succeeding Christians, is attested by one of the earliest and best of
the remaining writings of the apostolical fathers, the epistle of the
Roman Clement. The meekness of the Christian character reigns throughout
the whole of that excellent piece. The occasion called for it. It was to
compose the dissensions of the church of Corinth. And the venerable hearer
of the apostles does not fall short, in the display of this principle, of
the finest passages of their writings. He calls to the remembrance of the
Corinthian church its former character in which "ye were all of you," he
tells them, "humble-minded, not boasting of anything, desiring rather to
be subject than to govern, to give than to receive, being content with the
portion God had dispensed to you and hearkening diligently to his word;
ye were enlarged in your bowels, having his sufferings always before your
eyes. Ye contended day and night for the whole brotherhood, that with
compassion and a good conscience the number of his elect might be saved.
Ye were sincere, and without offence towards each other. Ye bewailed
every one his neighbour's sins, esteeming their defects your own." His
prayer for them was for the "return of peace, long-suffering, and
patience." (Ep. Clem. Rom. c. 2 & 53; Abp. Wake's Translation.) And his
advice to those who might have been the occasion of difference in the
society is conceived in the true spirit, and with a perfect knowledge of
the Christian character: "Who is there among you that is generous? who
that is compassionate? Who that has any charity? Let him say, If this
sedition, this contention, and these schisms be upon my account, I am
ready to depart, to go away whithersoever ye please, and do whatsoever
ye shall command me; only let the flock of Christ be in peace with the
elders who are set over it. He that shall do this shall get to himself a
very great honour in the Lord; and there is no place but what will he
ready to receive him; for the earth is the Lord's and the fullness
thereof. These things they who have their conversation towards God, not
to be repented of, both have done, and will always be ready to do." (Ep.
Clem. Rom. c. 54; Abp. Wake's Translation.)
This sacred principle, this earnest recommendation of forbearance,
lenity, and forgiveness, mixes with all the writings of that age. There
are more quotations in the apostolical fathers of texts which relate to
these points than of any other. Christ's sayings had struck them. "Not
rendering," said Polycarp, the disciple of John, "evil for evil, or
railing for railing, or striking for striking, or cursing for cursing."
Again, speaking of some whose behaviour had given great offence, "Be ye
moderate," says he, "on this occasion, and look not upon such as
enemies, but call them back as suffering and erring members, that ye
save your whole body." (Pol. Ep. ad Phil. c. 2 & 11.)
"Be ye mild at their anger," saith Ignatius, the companion of Polycarp,
"humble at their boastings, to their blasphemies return your prayers, to
their error your firmness in the faith; when they are cruel, be ye
gentle; not endeavouring to imitate their ways, let us be their brethren
in all kindness and moderation: but let us be followers of the Lord; for
who was ever more unjustly used, more destitute, more despised?"
IV. A fourth quality by which the morality of the Gospel is
distinguished is the exclusion of regard to fame and reputation.
"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them,
otherwise ye have no reward of your father which is in heaven." "When
thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut the door,
pray to thy father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in
secret shall reward thee openly." (Matt. vi. 1 & 6.)
And the rule, by parity of reason, is extended to all other virtues.
I do not think that either in these or in any other passage of the New
Testament, the pursuit of fame is stated as a vice; it is only said that
an action, to be virtuous, must be independent of it. I would also
observe that it is not publicity, but ostentation, which is prohibited;
not the mode, but the motive of the action, which is regulated. A good
man will prefer that mode, as well as those objects of his beneficence,
by which he can produce the greatest effect; and the view of this
purpose may dictate sometimes publication, and sometimes concealment.
Either the one or the other may be the mode of the action, according as
the end to be promoted by it appears to require. But from the motive,
the reputation of the deed, and the fruits and advantage of that
reputation to ourselves, must be shut out, or, in whatever proportion
they are not so, the action in that proportion fails of being virtuous.
This exclusion of regard to human opinion is a difference not so much in
the duties to which the teachers of virtue would persuade mankind, as in
the manner and topics of persuasion. And in this view the difference is
great. When we set about to give advice, our lectures are full of the
advantages of character, of the regard that is due to appearances and to
opinion; of what the world, especially of what the good or great, will
think and say; of the value of public esteem, and of the qualities by
which men acquire it. Widely different from this was our Saviour's
instruction; and the difference was founded upon the best reasons. For,
however the care of reputation, the authority of public opinion, or even
of the opinion of good men, the satisfaction of being well received and
well thought of, the benefit of being known and distinguished, are
topics to which we are fain to have recourse in our exhortations; the
true virtue is that which discards these considerations absolutely, and
which retires from them all to the single internal purpose of pleasing
God. This at least was the virtue which our Saviour taught. And in
teaching this, he not only confined the views of his followers to the
proper measure and principle of human duty, but acted in consistency
with his office as a monitor from heaven.
Next to what our Saviour taught, may be considered the manner of his
teaching; which was extremely peculiar, yet, I think, precisely adapted
to the peculiarity of his character and situation. His lessons did not
consist of disquisitions; of anything like moral essays, or like
sermons, or like set treatises upon the several points which he
mentioned. When he delivered a precept, it was seldom that he added any
proof or argument; still more seldom that he accompanied it with what
all precepts require, limitations and distinctions. His instructions
were conceived in short, emphatic, sententious rules, in occasional
reflections, or in round maxims. I do not think that this was a natural,
or would have been a proper method for a philosopher or a moralist; or
that it is a method which can be successfully imitated by us. But I
contend that it was suitable to the character which Christ assumed, and
to the situation in which, as a teacher, he was placed. He produced
himself as a messenger from God. He put the truth of what he taught upon
authority. (I say unto you, Swear not at all; I say auto you, Resist not
evil; I say unto you, Love your enemies.--Matt. v. 34, 39, 44.) In the
choice, therefore, of his mode of teaching, the purpose by him to be
consulted was impression: because conviction, which forms the principal
end of our discourses, was to arise in the minds of his followers from a
different source, from their respect to his person and authority. Now,
for the purpose of impression singly and exclusively, (I repeat again,
that we are not here to consider the convincing of the understanding,) I
know nothing which would have so great force as strong ponderous maxims,
frequently urged and frequently brought back to the thoughts of the
hearers. I know nothing that could in this view be said better, than "Do
unto others as ye would that others should do unto you:" "The first and
great commandment is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God: and the second
is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." It must also
be remembered, that our Lord's ministry, upon the supposition either of
one year or three, compared with his work, was of short duration; that,
within this time, he had many places to visit, various audiences to
address; that his person was generally besieged by crowds of followers;
that he was, sometimes, driven away from the place where he was teaching
by persecution, and at other times thought fit to withdraw himself from
the commotions of the populace. Under these circumstances, nothing
appears to have been so practicable, or likely to be so efficacious, as
leaving, wherever he came, concise lessons of duty. These circumstances
at least show the necessity he was under of comprising what he delivered
within a small compass. In particular, his sermon upon the mount ought
always to be considered with a view to these observations. The question
is not, whether a fuller, a more accurate, a more systematic, or a more
argumentative discourse upon morals might not have been pronounced; but
whether more could have been said in the same room better adapted to
the exigencies of the hearers, or better calculated for the purpose of
impression? Seen in this light, it has always appeared to me to be
admirable. Dr. Lardner thought that this discourse was made up of what
Christ had said at different times, and on different occasions, several
of which occasions are noticed in St Luke's narrative.
I can perceive no reason for this opinion. I believe that our Lord
delivered this discourse at one time and place, in the manner related by
Saint Matthew, and that he repeated the same rules and maxims at
different times, as opportunity or occasion suggested; that they were
often in his mouth, and were repeated to different audiences, and in
various conversations.
It is incidental to this mode of moral instruction, which proceeds not
by proof but upon authority, not by disquisition but by precept, that
the rules will be conceived in absolute terms, leaving the application
and the distinctions that attend it to the reason of the hearer. It is
likewise to be expected that they will be delivered in terms by so much
the more forcible and energetic, as they have to encounter natural or
general propensities. It is further also to be remarked, that many of
those strong instances which appear in our Lord's sermon, such as, "If
any man will smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also:"
"If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him
have thy cloak also:" "Whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with
him twain:" though they appear in the form of specific precepts, are
intended as descriptive of disposition and character. A specific
compliance with the precepts would be of little value, but the
disposition which they inculcate is of the highest. He who should
content himself with waiting for the occasion, and with literally
observing the rule when the occasion offered, would do nothing, or worse
than nothing: but he who considers the character and disposition which
is hereby inculcated, and places that disposition before him as the
model to which he should bring his own, takes, perhaps, the best
possible method of improving the benevolence, and of calming and
rectifying the vices of his temper.
If it be said that this disposition is unattainable, I answer, so is all
perfection: ought therefore a moralist to recommend imperfections? One
excellency, however, of our Saviour's rules is, that they are either
never mistaken, or never so mistaken as to do harm. I could feign a
hundred cases in which the literal application of the rule, "of doing to
others as we would that others should do unto us," might mislead us; but
I never yet met with the man who was actually misled by it.
Notwithstanding that our Lord bade his followers, "not to resist evil,"
and to "forgive the enemy who should trespass against them, not till
seven times, but till seventy times seven," the Christian world has
hitherto suffered little by too much placability or forbearance. I would
repeat once more, what has already been twice remarked, that these rules
were designed to regulate personal conduct from personal motives, and
for this purpose alone. I think that these observations will assist us
greatly in placing our Saviour's conduct as a moral teacher in a proper
point of view; especially when it is considered, that to deliver moral
disquisitions was no part of his design,--to teach morality at all was
only a subordinate part of it; his great business being to supply what
was much more wanting than lessons of morality, stronger moral
sanctions, and clearer assurances of a future judgment.*
_________
* Some appear to require in a religious system, or in the books which
profess to deliver that system, minute directions for every case and
occurrence that may arise. This, say they, is necessary to render a
revelation perfect, especially one which has for its object the
regulation of human conduct. Now, how prolix, and yet how incomplete and
unavailing, such an attempt must have been, is proved by one notable
example: "The Indoo and Mussulman religions are institutes of civil law,
regulating the minutest questions, both of property and of all questions
which come under the cognizance of the magistrate. And to what length
details of this kind are necessarily carried when once begun, may be
understood from an anecdote of the Mussulman code, which we have
received from the most respectable authority, that not less than
seventy-five thousand traditional precepts have been promulgated."
(Hamilton's translation of Hedays, or Guide.)
_________
The parables of the New Testament are, many of them, such as would have
done honour to any book in the world: I do not mean in style and
diction, but in the choice of the subjects, in the structure of the
narratives, in the aptness, propriety, and force of the circumstances
woven into them; and in some, as that of the Good Samaritan, the
Prodigal Son, the Pharisee and the Publican, in an union of pathos and
simplicity, which in the best productions of human genius is the fruit
only of a much exercised and well cultivated judgment.
The Lord's Prayer, for a succession of solemn thoughts, for fixing the
attention upon a few great points, for suitableness to every condition,
for sufficiency, for conciseness without obscurity, for the weight and
real importance of its petitions, is without an equal or a rival.
From whence did these come? Whence had this man his wisdom? Was our
Saviour, in fact, a well instructed philosopher, whilst he is
represented to us as an illiterate peasant? Or shall we say that some
early Christians of taste and education composed these pieces and
ascribed them to Christ? Beside all other incredibilities in this
account, I answer, with Dr. Jortin, that they could not do it. No
specimens of composition which the Christians of the first century have
left us authorise us to believe that they were equal to the task. And
how little qualified the Jews, the countrymen and companions of Christ,
were to assist him in the undertaking, may be judged of from the
traditions and writings of theirs which were the nearest to that age.
