When criminals persist in denying their crimes they do it with the hope of saving their lives. Such cases are not parallel. Who ever heard of persons dying willingly in attestation of a false fact? Can we be made to believe that any set of rational men could be found who would willingly die in attestation of the false fact that the President of the United States is now on the throne of England? The witnesses of Christ died in attestation of those facts which they say they saw, and heard, and knew, among which was the great fact of the resurrection of Christ. It was their privilege to quit their evidence, at any instant, and save their lives, but they did not do it. Who can account for this strange course of conduct upon the ground of dishonesty?
If a man reports an uncommon fact that is a plain object of sense, and we do not believe him, it is because we suspect his [pg 213] honesty and not his senses. If we are satisfied that the reporter is sincere, of course we believe. So our case is now in this shape: First, the great facts of the gospel of Christ addressed themselves, as simple facts, to the senses of men; second, no witness could affirm those facts honestly unless they took place; third, the witnesses to those facts gave all the evidences of sincerity and honesty that are possible. Reputation for truthfulness and honesty has never rested upon any evidence that is not found in great abundance in the lives of the witnesses of Christ. It is said that men die for false opinions: very true, but their sufferings and death, nevertheless, prove that they were sincere. True philosophy does not charge men who die for their opinions with dishonesty. Men may be mistaken in some things, but mistaken men are not cheats; are not insincere or dishonest. But the witnesses of Christ could not, in the nature of the case, belong to this class; they could not be mistaken about any such facts as those of the gospel. The only fort to be held in order to hold the gospel of Christ is the sincerity of his witnesses. When a man gets rid of the evidence upon which the reputation of those witnesses for honesty rests, he has removed the only evidence upon which it is possible for him to build a reputation for truth and honesty. So, if a man succeeds in sinking the gospel of Christ, he succeeds, at the same time and by the same means, in sinking himself. This is the philosophic and logical conclusion, from which there is no escape.
Let us look around one of the Savior's witnesses and see what we can discover. First, we find Saul, a bold and fearless Jew, a Roman citizen by birth, and a pharisee in the Jews religion; a legalist by profession; laboring under all the prejudices of the straitest sect of the pharisees; persecuting the Savior's disciples to the death. He was a man of no mean attainments. His worldly prospects were greater than those of any other man known to be converted from among the Jews. The testimony which he submits for our consideration is like the evidence of all the others. It consists in simple facts about which there was no possibility of being mistaken, [pg 214] for the facts were seen and heard. Allowing that Saul did neither see nor hear the Savior, he was insincere. And if he was, then we shall always be at a loss to know what constitutes the basis of an honest reputation. Did he give his evidence, knowing that it was false, with the intention of deceiving? If so, what were his motives? He could have had no reasonable inducements. Christianity could not furnish him with temporal power, credit, or interest during all his lifetime. So far as credit was concerned, in the affair of his conversion, he knew that the world had none to give. He knew that preaching Christ crucified was “to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness.” He knew that the Christ himself had been crucified. Credit or reputation was lying upon the anti-christian side of the gospel. He was already in high esteem among the Jews; a “ring-leader,” pursuing the course of action calculated in the very nature of things to advance him higher in their estimation. His entire life demonstrated the fact that he expected nothing of the Jews, for it was spent, with trifling exceptions, among the Gentiles. His enterprise was with them, for he was sent to them.
The difficulties lying in the way of any worldly emoluments were many and great. He had to contend with the authority and policy of the rulers; with the interest, credit and clique of the priests; with the prejudices and passions of the people; with the shrewdness and pride of the philosophers. Every man acquainted with ancient history knows that the established religion with which he would necessarily come in conflict, was interwoven with their civil institution, and supported by the rulers as an essential part of their government. The Romans allowed a great many religious systems to exist, but they allowed no such thing as a religion destructive of the genius of paganism. The existing religions were many, and embraced the system of many gods ruling under one “Master God,” as “his members,” or representatives. The antagonism between Paganism and Christianity may be seen at once, in the fact that the Gospel of Christ was death to all the lower gods. On this account the first Christians [pg 215] became at once the object of national hatred and scorn. This accounts for the fact that bloody Rome baptized herself in Christian blood in spite of all her tolerance of religion.
The apostle met with sufferings on all sides; and having perfect liberty of recantation at any moment, how did it come to pass, if he was insincere, that he did not recant? Was he rational? Let his writing answer! They are admired by the best minds of earth. If he was irrational, let us have many more insane writers! Was he honest? If not, who is honest? Could he be deceived about the facts which he saw and heard? No! If he was, who can't be? He could not be mistaken, for he saw, and heard, and felt—even to blindness, and, also, to the receiving of his sight. He was sincere. He suffered long as a bold defender of the Christian religion, and died a martyr's death at last. Let us work on, suffer on, hope on, “hope in death,” and live forever! So mote it be.
“Broad-Gauge Religion.”—Shall The Conflict Cease?
First. “A portion of the Church of England, comprising those who claim to hold a position, in respect to doctrine and fellowship, intermediate between the old High Church party and the modern Low Church, or evangelical party, a term of recent origin,” having originated in the last half century, “which has been loosely applied to other bodies of men holding liberal or comprehensive views of Christian doctrine and fellowship.”—Webster.
Side by side with these various shades of High and Low Church, another party of a different character has always existed in the Church of England. It is called by different names: Moderate, Catholic, or Broad Church, by its friends: Latitudinarian or Indifferent, by its enemies. Its distinctive character is the desire of comprehension. Its watchwords are charity and toleration.—Conybeare.
Broadgauge. This word is connected, in its origin, with railroads. Its radical idea is that of distance. It is credited by Webster to Simmonds in these words, “A wide distance (usually six or seven feet) between the rails on a railway, in contradistinction from the narrow gauge of four feet eight inches and a half.” The watch-word, “charity,” is a term that has been much abused. “Charity is a grace of heavenly mien.” It is the “end of the commandment.” “The law was not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless, and the disobedient, etc.” It is love, in the New Testament sense of the term, as modified by all the essential elements of the Christian religion, so it is “the fulfilling of the law.” It is not passion, but affection. To my sensuous life all my passions belong. The brute has also a sensuous life. But man has, in addition to this, an intellectual life. Passion always passes away with its object, but affection remains to soften the heart years after its object is gone.