity were published by Arnobius and Lactantius.\n\n\n\n\n\nSECTION II.\n\nREFLECTIONS UPON THE PRECEDING ACCOUNT.\n\nIn viewing the progress of Christianity, our first attention is due to\nthe number of converts at Jerusalem, immediately after its Founder's\ndeath; because this success was a success at the time, and upon the\nspot, when and where the chief part of the history had been transacted.\n\nWe are, in the next place, called upon to attend to the early\nestablishment of numerous Christian societies in Judea and Galilee;\nwhich countries had been the scene of Christ's miracles and ministry,\nand where the memory of what had passed, and the knowledge of what was\nalleged, must have yet been fresh and certain.\n\nWe are, thirdly, invited to recollect the success of the apostles and of\ntheir companions, at the several places to which they came, both within\nand without Judea; because it was the credit given to original\nwitnesses, appealing for the truth of their accounts to what themselves\nhad seen and heard. The effect also of their preaching strongly confirms\nthe truth of what our history positively and circumstantially relates,\nthat they were able to exhibit to their hearers supernatural\nattestations of their mission.\n\nWe are, lastly, to consider the subsequent growth and spread of the\nreligion, of which we receive successive intimations, and satisfactory,\nthough general and occasional, accounts, until its full and final\nestablishment.\n\nIn all these several stages, the history is without a parallel for it\nmust be observed, that we have not now been tracing the progress, and\ndescribing the prevalency, of an opinion founded upon philosophical or\ncritical arguments, upon mere of reason, or the construction of ancient\nwriting; (of which are the several theories which have, at different\ntimes, possession of the public mind in various departments of science and\nliterature; and of one or other of which kind are the tenets also which\ndivide the various sects of Christianity;) but that we speak of a\nsystem, the very basis and postulatum of which was a supernatural\ncharacter ascribed to a particular person; of a doctrine, the truth\nwhereof depends entirely upon the truth of a matter of fact then recent.\n\"To establish a new religion, even amongst a few people, or in one\nsingle nation, is a thing in itself exceedingly difficult. To reform\nsome corruptions which may have spread in a religion, or to make new\nregulations in it, is not perhaps so hard, when the main and principal\npart of that religion is preserved entire and unshaken; and yet this\nvery often cannot be accomplished without an extraordinary concurrence\nof circumstances, and may be attempted a thousand times without success.\nBut to introduce a new faith, a new way of thinking and acting, and to\npersuade many nations to quit the religion in which their ancestors have\nlived and died, which had been delivered down to them from time\nimmemorial; to make them forsake and despise the deities which they had\nbeen accustomed to reverence and worship; this is a work of still\ngreater difficulty.\" (Jortin's Dis. on the Christ. Rel. p. 107, 4th\nedit.) The resistance of education, worldly policy, and superstition, is\nalmost invincible.\n\nIf men, in these days, be Christians in consequence of their education,\nin submission to authority, or in compliance with fashion, let us\nrecollect that the very contrary of this, at the beginning, was the\ncase. The first race of Christians, as wall as millions who succeeded\nthem, became such in formal opposition to all these motives, to the\nwhole power and strength of this influence. Every argument, therefore,\nand every instance, which sets forth the prejudice of education, and the\nalmost irresistible effects of that prejudice (and no persons are more\nfond of expatiating upon this subject than deistical writers), in fact\nconfirms the evidence of Christianity.\n\nBut, in order to judge of the argument which is drawn from the early\npropagation of Christianity, I know no fairer way of proceeding than to\ncompare what we have seen on the subject with the success of Christian\nmissions in modern ages. In the East India mission, supported by the\nSociety for Promoting Christian Knowledge, we hear sometimes of thirty,\nsometimes of forty, being baptized in the course of a year, and these\nprincipally children. Of converts properly so called, that is, of adults\nvoluntarily embracing Christianity, the number is extremely small.\n\"Notwithstanding the labour of missionaries for upwards of two hundred\nyears, and the establishments of different Christian nations who support\nthem, there are not twelve thousand Indian Christians, and those almost\nentirely outcasts.\" (Sketches relating to the history, learning, and\nmanners of the Hindoos, p. 48; quoted by Dr. Robertson, Hist. Dis.\nconcerning Ancient India, p. 236.)\n\nI lament as much as any man the little progress which Christianity has\nmade in these countries, and the inconsiderable effect that has followed\nthe labours of its missionaries; but I see in it a strong proof of the\nDivine origin of the religion. What had the apostles to assist them in\npropagating Christianity which the missionaries have not? If piety and\nzeal had been sufficient, I doubt not but that our missionaries possess\nthese qualities in a high degree: for nothing except piety and zeal\ncould engage them in the undertaking. If sanctity of life and manners\nwas the allurement, the conduct of these men is unblameable. If the\nadvantage of education and learning be looked to, there is not one of\nthe modern missionaries who is not, in this respect, superior to all the\napostles; and that not only absolutely, but, what is of more importance,\nrelatively, in comparison, that is, with those amongst whom they\nexercise their office. If the intrinsic excellency of the religion, the\nperfection of its morality, the purity of its precepts, the eloquence,\nor tenderness, or sublimity, of various parts of its writings, were the\nrecommendations by which it made its way, these remain the same. If the\ncharacter and circumstances under which the preachers were introduced to\nthe countries in which they taught be accounted of importance, this\nadvantage is all on the side of the modern missionaries. They come from\na country and a people to which the Indian world look up with sentiments\nof deference. The apostles came forth amongst the Gentiles under no\nother name than that of Jews, which was precisely the character they\ndespised and derided. If it be disgraceful in India to become a\nChristian, it could not be much less so to be enrolled amongst those\n\"quos, per flagitia invisos, vulgus Christianos appellabat.\" If the\nreligion which they had to encounter be considered, the difference, I\napprehend, will not be great. The theology of both was nearly the same:\n\"what is supposed to be performed by the power of Jupiter, Neptune, of\nAeolus, of Mars, of Venus, according to the mythology of the West, is\nascribed, in the East, to the agency Agrio the god of fire, Varoon the\ngod of oceans, Vayoo god of wind, Cama the god of love.\" (Baghvat Gets,\np. 94, quoted by Dr. Robertson, Ind. Dis. p. 306.) The sacred rites of\nthe Western Polytheism were gay, festive, and licentious; the rites of\nthe public religion in the East partake of the same character, with a\nmore avowed indecency. \"In every function performed in the pagodas, as\nwell as in every public procession, it is the office of these women\n(i. e. of women prepared by the Brahmins for the purpose) to dance before\nthe idol, and to sing hymns in his praise; and it is difficult to say\nwhether they trespass most against decency by the gestures they exhibit,\nor by the verses which they recite. The walls of the pagodas were\ncovered with paintings in a style no less indelicate.\" (Others of the\ndeities of the East are of an austere and gloomy character, to be\npropitiated by victims, sometimes by human sacrifices, and by voluntary\ntorments of the most excruciating kind. Voyage de Gentil. vol. i. p.\n244--260. Preface to the Code of Gentoo Laws, p. 57; quoted by Dr.\nRobertson, p. 320.)\n\nOn both sides of the comparison, the popular religion had a strong\nestablishment. In ancient Greece and Rome it was strictly incorporated\nwith the state. The magistrate was the priest. The highest officers of\ngovernment bore the most distinguished part in the celebration of the\npublic rites. In India, a powerful and numerous caste possesses\nexclusively the administration of the established worship; and are, of\nconsequence, devoted to its service, and attached to its interest. In\nboth, the prevailing mythology was destitute of any proper evidence: or\nrather, in both, the origin of the tradition is run up into ages long\nanterior to the existence of credible history, or of written language.\nThe Indian chronology computes eras by millions of years, and the life\nof man by thousands \"The Suffec Jogue, or age of purity, is said to\nhave lasted three million two hundred thousand years; and they hold that\nthe life of man was extended in that age to one hundred thousand years;\nbut there is a difference amongst the Indian writers of six millions of\nyears in the computation of this era.\" (Voyage de Gentil. vol. i. p.\n244--260. Preface to the Code of Gentoo Laws, p. 57; quoted by Dr.\nRobertson, p. 320.) and in these, or prior to these, is placed the\nhistory of their divinities. In both, the established superstition held\nthe same place in the public opinion; that is to say, in both it was\ncredited by the bulk of the people, but by the learned and philosophical\npart of the community either derided, or regarded by them as only fit to\nbe upholden for the sake of its political uses.*\n\n_________\n\n* \"How absurd soever the articles of faith may be which superstition has\nadopted, or how unhallowed the rites which it prescribes, the former are\nreceived, in every age and country with unhesitating assent, by the\ngreat body of the people, and the latter observed with scrupulous\nexactness. In our reasonings concerning opinions and practices which\ndiffer widely from our own, we are extremely apt to err. Having been\ninstructed ourselves in the principles of a religion worthy in every\nrespect of that Divine wisdom by which they were dictated, we frequently\nexpress wonder at the credulity of nations, in embracing systems of\nbelief which appear to us so directly repugnant to right reason; and\nsometimes suspect that tenets so wild and extravagant do not really gain\ncredit with them. But experience may satisfy us, that neither our wonder\nnor suspicions are well founded. No article of the public religion was\ncalled in question by those people of ancient Europe with whose history\nwe are best acquainted; and no practice which it enjoined appeared\nimproper to them. On the other hand, every opinion that tended to\ndiminish the reverence of men for the gods of their country, or to\nalienate them from their worship, excited, among the Greeks and Romans,\nthat indignant zeal which is natural to every people attached to their\nreligion by a firm persuasion of its truth.\" Ind. Dis. p. 321. That the\nlearned Brahmins of the East are rational Theists, and secretly reject\nthe established theory, and contemn the rites that were founded upon\nthem, or rather consider them as contrivances to be supported for their\npolitical uses, see Dr. Robertson's Ind. Dis. p. 324-334.\n_________\n\n\nOr if it should be allowed, that the ancient heathens believed in their\nreligion less generally than the present Indians do, I am far from\nthinking that this circumstance would afford any facility to the work\nof the apostles, above that of the modern missionaries. To me it\nappears, and I think it material to be remarked, that a disbelief of the\nestablished religion of their country has no tendency to dispose men for\nthe reception of another; but that, on the contrary, it generates a\nsettled contempt of all religious pretensions whatever. General\ninfidelity is the hardest soil which the propagators of a new religion\ncan have to work upon. Could a Methodist or Moravian promise himself a\nbetter chance of success with a French esprit fort, who had been\naccustomed to laugh at the popery of his country, than with a believing\nMahometan or Hindoo? Or are our modern unbelievers in Christianity, for\nthat reason, in danger of becoming Mahometans or Hindoos? It does not\nappear that the Jews, who had a body of historical evidence to offer for\ntheir religion, and who at that time undoubtedly entertained and held\nforth the expectation of a future state, derived any great advantage, as\nto the extension of their system, from the discredit into which the\npopular religion had fallen with many of their heathen neighbours.\n\nWe have particularly directed our observations to the state and progress\nof Christianity amongst the inhabitants of India: but the history of the\nChristian mission in other countries, where the efficacy of the mission\nis left solely to the conviction wrought by the preaching of strangers,\npresents the same idea as the Indian mission does of the feebleness and\ninadequacy of human means. About twenty-five years ago was published, in\nEngland, a translation from the Dutch of a History of Greenland and a\nrelation of the mission for above thirty years carried on in that\ncountry by the Unitas Fratrum, or Moravians. Every part of that relation\nconfirms the opinion we have stated. Nothing could surpass, or hardly\nequal, the zeal and patience of the missionaries. Yet their historian,\nin the conclusion of his narrative, could find place for no reflections\nmore encouraging than the following:--\"A person that had known the\nheathen, that had seen the little benefit from the great pains hitherto\ntaken with them, and considered that one after another had abandoned all\nhopes of the conversion of these infidels (and some thought they would\nnever be converted, till they saw miracles wrought as in the apostles'\ndays, and this the Greenlanders expected and demanded of their\ninstructors); one that considered this, I say, would not so much wonder\nat the past unfruitfulness of these young beginners, as at their\nsteadfast perseverance in the midst of nothing but distress,\ndifficulties, and impediments, internally and externally: and that they\nnever desponded of the conversion of those poor creatures amidst all\nseeming impossibilities.\" (History of Greenland, vol. ii. p. 376.)\n\nFrom the widely disproportionate effects which attend the preaching of\nmodern missionaries of Christianity, compared with what followed the\nministry of Christ and his apostles under circumstances either alike, or\nnot so unlike as to account for the difference, a conclusion is fairly\ndrawn in support of what our histories deliver concerning them, viz.\nthat they possessed means of conviction which we have not; that they had\nproofs to appeal to which we want.\n\n\n\n\n\nSECTION III.\n\nOF THE RELIGION OF MAHOMET.\n\nThe only event in the history of the human species which admits of\ncomparison with the propagation of Christianity is the success of\nMahometanism. The Mahometan institution was rapid in its progress, was\nrecent in its history, and was founded upon a supernatural or prophetic\ncharacter assumed by its author. In these articles, the resemblance with\nChristianity is confessed. But there are points of difference which\nseparate, we apprehend, the two cases entirely.\n\nI. Mahomet did not found his pretensions upon miracles, properly so\ncalled; that is, upon proofs of supernatural agency capable of being\nknown and attested by others. Christians are warranted in this.\nassertion by the evidence of the Koran, in which Mahomet not only does\nnot affect the power of working miracles, but expressly disclaims it.\nThe following passages of that book furnish direct proofs of the truth\nof what we allege:--\"The infidels say, Unless a sign be sent down unto\nhim from his lord, we will not believe; thou art a preacher only.\"\n(Sale's Koran, c. xiii. p. 201, ed. quarto.) Again; \"Nothing hindered us\nfrom sending thee with miracles, except that the former nations have\ncharged them with imposture.\" (C. xvii. p. 232.) And lastly; \"They say,\nUnless a sign be sent down unto him from his lord, we will not believe:\nAnswer; Signs are in the power of God alone, and I am no more than a\npublic preacher. Is it not sufficient for them, that we have sent down\nunto them the book of the Koran to be read unto them?\" (C. xxix. p.\n328.) Beside these acknowledgments, I have observed thirteen distinct\nplaces in which Mahomet puts the objection (unless a sign, &c.) into the\nmouth of the unbeliever, in not one of which does he allege a miracle in\nreply. His answer is, \"that God giveth the power of working miracles\nwhen and to whom he pleaseth;\" (C. v. x. xiii. twice.) \"that if he\nshould work miracles, they would not believe;\" (C. vi.) \"that they had\nbefore rejected Moses, and Jesus and the Prophets, who wrought\nmiracles;\" (C. iii. xxi. xxviii.) \"that the Koran itself was a miracle.\"\n(C. xvi.)\n\nThe only place in the Koran in which it can be pretended that a sensible\nmiracle is referred to (for I do not allow the secret visitations of\nGabriel, the night-journey of Mahomet to heaven, or the presence in\nbattle of invisible hosts of angels, to deserve the name of sensible\nmiracles) is the beginning of the fifty-fourth chapter. The words are\nthese:--\"The hour of judgment approacheth, and the moon hath been split\nin sunder: but if the unbelievers see a sign, they turn aside, saying,\nThis is a powerful charm.\" The Mahometan expositors disagree in their\ninterpretation of this passage; some explaining it to be mention of the\nsplitting of the moon as one of the future signs of the approach of the\nday of judgment: others referring it to a miraculous appearance which\nhad then taken place. (Vide Sale, in loc.) It seems to me not improbable,\nthat Mahomet might have taken advantage of some extraordinary halo, or\nother unusual appearance of the moon, which had happened about this\ntime; and which supplied a foundation both for this passage, and for the\nstory which in after times had been raised out of it.\n\nAfter this more than silence, after these authentic confessions of the\nKoran, we are not to be moved with miraculous stories related of Mahomet\nby Abulfeda, who wrote his life about six hundred years after his death;\nor which are found in the legend of Al-Jannabi, who came two hundred\nyears later.* On the contrary, from comparing what Mahomet himself wrote\nand said with what was afterwards reported of him by his followers, the\nplain and fair conclusion is, that when the religion was established by\nconquest, then, and not till then, came out the stories of his miracles.\n\n_________\n\n* It does not, I think, appear, that these historians had any written\naccounts to appeal to more ancient than the Sonnah; which was a\ncollection of traditions made by order of the Caliphs two hundred years\nafter Mahomet's death. Mahomet died A.D. 632; Al-Bochari, one of the six\ndoctors who compiled the Sonnah, was born A.D. 809; died 869. Prideaux's\nLife of Mahomet, p. 192, ed. 7th.\n_________\n\n\nNow this difference alone constitutes, in my opinion, a bar to all\nreasoning from one case to the other. The success of a religion founded\nupon a miraculous history shows the credit which was given to the\nhistory; and this credit, under the circumstances in which it was given,\ni. e. by persons capable of knowing the truth, and interested to inquire\nafter it, is evidence of the reality of the history, and, by\nconsequence, of the truth of the religion. Where a miraculous history is\nnot alleged, no part of this argument can be applied. We admit that\nmultitudes acknowledged the pretensions of Mahomet: but, these\npretensions being destitute of miraculous evidence, we know that the\ngrounds upon which they were acknowledged could not be secure grounds of\npersuasion to his followers, nor their example any authority to us.\nAdmit the whole of Mahomet's authentic history, so far as it was of a\nnature capable of being known or witnessed by others, to be true (which\nis certainly to admit all that the reception of the religion can be\nbrought to prove), and Mahomet might still be an impostor, or\nenthusiast, or a union of both. Admit to be true almost any part of\nChrist's history, of that, I mean, which was public, and within the\ncognizance of his followers, and he must have come from God. Where\nmatter of fact is not in question, where miracles are not alleged, I do\nnot see that the progress of a religion is a better argument of its\ntruth than the prevalency of any system of opinions in natural religion,\nmorality, or physics, is a proof of the truth of those opinions. And we\nknow that this sort of argument is inadmissible in any branch of\nphilosophy what ever.