er heard of such a story before we found it in this book. It is perfectly impossible, therefore, that such a history could be palmed upon us as true. Now then we have only to make the application to the Gospel, and we shall see that it was as pepfectly impossible that they could have been received, if they contained a statement which every one knew to be false. The conclusion then is certain, that this story must have been in existence at the time they were written, and must have been commonly reported among the Jews. The result to which this brings us is very plain. If this story was reported among the Jews, the history of the resurrection is true, for had there been no resurrection, there could have been no such story. The very existence, therefore of this report presupposes the fact of the resurrection, otherwise it could never have had an existence; for there can be no effect without a cause.

10. The preceding are some of the many examples* of a like character which might be adduced to show that, had the Gospel history been false, the facts mentioned in it would have led to an immediate exposure that would have destroyed Christianity in its infancy. And we do say, without fear of contradiction, that it is wholly incredible that the New Testament, if it be a forgery, should contain statements of such a character as those named, because the writers must have known certainly that the moment their books were published the falsehood of these stories

* Other examples may be found in the slaughter of the infants by Herod-the attempt of the people to make Christ king-the gift of tongues on the day of Pentecost-the conversion of the 3000 in one day-the earthquake at Philippi-Paul's defence of himself before Felix, Festus, and Agrippa, &c, &c. These are public matters, and the writers would not have dared to have stated them had they not been true; for if false, they could have been proved so, and the credit of the history destroyed at once.

would be manifest. And we do farther say that their being received and believed at all can be accounted for on no supposition whatever, but that of the truth, and not only the truth, but the general notoriety of the events of which they give an account. Had they been false, the men must have been mad to have written them; had they been false, they would have been universally rejected as soon as they made their appearance, and Christianity would have been known now, if known at all, as a weak and clumsy imposition, which was crushed, as soon as it had birth. But since it was not so, since these histories were believed by hundreds and thousands who lived at the time they were published, and must have known whether they were true or false the only, the necessary and irresistable conclusion is, that they are TRUE.

CHAPTER VIII.

EXTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL

HISTORY.

SECTION I.

ARGUMENT FROM THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF THE EARLY
OPPOSERS OF CHRISTIANITY.

1. Ir is a somewhat singular circumstance, that unbelievers of the present day are not staggered at the admissions of the primitive opposers of the Christian faith. They do not, however, seem to know-or if they know, they do not consider these things. Christianity is opposed in this age by rejecting, at one bold sweep, the whole history, and affirming it to be all a fiction. Yea, those of whom we speak do not hesitate, in the unbounded confi. dence inspired by their remarkable acquisitions in philo. sophy and logic, to declare that no such person as Jesus Christ ever lived that he was wholly a mythological character, and that the Gospel history is nothing but a religious romance! The reader will perhaps be a little surprised at this recklessness, when he learns that the opponents of Christianity who lived in the first ages did not dream of making such wild assertions; that those who

lived just after the disciples and Apostles, never thought of denying that Christ was a real person, or that the Gospel history was true, although they unquestionably had as credible sources of information on these points as their more advanced followers of our day.

2. The argument which is based upon these acknowledgments of the enemies of Christianity who lived so near the time of Christ, is certainly one of great weight in our inquiry, and should be regarded accordingly. When we say enemies of Christianity, in this connection, we do not mean simply the heathen, or those who did not embrace the religion of the Gospel, but those who labored against it, who composed books for the express purpose of confuting this new doctrine, and who were men of learning and extensive information. Their testimony is, then, of consequence, and, in our view of evidence, goes very far to prove the truth of the Gospel history.

He

3. The first witness to be summoned is JULIAN. became the emperor of Rome in the year 361. He had once been a Christian, but afterwards renounced it, and became a steady and persevering enemy of the religion of Jesus, employing all his genius and talents to crush it. The volume which he wrote against it is full of bitterness; but with all his malice, he is forced to admit the truth of the great facts of the history. He accused the Christians of that age of departing from the simplicity of Apostolic teaching in making Christ to be God; for, says he, "neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark, ventured to call Jesus God." He grants the genuineness and early date of the Gospels-acknowledges that Christ had power over evil spirits-that he walked on the sea, as related by Matthew, Mark, and John-and indeed does not pretend to deny the miracles of the New Testament, but aims only to depreciate

them, and to show that they did not prove Christ to be so great a personage as the Christians pretended. He says, "Jesus has now been celebrated about three hundred years, having done nothing in his life-time worthy of remembrance, unless any one thinks it a mighty matter to heal lame and blind people, and exorcise demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany." Such is the style of his language; he does not deny that Jesus had done these things, but, like a vexed boy who sees his companion do something for which he receives applause, exclaims, "O, any body could do it." The reader will of course suppose, that, if the miracles of Christ could have been proved false, Julian would have done it; and the fact that he admits their reality shows that he had not courage to deny them.

4. In the year 303, HIEROCLES, a well-known philosopher, and prefect at the city of Alexandria in Egypt, composed two books against Christianity, in which he makes observations upon a great number of passages in the New Testament. The proof of Christianity, derived from the miracles of Christ, he attempts to weaken, not by denying that these miracles were performed-this he admits-but by attempting to show that one Appollonius had performed miracles equal, if not greater. And these, he says, were recorded, not by ignorant men, like Peter and Paul, but by Damis, a philosopher, and one Maximus of Egis. "Now," says he, "we reckon him (Appollonius) who did such wonderful things, not a god, but only a man, whereas they (the Christians) give the appellation of God to Jesus, because he performed a few miracles." It will be seen from this that Hierocles did not presume to deny that Jesus wrought miracles, but only affirmed that Appollonius had done so likewise.

5. If we go upward to the year 270, we meet with another very learned and subtle opposer of Christianity, in