_________________________________________________________________
Title: The Evidences of the Christian Religion.
Creator(s): Alexander, Archibald (1772-1851)
Print Basis: New York: Johnathan Leavitt (1832)
CCEL Subjects: All;
_________________________________________________________________
THE
EVIDENCES
OF THE
CHRISTIAN RELIGION.
—Ti de kai aph' heautōn ou krinete to dikaion;
LUKE, XII. 57.
_________________________________________________________________
BY ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER, D. D.
_________________________________________________________________
SIXTH EDITION—ENLARGED.
NEW-YORK:
JONATHAN LEAVITT.
BOSTON:
CROCKER & BREWSTER.
1832.
Entered according to the act of Congress, in the year 1832, by WILLIAM
D’HART, in the Clerk’s office of the District of New-Jersey.
_________________________________________________________________
D’Hart & Connolly, Printers,
Princeton, N. J.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
The right use of Reason in Religion.
5
CHAPTER II.
It is impossible to banish all religion from the world; and if it were
possible, it would be the greatest calamity which could befal the human
race.
15
CHAPTER III.
If Christianity be rejeeted, there is no other religion which can be
substituted it its place; at least no other which will at all answer the
purpose for which Religion is desirable.
23
CHAPTER IV.
Revelation necessary to teach us how to worship God acceptably—the nature
and certainty of a future state—and especially, the method by which sinners
may obtain salvation.
37
CHAPTER V.
There is nothing improbable or unreasonable in the idea of a Revelation from
God; and consequently, nothing improbable or unreasonable in such a manifest
divine interposition, as may be necessary to establish a revelation.
68
CHAPTER VI.
Miracles are capable of proof from testimony.
74
CHAPTER VII.
The Miracles of the Gospel are credible.
89
CHAPTER VIII.
The Bible contains predictions of events, which no human sagacity could have
foreseen, and which have been exactly and remarkably accomplished.
130
CHAPTER IX.
No other Religion possesses the same kind and degree of evidence, as
Christianity; and no other miracles are as well attested, as those recorded
in the Bible.
154
CHAPTER X.
The Bible contains Internal evidence that its origin is divine.
173
CHAPTER XI.
The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, were written by the inspiration
of God; and this inspiration, however it may be distinguished, was plenary;
that is, the writers were under an infallible guidance, both as it relates
to the ideas and words: and yet, the acquired knowledge, habits, and
peculiar dispositions of the writers, were not superseded.
216
NOTES.
Note A. 243
Note B. 253
Note C. 255
_________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER I.
THE RIGHT USE OF REASON IN RELIGION.
THAT it is the right and the duty of all men to exercise their reason in
inquiries concerning religion, is a truth so manifest, that it may be
presumed there are none who will be disposed to call it in question.
Without reason there can be no religion; for in every step which we take, in
examining the evidences of revelation, in interpreting its meaning, or in
assenting to its doctrines, the exercise of this faculty is indispensable.
When the evidences of Christianity are exhibited, an appeal is made to the
reason of men for its truth; but all evidence and all argument would be
perfectly futile, if reason were not permitted to judge of their force. This
noble faculty was certainly given to man to be a guide in religion, as well
as in other things. He possesses no other means by which he can form a
judgment on any subject, or assent to any truth; and it would be no more
absurd to talk of seeing without eyes, than of knowing any thing without
reason.
It is therefore a great mistake to suppose, that religion forbids or
discourages the right use of reason. So far from this, she enjoins it as a
duty of high moral obligation, and reproves those who neglect to judge for
themselves what is right.
But it has frequently been said by the friends of revelation, that although
reason is legitimately exercised in examining the evidences of revelation,
and in determining the sense of the words by which it is conveyed; yet it is
not within her province to sit in judgment on the doctrines contained in
such a divine communication. This statement, though intended to guard
against the abuse of reason, is not, in my opinion, altogether accurate. For
it is manifest, that we can form no conception of a truth of any kind,
without reason; and when we receive any thing as true, whatever may be the
evidence on which it is founded, we must view the reception of it to be,
reasonable. Truth and reason are so intimately connected that they can
never, with propriety, be separated. Truth is the object, and reason the
faculty by which it is apprehended; whatever be the nature of the truth or
of the evidence by which it is established. No-doctrine can be a proper
object of our faith which it is not more reasonable to receive, than to
reject. If a book, claiming to be a divine revelation, is found to contain
doctrines which can in no way be reconciled to right reason, it is a sure
evidence that those claims have no solid foundation, and ought to be
rejected. But that a revelation should contain doctrines of a mysterious and
incomprehensible nature, and entirely different from all our previous
conceptions, and, considered in themselves, improbable, is not repugnant to
reason; on the contrary, judging from analogy, sound reason would lead us to
expect such things in a revelation from God. Every thing which relates to
this Infinite Being, must be to us, in some respects, incomprehensible.
Every new truth must be different from all that is already known; and all
the plans and works of God are very far above and beyond the conception of
such minds as ours. Natural religion has as great mysteries as any in
revelation: and the created universe, as it exists, is as different from any
plan which men would have conceived, as any of the truths contained in a
revelation can be. But it is reasonable to believe, what by our senses we
perceive to exist; and it is reasonable to believe, whatever God declares to
be true.
In receiving, therefore, the most mysterious doctrines of revelation, the
ultimate appeal is to reason. Not to determine whether she could have
discovered these truths; not to declare, whether considered in themselves,
they appear probable; but to decide, whether it is not more reasonable to
believe what God speaks, than to confide in our own crude and feeble
conceptions. Just as if an unlearned man should hear an able astronomer
declare, that the diurnal motion of the heavens is not real but only
apparent, or that the sun is nearer to the earth in winter than in summer;
although the facts asserted, appeared to contradict his senses, yet it would
be reasonable to acquiesce in the declarations made to him by one who
understood the subject, and in whose veracity he had confidence. If, then,
we receive the witness of men, in matters above our comprehension, much more
should we receive the witness of God, who knows all things, and cannot
deceive his creatures, by false declarations.
There is no just cause for apprehending, that we shall be misled by the
proper exercise of reason, on any subject, which may be proposed for our
consideration. The only danger is, of making an improper use of this
faculty, which is one of the most common faults to which our nature is
liable Most men profess, that they are guided by reason in forming their
opinions; but if this were really the case, the world would not be overrun
with error; there would not be so many absurd and dangerous opinions
propagated, and pertinaciously defended. They may be said, indeed, in one
sense, to follow reason, for they are guided by a blinded, prejudiced, and
perverted reason.
One large class of men are accustomed, from a slight and superficial view of
the important subject of religion, to draw a hasty conclusion, which must
prove, in the highest degree, detrimental to their happiness. They have
observed, that in the modern, as well as ancient world, there is much
superstition, much imposture, much diversity of opinion and variety of
sects, many false pretences to Divine Inspiration, and many false reports of
miracles, and prophetic oracles: and without giving themselves the trouble
of searching diligently for the. truth, amidst the various contending
claims, they draw a general conclusion, that all religions are alike: that
the whole affair is a cheat, the invention of cunning men who imposed on the
credulity of the unthinking multitude: and that the claims to Divine
Revelation, do not even deserve a serious examination. Does right reason
dictate such a conclusion as this? If it did, and we were to apply it to all
other concerns, it would make a sad overturning in the business of the
world. Truth, honesty; and honor might, on these principles, be discarded,
as unmeaning names; for of all these there have been innumerable
counterfeits, and concerning all of them, an endless diversity of opinion.
A second class, who profess to be men of reason, pay more attention to the
subject of religion; but their reason is a prejudiced judge. They listen
with eager-. ness to, all that can be said against revelation. They read
with avidity the books written against Christianity, and but too faithfully
treasure up every objection to religion; but her advocates. never obtain
from them a fair hearing. They never inquire, whether the arguments. and
objections which appear to them so strong, have not been refuted. With the
means of conviction within their reach, they remain firmly fixed in their
infidelity; and as long as they pursue this partial method of investigation,
they must ever remain in the same darkness.
A third class, who wish to be considered as taking reason for their guide,
are under the dominion of vicious passions; of ambition, avarice, lust, or
revenge. Men of this character, however strong their intellect, or extensive
their erudition, can never reason impartially on any subject which
interferes with the gratification of their predominant desires; and as
religion forbids, under severe penalties, all irregular passions and vicious
indulgences, they pursue it with malignant hatred. As one well observes,
“they are against religion, because religion is against them” Such men never
reason calmly on the subject, and they are incapable of receiving any
benefit from the arguments of others. They never think of religion but with
a feeling of enmity, and they never speak of it but in the language of
sneer, or abuse. There is no object which this race of infidels. have more
at heart, than to root up every principle of religion from the minds of men,
and to drive it from the earth, so that not one vestige of it might remain
to give them torment. Voltaire may be considered as the leader. of this
band; and his humble imitators, have been too numerous, in every Christian
country.
But there is still another class of men, more distinguished, as masters of
reason, than those who have been mentioned. They are the cold, speculative,
subtle set of skeptics, who involve themselves. in a thick mist of
metaphysics; attack first principles, and confound, their readers with
paradoxes. The number of those who belong to this class, is, perhaps, not
large, but they are formidable: for while the other enemies of the truth,
scarcely make a show of reason, these philosophers are experienced in all
the intricacies of a refined logic; so that in their hands, error is made to
appear in the guise of truth. Should we yield ourselves to the sophistry of
these men, they will persuade us to doubt, not only of the truth of
revelation, but of our senses, and of our very existence. If it be inquired,
how they contrive to spread such a colouring of skepticism over every
subject; the answer is, by artfully assuming false principles as the
premises of their reasoning; by reasoning sophistically on correct
principles; by the dexterous use of ambiguous terms; by pushing their
inquiries beyond the limits of human knowledge; and by calling in question
the first principles of all knowledge. But it is not easy to conjecture what
their motive is; most probably, however, it is vanity. They are ambitious of
appearing more profound and acute than other men; and distinction is not so
readily obtained in the common course, as by flying off in an eccentric
orbit. It cannot be any sincere regard for truth, which influences them;
for, upon their principles, truth and reason are equally worthless. They
pull down every thing, but build up nothing in its place. Truth has no
greater enemies in the world than this Pyrrhonic sect.; and it is to be
lamented, that, sometimes, ingenious young men are caught in the wiles of
their sophistry, and are led so far into the labyrinth of their errors, that
they are never able to extricate themselves; and all their fair prospects of
virtue and usefulness are obscured forever.
Before I leave the consideration of the various classes of persons, who,
while they profess to be guided by reason, make an improper use of this
faculty, I ought to mention a set of men, distinguished for their learning
and ingenuity, who profess to receive the Christian revelation, and glory in
the appellation of Rational Christians. They proceed on the plausible and
(if rightly understood) correct principle, of receiving nothing as true, but
what their reason approves; but these very men, with all their fair
appearances of rationality, are chargeable with as gross a dereliction of
reason, as can well be conceived; and, in regard to consistency, are more
vulnerable, than any of those already mentioned. For, while they admit, that
God has made a revelation, they insist upon the right of bringing the truths
revealed, to the test of human judgment and opinion, and reject diem as
unreasonable, if they do not accord with this standard. But. the declaration
of God is the highest reason which we can have for believing any thing. To
set up our opinion against the plain expression of his will, is surely
presumption of the highest kind. Perhaps, however, I do not represent the
case with perfect accuracy. Perhaps, no man is chargeable with such an
inconsistency, as to admit a thing to be contained in an undoubted
revelation, and yet reject it. The exact state of the matter is this. The
Scriptures, it is admitted, contain a revelation from God; but there are
many things in the Bible, which, if taken in the most obvious sense, are
inconsistent with reason; now, as nothing inconsistent with reason can be
from God, it is concluded, that this cannot be the true sense of Scripture.
Accordingly, their wits are set to work, and their learning laid under
contribution, to invent and defend some other sense. Upon these principles,
a man may believe just as much, or as little as he pleases, of what the
Bible contains; for it has been found that no text is so stubborn as not to
yield to some of the modes of treatment which have been adopted:, But I
maintain, that this whole procedure is contrary to, right reason. The plain
course which reason directs us to pursue, is, after examining the evidences
of revelation; and being satisfied, to come to the interpretation. of the
Scriptures with an unbiassed mind; and in the exercise of a sound judgment,
and with the aid of those helps and rules which reason and experience
suggest, to obtain: the sense of the several parts of the document and
although this sense may contradict our preconceived, opinions, or clash with
our inclinations,. we ought implicitly to receive it; and not by a refined
ingenuity, and labored critical process, extort a meaning, that will: suit
our own notions. This is not to form our opinions by the Word of God, but to
cut down the sublime and mysterious doctrines of revelation, to the measure
of our. narrow conceptions. And thus, in the creed of many, called rational
Christians, the divine system of heavenly truth is shorn of its glory, and
comes forth little more than an improved theory of Natural Religion. There
is no reason in this.
But what if the plain sense of Scripture be absolutely repugnant to the
first principles of reason? Let that be demonstrated, and the effect will
be, rather to overthrow the Scriptures, than to favor such a method of
forming a theory from them. But no such thing can. be demonstrated. The
reasonings by which it has been attempted to prove, that the doctrines,
commonly called orthodox, are contrary to reason, are fallacious; and a
similar mode of reasoning, on the truths of Natural Religion, will land us
in atheism.
Deistical writers have been fond of representing faith, and reason as
irreconcilable. They have insinuated, and even asserted, that revelation
cannot be received without a renunciation of reason; and have affected to
regret, that it should be subjected to the trial of a rational
investigation, which they allege, it can by no means bear. This was a
favorite topic with Morgan, Bolingbroke, Voltaire, and Hume. The last
mentioned author, in the close of his far famed Essay on Miracles, uses the
following language; “Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not on
reason, and ‘tis a sure method of exposing it, to put it to a test, which it
is, by no means fitted to endure.”—And again: “Mere reason, is insufficient
to convince us of its [the Christian Religion’s] veracity, and whoever is
moved by faith to assent to it, is conscious of a continual miracle, in his
owns person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding.”
On the insidious nature of this attack, I shall not stop to remark, except
to observe, that it may be taken as a specimen, not only of Hume’s method of
treating Christianity, but of that of the whole tribe of deistical writers,
until very recently, when they have come out boldly. Under the mask of
friendship, and with the words of respectfulness on their lips, they have
aimed the most deadly thrusts at the vitals of Christianity. But in regard
to the sentiment; expressed in this extract, the friends of revelation
utterly disclaim it, and hold it to be false and unfounded. The state of the
controversy between Christians and deists, did not authorize any such
assertion. The defenders of the truth have ever been ready to meet their
antagonists on the ground of impartial reason. They have met them at every
point, where they have chosen to make the assault; and I may safely say,
that no deistical argument remains unrefuted, no infidel objection
undetected and unexposed.. As. Mr. Hume wrote this immediately after
finishing his argument against miracles, perhaps he felt a confidence, that
he had achieved what none before were able to effect. But his confidence was
premature: the argument which he claims the honor of having discovered,
(though this might be disputed on good ground,) has been refuted, with a
clearness of evidence, sufficient to bring conviction to any mind, but that
of a sophist and a skeptic. But we shall have further occasion, in the
sequel, to consider the force of Mr. Hume’s reasonings against miracles.
It may, perhaps, require some apology, that a subject which has been so
fully and ably discussed, in numerous volumes, should be attempted to be
treated in a short essay. My only apology is, that the poison of infidelity
is imbibed by many, who never have access to the antidote. It is much to be
regretted that some of the books which are almost sure to fall into the
hands of literary youth, are deeply tinctured with skepticism. How many read
Hume and Gibbon, who never have seen the answers of Campbell and Watson.
Now, if we can present, even a brief outline of the evidences of
Christianity, to those who may not be disposed to read larger works, we may
be contributing, in some small degree, to prevent the progress of one of the
greatest evils to which men are liable.
_________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER II.
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BANISH ALL RELIGION FROM THE WORLD; AND IF IT WERE
POSSIBLE, IT WOULD BE THE GREATEST CALAMITY WHICH COULD BEFAL THE HUMAN
RACE.
IT is not my object here, to consider religion as it is a matter of duty, or
a means of obtaining happiness in a future world; for both these would be
equally disregarded by those men who aim at the subversion of all religion.
What I shall attempt, at present, is to state and establish the fact, that
man is so constituted, that he must have some sort of religion.
And the truth of this will be manifest, from an inspection of the principles
of human nature, and from the history of the world. Man has naturally a
sense of moral obligation, a perception of the difference between right. and
wrong, feelings of remorse or approbation on the review of his conduct,
fears of future retribution when he has committed a crime, and a propensity
to pay religious homage to some object, visible or invisible. These are what
have been called his religious feelings; and from them he has received the
appellation of a religious animal. And certainly there is nothing by which
man is so clearly distinguished from the creatures below him, as this
capacity for religion; for whatever indications they give of sagacity in
other matters, it is impossible to communicate to them any ideas of
morality, or any impressions of a religious nature. Now, that these feelings
are natural, and not adventitious, is manifest, because they are found to
exist in men of all ages, of all countries, and in every different state of
society. And hence, no nation, ancient or modern, has ever been found
without some kind of religion. It would be as difficult to find a whole
nation without religion, as to find one destitute of speech. Some
travellers, it is true, from superficial observation, have reported that
some savage tribes had no ideas of religion, and no species of worship; but
on more accurate examination, it has been ascertained, that this was a
mistake. And from our present knowledge of the nations of the earth, we are
authorised to assert, that there is not one totally destitute of some sense
of religion, and some form of worship. The same thing was well known to all
the wisest men of antiquity. It is a fact from which both Plato and Cicero
have derived many important conclusions. And these principles of our nature
are so deeply radicated, that they never can be removed. Men may be induced
to abandon their old religion, and to adopt a new one; but they never can
remain long free from all religion. Take away one object of worship and they
will soon attach themselves to another. If unhappily they lose the knowledge
of the true God, they will set up gods of their own invention: or receive
them from others. The history of all nations bears such ample testimony to
this fact, that it cannot be denied. Now, this universality of religion
evinces, in the clearest manner, that the principle is natural, that it is
an essential thing in the constitution of man: just as the fact, that men
are always found living in society, proves that the social principle exists,
and is natural to man.
Atheistical men, have, indeed, attempted to trace all religious feelings,
and all rites of worship, to the craft of priests, and policy of rulers; but
this opinion is not only unsupported by historical testimony, but is most
unreasonable in itself. For if there had not existed a predisposition to
religion in the minds of men, such a design would never have been conceived;
and if it. had, all attempts to introduce into the minds of men, ideas so
foreign to their nature, must have been abortive.
At any rate, such an imposition could not have tow tinned for so long a
time, and could not have been extended to every tribe and nation in the
world. If no sense of religion had existed in the minds of men, priests and
politicians, however cunning, would have had no handle to take hold of, no
foundation on which to build. Besides, it seems to be forgotten by the
advocates of this hypothesis, that the existence of priests, supposes the
previous existence of religion.
They have, moreover, alleged, that fear produced the gods. Be it so; it
still confirms my position, that there is something in the nature of man
which leads him to religion; and it is reasonable to conclude, that a cause
which has operated uniformly, heretofore, will continue to produce the same
effects as long as the world stands. It is impossible, therefore, to banish
all religion from the world.
To what degree, atheists have succeeded, in divesting themselves of all
religious impression, I do not pretend to know. That some men have gone to a
great length in counteracting the constitutional tendencies, and
extinguishing the feelings, of nature, is undoubtedly true; but there have
been sufficient indications to lead to the opinion, that there is more of
affectation than reality in the bravery of their profession. It is known
that some of them have, above other men, been the slaves of superstitious
fears; and that others, in times of extreme peril, as in a storm at sea,
have, for the moment, renounced their atheism, and cried as earnestly for
mercy, as those around them. Now, if these philosophers, with all their
reasoning, are not able to erase all religious impressions from their own
minds, it is vain to attempt to banish all religion from the world.
But suppose the great work achieved; and that every vestige of religion was
obliterated; what would be the result? Would men remain without any objects
of religious homage? Would they never again be afraid of invisible powers?
Would the feelings of remorse at no time urge them to perform some sort of
penance, or attempt some kind of expiation? Would no impostors and false
prophets arise to deceive the world again with their dreams, fancies, and
pretended revelations? They must have made but superficial observations on
human nature, who think that none of these things would ever occur.
If those persons, therefore, who oppose Christianity, hope, by its
subversion, to get rid of all religion, they do greatly deceive themselves.
This work being accomplished, they would soon have more to perform in
endless progression. Instead of the pure, mild, benignant, religion of
Christ, they would soon find themselves surrounded by superstitions as foul
and as false, as monstrous and as absurd, as any which the hot bed of
paganism ever produced. Look into the heathen world, and see the
abominations and miseries which inveterate superstition perpetuates in some
of the fairest and most populous regions of the globe. Look at the savage
tribes of Africa and America, and contemplate the cruel bondage of
superstition, to which the people are subjected. Evils as great would soon
grow up among us, were it not for the salutary influence of Christianity.
Our forefathers, before they became Christians, were in the same degraded
and wretched situation. And shall we curse our posterity by bringing back
those evils from which our fathers escaped? It is a truth which should be
proclaimed every where On the house tops, that it is the Bible, which has
delivered us from the horrid dominion of superstition; and it is the Bible,
which must prevent its return. Philosophy has had no hand in working out
this deliverance from the horrors of idolatry. With all her celebrated
schools and sages, she never turned one individual from the worship of
idols; and she would be equally powerless in preventing the return of
superstition, if other barriers were removed.
But, I proceed now to the second part of my proposition, which is, that if
religion could be banished from the world, it would be the greatest calamity
which could befal the human race.
It has formerly been a matter of discussion with the learned, whether the
influence of superstition or atheism was most baneful on society. Plutarch,
Bacon, Boyle, Warburton, and others, have handled this subject, in a learned
and ingenious manner, and arrived at very different conclusions. However
doubtful this question may have been considered in former times, I believe
all reflecting men are now pretty well satisfied, that the question is put
to rest forever. We have recently beheld the spectacle of a great nation
casting off contemptuously the religion of their fathers, and plunging at
once into the abyss of atheism. We have seen the experiment tried, to
ascertain whether a populous nation could exist without the restraints of
religion. Every circumstance was as favourable to the success of the
experiment, as it could be. Learning was in its highest state of
advancement; philosophy boasted of an approximation to perfection; and
refinement and politeness had never been more complete among any people. But
what was the result? It is written in characters of blood. It was as if a
volcano had burst upon the, world, and disgorged its fiery flood over all
Europe. Such a scene of cruelty, cold-blooded malignity, beastly impurity,
heaven-daring impiety, and insatiable rapaciousness, the world never
witnessed before, and, I trust in God, will never witness again. The only
ray of hope which brightened the dismal, prospect was, that this horrible
system contained in itself the principles of its own speedy downfall,
Atheism has no bond of union for its professors; no basis of mutual
confidence. It breeds suspicion, and consequently hatred, in every breast;
and it is actuated by a selfishness which utterly disregards all the bonds
of nature, of gratitude, and of friendship. To an atheist, fear becomes the
ruling passion. Conscious of his own want. of virtue, of honor, and
humanity, he naturally views his fellows in the same light, and is ready to
put them out of the way as soon as they appear, in any degree, to become.
obstacles to the accomplishment of his plans. Hence the bloody actors in
this tragedy, after glutting their revenge, by shedding the blood of
innocent Christians and unoffending priests, turned. their murderous weapons
against each other. Not. satisfied with inflicting death on, the objects of
their suspicion or envy, they actually feasted their eyes, daily, with the
streams of blood which incessantly flowed from the guillotine. Never was the
justice of heaven against impious and cruel men more signally displayed,
than in making these miscreants the instruments of vengeance upon each
other. The general state of morals, in France, during the period in which
Christianity was proscribed, and atheism reigned, was such as almost exceeds
belief. An eye-witness of the whole scene, and an actor in some parts of it,
has drawn the following sketch:—“Multiplied cases of suicide; prisons
crowded with innocent persons; permanent guillotines; perjuries of all
classes; parental authority set at naught; debauchery encouraged by an
allowance to those called unmarried mothers; nearly six thousand divorces
within the single city of Paris, within a little more than two years after
the law authorized them;—in a word, whatever is most obscene in vice, and
most dreadful in ferocity!” [1] If these be the genuine fruits of atheism,
then let us rather have superstition in its most. appalling form. Between
atheism and superstition, there is this great difference; the latter may
authorize some crimes, the former opens the flood-gates to all. The one
restrains partially, the other removes all restraint from vice. Every kind
of religion presents some terrors to evil doers; atheism promises complete
immunity, and stamps virtue itself with the character of folly.
