|
|
Testimony of the
Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of
Justice.
by Professor Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)
Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the
Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the
biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was
certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the
Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity.
In examining the evidence of the Christian religion, it is essential
to the discovery of truth that we bring to the investigation a mind
freed, as far as possible, from existing prejudice, and open to
conviction. There should be a readiness, on our part, to investigate
with candor to follow the truth wherever it may lead us, and to submit,
without reserve or objection, to all the teachings of this religion, if
it be found to be of divine origin. "There is no other
entrance," says Lord Bacon, "to the kingdom of man, which is
founded in the sciences, than to the kingdom of heaven, into which no
one can enter but in the character of a little child." The docility
which true philosophy requires of her disciples is not a spirit of
servility, or the surrender of the reason and judgment to whatsoever the
teacher may inculcate; but it is a mind free from all pride of opinion,
not hostile to the truth sought for, willing to pursue the inquiry, and
impartiality to weigh the arguments and evidence, and to acquiesce in
the judgment of right reason. The investigation, moreover, should be
pursued with the serious earnestness which becomes the greatness of the
subject--a subject fraught with such momentous consequences to man. It
should be pursued as in the presence of God, and under the solemn
sanctions created by a lively sense of his omniscience, and of our
accountability to him for the right use of the faculties which he has
bestowed.
In requiring this candor and simplicity of mind in those who would
investigate the truth of our religion, Christianity demands nothing more
than is readily conceded to every branch of human science. All these
have their data, and their axioms; and Christianity, too, has her first
principles, the admission of which is essential to any real progress in
knowledge. "Christianity," says Bishop Wilson, "inscribes
on the portal of her dominion 'Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom
of God as a little child, shall in nowise enter therein.' Christianity
does not profess to convince the perverse and headstrong, to bring
irresistible evidence to the daring and profane, to vanquish the proud
scorner, and afford evidences from which the careless and perverse
cannot possibly escape. This might go to destroy man's responsibility.
All that Christianity professes, is to propose such evidences as may
satisfy the meek, the tractable, the candid, the serious inquirer."
The present design, however, is not to enter upon any general
examination of the evidences upon any general examination of the
evidences of Christianity, but to confine the inquiry to the testimony
of the Four Evangelists, bringing their narratives to the tests to which
other evidence is subjected in human tribunals. The foundation of our
religion is a basis of fact--the fact of the birth, ministry, miracles,
death, resurrection by the Evangelists as having actually occurred,
within their own personal knowledge. Our religion, then, rests on the
credit due to these witnesses. Are they worthy of implicit belief, in
the matters which they relate? This is the question, in all human
tribunals, in regard to persons testifying before them; and we propose
to test the veracity of these witnesses, by the same rules and means
which are there employed. The importance of the facts testified, and
their relations to the affairs of the soul, and the life to come, can
make no difference in the principles or the mode of weighing the
evidence. It is still the evidence of matters of fact, capable of being
seen and known and related, as well by one man as by another. And if the
testimony of the Evangelist, supposing it to be relevant and material to
the issue in a question of property or of personal right, between man
and man, in a court of justice, ought to be believed and have weight;
then, upon the like principles, it ought to receive our entire credit
here. But if, on the other hand, we should be justified in rejecting it,
if there testified on oath, then, supposing our rules of evidence to be
sound, we may be excused if we hesitate elsewhere to give it credence.
The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express
communications, and that Christianity constitutes that revelation, is no
part of these inquiries. This has already been shown, in the most
satisfactory manner by others, who have written expressly upon this
subject. Referring therefore to their writings for the arguments and
proofs, the fact will here be assumed as true. That man is a religious
being, is universally conceded, for it has been seen to be universally
true. He is everywhere a worshiper. In every age and country, and in
every stage, from the highest intellectual culture to the darkest
stupidity, he bows with homage to a superior Being. Be it the
rude-carved idol of his own fabrication, or the unseen divinity that
stirs within him, it is still the object of his adoration. This trait in
the character of man is so uniform, that it may safely be assumed,
either as one of the original attributes of his nature, or as
necessarily resulting from the action of one or more of those
attributes.
The object of man's worship, whatever it be, will naturally be his
standard of perfection. He clothes it with every attribute, belonging,
in his view, to a perfect character; and this character he himself
endeavors to attain. He may not, directly and consciously, aim to
acquire every virtue of his deity, and to avoid the opposite vices; but
still this will be the inevitable consequence of sincere and constant
worship. as in human society men become assimilated, both in manners and
moral principles, to their chosen associates, so in the worship of
whatever deity men adore, they "form to him the relish of their
souls." To suppose, then, that God made man capable of religion,
and requiring it in order to the development of the highest part of his
nature, without communicating with him, as a father, in those
revelations which alone could perfect that nature, would be a reproach
upon God, and a contradiction.
How it came to pass that man, originally taught, as we doubt not he
was, to know and to worship the true Jehovah, is found, at so early a
period of his history, a worshiper of baser objects, it is foreign to
our present purpose to inquire. But the fact is lamentably true, that he
soon became an idolater, a worshiper of moral abominations. The
Scythians and Northmen adored the impersonations of heroic valor and of
bloodthirsty and cruel revenge. The mythology of Greece and of Rome,
though it exhibited a few examples of virtue and goodness, abounded in
others of gross licentiousness and vice. The gods of Egypt were
reptiles, and beasts and birds. The religion of Central and Eastern Asia
was polluted with lust and cruelty, and smeared with blood, rioting, in
deadly triumph, over all the tender affections of the human heart and
all the convictions of the human understanding. Western and Southern
Africa and Polynesia are, to this day, the abodes of frightful idolatry,
cannibalism, and cruelty; and the aborigines of both the Americas are
examples of the depths of superstition to which the human mind may be
debased. In every quarter of the world, however, there is a striking
uniformity seen in all the features of paganism. The ruling is lewd and
cruel. Whatever of purity the earlier forms of paganism may have
possessed, it is evident from history that it was of brief duration.
Every form, which history has preserved, grew rapidly and steadily worse
and more corrupt, until the entire heathen world, before the coming of
Christ, was infected with that loathsome leprosy by St. Paul, in the
beginning of his Epistle to the Romans.
So general and decided was this proclivity to the worship of strange
gods, that, at the time of the deluge, only one family remained faithful
to Jehovah; and this was a family which had been favored with his
special revelation. Indeed it is evident that nothing but a revelation
from God could raise men from the degradation of pagan idolatry, because
nothing else has ever had that effect. If man could achieve his own
freedom from this bondage, he would long since have been free. But
instead of this, the increase of light and civilization and refinement
in the pagan world has but multiplied the objects of his worship, added
voluptuous refinements to its ritual, and thus increased the number and
weight of his chains. In this respect there is no difference in their
moral condition, between the barbarous Scythian and the learned Egyptian
or Roman of ancient times, nor between the ignorant African and the
polished Hindu of our own day. The only method, which has been
successfully employed to deliver man from the idolatry, is that of
presenting to the eye of his soul an object of worship perfectly holy
and pure, directly opposite, in moral character, to the gods he had
formerly adored. He could not transfer to his deities a better character
than he himself possessed. He must forever remain enslaved to his idols,
unless a new and pure object of worship were revealed to him, with a
display of superior power sufficient to overcome his former faith and
present fears, to detach his affections from grosser objects, and to fix
them upon that which alone is worthy. This is precisely what God, as
stated in the Holy Scriptures, has done. He rescued one family from
idolatry in the Old World, y the revelation of himself to Noah; he
called a distinct branch of this family to the knowledge of himself, in
the person of Abraham and his sons; he extended this favor to a whole
nation, through the ministry of Moses; but it was through that of Jesus
Christ alone that it was communicated to the whole world. In Egypt, by
the destruction of all of the Israelites that he alone was the
self-existent Almighty. At the Red Sea, he emphatically showed his
people. At Sinai, he revealed himself as the righteous Governor, who
required implicit obedience from men, and taught them, by the
strongly-marked distinctions of the ceremonial law, that he was a holy
Being, of purer eyes than to behold evil, and that could not look upon
iniquity. The demerit of sin was inculcated by the solemn infliction of
death upon every animal, offered as a propitiatory sacrifice. And when,
by this system of instruction, he had prepared a people to receive the
perfect revelation of the character of God, of the nature of his worship
and of the way of restoration to his image and favor, this also was
expressly revealed by the mission of his Son.
