as

how few of the events in the histories of Livy, or of Tacitus, had they personal knowledge! With how few of the men, whose lives he wrote, had Plutarch personal acquaintance! In some cases, indeed, in the account of the Retreat of the Ten Thousand, or the Commentaries of Cæsar, —we have the story of a person who was present, and saw what he narrates; and no one can fail to feel that the credibility of those accounts is greatly increased by that circumstance. In these cases, however, we have but a single witness, and the writers are the heroes of their own story; and still these writings are received with entire confidence. And this leads me to observe,

Thirdly, that the events recorded in our books are worthy of credit from the number of witnesses. To put this in its true light, let us suppose that there should now be discovered, among the ruins of Herculaneum, the writings of an officer and companion of Cæsar, giving an account of the same campaigns and battles. Let us suppose that there was a substantial agreement, but such incidental differences as to show that the writings were entirely independent of each other; then, if we had before been inclined to call the whole a fiction, or to attribute any thing to the ignorance, or the prejudices, or the vanity, of Cæsar, we should feel all our doubts removed on those points. in which the accounts agreed. And if, after this, we should still find another independent manuscript, and still another, differing entirely in style and general manner, and yet agreeing in regard to the facts, if, moreover, there should be found letters written in that day incidentally confirming these accounts by many allusions and undesigned coincidences, -we

should feel that historical evidence could not go farther, and that skepticism would be preposterous. If events thus attested are not to be believed, it will not be for want of evidence. If they are not to be believed, no ancient history can be; for there is no one for which we have any thing like this amount of evidence. But all this evidence we have for the facts of the gospel. The fact, that the four Gospels and the Acts are bound up together, is not to be permitted to weaken their force as separate testimonies. This is as far as historical testimony can go with respect to ordinary events; but the facts of Christianity are of such a character that even this may, and does, receive additional confirmation. If Cæsar's wars had given rise to parties, and these different parties had all appealed to these writings as of undoubted authority, and if, moreover, we had, at no distant day, the distinct admission of the enemies of Cæsar that these books were trustworthy as to matters of fact, then I think we can conceive of nothing that could be added; and all this we have in favor of the facts of the New Testament. If we lay aside all consideration of the nature of the events, and look at the evidence alone, we shall see that it has all the force of which historical evidence, as such, is capable.

Still I observe, fourthly, that this evidence is powerfully confirmed by the peculiar testimony which was given by their authors to the truth of these books. To state one of the fundamental propositions of Paley: "There is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labors, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts

which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct." Into the proof that they did thus labor and suffer Paley enters at large. But it is so obvious that men who, in that day, should attempt to propagate an exclusive religion, that was entirely opposed both to Judaism and heathenism, and also to the natural passions and inclinations of men, would be obliged to undergo labor and suffering in proportion to their sincerity and earnestness, that it seems to me scarcely to need proof. Then the idea of this is so much implied in the whole narrative, and regarded as a matter of course, it is so much taken for granted in the exhortations, and promises, and consolations, given to the disciples by Christ himself, and in the letters of the apostles, and it is so fully testified to by heathen writers, that I cannot think it necessary to dwell upon it. If, then, these men did labor, and suffer, and finally die, in attestation of the truth of their accounts, then are our books confirmed in the highest possible manner, and as no other historical books ever have been.

It was not, however, and here we come to one of the strongest points of the Christian testimony, -it was not simply those who compiled the accounts who thus gave their testimony, but thousands of others; and, though their testimony is unwritten, yet it is so involved in the circumstances of the case, that it comes to us with no less force than if they had certified, under their own hands and seals, the truth of our accounts. Every Christian who, in that early age, abandoned the prejudices of education, and friends, and property,

to become a Christian, especially every one who was persecuted and suffered death for the cause, gave his testimony, in the most emphatic manner possible, for the truth of the facts of the Gospels. Every member of a church which received an Epistle of Paul, and to which it was read, was a witness of its authenticity, and of the truth of the facts of Christianity, which is implied in all his Epistles. The great force of this unwritten testimony is fully set forth by Chalmers, as also the fallacy by which we are so often led to feel that heathen testimony is superior in point of force to that of Christians, as if the very strength of conviction which would lead a man to become a Christian should not also furnish the best evidence of his sincerity. It would be inconsistent that a heathen should testify to the truth of the religion without becoming a Christian, and it is surely unreasonable to make the very act by which he testified, in the highest possible manner, his sincerity and consistency, a reason for not receiving his testimony. This testimony meets a possible cavil. It may be said that the eight writers of the New Testament were actuated, in their labors and sufferings, by a desire to be of reputation, to be the founders of sects, or to preserve their consistency. But no such motives can be imputed to the mass of Christians in that day, each of whom did as really and as impressively testify to his belief in the facts of the New Testament as if he had written a book. Men may have motives for being impostors, but they can have none for being imposed upon, especially when the imposition costs them all that men usually hold dear. When, therefore, I see the apostles and their associates, and especially when I see vast numbers of

persons, in the ordinary walks of life, preferring to relinquish any thing, and to undergo any thing, rather than to deny the truth of these facts; when I see them led, one by one, or, perhaps, numbers together, to scourging and torture; when I see them standing as martyrs, and, in that act, as it were lifting up their dying hand to heaven, and taking an oath of their sincerity, then I know that they believed the facts for which they died; then I think I have found the case of which Hume speaks, when he says, “We cannot make use of a more convincing argument" (in proof of honesty) "than to prove that the actions ascribed to any persons are contrary to the course of human nature, and that no human motives, in such circumstances, could ever induce them to such a conduct."

I observe, fifthly, that our books are worthy of credit, because it can be shown that their authors were neither deceivers nor deceived; and this is the only alternative possible unless the religion is true. The alternative that, unless Christ and his apostles were what they claimed to be, they were either impostors or dupes, was first presented by Pascal; and since his time this whole question has often been argued under it. The same thing, in fact, is sometimes argued under a positive form, when it is shown that the primitive witnesses were both competent and honest. The only questions that can be asked respecting a witness are, Is he competent - that is, is he well informed? and, Is he honest? Does he know the truth, and will he tell it and it obviously makes no difference whether we show that the apostles were well informed and honest, or whether we show that they were not either