But we must not suppose that the whole mass of the French people became
atheists, during this period. Far from it. A large majority viewed the whole
scene with horror and detestation; but the atheistical philosophers had got
the power in their hands; and though a small minority of the nation, were
able to effect so much mischief. But from this example we may conjecture,
what would be the state of things, if the whole mass of people in a nation
should become atheists, or be freed from all the restraints of conscience
and religion. Such an event will never occur, but if it should, all must
acknowledge, that no greater calamity could be imagined. It would be a
lively picture of hell upon earth; for what is there in the idea of hell
more horrible, than the absence of all restraint and all hope, and the
uncontrolled dominion of the most malignat passions! But there would be one
remarkable point of difference, for while atheists deny the God that made
them, the inhabitants of hell believe and tremble.
_________________________________________________________________
[1] Gregoire.
_________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER III.
IF CHRISTIANITY BE REJECTED, THERE IS NO OTHER RELIGION WHICH CAN BE
SUBSTITUTED IN ITS PLACE; AT LEAST NO OTHER WHICH WILL AT ALL ANSWER THE
PURPOSE FOR WHICH RELIGION IS DESIRABLE.
IT has been proved in the former section, that it is necessary to have some
religion. We are already in possession of Christianity, which, by the
confession of deists themselves, answers many valuable purposes.—ht behoves
us, therefore, to consider well, what we are likely to obtain by the
exchange, if we should relinquish it. If any man can show us a better
religion, and founded on better evidences, we ought, in that event, to give
it up willingly; but if this cannot be done, then surely it is not
reasonable to part with a certain good, without receiving an equivalent, in
its place. This would be, as if some persons sailing on the ocean, in a
vessel which carried them prosperously, should determine to abandon it,
without knowing that there was any other to receive them, merely because
some of the passengers, pretending to skill, suggested that it was leaky,
and would sooner or later founder.
Let the enemies of Christianity tell us plainly what their aim is, and what
they design to substitute in the place of the Bible. This, however, they are
unable to perform and yet they would have us to consent to give up our
dearest hopes without knowing what we are to receive, or whether we are to
receive any thing, to compensate for the loss.
This is a point of vital importance, and demands our most serious attention.
If it is really intended to substitute some other religion in the place of
Christianity, we ought certainly, before we make the exchange, to have the
opportunity of examining its claims, that we may know whether it will be
likely to answer the purposes for which religion is wanted. To bring this
subject fairly into view, let us take a survey of the world, and inquire,
what it has to propose for our selection, if we should renounce
Christianity.
There are only three things, in that event, between which we must choose.
The first, to adopt some of the existing, or some of the exploded systems of
Paganism; the second, to accept the Koran instead of the Bible; and the
third, to embrace Natural Religion, or pure deism.
Few men have had the effrontery to propose a return to Paganism: yet even
this has not been too extravagant for some whose names stand high as men of
literature. The learned Gibbon has not, that I recollect, expressed his
opinion, on this subject, explicitly; but it may be fairly inferred, from
many things in his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, that
he deeply regretted the subversion of the old Pagan system, and that the
progress of Christianity was far from affording him any pleasure.
But although he makes it sufficiently manifest, that, could his wishes have
governed past events, the old system would never have been disturbed, and
Christianity never have had a footing; yet we cannot say, whether he would
have given his vote to have the temples rebuilt, and the Pagan rites
restored. It is difficult to tell what he wished to accomplish, by his
opposition to Christianity; or whether he had any definite view, other than
to manifest his hatred to the Gospel and its Author.
Taylor, the learned translator of Plato, openly avowed his predilection for
the religion of the Athenian philosopher, and his wish that it might be
revived; and, speaks in contemptuous terms of Christianity, in comparison
with Platonism; but be never could have supposed that to be a suitable
religion for the bulk of men, which had not the least influence upon them,
while the philosopher lived. This, then, would be no substitute for
Christianity; for under its benign influence, even THE POOR HAVE THE GOSPEL
PREACHED. UNTO THEM. But I have no doubt, that, if the truth could be
ascertained, we should find, that this sublime genius derived some of his
best ideas, directly or indirectly from the Scriptures; and that if he had
lived under: the light of the Gospel, he never would have spoken, of it as
his translator has done.
In the time of the revolution in France, after some trial had been made of
having no religion, D’Aubermenil proposed a new religion, in imitation of
the ancient Persians. His plan was to have the Deity represented by a
perpetual fire, and offerings made to him, of fruits, oil, and salt; and
libations poured out to the four elements. It was prescribed, that worship
should be, celebrated daily in the temple, that every ninth day should be a
sabbath, and that on certain festivals, all ages should unite in dances. A
few fanatics in Paris, and elsewhere, actually adopted the new religion, but
they were unable to attract any notice, and in a hula. time sunk into
merited oblivion.
It has been common enough to set up the Mohammedan religion, in a sort of
rival comparison with Christianity, but I do not know that any have gone so
far as to prefer the Koran to the Bible, except those few miserable
apostates, who, after being long “tossed about with every wind of
doctrine,” at length threw themselves into the arms of the Arabian impostor.
How far this religion will bear a comparison with Christianity, will be seen
in the sequel.
Deism, or Natural Religion, is then, the only hope of the world, if the
Christian religion be rejected. To this our attention shall now be turned.
The first English deists extolled Natural Religion to the skies, as a system
which contained all that man had need to know: and as being simple and
intelligible to the meanest capacity. But strange to tell, scarcely any two
of them are agreed, as to what Natural Religion is; and the same discordance
has existed among their successors. They are not agreed in even those
points, which are most essential in religion, and most necessary to be
settled, before any religious worship can be instituted. They differ on such
points as these; whether there is any intrinsic difference between right and
wrong; whether God pays any regard to the affairs of man; whether the soul
is immortal; whether prayer is proper and useful; and whether any external
rites of worship are necessary.
But Natural Religion is essentially defective, as a religion for sinners,
which all men feel themselves to be. It informs us of no atonement, and
makes no provision for the pardon of sin. Indeed, if we impartially consider
the law of nature, all hope of pardon must be relinquished, because it is a
first principle of Natural Religion, that every one mill be rewarded or
punished exactly according to his works: and therefore, if any man sin, he
must suffer according to the demerit of his crime.
As this religion teaches no plan of atonement and forgiveness, so it
inculcates no effectual method of reformation, or purification from the
pollution of sin, and affords no aid to those who wish to live well, but
leaves all to be performed by the mere strength of men, which, alas! is
insufficient to bear up against the power of temptation. In those very
points in which we want a clear response, Natural Religion is silent. It can
do no more when its light is clearest, than to direct us in the way of duty,
and to intimate the consequences of disobedience. Deists, then, must lead
such lives of perfection, as to need no pardon, no regeneration, no aid, no
reformation. The system is good for them, who can go through life without
sin: it sets no hope before the mourning penitent.
Again, if deism be the true religion, why has piety never flourished among
its professors? why have they not been the most zealous and consistent
worshippers of God? Does not truth promote piety? and will it not ever be
the case, that they who hold the truth will love God most ardently, and
serve him most faithfully?—But what is the fact, in regard to this class of
men? Have they ever been distinguished for their spirit of devotion? Have
they produced numerous instances of exemplary piety? It is so much the
reverse, that even asking such reasonable questions, has the appearance of
ridicule. And when people hear the words “pious deist,” they have the same
sort of feeling, as when mention is made of an honest thief, or a sober
drunkard.
There is no slander in making this statement for deists do not affect to be
pious. They have no love for devotion. If the truth were known, this is the
very thing they wish to get rid of; and if they believed, that professing
themselves to be deists, laid them under greater obligations to be devout,
they would not be so zealous for the system. Believe me, the contest is not
between one religion and another, it is between religion and irreligion. It
is impossible that a man a truly pious temper, should reject the Bible, even
if he were unacquainted with its historical evidences. He would find it to
be so congenial to his taste, and so salutry in its effects on his own
spirit, that he would conclude that it must have derived its origin from
heaven. But we find no such spirit in the writings of deists. There is not
in them a tincture of piety; but they have more than a sprinkling of profane
ridicule. When you turn to them from the Bible, you are sensible of as great
a transition, as if you passed suddenly from a warm and genial climate into
the frigid zone,. If deists expect ever to conciliate regard for their
religion, they must appear to be truly pious men, sincerely engaged in the
service of God; and this will have more effect than all their arguments. But
whenever this event shall occur, they will be found no longer opposing the
Bible, but will esteem it as the best of books, and will come to it for
fuel, to feed the flame of pure devotion. An African prince, who was brought
to England and resided there some time, being asked what he thought of the
Bible, answered, that he believed it to be from God, for he found all the
good people in favor of it, and all the bad people against it!
The want of a spirit of piety and devotion, must be reckoned the principal
reason why the deists have never been able to establish, and keep up, any
religious worship among themselves. The thing has been attempted at several
different times and in different countries; but never with any success.
It is said, that the first enterprise of this kind was that of David
Williams, an Englishman, who had been a dissenting minister in Liverpool,
but passing over first to Socinianism, and then to deism, went to London,
where, being patronised by sonic persons of influence, he opened a house for
deistical worship, and formed a liturgy, consisting principally of praise to
the Creator. Here he preached for a short time, and collected some
followers; but he complained that most of his congregation went on to
atheism. After four years trial, the scheme came to nothing. There were
neither funds nor congregation remaining, and the Priest of nature, (as
Williams styled himself,) through discouragement and ill health, abandoned
the project.
Some feeble attempts of the same kind have been made in the United States;
but they are unworthy of being particularly noticed. [2]
Frederick II., the deistical king of Prussia, had once formed the plan of a
Pantheon, in Berlin, for the worshippers of all sects and all religions; the
chief object of which was the subversion of Christianity; but the scheme was
never carried into execution.
The most interesting experiment of this kind, was that made by the
Theophilanthropists in France, during the period of the revolution. After
some trial had been made of atheism and irreligion, and when the want of
public worship was felt by many reflecting persons, a society was formed for
the worship of God, by the name just mentioned, upon the pure principles of
Natural Religion. Among the patrons of this society, were men beloved for
their philanthropy, and distinguished for their learning; and some high in
power.
La Revelliere Lepaux, one of the directory of France, was a zealous patron
of the new religion. By his influence, permission was obtained to make use
of the churches for their worship. In the city of Paris alone, eighteen or
twenty were assigned to them, among which was the famous church of Notre
Dame.
Their creed was simple, consisting of two great articles, the existence of
God, and the immortality of the soul. Their moral system also embraced two
great principles, the love of God, and the love of man;—which were indicated
by the name assumed by the society. Their worship consisted of prayers, and
hymns of praise, which were comprehended in a manual, prepared for a
directory in worship. Lectures were delivered by the members, which,
however, underwent the inspection of the society, before they were,
pronounced in public. To these were added some simple ceremonies, such as
placing a basket of fruits and flowers on the altar. Music, vocal and
instrumental, was used: for the latter, they availed themselves of the
organs, in the churches. Great efforts were made to have this worship
generally introduced, in all the principal towns in France; and the views of
the society were even extended to foreign countries. Their manual was sent
into all parts of the republic, by the minister of the interior, free of
expense.
Never did a society enjoy greater advantages at its commencement.
Christianity had been rejected with scorn: atheism had for a short time been
tried, but was found to be intolerable: the government was favorable to the
project; men of learning and influence patronised it, and churches ready
built, were at the service of the new denomination. The system of Natural
Religion, also, which was adopted, was the best that could have been
selected, and considerable wisdom was discovered in the construction of
their liturgy. But with all these circumstances in their favor, the society
could not subsist. At first, indeed, while the scene was novel, large
audiences attended, most of whom, however, were merely spectators; but in a
short time, they dwindled away to such a degree, that instead of occupying
twenty churches, they needed only four, in Paris; and in some of the
provincial towns, where they commenced under the most favorable auspices,
they soon came to nothing. Thus they went on declining, until, under the
consular government, they were prohibited the use of the churches any
longer; upon which they immediately expired without a struggle; and it is
believed that not a vestige of the society now remains.
It will be instructive and interesting to inquire into the reasons of this
want of success, in a society enjoying so many advantages. Undoubtedly, the
chief reason was, the want of a truly devotional spirit. This was observed
from the beginning of their meetings. There was nothing to interest the
feelings of the heart. Their orators might be men of learning, and might
produce good moral discourses, but they were not men of piety; and not
always men of pure morals. [3] Their hymns were said to be well composed,
and the music good; but the musicians were hired from the stage. There was
also a strange defect of liberality in contributing to the funds of the
society. They found it impossible to raise, in some of their societies, a
sum which every Christian congregation, even the poorest, of any sect, would
have collected in one day. It is a fact, that one of the societies
petitioned government to grant them relief from a debt, which they had
contracted, in providing the apparatus of their worship, not amounting to
more than fifty dollars, stating that their annual income did not exceed
twenty dollars. In the other towns, their musicians deserted them, because
they were not paid, and frequently, no person could be found to deliver
lectures.
Another difficulty arose—which might have been foreseen. Some of the
societies declared themselves independent; and would not agree to be
governed by the manual which had been received, any further than they chose.
They also remonstrated against the authority exercised by the lecturers in
the affairs of the society, and declared, that there was danger of their
forming another hierarchy. There were also complaints against them,
addressed to the ministers, by the agents of government in the provinces, on
account of the influence which they might acquire, in civil affairs.
The Theophilanthropists were, moreover, censured by those who had made
greater advances in the modern philosophy, for their illiberality. it was
complained, that there were many who could not receive their creed, and all
such must necessarily be excluded from their society. This censure seems to
have troubled them much; and in order to wipe off the stigma, they appointed
a fete, which they called the Anniversary of the re-establishment of Natural
Religion. To prove that their liberality had no bounds, they prepared five
banners to be carried in procession. On the first was inscribed the word,
Religion; on the second, Morality: and on the others, respectively, Jews;
Catholics; Protestants. When the procession was over, the bearers of the
several banners gave each other the kiss of peace; and that none might
mistake the extent of their liberality, the banner inscribed, Morality, was
borne by a professed atheist, universally known as such in Paris. They had
also other festivals, peculiar to themselves; and four in honor of the
following persons, Socrates, St. Vincent de Paule, J. J. Rousseau, and
Washington;—a strange conjunction of names, truly! [4]
I have been thus particular in giving an account of this society, because
the facts furnish the strongest confirmation of my argument, and are in
themselves curious and instructive. After the failure of this enterprise,
deists will scarcely attempt again to institute any form of public worship.
But among those philosophers who believe in the perfectibility of human
nature, under the fostering influence of increasing knowledge and good
government, there is a vague theory, of a kind of mental, philosophical
religion, which needs the aid of no external forms. The primary articles of
their creed is, that religion is a thing entirely between God and every
man’s conscience; that all our Creator requires, is, the homage of the
heart; that, if we feel reverence, gratitude, and submission, towards him,
and act our part well in society, we have fulfilled our duty;—that we cannot
know how we may be disposed of hereafter, and ought not to be anxious about
the matter. Whether this is expected to be the religion of philosophers
only, or also of the unlearned, and the great mass of laboring people, I am
unable to say. But I know, that such a system as this, will, to a large
majority of every community, be equivalent to no religion at all. The great
body of the people must have something tangible; something visible, in their
religion. They need the aid of the senses, and of the social principle, to
fix their attention, to create an interest, and to excite the feelings of
devotion. But the truth is, that if the heart be affected with lively
emotions of piety, it will be pleasant, it will be useful, and it will be
natural, to give them expression. This will hold in regard to philosophers
and men of learning, as well as others. Wherever a number of persons
participate in the same feelings, there is a strong inclination to hold
communion together; and if sentiments of genuine piety exist in the bosoms
of many, they will delight, to celebrate, is unison, the praises of that
Being, whom they love and adore. There is no reason why pious emotions, more
than others, should be smothered, and the tendency to express them,
counteracted. Such indeed will never be the fact. Out of the abundance of
the heart the mouth will speak. Piety, it is true, consists essentially in
the exercise of the heart; but that religion which is merely mental, is
suspicious; at best, very feeble; is not likely to produce any permanent
effect on the character or comfort of the person entertaining it; and cannot
be useful to others in the way of example.
In the year 1802, when Christianity, which had been proscribed in France,
was restored by an act of government, a speech was delivered by one of the
councillors of state, which contains excellent sentiments, on the subjects
here treated. One or two extract will not be unacceptable to the reader.
“Science can never be partaken of, but by a small number, but by religion
one may be instructed without being learned. The Natural Religion, to which
one may rise by the effects of a cultivated reason, is merely abstract and
intellectual, and unfit for any people. It is revealed religion which points
out all the truths that are useful to men who have neither time nor means
for laborious disquisitions. Who then would wish to dry up that sacred
spring of knowledge, which diffuses good maxims, brings them before the eyes
of every individual, and communicates to them that authoritative and popular
dress, without which they would be unknown to the multitude, and almost to
all men. For want of a religious education for the last ten years, our
children are without any ideas of a divinity, without any notion of what is
just and unjust; hence arise barbarous manners, hence a people become
ferocious.—One cannot but sigh over the lot which threatens the present and
future generations. Alas! what have we gained by deviating from the path
pointed out to us by our ancestors? What have we gained by substituting vain
and abstract doctrines for the creed which actuated the minds of Turenne,
Fenelon, and Pascal?
I think enough has now been said to establish, beyond all reasonable doubt,
our second proposition, that if Christianity be rejected, there is no other
religion which can be substituted in its place; or, at least, no other which
can at all answer the purpose /or which religion is desirable.
It may also be observed, in conclusion, that the facts which have been
adduced, not only serve to confirm this proposition, but furnish new and
cogent arguments in proof of the proposition maintained in the preceding
chapter.
_________________________________________________________________
[2] The infidel meetings which at present (A. D. 1831) are held in some of
our principal cities, and where male and female lectures are delivered, on
Sunday, and at other times, are not intended to be, in any sense,
worshipping assemblies; but their character is understood to be atheistical,
and their object is to bring into ridicule and contempt, every species of
religion, whether natural or revealed.
[3] Thomas Paine was one of them.
[4] Histoire de Theophilanthropie, par M. Gregoire.—See Quarterly Review for
January, 1823.
_________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER IV.
REVELATION NECESSARY TO TEACH US HOW TO WORSHIP GOD ACCEPTABLY—THE NATURE
AND CERTAINTY OF A FUTURE STATE—AND ESPECIALLY, THE METHOD BY WHICH SINNERS
MAY OBTAIN SALVATION.
IT would be superfluous here to repeat what was said in the preceding
chapter, respecting the need in which man stood of a revelation when he
first proceeded from the hands of his Creator. The object which we have, at
present, in view, is, to inquire, whether man, in the condition in which we
now find him, and in which history informs us he has existed for ages, does
not stand in urgent need of more light titan he possesses; and, whether,
there are not some points of vital importance, concerning which he must
remain in the dark, unless the knowledge of the truth is communicated to him
by a revelation from God. Let it be understood, however, in what sense it is
asserted, that a revelation is necessary. Of course, it is not meant, that
there is any natural necessity for such an event; nor is it intended, that
God is obliged by any necessity, to grant a revelation. The necessity
contended for, relates altogether to the wants of man. It is found, that in
all times, and littler all circumstances, he needs information, which he
cannot obtain from the unassisted exercise of his own reason; or, at least,
cannot obtain so satisfactorily from this source, as from divine revelation.
For even if it were possible, for a few philosophers of the highest order of
intellect, by long and profound investigation, to discover all the truths
absolutely necessary to be known; yet, for the bulk of mankind, it might be
all important, to have these same things made known by divine revelation;
because the great majority of our race have neither leisure nor ability for
such tedious and difficult researches. But the truth, as made known by
history, is, that on those very points, on which it is most needful that man
should be instructed, the wise men of this world are as much at a loss as
the vulgar. They reasoned much, and speculated as far as human intellect
could go; but instead of clearly ascertained truth, they rested at last, in
mere conjecture; or deviated into gross error.
Again, if the light of nature were sufficient to shed some light on the
great truths needful to be known by man; yet a clear, well attested
communication from heaven, might be of the greatest utility, by speaking
decisively and authoritatively, in regard to matters, concerning which the
conclusions of reason are feeble, and uncertain. To affect the conscience
and influence the heart, it is highly important that religious truth should
be attended with certainty, and should be felt to possess the sanction of
divine authority. What men discover by the slow deductions of reason, is
found to operate feebly on the conscience, compared with the persuasion,
that God speaks to us, immediately, by divine revelation. In reasoning about
the most important truths, men differ exceedingly from one another; and this
very circumstance spreads doubt and uncertainty over all their speculations.
When we peruse the discourses of the wisest of the heathen sages, and
observe what darkness surrounded them, we cannot but feel commiseration for
the imbecility of the human intellect; and, indeed, the best of them were
deeply convinced of the insufficiency of their own reason, to guide them;
and, sometimes, seemed to entertain a glimmering hope, that at some future
period, and in some unknown way, divine instruction might be communicated to
the erring children of men.
It is also more than probable, that the clearest and most important ideas
which the heathen philosophers entertained, were not the discoveries of
their own reason, or a light struck out from an observation of the works of
nature, but rays of truth derived more remotely, or more directly, from
divine revelation, as has been remarked in another part of this essay.
But, after all, it is an undeniable fact, that reason, aided as it was by
tradition, left men to grope in the dark, and to fall into the most
degrading idolatry. Indeed, although reason may teach that there is a God,
and that he ought to be worshipped; yet, of what kind his worship should be
in order to be acceptable, she never has made known, nor is it within the
reach of her ability. All the rites of worship invented by man are
altogether unworthy of God; and, truly, it is in the nature of things
impossible, that men should devise a form of acceptable worship, for no
service of this kind can be pleasing in the sight of God, which he has not
himself appointed. Now, if men have lost the knowledge of the original
institutions of religion; or, if these have become altogether corrupt, there
must be a new revelation, before man will be able to render an acceptable
service to his Creator. There is good reason to believe, t hat many of the.
heathen rites of worship, are nothing else but corruptions of divine
institutions, which were given to man by an early revelation. This seems
especially to be the fact, in relation to sacrifices, which constituted an
essential part of the worship of almost all ancient nations; and some
vestiges of which have come down by tradition, among the most barbarous
tribes. Reason, certainly, never taught men that shedding the blood and
taking away the life of an animal, could be an acceptable sacrifice to the
deity; or, that presenting it on an altar, and consuming it wholly or
partially by fire, could be a propitiation for sin; and yet these mysterious
ceremonies were almost as universal as the gift of speech. And between the
sacrifices of nations, remote from each other, there has been remarked, a
wonderful similarity in the circumstances of their sacred offerings; in the
erection of altars; in the pouring out the blood: in dividing the animal
into pieces; in combining the offering of salt, wine, bread, and incense,
with the sacrifice of animals; in considering the blood and death of the
victim, as expiatory for sin; in having an order of priesthood to officiate
in these sacred rites, who were solemnly consecrated to the service, and
considered more holy than other men; and when, only a small part of the
animal sacrificed was consumed in the fire, in feasting on the remainder,
within the precincts of the temple, or sacred enclosure. And this analogy
may be traced even in the names, by which similar sacrifices were
denominated among different nations. These, and many other striking
resemblances, in the rites of ancient nations, go to prove, incontestably,
that they must have had a common origin; and no account of this is half so
probable, as that which ascribes sacrificial rites to an original
revelation, which brings us to see the credibility of the Mosaic history, in
regard to the origin of religious worship.
