The second objection is, “That as martyrs have believed false religions, therefore the sufferings of other martyrs cannot afford the proof of a true revelation.” (344)
This objection arises from an erroneous view of the nature of the circumstance proved by martyrdom. It is not the TRUTH of a revelation, but it is the sincere belief of the martyr in his own profession; the circumstance of martyrdom affords a proof against hypocrisy, not against enthusiasm, or delusion. Now to have a proof that a man is not an impostor, is a great point gained; for if he deliver a doctrine, of consequence, it obliges every honest mind to open his books and examine it with impartiality; and to consider seriously, whether with respect to those events which he professes to have witnessed, his senses, and his understanding could have been deceived as to their real occurrence.
To me it appears impossible that the first Christian preachers could be impostors, when I read of their sufferings; or that they could be deluded when I read the history (for instance) of the raising of Lazarus; and if but one miracle be overwhelming in its (345) evidence, the rest which are associated with it in the same cause, are included in that evidence, and yield the same additional force in their testimony to the senses, and to the judgments of those that witnessed them, (and by parity of reasoning, to those who hear of them afterwards,) as do the frequent return of the external objects of sense, support the belief of that independent existence, of which the first vivacious impulse on the senses had originally created the impression.
In short, if the Gospel be a mystery, yet that it should be untrue would be a greater;—however, what I have said with respect to martyrdom as applicable in the way of forming an argument, is only needful for succeeding generations. It is necessary for us who live at this day, that the Apostles should have suffered, and have sealed their books with their blood.
There are several interesting points here. If we want to see how martyrdom fits into the epistemology of testimony, Shepherd provides something of an answer to this: it is proof of sincerity. Now, sincerity of itself does not necessarily indicate the truth of the position held sincerely; however, in matters of testimony, sincerity does play a major role in our evaluation of the testimony. In matters of testimony, the seal of sincerity can sometimes be the entire deciding factor.