The whole collection of the Talmud is one continued proof into what
follies they fell whenever they left their Bible; and how little capable
they were of furnishing out such lessons as Christ delivered.
But there is still another view in which our Lord's discourses deserve
to be considered; and that is, in their negative character,--not in what
they did, but in what they did not, contain. Under this head the
following reflections appear to me to possess some weight.
I. They exhibit no particular description of the invisible world. The
future happiness of the good, and the misery of the bad, which is all we
want to be assured of, is directly and positively affirmed, and is
represented by metaphors and comparisons, which were plainly intended as
metaphors and comparisons, and as nothing more. As to the rest, a solemn
reserve is maintained. The question concerning the woman who had been
married to seven brothers, "Whose shall she be on the resurrection?" was
of a nature calculated to have drawn from Christ a more circumstantial
account of the state of the human species in their future existence. He
cuts short, however, the inquiry by an answer, which at once rebuked
intruding curiosity, and was agreeable to the best apprehensions we are
able to form upon the subject, viz. "That they who are accounted worthy
of that resurrection, shall be as the angels of God in heaven." I lay a
stress upon this reserve, because it repels the suspicion of enthusiasm:
for enthusiasm is wont to expatiate upon the condition of the departed,
above all other subjects, and with a wild particularity. It is moreover
a topic which is always listened to with greediness. The teacher,
therefore, whose principal purpose is to draw upon himself attention, is
sure to be full of it. The Koran of Mahomet is half made up of it.
II. Our Lord enjoined no austerities. He not only enjoined none as
absolute duties, but he recommended none as carrying men to a higher
degree of Divine favour. Place Christianity, in this respect, by the
side of all institutions which have been founded in the fanaticism
either of their author or of his first followers: or, rather, compare in
this respect Christianity, as it came from Christ, with the same
religion after it fell into other hands--with the extravagant merit very
soon ascribed to celibacy, solitude, voluntary poverty; with the rigours
of an ascetic, and the vows of a monastic life; the hair-shirt, the
watchings, the midnight prayers, the obmutescence, the gloom and
mortification of religious orders, and of those who aspired to religious
perfection.
III. Our Saviour uttered no impassioned devotion. There was no heat in
his piety, or in the language in which he expressed it; no vehement or
rapturous ejaculations, no violent urgency, in his prayers. The Lord's
Prayer is a model of calm devotion. His words in the garden are
unaffected expressions of a deep, indeed, but sober piety. He never
appears to have been worked up into anything like that elation, or that
emotion of spirits which is occasionally observed in most of those to
whom the name of enthusiast can in any degree be applied. I feel a
respect for Methodists, because I believe that there is to be found
amongst them much sincere piety, and availing though not always
well-informed Christianity: yet I never attended a meeting of theirs but
I came away with the reflection, how different what I heard was from
what I read! I do not mean in doctrine, with which at present I have no
concern, but in manner how different from the calmness, the sobriety,
the good sense, and I may add, the strength and authority of our Lord's
discourses!
IV. It is very usual with the human mind to substitute forwardness and
fervency in a particular cause for the merit of general and regular
morality; and it is natural, and politic also, in the leader of a sect
or party, to encourage such a disposition in his followers. Christ did
not overlook this turn of thought; yet, though avowedly placing himself
at the head of a new institution, he notices it only to condemn it. "Not
every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in
thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done
many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto you, I never knew
you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." (Matt. vii. 21, 22.) So far
was the Author of Christianity from courting the attachment of his
followers by any sacrifice of principle, or by a condescension to the
errors which even zeal in his service might have inspired. This was a
proof both of sincerity and judgment.
V. Nor, fifthly, did he fall in with any of the depraved fashions of his
country, or with the natural bias of his own education. Bred up a Jew,
under a religion extremely technical, in an age and amongst a people
more tenacious of the ceremonies than of any other part of that
religion, he delivered an institution containing less of ritual, and
that more simple, than is to be found in any religion which ever
prevailed amongst mankind. We have known, I do allow, examples of an
enthusiasm which has swept away all external ordinances before it. But
this spirit certainly did not dictate our Saviour's conduct, either in
his treatment of the religion of his country, or in the formation of his
own institution. In both he displayed the soundness and moderation of
his judgment. He censured an overstrained scrupulousness, or perhaps an
affectation of scrupulousness, about the Sabbath: but how did he censure
it? not by contemning or decrying the institution itself, but by
declaring that "the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath;"
that is to say, that the Sabbath was to be subordinate to its purpose,
and that that purpose was the real good of those who were the subjects
of the law. The same concerning the nicety of some of the Pharisees, in
paying tithes of the most trifling articles, accompanied with a neglect
of justice, fidelity, and mercy. He finds fault with them for misplacing
their anxiety. He does not speak disrespectfully of the law of tithes,
nor of their observance of it; but he assigns to each class of duties
its proper station in the scale of moral importance. All this might be
expected perhaps from a well-instructed, cool, and judicious
philosopher, but was not to be looked for from an illiterate Jew;
certainly not from an impetuous enthusiast.
VI. Nothing could be more quibbling than were the comments and
expositions of the Jewish doctors at that time; nothing so puerile as
their distinctions. Their evasion of the fifth commandment, their
exposition of the law of oaths, are specimens of the bad taste in morals
which then prevailed. Whereas, in a numerous collection of our Saviour's
apophthegms, many of them referring to sundry precepts of the Jewish
law, there is not to be found one example of sophistry, or of false
subtlety, or of anything approaching thereunto.
VII. The national temper of the Jews was intolerant, narrow-minded, and
excluding. In Jesus, on the contrary, whether we regard his lessons or
his example, we see not only benevolence, but benevolence the most
enlarged and comprehensive. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the
very point of the story is, that the person relieved by him was the
national and religious enemy of his benefactor. Our Lord declared the
equity of the Divine administration, when he told the Jews, (what,
probably, they were surprised to hear,) "That many should come from the
east and west, and should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in
the kingdom of heaven; but that the children of the kingdom should be
cast into outer darkness." (Matt. viii. 11.) His reproof of the hasty
zeal of his disciples, who would needs call down fire from heaven to
revenge an affront put upon their Master, shows the lenity of his
character, and of his religion: and his opinion of the manner in which
the most unreasonable opponents ought to be treated, or at least of the
manner in which they ought not to be treated. The terms in which his
rebuke was conveyed deserve to be noticed:--"Ye know not what manner of
spirit ye are of." (Luke ix. 55.)
VIII. Lastly, amongst the negative qualities of our religion, as it came
out of the hands of its Founder and his apostles, we may reckon its
complete abstraction from all views either of ecclesiastical or civil
policy; or, to meet a language much in fashion with some men, from the
politics either of priests or statesmen. Christ's declaration, that "his
kingdom was not of this world," recorded by Saint John; his evasion of
the question, whether it was lawful or not to give tribute unto Caesar,
mentioned by the three other evangelists; his reply to an application
that was made to him, to interpose his authority in a question of
property; "Man, who made me a ruler or a judge over you?" ascribed to
him by St. Luke; his declining to exercise the office of a criminal
judge in the case of the woman taken in adultery, as related by John,
are all intelligible significations of our Saviour's sentiments upon
this head. And with respect to politics, in the usual sense of that
word, or discussions concerning different forms of government,
Christianity declines every question upon the subject. Whilst
politicians are disputing about monarchies, aristocracies, and
republics, the Gospel is alike applicable, useful, and friendly to them
all; inasmuch, as, 1stly, it tends to make men virtuous, and as it is
easier to govern good men than bad men under any constitution; as,
2ndly, it states obedience to government, in ordinary cases, to be not
merely a submission to force, but a duty of conscience; as, 3rdly, it
induces dispositions favourable to public tranquillity, a Christian's
chief care being to pass quietly through this world to a better; as,
4thly, it prays for communities, and, for the governors of communities,
of whatever description or denomination they be, with a solicitude and
fervency proportioned to the influence which they possess upon human
happiness. All which, in my opinion, is just as it should be. Had there
been more to be found in Scripture of a political nature, or convertible
to political purposes, the worst use would have been made of it, on
whichever side it seemed to lie.
When, therefore, we consider Christ as a moral teacher (remembering that
this was only a secondary part of his office; and that morality, by the
nature of the subject, does not admit of discovery, properly so
called)--when we consider either what he taught, or what he did not
teach, either the substance or the manner of his instruction; his
preference of solid to popular virtues, of a character which is commonly
despised to a character which is universally extolled; his placing, in
our licentious vices, the check in the right place, viz. upon the
thoughts; his collecting of human duty into two well-devised rules, his
repetition of these rules, the stress he laid upon them, especially in
comparison with positive duties, and his fixing thereby the sentiments
of his followers; his exclusion of all regard to reputation in our
devotion and alms, and by parity of reason in our other virtues;--when
we consider that his instructions were delivered in a form calculated
for impression, the precise purpose in his situation to be consulted;
and that they were illustrated by parables, the choice and structure of
which would have been admired in any composition whatever;--when we
observe him free from the usual symptoms of enthusiasm, heat and
vehemence in devotion, austerity in institutions, and a wild
particularity in the description of a future state; free also from the
depravities of his age and country; without superstition amongst the
most superstitious of men, yet not decrying positive distinctions or
external observances, but soberly calling them to the principle of their
establishment, and to their place in the scale of human duties; without
sophistry or trifling, amidst teachers remarkable for nothing so much as
frivolous subtleties and quibbling expositions; candid and liberal in
his judgment of the rest of mankind, although belonging to a people who
affected a separate claim to Divine favour, and in consequence of that
opinion prone to uncharitableness, partiality, and restriction;--when
we find in his religion no scheme of building up a hierarchy, or of
ministering to the views of human governments;--in a word, when we
compare Christianity, as it came from its Author, either with other
religions, or with itself in other hands, the most reluctant
understanding will be induced to acknowledge the probity, I think also
the good sense, of those to whom it owes its origin; and that some
regard is due to the testimony of such men, when they declare their
knowledge that the religion proceeded from God; and when they appeal for
the truth of their assertion, to miracles which they wrought, or which
they saw.
Perhaps the qualities which we observe in the religion may be thought to
prove something more. They would have been extraordinary had the
religion come from any person; from the person from whom it did come,
they are exceedingly so. What was Jesus in external appearance? A Jewish
peasant, the son of a carpenter, living with his father and mother in a
remote province of Palestine, until the time that he produced himself in
his public character. He had no master to instruct or prompt him; he had
read no books but the works of Moses and the prophets; he had visited no
polished cities; he had received no lessons from Socrates or
Plato,--nothing to form in him a taste or judgment different from that
of the rest of his countrymen, and of persons of the same rank of life
with himself. Supposing it to be true, which it is not, that all his
points of morality might be picked out of Greek and Roman writings, they
were writings which he had never seen. Supposing them to be no more than
what some or other had taught in various times and places, he could not
collect them together.
Who were his coadjutors in the undertaking,--the persons into whose
hands the religion came after his death? A few fishermen upon the lake
of Tiberias, persons just as uneducated, and, for the purpose of framing
rules of morality, as unpromising as himself. Suppose the mission to be
real, all this is accounted for; the unsuitableness of the authors to
the production, of the characters to the undertaking, no longer
surprises us: but without reality, it is very difficult to explain how
such a system should proceed from such persons. Christ was not like any
other carpenter; the apostles were not like any other fishermen.