But supposing that any heathen nation should now be convinced of the
absurdity of idolatry, and should become sensible of their obligation to
render some kind of external homage to the great Creator, by what means
could they learn what sort of service would be acceptable? Reason could not
teach them what rites should be observed. Without a revelation from God,
they must forever remain without. a form of worship; or, if they attempted
to invent certain rites, all experience teaches, that these human inventions
will ever be marked with human weakness; and reason herself intimates, that
no worship, not appointed by God, can be acceptable to him. It appears then,
that even if man were not a sinner, still he would need a divine revelation,
to teach him how to render an acceptable worship to his Creator.
Some infidel writers have pretended, that it is a matter of indifference by
what rites God is worshipped, and that he is equally pleased with the
services of all nations, however different from each other in their mode of
worship. This doctrine is utterly inconsistent with the dictates of sound
reason. Upon this principle, even human sacrifices, which have been so
common in the world, would be justified. And the most impure and abominable
rites would be sanctioned by the Deity. The whole worship of Pagan nations,
both in ancient and modern times, is detestable; and no one who has any just
conceptions of the attributes of God, can persuade himself, that he ever
could be pleased, with services so characterized by cruelty, impurity, and
folly. Indeed, their worship is not directed to the true God, but to the
false deities of their own invention. They sacrifice not to God, but to
devils. They substituted for the. august Creator, creatures of almost every
kind and species. No man, under the government of reason, can look into any
heathen temple, without being shocked and cort founded with the degrading
and abominable rites of idolatry. The more this subject is contemplated, the
more clearly will the necessity of divine revelation be felt, and the
greater will appear to be its value to the human race. Who can read an
account of the mythology and idolatry of the ancient Egyptians, or of the
modern Hindoos, and not be deeply impressed with the necessity of something,
which might have the effect of dispelling this horrible darkness, and
breaking asunder these cruel bonds of superstition?
Another argument for the necessity of a divine revelation, is, that without
it man must remain ignorant of his origin, and his end; and utterly unable
to account for the circumstances by which he is surrounded. He finds himself
here upon the earth, and feels that he is borne along the stream of time
with the rest of his generation, towards a dark gulph before him, which he
perceives he can by no means escape. But when he inquires, respecting the
origin of the human race;—when he seeks a solution of the enigma of his
sinful, suffering, and mortal existence, he finds no one among the living or
the dead, from whom he can obtain the least satisfactory information, on
these points. All the traditions and histories of men are full of fables;
and if they contain some rays of truth, they are so mingled with error, that
no man can distinguish the one from the other. Leaving out of view the
history contained in the Bible, and all that we can learn from others casts
not a solitary ray of light on the points under consideration. We have no
means of tracing up our race to its origin, and the deist can give no
rational account of the wickedness of men, and of their sufferings and
death. The darkness and uncertainty resting on these subjects, have led
many, who rejected the authority of the Bible, to adopt most absurd and
atheistical hypotheses, respecting the origin of man. Some have professed to
believe, that the earth and its inhabitants have existed from all
eternity—which is too absurd to require refutation. Others have amused
themselves and their readers, with the idea, that originally, the human race
was merely a species of monkey or baboon, and that by degrees they laid
aside their brutal appearance and manners, and certain inhuman appendages,
and having, in process of time, invented language, and the arts most
necessary to provide for the clothing and shelter of the body, they
gradually rose higher and higher in the scale of improvement, until they
arrived at that pitch of refinement and civilization, which has been
attained by the most polished nations. These, it is true, are rather
atheistical than deistical hypotheses; but they serve to show how little
light reason can shed on this subject; and, how much we need a divine
revelation. For the deist can form no theory which can satisfy our
reasonable desires. He can give no good reason for the moral condition and
mortality of our race. He may say, that it is the law of our nature; but
this is merely to declare the fact, and not to account for it.
But we might, perhaps, be contented to remain ignorant of our origin, if we
could know what is to be our destiny, hereafter; and how far it is connected
with our present character and conduct. Reason has exerted and exhausted all
her resources, to demonstrate a future existence, and to place the
immortality of the soul on an immovable basis. But what has been the result
of all these reasonings? Why, a possibility, or, to say the most, a strong
probability, that the soul survives the body. But this, of all others, is
the point, on which we want certainty—absolute certainty. How painful to be
involved in a cloud of doubt and suspense, when we look forward to futurity;
and, especially, when descending into the grave, to have nothing to lay hold
of, but the conclusions or conjectures of our own feeble reason? That I do
not depreciate the force of the arguments for the soul’s immortality, will
appear, from the fact, that many of the heathen philosophers held, that the
soul died with the body;—that of those who believed in a future existence,
some were of opinion, that after the lapse of a thousand years, or some
longer period, it would come to an end; others—and these very
numerous—believed in the doctrine of metempsychosis, or the transmigration
of souls from the body of one animal to that of another, in perpetual
succession; and more still, had no other idea of immortality, than that the
soul—which they thought was a particle of deity—would, at death, be refunded
into the divine essence; which was virtually to deny its future existence,
as to its distinct personality;—or, as possessing individuality, and
consciousness. Even such men as Socrates, Plato, and Cicero, had no clear,
consistent, and satisfactory views of this interesting subject: not because
they neglected to exercise their cultivated and powerful intellect, upon it;
for it was a subject, which more than all others engaged their
thoughts;—but, because it was surrounded by a darkness which unassisted
reason could not penetrate. O how glad would these sages have been to
possess one ray of that revelation which our infidels foolishly despise! The
earlier deists, generally admitted the doctrine of a future state of
retribution, and affected to believe, that reason, was sufficient to
establish the doctrine; but their successors, in modern times, or at least,
a large majority of them, have either denied, or called into question, this
fundamental doctrine. And if we should weigh impartially, all the arguments
which have ever been adduced, in ancient or modern times, to establish this
point, we would be obliged to confess that we needed further light. And from
the very nature of the case, no one can give us an absolute assurance of our
future and immortal existence, but God alone. It is an event which depends
on his will, and nothing else. Arguments may be adduced, to prove that the
soul is naturally immortal; but they prove no more than this, that the same
causes which effect the dissolution of the body, can have no tendency to
destroy the existence and activity of the soul. And what are called the
moral arguments, only go to prove, that if God exercises a moral government
over his creatures here, there must be a place for a just retribution
hereafter. But we want, on this point, more certainty.—We want one to come
from the other world, to tell us that there is a future state.—We want to
hear the voice of God testifying, that there is not only a future state, but
a day of righteous judgment. Here, every man can judge for himself, whether
he needs a revelation.
This argument for the necessity of a divine revelation, will be corroborated
by observing the state of religion and morals among all heathen nations. It
has often been remarked, that the most certain method of ascertaining what
reason is capable of accomplishing, is to see what she has actually done in
time past; especially, when enjoying all the advantages of high culture and
extensive information. In physical science, we may expect new discoveries by
the exercise of reason: and the science of morals may in time come to be
better understood; but if all nations, even the most civilized and learned,
as well as the rude and barbarous, have utterly failed in forming correct
opinions, on the most essential points of theology and ethics; and have, all
of them, fallen into the most absurd and degrading errors; and have
acquiesced in the most abominable and impure rites of idolatry; then, what
can be more evident, than that they needed a divine revelation? Probably,
one reason why the nations were left so long to walk in their own ways, was,
to convince us of our own imbecility, and to prepare us to receive
gratefully, when offered, this most comprehensive gift of God.
To do justice to this argument, would require volumes; but as the subject
has been amply treated by Leland and others, 1 will pass it over, by
remarking, that the abominable rites of Pagan worship, and the shocking
cruelties and impurities which have ever been perpetrated under the sanction
of every heathen religion, make but a faint impression on our minds, because
we only hear the distant report of these things, and are often tempted to
think, that the narrative of these horrible doings, must be too highly
colored: but, the truth is, the half, and far more than the half, remains
untold, and cannot be publicly told, without outrageously offending against
decency. It is an awful thought, that for so long a time, so many millions
of our fellow creatures have been under the cruel bondage of
superstition;—a slavery which affects the mind, and is productive of more
human misery than all other causes. And as, Paganism still exists, and as
its evils are unmitigated by the lapse of time, it is an easy matter to
compare the Christian with the heathen world.—Cast your eye over the map of
the earth, and say, where is found the densest darkness? Where does the
light of truth shine? Is not the line of demarkation between light and
darkness visible? And is it not as evident, as any thing can be, that the
Bible is a rich blessing to all who possess and read it? We might here,
also, institute a comparison between those Christian nations which freely
circulate the Scriptures, and those who lock them up in a dead language—but
this we omit; and go on to remark, that he who is informed of the events
which have occurred on missionary ground, in our own times, must have his
eyes covered with thick scales of prejudice, if he does not acknowledge,
that the Gospel is the richest benefit which can be conferred on Pagan
nations. Either then, a vile imposture—a cunningly devised fable—has the
power of reforming and civilizing the most degraded of the heathen tribes;
or, Christianity is a Divine Revelation; and is still accompanied by the
power of God, making it effectual to the illumination, conversion, and
salvation of the gentiles. Let the deist take his choice between these two
things. But here, permit me to ask, whether, if a company of deists had gone
out to Africa, or to the Society or Sandwich islands, any such reformation
would have been wrought? The reader will smile, at the idea of a deist
turning missionary to the heathen; but this very feeling demonstrates, that
deism is not to be the means of regenerating the world. If the deist was
right, certainly be would be the only proper person to send on a mission, to
convert the idolatrous world. But all are ready to pronounce the very idea
to be ludicrous. What! a missionary society of deists!—Why, they have no
confidence in their own principles, in this respect; and no zeal for
propagating them in such a field, and with such sacrifices, as the Christian
willingly makes.
But why should I go to distant and heathen lands, to prove that a revelation
is necessary, when we have proof enough before our eyes. In any of our
populous cities, we may draw a visible line between that part of the
population, who are under the light of evangelical truth, and those who
place themselves out of the reach of all the direct rays of the Gospel.
Between these two extremes, there is a large class, not properly reckoned
with either; but let us, without caring for exact accuracy in our
computation, suppose, that one-third of the adult population are regular
church-going people, who hear the leading truths of the Gospel from Sabbath
to Sabbath; and that another third seldom or never attend any place of
public worship. Between these two classes of citizens, we can institute a
comparison. Exceptions you may have to make on both sides, but taking them
in mass, is there any room to doubt whether religion is useful and
necessary? From which of these classes, permit me to ask, are our prisons
crowded with inmates? Suppose, first, that all those who never read the
Bible, and frequent no place of worship, were removed from among us, would
the state of society be meliorated, or deteriorated? Or, again, suppose that
all the church-going people should be translated to another country, what
would then be the condition of society? If I am not egregiously erroneous in
my calculations, on the former supposition, we should be able to dispense
with most of our means of coercion and restraint, and would save the
enormous expense of keeping up such an array of courts, police-officers, and
prisons. And, on the latter supposition, all the wealth of the country would
be insufficient to provide places of confinement, and means of support, for
the guilty; or, to come nearer to the truth, our large towns would soon
become as Sodom; or as a den of thieves: and, soon, the doom of Sodom would
sink them, never to rise again.
But does any one think that this is not a fair statement of the matter, as
it seems to take for granted, that there is no religion, nor can be any,
without revelation?. I would request the person who makes this objection to
tell me what kind of religion might be expected, if the Bible were banished
from among us? Suppose then, instead of the hundreds of Gospel preachers,
whose voices are lifted up on the first day of every week, to warn men of
the danger of a sinful course, and to point out to them the way of life, all
their pulpits should be filled with infidel lecturers, male and female;
what, in your consciences, do you think would be the effect on morals and
social happiness? We all know that many sinners have been converted by the
faithful preaching of the Gospel; permit me to inquire, do you know, or have
you heard of any transgressors being turned from the error of their ways, by
attending on deistical lectures; or even on the theatre, that boasted school
of morality? No doubt, some of my readers have heard of conversions at these
places of fashionable resort, but not to righteousness—not to God, but the
contrary. And, as I have happened to mention the theatre, I will further
add, that I am far more afraid of the moral influence of this institution,
than of that of deistical or atheistical lectures; not because it pleads for
vice—this would not be tolerated—but because it draws thousands within the
enchanted circle of temptation, and plunges thoughtless youth into the
vortex of sensual pleasure, from which it is difficult to extricate them.
But I will admit, that there may be much religion, without revelation; the
whole heathen world is a proof of it. Some men of the world, indeed,
confound all religions, and all the ministers of religion together, as if
they were all alike; whereas, true and false religion, are as dissimilar, as
light and darkness; and I will repeat what I have already said in substance,
and that is, that, the only effectual barrier to false religion, is to
cultivate that which is true. Infidelity may serve to sweep away one form of
superstition, but after awhile the tide will turn, and enthusiasm, or
superstition, will come in like a flood; for, as we have shown, the people
must have some sort of religion; and if you banish that which is true,
rational, sober, and benevolent, you will soon he visited with the most
absurd and degrading systems of wild fanaticism; and these will, when the
fires of enthusiasm are extinguished, settle down, or rather grow up, into
hideous forms of superstition. The Pagan religions had some mixture of truth
derived from early tradition; for they were all, as we have seen, a
corruption of the primitive worship of fallen man: but banish the Bible, and
you will have in its place, either the dark horrors of atheism, accompanied
with crime, in her polluted and blood-stained robe, or you will have the
reign of superstition, chilling every generous emotion—degrading every noble
affection—and blighting all domestic bliss.
Sometimes, a splendid temple rests upon a few solid pillars, and falls to
ruin if they be removed. Thus, the peace and order, and comfort, of civil
society, depend much on two institutions; for both of which we are indebted
to revelation. The first of these, is, the SACRED INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE:
the second is, the RELIGIOUS OBLIGATION OF AN OATH, or solemn affirmation,
which is virtually the same thing. Remove these, and the fair fabric of
human happiness totters at once to its very base.
But the argument on which I chiefly mean to dwell, to evince the necessity
of a revelation, is, that without it, we can never learn how sin can be
forgiven, or the sinner saved. Admitting then, that reason can direct us
with sufficient clearness, in regard to all our moral duties; and admitting,
that if a man performs his duty, no more is required of him, and he may
confide in the justice and goodness of God; and that, in pursuing this
course, no evil will ensue, and the suitable reward will not be wanting.—I
say, admitting all this, for argument’s sake—yea more, that all men possess
this knowledge: yet, I maintain, that in relation to the state in which man
actually is, it amounts to nothing. It is one thing to have a system of
religion which suits the case of an innocent being, and quite another to
find out a plan by which A SINNER can obtain forgiveness. A citizen may know
full well, that if he obeys the laws of his country, he will be protected by
all upright magistrates; but if he has already violated the laws, and
incurred a formidable penalty, the knowledge mentioned does not reach his
case. What he needs now, is to know how he can obtain a pardon, and evade
the vengeance of the violated law. In every such case, there is an absolute
need of a declaration, or revelation, from the supreme power of the state,
of a willingness to pardon, on some certain condition. In no government can
a pardon be a matter of course, or provided for by the law itself: for, such
a provision would be subversive of all government. It would be a complete
nullification of the obligation and authority of the law. Here, then, the
momentous question occurs, is man a sinner? Have all men transgressed the
law of God? I am willing to waive the proof of this point, for the present,
and to leave it to the decision of every man’s conscience is there then a
man, upon earth, who is not conscious of having violated the law of his
nature, both by omissions of duty, and the actual commission of sin?
Assuming it then as a fact, that men are sinners, I ask, what does the light
of nature teach, respecting the forgiveness of sin? I shall endeavor to
demonstrate, that reason sheds not a ray of light on this fundamental point;
and, therefore, that Natural Religion, if known ever so perfectly and
universally, could not bring us the relief which we need. The main argument
for the position which I have laid down, is short and simple. It is the
dictate of right reason, that God is just, and will render to every one
according to his character and conduct; and that his law, being wise and
good, must not be violated with impunity. Can the deist conceive of an
objection to this principle?—Certainly not. It must be considered a
self-evident truth, with every theist who believes in the moral government
of God. The case is plain, therefore, and as far as the dictates of reason
extend, the sinner has no prospect before him but to suffer the just
punishment of his offences, whatever that may be.
To suppose that reason can inform us that God will pardon our sins, is to
suppose that its dictates are contradictory; for, to pardon, is the same as
not to punish; but we have just seen, that the voice of reason is, that God
is just, and will render to every man what he deserves. These two things are
not compatible. Before I proceed further, I must put the reader on his
guard, against loose and illogical reasoning, on a point so vital. I
scarcely know a subject, on which most men appear to satisfy themselves with
more vague and fallacious arguments. Some of the more common of these, it,
will be my object now to consider.
In the first place, it is alleged, and with much confidence asserted, by
many, that God is a Being of too much benevolence and kindness, to inflict
severe punishments on his erring creatures. This suggestion—for it has not
the shape of an argument—seems to give honor to God, while it is very
soothing to the mind of the sinner. But when it is examined, it will be
found to be rather an insult than an honor; for it supposes that the Ruler
of the universe, out of kindness to a rebellious creature, will cease to be
just:—that, rather than punish offences as they deserve, he will dishonor
his own law. What sort of compliment would it be to an upright judge, among
men, to say of him, that we were sure his benevolence and compassion would
prevent him from inflicting the penalties annexed to the laws? But, if the
Judge of all the earth, does not act upon the principle of punishing all sin
as it deserves, on what other principle does he act? Would any one say, by
punishing it half as much as it deserves;—but this might be a severe
suffering; therefore, the conclusion to which this reasoning must lead, is,
that God’s goodness will, altogether, and forever, prevent him from
inflicting any punishment on sin, however atrocious it may be. Many, in our
days, who are not called deists or atheists, but who are more dangerous,
because they mingle some Gospel truth with their errors, greedily embrace,
and zealously inculcate this very opinion. But look at its consequences. The
infinitely perfect God will treat alike the most malignant rebel, and the
most affectionate and obedient servant. He will, in his treatment of his
creatures, manifest no more displeasure at sin, than be does towards the
most perfect virtue. If such benevolence as this existed, it would be no
moral perfection, but a defect. But no; God’s attributes are never at
variance. There is no goodness in God which forbids or prevents the fullest
exercise of justice. If ever he chooses to rescue sinners from the
consequences of their sins, it will not be by sacrificing his justice, but
by fully satisfying it. But this is an affair of which mere reason knows
nothing. But if the deist should insist, that all moral goodness consists in
benevolence, and nothing else, and therefore God will not punish any one but
for his own good, I answer, that the good of the whole is to be preferred,
by a benevolent being, to the happiness of an offending individual; and in
all communities, the general good requires, that transgressors should he
intimidated and restrained by punishment; so that it must be proved, that
the good of the universe does not require the punishment of the guilty,
before any such conclusion can be drawn from the benevolence of God.
It is manifest, therefore, that the suggestion which we have been
considering, however pleasing to the mind in love with sin, and however
plausible at first sight, will not bear examination; and instead of tending
to the honor of God, takes from him all that is estimable in moral
character. It allows him no other excellence than an indiscriminate
benevolence to his creatures, without the least regard to their moral
character. Such a being would not be the object of veneration and esteem, by
all holy intelligences. An infinitely good God may punish transgressors
according to the demerit of their climes, without any disparagement of his
goodness; and an infinitely just and holy God must punish sin. “Shall not
the Judge of all the earth do right?”
Another suggestion, supposed by many to be a dictate of reason, is, that all
the punishment ever inflicted on men for their sins, is the evil which
arises out of it from the laws of nature, and the constitution of the human
mind; and, that there is no good ground for any apprehension of any further
or greater penalty. Now, let it be, in the first place, observed, that there
is no proof adduced of the truth of this position; nor does it admit of
proof. Who can tell what the Judge of all may think it necessary to inflict,
hereafter, on sinners, for the manifestation of his justice, the vindication
of his law, and as a terror to other offenders? Indeed, as far as we can
judge of the facts, men do not suffer in this life, in any just proportion
to their crimes: the wicked are often prosperous; and when the conscience
becomes callous, they experience but little remorse for their worst crimes.
Transgressors, who are only beginning their career, experience the agonies
of an accusing conscience in the keenest manner; while the veteran in
iniquity has long since ceased to be much troubled with these “compunctious
visitations.” But, supposing it true, that all the punishment of sin is that
which naturally follows it, yet who can tell what all the consequences are,
or where they will end? Crimes do not always produce their bitterest fruit,
immediately. We see the sins of the intemperate, the lewd, and the
dishonest, often overtaking them with their saddest consequences, long after
the acts were committed. Sins committed in youth often produce a miserable
old age. Look into the history of multitudes, whose vices have consigned
them to a prison, or a mad house, and you will find that the cause of their
wretchedness and disgrace, may be traced back to the sins of their youth:
yes—those very sins, on which many are disposed to look with so indulgent an
eye. And as these evils go on increasing until death, who can assure the
sinner that this fearful progression will not continue beyond the grave? As
we are not now arguing with atheists, we have a right to assume as a truth,
the soul’s future existence, and if it exist in conscious activity, will it
not carry with it, the moral character acquired in this world? Will not the
selfish, the proud, and malignant, be selfish, proud, and malignant, when
the clay tabernacle is dropped? Can death transform a sordid, and guilty
creature, into an angel? Will not the man who is wicked up to the moment of
dissolution, continue to he wicked, after death? And will not he carry with
him, his memory, his conscience, and his craving desires? There is then but
little comfort for the sinner in this suggestion, if true; for he may find
springing out of his own corruption, a worm which will never die,. and which
will gnaw his vitals with as corroding a pain, as any which he is capable of
enduring. Be it so, that conscience is the only fire to be dreaded in
another world—who can tell us how intense and interminable the pain which
this principle of our nature is capable of inflicting on the sinner? The
fear, remorse, and horrible perturbation, which sometimes surround the
death-beds of profligate sinners, afford a tremendous intimation, of what
they may expect in a future, state. How great, or how long, the evil
consequences. of sin may be, our reason certainly cannot tell; as far as her
dictates extend, we can see no end to this progression in vice and misery.
But I come now to the consideration of a much. more specious opinion, on
which, deists, and others who agree with them in these matters, place great
confidence. it is, that whatever the deserved penalty of sin may be, reason
teaches us, that it can be set wide, or evaded, by a sincere and seasonable
repentance. This principle has been assumed as a fundamental article in all
the systems of sober deists. It is well known, that lord Herbert laid it
down as one of the five positions, on which he founded his system; and,
therefore, as perfectly understood by all men. And as many who wish to be
considered rational Christians, adopt the same principle, it has gained very
general possession of the public mind. And again, as pardon and repentance
are closely connected, according to the doctrines of the Gospel, this truth
of revelation, is by many, not distinguished from what is considered a
dictate of reason; and hence it becomes a matter of real difficulty to
separate truth from error, on this point; and in attempting it, we must
encounter a formidable front of prejudice, not only from infidels, but also
from others. And before I proceed further, I must request the reader to
separate the evangelical doctrine of pardon, on repentance, from the
deistical principle under consideration; for they stand on entirely
different grounds, as will appear in the course of the discussion.
And here let it be carefully remarked, that before this doctrine of reason,
as it is called, can become a practical principle, two things must be
pre-supposed; first, that all men know what that repentance is, which will
insure our pardon; and next, that every sinner has ability to perform it.
The reasonableness of these pre-requisites is self-evident. But great
difficulty attends the theory, as it relates to these points. For we would
ask, whether by that repentance which reason inculcates, any thing more is
meant than sorrow or compunction for our sins; or whether it includes a
thorough reformation of life, and that not merely extending to external
acts, but to the motives and affections of the heart? It is also reasonable
to ask, whether any certain degree or continuance of sorrow is requisite?
