position is so great, that it can scarcely stand long enough to be confuted. But it is quite clear that the Christian writers of the early centuries do not appeal to the New Testament merely as the production of the apostles, but as the undoubted record of the facts of the gospel history. Nor do the Jewish and Heathen opponents argue against the books on any other ground. The question of authorship would have had no interest, except as bringing along with it that of fidelity and truth of history. Indeed, in almost all the testimonies adduced in the last Lecture, we came at the evidence of authenticity through that of credibility. When Justin Martyr, for example, asserts that the first Christians assembled on the Sunday, that the memoirs of the Apostles were read, and that the president afterwards exhorted the people to the imitation of such excellent things: the passage is manifestly, and, in the first instance, a proof of the full credit attached to the facts recorded in the New Testament; though of course that implies the existence of the books which recorded them, and the uncontradicted reception of them as the authentic writings of the Apostles. So of all the rest.

The quotations are made, not to prove the authenticity, which we gather from them incidentally, as it were, but for the highest and most practical purposes, for exhortation and reproof and consolation, resting upon the truth of the several facts contained in them, that is, resting upon the credibility of the history.

Here then we might pause. The authenticity, under the circumstances of the case before us, sufficiently sustains the credibility. The reason why we dwelt so long on that preliminary question, may now be appreciated. It carries every thing with it. Nor can any mere cavil or surmise on minor points, be allowed for a moment, to shake this solid conclusion. We must have strong and decisive testimoniesfacts supported by historical documents-ancient and undoubted witnesses more numerous and trustworthy than

(b) See Dr. Gregory's Letters, vol. i. p. 89, &c. entire argument-all the parts of it hang together.

The remark is applicable to the
The miracles, more especially,

as we shall see in the next Lecture, rest on the general credibility of the books of the New Testament.

those we have adduced, before we can entertain any doubts as to the full confidence due to the gospel history. I need not say, that no such testimonies have ever been produced, or attempted to be produced. Christianity has never yet met with a fair and manly adversary.

I proceed to appeal,

II. TO ALL OTHER ACCESSIBLE SOURCES OF INFORMATION. Some of these have been adverted to in our former Lectures -others are now first adduced.

1. The governors of the Roman provinces were accustomed to send to Rome accounts of remarkable transactions, which were preserved as the acts of their respective governments. Pontius Pilate gave an account of the death and resurrection of Christ in his Memoirs of Jewish affairs, called, Acta Pilati. Eusebius, (A. D. 315,) referring to them, says: "Our Saviour's resurrection being much talked of throughout Palestine, Pilate informed the Emperor of it." To these acts, deposited amongst the archives of the empire, the primitive Christians always appealed in their disputations with the Gentiles, as to most undoubted testimony. Thus, Justin Martyr, in his first Apology, (A. D. 140,) having mentioned the crucifixion of Christ, adds, "And that these things were so done, you may know from the Acts written in the time of Pontius Pilate." Tertullian, in his Apology, (A. D. 198,) says: "Of all these things relating to Christ, Pilate himself, in conscience already a Christian, sent an account to Tiberius, then Emperor." And in another place he appeals to them in this pointed manner: "Search your own commentaries or public writings; at the moment of Christ's death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noonday, which wonder is related in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day." Thus we set out with a record of the chief facts of the New Testament in the public annals of the Roman empire. 2. The testimony of Heathen writers to the authenticity of the New Testament, which we produced in our last discourse, was confined to those whom controversies brought

(c) Apology, c. 21.

Pe

into contact with the Christians, Celsus, Porphyry, Julian. These all admit the facts of the gospel history, and argue upon them. But numerous profane authors, likewise, not at all engaged in controversy with Christians, notice the chief events recorded in our books, as the religion spread through the empire. They speak of Christianity itself, indeed, with the ignorance or scorn which might be expected from proud idolaters, who took no interest practically in the new doctrine; but their testimony to the facts is on this account the more undeniable. I pass over the important testimonies of Suetonius, Martial, Juvenal, Ælius Lampridius, Lucian, Epictetus, the Emperor Marcus Antoninus, and others, in order to appeal to Tacitus and Pliny, the one contemporary with the Apostles, the other of the next age.

Tacitus relates, about the thirtieth year after our Lord's resurrection, "that the city of Rome being burnt, the emperor Nero, to avert the infamy of being accounted the author of that calamity, threw the odium of it on the Christians, who had their name from Christ, who suffered death in the reign of Tiberius, under his Procurator, Pontius Pilate." Here is a summary of the gospel history in the annals of the celebrated historian Tacitus, who so little favored Christianity, that he called it "exitiabilis superstitio;" and whose testimony, even in the opinion of Gibbon, is incontrovertible.

