which made the Bible what it was to the first Christians. This fixed it in their hearts, entwined it around their first principles of action, and connected it with their habitual language and doctrine. And it is to this we owe, under God, the copious testimonies on which our faith now rests. Let the detail of these testimonies, then, bring us back to that simplicity of love from which they flowed. Let us delight in our Bibles. Let the discovery of our lost estate, and the proffers of exuberant grace in the sacrifice of Christ, which are there made to us, move and bear away our hearts. If professed Christians had any just measure of this devout temper, they would not need such courses of Lectures as I am now attempting. The obvious arguments for the authenticity of the sacred scriptures, would so fall in with their conviction of the excellency of the gospel, as at once to kindle admiration, obedience, joy. The scoffs of unbelief would no more affect them now, than the scorn of Celsus or Porphyry did the first Christians. They would only see, in the bitterness of adversaries, whether ancient or modern, and in the admissions they are compelled to make, further reasons for adoring that mysterious providence which, after employing the love of friends, overrules also the wrath of enemies to the establishment of his own word. They would ascribe to its true cause, an indifference to holiness and truth, that perverse ingenuity which can overlook the most luminous evidence, to follow some cloudy sophism-which can adhere, amidst the blaze of evangelical light, to the darkness and uncertainty of human imaginations.

Unmoved by such fearful examples of disobedience against conscience, the sincere Christian will be only anxious to love his Bible more, to transcribe it into his heart and life with greater fidelity, and rise by the means of these proofs of authenticity, to that spiritual elevation of faith and joy in God, and of holy obedience to his will, which it is the end of all external evidences to produce.

LECTURE VI.

CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY.

LUKE i. 1-4.

Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed amongst

us,

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.

It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

That thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.

HAVING proved that the books of the New Testament are authentic, the whole question as to the external evidence is virtually settled. In pursuance however of our design, of fixing in the susceptible heart a profound reverence for Christianity, by tracing out the steps of our great argument, I go on to the next question in order, which is Whether the history contained in the New Testament may be fully credited; that is, whether the sacred writers describe things as they really took place; whether their books deserve to be implicitly trusted, so that a fact ought to be accounted true, because it is found in them?

This question embraces what the critics call the Credibility of the gospel history.

It is to this that the words of my text immediately apply. St. Luke wrote his narrative to set right, perhaps correct, the accounts given by others, to show on what foundation the things most surely believed by the first christians rested; to do this by an appeal to those who from the beginning had been eye-witnesses and ministers of the word-and to do it as one who himself had a perfect understanding of all things from the very first—and thus to lay the firmest grounds of credibility, and teach them the certainty of those things wherein they had been instructed.

On this question, then, the natural course for us to take, is to ask, in the first place, as we did on a former occasion, How do men act in common life under similar circumstances; in what way do they ascertain the credibility of historical works?

I take up any celebrated writings of this kind: Davila's History of the Civil Wars of France-Lord Clarendon's History of the Great Rebellion-Father Paul's History of the Council of Trent-and I ask, what are the grounds on which the credibility of such works rest?

Are the books themselves authentic-Are the principal facts in them supported by other testimonies?-Do the histories themselves, and the character of the writers, furnish satisfactory proof of trust-worthiness?-These are the questions which lead to the natural evidences of the truth and fidelity of a narrative.

In a similar way then, I proceed as to the credibility of the New Testament books. I leave for the present the divine authority, inspiration, and other most important subsequent considerations. I confine myself to one plain point, Are the Christian writers deserving of entire credit in their narratives?

To prove this, I appeal to the GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY of the books, as already established-to all OTHER ACCESSIBLE SOURCES of information-to the CHARACTER and CIRCUMSTANCES of the sacred writers themselves.

When I shall have gone through these particulars, a few observations will evince the authenticity and credibility of the books of the Old Testament, and the fidelity of our

English authorised Translation, and conclude this first division of our whole course.

I. I appeal to the AUTHENTICITY OF THE BOOKS of the New Testament, as involving their credibility.

1. For it is very rare to meet with any authentic works of the historical kind, observes a profound writer,a in which the principal facts are untrue. Men who publish openly to the world, before all their countrymen, under their own name, grave historical works, can have no motive, no hope of being read, no possibility of compassing any one end, if they falsify the principal facts of their narrative. I know not that we have a single instance upon record of such an attempt. And much less is this possible, when the history itself is contemporary, and the writers record the facts of their own times, before the face of their own people and nation.

If Davila, or Lord Clarendon, or Father Paul, had falsified the principal events of their histories; (for, as to minor questions, errors in judgment, overstatements, the other ordinary effects of human frailty, I say nothing;) but if they had falsified the PRINCIPAL FACTS of their histories, what would it have availed? Who would have given the least credit to their books? What would have been the consequences of their dishonesty, but instant shame and disgrace, without the accomplishment of one single object?

The attempt to falsify contemporary writings, becomes the more impracticable, in proportion as interest is excited, prejudices are awakened, new modes of thinking and acting are introduced, and established habits broken up.

Then I say, that the gospel history, published by eyewitnesses, at the very time, under their own names, before the face of mankind, enemies as well as friends, for the establishment of the Christian religion, being authentic and genuine, is therefore credible-the main facts of it are true.

2. But, further, if the New Testament be authentic, the extraordinary prominence and importance, of the principal facts, and the very small number of those facts, prove the credibility of them.

(a) Hartley.

The Christian books do not treat of any long and difficult and remote scene of history, of a multitude of complicated events involved in secret negotiations and transactions, as all our Histories of England, for example, do. But they record a few, a very few principal facts, in a period of time extremely brief; but these facts, so broad, so notorious, of such prodigious importance, so immediately affecting the business and bosoms of men, that it was utterly impossible that any imposition could be practised. About six or seven principal events comprehend every thing. The wonderful birth of an extraordinary person, whom the apostles call the Son of God-his series of wonderful works wrought before the eyes of mankind-his holy and beneficent life-his violent death by crucifixion-his resurrection -the decent of the Holy Ghost. Upon the footing of these few facts, the apostles go forth to promulgate the Gospel and change the religion of the world; and whilst thus employed, publish the account of the several events before the eyes of those who had witnessed them. With such a design, it was morally impossible that the apostles, if they really wrote these histories, (as we have abundantly proved, and as we now consider to be admitted,) could have falsified a few facts of such prominence, and awakening such intense interest. The authenticity proves the credibility.

3. But, yet more, the positive and varied testimonies which were brought forward to prove that the books of the New Testament were genuine, evince that the chief matters of them are credible. We marshalled those testimonies, indeed, only to support the proposition then before us, the authentic origin of the New Testament; but they were testimonies, in most instances, more properly belonging to the credibility. In truth, the arguments for the genuineness of the sacred writings are so interwoven with those for their trust-worthiness, and they support each other in such a variety of ways, that it is extremely difficult to keep the proper distinction, so as not to anticipate and prove more than the exactness of logical method requires; or, in other words, the inconsistency of the contrary sup