And whether repentance will not cease to be available, if the sinner revert
to his former ways of iniquity? Moreover, whether repentance, flowing simply
from fear of punishment, is genuine; and if not, what sort of principles
must it have, as its source? It is also needful and important to inquire,
whether an inveterate, hardened sinner, can repent of his sins, so as to
hate and forsake them;—and surely no other repentance is worth any thing.
With a mind filled with error, his conscience seared; and his habits deeply
radicated, what hope is there of his turning about, and commencing a new
life? From what principle could we anticipate such a change in a confirmed
villain, or debauchee? You might as reasonably expect the Ethiopian to
change his skin, as for him that has been long accustomed to do evil, to
learn to do well. And it will answer no purpose to say, that he can repent
if he will, and if he will not, the blame is all his own; for, we are
inquiring, whether reason can teach a method of salvation adapted to the
condition of sinners, and it matters not whether the obstacle be in the will
or in something else: if it uniformly prevents the desired effect, it is
plain, that something else is needed. And as to the blame being on his own
head, it is admitted; but this is true in regard to every sin; for, in every
act of transgression the sinner is culpable, otherwise it would be no sin;
and if the only object be, to fix the blame upon the culprit, this is
sufficiently provided for, without offering him pardon upon repentance; for,
life and happiness can be secured, without repentance, if men will only obey
the law of God perfectly. And there is no greater, nor other inability, in
the way of his doing this, than in the way of his exercising true penitence.
There is, manifestly, a radical defect in the deistical theory, on this very
point; for it makes no provision for bringing the sinner to repentance, but
merely offers pardon, in case he will do that to which his whole heart is
averse. And does not fact accord with our sentiments? Where are the
instances of deists repenting of their sins, and yet adhering to this
system? There are indeed many glorious examples of infidels being brought to
repentance and reformation, by the Gospel; but I would challenge the world
to produce an instance of any one being brought to repentance, and a
thorough change of life, merely on the principles of deism. And if the
principle is in practice utterly ineffectual, of what value is it? and why
should it be magnified into a matter of so much importance, as to be adduced
as a proof that a revelation is not needed?
As, however, I wish to give a full and impartial discussion to this point, I
will now, for the sake of argument, suppose, that the repentance which is
necessary to pardon, is understood by all men, and that all have ability to
perform it. The opinion then is, that all sinners by repentance may escape
the punishment justly due to their sins; and this repentance they can bring
into exercise, at any time, when it may be needed. Now, if this be true, and
a dictate of reason, then it must be confessed, that a revelation is not
absolutely necessary; for what method of salvation can be simpler, easier,
or more intelligible than this? But, I deny that any such doctrine belongs
to the system of natural religion, or is dictated by the light of reason.
This opinion of the efficacy of repentance, is borrowed from the Gospel; and
has been tacked to deism, with which: it has no coherence. The truth is, it
is altogether incompatible with the first great fundamental principle of
natural religion; namely, that God being just, will render to every one
according to his moral character and conduct. And, here, I would repeat what
has often been remarked by writers on this subject, that deists have ever
been in the habit of borrowing from revelation, without giving’ credit for
what they take; and perhaps, without knowing whence the sentiment is
derived. Men, born and educated under the light of revelation, however they
may come to reject the Bible, and all the positive institutions of
Christianity, cannot divest themselves of all those important moral
principles, which, directly or indirectly, they have derived from this
source. The light of divine revelation is widely diffused in Christian
countries, and has given complexion to all our laws, institutions, and
systems of education; so, that a man can no more escape entirely from its
influence, than, from the effect of the light of the sun. Many truths which
the deist pretends to have discovered by the light of reason, are nothing
else than the reflected light of divine revelation; for how else can you
account for it, that the theory and moral system of our sober deists, should
be so much superior to the attainments of Socrates, Plato, and Cicero? Their
conduct resembles that of a man, who should light his taper by means of the
sun’s rays, and then pretend that all the light around him, he had struck
out himself; or, that it was produced by the feeble taper which he held in
his hand.
But, to return to the point under discussion. If a man, now he is a sinner,
can certainly know that the punishment of his sins can be evaded by a
repentance. completely in his own power, he could also know this before he
sinned. Then, with the law written on his heart, and sanctioned with a
penalty, he had the clear knowledge from reason, that commit whatever
atrocious sins he might, and incur whatever punishment he might, that he
would at any, and at every moment of his existence, have it in his power, to
escape all the punishment which he had merited, simply by the act of
repentance. This is a plain and fair statement of the case; and it is easy
to see, that it is completely subversive of the law of God, as a binding
rule; and leaves it fully in the power of the creature to do whatever he
pleases. He may deliberately determine, that he will rebel against his
Maker, till the last moment of life, and then disarm his vengeance, by
repentance. The penalty of the law may be in itself, tremendous, but it can
deter no one from any course which he may be inclined to pursue, because, he
can, at any moment, remove himself from its operation. What greater license
could the most daring rebel wish, than what is thus granted? This single
principle admitted into the moral government of God, would be a complete
nullification of the divine authority.
These consequences of the doctrine under consideration, are evident and
inevitable, and demonstrate that it cannot be a principle of reason, or
natural religion. But it may be thought by some, that the same objection
will lie, with all its force, against the doctrine of the Gospel, which
promises a plenary pardon to every true penitent. But this is a mistake: the
evangelical doctrine of repentance stands on entirely different grounds.
That such an offer would be made, could be known by no creature before he
sinned. This doctrine does not in the least clash with the justice of God;
for all the sins of the penitent, to which pardon is granted, are virtually
and actually punished in the sinners substitute. Here is the grand point of
difference between Christianity, and deism and all other systems. The former
maintains the glory and harmony of all the divine attributes; the latter
obscures, or would destroy one attribute, to make way for another. The
consequence is, that the way in which pardon is granted to the penitent,
according to the Gospel, has no tendency to relax our obligation to
obedience, or to lessen our sense of the evil of sin; but the deistical
principle of forgiveness, as we have seen, nullifies the law and authority
of the Governor of the universe; and leaves it completely at the option of
the creature, whether he will obey or transgress the law of God. The former
is perfectly consistent with the justice of God, extending pardon to no sin
for which satisfaction has not been made; while the latter is in direct
repugnance to the clearest demands of justice.
But another objection to the opinion that the punishment of sin is remitted
upon repentance, is, that this is contrary to experience, and fact. We have
seen that the deist is fond of considering the punishment of win as being
nothing else but its consequences, arising out of the laws of nature. Is it
true, then, that the laws of nature change their course as soon as a sinner
repents? Is it not a fact, that the penitent thief, in the penitentiary, and
the repentant debauches, in the hospital, are still suffering the
consequences of their crimes, long since committed? Repentance cannot bring
back lost health, ruined reputation, dissipated fortune, and alienated
friends. How then, can the deist, on his own principles, pretend, that the
punishment of sin is removed by repentance? He may allege, that the future
punishment of sin will be remitted; but how does he know this? reason can
judge nothing in regard to the future, but by some analogy with what is
observed to take place in this life; and from the facts stated, it is
manifest, that all analogy is against the opinion, that the evil
consequences of sin will be terminated by death.
Again, if pardon be granted only to the penitent; and the impenitent be
punished according to the demerit of their crimes, then there is a state of
sinning which renders it proper that sin should be punished rigidly
according to its desert. There can, therefore, be no argument drawn from the
goodness and compassion of God, against the condign punishment of sinners.
But why is impenitence alone to be considered as exposing a sinner to the
wrath of God? And why are the penitent alone, exempt from the penalty of the
law? The answer must be, either, that the sin of impenitence is so great as
to deserve this severe treatment; or, the merit of repentance is such as to
atone for the greatest sins, which man can commit. But supposing that
impenitence draws after it deeper guilt than all other sins, this does not
prove that this alone should be punished; it only proves, that it should be
punished more: but if there be a plain principle in jurisprudence, it is,
that every sin should certainly be visited with punishment, but exactly
according to its’ nature. There is no reason why a less sin should be
suffered to pass rather than a greater. Strict justice says, let every sin
have its due retribution. The greatness of the sin of impenitence,
therefore, cannot be a reason why the impenitent alone are to be punished.
Nor can this great difference in the treatment of sinners, be owing to the
merit of repentance; for it would be difficult to tell, wherein its most
extraordinary merit consisted. It must either be in the obedience, or the
suffering involved in the exercise of repentance. But it cannot consist in
the degree of obedience which it contains; for, if this were perfect, it
could do no more than answer the demands of the moral law, for the time
being, but could have no effect on sins already committed. I think it a
self-evident truth, that my obedience, this moment, cannot atone, or satify,
for my disobedience, the preceding moment; for in the latter case, I do no
more than my duty. Then, certainly, the obedience included in repentance
cannot atone for all past sins, however enormous, for it is imperfect; and,
moreover, has nothing in it which enhances its value, above other acts of
obedience. Neither can the suffering involved in repentance atone for past
sins; for, these pangs of compunction owe all their virtue to the obedience
with which they are connected, and without which they would not even be of a
moral nature. Unless some one should be of opinion, that these penitential
sorrows are to be considered as an equivalent for the penalty of the law:
but this cannot be correct, because an equivalent for the penalty of the
law, would be an equal degree and duration of suffering. If, indeed, a
person of higher dignity and greater worth is permitted to suffer in the
place of another, in proportion to the difference in dignity, the sufferings
may be diminished. It is, however, always a matter in the breast of the
Supreme Judge, whether to allow of such a substitution. I see nothing
unreasonable in it. But in the case under inquiry, the same person who owes
the suffering, if I may so speak, endures the sorrows of repentance; and
how, I would ask, can the pious grief of a few hours or days, be an
equivalent for the punishment of the most heinous transgressions? Besides,
the penitent sinner ever feels, and is ready to confess, that he deserves
further punishment. No one who ever truly repented entertained the idea,
that by this, he had made a complete atonement for his sins. These stains
are of too deep a dye, to be washed out by a few penitential tears. Nothing
can be more opposed to this opinion, than the views and feelings, involved
in the exercises of true repentance. Every true penitent is deeply
convinced, that he deserves heavier punishment, than what is involved in the
sorrows which he now experiences.
There is, however, one ground for the opinion, that there is a reasonable
connexion between repentance and forgiveness, which is, perhaps, more
plausible than any other argument; and therefore merits a distinct
consideration. It is, that all good men acknowledge, that it is a virtue to
forgive those who offend us, when they appear to be penitent; and Christians
cannot deny that this is a part of moral duty, for it is repeatedly and
emphatically enjoined, in the New Testament, as a thing essential. What is
here alleged, we fully admit; and are willing to go farther, and say, that
it is made the duty of Christians to forgive those who injure them, whether
they repent or not; for they are required to “love their enemies; to do good
to them that hate them; to bless them that curse them; and pray for them
which despitefully use them.” But this is entirely a distinct case, and
resting on principles entirely different, from the one under consideration.
It is no part of the duty of Christians to inflict condign punishment on
those who sin, even if they have been injured by them. They are forbidden to
seek for revenge, or to render to the wicked according to their iniquities;
not because there is any thing improper or inconsistent with moral goodness,
in punishing the guilty as they deserve; but because this is the peculiar
prerogative of the Governor of the universe. In those very passages of
Scripture, where vengeance is forbidden to the creature, in express and
emphatical language it is claimed for the Almighty. “Vengeance is mine, I
will repay saith the Lord; therefore, if thine enemy hunger feed him, if he
thirst give him drink, for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his
head.” If this duty of forgiveness, in the Christian, proved any thing, it
would prove more than is wished; it would follow, that God would certainly
pardon not only the penitent, but all sinners, however obstinate in their
rebellion. But this conclusion is altogether at variance with the opinion
which we have had under discussion, and is not even held up by the deist.
Another argument in favor of the doctrine that repentance is naturally
connected with pardon, is derived from the practice of granting pardon, in
human governments. But here, there is a mistake respecting the real state of
the fact; for, although, it is true, that in all human governments, it is
found expedient, to have a pardoning power, lodged somewhere; yet, no
government ever yet professed to act on the principle of pardoning all
offences, on the condition of repentance: nor, indeed, is the extension of
mercy to certain criminals who have incurred the penalty of the law, at all
connected with this principle. The reason why it is sometimes right to
pardon offences against the state, is, either because in some particular
case, the rigid execution of law would not be entirely just; or, that on
account of the number of persons implicated, sound policy may dictate, that
only the most guilty should be held up as an example. It appears, then, that
the weakness of human governments is the ground on which the penalty of the
law is remitted; but no such reason can exist in the divine government. But,
in the execution of human laws, no inquiry is ever instituted, whether the
criminal be penitent: yea, although his repentance should be most evident,
yet this never disarms the law of its penalty. The penitent thief or
murderer, are punished by our laws, as well as the obstinate and impenitent.
If, in a few cases, rulers who possessed the power of granting pardon, have
acted on the principle, that criminals who discovered signs of penitence,
should be, on that account, pardoned, it only proves, that men entrusted
with power may be misled; for undoubtedly, this principle carried out, would
soon be subversive of all law. If the only end of punishment was the good of
the culprit, then, indeed, such a course might be defended; but as long as
the good of the community is the chief end of punishment, it never can be
safe to offer pardon to all who profess repentance; or who, for a while,
appear to be reformed.
I think it is manifest, from the preceding discussion, that the idea of a
certain connexion between repentance and pardon, in the moral government of
God, is not derived from the light of nature, but from the Gospel; and,
therefore, if pardon is to be had in this way, it is only on the ground of
the atonement of Christ; and not on account of any merit or efficacy in
repentance, to take away the guilt of sin.
And if these views are correct, then is a divine revelation absolutely
necessary to teach us, that God is willing to receive the penitent into
favor; and to inform us, on what terms this is practicable.
_________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER V.
THERE IS NOTHING IMPROBABLE OR UNREASONABLE IN THE IDEA OF A REVELATION FROM
GOD; AND CONSEQUENTLY, NOTHING IMPROBABLE OR UNREASONABLE IN SUCH A MANIFEST
DIVINE INTERPOSITION, AS MAY BE NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH A REVELATION.
THAT a revelation is possible, will not be called in question by any who
believe in the existance of a God; nor can it be believed that there is any
thing in the notion of a revelation, repugnant to the moral attributes of
the Supreme Being. It cannot be inconsistent with the wisdom, goodness, or
holiness of God, to increase the knowledge of his intelligent creatures. The
whole end of a revelation is to make men wiser, better, and happier; and
what can be conceived more accordant with our ideas of divine perfection,
than this?
That man is capable of receiving benefit from a revelation, is a truth so
evident, that it would be folly to spend time in demonstrating it; for
whatever may be thought of the sufficiency of Natural Religion, if it was
fully understood and improved; yet all must admit, that men, generally, have
not been sufficiently enlightened on the subject of religion. The history of
the world, in all ages, proves the deplorable ignorance of the greater part
of the human race, even on those subjects, which the advocates of Natural
Religion, confess to be most important and fundamental, as has been proved
in the preceding chapter.
It cannot be thought an unreasonable supposition, that when God made the
original progenitors of our race, he should furnish them with such knowledge
as was absolutely necessary, not only for their comfort, but for their
preservation. As they were without experience, and had none upon earth from
whom they could derive instruction, is it unreasonable to suppose, that the
beneficent Creator communicated to them such a stock of knowledge, as was
requisite for the common purposes of life? The theory of those who suppose,
that man was at first a dumb, irrational animal, very little different from
those which now roam the forest;—and that from this state lie emerged by his
own exertions;—that he invented articulate speech, and all the arts of life,
without ever receiving any aid, or any revelation from his Creator, has
already been sufficiently refuted.
If, then, man received, at first, such ideas as were necessary to his
condition, this was a revelation; and if afterwards he should at any time
need information, on any subject connected with his happiness, why might not
the benevolent Creator, who does not abandon the work of his hands, again
vouchsafe to make a communication to him? Such an exigency, deists
themselves being judges, did arise. Men, almost universally, fell into the
practice of idolatry, and lost the knowledge of the true God. They betook
themselves to the worship of the luminaries of heaven, of dead men, of
beasts, and inanimate things. They invented superstitious rites, not only
irrational, but cruel and abominable. These were transmitted from generation
to generation; and the children became still more involved in ignorance,
than their parents. Now, that the righteous Governor of the universe may
leave men to follow their own inventions, and suffer by their own folly, is
certain; for he has done so. But is it not consistent with his wisdom and
goodness to use extraordinary means to rescue them from a state so degraded
and wretched? Would not every sober deist admit, that some means of bringing
them back to just ideas of Natural Religion would be desirable? If then the
apostacy of man from his Maker should render some farther revelation
necessary, would it not be highly benevolent to communicate whatever
knowledge his circumstances required? Why would it be thought unreasonable,
that God should sometimes depart from his common mode of acting, to answer
great and valuable ends? What is there in the established course of nature
so sacred or so immutable, that it must never on any occasion or for any
purpose be changed? The only reason why the laws of nature are uniform, is,
that this is for the benefit of man, but if his interest requires a
departure from the regular course, what is there to render it unreasonable?
The Author of the universe has never hound himself to pursue one undeviating
course, in the government of the world. The time may come when he may think
proper to change the whole system. As he gave it a beginning, he may also
give it an end. General uniformity is expedient, that men may know what to
expect, and may have encouragement to use means to obtain necessary ends;
but occasional and unfrequent deviations from this uniformity have no
tendency to prevent the benefit arising from it. This is so evident a truth
that I am almost ashamed to dwell so long upon it; but by the sophistry of
infidels a strange darkness has been thrown over the subject, so that it
seems to be thought that there would be something immoral, or unwise and
inconsistent, in contravening the laws of nature.
Let it be remembered that the object here is not to prove that there must be
a revelation; it is only to show that there would be nothing unreasonable in
the thing; and farther, that it would be a very desirable thing for man, and
altogether consistent with the perfections of God, and the principles on
which he governs the world.
If God should determine to reveal his will to man, how could this be most
conveniently effected? We can conceive of two ways. The first, by inspiring
all who needed knowledge with the ideas which he wished to communicate. The
second, by inspiring a few persons, and directing them to make known to
others the truths received. The first would seem to be the most effectual,
but the last is mose analogous to his other dispensations. Reason might have
been given in perfection at once, and not left to the uncertainty of
education and human improvement; but such is not the fact. By slow degrees
and much culture this faculty attains its maturity, and when neglected never
acquires any high degree of strength. In regard to the best mode of making a
revelation, however, we are totally incompetent to judge; but of one thing
we may be certain, that if God should give a revelation to men, he would so
attest it as to enable all sincere inquirers to know that it derives its
origin from him; for otherwise it would be useless, as there would be no
evidence of its truth. Supposing a revelation to be given, what would be a
satisfactory attestation of its divine origin? It must be some sign or
evidence not capable of being counterfeited; something by which God should
in some way manifest himself. And how could this be effected, but by the
exertion of his power or the manifestation of his infinite knowledge? That
is, by miracles, or by prophecies, or by both. There is then just as much
probability that miracles will exist, (for prophecy may be considered one
kind of miracle) as that a revelation will he given. The conjunction of
these two things is reasonable; if we find the one, we may be sure the other
exists also.
It is admitted that a revelation from God would have internal evidence of
its origin, but this does not strike the attention at once. It requires time
before it can be perceived; but in the first establishment of a revelation,
there is need of some evidence which is obvious to the senses and level to
the capacities of all. Just such an evidence are miracles. Moreover,
internal evidence requires, in order that it may be perceived and
appreciated, a certain favourable state of the moral feeling, without which
it is apt to be overlooked, and produces no conviction; whereas external
evidence is not only level to every capacity, but adapted to bring home
conviction to every description of men, to the bad as well as the good.
Miracles then furnish the best proof for the establishment of a revelation.
They seem to be its proper seal. They are the manifest attestation of God.
Nothing can be conceived which will more strikingly indicate his power and
presence than a visible suspension of the laws of nature. He is invisible:
he must make himself known by his works, and a miracle is such a work as no
other can perform. When therefore a person professes to have received a
revelation from God, and when we behold the effects of Almighty power
accompanying his words, all are sure that God is with him, and that he is a
teacher sent from God; for otherwise he could never perform such wonderful
works; or rather, to speak more correctly, God would never exert his power
to confirm the pretensions of an impostor or to attest doctrines which are
not true.
_________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER VI.
MIRACLES ARE CAPABLE OF PROOF FROM TESTIMONY.
I do not know that any one has denied that a miracle would be credible, if
exhibited to our senses. A man might, indeed, be deceived by an illusion
arising from some disorder in his senses; but if he was conscious of being
in a sound state of body and mind, and should witness not only one, but a
variety of miracles; not only a few times, but for years, in succession;
and, if he should find, that all around him had the same perceptions of
these facts as himself, I need not say, that it would be reasonable to
credit his senses, for the constitution of his nature would leave him no
choice: he would be under the necessity of believing, what he saw with his
eyes, heard with ears, and handled with his hands. But are there facts which
a man would credit on the evidence of his senses, which can, by no means, be
rendered credible by the testimony of any number of witnesses? Then there
might be facts, the knowledge of which could never be so communicated as to
be worthy of credit. According to this hypothesis, the constitution of our
nature would require us to withhold our assent from what was true, and from
what others knew to be true. If a thousand persons of the strictest veracity
should testify, that they had repeatedly witnessed a miracle, and if all
circumstances should concur to corroborate their testimony, yet upon this
principle it would be unreasonable to credit them; even if they should
consent to die in confirmation of what they declared to be the fact. This is
the ground taken by Mr. Hume, in his boasted argument against miracles. But,
it appears to me, that every man, previously to examination, must be
convinced that it is false; for it is contrary to common sense, and
universal experience of the effect of testimony. The true principle on this
subject, is, that any fact which would be believed on the evidence of the
senses, may be reasonably believed on testimony. For there may be testimony
of such a nature, as to produce conviction as strong as any other
conceivable evidence; and such testimony in favor of a miracle, would
establish it as firmly as if we had witnessed it ourselves. But,
notwithstanding this is the conclusion of common sense and experience, the
metaphysical argument of Mr. Hume has had the effect of perplexing and
unsettling the minds of many: and as he boasts, that “it will be useful to
overthrow-miracles as long as the world endures,” it seems necessary to
enter into an examination of his argument, that we may be able to expose its
fallacy. This has already been done, in a convincing manner, by several men,
[5] eminent for their learning and discrimination: and if their works were
read by all who peruse Hume, I should think it unnecessary to add a single
word on the subject. But it may not be without use, to present a refutation,
in a condensed form, for the sake of those who will not take the trouble to
go through a minute and extended demonstration.
The argument of Mr. Hume will be best exhibited in his own words. “A
miracle,” says he, “supported by any human testimony, is more properly a
subject of derision, than of argument. No testimony for any kind of miracle
can ever possibly amount to a probability.”—“We establish it as a maxim,
that no human testimony can have such force, as to prove a miracle, and make
a just foundation for any system of religion.”—“Our belief or assurance of
any fact from the report of eye witnesses, is derived from no other
principle, than experience; that is, our observation of the veracity of
human testimony, and of the usual conformity of facts to the reports of
witnesses. Now, if the fact attested partakes of the marvellous, if it is
such as has seldom fallen under our own observation; here is a contest of
two opposite experiences, of which the one destroys the other, as far as its
force goes. Further, if the fact affirmed by the witness, instead of being
only marvellous, is really miraculous; if, besides, the testimony considered
apart, and in itself, amounts to an entire proof; in that case there is
proof against proof; of which the strongest must prevail. A miracle is a
violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience
has established these laws, the proof against a miracle from the very nature
of the fact is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be
imagined. And if so, it is an undeniable consequence, that it cannot be
surmounted by any proof whatever from testimony. A miracle, therefore,
however attested, can never be rendered credible, even in the lowest
degree.”
