11 Morewood v. Wood, 14 East, 329, n. Per Lord Kenyon. Weeks v. Sparke, 1 M. & S. 686; the Berkeley Peerage Case, 4 Campb. 416. Per Mansfield, Ch. J. See 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, -- 128.

12 1 Starkie on Evidence, pp. 195, 230; 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, -- 483.

13 The arguments for the genuineness and authenticity of the books of the Holy Scriptures are briefly, yet very fully stated, and almost all the writers of authority are referred to by Mr. Horne, in his Introduction to the Study of the Holy Scriptures, vol. i., pa.s.sim.

The same subject is discussed in a more popular manner in the Lectures of Bp. Wilson, and of Bp. Sumner of Chester, on the Evidences of Christianity; and, in America, the same question, as it relates to the Gospels, has been argued by Bp. M'Ilvaine, in his Lectures.

14 See the case of the Slane Peerage, 5 Clark & Finelly's Rep., p. 24.

See also the case of the Fitzwalter Peerage, 10 Clark & Finelly's Rep., p. 948.

15 Matt. ix. 10; Mark ii. 14, 15; Luke v. 29.

16 The authorities on this subject are collected in Horne's Introduction, vol. iv. pp. 234-238, part 2, chap. ii. sec. 2.

17 See Horne's Introduction, vol. iv. p. 229-232.

18 See Campbell on the Four Gospels, vol. iii. pp. 35, 36; Preface to St. Matthew's Gospel, -- 22, 23.

19 See Gibbon's Rome, vol. i. ch. vi. and vol. iii. ch. xvii. and authorities there cited. Cod. Theod. Lib. xi. t.i.t. 1-28, with the notes of Gothofred. Gibbon treats particularly of the revenues of a later period than our Saviour's time; but the general course of proceeding, in the levy and collection of taxes, is not known to have been changed since the beginning of the empire.

20 Acts xii. 12, 25; xiii. 5, 13; and xv. 36-41; 2 Tim. iv. 11; Phil.

24; Col. iv. 10; 1 Pet. v. 13.

21 Horne's Introduction, vol. iv. pp. 252, 253.

22 Mark vii. 2, 11; and ix. 43, and elsewhere.

23 Mr. Norton has conclusively disposed of this objection, in his Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. Additional Notes, see. 2, pp. cxv-cx.x.xii.

24 Compare Mark x. 46, and xiv. 69, and iv. 35, and i. 35, and ix. 28, with Matthew's narrative of the same events.

25 See Horne's Introd. vol. iv. pp 252-259.

26 Acts xvi. 10, 11.

27 Col. iv. 14. Luke, the beloved physician.

28 Luke v. 12; Matt. viii. 2; Mark i. 40.

29 Luke vi. 6; Matt. xii. 10; Mark iii. 1.

30 Luke viii. 55; Matt. ix. 25; Mark v. 42.

31 Luke vi. 19.

32 Luke xxii. 44, 45, 51.

33 See Horne's Introd. vol. iv. pp. 260-272, where references may be found to earlier writers.

34 See Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol. vi. pp. 138, 139; 4to. vol. iii. pp.

203, 204; and other authors, cited in Horne's Introd. vol. iv. p.

267.

35 2 Phillips on Evidence, p. 95, (9th edition.)

36 When Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, in shooting at deer with a cross-bow, in Bramsil park, accidentally killed the keeper, King James I. by a letter dated Oct. 3, 1621, requested the Lord Keeper, the Lord Chief Justice, and others, to inquire into the circ.u.mstances and consider the case and "the scandal that may have risen thereupon," and to certify the King what it may amount to.

Could there be any reasonable doubt of their report of the facts, thus ascertained? See Spelman's Posthumous Works, p. 121.

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

38 Mark i. 20.

39 John xix. 26, 27.

40 John xiii. 23.

41 Matt. xxvii. 55, 56; Mark xv. 40, 41.

42 John xviii. 15, 16.

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

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

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

46 See, among others, John i. 38, 41, and ii. 6, 13, and iv. 9, and xi.

55.

