gelical narratives.—It appears a singular charge against Hebrews that they are less fully informed than others respecting any portion of their national history; but a due attention to the historians of other nations will convince the learned among you, that the influence of Jesus, whatever were his authority, the progress of Christianity, whatever might be its truth, constitute a remarkable period of the Hebrew history which is veiled from the observation of the bulk of your people, while it is eminently conspicuous to all besides.

The silence of Gentile writers respecting Christ has by many been regarded with nearly as much surprise as that of Josephus: but it is not in reality at all surprising. The fact is, that many of them were not silent, having left very powerful testimony to the truth of our faith: but because they were themselves Christians, their evidence is set aside as being partial. This is manifestly unreasonable: since the fact of their becoming Christians, in opposition to worldly interests of every kind, forms of itself a powerful evidence; and, since it also testifies to their own sincerity, it gives authority to everything which they wrote. Their testimony is also confirmed by the silence preserved in the writings of unbelieving Gentiles. There was no opposition between the two classes of writers; as there surely would have been, if the one had believed in a series of impostures which could be proved to be so by the other. It will not do in this case, any more than in that of Josephus, to hint at the insignificance of the subject. Claims which gave rise to repeated persecutions, to changes in the subordinate governments of the empire, to movements of the soldiery, to councils in palaces, to proclamations, to a multitude of public executions, could not be beneath the notice of historians. There was reason enough for their suppression of the facts in the unacceptableness of the subject to those whom they sought to please, and not less to themselves. Those who had any real knowledge of the circumstances, and those who had not, were probably equally at a loss what to say, and therefore wisely said nothing. This has never been the case with a heresy or

H

rebellion of any other kind; historians usually being very ready to pronounce on such events, supplying their own want of wellascertained information by following the opinions of others; and if Christianity had been viewed in the light of such a heresy or rebellion, it would have been thus treated. We should have had the leading events in the life of Jesus and his followers presented in all, accompanied with political speculations or expressions of philosophical scorn, or of proud compassion; ending, in every case, with a decisive sentence upon the vanity or falsehood of such pretensions, and abundance of wonder that they should be supported by any contemporary writers. Such is the common course in cases of doubtful but imposing claims. Instead of this, we have a great deal of positive testimony on the one side, to which nothing is opposed but the silence of a few, a silence which was most certainly not that of contempt, and which therefore is a negative testimony to the truth of that which is thus mysteriously passed over.

There is, however, one exception to this remarkable system of advocacy on the one hand and silence on the other. We have the testimony of a Roman historian to the facts of the Gospel history, without any advocacy of the Gospel. Tacitus relates that there was such a person as Jesus, who introduced a new religion, and suffered death in consequence, under the administration of Pontius Pilate. He relates the progress of this new religion in Judea, its temporary check by persecution, its revival, and ultimate spread as far as Rome itself. It is well that this testimony is extant, if it prove satisfactory to any about to become Christians. To Christians it is also satisfactory as far as it goes; but they have much that is better. It is something to have the testimony of a man of understanding and approved veracity; but it is much more to have the testimony many who were so much better informed about these very facts as to be able to interpret them rightly. Whether Tacitus neglected to inquire into a faith which he believed to be a mere modification of Judaism, or whether he thought it his duty to adhere to the established religion of his country, or

of

་

whether he believed in the resurrection of Jesus without declaring or acting on his belief, is of little consequence to us, as long as many men equally capable of judging and of recording their judgement have informed themselves more fully concerning the facts, and left us their testimony; a testimony which cannot be weakened by the fact of their having become Christians, founding their evidence on conviction, and sealing it by martyrdom.

Before we take leave of these heathen writers, it is right to remark, that though they tell us nothing of Christ and Christianity, they cast a light upon the state of Judea, the provisions of its government, and the persecuted condition of the primitive Christians; so as to place us in the right position for judging of the testimony of these primitive Christians themselves. The result of a comparison of this class of evidence is in every case favourable to the veracity of the evangelical writers.

We now turn to the remaining class of writers,-Jewish historians who believed in Jesus.

