through their writings; in their general check which the vigilance, both of Jews agrenent upon this subject; in the multi- and Heathens, exercised over every Christude of their followers, who never could tian writer of that period,-in all these have confided in men that ventured to com- circumstances, they give every evidence of mit themselves, by the assertion of what having delivered a fair and unpolluted testiwas obviously and notoriously false; in the mony.

CHAPTER III.

On the internal Marks of Truth and Honesty to be found in the New Testament.

II. We shall now look into the New Testament itself, and endeavour to lay before the reader the internal marks of truth and honesty, which are to be found in it.

and a contemporary historian to sustain a continued accuracy, through his minute and numerous allusions to the public policy and government of the times.

new distribution of territory. It will be readily conceived, how much these perpetual fluctuations in the state of public affairs, both in Judea and its neighbourhood, must add to the power and difficulty of that ordeal to which the Gospel history has been subjected.

Under this head, it may be right to in- Within the period of the Gospel history, sist upon the minute accuracy, which runs Judea experienced a good many vicissitudes through all its allusions to the existing in the state of its government. At one time manners and circumstances of the times. it formed part of a kingdom under Herod To appreciate the force of this argument, it the Great. At another, it formed part of would be right to attend to the peculiar sit- a smaller government under Archelaus. uation of Judea, at the time of our Saviour. It after this came under the direct adIt was then under the dominion of the Ro-ministration of a Roman governor; which man emperors, and comes frequently under form was again interrupted for several the notice of the profane historians of that years, by the elevation of Herod Agrippa to period. From this source we derive a great the sovereign power, as exercised by his variety of information, as to the manner in grandfather; and it is at last left in the form which the emperors conducted the govern-of a province at the conclusion of the evanment of their different provinces; what gelical history. There were also frequent degree of indulgence was allowed to the changes in the political state of the counreligious opinions of the people whom they tries adjacent to Judea, and which are often held in subjection; in how far they were alluded to in the New Testament. A casuffered to live under the administration of price of the reigning emperor often gave their own laws; the power which was vest-rise to a new form of government, and a ed in the presidents of provinces; and a number of other circumstances relative to the criminal and civil jurisprudence of that period. In this way, there is a great number of different points in which the historians of the New Testament can be brought into comparison with the secular historians of the age. The history of Christ and his On this part of the subject, there is no want apostles contains innumerable references to of witnesses with whom to confront the writhe state of public affairs. It is not the his-ters of the New Testament. In addition to the tory of obscure and unnoticed individuals. Roman writers who have touched upon the They had attracted much of the public at-affairs of Judea, we have the benefit of a Jewtention. They had been before the govern-ish historian, who has given us a professed ors of the country. They had passed through history of his own country. From him, as was the established forms of justice; and some to be expected, we have a far greater quanof them underwent the trial and punishment tity of copious and detailed narrative, relaof the times. It is easy to perceive, then, tive to the internal affairs of Judea, to the that the New Testament writers were led to manners of the people, and those particuallude to a number of these circumstances lars which are connected with their religious in the political history and constitution of belief, and ecclesiastical constitution. With the times, which came under the cognizance many, it will be supposed to add to the of ordinary historians. This was delicate value of his testimony, that he was not a ground for an inventor to tread upon; and Christian; but that, on the other hand, we particularly, if he lived at an age subsequent have every reason to believe him to have to the time of his history. He might in this been a most zealous and determined enemy case have fabricated a tale, by confining to the cause. It is really a most useful exhimself to the obscure and familiar incidents ercise, to pursue the harmony which subof private history; but it is only for a true sists between the writers of the New Testa

writers of subsequent ages do often betray their ignorance of the particular customs which obtained in Judea during the time of our Saviour. And it must be esteemed a strong circumstance in favour of the antiquity of the New Testament, that on a subject, in which the chances of detection are so numerous, and where we can scarcely advance a single step in the narrative, without the possibility of betraying our time by some mistaken allusion, it stands distinguished from every later composition, in being able to bear the most minute and intimate comparison with the contemporary historians of that period.

