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, | 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.

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 being independent productions. Had only one author exhibited the same minute accuracy of allusion, it would have been esWe refer those readers who wish to pro-teemed a very, strong evidence of his antisecute 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.

quity. 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 high priest, at the time of our Saviour's the peculiar customs and institutions of that crucifixion, was Caiaphas, according to the age. Each party maintains the style of evangelists. According to Josephus, the original and independent historians. The name of the high priest at that period was one often omits altogether, or makes only a Joseph. This would have been precisely a slight and distant allusion to what occupies difficulty of the same kind, had not Josea prominent part in the composition of the phus happened to mention, that this Joseph other. There is not the slightest vestige of was also called Caiaphas. Would it have any thing like a studied coincidence between been dealing fairly with the evangelists, we them. There is variety, but no opposition; ask, to have made their credibility depend and it says much for the authenticity of upon the accidental omission of another both histories, that the most scrupulous and historian? Is it consistent with any acattentive criticism can scarcely detect a sin- knowledged principle of sound criticism, to gle example of an apparent contradiction in bring four writers so entirely under the trithe testimony of these different authors, bunal of Josephus, each of whom stands as which does not admit of a likely, or at least firmly supported by all the evidences which a plausible reconciliation. 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 credit 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

which support one another, and where, with all our experience of real life, we can detect nothing misplaced, or inconsistent, or improbable.

entire and unsuspicious as before. Posterity where a great deal of circumstance is introis 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 no 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 becomes a sacred investigation, every ordinary principle is abandoned, and the suspicion annexed to the teachers of religion is 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 moment, that the silence of the evangelists can impart the slightest blemish to the testimony of Josephus? How comes it that the supposition of two Philips in one family should throw a damp of scepticism over the Gospel narrative, while the only circumstance 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,

hearts and convictions of the by-standers; the arguments and examinations it gave birth to; and all that minuteness of reference and description which impresses a strong character of reality upon the whole history. If we take along with us the time at which this history made its appearance, 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

for it. The fact, that they are borne out in [ to believe, that truth should have been so their minute and incidental allusions by the artfully blended with falsehood in the comtestimony of other historians, gives a strong position of this narrative, particularly as we weight of what has been called circum-perceive nothing like a forced introduction stantial evidence in their favour. As a of any one circumstance. There appears specimen of the argument, let us confine to be nothing out of place, nothing thrust in our observations to the history of our Sa- with the view of imparting an air of probaviour's trial, and execution, and burial. bility to the history. The circumstance They brought him to Pontius Pilate. We upon which we bring the evangelists into know both from Tacitus and Josephus, that comparison with profane authors, is often he was at that time governor of Judea. A not intimated in a direct form, but in the sentence from him was necessary before form of a slight or distant allusion. There they could proceed to the execution of Je- is not the most remote appearance of its besus; and we know that the power of life |ing fetched or sought for. It is brought in and death was usually vested in the Roman accidentally, and flows in the most natural governor. Our Saviour was treated with and undesigned manner out of the progress derision; and this we know to have been a of the narrative. customary practice at that time, previous to The circumstance, that none of the Gosthe execution of criminals, and during the pel writers are inconsistent with one antime of it. Pilate scourged Jesus before he other, falls better under a different branch of gave him up to be crucified. We know from the argument. It is enough for our present ancient authors, that this was a very usual purpose, that there is no single writer inpractice among the Romans. The account consistent with himself. It often happens, of an excution generally run in this form:-that falsehood carries its own refutation he was stripped, whipped, and beheaded or along with it; and that, through the artful executed. According to the evangelists, his disguises which are employed in the conaccusation was written on the top of the struction of a fabricated story, we can often cross; and we learn from Suetonius and detect a flaw or a contradiction, which conothers, that the crime of a person to be ex- demns the authority of the whole narrative. ecuted was affixed to the instrument of his Now, every single piece of the New Testapunishment. According to the evangelist, ment wants this mark or character of falsethis accusation was written in three differ- hood. The different parts are found to susent languages; and we know from Jose-tain, and harmonize, and flow out of each phus, that it was quite common in Jerusalem other. Each has at least the merit of being to have all public advertisements written in a consistent narrative. For any thing we this manner. According to the evangelists, see upon the face of it, it may be true, Jesus had to bear his cross; and we know and a further hearing must be given before from other resources of information, that we can be justified in rejecting it as the this was the constant practice of these tale of an impostor. times. According to the evangelists, the body of Jesus was given up to be buried at the request of friends. We know that, unless the criminal was infamous, this was the law, or the custom with all Roman

governors.

These, and a few more particulars of the same kind, occur within the compass of a single page of the evangelical history. The circumstantial manner of the history affords a presumption in its favour, antecedent to all examination into the truth of the circumstances themselves. But it makes a strong addition to the evidence, when we find, that in all the subordinate parts of the main story, the evangelists maintain so great a consistency with the testimony of other authors, and with all we can collect from other sources of information, as to the manners and institutions of that period. It is difficult to conceive, in the first instance, how the inventor of a fabricated story would hazard such a number of circumstances, each of them supplying a point of comparison with other authors, and giving to the inquirer an additional chance of detecting the imposition. And it is still more difficult

D

There is another mark of falsehood which each of the Gospel narratives appear to be exempted from. There is little or no parading about their own integrity. We can collect their pretensions to credit from the history itself, but we see no anxious display of these pretensions. We cannot fail to perceive the force of that argument which is derived from the publicity of the Christian miracles, and the very minute and scrupulous examination which they had to sustain from the rulers and official men of Judea. But this publicity, and these examinations, are simply recorded by the evangelists. There is no boastful reference to these circumstances, and no ostentatious display of the advantage which they give to the Christian argument. They bring their story forward in the shape of a direct and unencumbered narrative, and deliver themselves with that simplicity and unembarrassed confidence, which nothing but their consciousness of truth, and the perfect feeling of their own strength and consistency, can account for. They do not write, as if their object was to carry a point that was at all doubtful or suspicious. It is simply to transmit to the men of other times,