Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

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 eyewitness; 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? $32. If it were "the result of inquiries, made under competent public authority, concerning matters in which the public are concerned"1 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 the

12 Phillips on Evidence, 95, (9th edition.)

2 When Abbot, Archishop of Canterbury, in shooting at deer with a crossbow, in Bramsil park, accidentally killed the keeper, King James I. by a letter dated Oct. 3, 1621, requested the Lord Keeper, the Lord Chief Justice, and others, to inquire into the circumstances and consider the case and “the scandal that may have risen thereupon," and to certify the King what it may amount to. Could there be any reasonable doubt of the truth of their report of the facts, thus ascertained? See Spelman's Posthumous Works, p. 121.

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 inquiry and examination, made by a person of science, intelligence and education, concerning subjects which he was perfectly competent to investigate, and as to many of which he was 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 conscientiæ, to be adduced as original, competent and satisfactory evidence of the matters it contains.

33. 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

1

The case of the ill-fated steamer President furnishes an example of this sort of inquiry. This vessel, it is well known, sailed from New York for London in the month of March, 1841, having on board many passengers, some of whom were highly connected. The ship was soon overtaken by a storm, after which she was never heard of. A few months afterwards a solemn inquiry was instituted by three gentlemen of respectability, one of whom was a British admiral, another was agent for the underwriters at Lloyd's, and the other a government packet agent, concerning the time, circumstances and causes of that disaster; the result of which was communicated to the public, under their hands. This document received universal confidence, and no further inquiry was made.

6

in his calling, owning his vessel and having hired servants.' His mother, too, was among those who followed Jesus and "ministered unto him; "2 and to John himself, Jesus, when on the cross, confided the care and support of his own mother.3 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 our 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 Savior in the garden of Gethsemane. He was the only apostle who followed Jesus to the cross, he was the first of them at the sepulchre, 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 accession 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

1 Mark i. 20.
John xix. 26, 27.
John xiii. 23.

Matt. xxvii. 55, 56; Mark xv. 40, 41.
4 John xviii. 15,
16.

6 Luke viii. 51; Matt. xvii. 1, and xxvi. 37.

years, about A. D. 100, in the third year of the emperor Trajan.'

$34. 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 it 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."

$35. That it 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 they have not recorded. That their narratives 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.*

$36. Such is the brief history of the witnesses, whose narratives we are to compare and examine. That they had the best possible opportunities to know the truth of the facts which they narrate, can hardly admit of a doubt, since three of them, (Mark being understood, as we have seen, to give the testi

3

This account is abridged from Horne's Introd. vol. iv. P. 286-288.

'Horne's Introd. vol. iv. p. 289, and authors there cited.

See, among others, John i. 38, 41, and ii. 6, 13, and iv. 9, and xi. 55. 'See Horne's Introd. vol. iv. pp. 297, 298.

mony of Peter,) were intelligent personal attendants and intimate associates of Jesus during the whole period of his ministry; and the fourth was a contemporary, familiarly conversant with the eye-witnesses of the transactions which he has recorded, and of which he also had perfect knowledge from the beginning. It is equally apparent that they were accurate observers. We may safely assume that they were men of ordinary accuracy, till the contrary is shown by an objector. It is always to be presumed that men are honest, and of sound mind, and of ordinary 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 allowed freely and fully to operate, until the contrary is proved by the party who denies the applicability of this presumption to the particular case in question. Whenever an objection is raised in opposition to the ordinary presumptions of the 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 would be permitted to argue to a jury in disparagement of the intelligence or integrity of a witness, against whom the case itself afforded no 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.' If, then, the evangelists were men of integrity and disposed to testify the truth, the facts they relate may be taken as proved; since, as we have before remarked, every matter which is the subject of moral evidence is proved, when it is shown by competent and satisfactory testimony.

$37. Any other supposition leads to the greatest absurdities. The great truths which the apostles declared, were, that

1 It has been well remarked, that, of the evangelists chosen by Jesus, two, Peter (or Mark) and John, were too unlearned to forge the story of his life, and two, Matthew and Luke, were too learned to be deceived by imposture.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »