men.

3. A remarkable example of the honesty and plainness of the first teachers in this respect is found in Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, at the sixth chapter. "Be not deceived," says he, "neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you," &c. This is most assuredly a severe sentence, and it could not have been a very pleasant one to the Corinthians. They are told without the least preface or qualification that they had been fornicators, thieves, extortioners, revilers, drunkards, and the like. Now, it appears to us that he who states facts of this character, cannot be set down as one who would wish to impose a false history or relation upon his fellow This frankness of speech, this severe honesty, seems enough to preclude the supposition of any thing like an attempt or a desire to deceive. And it may be well to say here that this very circumstance was seized upon by the early opposers of the Christian religion. The well known Porphyry, a violent enemy of the faith, who wrote in the year 370, notices the contention of Paul and Barnabas; and the example in question was employed against the Christians by the emperor Julian in the treatise composed by him in 361. After citing the passage given above, he sneeringly adds, "I presume Paul was not so void of shame, as to send them such reproaches in his letter to them, if he had not known them to be just. These are things which he writes of his disciples, and to themselves." Such is the conclusion of Julian, and we agree with him perfectly, that these charges were true, and the open manner in which they are stated goes to show that the New Testament writers recorded only facts, and concealed no circumstance merely because they thought it might have an unfavorable bearing upon them

selves or friends.* And it is well worthy of notice that the preservation of this letter by the Corinthian church, containing as it does such startling comments upon their characters, is conclusive proof of their respect for the authority of Paul, and their reverence of whatever came from him.t

4. Very like this is that which Paul says in the third chapter of his letter to Titus. "For we ourselves were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another." Here is a plain unequivocal confession that they were once of the most wicked and vicious character, indulging in all manner of iniquity, and serving the worst of fleshly lusts and passions. Does it look much like trumpeting their own perfections, or varnishing over their faults and vices? There was no call for this acknowledgment, no necessity for this humiliating statement; they might have omitted it, they might have been silent. But this does not seem to have occurred to them; they do not appear even to have thought of concealing any thing, because, if known, it might be prejudicial to them or their cause. They honestly state the truth, whether for or against themselves, without stopping

*Celsus, in his work against Christianity, also makes use of these very facts to bring the Christians into reproach. "These Christians," says he, "declare that their God was sent to sinners. They give encouragement to sinners, because they cannot persuade any really good and honest men. Therefore they open the doors to the most wicked and abandoned." Again he says, they reject the learned, the wise and prudent, "but welcome, as most acceptable to their God, the foolish, the vulgar, the stupid, slaves, women and children." Lardner, works, vii. 219, 222. Norton's Genuineness of the Gospels, vol. i. 63-67. Celsus wrote about the years

176.

+ See also 1 Corinthians, chapters v, vi, and vii.

to inquire how it may seem to others, or what effect it may produce.

5. We shall select one more instance, and with it close our remarks on this particular. When Christ was betrayed by Judas, and the multitude came out to take him, the historian records the sad story of his brethren's desertion of their Master, in the following words-"Then all the disciples forsook him, and fled." How little to their credit to leave him thus at the very hour in which they should have stood by him, and proved their fidelity. And how true to the facts must the Gospel writers have been, how conscientious, to have recorded a circumstance so unworthy of them, and so directly at variance with their professions of faithfulness. But this is not all, we have a farther account of Peter. He was charged with being a follower of Jesus, he denied it wtthout hesitation, affirming that he knew not what they meant. Here was falsehood! A second time it was said to him that he was with Jesus of Nazareth, and he denied with an oath, saying, "I do not know the man."

Here was false

hood with an oath! Once more it was said to him, "Surely thou art also one of them; for thy speech betrayeth thee. Then he began to curse and swear, saying, I know not the man." Here again was falsehood, with oaths, with cursing and swearing! Now can any man bring himself to believe that if the writers of the Gospel histories had been impostors, they would have invented such stories as these? If they had wished to deceive the world, and to palm off a religion of their own making, would they have taken this method to have recommended it? Would they have represented its first teachers, yea, themselves indeed, as deserting their Master like cowards, and one of their number, who had professed great attachment, as swearing and cursing in his wrath against those who told him that he was a fol

lower of Jesus?

We ask if this looks reasonable, if

this is the usual way with impostors ?*

6. If the whole history is invention, why did they not invent better facts? why did they not tell a story more to their own credit, and in commendation of the religion they sought to establish? It was as easy to forge a history of this sort, surely; and it is much more likely that they would have done it, than that they should have forged the one we now have. Men who would thus defame their own characters, who would get up statements most prejudicial to themselves, and having a tendency to retard, instead of advancing their cause, seem to us to be strange impostors indeed. When a man lies, it is generally for, not against his interests; and if one makes a statement which is plainly opposed to his interests and known pursuits, and persists in that statement, the conclusion is almost irresistible, that it is true, otherwise he could not make it. This is precisely the case with the New Testament writers: they have given us a history, and in this history they have made certain statements which give no very pleasant colorings to their own characters; they plainly and frankly acknowledge their faults, and without hesitation record as a part of their relation, events in which they and their companions appear to the greatest disadvantage. They conceal nothing, they make no attempt to evade these unpleasant facts, they offer no excuse for their conduct, but speak right on like honest men, and leave the reader to make his own comments. This, no impostor ever has done, or would do; and we say therefore that this characteristic of the Gospel histories is clear evidence of their truth.

*The principle involved in this argument will be further illus trated in chapt. ix, in the examination of Strauss' theory.

SECTION IV.

ARGUMENT FROM THE FACT THAT MANY OF THE EVENTS ARE PRECISELY WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT UNDER THE GIVEN

CIRCUMSTANCES.

1. ANY one who is acquainted to any considerable extent with the history of the times in which Christianity made its appearance, will discover in many of the events and particulars related by the Gospel writers something so very natural, so perfectly consonant to the circumstances, that a conviction of their truth irresistibly, at the first glance, forces itself upon the mind. This feature of the narrative is observable not in the more important events alone, but is seen inwoven with the smaller and, so to speak, the more trifling matters that are incidentally mentioned by the historians. It is the object of the present section to place before the reader a few examples of this character, that he may judge for himself whether there is not a remarkable appearance of reality about them, and whether they do not furnish an evidence of the truth of the story.

2. The first example to which we shall invite attention is that recorded in Acts xviii. 12-17. "And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the