ment, and those Jewish and profane authors, I minute, that varied, that intimate acquaintwith whom we bring them into comparison. ance with the statistics of a nation no longer Throughout the whole examination, our at- in existence, which is evinced in every page tention is confined to forms of justice; suc-of the evangelical writers. We find, in point cessions of governors in different provinces; of fact, that both the Heathen and Christian manners, and political institutions. We are therefore apt to forget the sacredness of the subject; and we appeal to all, who have prosecuted this inquiry, if this circumstance is not favourable to their having a closer and more decided impression of the truth of the Gospel history. By instituting a comparison between the evangelists and contemporary authors, and restricting our attention to those points which come under the cognizance of ordinary history, we put the apostles and evangelists on the footing of ordinary historians; and it is for those, who have actually undergone the labour of this examination, to tell how much this circumstance adds to the impression of their authenticity. The mind gets emancipated from the peculiar delusion which attaches to the sacredness of the subject, and which has the undoubted effect of restraining the confidence of its inquiries. The argument assumes a secular complexion, and the writers of the New Testament are restored to that credit, with which the reader delivers himself up to any other historian, who has a much less weight and quantity of historical evidence in his favour.

We refer those readers who wish to prosecute this inquiry, to the first volume of Lardner's Credibility of the Gospels. We shall restrict ourselves to a few general observations on the nature and precise effect of the argument.

The argument derives great additional strength, from viewing the New Testament, not as one single performance, but as a collection of several performances. It is the work of no less than eight different authors, who wrote without any appearance of concert, who published in different parts of the world, and whose writings possess every evidence, both internal and external, of be ing independent productions. Had only one author exhibited the same minute accuracy of allusion, it would have been esteemed a very strong evidence of his antiquity. But when we see so many authors exhibiting such a well-sustained and almost unexpected accuracy through the whole of their varied and distinct narratives, it seems difficult to avoid the conclusion, that they were either the eye-witnesses of their own history, or lived about the period of its accomplishment.

In the first place, the accuracy of the numerous allusions to the circumstances of that period, which the Gospel history embraces, forms a strong corroboration of that When different historians undertake the antiquity, which we have already assigned affairs of the same period, they either deto its writers from external testimony. It rive their information from one another, or amounts to a proof, that it is the production proceed upon distinct and independent inof authors who lived antecedent to the de-formation of their own. Now, it is not difstruction of Jerusalem, and consequently ficult to distinguish the copyist from the about the time that is ascribed to them by original historian. There is something in all the external testimony which has already the very style and manner of an original been insisted upon. It is that accuracy, narrative, which announces its pretensions. which could only be maintained by a con- It is not possible that any one event, or any temporary historian. It would be difficult, series of events, should make such a similar even for the author of some general specu-impression upon two witnesses, as to dislation, not to betray his time by some occa- pose them to relate it in the same language, sional allusion to the ephemeral customs to describe it in the same order, to form the and institutions of the period in which he same estimate as to the circumstances which wrote. But the authors of the New Testa- should be noticed as important, and those ment run a much greater risk. There are other circumstances which should be supfive different pieces of that collection which pressed as immaterial. Each witness tells are purely historical, and where there is a the thing in his own way, makes use of his continued reference to the characters, and own language, and brings forward circumpolitics, and passing events of the day. The stances which the other might omit altodestruction of Jerusalem swept away the gether, as not essential to the purpose of whole fabric of Jewish polity; and it is not his narrative. It is this agreement in the to be conceived, that the memory of a fu- facts, with this variety in the manner of ture generation could have retained that describing them, that never fails to impress

upon the inquirer that additional conviction | ry, than when employed to distinguish browhich arises from the concurrence of sepa- thers who have one name the same. The rate and independent testimonies. Now, Herod who is called Philip, is just as likely this is precisely that kind of coincidence a distinction, as Simon who is called Peter, which subsists between the New Testament or Saul who is called Paul. The name of writers and Josephus, in their allusions to the peculiar customs and institutions of that age. Each party maintains the style of original and independent historians. The one often omits altogether, or makes only a slight and distant allusion to what occupies a prominent part in the composition of the other. There is not the slightest vestige of any thing like a studied coincidence between them. There is variety, but no opposition; and it says much for the authenticity of both histories, that the most scrupulous and attentive criticism can scarcely detect a single example of an apparent contradiction in the testimony of these different authors, which does not admit of a likely, or at least a plausible reconciliation.

