not have been mistaken in the evidence they gave, but knowingly and willfully they were false witnesses for God, and a false testimony they gave, not in one instance only, but in a thousand. Nay, their whole lives must have been continued scenes of perjury. Moreover, upon this supposition, their inhumanity was monstrous beyond description, for they deceived men in their most important interests, and persuaded them to venture their future happiness on the fidelity of one whom they knew to be an impostor, and who had justly suffered the penalty which his crimes deserved. Shocking as is the thought, if these men were false witnesses for God, they were the most abandoned miscreants that ever disgraced human nature, and they deserve the execrations of the whole human race, down to the latest generations. But, pray, what could have influenced them to act a part so base and cruel? If they propagated what they knew to be a falsehood, they evinced not only the greatest degree of guilt but of folly. Thereby, they made themselves accessory to the destruction of thousands, and all the calamities which befell their proselytes from their own time down to the present day on account of Christianity is fully chargeable to them. At their door lies the blood of thousands, and tens of thousands of honest and worthy persons, who, had it not been for them, would have been great blessings to society; and all this they did with their eyes open, for they themselves declared to their proselytes that their reward in this life would be persecutions, imprisonment, and death.

They could have expected neither gain nor reputation by the testimony they gave, but to be treated as the off-scourings of all things; and they must have foreseen that infamy and ruin would be the inevitable consequence of their imposture. For, the foundation of their scheme was, that Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified at Jerusalem, by the Jewish rulers, was the Son of God; thereby they charged upon the highest court of their own country a most cruel and aggravated murder. In a word, they charged upon them the most enormous act of wickedness ever committed under the sun. When they brought this charge they could not but be assured that the rulers of Israel would exert all their power and influence to confute their testimony, and to bring them to condign punishment. Accordingly, they were villified as the most contemptible miscreants that ever lived, and shortly after they began to give their testimony one of them was stoned to death, another was beheaded, and most of the rest were scattered abroad into strange cities, where they were received with the greatest prejudice by their countrymen, and they and their pro

selytes were hated, reviled, persecuted, imprisoned, and put to death by the heathens, as disturbers of society, and the enemies of the gods.

But in defiance of all obstacles, and oppositions, they persevered in giving their testimony, and sealed its truth with their blood. Provided they were false witnesses, upon what principle can their conduct be accounted for? Let the Infidel answer. If in defiance of all the rules of evidence, he still maintain that these men testified to a lie, he only shifts the difficulty. For then a few illiterate fishermen, a taxgatherer, and a tent-maker, belonging to a people by all the world deemed infamous, entered into a conspiracy to deceive the nations of the earth; and to secure the success of their imposture, they not only bound themselves to secrecy, and to the sacrifice of their lives; but without a solitary exception, to the very last, they remained true to their diabolical compact. And more wonderful still, their crusade against mankind was attended with the most triumphant success. For by the simple act of proclaiming a dead Jew, as the Lord of the universe, in the most enlightened age of antiquity, they dethroned the ancient heathen deities, to whom a blind adoration had been paid for many ages; subverted all the then existing institutions of the civilized world; introduced universally new modes of thinking and acting; placed their proselytes on the throne of the Cesars; and more wonderful than all, blessed mankind with a code of morals having upon it the stamp of divinity, and in every age of the world, the object of the wonder and admiration of all good men. This implies a miracle infinitely more stupendous than all that are recorded in the sacred Scriptures, for the Infidel himself must acknowledge, that it is in the power of God to raise the dead; but that such effects should proceed from such a cause is a moral impossibility.

Nothing is more evident than that if the testimony of these men had been false, they must have perished miserably, and their foolish cause must have died with them, without receiving the smallest credit. And every person of common sense must perceive that men of such excellent characters could not in the face of persecution and death, and before an enraged world, have persisted in proclaiming a falsehood, when they had only to hold their peace in order to enjoy tranquillity like other men. Therefore their conduct can only be accounted for on the supposition that they bore witness to the truth. So that this branch of the argument cannot be better closed than in the words of Dryden, which are so applicable to them, in connection with the writers of the Old Testament Scriptures

"Whence but from heaven could men unskill'd in arts,

In several ages born, in several parts,

Weave such agreeing truths?, Or how, or why
Should all conspire to cheat us with a lie?
Unasked their pains, ungrateful their advice,
Starving their gain, and martyrdom their price.”

SECTION I."

THE credibility, and truth of the facts and events related by the writers of the New Testament are verified in the most illustrious manner by civil history. The books were written, and the facts narrated in them were transacted during the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius, and the immediately succeeding Cesars Dr. Lardner, with great exactness, and at the expense of much labor and research, has collected from proper authorities, a great variety of important testimonies to the truth of the New Testament, which are contained in the first part of his Credibility of the Gospel History, and also in his Jewish and Heathen Testimonies. We will now present to the reader in an abridged form a few out of the many particulars contained in his elaborate work.

