Nothing is more remarkable in this connexion than that, while he could not have been ignorant that he was relating many very extraordinary and wonderful events, he shows no wonder in his own mind, and seems to expect no wonder among his readers. This looks exceedingly like one who writes, not of extraordinary events, just contrived in his own imagination, but of extraordinary events which, whatever the wonder they excited when first known, are now perfectly notorious, not only to himself, but to all his readers. It is one thing to relate a series of astonishing occurrences which we feel are perfectly new to the readers, and a very different thing to relate the same to those who have long since been familiarly acquainted with their prominent particulars, and desire only a more circumstantial and confidential account. In the former case, the writer would naturally, and almost necessarily, betray in his style and the whole texture of his statement an expectation of the wonder and probable incredulity of his readers. In the latter, he would deliver his narrative as if he were thinking only of an accurate detail of truth, without particular reference to whether it was astonishing, or the contrary. Thus it is with St. John. There is no appearance of his having felt as if any of his Gospel would be new, or excite any new emotions of wonder in his readers. The marvellous works of Christ were, at that time, notorious. When first heard of, they excited universal astonishment. "His fame went abroad, and all the people were amazed." But so much time had now elapsed, that emotions of wonder had subsided, under the influence of repetition and familiarity. In striking consistency with this is the whole aspect of St. John's narrative. He goes directly forward in the rela tion of events, in themselves exceedingly impressive and astonishing, exhibiting no sign of any astonishment in his own mind, anticipating none in his contemporaneous readers. How is this to be explained? One can discover no plausible

explanation but in the supposition that he was conscious of recording events, with which, in their chief particulars, the public mind had been entirely familiarized. This may deservedly be considered a strong indication of truth.

3d. I see another plain evidence, to the same point, in the minute accuracy which marks all the allusions of this narrative to the manners, customs, opinions, political events, and other circumstances of the times. The situation of Judea, in the time of the Saviour, was such as to bring it frequently under the eye of the profane writers of that age. From them we derive a great many particulars, illustrating the several modifications in the civil and religious institutions of the Jews, by their subjection to Rome. And thus we have a great many points of comparison between the gospel history and the other histories of the same times. The former contains innumerable references to the peculiarities then existing in the Jewish state-its laws, courts, punishments as well as to the opinions, prejudices, and customs then prevailing. This was dangerous ground for the inventor of a story. The continual fluctuations in public affairs; the numerous and complex changes in the supreme officers of Judea and the neighbouring provinces; as well as in the boundaries and character of their governments, within the period embraced in the gospel history, must have added greatly to the difficulty of an inventor of a narrative located in such circumstances, and filled with allusions to them. We have a Jewish historian of the same age, with which to confront the gospel history. Josephus has furnished us with a full and minute account of those internal affairs of the Jews, both civil and religious, to which allusions are made in the gospel history. It would be evidently very far beyond the limits of a lecture, to attempt a proof that all the minutest allusions in our sacred history are not only uncontradicted, but wherever the same things are spoken of, are positively confirmed by the secular authority to which

we have referred. But we assert it as a fact, well known to every student of the gospel history, and of which any who have the disposition to examine the question, may easily be satisfied. Now it seems to me it would have been next to impossible for the inventor of a story, exciting such general and intense interest, branching out into such circumstantial details, and connected, at so many points, with the peculiarities of the times, to tread upon ground so covered with snares, without being caught.

4th. Hitherto we have directed your attention to the gospel history as furnished by only one of its witnesses. But suppose you should unexpectedly discover in the ruins of Herculaneum three distinct writings, heretofore entirely unknown, but containing the most satisfactory evidence of authenticity, and evidently written in the first century of christianity, by three several and independent authors, each possessed of the best opportunities of knowledge. And suppose that in every one of them there should be found a history of Christ and his Gospel; what an uncommon opportunity would it seem of trying the accuracy of this book of St. John. Even if these three newly discovered authors were bad men; yet if their statements should agree with his, it would determine the accuracy of his history. But if it should appear that they were all good men, how much more complete would be their confirmation. Suppose, however, it should turn out that these three writers were not only good men, but, like St. John, disciples of Christ and ministers of his Gospel, what effect would their concurrent testimony then have upon his accuracy? Would it be diminished in conclusiveness by the discovery of their christian character? I believe that, in the minds of multitudes, it would; but most unjustly. Precisely the contrary should be the consequence. If four of the chief officers in Napoleon's staff had published memoirs of his life, I venture to say that the concurrence of their several statements,

instead of having its evidence weakened, because they were all attached to Napoleon and admitted to his domestic circle, would be greatly strengthened, in your estimation, by that very circumstance, inasmuch as it would ensure the accuracy of their knowledge, without impeaching their integrity. But some seem to suppose that the laws regulating the force of testimony are all changed as soon as the matter of fact, in question, is removed from the department of profane to that of sacred history.

How much has been made of the testimony of the Roman historian, Tacitus, to some of the chief facts of the gospel. history. It is the testimony of a Heathen, and, therefore, supposed to be incomparably valuable. Now suppose that Tacitus the Heathen had not only been persuaded of the facts he has related, but had been so deeply impressed with the belief of them as to have renounced heathenism and embraced the christian faith, and then published the history we now possess-who does not know that, with the infidel, and with many a believer, his testimony would have greatly suffered in practical force? No reason for this can be given, except that we have a vague idea that a Christian in the cause of christianity must be an interested witness. To be sure he is interested. But is his testimony the less valuable ? A scientific man, bearing testimony to a phenomenon in natural history, is an interested witness, because he is devoted to science, but his testimony is not the less valuable. A good man, bearing testimony to the character of another good man, is an interested witness, because he is the friend of virtue and of all good men, but his testimony is not the less valuable. In this, and no other sense, were the original disciples interested witnesses. They were interested in christianity, only so far as they believed it true. Suppose them to have known it to be untrue, and you cannot imagine the least jot or tittle of interest they could have had in it. In such a case, on the contrary, the current of all their

interests and prepossessions would run directly and powerfully in opposition to christianity. This then, being all the way in which they can be regarded as interested, the force of their testimony, so far from being in the least impaired, is greatly enhanced by the consideration. The bare fact that any primitive writer, bearing witness to events related by St. John, was not a Heathen, or a Jew, but a Christian, is the very thing that should be regarded as completing his testimony. Is the evidence of Tacitus, who relates such events, but remained a Heathen, any thing like so strong; as if we could say, it is the evidence of Tacitus, who was a Heathen, but believed those events so firmly that he became a Christian? If a man speak well to me of the virtues of a certain medicine, but does not use it himself, is his opinion half so weighty as if he were to receive it into his own vitals, and administer it in his family? Would it be reasonable, in this case, to refuse his testimony, because you might denominate him an interested witness?

I have thus enlarged upon this head, because I am going to present you with the concurrent testimony of seven ancient writers, in confirmation of the accuracy of the gospel history, as given by St. John. They are writers whose testimony has this particular value, that, whereas once they were Jews and enemies to the gospel, they were afterwards converted to its belief and service; became Christians, and as Christians wrote, and gave every practical evidence that what they wrote they believed. Of these, three composed regular histories of the life and labours of Christ, similar in object to that of John. One of them, beside a memoir of Christ, has carried on the subsequent history of christianity, under the name of the Acts of the Apostles. Four others composed various letters to different individuals, or bodies of Christians, in which they allude continually to events related in the narratives of the former. Now all these several writings are perfectly independent, each of the rest. We