That the books of the Old Testament, as we now have them, are
genuine; that they existed in the time of our Saviour, and were commonly
received and referred to among the Jews, as the sacred books of their
religion; and that the text of the Four Evangelists has been handed down
to us in the state in which it was originally written, that is, without
having been materially corrupted or falsified, either by heretics or
Christians; are facts which we are entitled to assume as true, until the
contrary is shown.
The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt,
and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings
whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and
applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or
otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these
inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as
our first rule.
Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository
or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law
presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of
proving it to be otherwise.
An ancient document, offered in evidence in our courts, is said to
come from the proper repository, when it is found in the place where,
and under the care of persons with whom, such writings might naturally
and reasonably be expected to be found; for it is this custody which
gives authenticity to documents found within it. If they come from such
a place, and bear no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes that
they are genuine, and they are permitted to be read in evidence, unless
the opposing party is able successfully to impeach them. the burden of
showing them to be false and unworthy of credit, is devolved on the
party who makes that objection. The presumption of law is the judgment
of charity. It presumes every many is innocent until he is proved
guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it is
proved to have been otherwise; and that every document, found in its
proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine. Now
this is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings. They have been used
in the church from time immemorial, and thus are found in the place
where alone they ought to be looked for. they come to us, and challenge
our reception of them as genuine writings, precisely as Doomsday Book,
the Ancient Statues of Wales, or any other of the ancient documents
which have recently been published under the British Record Commission,
are received. They are found in familiar use in all the churches of
Christendom, as the sacred books to which all denominations of
Christians refer, as the standard of their faith. There is no pretense
that they were engraven on plates of gold and discovered in a cave, nor
that they were brought from heaven by angels; but they are received as
the plain narratives and writings of the men whose names they
respectively bear, made public at the time they were written; and though
there are some slight discrepancies among the copies subsequently made,
there is no pretense that the originals are lost, and that copies alone
are now produced, the principles of the municipal law here also afford a
satisfactory answer. For the multiplication of copies was a public fact,
in the faithfulness of which all the Christian community had an
interest; and it is a rule of law, that,--
In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be
presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are
presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.
Therefore it is that, in such matters, the prevailing current of
assertion is resorted to as evidence, for it is to this that every
member of the community is supposed to be privy. The persons, moreover,
who multiplied these copies may be regarded, in some manner, as agents
of Christian public, for whose use and benefit the copies were made; and
on the ground of the credit due to such agents, and of the public nature
of the facts themselves, the copies thus made are entitled to an
extraordinary degree of confidence, and, as in the case of official
registers and other public books, it is not necessary that they should
be confirmed and sanctioned by the ordinary tests of truth. If any
ancient document concerning our public rights were lost copies which had
been received in evidence in any of our courts of justice, without the
slightest hesitation. the entire text of the Corpus Juris Civilis is
received as authority in all the courts of continental Europe, upon much
weaker evidence of its genuineness; for the integrity of the Sacred Text
has been preserved by the jealousy of opposing sects, beyond any moral
possibility of corruption; while that of the Roman Civil Law has been
preserved by tacit consent, without the interest of any opposing school,
to watch over and preserve it from alteration.
These copies of the Holy Scriptures having thus been in familiar use
in the churches, from the time when the text was committed to writing;
having been watched with vigilance by so many sects, opposed to each
other in doctrine, yet all appealing to these Scriptures for the
correctness of their faith; and having in all ages, down to this day,
been respected as the authoritative source of all ecclesiastical power
and government, and submitted to, and acted under in regard to so many
claims of right, on the one hand, and so many obligations of duty, on
the other; it is quite erroneous to suppose that the Christian is bound
to offer any further proof of their genuineness or authenticity. It is
for the objector to show them spurious; for on him, by the plainest
rules of law, lies the burden of proof. If it were the case of a claim
to a franchise, and a copy of an ancient deed or character were produced
in support of the title, under parallel circumstances on which to
presume its venture to deny either its admissibility in evidence, or the
satisfactory character of the proof. In a recent case in the House of
Lords, precisely such a document, being an old manuscript copy,
purporting to have been extracted from ancient Journals of the House,
which were lost, and to have been made by an officer whose duty it was
to prepare lists of the Peers, was held admissible in a claim of
peerage.
Supposing, therefore, that it is not irrational, nor inconsistent
with sound philosophy, to believe that God has made a special and
express revelation of his character and will to man, and that the sacred
books of our religion are genuine, as we now have them; we proceed to
examine and compare the testimony of the Four Evangelists, as witnesses
to the life and doctrines of Jesus Christ; in order to determine the
degree of credit, to which, by the rules of evidence plied in human
tribunals, they are justly entitled. Our attention will naturally be
first directed to the witnesses themselves, to see who and what manner
of men they were; and we shall take them in the order of their writings;
stating the prominent traits only in their lives and characters, as they
are handed down to us by credible historians.
Matthew, called Levi, was a Jew of Galilee, but of what city is
uncertain. He held the place of publican, or tax-gatherer, under the
Roman government, and his office seems to have consisted in collecting
the taxes within his district, as well as the duties and customs levied
on goods and persons, passing in and out of his district and province,
across the lake of Genesareth. While engaged in this business, at the
office or usual place of collection, he was required by Jesus to follow
him, as one of his disciples; a command which he immediately obeyed.
Soon afterwards, he appears to have given a great entertainment to his
fellow-publicans and friends, at which Jesus was present; intending
probably both to celebrate his own change of profession, and to give
them an opportunity to profit by the teaching of his new Master. He was
constituted one of the twelve apostles, and constantly attended the
person of Jesus as a faithful follower, until the crucifixion; and after
the ascension of his Master he preached the gospel for some time, with
other apostles, in Judea, and afterwards in Ethiopia, where he died.
He is generally allowed to have written first, of all the
evangelists; but whether in the Hebrew or the Greek language, or in
both, the learned are not agreed, nor is it material to our purpose to
inquire; the genuineness of our present Greek gospel being sustained by
satisfactory evidence. The precise time when he wrote is also uncertain,
the several dates given to it among learned men, varying from A.D. 37 to
A.D. 64. The earlier date, however, is argued with greater force, from
the improbability that the Christians would be left for several years
without a general and authentic history of our Saviour's ministry; from
the evident allusions which it contains to a state of persecution in the
church at the time it was written; from the titles of sanctity ascribed
to Jerusalem, and a higher veneration testified for the temple than the
comparative gentleness with which Herod's character and conduct are
dealt with, that bad prince probably being still in power; and from the
frequent mention of Pilate, as still governor of Judea.
That Matthew was himself a native Jew, familiar with the opinions,
ceremonies, and customs of his countrymen; that he was conversant with
the Sacred Writings, and habituated to their idiom; a man of plain
sense, but of little learning, except what he derived from the
Scriptures of the Old Testament; that he wrote seriously and from
conviction, and had, on most occasions, been present, and attended
closely, to the transactions which he relates, and relates, too, without
any view of applause to himself; are facts which we may consider
established by internal evidence, as strong as the nature of the case
will admit. It is deemed equally well proved, both by internal evidence
and the aid of history, that he wrote for the use of his countrymen the
Jews. Every circumstance is noticed which might conciliate their belief,
and every unnecessary expression is avoided which might obstruct it.
