after this no further evidence could be demanded of the veracity of all those historians. But still, though you would have no right to require, you might perhaps discover additional evidence. You might search collateral history for the private characters of those writers; and how would it heighten your satisfaction to find that universally they were esteemed beyond reproach, even by their personal opponents. You might also inquire what motive they could have had for deception; and how conclusive would it seem in their favor to discover, that so far from any suspicion of such a motive attaching to them, they had undertaken to publish what they did with the certainty of sacrificing every thing earthly, and actually plunged themselves by it into poverty, contempt, and suffering. One can hardly imagine stronger evidence of truth. None could, with any reason, require it.

But yet there might be additional evidence. These historians perhaps had many and bitter personal adversaries. How did they treat their books? The books were published during the lifetime of many who had seen Augustus, and had witnessed the principal events described; they were published in the very places where those events took place, and in the midst of thousands who knew all about them. How, then, did their enemies treat these histories? Now, should you discover that the personal adversaries of these four writers, however disposed, were unable to deny, but on the contrary acknowledged, assumed, and reasoned upon their narratives as true; and furthermore, that the thousands who had wit

nessed the principal events recorded, never contradicted those narratives, but in numerous instances afforded all the confirmation they were capable of; I am sure you would think the whole evidence for the credibility of those four histories not only conclusive, but singularly and wonderfully so.

I have thus sketched a mass of evidence, and a variety of adequate evidence, which, were the half of it required for any book of ancient history but the Bible, would bring its credibility into utter condemnation. If a book, with all this in its favor, ought not to be believed, historical truth, or the possibility of ascertaining it, must be given up. But who would think of resisting such evidence? What would be thought of the intellect, not to speak of the candor of the man who, with all this before him, should take up the memoir of the life of Augustus Cæsar, as above supposed, and not feel that it were the absurdest folly to question the accuracy of its statements? In laying out this sketch, I have exhibited a general view of the evidence for the credibility of the gospel history. In proceeding to more particular details, I hope to show you that every branch of the evidence I have glanced at, however vain to seek it in favor of any other ancient history, can be cited in attestation of the credibility of that in the New Testament.

From the brief view we have taken of the evidence which may be brought for the credibility of any historical document, it appears that the great points to be made out in favor of the writer are these

two: competent knowledge and trustworthy honesty. Did he know enough to write a true account? and then, was he honest enough to be unable to write. any other than a true account? Establish these, and the book is established-the question is closed. Let us take this plan as to the history before us. We have several independent writings containing the gospel history. Let us select that of St. JOHN, and try the question first upon it. We begin, then, with this most important inquiry :

I. Had the writer of this book SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF POSSESSING ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE AS TO THOSE MATTERS OF FACT WHICH HE HAS RELATED? I do not suppose that much array of argument can be necessary to prove that he had every opportunity. It is to be first considered, that the amount of knowledge required to enable John, or either of the other evangelists, to give an accurate account of so much. of the life of Christ and of the transactions connected with his cause as he has embraced in his narrative, was not very considerable. The gospel history is contained in a small space. Thirty pages of a common family Bible comprise the whole of what John has related. It is a plain, straightforward account of a very simple, intelligible train of events. There are no labyrinths of historical truth to trace out; no perplexed involutions of circumstances to unravel. Consequently, when you consider that John, by the testimony of all tradition, as well as that of the gospel history, was a member of the household of Christ-admitted into his most unreserved and affec

tionate intercourse-the disciple whom he specially loved, who accompanied him in all his journeyings, followed him into his retirements, stood beneath his cross, and was a constant companion of the other disciples, and a witness of their actions-you will readily grant that John must have possessed all desirable opportunities of knowing, and must actually have known the gospel history so perfectly as to be fully competent to write an accurate account.

I

shall therefore refrain from any further remarks upon this branch of the argument, and shall pass to the second, in entire confidence that I leave no mind in any reasonable doubt of the adequateness of our historian's knowledge.

II. The second and the main question to be pursued is this: HAVE WE REASON TO RELY WITH IMPLICIT CONFIDENCE UPON THE HONESTY OF THIS HISTORIAN? Believing him to have known enough to relate the truth, may we also believe that he was too honest to relate any thing but the truth? This is a fair and plain question. Prove the negative, and John's history must be given up. Prove the affirmative, and it is "worthy of all acceptation." We begin the argument for the affirmative with the history itself. There are certain characteristic marks of historical honesty which can hardly be counterfeited to any extent, and always produce a favorable impression. Take up the history written by St. John. I call your attention to the obvious facts that,

1. Its narrative is in a very high degree circumstantial. A false witness will not need to be cau

tioned against the introduction of many minute circumstances into his statement. The more he connects it with the particulars of time and place and persons, so as to locate his facts, and bring in living men as associated with them, the more does he multiply the probabilities of detection. He gives the cross-examination every advantage. It would be impossible for a false statement abounding in such details, and at the same time exciting general interest in the neighborhood where, and soon after they are alleged to have occurred, to escape exposure. Consequently, when we take up a narrative thus minutely circumstantial, and which we are sure did excite among all classes where its events are located, the very highest and most scrutinizing interest, and that too within a short time after the period to which the events are referred, we always feel inpressed with a strong persuasion that the writer had the consciousness of truth and the fearlessness of honesty. It is evident that he had no disposition, and therefore no cause, to shun the closest investigation. On the other hand, if you take up any books professing to be histories of events within the reach and investigation of those among whom they were first published, but yet in a great measure untrue, you will find a great deficiency of such minute details of time, place, and persons, as would serve to test their faithfulness. Compare them with the histories of the Peloponnesian and Gallic wars, by Thucydides and Julius Cæsar, and you will see directly how strong a feature of true narrative, in distinction from whatever is in a great