Pliny's letter to the emperor Trajan, in the succeeding century, (A. D. 170,) completes the narrative. For he testifies that "the Christians filled his government of Bithynia; that the heathen temples and worship had been forsaken; that they met on a certain day to sing hymns to Christ as to God; and that their lives were innocent and pure."-"Comparing Pliny's letter with the account in the Acts," says a French writer, "it seems to me that I had not taken up another author, but that I was still reading the historian of that extraordinary society."

(d) See Lardner in loc.

(e) We shall have again to refer to this testimony more at length, when we come to the subject of the propagation of Christianity.

(f) Bonnet in Paley.

Such testimonies stamp a credibility, not only upon the particular facts on which they chance to fall, but upon the entire narrative to which such accredited facts belong.

3. But we have in the next place, by the goodness of Providence, the testimony of a Jewish historian, Josephus, to our sacred narrative. He lived and died a Jew. He was born A. D. 37. He wrote his History of the Jewish Wars, A. D. 75; and in A. D. 93, his Jewish Antiquities. His talents and opportunities for information, are undeniable. His writings confirm, in almost innumerable instances, the credibility of the New Testament. His account of the state of affairs in Judæa, of the Jewish sects and their principles, of the Samaritans, of Herod and his sons, of the manners of the Jewish people, entirely agree with the evangelical history, and frequently illustrate matters which it did not fall in with the design of our sacred books to detail.

I present, first, an example of facts, noticed by the Jewish historian, which the gospel history had passed over, as belonging to secular history. We read in St. Matthew, that on the death of Herod, Joseph arose and took the young child and his mother and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judæa, in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither. The particular cause of this sudden fear we learn not from the Evangelist. But Josephus informs us, that the first act of Archelaus was the cruel murder of three thousand Jews at the festival of the Passover-an outrageous instance of barbarity, which would instantly be carried by the Jews, on their return to their respective cities, to every part of Judæa, and which accounts most naturally for the suspension of the sacred journey.5

(g) I give the very acute and conclusive account of Mr. Blunt:-"Archelaus, therefore, must have been notorious for his cruelty (it should seem) very soon indeed after his coming to the throne. Nothing short of this could account for the sudden resolution of Joseph to avoid him with so much speed.

"Now, it is remarkable enough, that at the very Passover after Herod's death, even before Archelaus had got time to set out for Rome, to obtain the ratification of his authority from the emperor, he was guilty of an act of outrage and bloodshed, under circumstances, above all others, fitted to make it generally and immediately known. One of the last deeds of his father Herod had been to put to death Judas and Matthias,

Let me, in the next place, give a specimen of the concurrent narative of Josephus. In the account of the death of Herod, in the twelfth of the Acts, we have various remarkable particulars; but not one more than Josephus also actually details in his narrative-the assembly, the oration, the idolatrous cry of the people, Herod's sudden disease and death. Especially, the royal apparel in which Herod was arrayed, is said by the Jewish historian to have been a robe of silver, on which the rays of the sun falling, gave him a majestic and awful appearance-a circumstance which, but too naturally accounts for the impious acclamations of the people.h

two persons who had instigated some young men to pull down a golden eagle which Herod had fixed over the gate of the temple, contrary, as they conceived, to the law of Moses. The hapless fate of these martyrs to the law, excited great commiseration at the Passover which ensued. The parties, however, who uttered their lamentations aloud, were silenced by Archelaus, the new king, in the following manner:"He sent out all the troops against them, and ordered the horsemen to prevent those who had their tents outside the temple, from rendering assistance to those who were within it, and to put to death such as might escape from the foot. Three thousand men did these cavalry slay; the rest betook themselves for safety to the neighboring mountains. Then Archelaus commanded proclamation to be made, that they should all retire to their own homes. So they went away, and left the festival, for fear, lest somewhat worse should ensue.' Antiq. b. xvii. c. 2. s. 3.

"We must bear in mind, that at the Passover, Jews from all parts of the world were assembled; so that any event which occurred at Jerusalem, during that great feast, would be speedily reported, on their return, to the countries where they dwelt. Such a massacre, therefore, at such a season, would at once stamp the character of Archelaus. The fear of him would naturally enough spread wherever a Jew was to be found; and, in fact, so well remembered was this, his first essay at governing the people, that several years afterwards it was brought against him with great effect, on his appearance before Cæsar at Rome.

"It is the more probable, that this act of cruelty inspired Joseph with his dread of Archelaus, because that prince could not have been much known before he came to the throne; never having had any public employment, or, indeed, future destination, like his half-brother Antipater, whereby he might have discovered himself to the nation at large." Veracity of Gospel, p. 135-9.

(h) Our sacred historian states, That Herod went down from Judæa to Casarea, and there abode.

That upon a set day, Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration to them; and the people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a God, and not of a man.

Josephus relates, that, having now reigned three years over all Judæa, he went to the city of Cæsarea.

That he celebrated shows in honor of Cæsar-that he came into the theatre dressed in a robe of silver, of most curious workmanship; that the rays of the rising sun reflected from so splendid a