from John and Matthew; it is certain they were not written till long after the events related. The Gospel ascribed to John is of small historical value if of any at all. But still more, each of them relates what the writers could not have been witness to; so we have nothing but hearsay and conjecture. Besides, these authors shared the common prejudice of their times, and disagree one with the other. The Gospels of Mark and Luke—who were not eye-witnesses—in some points corroborate the testimony of John and Matthew; in others add nothing; in yet others they contradict each other as well as John and Matthew. But there are still other accounts—the Apocryphal Gospels—some of them perhaps older than the Gospel of Matthew, certainly older than John, and these make the case worse by disclosing the fondness for miracles that marked the Christians of that early period.[1] Taking all these things into consideration, and remembering that in many particulars the three first Gospels are but one witness, adding the current belief of the times in favour of miracles, the evidence to prove their historical reality is almost nothing, admitting we have the genuine books of the disciples; it at least is such evidence as would not be considered of much value in a court of justice. However, the absence of testimony does not prove that miracles were not performed, for a universal negative of this character cannot be proved.[2]
If one were to look carefully at the evidence in favour of the Christian miracles, and proceed with the caution of a true inquirer, he must come to the conclusion, I think, that they cannot be admitted as facts. The Resurrection—a miracle alleged to be wrought upon Jesus,
- ↑ See these Apocryphal Works referred to in note on p. 163. Also Jones, Method of settling the canonical Authority of the N. T., Oxford, 1797, 3 vols.; The Apoc. N. T., Boston, 1832; Wake, Epistles of the Apostolic Fathers, &c., Oxford, 1840. See Mosheim's Dissertation on the causes which led to the composition of supposititious works among the early Christians, in his Diss. ad H. E. pertinentes, Alt. 1743, Vol. I. p. 221, et seq. Mr Norton, ubi sup., Vol. III. Ch. xi., treats of the subject but not with his usual learning.
- ↑ See some just remarks in Hennel, ubi sup., Ch. VIII.; Strauss, Leben Jesu, § 1-15, § 90-103, 132-139; Glaubenslehre, § 17, and on the other hand Neander and Tholuck. See De Wette, Wesen des Glaubens, § 60; Flügge, Gesch. theol. Wissenschaften, Halle, 1796, Vol. I. p. 97, et seq. For the value early set on miraculous evidence, see the Treatise of Theophilus, (Bp of Antioch, in the 2d cent.,) address to Autolycus, Lib. I. C. 13, et al.; Treack, ubi sup.