They looked for the Messiah, of the lineage of David, and born in
Bethlehem, in the circumstances of whose life the prophecies should find
fulfillment, a matter, in their estimation, of peculiar value: and to
all these this evangelist has directed their especial attention.
Allusion has been already made to his employment as a collector of
taxes and customs: but the subject is too important to be passed over
without further notice. The tribute imposed by the Romans upon countries
conquered by their arms was enormous. In the time of Pompey, the sums
annually exacted by their Asiatic provinces, of which Judea was one,
amounted to about four millions and a a half of sterling, or about
twenty-two millions of dollars. These exactions were made in the usual
forms of direct and indirect taxation; the rate of the customs on
merchandise varying from an eight to a fortieth part of the value of the
commodity; and the tariff including all the principal articles of the
commerce of the East, much of which, as is well known, still found its
way to Italy through Palestine, as well as by the way of Damascus and of
Egypt. The direct taxes consisted of a capitation-tax, and a land-tax,
assessed upon a valuation or census, periodically taken under the oath
of the individual, with heavy penal sanctions. It is natural to suppose
that these taxes were not voluntarily paid, especially since they were
imposed by the conqueror upon a conquered people, and by a heathen too,
upon the people of the house of Israel. The increase of taxes has
generally been found to multiply discontents, evasions and frauds on the
one hand, and, on the other, to increase vigilance, suspicion, close
scrutiny, and severity of exaction. The penal code, as revised by
Theododius, will give us some notion of the difficulties must have been
increased by the fact that, at this period, a considerable portion of
the commerce of that part of the world was carried on by the Greeks,
whose ingenuity and want of faith were proverbial. It was to such an
employment and under such circumstances, that Matthew was educated; an
employment which must have made him acquainted with the Greek language,
and extensively conversant with the public affairs and the men of
business of his time; thus entitling him to our confidence, as an
experienced and intelligent observer of that day were, as in truth they
appear to have been, as much disposed as those of the present time, to
evade the payment of public taxes and duties, and to elude, by all
possible means, the vigilance of the revenue officers, Matthew must have
been familiar with a great variety of forms of fraud, imposture,
cunning, and deception, and must have become habitually distrustful,
scrutinizing, and cautious; and, of course, much less likely to have
been deceived in regard to may of the facts in our Lord's ministry,
extraordinary as they were, which fell under his observation. This
circumstance shows both the sincerity and the wisdom of Jesus, in
selecting him for an eye- witness of his conduct, and adds great weight
to the value of the testimony of this evangelist.
Mark was the son of a pious sister of Barnabas, named Mary, who dwelt
at Jerusalem, and at whose house the early Christians often assembled.
His Hebrew name was John; the surname of Mark having been adopted, as is
supposed, when he left Judea to preach the gospel in foreign countries;
a practice not unusual among the Jews of that age, who frequently, upon
such occasions, assumed a name more familiar than their own to the
people whom they visited. He is supposed to have been converted to the
Christian faith by the ministry of Peter. He traveled from Jerusalem to
Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, and afterwards accompanied them
elsewhere. When they landed at Perga in Pamphylia, he left them and
returned to Jerusalem; for which reason, when he afterwards would have
gone with them, Paul refused to take him. Upon this, a difference of
opinion arose between the two apostles, and they separated, Barnabas
taking Mark with him to Cyprus. Subsequently he accompanied Timothy to
Rome, at the express desire of Paul. From this city he probably went
into the Asia, where he found Peter, with whom he returned to Rome, in
which city he is supposed to have written and published his Gospel. Such
is the outline of his history, as it is furnished by the New Testament.
the early historians add, that after this he went into Egypt and planted
a church in Alexandria, where he died.
It is agreed that Mark wrote his Gospel for the use of Gentile
converts; and opinion deriving great force from the explanations
introduced into it, which would have been useless to a Jew, and that it
was composed for those at Rome, is believed, not only from the numerous
Latinisms it contains, but from the unanimous testimony of ancient
writer, and from the internal evidence afforded by the Gospel itself.
Some have entertained the opinion that Mark compiled his account from
that of Matthew, of this notion has been refuted by Knoppe, and others,
and is now generally regarded as untenable. For Mark frequently deviates
from Matthew in the order of time, in his arrangement of facts; and he
adds many things not related by the other evangelists; neither of which
a mere epitomizer would probably have done. He also omits several things
related by Matthew, and imperfectly describes others, especially the
transactions of Christ with the apostles after the resurrection; giving
no account whatever of his appearance in Galilee; omissions
irreconcilable with any previous knowledge of the Gospel according to
Matthew. To these proofs we may add, that in several places there are
discrepancies between the accounts of Matthew and Mark, no, indeed,
irreconcilable, but sufficient to destroy the probability that the
latter copied from the former. The striking coincidences between them,
in style, words, and things, in other places, may be accounted for by
considering Peter, who is supposed to have dictated this Gospel to Mark,
was quite as intimately acquainted as Matthew with the miracles and
discourses of our Lord; which, therefore, he would naturally recite in
his preaching; and that the same things might very naturally be related
in the same manner, by men who sought not after excellency of speech.
Peter's agency in the narrative of Mark is asserted by all ancient
writers, and is confirmed by the fact, that his humility is conspicuous
in every part of it, where anything is or might be related of him; his
weaknesses and fall being fully exposed, while things which might
redound to his honor, are either omitted or but slightly mentioned; that
scarcely any transaction of Jesus is related, at which Peter was not
present, and that all are related with that circumstantial minuteness
which belongs to the testimony of an eye-witness. We may, therefore,
regard the Gospel of Mark as an original composition, written at the
dictation of Peter, and consequently as another original narrative of
the life, miracles, and doctrine of our Lord.
Luke, according to Eusebius, was a native of Antioch, by profession a
physician, and for a considerable period a companion of the apostle
Paul. From the casual notices of him in the Scriptures, and from the
early Christian writers, it has been collected, that his parents were
Gentiles, but that he in his youth embraced Judaism, from which he was
converted to Christianity. The first mention of him is that he was with
Paul at Troas, whence he appears to have attended him to Jerusalem;
continued with him in all his troubles in Judea; and sailed with him
when he was sent a prisoner from Ceasarea to Rome, where he remained
with him during his two years confinement. As none of the ancient
fathers have mentioned his having suffered martyrdom, it is generally
supposed that he died a natural death.
That he wrote his Gospel for the benefit of the Gentile converts is
affirmed by the unanimous voice of Christian antiquity; and it may also
be inferred from its dedication to a Gentile. He is particularly careful
to specify various circumstances conducive to the information of
strangers, but not so to the Jews; he gives the lineage of Jesus
upwards, after the manner of the Gentiles, instead of downwards, as
Matthew had done; tracing it up to Adam, and thus showing that Jesus was
the promised seed of the woman; and he marks the eras of his birth, and
of the ministry of John, by the reigns of the Roman emperors. He also
has introduced several things, not mentioned by the other evangelists,
but highly encouraging to the gentiles to turn to God in the hope of
pardon and acceptance; of which description are the parables of the
publican and pharisee, in the temple; the lost piece of silver; and the
prodigal son; and the fact of Christ's visit to Zaccheus the publican,
and the pardon of the penitent thief.
That Luke was a physician, appears not only from the testimony of
Paul, but from the internal marks in his Gospel, showing that he was
both an acute observer, and had given particular and even professional
attention to all our Saviour's miracles of healing. Thus, the man whom
Matthew and Mark describe simply as a leper, Luke describes as full of
leprosy; he, whom they mention as had having a withered hand, Luke says
had his right hand withered; and of the maid, of whom the others say
that Jesus took her spirit came to her again. He alone, with
professional accuracy of observation, says that virtue went out of
Jesus, and healed the sick; he alone states the fact that the sleep of
the disciples in Gethsemane was induced by extreme sorrow; and mentions
the blood- like sweat of Jesus, as occasioned by the intensity of his
agony; and he alone relates the miraculous healing of Malchus's ear.