But the subject is not exhausted by these observations. That portion of
it which is most reducible to points of argument has been stated, and, I
trust, truly. There are, however, some topics of a more diffuse nature,
which yet deserve to be proposed to the reader's attention.
The character of Christ is a part of the morality of the Gospel: one
strong observation upon which is, that, neither as represented by his
followers, nor as attacked by his enemies, is he charged with any
personal vice. This remark is as old as Origen: "Though innumerable lies
and calumnies had been forged against the venerable Jesus, none had
dared to charge him with an intemperance." (Or. Ep. Cels. 1. 3, num. 36,
ed. Bened.) Not a reflection upon his moral character, not an imputation
or suspicion of any offence against purity and chastity, appears for
five hundred years after his birth. This faultlessness is more peculiar
than we are apt to imagine. Some stain pollutes the morals or the
morality of almost every other teacher, and of every other lawgiver.*
Zeno the stoic, and Diogenes the cynic, fell into the foulest
impurities; of which also Socrates himself was more than suspected.
Solon forbade unnatural crimes to slaves. Lycurgus tolerated theft as a
part of education. Plato recommended a community of women. Aristotle
maintained the general right of making war upon barbarians. The elder
Cato was remarkable for the ill usage of his slaves; the younger gave up
the person of his wife. One loose principle is found in almost all the
Pagan moralists; is distinctly, however, perceived in the writings of
Plato, Xenophon, Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus; and that is, the allowing,
and even the recommending to their disciples, a compliance with the
religion, and with the religious rites, of every country into which they
came. In speaking of the founders of new institutions we cannot forget
Mahomet. His licentious transgressions of his own licentious rules; his
abuse of the character which he assumed, and of the power which he had
acquired, for the purposes of personal and privileged indulgence; his
avowed claim of a special permission from heaven of unlimited
sensuality, is known to every reader, as it is confessed by every writer
of the Moslem story.
_________
* See many instances collected by Grotius, de Veritate Christianae
Religionis, in the notes to his second book, p. 116. Pocock's edition.
_________
Secondly, in the histories which are left us of Jesus Christ, although
very short, and although dealing in narrative, and not in observation or
panegyric, we perceive, beside the absence of every appearance of vice,
traces of devotion, humility, benignity, mildness, patience, prudence. I
speak of traces of these qualities, because the qualities themselves are
to be collected from incidents; inasmuch as the terms are never used of
Christ in the Gospels, nor is any formal character of him drawn in any
part of the New Testament.
Thus we see the devoutness of his mind in his frequent retirement to
solitary prayer; (Matt. xiv. 23. Luke ix. 28. Matt. xxvi. 36.) in his
habitual giving of thanks; (Matt. xi. 25. Mark viii. 6. John vi. 23. Luke
xxii. 17.) in his reference of the beauties and operations of nature to
the bounty of Providence; (Matt. vi, 26--28.) in his earnest addresses to
his Father, more particularly that short but solemn one before the
raising of Lazarus from the dead; (John xi. 41.) and in the deep piety of
his behaviour in the garden on the last evening of his life:(Matt. xxvi.
86--47.) his humility in his constant reproof of contentions for
superiority:(Mark ix. 33.) the benignity and affectionateness of his
temper in his kindness to children; (Mark x. 16.) in the tears which he
shed over his falling country, (Luke xix. 41.) and upon the death of his
friend; (John xi. 35.) in his noticing of the widow's mite; (Mark xii.
42.) in his parables of the good Samaritan, of the ungrateful servant,
and of the Pharisee and publican, of which parables no one but a man of
humanity could have been the author: the mildness and lenity of his
character is discovered in his rebuke of the forward zeal of his
disciples at the Samaritan village; (Luke ix. 55.) in his expostulation
with Pilate; (John xix. 11.) in his prayer for his enemies at the moment
of his suffering, (Luke xxiii. 34.) which, though it has been since very
properly and frequently imitated, was then, I apprehend, new. His
prudence is discerned, where prudence is most wanted, in his conduct on
trying occasions, and in answers to artful questions. Of these the
following are examples:--His withdrawing in various instances from the
first symptoms of tumult, (Matt. xiv. 22. Luke v. 15, 16. John v. 13; vi.
15.) and with the express care, as appears from Saint Matthew, (Chap.
xii. 19.) of carrying on his ministry in quietness; his declining of
every species of interference with the civil affairs of the country,
which disposition is manifested by his behaviour in the case of the
woman caught in adultery, (John viii. 1.) and in his repulse of the
application which was made to him to interpose his decision about a
disputed inheritance:(Luke xii. 14.) his judicious, yet, as it should
seem, unprepared answers, will be confessed in the case of the Roman
tribute (Matt. xxii. 19.) in the difficulty concerning the interfering
relations of a future state, as proposed to him in the instance of a
woman who had married seven brethren; (Matt. xxii. 28.) and more
especially in his reply to those who demanded from him an explanation of
the authority by which he acted, which reply consisted in propounding a
question to them, situated between the very difficulties into which they
were insidiously endeavouring to draw him. (Matt. xxi. 23, et seq.)
Our Saviour's lessons, beside what has already been remarked in them,
touch, and that oftentimes by very affecting representations, upon some
of the most interesting topics of human duty, and of human meditation;
upon the principles by which the decisions of the last day will be
regulated; (Matt. xxv. 31, et seq.) upon the superior, or rather the
supreme importance of religion; ( Mark viii. 35. Matt. vi. 31--33. Luke
xii. 4, 5, 16--21.) upon penitence, by the most pressing calls, and the
most encouraging invitations; (Luke xv.) upon self-denial, (Matt. v. 29.)
watchfulhess, (Mark xiii. 37. Matt. xxiv. 42; xxv. 13.) placability, (Luke
xvii. 4. Matt. xviii. 33, et seq.) confidence in God, (Matt. vi. 25--30.)
the value of spiritual, that is, of mental worship, (John iv. 23, 24.)
the necessity of moral obedience, and the directing of that obedience to
the spirit and principle of the law, instead of seeking for evasions in
a technical construction of its terms. (Matt. v. 21.)
If we extend our argument to other parts of the New Testament, we may
offer, as amongst the best and shortest rules of life, or, which is the
same thing, descriptions of virtue, that have ever been delivered, the
following passages:--
"Pure religion, and undefiled, before God and the Father, is this; to
visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself
unspotted from the world." (James i. 27.)
"Now the end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart and a
good conscience, and faith unfeigned." (I Tim. i. 5.)
"For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,
teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live
soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." (Tit. ii. 11,
12.)
Enumerations of virtues and vices, and those sufficiently accurate and
unquestionably just, are given by St. Paul to his converts in three
several epistles. (Gal. v. 19. Col. iii. 12. 1 Cor. xiii.)
The relative duties of husbands and wives, of parents and children, of
masters and servants, of Christian teachers and their flocks, of
governors and their subjects, are set forth by the same writer, (Eph. v.
33; vi. 1--5. 2 Cor. vi. 6, 7. Rom. xiii.) not indeed with the
copiousness, the detail, or the distinctness of a moralist who should in
these days sit down to write chapters upon the subject, but with the
leading rules and principles in each; and, above all, with truth and
with authority.
Lastly, the whole volume of the New Testament is replete with piety;
with what were almost unknown to heathen moralists, devotional virtues,
the most profound veneration of the Deity, an habitual sense of his
bounty and protection, a firm confidence in the final result of his
counsels and dispensations, a disposition to resort upon all occasions
to his mercy for the supply of human wants, for assistance in danger,
for relief from pain, for the pardon of sin.
CHAPTER III.
THE CANDOUR OF THE WRITERS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
I make this candour to consist in their putting down many passages, and
noticing many circumstances, which no writer whatever was likely to have
forged; and which no writer would have chosen to appear in his book who
had been careful to present the story in the most unexceptionable form,
or who had thought himself at liberty to carve and mould the particulars
of that story according to his choice, or according to his judgment of
the effect.
A strong and well-known example of the fairness of the evangelists
offers itself in their account of Christ's resurrection, namely, in
their unanimously stating that after he was risen he appeared to his
disciples alone. I do not mean that they have used the exclusive word
alone; but that all the instances which they have recorded of his
appearance are instances of appearance to his disciples; that their
reasonings upon it, and allusions to it, are confined to this
supposition; and that by one of them Peter is made to say, "Him God
raised up the third day, and showed him openly, not to all the people,
but to witnesses chosen before of God, even to us who did eat and drink
with him after he rose from the dead." (Acts x. 40, 41.) The most common
understanding must have perceived that the history of the resurrection
would have come with more advantage if they had related that Jesus
appeared, after he was risen, to his foes as well as his friends, to the
scribes and Pharisees, the Jewish council, and the Roman governor: or
even if they had asserted the public appearance of Christ in general
unqualified terms, without noticing, as they have done, the presence of
his disciples on each occasion, and noticing it in such a manner as to
lead their readers to suppose that none but disciples were present. They
could have represented in one way as well as the other. And if their
point had been to have their religion believed, whether true or false;
if they had fabricated the story ab initio; or if they had been disposed
either to have delivered their testimony as witnesses, or to have worked
up their materials and information as historians, in such a manner as to
render their narrative as specious and unobjectionable as they could; in
a word, if they had thought of anything but of the truth of the case, as
they understood and believed it; they would in their account of Christ's
several appearances after his resurrection, at least have omitted this
restriction. At this distance of time, the account as we have it is
perhaps more credible than it would have been the other way; because
this manifestation of the historians' candour is of more advantage to
their testimony than the difference in the circumstances of the account
would have been to the nature of the evidence. But this is an effect
which the evangelists would not foresee: and I think that it was by no
means the case at the time when the books were composed.
Mr. Gibbon has argued for the genuineness of the Koran, from the
confessions which it contains, to the apparent disadvantage of the
Mahometan cause. (Vol. ix. c. 50, note 96.) The same defence vindicates
the genuineness of our Gospels, and without prejudice to the cause at
all.
There are some other instances in which the evangelists honestly relate
what they must have perceived would make against them.
Of this kind is John the Baptist's message preserved by Saint Matthew
(xi. 2) and Saint Luke (vii. 18): "Now when John had heard in the prison
the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples, and said unto him,
Art thou he that should come, or look we for another?" To confess, still
more to state, that John the Baptist had his doubts concerning the
character of Jesus, could not but afford a handle to cavil and
objection. But truth, like honesty, neglects appearances. The same
observation, perhaps, holds concerning the apostacy of Judas.*
_________
* I had once placed amongst these examples of fair concession the
remarkable words of Saint Matthew in his account of Christ's appearance
upon the Galilean mountain: "And when they saw him they worshipped him;
but some doubted." (Chap. xxviii. 17.) I have since, however, been
convinced, by what is observed concerning this passage in Dr.
Townshend's Discourse (Page 177.) upon the Resurrection, that the
transaction, as related by Saint Matthew, was really this: "Christ
appeared first at a distance; the greater part of the company, the
moment they saw him, worshipped, but some as yet, i.e. upon this first
distant view of his person, doubted; whereupon Christ came up to them,
and spake to them,"+ &c.: that the doubt, therefore, was a doubt only at
first for a moment, and upon his being seen at a distance, and was
afterwards dispelled by his nearer approach, and by his entering into
conversation with them.
+ Saint Matthew's words are: kai proselthon o Iesous elalesen autois
[and having come toward them, Jesus spoke]. This intimates that when he
first appeared it was at a distance, at least from many of the
spectators. Ib. p. 197.
