fectly in the style of the Creator: they held forth such exhibitions of an absolute control over the material world as were most significant of the power of the doctrine to restore health to the soul. If the idea of the morality taught by Christ was absolutely new, so likewise was the idea of the miracles performed by him to enforce it."

"Were there room to doubt what is the character of the native imagination of enthusiasts of fanatics —of interested priests—when they have devised the means of giving credit to their fraudulent usurpations over the consciences of their fellows, we might read the history of superstition in ancient Egypt, India, or Greece; or, if that were not enough, we might turn to the history of those lying wonders,' upon which the ministers of the Romish religion in modern times have rested their pretensions." A missionary from India informs me, that the traditionary miracles of that country, at the present time, are generally connected with stories the most whimsical and absurd; that they were wrought to establish no principle, and not unfrequently for the purposes of cruelty and lust.

"The gospel miracles stand out, therefore, from the uniform history of false religions, just as the gospel morality stands out from the history of all other ethical systems. They alone are worthy of the Creator, -and that alone is worthy of the Supreme Lawgiver. Instead, then, of admitting that stronger evidence is necessary, to attest the extraordinary facts recorded in the New Testament, than is deemed sufficient in the common path of history, we assert their intrinsic independence of external proof; and we affirm that no sound and well-informed mind could fail to attribute

them to the Divine Agent, even though all historical evidence were absent. Nothing is so reasonable as to believe that the miracles and discourses of Jesus were from God,—nothing so absurd as to suppose them to have been of men."

Here, then, we have five authentic histories-four, of the same events-written by four different persons, who were themselves eye-witnesses, or had the best means of knowing what they relate. We have original letters, written at the time, both to bodies of men, and to individuals, containing a great variety of indirect, and therefore of the very strongest, testimony. We find the books bearing every mark of honesty. We find the facts of such a nature that the witnesses could not have been deceived, and we find them laying down their lives to testify that they did not deceive others. We find institutions now existing, and rites observed, which hold such a relation to the facts of Christianity, as given in the books, that the books must be true. We find, moreover, no other account, nor the vestige of any, of the greatest revolution the world has ever known, while our accounts are in all respects simple, and natural, and perfectly satisfactory, assigning only adequate causes for effects which we know were produced; and, finally, we find in these books the only account of miracles that are worthy of God. Can any man then refuse to believe facts thus substantiated, and yet receive evidence for any past event? Can he do it, and pretend he is not governed by other considerations than those of evidence?

And here I might pause; but I am to present the evidence, and there is still another department on

which I have not touched. All the evidence hitherto adduced has been drawn from our own books, or from the nature of the case. Let us now turn to that which we may derive from heathen writers, and from other sources. This evidence must be noticed, because there are those who attach to it a peculiar value. There are those who give a weight to the testimony of Tacitus the heathen, which they would not have given to that of Tacitus the Christian. This is unreasonable; because, if Tacitus had become a Christian, it would, under the circumstances, have implied both sincerity and more accurate knowledge. The very fact of becoming a Christian would have been, on his part, as it was on the part of every converted heathen, the most striking testimony he could have given of his belief in the facts of Christianity. Still, there are those who will not detach the idea of partisanship from the belief and maintenance of any great truth, and who look upon Christian testimony, as such, with suspicion. While, therefore, we say that they suffer the very circumstance, that ought to give this evidence weight, to impair its force, yet, for their sakes, as well as for its intrinsic value, the evidence from other sources must be given.

And here, again, as at other points, the evidence of Christianity shines with a peculiar lustre. It may, indeed, almost be said that our books are credible from the very time and place of their origin. "Few persons," says the forcible writer whom I last quoted, "few persons, perhaps, give due attention to the relative position of the Christian history, which stands upon the very point of intersection where three distinct lines of history meet namely, the Jewish, the Grecian, and the Roman. These three bodies of ancient literature,

alone, have descended, by an uninterrupted channel of transmission, to modern times; and these three, by a most extraordinary combination of circumstances, were brought together to elucidate the origination of Christianity. If upon the broad field of history there rests the common light of day, upon that spot where a new religion was given to man there shines the intensity of a concentrated brightness." The Jews had their own literature; they had been formerly conquered by the Greeks, and the Greek language was in common use; they were also a Roman province, and "during more than a century, in the centre of which stands the ministry of Christ, the affairs of Syria attracted the peculiar attention of the Roman government." "No other people of antiquity can be named, upon whose history and sentiments there falls this triple flood of historic light; and upon no period in the history of this one people do these triple rays so precisely meet, as upon the moment when the voice of one was heard in the wilderness of Jordan, saying, Prepare ye the way of the Lord.""* Well, then, might an apostle say, "These things were not done in a corner." The time is not run back, like that of Indian legends, to obscure and fabulous ages; nor is it in what are called the dark ages of more modern times. It was a civilized and enlightened age-a classic age an age of poets, philosophers, and historians. Nor was it in Mecca, a city little known or visited by the civilized world, and where the people and language were homogeneous, that Christ arose. It was in Jerusalem, in Asia Minor, the theatre of

* Process of Historical Proof.

history from the first, -and from the bosom of a people with all whose rites and usages we are perfectly acquainted. It was, perhaps, the only place on earth in which a Roman governor would have called the three languages which contain the literature of ancient civilization into requisition, to proclaim at once the accusation and the true character of Christ. "And

Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was- JESUS OF NAZARETH, the King of tHE JEWS. And it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin."

Here, then, was a mixed population, with different prejudices and interests, speaking different languages, for that day a reading population, in a city to which not only the Jews dwelling in Palestine, but those from distant countries, and proselytes, came up yearly as the centre and seat of the only pure worship of God on earth. And was this the place to select for the production of forged writings? or for an imposture of any kind to gather a force that should carry it over the earth?

I have already spoken of the opportunity furnished by the number and variety of the Christian witnesses for a most searching cross-examination, and we have seen how triumphantly they come out from such an ordeal. And here again they are brought to a test scarcely less trying. The contemporary writers, Jewish and heathen, in the three languages mentioned, are numerous; and whatever, in any of them, throws light on the manners, or habits, or sects, or forms of government, or general condition, of the inhabitants of Palestine and the surrounding countries, will enable us to put to a most decisive test those who describe with