Ess. II.]

Yet Independent.

19

simplicity the proceedings of the infant church of Christ, and more particularly the life and travels of the apostle Paul.2

III. Although, from the harmony of the historians of the New Testament, considered in connexion with their distinctness and independence, we derive one principal evidence of their veracity, yet if we take up the four Gospels and

2 Between the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of Paul there subsists a number of coincidences, of a marked and obvious character. Those, however, which form the principal subject of the Hora Pauline are, in general, so latent and oblique that they could not have been designed, and are to be regarded as the natural consequence, and therefore, the sure indications of the genuineness and independence of these writings, and of the truth of the statements which they contain. The following examples will elucidate my meaning:

In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, the apostle thus expresses himself: "We are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ: having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly, to preach the gospel in the regions beyond you," x. 14-16. In this passage it is plainly, yet very indirectly indicated that Corinth was the extremity of the apostle's European travels hitherto. Now, this oblique hint arising so naturally in the course of Paul's epistolary communication with the Corinthians, is in perfect accordance with the history contained in the Acts of the Apostles of the only journey which he had made into Europe, previously to the writing of this Epistle: for, in describing that journey, the author of the Acts informs us that after passing through Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea and Athens, the apostle finally arrived at Corinth, where he stopped; and from whence, after a residence of a year and a half, he sailed back into Syria: see Acts xvi. xvii. xviii.

In the ninth chapter of the Acts we read that Paul was suddenly converted when on his way to Damascus. The whole description must be familiar to the reader, and need not here be quoted. Now, in his Epistle to the Galatians, we find him thus adverting to this remarkable event: "When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus," i. 15-17. "In this quotation from the Epistle," says Paley, "I desire it to be remarked, how incidentally it appears that the affair passed at Damascus. In what may be called the direct part of the account, no mention is made of the place of his conversion at all: a casual expression at the end, and an expression brought in for a different purpose, alone fixes it to have been at Damascus : ‘I returned again to Damascus.' Nothing can be more like simplicity and undesignedness than this:" Hor. Paul. p. 72.

20

Evidences of their truth.

[Ess. II.

the book of Acts, and consider them singly, we shall find that they severally contain a powerful internal evidence of truth. The various narrations presented to us in those books are distinguished by a circumstantiality and naturalness which the most practised writer of fiction would be at

In Acts xv. 36-41, we read of a dispute which arose between Paul and Barnabas in consequence of the determination of the latter (contrary to the desire and judgment of his companion) "to take with them John, whose surname was Mark." Nothing is said by Paul in his Epistles on this subject; but, in Col. iv. 10, we are indirectly informed of a circumstance, which is evidently explanatory of the conduct of Barnabas-namely, that Mark was one of his near relatives: "Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, saluteth you, and Marcus, sister's son to Barnabas."

In Acts xvi. 1, we are told that Paul "came to Derbe and Lystra, and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek." In 2 Tim. i. 4, 5, the apostle writes to Timothy thus: "Greatly desiring to see thee; . .when I call to remembrance the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and thy mother Eunice; and I am persuaded that in thee also." "Here," remarks our author, "we have a fair unforced example of coincidence. In the history, Timothy was the son of a Jewess that believed:' in the Epistle, St. Paul applauds the faith which dwelt in his mother Eunice: Hor. Paul. pp. 151, 152.

6

Again, the fact that the mother of Timothy was "a Jewess," is virtually, though in a manner evidently undesigned, indicated by the apostle, when he says to Timothy, "From a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures," 2 Tim. iii. 15. By the " Holy Scriptures," the apostle undoubtedly intended the Old Testament; and in what manner could Timothy have known, "from a child," the Jewish Scriptures, had he not been born on one side, or on both, of Jewish parentage? "Perhaps," observed Paley, "he was not less likely to be carefully instructed in them, for that his mother alone professed that religion:" Hor. Paul. pp. 151, 152.

On some similar examples of concurrence, Paley, in another passage of his work, reasons as follows: "To us who have been long conversant in the Christian history, as contained in the Acts of the Apostles, these points (mentioned in the Epistles) are obvious and familiar; nor do we readily apprehend any greater difficulty in making them appear in a letter purporting to have been written by St. Paul, than there is in introducing them into a modern sermon. But, to judge correctly of the argument before us, we must discharge this knowledge from our thoughts. We must propose to ourselves the situation of an author who sat down to the writing of the epistle without having seen the history; and, then, the concurrences we have deduced will be deemed of importance. They will, at least, be taken for separate confirmations of the several facts, and not only of these particular facts, BUT OF THE

GENERAL TRUTH OF THE HISTORY.

Ess. II.]

Fidelity of the Historians.

