Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

to be considered hereafter; that they did so represent it we have already seen (p. 110), and among the passages there given, we must especially notice, that "the Spirit of truth" was to guide those on whom it alighted, "into ALL truth." Understanding, then, by the Scriptures, what has been always understood by that word, God's message to man, if we can but secure the Scriptures, the whole Scriptures, and nothing but the Scriptures, we have a right, by every legitimate train of reasoning, to expect the truth, unencumbered with error. Differences of opinion may exist as to the interpretation of a few controverted passages, that is, as to "the mind of the Spirit," (Rom. viii. 27.) as conveyed by certain words; but none as to the full infallibility of the doctrine intended. If there be one false representation, one wilfully distorted fact, one essentially erroneous doctrine, I see not how it can be regarded otherwise than as fatal to the credit of any professed revelation; for the character of absolute infallibility, on which alone it can claim the respect and confidence of men, is gone. Once admit the possibility of a mistake, from whatever cause arising, and there is no certainty in the integrity of any one portion; all rest on the same authority, if one be open to cavil, all may be equally so. If our story be true concerning Christ, and the twelve original apostles, but false in what it relates of Paul; if it be true that the apostles went about preaching in the name of Christ, but the existence of Christ be a fable; if Christ existed and performed all that is ascribed to him, but did not die as our books represent; if all the ordinary facts be true, but the miracles an invention; or if all the history be true, but Christ were not, as is stated, in verity the SON OF GOD, Christianity is an imposture; and a partial truth cannot vindicate its claim to be received as from God. There is no alternative between the belief of every fact, the reception of every doctrine, and the rejection of the whole. We cannot pick and choose, and admit this because we think it plausible, or the other because it commends itself to our judgment; and reject so much as chances not to fall in with our notions. The whole must stand or fall together. It is, therefore, of the most vital importance to weigh seriously the arguments in favour of the truth of our story. In doing this we must remember that the truth of one part will not necessarily involve the truth

CHAP. V.]

TRUTH OF THE CHRISTIAN STORY

BRARY NIVERSITY

of the rest, and hence that it is incumbent on us to ascertain,
by general arguments at least, that there is nothing that mi-
litates against the truth. It will be for the reader to judge, IA.
when he has read to the end, whether the many indications
of veracity we have to set before him, be not sufficient to give
all reasonable satisfaction that the whole is minutely true.

One strong presumption in favour of the truth of the Christian story, is that there exists no other story. It is not a question, like that concerning the death of Cyrus, between conflicting histories. Set aside our story, and we have nothing whatever to show in what way so extraordinary a change as that wrought by Christianity was brought about. It is true that mighty changes have been effected, and all memorial of the producing cause has perished; but it is in the highest degree improbable that a consistent story, proved to have been current from the time at which the change is known to have had its origin, should be false, while no vestige of any other can be traced, in any single record of that or later times. There is surely vast additional strength given to this consideration, when we know, that not only the existence, but the fullest and firmest belief in this story, is proved from the vast body of writers we have glanced through; and that this belief has been at least equally strong in every age, whether we take the farthest removed from the time of the apostles, or that of those who lived and wrote when the events were yet recent, and actual proof might be obtained from living witnesses of much that is recorded.

But, leaving this, not only is there no other account, but every reference in general history to the transactions that form the leading incidents in our Scriptures, so far as they go, agree precisely with ours. To avoid repetition, I shall content myself with merely requesting the reader to turn back to the testimony of the Jewish and heathen writers already produced at (pp. 126 seq,) and which was there brought forward to demonstrate a point somewhat short of that now before us. If the passages of Josephus there alleged be genuine, they do not stop at an intimation of the currency of the story as he has abridged it, but give the opinion of the historian as to its truth; for he relates it in precisely the same way as any other incident he touches upon; and the same may be said of the narrative of Tacitus, which runs in the positive

language of direct history; "The founder of that name was Christ, who suffered death in the reign of Tiberius, under his procurator, Pontius Pilate:" and the authority of this eminent man ought to be as valid on this point, as on any other his subject has led him to notice.

