Romans, and could not have been described, much less invented, but by those who lived under them: this enlarged on. Other memorials of the age and countries in which Christianity was first preached. The certainty of many things mentioned in the Gospels calculated to give credit to the rest: it will produce a reasonable prejudice against any objections offered to the miracles therein recorded. II. In support of these miracles, it has been fully shown, that there is no reason for suspecting the relaters of them either to have been deceived themselves or wilfully to have deceived others; that it was not possible for them to have been mistaken; and that their integrity is apparent, both from their writings and their conduct: this enlarged on. But these arguments, however just and important, do not represent all the evidence. The truth of our religion rests not wholly on those few witnesses, who have written the account of its origin. Testimony of other witnesses considered—of the ⚫ twelve apostles-of those who were healed by our Saviour-of the seventy disciples-of the five hundred who saw their Master after his resurrection-of every convert to Christianity in its early ages: this enlarged on. What can be added to all these proofs of our religion? An appeal to its enemies: such appeal is made by the sacred historians: this shown. Concluding and recapitulatory observations on the truth of the testimony of the evangelists. DISCOURSE V. THE CREDIT DUE TO THE SACRED HISTORIANS. JOHN, CHAP. XXI.-VERSE 24. This is the disciple, which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true. My last discourse proved to you, that the books of the New Testament are the genuine works of the authors to whom they are ascribed. The regular order of the argument for the truth of Christianity, leads me now to show, that these authors are credible witnesses of the facts they relate. It will be convenient to divide these facts; and to consider the events which are within the common course of nature, and the miracles separately. Whilst we are examining the former, some things will offer themselves to our notice, which have not been commonly attended to, and yet perhaps may help to strengthen the authority, not only of the evangelists, but of other historians. I. It seems, that the human genius does not reach so far as to invent any long and particular narration, which shall have the appearance of truth; to fill up all the circumstances, and make them consistent. The meanest critic can distinguish between a history and a romance; and there is no more danger of mistaking the one for the other, than of not discerning dreams from real life. In both cases we judge on the same principle. The series of events which passes before us, or which is related by the sober historian, is continued and uniform; whereas dreams or fictions, when extended to any considerable length, are always unconnected and inconsistent. It must not indeed POW. C : be asserted, that there is no mixture of fable or error in ancient story certainly there is much; but falsehood can never stand alone it can only be supported by the real facts to which it is joined. Vain would be the attempt to deceive mankind by any long narrative of remarkable events, put together merely by the force of the imagination. Its misshapen and unnatural productions will not pass for the genuine offspring of truth and nature. Or if an attempt of this kind can be made with any hopes of success, it must be in the transactions of a dark age or an unknown country. As the scene draws nearer to our view, it becomes impossible wholly to feign the story, difficult even to misrepresent it. The tragic poet, who forms his fable on some historical report, but follows it not precisely, though his design be only to lay hold of the fancy, not to mislead the judgment, and his tale be to pass but for an hour among a willing audience; yet finds it necessary to place them at Thebes or Athens, or convey them back to distant ages, that his departure from truth may not be too apparent. Should he falsify the public transactions of the present times, the deceit could not be endured; so obstinate are facts, so hardly are they drawn aside even for a short amusement. With reason therefore do we give full credit to those accounts which have been written and published in the times and places they describe. The contemporary historian was not only more able to inform us rightly; but his misreports, if he had made any, either through ignorance or design, must have been presently discovered, and his work have fallen into contempt and oblivion. Again, the testimony of an author carries still greater force, when he has himself borne a part in the transactions he relates. All suspicion, that he might be deceived, is here taken away; and such a writer usually describes things more particularly, and enables us more frequently to compare his reports with other reports of the same events, or of other events in the same age and country. When we have several historians perfectly agreeing in their narratives, no other doubt of their fidelity can remain, but this; whether they have not copied one from another, or all from the same original for it is clearly impossible, that they should wander without a guide in the infinite labyrinth of error, and yet all take at every turn the same direction. Or if the history we examine be single and detached, yet other contemporary writings, which exhibit the manners of the age, the characters of the persons, the laws of the country, the situation of public affairs, the state of arts and sciences, and numberless other particulars, will all contribute either to establish or destroy its pretensions. It will not be difficult to apply these observations to the historical parts of the New Testament. If no writer was ever able to give to any long fictions the appearance of truth, or to unite them into a regular and consistent story; then is there no room to suspect, that clear, determinate narratives of plain facts, told with all their circumstances, and, as it seems, without disguise, and without reserve, can be, either in the whole or in part, the works of invention. If these be forgeries, then is all criticism vain and useless. The writers of the New Testament lived in the times and places of which they speak, and then and there the accounts were published. Had they been false, nothing would have been so easy as to confute them: had they been false, they would have confuted each other; for we have several relations of the same facts. But they are wholly uncontradicted, perfectly consistent. I speak only of the principal events, not of any minute variations, which may be found or imagined in the different gospels. But if Jesus Christ did. not live in Judea, if he did not declare himself to be commissioned by God, and there teach a new religion, if he did not suffer death, and if, after his death, his disciples did not still *adhere to him, and affirm that he was restored to life, then is all historical evidence false and deceitful. But our evidence is greater than what we usually consider as historical. We have the letters of the first propagators of Christianity to the churches they had planted. These letters, without asserting, plainly suppose, many of the principal facts: and the proof, as being indirect, is the more convincing. From that time to the present we have a continued series of Christian writers, and continued notice of the Christians and of their religion in writers not favorable to them, of every country and in every language. If these things do not convince us that Christianity was taught at the time, and by the persons mentioned in the New Testament, that it was presently spread over the Roman empire, and blessings of providence fall always into the best hands. We may lament that men so often misuse what might have been the instruments of happiness to themselves or others; but still those blessings attract our desires and endeavors not the less forcibly or justly. The truth is, that religion, as received among men, can neither do every thing that might be wished or expected from it, nor nothing. The vices of men neither prove them to be infidels, nor their religion useless. A force, not sufficient to stem the enraged ocean, may check its rising waves; and that which cannot oppose the madness of the people, may moderate or direct their passions. But we will not impute to the public instructors the miseries of this kingdom, on this foundation, that the age was very religious and yet very wicked, unless we find that the wickedness and the miseries arose from corrupt instruction. Religion, once perverted, will more fatally deceive us than the influence of the blindest passions. He, who wanders without any guide, as whim or accident may lead him, can scarce go exactly right; but he, who is deceived by the guide in whom he trusts, will infallibly lose his way. When the light, which should direct us, is darkness, how great is that darkness! If they, who at first engaged in the support of despotism, supported it, because they had been taught that despotism is the institution of God, that a monarch is his vicegerent, appointed by his word, exercising his authority if they, who to the last could not be reconciled to our ancient constitution, were averse to it, because they believed that kings were given by God in his anger, to scourge the folly of the people who desired them; and that the only lawful government is a free and perfect democracy: if some, from a false notion of Christian liberty, would submit to no earthly power, to no dominion but that of Jesus Christ: if others, from a false notion of the unity of the church, would allow no toleration to the puritans, who in their turn insisted that it was the duty of the king to punish the idolatry of the papists with death, and that, on his neglect, it was the duty of his subjects to compel him if these, and various other doctrines, favorable to tyranny, or anarchy, or persecution, either produced or prolonged the public calamities; then the teachers of religion cannot be acquitted of being accessories to the general guilt. |