That he was also a man of a liberal education, the comparative elegance
of his writings sufficiently shows.
The design of Luke's Gospel was to supersede the defective and
inaccurate narratives then in circulation, and to deliver to Theophilus,
to whom it is addressed, a full and authentic account of the life,
doctrines, miracles, death and resurrection of our Saviour. Who
Theophilus was, the learned are not perfectly agreed; but the most
probable opinion is that of Dr. Lardner, now generally adopted, that, as
Luke wrote his Gospel in Greece, Theophilus was a man of rank in that
country. Either the relations subsisting between him and Luke, or the
dignity and power of his rank, or both, induced the evangelist, who
himself also "had perfect understanding of all things from the
first," to devote the utmost care to the drawing up of a complete
and authentic narrative of these great events. He does not affirm
himself to have been an eye-witness; though his personal knowledge of
some of the transactions may well be inferred from the "perfect
understanding" which he says he possessed. Some of the learned seem
to have drawn this inference as to them all, and to have placed him in
the class of original witnesses; but this opinion, though maintained on
strong and plausible grounds, is not generally adopted. If, then, he did
not write from his own personal knowledge, the question is, what is the
legal character of his testimony?
If it were "the result of inquiries, made under competent public
authority, concerning matters in which the public are concerned,"
it would possess every legal attribute of an inquisition, and, as such,
would be legally admissible in evidence, in a court of justice. To
entitle such results, however, to our full confidence, it is not
necessary that they should be obtained under a legal commission; it is
sufficient if the inquiry is gravely undertaken and pursued, by a person
of competent intelligence, sagacity and integrity. The request of a
person in authority, or a desire to serve the public, are, to all moral
intents, as sufficient a motive as a legal commission. Thus, we know
that when complaint is made to the head of a department, of official
misconduct or abuse, existing in some remote quarter, nothing is more
common than to send some confidential person to the spot, to ascertain
the facts and report them to the department; and this report is
confidently adopted as the basis of its discretionary action, in the
correction of that abuse, or the removal of the offender. Indeed, the
result of any grave inquiry is equally certain to receive our
confidence, though it may have been voluntarily undertaken, if the party
making it had access to the means of complete and satisfactory
information upon the subject. If, therefore, Luke's Gospel were to be
regarded only as the work of a contemporary historian, it would be
entitled to our confidence. But it is more than this. It is the result
of careful science, intelligence and education, concerning subjects
which he was perfectly competent to peculiarly skilled, they being cases
of the cure of maladies; subjects, too, of which he already had the
perfect knowledge of a contemporary, and perhaps an eye-witness, but
beyond doubt, familiar with the parties concerned in the transactions,
and belonging to the community in which the events transpired, which
were in the mouths of all; and the narrative, moreover, drawn up for the
especial use, and probably at the request, of a man of distinction, whom
it would not be for the interest nor safety of the writer to deceive or
mislead. Such a document certainly possesses all the moral attributes of
an inquest of office, or of any other official investigation of facts;
and as such is entitled, in foro conscientiae, to be adduced of the
matters it contains.
John, the last of the evangelists, was the son of Zebedee, a
fisherman of the town of Bethsaida, on the sea of Galilee. His father
appears to have been a respectable man in his calling, owning his vessel
and having hired servants. His mother, too, was among those who followed
Jesus, and "ministered unto him:" and to John himself, Jesus
when on the cross, confided the care and support of his own mother. This
disciple also seems to have been favorably known to the high priest, and
to have influence in his family; by means of which he had the privilege
of being present in his palace at the examination of his Master, and of
introducing also Peter, his friend. He was the youngest of the apostles;
was eminently the object of the Lord's regard and confidence; was on
various occasions admitted to free and intimate intercourse with him;
and is described as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Hence he
was present at several scenes, to which most of the others were not
admitted. He alone, in company with Peter and James, was present at the
resurrection of Jairus's daughter, at the transfiguration on the mount,
and at the agony of our Saviour in the garden of Gethsemane. He was the
only apostle who followed Jesus to the cross, he was the first of them
at the sepulcher, and he was present at the several appearances of our
Lord after his resurrection. These circumstances, together with his
intimate friendship with the mother of Jesus, especially qualify him to
give a circumstantial and authentic account of the life of his Master.
After the ascension of Christ, and the effusion of the Holy Spirit on
the day of Pentecost, John became one of the chief apostles of the
circumcision, exercising his ministry in and near Jerusalem. From
ecclesiastical history we learn that, after the death of Mary the mother
of Jesus, he proceeded to Asia Minor, where he founded and presided over
seven churches, in as many cities, but resided chiefly at Ephesus.
Thence he was banished, in Domitian's reign, to the isle of Patmos,
where he wrote his Revelation. On the ascension of Nerva he was freed
from exile, and returned to Ephesus, where he wrote his Gospel and
Epistles, and died at the age of one hundred years, about A.D. 100, in
the third year of the emperor Trajan.
The learned are not agreed as to the time when the Gospel of John was
written; some dating it as early as the year 68, others as late as the
year 98; but it is generally conceded to have been written after all the
others. That is could not have been the work of Some Platonic Christian
of a subsequent age, as some have without evidence asserted, is manifest
from references to it by some of the early fathers, and from the
concurring testimony of many other writers of the ancient Christian
church.
That is was written either with especial reference to the Gentiles,
or at a period when very many of them had become converts to
Christianity, is inferred from the various explanations it contains,
beyond the other Gospels, which could have been necessary only to
persons unacquainted with Jewish names and customs. And that it was
written after all the others, and to supply their omissions, is
concluded, not only from the uniform tradition and belief in the church,
but from his studied omission of most of the transactions noticed by the
others, and from his care to mention several incidents which were known
to him, is too evident to admit of doubt; while his omission to repeat
what they had already stated, or, where he does mention the same things,
his relating them in a brief and cursory manner, affords incidental but
strong testimony that he regarded their accounts as faithful and true.
Such are the brief histories of men, whose narratives we are to
examine and compare; conducting the examination and weighing the
testimony by the same rules and principles which govern our tribunals of
justice in similar cases. These tribunals are in such cases governed by
the following fundamental rule;--
In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not
whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether
there is sufficient probability that it is true.
It should be observed that the subject of inquiry is a matter of
fact, and not of abstract mathematical truth. the latter alone is
susceptible of that high degree of proof, usually termed demonstration,
which excludes the possibility of error, and which therefore may
reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction. But
the proof of matters of fact rests upon moral evidence alone; by which
is meant not merely that species of evidence which we do not obtain
either from our own senses, from intuition, or from demonstration. In
the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect demonstrative
evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact,
and to insist on its production would be unreasonable and absurd. And it
makes no difference, whether the facts to be proved related to this life
or to the next, the nature of the evidence required being in both cases
the same. The error of the sceptic consists in pretending or supposing
that there is a difference in the nature of the things to be proved; and
in demanding demonstrative evidence concerning things which are not
susceptible of any other than moral evidence alone, and of which the
utmost that can be said is, that there is no reasonable doubt about
their truth.
In proceeding to weigh the evidence of any proposition of fact, the
previous question to be determined is, when may it be said to be proved?
The answer to this question is furnished by another rule of municipal
law, which may be thus stated:
A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by
competent and satisfactory evidence.