These allusions, however, on the part of general writers are few and brief; and satisfactory as they are, they go comparatively but a little way. There is one other point of view in which secular authorities may give us a far deeper insight into the minute correctness of our Scriptures, the more valuable, because the least obvious; providing us, as it were, with a secret peep into their internal economy, from a quarter whence we are secure from the possibility of deception. We can trace no sort of ambition in our writers to become the chroniclers of so much as a single event of political history. They have never gone out of their way to drag in one solitary episode of the kind. Nay, were we in search of some possible ground for censure, we should rather be disposed to base it on the opposite fault, and blame them for an occasional obscurity, arising from want of sufficiently explicit detail as to history, topography, and national usages. But while the divine founder of the religion is represented as having, for the most part, passed by the wise after this world's wisdom, the mighty and the noble; and chosen the base and the despised, in the estimation of men, to set forth his glory, (1 Cor. i. 26—31), it was clearly his design to give prominence to these his humble followers, and the doctrines he commissioned them to teach, by mixing them up with "the princes of this world;" (1 Cor. ii. 8.) and permitting them to "be brought before governors and kings for his sake, for a testimony against (or, more properly, to) them and the Gentiles." (Matt. x. 18.) The things concerning the propagation of the Gospel were not done in a corner, (Acts xxvi. 26.) The scene of its incidents, as I have before said, is laid in almost every quarter of the then known world; and its tale involves the mention of emperors, kings, and governors; cities, laws and customs; in a variety, and to an extent perhaps seldom equalled in any private record of as many individuals; and certainly never equalled in the case of any of so humble a birth, and unpretending a character. Now the age assigned to these transactions is precisely that which constituted almost the

maturity of the Roman Empire; and during which its arms, its policy, and its literature were yet in the ripeness of their vigour. It could not but be that many would write in such an age; and though a very small proportion of the productions of the day has escaped the ravages of time and barbarian spoliation, something still remains. It will be sufficiently obvious that independent writers, however diverse their object, could not go over the same ground without a frequent mention of the same public functionaries, the same geographical peculiarities, the same particulars of leading public events, and the same allusions to matters of military law, or religious and civil polity. It is no less obvious that while any great discrepancy in these particulars must cast discredit on one or other of contemporary writers, a general harmony concerning them will powerfully establish the veracity of each; and this will more especially be the case when the agreement is found to exist in circumstances where the writers are shown, by internal marks, to have derived their information from different sources, and the coincidence is manifestly not the result of communication or design.

I shall, then, dispose the further prosecution of the present argument in three consecutive sections; the first will trace coincidences, of the nature above alluded to, between the New Testament, and such contemporary writers as have come down to us, and of these, especially Josephus.-The second will point out similar close coincidences between the several writers of the New Testament itself; and the third will comprise the indications of truth to be drawn from the circumstances of the authors of our books, and of the promulgation of their story.

SECT. I.

EXTERNAL COINCIDENCES.

Nature of coincidences to be detected.-Circumstantiality a mark of truth.-Contemporary accounts of Jewish affairs. -The family of the Herods.-St. Paul's rebuke of Ananias.-The husband of Herodias.-Caiaphas.-Privileges of a Roman citizen.—Coins and Inscriptions.— Omissions and discrepancies.

Ir can scarcely be necessary to state, that the coincidences of which I am now to give a few specimens, will not be drawn from the more public and notorious events, and characters, such as the order of succession assigned to the Roman Emperors, Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius Cæsar; or the geographical positions given to Antioch, Cæsarea, Jerusalem or Rome; for he must be a poor impostor indeed, who could betray himself by such worse than schoolboy ignorance as this. The remarkable circumstantiality of the narrative will furnish many little niceties by which a far more powerfully convincing test may be applied, and one which perhaps, it would not be too much to call infallible. In fact, circumstantiality alone is often regarded as a mark of truth. But it is not necessarily so. For works of fiction owe much of their fascination to this; and though an impostor will more commonly clothe his falsehood in vague generalities, he may, in cases where he thinks there is nothing with which to confront his assertions, venture on some what more of detail. Even then, unless his wit be sharp, and his memory of a high order, he runs a fearful risk of self-contradiction on a cross examination, especially if the circumstances of the case admit of its being a little delayed. In a written work, however, referring to a contemporary period, or one whose history is tolerably well known, the more circumstances are multiplied, the stronger is the sumption of truth, because, though the writer knows that he is multiplying the means of detection, his blodness in doing so intimates his confidence in the truth of his nar

pre

« EelmineJätka »