CHRISTIANITY. 



365 



This a 

 strong ar- 

 pument of 

 ihe anti- 

 quity of the 

 writers. 





i'i our attent'on to these points, which come under the 

 co^ivzance 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 cir- 

 cumstance 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 confi- 

 dence of its e~ quiries. 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 arid quantity of historical evidence in his favour. 



47. It must be observed, that this opens up to us a 

 field of enquiry, which is by far too extensive for the li- 

 mits of the present article. We cannot even so much as 

 enter into i', and must restrict ourselves to a few general 

 observations on the nature and precise effect of the ar- 

 gument. 



48. In the first place, the accuracy of the numerous 

 allusions to the circumstances of that period, which the 

 gospel hi-tory embraces, forms a strong corroboration of 



^^ an tjq u itv, which we have already assigned to its 

 r * J . J f 



writers from external testimony. It amounts to a proof, 



that it is the production of authors, who lived antecedent 

 to the destruction of Jerusalem, and consequently about 

 the ti re that H ascribed to thorn by all ths external tes- 

 timony, which has already bjen insisted upon. It is that 

 accuracy, which could only be maintained by a cotem- 

 porary historian. It would be difficult, even for the 

 aurhor of some general speculation, not to betray his 

 time by s -riv. 1 occasional allusion to the ephemeral cus- 

 toms and institution-, of the period in which he wrote. 

 But the authors of the New Testament run a much 

 r risk. There are five different pieces of that col- 

 lection, which are purely historical, and where there is a 

 . continued reference to the characters, and politics, and 

 passing events of the dny. The destruction of Jerusalem 

 *we,.t away the whole fabric of Jewish polity, and it is 

 not to be conceived, that the memory of a future gene- 

 ration, could have retained that minute, that varied, 

 that intimate acquaintance with the statistics of a nation 

 uo longer in existence, which is evinced in every page of 

 the evangelical writers. We find, in point of fact, that 

 both the Heathen and Christian 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 circum- 

 stance in favour of the antiquity of the New Testament, 

 that on a subject, in which the chances of detection are 

 o 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 cotemporary historians of that period. 



49. The argument derives great additional strength, 

 from viewing the New Testament, not as one single per- 

 formance, 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 pub- 

 lished in different parts of the world, and whose writings 

 possess every evidence, both internal and external, of be- 

 idependent productions. Had only one author ex- 

 hibited the same minute accuracy of allusion, it would 

 have been esteemed a very strong evidence of his anti- 

 quity. But when we see so many authors, exhibiting 

 iuch a well sustained and almost unexceptcd accuracy, 





through the whole of their . nried and distinct narratives ; 

 it seems difficult, to avoid conclusion, that they were 

 either the eye witnesses rheir own history, or lived 

 about the period of its ?.c mpliahment. 



50. When different hiciorians undertake the affairs of 

 the same period, they either derive their information 

 from one another, or proceed upon distinct and indepen- 

 dent information of their own. Now. it is not difficult to 

 distinguish the copyist from the original historian. There 

 is something in the vory style and manner of an original 

 narrative, which announces its pretensions. It is not 

 possible that any or.e event, or any series of events, 

 should make such a similar impression upon two wit- 

 nesses, or dispose them to relate it in the same language, 

 to describe it in the same order, to form tbe same esti- 

 mate, as to the circumstances which should be noticed 

 as important, and those other circumstances which should 

 be suppressed as immaterial. Each witness tells the 

 thing in his own way, makes use of his own language. 

 and brings forward circumstances, which the other might 

 o:-.!t altogether, as not essential to the purpose of his 

 narrative. Ii is thh agreement in the facts, with this 

 variety in the manner of describing them, th.it never fails 

 to impress upon the enquirer that additional conviction, 

 which arises from the concurrence of separate and inde- 

 pendent testimonies. Now this is precisely that kind ot 

 coincidence, which subsists betwixt the New Testament 

 writers and .losephus, in tlieir allusions to the peculiar 

 customs and institutions of that age. Each party main- 

 tains the style of original and independent historians. The 

 one often omits altogether, or makes only a slight and dis- 

 tant allusion to what occupies a prominent part in the com- 

 position of the other. There is not the slightest vestige 

 of any thing like a studied coincidence betwixt them. 

 There is variety, but no opposition ; and it eays much 

 for the authenticity of both histories, that the most scru- 

 pulous 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. 



51. When the difference betwixt two historians is car- Their ml. 

 ried to the length of a contradiction, it enfeebles the tntial,bu 

 credit of both their testimonies. When the agreement 2 . f tlle 5 * m ' 

 is carried to the length of a close and scrupul ,us rcsem- TtTdicd'" 

 blance in every particular, it destroys the credit of one a^reemcn- 

 of the parties, as an independent historian. In the case withJosc- 

 before us, we neither perceive this difference, nor this P* 1 "'- 

 agreement. Such are the variations, that, at first sight, 



the reader is alarmed with the appearance of very serious 

 and embarrassing difficulties. And such is the actual 

 coincidence, that the difficulties vanish, when we ap. 

 ply to them the labours of a profound and intelligent 

 criticism. Had it been the object of the gospel writers 

 to trick out a plausible imposition on the credulity of 

 the world, they would have studied a closer resemblance 

 to the existing authorities of that period ; nor would 

 they have laid themselves open to the superficial brillian- 

 cy of Voltaire, which da/./!cs evt-ry imagination, and 

 reposed their vindication \vith the Lelands and Lardners 

 of a distant posterity, whose sober erudition is so little 

 attended to, and which so few know how to appretiate. 



52. In the gospel, we are told that Herod, the Te- 

 trach of Galilee, married his brother Philip's wife. In 

 Josephus, we have the same story; only he givta a dif- 

 ferent name to Philip, and calls him Herod ; and what 

 adds to the difficulty, there waj a Philip of that family, 

 w!:.!:n we knew 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 undw- 



Example of 

 an app^. 

 rent discre- 

 pancy. 



