view, the idea clothed with this verbiage loses all its power. The mind is diverted from the thought, and begins to speculate upon the probable meaning of such a collection of words. And, before the speculation is finished, the impression previously made on the conscience is gone. But such writing is not less effective upon the conscience, than it is displeasing to the taste. We might ask, with great propriety, what is meant by "skirting the confines of omniscience?" To us, the expression, "confines of omniscience," looks very like a contradiction in terms. Granting, however, that, by any allowable use of figures, omniscience have confines, we ask whether it is not imposing a rather adventurous task upon a person to make him skirt them? But hardly has this immense territory of omniscience begun to be "skirted," before omniscience is transformed into the planet Saturn, within the "outer rings" of which the question relative to a man's duty to be a missionary is "borne." Now, apart from the jumbling of metaphors, we ask, what idea can possibly be formed from such an expression as, "bearing the question within the outer rings of the light of omniscience?" Dr. Johnson, in his critical examination of Cowley, quotes the following stanza from Donne, at which he exclaims, "Confusion worse confounded!" "Here lies a she sun, and a he moon here; They unto one another nothing owe." We submit whether the stanza of Donne is "confusion worse confounded" than the sentence quoted from Mr. Philip. แ We have already extended this article farther than was at first contemplated, and shall therefore put a period here to our remarks. Our attention has been particularly attracted to the style of this author, from the fact that his emission of books is very frequent, and from noticing in the present volume that he expresses a strong partiality for the pen," and plainly considers writing his special sphere of usefulness. How far this is true, we pretend not to say. But of one thing we feel morally certain; no man can long continue to be useful in writing, if his composition bear the marks of haste and carelessness that are every where observable in this book. ARTICLE V. THE CREDIBILITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS. THE PRINCIPLES OF LEGAL EVIDENCE IN THEIR APPLICATION TO THE HISTORICAL PARTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. The writers of the gospel history are to be regarded as witnesses who have furnished posterity with their solemn. deposition respecting the facts which constitute the basis of the Christian faith. Indeed, they claim to be such witnesses. Taking it for granted, then, that the documents which contain this testimony have been transmitted to us entire, a fact which has been thoroughly discussed and satisfactorily proved, we have thought that it might be an interesting and profitable task to inquire, how far this testimony conforms to the principles of evidence as recognized in our highest courts of justice. With this view, we have selected "Starkie on Evidence," as furnishing an exposition of these principles, upon which we might rely as authoritative and satisfactory. In that work, we find the following criteria by which to determine the truth in regard to matters of fact. "The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, first, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony to experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances."* We proceed, then, to remark, in the first place, that the Christian witnesses were honest. This is proved by the general and almost universally admitted excellence of their moral character. With the exception of a very limited number of persons, who have suffered a strong and inveterate prejudice to pervert all historical fact, none have ventured to deny the purity of the character of Christ and that of his immediate followers. Skeptics themselves have, in a majority of instances, been compelled to do honor to their moral excellence. * Vol. I. p. 479, Phil. edition. That they were fully convinced of the facts which they narrate, cannot admit of a doubt, when we reflect upon the sufferings they endured in attestation of their testimony. Nor did these sufferings occur unexpectedly; they were fully anticipated and deliberately chosen. Of the facts upon which this assertion rests, not even the early opponents of Christianity ever presumed to express a doubt. Hierocles, Porphyry, Celsus, Julian, and the authors of the Jewish Talmud, all admit them. Indeed they were matters of general and undeniable notoriety, to which friends and foes were accustomed to make frequent and familar references. No Men act upon motives, and these in their general influence and results operate with perfect uniformity. No wicked man was ever systematically and perseveringly opposed to every species of vice. No impostor was ever permanently the friend of truth, purity and virtue. villain, however consummate in hypocrisy, was ever uniformily the advocate of honor, integrity and benevolence. Especially, has no individual of this sort, ever voluntarily assumed sacrifice and suffering, subjected himself to persecution, poverty and death, for the promotion of purposes at once pure and beneficent. For even, on the supposition of its being an imposture, "it is," to quote the language of Bolingbroke, a professed infidel, แ one of the most benevolent that was ever imposed upon mankind for their good." While an impostor may act occasionally like