_________
John vi. 66. "From that time, many of his disciples went back, and
walked no more with him." Was it the part of a writer who dealt in
suppression and disguise to put down this anecdote? Or this, which
Matthew has preserved (xii. 58)? "He did not many mighty works there,
because of their unbelief."
Again, in the same evangelist (v. 17, 18): "Think not that I am come to
destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to
fulfil; for, verily, I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one
jot, or one tittle, shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be
fulfilled." At the time the Gospels were written, the apparent tendency
of Christ's mission was to diminish the authority of the Mosaic code,
and it was so considered by the Jews themselves. It is very improbable,
therefore, that, without the constraint of truth, Matthew should have
ascribed a saying to Christ, which, primo intuitu, militated with the
judgment of the age in which his Gospel was written. Marcion thought
this text so objectionable, that he altered the words, so as to invert
the sense. (Lardner, Cred., vol. xv. p. 422.)
Once more (Acts xxv. 18): "They brought none accusation against him of
such things as I supposed; but had certain questions against him of
their own superstition, and of one Jesus which was dead, whom Paul
affirmed to be alive." Nothing could be more in the character of a Roman
governor than these words. But that is not precisely the point I am
concerned with. A mere panegyrist, or a dishonest narrator, would not
have represented his cause, or have made a great magistrate represent
it, in this manner, i.e. in terms not a little disparaging, and
bespeaking, on his part, much unconcern and indifference about the
matter. The same observation may be repeated of the speech which is
ascribed to Gallio (Acts xviii. 15): "If it be a question of words and
names, and of your law, look ye to it; for I will be no judge of such
matters."
Lastly, where do we discern a stronger mark of candour, or less
disposition to extol and magnify, than in the conclusion of the same
history? in which the evangelist, after relating that Paul, on his first
arrival at Rome, preached to the Jews from morning until evening, adds,
"And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not."
The following, I think, are passages which were very unlikely to have
presented themselves to the mind of a forger or a fabulist.
Matt. xxi. 21. "Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto
you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is
done unto the fig-tree, but also, if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be
thou removed, and be thou east into the sea, it shall be done; all
things whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, it shall be done."
(See also chap. xvii. 20. Luke xvii. 6.) It appears to me very
improbable that these words should have been put into Christ's mouth, if
he had not actually spoken them. The term "faith," as here used, is
perhaps rightly interpreted of confidence in that internal notice by
which the apostles were admonished of their power to perform any
particular miracle. And this exposition renders the sense of the text
more easy. But the words undoubtedly, in their obvious construction,
carry with them a difficulty which no writer would have brought upon
himself officiously.
Luke ix. 59. "And he said unto another, Follow me: but he said, Lord,
suffer me first to go and bury my father. Jesus said unto him, Let the
dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God." (See
also Matt. viii. 21.) This answer, though very expressive of the
transcendent importance of religious concerns, was apparently harsh and
repulsive; and such as would not have been made for Christ if he had not
really used it. At least some other instance would bare been chosen.
The following passage, I, for the same reason, think impossible to have
been the production of artifice, or of a cold forgery:--"But I say unto
you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be
in danger of the judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca,
shall be in danger of the council; but whosoever shall say, Thou fool,
shall be in danger of hell-fire (Gehennae)." Matt. v. 22. It is
emphatic, cogent, and well calculated for the purpose of impression; but
is inconsistent with the supposition of art or wariness on the part of
the relator.
The short reply of our Lord to Mary Magdalen, after his resurrection
(John xx. 16, 17), "Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended unto my
Father," in my opinion must have been founded in a reference or allusion
to some prior conversation, for the want of knowing which his meaning is
hidden from us. This very obscurity, however, is a proof of genuineness.
No one would have forged such an answer.
John vi. The whole of the conversation recorded in this chapter is in
the highest degree unlikely to be fabricated, especially the part of our
Saviour's reply between the fiftieth and the fifty-eighth verse. I need
only put down the first sentence: "I am the living bread which came down
from heaven: if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever: and
the bread that I will give him is my flesh, which I will give for the
life of the world." Without calling in question the expositions that
have been given of this passage, we may be permitted to say, that it
labours under an obscurity, in which it is impossible to believe that
any one, who made speeches for the persons of his narrative, would have
voluntarily involved them. That this discourse was obscure, even at the
time, is confessed by the writer who had preserved it, when he tells us,
at the conclusion, that many of our Lord's disciples, when they had
heard this, said, "This is a hard saying; who can hear it?"
Christ's taking of a young child, and placing it in the midst of his
contentious disciples (Matt. xviii. 2), though as decisive a proof as
any could be of the benignity of his temper, and very expressive of the
character of the religion which he wished to inculcate, was not by any
means an obvious thought. Nor am I acquainted with anything in any
ancient writing which resembles it.
The account of the institution of the eucharist bears strong internal
marks of genuineness. If it had been feigned, it would have been more
full; it would have come nearer to the actual mode of celebrating the
rite as that mode obtained very early in the Christian churches; and it
would have been more formal than it is. In the forged piece called the
Apostolic Constitutions, the apostles are made to enjoin many parts of
the ritual which was in use in the second and third centuries, with as
much particularity as a modern rubric could have done. Whereas, in the
history of the Lord's Supper, as we read it in Saint Matthew's Gospel,
there is not so much as the command to repeat it. This, surely, looks
like undesignedness. I think also that the difficulty arising from the
conciseness of Christ's expression, "This is my body," would have been
avoided in a made-up story. I allow that the explication of these words
given by Protestants is satisfactory; but it is deduced from a diligent
comparison of the words in question with forms of expression used in
Scripture, and especially by Christ upon other occasions. No writer
would arbitrarily and unnecessarily have thus cast in his reader's way a
difficulty which, to say the least, it required research and erudition
to clear up.
Now it ought to be observed that the argument which is built upon these
examples extends both to the authenticity of the books, and to the
truth of the narrative; for it is improbable that the forger of a
history in the name of another should have inserted such passages into
it: and it is improbable, also, that the persons whose names the books
hear should have fabricated such passages; or even have allowed them a
place in their work, if they had not believed them to express the truth.
The following observation, therefore, of Dr. Lardner, the most candid of
all advocates, and the most cautious of all inquirers, seems to be well
founded:--"Christians are induced to believe the writers of the Gospel
by observing the evidences of piety and probity that appear in their
writings, in which there is no deceit, or artifice, or cunning, or
design." "No remarks," as Dr. Beattie hath properly said, "are thrown in
to anticipate objections; nothing of that caution which never fails to
distinguish the testimony of those who are conscious of imposture; no
endeavour to reconcile the reader's mind to what may be extraordinary in
the narrative."
I beg leave to cite also another author, (Duchal, pp. 97, 98.) who has
well expressed the reflection which the examples now brought forward
were intended to suggest. "It doth not appear that ever it came into the
mind of these writers to consider how this or the other action would
appear to mankind, or what objections might be raised upon them. But
without at all attending to this, they lay the facts before you, at no
pains to think whether they would appear credible or not. If the reader
will not believe their testimony, there is no help for it: they tell
the truth and attend to nothing else. Surely this looks like sincerity,
and that they published nothing to the world but that they believed
themselves."
As no improper supplement to this chapter, I crave a place here for
observing the extreme naturalness of some of the things related in the
New Testament.
Mark ix. 23. "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are
possible to him that believeth. And straightway the father of the child
cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine
unbelief." This struggle in the father's heart, between solicitude for
the preservation of his child, and a kind of involuntary distrust of
Christ's power to heal him, is here expressed with an air of reality
which could hardly be counterfeited.
Again (Matt. xxi. 9), the eagerness of the people to introduce Christ
into Jerusalem, and their demand, a short time afterwards, of his
crucifixion, when he did not turn out what they expected him to be, so
far from affording matter of objection, represents popular favour in
exact agreement with nature and with experience, as the flux and reflux
of a wave.
The rulers and Pharisees rejecting Christ, whilst many of the common
people received him, was the effect which, in the then state of Jewish
prejudices, I should have expected. And the reason with which they who
rejected Christ's mission kept themselves in countenance, and with which
also they answered the arguments of those who favoured it, is precisely
the reason which such men usually give:--"Have any of the Scribes or
Pharisees believed on him?" (John vii. 48.)
In our Lord's conversation at the well (John iv. 29), Christ had
surprised the Samaritan woman with an allusion to a single particular in
her domestic situation, "Thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou
now hast is not thy husband." The woman, soon after this, ran back to
the city, and called out to her neighbours, "Come, see a man which told
me all things that ever I did." This exaggeration appears to me very
natural; especially in the hurried state of spirits into which the woman
may be supposed to have been thrown.
The lawyer's subtilty in running a distinction upon the word neighbour,
in the precept, "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," was no less
natural than our Saviour's answer was decisive and satisfactory. (Luke
x. 20.) The lawyer of the New Testament, it must be observed, was a
Jewish divine.
The behaviour of Gallio (Acts xviii. 12-17), and of Festus (xxv. 18,
19), have been observed upon already.
The consistency of Saint Paul's character throughout the whole of his
history (viz. the warmth and activity of his zeal, first against, and
then for, Christianity) carries with it very much of the appearance of
truth.
There are also some properties, as they may be called, observable in the
Gospels; that is, circumstances separately suiting with the situation,
character, and intention of their respective authors.
Saint Matthew, who was an inhabitant of Galilee, and did not join
Christ's society until some time after Christ had come into Galilee to
preach, has given us very little of his history prior to that period.
Saint John, who had been converted before, and who wrote to supply
omissions in the other Gospels, relates some remarkable particulars
which had taken place before Christ left Judea, to go into Galilee.
(Hartley's Observations, vol. ii. p. 103.)
Saint Matthew (xv. 1) has recorded the cavil of the Pharisees against
the disciples of Jesus, for eating "with unclean hands." Saint Mark has
also (vii. 1) recorded the same transaction (taken probably from Saint
Matthew), but with this addition: "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews,
except they wash their hands often, eat not, holding the tradition of
the elders: and when they come from the market, except they wash, they
eat not: and many other things there be which they have received to
hold, as the washing of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables."
Now Saint Matthew was not only a Jew himself, but it is evident, from
the whole structure of his Gospel, especially from his numerous
references to the Old Testament, that he wrote for Jewish readers. The
above explanation, therefore, in him, would have been unnatural, as not
being wanted by the readers whom he addressed. But in Mark, who,
whatever use he might make of Matthew's Gospel, intended his own
narrative for a general circulation, and who himself travelled to
distant countries in the service of the religion, it was properly added.
CHAPTER IV.
IDENTITY OF CHRIST'S CHARACTER.
