him from every other pursuit. He shares in the common enthusiasm of the cause, and gives all his talents and eloquence to the support of it. Instead of the Roman historian, Tacitus comes down to us in the shape of a Christian father, and the high authority of his name is lost in a crowd of similar testimonies. . . . In each of the nu merous fathers of the Christian church, we have a stronger testimony than the required testimony of this heathen Tacitus. We see mon who, if they had not been Christians, would have risen to as high an eminence as Tacitus in the literature of the times, and whose direct testimony to the gospel history would, in that case, have been most impressive even to the mind of an infidel. And are these testimonies to be less impressive, because they were preceded by conviction and sealed by martyrdom?

"Besides what we have in the New Testament, no other narrative of the miracles of Christianity has come down to us bearing the marks of composition by an apostle or contemporary of the apostles. Now to those who regret this circumstance, we submit the following observations. Suppose that one other narrative of the life and miracles of our Saviour had been composed; and to give it all possible value, let us suppose it to be the work of an apostle: we thus secure to its uttermost extent the advantage of an original testimony, the testimony of another eye-witness, and constant companion of our Saviour. Now what would have been the fate of this performance? -it would have been incorporated into the New Testament along with the other Gospels. It may have been the Gospel according to Philip, or the Gospel according to Bartholomew. The whole amount of the advantage would have been the substitution of five Gospels instead of four; and this addition, the want of which is so much complained of, would scarcely have been felt by the Christians or acknowledged by the infidel, to strengthen the evidence now in our possession.

"But let us suppose that the narrative wanted had been the work of some contemporary, who writes upon his own original knowledge of the subject, but was not so closely associated with Christ or his immediate disciples, as to have his history admitted into the canonical Scriptures. It would have been transmitted to us in a separate state: it would have stood out from that collection of writings which passes under the general name of the New Testament, and the additional evidence would have come down in the form most satis. factory to those with whom we are now reasoning. Yet though, in point of form, the testimony might be more satisfactory, in point of fact it would be less s It is the testimony of a less competent wit

ness; of one who, in the judgment of contemporaries, wante those characters which entitled him to a place in the New Testament. There must be some delusion, if we think that a circumstance, which renders an historian less accredited in the eyes of his own age, should render him more accredited in the eyes of posterity. We do not complain of the anxiety for more evidence, and as much of it as possible; but it is right to be told that the evidence we have is of far more value than the evidence demanded; and that in the concur rence of four canonical narratives, we see a far more effectual argument for the miracles of the New Testament, than in any number of those separate and extensive narratives, the want of which is so much felt, and so much complained of. That the New Testament is not one, but many testimonies, has been often said and often acquiesced in. Yet, even when formally acceded to, its impression is unfelt. There is on this subject a great and an obstinate delusion, which not only confirms the infidel in his disregard to Christianity, but even hides the strength of the evidence from its warmest admirers.

"These remarks admit of a striking confirmation, which Dr. Chalmers has not observed. The case he puts, with regard to Tacitus, is precisely what has occurred in the history of Josephus, (see p. 106.) In every extant copy we find a testimony to the facts of our Lord's history, closing with the words, 'For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him.' Yet this greater fulness of statement, instead of rendering the testimony more valuable, has made it nearly useless in argument, because it awakens so strong a suspicion of its being spurious. Many of the ablest critics have condemned the passage, though nearly all the external evidence is in its favor, because, in the words of Chalmers, such an admission from a Jew, remaining a mere Jew, seems 'the most unlikely thing in the world.' If Tacitus had written the sentence supposed before, and still remained a heathen, his testimony would have been as certainly rejected for the same reason. The spirit of unbelief provides a different form of illusion for every conceivable form of the testimony. If it is limited to common facts, and proceeds from unbelievers, then their silence about the miracles is held to be a presumption against their reality. If it is the evidence of unbelievers, or half believers, who admit the miracles without embracing Christianity, then their flagrant inconsistency either makes their words be rejected as spu rious, or destroys their character as trustworthy witnesses. If it pro ceeds from Christians, who bear witness to the miracles of the gos

el, and have embraced the faith, then a suspicion arises that they are mere accomplices in collusion, or victims of a blind credulity. But wisdom is still justified of all her children.

