On this passage we remark first, that the eclipse being confined to Judæa, its immediate effects could not necessarily have been experienced by Seneca or Pliny, neither of whom could have been on the spot in the reign of Tiberius, when the eclipse took place; nor can it be proved, that they had immediate information from all parts of the globe as soon as any extraordinary phenomenon had taken place. Secondly, neither Pliny nor Seneca have left any works that correspond to the historian's pompous description. Seneca does not treat on eclipses at all, in the passage referred to; he speaks indeed of earthquakes, but only in a very cursory manner, and does not instance more than four or five, because his object was evidently not to write a history of them, but to investigate their symptoms, causes, and prognostics. The same remark applies to Pliny with respect to earthquakes. They are mentioned only to introduce philosophical observations. The historian, therefore, has but very feeble props to support his assertion. We may reasonably imagine, that if Seneca and Pliny have recorded all the great phenomena of nature, they must of course have explored the Grecian and Roman histories, which were immediately open to their inquiries. Now, let us try an experiment as to what they have derived from those sources with respect to eclipses. Do they mention the total eclipse of the sun, when the celebrated plague happened at Athens, in the first year of the Peloponnesian war? Do they mention the solar eclipse on the day when the foundations of Rome were laid? Do they mention the eclipse foretold by Thales, by which a peace was effected between the Medes and the Lydians? It would be too tedious and useless to ask for many others, which might be mentioned without any fear of our questions being answered in the affirmative. Thirdly, the distinct chapter of Pliny, in which, according to the historian's lofty representation, we should expect to find the subject of eclipses exhausted by his full and elaborate detail, consists of only eighteen words, the purport of which is, that eclipses of the sun are sometimes of extraordinary duration; such as that which took place on the death of Cæsar, and during the war with Antony, when the sun appeared pale for nearly a year." Lastly, this miraculous preternatural darkness did not pass without notice. Omitting the supposed attestation of it by Phlegon, (a Pagan chronologist who wrote during the reign of the emperor Hadrian,3 and whose testimony is cited by Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius,) and also the supposed mention of it by Thallus, (who lived in the second century,) which is cited by Julius Africanus, a writer of great eminence and probity, who lived at the beginning of the third century; we may remark that there are two other testimonies not founded on the statements of Phlegon and Thallus, which unequivocally confirm the evangelical history of

4

6

1 Nat. Quæs. lib. vi. c. 1. Op. tom. 4. pp. 309-312. edit. Bipont.

2 Fiunt prodigiosi, et longiores solis defectus: qualis occiso dictatore Cæsare, et Antoniano bello, totius pæne anni pallore continuo. Plin. Hist. Nat. lib. ii. c. 30. tom. i. p. 148. edit. Bipont.

3 See Lardner's Works, vol. vii. pp. 370-387. 8vo. ; or vol. iv. pp. 58-67. 4to.

4 Ibid.

the darkness at the crucifixion, viz. those of Tertullian and Celsus. In his apology for the Christians, which was addressed to their heathen adversaries, Tertullian expressly says, "At the moment of Christ's death, the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noon-day; WHICH WONDER IS RELATED IN YOUR OWN AN NALS, AND IS PRESERVED IN YOUR ARCHIVES TO THIS DAY." If the account of this extraordinary darkness had not been registered, Tertullian would have exposed both himself to the charge of asserting a falsehood, (which charge was never brought against him,) and also his religion, to the ridicule of his enemies. It is further particularly worthy of remark, that the darkness and earthquake at the crucifixion are both explicitly recognised and mentioned as FACTS by that acute adversary of Christianity, Celsus; who would not have made such an admission, if he could have possibly denied them.2

In addition to the preceding observations, we may state that many good and solid reasons may be assigned why the profane writers have not made mention of the darkness at the crucifixion, which it is now generally admitted, was confined to the land of Judæa. The most obvious is, that they might have no sufficient information of it. The provinces of the Roman empire were very extensive, and we find, in general, that the attention of writers was chiefly confined to those which were nearest to the metropolis. The antient historians and biographers are remarkably concise, and seldom stop to mention occurrences, which, although they may have happened during the times of which they write, have no relation whatever to their main subject. This was their general rule, and there is no reason for which it should be violated merely to indulge the caprice of the captious, or satisfy the scruples of the petulant. There is no more reason in the nature of the thing itself why the testimony of the profane writers should be called for to support the sacred, than the sacred should be called for to support the profane. We may then retort the argument, and in our turn ask the historian, and those who have lately circulated his false account of the progress of Christianity, how they can credit the accounts given by Paterculus, Pliny the elder, Valerius Maximus, and Seneca, when Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John take not the least notice of them? But let it be supposed that the Roman writers had received information of the fact in question, it is most probable that they would have considered it as a natural occurrence, being accustomed to earthquakes and darkness for whole days together, in consequence of the eruptions of Mount Vesuvius. Or, supposing that they had believed it to be a preternatural darkness, would it have been consistent with their principles as heathens to have mentioned it? They must plainly have foreseen what great advantage would have been given to Christianity by it. Their readers would naturally have been led to inquire into the character of the extraor dinary person, at whose death the laws of nature were infringed, and

1 Tertullian, Apol. c. 21.

2 See Origen contr. Celsum, lib. ii. § 55. p. 94.

this inquiry, as it would have opened a more complete view of the new dispensation, must have led to their conversion. Hence we collect a very satisfactory reason for their silence. Supposing that they knew the fact, and from motives of policy suppressed it, their silence furnishes as strong a proof of its truth as their express testimony could possibly have done.

Upon the whole, we may venture boldly to assert, that even if this fact be destitute of support from profane writers, it is a deficiency which may easily be dispensed with. We believe many things upon the evidence of one credible witness. But in the case before us, we have no less than three, whose knowledge of the fact was never denied, whose veracity is indisputable, and integrity not to be impeached. So plainly are the characters of truth marked upon their writings, that every person of common discernment must see them, and he who is not satisfied as to the certainty of what they relate, must give up all pretensions to a sound judgment, and be abandoned to the incurable obstinacy of his own forlorn scepticism.1

An example taken from English history will confirm and illustrate the preceding observations. No one in our days, who has read the whole history of the popish plot in Charles the Second's time, with any candour and attention, believes it. The incoherence, and every way incredible circumstances of the whole deposition, together with the infamous characters of the witnesses, preclude an assent. Yet, a circumstance to this day unaccounted for the murder of Sir Edmundbury Godfrey, -happened to give it an air of probability. Yet he would be thought injudicious to the last degree, who should thence be inclined to favour the evidence of Titus Oates. The case before usis opposite, indeed, but parallel. Christianity stands supported by evidences of the most unexceptionable nature; yet the circumstance of Seneca's and Pliny's silence concerning the eclipse or preternatural darkness (admit it only for argument's sake) is unaccountable. The evidence of the gospel is, however, by no means shaken, nor will be shaken, till it can be proved that we must be able to account for every thing in an event, before we admit the testimony of the event itself.

In short, there is no history in the world, more certain and indubitable, than that contained in the Christian Scriptures, which is supported by the concurring testimony, not to say of so many men, but of so many different nations, divided, indeed, among themselves in other particulars, but all uniting to confirm the truth of the facts related in the gospels. And therefore, even though the Christian institution had perished with the apostles, and there were not in the world at this day so much as one Christian, we should have the most unquestionable evidence that the persons and actions, recorded in the Gospels, and attested by the concurring voice of all nations, really

1 Kett's Bampton Lectures, Notes and Authorities, pp. xxiv.—xxxii.

existed in the country of Judæa during the reign of Tiberius, as the evangelists have assured us.1

3. COLLATERAL TESTIMONIES TO THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS RECORDED IN THE SCRIPTURES FROM COINS, MEDALS, AND ANTIENT MARBLES.

I. The Mosaic narrative of the deluge confirmed by the Apamean medal. -II. The account of Pharaoh-Necho's war against the Jews (2 Chron. xxxv. 20-24.) confirmed by Herodotus, and by an antient Egyptian tomb, discovered and explored by M. Belzoni. — III. The captivity of the ten tribes by Shalmaneser, confirmed by antient sculptures. IV. Acts xiii. 7. confirmed by a medal proving that Cyprus was at that time under the government of a proconsul.-V. Acts xvi. 11, 12. confirmed by a coin of Macedonia Prima. VI. Acts xvi. 14. confirmed by an inscription. VII. Acts xvii. 23. confirmed by inscriptions.-VIII. Acts xix. 35. confirmed by a medal of the city of Ephesus. — IX. The triumphal arch of Titus, at Rome. Application of this sort of evidence.