THE argument expressed by this title I apply principally to the
comparison of the first three Gospels with that of Saint John. It is
known to every reader of Scripture that the passages of Christ's history
preserved by Saint John are, except his passion and resurrection, for
the most part different from those which are delivered by the other
evangelists. And I think the ancient account of this difference to be
the true one, viz., that Saint John wrote after the rest, and to supply
what he thought omissions in their narratives, of which the principal
were our Saviour's conferences with the Jews of Jerusalem, and his
discourses to his apostles at his last supper. But what I observe in the
comparison of these several accounts is, that, although actions and
discourses are ascribed to Christ by Saint John in general different
from what are given to him by the other evangelists, yet, under this
diversity, there is a similitude of manner, which indicates that the
actions and discourses proceeded from the same person. I should have
laid little stress upon the repetition of actions substantially alike,
or of discourses containing many of the same expressions, because that
is a species of resemblance which would either belong to a true history,
or might easily be imitate in a false one. Nor do I deny that a dramatic
writer is able to sustain propriety and distinction of character through
a great variety of separate incidents and situations. But the
evangelists were not dramatic writers; nor possessed the talents of
dramatic writers; nor will it, I believe, be suspected that they studied
uniformity of character, or ever thought of any such thing in the person
who was the subject of their histories. Such uniformity, if it exist,
is on their part casual; and if there be, as I contend there is, a
perceptible resemblance of manner, in passages, and between discourses,
which are in themselves extremely distinct, and are delivered by
historians writing without any imitation of, or reference to, one
another, it affords a just presumption that these are what they profess
to be, the actions and the discourses of the same real person; that the
evangelists wrote from fact, and not from imagination.
The article in which I find this agreement most strong is in our
Saviour's mode of teaching, and in that particular property of it which
consists in his drawing of his doctrine from the occasion; or, which is
nearly the same thing, raising reflections from the objects and
incidents before him, or turning a particular discourse then passing
into an opportunity of general instruction.
It will be my business to point out this manner in the first three
evangelists; and then to inquire whether it do not appear also in several
examples of Christ's discourses preserved by Saint John.
The reader will observe in the following quotations that the Italic
letter contains the reflection; the common letter the incident or
occasion from which it springs.
Matt. xii. 47--50. "Then they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy
brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and
said unto him that told him, Who is my mother; and who are my brethren?
And he stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, Behold
my mother and my brethren: for whosoever shall do the will of my Father
which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."
Matt. xvi. 5. "And when his disciples were come to the other side, they
had forgotten to take bread; then Jesus said unto them, Take heed, and
beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they
reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no
bread.--How is it that ye do not understand, that I speak it not to you
concerning bread, that ye shall beware of the leaven of the Pharisees
and of the Sadducees? Then understood they how that he bade them not
beware of the leaven of bread, but of the DOCTRINE of the Pharisees and
of the Sadducees."
Matt. xv. 1, 2; 10, 11; 15--20. "Then came to Jesus scribes and
Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples
transgress the traditions of the elders? for they wash not their hands
when they eat bread.--And he called the multitude, and said unto them,
Hear and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man,
but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth the man.--Then
answered Peter, and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable. And
Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do ye not understand
that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is
cast out into the draught? but those things which proceed out of the
mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the man: for out of the
heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts,
false witness, blasphemies; these are the things which defile a man: BUT
TO EAT WITH UNWASHEN HANDS DEFILETH NOT A MAN." Our Saviour, on
this occasion, expatiates rather more at large than usual, and his
discourse also is more divided; but the concluding sentence brings
back the whole train of thought to the incident in the first verse,
viz. the objurgatory question of the Pharisees, and renders it evident
that the whole sprang from that circumstance.
Mark x. 13, 14, 15. "And they brought young children to him, that he
should touch them; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them:
but when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them,
Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not; for of
such is the kingdom of God: verily I say unto you, whosoever shall not
receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter
therein."
Mark i. 16, 17. "Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon
and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea, for they were
fishers: and Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you
fishers of men."
Luke xi. 27. "And it came to pass as he spake these things, a certain
woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is
the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked: but he
said, Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep
it."
Luke xiii. 1--3. "There were present at that season some that told him
of the Galileans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices;
and Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye, that these Galileans
were sinners above all the Galileans, because they suffered such things?
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish."
Luke xiv. 15. "And when one of them that sat at meat with him heard
these things, he said unto him, Blessed is he that shall eat bread in
the kingdom of God. Then said he unto him, A certain man made a great
supper, and bade many," &c. The parable is rather too long for
insertion, but affords a striking instance of Christ's manner of raising
a discourse from the occasion. Observe also in the same chapter two
other examples of advice, drawn from the circumstances of the
entertainment and the behaviour of the guests.
We will now see how this manner discovers itself in Saint John's history
of Christ.
John vi. 25. "And when they had found him on the other side of the sea,
they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither? Jesus answered them
and said, Verily I say unto you, ye seek me not because ye saw the
miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labour
not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto
everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you."
John iv. 12. "Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who gave us the
well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus
answered, and said unto her (the woman of Samaria), Whosoever drinketh
of this water shall thirst again; but whosoever drinketh of the water
that I shall give him, shall never thirst; but the water that I shall
give him shall be in him a well of water, springing up into everlasting
life."
John iv. 31. "In the mean while, his disciples prayed him, saying,
Master, eat; but he said unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not
of. Therefore said the disciples one to another, Hath any man brought
him aught to eat? Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of
Him that sent me, and to finish his work."
John ix. 1--5. "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind
from his birth: and his disciples asked him, saying, Who did sin, this
man or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath
this man sinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God should be
made manifest in him. I must work the works of Him that sent me while it
is day; the night cometh when no man can work. As long as I am in the
world, I am the light of the world."
John ix. 35--40. "Jesus heard that they had cast him (the blind man
above mentioned) out: and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost
thou believe on the Son of God? And he answered and said, Who is he,
Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast
both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I
believe; and he worshipped him. And Jesus said. For judgment I am come
into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which
see might be made blind."
All that the reader has now to do, is to compare the series of examples
taken from Saint John with the series of examples taken from the other
evangelists, and to judge whether there be not a visible agreement of
manner between them. In the above-quoted passages, the occasion is
stated, as well as the reflection. They seem, therefore, the most proper
for the purpose of our argument. A large, however, and curious
collection has been made by different writers, (Newton on Daniel, p. 148,
note a. Jottin, Dis., p. 218. Bishop Law's Life of Christ.) of instances
in which it is extremely probable that Christ spoke in allusion to some
object, or some occasion then before him, though the mention of the
occasion, or of the object, be omitted in the history. I only observe that
these instances are common to Saint John's Gospel with the other three.
I conclude this article by remarking, that nothing of this manner is
perceptible in the speeches recorded in the Acts, or in any other but
those which are attributed to Christ, and that, in truth, it was a very
unlikely manner for a forger or fabulist to attempt; and a manner very
difficult for any writer to execute, if he had to supply all the
materials, both the incidents and the observations upon them, out of his
own head. A forger or a fabulist would have made for Christ, discourses
exhorting to virtue and dissuading from vice in general terms. It would
never have entered into the thoughts of either, to have crowded together
such a number of allusions to time, place, and other little circumstances,
as occur, for instance, in the sermon on the mount, and which nothing but
the actual presence of the objects could have suggested (See Bishop Law's
Life of Christ).
II. There appears to me to exist an affinity between the history of
Christ's placing a little child in the midst of his disciples, as
related by the first three evangelists, (Matt. xviii. 1. Mark ix. 33.
Luke ix. 46.) and the history of Christ's washing his disciples' feet,
as given by Saint John. (Chap. xiii. 3.) In the stories themselves there
is no resemblance. But the affinity which I would point out consists in
these two articles: First, that both stories denote the emulation which
prevailed amongst Christ's disciples, and his own care and desire to
correct it; the moral of both is the same. Secondly, that both stories
are specimens of the same manner of teaching, viz., by action; a mode of
emblematic instruction extremely peculiar, and, in these passages,
ascribed, we see, to our Saviour by the first three evangelists, and by
Saint John, in instances totally unlike, and without the smallest
suspicion of their borrowing from each other.
III. A singularity in Christ's language which runs through all the
evangelists, and which is found in those discourses of Saint John that
have nothing similar to them in the other Gospels, is the appellation of
"the Son of man;" and it is in all the evangelists found under the
peculiar circumstance of being applied by Christ to himself, but of
never being used of him, or towards him, by any other person. It occurs
seventeen times in Matthew's Gospel, twenty times in Mark's, twenty-one
times in Luke's and eleven times in John's, and always with this
restriction.
IV. A point of agreement in the conduct of Christ, as represented by his
different historians, is that of his withdrawing himself out of the way
whenever the behaviour of the multitude indicated a disposition to
tumult.
Matt. xiv. 22. "And straightway Jesus constrained his disciples to get
into a ship, and to go before him unto the other side, while he sent the
multitude away. And when he had sent the multitude away, he went up into
a mountain apart to pray."
Luke v. 15, 16. "But so much the more went there a fame abroad of him,
and great multitudes came together to hear, and to be healed by him of
their infirmities; and he withdrew himself into the wilderness and
prayed." With these quotations compare the following from Saint John:
Chap. v. 13. "And he that was healed wist not who it was, for Jesus had
conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place."
Chap. vi. 15. "When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and
take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain
himself alone."
In this last instance, Saint John gives the motive of Christ's conduct,
which is left unexplained by the other evangelists, who have related the
conduct itself.
V. Another, and a more singular circumstance in Christ's ministry, was
the reserve which, for some time, and upon some occasions at least, he
used in declaring his own character, and his leaving it to be collected
from his works rather than his professions. Just reasons for this
reserve have been assigned. (See Locke's Reasonableness of Christianity.)
But it is not what one would have expected. We meet with it in Saint
Matthew's Gospel (chap. xvi. 20): "Then charged he his disciples that
they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." Again, and upon a
different occasion, in Saint Mark's (chap. iii. 11): "And unclean
spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying,
Thou art the Son of God: and he straitly charged them that they should
not make him known." Another instance similar to this last is recorded
by Saint Luke (chap. iv. 41). What we thus find in the three
evangelists, appears also in a passage of Saint John (chap. x. 24, 25):
"Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost
thou make us to doubt: If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly." The
occasion here was different from any of the rest; and it was indirect.
We only discover Christ's conduct through the upbraidings of his
adversaries. But all this strengthens the argument. I had rather at any
time surprise a coincidence in some oblique allusion than read it in
broad assertions.
VI. In our Lord's commerce with his disciples, one very observable
particular is the difficulty which they found in understanding him when
he spoke to them of the future part of his history, especially of what
related to his passion or resurrection. This difficulty produced, as was
natural, a wish in them to ask for further explanation: from which,
however, they appear to have been sometimes kept back by the fear of
giving offence. All these circumstances are distinctly noticed by Mark
and Luke, upon the occasion of his informing them (probably for the
first time) that the Son of man should be delivered into the hands of
men. "They understood not," the evangelists tell us, "this saying, and
it was hid from them, that they perceived it not; and they feared to ask
him of that saying." Luke ix. 45; Mark ix. 32. In Saint John's Gospel we
have, on a different occasion, and in a different instance, the same
difficulty of apprehension, the same curiosity, and the same
restraint:--"A little while and ye shall not see me; and again, a little
while and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father. Then said some of
his disciples among themselves, What is this that he saith unto us? A
little while and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while and ye
shall see me: and, Because I go to the Father? They said, therefore,
What is this that he saith? A little while? We cannot tell what he
saith. Now Jesus knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto
them,--" &c. John xvi. 16, et seq.
VII. The meekness of Christ during his last sufferings, which is
conspicuous in the narratives of the first three evangelists, is
preserved in that of Saint John under separate examples. The answer
given by him, in Saint John, (Chap. xviii. 20, 21.) when the high priest
asked him of his disciples and his doctrine; "I spake openly to the
world: I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the
Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. Why askest thou
me? ask them which heard me what I have said unto them," is very much of
a piece with his reply to the armed party which seized him, as we read
it in Saint Mark's Gospel, and in Saint Luke's:(Mark xiv. 48. Luke xxii.
