104 LECTURE VI. CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL HISTORY. LUKE I. 1-4. Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among 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 deeper reverence for Christianity, by tracing out the separate steps of the 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. The question embraces what the critics call the credibili ty 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 trustworthiness? 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 authorized 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,* in which the principal facts are untrue. Men who publish grave historical works, openly to the world, before all their countrymen, under their own name, 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 facts* on which their histories proceed, what would it have availed them? Who would have given the least credit to their books? What would have been the consequences of their dishonesty, but 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 opposed, new modes of thinking and acting are introduced, and established habits broken up. Then I say, that the gospel history, being authentic, is therefore credible; that is, having been published at the very time, by the apostles, under their own names as eyewitnesses, before the face of mankind, enemies as well as friends, for the avowed purpose of propagating the Christian religion-is, therefore, deserving of credit-the main facts of it are true. 2. But, further, if the New Testament be authentic, the very small number of its principal facts, and the extraordinary prominence and importance of those facts, prove the credibility of them. 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 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 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 benefi cent life-his violent death by crucifixion-his resurrection *For as to minor questions, errors in judgment, over-statements, and the other ordinary effects of human frailty, I say nothing; these were prevented in the case of the sacred writers, by the inspiration, by which, as we shall hereafter prove, they were guided, -the descent 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 facts of such prominence, and awakening such intense interest. thenticity proves the credibility. The au 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 trustworthiness, 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 supposition is so great, that you can scarcely imagine it. It cannot 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 *See Dr. Gregory's Letters, vol. i. p. 89, &c. The remark is applicable to the entire argument all the parts of it hang together. The miracles, more especially, as we shall see in the next Lecture, rest on the general credibility of the books of the New Testament. 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, as deducible from the truth of the several facts which they refer to that is, as 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 will 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 testimonies-facts supported by historical documents ancient and undoubted witnesses more numerous and trustworthy than 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. For this is the second way in which we try this question of credibility. 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." |