the high priest, at the time of our Saviour's crucifixion, was Caiaphas, according to the evangelists. According to Josephus, the name of the high priest at that period was Joseph. This would have been precisely a difficulty of the same kind, had not Josephus happened to mention, that this Joseph was also called Caiaphas. Would it have been dealing fairly with the evangelists, we ask, to have made their credibility depend upon the accidental omission of another historian? Is it consistent with any acknowledged principle of sound criticism, to bring four writers so entirely under the tribunal of Josephus, each of whom stands as firmly supported by all the evidences which can give authority to a historian; and who When the difference between two his- have greatly the advantage of him in this, torians is carried to the length of a contra- that they can add the argument of their diction, it enfeebles the crédit of both their concurrence to the argument of each septestimonies. When the agreement is car-arate and independent testimony? It so ried to the length of a close and scrupulous happens, however, in the present instance, resemblance in every particular, it destroys that even Jewish writers, in their narrative the credit of one of the parties as an inde- of the same circumstance, give the name pendent historian. In the case before us, of Philip to the first husband of Herodias. we neither perceive this difference, nor this We by no means conceive, that any foreign agreement. Such are the variations, that, at testimony was necessary for the vindication first sight, the reader is alarmed with the of the evangelists. Still, however, it must appearance of very serious and embarrassing go far to dissipate every suspicion of artifice difficulties. And such is the actual coinci- in the construction of their histories. It dence, that the difficulties vanish when we proves, that in the confidence with which apply to them the labours of a profound and they delivered themselves up to their own intelligent criticism. Had it been the object information, they neglected appearance, and of the Gospel writers to trick out a plausi- felt themselves independent of it. This apble imposition on the credulity of the world, parent difficulty, like many others of the they would have studied a closer resem- same kind, lands us in a stronger confirmablance to the existing authorities of that pe- tion of the honesty of the evangelists; and riod; nor would they have laid themselves it is delightful to perceive, how truth reopen to the superficial brilliancy of Vol-ceives a fuller accession to its splendour, taire, which dazzles every imagination, and from the attempts which are made to disreposed their vindication with the Lelands grace and to darken it. and Lardners of a distant posterity, whose sober erudition is so little attended to, and which so few know how to appreciate.

In the Gospels, we are told that Herod the Tetrarch of Galilee, married his brother Philip's wife. In Josephus we have the same story; only he gives a different name to Philip, and calls him Herod; and what adds to the difficulty, there was a Philip of that family, whom we know not to have been the first husband of Herodias. This is at first sight a little alarming. But, in the progress of our inquiries, we are given to understand from this same Josephus, that there were three Herods of the same family, and therefore no improbability in there being two Philips. We also know, from the histories of that period, that it was quite common for the same individual to have two names; and this is never more necessa

On this branch of the argument, the impartial inquirer must be struck with the little indulgence which infidels, and even Christians, have given to the evangelical writers. In other cases, when we compare the narratives of contemporary historians, it is not expected, that all the circumstances alluded to by one will be taken notice of by the rest; and it often happens, that an event or a custom is admitted upon the faith of a single historian; and the silence of all other writers is not suffered to attach suspicion or discredit his testimony. It is an allowed principle, that a scrupulous resemblance between two histories is very far from necessary to their being held consistent with one another. And, what is more, it sometimes happens, that with contemporary historians there may be an apparent contradiction, and the credit of both parties remain as

