Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1839-10-30

ted upon the ialln OIL single HISTORIAN -
and the silence of all other writer's is not |
suffered to attach suspicion or discredit |
10 his testimony. 1t is an allowed priLci- !
ple. that scrupulous resemblance be- !
tween two histories is very far from neces.
sarv to their being held consistent with I
one another. And, what is more, it some
times happens, that with contemporary |
historians there may be an apparent con- |
tradiction, and the credit Of both parties [
remain as entire and unsuspicious as be- |
fore. Posterily is in these cases disposed
10 make the most liberal allowances. In |
stead OF calling it contradiction, they Of |
ten call it difficulty. They are sensi-
bic, that in many instances, a seeming va
Tiety ofstatement has, upon more extern
sive knowledge OF ancient history, admit
ted o. perfect reconciliation. Instead, |
then, Of referring the difficulty in question
to the inaccuracy or bad faith of any Of |
the parties, they with more business and !
more modesty. refer it to their own ignor.
ance. and to that obscurty which necessa- |
rily hangs over the history of every re-
mote age. These principles are suffered
to have great influence in everv seculai
investigation but so soon as, instead of
secular, II becomes sacred investigation.
every ordinary principle is abandoned, and
the suspicion annexed to the teachers Of
religion is carried to the dereliclion of all
that candor and liberality. with which ev-
cry other document of antiquity is Judged
Of and appreciated. How does it happen.
that the authority of Josephus should be
acquiesced in as first principle, while ey-
cry step In the narrative Of the evangelists
must have foreign testimony TO confirm
and support it2 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
Dlemish to the testimony OF Josephus o.
How comes it that the suppostion of two
Philips IN one family should thro " damn
ofscepticism over the Gospel narrative
while the only circumstance which Trn.
ders that supposition necessary is the sin.
gle testimony of Jcsephus in which very
testimony, 1t is necessarily implied, that
there are two Herods in the same family Q
How comes it, that the evangelists, with
as much internal, and vast deal more of
external evidence in their favor should be
made to stand before Josephus, like so ma
ny prisoners at the bar of justice? In
any other case, we are convinced that this
would De looked upon as rough handLing.
But we are not sorry for it. 1t has given
more triumph and confidence to the arpu-
ment. And it is no small addition 10 onr
ialth' that ats first teachers have survived
an examination, which, in point of rigor
and severity, we believe 10 be quite unex-
ampled in the annals of criticism.
Ii IS always looked upon as a fayora-
bic presumption, when story is told cir
SUBSTANTIALLY. The arr and the safety Of
an impostor, is to confine his narrative 10
generals, and not to commit himself bv too
minute specification of time and place.
ana alluslon TO the manners or occurren.
ces ofthe day. The more of circumstance
that we introduce into story, we multi.
ply the chances ofdetectlon, if false: and
therefore, where great deal of circum-
stance IS introduced, il proves, that the mar
Iator feels the Confidence of truth, and la.
bors under no apprehension for the fate
OF his narrative. Even though we have
IT not IN our power to verify the truth of
single circumstance, yet the mere prop
erty OF a story being circumstantial is al
ways felt to carry an evidence in its ia.
vor. 1t imparts a more familiar air of
life and reality to the narrative. It is cd
sy TO believe, that the ground work of a
story may De a fabrication; but it requires
more refined species Of imposture than
we can well conceive, to construct har-
monous and well-sustained narrative.
Astounding in minute and circumstantial
details which support one another, and
where, with all our experience of real
life, we can detect nothing misplaced, or
Inconsistent, or improbable.
To prosecute this argument in all its
extent, it would be necessary to present the |
reader with complete ANALYSIS or examin. |
alton of the Gospel history. But the |
most superficial observer cannot fail to |
perceive, that it maintains, in very high
degree. the character Of being a circum-
stantial narrative. When q miracle is
recorded, we have generally the name of
the town or nei9hborhood where it hap
peened the names OF the people concern
cd the effect upon the hearts and con.
vlctlons OF the by-standers; the arguments
and examinations it gave birth 10 and
all that mlnuteness OF reference and de.
scription which impresses strong char
acter OF reality upon the whole history.-
live take along with US the time at which
this history made Its appearance, the ar
gument becomes much stronger 1t does
not merely carry a presumption in its IA
vor, from being circumstantial history:
il carries proof in its favor, because these
circumstances were completely within