Here we have the substance of Mr. Hume’s argument, on which I propose to
make some remarks, intended to show that its whole plausibility depends on
the assumption of false principles and the artful use of equivocal terms.
1. Some prejudice is created in the mind of the Unsuspecting reader, by the
definition of a miracle here given. It is called “a violation of the laws of
nature,” which carries with it an unfavorable idea, as though some
obligation was violated, and some injury was done. But the simple truth is,
that the laws of nature are nothing else than the common operations of
divine power, in the government of the world, which depend entirely, for
their existence and continuance, on the divine will; and a miracle is
nothing else, than the exertion of the same power in a way different from
that which is common; or, it may be a mere suspension of that power, which
is commonly observed to operate in the world.
2. Mr. Hume’s argument will apply to the evidence of the senses as well as
to that derived from testimony, and will prove (if it prove any thing) that
it would be impossible to believe in a miracle, if we should witness it ever
so often. “The very same principle of experience,” says he, “which gives us
a certain degree of assurance in the testimony of witnesses, gives us also,
in this case, another degree of assurance against the fact which they
endeavor to establish, from which contradiction there arises necessarily a
counterpoise, and mutual destruction of belief and authority.” The very same
counterpoise and mutual destruction of belief, must also occur between the
assurance derived from the senses, and that derived from experience. The
reason why testimony cannot be believed in favor of a miracle, is not,
according to Mr. Hume, because it has no force; for taken by itself, it may
be sufficient to produce assurance; but let this assurance be as strong as
it may, it cannot be stronger than that derived from universal experience.
“In that case,” says he—“there is proof against proof.” Now, it is evident,
that upon these principles, the same equilibrium from contradictory
evidence, must take place, between experience and the senses. If one
evidence be stronger than another, “the stronger must prevail, but with a
diminution of force in proportion to that of its antagonist.” But in the
case of the senses, and a firm and unalterable experience, the evidence is
perfect on both sides, so that the “counterpoise and mutual destruction of
belief,” must occur. According to this metaphysical balance of Mr. Hume, a
miracle could not be believed if we witnessed it ever so often; for although
there is a great weight of evidence on each side, yet as there is an
equilibrium, neither can have any influence on our assent. Whether Mr. Hume
would have objected to this conclusion, does not appear; but it is manifest,
that it logically follows from his argument, as much as in the case to.
which he has applied it. And here we see to what a pitch of skepticism his
reasoning leads.
3. Mr. Hume makes an unnecessary distinction between that which is
marvellous, and that which is miraculous; for although there is a real
difference, yet as to his argument, there is none. The force of his
reasoning does not relate to events as being miraculous, but as being
opposite to universal experience. If the conclusion, therefore, be correct,
it will equally prove, that no testimony is sufficient to establish a
natural event, which has not before been experienced. If ever so many
witnesses should aver, that they had seen meteoric stones fall from the
clouds, or the galvanic fluid melt metals, yet if we have never experienced
these things ourselves, we must not believe them.
4. The opposite or contrary experience of Mr. Hume, in regard to miracles,
can mean nothing more, than that such things have not been experienced.
There is no other opposite experience conceivable, in this case, unless a
number of persons present, at the same time, should experience opposite
impressions. The distinction which he artfully makes, in relation to “the
king of Siam, who refused to believe the first reports concerning the
effects of frost,” between that which is contrary to experience, and not
conformable to experience, is without foundation. For a fact cannot be
contrary to experience in any other way, than by being not conformable to
it. There neither is, nor can be, any experience against miracles, except
this, that they have not occurred in our own experience or that of others.
When the proposition of our author is expressed in language free from
ambiguity, it will amount to this, that what has never been experienced, can
never be believed on any testimony; than which nothing can easily be
conceived more false. In what a situation must man have been, at the
beginning of the world, if he had adopted the principles of this skeptic.
5. Mr. Hume uses the word experience in a twofold sense, changing from one
to the other, as best suits his purpose. Sometimes it means, personal
experience, and at other times, and more commonly, the experience of the
whole world. Now, if it be taken to mean our own individual experience, the
argument will be, that no fact which we ourselves have not witnessed, can be
established by testimony; which, if correct, would cut off, at a stroke, the
greater part of human knowledge. Much the most numerous class of facts are
those which we receive upon the testimony of others, and many of these are
entirely different from any thing that we have personally experienced. Many
learned men never take the trouble to witness the most curious experiments
in philosophy, and chemistry; yet they are as well satisfied of their truth,
as if they had personal experience of it.
But although an argument founded on an opposition between testimony and
experience, in order to be of any validity, must relate to personal
experience; yet, Mr. Hume commonly uses the term to signify the experience
of all men in all ages. This extensive meaning of the term must be the one
which be affixes to it in most places of his essay; because, it is an
experience by which we know that the laws of nature are uniform and
unalterable; and he has given an example which clearly determines the sense
of the word,. “That a dead man should come to life,” says he, “has never
been witnessed in any age or country.” Now, according to this use of the
word, what he calls an argument, is a mere assumption of the point in
dispute; what logicians call, a petitio principii;—a begging of the
question. For, what is the question in. debate? is it not whether miracles
have ever been experienced? And how does Mr. Hume undertake to prove that
they never did exist? By an argument intended to demonstrate that no
testimony can establish them; the main principle of which argument is, that
all experience is against them. if miracles have ever occurred, they are not
contrary to universal experience; for whatever has been witnessed at any
time, by any person, makes part of universal experience. What sort of
reasoning is it, then, to form an argument against the truth of miracles,
founded on the assumption, that they never existed? if it be true, as he
says, “That it has never been witnessed, in any age or country, that a dead
man should come to life,” then, indeed, it is useless to adduce testimony to
prove, that the dead have, on some occasions, been brought to life. If he
had a right to take this for granted, where was the use of such a parade of
reasoning on the subject of testimony? The very conclusion to which he
wished to come, is here assumed, as the main principle in the argument. It
is, however, as easy to deny as to affirm; and we do utterly deny the truth
of this position; so, that after all, we are at issue, precisely on the
point, where we commenced. Nothing is proved by the argument which promised
so much, except the skill of the writer in sophistical reasoning.
6. Our author falls into another mistake in his reasoning. The object is to
prove, that testimony in favor of miracles, can never produce conviction,
because it is opposed by uniform and unalterable experience. But how do we
know what this universal experience is? Is it not by testimony, except
within the narrow circle of our own personal experience? Then it turns out,
that the testimony in favor of miracles is neutralized or overbalanced, by
other testimony. That is, to destroy the force of testimony, he assumes a
principle founded on testimony. It is admitted, that when testimony is
adduced to establish any facts, if other and stronger testimony can be
brought against them, their credibility is destroyed. But. if I bring
testimony for a fact, and some One alleges that he can show that this
testimony is unworthy of credit, because he can bring witnesses to prove
that many persons in different countries and ages never saw any such thing;
to such a person I would reply, that even if these witnesses declared the
truth, it could not overthrow the positive testimony which I had adduced, as
they did not contradict the facts asserted; and, besides, it must be
determined, which witnesses are the most credible, yours or mine. Just so it
is in the case of Mr. Hume’s argument. He sets up uniform experience against
testimony, and gives a preponderance to the former, on the ground, that
witnesses are known sometimes to lie; but all that he knows of what has
happened in other ages-and countries, is by testimony; and they who give
this testimony are as fallible as others; therefore, there existed no ground
for prefering the evidence of experience, to testimony. Besides, he is not
in possession of testimony to establish a thousandth part of what has been
experienced; and as far as it goes, it amounts to no more than
non-experience; a mere negative thing, which can never have any weight to
overthrow the testimony of positive witnesses. In a court of justice, such a
method of rebutting testimony, would be rejected as totally inadmissible. If
we had sufficient evidence of a fact of any kind, that testimony would not
be invalidated, if it could be proved, that no person in ,the world had ever
witnessed the like before. This want of previous experience naturally
creates a presumption against the fact, which requires some force of
evidence to overcome: but in all cases, a sufficient number of witnesses, of
undoubted intelligence and veracity, will be able to remove the presumption,
and produce conviction.
7. Mr. Hume lays it down as a principle, that our belief in testimony arises
from “experience; that is, observation of the veracity of human
testimony.” But this is not correct. Our belief in testimony is as natural
and constitutional, as our belief in our senses. Children, at first, believe
implicitly all that is told them: and it is from experience that they learn
to distrust testimony. If our faith in testimony arose from experience, it
would be impossible to acquire any knowledge from instruction. If children
were to believe nothing that was told them, until they had made observations
on the veracity of human testimony, nothing would ever be believed; for they
would never arrive at the maturity and judgment necessary to make
observations on a subject so complicated.
But although, I perceive, Mr. Hume’s object in wishing to establish this
false principle, was, to exalt the evidence of what he calls experience,
above testimony; yet, I think, if we should concede it to him, it could
answer him no purpose, since we have shown, that this experience itself,
depends on testimony. Whatever use he can make, of this principle,
therefore, against testimony, can be turned against himself, since his
knowledge of what the experience of the world is, can only be obtained by
the report of witnesses, who, in different ages, have observed the course of
nature.
8. Mr. Hume, on reflection, seems to have been convinced, that his argument
was unsound; for in a note, appended to his Essay on Miracles, he makes a
concession, which entirely overthrows the whole. But mark the disingenuity,
or shall I not rather call it, the malignity of the man, against religion,
which is manifested in this only evidence of his candor. He concedes that
there may be miracles of such a kind, as to admit of proof from human
testimony, in direct contradiction to his reiterated maxim, and in complete
repugnance to all his reasoning; but. he makes the concession with the
express reservation, that it shall not be applied to the support of
religion. He, however, not only makes this concession, but gives an example
of such miracles, and of the testimony which he admits to be sufficient to
establish it. “Suppose,” says he, “all authors in all languages agree, that
from the first of January, 1600, there was a total darkness all over the
earth for eight days; suppose that the tradition of this event is still
strong and lively among the people; that all travellers bring us accounts of
the same tradition, &c.—IT IS EVIDENT THAT OUR PHILOSOPHERS OUGHT TO RECEIVE
IT FOR CERTAIN.” And this is a part of the same Essay, in which it is said,
“That a miracle, supported by any human testimony, is more properly a
subject of derision than argument.” “No kind of testimony for any kind of
miracle can possibly amount to a probability, much less to a proof.”
It might appear, that after so complete a renunciation of the principle
which at first he so strenuously asserted, we might have spared ourselves
the pains of a formal refutation. But not so. The author is resolved, that
his concession shall be of no service, whatever, to religion. Hear his own
words: “But should this miracle be ascribed to any new system of religion;
men in all ages have been so imposed upon by ridiculous stories of that
kind, that this very circumstance would be full proof of a cheat, and
sufficient with all men of sense, not only to make them reject the fact, but
even reject it, without further examination.” I have heard of a maxim,
which, I believe, the Jesuits introduced, that, that might be true in
philosophy, which was false in theology; but I never could have expected
that a philosopher, a logician, and a metaphysician too, would utter any
thing so unreasonable, and so marked with prejudice, as the declaration just
quoted. The fact was admitted to have such evidence, that. even philosophers
ought to receive it as certain. But not if it is ascribed to a new religion.
On this subject no evidence is sufficient. It is perfectly unexceptionable
in philosophy; but in religion a sensible man will reject it, whatever it
may be; even without further examination. The. circumstance of its being a
miracle connected with religion, is sufficient, in his opinion, to prove it
a cheat, however complete the testimony. The world, it seems, has been so
imposed on by ridiculous stories of this kind, that we must not even listen
to any testimony in favor of religious miracles. This author would, indeed,
reduce the advocates of religion to an awkward dilemma. They are called upon
to produce evidence for their religion, but if they adduce it, sensible men
will not notice it; even if it is good every where else, it must go for
nothing in religion. Upon these principles, we might indeed give up the
contest; but we are not willing to admit that this is sound logic, or good
sense. The reason assigned for proscribing, in this summary way, all the
testimony in favor of religion, will apply to other subjects. Men have been
imposed on by ridiculous stories in philosophy, as well as in religion; but
when evidence is proposed, shall we not even examine it, because there have
been impositions? This is the very reason why we should examine with care,
that we may distinguish between the true and the false.
If it were true, that miracles had often been ascribed to new religions, it
would not prove that there never were any true miracles, but rather the
contrary; just as the abounding of counterfeit money is evidence that there
is some genuine; for that which has no existence is not counterfeited. But
the clamor that has been raised by infidels about new religions being
commonly founded on miracles, or the pretence of miracles, has very little
foundation in fact. Besides the Jewish and Christian religions, (which are
indeed parts of the same,) it would, I believe, be difficult to designate
any other, which claims such an origin.
After all that has been said of the false maxims of the Jesuits, I doubt
whether any one could be selected so perfectly at war with reason, as this
of the Scotch philosopher: nay, I think, I may challenge all the enemies of
revelation, to cull from any Christian writer, a sentence, so surcharged
with prejudice.
But, to do justice to Mr. Hume—although he seems to have closed the door
against all discussion, on our part—yet, in one of his general maxims, he
leaves us one alternative. The maxim is this, “That no testimony is
sufficient to establish a miracle, unless it be of such a kind, that its
falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact.” An ingenious writer [6]
has undertaken to meet Mr. Hume on his own ground; and has endeavored to
prove, that the testimony of the apostles and early Christians, if the facts
reported by them were true, is a greater miracle than any which they have
recorded. But the maxim, as stated by Mr. Hume, is not correct. With the
change of a single word, perhaps, it may be adopted, and will place the
question on its proper ground. The change which I propose, is to substitute
the word improbable, for miraculous. And it will then read, No testimony is
sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind,
that its falsehood would be. more improbable, than the fact which it
endeavors to establish. The ground of objection to the word miraculous, is,
that it involves a false principle, which is, that facts are incredible in
proportion as they are miraculous; which principle, he, in several places
avows, and which is, indeed, a cardinal point in his system of evidence. But
it is not true. There are many cases which might be proposed, in which, of
two events, one of which must be true, that which is miraculous is more
probable than the one which is merely natural. I will mention only one at
present. Man was either immediately created by God, or he proceeded from
some natural cause. Need I ask, which of these is most probable? and yet the
first is miraculous; the second not. The plain truth is, that in all cases,
the fact which has most evidence is most probable, whether it be miraculous
or natural. And when all evidence, relating to a proposition, is before the
mind, THAT IS TRUE, WHICH IS EASIEST TO BE BELIEVED; because it is easier to
believe with evidence, than against it.
We are willing, therefore, that this maxim, as now stated, should be the
ground of our decision, and we pledge ourselves to prove, that, the
falsehood of the miracles of the Gospel, would be more improbable, and
consequently more incredible, than the truth of the facts recorded in them.
But this discussion will be reserved for another place. To conclude; since,
it has been shown, that there is no antecedent presumption against miracles
from the nature of God, or from the laws by which he governs the
universe;—since, a miraculous fact is not more difficult to be accomplished
by omnipotence, than any other;—since, miracles are no further improbable,
than as they are unusual;—since, they are the most suitable and decisive
evidences which can be given of a revelation;—since, even by the concession
of Mr. Hume himself, there may be sufficient testimony fully to establish
them:—and, since, the many false pretences to miracles, and the general
disposition to credit them, are rather proofs that they have existed, than
the contrary; we may safely conclude, that Mr. Hume’s argument, on this
subject, is sophistical and delusive; and that it is so far from being true,
as he alleges, that they are incredible, whatever may be their evidence,
when brought to support religion, that this is, of all others, that
department, in which they are most reasonable and credible.
_________________________________________________________________
[5] Dr. Campbell, Prof. Vince, Mr. Adam, Dr. Douglas.
[6] Dr. Gleig.
_________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER VII.
`THE MIRACLES OF THE GOSPEL ARE CREDIBLE.
HAVING shown, in the preceding chapter, that miracles may be so attested as
to be credible, I come now to examine the evidence by which the miraculous
facts recorded in the New Testament, may be established.
This is the main point in our inquiry; for, after all that has been said, it
must be admitted, that unless the Christian religion is attended with
sufficient evidence, we cannot believe in it, even if we would.
Before entering directly on this discussion, it may be useful to premise a
few things respecting the nature and force of testimony, which, it is
presumed, will be admitted by all who have attended to the subject.
This species of evidence admits of all conceivable degrees, from the weakest
probability to the fullest assurance; for while, on this ground, we yield to
some reports, the most hesitating assent, we are as certainly persuaded of
others, as of those things which we perceive by our senses, or have
demonstrated by mathematical reasoning.
The exact force of testimony cannot be calculated by rule, nor estimated by
reason; but is known, only from experience. Many things are believed on
testimony, with the most unwavering confidence, when we are utterly unable
to explain the precise ground on which our conviction rests. The sources of
our information have been so numerous, and the same facts presented to us in
so many forms, that it is impossible to attribute to each its influence in
gaining our assent. If we were asked, on what particular testimony we
believe there is such a place as Rome, or why we believe that such a person
as Buonaparte lately figured in Europe, we could only answer, in the
general, that multiplied testimonies of these facts, had reached us, so that
all possibility of doubting was excluded. The same assurance, and resting on
the same grounds, is experienced in relation to facts, which occurred in
ages (; long past. Who can bring himself to doubt, whether such persons as
Julius Cæsar, Paul, Mohammed, Columbus, or Luther, ever existed?
When we have obtained evidence to a certain amount, nothing is gained by the
admission of more. The mind becomes, as it were, saturated, and no increase
of conviction is produced, by multiplying witnesses. One sound demonstration
of a theorem in mathematics, is as good as a hundred. A few upright
witnesses who agree, and are uncontradicted by other evidence, are as
satisfactory as any conceivable number. On a trial for murder, if there were
a thousand witnesses who could attest the fact, a judicious court would not
deem it necessary to examine more than half a dozen, or at most, a dozen, if
there were a perfect agreement in their testimony. Experience only can
inform us, what degree of evidence will produce complete conviction; but we
may judge from former experience, what will be the effect of the same
evidence, in future: and from the effect on our own minds, what it will be
on the minds of others.
Testimony, not of the strongest kind, may be so corroborated by
circumstances, and especially by the existing consequences of the facts
reported, that it may be rendered credible, and even irresistible. Should a
historian of doubtful credit attest, that an eclipse of the sun occured, on
a certain day, and was visible in a certain place; if we possessed no other
evidence of the fact, it might be considered doubtful, whether the testimony
was true or false; but if by astronomical calculation, it should be found,
that there must have been an eclipse of the sun at the time, and visible at
that, place, the veracity of the witness, in this case, would be confirmed,
beyond all possibility of doubt. Or, should we find it recorded by an
anonymous author, that an earthquake, at a certain time, had overthrown a
certain city; without further evidence, we should yield but a feeble assent
to the statement; but if, on personal observation, or by the report of
respectable travellers, it was ascertained, that the ruins of an ancient
city existed in that place, we should consider the truth of the history as
sufficiently established.
The evidences of the Christian religion may be sufficient, and yet not so
strong as inevitably to produce conviction. Our conduct in the pursuit and
reception of truth, may be intended by our Creator, to be an important part
of the probation to which we are subjected; and, therefore, the evidence of
revelation is not so great as to be irresistible; but is of such a kind,
that the sincere and diligent inquirer will be in no danger of fatal
mistake; while men of pride and prejudice, who prefer darkness to light,
will be almost sure to err. [7]
It is natural for all men to speak the truth; falsehood requires an effort.
Wicked men lie, only when they have some sinister end in view. Combinations
to deceive, are never formed, but with a view to accomplish some object
desirable to those concerned. No set of men will be at the trouble of
forging and propagating a falsehood, which promises them no profit or
gratification. Much less will they engage in such an enterpriser with the
view of bringing evil on themselves; or, when they foresee, that it can be
productive of nothing,. but pain and reproach.
Between truth and falsehood there is so great a difference, that it is
extremely difficult for the latter, so. effectually to assume the garb, and
exhibit the aspect of the former, as, upon a strict scrutiny, not to be
detected. No imposture can stand the test of rigid inquiry; and when the
inquisition is made, the truth seldom, remains doubtful: the fraud is pretty
sure to become manifest. The style and manner of truth are entirely
different from those of falsehood. The one pursues a direct course, is
candid, unaffected, and honest; the other, evasive, cunning, tortuous, and
inconsistent; and is often betrayed, by the efforts made to avoid detection.
When both sides of a question are pressed with difficulties, reason teaches
us to choose that which is attended with the fewest. Objectors to
Christianity often forget to notice the difficulties of their own
hypothesis. Every question has two sides—if we, reject the affirmative, we,
of necessity, receive the negative with the consequences with which it may
be burdened. If we reject the evidence of Christianity, and deny that
miracles ever existed, we are bound to account for the existence of the
Christian church, and for the conduct of the first preachers and primitive
believers, on other principles. And whoever seriously undertakes this, will
impose on himself a difficult task. Gibbon, has put forth his strength, on
this subject, with very small success. His account of the origin of
Christianity is very unsatisfactory, and is totally defective in historical
evidence. [8]
If the evidences, on both sides of an important question, appear to be
pretty equally balanced, it is the dictate of wisdom to lean to the safe
side. In this question, undoubtedly, the safe side is that of religion; fir,
if we should be mistaken here, we shall suffer no loss, and obtain sonic
good by our error; but a mistake on the other side, must prove fatal.
When a proposition has been established by proper and sufficient evidence,
our faith ought not to be shaken by every objection, which we may not be
able to solve. To admit this, would be to plunge into skepticism, on all
subjects; for, what truth is there to which some objection may not be raised
that no man can fully answer? Even the clearest truths in science are not
exempt from objections of this sort. It must be so, as long as our minds are
so limited, and the extent of human knowledge so narrow. That man judges
incorrectly, who supposes, that when he has found out some objection to
Christianity which cannot be satisfactorily answered, he has gained a
victory. There are, indeed, objections, which relate to the essence of a
proposition, which, if sustained, do overthrow the evidence; but there are
other numerous objections which leave the substantial evidence undisturbed.
Concerning them, I speak, when I say, that objections, though not capable of
an answer, should not be permitted to unsettle our faith.
Let us now proceed to the examination of the testimony for the miracles
recorded in the Gospel. In this. discussion we shall take. it for granted,
that such a person as Jesus Christ lived in. Judea, about the time mentioned
by the evangelists;—that he inculcated a pure and sublime morality; lived a
virtuous and unblamable life; and was put to death by Pontius Pilate, at
the, instigation of the Jewish rulers. Also,. that his, apostles went forth
into various countries preaching to the people, and declaring that this
crucified Jesus was, a person sent from God,. for the salvation of the
world; and that many were induced to connect themselves with the Christian
church. These facts not being of a miraculous nature, and it being necessary
to suppose-some such events, deists have commonly been disposed, to admit
them. But Volney, in his Ruins, and some others, have imagined, that such a
person as Jesus Christ never existed;—that this is the name of one of the
celestial luminaries;—and that the Gospel history is an allegory. Such
visionary theories do not deserve a serious answer; they are subversive of
all historical truth, and have not a shadow of evidence. They may be well
left to sink by the weight of their own, extravagance. Mons. Volney,
however, has received a learned answer from a gentleman, [9] who has met
him, on his own, ground; and being as much attached to astronomical
allegories as the Frenchman, has vanquished him with his own weapons.
In the examination of written testimony, the first thing requisite, is to
prove the authenticity of the documents, in which it is recorded. The
evidence, on which we depend, for the truth of the miracles performed by
Jesus Christ, and by his apostles, is contained in the New Testament. Here
we have four distinct narratives of the life, miracles, death, resurrection,
and ascension of Jesus of Nazareth; and also a history of the acts and
sufferings of the apostles in preaching the Gospel, and laying the
foundation of the first Christian churches, after the resurrection and
ascension of their Master. We have, also, in this collection of writings, a
number of epistles, addressed to. the church in general, to particular
churches, and to individuals. These, with a book of prophecy, corn-. pose
the volume, called the New Testament.
