57 2. Agreement of its statements with those of profane history; for those respecting the then existing customs and observances, the legal usages of the Romans,† the views and opinions of the Jews, as well as the allusions to the condition, character, and government of the Roman empire, and of Palestine in particular,-completely agree with the information found in other writers, especially Josephus, the Jewish historian. The small number of passages in which the New Testament is found to vary, are partly unimportant, and partly attest the employment of sources of information unknown to other writers, or display a judgment formed on independent, personal, and sufficient grounds. 58 59 3. Agreement of its style and language with the temporal condition of the apostles; for the New Testament writers exhibit themselves in their writings exactly as they really were—that is, as men who, excepting Paul, had no share in the learning and higher culture of the day. Their language, their modes of thought, the character of their narratives, give loud testimony to the fact. The Greek, which they speak and write, is altogether that of the then existing Jews, the counterpart of which is to be found in the Septuagint (see Int. sect. 27). They write without any ornament of style, simply stating what they know, just as men of their position would do. Their acquaintance, however, with the Old Testament shines forth in every part, but their method of explanation is that which prevailed at the time, and was in accordance with the Septuagint, only that they frequently show how, through the Saviour's life and fate, a new light had been thrown on some passages. 4. Its authors write partly as eye-witnesses, and partly as having been informed by eye-witnesses; and * Matt. xxi. 12; xxv. 14; Luke xxi. 1; John ii. 13, seq. Matt. xvii. 24; Luke xii. 5, 8. not only do they expressly declare* this, but they make it unquestionably apparent in their whole manner of thought and writing. This is seen in the impartiality and confidence with which they speak of the facts, in their freedom from all anxiety as to whether their words might seem untrue, the vivid reality of their descriptions, the circumstantial nature of their narratives, and the absence of all solicitude, with regard to time, place, and person, on which a later writer, wishing to pass for an apostle, would have betrayed the greatest concern. II. Proofs of the credibility of the New Testament.- 60 We have thus proved that the writings of the apostles and their scholars,-which came into existence in the first century, were collected together in the middle of the third century, and have been handed down to us in the New Testament,—are incontestably to be regarded as the authentic original records of Christianity; and since the Saviour expressly promised that the Holy Spirit should lead his disciples into all truth, we regard them as the trustworthy fountain of Christianity, and the inspired guide to the humble believer. Although, however, their entire credibility is thus far decided, it is necessary, as the fidelity of their authors has been in part doubted, to form a distinct conception of the reasons which raise their accounts above all question. These reasons we shall accordingly divide under two distinct heads, viz. 1st, The credibility of the evangelical narratives. 2nd, The credibility of the Acts of the Apostles and apostolical Epistles. 1st, The credibility of the Four Gospels.-The reasons 61 under this head may be briefly and distinctly expressed in the following manner: the sacred authors of our Gospels could, would, and must speak the truth. But we have here subdivided these reasons as follows: * 1 John i. 1, 3, 4; John xix. 35; Luke i. 2. 62 1. The Evangelists had the power to speak the truth, for they had full means of knowing the truth. Matthew and John were both eye and ear witnesses of it. As disciples of our Lord, they had accompanied him every where. For three years they had experienced the full power of his personal influence; they had heard his general teachings, and seen his wonderful works; and they had also been present in the narrower circle of his private intercourse, seen his elevation and majesty, heard his statements regarding himself and his relation to the Father, and felt also the operation of his words and life immediately in their own hearts. Matthew and John were therefore most assuredly in a condition to give a true image of the Saviour in his entire manifestation. The other two evangelists were immediate scholars of apostles; Mark having learnt from Peter and Paul, and Luke from Paul. It was therefore easy for them to ascertain the pure and exact truth respecting Jesus. That truth they received from their apostolic teachers, and they wrote at a time when there was a multitude of other eye and ear witnesses from whom they could gather trustworthy instruction in regard to particulars in the life of the common Master; and Luke himself (i. 2—4) expressly testifies that such instruction was carefully sought, and when obtained, was carefully recorded. 63 2. The Evangelists desired to speak the truth.-The simplicity and uprightness of their character, the integrity and love of truth* with which they confess their * Examples of the love of truth displayed by the evangelists.-The evangelists exhibit their love for truth by fearlessly relating what the Saviour had said of themselves. Thus they mention that Jesus blamed them (Matt. x. 28; xiv. 31; xvi. 23; xxvi. 40, 52; Mark vii. 18; ix. 33, seq.; x. 13, seq.; Luke ix. 41, 54-56; John xiv. 9); that they themselves were superstitious (Matt. xxiv. 26; Mark vi. 49; John ix. 2), self-seeking (Mark x. 28, 35, 37; Matt. xix. 27), given to anger, (Luke ix. 55; John xviii. 10; Luke xxii. 49, 50; Mark xiv. 47; Matt. xxvi. 51), and even faithless (Matt. xxvi. 56, 70, 72, 74; failings and errors, their utter inability to carry through a concerted plan of deceit, the repeated contradictions in time, place, and person,* which, in any intentional fraud, they would before all things have avoided, loudly declare that they, in their record, acted according to their best knowledge and judgment. That these contradictions are partly of small moment, and partly easy of explanation, is a matter with which we have here nothing to do; they are discussed in the body of the present work wherever they occur; but that the evangelists did not studiously avoid such deviations, clearly proves that each desired to state only that which he knew respecting what had occurred. By their statements, their expositions of details, and the connexions in their narratives, they clearly let us know that they each handled and set forth the life and spirit of Christ from their own peculiar point of view. 3. The Evangelists must have spoken the truth.- 64 How, otherwise, would the sacred writers have appeared to other eye and ear witnesses if they had wished to indulge in untruths and inventions? What opposition must they have experienced, and how would faith in the Redeemer have been hindered, could it have been shown that his history was full of falsehood! It was, then, unavoidable; the apostles must have stood upon the truth if they wished to gain credence. Besides, the Saviour himself had promised them the Spirit of truth, the Holy Ghost. If they were filled therewith he would not have permitted them to use any intentional fraud, any dressing-up of the facts, any fictitious additions; and conscious of this holy and sanctifying Spirit, they must unfailingly have restricted Mark xiv. 66; Luke xxii. 55; John xviii. 17, 25, 27); also that they had 65 66 67 68 themselves to what they knew to be pure, unvarnished truth. 2nd, The Credibility of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles. The arguments already brought forward are more than sufficient to prove the entire credibility of this portion of the New Testament. The following particular proof however may be borne in mind, viz. that in addition to the argument between the statements in the Acts and those of contemporaneous history, there exist many undesigned coincidences between the Epistles and the history related in the Acts, and also between the different Epistles themselves. These coincidences are given at full length in Paley's Horæ Paulinæ, and Evidences of Christianity; and in relation to them it will be necessary to prove two things: 1st, That the coincidences were undesigned; 2ndly, That they were based upon truth. 1. The coincidences between them must be undesigned. The undesignedness of these coincidences is proved by their latency, their minuteness, their obliquity, the suitableness of the circumstances in which they consist to the places in which those circumstances occur, and by the circuitous references by which they are traced out. By thus examining and comparing the Epistles with the history in the Acts, we shall therefore see that they cannot be imputed to design, and that they are neither of them taken from the other, but are independent documents unknown to, or at least unconsulted by, each other. 2. The coincidences must be based upon truth.-As these coincidences cannot be imputed to design, so also they cannot be considered as the accidental concurrences of fiction. They are so close and so numerous, that they must necessarily have had truth, and nothing but the truth, for their foundation. III. Proofs of the inspiration of the New Testament. |