52.) "Are you come out as against a thief, with swords and with staves
to take me? I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me
not." In both answers we discern the same tranquillity, the same
reference to his public teaching. His mild expostulation with Pilate, on
two several occasions, as related by Saint John, (Chap. xviii. 34; xix.
11.) is delivered with the same unruffled temper as that which conducted
him through the last scene of his life, as described by his other
evangelists. His answer, in Saint John's Gospel, to the officer who
struck him with the palm of his hand, "If I have spoken evil, bear
witness of the evil; but if well, why smitest thou me?" (Chap. xviii.
23.) was such an answer as might have been looked for from the person
who, as he proceeded to the place of execution, bid his companions (as
we are told by Saint Luke; Chap. xxiii. 28.) weep not for him, but for
themselves, their posterity, and their country; and who, whilst he was
suspended upon the cross, prayed for his murderers, "for they know not,"
said he, "what they do." The urgency also of his judges and his
prosecutors to extort from him a defence to the accusation, and his
unwillingness to make any (which was a peculiar circumstance), appears
in Saint John's account, as well as in that of the other
evangelists. (See John xix. 9. Matt. xxvii. 14. Luke xxiii. 9.)
There are, moreover, two other correspondencies between Saint John's
history of the transaction and theirs, of a kind somewhat different from
those which we have been now mentioning.
The first three evangelists record what is called our Saviour's agony,
i.e. his devotion in the garden immediately before he was apprehended;
in which narrative they all make him pray "that the cup might pass from
him." This is the particular metaphor which they all ascribe to him.
Saint Matthew adds, "O, my Father, if this cup may not pass away from
me, except I drink it, thy will be done." (Chap, xxvi. 42.) Now Saint
John does not give the scene in the garden: but when Jesus was seized,
and some resistance was attempted to be made by Peter, Jesus, according
to his account, checked the attempt, with this reply: "Put up thy sword
into the sheath; the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not
drink it?" (Chap. xviii. 11.) This is something more than
consistency---it is coincidence; because it is extremely natural that
Jesus, who, before he was apprehended, had been praying his Father that
"that cup might pass from him," yet with such a pious retraction of his
request as to have added, "If this cup may not pass from me, thy will be
done;" it was natural, I say, for the same person, when he actually was
apprehended, to express the resignation to which he had already made up
his thoughts, and to express it in the form of speech which he had
before used, "The cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink
it?" This is a coincidence between writers in whose narratives there is
no imitation, but great diversity.
A second similar correspondency is the following: Matthew and Mark make
the charge upon which our Lord was condemned to be a threat of
destroying the temple; "We heard him say, I will destroy this temple
made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without
hands:" (Mark xiv. 58.) but they neither of them inform us upon what
circumstance this calumny was founded. Saint John, in the early part of
the history, (Chap. ii. 19.) supplies us with this information; for he
relates, that on our Lord's first journey to Jerusalem, when the Jews
asked him "What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these
things? He answered, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise
it up." This agreement could hardly arise from anything but the truth of
the case. From any care or design in Saint John to make his narrative
tally with the narratives of other evangelists, it certainly did not
arise, for no such design appears, but the absence of it.
A strong and more general instance of agreement is the following.--The
first three evangelists have related the appointment of the twelve
apostles; (Matt. x. 1. Mark iii. 14. Luke vi. 12.) and have given a
catalogue of their names in form. John, without ever mentioning the
appointment, or giving the catalogue, supposes, throughout his whole
narrative, Christ to be accompanied by a select party of disciples; the
number of these to be twelve; (Chap. vi. 70.) and whenever he happens to
notice any one as of that number, (Chap. xx, 24; vi. 71.) it is one
included in the catalogue of the other evangelists: and the names
principally occurring in the course of his history of Christ are the
names extant in their list. This last agreement, which is of
considerable moment, runs through every Gospel, and through every
chapter of each. All this bespeaks reality.
CHAPTER V.
ORIGINALITY OF OUR SAVIOUR'S CHARACTER.
The Jews, whether right or wrong, had understood their prophecies to
foretell the advent of a person who by some supernatural assistance
should advance their nation to independence, and to a supreme degree of
splendour and prosperity. This was the reigning opinion and expectation
of the times. Now, had Jesus been an enthusiast, it is probable that his
enthusiasm would have fallen in with the popular delusion, and that,
while he gave himself out to be the person intended by these
predictions, he would have assumed the character to which they were
universally supposed to relate.
Had he been an impostor, it was his business to have flattered the
prevailing hopes, because these hopes were to be the instruments of his
attraction and success.
But what is better than conjectures is the fact, that all the pretended
Messiahs actually did so. We learn from Josephus that there were many of
these. Some of them, it is probable, might be impostors, who thought
that an advantage was to be taken of the state of public opinion.
Others, perhaps, were enthusiasts, whose imagination had been drawn to
this particular object by the language and sentiments which prevailed
around them. But whether impostors or enthusiasts, they concurred in
producing themselves in the character which their countrymen looked for,
that is to say, as the restorers and deliverers of the nation, in that
sense in which restoration and deliverance were expected by the Jews.
Why therefore Jesus, if he was, like them, either an enthusiast or
impostor, did not pursue the same conduct as they did, in framing his
character and pretensions, it will be found difficult to explain. A
mission, the operation and benefit of which was to take place in another
life, was a thing unthought of as the subject of these prophecies. That
Jesus, coming to them as their Messiah, should come under a character
totally different from that in which they expected him; should deviate
from the general persuasion, and deviate into pretensions absolutely
singular and original--appears to be inconsistent with the imputation of
enthusiasm or imposture, both which by their nature I should expect
would, and both which, throughout the experience which this very subject
furnishes, in fact, have followed the opinions that obtained at the
time.
If it be said that Jesus, having tried the other plan, turned at length
to this; I answer, that the thing is said without evidence; against
evidence; that it was competent to the rest to have done the same, yet
that nothing of this sort was thought of by any.
CHAPTER VI.
One argument which has been much relied upon (but not more than its just
weight deserves) is the conformity of the facts occasionally mentioned
or referred to in Scripture with the state of things in those times, as
represented by foreign and independent accounts; which conformity
proves, that the writers of the New Testament possessed a species of
local knowledge which could belong only to an inhabitant of that country
and to one living in that age. This argument, if well made out by
examples, is very little short of proving the absolute genuineness of
the writings. It carries them up to the age of the reputed authors, to
an age in which it must have been difficult to impose upon the Christian
public forgeries in the names of those authors, and in which there is no
evidence that any forgeries were attempted. It proves, at least, that
the books, whoever were the authors of them, were composed by persons
living in the time and country in which these things were transacted;
and consequently capable, by their situation, of being well informed of
the facts which they relate. And the argument is stronger when applied
to the New Testament, than it is in the case of almost any other
writings, by reason of the mixed nature of the allusions which this book
contains. The scene of action is not confined to a single country, but
displayed in the greatest cities of the Roman empire. Allusions are made
to the manners and principles of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews.
This variety renders a forgery proportionably more difficult, especially
to writers of a posterior age. A Greek or Roman Christian who lived in
the second or third century would have been wanting in Jewish
literature; a Jewish convert in those ages would have been equally
deficient in the knowledge of Greece and Rome. (Michaelis's Introduction
to the New Testament [Marsh's translation], c. ii. sect. xi.)
This, however, is an argument which depends entirely upon an induction
of particulars; and as, consequently, it carries with it little force
without a view of the instances upon which it is built, I have to request
the reader's attention to a detail of examples, distinctly and
articulately proposed. In collecting these examples I have done no more
than epitomise the first volume of the first part of Dr. Lardner's
Credibility of the Gospel History. And I have brought the argument
within its present compass, first, by passing over some of his sections
in which the accordancy appeared to me less certain, or upon subjects
not sufficiently appropriate or circumstantial; secondly, by contracting
every section into the fewest words possible, contenting myself for the
most part with a mere apposition of passages; and, thirdly, by omitting
many disquisitions, which, though learned and accurate, are not
absolutely necessary to the understanding or verification of the
argument.
The writer principally made use of in the inquiry is Josephus. Josephus
was born at Jerusalem four years after Christ's ascension. He wrote his
history of the Jewish war some time after the destruction of Jerusalem,
which happened in the year of our Lord LXX, that is, thirty-seven years
after the ascension; and his history of the Jews he finished in the year
xciii, that is, sixty years after the ascension. At the head of each
article I have referred, by figures included in brackets, to the page of
Dr. Lardner's volume where the section from which the abridgment is made
begins. The edition used is that of 1741.
I. [p. 14.] Matt. ii. 22. "When he (Joseph) heard that Archclaus did
reign in Judea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go
thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned
aside into the parts of Galilee."
II. In this passage it is asserted that Archclaus succeeded Herod in
Judea; and it is implied that his power did not extend to Galilee. Now
we learn from Josephus that Herod the Great, whose dominion included all
the land of Israel, appointed Archelaus his successor in Judea, and
assigned the rest of his dominions to other sons; and that this
disposition was ratified, as to the main parts of it, by the Roman
emperor (Ant. lib. xvi. c. 8, sect. 1.).
Saint Matthew says that Archclaus reigned, was king, in Judea. Agreeably
to this, we are informed by Josephus, not only that Herod appointed
Archclaus his successor in Judea, but that he also appointed him with
the title of King; and the Greek verb basileuei, which the evangelist
uses to denote the government and rank of Archclaus, is used likewise by
Josephus (De Bell. lib. i. c. 3,3, sect. 7.).
The cruelty of Archelaus's character, which is not obscurely intimated
by the evangelist, agrees with divers particulars in his history
preserved by Josephus:--"In the tenth year of his government, the chief
of the Jews and Samaritans, not being able to endure his cruelty and
tyranny, presented complaints against him to Caesar." (Ant, lib. xii.
13, sect. 1.)
II. [p. 19.] Luke iii. 1. "In the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius Caesar--Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip
tetrarch of Iturea, and of the region of Trachonitis--the word of God
came unto John."
By the will of Herod the Great, and the decree of Augustus thereupon,
his two sons were appointed, one (Herod Antipus) tetrarch of Galilee and
Peraea, and the other (Philip) tetrarch of Trachonitis and the
neighbouring countries. (Ant. lib. xvii. c. 8, sect. 1.) We have,
therefore, these two persons in the situations in which Saint Luke
places them; and also, that they were in these situations in the
fifteenth year of Tiberius; in other words, that they continued in
possession of their territories and titles until that time, and
afterwards, appears from a passage of Josephus, which relates of Herod,
"that he was removed by Caligula, the successor of Tiberius;" (Ant. lib.
xviii. c. 8, sect. 2.) and of Philip, that he died in the twentieth year
of Tiberius, when he had governed Trachonitis and Batanea and Gaulanitis
thirty-seven years. (Ant. lib. xviii. c. 5, sect. 6.)
III. [p. 20.] Mark vi. 17. "Herod had sent forth, and laid hold upon
John, and bound him in prison, for Heredias' sake, his brother Philip's
wife: for he had married her." (See also Matt. xiv. 1--13; Luke iii.
19.)
With this compare Joseph. Antiq. 1. xviii. c. 6, sect. 1:--"He (Herod
the tetrareh) made a visit to Herod his brother.--Here, failing in love
with Herodias, the wife of the said Herod, he ventured to make her
proposals of marriage."*
_________
* The affinity of the two accounts is unquestionable; but there is a
difference in the name of Herodias's first husband, which in the
evangelist is Philip; in Josephus, Herod. The difficulty, however, will
not appear considerable when we recollect how common it was in those
times for the same persons to bear two names. "Simon, which is called
Peter; Lebbeus, whose surname is Thaddeus; Thomas, which is called
Didymus; Simeon, who was called Niger; Saul, who was also called Paul."
