1. The external evidences include miracles and prophec}'. "We need not inquire whetlier external evidence of a revelation is in all cases requisite to him who immediateh' and at first receives it; for the ques- tion is not whether private revelations have ever been made by God to individuals, and what evidence is re- quired to authenticate them, but what is the kind of evidence which we ought to require of one who pro- fesses to have received a revelation of the will of God, with a command to communicate it to us, and to enjoin it upon our acceptance and submission as tlie rule of our opinions and manners. He may believe that a di- vine communication has been made to himself, but his belief has no authority to command ours. He may have actuallj' received it, but we have not the means of knowing it without piroof. That proof is not the high and excellent nature of the truths he teaches ; in other words, that which is called the internal evi- dence cannot be tliat proof. For we cannot tell whether the doctrines he teaches, though they should be capa- ble of a higher degree of rational demonstration than anj' delivered to the world before, may not be the fruits of his own mental labor. He xnay be conscious that they are not, but ■ire have no means of knowing that of which he is conscious except by his own testi- mony. To us, therefore, they would have no authori- 1 ty but as the opinions of a man Avhose intellectual at- tainments we might admire, but to whom we could not submit as to an infallible guide, and the less so if any part of the doctrine taught by him were either mysterious or above our reason, or contrary to our in- terests, prejudices, and passions. If, tliercforo, any person should profess to have received a revelation of truth from God to teach to mankind, and that he was directed to command their obedience to it on pain of the divine displeasure, he would be asked for some ex- ternal authentication of his mission ; nor would the reasonableness and excellence of his doctrines be ac- cepted in j)lace of this. The latter might entitle him to attention, but nutliing short of the former would be thought a ground sufficiently strong for yielduig to
EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY 376 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY
him an absolute obedience. Witliout it he might rea- son and be heard with respect, but he could not coin- mand. On tliis very reasonaljle ground the Jews on one occasion asked our Lord, " B</ what authority doest thou these things?" and on another, " W/iut sign shoivest thou unto us?" Agreeably to this, the authors both of the Jewish and the Christian revelations profess to have authenticated their mission by the two great ex- ternal iiroofs, MiUACLES and PiioriiECY, and it re- mains to be considered whctlier this kind of authenti- cation be reasonably suihcient to command our faith and obedience.
The question is not whether we may not conceive of external proofs of the mission of Moses, and of Christ and his apostles, differing from those which are assumed to have been given, and more convincing. In whatever way the authentication had been made, ■we might have conceived of modes of proof differing in kind, or more ample in circumstance ; so that to ground an objection upon the absence of a particular kind of proof, for which we have a preference, would be trifling. But this is the question : Is a mission to teach the will of God to man, under his immediate au- thority, sufficiently authenticated when miracles are really performed, and prophecies actually and unequiv- ocally accomplished? We have, then, first to show that miracles and prophecies are possible, that their credibility can be established by human testimony, and that, when thus authenticated, they afford the nec- essary evidence of revelation. These topics w'ill be treated under the heads of Miracles and Prophecy (q. v.). The records of both miracles and prophecy are found in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa- ments. The antiquity of these writings is demonstra- ted by the very fact of the existence, on the one hand, of the Jewish polity, and, on the other, of the Chris- tian religion, as well as by the concurrent testimony of ancient profane authors. These books can be shown, by testimon}' more accurate and minute than exists ■with regard to any other ancient records, to be sub- stantially the same now as when originally written, nay, that they have coma down to our times without any material alteration whatsoever. The credibility of the testimony of tlie sacred writers themselves is fairly proved by the character of the men, by the cir- cumstances under wliicli thej'^ wrote, and l)y the entire absence of motive for falsification. Allowing, then, the New Testament to be genuine, it follows, " 1. That the writers knew whether the facts they state were true or false (John i, 3 ; xix, 27, 35 ; Acts xxvii, 7, 9).
2. That tlie character of these writers, so far as we can judge by their works, seems to render them worthy of regard, and leaves no room to imagine they intend- ed to deceive us. The manner in wiiich they tell their Btory is most happily adapted to gain our belief. There is no air of declamation and harangue ; nothing that looks like artifice and design : no apologies, no enco- miums, no characters, no reflections, no digressions ; but the facts are recounted with great simplicity, just as the}' seem to have happened, and those facts are left to speak for themselves. Their integrity, like- •wise, evident!}' appears in the freedom with which they mention those circumstances which might have exposed their Master and themselves to the greatest contempt amongst prejudiced and inconsiderate men, such as they knew they must generally expect to meet •with (John i, 45, 46; vii, 5'2 ; Lulve ii, 4, 7 ; Mark vi, 3 ; Matt, viii, 20 ; John vii, 48). It is certain that there are in their writings tiie most genuine traces not only of a plain and honest, but a most pious and de- vout, a most benevolent and generous disposition, as every one must acknowledge who reads their writings.