21

a loss to imitate, and which the comparatively illiterate authors of the New Testament must have been utterly incapable of assuming in the propagation of falsehood. Let the candid and unbiassed inquirer carefully peruse the history of the cure of the palsied man, in Matt. ix; of the Baptist's communication with Jesus, in Matt. xi; of Peter's walking on the sea, in Matt. xiv; of the conversation between Jesus and the rich young man, in Mark x; of Simeon and Anna, and of the early life of Jesus, in Luke ii; of the sinful woman in the house of Simon, in Luke vii; of Martha and Mary, in Luke x; of Zacchæus, in Luke xix; of the man born blind, in John ix; of the death and raising of Lazarus, in John xi; of the first meeting of the early church, in Acts i; of the cure of the lame man in the temple by Peter and John, and of their subsequent arraignment before the magistrates, in Acts iii and iv; of the scene between Peter and Cornelius, in Acts x; of the proceedings of Paul at Athens, in Acts xvii; of his interview with the elders of the Ephesian church, in Acts xx; of the voyage of that apostle to Rome, in Acts xxvii and xxviii ;—and he will find in these several narratives, as well as in a multitude of others not here noticed, the simple and strong, yet almost inimitable characteristics of unadorned reality.

The internal evidences of truth to be observed in the several historical books of the New Testament, as they are singly considered, are however by no means confined to the circumstantiality and naturalness of the narrative. The fidelity of the historians is, if possible, yet more plainly established by the evident honesty and candour with which they tell their tale and promulgate their religion. Not a single

"For, what is the rule with respect to corroborative testimony which prevails in courts of justice, and which prevails only because experience has proved that it is a useful guide to truth? A principal witness in a cause delivers his account: his narrative, in certain parts of it, is confirmed by witnesses who are called afterwards. The credit derived from their testimony belongs not only to the particular circumstances in which the auxiliary witnesses agree with the principal witness, but in some measure to the whole of his evidence; because it is improbable that accident or fiction should draw a line which touched upon truth in so many points:" Hor. Paul. pp. 151, 152.

22

Traits of Character.

[Ess. II. instance can be discovered, in the works of these writers, of forced attempts to complete or bolster up a particular system of apologies for apparent difficulties of railing against their enemies, or of commendation of themselves. On the other hand, they bring forward with the utmost simplicity, and with that total absence of reserve which nothing but integrity can produce, the humiliating circumstances of their Divine Master's parentage, birth, life, and death; and the various moral deficiencies-the fearfulness, impatience, unbelief, and foolish pride-which were, on particular occasions, so remarkable in their own conduct.

IV. Closely connected with the points of evidence mentioned in the two last sections are the consentaneous traits of character which mark the history, given in the New Testament, of several individuals. What, for instance, can be in more perfect accordance than the behaviour of Martha and Mary, as described by Luke, with their conduct on other occasions, as represented by John? see Luke x. 38-42; John xi., xii.

The very singular character of the zealous and fervent, yet fearful Peter, displays itself in various parts of the gospel history with all the consistency of truth. In him, who walked forth on the surface of the stormy sea to meet his Lord, and then, from want of courage and faith, sank in the waves, how plainly do we recognise the individual who so rashly made use of the sword in defence of Jesus, and immediately afterwards forsook him and fled; who was the foremost in a profession of belief in the Son of God, and in the hour of personal danger denied him thrice; who was the first to promulgate the gospel to the Gentiles, and was afterwards afraid to eat with them in the presence of the Jews!

In the once zealous and determined advocate of the Jewish law, and eager persecutor of the unoffending Nazarenes, we cannot fail to trace the characteristic temperament of that great apostle, who under the transforming power of Divine grace became the most ardent, resolute, and indefatigable of the servants of Christ.

But of all the characters thus naturally depicted in the New Testament, by far the most singular, and at the same time the most particularized, is that of Jesus himself. His

Ess. II.]

п.

Correct Allusions.

28

23

lowliness and meekness, the tenderness of his compassion, the firmness with which he resisted temptation, his forbearance, his mercy towards his enemies, his subjection to the will of the Father, his devotional spirit, his unwillingness to be made public, his boldness in reproving hypocrisy, his patience and fortitude, his custom of converting every occurring circumstance into a channel for doctrine and instruction, his paternal love for his disciples, his perfect gentleness, yet irresistible authority, with many other traits of grace and virtue, constitute, as a whole, a character which has no parallel-original and perfect.

Now, in a circumstantial statement of the conduct and behaviour of a fictitious personage, it would be very difficult for a single author to sustain the description of such a character in all its peculiarity and in all its perfection. But when we see a character thus peculiar and thus perfect, unfolded with the most beautiful precision, and presented to us in all its parts, without any real deviation or inconsistency, by four distinct and independent 'writers, we are compelled to confess, that for such a result nothing whatever can account but actual and unvarnished truth.

V. The numerous correct allusions made in the New Testament to the manners and customs prevailing among the Jews, Greeks, and Romans, at the time when the books contained in it were written, have already been adduced in evidence of the genuineness of those books. Such allusions may also be fairly pleaded in proof of the authenticity of the narrative of the veracity and accuracy of the narrators. Very important in the same point of view, are the confirmations of various parts of the gospel history, derived from the pages of Jewish, Greeek, and Roman historians. That Christ was not an imaginary person, that he really lived, and that he was the founder of the Christian religion, are facts, as has been already hinted, which rest on the testimony not only of the evangelists and apostles, but of heathen authors; more particularly of Lucian, Suetonius, and Tacitus. By the last of these writers are expressly, though incidentally recorded, the country of Jesus, the era in which he lived, the government to which he was subject, the extensive diffusion of the principles which he promulgated, and his ignominious and violent death: Annal. lib. xv. cap.