By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be
proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of
proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any
reasonable doubt. The circumstances which will amount of this degree of
proof can never be previously defined; the only legal test to which they
can be subjected is, their sufficiency to satisfy the mind and
concretion, and so to convince him, that he would of the highest concern
and importance to his own interest. If, therefore, the subject is a
problem in mathematics, its truth is to be shown by the certainty of
demonstrative evidence. But if it is a question of fact in human
affairs, nothing more than moral evidence can be required, for this is
the best evidence which, from the nature of the case, is attainable. Now
as the facts, stated in Scripture History, are not of the former kind,
but are cognizable by the senses, they may be said to be proved when
they are established by that kind and degree of evidence which, as we
have just observed, would, in the affairs of human life, satisfy the
mind and conscience of a common man. When we have this degree of
evidence, it is unreasonable to require more. A juror would violate his
oath, if he should refuse to acquit or condemn a person charged with an
offense, where this measure of proof was adduced.
Proceeding further, to inquire whether the facts related by the Four
Evangelists are proved by competent and satisfactory evidence, we are
led, first, to consider on which side lies the burden of establishing
the credibility of the witnesses. On this point the municipal law
furnishes a rule, which is of constant application in all trials by
jury, and is indeed the dictate of that charity which thinketh no evil.
In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every
witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the
burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.
This rule serves to show the injustice with which the writers of the
Gospels have ever been treated by infidels; and injustice silently
acquiesced in even by Christians; in requiring the Christian
affirmatively, and by positive evidence, aliunde, to establish the
credibility of his witnesses above all others, before their testimony is
entitled to be considered, and in permitting the testimony of a single
profane writer, alone and uncorroborated, to outweigh that of any single
Christian. This is not the course in courts of chancery, where the
testimony of a single witness is never permitted to outweigh the oath
even of the defendant himself, interested as he is in the cause; but, on
the contrary, if the plaintiff, after having required the oath of his
adversary, cannot overthrow it by something more than the oath of one
witness, however credible, it must stand as evidence against him. But
the Christian writer seems, by the usual course of the argument, to have
been deprived of the common presumption of charity in his favor; and
reversing the ordinary rule of administering justice in human tribunals,
his testimony is unjustly presumed to be false, until it is proved to be
true. This treatment, moreover, has been applied to them all in a body;
and, without due regard to the fact, that, being independent historians,
writing at different periods, they are entitled to the support of each
other: they have been treated, in the argument, almost as if the New
Testament were the entire production, at once, of a body of men,
conspiring by a joint fabrication, to impose a false religion upon the
world. It is time that this injustice should cease; that the testimony
of the evangelists should be admitted to be true, until it can be
disproved by those who would impugn it; that the silence of one sacred
writer on any point, should no more detract from his own veracity or
that of the other historians, than the like circumstance is permitted to
do among profane writers; and that the Four Evangelists should be
admitted in corroboration of each other, as readily as Josephus and
Tacitus, or Polybius and Livy.
But if the burden of establishing the credibility of the evangelists
were devolved on those who affirm the truth of their narratives, it is
still capable of a ready moral demonstration, still capable of a ready
moral demonstration, when we consider the nature and character of the
testimony, and the essential marks of difference between true narratives
of facts and the creations of falsehoods. It is universally admitted
that the credit to be given to witnesses depends chiefly on their
ability to discern and comprehend what was before them, their
opportunities for observation, the degree of accuracy with which they
are accustomed to mark passing events, and their integrity in relating
them. The rule of municipal law on this subject embraces all these
particulars, and is thus stated by a legal text- writer of the highest
repute.
The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly,
their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the
consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their
testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their
testimony with collateral circumstances.
Let the evangelists be tried by these tests.
And first, as to their honesty. Here they are entitled to the benefit
of the general course of human experience, that men ordinarily speak the
truth, when they have no prevailing motive or inducement to the
contrary. This presumption, to which we have before alluded, is applied
in courts of justice, even to witnesses whose integrity is not wholly
free from suspicion; much more is it applicable to the evangelists,
whose testimony went against all their worldly interests. The great
truths which the apostles declared, were that Christ had risen from the
dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in him, could
men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice,
everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face
of the most appalling terrors that can be presented to the mind of man.
Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a
public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the
whole world. The laws of every country were against the teaching of his
disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in
the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them.
Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful
manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings,
bitter persecutions, stripes imprisonments, torments and cruel deaths.
Yet this faith they zealously did propogate; and all these miseries they
endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a
miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased
vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an
example of the like heroic constancy, patience and unflinching courage.
They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their
faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they
asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the
most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that
they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated,
had not Jesus actually rose from the dead, and had they not known this
fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally
possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human
motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have
persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not
only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from
without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt;
with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no
expectation of honor or esteem among men, no hope of happiness in this
life, or in the world to come.
Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly
irreconcilable with the fact, that they possessed the ordinary
constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have
been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives,
animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the
same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same
passions, temptations and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings
show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their
testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for this
fabrication.
It would also have been irreconcilable with the fact that they were
good men. But it is impossible to read their writings, and not feel that
we are conversing with men eminently holy, and of tender consciences,
with men acting under an abiding sense of the presence and omniscience
of God, and of their accountability to him, living in his fear, and
walking in his ways. Now, though, in a single instance, a good man may
fall, when under strong temptations, yet he is not found persisting, for
years, in deliberated falsehood, asserted with the most solemn appeals
to God, without the slightest temptation or motive, and against all the
opposing interests which reign in the human breast. If, on the contrary,
they are supposed to have been bad men, it is incredible that such men
should have chosen this form of imposture; enjoining, as it does,
unfeigned repentance, the utter forsaking and abhorrence of all
falsehood and of every other sin, the practice of daily self-denial,
self-abasement and self-sacrifice, the crucifixion of the flesh with all
its earthly appetites and desires, indifference to the honors, and
hearty contempt of the vanities of the world; and inculcating perfect
purity of heart and life, and intercourse of the soul with heaven. It is
incredible, that bad men should invent falsehoods, to promote the
religion of the God of truth. The supposition is suicidal. If they did
believe in a future state of retribution, a heaven and a hell hereafter,
they took the most certain course, if false witnesses, to secure the
latter for their portion. And if, still being bad men, they did not
believe in future punishment, how came they to invent which was to
destroy all their prospects of worldly honor and happiness, and to
insure their misery in this life? From these absurdities there is no
escape, but in the perfect conviction and admission that they were good
men, testifying to that which they had carefully observed and
considered, and well knew to be true.
In the second place, as their ability. The text writer before cited
observes, that the ability of a witness to speak the truth, depends on
the opportunities which he has had for observing the fact, the accuracy
of his powers of discerning, and the faithfulness of his memory in
retaining the facts, once observed and known. Of the latter trait, in
these witnesses, we of course know nothing; nor have we any traditional
information in regard to the accuracy of their powers of discerning. But
we may well suppose that in these respects they were like the generality
of their countrymen, until the contrary is shown by an objector. it is
always to be presumed that men are honest, and of sound mind, and of the
average and ordinary degree of intelligence. This is not the judgment of
mere charity; it is also the uniform presumption of the law of the land;
a presumption which is always allowed freely and fully to operate, until
the fact is shown to be otherwise, by the party who denies the
applicability of this presumption to the particular case in question.
Whenever an objection is raised in opposition to ordinary presumptions
of law, or to the ordinary experience of mankind, the burden of proof is
devolved on the objector, by the common and ordinary rules of evidence,
and of practice in courts. No lawyer is permitted to argue in
disparagement of the intelligence or integrity of a witness, against
whom the case itself afforded no particle of testimony. This is self
afforded in particle of testimony. This is sufficient for our purpose,
in regard to these witnesses. But more than this is evident, from the
minuteness of their narratives, and from their history. Matthew was
trained, by his calling, to habits of severe investigation and
suspicious scrutiny; and Luke's profession demanded an exactness of
observation equally close and searching. The other two evangelists, it
has been well remarked, were as much too unlearned to forge the story of
their Master's Life, as these were too learned and acute to be deceived
by any imposture.
