Third-point.

Their style of writing.

Impartiality.

tion that they were impostors. This brings us to our third and last point, mentioned on page 143.

3. We must have evidence that our witnesses are credible; i. e. that they are honest men, and that their word can be relied upon.

The evidence on this point is, if possible, more complete and more absolutely unquestionable than upon either of the others; the honest and candid manner in which they relate their story is evidence; it is plain, straight forward, and simple. Their writings have exactly the air and tone of men conscious that they are telling the truth, but aware that it will be regarded with very different feelings by their readers. They narrate, frankly and fully, the events in which they or their companions were to blame; and they do nothing more in regard to the guilt of their enemies. There are no palliating or extenuating statements or expressions on the one side, nor any disposition to apply epithets of odium or exaggeration upon the other. The story is simply told, and left to work its own way.

How differently do men act in other cases! How easily can you tell upon which side the writer is, when he gives an account of circumstances relating to a contest between two individuals or two parties! Open to any history of the battle of Waterloo, or of the campaign in Russia, and how long can you doubt whether the author is a friend or an enemy of Napoleon? Now turn to St. John's account of the trial and crucifixion of the Savior-a most unparalleled scene of cruel suffering-and there is not a harsh epithet, and scarcely an expression of displeasure, on the part of the writer, from the beginning to the end of it you would scarcely know what was his opinion. Take, for instance, the account of the prefer ence of Barabbas by the Jews. Another writer would have said, "The Jews were so bent on the destruction of their innocent and helpless victim, that when Pilate

Barabbas chosen and Christ rejected.

proposed to release him, in accordance with their custom of having a prisoner annually set at liberty on the day of their great festival, they chose a base malefactor in his stead; they preferred that a robber, justly condemned for his crimes, should be let loose upon society, rather than that the meek and lowly Jesus should again go forth to do good to all." But what does John say? There is no attempt in his account to make a display of the guilt of the Jews-no effort to throw odium upon them-no exaggeration-no coloring. "Will ye," say's Pilate," that I release unto you the king of the Jews? Then cried they all again, saying-Not this man, but Barabbas. Now, Barabbas was a robber."

In the same spirit is the whole account-not only the narrative of this writer, but all the writers of the New Testament it breathes a spirit of calm, composed dignity, which scarcely any thing can equal. In the midst of one of the greatest moral excitements which the world has ever seen, and writing upon the very subject of thất excitement, and themselves the very objects of it, they exhibit a self-possession and a composure almost without a parallel. Exposed to most extraordinary persecution and consequent suffering, they never revile or retort upon their oppressors. It is impossible to avoid the conclusion, when reading the chapters of the New Testament, that the writers understood and felt the moral sublimity of the position they were occupying. They seem to have felt that they were speaking, not to a few thousand cotemporaries in Judea, but to countless millions of human beings, scattered over the earth, or coming up, generation after generation, to read their story, to the end of time. They rise entirely above all the influences then pressing so strongly upon them, and in calm and fearless independence offer their testimony. They could not have done this-it is not in human nature to have done it--had they not been sustained by this

Elevated views. They were disinterested. Our Savior's farewell consideration, viz.: They knew that they were telling THE TRUTH On the most momentous subject ever presented to men, and THAT THEY WERE TELLING IT TO THE

WHOLE WORLD.

66

Another proof of their honesty is, that they were entirely disinterested; or rather, they were interested to conceal the truth, not to tell it. Their testimony brought them nothing, and could bring them nothing but reproach, and suffering, and death. They saw this in the history of the Savior, and, instead of endeavoring to keep them unconscious of the sufferings that awaited them, he plainly and frankly foretold all, just before he left them. He told them in the most affecting manner-the communication he made is recorded in the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of the Gospel according to St. John-all that should befall them. "You must not expect," said he, in substance, "t find the world more kind to you than it has been to me. They have persecuted me, and they will persecute you. They will put you out of the synagogues, and whosoever killeth you will think he doeth God service. I tell you these things beforehand, so that when the time shall come, you will remember that I told you, and be comforted then. I wish you to understand the dangers and trials that await you. You must not, however, be dejected or discouraged because I have told you these things. It is necessary for me to go away, and it is necessary for you to encounter these evils. But it is only for a little time. The years will pass away swiftly, and when you have done your duty here, you shall come to me again, and find a perpetual home with me and my Father in a happier world."

Such was the substance of this part of our Savior's farewell address His disciples listened to it in sadness, but they did not shrink from their duty. A very few hours after hearing these last words of their Master in their place of retirement, they found themselves gazing

Interested witnesses.

in terror, and at a distance, at that dreadful throng which was pouring out of the gates of Jerusalem to see their beloved Master struggling upon the cross. They were overwhelmed by this scene: but terror triumphed only for a time. Immediately after the Savior's ascension, we find them assembled, making calmly, but with fixed determination, their arrangements for future efforts, and waiting for the command from above-one hundred and twenty in an upper chamber, planning a campaign against the world! They knew, they must have known, that they themselves went forward to suffering and to death. They went forward, however. They told their story. They suffered and died. Must they not have

been honest men?

The way in which men are interested is always to be looked at in judging of their testimony. If a jury. man is interested in the result of a trial, he is set aside he cannot judge impartially. If a witness is interested at all, his testimony is received with a great deal of caution, or else absolutely rejected. And whenever a case is of such a nature that all those who were witnesses of the facts are interested on one side or on the other, it is

extremely difficult to ascertain the truth. A very striking example of this is furnished by the circumstances of the battle of Lexington, at the commencement of the American Revolution. Each of the parties, anticipating a struggle, and desirous of being prepared for it, had made efforts to get as much of the arms and ammunition of the country as possible into its own hands, and the British General in Boston, understanding that there was at Concord a supply of military stores, conceived the design of sending a party in the night to Concord to obtain it. He kept his design, or rather tried to keep it, secret. Late in the evening, the troops embarked in boats on the west side of the peninsula on which Boston is built, and sailed across the cove to the main land

Battle of Lexington.

Parliament and Congress.

This was done in silence, and it was hoped in secrecy. The Americans however, in some way, heard of the plan. The country was alarmed; men rode on horseback at midnight from town to town, ringing the bells and calling out the inhabitants, and by three o'clock in the morning a number of troops were collected at Lexington to oppose the progress of the British detachment.

Now, neither party wished to begin the contest. Like two boys eager for a quarrel, each wished to throw the odium of striking the first blow upon the other. This difficulty is however usually soon surmounted, and in this case the musketry was soon speaking distinctly on both sides. After a momentary conflict the Americans were dispersed, and the British moved on to the place of their destination.

Now, after all this was over, there arose the question, not in itself very important, one would think, but yet made so by those concerned at the time, "Who began this affray? Who fired first?" To determine this point, the American Congress are said to have instituted a formal inquiry. They exainined witnesses who were on the spot and saw the whole, and they found abundant and satisfactory evidence that the British soldiers fired first, and that the Americans did not discharge their pieces until they were compelled to do it in self-defence. The British Parliament entered into a similar inquiry, and they came to an equally satisfactory conclusion-only it happened to be exactly the reverse of the other. They examined witnesses who were on the spot and saw the whole, and they found abundant evidence that the Amcrican soldiers fired first, and that the British did not discharge their pieces until they were compelled to do it in self-defence. Now, the reason for this disagreement unquestionably was, that each nation examined only its own soldiers, and the soldiers on both sides were interested. Suppose now, that there had been in the American army