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 noon-day, 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 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 idolators, who took no interest 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 Antonius, 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 distinct reference to the facts of the gospel history in the annals of this celebrated historian, who so little favored Christianity, that he called it "exitiabilis superstitio," '-a destructive superstition, and whose testimony even Gibbon admits as incontrovertible.

Apology, c. 21.

See Lardner in loc.

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

Pliny's letter to the Emperor Trajan, in the succeeding century, (A. D. 170,) confirms the gospel narrative. 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 a 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."*

Such testimonies stamp a credibility, not only upon 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 credi bility of the New Testament. His account of the state of affairs in Judæa, of the Jewish sects and principles, of the Samaritans, of Herod and his sons, and 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. I present, first, an example of facts, noticed by the Jewish historian, which our gospel account HAD PASSED OVER, probably because they belonged to secular history. We read in St. Matthew, that on the death of Herod, Joseph (6 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 thou sand Jews at the festival of the Passover-an outrageous instance of barbarity, which would be instantly 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.†

* Bonnet in Paley.

I give the very acute and conclusive account of Mr. Blunt :

ii. Let me, in the next place, give a specimen of the CONCURRENT NARRATIVE 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

"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, 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.

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.*

iii. But the account which Josephus gives of John Baptist is yet more important, BOTH BY WHAT HE SAYS, AND BY WHAT HE CONCEALS. "Some of the Jews were of opinion that God had suffered Herod's army to be destroyed, as a just punishment on him for the death of John, called the Baptist. For Herod had killed him, who was a just man, and who had called upon the Jews to be baptized, and to practise virtue. And many coming to him, (for they were wonderfully taken with his discourses,) Herod was seized with apprehensions, lest, by his authority, they should be led into sedition against him. Being taken up on this suspicion of Herod, and being sent bound to the castle of Macharus, he was slain there."

This passage admits and verifies all the principal facts concerning John Baptist, as contained in our books. Nor does the omission of a reference to John Baptist's doctrine, and of his being the forerunner of the Messiah, less clearly establish, though tacitly, the other parts of our gospel account. Indeed, the SILENCE of this great historian in his other writ

*Our sacred historian states, That Herod went down from Judæa to Cæsarea, 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. That immediately the Angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory, and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost. Acts xii. 19-23.

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 garb, gave him a majestic and awful appearance; and that in a short time the people began, in several parts of the theatre, flattering acclamations, calling him a god, and entreating him to be propitious to them. That the king neither reproved these persons, nor rejected the impious flattery; that immediately after this, he was seized with pains in the bowels, extremely violent, was carried in all haste to his palace, and expired in torment in five days. Ant. 1. 19, c. 8, s. 2, apud Lardner.

ings, where he was almost compelled to speak, on the particulars of our Lord's life and crucifixion and the establishment of Christianity, whilst he details the most minute circumstances of the very times when they occurred, remarkably confirms the truth of our Christian history. For that Josephus was acquainted with the chief events, his notice of John Baptist shows, and the records of the contemporary historian, Tacitus, would have compelled him to know. Had the apostles, then, been practising any imposition upon mankind, had they proclaimed things which had not really taken place, he would have rejoiced to expose the deception. That he has not done so, can only be accounted for by the truth of the facts. The historian, a Jew, a contemporary, writing the narrative of the time, who had the fullest opportunity of knowledge, and whose bitterness to the Christian name doubtless resembled that of his countrymen, brings no charge of imposition or fraud, gives no account of things different from our own, holds his peace-surely the silence of such an individual proclaims aloud the fidelity of our history; whilst every word of his testimony, where he does speak, goes to confirm positively and decisively that fidelity.*

I need not dwell on the important testimony to be derived from the Mishna, a collection of Jewish traditions, published about A. D. 180; and from the Talmuds, or comments on those traditions, which appeared about the years A. D. 300 and A. D. 500; and which, amidst much absurdity and keen contempt, admit all the facts of the Christian history.

4. I must not, however, omit that proof of the credibility

*I waive the disputed passage, where he notices briefly our Lord, and allows him to be the Messiah: though the judgment of the best

critics is in its favor.

I cannot but add, however, the following reflection of the writer just referred to, upon the history of Josephus, when taken together and as a whole, in convincing us of the truth of the gospel history. "No man, (says our author,) I think, can rise from a perusal of the latter books of the Antiquities, and the account of the Jewish War, without a very strong impression that the state of Judæa, civil, political and moral, as far as it can be gathered from the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, is portrayed in these latter (the Gospels and Acts) with the greatest accuracy, and with the strictest attention to all the circumstances of the place and the times. It is impossible to impart this conviction to my readers in a paragraph; the nature of the case does not admit of it; it is the result of a thousand little facts, which it would, be difficult to detach from the general narrative, and which, considered separately, might seem frivolous and fanciful.' Blunt's Veracity, p. 120.