The solution is rendered likewise easier in the present case by the
consideration that Herod the Great had children by seven or eight wives;
that Josephus mentions three of his sons under the name of Herod; that
it is nevertheless highly probable that the brothers bore some
additional name by which they were distinguished from one another.
Lardner, vol. ii. p. 897.
_________
Again, Mark vi. 22. "And when the daughter of the said Herodias came in
and danced."
With this also compare Joseph. Antiq. 1. xviii. c. 6, sect. 4. "Herodias
was married to Herod, son of Herod the Great. They had a daughter, whose
name was Salome; after whose birth Herodias, in utter violation of the
laws of her country, left her husband, then living, and married Herod
the tetrarch of Galilee, her husband's brother by the father's side."
IV. [p. 29.] Acts xii. 1. "Now, about that time, Herod the king
stretched forth his hands, to vex certain of the church."
In the conclusion of the same chapter, Herod's death is represented to
have taken place soon after this persecution. The accuracy of our
historian, or, rather, the unmeditated coincidence which truth of its
own accord produces, is in this instance remarkable. There was no
portion of time for thirty years before, nor ever afterwards, in which
there was a king at Jerusalem, a person exercising that authority in
Judea, or to whom that title could be applied, except the last three
years of this Herod's life, within which period the transaction recorded
in the Acts is stated to have taken place. This prince was the grandson
of Herod the Great. In the Acts he appears under his family-name of
Herod; by Josephus he was called Agrippa. For proof that he was a king,
properly so called, we have the testimony of Josephus, in full and
direct terms:--"Sending for him to his palace, Caligula put a crown upon
his head, and appointed him king of the tetrarchie of Philip, intending
also to give him the tetrarchie of Lysanias." (Antiq. xviii. c. 7, sect.
10.) And that Judea was at last, but not until the last, included in his
dominions, appears by a subsequent passage of the same Josephus, wherein
he tells us that Claudius, by a decree, confirmed to Agrippa the
dominion which Caligula had given him; adding also Judea and Samaria, in
the utmost extent, as possessed by his grandfather Herod (Antiq. xix. c.
5, sect. 1.).
V. [p. 32.] Acts xii. 19--23. "And he (Herod) went down from Judea to
Cesarea, and there abode. And on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal
apparel, sat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them: and the
people gave a shout, saying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man;
and immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God
the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost."
Joseph. Antiq. lib. xix. c. 8, sect. 2. "He went to the city of Cesarea.
Here he celebrated shows in honour of Caesar. On the second day of the
shows, early in the morning, he came into the theatre, dressed in a robe
of silver, of most curious workmanship. The rays of the rising sun,
reflected from such a splendid garb, gave him a majestic and awful
appearance. They called him a god; and intreated him to be propitious to
them, saying, Hitherto we have respected you as a man; but now we
acknowledge you to be more than mortal. The king neither reproved these
persons, nor rejected the impious flattery. Immediately after this he
was seized with pains in his bowels, extremely violent at the very
first. He was carried therefore with all haste to his palace. These
pains continually tormenting him, he expired in five days' time."
The reader will perceive the accordancy of these accounts in various
particulars. The place (Cesarea), the set day, the gorgeous dress, the
acclamations of the assembly, the peculiar turn of the flattery, the
reception of it, the sudden and critical incursion of the disease, are
circumstances noticed in both narratives. The worms mentioned by Saint
Luke are not remarked by Josephus; but the appearance of these is a
symptom not unusually, I believe, attending the disease which Josephus
describes, viz., violent affections of the bowels.
VI. [p. 41.] Acts xxiv. 24. "And after certain days, when Felix came
with his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul."
Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. c. 6, sect. 1, 2. "Agrippa gave his sister
Drusilla in marriage to Azizus, king of the Emesenes, when he had
consented to be circumcised.--But this marriage of Drusilla with Azizus
was dissolved in a short time after, in this manner:--When Felix was
procurator of Judea, having had a sight of her, he was mightily taken
with her.--She was induced to transgress the laws of her country, and
marry Felix."
Here the public station of Felix, the name of his wife, and the singular
circumstance of her religion, all appear in perfect conformity with the
evangelist.
VII. [p. 46.] Acts xxv. 13. "And after certain days king Agrippa and
Berenice came to Cesarea to salute Festus." By this passage we are in
effect told that Agrippa was a king, but not of Judea; for he came to
salute Festus, who at this time administered the government of that
country at Cesarea.
Now, how does the history of the age correspond with this account? The
Agrippa here spoken of was the son of Herod Agrippa, mentioned in the
last article; but that he did not succeed to his father's kingdom, nor
ever recovered Judea, which had been a part of it, we learn by the
information of Josephus, who relates of him that when his father was
dead Claudius intended at first to have put him immediately in
possession of his father's dominions; but that, Agrippa being then but
seventeen years of age, the emperor was persuaded to alter his mind, and
appointed Cuspius Fadus prefect of Judea and the whole kingdom; (Antiq.
xi. c. 9 ad fin.) which Fadus was succeeded by Tiberius Alexander,
Cumanus, Felix, Festus. (Antiq. xx. de Bell. lib. ii.) But that, though
disappointed of his father's kingdom, in which was included Judea, he
was, nevertheless, rightly styled King Agrippa, and that he was in
possession of considerable territories, bordering upon Judea, we gather
from the same authority: for, after several successive donations of
country, "Claudius, at the same time that he sent Felix to be procurator
of Judea, promoted Agrippa from Chalcis to a greater kingdom, giving to
him the tetrarchie which had been Philip's; and he added, moreover, the
kingdom of Lysanias, and the province that had belonged to Varus." (De
Bell. lib. li. c. 12 ad fin.)
Saint Paul addresses this person as a Jew: "King Agrippa, believest thou
the prophets? I know that thou believest." As the son of Herod Agrippa,
who is described by Josephus to have been a zealous Jew, it is
reasonable to suppose that he maintained the same profession. But what
is more material to remark, because it is more close and circumstantial,
is, that Saint Luke, speaking of the father (Acts xii. 1--3), calls him
Herod the, king, and gives an example of the exercise of his authority
at Jerusalem: speaking of the son (xxv. 13), he calls him king, but not
of Judea; which distinction agrees correctly with the history.
VIII. [p. 51.] Acts xiii. 6. "And when they had gone through the isle
(Cyprus) to Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a
Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus, which was with the deputy of the country,
Sergius Paulus, a prudent man."
The word which is here translated deputy, signifies and upon this word
our observation is founded. The provinces of the Roman empire were of
two kinds; those belonging the emperor, in which the governor was called
proprietor; those belonging to the senate, in which the governor was
proconsul. And this was a regular distinction. Now it appears from Dio
Cassius, (Lib. liv. ad A. U. 732.) that the province of Cyprus, which, in
original distribution, was assigned to the emperor, had transferred to
the senate, in exchange for some others; and after this exchange, the
appropriate title of the Roman was proconsul.
Ib. xviii. 12. [p. 55.] "And when Gallio was deputy (proconsul) of
Achaia."
The propriety of the title "proconsul" is in this still more critical.
For the province of Achaia, after passing from the senate to the
emperor, had been restored again by the emperor Claudius to the senate
(and consequently its government had become proconsular) only six or
seven years before the time in which this transaction is said to have
taken place. (Suet. in Claud. c. xxv. Dio, lib. lxi.) And what confines
with strictness the appellation to the time is, that Achaia under the
following reign ceased to be a Roman province at all.
IX. [p. 152.] It appears, as well from the general constitution of a
Roman province, as from what Josephus delivers concerning the state of
Judea in particular, (Antiq. lib. xx. c. 8, sect. 5; c. 1, sect. 2.) that
the power of life and death resided exclusively in the Roman governor;
but that the Jews, nevertheless, had magistrates and a council, invested
with a subordinate and municipal authority. This economy is discerned in
every part of the Gospel narrative of our Saviour's crucifixion.
X. [p. 203.] Acts ix. 31. "Then had the churches rest throughout all
Judea and Galilee and Samaria."
This rest synchronises with the attempt of Caligula to place his statue
in the temple of Jerusalem; the threat of which outrage produced amongst
the Jews a consternation that, for a season, diverted their attention
from every other object. (Joseph. de Bell lib. Xi. c. 13, sect. 1, 3, 4.)
XI. [p. 218.] Acts xxi. 30. "And they took Paul, and drew him out of the
temple; and forthwith the doors were shut. And as they went about to
kill him, tidings came to the chief captain of the band that all
Jerusalem was in an uproar. Then the chief captain came near, and took
him and commanded him to be bound with two chains, and demanded who he
was, and what he had done; and some cried one thing, and some another,
among the multitude: and, when he could not know the certainty for the
tumult, he commanded him to be carried into the castle. And when he came
upon the stairs, so it was, that he was borne of the soldiers for the
violence of the people."
In this quotation we have the band of Roman soldiers at Jerusalem, their
office (to suppress tumults), the castle, the stairs, both, as it should
seem, adjoining to the temple. Let us inquire whether we can find these
particulars in any other record of that age and place.
Joseph. de. Ball. lib. v. e. 5, sect. 8. "Antonia was situated at the
angle of the western and northern porticoes of the outer temple. It was
built upon a rock fifty cubits high, steep on all sides.--On that side
where it joined to the porticoes of the temple, there were stairs
reaching to each portico, by which the guard descended; for there was
always lodged here a Roman legion; and posting themselves in their
armour in several places in the porticoes, they kept a watch on the
people on the feast-days to prevent all disorders; for as the temple was
a guard to the city, so was Antonia to the temple."
XII. [p. 224.] Acts iv. 1. "And as they spake unto the people, the
priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon
them." Here we have a public officer, under the title of captain of the
temple, and he probably a Jew, as he accompanied the priests and
Sadducees in apprehending the apostles.
Joseph. de Bell. lib. ii. c. 17, sect. 2. "And at the temple, Eleazer,
the son of Ananias the high priest, a young man of a bold and resolute
disposition, then captain, persuaded those who performed the sacred
ministrations not to receive the gift or sacrifice of any stranger."
XIII. [p. 225.] Acts xxv. 12. "Then Festus, when he had conferred with
the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt
thou go." That it was usual for the Roman presidents to have a council
consisting of their friends, and other chief Romans in the province,
appears expressly in the following passage of Cicero's oration against
Verres:--"Illud negare posses, aut nunc negabis, te, concilio tuo
dimisso, viris primariis, qui in consilio C. Sacerdotis fuerant, tibique
esse volebant, remotis, de re judicata judicasse?"
XIV. [p. 235.] Acts xvi. 13. "And (at Philippi) on the Sabbath we went
out of the city by a river-side, where prayer was wont to be made," or
where a proseuche, oratory, or place of prayer was allowed. The
particularity to be remarked is, the situation of the place where prayer
was wont to be made, viz. by a river-side.
Philo, describing the conduct of the Jews of Alexandria, on a certain
public occasion, relates of them, that, "early in the morning, flocking
out of the gates of the city, they go to the neighbouring shores, (for
the proseuchai were destroyed,) and, standing in a most pure place, they
lift up their voices with one accord." (Philo in Flacc. p. 382.)
