ulars which would serve the opposer to cross-question them, and expose any deception which might belong to their story.

4. A single example, that of the resurrection, will suf fice to show this. In the brief accounts which the Evangelists have written of this memorable event, there are the following distinct particulars, each of which, if the relation were false, was sufficient to have proved it so. 1. The burial in the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea, well known for his wealth, and as a member of the court of the Sanhedrim. 2. Mention of the chief priests and elders, who, of course, were equally well known. 3. Pontius Pilate, the governor. 4. The Roman soldiers. 5. The guarding the sepulchre. 6. The earthquake; and perhaps we may add the three hour's darkness that overspread the land, though this strictly belonged to the crucifixion. 7. The place-Jerusalem. 8. The time -the celebration of the Passover, when Jews were crowding to the city from all quarters. 9. The report of the Pharisees, that the body was stolen. Here are not fewer than nine or ten particulars in this single account, every one of which is altogether incompatible with an attempt at deception-- every one of which is sufficient of itself to have condemned the writer's whole history, had no such event taken place. Now we ask the candid unbeliever if he can bring himself to credit the supposition that these men could have been so blind, if they were telling falsehood, as to have left open-nay, worse than this, to have opened themselves ten different channels, by each of which their falsehood could have been exposed?

5. Take another example: the healing of the sick and maimed, and the feeding of the four thousand, as recorded by Matt. xv. 29-38. Here the particulars stated must inevitably have led to discovery, if the story was

false. 1. The place a mountain "nigh unto the sea of Galilee." 2. The kind of miracles, viz: healing those “that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others." Also feeding "four thousand men besides women and children" with "seven loaves and a few little fishes." 3. The witnesses : "great multitudes " in the first named miracles, beside those actually healed; and the thousands who were fed in the last.

6. Now here is a statement of a series of most wonderful events, said to have taken place in a neighborhood well known, and in the presence of many thousands of witnesses, in open day. How easy it would have been to have proved such a story false, if no such events had taken place. And does it look as if the historian was conscious of telling a falsehood, and was guarding against detection? If it were all invention, if no such miracles were ever wrought, why select such a public place for the scene of the fiction? Why have such a multitude of witnesses? As the statement stands now, the least possible inquiry would have determined its truth or falsehood. If true, out of such a multitude some could have been found, who had been partakers of the miraculous feast, or who had been healed, or who had seen others healed, or at least who had heard of the wonderful events. But if false, any one setting out on this inquiry, would be disappointed at every step, and the fraud be exposed at once. We ask, then, if this circumstantiality, this multiplication of the means of investigation, and detection if false, does not argue strongly for the historical truth of the narrative? Do men who are getting up a deception or a fraud, voluntarily furnish the evidence of the imposition; and seemingly invite. to the exposure? Certainly not; and if the Gospel historians are not stating facts, their conduct is an anomaly in human actions, and " contrary to all our experience" in like cases. And let it be remarked, that

it is not in one or two cases that this particularity occurs; but the whole New Testament is constructed on the same principle.

17. In this view of the matter, therefore, we repeat, that this circumstantiality throughout the Gospel histories, is an evident proof of their truth; for no man, who was telling what he knew had no foundation in fact, would connect with it numerous particulars, each one of which would be alone sufficient to expose the falsehood.*

* Mr. Gibbon says, in his comments upon the supposed miraculous cross of Constantine, that "the precise circumstances of time and place always serve to detect falsehood, or esiablish truth." Decline and Fall, c. xx. We wonder how he disposes of "the precise circumstances of time and place," and many other precise circumstances, with which the Gospel histories abound. If they "always serve to detect falsehood, and these histories are falsehoods, why was it not detected on the spot, and the whole scheme crushed in embryo? It seems to us that this one acknowledgment of Mr. Gibbon places the Christian miracles utterly beyond the reach of what Byron justly calls his "solemn

sneer."

SECTION III.

ARGUMENT FROM THE HONESTY OF THE WRITERS IN RECORDING THEIR OWN FAULTS.

1. A strong argument for the truth of the Gospel history is found in the honesty of the writers in recording their own faults, and the faults of their brethren. There are numerous instances of this in almost every book of the New Testament, and the great plainness of speech which is sometimes employed is truly surprising. Now we say that the frank and open manner in which these things are stated, carries along with it an air of reality that is almost irresistible, and seems to force upon the mind the conviction that they have recorded the events of their history as they actually took place, without fear or favor. A few examples will be sufficient to illustrate this point to the satisfaction, we should hope, of even the most unwilling mind.

2. In the fifteenth chapter of the Acts, Luke has given the account of two disputes among the disciples, one of which, that between Paul and Barnabas, had not a little of severity in it. The words of the historian are as follows:" And Paul said unto Barnabas, Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. And Barnabas determined to take with them John,

whose surname was Mark. But Paul thought not good to take him with them, who departed from them from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work. And the contention was so sharp between them, that they departed asunder one from the other. And so Barnabas took Mark, and sailed unto Cyprus; and Paul chose Silas, and departed." There are two particulars here which invite our attention. First, the writer mentions the defection of John from his duty, his refusal to go to the work of the ministy in Pamphylia, which is surely no honorable notice of this fellow laborer, and not much to his commendation. Second, the quarrel between Paul and Barnabas on account of this circumstance. Paul was unwill

ing to take John Mark, because he had once before deserted him, while Barnabas was exceedingly earnest that he should accompany them. They cannot agree, and the result is that they are involved in a contention so sharp and severe that they separate from each other! And this unhappy dispute among the immediate followers of Christ, who had exhorted them with his dying breath, as it were, to love one another as he had loved them. This bitter strife was between those who were teachers of a religion, the very soul of which was brotherly kindness, forbearance, and charity. And, strange as it may appear, the history of this is given by one of their own number in the first records of the Christian church! We ask if this looks like imposture—if this is giving the bright side of things, while every circumstance reflecting upon their own characters is kept out of sight? Who does not see that there is nothing like imposition or deception here? who does not see that this honest statement of their failings carries upon its very face the impress of truth, and testifies in so many words that the writer had no intention of deceiving, or of stating any thing but facts whether honorable, or otherwise, to those concerned?