St. Matthew assures us that "Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, in the days of Herod the king," Matt. ii.; whom St. Luke styles expressly "the king of Judea ;" Luke i. 5. Herod was the son of Antipater, who had enjoyed considerable posts of honor and trust under Alexander Jannæus, and Alexandra his wife, and successor in the civil government of Judea, and their eldest son Hyrcanus, who was high priest in his mother's lifetime, and after her death, had the civil power also united in him.

Nicholas, of Damascus, says that Antipater, was descended from one of the chief of the Jewish families that returned into Judea from Babylon. But Josephus makes no scruple to declare, that Nicholas said this only to flatter Herod, who came to be king of Judea; and that in truth he was an Idumean.

He died of a very painful and loathsome distemper; insomuch that, as Josephus says, "Some then pronounced it be a judgment of God upon him for his many impieties."

St. Matthew informs us, that Joseph, having been sometime in Egypt, by divine direction, " arose, and took the young child, and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. But when he heard that

Archelaus 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."*

By which words it is implied, not only that Archelaus succeeded Herod in Judea, properly so called; but also that his power did not reach over all the land of Israel, and particularly not to Galilee.

Josephus has informed us, that Herod, usually called the Great, by his last will and testament, which he made a little before his death, appointed Archelaus his successor in Judea, with the title of king; and assigned the rest of his dominions to Herod Antipas, and Philip, excepting only some small part, which he gave to his sister Salome. However, the disposal of all was left to the determination of Augustus. This will, the emperor ratified, as to the main parts of it. Archelaus was decreed successor to his father in Judea, and Idumea, with the title of ethnarch; but was not to have the title of king, till he should do somewhat to deserve it. Herod Antipas was appointed tetrarch of Galilee and Peræa; and Philip, of Trachonitis, and the neighboring countries.

If Joseph returned out of Egypt immediately after the death of Herod, no one will except against the propriety of the expression here made use of, that Archelaus reigned; for his father had in his last will appointed him his successor with the title of king. If this return out of Egypt be supposed not to have happened, till after the decree of Augustus was passed, by which Archelaus was forbid as yet to use the style of king; yet no just exception will lie against St. Matthew's phrase. For Josephus himself, who has given us an account of this limitation, calls Archelaus the king that succeeded Herod. He has used the verb, reigning, concerning the duration of his government; and what in one place he calls a tetrarchy, in another, he calls a kingdom.

Luke † says, that when "the word of God came to John, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, Herod was tetrach of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea, and the region of Trachonitis." That is, they were then in possession of the same territories and titles, which were assigned them by their father's last will, and Augustus' decree. And it was the same Herod, tetrarch of Galilee, to whom our Saviour was sent by Pilate, when he was accused before him.

That Philip was tetrarch of Trachonitis, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, we are assured by Josephus, who says, that "Philip the

* Matt. ii. 21, 22.

† Luke iii. 1.

Ibid. xxiii. 67.

brother of Herod died in the twentieth year of Tiberius, when he had governed Trachonitis, and Batanea, and Gaulanitis, thirty-seven years." "And Herod continued tetrach of Galilee, till he was removed by Caligula, the successor of Tiberius."

Of this Herod some other things are related, namely, his marrying Herodias, and beheading John the Baptist. These are mentioned by several of the evangelists, Matt. xiv. 1—13; Mark iv. 14-29, Luke iii. 19, 20. Mark's account is: "For Herod had sent forth, and laid hold upon John, and bound him in prison, for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife: for he had married her. For John said unto Herod, It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife; therefore Herodias had a quarrel against him, and would have killed him, but she could not. For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him. And when a convenient day was come, that Herod on his birth-day made a supper to his lords, high captains, and chief estates of Galilee; and when the daughter of the said Herodias came in and danced, and pleased Herod, and them that sat with him, the king said unto the damsel, Ask of me whatever thou wilt, and I will give it thee. And he swore unto her, Whatsoever thou wilt ask of me I will give it thee, unto the half of my kingdom." *

This unlawful marriage is recorded in Josephus: "About this time there happened a difference between Aretas, king of Petræa, and Herod upon this occasion. Herod the tetrach had married the daughter of Aretas, and lived a considerable time with her. But in a journey he took to Rome, he made a visit to Herod, his brother, though not by the same mother, for Herod was born of Simon the high-priest's daughter. Here falling in love with Herodias, the wife of the said Herod, daughter of their brother Aristobulus, and sister of Agrippa the Great, he ventured to make her proposals of marriage. She not disliking them, they agreed together at this time, that when he was returned from Rome, she should go and live with him. And it was one part of their contract, that Aretas' daughter should be put away."

Josephus speaks again of this marriage in another place, from which it appears that Herodias had a daughter by her first husband. She is generally supposed to be the person, whose dancing so much entertained Herod, the tetrarch. Giving an account of Herod's children and grand-children, he says: "Herodias was married to Herod,

* Mark vi. 17-23.