entire and unsuspicious as before. Posterity where a great deal of circumstance is intro is in these cases disposed to make the most duced, it proves, that the narrator feels the liberal allowances. Instead of calling it a confidence of truth, and labours under ne contradiction, they often call it a difficulty. apprehension for the fate of his narrative They are sensible, that in many instances, Even though we have it not in our power a seeming variety of statement has, upon a to verify the truth of a single circumstance, more extensive knowledge of ancient his- yet the mere property of a story being circumtory, admitted of a perfect reconciliation. stantial is always felt to carry an evidence Instead, then, of referring the difficulty in in its favour. It imparts a more familiar question to the inaccuracy or bad faith of any air of life and reality to the narrative. It is of the parties, they with more justness and easy to believe, that the groundwork of a more modesty, refer it to their own igno- story may be a fabrication; but it requires rance, and to that obscurity which necessa- a more refined species of imposture than rily hangs over the history of every remote we can well conceive, to construct a harmoage. These principles are suffered to have nious and well-sustained narrative, aboundgreat influence in every secular investiga- ing in minute and circumstantial details tion; but so soon as, instead of a secular, it which support one another, and where, becomes a sacred investigation, every ordi- with all our experience of real life, we can nary principle is abandoned, and the sus- detect nothing misplaced, or inconsistent, picion annexed to the teachers of religion is or improbable. carried to the dereliction of all that can- To prosecute this argument in all its exdour and liberality, with which every other tent, it would be necessary to present the document of antiquity is judged of and ap- reader with a complete analysis or examinapreciated. How does it happen, that the tion of the Gospel history. But the most authority of Josephus should be acquiesced superficial observer cannot fail to perceive, in as a first principle, while every step in that it maintains, in a very high degree, the the narrative of the evangelists must have character of being a circumstantial narraforeign testimony to confirm and support tive. When a miracle is recorded, we have it? How comes it that the silence of Jose- generally the name of the town or neighphus should be construed into an impeach-bourhood where it happened; the names of ment of the testimony of the evangelists, the people concerned; the effect upon the while it is never admitted for a single mo- hearts and convictions of the by-standers; ment, that the silence of the evangelists can the arguments and examinations it gave in part the slightest blemish to the testimony birth to; and all that minuteness of referof Josephus? How comes it that the sup-ence and description which impresses a position of two Philips in one family should strong character of reality upon the whole throw a damp of scepticism over the Gos- history. If we take along with us the time pel narrative, while the only circumstance at which this history made its appearance, which renders that supposition necessary is the single testimony of Josephus; in which very testimony, it is necessarily implied, that there are two Herods in the same family? How comes it, that the evangelists, with as much internal, and a vast deal more of external evidence in their favour, should be made to stand before Josephus, like so many prisoners at the bar of justice? In any other case, we are convinced that this would be looked upon as rough handling. But we are not sorry for it. It has given more triumph and confidence to the argument. And it is no small addition to our faith, that its first teachers have survived an examination, which, in point of rigour and severity, we believe to be quite unexampled in the annals of criticism.

It is always looked upon as a favourable presumption, when a story is told circumstantially. The art and the safety of an impostor, is to confine his narrative to generals, and not to commit himself by too minute a specification of time and place, and allusion to the manners or occurrences of the day. The more of circumstance that we introduce into a story, we multiply the chances of detection, if false; and therefore,

the argument becomes much stronger.It does not merely carry a presumption in its favour, from being a circumstantial history:-it carries a proof in its favour, because these circumstances were completely within the reach and examination of those to whom it was addressed. Had the evangelists been false historians, they would not have committed themselves upon so many particulars. They would not have furnished the vigilant inquiries of that period with such an effectual instrument for bringing them into discredit with the people; nor foolishly supplied, in every page of their narrative, so many materials for a crossexamination, which would infallibly have disgraced them.

Now, we of this age can institute the same cross-examination. We can compare the evangelical writers with contemporary authors, and verify a number of circumstances in the history, and government, and peculiar economy of the Jewish people We therefore have it in our power to institute a cross-examination upon the writers of the New Testament; and the freedom and frequency of their allusions to these circumstances supply us with ample materials