\n\nBut it will be said, if one religion could make its way without\nmiracles, why might not another? To which I reply, first, that this is\nnot the question; the proper question is not, whether a religious\ninstitution could be set up without miracles, but whether a religion, or\na change of religion, founding itself in miracles, could succeed without\nany reality to rest upon? I apprehend these two cases to be very\ndifferent: and I apprehend Mahomet's not taking this course, to be one\nproof, amongst others, that the thing is difficult, if not impossible, to\nbe accomplished: certainly it was not from an unconsciousness of the\nvalue and importance of miraculous evidence; for it is very observable,\nthat in the same volume, and sometimes in the same chapters, in which\nMahomet so repeatedly disclaims the power of working miracles himself,\nhe is incessantly referring to the miracles of preceding prophets. One\nwould imagine, to hear some men talk, or to read some books, that the\nsetting up of a religion by dint of miraculous pretences was a thing of\nevery day's experience: whereas, I believe that, except the Jewish and\nChristian religion, there is no tolerably well authenticated account of\nany such thing having been accomplished.\n\nII. The establishment of Mahomet's religion was affected by causes which\nin no degree appertained to the origin of Christianity.\n\nDuring the first twelve years of his mission, Mahomet had recourse only\nto persuasion. This is allowed. And there is sufficient reason from the\neffect to believe that, if he had confined himself to this mode of\npropagating his religion, we of the present day should never have heard\neither of him or it. \"Three years were silently employed in the\nconversion of fourteen proselytes. For ten years, the religion advanced\nwith a slow and painful progress, within the walls of Mecca. The number\nof proselytes in the seventh year of his mission may be estimated by the\nabsence of eighty-three men and eighteen women, who retired to\nAethiopia.\" (Gibbon's Hist. vol. ix. p. 244, et seq. ed. Dub.) Yet this\nprogress, such as it was, appears to have been aided by some very\nimportant advantages which Mahomet found in his situation, in his mode\nof conducting his design, and in his doctrine.\n\n1. Mahomet was the grandson of the most powerful and honourable family\nin Mecca; and although the early death of his father had not left him a\npatrimony suitable to his birth, he had, long before the commencement of\nhis mission, repaired this deficiency by an opulent marriage. A person\nconsiderable by his wealth, of high descent, and nearly allied to the\nchiefs of his country, taking upon himself the character of a religious\nteacher, would not fail of attracting attention and followers.\n\n2. Mahomet conducted his design, in the outset especially, with great\nart and prudence. He conducted it as a politician would conduct a plot.\nHis first application was to his own family. This gained him his wife's\nuncle, a considerable person in Mecca, together with his cousin Ali,\nafterwards the celebrated Caliph, then a youth of great expectation, and\neven already distinguished by his attachment, impetuosity, and courage.*\nHe next expressed himself to Abu Beer, a man amongst the first of the\nKoreish in wealth and influence. The interest and example of Abu Beer\ndrew in five other principal persons in Mecca, whose solicitations\nprevailed upon five more of the same rank. This was the work of three\nyears; during which time everything was transacted in secret. Upon the\nstrength of these allies, and under the powerful protection of his\nfamily, who, however some of them might disapprove his enterprise, or\nderide his pretensions, would not suffer the orphan of their house, the\nrelict of their favourite brother, to be insulted, Mahomet now commenced\nhis public preaching. And the advance which he made during the nine or\nten remaining years of his peaceable ministry was by no means greater\nthan what, with these advantages, and with the additional and singular\ncircumstance of there being no established religion at Mecca at that\ntime to contend with, might reasonably have been expected. How soon his\nprimitive adherents were let into the secret of his views of empire, or\nin what stage of his undertaking these views first opened themselves to\nhis own mind, it is not now easy to determine. The event however was,\nthat these, his first proselytes, all ultimately attained to riches and\nhonours, to the command of armies, and the government of kingdoms.\n(Gibbon, vol. ix. p 244.)\n\n_________\n\n* Of which Mr. Gibbon has preserved the following specimen: \"When\nMahomet called out in an assembly of his family, Who among you will be\nmy companion, and my vizir? Ali, then only in the fourteenth year of his\nage, suddenly replied, O prophet I am the man;--whosoever rises against\nthee, I will dash out his teeth, tear out his eyes, break his legs, rip\nup his belly. O prophet! I will be thy vizir over them.\" Vol. ix. p.\n215.\n_________\n\n\n3. The Arabs deduced their descent from Abraham through the line of\nIshmael. The inhabitants of Mecca, in common probably with the other\nArabian tribes, acknowledged, as I think may clearly be collected from\nthe Koran, one supreme Deity, but had associated with him many objects\nof idolatrous worship. The great doctrine with which Mahomet set out was\nthe strict and exclusive unity of God. Abraham, he told them, their\nillustrous ancestor; Ishmael, the father of their nation; Moses, the\nlawgiver of the Jews; and Jesus, the author of Christianity--had all\nasserted the same thing; that their followers had universally corrupted\nthe truth, and that he was now commissioned to restore it to the world.\nWas it to be wondered at, that a doctrine so specious, and authorized by\nnames, some or other of which were holden in the highest veneration by\nevery description of his hearers, should, in the hands of a popular\nmissionary, prevail to the extent in which Mahomet succeeded by his\npacific ministry?\n\n4. Of the institution which Mahomet joined with this fundamental\ndoctrine, and of the Koran in which that institution is delivered, we\ndiscover, I think, two purposes that pervade the whole, viz., to make\nconverts, and to make his converts soldiers. The following particulars,\namongst others, may be considered as pretty evident indications of these\ndesigns:\n\n1. When Mahomet began to preach, his address to the Jews, to the\nChristians, and to the Pagan Arabs, was, that the religion which he\ntaught was no other than what had been originally their own.--\"We\nbelieve in God, and that which hath been sent down unto us, and that\nwhich hath been sent down unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and\nJacob, and the Tribes, and that which was delivered unto Moses and\nJesus, and that which was delivered unto the prophets from their Lord:\nwe make no distinction between any of them.\" (Sale's Koran, c. ii. p.\n17.) \"He hath ordained you the religion which he commanded Noah, and\nwhich we have revealed unto thee, O Mohammed, and which we commanded\nAbraham, and Moses, and Jesus, saying, Observe this religion, and be not\ndivided therein.\" (Sale's Koran, c. xlii. p. 393.) \"He hath chosen you,\nand hath not imposed on you any difficulty in the religion which he hath\ngiven you, the religion of your father Abraham.\" (Sale's Koran, c. xxii.\np. 281.)\n\n2. The author of the Koran never ceases from describing the future\nanguish of unbelievers, their despair, regret, penitence, and torment.\nIt is the point which he labours above all others. And these\ndescriptions are conceived in terms which will appear in no small\ndegree impressive, even to the modern reader of an English translation.\nDoubtless they would operate with much greater force upon the minds of\nthose to whom they were immediately directed. The terror which they seem\nwell calculated to inspire would be to many tempers a powerful\napplication.\n\n3. On the other hand: his voluptuous paradise; his robes of silk, his\npalaces of marble, his riven, and shades, his groves and couches, his\nwines, his dainties; and, above all, his seventy-two virgins assigned to\neach of the faithful, of resplendent beauty and eternal\nyouth--intoxicated the imaginations, and seized the passions of his\nEastern followers.\n\n4. But Mahomet's highest heaven was reserved for those who fought his\nbattles or expended their fortunes in his cause: \"Those believers who\nsit still at home, not having any hurt, and those who employ their\nfortunes and their persons for the religion of God, shall not be held\nequal. God hath preferred those who employ their fortunes and their\npersons in that cause to a degree above those who sit at home. God had\nindeed promised every one Paradise; but God had preferred those who\nfight for the faith before those who sit still, by adding unto them a\ngreat reward; by degrees of honour conferred upon them from him, and by\ngranting them forgiveness and mercy.\" (Sale's Koran, c. iv. p. 73.)\nAgain; \"Do ye reckon the giving drink to the pilgrims, and the visiting\nof the holy temple, to be actions as meritorious as those performed by\nhim who believeth in God and the last day, and fighteth for the religion\nof God? They shall not be held equal with God.--They who have believed\nand fled their country, and employed their substance and their persons\nin the defence of God's true religion, shall be in the highest degree of\nhonour with God; and these are they who shall be happy. The Lord sendeth\nthem good tidings of mercy from him, and good will, and of gardens\nwherein they shall enjoy lasting pleasures. They shall continue therein\nfor ever; for with God is a great reward.\" (Sale's Koran, c. ix. p.\n151.) And, once more; \"Verily God hath purchased of the true believers\ntheir souls and their substance, promising them the enjoyment of\nParadise on condition that they fight for the cause of God: whether they\nslay or be slain, the promise for the same is assuredly due by the Law\nand the Gospel and the Koran.\" (Sale's Koran, c. ix. p. 164.)*\n\n_________\n\n* \"The sword,\" saith Mahomet, \"is the key of heaven and of hell; a drop\nof blood shed in the cause of God, a night spent in arms, is of more\navail than two months' fasting or prayer. Whosoever falls in battle, his\nsins are forgiven at the day of judgment; his wounds shall be\nresplendent as vermilion, and odoriferous as musk; and the loss of his\nlimbs shall be supplied by the wings of angels and cherubim.\" Gibbon,\nvol. ix. p. 256.\n_________\n\n\n5. His doctrine of predestination was applicable, and was applied by\nhim, to the same purpose of fortifying and of exalting the courage of\nhis adherents.--\"If anything of the matter had happened unto us, we had\nnot been slain here. Answer; If ye had been in your houses, verily they\nwould have gone forth to fight, whose slaughter was decreed, to the\nplaces where they died.\" (Sale's Koran, c. iii. p. 54.)\n\n6. In warm regions, the appetite of the sexes is ardent, the passion for\ninebriating liquors moderate. In compliance with this distinction,\nalthough Mahomet laid a restraint upon the drinking of wine, in the use\nof women he allowed an almost unbounded indulgence. Four wives, with the\nliberty of changing them at pleasure, (Sale's Koran, c. iv. p. 63.)\ntogether with the persons of all his captives, (Gibbon, vol. ix. p. 225.)\nwas an irresistible bribe to an Arabian warrior. \"God is minded,\" says\nhe, speaking of this very subject, \"to make his religion light unto\nyou; for man was created weak.\" How different this from the\nunaccommodating purity of the Gospel! How would Mahomet have succeeded\nwith the Christian lesson in his mouth.--\"Whosoever looketh upon a woman\nto lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his\nheart\"? It must be added, that Mahomet did not venture upon the\nprohibition of wine till the fourth year of the Hegira, or the\nseventeenth of his mission, when his military successes had completely\nestablished his authority. The same observation holds of the fast of the\nRamadan, (Mod. Univ. Hist. Vol. i. pp. 126 & 112.) and of the most\nlaborious part of his institution, the pilgrimage to Mecca. (This\nlatter, however, already prevailed amongst the Arabs, and had grown out\nof their excessive veneration for the Caaba. Mahomot's law, in this\nrespect, was rather a compliance than an innovation. Sale's Prelim.\nDisc. p. 122.)\n\nWhat has hitherto been collected from the records of the Musselman\nhistory relates to the twelve or thirteen years of Mahomet's peaceable\npreaching, which part alone of his life and enterprise admits of the\nsmallest comparison with the origin of Christianity. A new scene is now\nunfolded. The city of Medina, distant about ten days' journey from\nMecca, was at that time distracted by the hereditary contentions of two\nhostile tribes. These feuds were exasperated by the mutual persecutions\nof the Jews and Christians, and of the different Christian sects by\nwhich the city was inhabited. (Mod. Univ. Hist. Vol. i. p. 100.) The\nreligion of Mahomet presented, in some measure, a point of union or\ncompromise to these divided opinions. It embraced the principles which\nwere common to them all. Each party saw in it an honourable\nacknowledgment of the fundamental truth of their own system. To the\nPagan Arab, somewhat imbued with the sentiments and knowledge of his\nJewish or Christian fellow-citizen, it offered no defensive or very\nimprobable theology. This recommendation procured to Mahometanism a more\nfavourable reception at Medina than its author had been able, by twelve\nyears' painful endeavours, to obtain for it at Mecca. Yet, after all,\nthe progress of the religion was inconsiderable. His missionary could\nonly collect a congregation of forty persons. It was not a religious,\nbut a political association, which ultimately introduced Mahomet into\nMedina. Harassed, as it should seem, and disgusted by the long\ncontinuance of factions and disputes, the inhabitants of that city saw\nin the admission of the prophet's authority a rest from the miseries\nwhich they had suffered, and a suppression of the violence and fury\nwhich they had learned to condemn. After an embassy, therefore, composed\nof believers and unbelievers, (Mod. Univ. Hist. Vol. i. p. 85.) and of\npersons of both tribes, with whom a treaty was concluded of strict\nalliance and support, Mahomet made his public entry, and was received as\nthe sovereign of Medina.\n\nFrom this time, or soon after this time, the impostor changed his\nlanguage and his conduct. Having now a town at his command, where to arm\nhis party, and to head them with security, he enters upon new counsels.\nHe now pretends that a divine commission is given him to attack the\ninfidels, to destroy idolatry, and to set up the true faith by the\nsword. (Mod. Univ. Hist. Vol. i. p. 88.) An early victory over a very\nsuperior force, achieved by conduct and bravery, established the renown\nof his arms, and of his personal character. (Victory of Bedr, Mod. Univ.\nHist. Vol. i. p. 106.) Every year after this was marked by battles or\nassassinations. The nature and activity of Mahomet's future exertions\nmay be estimated from the computation, that in the nine following years\nof his life he commanded his army in person in eight general\nengagements, (Mod. Univ. Hist. vol. i. p. 255.) and undertook, by himself\nor his lieutenants, fifty military enterprises.\n\nFrom this time we have nothing left to account for, but that Mahomet\nshould collect an army, that his army should conquer, and that his\nreligion should proceed together with his conquests. The ordinary\nexperience of human affairs leaves us little to wonder at in any of\nthese effects: and they were likewise each assisted by peculiar\nfacilities. From all sides, the roving Arabs crowded round the standard\nof religion and plunder, of freedom and victory, of arms and rapine.\nBeside the highly painted joys of a carnal paradise, Mahomet rewarded\nhis followers in this world with a liberal division of the spoils, and\nwith the persons of their female captives. (Gibbon, vol. ix. p. 255.) The\ncondition of Arabia, occupied by small independent tribes, exposed it to\nthe impression, and yielded to the progress of a firm and resolute army.\nAfter the reduction of his native peninsula, the weakness also of the\nRoman provinces on the north and the west, as well as the distracted\nstate of the Persian empire on the east, facilitated the successful\ninvasion of neighbouring countries. That Mahomet's conquests should\ncarry his religion along with them will excite little surprise, when we\nknow the conditions which he proposed to the vanquished. Death or\nconversion was the only choice offered to idolaters. \"Strike off their\nheads! strike off all the ends of their fingers!(Sale's Koran, c. viii.\np. 140.) kill the idolaters, wheresoever ye shall find them!\" (Sale's\nKoran, c. ix. p. 149.) To the Jews and Christians was left the somewhat\nmilder alternative of subjection and tribute, if they persisted in their\nown religion, or of an equal participation in the rights and liberties,\nthe honours and privileges, of the faithful, if they embraced the\nreligion of their conquerors. \"Ye Christian dogs, you know your option;\nthe Koran, the tribute, or the sword.\" (Gibbon, vol. ix. p. 337.) The\ncorrupted state of Christianity in the seventh century, and the\ncontentions of its sects, unhappily so fell in with men's care of their\nsafety or their fortunes, as to induce many to forsake its profession.\nAdd to all which, that Mahomet's victories not only operated by the\nnatural effect of conquest, but that they were constantly represented,\nboth to his friends and enemies, as divine declarations in his favour.\nSuccess was evidence. Prosperity carried with it, not only influence,\nbut proof. \"Ye have already,\" says he, after the battle of Bedr, \"had a\nmiracle shown you, in two armies which attacked each other; one army\nfought for God's true religion, but the other were infidels.\" (Sale's\nKoran, c. iii. p. 36.) Again; \"Ye slew not those who were slain at Bedr,\nbut God slew them.--If ye desire a decision of the matter between us,\nnow hath a decision come unto you.\" (Sale's Koran, c. viii. p. 141.)\n\nMany more passages might be collected out of the Koran to the same\neffect; but they are unnecessary. The success of Mahometanism during\nthis, and indeed every future period of its history, bears so little\nresemblance to the early propagation of Christianity, that no inference\nwhatever can justly be drawn from it to the prejudice of the Christian\nargument. For what are we comparing? A Galilean peasant accompanied by a\nfew fishermen with a conqueror at the head of his army. We compare\nJesus, without force, without power, without support, without One\nexternal circumstance of attraction or influence, prevailing against the\nprejudices, the learning, the hierarchy, of his country; against the\nancient religious opinions, the pompous religious rites, the philosophy,\nthe wisdom, the authority, of the Roman empire, in the most polished and\nenlightened period of its existence,--with Mahomet making his way\namongst Arabs; collecting followers in the midst of conquests and\ntriumphs, in the darkest ages and countries of the world, and when\nsuccess in arms not only operated by that command of men's wills and\npersons which attend prosperous undertakings, but was considered as a\nsure testimony of Divine approbation. That multitudes, persuaded by this\nargument, should join the train of a victorious chief; that still\ngreater multitudes should, without any argument, bow down before\nirresistible power--is a conduct in which we cannot see much to surprise\nus; in which we can see nothing that resembles the causes by which the\nestablishment of Christianity was effected.\n\nThe success, therefore, of Mahometanism stands not in the way of this\nimportant conclusion; that the propagation of Christianity, in the\nmanner and under the circumstances in which it was propagated, is an\nunique in the history of the species. A Jewish peasant overthrew the\nreligion of the world.