an honest man, he cannot do so uniformly and permanently. He has some personal object' to gain, and that must be accomplished at all hazards, and by all means. The welfare of his fellow-creatures, if desired at all, is a secondary consideration; his own aggrandizement, or that of his party supplies the dominant impulse. Such a one, whatever his pretensions, is a villain at heart, and will never suffer destitution, shame and death for the benefit of others. Who, then, with the facts of the case before him, will venture to say that the Christian witnesses were impostors, hypocrites and liars? Did they seek wealth? They were poorer than the poorest. Fame? They were accounted the off-scouring of all things. Ease? They were driven from their homes and their kindred, they wandered over the world, in labor and sorrow, being "destitute, afflicted, tormented." VOL. V.NO. XX. 72 Political influence? They renounced the policies of this world, and derived all their immunities from heaven. If, then, it was nothing in this world, was it any thing in the world to come, which formed their inducement? Was it, for example, a crown of glory which should never fade. away? If impostors, they must, upon their own principles, have lost it and sunk to perdition for ever. The life of the apostle Paul supplies a fine illustration of this matter. He might have risen to the highest offices in the Jewish commonwealth, acquired property, and received the homage of the learned and the powerful. But he renounced it all, became an outcast from his nation, and a persecuted follower of the despised Nazarene. Like his great Master, he had not where to lay his head, and endured an amount of suffering which would have prostrated any common man. His labors and sacrifices were immense. In all these, painful as they must have been, he was upheld by the consciousness of integrity. To the end of his life did he maintain the same unbending fortitude, and at last sealed his testimony with his blood. Several of the other apostles and immediate followers of Christ were cut off by cruel and ignominous deaths, and all of them lived in constant expectation of such a death. In this way Christianity received the most solemn and affecting ratification which could be given it by mortals. We admit at once that the sufferings and death of an individual on the behalf of his religion will not prove it true; but it most certainly proves him disinterested and honest. But there is a peculiarity in this department of the Christian evidence which deserves special attention. It is, that the sufferings of the witnesses not only prove them disinterested, but worthy of credit. They suffered, not for opinions, but for facts. That they were mistaken as to the occurrence of these facts, cannot be conceived, as we shall subsequently more fully show. Men may die for doctrines and opinions that are false, but not for facts, things which can be seen, heard, or felt, and which occurred in such circumstances as to admit of no deception or mistake. Another argument for the honesty of the Christian witnesses, is derived from the perfect morality they every where inculcate in their writings, and the frank and ingenuous manner in which they speak of their own faults and imperfections. They refer to their humble origin, their ignorance, their foibles and mistakes, in a manner so artless and interesting as to give the impression not only of sincerity, but of uncommon and scrupulous honesty. Had the writers of the New Testament, then, been in any respect guilty of imposture, the fact would have discovered itself in some part of their moral system. Here we should have found some equivocal principle taught and commended, under which they might have screened themselves in their attempt to impose their religious views upon the world. The probability of this is rendered still greater, by the prevalence, during the apostolic age, of false and imperfect systems of morals among the Jews and the neighboring nations. It was a time of great ignorance upon the subject of morals and religion, as well as of universal depravity of manners. It would have been impossible at such a time for impostors to originate and sustain a perfect system of morals. Their own personal virtue being defective, and all their thoughts and feelings modified by the action of a monstrous and long-sustained imposition, how could they excogitate, above all, how could they teach and defend such a system of ethics? And even were this possible, how could they live for it, suffer for it, die for it? It would condemn themselves, and remain an eternal monument of their disgrace. Hence we conclude, that a supposition of this kind is incredible in the highest degree. In estimating the value of testimony, we uniformly regard the spirit and manner in which it is given. When it is presented in a confused and imperfect manner, and with much appearance of prejudice and passion, a suspicion is immediately created that it is either distorted or false. On the other hand, when it is given in a clear, full, and dispassionate manner, it carries with it an evidence of its credibility. But we find the entire testimony of the Christian witnesses presented in a manner the most free from embarrassment, prejudice and passion, that can be conceived. Every thing is related in the simple, straightforward language of truth. There is no bespeaking the reader's attention, no attempts to catch. admiration and to produce effect, no confusion or embar |