PRINCIPLES OF EVIDENCE.

In courts of justice, the substantial agreement of four independent witnesses is more than sufficient to establish any fact. The only question with the jury is as to the honesty and competency of the witnesses. When satisfied on these two points, they are bound to give their verdict in accordance with the testimony; but should the evidence come up for revision, long after the witnesses had passed away, and their characters were then unknown or forgotten, there are still two tests by which the truth of their statements can be tried. The first is to be found in the character of their narratives. It is a strong prima facie evidence of the veracity of witnesses, when their statements differ in language, manner, and form, but agree in the main in regard to every essential particular. This presumption, in favour of their honesty and impartiality, is further confirmed, when the narrative of each one is incomplete in itself until filled out by that of the others; when there are apparent discrepancies on the first examination, which disappear on a closer inspection; when the witnesses do not suppress facts which are discreditable to themselves, but which are important in their bearing upon the occurrence under consideration; and when, especially, each witness relates that which, from his opportunity of observation, from his tone of thought, from his temperament, or from his profession in life, he would be most likely to notice and to speak of.

Inasmuch as we attach great importance to the last point made, and as our argument will rest chiefly upon it, we will explain our meaning more fully. Suppose that a professed eye-witness of a battle described only such movements of the troops as we, from our knowledge of the ground, knew that it was possible for him to see from the place at which he stood. This fact alone would most likely satisfy us that he was a reliable man. And especially would this be so, if the observer gave a professional cast to his remarks on what he had seen. Suppose, for instance, that the observer was an army-tailor, a maker of uniforms, and that in his description of the troops, he noticed particularly their rich dresses, gaudy decorations, and gay trappings; our faith in the man would be greatly strengthened by his natural trade-like observations.

We have seen an anecdote of a shoemaker, who was shown a portrait by Apelles. He had not a word to say about the faultless figure and the noble countenance that seemed instinct with life and intelligence, but remarked, that the shoes were not a neat fit. The criticism was perfectly natural, because strictly professional. Every one has noticed a similar effect exerted by the business in life, upon the manner of observing things. We will mention an instance that came within our own knowledge. A soldier and a merchant were conversing about the humour of Falstaff. The former thought that the most laughable incident was the doughty Jack's soliloquy over the dead Percy; but the merchant thought that the richest thing was the penniless knight sending to buy a satin cloak, and offering for security Bardolph, whose credit was worse, if possible, than his own. Both merchant and soldier had read Shakspeare with their professional spectacles on, and neither had noticed that which had amused the other. The same sort of criticism is made every day, not only of the writings of authors, but also of the events and transactions in common life. The writer of this once spent a night in a lumber-camp in Maine, and found that the conversation of the woodmen was about nothing but felling timber. With them it was literally true, that "a man was famous according as he had lifted up axes upon the thick trees." Psa. lxxiv. 5.

We propose to show that all the marks of honesty and truth, given in our first test, are to be found in the writings of the four Evangelists. We will find a want of finish, and an occasional obscurity, in the account of each by itself, until completed and made clear by that of the others. We will find seeming contradictions, that can only be reconciled after thorough investigation. We will find the narrators relating, with the utmost candour and simplicity, things which are by no means honourable to themselves. We will find their statements modified by personal knowledge, by their mode of thinking, by individual characteristics, and by professional bias.

A second test of the truth of evidence is one in regard to the time at which the occurrence purports to have taken place. We are strongly impressed with the truth of any testimony, when we find it consistent with the character of the age in which it was given; consistent with the language, manners, and customs then prevailing; and consistent with the form of government and national institutions then existing. The spuriousness of many books has been detected by their want of one or more of these marks of genuineness. In this way, some of the alleged plays of Shakspeare, and Plautus, and alleged odes of Horace, have been proved to be apocryphal. A simple illustration will make this subject clear. Suppose that a book was discovered, which claimed to have been written on this continent one hundred years ago; but, upon examination, it was found to contain allusions to republican institutions as then existing here, and also spoke of railroads, telegraphs, daguerreotype pictures, &c, as common objects of observation. We would know at once that the claim of antiquity by such a book was absurd and preposterous. There are almost numberless instances on record, of the detection, by anachronisms of this sort, of the most carefully contrived frauds. No writer of fiction has ever yet been found, whose portraiture of a previous age was faithful in all its minutiae. Scott, with all his genius, failed here. Even a cursory examination of "The Betrothed," and "The Crusaders," will satisfy any impartial reader of this fact. If, then, we find that the four Evangelists have made no mistakes in their allusions to local circumstances, to the character of the people then living, to the geography of the country, to the language spoken, and the manners and customs -prevailing there; if in all these and other particulars we find their narratives in strict harmony with the character of the age in which they profess to have been written, we may be sure that the claim is trustworthy and reliable.

If, then, the conditions of the second test be complied with, it is demonstrated that the four Gospels were written at the very time they purport to have been written. If the conditions of the first test be complied with, it is demonstrated that there was no collusion among the writers; and, therefore, their substantial agreement without collusion, proves that their independent statements must be, cannot be otherwise than true.