CHRISTIANITY. 



367 



And in the 

 present age, 

 by compa- 

 rison with 

 colempo- 

 rary au- 

 thors. 



fnf artlew 

 manner in 

 which the 



nn- 



Uiices are 

 utredvccd. 



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 ex- 

 amination of those to whom it was addressed. Had the 

 evangelists been false historians, they would not have com- 

 mitted themselves upon so many particulars. They would 

 not have furnished the vigilant inquirers of that period with 

 such an effectual instrument for bringing them into dis- 

 credit with the people; nor foolishly supplied, in every 

 page of their narrative, so many materials for a cross- 

 examination, which would infallibly have disgraced them. 



56. Now, we of this age can institute the same cross- 

 examination. We can compare the evangelical writers 

 with cotemporary authors, and verify a number of cir- 

 cumstances 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 wri- 

 ters of the New Testament ; and the freedom and fre- 

 quency of their allusions to these circumstances supply 

 us with ample materials for it. The fact, that they are 

 borne out in their minute and incidental allusions by the 

 testimony of other historians, gives a strong weight of 

 what has been called circumstantial evidence in their fa. 

 vour. As a specimen of the argument, let us confine 

 our observations to the history of our Saviour's trial, and 

 execution, and burial. They brought him to Pontius 

 Pilate. We know both from Tacitus and Josephus, that 

 he was at that time governor of Judea. A sentence 

 from him was necessary, before they could proceed to 

 the execution of Jesus ; and we know that the power of 

 life and death was usually vested in the Roman governor. 

 Our Saviour was treated with derision ; and this we 

 know to have been a customary practice at that time, 

 previous to the execution of criminals, and during the 

 time of it. Pilate scourged Jesus, before he gave him 

 up to be crucified. We know from ancient authors, that 

 this was a very usual practice among the Romans. The 

 account of an execution generally run in this form : 

 He was stripped, whipped, and beheaded or executed. 

 According to the evangelists, his accusation was written 

 on the top of the cross; and we learn from Suetonius 

 and others, that the crime of the person to be executed 

 .was affixed to the instrument of his punishment. Ac- 

 cording to the evangelists, this accusation was written 

 in three different languages ; and we know from Jose- 

 phus, that it was quite common in Jerusalem to have all 

 public advertisements written in this manner. Accord- 

 ing to the evangelists, Jesus had to bear his cross ; and 

 we know from other sources of information, that this 

 was the constant practice of these 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 wai infamous, this was the law, or the cus- 

 tom with all Roman governors. 



57. These, and a few more particulars of the same kind, 

 occur within the compass of a single page of the evange- 

 lical history. The circumstantial manner of the history 

 affords a presumption in its favour, antecedent to all ex- 

 amination 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 that we can col- 

 lect 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 au- 

 thors, and giving to the enquirer an additional chance of 



detecting the imposition. And it is still more difficult 

 to believe, that truth should have been so artfully blend- 

 ed with falsehood in the composition of this narrative, 

 particularly as we perceive nothing-like a .forced intro- 

 duction of any one circumstance. There appears to be 

 nothing out of place, nothing thrust in with the view of 

 imparting an air of probability to the history. The 

 circumstance upon which we bring the evangelists into 

 comparison with profane authors, is often not inti- 

 mated in a direct form, but in the form of a slight or dis- 

 tant allusion. There is not the most remote appearance 

 of its being fetched or sought for. It is brought in ac- 

 cidentally, and flows in the most natural and undesigned 

 manner out of the progress of the narrative. 



58. The circumstance, that none of the gospel writers 

 are inconsistent with one another, falls better under a 

 different branch of the argument. It is enough for our 

 present purpose, that there is no single writer inconsist- 

 ent with himself. It often happens, that falsehood car- 

 ries its own refutation along with it ; and that, through 

 the artful disguises which are employed in the construc- 

 tion of a fabricated story, we can often detect a flaw or 

 a contradiction, which condemns the authority of the 

 whole narrative. Now, every single piece of the New 

 Testament, wants this mark or character of falsehood. 

 The different parts are found to sustain, and harmonise, 

 and flow out of each other. Each has at least the merit 

 of being a consistent narrative. For any thing we see 

 upon the face of it, it may be true, and a further hearing 

 must be given before we can be justified in rejecting it 

 as the tale of an impostor. 



59. There is another mark of falsehood, which each 

 of the gospel narratives appears to be exempted from. 

 There is little or no parading about their own integrity. 

 We can collect their pretensions to credit from the his- 

 tory itself, but we see no anxious display of these pre- 

 tensions. 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 nar- 

 rative, and deliver themselves with that simplicity and 

 unembarrassed confidence, which nothing but their con- 

 sciousness 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, and of other countries, a memorial 

 of the events which led to the establishment of the Chris- 

 tian religion in the world. In the prosecution of their 

 narrative, we challenge the most refined judge of the hu- 

 man character, to point out a single symptom of diffi- 

 dence, in the truth of their own story, or of art to cloak 

 this diffidence from the notice of the most severe and vi- 

 gilant observers. The manner of the New Testament 

 writers does not carry in it the slightest idea of its being 

 a put on manner. It is quite natural, quite unguarded, 

 and free of all apprehension that their story is to meet 

 with any discredit or contradiction from any of those 

 numerous readers, who had it fully in their power to 

 verify or to expose it. We see no expedient made use 

 of to obtain or to conciliate the acquiescence of their 

 readers. They appear to feel as if they did not need it. 

 They deliver what they have to say in a round and u- 



Christiani- 

 ty- 



The consit- 

 tency of 

 the gospel 

 narrative. 



The simple 

 and unos- 

 tentatious 

 manner of 

 the evan- 

 gelists. 



Their con- 

 fidence in 

 the imrgri. 

 tyof their 

 narrative. 