"The nature of that illusion, which conceals from us the full evidence of truth in the sacred histories, calls for a little further illustration. It arises in part from their being always united in one volume, so that our habits of thought, even from childhood, present them to us as one single work. But its chief occasion is our view of their common character, as the inspired word of God. They are thus made the substance of the revelation which needs to be confirmed, and are excluded from that body of external testimony which is needful or desirable to confirm it. It is not easy to reverence them as Divine, and still to regard them as thoroughly human; or, on the other hand, to view them as independent human witnesses, and not to set aside in our thoughts their claims to inspiration. The mental difficulty is of the same kind, though lower in degree, which attends the doctrine of the incarnation. A strong faith that Christ is the very Word of God, by whom all things were made, may often predispose to the heresy of the Docetæ, and to the theory which ascribes to the Saviour a fantastic and unreal humanity. On the other hand, a vivid perception of the human elements of our Lord's history may as often prove a real hindrance to a simple reception of the great doctrine, that He is 'God over all, blessed for ever.' It is, however, of the greatest importance to remember that every view of inspiration must be false, which annuls the human element, to establish that which is Divine. They were 'holy men of God,' who spoke and wrote, though it was 'as moved by the Holy Ghost.' They were human witnesses, though evangelists and apostles. Their higher and spiritual gifts did not supersede, but crown and complete, their natural clearness of understanding, or their moral honesty as upright men. Whatever, then, brings to light the human aspect of the gospel histories, and compares the time, places, customs, and persons there mentioned, with the similar statements of other histories, helps to dissipate a mischievous illusion. To lay aside, for the time, all reference to their inspiration, and to treat them merely as authentic documents of the age, is the only way to realize vividly the force of the external evidence for the truth of the gospel revelation. That truth being once clearly perceived, we shall then learn to prize the vehicles by which it is conveyed to us. As the ointment of the high priest ran down to the skirts of his clothing, so the apprehended glory of Christ and his salvation will extend itself over all these narratives and epistles, which clothe the precious and Divine reve

men.

lation with a suitable robe wherein to present itself to the eyes of We shall then begin to see that the human truth and honesty of the sacred histories are only a pledge to us of that still higher character which they possess, as the voice of the Divine Spirit; that they are truly given by inspiration of God, and therefore are profitable in every part for doctrine, for reproof; for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. To test them candidly and freely, as human documents, is only the first step towards the full and hearty acknowledgment of their claims, as the inspired word of God.—Ren T. R. Birke.

CHAPTER IX

OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE HISTORICAL SCRIPTURES, IN ELEVEN * SECTIONS.

Nor forgetting, therefore, what credit is due to the evangelical history, supposing even any one of the four Gospels to be genuine; what credit is due to the Gospels, even supposing nothing to be known concerning them but that they were written by early disciples of the religion, and received with deference by early Christian churches; more especially not forgetting what credit is due to the New Testament in its capacity of cumulative evidence; we now proceed to state the proper and distinct proofs, which show not only the general value of these records, but their specific authority, and the high probability there is that they actually came from the persons whose names they bear.

There are, however, a few preliminary reflections, by which we may draw up with more regularity to the propositions upon which the close and particular discussion of the subject depends. Of which nature are the following:

I. We are able to produce a great number of ancient manuscripts, found in many different countries, and in coun

* According to the usage of English writers on the Evidences, Genuineness denotes that the books of the Bible were composed by the authors whose names they bear; Authenticity that they relate the facts as they really happened; and Integrity, that the books have been preserved pure and entire. The last two qualities are sometimes included in the meaning of the term, Authentic. In the writings of Scottish, and of some American divines, the words Genuine and Authentic change places.-Ed.