We now come to the second point, viz., Have we reason to rely with implicit confidence upon the honesty of the writers of the New Testament? The proof presented of the competency of these writers is also a proof of their honesty. So that instead of feeling that this subject needs more proof, we feel as though we were treading upon forbidden ground when we ask the reader to indulge us in exhibiting a few of the testimonies from the “cloud of witnesses” which surround this subject.
We begin the argument by asking what motive could have prompted the writers of the New Testament to have written what they have, except the consciousness of its truth? It is contrary to nature for men to undertake anything without a motive. So that if no human inducement had been held up before them to publish what is not true, perhaps a higher one has stimulated them to tell the truth.
The apostles did preach and publish that Jesus died and rose again. This was very displeasing to the rulers who had crucified him, and had the disposition to put them to death in the same way. Every point of their doctrine was unpopular. What could excite the ire of the Romans more than to preach “another king, even Jesus?” Especially when they knew that he had been crucified. The crucifixion was the most degrading death that the Roman law inflicted. And what could be more absurd in the eyes of the philosophers of Greece, than to tell them that “there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and of the unjust.” And what could excite the Jew more than to tell him that God was taking “out of the Gentiles a people for his name?” Now the apostles did all this. We ask again what motive could they have had in view? Certainly, if they had been after popularity, they would have taken some other course. Infidels acknowledge that the apostles preached a pure morality; hence it could not have been to obtain license for lust that they confederated together to circulate a falsehood. It must have been to advance themselves either in wealth, honor or power.
But their new religion made no provision for either of these. Peter and John were so poor that when asked by a beggar for alms, Peter answered, “Silver and gold have I none.” Acts iii, 6. And though the friends of Christianity sold their possessions and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet [Acts iv, 34–37], so that they could have made themselves independently rich, had they chosen so to do, instead of managing the money matters themselves, they elect seven deacons to attend to that, and gave themselves continually to the ministry of the word and prayer. Acts vi, 1–6. And after the apostles had labored more than a score of years in the propagation of Christianity, and had almost unlimited success, they could appeal to the churches with language like this: “I have coveted no man’s silver or gold or apparel.” “Yea,” says Paul, “ye yourselves know that these hands have ministered to my necessities, and to them that are with me.” Acts xx, 33–41. Those to whom the apostle made this appeal were well acquainted with the fact that while Paul was preaching for a year and a half from Sabbath to Sabbath, in Corinth, he spent the six working days of every week in Aquila and company’s tent factory. Acts xviii. After this, the same apostle, in writing to his75brethren at Corinth, could say in behalf of the apostles, “Even unto this present hour we both hunger and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling place; and labor, working with our hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it; being defamed, we entreat; we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.” 1 Cor. iv, 11–13. The author of the Christian religion was born in a manger, and was so poor through his life that he had not where to lay his head. Matt. viii, 20. And one of the last writers of the New Testament writes from a dungeon in Rome to his brother Timothy, to bring his old cloak, and “do his diligence to come before winter.” 2 Tim. iv, 13, 21. Thus we discover that whether the apostles were popular or not, they were penniless.
But have they gained honor by propagating this falsehood, if indeed it be a falsehood? Let us see. The very first thing that is done when they commence to tell their story, is to command them to “speak no more in this name.” Acts iv, 17. The next is to imprison and beat them. Acts v, 18, 40. After that a general persecution ensues in which Stephen is put to death, and from this time the witnesses are scattered. Persecution drives them from place to place. Saul, a young and popular lawyer, carries the documents in his pocket which authorizes him to put the saints to death. Thus he persecutes from city to city, until he is arrested and made an apostle of this new religion. And behold the prospect placed before him. Says Jesus, I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake. Acts ix, 16. And he says himself, “And now behold I go bound in the Spirit unto Jerusalem, not knowing the things that shall befall me there, save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, saying, Bonds and afflictions abide me.” Acts xx, 22, 23. Hear him give the proofs of his calling of God to the ministry:
“Are they ministers of Christ? I am more; in labors more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; in journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; in weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.” 2 Cor. xi, 23–27.