\n\nI have, nevertheless, placed the prevalency of the religion amongst the\nauxiliary arguments of its truth; because, whether it had prevailed or\nnot, or whether its prevalency can or cannot be accounted for, the\ndirect argument remains still. It is still true that a great number of\nmen upon the spot, personally connected with the history and with the\nAuthor of the religion, were induced by what they heard and saw, and\nknew, not only to change their former opinions, but to give up their\ntime, and sacrifice their ease, to traverse seas and kingdoms without\nrest and without weariness, to commit themselves to extreme dangers, to\nundertake incessant toils, to undergo grievous sufferings, and all this\nsolely in consequence, and in support, of their belief of facts, which,\nif true, establish the truth of the religion, which, if false, they must\nhave known to be so.\n\n\n\n\n\nPART III.\n\nA BRIEF CONSIDERATION OF SOME POPULAR OBJECTIONS.\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE SEVERAL GOSPELS.\n\nI know not a more rash or unphilosophical conduct of the understanding,\nthan to reject the substance of a story by reason of some diversity in\nthe circumstances with which it is related. The usual character of human\ntestimony is substantial truth under circumstantial variety. This is\nwhat the daily experience of courts of justice teaches. When accounts of\na transaction come from the mouths of different witnesses, it is seldom\nthat it is not possible to pick out apparent or real inconsistencies\nbetween them. These inconsistencies are studiously displayed by an\nadverse pleader, but oftentimes with little impression upon the minds of\nthe judges. On the contrary, a close and minute agreement induces the\nsuspicion of confederacy and fraud. When written histories touch upon\nthe same scenes of action; the comparison almost always affords ground\nfor a like reflection. Numerous, and sometimes important, variations\npresent themselves; not seldom, also, absolute and final contradictions;\nyet neither one nor the other are deemed sufficient to shake the\ncredibility of the main fact. The embassy of the Jews to deprecate the\nexecution of Claudian's order to place his statute, in their temple,\nPhilo places in harvest, Josephus in seed time; both contemporary\nwriters. No reader is led by this inconsistency to doubt whether such an\nembassy was sent, or whether such an order was given. Our own history\nsupplies examples of the same kind. In the account of the Marquis of\nArgyle's death, in the reign of Charles the Second, we have a very\nremarkable contradiction. Lord Clarendon relates that he was condemned\nto be hanged, which was performed the same day; on the contrary, Burnet,\nWoodrew, Heath, Echard, concur in stating that he was beheaded; and that\nhe was condemned upon the Saturday, and executed upon the Monday. (See\nBiog. Britann.) Was any reader of English history ever sceptic enough to\nraise from hence a question whether the Marquis of Argyle was executed\nor not? Yet this ought to be left in uncertainty, according to the\nprinciples upon which the Christian history has sometimes been attacked.\nDr. Middleton contended, that the different hours of the day assigned to\nthe crucifixion of Christ, by John and by the other Evangelists, did not\nadmit of the reconcilement which learned men had proposed: and then\nconcludes the discussion with this hard remark; \"We must be forced, with\nseveral of the critics, to leave the difficulty just as we found it,\nchargeable with all the consequences of manifest inconsistency.\"\n(Middleton's Reflections answered by Benson, Hist. Christ. vol. iii. p.\n50.) But what are these consequences? By no means the discrediting of\nthe history as to the principal fact, by a repugnancy (even supposing\nthat repugnancy not to be resolvable into different modes of\ncomputation) in the time of the day in which it is said to have taken\nplace.\n\nA great deal of the discrepancy observable in the Gospels arises from\nomission; from a fact or a passage of Christ's life being noticed by one\nwriter which is unnoticed by another. Now, omission is at all times a\nvery uncertain ground of objection. We perceive it, not only in the\ncomparison of different writers, but even in the same writer when\ncompared with himself. There are a great many particulars, and some of\nthem of importance, mentioned by Josephus in his Antiquities, which, as\nwe should have supposed, ought to have been put down by him in their\nplace in the Jewish Wars. (Lardner, part i. vol. ii. p. 735, et seq.)\nSuetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, have, all three, written of the reign\nof Tiberius. Each has mentioned many things omitted by the\nrest, (Lardner, part i. vol. ii. p. 743.) yet no objection is from thence\ntaken to the respective credit of their histories. We have in our own\ntimes, if there were not something indecorous in the comparison, the\nlife of an eminent person written by three of his friends, in which\nthere is very great variety in the incidents selected by them; some\napparent, and perhaps some real contradictions; yet without any\nimpeachment of the substantial truth of their accounts, of the\nauthenticity of the books, of the competent information or general\nfidelity of the writers.\n\nBut these discrepancies will be still more numerous, when men do not\nwrite histories, but memoirs: which is, perhaps, the true name and\nproper description of our Gospels: that is, when they do not undertake,\nnor ever meant to deliver, in order of time, a regular and complete\naccount of all the things of importance which the person who is the\nsubject of their history did or said; but only, out of many similar\nones, to give such passages, or such actions and discourses, as offered\nthemselves more immediately to their attention, came in the way of their\ninquiries, occurred to their recollection, or were suggested by their\nparticular design at the time of writing.\n\nThis particular design may appear sometimes, but not always, nor often.\nThus I think that the particular design which Saint Matthew had in view\nwhilst he was writing the history of the resurrection was to attest the\nfaithful performance of Christ's promise to his disciples to go before\nthem into Galilee; because he alone, except Mark, who seems to have\ntaken it from him, has recorded this promise, and he alone has confined\nhis narrative to that single appearance to the disciples which fulfilled\nit. It was the preconcerted, the great and most public manifestation of\nour Lord's person. It was the thing which dwelt upon Saint Matthew's\nmind, and he adapted his narrative to it. But, that there is nothing in\nSaint Matthew's language which negatives other appearances, or which\nimports that this his appearance to his disciples in Galilee, in\npursuance of his promise, was his first or only appearance, is made\npretty evident by Saint Mark's Gospel, which uses the same terms\nconcerning the appearance in Galilee as Saint Matthew uses, yet itself\nrecords two other appearances prior to this: \"Go your way, tell his\ndisciples and Peter, that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall\nye see him as he said unto you\" (xvi. 7). We might be apt to infer from\nthese words, that this was the first time they were to see him; at\nleast, we might infer it, with as much reason as we draw the inference\nfrom the same words in Matthew: the historian himself did not perceive\nthat he was leading his readers to any such conclusion; for, in the\ntwelfth and following verses of this chapter, he informs us of two\nappearances, which, by comparing the order of events, are shown to have\nbeen prior to the appearance in Galilee. \"He appeared in another form\nunto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country; and they\nwent and told it unto the residue, neither believed they them:\nafterwards he appeared unto the eleven, as they sat at meat, and\nupbraided them with their unbelief, because they believed not them that\nhad seen him after he was risen.\"\n\nProbably the same observation, concerning the particular design which\nguided the historian, may be of use in comparing many other passages of\nthe Gospels.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nERRONEOUS OPINIONS IMPUTED TO THE APOSTLES.\n\nA species of candour which is shown towards every other book is\nsometimes refused to the Scriptures: and that is, the placing of a\ndistinction between judgment and testimony. We do not usually question\nthe credit of a writer, by reason of an opinion he may have delivered\nupon subjects unconnected with his evidence: and even upon subjects\nconnected with his account, or mixed with it in the same discourse or\nwriting, we naturally separate facts from opinions, testimony from\nobservation, narrative from argument.\n\nTo apply this equitable consideration to the Christian records, much\ncontroversy and much objection has been raised concerning the quotations\nof the Old Testament found in the New; some of which quotations, it is\nsaid, are applied in a sense and to events apparently different from\nthat which they bear, and from those to which they belong in the\noriginal. It is probable, to my apprehension, that many of those\nquotations were intended by the writers of the New Testament as nothing\nmore than accommodations. They quoted passages of their Scripture which\nsuited, and fell in with, the occasion before them, without always\nundertaking to assert that the occasion was in the view of the author of\nthe words. Such accommodations of passages from old authors, from books\nespecially which are in every one's hands, are common with writers of\nall countries; but in none, perhaps, were more to be expected than in\nthe writings of the Jews, whose literature was almost entirely confined\nto their Scriptures. Those prophecies which are alleged with more\nsolemnity, and which are accompanied with a precise declaration that\nthey originally respected the event then related, are, I think, truly\nalleged. But were it otherwise; is the judgment of the writers of the\nNew Testament, in interpreting passages of the Old, or sometimes,\nperhaps, in receiving established interpretations, so connected either\nwith their veracity, or with their means of information concerning what\nwas passing in their own times, as that a critical mistake, even were it\nclearly made out, should overthrow their historical credit?--Does it\ndiminish it? Has it anything to do with it?\n\nAnother error imputed to the first Christians was the expected approach\nof the day of judgment. I would introduce this objection by a remark\nupon what appears to me a somewhat similar example. Our Saviour,\nspeaking to Peter of John, said, \"If I will that he tarry till I come,\nwhat is that to thee?\"' (John xxi. 22.) These words we find had been so\nmisconstrued, as that a report from thence \"went abroad among the\nbrethren, that that disciple should not die.\" Suppose that this had come\ndown to us amongst the prevailing opinions of the early Christians, and\nthat the particular circumstance from which the mistake sprang had been\nlost (which, humanly speaking, was most likely to have been the case),\nsome, at this day, would have been ready to regard and quote the error\nas an impeachment of the whole Christian system. Yet with how little\njustice such a conclusion would have been drawn, or rather such a\npresumption taken up, the information which we happen to possess enables\nus now to perceive. To those who think that the Scriptures lead us to\nbelieve that the early Christians, and even the apostles, expected the\napproach of the day of judgment in their own times, the same reflection\nwill occur as that which we have made with respect to the more partial,\nperhaps, and temporary, but still no less ancient, error concerning the\nduration of Saint John's life. It was an error, it may be likewise said,\nwhich would effectually hinder those who entertained it from acting the\npart of impostors.\n\nThe difficulty which attends the subject of the present chapter is\ncontained in this question; If we once admit the fallibility of the\napostolic judgment, where are we to stop, or in what can we rely upon\nit? To which question, as arguing with unbelievers, and as arguing for\nthe substantial truth of the Christian history, and for that alone, it\nis competent to the advocate of Christianity to reply, Give me the\napostles' testimony, and I do not stand in need of their judgment; give\nme the facts, and I have complete security for every conclusion I want.\n\nBut, although I think that it is competent to the Christian apologist to\nreturn this answer, I do not think that it is the only answer which the\nobjection is capable of receiving. The two following cautions, founded,\nI apprehend, in the most reasonable distinctions, will exclude all\nuncertainty upon this head which can be attended with danger.\n\nFirst, to separate what was the object of the apostolic mission, and\ndeclared by them to be so, from what was extraneous to it, or only\nincidentally connected with it. Of points clearly extraneous to the\nreligion nothing need be said. Of points incidentally connected with it\nsomething may be added. Demoniacal possession is one of these points:\nconcerning the reality of which, as this place will not admit the\nexamination, nor even the production of the argument on either side of\nthe question, it would be arrogance in me to deliver any judgment. And\nit is unnecessary. For what I am concerned to observe is, that even they\nwho think it was a general, but erroneous opinion of those times; and\nthat the writers of the New Testament, in common with other Jewish\nwriters of that age, fell into the manner of speaking and of thinking\nupon the subject which then universally prevailed, need not be alarmed\nby the concession, as though they had anything to fear from it for the\ntruth of Christianity. The doctrine was not what Christ brought into the\nworld. It appears in the Christian records, incidentally and\naccidentally, as being the subsisting opinion of the age and country in\nwhich his ministry was exercised. It was no part of the object of his\nrevelation, to regulate men's opinions concerning the action of\nspiritual substances upon animal bodies. At any rate it is unconnected\nwith testimony. If a dumb person was by a word restored to the use of\nhis speech, it signifies little to what cause the dumbness was ascribed;\nand the like of every other cure wrought upon these who are said to have\nbeen possessed. The malady was real, the cure was real, whether the\npopular explication of the cause was well founded or not. The matter of\nfact, the change, so far as it was an object of sense, or of testimony,\nwas in either case the same.\n\nSecondly, that, in reading the apostolic writings, we distinguish\nbetween their doctrines and their arguments. Their doctrines came to\nthem by revelation properly so called; yet in propounding these\ndoctrines in their writings or discourses they were wont to illustrate,\nsupport, and enforce them by such analogies, arguments, and\nconsiderations as their own thoughts suggested. Thus the call of the\ngentiles, that is, the admission of the Gentiles to the Christian\nprofession without a previous subjection to the law of Moses, was\nimported to the apostles by revelation, and was attested by the miracles\nwhich attended the Christian ministry among them. The apostles' own\nassurance of the matter rested upon this foundation. Nevertheless, Saint\nPaul, when treating of the subject, often a great variety of topics in\nits proof and vindication. The doctrine itself must be received: but it\nis not necessary, in order to defend Christianity, to defend the\npropriety of every comparison, or the validity of every argument, which\nthe apostle has brought into the discussion. The same observation\napplies to some other instances, and is, in my opinion, very well\nfounded; \"When divine writers argue upon any point, we are always bound\nto believe the conclusions that their reasonings end in, as parts of\ndivine revelation: but we are not bound to be able to make out, or even\nto assent to all the premises made use of by them, in their whole\nextent, unless it appear plainly, that they affirm the premises as\nexpressly as they do the conclusions proved by them.\" (Burnets Expos.\nart. 6.)\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE CONNEXION OF CHRISTIANITY WITH THE JEWISH HISTORY.\n\nUndoubtedly our Saviour assumes the divine origin of the Mosaic\ninstitution: and, independently of his authority, I conceive it to be\nvery difficult to assign any other cause for the commencement or\nexistence of that institution; especially for the singular circumstance\nof the Jews adhering to the unity when every other people slid into\npolytheism; for their being men in religion, children in everything\nelse; behind other nations in the arts of peace and war, superior to the\nmost improved in their sentiments and doctrines relating to the Deity.*\n\n_________\n\n* \"In the doctrine, for example, of the unity, the eternity, the\nomnipotence, the omniscience, the omnipresence, the wisdom, and the\ngoodness of God; in their opinions concerning providence, and the\ncreation, preservation, and government of the world.\" Campbell on Mir.\np. 207. To which we may add, in the acts of their religion not being\naccompanied either with cruelties or impurities: in the religion itself\nbeing free from a species of superstition which prevailed universally in\nthe popular religions of the ancient world, and which is to be found\nperhaps in all religions that have their origin in human artifice and\ncredulity, viz. fanciful connexions between certain appearances and\nactions, and the destiny of nations or individuals. Upon these conceits\nrested the whole train of auguries and auspices, which formed so much\neven of the serious part of the religions of Greece and Rome, and of the\ncharms and incantations which were practised in those countries by the\ncommon people. From everything of this sort the religion of the Jews,\nand of the Jews alone, was free. Vide. Priestley's Lectures on the Truth\nof the Jewish and Christian Revelation; 1794.\n_________\n\n\nUndoubtedly, also, our Saviour recognises the prophetic character of\nmany of their ancient writers. So far, therefore, we are bound as\nChristians to go. But to make Christianity answerable, with its life,\nfor the circumstantial truth of each separate passage of the Old\nTestament, the genuineness of every book, the information, fidelity, and\njudgment of every writer in it, is to bring, I will not say great, but\nunnecessary difficulties into the whole system. These books were\nuniversally read and received by the Jews of our Saviour's time. He and\nhis apostles, in common with all other Jews, referred to them, alluded\nto them, used them. Yet, except where he expressly ascribes a divine\nauthority to particular predictions, I do not know that we can strictly\ndraw any conclusion from the books being so used and applied, beside the\nproof, which it unquestionably is, of their notoriety and reception at\nthat time. In this view, our Scriptures afford a valuable testimony to\nthose of the Jews. But the nature of this testimony ought to be\nunderstood. It is surely very different from what it is sometimes\nrepresented to be, a specific ratification of each particular fact and\nopinion; and not only of each particular fact, but of the motives\nassigned for every action, together with the judgment of praise or\ndispraise bestowed upon them. Saint James, in his Epistle, says, \"Ye\nhave heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord.\"\nNotwithstanding this text, the reality of Job's history, and even the\nexistence of such a person, have been always deemed a fair subject of\ninquiry and discussion amongst Christian divines. Saint James's\nauthority is considered as good evidence of the existence of the book of\nJob at that time, and of its reception by the Jews; and of nothing more.\nSaint Paul, in his Second Epistle to Timothy, has this similitude: \"Now,\nas Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the\ntruth.\" These names are not found in the Old Testament. And it is\nuncertain whether Saint Paul took them from some apocryphal writing then\nextant, or from tradition. But no one ever imagined that Saint Paul is\nhere asserting the authority of the writing, if it was a written account\nwhich he quoted, or making himself answerable for the authenticity of\nthe tradition; much less that he so involves himself with either of\nthese questions as that the credit of his own history and mission should\ndepend upon the fact whether Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses or not.\nFor what reason a more rigorous interpretation should be put upon other\nreferences it is difficult to know. I do not mean, that other passages\nof the Jewish history stand upon no better evidence than the history of\nJob, or of Jannes and Jambres (I think much otherwise); but I mean, that\na reference in the New Testament to a passage in the Old does not so fix\nits authority as to exclude all inquiry into its credibility, or into\nthe separate reasons upon which that credibility is founded; and that it\nis an unwarrantable as well as unsafe rule to lay down concerning the\nJewish history, what was never laid down concerning any other, that\neither every particular of it must be true, or the whole false.