Evidences of Christianity.
By Moses Hull
We have already referred to the minute accuracy with which the writers of the New Testament clothed their testimony. But there is another and stronger evidence in the minutiæ which mark all the allusions of the New Testament to the customs, opinions, and political events, and other circumstances of the times in which it was written. It would exhaust the patience of the reader, were we now to attempt to detail the various references and appeals to illustrious personages, as well as to the customs and institutions which then existed in that and the adjoining countries. Upon this point Mr. Campbell quotes Dr. Chalmers as saying: "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 were 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 the Romans. The account of an execution generally ran 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. "These and a few more particulars of the same kind, occur within the compass of a single page of evangelical history. The circumstantial manner of the history affords a presumption in its favor, antecedent to all examination into the truth of the circumstances themselves. But it makes a strong addition to the evidence, when we find that in all the subordinate parts of the main story, the Evangelists maintain so great a consistency with the testimony of other authors, and with all that we can collect from other sources of information, as to the manners and institutions of that period. It is difficult to conceive, in the first instance, how the inventor of a fabricated story would hazard such a number of circumstances, each of them supplying a point of comparison with other authors, and giving to the inquirer an additional chance of detecting the imposition. And it is still more difficult to believe that truth should have been so artfully blended with falsehood in the composition of this narrative, particularly as we perceive nothing like a forced introduction of any one circumstance. There appears to be nothing out of place, nothing thrust in with the view of imparting an air of probability to the history. The circumstances upon which we bring the Evangelists into comparison with profane authors, is often not intimated in a direct form, but in the form of a slight or distant allusion. There is not the most remote appearance of its being fetched or sought for. It is brought in accidentally, and flows in the most natural and undesigned manner out of the progress of the narrative."—Debate with Owen, pp. 285, 286. But here the infidel again steps forward and says, "If the New Testament narratives are true as matters of fact, why did not the ancient enemies of Christianity bear witness to their truth?" We answer, It is enough that not one of the facts of the gospel have ever been proved untrue, or even contradicted by those who used every means in their possession to put Christianity down. We cannot expect them to come out with a formal acknowledgment of the facts of the gospel, and still remain enemies. And if they did do such a thing, why credit their testimony in preference to that of a Christian who lives conformably to what he says? Could Tacitus be credited if he asserted emphatically that Jesus Christ arose from the dead, and still remained an idolater? His testimony would be much like that of the individual who cries fire! and sits in the burning house. At best their testimony would not be worth half so much as that of those concerning whom Paul wrote when he said, "For they themselves show of us what manner of entering in we had unto you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God; and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus who delivered us from the wrath to come." 1 Thess. i, 9, 10. The witnesses to whom Paul here refers are friends who had once been enemies. Certainly their testimony is better than though they had remained enemies. Upon this point Mr. M'Ilvaine remarks: "Is the evidence of Tacitus who relates such events, but remained a heathen, anything like so strong as if we could say, It is the evidence of Tacitus who was a heathen, but believed these events so firmly that he became a Christian? If a man speak well to me of the virtues of a certain medicine, but does not use it himself, is his opinion half so weighty as if he were to receive it into his own vitals, and administer it in his family? Would it be reasonable in this case to refuse his testimony, because you might denominate him an interested witness?"—Evidences, p. 148, 149. It is unreasonable in the extreme for infidels to ask us to show where the heathens or Jews ever came forward with a detailed statement, acknowledging the narratives of the Evangelists, this we have not, but we have something much better. We have the confession of the whole nation of the Jews, and all of the Greeks, to the same point. No one ever ventured in any publication to deny the statements of the Evangelists. If the facts recorded in the New Testament are untrue, many of them are easily disproved: such as the summoning of the chief priests and scribes, and demanding of them where Christ should be born; the destruction of the male children of Bethlehem, the preaching of John in the wilderness, the number baptized, the beheading of John by the intrigues of Herodias, the miraculous feeding of five thousand men, the resurrection of Lazarus, the crucifixion of Christ, the supernatural darkening of the sun for the space of three hours, the rending of the veil of the temple from top to bottom, the quaking of the earth, the resurrection of Christ, and many saints, who went into the city and appeared to many, the speaking with foreign tongues on the day of pentecost, the healing of a well-known public beggar; that Paul was detained a prisoner by Felix, the conduct of the Philippian magistrates, the sending of Paul to Cæsar, and a hundred other things the most easy of detection and exposure, yet no ancient writer has ever contradicted one of these statements. Unquestionably they would have done it, had they been able. The fact that enemies permitted these things to go out uncontradicted, is a testimony from them in their behalf.