These books are certainly not of recent origin; for there are extant, copies
of the New Testament, in the. original Greek, which are, at the least,
twelve hundred, years old. And before the time when these manuscripts were
penned, we have, in other books, numerous testimonies to the existence of
die Christian. Scriptures. They are not only mentioned, but quoted,
expounded, and harmonized so that if every copy of. the New Testament had
been lost, a large portion of it might be recovered, by means of the
numerous quotations in the early Christian writers. Besides, there, are
extant, versions of the New Testament, into several languages, made at a
very early period. By these means, we are able to trace these writings up to
the time, in which the apostles lived.
There is also ample proof, not only from Christian, but heathen authors,
that a society, calling themselves Christians, existed as early as the
reign. of Nero, who was contemporary with the apostles. It is evident, from
the necessity of the case, that some such accounts as those contained in the
Gospels, must have been received as true, from the first existence of the
Christian church. Unless it had been preached and believed that Christ was a
divine Teacher, and performed extraordinary works in attestation of his
mission, how is it possible that such a society could have been formed? To
suppose such a thing, would be to conceive of a, superstructure, without a
foundation. The resurrection of Christ from the dead, must have been an
article of the faith of Christians, from their very origin; for it is the
corner stone of the whole edifice. Take the belief of this away, and the
Christian system has no existence. There are also some external institutions
peculiar to Christianity, which we must suppose to be coeval with the
formation of the society, for they are the badges of the Christian
profession, and constitute a part of their worship. I refer to baptism, and
the eucharist. To suppose, that, in some way, Christianity first existed,
and afterwards received these articles of faith, and these institutions of
worship, is too improbable to be admitted by any impartial man. It would be
to suppose that a religious society existed without any. principles; or that
they rejected their original principles, and adopted new ones; and that they
who imposed these upon them, had the address to persuade them, that they had
always belonged to their system;—than which is not easy to conceive any
thing more improbable. Let us, for a moment, attempt to imagine, that
previously to the publication of the Gospels, the Christian Church had among
them no report of the miracles, and no account of the institutions, recorded
in these books. When they opened them, they would read, that their society
was founded on the belief of the resurrection of Jesus; and that baptism and
the eucharist were instituted by him before he left the world, and had
existed among them ever since. Nothing can be more evident, therefore, than
that the substance of what is contained in the Gospels, was believed and
practised by Christians, from the commencement of the society.
As these books have come down to us under the names of certain apostles and
disciples of Jesus Christ, so they were ascribed to the same persons, from
the earliest mention of them. It is, by the ancient Fathers, spoken of as a
fact, universally believed among Christians, and contradicted by nobody. And
we must not suppose, that in the first ages of Christianity, there was
little care or discrimination exercised, in ascertaining the true authors
and genuine character of the books in circulation. The very reverse is the
fact, The most diligent inquiries were instituted into matters of this kind.
Other books were published in the name of the apostles, professing to give
an account of. Jesus Christ, which were not genuine. The distinction between
the books of the New Testament, and all others, of every class, was as
clearly marked, in the earliest ages, as it has ever been since. The
writings of the apostles were held in great veneration; were received by the
churches, all over the world, as the rule of their faith, and directory of
their lives; and publicly read at their meetings for the instruction of the
people., When any controversy arose, they were appealed to as an
authoritative standard. As soon as published, they were so widely scattered,
and so carefully guarded, that no persons had it in their power to make any
alteration in them.
The style, or dialect, in which these books are written, furnishes an
evidence of their authenticity, of peculiar kind. It does not, indeed,
ascertain the persons of the writers, but proves, that they must have been
exactly in the circumstances of those to whom these books have been
uniformly ascribed. The words are Greek but the idiom is Hebrew, or rather
Syro-Chaldaic, the vernacular tongue of Judea, in the time of Christ and his
apostles. This is a peculiarity which none could counterfeit, and which
demonstrates, that the New Testament was not composed by men of a different
country and age, from those in which the apostles lived.
In the New Testament, there are numerous references to rivers, mountains,
seas, cities, and countries, which none but a person well acquainted with
the geography of Judea and. the neighboring countries, could have made,
without falling into innumerable errors. There is, moreover, incidental
mention, of persons and facts, known from other authorities to have existed,
and frequent allusions to manners and customs, peculiar to the Jews.
From all these considerations, it ought to be admitted without dispute, that
these are indeed the writings of the apostles, and of those particular
persons to whom they are ascribed. It would not, however, destroy their
credibility, even if other persons had written them,. since they were
certainly composed iai that age, and were received by the whole body of
Christians. But what imaginable reason is there for doubting of the
genuineness of these books? What persons were so likely to write books to
guide the faith of the church, as the apostles? If they did not write them,
who would? And why would they give the credit of them to others? But their
universal reception, without opposition or contradiction, should silence
every cavil. The persons who lived at this time, knew the apostles, and were
deeply interested in the subject, and these are the proper judges of this
question. And they have decided it, unanimously, as it relates to the
historical books of the New Testament. From them the testimony has come
down, through all succeeding ages, without a chasm. Even heathen writers and
heretics are witnesses, that the Gospels were written by the persons whose
names they bear. [10]
In other cases, we usually possess no other evidence of the genuineness of
the most valued writings of antiquity, except the opinion of contemporaries,
handed down by uncontradicted tradition. How soon would Homer be deprived of
his glory, if such evidence was insisted on as is required for the
genuineness of the New Testament? Certainly, as it respects evidence of
genuineness, no books of antiquity stand upon a level with the books of the
New Testament. The works of the Greek and Latin historians and poets, have
no such evidence of being the writings of the persons whose names they bear,
as the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. For we have the testimony,
not merely of individuals, but of numerous societies, widely scattered over
the world. We have internal evidence, of a kind, which cannot be
counterfeited. We have, in short, every species of evidence, of which the
case admits. It may, therefore, be considered, as an established fact, that
the books of the New Testament are the genuine productions of the apostles;
and consequently, contain their testimony to the miracles of Jesus Christ,
and also to those miracles, which, in his name, they performed after his
ascension.
It is also certain, that the books of the New Testament have not undergone
any material change, since they were written; for there is a general
agreement in all the copies, in all the versions, and in all the quotations.
There are, it is true, small discrepancies, which have occurred, through the
ignorance or carelessness of transcribers; but, not more than might
naturally be expected. There is no ancient book which has come down to us so
entire as the Scriptures, and which is accompanied by so many means of
correcting an erroneous reading, where it has occurred. This representation
may appear surprising to those, who have heard of the vast multitude of
various readings, which learned critics have collected from a collation of
the manuscripts; but it ought to be understood by all who have ever heard of
these discrepancies, that not one in a thousand of them, is of the least
consequence;—that a great majority of them are merely differences in
orthography, in the collocation of words, or in the use of words perfectly
synonymous, by which the sense is not in the least affected. A cursory
reader would find as little difference in the various manuscripts of the New
Testament, as in the different printed editions of the English version.
Having established the authenticity of the record which contains the
testimony, we shall next proceed to consider its credibility.
The serious and candid attention of the reader, is requested to the
following remarks:
I. Many of the facts related in the Gospels, are undoubtedly of a miraculous
nature. It is declared that Jesus Christ, in several instances, raised the
dead;—in one of which, the person had been dead four days, so that the body
began to be offensive to the smell. In every case, this miracle was wrought
instantly, and without any other means, than speaking a word. It is
declared, that he healed multitudes of the most inveterate and incurable
diseases;—that he gave sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, speech to
the dumb, and active limbs to the withered and the maimed: that he delivered
those who were furious and unmanageable, by reason of the possession of
demons; that, on different occasions, he fed thousands of people with a few
loaves and fishes until they were satisfied; and that the fragments which
were gathered up, were much greater in quantity than the original materials;
that he walked upon the sea, and with a word allayed the raging storm, and
produced a great calm. And, finally, it is repeatedly and solemnly declared,
by all the witnesses, that Jesus Christ, after being crucified, and after
having continued in the sepulchre three days, rose from the dead, and after
showing himself, frequently, to his disciples, ascended to heaven, in their
presence.
That all these were real miracles, none can for a moment doubt. It is true,
we do not know all the powers of nature; but we do know, as certainly as we
know any thing, that such works as these could not be performed, but by the
immediate power of God. The same remark may be extended to the miracles
wrought by the apostles, in the name of the Lord Jesus; and especially, to
that stupendous miracle on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost
descended on the apostles, in visible form, and conferred on them the gift
of tongues, and other extraordinary endowments. All must admit, that if
these events ever occurred, then there have existed undoubted miracles.
II. The miracles of Jesus were performed, for the most part, in an open and
public manner, in the presence of multitudes of witnesses, under the
inspection of learned and malignant enemies; in a great variety of
circumstances, and for several years in succession. There was here no room
for trick, sleight of hand, illusion of the senses, or any thing else, which
could impose on the spectators. This circumstance is important, because it
proves to a certainty, that the apostles themselves could not be deluded and
deceived, in the testimony which they have given. To suppose that they could
think that they saw such miracles every day, for years, and yet be deceived,
would be nearly as extravagant a supposition, as that we were deceived in
all that we ever experienced.
III. The character of the miracles recorded in the Gospels, ought to be
carefully observed. They were all worthy of the majesty, justice, and
benevolence of the Son of God. They are characterized by dignity, propriety,
and kindness. Most of them, indeed, were acts of tender compassion to the
afflicted. Although so many miracles were performed, in so great a variety
of circumstances, yet there is nothing ludicrous, puerile, or vindictive, in
any of them. Christ never exerted his power to gratify the curiosity of any,
or to supply his own daily wants. Ile made no ostentatious display of his
wonderful power, and never used it to acquire wealth and influence. While he
fed hungry multitudes by a miracle, he submitted to hunger and want himself;
while he could command all nature, he remained in poverty;—not having so
much as a home of any kind, to which he could retire to find repose.
Although he was rejected and ill-treated by the Jews, yet he never refused
to relieve any who sincerely sought his aid. His life, in consequence of the
multitudes who flocked to him, was fatiguing, and on many accounts
unpleasant, but he never grew weary in doing good.
Let any man compare the narrative of the miracles of Christ, contained in
the genuine Gospels, with those fictitious accounts, which may be found in
the apochryphal and spurious Gospels, still extant, and he will be struck
with the remarkable contrast between them. The same result will be the
consequence of a comparison of the miracles of Christ, with those, ascribed
by the followers of Mohammed, to the impostor; or those contained in the
legends of the church of Rome. I know not how any impartial man can read
attentively the account of the miracles recorded in the Gospels, and not be
convinced, from the very nature and circumstances of the facts reported,
that they were real.
IV. There are no signs of fraud or imposture to be discovered in the record
itself. There is, on the contrary, every indication of truth, honesty, and
good intention, in the writers. Although they differ from each other in
style and manner, so much, that it is evident, that the same person did not
compose the four Gospels; yet there is a character of style which belongs to
the whole of them, and which is without a parallel among any writers but the
penmen of the Sacred Scriptures. It is an apparent exemption from the
passions and frailties of human nature. The most stupendous miracles, are
related without one exclamation of wonder from the historian: and without
the least appearance of a desire to excite the wonder of the reader.
The character of Christ is drawn in no other way, than by simply telling
what he did and said. There is no portraying of character in the way of
general description, or by using strong epithets to set him forth. There is,
perhaps, no such thing, in the Gospels, as an expression of admiration of
any discourse or action, by the evangelists. If they relate such things,
they are the words of others, which they faithfully set down. When they
describe the sufferings of Christ, they never fall, as men usually do, into
pathetic declamation. They are never carried away from their simple course
by the power of sympathy. The facts are related, as though the writer felt
nothing, but the strong purpose of declaring the truth, without giving any
color whatever to the facts. Neither do they indulge themselves in those
vehement expressions of indignation against the enemies of Christ, which we
should naturally have expected. They never give utterance to a harsh
expression against any one. They relate the treachery of Judas with the same
unaffected simplicity, as if they had no feelings relative to his base
conduct.
But there is something which exhibits the true character of the writers, in
a light still stronger. It is the manner in which they speak of themselves.
Few men can write much concerning themselves, without betraying the strength
of self-love. Weak men, when they get on this topic, are commonly
disgusting: and even when persons seem willing to let the truth be known,
there is usually an effort discoverable, to seek compensation, in something,
for every sacrifice which they make of reputation. But we may challenge any
one to designate any instance, in which the least indication of this moral
weakness has been given by the evangelists? They speak of themselves, and
their companions, with the same candor, which characterizes their narrative
in regard to others. They describe, in the most artless manner, the lowness
of their origin, the meanness of their occupation, the grossness of their
ignorance, the inveteracy of their prejudices, their childish contentions
for superiority, their cowardice in the hour of danger, and the fatal
apostacy of one, and temporary delinquency of another of their number. If
any person supposes that it is an easy thing to write as the evangelists
have done, he must have attended very little to the subject. The fact is, it
cannot be imitated now, when the model is fully before us. That these
unlearned men should be able to write books at all, with propriety, is a
wonderful thing. Few fishermen, or mechanics, confined all their lives to
laborious occupations, and untutored in the art of composition, could
produce, without committing great faults, a narrative of their own lives.
But that men of such an education should possess such self-command and
self-denial, as is manifest in these compositions, cannot be easily
accounted for, on common principles.
That, however, which deserves our special attention, is the absence of all
appearance of ill design. I should like to ask a candid infidel, to point
out, in the Gospel, some fact, or speech, which in the remotest degree,
tends to prove, that the writers had a bad end in view. I need not say, that
he could find nothing of the kind. Then, upon his hypothesis, we have this
extraordinary fact; that four books, written by impostors, who have imposed
on the world a series of falsehoods, do, in no part of them, betray the
least appearance of ill design, or sinister purpose. Certainly, no other
books, written by deceivers, possess the same characteristics.
We have some instances of men of learning and piety, manifesting uncommon
candor, in the accounts which they have left of their own errors,
prejudices, and faults; but in all of them you perceive the semblance, if
not the reality of human frailty. These works, however, are very valuable.
Some eminent infidels, also, have come forward before the world, with
CONFESSIONS, and narratives of their lives, and even of their secret crimes.
None has made himself more conspicuous in this way, than J. J. Rosseau, who
professes to exhibit to the world, a full confession of his faults, during a
period of many years. And to do him justice, he has exposed to view moral
turpitude enough, to make, if it were possible, a demon blush. But this
infatuated man gloried in his shame: and declared it to be his purpose, when
called before the tribunal of Heaven, to appear with his book in his hand,
and present it to his Judge, as his confession and apology. Through the
transparent covering of affectation, we may observe the most disgusting
pride and arrogance. While common sense and decency are outraged, by a
needless confession of deeds which ought not to be once named, he is so far
from exhibiting any thing of the character of a true penitent, that he
rather appears as the shameless apologist of vice. By his unreserved
disclosures, he aspired to a new sort of reputation and glory. Perhaps,
there is not, in any language, a composition mom strongly marked with pride
and presumption. His confessions were manifestly made, in a confidence of
the corruption of mankind, from whom he expected much applause for his
candor, and small censure for his vices; but as he has appealed, also, to
another tribunal, we may be permitted to doubt, whether he will there find
as much applause, and as slight condemnation, as he affected to expect.
Between such impious confessions as these, and the simple, humble, and sober
statements of the evangelists, there can be no comparison.
There is only, one other thing, in the style of the apostles, which I wish
to bring into view. In all the detailed narratives which they have given of
Jesus Christ, no allusion is ever made to his personal appearance. We are as
much unacquainted with his stature, his aspect, his complexion, and his gait
and manner, as if the Gospels had never been written. There is profound
wisdom in this silence: yet I doubt whether any writers, following merely
the impulse of their own feelings, would have avoided every allusion to
tilts subject.
V. There is no just ground of objection to the testimony, on account of the
paucity of the witnesses. In regard to most facts handed down to us by
authentic history, it is seldom, that we have more than two or three
historians, testifying the same things; and in many cases, we receive the
testimony of one as sufficient, if all the circumstances of the fact
corroborate his narrative. But here, we have four distinct and independent
witnesses, who were perfectly acquainted with the facts which they relate.
Two of these, Matthew and John, were of the number of the twelve, who
accompanied Jesus, wherever he went, and saw, from day to day, the works
which he performed. Mark and Luke might also have been eye-witnesses. Many
think that they were of the number of the seventy disciples, sent out by
Christ to preach; but if they were not, they might have been his followers,
and have been often present, in Jerusalem and other places, where he
exhibited his miracles. It is not necessary, however, to resort to either of
these suppositions. They were contemporaries, early disciples, constant
companions of the apostles, and travelled much among the churches. Mark was,
at first, the companion of Paul and Barnabas, and afterwards, attached
himself to Peter, from whose preaching, according to the universal tradition
of the early Fathers, he composed his Gospel. Luke was chosen by the
churches in Asia to accompany Paul in his labors, and was almost constantly
with him, until his first imprisonment at Rome; at which time, his history
of the life and labors of that apostle terminates
Besides these four evangelists, who have professedly written an account of
the miracles of Jesus Christ, we have the incidental testimony of those
apostles, who wrote the epistles, especially of Paul. It is true, Paul was
not one of the twelve apostles who accompanied Christ on earth; but lie
became an apostle, under such circumstances, as rendered his testimony as
strong, as that of any other witness. He informs us, that he was met by
Jesus near to Damascus, when he was “breathing out threatning and
slaughter” against the disciples of Christ: who appeared to him in the midst
of a resplendent light, and spoke to him. From that moment he became his
devoted follower, and the most laborious and successful preacher of the
Gospel. He abandoned the most flattering worldly prospects, which any young
man in the Jewish nation could have. He possessed genius, learning, an
unblemished character for religion and morality; was in high favor with the
chief men of his nation, and seems to have been more zealous than any other
individual, to extirpate Christianity. How can it be accounted for, that he
should suddenly become a Christian, unless he did indeed see the risen
Jesus? Instead of bright worldly prospects, which he had before, he was now
subjected to persecution and contempt, wherever he went. The catalogue of
only a part of his sufferings, which he gives in one of his epistles, is
enough to appal the stoutest heart; yet, he never repented of his becoming a
Christian, but continued to devote all his energies to the promotion of the
Gospel, as long as he lived. This change, in a person of Paul’s character
and prospects, will never be accounted for upon principles of imposture, or
enthusiasm. [11] Here, then, we can produce what. deists often demand, the
testimony of an enemy. Not of one who was unconvinced by the evidence of
Christianity, which would be an inconsistent testimony, and liable to great
objections; but of one whose mind had been long inflamed with zeal against
Christianity; and yet, by the force of evidence, was converted to be a
zealous disciple, and retained, all his life, a deep and unwavering
conviction of the truth of the Gospel. [12] This man, although he has not
written a Gospel, has given repeated testimonies to the truth of the leading
facts, which are now in question. Especially, he is one of the best
witnesses on the subject of the resurrection of Christ; for he not only saw
and conversed with Jesus after his ascension, but has informed us of some
circumstances, of great importance, not mentioned by any of the evangelists.
He asserts that Christ was seen by five hundred persons at one time, most of
whom were still living when he wrote. If there had been any falsehood in
this declaration, how soon must it have been detected? His letters, no
doubt, were immediately transcribed, and conveyed to every part of the
church; and how easy would it have been to prove the falsehood of such a
declaration, if it had not been a fact? But almost every page of Paul’s
writings recognises as true, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. his
constantly assumed as a truth most assuredly believed by all Christians. It
is the great motive of exertion and source of consolation, in all his
epistles. And when he would convince certain heretics of the absurdity of
denying the resurrection of the body, he reduces them to this conclusion,
that “if the dead rise not, then is Christ not risen,” which would be, at
once, to subvert the Christian religion. His appeal to the common assured
belief of Christians, is remarkably strong, and pertinent to our purpose;
“If,” says he, “Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your
faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we
have testified of God that he raised up Christ, whom he raised not up, if so
be that the dead rise not.” Would any man in his senses, have written thus,
if the resurrection of Christ had not been a fundamental article of faith
among Christians; or if he had not been fully persuaded of its truth? Had
Paul been an impostor, would he have dared to appeal to five hundred
persons, most of whom were living, for the truth of what he knew to be
false? How easy, and how certain, must have been the detection of an
imposture thus conducted?
The same is evident from the epistles of the other apostles, and from the
Apocalypse.
Now, when we can clearly ascertain what any persons believed in relation to
a we have, virtually their testimony to that fact; because, when they come
forward and give testimony, explicitly, they do no more than express the
conviction of their own minds. Certainly, then, if we can by any means,
ascertain what the primitive Christians believed in regard to the
resurrection of Christ, and other miraculous facts, we are in possession of
all the testimony which they could give. [13] This is an important point as
it relates to the number of witnesses. Now, that all Christians, from the
beginning, did believe in the facts recorded in the Gospels and Epistles of
the apostles, we have the strongest possible evidence. It is proved
incontestably, from the fact of their becoming Christians; for how could
they be Christians without faith in Christianity? unless any one will be so
extravagant as to believe, that not only the apostles, but all their
converts, were wilful deceivers. It is proved also from the manner in which
Christians are addressed by the apostles, in all the epistle. Suppose, for a
moment, that the Corinthian church had no belief in the resurrection of
Christ, when they received the above-mentioned epistle from Paul; would they
not have considered him perfectly insane? But the universal reception of the
Gospels and Epistles, by all Christian churches, throughout the world, is
the best possible evidence that they believed what they contained. These
books were adopted as the creed and guide of all Christians. It is manifest,
therefore, that we are in possession of the testimony of the whole primitive
church, to the truth of the miracles recorded in the Gospels. Suppose a
document had come down to us, containing a profession of the belief of every
person who embraced the Christian religion, and a solemn attestation to the
facts on which Christianity is founded, would any man object, that the
witnesses were too few? The fact is, that we have substantially, this whole
body of testimony. I do not perceive, that its force would have been
sensibly greater had it been transmitted to us with all the formalities just
mentioned. There is, therefore, no defect in the number of witnesses. If
every one of the twelve apostles had written a Gospel, and a hundred other
persons had done the same, the evidence would not be essentially improved.
We should have no more, after all, than the testimony of the whole primitive
church, which, as has been proved, we possess already.
VI. The credibility of the testimony is not impaired by any want of
agreement among the witnesses. In their attestation to the leading facts,
and to the doctrines and character of Christ, they are perfectly harmonious.
The selection of facts by the several evangelists is different, and the same
fact is sometimes related more circumstantially by one, than another; yet
there is no inconsistency between them. In their general character, and
prominent features, there is a beautiful harmony in the Gospels. There is no
difference which can affect, in the judgment of the impartial, the
credibility of the testimony, which they contain. If all the evangelists had
recorded precisely the same facts, and all the circumstances, in the same
order, the Gospels would have the appearance of having been written in
concert, which would weaken their testimony. But it is almost demonstrable,
from internal evidence, that the evangelists, with the exception of John,
never had seen each other’s productions, before they wrote. Their agreement,
therefore, ought to have the effect of witnesses examined apart from each
other; and their discrepancies serve to prove, that there could be no
concerted scheme to deceive; for in that case every appearance of this kind
would have been carefully removed.
I am aware, however, that on the ground of supposed contradictions, or
irreconcilable discrepancies, the most formidable attacks have been made on
Christianity. It is entirely incompatible with the narrow limits of this
essay, to enter into a consideration of the various methods which have been
adapted for harmonizing the Gospels, and removing the difficulties which
arise from their variations. I can only make a few general observations,
with the view of leading the reader to the proper principles of solution.
It ought to be kept in mind, that the Gospels were written almost two
thousand years ago, in a language not now spoken; in a remote country, whose
manners and customs were very different from ours. In all such cases, there
will be obscurities and difficulties, arising entirely from the imperfection
of our knowledge.