In the third place, as to their number and the consistency of their
testimony. The character of their narratives is like that of all other
true witnesses, containing, as Dr. Paley observes, substantial truth,
under circumstantial variety. There is enough of discrepancy to show
that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the
same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were
independent narrators of the same great transaction, as the events
actually occurred. That they conspired to impose falsehood upon the
world is, moreover, utterly inconsistent with the supposition that they
were honest men; a fact, to the proofs of which we have already
adverted. But if they were bad men, still the idea of any conspiracy
among them is negatived, not only by the discrepancies alluded to, but
by many other circumstances which will be mentioned hereafter; from all
which, it is manifest that if they concerted a false story, they sought
to its accomplishment by a mode quite the opposite to that which all
others are found to pursue, to attain the same end. On this point the
profound remark of an eminent writer is to our purpose; that "in a
number of concurrent testimonies, where there has been no previous
concert, there is a probability distinct from that which may be termed
the sum of the probabilities resulting from the testimonies of the
witnesses; a probability which would remain, even though the witnesses
were of such a character as to merit no faith at all. This probability
arises from the concurrence itself. That such a concurrence should
spring from chance, is as one to infinite; that is, in other words,
morally impossible. If therefore concert be excluded, there remains no
cause but the reality of the fact.
The discrepancies between the narratives of the several evangelists,
when carefully examined, will not be found sufficient to invalidate
their testimony. Many seeming contradictions will prove, upon closer
scrutiny, to be in substantial agreement; and it may be confidently
asserted that there are none that will not yield, under fair and just
criticism. If these different accounts of the same transactions were in
strict verbal conformity with each other, the argument against their
credibility would be much stronger. All that is asked for these
witnesses is, that their testimony may be regarded as we regard the
testimony of men in the ordinary affairs of life. This they are justly
entitled to; and this no honorable adversary can refuse. We might,
indeed, take higher ground than this, and confidently claim for them the
severest scrutiny; but our present purpose is merely to try their
veracity by the ordinary tests of truth, admitted in human tribunals.
If the evidence of the evangelists is to rejected because of a few
discrepancies among them, we shall be obliged to discard that of many of
the contemporaneous histories on which we are accustomed to rely. Dr.
Paley has noticed the contradiction between Lord Clarendon and Burnett
and others in regard to Lord Strafford's execution; the former stating
that he was condemned to be hanged, which was done on the same day; and
the latter all relating that on a Saturday he was sentenced to the
block, and was beheaded on the following Monday. Another striking
instance of discrepancy has since occurred, in the narratives of the
different members of the royal family of France, of their flight from
Paris to Varennes, in 1792. These narratives, ten in number, and by
eye-witnesses and personal actors in the transactions they relate,
contradict each other, some on trivial and some on more essential
points, but in every case in a wonderful and inexplicable manner. Yet
these contradictions do not, in the general public estimation, detract
from the integrity of the narrators, nor from the credibility of their
relations. In the points in which they agree, and which constitute the
great body of their narratives, their testimony is of course not
doubted; where they differ, we reconcile them as well as we may; and
where this cannot be done at all, we follow that light which seems to us
the clearest. Upon the principles of the sceptic, we should be bound
utterly to disbelieve them all. On the contrary, we apply to such cases
the rules which, in daily experience, our judges instruct juries to
apply, in weighing and reconciling the testimony of different witnesses;
and which the courts themselves observe, in comparing and reconciling
different and sometimes discordant reports of the same decisions. This
remark applies especially to some alleged discrepancies in the reports
which the several evangelists have been of the same discourses of our
Lord.
In the fourth place, as to the conformity of their testimony with
experience. The title of the evangelists to full credit for veracity
would be readily conceded by the objector, if the facts they relate were
such as ordinarily occur in human experience, and on this circumstance
an argument is founded against their credibility. Miracles, say the
objectors, are impossible; and therefore the evangelists were either
deceivers or deceived; and in either case their narratives against the
possibility of miracles, was founded on the broad and bold assumption
that all things are governed by immutable laws, or fixed modes of motion
and relation, termed the laws of nature, by which God himself is of
necessity bound. This erroneous assumption is the tortoise, on which
stands the elephant which upholds his system of atheism. He does not
inform us who made these immutable laws, nor whence they derive their
binding force and irresistible operation. The argument supposes that the
creator of all things first made a code of laws, and then put it out of
his own power to change them. the scheme of Mr. Hume is but another form
of the same error. He deduces the existence of such immutable laws from
the uniform course of human experience. This, he affirms, is our only
guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact; and whatever is contrary
to human experience, he pronounces incredible. Without stopping to
examine the correctness of this doctrine, as a fundamental principle in
the law of evidence, it is sufficient in this place to remark, that it
contains this fallacy: it excludes all knowledge derived by inference or
deduction from facts, confining us to what we derive from experience
alone, and thus depriving us of any knowledge, or even rational belief,
or the existence or character of God. Nay more, it goes to prove that
successive generations of men can make no advancement in knowledge, but
each must begin de novo, and be limited to the results of his own
experience. But if we may infer, from what we see and know, that there
is a Supreme Being, by whom this world was created, we may certainly,
and with equal reason, believe him capable of works which we have never
yet known him to perform. We may fairly conclude that the power which
was originally put forth to create the world is still constantly and
without ceasing exerted to sustain it; and that the experienced
connection between cause and effect is but the uniform and constantly
active operation of the finger of God. Whether this uniformity of
operation extends to things beyond the limits of our observation, is a
point we cannot certainly know. Its existence in all things that
ordinarily concern us may be supposed to be ordained as conducive to our
happiness; and if the belief in a revelation of peace and mercy from god
is conducive to the happiness of man, it is not irrational to suppose
that he would depart from his ordinary course of action, in order to
give it such attestations as should tend to secure that belief. "A
miracle is improbable, when we can perceive no sufficient cause, in
reference to his creatures, why the Deity should not vary his modes of
operation; it ceases to be so, when such cause is assigned."
But the full discussion of the subject of miracles forms no part of
the present design. Their credibility has been fully established, and
the objections of sceptics most satisfactorily met and overthrown, by
the ablest writers of our own day, whos works are easily accessible.
Thus much, however, may here be remarked; that in almost every miracle
related by the evangelists, the facts, separately taken, were plain,
intelligible, transpiring in public, and about which no person of
ordinary observation would be like to mistake. Persons blind or cripple,
who applied to Jesus for relief, were known to have been crippled or
blind for many years; they came to be cured; he spake to them; they went
away whole. Lazarus had been dead and buried four days; Jesus called him
to come forth from the grave; he immediately came forth, and was seen
alive for a long time afterwards. In every case of healing, the previous
condition of the sufferer was known to all witnessed the act of Jesus in
touching him, and heard his words. All these, separately considered,
were facts, plain and simple in their nature, easily seen and fully
comprehended by persons of common capacity and observation. If they were
separately testified to, by different witnesses of ordinary intelligence
and integrity, in any court of justice, the jury would be bound to
believe them; and a verdict, rendered contrary to the uncontradicted
testimony of credible witnesses to any of these plain facts, separately
taken, would be liable to be set aside, as a verdict against evidence.
If one credible witness testified to the fact, that Bartimeus was blind,
according to the uniform course of administering justice, this fact
would be taken as satisfactorily proved. So also, if his subsequent
restoration to sight were the sole fact in question, this also would be
deemed established, by the like evidence. Nor would the rule of evidence
be at all different, if the fact to be proved were the declaration of
Jesus, immediately preceding his restoration to sight, that his faith
had made him whole. In each of these cases, each isolated fact was
capable of being accurately observed, and certainly known; and the
evidence demands our assent, precisely as the like evidence upon any
other indifferent subject. The connection of the word or the act of
Jesus with the restoration of the blind, lame and dead, to sight, and
health, and life, as cause and effect, is a conclusion which our reason
is compelled to admit, from the uniformity of their concurrence, in such
a multitude of instances, as well as from the universal conviction of
all, whether friends or foes, who beheld the miracles which he wrought.
