Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1839-11-06

rejection of what he conceived to be the
errors of Popery, and his thorough con-
y VIC IN the truth ofthe opposite system.
When the council of Geneva burnt Serve
tnS' no one will question the sincerity of
the latter's belief, however much he NAV
question the truth of it. Now, in all these
cases, the proof goes no farther than to
establish the sincerity of the martyrs be-
iiel 1t goes but little way, indeed, in
establishing the business of it. This is a
Inherent question. A man may be mis-
taKen' though he be sincere. His errors.
u lhey are not seen to be such, will exer
else all the influence and authority oftrulh
over Aim. Martyrs have bIed on the op-
poslte sides of the question. 1t is impos.
sloie, then, to rest on this circumstance as
an argument for the truth of either sys-
lem but the argument is always deemed
inconlrovertlble, In as far as it goes to es-
tabllsa the sincerity of each of the parties,
and that both died in the firm conviction
OF the doctrines which they protested.
Now, the martyrdom of the first Chris
tlans stands distinguished from all other
examples by this circumstance. that it not
merely proves the sincerity ofthe martyrs
belief but it also proves that what he be-
lleved was true. La other cases of mar
tyrdom, the sufferer, when he lays down
his life, gives his testimony to the truth of
an opinion. In the case of the Christians.
when they laid down their lives, they gave
their testimony to the truth of a fact of
which they affirmed themselves to be the
eye and The ear witnesses. The sincerity
OF both testimonies is unquestionable; but
1t Is only In the latter case that the truth
OF the testimony follows as necessary
consequence of its sincerity. An opinion
comes under the cognizance of the under
standing, ever liable, as we all know. to
error and delusion A fact comes under
the cognizance of the senses, which have
ever been esteemed as infalIible, when
they give their testimony to such plain,
and obvious, and palpable appearances, as
those which make up the evangelical sto-
ry. We are still at liberty 10 question the
philosophy of Socrates, or the orthodoxy
of Cranmer and Servetus but if we were
told by Christian teacher in the soIem-
NIFTY of his dying hour, and with the dread
fut apparatus of martyrdom before him,
that he saw Jesus after he had risen from
the dead that he conversed with him ma
ny days; that he put his hand into the
print of his Sides and, in the ardor of his
joyful conviction, exclaimed, INV Lord.
and my Cod y we should feel that there
was no truth in the world, did this Ian
guage and this testimony deceive US.
Ii Christianity be not true, then the first
Christians must have been mistaken as to
the subject of their testimony. This sup
position is destroyed by the nature of the
SUBJECT. 1t was not testimony to a doc
lrlne which might deceive the understand
ing. 1t was something more than testi
mony to a dream, or a trance, or a mid
night fancy, which might deceive the i'm
agInatIon. 1t was testimony to multi.
tude, and a succession of palpable facts,
which could never have deceived the sen.
ses, and which preclude all possibility Of
mistake, even though it had been the tes
timony only OF one individual. But when,
In addition to this, we consider, that it IS
the testimony, not of one but of mapv in
dlvlduals; that it is a story repeated in a
variety of forms, but substantially the
same; that it is the concurring testimony
OF different eye-witnesses, or the compan-
ions OF ye-wltnesses-we may after this
take refuge in the idea of ialsehood and
collision; but it is not to be admitted, that
these eight different writer's Of the New
Testament, could have all Numbered the
matter with such method, and such uni-
formitv
We know, that, in spite of the magni-
tude of their sufferinos, there are infiIels,
who, driven from the first part of the al
tentative, have required to the second, and
have affirmed, that the glory of establish.
ing new religion, induced the first Chris
tlans to assert, and TO persist in asserting
what they knew TO be falsehood. Blu
/ Vhough we should be anticipating the las
branch OF the argument) they forget, tina
we have the concurrence of two narties /,
the truth of Christianity, and that 1t is tn,
conduct only of one of the parties, which
can be accounted for by the supposition ID
question. The TWO parties are the teach
ers and the taught. The former NAV as
plre to the glory of founding a new faith
but what glory did the latter propose t,
themselves from being the dupes of an i'm
) position so ruiDous to every earthly inter
est. and held in such low and disgracefu
estimation by the world at Iarge2 Aban
, don the teachers OF Christianity to ever
lmputation which in6delity, on the racI
Tor conjectures to give plausibiIity to it
system, can desire. how shall We explain
the concurrence of its disciples2 Their
may be glory in leading, but we see NJ
glory in being led. If Christianity wer
false, and Paul had the efrontery to ap
: peal to his five hundred living witnesses
: whom he alleges to have seen Christ al