The Gospels do not purport to be regular histories of events, arranged in
exact chronological order, but a selection of important facts, out of a much
greater number left unnoticed. The time when, or the place where, these
facts occurred, is of no consequence to the end contemplated by the
evangelists. In their narratives, therefore, they have sometimes pursued the
order of time; and in other cases, the arrangement has been suggested by the
subject previously treated, or by some other circumstance.
In recording a miracle, the number of persons benefitted, is not of much
consequence; the miracle is the same, whether sight be restored to one
person, or two; or whether demons be expelled from one, or many. If one
historian, intent on recording the extraordinary facts, selects the case of
one person, which might, in. some accounts, be more remarkable; and another
mentions two, there is no contradiction. If they had professed to give an
accurate account of the number healed, there would be ground for this
objection; but this was no part of the design of the evangelists.
If a writer, with a view of exhibiting the skill of an oculist, should
mention a remarkable instance of sight being restored to a person who bad
been long blind, it could not be fairly inferred from the narrative, that no
other person received the same benefit, at that time; and, if, another
person should give a distinct account of all the cases, there would be no
contradiction between these witnesses. All the difference is, that one
selects a prominent fact out of many; the other descends to all the
particular.
There is no source of difficulty more usual, than the confounding of things
which are distinct. The narratives of events truly distinct, may have so
striking a similarity, that the cursory reader will be apt to confound them.
It has been remarked by a learned man, [14] that if the two miracles of
feeding the multitude, bad been mentioned by two different evangelists, each
giving an account of one case, it would have been supposed by many that they
were accounts of the same occurrence, and that the evangelists did not agree
in their testimony: but in this case, both these miracles are distinctly
related by the same evangelist, and distinctly referred to by Christ, in his
conversation with his disciples. This confounding of distinct things is
never more commonly done, than when a fact was attended with a great number
of circumstances and occurrences, rapidly succeeding each other, and the
historian mentions only a few out of many. This remark is fully verified
with respect to Christ’s resurrection. The narrative of all the evangelists
is very concise. Few particulars are mentioned; and yet from the nature of
the case, there must have been an extraordinary degree of agitation among
the disciples; a great running from one part of Jerusalem to another, to
tell the news; and a frequent paging to and from the sepulchre. It is not
wonderful, therefore, that, as each evangelist mentions only a few of the
accompanying occurrences; there should seem, at first view, to be some
discrepancy in their accounts.
Companies of women are mentioned by each, and it is hastily taken for
granted, that they were all the same; and the objector proceeds on the
supposition, that these women all arrived at the sepulchre, at the same
time, and that they continued together. He forgets to take into view, that
the persons who might agree to meet at the sepulchre, probably lod,ed at
very different distances from the place, and allows nothing for the
agitation and distraction produced by the reports and visions of this
interesting morning. But on this, as on several other subjects, we are
indebted to the enemies of revelation for being the occasion of bringing
forward able men, who have shed so much light on this part of the Gospel
history, that even the appearance of discrepancy is entirely removed. [15]
The genealogy of Jesus Christ, as given by Matthew and Luke, has furnished
to modern infidels much occasion of cavil; but it ought to be sufficient to
silence these objectors, that the early enemies of Christianity made no
objections on this ground. If one of these is the genealogy of Joseph and
the other of Mary, there will be no discrepancy between them. Why it was
proper to give the descent of Joseph, the husband of Mary, it is not now
necessary to inquire. But on this whole subject, I would remark, that we are
very little acquainted with the plan on which genealogical tables were
constructed. It seems to have been a very intricate business, and it is not
surprising that we should be at a loss to elucidate every difficulty.
Again, it is highly probable, that these lists were. taken from some
genealogical tables of the tribe and family of the persons to whom they
refer. Every family must have had access to such tables; on account of their
inheritance. Public tables of acknowledged authority, would be far better
for the purpose which the evangelists had in view, than new ones, even
though these should have been more full and accurate. These genealogies had
no other object than to prove that Jesus of Nazareth was a lineal descendant
of David and Abraham; which purpose. is completely answered by them; and
there are no difficulties which may not be accounted for by our ignorance of
the subject.
Finally, it may be admitted, that some slight inaccuracies have crept into
the copies of the New Testament, through the carelessness of transcribers.
It is impossible for men to write the whole of a book, without making some
mistakes; and if there be some small discrepancies, in the Gospels, with
respect to names and numbers, they ought to be attributed to this cause.
VII. The witnesses of the miracles of Christ could have had no conceivable
motive for propagating an imposture. That they were not themselves deceived
is manifest from the nature of the facts, and from the full opportunity
which they had of examining them. It is evident, therefore, that if the
miracles recorded by them never existed, they were wilful impostors. They
must have wickedly combined, to impose upon the world. But what motives
could have influenced them to pursue such a course, we cannot imagine; or
how men of low condition and small education, should have ever conceived it
possible to deceive the world, in such a case, is equally inconceivable.
These men had worldly interests, which it was natural for them to regard;
but every thing of this kind, was fully relinquished. They engaged in an
enterprise not only dangerous, but attended with certain and immediate ruin
to all their worldly interests. They exposed themselves to the indignation
of all authority, and to the outrageous fury of the multitude. They must
have foreseen, that they would bring down upon themselves the vengeance of
the civil and ecclesiastical powers, and that every species of suffering
awaited them. Their leader was crucified, and what could they expect from
declaring that he was alive, and had performed wonderful miracles? If they
could have entertained any hopes of exemption from evils so apparent,
experience must soon have convinced them, that they had engaged not only in
a wicked, but most unprofitable undertaking. It was not long after they
began their testimony, before they were obliged to endure unrelenting
persecution from Jews and Gentiles. Could they have been influenced by a
regard to fame? What renown could they expect from proclaiming a crucified
man to be their master, and the object of all their hope and confidence? If
this was their object, why did they give. all the glory to another who was.
dead? But the fact is, that instead of fame, they met with infamy. No name
was ever more derided and hated than that of Christian. They were vilified
as the most contemptible miscreants that ever lived; as the refuse and
offscouring of all things; as the pests and disturbers of society, and the
enemies of the gods. They were pursued as outlaws, and punished for no other
reason, but because they acknowledged themselves to be Christians. Would men
persevere in propagating an imposture for such fame as this? It cannot be
supposed that they expected their compensation in another world; for, the
supposition is, that they were wilful impostors, who were, every day,
asserting, in the most solemn manner, that the murderer or highway robber is
influenced in the commission of his atrocious crimes, by the hope of a
future reward.
The only alternative is, to suppose, that they were fanatics; as it is
known, that men under the government of enthusiasm, contemn all the common
considerations, which usually influence human conduct; and often act in a
way totally unaccountable. This representation of enthusiasm is just, but it
will not answer the purpose for which it is adduced. Enthusiasts are always.
strongly persuaded of the truth of the religion which they wish to
propagate; but these men, upon the hypothesis under consideration, knew that
all which they said was false. Enthusiasm, and imposture are irreconcilable.
It is true, that, what begins in enthusiasm, may end in imposture; but in.
this case, the imposture must have been the beginning, as well as the end,
of the whole business. There was no room for enthusiasm; all was imposture,
if the facts reported, were not true. But the best evidence, that the
evangelists were not wild fanatics, is derived front their writings. These
are at the greatest remove from the ravings or reveries of enthusiasm. They
are the most simple, grave, and dispassionate narratives, that ever were
written. These books, certainly, were not the production of crazy fanatics.
The writers are actuated by no frenzy; they give no indication of a heated
imagination; they speak, uniformly, the language of “truth and soberness.”
VIII. But if we could persuade ourselves, that the apostles might have been
actuated by some unknown and inconceivable motive, to forge the- whole
account of Christ’s miracles; and were impelled by some unaccountable
phrensy, to persevere, through all difficulties and sufferings, to propagate
lies; yet, can we believe, that they could have found followers, in the very
country, and in the very city, where the miracles were stated to have been
performed?
When these accounts of stupendous and numerous miracles were published in
Jerusalem where the apostles began their testimony, what would the people
think? Would they not say, “These men bring strange things to our ears? They
tell us of wonders wrought among us, of which we have never before heard.
And they would not only have us to believe their incredible story, but
forsake all. that we have, abandon our friends, and relinquish the religion
of our fore-fathers, received from God: and not only so, but bring upon
ourselves and families, the vengeance of those that rule over us, and the
hatred and reproach of all men.” Is it possible to believe, that one sane
person, would have received their report?
Besides, the priests and rulers who had put Jesus to death, were deeply
interested to prevent the circulation of such a story. It implicated them in
a horrid crime. Would they not have exerted themselves to lay open the
forgery, and would there have been the least difficulty in accomplishing the
object, if the testimony of these witnesses had been false? The places of
many of the miracles are recorded, and the names of the persons healed, or
raised from the dead, mentioned. It was only one or two miles to the
dwelling of Lazarus; how easy would it have been to prove that the story of
his resurrection was a falsehood, had it not been a fact? Indeed, Jerusalem
itself, and the temple, were the scenes of many of the miracles ascribed to
Christ. As he spent much time in that city, it is presumable, that not a
person residing there, could have been totally ignorant of facts which must
have occupied the attention and excited the curiosity of every body. An
imposture like this could never be successful, in such circumstances. The
presence of an interested, inimical, and powerful body of men, would soon
have put down every attempt at an imposition so gross and groundless. If the
apostles had pretended, that at some remote period, or in some remote
country, a man had performed miracles, they might have persuaded some weak
and credulous persons; but they appealed to the people to whom they
preached, as the witnesses of what they related. No more than a few weeks
had elapsed after the death of Jesus, before this testimony was published in
Jerusalem: and, notwithstanding all the opposition of those in authority, it
was received, and multitudes willingly offered themselves as the disciples
of him, whom they had recently crucified.
The success of the Gospel, under the circumstances of its first publication,
is one of the most wonderful’ effects recorded in history; and it is a fact
beyond all dispute. In a little time, thousands of persons embraced the
Christian religion, in Jerusalem, and in other parts of Judea. In heathen
countries, its success was still more astonishing.
Churches were planted in all the principal cities of the Roman Empire,
before half a century had elapsed from the resurrection of Christ. The fires
of persecution raged; thousands and tens of thousands of unoffending
Christians were put to death, in a cruel manner; yet this cause’ seemed to
prosper the more, so that it became a proverb, that “the blood of the
martyrs was the seed of the Church.” And it went on increasing and
prevailing, until, in less than three centuries, it became the religion of
the empire.
Learned infidels have in vain attempted to assign an adequate cause for this
event, on natural principles. Gibbon, as has been before stated, exerted all
his ingenuity to account for the progress and establishment of Christianity;
but although he has freely indulged conjecture, and disregarded the
testimony of Christians, his efforts have been unavailing. The account which
he has given, is entirely unsatisfactory. Upon the deistical hypothesis, it
is a grand revolution, without any adequate cause. That a few unlearned and
simple men, mostly fishermen of Galilee, should have been successful in
changing the religion of the world, without power or patronage, and
employing no other weapons but persuasion, must, forever, remain an
unaccountable thing, unless we admit the reality of miracles, and
supernatural aid.
The argument from the rapid and extensive progress. of the Gospel may be
estimated, if we consider the following circumstances:
1. The insufficiency of the instruments to accomplish such a work, without
supernatural aid. They had neither the learning nor address to make such an
impression on the minds of men, as was requisite, to bring about such a
revolution.
2. The places in which the Gospel was first preached and had greatest
success, furnish proof, that it could not have been propagated merely by
human means. These were not obscure corners, remote from the lights of
science, but the most populous and polished cities, where every species of
the learning of the age was concentrated, and whither men of learning
resorted. Damascus, Antioch, Ephesus, Corinth, Phillippi, and Rome,
furnished the theatre for the first preachers of the Gospel. It is believed,
that there was no conspicuous city, in the central part of the Roman,
empire, in which a Christian church was not planted, before the death of the
apostles. And it ought to be remembered, that this did not occur in a dark
age, but in what is acknowledged by all, to be the most enlightened age of
antiquity: it was the period which immediately succeeded the Augustan Age,
so much, and so deservedly celebrated, for its classical authors. If the
Gospel had been an imposture, its propagators would never have gone to such
places, in the first instance; or if they had, they could not have escaped
detection.
3. The obstacles to be overcome were great, and insurmountable by human
effort. The people were all attached to the respective superstitions, in
which they had been educated, and which were all adapted to retain their
hold on corrupt minds. How difficult is it to obtain, even a hearing, from
people in such circumstances, is manifest from the experience of all
missionaries, in modern times. Philosophers, priests, and rulers, ‘were
combined against them. All that learning, eloquence, prejudice, interest,
and power, could oppose to them, stood in their way.
4. It would have been impracticable for a few unlettered Jews to acquire the
languages of all the nations, among whom the Gospel spread, in so short a
time. They must have had the gift of tongues; or this conquest could never
have been achieved. Besides, it ought to be remembered, that Jews were held
in great contempt, by all the surrounding nations. A few persons of this
nation, exhibiting a very mean appearance, as must have been the case, would
have called forth nothing but derision and contempt, in any of the large
cities of the Empire. It is more unlikely that they should have been able to
make many converts, than it would be now, for a few poor Jewish mechanics to
proselyte to Judaism, vast multitudes, in all the principal cities of Europe
and America. [16]
5. The terms of discipleship, which the apostles proposed, and the doctrines
which they preached, were not adapted to allure and flatter the people, but
must have been very repulsive to the minds of men.
6. Many Christians were cut off by persecution, but still Christianity made
progress, and was extended in all directions. Because Christianity increased
and flourished under bloody persecutions, many persons have adopted it as a
maxim, that persecution has a tendency to promote any cause; than which it
is difficult to conceive of any thing more contrary to common sense and
experience. In most cases, by cutting off the leaders of a party, however
furious their fanaticism, the cause will decline, and soon become extinct.
The increase of Christianity, under ten bloody persecutions, can only be
accounted for, by supposing, that God by his grace on the hearts of men,
persuaded them to embrace the truth, and inspired them with more than heroic
fortitude, in suffering for the sake of their religion.
IX. The apostles and many of the primitive Christians, attested the truth by
martyrdom. They sealed their testimony with their blood. To this argument it
is sometimes answered, that men may suffer martyrdom for a false as well as
a true religion; and that, in fact, men have been willing to die for
opinions, in direct opposition to each other. While this is admitted, it
does not affect the argument now adduced. All, that dying for an opinion can
prove, (and of this it is the best possible evidence,) is, the sincerity of
the witnesses But in the case before us, the sincerity of the witnesses
proves the facts in question; for we have seen, that they could not
themselves have been deceived. Every martyr had the opportunity of knowing
the truth of the facts on which Christianity was founded; and by suffering
death in attestation of them, he has given the most impressive testimony
that can he conceived. [17]
The sufferings of the primitive Christians, for their religion, were
exceedingly great, and are attested by heathen, as well as Christian
writers. It is a circumstance of great importance, in this argument, that
they could at once have escaped all their torments, by renouncing
Christianity. To bring them to this, was the sole object of their
persecutors; and, uniformly, it was put to their choice, to offer sacrifice
or incense to the heathen gods, or be tormented. One word would have been
sufficient to deliver them; one easy action would have restored them to
worldly comforts and honors: But they steadfastly adhered to their
profession. Some, indeed, were overcome by the cruelty of their persecutors;
but was it ever beard that any of them confessed that there was any fraud or
imposture, among them? So far from it, that they, whose courage had failed
them in the trying hour, were commonly deep penitents on account of their
weakness, all the rest of their days. Let it be remembered, that no person
suffered for Christianity through necessity. Every martyr made a voluntary
sacrifice of himself, to maintain the truth, and to preserve a good
conscience.
There is yet another light in which these sufferings of the primitive
Christians ought to be viewed. It is the temper with which they endured
every kind of torment. Here again is a problem for the deist to solve.
Persons of all ages, of all conditions of life, and of both sexes, exhibited
under protracted and cruel torments, a fortitude, a patience, a meekness, a
spirit of charity and forgiveness, a cheerfulness, yea, often a triumphant
joy, of which there are no examples to be found in the history of the world.
They rejoiced when they were arrested; cheerfully bid adieu to their nearest
and dearest relatives; gladly embraced the stake; welcomed the wild beasts
let loose to devour them; smiled on the horrible apparatus by which their
sinews were to be stretched, and their bones dislocated and broken; uttered
no complaint; gave no indication of pain when their bodies were enveloped in
flames; and when condemned to die, begged of their friends to interpose no
obstacle to their felicity, (for such they esteemed martyrdom,) not even by
prayers for their deliverance. [18] What more than human fortitude watt
this? By what spirit were these despised and persecuted people sustained?
What natural principles, in the human constitution, can satisfactorily
account for such superiority to pain and death? Could attachment to an
impostor inspire them with such feelings? No; it was the promised presence
of the risen Jesus which upheld them, and filled them with assurance and
joy. It was the Paraclete, promised by their Lord, who poured into their
hearts a peace and joy so complete, that they were scarcely sensible of the
wounds inflicted on their bodies.
Proud and obstinate men may, for aught I know, suffer death for what they
are secretly convinced is not true; but that multitudes, of all conditions,
should joyfully suffer for what they knew to be an imposture, is impossible.
Tender women, and venerable old men, were among the most conspicuous of the
martyrs of Jesus. They loved not their lives unto the death, and having
given their testimony and sealed it with their blood, they are now clothed
in white robes, and bear palms in their hands, and sing the song of Moses
and the Lamb. Blessed martyrs, they have rested from their labors, and their
works have followed them!
X. The last particular which I shall mention, to set the testimony of the
witnesses to the miracles of the Gospel in its true light, is, that there is
no counter testimony. These witnesses have never been confronted and
contradicted by others. Whatever force or probability their declarations are
entitled to, from the circumstances of the case, and from the evidences
which we possess of their integrity and intelligence, suffers no deduction,
on account of other persons giving a different testimony.
The Jewish priests and rulers did, indeed, cause to be circulated, a story,
relative to the dead body of Christ, contrary to the testimony of the
apostles, which has been handed down to us by the evangelists. They hired
the soldiers to report., that Christ’s disciples had come by night, and
stolen the body, while they slept—a story too absurd and inconsistent to
require a moment’s refutation. But as the body was gone out of their
possession; they could not, perhaps, have invented any thing more plausible.
It proved nothing, however, except that the body was removed while the
soldiers slept, and for aught they could testify, might have risen from the
dead, according to the testimony of the apostles.
Deists sometimes demand the testimony of the enemies, as well as the friends
of Christianity. To which I would reply, that the silence of enemies, is all
that can reasonably be expected from them. That they should come forward,
voluntarily, with testimony in favor of a religion, which, through
prejudice, or worldly policy, they opposed, could not reasonably be
expected. Now, since they would have contradicted these facts, if it had
been in their power, their not doing so, furnishes the strongest negative
evidence, which we can possess. And no other evidence than that which is
negative, or merely incidental, ought to be expected from the enemies of the
Gospel; unless, like Paul, they were convinced by the evidence exhibited to
them. But no denial of the reality of the miracles of Christ has reached us
from any quarter. As far as we have any accounts, there is no reason to
think, that they were ever denied by his most implacable enemies. They said,
that he performed his works by the help of Beelzebub. The first heathen
writers against Christianity, did not dare to deny Christ’s miracles.
Neither Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, nor Julian, pretend, that these facts
were entirely false; for they attempted to account for them. The Jewish
Rabbies, in the Talmud, acknowledge these miracle`, and pretend that they
were wrought by magic, or by the power of the venerable name of Jehovah,
called, tertragrammaton, which they ridiculously pretend, Jesus stole out of
the temple, and by which they say he performed wonderful works.
From what has been said, I trust it is sufficiently manifest, that we have
such testimony for the miracles of the New Testament, as will render them
credible, in the view of all impartial persons. We have shown that the
miracles recorded are real miracles;—that. they were performed in an open
and public manner;—that the witnesses could not possibly have been deceived
themselves;—that enemies had every opportunity and motive for disproving the
facts if they had not been true;—that there is every evidence of sincerity
and honesty in the evangelists;—that the epistles of the apostles furnish
strong collateral proof of the same facts;—that all Christians from the
beginning, must have .believed in these miracles, and they must, therefore,
be considered competent witnesses;—that none of the. witnesses could have
any motive to deceive;—that they never could have succeeded in imposing such
a fraud on the world, if they could have attempted it;—that it would have
been the easiest thing in the world, for the Jewish Rulers to have silenced
such reports if they had been false;—that the commencement of preaching. at
Jerusalem, and the success of Christianity there, cannot be accounted for,
on any other principles, than the truth of the miracles;—that the conduct of
the apostles in going to the most enlightened countries and cities, and
their success in those places, can never be reconciled with the idea that
they were ignorant impostors;—that the astonishing progress of the Gospel,
in the midst of opposition and persecution, and the extraordinary temper of
the primitive Christians, under sufferings of the most cruel kind, can only
be accounted for, on the supposition of a full persuasion of the truth of
the facts, and that this persuasion is proof of their reality;—and, finally,
that no contrary evidence exists: but that even the early enemies of
Christianity have been obliged to admit, that such miracles were performed.
Now, when all these things are fairly and fully considered, is it not
reasonable to conclude, that it is more probable that miracles should have
been performed, than that such a body of testimony, so corroborated by
circumstances, and by effects reaching to our own times, should be false?
If all this testimony is false, we may call in question all historical
testimony whatever; for what facts ever have been so fully attested?
But why should this testimony he rejected? No reason has ever been assigned,
except that the facts, were miraculous; but we have shown, that it is not
unreasonable to expect miracles in such a case; and that miracles are
capable of satisfactory proof from testimony. It is, therefore, a just
conclusion, That the Miracles of the Gospel are credible.
_________________________________________________________________
[7] See Pascal’s Thoughts.
[8] Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, c. iv., & xvi.
[9] Mr. Roberts.
[10] See Lardner’s Heathen Testimonies.
[11] See Lord Lyttleton’s Conversion of Paul.
[12] There is a remarkable testimony to the extraordinary character and
works of Jesus Christ, in Josephus, which has been rejected as spurious by
modern critics; not for want of external evidence, for it is found in all
the oldest and best MSS., but principally because it is conceived, that
Josephus being a Jew, and a Pharisee, never could have given such a
testimony in favor of one is whom he did not believe.
[13] See Dr. Channing’s Dudleian Lecture.
[14] Dr. Macknight.
[15] See West on the Resurrection; Townson; Macknight; Ditton; Sherlock; &c.
[16] See Dr. S. S. Smith’s Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity.
[17] See Addison’s Evidences.
[18] See the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp.
_________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER VIII.
THE BIBLE CONTAINS PREDICTIONS OF EVENTS, WHICH NO HUMAN SAGACITY COULD HAVE
FORESEEN, AND WHICH HAVE BEEN EXACTLY AND REMARKABLY ACCOMPLISHED.
THE subject of prophecy is so extensive, and the difficulty of presenting,
with brevity, the argument which it furnishes, so great, that if I had not
determined to give a general outline of the evidences of revelation, I
should have omitted this topic, as one to to which justice cannot be done,
in so short an essay.
But, I would not be understood as intimating, that the evidence from
prophecy is of an inferior kind. So far from believing this to be the fact,
I am persuaded, that whoever will take the pains to examine the subject
thoroughly, will find that this source of evidence for the truth of
revelation, is exceeded by no other, in the firmness of conviction which it
is calculated to produce. Prophecy possesses, as a proof of divine
revelation, some advantages which axe peculiar. For the proof of miracles we
must have recourse to ancient testimony; but the fulfilling of prophecy may
fall under our own observation, or may be conveyed to us by living
witnesses. The evidence of miracles cannot, in any case, become stronger
than it was at .first; but that of prophecy is continually increasing, and
will go on increasing, until the whole scheme of predictions are fulfilled.
The mere publication of a prediction furnishes no decisive evidence, that it
is a revelation from God: it is the accomplishment which completes the
proof. As prophecies have been fulfilled in every age, and are still in a
course of being fulfilled; and as some most remarkable predictions remain to
be accomplished, it is plain, from the nature of the case, that this proof
will continue to increase in strength.