47 See Horne's Introd. vol. iv. pp. 297, 298.

48 See Gambier's Guide to the Study of Moral Evidence, p. 121.

49 1 Stark. Evid. pp. 514, 577; 1 Greenl. on Evid. ---- 1, 2; Wills on Circ.u.mstantial Evid., p. 2; Whately's Logic, b. iv. ch. iii. -- 1.

50 See 1 Stark. Evid. pp. 16, 480, 521.

51 This subject has been treated by Dr. Chalmers, in his Evidences of the Christian Revelation, chapter iii. The following extract from his observations will not be unacceptable to the reader. "In other cases, when we compare the narratives of contemporary historians, it is not expected that all the circ.u.mstances alluded to by one will be taken notice of by the rest; and it often happens that an event or a custom is admitted upon the faith of a single historian; and the silence of all other writers is not suffered to attach suspicion or discredit to his testimony. It is an allowed principle, that a scrupulous resemblance betwixt two histories is very far from necessary to their being held consistent with one another. And what is more, it sometimes happens that, with contemporary historians, there may be an apparent contradiction, and the credit of both parties remain as entire and unsuspicious as before. Posterity is, in these cases, disposed to make the most liberal allowances.

Instead of calling it a contradiction, they often call it a difficulty. They are sensible that, in many instances a seeming variety of statement has, upon a more extensive knowledge of ancient history, admitted of a perfect reconciliation. Instead, then, of referring the difficulty in question to the inaccuracy or bad faith of any of the parties, they, with more justness and more modesty, refer it to their own ignorance, and to that obscurity which necessarily hangs over the history of every remote age. These principles are suffered to have great influence in every secular investigation; but so soon as, instead of a secular, it becomes a sacred investigation, every ordinary principle is abandoned, and the suspicion annexed to the teachers of religion is carried to the dereliction of all that candour and liberality with which every other doc.u.ment of antiquity is judged of and appreciated. How does it happen that the authority of Josephus should be acquiesced in as a first principle, while every step, in the narrative of the evangelists, must have foreign testimony to confirm and support it?

How comes it, that the silence of Josephus should be construed into an impeachment of the testimony of the evangelists, while it is never admitted, for a single moment, that the silence of the evangelists can impart the slightest blemish to the testimony of Josephus? How comes it, that the supposition of two Philips in one family should throw a damp of scepticism over the Gospel narrative, while the only circ.u.mstance which renders that supposition necessary is the single testimony of Josephus; in which very testimony it is necessarily implied that there are two Herods in that same family?

How comes it, that the evangelists, with as much internal, and a vast deal more of external evidence in their favour, should be made to stand before Josephus, like so many prisoners at the bar of justice? In any other case, we are convinced that this would be looked upon as _rough handling_. But we are not sorry for it. It has given more triumph and confidence to the argument. And it is no small addition to our faith, that its first teachers have survived an examination, which, in point of rigour and severity, we believe to be quite unexampled in the annals of criticism." See Chalmers's Evidences, pp. 72-74.

52 See 1 Stark. Evid. pp. 480, 545.

53 If the witnesses could be supposed to have been bia.s.sed, this would destroy their testimony to matters of fact; it would only detract from the weight of their judgment in matters of opinion. The rule of law on this subject has been thus stated by Dr. Lushington: "When you examine the testimony of witnesses nearly connected with the parties, and there is nothing very peculiar tending to destroy their credit, when they depose to mere facts, their testimony is to be believed; when they depose as to matter of opinion, it is to be received with suspicion." Dillon _v._ Dillon, 3 Curteis's Eccl. Rep.

pp. 96, 102.

54 This subject has been so fully treated by Dr. Paley, in his view of the Evidences of Christianity, Part I., Prop. I., that is it unnecessary to pursue it farther in this place.

55 1 Stark. Evid., pp. 483, 548.