\n\nI have thought it necessary to state this point explicitly, because a\nfashion, revived by Voltaire, and pursued by the disciples of his\nschool, seems to have much prevailed of late, of attacking Christianity\nthrough the sides of Judaism. Some objections of this class are founded\nin misconstruction, some in exaggeration; but all proceed upon a\nsupposition, which has not been made out by argument, viz. that the\nattestation which the Author and first teachers of Christianity gave to\nthe divine mission of Moses and the prophets extends to every point and\nportion of the Jewish history; and so extends as to make Christianity\nresponsible, in its own credibility, for the circumstantial truth (I had\nalmost said for the critical exactness) of every narrative contained in\nthe Old Testament.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nREJECTION OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\nWe acknowledge that the Christian religion, although it converted great\nnumbers, did not produce an universal, or even a general conviction in\nthe minds of men of the age and countries in which it appeared. And this\nwant of a more complete and extensive success is called the rejection of\nthe Christian history and miracles; and has been thought by some to form\na strong objection to the reality of the facts which the history\ncontains.\n\nThe matter of the objection divides itself into two parts; as it relates\nto the Jews, and as it relates to Heathen nations: because the minds of\nthese two descriptions of men may have been, with respect to\nChristianity, under the influence of very different causes. The case of\nthe Jews, inasmuch as our Saviour's ministry was originally addressed to\nthem, offers itself first to our consideration.\n\nNow upon the subject of the truth of the Christian religion; with us\nthere is but one question, viz., whether the miracles were actually\nwrought? From acknowledging the miracles, we pass instantaneously to the\nacknowledgment of the whole. No doubt lies between the premises and the\nconclusion. If we believe the works of any one of them, we believe in\nJesus. And this order of reasoning has become so universal and familiar\nthat we do not readily apprehend how it could ever have been otherwise.\nYet it appears to me perfectly certain, that the state of thought in the\nmind of a Jew of our Saviour's age was totally different from this.\nAfter allowing the reality of the miracle, he had a great deal to do to\npersuade himself that Jesus was the Messiah. This is clearly intimated\nby various passages of the Gospel history. It appears that, in the\napprehension of the writers of the New Testament, the miracles did not\nirresistibly carry even those who saw them to the conclusion intended to\nbe drawn from them; or so compel assent, as to leave no room for\nsuspense, for the exercise of candour, or the effects of prejudice. And\nto this point, at least, the evangelists may he allowed to be good\nwitnesses; because it is a point in which exaggeration or disguise would\nhave been the other way. Their accounts, if they could he suspected of\nfalsehood, would rather have magnified than diminished the effects of\nthe miracles.\n\nJohn vii. 21--31. \"Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one\nwork, and ye all marvel.--If a man on the Sabbath-day receive\ncircumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry\nat me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath-day?\nJudge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.\nThen said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he whom they seek to\nkill? But lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing to him: do the\nrulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this\nman, whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.\nThen cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me,\nand ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but He that sent\nme is true, whom ye know not. But I know Him, for I am from Him, and He\nhath sent me. Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on\nhim, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed\non him and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than those\nwhich this man hath done?\"\n\nThis passage is very observable. It exhibits the reasoning of different\nsorts of persons upon the occasion of a miracle which persons of all\nsorts are represented to have acknowledged as real. One sort of men\nthought that there was something very extraordinary in all this; but\nthat still Jesus could not be the Christ, because there was a\ncircumstance in his appearance which militated with an opinion\nconcerning Christ in which they had been brought up, and of the truth of\nwhich, it is probable, they had never entertained a particle of doubt,\nviz. That \"when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.\" Another\nsort were inclined to believe him to be the Messiah. But even these did\nnot argue as we should; did not consider the miracle as of itself\ndecisive of the question; as what, if once allowed, excluded all further\ndebate upon the subject; but founded their opinion upon a kind of\ncomparative reasoning, \"When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles\nthan those which this man hath done?\"\n\nAnother passage in the same evangelist, and observable for the same\npurpose, is that in which he relates the resurrection of Lazarus;\n\"Jesus,\" he tells us (xi. 43, 44), \"when he had thus spoken, cried with\na loud voice, Lazarus, come forth: and he that was dead came forth,\nbound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was bound about with\na napkin. Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.\" One might\nhave suspected, that at least all those who stood by the sepulchre, when\nLazarus was raised, would have believed in Jesus. Yet the evangelist\ndoes not so represent it:--\"Then many of the Jews which came to Mary,\nand had seen the things which Jesus did, believed on him; but some of\nthem went their ways to the Pharisees, and told them what things Jesus\nhad done.\" We cannot suppose that the evangelist meant by this account\nto leave his readers to imagine, that any of the spectators doubted\nabout the truth of the miracle. Far from it. Unquestionably, he states\nthe miracle to have been fully allowed; yet the persons who allowed it\nwere, according to his representation, capable of retaining hostile\nsentiments towards Jesus. \"Believing in Jesus\" was not only to believe\nthat he wrought miracles, but that he was the Messiah. With us there is\nno difference between these two things; with them there was the\ngreatest; and the difference is apparent in this transaction. If Saint\nJohn has represented the conduct of the Jews upon this occasion truly\n(and why he should not I cannot tell, for it rather makes against him\nthan for him), it shows clearly the principles upon which their judgment\nproceeded. Whether he has related the matter truly or not, the relation\nitself discovers the writer's own opinion of those principles: and that\nalone possesses considerable authority. In the next chapter, we have a\nreflection of the evangelist entirely suited to this state of the case:\n\"But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet believed they\nnot on him.\" (Chap. xii. 37.) The evangelist does not mean to impute the\ndefect of their belief to any doubt about the miracles, but to their not\nperceiving, what all now sufficiently perceive, and what they would have\nperceived had not their understandings been governed by strong\nprejudices, the infallible attestation which the works of Jesus bore to\nthe truth of his pretensions.\n\nThe ninth chapter of Saint John's Gospel contains a very circumstantial\naccount of the cure of a blind man; a miracle submitted to all the\nscrutiny and examination which a sceptic could propose. If a modern\nunbeliever had drawn up the interrogatories, they could hardly have been\nmore critical or searching. The account contains also a very curious\nconference between the Jewish rulers and the patient, in which the point\nfor our present notice is, their resistance of the force of the miracle,\nand of the conclusion to which it led, after they had failed in\ndiscrediting its evidence. \"We know that God spake unto Moses, but as\nfor this fellow, we know not whence he is.\" That was the answer which\nset their minds at rest. And by the help of much prejudice, and great\nunwillingness to yield, it might do so. In the mind of the poor man\nrestored to sight, which was under no such bias, and felt no such\nreluctance, the miracle had its natural operation. \"Herein,\" says he,\n\"is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, yet he hath\nopened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any\nman be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since\nthe world began, was it not heard, that any man opened the eyes of one\nthat was born blind. If this man were not of God, he could do nothing.\"\nWe do not find that the Jewish rulers had any other reply to make to\nthis defence, than that which authority is sometimes apt to make to\nargument, \"Dost thou teach us?\"\n\nIf it shall be inquired how a turn of thought, so different from what\nprevails at present, should obtain currency with the ancient Jews; the\nanswer is found in two opinions which are proved to have subsisted in\nthat age and country. The one was their expectation of a Messiah of a\nkind totally contrary to what the appearance of Jesus bespoke him to be;\nthe other, their persuasion of the agency of demons in the production of\nsupernatural effects. These opinions are not supposed by us for the\npurpose of argument, but are evidently recognised in the Jewish writings\nas well as in ours. And it ought moreover to be considered, that in\nthese opinions the Jews of that age had been from their infancy brought\nup; that they were opinions, the grounds of which they had probably few\nof them inquired into, and of the truth of which they entertained no\ndoubt. And I think that these two opinions conjointly afford an\nexplanation of their conduct. The first put them upon seeking out some\nexcuse to themselves for not receiving Jesus in the character in which\nhe claimed to be received; and the second supplied them with just such\nan excuse as they wanted. Let Jesus work what miracles he would, still\nthe answer was in readiness, \"that he wrought them by the assistance of\nBeelzebub.\" And to this answer no reply could be made, but that which\nour Saviour did make, by showing that the tendency of his mission was so\nadverse to the views with which this being was, by the objectors\nthemselves, supposed to act, that it could not reasonably be supposed\nthat he would assist in carrying it on. The power displayed in the\nmiracles did not alone refute the Jewish solution, because the\ninterposition of invisible agents being once admitted, it is impossible\nto ascertain the limits by which their efficiency is circumscribed. We\nof this day may be disposed possibly to think such opinions too absurd\nto have been ever seriously entertained. I am not bound to contend for\nthe credibility of the opinions. They were at least as reasonable as the\nbelief in witchcraft. They were opinions in which the Jews of that age\nhad from their infancy been instructed; and those who cannot see enough\nin the force of this reason to account for their conduct towards our\nSaviour, do not sufficiently consider how such opinions may sometimes\nbecome very general in a country, and with what pertinacity, when once\nbecome so, they are for that reason alone adhered to. In the suspense\nwhich these notions and the prejudices resulting from them might\noccasion, the candid and docile and humble-minded would probably decide\nin Christ's favour; the proud and obstinate, together with the giddy and\nthe thoughtless, almost universally against him.\n\nThis state of opinion discovers to us also the reason of what some\nchoose to wonder at, why the Jews should reject miracles when they saw\nthem, yet rely so much upon the tradition of them in their own history.\nIt does not appear that it had ever entered into the minds of those who\nlived in the time of Moses and the prophets to ascribe their miracles to\nthe supernatural agency of evil being. The solution was not then\ninvented. The authority of Moses and the prophets being established, and\nbecome the foundation of the national polity and religion, it was not\nprobable that the later Jews, brought up in a reverence for that\nreligion, and the subjects of that polity, should apply to their history\na reasoning which tended to overthrow the foundation of both.\n\nII. The infidelity of the Gentile world, and that more especially of men\nof rank and learning in it, is resolvable into a principle which, in my\njudgment, will account for the inefficacy of any argument or any\nevidence whatever, viz. contempt prior to examination. The state of\nreligion amongst the Greeks and Romans had a natural tendency to induce\nthis disposition. Dionysius Halicarnassensis remarks, that there were\nsix hundred different kinds of religions or sacred rites exercised at\nRome. (Jortin's Remarks on Eccl. Hist. Vol. i. p. 371.) The superior\nclasses of the community treated them all as fables. Can we wonder,\nthen, that Christianity was included in the number, without inquiry into\nits separate merits, or the particular grounds of its pretensions? It\nmight be either true or false for anything they knew about it. The\nreligion had nothing in its character which immediately engaged their\nnotice. It mixed with no politics. It produced no fine writers. It\ncontained no curious speculations. When it did reach their knowledge, I\ndoubt not but that it appeared to them a very strange system,--so\nunphilosophical,--dealing so little in argument and discussion, in such\narguments however and discussions as they were accustomed to entertain.\nWhat is said of Jesus Christ, of his nature, office, and ministry, would\nbe in the highest degree alien from the conceptions of their theology.\nThe Redeemer and the destined Judge of the human race a poor young man,\nexecuted at Jerusalem with two thieves upon a cross! Still more would\nthe language in which the Christian doctrine was delivered be dissonant\nand barbarous to their ears. What knew they of grace, of redemption, of\njustification, of the blood of Christ shed for the sins of men, of\nreconcilement, of mediation? Christianity was made up of points they had\nnever thought of; of terms which they had never heard.\n\nIt was presented also to the imagination of the learned Heathen under\nadditional disadvantage, by reason of its real, and still more of its\nnominal, connexion with Judaism. It shared in the obloquy and ridicule\nwith which that people and their religion were treated by the Greeks and\nRomans. They regarded Jehovah himself only as the idol of the Jewish\nnation, and what was related of him as of a piece with what was told of\nthe tutelar deities of other countries; nay, the Jews were in a\nparticular manner ridiculed for being a credulous race; so that whatever\nreports of a miraculous nature came out of that country were looked upon\nby the Heathen world as false and frivolous. When they heard of\nChristianity, they heard of it as a quarrel amongst this people about\nsome articles of their own superstition. Despising, therefore, as they\ndid, the whole system, it was not probable that they would enter, with\nany degree of seriousness or attention, into the detail of its disputes\nor the merits of either side. How little they knew, and with what\ncarelessness they judged of these matters, appears, I think, pretty\nplainly from an example of no less weight than that of Tacitus, who, in\na grave and professed discourse upon the history of the Jews, states\nthat they worshipped the effigy of an ass. (Tacit. Hist. lib. v. c. 2.)\nThe passage is a proof how prone the learned men of those times were,\nand upon how little evidence, to heap together stories which might\nincrease the contempt and odium in which that people was holden. The\nsame foolish charge is also confidently repeated by Plutarch. (Sympos.\nlib. iv. quaest. 5.)\n\nIt is observable that all these considerations are of a nature to\noperate with the greatest force upon the highest ranks; upon men of\neducation, and that order of the public from which writers are\nprincipally taken: I may add also upon the philosophical as well as the\nlibertine character; upon the Antonines or Julian, not less than upon\nNero or Domitian; and, more particularly, upon that large and polished\nclass of men who acquiesced in the general persuasion, that all they had\nto do was to practise the duties of morality, and to worship the Deity\nmore patrio; a habit of thinking, liberal as it may appear, which shuts\nthe door against every argument for a new religion. The considerations\nabove mentioned would acquire also strength from the prejudices which\nmen of rank and learning universally entertain against anything that\noriginates with the vulgar and illiterate; which prejudice is known to\nbe as obstinate as any prejudice whatever.\n\nYet Christianity was still making its way: and, amidst so many\nimpediments to its progress, so much difficulty in procuring audience\nand attention, its actual success is more to be wondered at, than that\nit should not have universally conquered scorn and indifference, fixed\nthe levity of a voluptuous age, or, through a cloud of adverse\nprejudications, opened for itself a passage to the hearts and\nunderstandings of the scholars of the age.\n\nAnd the cause which is here assigned for the rejection of Christianity\nby men of rank and learning among the Heathens, namely, a strong\nantecedent contempt, accounts also for their silence concerning it. If\nthey had rejected it upon examination, they would have written about it;\nthey would have given their reasons. Whereas, what men repudiate upon\nthe strength of some prefixed persuasion, or from a settled contempt of\nthe subject, of the persons who propose it, or of the manner in which it\nis proposed, they do not naturally write books about, or notice much in\nwhat they write upon other subjects.\n\nThe letters of the younger Pliny furnish an example of this silence, and\nlet us, in some measure, into the cause of it. From his celebrated\ncorrespondence with Trajan, we know that the Christian religion\nprevailed in a very considerable degree in the province over which he\npresided; that it had excited his attention; that he had inquired into\nthe matter just so much as a Roman magistrate might be expected to\ninquire, viz., whether the religion contained any opinions dangerous to\ngovernment; but that of its doctrines, its evidences, or its books, he\nhad not taken the trouble to inform himself with any degree of care or\ncorrectness. But although Pliny had viewed Christianity in a nearer\nposition than most of his learned countrymen saw it in, yet he had\nregarded the whole with such negligence and disdain (further than as it\nseemed to concern his administration), that, in more than two hundred\nand forty letters of his which have come down to us, the subject is\nnever once again mentioned. If, out of this number, the two letters\nbetween him and Trajan had been lost, with what confidence would the\nobscurity of the Christian religion have been argued from Pliny's\nsilence about it, and with how little truth!\n\nThe name and character which Tacitus has given to Christianity,\n\"exitiabilis superstitio\" (a pernicious superstition), and by which two\nwords he disposes of the whole question of the merits or demerits of the\nreligion, afford a strong proof how little he knew, or concerned himself\nto know, about the matter. I apprehend that I shall not be contradicted,\nwhen I take upon me to assert, that no unbeliever of the present age\nwould apply this epithet to the Christianity of the New Testament, or\nnot allow that it was entirely unmerited. Read the instructions given by\na great teacher of the religion to those very Roman converts of whom\nTacitus speaks; and given also a very few years before the time of which\nhe is speaking; and which are not, let it be observed, a collection of\nfine sayings brought together from different parts of a large work, but\nstand in one entire passage of a public letter, without the intermixture\nof a single thought which is frivolous or exceptionable:--\"Abhor that\nwhich is evil, cleave to that which is good. Be kindly affectioned one\nto another, with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; not\nslothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; rejoicing in\nhope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer; distributing\nto the necessity of saints; given to hospitality. Bless them which\npersecute you; bless, and curse not. Rejoice with them that do rejoice,\nand weep with them that weep. Be of the same mind one towards another.