November 1928
656
T h e
K i n g ' s
B u s i n e s s
his time; the dramatists Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes; the sculptor Phidian; the physician Hippo crates; the philosopher Socrates. Who would argue that those men were myths, and never existed, because they are not referred to by a particular historian? C onsider t h e L anguage The court would consider especially the language in which the New Testament was composed. Although Judaea was the principal scene of the events described, these documents were prepared chiefly in Greece and Italy, and were written in the Greek language, the literary lan guage of the time; and they addressed themselves far more to the enlightened circles of Athens, Corinth, Ephe sus and Rome than to the rude provincials of Palestine. Respecting the age and language of the establishment of Christianity, it has been said by another: “The car of Roman triumph rolled over the rough ways of the world only that the path might be made smooth for the tender feet of the Gospel. The Greek language was polished with such surpassing brilliancy only that the. Gospel might not speak in an unknown tongue.” The main historical occurrences set out in the New Testament are not only confirmed by the Pagan writers nearly contemporaneous ,1 already mentioned, but by the early Christian authors of the succeeding age, the genuine ness of ,whose productions has never been doubted or at-, tacked; such writers as Tertullian, Justin, Origen and Clement. These writers are as credible ’as Tacitus or 1 Suetonius and attest the universal acceptance of the New Testament narratives by the Christians of the second^ century.
T h e D egree of C redit I wish to give consideration to the degree of credit to which the writers of the New Testament are entitled, as witnesses to the life and doctrines of .Jesus Christ, upon the principles of the law as applied in our courts, in trials of fact, or jury trials. When witnesses are examined in court, where there are no circumstances which create suspicion, every wit ness is presumed worthy of belief, unless the contrary is shown; and the burden of impeaching his credibility rests on the opposing party. (Starke on Evidence, 16, 480, 521). The credit due to witnesses depeiids ;1 first, on their honesty; second, on their ability; third, on the number of witnesses, and the consistency of their testimony; fourth, on their opportunities for observation; fifth, on the coin cidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances (1 Starkie, 480,545.) Witnesses are .entitled, as respects their honesty, to the benefit of the elementary maxim of the law that men speak the truth when they have no prevailing inducement to the contrary. This presumption is allowed every day in our courts. Now, the testimony of the Christian writers was against all their worldly interests. Their new doctrines were extremely offensive in every community where they were preached. They were held hostile to public order, and led so good a man as the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, the Stoic philosopher, to put Christians to death. These witnesses looked for nothing but opposition, persecution, imprisonment; and violent’death. It would be, held in court under these circumstances, and a judge in a trial of facts would sb charge the jury, that these motives would operate to lead them to state what was true. Moreover, it would be impossible to read their lives or writings and not feel that they were men of integrity. There is a just principle of the common law, daily acted on in civil courts; that the depositions of those who have the prospect of immediate death before their eyes, are entitled to especial weight as evidence; and this prin ciple may be correctly applied to the statements of these Christian authors. They lived in continual apprehension of violent death on account of their religion, and many of them, Justin, Irenaeus, Ignatius and Polycarp, were act ually martyred. These writers had besides especial means of ascertaining the historical accuracy of the Christian narrative from their nearness to the occurrences related. Respecting the ability of these witnesses to discern and know the truth of the facts which they relate, it is clear that the opportunities which they had, many as eye-wit nesses, were such as to attest the truth of what they say. The Common law, in our courts, presumes that men are of the average integrity and intelligence. No lawyer is allowed to argue in court against the integrity or intel ligence of any witness where there is no testimony against his intelligence or against his integrity. Concerning the number and consistency of witnesses and of their testimony, it is sufficient to observe that every day in court a substantial agreement, where there are sev eral witnesses sworn to the same transaction, is considered sufficient. In the New Testament writings, there is enough of discrepancy to show that there could have been no prior concert among the writers and there is such substantial agreement as we might naturally expect in upright and independent narrators of the same transaction. This gen eral concurrence itself, a judge would instruct a jury in our own courts today, is such as to cause belief of the statements they make. That is to say, what is morally impossible is held to be legally impossible. All legal pre sumptions arise upon the general course of human action,
n - r ;
: :2
N ot I k V a i k IK THE LORD
B y L otta B. W h it e
Never test by earthly standards ¡5 Failures or success in life. -3 Heaven only knows the conflict, Sees the battle and the strife. . Men may drop a tear of pity,
Count your labors all in vain, Jesus says in sweetest accents, “Nothing done for me is vain.” What the world may crown a success Heaven may rate as nothing—lost. Blessings all God’s work will follow, Labor then whate’er the cost. Though we may not see the blessings, Somewhere, sometime they will show. We shall surely reap the harvest, Of the seed in love we sow.
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker