Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1839-10-16

pies. which apply with the utmost conf
dehce to all siniIarsinquiries
The effects OF this same principle are
perfectly discernible ia the writings of ev-
en- our most judicIous apologies. We Of
fer no reflection against The assduous
Lardner, who, in his credlbity OF the
Gospel history, presents Us wilhea collec- |
ton of testimonies which should make /
every Christian proud of his religion
In his evidence for the Authenticity of the |
different pieces which make up the New
Testament. he begins with the oldest of
the fathers, some of whom were the init
mae companions Of the original writers.
According TO our view of the matter, he
should have dated the commencement of
his argument from higher point, and be-
gun with the testimonies of these original
writer's TO one another. In the second
Epistle of Peter, there is distinct refer
ence made to the writings OF Paul: and
in the Acts of the Apostles, there is a ref
erence made to one of the four Gospels.
Had Peter, instead OF being an apostle
ranked only with the fathers of the church.
and had his epistle not been Admitted into
the canon of scripture, this testimony of
his would have had place in the cata-
logue. and been counted peculiarly valu-
able, both for lis precision and its antioui-
ty. There is certainly nothing in the es.
4 timaiion he enjoyed, or in the circum-
stances of his epistle being bound up with
the other books Of the New Testament.
: which ought to impair the credit of his
: testimony. But in effect, his testimony
: does make weaker impression on the
! mind. than similar testimony from Bar
: nabas. or Clement, or Polycarp. Ii GER
!, talnly ought not 10 do it, and there is a
| delusion in the preference that is thus Civ
en- to the latter writers. 1t IS in fact. an.
! other example Of the principle which we
r have been so often insisting upon. What
! profane authors are in reference 10 Chris
; tan authors at large, the fathers of The
} church are in reference 10 the original
writers of the New Testament. In con-
) tradlclion TO every approved principle, we
; prefer the distant and later testimony. to
the testimony of writers who carry as
+ much evidence and legitimate authority
| along with them, and who only differ
: from others in being nearer the original
: source. OF information. We neglect and
$ undervalue the evidence which the New
: Testament itself furnishes, and rest the
a whole OF the argument upon the external
o and supe.induced testimony of subsequent
: authors.
A great deal of this is owing to the
r manner in which the defence of Chris
ianity has been conducted by its friends
!, and supporters. They have given too
r much into the suspicious Of the opposite
! party. They have yielded their minds 10
the infection oftheir skepticism, and main
e tanned, through the whole process, a eau
: ton and deicacy which they often car
! nv to degree that is excessive; and bv
d which. in fact they have done injustice 10
n their own arguments. Some of them be-
!; gin with the testimony of Tacitus as a
n first principle, and pursue the investiea
lr ton upwards, as if the evidence that we
?, collect from the annals of the Roman his.
h torian were stronger than that of the
D. Christian writers who fourished nearer
v the scene OF the investigation, and whose
n credibility can be established on grounds
r which are altogether independent of his
$, testimony. In this way, they come at las
e to the credibility of the New Testament
Is writers, but by heightened and circuit
l. Gus procedure. The reader feels as il the
1t argument were diluted at every step in
lie the process Of derivation, and his faith If
e. the Gospel history is much weaker thar
ID his faith in histories that are far less au
D. thenticated. Bring Tacitus and the New
10 Testament 10 an Immediate comparison
d and subject them both to the touchstone nj
6 ordinary and received principles, and i
J. will be found that the latter leaves the
h former out of sight in all the marks. and
d characters and evidences of an authentic
,f history. The truth OF the Gospel stands
d on much firmer and more independent
e footing, than many of its defenders would
% dare TO give US any conception of. Taev
Y want that holiness ofargument which the
e merits of the question en.itie them to as.
'e sumo. They ought'to maintain a more
e decided front TO their adversaries, and tell
them, that, in the New Testament itseli
l. in the concurrence of It's numerous. and
% distant, and independent authors-in the
I, uncontradicted authority which it has
h maintained from the earliest times of the
lie church-in the total inability OF the bit.
lie terest adversaries of our religion to i'm.
ut peach its credibility-in the genuine
s. characters of honesty and fairness which
re it carries on the very face of it; that in
$. these, and In every thing else, which car
i'd give validity to the written history of pas
he times, there is a weight and splendor O
d, evidence. which the testimony of Tacitu;
o. cannot confirm, and which the absence o
Of that testimony could not have diminished
IS. lfIt were necessary in court of Jus