The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1867-03-13

culiar Nervousness. No virtue is so Of
ten commended in the New Testament
as is truth. No sin is more severely con-
demned than that of falsehood. Jesus
declared the devil liar and the father
of lies. John heard great voice pro-
claiming that all liars should have their
portion in the lake which burneth with
fire and birthstone. "And there shall in
no wise enter into it Heaven anything
that defleth, neither whatsoever worketh
abomination, or maketh lie." Rev.
xxi: 27.
1t is weak objection to the point we
are now making, that liars have often
extolled truth in order to conceal their
own want of truthfulness,-just as cow
ards make clustering bravado to cover
their poltroonery. The case under con-
sideration is totally different. Here We
have that inculcated as a duty, which
would destroy the system soug ght to be
established. If Christ was an impostor,
his injunctions of truth upon his follow
ers would but lead them to betray his
imposture. IF Christ did not rise from
the dead, the threatenings of the Apostles
against the sin of falsehood would have
no other effect than to induce some Of
the pretended witnesses of the resurrec-
ZION to betray the fraud. 1t would be
regarded as folly in Mormon prophet,
who wished to enlarge the number of his
followers, to preach in commendation of
charity and conjugal duties; for the
practice of these virtues would destroy
his sect. The founder of Christianity,
supposing it to be fraud, would have
committed the same folly, in enjoining
truthfulness. 1t is not putting the case
too strongly to say that they acted as un-
wisely as that General, who, in order to
stimulate his men to fight bravely and
despise their enemies, was constantly
telling them of the skill, prowess, ener-
gy, and efficiency of their foe. Truth is
the great antagonist of error, and Christ
and his Apostles, if impostors, would
have been guilty of inconceivable folly
in seeking to cultivate truthfulness among
their followers. We wish the candid
reader to examine this point well. 1t is
an unanswerable argument for the divine
origin of Christianity. Mohammed
sought to cultivate courage. His is re-
ligion of the sword. Christ strove to
cultivate truthfulness. His religion is
based upon truth.
Once more, the supposition that the
first disciples of Christ were religious en-
thusiasts Involves the absurdity that their
enthusiasm was founded on known lie,
although they were the most strenuous
advocates of truth, and the most earnest
denouncers of falsehood We might
dwell upon the purity of the doctrines,
and the holiness of the lives of the prim-
tive Christians, and bring in their enc.
mics as witnesses. But we will pass that
over for the present, and once more call
attention to the fact that-the- whole
Christian scheme rests upon the resur-
rection of Christ, which is either true OF
false. If false, the disciples and hun.
dreds of others knew it to be so. And
yet this fable inspired them with an en-
thusiasm, which led them to despise the
honors and enjoyments of life, and the
terrors of death of shame Observe
too, that it will not do to say that they
were enthusiasts, just as the devotees
of false religions are enthusiasts
This is not true. The followers Of
Mohammed might believe in his
dreams and revelations, and still be
honest men, and sincere seekers after
truth. The followers of Joe Smith
might believe in the Book of Mormon
and still be honest men. But in the case
of the disciples of Christ, there could be
no delusion and no infatuation. THE
Christian religion differs from all othe,
religions IN this, that 1t depends upon a
plain, palpa6le fact, cognizable By tht
senses-the risen Saviour. 1t is then su.
perlative folly to compare the enthusiasm
of the primitive believers in Christ to the
enthusiasm of the devotees of false reli-
gions. In the case of the latter, there
might be honest mistake; in the case Of
the former, there could not be.
And here we might with confidence
close the argument. We have seen that
the testimony of the witnesses cannot be
rejected on account of their Incompetent
cy. They were intelligent men, who
surely knew the truth or the falsehood ot
their own statements. ID. II. III.