It is well known that the generality of ancient historical facts rests on very scanty testimony. One writer perhaps gives a relation, which is copied and enlarged by another at a short distance of time; his relation being, in turn, improved or stript of its improvements by succeeding authors, whose number is perpetually on the increase. We believe such relations in the absence of all testimony against them, and should believe them probably even if our religious system depended on them, as long as there was no counterbalancing testimony. But the Jewish and Christian histories stand on much better evidence than this. It is needless to you, as to ourselves, to point out the evidences of the Hebrew Scriptures, since they are alike believed by you and ourselves; but it is desirable to show how differently the historical process has been carried on in the case of the Gospel, and all other cases. In no other instance, perhaps, have eight contemporary writers given the original history of any series of events. We speak of history in the case of all the eight writers, because it is in fact so,

whether expressly detailed in narrative, or implied and attested in a course of reasoning upon that narrative. You can be in no danger of adopting the extraordinary notion that these eight testimonies are but one, because they are bound up in one volume, a notion which it is still sometimes necessary to protest against in the case of unbelievers in all revelation. It is evident to you, that as your Scriptural writers lose none of their individual authority by being connected with each other, the same is the case with the evangelical writers, be their testimony true or false. The evidence of the succeeding Prophets does not interfere or become one with that of Moses, because they wrote concerning the same God and the same people, or because their works have been collected and formed into a regular series; and in the same manner, the testimony of John, of Luke, and of Paul, forms three testimonies, whether they be united for a special purpose, or kept as distinct as the works of Raschi, Maimonides, and Abarbanel.

Of the eight writers referred to, Matthew, James, Jude, Peter, and John, were among the followers originally chosen by Jesus to witness his words and actions, and the events of his life; and they were therefore the persons best qualified to attest the delivery of those prophecies which it is now our principal aim to establish.

Matthew wrote his history in your language and for the use of your nation; and being, doubtless, aware of the peculiar appropriateness of the arguments from prophecy, as well as of the surpassing interest of the predictions of Jesus to his own countrymen, he gives them at greater length and with more careful explicitness than the other historians. His narrative is judged to have been written first; but as it is evident that neither Mark nor Luke had seen it, it could not have been published long before they wrote.

James (surnamed the Just, on account of the excellence of his character,) gave his testimony to the Messiahship of Jesus by his death, which took place, by a decree of the supreme council of your nation, in the interval between the death of Festus

and the arrival of the next Roman governor. His Epistle bears as unquestionable testimony as his self-sacrifice to the design and spirit of the Gospel. It is not possible to imagine a more beautiful exemplification of the pure system of faith and morals introduced by Jesus than this epistle affords. Its corroboration of the historical records of his brethren is as completely satisfactory, as if he had given his explicit sanction to every detail.

Of Jude little is known, but the date of his Epistle may be nearly ascertained from its purport. It is directed against the corruptions which the disciples of the Oriental philosophy endeavoured to intermix with the simple faith, for the purpose (before alluded to,) of making the Gospel more acceptable by getting rid of the reproach of the Cross.

The testimony of Peter is as valuable from its fullness and variety, as from the weight imparted to it by the character of the man. His character is shown by facts to have been originally impetuous and unstable. Of all the Apostles he was the most forward in enterprise, the least persevering in difficulty, the first in eagerness, and the soonest dismayed. He was therefore the most conspicuous in the history; and through this pre-eminence we know how perpetually he was the companion of Jesus. The questions, the remarks, the protestations, the remonstrances of Peter; his hasty actions and their consequences, the influence which his ardour gave him over his companions, the love mixed with compassion with which his Master regarded him,-stand out from the narrative on every occasion, and prove that Peter was, as he declared, a perpetual witness of the Messiah's conduct and teachings. In proportion as the new dispensation became more fully revealed, the views of Peter became more enlarged, and his convictions and the conduct arising from them more stable, till he became the prince of the Apostles; acknowledged to be so by them, and especially honoured by the importance of the offices appointed him from on high. It was he who converted the multitudes on occasion of the descent of the Spirit; it was he who was appointed to