Indeed, if the truth of one of the miracles is satisfactorily
established, our belief cannot reasonably be withheld from them all.
This is the issue proposed by Dr. Paley, in regard to the evidence of
the death of Jesus upon the cross, and his subsequent resurrection, the
truth of which he has established in an argument incapable of
refutation.
In the fifth place, as to the coincidence of their testimony with
collateral and contemporaneous facts and circumstances. After a witness
is dead, and his moral character is forgotten, we can ascertain it only
by a close inspection of his narrative, comparing its details with each
other, and with contemporary accounts and collateral facts. This test is
much more accurate than may at first be supposed. Every event which
actually transpires, has its appropriate circumstances, of which the
affairs of men consist; it owes its origin to the events which have
preceded it, is intimately connected with all and often with those of
remote regions, and in its turn gives birth to numberless others which
succeed. In all this almost inconceivable contexture, and seeming
discord, there is perfect harmony; and while the fact, which really
happened, tallies exactly with every other contemporaneous incident,
related to it in the remotest degree, it is not possible for the wit of
man with the actual occurrences of the same time and place, may not be
shown to be false. Hence it is, that a false witness will not willingly
detail any circumstances, in which his testimony will be open to
contradiction, nor multiply them where there is danger of his being
detected by a comparison of them with other accounts, equally
circumstantial. He will rather deal in general statements and broad
assertions; and if he finds it necessary for his purpose to employ names
and particular circumstances in his story, he will endeavor to invent
such as shall be out of the reach of all opposing proof; and he will be
the most forward and minute in details, where he knows that any danger
of contradiction is least to be apprehended. Therefore it is, that
variety and minuteness of detail are usually regarded as certain tests
of sincerity, if the story, in the circumstances related, is of a nature
capable of easy refutation if it were false.
The difference, in the detail of circumstances, between artful or
false witnesses and those who testify the truth, is worthy of especial
observation. The former are often copious and even profuse in their
statements, as far as these may have been previously fabricated, and in
relation to the principal matter; but beyond this, all will be reserved
and meager, from the fear of detection. Every lawyer knows how lightly
the evidence of a non-mi-recordo witness is esteemed. the testimony of
false witnesses will not be uniform in its texture, but will not be
uniform in its texture, but will be unequal, unnatural, and
inconsistent. On the contrary, in the testimony of true witnesses there
is a visible and striking naturalness of manner, and an unaffected
readiness and copiousness in the detail of circumstances, as well in one
part of the narrative as another, and evidently without the least regard
either to the facility or difficulty of verification or detection. It is
easier, therefore, to make out the proof of any fact, if proof it may be
called, by suborning one or more false witnesses, to testify directly to
the matter in question, than to procure an equal number to testify
falsely to such collateral and separate circumstances as will, without
greater danger of detection, lead to the same false result. the
increased number of witnesses to circumstances, and the increased number
of the circumstances themselves, all tend to increase the probability of
detection if the witnesses are false, because thereby the points are
multiplied in which their statements may be compared with each other, as
well as with the truth itself, and in the same proportion is increased
the danger of variance and inconsistency. Thus the force of
circumstantial evidence is found to depend on the number of particulars
involved in the narrative; the difficulty of fabricating them all, if
false, and the great facility of detection; the nature of the
circumstances to be compared, and from which the intricacy of the
comparison; the number of the intermediate steps in the process of
deduction; and the circuitry of the investigation. the more largely the
narrative partakes of these characters, the further it will be found
removed from all suspicion of contrivance or design, and the more
profoundly the mind will repose on the conviction of its truth.
The narratives of the sacred writers, both Jewish and Christian,
abound in examples of this kind of evidence, the value of which is
hardly capable of being properly estimated. It does not, as has been
already remarked, amount to mathematical demonstration; nor is this
degree of proof justly demandable in any question of moral conduct. In
all human transactions, the highest degree of assurance to which we can
arrive, short of the evidence of our own senses, is that of probability.
The most that can be asserted is, that the narrative is more likely to
be true than false; and it may be in the highest degree more likely, but
still be short of absolute mathematical certainty. Yet this very
probability may be so great as to satisfy the mind of the most cautious,
and enforce the assent of the most reluctant and unbelieving. If it is
such as usually satisfies reasonable men, in matters of ordinary
transaction, it is all which the greatest skeptic has a right to
require; for it is by such evidence alone that our rights are
determined, in the civil tribunals; and on no other evidence do they
proceed, even in capital cases. Thus where a house had been feloniously
broken open with a knife, the blade of which was broken and left in the
window, and the mutilated knife itself, the parts perfectly agreeing,
was found in the pocket of the accused, who gave no satisfactory
explanation of the fact, no reasonable doubt remained of his
participation in the crime. And where a murder had been committed by
shooting with a pistol, and the prisoner was connected with the
transaction by proof that the wadding of the pistol was part of a letter
addressed to him, the remainder of which was found upon his person, no
juror's conscience could have reproached him for assenting to the
verdict of condemnation. Yet the evidence, in both cases, is but the
evidence of circumstances; amounting, it is true, to the highest degree
of probability, but yet not utterly inconsistent with the innocence of
the accused. The evidence which we have of the great facts of the Bible
history belongs to this class, that is, it is moral evidence; sufficient
to satisfy any rational mind, by carrying it to the highest degree of
moral certainty. IF such evidence will justify the taking away of human
life or liberty, in the one case, surely it ought to be deemed
sufficient to determine our faith in the other.
All Christianity asks of men on this subject, is that they would be
consistent with themselves; that they would treat the evidence of other
things;; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as
they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and
actions, in human tribunals. Let the the witnesses be compared with
themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and
circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if were given in a
court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being
subjected to a rigorous cross-examination. The result, it is confidently
believed, will be an undoubting conviction of their integrity, ability,
and truth. In the course of such an examination, the undesigned
coincidences will multiply upon us at every step in the witnesses and of
the reality of the occurrences which they relate will increase, until it
acquires, for all practical purposes, the value and force of
demonstration.
It should be remembered, that very little of the literature of their
times and country has come down to us; and that the collateral sources
and means of corroborating and explaining their writings are
proportionally limited. The contemporary writings and works of art which
have reached us, have invariably been found to confirm their accounts,
to reconcile what was apparently contradictory, and supply what seemed
defective or imperfect. We ought therefore to conclude, that if we had
more of the same light, all other similar difficulties and imperfections
would vanish. Indeed they have been gradually vanishing, and rapidly
too, before the light of modern research, conducted by men of science in
our own times. And it is worthy of remark, that of all the
investigations and discoveries of travelers and men of letters, since
the overthrow of the Roman empire, not a vestige of antiquity has been
found, impeaching, in the slightest degree, the credibility of the
sacred writers; but, on the contrary, every result has tended to confirm
it.