\nMind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise\nin your own conceits. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things\nhonest in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as lieth in\nyou, live peaceably with all men. Avenge not yourselves, but rather give\nplace unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay,\nsaith the Lord: therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he\nthirst, give him drink: for, in so doing, thou shalt heap coals of fire\non his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.\n\n\"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power\nbut of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever,\ntherefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they\nthat resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a\nterror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of\nthe power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the\nsame: for he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do\nthat which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for\nhe is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that\ndoeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but\nalso for conscience' sake. For, for this cause pay ye tribute also: for\nthey are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.\nRender therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due;\ncustom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.\n\n\"Owe no man anything, but to love one another; for he that loveth\nanother, hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit\nadultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear\nfalse witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other\ncommandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, Thou shalt love\nthy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour;\ntherefore love is the fulfilling of the law.\n\n\"And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of\nsleep; for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night\nis far spent, the day is at hand; let us therefore cast off the works of\ndarkness, and let us put on the armour of light. Let us walk honestly as\nin the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and\nwantonness, not in strife and envying.\" (Romans, xii. 9--xiii. 13.)\n\nRead this, and then think of \"exitiabilis superstitio!\" Or, if we be not\nallowed, in contending with Heathen authorities, to produce our books\nagainst theirs, we may at least be permitted to confront theirs with one\nanother. Of this \"pernicious superstition\" what could Pliny find to\nblame, when he was led, by his office, to institute something like an\nexamination into the conduct and principles of the sect? He discovered\nnothing but that they were went to meet together on a stated day before\nit was light, and sing among themselves a hymn to Christ as a God, and\nto bind themselves by an oath, not to the commission of any wickedness,\nbut, not to be guilty of theft, robbery, or adultery; never to falsify\ntheir word, nor to deny a pledge committed to them, when called upon to\nreturn it.\n\nUpon the words of Tacitus we may build the following observations:\n\nFirst; That we are well warranted in calling the view under which the\nlearned men of that age beheld Christianity an obscure and distant view.\nHad Tacitus known more of Christianity, of its precepts, duties,\nconstitution, or design, however he had discredited the story, he would\nhave respected the principle. He would have described the religion\ndifferently, though he had rejected it. It has been very satisfactorily\nshown, that the \"superstition\" of the Christians consisted in\nworshipping a person unknown to the Roman calendar; and that the\n\"perniciousness\" with which they were reproached was nothing else but\ntheir opposition to the established polytheism; and this view of the\nmatter was just such an one as might be expected to occur to a mind\nwhich held the sect in too much contempt to concern itself about the\ngrounds and reasons of their conduct.\n\nSecondly; We may from hence remark how little reliance can be placed\nupon the most acute judgments in subjects which they are pleased to\ndespise; and which, of course, they from the first consider as unworthy\nto be inquired into. Had not Christianity survived to tell its own\nstory, it must have gone down to posterity as a \"pernicious\nsuperstition;\" and that upon the credit of Tacitus's account, much, I\ndoubt not, strengthened by the name of the writer, and the reputation of\nhis sagacity.\n\nThirdly; That this contempt, prior to examination, is an intellectual\nvice, from which the greatest faculties of mind are not free. I know\nnot, indeed, whether men of the greatest faculties of mind are not the\nmost subject to it. Such men feel themselves seated upon an eminence.\nLooking down from their height upon the follies of mankind, they behold\ncontending tenets wasting their idle strength upon one another with the\ncommon disdain of the absurdity of them all. This habit of thought,\nhowever comfortable to the mind which entertain it, or however natural\nto great parts, is extremely dangerous; and more apt than almost any\nother disposition to produce hasty and contemptuous, and, by\nconsequence, erroneous judgments, both of persons and opinions.\n\nFourthly; We need not be surprised at many writers of that age not\nmentioning Christianity at all, when they who did mention it appear to\nhave entirely misconceived its nature and character; and, in consequence\nof this misconception, to have regarded it with negligence and contempt.\n\nTo the knowledge of the greatest part of the learned heathens, the facts\nof the Christian history could only come by report. The books, probably,\nthey had never looked into. The settled habit of their minds was, and\nlong had been, an indiscriminate rejection of all reports of the kind.\nWith these sweeping conclusions truth hath no chance. It depends upon\ndistinction. If they would not inquire, how should they be convinced? It\nmight be founded in truth, though they, who made no search, might not\ndiscover it.\n\n\"Men of rank and fortune, of wit and abilities, are often found, even in\nChristian countries, to be surprisingly ignorant of religion, and of\neverything that relates to it. Such were many of the heathens. Their\nthoughts were all fixed upon other things; upon reputation and glory,\nupon wealth and power, upon luxury and pleasure, upon business or\nlearning. They thought, and they had reason to think, that the religion\nof their country was fable and forgery, a heap of inconsistent lies;\nwhich inclined them to suppose that other religions were no better.\nHence it came to pass, that when the apostles preached the Gospel, and\nwrought miracles in confirmation of a doctrine every way worthy of God,\nmany Gentiles knew little or nothing of it, and would not take the least\npains to inform themselves about it. This appears plainly from ancient\nhistory.\" (Jortin's Disc. on the Christ. Rel. p. 66, ed. 4th.)\n\nI think it by no means unreasonable to suppose that the heathen public,\nespecially that part which is made up of men of rank and education, were\ndivided into two classes; these who despised Christianity beforehand,\nand those who received it. In correspondency with which division of\ncharacter the writers of that age would also be of two classes; those\nwho were silent about Christianity, and those who were Christians. \"A\ngood man, who attended sufficiently to the Christian affairs, would\nbecome a Christian; after which his testimony ceased to be pagan and\nbecame Christian.\" (Hartley, Obs. p. 119.)\n\nI must also add, that I think it sufficiently proved, that the notion of\nmagic was resorted to by the heathen adversaries of Christianity, in\nlike manner as that of diabolical agency had before been by the Jews.\nJustin Martyr alleges this as his reason for arguing from prophecy\nrather than from miracles. Origen imputes this evasion to Celsus; Jerome\nto Porphyry; and Lactantius to the heathen in general. The several\npassages which contain these testimonies will be produced in the next\nchapter. It being difficult, however, to ascertain in what degree this\nnotion prevailed, especially the superior ranks of the heathen\ncommunities, another, and think an adequate, cause has been assigned for\ntheir infidelity. It is probable that in many cases the two causes would\ntogether.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHAT THE CHRISTIAN MIRACLES ARE NOT RECITED, OR APPEALED TO, BY EARLY\nCHRISTIAN WRITERS THEMSELVES SO FULLY OR FREQUENTLY AS MIGHT HAVE BEEN\nEXPECTED.\n\nI shall consider this objection, first, as it applies to the letters of\nthe apostles preserved in the New Testament; and secondly, as it applies\nto the remaining writings of other early Christians.\n\nThe epistles of the apostles are either hortatory or argumentative. So\nfar as they were occupied in delivering lessons of duty, rules of public\norder, admonitions against certain prevailing corruptions, against vice,\nor any particular species of it, or in fortifying and encouraging the\nconstancy of the disciples under the trials to which they were exposed,\nthere appears to be no place or occasion for more of these references\nthan we actually find.\n\nSo far as these epistles are argumentative, the nature of the argument\nwhich they handle accounts for the infrequency of these allusions. These\nepistles were not written to prove the truth of Christianity. The\nsubject under consideration was not that which the miracles decided, the\nreality of our Lord's mission; but it was that which the miracles did\nnot decide, the nature of his person or power, the design of his advent,\nits effects, and of those effects the value, kind, and extent. Still I\nmaintain that miraculous evidence lies at the bottom of the argument. For\nnothing could be so preposterous as for the disciples of Jesus to\ndispute amongst themselves, or with others, concerning his office or\ncharacter; unless they believed that he had shown, by supernatural\nproofs, that there was something extraordinary in both. Miraculous\nevidence, therefore, forming not the texture of these arguments, but the\nground and substratum, if it be occasionally discerned, if it be\nincidentally appealed to, it is exactly so much as ought take place,\nsupposing the history to be true.\n\nAs a further answer to the objection, that the apostolic epistles do not\ncontain so frequent, or such direct and circumstantial recitals of\nmiracles as might be expected, I would add, that the apostolic epistles\nresemble in this respect the apostolic speeches, which speeches are\ngiven by a writer who distinctly records numerous miracles wrought by\nthese apostles themselves, and by the Founder of the institution in\ntheir presence; that it is unwarrantable to contend that the omission,\nor infrequency, of such recitals in the speeches of the apostles\nnegatives the existence of the miracles, when the speeches are given in\nimmediate conjunction with the history of those miracles: and that a\nconclusion which cannot be inferred from the speeches without\ncontradicting the whole tenour of the book which contains them cannot be\ninferred from letters, which in this respect are similar only to the\nspeeches.\n\nTo prove the similitude which we allege, it may be remarked, that\nalthough in Saint Luke's Gospel the apostle Peter is represented to have\nbeen present at many decisive miracles wrought by Christ; and although\nthe second part of the same history ascribes other decisive miracles to\nPeter himself, particularly the cure of the lame man at the gate of the\ntemple (Acts iii. 1), the death of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts v. 1), the\ncure of Aeneas (Acts ix. 34), the resurrection of Dorcas (Acts ix. 40);\nyet out of six speeches of Peter, preserved in the Acts, I know but two\nin which reference is made to the miracles wrought by Christ, and only\none in which he refers to miraculous powers possessed by himself. In his\nspeech upon the day of Pentecost, Peter addresses his audience with\ngreat solemnity thus: \"Ye men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of\nNazareth, a man approved of God among you, by miracles, and wonders, and\nsigns, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also\nknow:\" (Acts ii. 22.) &c. In his speech upon the conversion of\nCornelius, he delivers his testimony to the miracles performed by Christ\nin these words: \"We are witnesses of all things which he did, both in\nthe land of the Jews and in Jerusalem.\" (Acts x. 39.) But in this latter\nspeech no allusion appears to the miracles wrought by himself\nnotwithstanding that the miracles above enumerated all preceded the time\nin which it was delivered. In his speech upon the election of\nMatthias, (Acts i. 15.) no distinct reference is made to any of the\nmiracles of Christ's history except his resurrection. The same also may\nbe observed of his speech upon the cure of the lame man at the of the\ntemple; (Acts iii. 12.) the same in his speech before the Sanhedrim;\n(Acts iv. 8.) the same in his second apology in the presence of that\nassembly Stephen's long speech contains no reference whatever to\nmiracles, though it be expressly related of him, in the book which\npreserves the speech, and almost immediately before the speech, \"that he\ndid great wonders and miracles among the people.\" (Acts vi. 8.) Again,\nalthough miracles be expressly attributed to Saint Paul in the Acts of\nthe Apostles, first generally, as at Iconium (Acts xiv. 3), during the\nwhole tour through the Upper Asia (xiv. 27; xv. 12), at Ephesus (xix.\n11, 12); secondly, in specific instances, as the blindness of Elymas at\nPaphos, (Acts xiii. 11.) the cure of the cripple at Lystra, (Acts xiv. 8.)\nof the pythoness at Philippi, (Acts xvi. 16.) the miraculous liberation\nfrom prison in the same city, (Acts xvi. 26.) the restoration of\nEutychus, (Acts xx. 10.) the predictions of his shipwreck, (Acts xxvii.\n1.) the viper at Melita, the cure of Publius's father; (Acts xxvii. 8.)\nat all which miracles, except the first two, the historian himself was\npresent: notwithstanding, I say, this positive ascription of miracles to\nSt. Paul, yet in the speeches delivered by him, and given as delivered\nby him, in the same book in which the miracles are related, and the\nmiraculous powers asserted, the appeals to his own miracles, or indeed\nto any miracles at all, are rare and incidental. In his speech at\nAntioch in Pisidia, (Acts xiii. 16.) there is no allusion but to the\nresurrection. In his discourse at Miletus, (Acts xx. 17.) none to any\nmiracle: none in his speech before Felix; (Acts xxiv. 10.) none in his\nspeech before Festus; (Acts xxv. 8.) except to Christ's resurrection and\nhis own conversion.\n\nAgreeably hereunto, in thirteen letters ascribed to Saint Paul, we have\nincessant references to Christ's resurrection, frequent references to\nhis own conversion, three indubitable references to the miracles which\nhe wrought; (Gal. iii. 5; Rom. xv. 18, 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12.) four other\nreferences to the same, less direct, yet highly probable; (1 Cor. ii. 4,5;\nEph. iii. 7; Gal. ii. 8; 1 Thess. i. 8.) but more copious or\ncircumstantial recitals we have not. The consent, therefore, between\nSaint Paul's speeches and letters is in this respect sufficiently exact;\nand the reason in both is the same, namely, that the miraculous history\nwas all along presupposed, and that the question which occupied the\nspeaker's and the writer's thoughts was this: whether, allowing the\nhistory of Jesus to be true, he was, upon the strength of it, to be\nreceived as the promised Messiah; and, if he was, what were the\nconsequences, what was the object and benefit of his mission?\n\nThe general observation which has been made upon the apostolic writings,\nnamely, that the subject of which they treated did not lead them to any\ndirect recital of the Christian history, belongs to the writings of the\napostolic fathers. The epistle of Barnabas is, in its subject and\ngeneral composition, much like the epistle to the Hebrews; an\nallegorical application of divers passages of the Jewish history, of\ntheir law and ritual, to those parts of the Christian dispensation in\nwhich the author perceived a resemblance. The epistle of Clement was\nwritten for the sole purpose of quieting certain dissensions that had\narisen amongst the members of the church of Corinth, and of reviving in\ntheir minds that temper and spirit of which their predecessors in the\nGospel had left them an example. The work of Hermas is a vision; quotes\nneither the Old Testament nor the New, and merely falls now and then\ninto the language and the mode of speech which the author had read in\nour Gospels. The epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius had for their\nprincipal object the order and discipline of the churches which they\naddressed. Yet, under all these circumstances of disadvantage, the great\npoints of the Christian history are fully recognised. This hath been\nshown in its proper place. (Vide supra, pp. 48-51. [Part 1, Chapter 8])\n\nThere is, however, another class of writers to whom the answer above\ngiven, viz. the unsuitableness of any such appeals or references as the\nobjection demands to the subjects of which the writings treated, does\nnot apply; and that is the class of ancient apologists, whose declared\ndesign it was to defend Christianity, and to give the reasons of their\nadherence to it. It is necessary, therefore, to inquire how the matter\nof the objection stands in these.\n\nThe most ancient apologist of whose works we have the smallest knowledge\nis Quadratus. Quadratus lived about seventy years after the ascension,\nand presented his apology to the Emperor Adrian. From a passage of this\nwork, preserved in Eusebius, it appears that the author did directly and\nformally appeal to the miracles of Christ, and in terms as express and\nconfident as we could desire. The passage (which has been once already\nstated) is as follows: \"The works of our Saviour were always\nconspicuous, for they were real: both they that were healed, and they\nthat were raised from the dead, were seen, not only when they were\nhealed or raised, but for a long time afterwards; not only whilst he\ndwelled on this earth, but also after his departure, and for a good\nwhile after it; insomuch as that some of them have reached to our\ntimes,\" (Euseb. Hist. I. iv. c. 3.) Nothing can be more rational or\nsatisfactory than this.\n\n\nJustin Martyr, the next of the Christian apologists, whose work is not\nlost, and who followed Quadratus at the distance of about thirty years,\nhas touched upon passages of Christ's history in so many places, that a\ntolerably complete account of Christ's life might be collected out of\nhis works. In the following quotation he asserts the performance of\nmiracles by Christ, in words as strong and positive as the language\npossesses: \"Christ healed those who from their birth were blind, and\ndeaf, and lame; causing, by his word, one to leap, another to hear, and\na third to see; and having raised the dead, and caused them to live, he,\nby his works, excited attention, and induced the men of that age to know\nhim: who, however, seeing these things done, said that it was a magical\nappearance, and dared to call him a magician, and a deceiver of the\npeople.\" (Just. Dial. p. 258, ed. Thirlby.)\n\nIn his first apology, (Apolog. prim. p. 48, ib.) Justin expressly\nassigns the reason for his having recourse to the argument from\nprophecy, rather than alleging the miracles of the Christian history;\nwhich reason was, that the persons with whom he contended would ascribe\nthese miracles to magic; \"lest any of our opponents should say, What\nhinders, but that he who is called Christ by us, being a man sprung from\nmen, performed the miracles which we attribute to him by magical art?