THERE remains yet one more class of collateral testimonies to the credibility of the facts recorded in the Bible, which is not less important and decisive than the series of evidence of profane historians given in the preceding pages. These testimonies are furnished by antient coins, medals, and inscriptions on marbles; which have survived the wreck of time, and are extant to this day. These remains of antiquity are allowed to be among the most important proofs of antient history in general; and they afford satisfactory confirmation of many particulars related in the Scriptures. The most remarkable of these we now proceed to submit to the consideration of the reader.

I. The Mosaic narrative of the deluge is confirmed by a coin struck at Apamea in the reign of Philip the elder. On the reverse of this medal is represented a kind of square chest, floating upon the waters: a man and woman are advancing out of it to dry land, while two other persons remain within. Above it, flutters a dove, bearing an olive branch; and another bird, possibly a raven, is perched upon its roof. In one of the front pannels of the chest is the word NOE in antient Greek characters.2

II. The account of the war, carried on by Pharaoh-Necho against the Jews and Babylonians, (which is related in the second book of Chronicles,) is confirmed by the testimony of the Greek historian Herodotus, and especially by the recent discoveries of the enter

1 Edwards, on the Authority, &c. of Scripture, vol. i. p. 400-420. Macknight's Truth of the Gospel, pp. 305, 306. 343.

2 Bryant's Analysis of Antient Mythology, vol. iii. pp. 46, 47. 8vo. edit. In the fifth volume, pp. 289–313. he has satisfactorily vindicated the genuineness of the Apamean medal. Seven or eight of these medals are known to be extant, the genuineness of which is acknowledged by Eckhel, the most profound of all modern numismatologists. See his Doctrina Nummorum Veterum, tom. iii. p. 132. 140. 28

VOL. I.

prising traveller, M. Belzoni, among the tombs of the Egyptian sovereigns. The following is the narrative of the sacred historian, in 2 Chron. xxxv. 20-24.

After all this, when Josiah had prepared the temple, Necho, king of Egypt, came up to fight against Charchemish, by Euphrates: and Josiah went out against him. But he sent ambassadors to him, saying, What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war ; for God commanded me to make haste; forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not. Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and hearkened not unto the words of Necho from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo. And the archers shot at king Josiah; and the king said to his servants, Have me away for I am sore wounded. His servants therefore took him out of that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had; and they brought him to Jerusalem and he died, and was buried in one of the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah. And again in xxxvi. 1—4. Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz, the son of Josiah, and made him king in his father's stead in Jerusalem, Jehoahaz was twenty and three years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months in Jerusalem. And the king of Egypt put him down at Jerusalem, and condemned the land in an hundred talents of silver, and a talent of gold. And the king of Egypt made Eliakim his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem, and turned his name to Jehoiakim. AND NECHO TOOK JEHOAHAZ HIS BROTHER, AND CARRIED HIM INTO EGYPT.

AND

These passages prove the power and conquests of Pharaoh-Necho; and if we turn to Herodotus we shall find a wonderful agreement with many of the particulars. Now Necos was the son of Psammeticus, and reigned over Egypt; it was he who began the canals, &c. and he employed himself in warlike pursuits, building galleys, both on the Mediterranean and on the Red Sea, the traces of his dock yards still existing; and these he used when he had occasion for them. NECOS JOINED BATTLE WITH THE SYRIANS IN MAGDOLUS, AND CONQUERED THEM, AND AFTER THE BATTLE HE TOOK CADYTIS A LARGE CITY OF SYRIA. And having reigned in the whole sixteen years, he died, and left the throne to his son Psammis. Cadytis is again. mentioned by this historian, as 'belonging to the Syrians of PALESTINE,' and as a city not less than Sardes;' so that there is no doubt that he intended Jerusalem, which (it is well known) was sometimes called Kadesh, or the Holy.

We now come to the researches of M. Belzoni in the tomb of Psammethis or Psammis, the son of Pharaoh-Necho.

In one of the numerous apartments of this venerable monument of antient art, there is a sculptured group describing the march of a

1 Herodotus, lib. ii. c. 159. vol. i. p. 168. edit. Oxon. 1809.

2 Ibid. lib. iii. c. 5. vol. i. p. 179.