The essential marks of difference between true narratives of facts
and the creations of fiction, have already been adverted to. It may here
be added that these attributes of truth are strikingly apparent
throughout the gospel histories, and that the absence of all the others
is equally remarkable. The writers allude, for example, to the existing
manners and customs, and to the circumstances of the times and of their
country, with the utmost minuteness of reference. And these references
are never formally made, nor with preface and explanation, never
multiplied and heaped on each other, nor brought together, as though
introduced by design; but they are scattered broad-cast and singly over
every part of the story, and so connect themselves with every incident
related, as to render the detection of falsehood inevitable. This
minuteness, too, is not peculiar to any one of the historians, but is
common to them all. Though they wrote at different periods and without
mutual concert, they all alike refer incidentally to the same state of
affairs, and to the same contemporary collateral circumstances. Their
testimony, in this view, stands on the same ground with that of four
witnesses, separately examined before different commissioners, upon the
same interrogatories, and all adverting incidentally to the same
circumstances as surrounding and accompanying the principal transaction,
to which alone their attention is directed. And it is worthy of
observation that these circumstances were at that time of a peculiar
character. Hardly a state or kingdom in the world ever experienced so
many vicissitudes in its government and political relations, as did
Judea, during the period of the gospel history. It was successively
under the government of Herod the Great, of Archelaus, and of a Roman
magistrate; it was a kingdom, a tetrarchate, and a province; and its
affairs, its laws, and the administration of justice, were all involved
in the confusion and uncertainty naturally to be expected from recent
conquest. It would be difficult to select any place or period in the
history of nations, for the time and scene of a fictitious history or
imposture, which would combine so many difficulties for the fabricator
to surmount, so many contemporary writers to confront with him, and so
many facilities for the detection of falsehood.
"Had the evangelists been false historians," says Dr.
Chalmers, "they would not have committed 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
discredit 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. 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 their minute and incidental
allusions by the testimony of other historians, gives a strong weight of
what has been called circumstantial evidence in their favor. 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 Romans.
The accounts 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. According to
the evangelists, this accusation was written in three different
languages; and we know from Josephus that it was quite common in
Jerusalem to have all public advertisements written in this manner.
According to the evangelists, Jesus had to bear his cross; and we know
from other sources of information, that this was the constant practice
of those 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."
There is also a striking naturalness in the characters exhibited in
the sacred historians, rarely if ever found in works of fiction, and
probably nowhere else to be collected in a similar manner from
fragmentary and incidental allusions and expressions, in the writings of
different persons. Take for example, that of Peter, as it may be
gathered from the evangelists, and it will be hardly possible to
conceive that four persons, writing at different times, could have
concurred in the delineation of such a character, if it were not real; a
character too, we must observe, which is nowhere expressly drawn, but is
shown only here and there, casually, in the subordinate parts of the
main narrative. Thus and zealous man; sudden and impulsive, yet humble
and ready to retract; honest and direct in his purposes; ardently loving
his master, yet deficient in fortitude and firmness in his cause. When
Jesus put any question to the apostles, it was Peter who was foremost to
reply, and if they would inquire of Jesus, it was Peter who was readiest
to speak. He had the impetuous courage to cut off the ear of the High
Priest's servant, who came to arrest his master; and the weakness to
dissemble before the Jews, in the matter of eating with Gentile
converts. It was he who ran with John to the sepulcher, on the first
intelligence of the resurrection of Jesus, and with characteristic zeal
rushed in, while John paused without the door. He had the ardor to
desire and the faith to attempt to walk on the water, at the command of
his Lord; but as soon as he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid. He
was the first to propose the election of another apostle in the place of
Judas, and he it was who courageously defended them all, on the day of
Pentecost, when the multitude charged them with being filled with new
wine. He was forward to acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah; yet having
afterwards endangered his own life by wounding the servant of the Most
High Priest, he suddenly consulted his own safety by denying the same
Master, for whom, but a few hours before, he had declared himself ready
to die. We may safely affirm that the annals of fiction afford no
example of a similar but no uncommon character, thus incidentally
delineated.
There are other internal marks of truth in the narratives of the
evangelists, which, however, need here be only alluded to, as they have
been treaded with great fullness and force by able writers, whose works
are familiar to all. Among these may be mentioned the nakedness of the
narratives; the absence of all parade by the writers about their own
integrity, of all anxiety to be believed, or to impress others with a
good opinion of themselves or their cause, of all marks of wonder, or of
desire to excite astonishment at the greatness of the events they
record, and of all appearance of design to exalt their Master. On the
contrary, there is apparently the most perfect indifference on their
part, whether they are believed or not; or rather, the evident
consciousness that they are recording events well known to all, in their
own country and times, and undoubtedly to be believed, like any other
matter of public history, by readers in all other countries and ages. It
is worthy, too, of especial observation, that thought the evangelists
record unparalleled sufferings and cruel death of their beloved Lord,
and this too, by hands and with the consenting voices of those on whom
he had convered the greatest benefits, and their own persecutions and
dangers, yet they have bestowed no epithets of harshness or even of just
censure on the authors of all this wickedness, but have everywhere left
the plain and unencumbered narrative to speak for itself, and the reader
to pronounce his own sentence of condemnation; like true witnesses, who
have nothing to gain or to lose by the event of the cause, they state
the facts, and leave them to their fate. Their simplicity and
artlessness, also, should not pass unnoticed, in readily stating even
those things most disparaging to their dullness of apprehension of this
teachings, their strifes for pre-eminence, their inclination to call
fire from heaven upon their enemies, their desertion of their Lord in
his hour of extreme peril; these and many other incidents tending
directly to their own dishonor, are nevertheless set down with all the
directness and sincerity of truth, as by men writing under the deepest
sense of responsibility to God. Some of the more prominent instances of
this class of proofs will be noticed hereafter, in their proper places,
in the narratives themselves.
Lastly, the great character they have portrayed is perfect. It is the
character of a sinless Being; of one supremely wise and supremely good.
It exhibits no error, no sinister intention, no imprudence, no
ignorance, no evil passion, no impatience; in a word, no fault; but all
is perfect uprightness, innocence, wisdom, goodness and truth. The mind
of man has never conceived the idea of such a character, even for his
gods; nor has history or poetry shadowed it forth. The doctrines and
precepts of Jesus are in strict accordance with the attributes of God,
agreeably to the most exalted idea which we can form of them, either
from reason or from revelation. They are strikingly adapted to the
capacity of mankind, and yet are delivered with a simplicity and majesty
wholly divine. He spake as never man spake. He spake with authority; yet
addressed himself to the reason and the understanding of men; and he
spake with wisdom, which men could neither gainsay nor resist. In his
private life, he exhibits a character not merely of strict justice, but
of flowing benignity. He is temperate, without austerity; his meekness
and humility are signal; his patience is invincible; truth and sincerity
illustrate his whole conduct; every one of his virtues is regulated by
consummate prudence; and he both wins the love of his friends, and
extorts the wonder and admiration of his enemies. He is represented in
very variety of situation in life, from the height of worldly grandeur,
amid the acclamations of an admiring multitude, to the deepest abyss of
human degradation and woe, apparaently deserted of God and man. Yet
everywhere he is the same; displaying a character of unearthly
perfection, symmetrical in all its proportions, and encircled with
splendor more than human. Either the men of Galilee were men of
superlative wisdom, and extensive knowledge and experience, and of
deeper skill in the arts of deception, than any and all others, before
or after them, or they have truly stated the astonishing things which
they saw and heard.
The narratives of the evangelists are now submitted to the reader's
perusal and examination, upon the principles and by the rules already
stated. For this purpose, and for the sake of more ready and close
comparison, they are arranged in juxtaposition, after the general order
of the latest and most approved harmonies. The question is not upon the
strict propriety of the arrangement, but upon the veracity of the
witnesses and the credibility of their narratives. With the relative
merits of modern harmonists, and with points of controversy among
theologians the writer has no concern. His business is that of a lawyer
examining the testimony of witnesses by the rules of his profession, in
order to ascertain whether, if they had thus testified on oath, in a
court of justice, they would be entitled to credit and whether their
narratives, as we now have them, would be received as ancient documents,
coming from the proper custody. If so, then it is believed that every
honest and impartial man will act consistently with that result, by
receiving their testimony in all the extent of its import. To write out
a full commentary or argument upon the text would be a useless addition
to the bulk of the volume; but a few notes have been added for
illustration of the narratives, and for the clearing up of apparent
discrepancies, as being all that members of the legal profession would
desire.
|