\"\nThe suggestion of this reason meets, as I apprehend, the very point of\nthe present objection; more especially when we find Justin followed in\nit by other writers of that age. Irenaeus, who came about forty years\nafter him, notices the same evasion in the adversaries of Christianity,\nand replies to it by the same argument: \"But if they shall say, that the\nLord performed these things by an illusory appearance (phantasiodos),\nleading these objectors to the prophecies, we will show from them, that\nall things were thus predicted concerning him, and Strictly came to\npass.\" (Iren. I. ii. c. 57.) Lactantius, who lived a century lower,\ndelivers the same sentiment upon the same occasion: \"He performed\nmiracles;--we might have supposed him to have been a magician, as ye\nsay, and as the Jews then supposed, if all the prophets had not with one\nspirit foretold that Christ should perform these very things.\" (Lactant.\nv. 3.)\n\nBut to return to the Christian apologists in their order.\nTertullian:--\"That person whom the Jews had vainly imagined, from the\nmeanness of his appearance, to be a mere man, they afterwards, in\nconsequence of the power he exerted, considered as a magician, when he,\nwith one word, ejected devils out of the bodies of men, gave sight to\nthe blind, cleansed the leprous, strengthened the nerves of those that\nhad the palsy, and lastly, with one command, restored the dead to life;\nwhen he, I say, made the very elements obey him, assuaged the storms,\nwalked upon the seas, demonstrating himself to be the Word of God.\"\n(Tertul. Apolos. p. 20; ed. Priorii, Par. 1675.)\n\nNext in the catalogue of professed apologists we may place Origen, who,\nit is well known, published a formal defence of Christianity, in answer\nto Celsus, a heathen, who had written a discourse against it. I know no\nexpressions by which a plainer or more positive appeal to the Christian\nmiracles can be made, than the expressions used by Origen; \"Undoubtedly\nwe do think him to be the Christ, and the Son of God, because he healed\nthe lame and the blind; and we are the more confirmed in this persuasion\nby what is written in the prophecies: 'Then shall the eyes of the blind\nbe opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear, and the lame man shall\nleap as a hart.' But that he also raised the dead, and that it is not a\nfiction of those who wrote the Gospels, is evident from hence, that if\nit had been a fiction, there would have been many recorded to be raised\nup, and such as had been a long time in their graves. But, it not being\na fiction, few have been recorded: for instance, the daughter of the\nruler of a synagogue, of whom I do not know why he said, She is not\ndead, but sleepeth, expressing something peculiar to her, not common to\nall dead persons: and the only son of a widow, on whom he had\ncompassion, and raised him to life, after he had bid the bearers of the\ncorpse to stop; and the third, Lazarus, who had been buried four days.\"\nThis is positively to assert the miracles of Christ, and it is also to\ncomment upon them, and that with a considerable degree of accuracy and\ncandour.\n\nIn another passage of the same author, we meet with the old solution of\nmagic applied to the miracles of Christ by the adversaries of the\nreligion. \"Celsus,\" saith Origen, \"well knowing what great works may be\nalleged to have been done by Jesus, pretends to grant that the things\nrelated of him are true; such as healing diseases, raising the dead,\nfeeding multitudes with a few leaves, of which large fragments were\nleft.\" (Orig. cont. Cels. lib. ii. sect. 48.) And then Celsus gives, it\nseems, an answer to these proofs of our Lord's mission, which, as Origen\nunderstood it, resolved the phenomena into magic; for Origen begins his\nreply by observing, \"You see that Celsus in a manner allows that there\nis such a thing as magic.\" (Lardner's Jewish and Heath. Test, vol. ii.\np. 294, ed. 4to.)\n\nIt appears also from the testimony of St. Jerome, that Porphyry, the\nmost learned and able of the heathen writers against Christianity,\nresorted to the same solution: \"Unless,\" says he, speaking to\nVigilantius, \"according to the manner of the Gentiles and the profane,\nof Porphyry and Eunomius, you pretend that these are the tricks of\ndemons.\" (Jerome cont. Vigil.)\n\nThis magic, these demons, this illusory appearance, this comparison with\nthe tricks of jugglers, by which many of that age accounted so easily\nfor the Christian miracles, and which answers the advocates of\nChristianity often thought it necessary to refute by arguments drawn\nfrom other topics, and particularly from prophecy (to which, it seems,\nthese solutions did not apply), we now perceive to be gross subterfuges.\nThat such reasons were ever seriously urged and seriously received, is\nonly a proof what a gloss and varnish fashion can give to any opinion.\n\nIt appears, therefore, that the miracles of Christ, understood as we\nunderstand them in their literal and historical sense, were positively\nand precisely asserted and appealed to by the apologists for\nChristianity; which answers the allegation of the objection.\n\nI am ready, however, to admit, that the ancient Christian advocates did\nnot insist upon the miracles in argument so frequently as I should have\ndone. It was their lot to contend with notions of magical agency,\nagainst which the mere production of the facts was not sufficient for\nthe convincing of their adversaries: I do not know whether they\nthemselves thought it quite decisive of the controversy. But since it is\nproved, I conceive with certainty, that the sparingness with which they\nappealed to miracles was owing neither to their ignorance nor their\ndoubt of the facts, it is, at any rate, an objection not to the truth of\nthe history, but to the judgment of its defenders.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nWANT OF UNIVERSALITY IN THE KNOWLEDGE AND RECEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY, AND\nOF GREATER CLEARNESS IN THE EVIDENCE.\n\nOr, a Revelation which really came from God, the proof, it has been\nsaid, would in all ages be so public and manifest, that no part of the\nhuman species would remain ignorant of it, no understanding could fail\nof being convinced by it.\n\nThe advocates of Christianity do not pretend that the evidence of their\nreligion possesses these qualities. They do not deny that we can\nconceive it to be within the compass of divine power to have\ncommunicated to the world a higher degree of assurance, and to have\ngiven to his communication a stronger and more extensive influence. For\nanything we are able to discern, God could have so formed men, as to\nhave perceived the truths of religion intuitively; or to have carried on\na communication with the other world whilst they lived in this; or to\nhave seen the individuals of the species, instead of dying, pass to\nheaven by a sensible translation. He could have presented a separate\nmiracle to each man's senses. He could have established a standing\nmiracle. He could have caused miracles to be wrought in every different\nage and country. These and many more methods, which we may imagine if we\nonce give loose to our imaginations, are, so far as we can judge, all\npracticable.\n\nThe question therefore is, not whether Christianity possesses the\nhighest possible degree of evidence, but whether the not having more\nevidence be a sufficient reason for rejecting that which we have.\n\nNow there appears to be no fairer method of judging concerning any\ndispensation which is alleged to come from God, when question is made\nwhether such a dispensation could come from God or not, than by\ncomparing it with other things which are acknowledged to proceed from\nthe same counsel, and to be produced by the same agency. If the\ndispensation in question labour under no defects but what apparently\nbelong to other dispensations, these seeming defects do not justify us\nin setting aside the proofs which are offered of its authenticity, if\nthey be otherwise entitled to credit.\n\nThroughout that order then of nature, of which God is the author, what\nwe find is a system of beneficence: we are seldom or never able to make\nout a system of optimism. I mean, that there are few cases in which, if\nwe permit ourselves to range in possibilities, we cannot suppose\nsomething more perfect, and, more unobjectionable, than what we see. The\nrain which descends from heaven is confessedly amongst the contrivances\nof the Creator for the sustentation of the animals and vegetables which\nsubsist upon the surface of the earth. Yet how partially: and\nirregularly is it supplied! How much of it falls upon sea, where it can\nbe of no use! how often is it wanted where it would be of the greatest!\nWhat tracts of continent are rendered deserts by the scarcity of it! Or,\nnot to speak of extreme cases, how much sometimes do inhabited countries\nsuffer by its deficiency or delay!--We could imagine, if to imagine were\nour business, the matter to be otherwise regulated. We could imagine\nshowers to fall just where and when they would do good; always\nseasonable, everywhere sufficient; so distributed as not to leave a\nfield upon the face of the globe scorched by drought or even a plant\nwithering for the lack of moisture. Yet, does the difference between the\nreal case and the imagined case, or the seeming inferiority of the one\nto the other, authorise us to say, that the present disposition of the\natmosphere is not amongst the productions or the designs of the Deity?\nDoes it check the inference which we draw from the confessed beneficence\nof the provision? or does it make us cease to admire the contrivance?\nThe observation which we have exemplified in the single instance of the\nrain of heaven may be repeated concerning most of the phenomena of\nnature; and the true conclusion to which it leads is this--that to\ninquire what the Deity might have done, could have done, or, as we even\nsometimes presume to speak, ought to have done, or, in hypothetical\ncases, would have done; and to build any propositions upon such\ninquiries against evidence of facts, is wholly unwarrantable. It is a\nmode of reasoning which will not do in natural history, which will not\ndo in natural religion, which cannot therefore be applied with safety to\nrevelation. It may have same foundation in certain speculative a priori\nideas of the divine attributes, but it has none in experience or in\nanalogy. The general character of the works of nature is, on the one\nhand, goodness both in design and effect; and, on the other hand, a\nliability to difficulty and to objections, if such objections be\nallowed, by reason of seeming incompleteness or uncertainty in attaining\ntheir end. Christianity participates of this character. The true\nsimilitude between nature and revelation consists in this--that they\neach bear strong marks of their original, that they each also bear\nappearances of irregularity and defect. A system of strict optimism may,\nnevertheless, be the real system in both cases. But what I contend is,\nthat the proof is hidden from us; that we ought not to expect to\nperceive that in revelation which we hardly perceive in anything; that\nbeneficence, of which, we can judge, ought to satisfy us that optimism,\nof which we cannot judge, ought not to be sought after. We can judge of\nbeneficence, because it depends upon effects which we experience, and\nupon the relation between the means which we see acting and the ends\nwhich we see produced. We cannot judge of optimism because it\nnecessarily implies a comparison of that which is tried with that which\nis not tried; of consequences which we see with others which we imagine,\nand concerning many of which, it is more than probable, we know nothing;\nconcerning some that we have no notion.\n\nIf Christianity be compared with the state and progress of natural\nreligion, the argument of the objector will gain nothing by the\ncomparison. I remember hearing an unbeliever say that, if God had given\na revelation, he would have written it in the skies. Are the truths of\nnatural religion written in the skies, or in a language which every one\nreads? or is this the case with the most useful arts, or the most\nnecessary sciences of human life? An Otaheitean or an Esquimaux knows\nnothing of Christianity; does he know more of the principles of deism or\nmorality? which, notwithstanding his ignorance, are neither untrue, nor\nunimportant, nor uncertain. The existence of Deity is left to be\ncollected from observations, which every man does not make, which every\nman, perhaps, is not capable of making. Can it be argued that God does\nnot exist because if he did, he would let us see him, or discover\nhimself to man kind by proofs (such as, we may think, the nature of the\nsubject merited) which no inadvertency could miss, no prejudice\nwithstand?\n\nIf Christianity be regarded as a providential instrument the melioration\nof mankind, its progress and diffusion that of other causes by which\nhuman life is improved diversity is not greater, nor the advance more\nslow, in than we find it to be in learning, liberty, government, laws.\nThe Deity hath not touched the order of nature in vain. The Jewish\nreligion produced great and permanent effects; the Christian religion\nhath done the same. It hath disposed the world to amendment: it hath put\nthings in a train. It is by no means improbable that it may become\nuniversal; and that the world may continue in that stage so long as that\nthe duration of its reign may bear a vast proportion to the time of its\npartial influence.\n\nWhen we argue concerning Christianity, that it must necessarily be true\nbecause it is beneficial, we go, perhaps, too far on one side; and we\ncertainly go too far on the other when we conclude that it must be false\nbecause it is not so efficacious as we could have supposed. The question\nof its truth is to be tried upon its proper evidence, without deferring\nmuch to this sort of argument on either side. \"The evidence,\" as Bishop\nButler hath rightly observed, \"depends upon the judgment we form of\nhuman conduct, under given circumstances, of which it may be presumed\nthat we know something; the objection stands upon the supposed conduct\nof the Deity, under relations with which we are not acquainted.\"\n\nWhat would be the real effect of that overpowering evidence which our\nadversaries require in a revelation it is difficult foretell; at least\nwe must speak of it as of a dispensation which we have no experience.\nSome consequences, however, would, it is probable, attend this economy,\nwhich do not seem to befit a revelation that proceeded from God. One is,\nthat irresistible proof would restrain the voluntary powers too much;\nwould not answer the purpose of trial and probation; would call for no\nexercise of candour, seriousness, humility, inquiry, no submission of\npassion, interests, and prejudices, to moral evidence and to probable\ntruth; no habits of reflection; none of that previous desire to learn\nand to obey the will of God, which forms perhaps the test of the\nvirtuous principle, and which induces men to attend, with care and\nreverence, to every credible intimation of that will, and to resign\npresent advantages and present pleasures to every reasonable expectation\nof propitiating his favour. \"Men's moral probation may be, whether they\nwill take due care to inform themselves by impartial consideration; and,\nafterwards, whether they will act, as the case requires, upon the\nevidence which they have. And this we find by experience is often our\nprobation in our temporal capacity.\" (Butler's Analogy, part ii. c. 6.)\n\nII. These modes of communication would leave no place for the admission\nof internal evidence; which ought, perhaps, to bear a considerable part\nin the proof of every revelation, because it is a species of evidence\nwhich applies itself to the knowledge, love, and practice, of virtue,\nand which operates in proportion to the degree of those qualities which\nit finds in the person whom it addresses. Men of good dispositions,\namongst Christians, are greatly affected by the impression which the\nScriptures themselves make upon their minds. Their conviction is much\nstrengthened by these impressions. And this perhaps was intended to be\none effect to be produced by the religion. It is likewise true, to\nwhatever cause we ascribe it (for I am not in this work at liberty to\nintroduce the Christian doctrine of grace or assistance, or the\nChristian promise that, \"if any man will do his will, he shall know of\nthe doctrine, whether it be of God\" John vii. 17.),--it is true, I say,\nthat they who sincerely act, or sincerely endeavour to act, according to\nwhat they believe, that is, according to the just result of the\nprobabilities, or, if you please, the possibilities in natural and\nrevealed religion, which they themselves perceive, and according to a\nrational estimate of consequences, and, above all, according to the just\neffect of those principles of gratitude and devotion which even the view\nof nature generates in a well-ordered mind, seldom fail of proceeding\nfarther. This also may have been exactly what was designed.\n\nWhereas, may it not be said that irresistible evidence would confound\nall characters and all dispositions? would subvert rather than promote\nthe true purpose of the Divine counsels; which is, not to produce\nobedience by a force little short of mechanical constraint, (which\nobedience would be regularity, not virtue, and would hardly perhaps\ndiffer from that which inanimate bodies pay to the laws impressed upon\ntheir nature), but to treat moral agents agreeably to what they are;\nwhich is done, when light and motives are of such kinds, and are\nimparted in such measures, that the influence of them depends upon the\nrecipients themselves? \"It is not meet to govern rational free agents in\nvia by sight and sense. It would be no trial or thanks to the most\nsensual wretch to forbear sinning, if heaven and hell were open to his\nsight. That spiritual vision and fruition is our state in patria.\"\n(Baxter's Reasons, p. 357.) There may be truth in this thought, though\nroughly expressed. Few things are more improbable than that we (the\nhuman species) should be the highest order of beings in the universe:\nthat animated nature should ascend from the lowest reptile to us, and\nall at once stop there. If there be classes above us of rational\nintelligences, clearer manifestations may belong to them. This may be\none of the distinctions. And it may be one to which we ourselves\nhereafter shall attain.\n\n\nIII. But may it not also be asked, whether the perfect display of a\nfuture state of existence would be compatible with the activity of civil\nlife, and with the success of human affairs? I can easily conceive that\nthis impression may be overdone; that it may so seize and fill the\nthoughts as to leave no place for the cares and offices of men's several\nstations, no anxiety for worldly prosperity, or even for a worldly\nprovision, and, by consequence, no sufficient stimulus to secular\nindustry. Of the first Christians we read, \"that all that believed were\ntogether, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and\ngoods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need; and continuing\ndaily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to\nhouse, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart\" (Acts\nii. 44-46.) This was extremely natural, and just what might be expected\nfrom miraculous evidence coming with full force upon the senses of\nmankind: but I much doubt whether, if this state of mind had been\nuniversal, or long-continued, the business of the world could have gone\non. The necessary art of social life would have been little cultivated.\nThe plough and the loom would have stood still. Agriculture,\nmanufactures, trade, and navigation, would not, I think, have\nflourished, if they could have been exercised at all. Men would have\naddicted themselves to contemplative and ascetic lives, instead of lives\nof business and of useful industry. We observe that St. Paul found it\nnecessary frequently to recall his converts to the ordinary labours and\ndomestic duties of their condition; and to give them, in his own\nexample, a lesson of contented application to their worldly employments.\n\nBy the manner in which the religion is now proposed, a great portion of\nthe human species is enabled and of these multitudes of every generation\nare induced, to seek and effectuate their salvation through the medium\nof Christianity, without interruption of the prosperity or of the\nregular course of human affairs.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE SUPPOSED EFFECTS OF CHRISTIANITY.