Josephus gives us a decree of the city of Halicarnassus, permitting the
Jews to build oratories; a part of which decree runs thus:--"We ordain
that the Jews, who are willing, men and women, do observe the Sabbaths,
and perform sacred rites, according to the Jewish laws, and build
oratories by the sea-side." (Joseph. Antiq. lib. xiv. c. 10, sect, 24.)
Tertullian, among other Jewish rites and customs, such as feasts,
sabbaths, fasts, and unleavened bread, mentions "orationes literales,"
that is, prayers by the river-side. (Tertull. ad Nat, lib. i. c. 13.)
XV. [p. 255.] Acts xxvi. 5. "After the most straitest sect of our
religion, I lived a Pharisee."
Joseph. de Bell. lib. i. c. 5, sect. 2. "The Pharisees were reckoned the
most religious of any of the Jews, and to be the most exact and skilful
in explaining the laws."
In the original, there is an agreement not only in the sense but in the
expression, it being the same Greek adjective which is rendered "strait"
in the Acts, and "exact" in Josephus.
XVI. [p. 255.] Mark vii. 3,4. "The Pharisees and all the Jews, except
they wash, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and many other
things there be which they have received to hold."
Joseph. Antiq. lib. xiii. c. 10, sect. 6. "The Pharisees have delivered
up to the people many institutions, as received from the fathers, which
are not written in the law of Moses."
XVII. [p. 259.] Acts xxiii. 8. "For the Sadducees say, that there is no
resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess
both."
Joseph. de Bell. lib. ii. c. 8, sect. 14. "They (the Pharisees) believe
every soul to be immortal, but that the soul of the good only passes
into another body, and that the soul of the wicked is punished with
eternal punishment." On the other hand (Antiq. lib. xviii. e. 1, sect.
4), "It is the opinion of the Sadducees that souls perish with the
bodies."
XVIII. [p. 268.] Acts v. 17. "Then the high priest rose up, and all
they that were with him (which is the sect of the Sadducees), and were
filled with indignation." Saint Luke here intimates that the high priest
was a Sadducee; which is a character one would not have expected to meet
with in that station. This circumstance, remarkable as it is, was not
however without examples.
Joseph. Antiq. lib. xiii. c. 10, sect. 6, 7. "John Hyreanus, high priest
of the Jews, forsook the Pharisees upon a disgust, and joined himself to
the party of the Sadducees." This high priest died one hundred and seven
years before the Christian era.
Again (Antiq. lib. xx. e. 8, sect. 1), "This Ananus the younger, who, as
we have said just now, had received the high priesthood, was fierce and
haughty in his behaviour, and, above all men, hold and daring, and,
moreover, was of the sect of the Sadducees." This high priest lived
little more than twenty years after the transaction in the Acts.
XIX. [p. 282.] Luke ix. 51. "And it came to pass, when the time was come
that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to
Jerusalem, and sent messengers before his face. And they went, and
entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And
they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to
Jerusalem."
Joseph. Antiq. lib. xx. c. 5, sect. 1. "It was the custom of the
Galileans, who went up to the holy city at the feasts, to travel through
the country of Samaria. As they were in their journey, some inhabitants
of the village called Ginaea, which lies on the borders of Samaria and
the great plain, falling upon them, killed a great many of them."
XX. [p. 278.] John iv. 20. "Our fathers," said the Samaritan woman,
"worshipped in this mountain; and ye say, that Jerusalem is the place
where men ought to worship."
Joseph. Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 5, sect. 1. "Commanding them to meet him
at mount Gerizzim, which is by them (the Samaritans) esteemed the most
sacred of all mountains."
XXI. [p. 312.] Matt. xxvi. 3. "Then assembled together the chief
priests, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high
priest, who was called Caiaphas." That Caiaphas was high priest, and
high priest throughout the presidentship of Pontius Pilate, and
consequently at this time, appears from the following account:--He was
made high priest by Valerius Gratus, predecessor of Pontius Pilate, and
was removed from his office by Vitellius, president of Syria, after
Pilate was sent away out of the province of Judea. Josephus relates the
advancement of Caiaphas to the high priesthood in this manner: "Gratus
gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus. He, having
enjoyed this honour not above a year, was succeeded by Joseph, who is
also called Caiaphas." (Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 2, sect. 2.) After this,
Gratus went away for Rome, having been eleven years in Judea; and
Pontius Pilate came thither as his successor. Of the removal of Caiaphas
from his office, Josephus likewise afterwards informs us: and connects
it with a circumstance which fixes the time to a date subsequent to the
determination of Pilate's government--"Vitellius," he tells us; "ordered
Pilate to repair to Rome: and after that, went up himself to Jerusalem,
and then gave directions concerning several matters. And having done
these things he took away the priesthood from the high priest Joseph,
who is called Caiaphas." (Antiq. lib. xvii. c. 5, sect 3.)
XXII. (Michaelis, c. xi. sect. 11.) Acts xxiii. 4. "And they that stood
by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not,
brethren, that he was the high priest?" Now, upon inquiry into the
history of the age, it turns out that Ananias, of whom this is spoken,
was, in truth, not the high priest, though he was sitting in judgment in
that assumed capacity. The case was, that he had formerly holden the
office, and had been deposed; that the person who succeeded him had been
murdered; that another was not yet appointed to the station; and that
during the vacancy, he had, of his own authority, taken upon himself the
discharge of the office. (Joseph. Antiq. 1. xx. c. 5, sect. 2; c. 6,
sect. 2; c. 9, sect. 2.) This singular situation of the high priesthood
took place during the interval between the death of Jonathan, who was
murdered by order of Felix, and the accession of Ismael, who was
invested with the high priesthood by Agrippa; and precisely in this
interval it happened that Saint Paul was apprehended, and brought before
the Jewish council.
XXIII. [p. 323.] Matt. xxvi. 59. "Now the chief priests and elders, and
all the council, sought false witness against him."
Joseph. Antiq. lib. xviii. e. 15, sect. 3, 4. "Then might be seen the
high priests themselves with ashes on their heads and their breasts
naked."
The agreement here consists in speaking of the high priests or chief
priests (for the name in the original is the same) in the plural number,
when in strictness there was only one high priest: which may be
considered as a proof that the evangelists were habituated to the manner
of speaking then in use, because they retain it when it is neither
accurate nor just. For the sake of brevity, I have put down from
Josephus only a single example of the application of this title in the
plural number; but it is his usual style.
Ib. [p. 871.] Luke ill. 1. "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Juries, and Herod
being tetrarch of Galilee, Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests,
the word of God came unto John." There is a passage in Josephus very
nearly parallel to this, and which may at least serve to vindicate the
evangelist from objection, with respect to his giving the title of high
priest specifically to two persons at the same time: "Quadratus sent two
others of the most powerful men of the Jews, as also the high priests
Jonathan and Ananias." (De Bell. lib. ix. c. 12, sect. 6.) That Annas
was a person in an eminent station, and possessed an authority
coordinate with, or next to, that of the high print properly so called,
may he inferred from Saint John's Gospel, which in the history of
Christ's crucifixion relates that "the soldiers led him away to Annas
first." (xviii.13.) And this might be noticed as an example of
undesigned coincidence in the two evangelists.
Again, [p. 870.] Acts iv. 6. Annas is called the high priest, though
Caiaphas was in the office of the high priesthood. In like manner in
Josephus, (Lib. ii. c. 20, sect. 3.) "Joseph the son of Gorion, and the
high priest Ananus, were chosen to be supreme governors of all things in
the city." Yet Ananus, though here called the high priest Ananus, was
not then in the office of the high priesthood. The truth is, there is an
indeterminateness in the use of this title in the Gospel:(Mark xiv. 53.)
sometimes it is applied exclusively to the person who held the office at
the time; sometimes to one or two more, who probably shared with him
some of the powers or functions of the office; and sometimes to such of
the priests as were eminent by their station or character; and there is
the very same indeterminateness in Josephus.
XXIV. [p. 347.] John xix. 19, 20. "And Pilate wrote a title, and put it
on the cross." That such was the custom of the Romans on these occasions
appears from passages of Suetonius and Dio Cassius: "Pattrem
familias--canibus objecit, cure hoc titulo, Impie locutus parmularius."
Suet. Domit. cap. x. And in Dio Cassius we have the following: "Having
led him through the midst of the court or assembly, with a writing
signifying the cause of his death, and afterwards crucifying him." Book
liv.
Ib. "And it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin." That it was also
usual about this time in Jerusalem to set up advertisements in different
languages, is gathered from the account which Josephus gives of an
expostulatory message from Titus to the Jews when the city was almost in
his hands; in which he says, Did ye not erect pillars with inscriptions
on them, in the Greek and in our language, "Let no one pass beyond these
bounds"?
XXV. [p. 352.] Matt. xxvii. 26. "When he had scourged Jesus, he
delivered him to be crucified."
The following passages occur in Josephus:
"Being beaten, they were crucified opposite to the citadel." (P. 1247,
edit. 24 Huds.)
"Whom, having first scourged with whips, he crucified." (P. 1080, edit.
45.)
"He was burnt alive, having been first beaten." (P. 1327, edit. 43.)
To which may he added one from Livy, lib. xi. c. 5. "Pro ductique omnes,
virgisqus caesi, ac securi percussi."
A modern example may illustrate the use we make of this instance. The
preceding of a capital execution by the corporal punishment of the
sufferer is a practice unknown in England, but retained, in some
instances at least, as appears by the late execution of a regicide in
Sweden. This circumstance, therefore, in the account of an English
execution, purporting to come from an English writer, would not only
bring a suspicion upon the truth of the account, but would in a
considerable degree impeach its pretensions of having been written by
the author whose name it bore. Whereas, the same circumstance in the
account of a Swedish execution would verify the account, and support the
authenticity of the book in which it was found, or, at least, would
prove that the author, whoever he was, possessed the information and the
knowledge which he ought to possess.
XXVI. [p. 353.] John xix. 16. "And they took Jesus, and led him away;
and he bearing his cross went forth."
Plutarch, De iis qui sero puniuntur, p. 554; a Paris, 1624. "Every kind
of wickedness produces its own particular torment; just as every
malefactor, when he is brought forth to execution, carries his own
cross."
XXVII. John xix. 32. "Then came the soldiers and brake the legs of the
first, and of the other which was crucified with him."
Constantine abolished the punishment of the cross: in commending which
edict, a heathen writer notices this very circumstance of breaking the
legs: "Eo pius, ut etiam vetus veterrimumque supplicium, patibulum, et
cruribus suffringendis, primus removerit." Aur. Vict Ces. cap. xli.
XXVIII. [p. 457.] Acts iii. 1. "Now Peter and John went up together into
the temple, at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour."
Joseph. Antiq. lib xv. e. 7, sect. 8. "Twice every day, in the morning
and at the ninth hour, the priests perform their, duty at the altar."
XXIX. [p. 462.] Acts xv. 21. "For Moses of old time hath, in every city,
them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath-day."
Joseph. contra Ap. 1. ii. "He (Moses) gave us the law, the most
excellent of all institutions; nor did he appoint that it should be
heard once only, or twice, or often, but that, laying aside all other
works, we should meet together every week to hear it read, and gain a
perfect understanding of it."
XXX. [p. 465.] Acts xxi. 23. "We have four men which have a vow on them;
them take, and purify thyself with them that they may shave their
heads."
Joseph. de Bell. 1. xi. c. 15. "It is customary for those who have been
afflicted with some distemper, or have laboured under any other
difficulties, to make a vow thirty days before they offer sacrifices, to
abstain from wine, and shave the hair of their heads."
Ib. v. 24. "Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges
with them, that they may shave their heads."