Now if this is merely a contrivance of the writers of the New Testament, is it not strange that they stuck to it as they did? It bitterly opposed all the habits, prejudices, and dispositions of the people, insomuch that all manner of suffering was heaped upon them. They submit to misery and contempt, take joyfully the spoiling of their goods [Heb. x, 34], willingly endure to be counted fools and the offscouring of all things, and rejoice that they are counted worthy to suffer shame [Acts v, 41], fight with wild beasts at Ephesus [1 Cor. xv, 32], and at last die in attestation of the truth of their affirmations, when at any time they can renounce their religion and retrieve their losses. Yes, this is strange conduct. But strange as it is, seven of these witnesses were put to death, and one of them banished for the word of their testimony, and yet not one word of confession was ever extorted from one of them.
As there could have been no inducement for the writers of the New Testament to give publicity to a falsehood, we now proceed to give evidence that they wrote the truth. The manner in which these writers publish their testimony to the world, bears every mark of truthfulness. Their statements are in a high degree circumstantial. False witnesses will not introduce many particulars into their narratives, while “he that doeth the truth cometh to the light.” “Generality is the cloak of fiction, while minuteness is the mantle of truth.”
When the writers of the New Testament record a miracle, they always go into a detail of circumstances, which renders the whole matter easy of reference and exposure if false. The miracles of Jesus Christ were not done in a corner. They were all wrought in public places and in a public manner, so that if a mistake should be made in recording one of them, thousands of witnesses who were present at the time the miracle was performed could correct it. Do the Evangelists record the astonishing miracles of feeding five thousand men upon five barley loaves and two small fishes? They tell the time of the year when, and the place where, it was done, and many other circumstances connected with it. Thus they put it into the power of these five thousand men and myriads of their contemporaries to have exposed the fraud if it had been one.
Again, when John records the resurrection of a dead man, he does not simply state that Christ raised a man from the dead, but he tells you that his name was Lazarus, that he resided in the village of Bethany, about fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, that he was laid in a cave with a stone rolled to its mouth; tells the length of time that he had been dead, how he came out of the sepulchre, names several prominent individuals that were present, gives the impression which it made upon the Jews, gives the history of the calling of the council to decide what shall be done with the man who had raised the dead, tells how they were divided in opinion with regard to it, gives the language of Caiphas the high priest, and the subsequent treatment which Lazarus received from the Jews. Surely nothing but truth would dare to deal in such circumstantialities. It looks as if this writer was not afraid of anything that the people of Bethany might do. This one circumstance is enough to prove that this book was written in all the confidence of truth.
Again, when Luke records the miracle of speaking with foreign tongues, he does not simply state that the apostles spoke with tongues. But he tells us where it was done and when. That it was in an upper room where the disciples dwelt in the city of Jerusalem, on the pentecost, after the resurrection of Christ. He also tells us that the men of fourteen foreign nations rushed together, as soon as it was noised abroad, and were confounded at hearing every man speak in his (the foreigners’) own language. He informs them that the whole multitude were amazed, that some asked what it meant; others mocked, and others cried out, They are drunken, and that Peter explained the matter, that he had not finished the explanation until they began to cry out, What shall we do? gives Peter’s answer, and informs us that they were baptized.
Now think you that the book of Acts could have gained circulation if this were not true? Would there not have been books published by men of every nation under heaven, contradicting and repelling the falsehood? I apprehend that certificates would have been circulated with hundreds of names to them, stating that they were at the feast mentioned by Luke, and saw no unusual stir there; that they heard no speaking with tongues, and did not know that there was any baptizing going on. One such testimony as the above would have subverted all that Luke ever wrote. But it was not given, for the very good reason that all who were at the feast knew that Luke had written the truth. While the events recorded were so notorious that those who were not present could not doubt their correctness.