\n\nThat a religion which under every form in which it is taught holds forth\nthe final reward of virtue and punishment of vice, and proposes those\ndistinctions of virtue and vice which the wisest and most cultivated\npart of mankind confess to be just, should not be believed, is very\npossible; but that, so far as it is believed, it should not produce any\ngood, but rather a bad effect upon public happiness, is a proposition\nwhich it requires very strong evidence to render credible. Yet many have\nbeen found to contend for this paradox, and very confident appeals have\nbeen made to history and to observation for the truth of it.\n\nIn the conclusions, however, which these writers draw from what they\ncall experience, two sources, I think, of mistake may be perceived.\n\nOne is, that they look for the influence of religion in the wrong place.\n\nThe other, that they charge Christianity with many consequences for\nwhich it is not responsible.\n\nI. The influence of religion is not to be sought for in the councils of\nprinces, in the debates or resolutions of popular assemblies, in the\nconduct of governments towards their subjects, of states and sovereigns\ntowards one another; of conquerors at the head of their armies, or of\nparties intriguing for power at home (topics which alone almost occupy\nthe attention, and fill the pages of history); but must be perceived, if\nperceived at all, in the silent course of private and domestic life.\nNay, even there its influence may not be very obvious to observation. If\nit check, in some degree, personal dissoluteness, if it beget general\nprobity in the transaction of business, if it produce soft and humane\nmanners in the mass of the community, and occasional exertions of\nlaborious or expensive benevolence in a individuals, it is all the\neffect which can offer itself to external notice. The kingdom of heaven\nis within us. That which the substance of the religion, its hopes and\nconsolation, its intermixture with the thoughts by day and by night, the\ndevotion of the heart, the control of appetite, the steady direction of\nwill to the commands of God, is necessarily invisible. Yet these depend\nthe virtue and the happiness of millions. This cause renders the\nrepresentations of history, with respect to religion, defect and\nfallacious in a greater degree than they are upon any other subject.\nReligion operates most upon those of whom history knows the least; upon\nfathers and mothers their families, upon men-servants and maid-servants,\nupon orderly tradesman, the quiet villager, the manufacturer at his\nloom, the husbandman in his fields. Amongst such, its collectively may\nbe of inestimable value, yet its effects, in mean time, little upon\nthose who figure upon the stage of world. They may know nothing of it;\nthey may believe nothing of it; they may be actuated by motives more\nimpetuous than those which religion is able to excite. It cannot, be\nthought strange that this influence should elude the grasp and touch of\npublic history; for what is public history but register of the successes\nand disappointments, the vices, the follies, and the quarrels, of those\nwho engage in contentions power?\n\nI will add, that much of this influence may be felt in times of public\ndistress, and little of it in times of public wealth and security.\nThis also increases the uncertainty of any opinions that we draw\nfrom historical representations. The influence of Christianity is\ncommensurate with no effects which history states. We do not pretend\nthat it has any such necessary and irresistible power over the affairs\nof nations as to surmount the force of other causes.\n\nThe Christian religion also acts upon public usages and institutions, by\nan operation which is only secondary and indirect. Christianity is not a\ncode of civil law. It can only reach public institutions through private\ncharacter. Now its influence upon private character may be considerable,\nyet many public usages and institutions repugnant to its principles may\nremain. To get rid of these, the reigning part of the community must\nact, and act together. But it may be long before the persons who compose\nthis body be sufficiently touched with the Christian character to join\nin the suppression of practices to which they and the public have been\nreconciled by causes which will reconcile the human mind to anything, by\nhabit and interest. Nevertheless, the effects of Christianity, even in\nthis view, have been important. It has mitigated the conduct of war, and\nthe treatment of captives. It has softened the administration of\ndespotic, or of nominally despotic governments. It has abolished\npolygamy. It has restrained the licentiousness of divorces. It has put\nan end to the exposure of children and the immolation of slaves. It has\nsuppressed the combats of gladiators,* and the impurities of religions\nrites. It has banished, if not unnatural vices, at least the toleration\nof them. It has greatly meliorated the condition of the laborious part,\nthat is to say, of the mass of every community, by procuring for them a\nday of weekly rest. In all countries in which it is professed it has\nproduced numerous establishments for the relief of sickness and poverty;\nand in some, a regular and general provision by law. It has triumphed\nover the slavery established in the Roman empire: it is contending, and\nI trust will one day prevail, against the worse slavery of the West\nIndies.\n\n_________\n\n* Lipsius affirms (Sat. b. i. c. 12) that the gladiatorial shows\nsometimes cost Europe twenty or thirty thousand lives in a month; and\nthat not only the men, but even the women of all ranks were passionately\nfond of these shows. See Bishop Porteus, Sermon XIII.\n_________\n\n\nA Christian writer, (Bardesanes, ap. Euseb. Praep. Evang. vi. 10.) so\nearly as in the second century, has testified the resistance which\nChristianity made to wicked and licentious practices though established\nby law and by public usage:--\"Neither in Parthia do the Christians,\nthough Parthians, use polygamy; nor in Persia, though Persians, do they\nmarry their own daughters; nor among the Bactri, or Galli, do they\nviolate the sanctity of marriage; nor wherever they are, do they suffer\nthemselves to be overcome by ill-constituted laws and manners.\"\n\nSocrates did not destroy the idolatry of Athens, or produce the slighter\nrevolution in the manners of his country.\n\nBut the argument to which I recur is, that the benefit of religion,\nbeing felt chiefly in the obscurity of private stations, necessarily\nescapes the observation of history. From the first general notification\nof Christianity to the present day, there have been in every age many\nmillions, whose names were never heard of, made better by it, not only\nin their conduct, but in their disposition; and happier, not so much in\ntheir external circumstances, as in that which is inter praecordia, in\nthat which alone deserves the name of happiness, the tranquillity and\nconsolation of their thoughts. It has been since its commencement the\nauthor of happiness and virtue to millions and millions of the human\nrace. Who is there that would not wish his son to be a Christian?\n\nChristianity also, in every country in which it is professed, hath\nobtained a sensible, although not a complete influence upon the public\njudgment of morals. And this is very important. For without the\noccasional correction which public opinion receives, by referring to\nsome fixed standard of morality, no man can foretel into what\nextravagances it might wander. Assassination might become as honourable\nas duelling: unnatural crimes be accounted as venal as fornication is\nwont to be accounted. In this way it is possible that many may be kept\nin order by Christianity who are not themselves Christians. They may be\nguided by the rectitude which it communicates to public opinion. Their\nconsciences may suggest their duty truly, and they may ascribe these\nsuggestions to a moral sense, or to the native capacity of the human\nintellect, when in fact they are nothing more than the public opinion,\nreflected from their own minds; and opinion, in a considerable degree,\nmodified by the lessons of Christianity. \"Certain it is, and this is a\ngreat deal to say, that the generality, even of the meanest and most\nvulgar and ignorant people, have truer and worthier notions of God more\njust and right apprehensions concerning his attributes and perfections,\na deeper sense of the difference of good and evil, a greater regard to\nmoral obligations, and to the plain and most necessary duties of life,\nand a more firm and universal expectation of a future state of rewards\nand punishments, than in any heathen country any considerable number of\nmen were found to have had.\" (Clarke, Ev. Nat. Rel. p. 208. ed. v.)\n\nAfter all, the value of Christianity is not to be appreciated by its\ntemporal effects. The object of revelation is to influence human conduct\nin this life; but what is gained to happiness by that influence can only\nbe estimated by taking in the whole of human existence. Then, as hath\nalready been observed, there may be also great consequences of\nChristianity which do not belong to it as a revelation. The effects upon\nhuman salvation of the mission, of the death, of the present, of the\nfuture agency of Christ, may be universal, though the religion be not\nuniversally known.\n\nSecondly, I assert that Christianity is charged with many consequences\nfor which it is not responsible. I believe that religious motives have\nhad no more to do in the formation of nine tenths of the intolerant and\npersecuting laws which in different countries have been established upon\nthe subject of religion, than they have had to do in England with the\nmaking of the game-laws. These measures, although they have the\nChristian religion for their subject, are resolvable into a principle\nwhich Christianity certainly did not plant (and which Christianity could\nnot universally condemn, because it is not universally wrong), which\nprinciple is no other than this, that they who are in possession of\npower do what they can to keep it. Christianity is answerable for no\npart of the mischief which has been brought upon the world by\npersecution, except that which has arisen from conscientious\npersecutors. Now these perhaps have never been either numerous or\npowerful. Nor is it to Christianity that even their mistake can fairly\nbe imputed. They have been misled by an error not properly Christian or\nreligious, but by an error in their moral philosophy. They pursued the\nparticular, without adverting to the general consequence. Believing\ncertain articles of faith, or a certain mode of worship, to be highly\nconducive, or perhaps essential, to salvation, they thought themselves\nbound to bring all they could, by every means, into them, and this they\nthought, without considering what would be the effect of such a\nconclusion when adopted amongst mankind as a general rule of conduct.\nHad there been in the New Testament, what there are in the Koran,\nprecepts authorising coercion in the propagation of the religion, and\nthe use of violence towards unbelievers, the case would have been\ndifferent. This distinction could not have been taken, nor this defence\nmade.\n\nI apologise for no species nor degree of persecution, but I think that\neven the fact has been exaggerated. The slave-trade destroys more in a\nyear than the Inquisition does in a hundred or perhaps hath done since\nits foundation.\n\nIf it be objected, as I apprehend it will be, that Christianity is\nchargeable with every mischief of which it has been the occasion, though\nnot the motive; I answer that, if the malevolent passions be there, the\nworld will never want occasions. The noxious element will always find a\nconductor. Any point will produce an explosion. Did the applauded\nintercommunity of the pagan theology preserve the peace of the Roman\nworld? did it prevent oppressions,  proscriptions, massacres,\ndevastation? Was it bigotry that carried Alexander into the East, or\nbrought Caesar into Gaul? Are the nations of the world into which\nChristianity hath not found its way, or from which it hath been\nbanished, free from contentions? Are their contentions less ruinous and\nsanguinary? Is it owing to Christianity, or to the want of it, that the\nregions of the East, the countries inter quatuor maria, peninsula of\nGreece, together with a great part of the Mediterranean coast, are at\nthis day a desert? or that the banks of the Nile, whose constantly\nrenewed fertility is not to be impaired by neglect, or destroyed by the\nravages of war, serve only for the scene of a ferocious anarchy, or the\nsupply of unceasing hostilities? Europe itself has known no religious\nwars for some centuries, yet has hardly ever been without war. Are the\ncalamities which at this day afflict it to be imputed to Christianity?\nHath Poland fallen by a Christian crusade? Hath the overthrow in France\nof civil order and security been effected by the votaries of our\nreligion, or by the foes? Amongst the awful lessons which the crimes and\nthe miseries of that country afford to mankind this is one; that in\norder to be a persecutor it is not necessary to be a bigot: that in rage\nand cruelty, in mischief and destruction, fanaticism itself can be\noutdone by infidelity.\n\nFinally, if war, as it is now carried on between nations produce less\nmisery and ruin than formerly, we are indebted perhaps to Christianity\nfor the change more than to any other cause. Viewed therefore even in\nits relation to this subject, it appears to have been of advantage to\nthe world. It hath humanised the conduct of wars; it hath ceased to\nexcite them.\n\nThe differences of opinion that have in all ages prevailed amongst\nChristians fall very much within the alternative which has been stated.\nIf we possessed the disposition which Christianity labours, above all\nother qualities, to inculcate, these differences would do little harm.\nIf that disposition be wanting, other causes, even were these absent,\nwould continually rise up to call forth the malevolent passions into\naction. Differences of opinion, when accompanied with mutual charity,\nwhich Christianity forbids them to violate, are for the most part\ninnocent, and for some purposes useful. They promote inquiry,\ndiscussion, and knowledge. They help to keep up an attention to\nreligious subjects, and a concern about them, which might be apt to die\naway in the calm and silence of universal agreement. I do not know that\nit is in any degree true that the influence of religion is the greatest\nwhere there are the fewest dissenters.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nTHE CONCLUSION,\n\nIn religion, as in every other subject of human reasoning, much depends\nupon the order in which we dispose our inquiries. A man who takes up a\nsystem of divinity with a previous opinion that either every part must\nbe true or the whole false, approaches the discussion with great\ndisadvantage. No other system, which is founded upon moral evidence,\nwould bear to be treated in the same manner. Nevertheless, in a certain\ndegree, we are all introduced to our religious studies under this\nprejudication. And it cannot be avoided. The weakness of the human\njudgment in the early part of youth, yet its extreme susceptibility of\nimpression, renders it necessary to furnish it with some opinions, and\nwith some principles or other. Or indeed, without much express care, or\nmuch endeavour for this purpose, the tendency of the mind of man to\nassimilate itself to the habits of thinking and speaking which prevail\naround him, produces the same effect. That indifferency and suspense,\nthat waiting and equilibrium of the judgment, which some require in\nreligious matters, and which some would wish to be aimed at in the\nconduct of education, are impossible to be preserved. They are not given\nto the condition of human life.\n\nIt is a consequence of this institution that the doctrines of religion\ncome to us before the proofs; and come to us with that mixture of\nexplications and inferences from which no public creed is, or can be,\nfree. And the effect which too frequently follows, from Christianity\nbeing presented to the understanding in this form, is, that when any\narticles, which appear as parts of it, contradict the apprehension of\nthe persons to whom it is proposed, men of rash and confident tempers\nhastily and indiscriminately reject the whole. But is this to do\njustice, either to themselves or to the religion? The rational way of\ntreating a subject of such acknowledged importance is, to attend, in the\nfirst place, to the general and substantial truth of its principles, and\nto that alone. When we once feel a foundation; when we once perceive a\nground of credibility in its history; we shall proceed with safety to\ninquire into the interpretation of its records, and into the doctrines\nwhich have been deduced from them. Nor will it either endanger our\nfaith, or diminish or alter our motives for obedience, if we should\ndiscover that these conclusions are formed with very different degrees\nof probability, and possess very different degrees of importance.\n\nThis conduct of the understanding, dictated by every rule of right\nreasoning, will uphold personal Christianity, even in those countries in\nwhich it is established under forms the most liable to difficulty and\nobjection. It will also have the further effect of guarding us against\nthe prejudices which are wont to arise in our minds to the disadvantage\nof religion, from observing the numerous controversies which are carried\non amongst its professors; and likewise of inducing a spirit of lenity\nand moderation in our judgment, as well as in our treatment of those who\nstand, in such controversies, upon sides opposite to ours. What is clear\nin Christianity we shall find to be sufficient, and to be infinitely\nvaluable; what is dubious, unnecessary to be decided, or of very\nsubordinate importance, and what is most obscure, will teach us to bear\nwith the opinions which others may have formed upon the same subject. We\nshall say to those who the most widely dissent from us, what Augustine\nsaid to the worst heretics of his age; \"Illi in vos saeviant, qui\nnasciunt, cum quo labore verum inveniatur, et quam difficile caveantur\nerrores;---qui nesciunt, cure quanta difficultate sanetur oculus\ninterioris hominis;--qui nesciunt, quibus suspiriis et gemitibus fiat ut\nex quantulacumque parte possit intelligi Deus.\". (Aug. contra. Ep. Fund.\nCap. ii. n. 2,3.)\n\nA judgment, moreover, which is once pretty well satisfied of the general\ntruth of the religion will not only thus discriminate in its doctrines,\nbut will possess sufficient strength to overcome the reluctance of the\nimagination to admit articles of faith which are attended with\ndifficulty of apprehension, if such articles of faith appear to be truly\nparts of the revelation. It was to be expected beforehand, that what\nrelated to the economy and to the persons of the invisible world, which\nrevelation profess to do, and which, if true, it actually does, should\ncontain some points remote from our analogies, and from the\ncomprehension of a mind which hath acquired all its ideas from sense and\nfrom experience.\n\nIt hath been my care in the preceding work to preserve the separation\nbetween evidences and doctrines as inviolable as I could; to remove from\nthe primary question all considerations which have been unnecessarily\njoined with it; and to offer a defence to Christianity which every\nChristian might read without seeing the tenets in which he had been\nbrought up attacked or decried: and it always afforded a satisfaction to\nmy mind to observe that this was practicable; that few or none of our\nmany controversies with one another affect or relate to the proofs of\nour religion; that the rent never descends to the foundation.\n\nThe truth of Christianity depends upon its leading facts, and upon them\nalone. Now of these we have evidence which ought to satisfy us, at least\nuntil it appear that mankind have ever been deceived by the same. We\nhave some uncontested and incontestable points, to which the history of\nthe human species hath nothing similar to offer. A Jewish peasant\nchanged the religion of the world, and that without force, without\npower, without support; without one natural source or circumstance of\nattraction, influence, or success. Such a thing hath not happened in any\nother instance. The companions of this Person, after he himself had been\nput to death for his attempt, asserted his supernatural character,\nfounded upon his supernatural operations: and, in testimony of the truth\nof their assertions, i.e. in consequence of their own belief of that\ntruth, and in order to communicate the knowledge of it to others,\nvoluntarily entered upon lives of toil and hardship, and, with a full\nexperience of their danger, committed themselves to the last extremities\nof persecution. This hath not a parallel. More particularly, a very few\ndays after this Person had been publicly executed, and in the very city\nin which he was buried, these his companions declared with one voice\nthat his body was restored to life: that they had seen him, handled him,\nate with him, conversed with him; and, in pursuance of their persuasion\nof the truth of what they told, preached his religion, with this strange\nfact as the foundation of it, in the face of those who had killed him,\nwho were armed with the power of the country, and necessarily and\nnaturally disposed to treat his followers as they had treated himself;\nand having done this upon the spot where the event took place, carried\nthe intelligence of it abroad, in despite of difficulties and\nopposition, and where the nature of their errand gave them nothing to\nexpect but derision, insult, and outrage.--This is without example.\nThese three facts, I think, are certain, and would have been nearly so,\nif the Gospels had never been written. The Christian story, as to these\npoints, hath never varied. No other hath been set up against it. Every\nletter, every discourse, every controversy, amongst the followers of the\nreligion; every book written by them from the age of its commencement to\nthe present time, in every part of the world in which it hath been\nprofessed, and with every sect into which it hath been divided (and we\nhave letters and discourses written by contemporaries, by witnesses of\nthe transaction, by persons themselves bearing a share in it, and other\nwritings following that again regular succession), concur in\nrepresenting these facts in this manner. A religion which now possesses\nthe greatest part of the civilised world unquestionably sprang up at\nJerusalem at this time. Some account must be given of its origin; some\ncause assigned for its rise. All the accounts of this origin, all the\nexplications of this cause, whether taken from the writings of the early\nfollowers of the religion (in which, and in which perhaps alone, it\ncould he expected that they should he distinctly unfolded), or from\noccasional notices in other writings of that or the adjoining age,\neither expressly allege the facts above stated as the means by which the\nreligion was set up, or advert to its commencement in a manner which\nagrees with the supposition of these facts being true, and which\ntestifies their operation and effects.\n\nThese prepositions alone lay a foundation for our faith; for they prove\nthe existence of a transaction which cannot even, in its most general\nparts, be accounted for upon any reasonable supposition, except that of\nthe truth of the mission. But the particulars, the detail of the\nmiracles or miraculous pretences (for such there necessarily must have\nbeen) upon which this unexampled transaction rested, and for which these\nmen acted and suffered as they did act and suffer, it is undoubtedly of\ngreat importance to us to know. We have this detail from the\nfountain-head, from the persons themselves; in accounts written by\neye-witnesses of the scene, by contemporaries and companions of those\nwho were so; not in one book but four, each containing enough for the\nverification of the religion, all agreeing in the fundamental parts of\nthe history. We have the authenticity of these books established by more\nand stronger proofs than belong to almost any other ancient book\nwhatever, and by proofs which widely distinguish them from any others\nclaiming a similar authority to theirs. If there were any good reason\nfor doubt concerning the names to which these books are ascribed (which\nthere is not, for they were never ascribed to any other, and we have\nevidence not long after their publication of their bearing the names\nwhich they now bear); their antiquity, of which there is no question,\ntheir reputation and authority amongst the early disciples of the\nreligion, of which there is as little, form a valid proof that they\nmust, in the main at least, have agreed with what the first teachers of\nthe religion delivered.\n\nWhen we open these ancient volumes, we discover in them marks of truth,\nwhether we consider each in itself, or collate them with one another.\nThe writers certainly knew something of what they were writing about,\nfor they manifest an acquaintance with local circumstances, with the\nhistory and usages of the times, which could belong only to an\ninhabitant of that country, living in that age. In every narrative we\nperceive simplicity and undesignedness; the air and the language of\nreality. When we compare the different narratives together, we find them\nso varying as to repel all suspicion of confederacy; so agreeing under\nthis variety as to show that the accounts had one real transaction for\ntheir common foundation; often attributing different actions and\ndiscourses to the Person whose history, or rather memoirs of whose\nhistory, they profess to relate, yet actions and discourses so similar\nas very much to bespeak the same character: which is a coincidence that,\nin such writers as they were, could only be the consequence of their\nwriting from fact, and not from imagination.\n\nThese four narratives are confined to the history of the Founder of the\nreligion, and end with his ministry. Since, however, it is certain that\nthe affair went on, we cannot help being anxious to know how it\nproceeded. This intelligence hath come down to us in a work purporting\nto be written by a person, himself connected with the business during\nthe first stages of its progress, taking up the story where the former\nhistories had left it, carrying on the narrative, oftentimes with great\nparticularity, and throughout with the appearance of good sense,*\ninformation and candour; stating all along the origin, and the only\nprobable origin, of effects which unquestionably were produced, together\nwith the natural consequences of situations which unquestionably did\nexist; and confirmed, in the substance at least of the account, by the\nstrongest possible accession of testimony which a history can receive,\noriginal letters, written by the person who is the principal subject of\nthe history, written upon the business to which the history relates, and\nduring the period, or soon after the period, which the history\ncomprises. No man can say that this all together is not a body of strong\nhistorical evidence.\n\n_________\n\n* See Peter's speech upon curing the cripple (Acts iii. 18), the council\nof the apostles (xv.), Paul's discourse at Athens (xvii. 22), before\nAgrippa (xxvi.). I notice these passages, both as fraught with good\nsense and as free from the smallest tincture of enthusiasm.\n_________\n\n\nWhen we reflect that some of those from whom the books proceeded are\nrelated to have themselves wrought miracles, to have been the subject of\nmiracles, or of supernatural assistance in propagating the religion, we\nmay perhaps be led to think that more credit, or a different kind of\ncredit, is due to these accounts, than what can be claimed by merely\nhuman testimony. But this is an argument which cannot be addressed to\nsceptics or unbelievers. A man must be a Christian before he can receive\nit. The inspiration of the historical Scriptures, the nature, degree,\nand extent of that inspiration, are questions undoubtedly of serious\ndiscussion; but they are questions amongst Christians themselves, and\nnot between them and others. The doctrine itself is by no means\nnecessary to the belief of Christianity, which must, in the first\ninstance at least, depend upon the ordinary maxim of historical\ncredibility. (See Powell's Discourse, disc. xv. P. 245.)\n\nIn viewing the detail of miracles recorded in these books, we find every\nsupposition negatived by which they can be resolved into fraud or\ndelusion. They were not secret, nor momentary, nor tentative, nor\nambiguous; nor performed under the sanction of authority, with the\nspectators on their side, or in affirmance of tenets and practices\nalready established. We find also the evidence alleged for them, and\nwhich evidence was by great numbers received, different from that upon\nwhich other miraculous accounts rest. It was contemporary, it was\npublished upon the spot, it continued; it involved interests and\nquestions of the greatest magnitude; it contradicted the most fixed\npersuasions and prejudices of the persons to whom it was addressed; it\nrequired from those who accepted it, not a simple, indolent assent, but\na change, from thenceforward, of principles and conduct, a submission to\nconsequences the most serious and the most deterring, to loss and\ndanger, to insult, outrage, and persecution. How such a story should be\nfalse, or, if false, how under such circumstances it should make its\nway, I think impossible to be explained; yet such the Christian story\nwas, such were the circumstances under which it came forth, and in\nopposition to such difficulties did it prevail.\n\nAn event so connected with the religion, and with the fortunes, of the\nJewish people, as one of their race, one born amongst them, establishing\nhis authority and his law throughout a great portion of the civilised\nworld, it was perhaps to be expected should be noticed in the prophetic\nwritings of that nation; especially when this Person, together with his\nown mission, caused also to be acknowledged the Divine original of their\ninstitution, and by those who before had altogether rejected it.\nAccordingly, we perceive in these writings various intimations\nconcurring in the person and history of Jesus, in a manner and in a\ndegree in which passages taken from these books could not be made to\nconcur in any person arbitrarily assumed, or in any person except him\nwho has been the author of great changes in the affairs and opinions of\nmankind. Of some of these predictions the weight depends a good deal\nupon the concurrence. Others possess great separate strength: one in\nparticular does this in an eminent degree. It is an entire description,\nmanifestly directed to one character and to one scene of things; it is\nextant in a writing, or collection of writings, declaredly prophetic;\nand it applies to Christ's character, and to the circumstances of his\nlife and death, with considerable precision, and in a way which no\ndiversity of interpretation hath, in my opinion, been able to confound.\nThat the advent of Christ, and the consequences of it, should not have\nbeen more distinctly revealed in the Jewish sacred books, is I think in\nsome measure accounted for by the consideration, that for the Jews to\nhave foreseen the fall of their institution, and that it was to merge at\nlength into a more perfect and comprehensive dispensation, would have\ncooled too much, and relaxed, their zeal for it, and their adherence to\nit, upon which zeal and adherence the preservation in the world of any\nremains, for many ages, of religious truth might in a great measure\ndepend.\n\nOf what a revelation discloses to mankind, one, and only one, question\ncan properly be asked--Was it of importance to mankind to know, or to be\nbetter assured of? In this question, when we turn our thoughts to the\ngreat Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, and of a\nfuture judgment, no doubt can possibly be entertained. He who gives me\nriches or honours, does nothing; he who even gives me health, does\nlittle, in comparison with that which lays before me just grounds for\nexpecting a restoration to life, and a day of account and retribution;\nwhich thing Christianity hath done for millions.\n\nOther articles of the Christian faith, although of infinite importance\nwhen placed beside any other topic of human inquiry, are only the\nadjuncts and circumstances of this. They are, however, such as appear\nworthy of the original to which we ascribe them. The morality of the\nreligion, whether taken from the precepts or the example of its Founder,\nor from the lessons of its primitive teachers, derived, as it should\nseem, from what had been inculcated by their Master, is, in all its\nparts, wise and pure; neither adapted to vulgar prejudices, nor\nflattering popular notions, nor excusing established practices, but\ncalculated, in the matter of its instruction, truly to promote human\nhappiness; and in the form in which it was conveyed, to produce\nimpression and effect: a morality which, let it have proceeded from any\nperson whatever, would have been satisfactory evidence of his good sense\nand integrity, of the soundness of his understanding and the probity of\nhis designs: a morality, in every view of it, much more perfect than\ncould have been expected from the natural circumstances and character of\nthe person who delivered it; a morality, in a word, which is, and hath\nbeen, most beneficial to mankind.\n\nUpon the greatest, therefore, of all possible occasions, and for a\npurpose of inestimable value, it pleased the Deity to vouchsafe a\nmiraculous attestation. Having done this for the institution, when this\nalone could fix its authority, or give to it a beginning, he committed\nits future progress to the natural means of human communication, and to\nthe influence of those causes by which human conduct and human affairs\nare governed. The seed, being sown, was left to vegetate; the leaven,\nbeing inserted, was left to ferment; and both according to the laws of\nnature: laws, nevertheless, disposed and controlled by that Providence\nwhich conducts the affairs of the universe, though by an influence\ninscrutable, and generally undistinguishable by us. And in this,\nChristianity is analogous to most other provisions for happiness. The\nprovision is made; and; being made, is left to act according to laws\nwhich, forming a part of a more general system, regulate this particular\nsubject in common with many others.\n\nLet the constant recurrence to our observation of contrivance, design,\nand wisdom, in the works of nature, once fix upon our minds the belief\nof a God, and after that all is easy. In the counsels of a being\npossessed of the power and disposition which the Creator of the universe\nmust possess, it is not improbable that there should be a future state;\nit is not improbable that we should be acquainted with it. A future\nstate rectifies everything; because, if moral agents be made, in the\nlast event, happy or miserable, according to their conduct in the\nstation and under the circumstances in which they are placed, it seems\nnot very material by the operation of what causes, according to what\nrules, or even, if you please to call it so, by what chance or caprice\nthese stations are assigned, or these circumstances determined. This\nhypothesis, therefore, solves all that objection to the divine care and\ngoodness which the promiscuous distribution of good and evil (I do not\nmean in the doubtful advantages of riches and grandeur, but in the\nunquestionably important distinctions of health and sickness, strength\nand infirmity, bodily ease and pain, mental alacrity and depression) is\napt on so many occasions to create. This one truth changes the nature of\nthings; gives order to confusion; makes the moral world of a piece with\nthe natural.\n\nNevertheless, a higher degree of assurance than that to which it is\npossible to advance this, or any argument drawn from the light of\nnature, was necessary, especially to overcome the shock which the\nimagination and the senses received from the effects and the appearances\nof death, and the obstruction which thence arises to the expectation of\neither a continued or a future existence. This difficulty, although of a\nnature no doubt to act very forcibly, will be found, I think, upon\nreflection to reside more in our habits of apprehension than in the\nsubject: and that the giving way to it, when we have any reasonable\ngrounds or the contrary, is rather an indulging of the imagination than\nanything else. Abstractedly considered, that is, considered without\nrelation to the difference which habit, and merely habit, produces in\nour faculties and modes of apprehension, I do not see anything more in\nthe resurrection of a dead man than in the conception of a child; except\nit be this, that the one comes into his world with a system of prior\nconsciousness about him, which the other does not: and no person will\nsay that he knows enough of either subject to perceive that this\ncircumstance makes such a difference in the two cases that the one\nshould be easy, and the other impossible; the one natural, the other not\nso. To the first man the succession of the species would be as\nincomprehensible as the resurrection of the dead is to us.\n\nThought is different from motion, perception from impact: the\nindividuality of a mind is hardly consistent with the divisibility of an\nextended substance; or its volition, that is, its power of originating\nmotion, with the inertness which cleaves to every portion of matter\nwhich our observation or our experiments can reach. These distinctions\nlead us to an immaterial principle: at least, they do this: they so\nnegative the mechanical properties of matter, in the constitution of a\nsentient, still more of a rational, being, that no argument drawn from\nthe properties can be of any great weight in opposition to other\nreasons, when the question respects the changes of which such: a nature\nis capable, or the manner in which these changes am effected. Whatever\nthought be, or whatever it depend upon the regular experience of sleep\nmakes one thing concerning it certain, that it can be completely\nsuspended, and completely restored.\n\nIf any one find it too great a strain upon his thoughts to admit the\nnotion of a substance strictly immaterial, that is, from which extension\nand solidity are excluded, he can find no difficulty in allowing, that a\nparticle as small as a particle of light, minuter than all conceivable\ndimensions, may just as easily be the depositary, the organ, and the\nvehicle of consciousness as the congeries of animal substance which\nforms a human body, or the human brain; that, being so, it may transfer\na proper identity to whatever shall hereafter be united to it; may be\nsafe amidst the destruction of its integuments; may connect the natural\nwith the spiritual, the corruptible with the glorified body. If it be\nsaid that the mode and means of all this is imperceptible by our senses,\nit is only what is true of the most important agencies and operations.\nThe great powers of nature are all invisible. Gravitation, electricity,\nmagnetism, though constantly present, and constantly exerting their\ninfluence; though within us, near us, and about us; though diffused\nthroughout all space, overspreading the surface, or penetrating the\ncontexture, of all bodies with which we are acquainted, depend upon\nsubstances and actions which are totally concealed from our senses. The\nSupreme Intelligence is so himself.\n\nBut whether these or any other attempts to satisfy the imagination bear\nany resemblance to the truth; or whether the imagination, which, as I\nhave said before, is the mere slave of habit, can be satisfied or not;\nwhen a future state, and the revelation of a future state is not only\nperfectly consistent with the attributes of the Being who governs the\nuniverse; but when it is more; when it alone removes the appearance of\ncontrariety which attends the operations of his will towards creatures\ncapable of comparative merit and demerit, of reward and punishment; when\na strong body of historical evidence, confirmed by many internal tokens\nof truth and authenticity, gives us just reason to believe that such a\nrevelation hath actually been made; we ought to set our minds at\nrest with the assurance, that in the resources of Creative Wisdom\nexpedients cannot be wanted to carry into effect what the Deity hath\npurposed: that either a new and mighty influence will descend upon the\nhuman world to resuscitate extinguished consciousness; or that, amidst\nthe other wonderful contrivances with which the universe abounds, and by\nsome of which we see animal life, in many instances, assuming improved\nforms of existence, acquiring new organs, new perceptions, and new\nsources of enjoyment, provision is also made, though by methods secret\nto us (as all the great processes of nature are), for conducting the\nobjects of God's moral government, through the necessary changes of\ntheir frame, to those final distinctions of happiness and misery which\nhe hath declared to be reserved for obedience and transgression, for\nvirtue and vice, for the use and the neglect, the right and the wrong\nemployment of the faculties and opportunities with which he hath been\npleased, severally, to intrust and to try us.","title":"Evidences of Christianity","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":130989}