Another evidence of the credibility of the New Testament is found in the fact that its writers exhibit no consciousness of narrating anything about which as a matter of fact, there was the smallest doubt. On the other hand they appealed to those to whom they wrote, as being acquainted with the circumstances which they relate. Would the disciples have dared, had they been conscious of falsehood, to assert that Christ was risen, and that in the very streets of the city where he was crucified? How dare Peter go into the temple, the most public place of resort of the Jews, and tell them that they had murdered the Prince of life, but God had raised him from the dead, if this were not true? If conscious of falsehood, would or could he have said in the presence of the Jewish senate, that the God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree?
How could Paul, when on trial for his life before Agrippa, appeal to him as being acquainted with these facts, if they had never occurred? Hear him: “For the king knoweth of these things before whom I also speak freely, for I am persuaded that none of these things were hidden from him, for this thing was not done in a corner.” Acts xxvi, 26. Here we might expect, if Paul was not telling the truth, that the king would dispute him, but he did not, but replies, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” Verse 28.
In all the apostolic writings there is no attempt to convince those to whom they wrote of the truth of their statements; on the contrary, they are conducted with the manner of those who take their notoriety for granted. They do not commence their writings by giving long accounts of themselves, or a list of reasons why the people should believe them. They go straight forward with their statements, telling the least and the most wonderful circumstances in the same manner, which nothing but the notoriety of what they relate could explain. Nothing is said to explain what might seem incongruous or contradictory, or to defend what might be cavilled at. No attempt is made to harmonize objections, which those who feel that they are relating untruth, or new things, would expect to be compelled to meet. The writers seem to understand that what they are relating is so universally known that, for those living in their age, all this is needless; hence they commit their statements, undefended, unexplained, and unvarnished, into the hands of their contemporaries.
Do they relate the crucifixion of Christ, they do not exhaust the adjectives of the language in which they write in descriptions of his sufferings, nor are they careful about describing the malignity of the Jews. They simply state the fact, “and they crucified him,” leaving others to comment on it as they saw fit.
Nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that the apostles were ignorant of the fact that they were relating many very extraordinary events, yet they exhibit no signs of wonder in their own minds, and do not seem to expect any among their readers. This could not have been the case, had the events which they narrated just been conceived in their own minds. They wrote as though the events which they related were perfectly familiar to those for whom they wrote; sometimes stating that as those to whom they wrote, knew “these things,” and were “established in the present truth,” they only wrote to “stir up their pure minds by way of remembrance.” 2 Pet. i, 12, 13; iii, 1; 1 John ii, 13, 14. Hence whatever wonder they excited at first, they expect none now, as they are events perfectly familiar to those to whom they wrote. It is one thing to relate a series of astonishing occurrences to those who never heard of them, and another to relate the same things to those who are familiar with their main features, and only need a more circumstantial and authenticated account of them. In one case the writer would naturally and almost necessarily betray an expectation of wonder from his readers, in the spirit and style of his work, while in the other he would tell his story as if he were only intent upon delivering an accurate account of the circumstances, without reference to whether it was astonishing or the contrary. Thus it is with the New Testament. There is no appearance of any of its writers having felt that any of their testimony would or could be doubted, or that there would or could be any new feelings of wonder excited by reading it.76
When the miracles of Christ were first heard of, they excited universal astonishment, insomuch that it is said that “his fame went abroad and all people were amazed,” “and they were astonished with great astonishment.” See Mark v, 42. But at the time of the writing of the New Testament, the excitement had subsided and the wonder died away, on account of their familiarity with the exciting events which it records. Hence in the Gospels the writers go directly forward in the relation of the events exceedingly astonishing in and of themselves, without exhibiting any astonishment in their own minds, or expecting any in the minds of their readers. This can only be explained by supposing that the events which they were recording were perfectly familiar to the minds of those to whom they wrote. This we regard as a strong argument, and hope the reader will weigh it well.