It deserves to be well weighed, that any one prediction which has been
fulfilled, is, of itself, a complete evidence of divine revelation; or to
speak more properly, is itself a revelation. For, certainly, no one but God
himself can foretell distant future events which depend entirely on the
purpose of Him, “who worketh all things after the council of his own
will.”
If then, we can adduce one prophecy, the accomplishment of which cannot be
doubted, we have established the principle, that a revelation has been
given; and if in one instance, and to one person, the probability is strong,
that he is not the only person, who has been favored with such a
communication.
The remark, which is frequently made, that most prophecies are obscure, and
the meaning very uncertain, will not affect the evidence arising from such
as are perspicuous, and of which the accomplishment is exact. There are good
reasons, why these future events should sometimes be wrapped up in the
covering of strong figures and symbolical language; so that often the
prophet himself, probably, did not understand the meaning of the prediction
which he uttered. It was not intended, that they should be capable of being
dearly interpreted, until the key was furnished, by the completion. If these
observations are just, the study (of the prophecies will become more and
more interesting, every day; and they will shed more and more light on the
truth of the Scriptures.
What I shall attempt at present, and all that is compatible with the narrow
limits of this discourse, will be to exhibit a few remarkable predictions,
and refer to the events, in which they have been fulfilled. They who wish
for further satisfaction, will find it, in the perusal of Bishop Newton’s
excellent Dissertations on the prophecies, to which I acknowledge myself
indebted for a considerable part of what is contained in this chapter.
The first prophecies which I will produce; are those of Moses, respecting
the Jews. They are recorded, principally, in the xxvi. chapter of Leviticus,
and in the xxviii. chapter of Deutoronomy; of which, the following
predictions deserve our attention.
1. The Lord shall bring, a nation against thee from afar, from the end of
the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt
not understand. This prophecy had an accomplishment, both in the invasion of
Judea by the Chaldeans, and by the Romans; but more especially, the latter.
Jeremiah, when predicting the invasion of the Chaldeans, uses nearly the
same language as Moses. Lo, I will bring a nation upon you from afar, O
house of Israel, saith the Lord, it is an ancient nation, a nation whose
language thou knowest not. [19] —And again, Our persecutors are swifter than
the eagles of the heaven. [20]
But with still greater propriety may it be said, that the Romans were a
nation from afar; the rapidity of whose conquests resembled the eagle’s
flight; the standard of whose armies was au eagle; and whose language was
unknown to the Jews.
The enemies of the Jews are also characterized as a nation of fierce
countenance, who shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favor to
the young. Which was an exact description of the Chaldeans. It is said, 2
Chron. xxxvi. 17, that God brought upon the Jews, the king of the Chaldees,
who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and
had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for
age. Such also were the Romans. Josephus informs us, that when Vespasian
came to Gadara, “he slew all, man by man, the Romans showing mercy to no
age.” The like was done at Gamala.
2. It was predicted, also, that their cities should be besieged and taken.
And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls
come down, wherein thou trustedst. This was fulfilled when Shalmaneser, king
of Assyria, came against Samaria, and besieged it: [21] when Sennacherib
came up against all the fenced cities of Judah; and when Nebuchadnezzar took
Jerusalem and burned the temple, and broke down the walls of Jerusalem round
about. [22] The Jews had great confidence in the strength of the
fortifications of Jerusalem. And Tacitus, as well as Josephus, describes it
as a very strong place; yet it was often besieged and taken, before its
final destruction by Titus.
In their sieges they were to suffer much by famine, in the straitness
wherewith their enemies should distress them. Accordingly, at Samaria,
during the the siege, there was a great famine, so that an asses head was
sold for four score pieces of silver. [23]
And when Jerusalem was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, the famine prevailed in
the city, and there was no bread for the people of the land. [24] And in the
siege of the same city by the Romans, there was a most distressing famine.
[25]
It was foretold, that in these famines, women should eat their own children.
Ye shall eat, says Moses, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters. And
again, thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body. [26] The tender and
delicate woman among you, who would not adventure to set the sole of her
foot upon the ground, for delicateness and tenderness—she shall eat her
children for want of all things, secretly in the siege and straitness,
wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in thy gates. This extraordinary
prediction was fulfilled, six hundred years after it. was spoken, in the
siege of Samaria, by the king of Syria; when two women agreed together to
give up their children to be eaten; and one of them was eaten accordingly.
[27] It was fulfilled again, nine hundred years after Moses, in the siege of
Jerusalem, by the Chaldeans. The hands of the pitiful women, says Jeremiah,
have sodden their own children. [28] And again, fifteen hundred years after
the time of Moses, when Jerusalem was besieged by the Romans, Josephus
informs us, of a noble woman killing and eating her own sucking child, and
when she had eaten half; she secreted the other part for another meal.
3. Great numbers of the Jews were to be destroyed. And ye shall be left few
in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude. In the
siege of Jerusalem, by Titus, it is computed that eleven hundred thousand
persons perished, by famine, pestilence, and sword. Perhaps, since the
creation of the world, so many persons never perished in any one siege as
this.
The occasion of so great a multitude of people being found at Jerusalem,
was, that the siege commenced about the celebration of the passover; and the
people throughout the adjacent country, took refuge in Jerusalem, at the
approach of the Roman army.
Moses also predicted, that the Jews should be carried back to Egypt, and
sold as slaves, for a very low price, and described the method of their
conveyance thither; And the Lord shall bring thee into Egypt again with
ships, where you shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen,
and no man shall buy you. Josephus informs us, that when the city was taken,
the captives who were above seventeen years of age, were sent to the works
in Egypt: but so little care was taken of these captives, that eleven
thousand of them perished for want. There is every probability, though the
historian does not mention the fact, that they were conveyed to Egypt, in
ships, as the Romans had then a fleet in the Mediterranean. The market was
so overstocked, that there were no purchasers, and they were sold for the
merest trifle.
4. It is, moreover, predicted in this wonderful prophecy of Moses, that the
Jews should be extirpated from their own land, and dispersed among all
nations. And ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to
possess it. And the Lord shall scatter thee among all people, from one end
of the earth, even unto the other.
How remarkably this has been fulfilled, is known to all. The ten tribes were
first carried away from their own land, by the King of Assyria; and next,
the two other tribes were carried captive to Babylon; and, finally, when the
Romans took away their place and nation, their dispersion was complete.
Afterwards, Adrian forbade the Jews, by a public edict, to set foot in
Jerusalem, on pain of death; or even to approach the country around it. In
the time Of Tertullian and Jerome, they were prohibited from entering into
Judea. And from that day to this, the number of Jews, in the holy land, has
been very small. They are still exiles from their own land, and are found
scattered through almost every country on the globe.
5. But it is foretold, that, notwithstanding their dispersion, they should
not be totally destroyed, but should exist still, as a distinct people. And
yet for all Mat, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast
them away, neither will I abhor them; to destroy them utterly, and to break
my covenant with them. “What a marvellous thing is this,” says Bishop
Newton, “that after so many wars, battles, and sieges; after so many
rebellions, massacres, and persecutions; after so many years of captivity,
slavery, and misery; they are not destroyed utterly, and though scattered
among all people, yet subsist a distinct people by themselves! where is any
thing like this to be found in all the histories, and in all the nations
under the sun?”
The prophecy goes on to declare, that they should he; every where, in an
uneasy condition; and should not rest long, in any one place. And among
these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot
have rest. How exactly this has been verified, in the case of this unhappy
people, even unto this day, is known to all. There is scarcely a country in
Europe, from which they have not been banished, at one time or another. To
say nothing of many previous scenes of bloodshed and banishment, of the most
shocking kind, through which, great multitudes of this devoted people
passed, in Germany, France, and Spain, in the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries; eight hundred thousand Jews, are said by the Spanish historian,
to have been banished from Spain, by Ferdinand and Isabella. And how often,
when tolerated by government, they have suffered by the tumults of the
people, it is impossible to enumerate.
The prophet declares, That they should be oppressed and crushed alway; that
their sons and their daughters should be given to another people; that they
should be mad for the sight of their eyes, which they should see. Nothing
has been more common in all countries, where the Jews has resided, than to
fine, fleece, and oppress them at will; and in Spain and Portugal, their
children have been taken from them, by order of the government, to be
educated in the Popish religion. The instances, also, in which their
oppressions have driven them to madness and desperation, are too numerous to
be here stated in detail.
6. Finally, it is foretold by Moses, That they should become an
astonishment, a proverb, and a by-word, among all nations; and that their
plagues should be wonderful, even great plagues, and of long continuance. In
every country the Jews are hated and despised. They have been literally a
proverb, and a by-word. Mohammedans, Heathens, and Christians, however they
differ in other things, have been agreed in vilifying, abusing, and
persecuting the Jews. Surely, the judgments visited on this peculiar people,
have been wonderful, and of long continuance. For nearly eighteen hundred
years, they have been in this miserable state of banishment, dispersion, and
persecution.
“What nation,” says the distinguished writer already quoted, “hath subsisted
as a distinct people in their own country, so long, as these have done in
their dispersion, into all countries? And what a standing miracle is this
exhibited to the view and observation of the whole world!”—“Here are
instances of prophecies delivered above three thousand years ago, and yet.,
as we see, fulfilling in the world, at this very time; and what stronger
proof can we desire of the divine legation of Moses? How these instances may
affect others, I know not, but for myself, I must acknowledge, they not only
convince, but amaze and astonish me beyond expression.”
The prophecies, in the Old Testament, concerning Nineveh, Babylon, Tyre, and
Egypt, are highly deserving our attention; not only because they are
expressed in the plainest language, but because the fulfilment of them has
not been confined to one age, but has continued for thousands of years, and
is as remarkable at this time, as in any former period; but the narrow
limits which we have prescribed to ourselves, forbid our entering on this
subject.
It may be safely affirmed, however, that the more closely these prophecies
are compared with subsequent events—events altogether improbable in
themselves, and of a truly extraordinary character—the more dearly will the
impartial and discerning see in them, marks of a divine origin.
The prophecy of Isaiah respecting Cyrus, by name, two hundred years before
he was born, is very clear, and no less remarkable.
“That saith of Cyrus, he is my shepherd and shall perform all my pleasure,
even saying to Jerusalem, thou shalt be built, and to the temple, thy
fonndation shall be laid. Thus saith the Lord to Cyrus Isis anointed, to
Cyrus whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and I
will loose the loins of kings to open before him the two leaved gates, that
shall not be shut. I will go before thee and make the crooked places
straight; I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and will cut in sunder
the bars of iron, and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden
riches of secret places, that thou mayest know, that I, the Lord, which call
thee by thy name, am the God of Israel. For Jacob, my servant’s sake, and
Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name, I have surnamed
thee, though thou hast not known me. [29] ”
We are informed by Josephus, that after Cyrus had got possession of Babylon,
this prophecy was shown to him; and that he was struck with admiration at
the manifest divinity of the writing. Besides the name of Cyrus, two
extraordinary events are foretold; the capture of Babylon, with its iron
bars and gates of brass, and containing hidden treasures;—and the
restoration of the Jews, and the rebuilding of their city and temple. And
every thing is so plain, that there is no possibility of evading the. force
of the argument.
The prophecies recorded in the book of Daniel; also, are very wonderful.
There we have described, the rise and fall of four successive monarchies, or
empires; also, a .prophecy concerning the conquests of Alexander the Great,
and concerning his successors, embracing so many particulars, that. it
assumes the appearance of a history of the events which it predicts.
Porphyry, an early and learned opposer of Christianity, was so struck with
the coincidence between the predictions, and the history of the events by
which they are fulfilled; that he declared that the prophecy must have been
written after the events occurred. The infidel can make no complaint of
obscurity here, as he commonly does, when prophecies are adduced; the
objection now is, that the prediction is too manifest, and circumstantial.
This objection of Porphyry, induced Jerome to use the following pertinent
language: “Cujus impugnatio testimonium veritatis est. Tanta enim dictorum
fides fuit, ut propheta incredulis hominibus non videatur futura dixisse,
sed narrasse, præterita.” The meaning of which is, “This objection is a
testimony to the truth; for such is the perspicuity of the language, that
the prophet, in the opinion of infidel men, seems rather to be narrating
past events, than predicting those which are future.”
It will be sufficient to observe, that there is not the least foundation for
this opinion of Porphyry, that the book of Daniel was written after the time
of Antiochus Epiphanes. Josephus relates, that the prophecies of Daniel were
shown to Alexander the Great, when he visited Jerusalem; and that this was
the reason of his granting so many privileges to the Jewish people. However
this may be, Daniel is spoken of in the first book of Maccabees; and
Josephus himself reckons him among the greatest of prophets. And if they had
been written at that late period, they never could have found a place in the
Jewish canon, as the prophecies of Daniel. These prophecies are also
recognised and quoted by Jesus Christ, as the productions of Daniel.
The prophecies which relate to the Messiah are so numerous and interesting,
and involve so much critical discussion, that to exhibit them in their
proper light, a volume would scarcely be sufficient. I must, therefore, be
contented to refer to the most remarkable of these predictions, in a very
brief and general way.
1. It is plain, from a cursory perusal of the Old Testament, that frequent
intimations are given of the coming of a remarkable personage. From these,
the Jewish nation have been led, in all ages, to entertain the expectation
of a Messsiah; and from them, the idea of a distinguished person who was to
proceed from Judea, seems to have pervaded the surrounding nations. Some of
the passages of Scripture, on which this opinion was founded, were, the
promise of The seed of the woman;—The seed of Abraham in whom all nations
should be blessed;—The Shiloh who was to come out of Judah, before the
dominion of that tribe should depart.—The prophet like unto Moses, whom the
Lord would raise up;—The king whom the Lord would set upon his holy
hill;—The priest after the order of Melchisedek; The anointed One, or
Messiah—The righteous branch—The corner stone—The desire of all nations—The
Shepherd of Israel.
2. The time of the arrival of the Messiah is designated in prophecy. He was
to come before the sceptre departed from Judah, at the end of seventy
prophetic weeks, or four hundred and ninety years, from the time of the
going forth of the command, to restore and build Jerusalem, and while the
second temple was yet standing.
3. The place of his birth, and the family from which he was to descend, were
also explicitly mentioned in prophecy. From the evangelical history, and
from the acknowledgment of the Jews, it is evident, that they well knew,
that the Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem, and to be of the family of
David:
4. Things of an apparently contradictory nature: are predicted concerning
the Messiah. At one time he is represented as a king and conqueror, whose
dominion would be co-extensive with the earth, and’ who would flourish in
righteousness and peace forever; at another, he is exhibited as one despised
and rejected; a man of sorrow and grief; as wounded and bruised;—as cut of
out of the land of the; and as pouring out his soul unto death. These
apparently irreconcilable characters, led the Jews at one time, to entertain
the opinion, that two Messiahs were predicted; the one a triumphant
conqueror; the other a persecuted and patient sufferer.. But, however great
the apparent inconsistency, there is an exact accomplishment of both
characters, in Jesus of Nazareth. And, certainly, the same cannot be said of
any other person who ever lived.
5. It is predicted of the Messiah, that he should be a light to the
Gentiles; and that under his administration, the face of the world should be
changed; and that peace and righteousness should prevail. Although this
prophecy is only in part fulfilled, yet so much has been accomplished in the
call of numerous Gentile nations to the standard of the Messiah, and in the
benign and salutary influence of Christianity, that we must conclude that it
was uttered under the influence of inspiration.
6. It was not only predicted, that Messiah should be cut off, but it is
expressly stated, that he should die as a vicarious sacrifice—an expiatory
victim for sin and transgression. “Thou shalt make his soul an offering for
sin.”
For the fulfilling of these predictions, I need only refer to the New
Testament.
That there is a remarkable coincidence between the language of the prophets
and the history of the evangelists, cannot be denied, however it may be
accounted for. The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah has a counterpart in the
sufferings and death of Christ, which has forced conviction on the minds of
many unbelievers.
But there are also many particular facts and circumstances foretold
respecting the Messiah, which it may be proper, briefly to mention. His
forerunner, John the Baptist, is predicted by Isaiah and Malachi. His
miracles, his uncomplaining meekness and tranquil submission under cruel
sufferings, by Isaiah. His riding on an ass, and a colt the foal of an
ass;—his being pierced where the wound should be visible.;—his being sold
for thirty pieces of silver, which should be, appropriated to buy the
Potter’s Field, by Zechariah. It is predicted in the Psalms, that they would
part his raiment and cast lots for his vesture; and that vinegar would be
given to him to drink. The very words, also, which he uttered on the cross,
when forsaken of God, are set down in the xxii. Psalm, v. 1.
It was also predicted in the Law of Moses, by an expressive type, that not a
bone of Icing should be broken; the fulfilment of which was wonderful, since
the legs of both those crucified with him were broken.
Isaiah foretold, that he should make his grave with the wicked, and with the
rich in his death, which was literally accomplished, when Jesus Christ was
suspended on the between two thieves; and when he was taken down from the
cross, by a rich man, and buried by him, in his own new tomb.
The most of these particulars were fulfilled by the free actions of the
enemies of Jesus, who had no idea that they were fulfilling any divine
prophecy. It is impossible, that so many circumstances, literally predicted,
should have been fulfilled by a mere fortuitous concurrence.
The truth is, the whole ritual law is a prophecy of Jesus. To him the whole
Old Testament dispensation had reference. The Law, the Psalms, and the
Prophets, all testify of him. As said the angel to St. John, “The testimony
of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”
Christ himself delivered, while upon earth, many clear and remarkable
prophecies. Most of his parables have a prophetic character, and in a
striking manner represented the Gospel, the rejection of the Jews, the
calling of the Gentiles, and the future condition of the Church. He also
foretold, in express words, the treatment which his followers should receive
from the world, the treachery of Judas Iscariot, the conduct of Peter in
denying him three times in one night, and the particular circumstances and
exact manner of his own death, and also his resurrection on the third day.
But I must pass over all these, at present, and confine my attention to that
astonishing prophecy, which Jesus delivered to his disciples on Mount
Olivet, concerning the utter destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, and of
the whole Jewish, nation. This prediction was uttered about forty years
before the events occurred, to which it relates; and was recorded by St.
Matthew, according to the common opinion of early writers, thirty, or at
least twenty years before it was fulfilled. The same was recorded by Mark,
and Luke, a few years after the writing of Matthew’s Gospel, but several
years before the occurrence of those prodigious things, which are foretold
in it. The testimony of antiquity is, that both these evangelists were dead
before the invasion of Judea, by the Romans. John was the only one of the
evangelists, or perhaps of the apostles, who lived to witness the fulfilling
of his Lord’s prophecy; and it is remarkable, that in his Gospel, this
subject is never mentioned.
Let it be remembered, that when this prophecy was delivered by our Saviour,
there was not the least human probability of such an event, as the
destruction of Jerusalem. The Jews were in a state of profound peace; and
the power of the Romans was such, that it could not have been conjectured,
that one small nation would think of rebelling against them.
The words of this prophecy may be read in the xxiv. chapter of the Gospel of
Matthew; also in the xiii. chapter of the Gospel of Mark; and in the xix.
and xxi chapters of the Gospel of Luke.
I will first collect into one view, all the most remarkable particulars of
this prophecy, and then show how they were fulfilled. The predictions
relate, 1. to the signs and precursors of the desolation of the holy city;
2. to the circumstances of its siege and capture; and 3. to the consequences
of this tremendous catastrophe.
1. The signs and precusors of this event were to be, false
Christs,—seditions and wars,—famines, pestilences, earthquakes, and
extraordinary appearances in the heavens;—the persecution of Christians;—the
apostacy of professors; and the great want of charity and depravation of
morals among the people.
2. The circumstances of this tremendous judgment of heaven, are such as
these: the event should occur before the existing generation had completely
passed away;—that it should be brought on by a war waged against the Jews,
by a heathen nation, bearing idolatrous ensigns:—that Jerusalem should be
utterly destroyed, and the temple so completely demolished, that one stone
of that. sacred edifice, should not be left on another:—that multitudes
should perish by the sword:—that great numbers should be carried away
captives:—that the distress should exceed any thing, which had ever occurred
in the world;—and that the divine wrath should be manifest in all these
calamities, as it is called the day of vengeance; and it is said, that there
should be wrath against the people.
3. The consequences of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, as
predicted by Christ, were to be, the dispersion of the Jews through all the
nations;—the total overthrow of the Jewish commonwealth, which is expressed
by the prophetic symbols of the sun being darkened, the moon not giving her
light, and the stars falling from heaven;—the rejection of the Jews, and the
calling of the Gentiles;—the rising of false prophets, and false
Messiahs;—the extent and continuance of these judgments on the Jewish
nation; with some intimation of their restoration. The escape of the
Christians from these calamities, is also foretold, and directions given for
their flight; and on their account, it is promised, that those days should
be shortened; and finally, it is predicted that the Gospel should be
preached among alt nations.
Let us now proceed to inquire, in what manner these numerous and
extraordinary predictions were accomplished; and we cannot but remark, that
it seems to have been ordered, specially, by Providence, that the history of
the series of events by which this prophecy was fulfilled, should be written
by a man who was not a Christian; and who was an eye-witness of the facts,
which he records. I allude to the Jewish historian, Josephus, who is an
author of high respectability, and of great value to the cause of
Christianity.
1. In regard to false Christs, of which the prophecy speaks so emphatically,
we learn from the historian, just mentioned, that impostors and magicians
drew multitudes after them, into the wilderness, promising to show them
signs and wonders, some of whom became deranged, and others were punished by
Felix, the procurator. One a these impostors was, that Egyptian, spoken of
in the Acts of the Apostles, who drew multitudes of people after him to
Mount Olivet, promising that he would cause the walls of Jerusalem to fall
down at his word.
Theudas was another, who pretended to be a prophet, and gave out that he
would divide the waters of Jordan; but he was quickly routed by Cuspius
Fadus, and all his followers scattered. The impostor himself was taken
alive, and his head cut off, and brought to Jerusalem. In the reign of Nero,
and during the time that Felix was procurator of Judea, impostors arose in
such numbers, that the historian informs us, “many of them were apprehended
and killed every day.”
There were also, at this time, great commotions, and horrible seditions and
wars, in various places; as at Cesarea, Alexandria, and Babylonia. There
were great contentions between the Jews and Samaritans; and also between the
Jews and people of other nations, who dwelt in the same cities with them.
Both Josephus and Philo, give a particular account of these disturbances, in
which multitudes of the people were slain.
Famines, pestilences, and earthquakes, are mentioned by Seutonius, and by
several other profane historians, who are cited by Eusebius, by Josephus, by
Tacitus, and by Seneca.
That prodigies were frequent, is expressly asserted, by Josephus and
Tacitus. The former declares that a star hung over the city like a sword,
for a whole year;—that at the ninth hour of the night, a bright light shone
round the altar and the temple, so that for the space of half an hour, it
appeared to be bright day;—that the eastern gate of the temple, which it
required twenty men to shut, and which was fastened by strong bars and
bolts, opened of its own accord:—that before sun set, there was seen in the
clouds, the appearance of chariots and armies fighting;—that at the feast of
Pentecost, while the priests were going into the inner temple, a voice was
heard, as of a multitude, saying, Let us depart hence. And what affected the
people more than any thing else, was, that four years before the war began,
a countryman came to Jerusalem, at the feast of Tabernacles, and ran up and
own, crying day and night, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a
voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the temple. Wo! Wo!
to Jerusalem?” It was in vain that by stripes and torture the magistrates
attempted to restrain him: he continued crying, especially at the public
festivals, for seven years and five months, and yet never grew hoarse, nor
appeared to be weary: until during the siege, while he was crying on the
wall, a stone struck him, and killed him instantly. Tacitus, the Roman
historian, joins his testimony to that of Josephus:—“Armies,” says he, “were
seen engaged in the heavens, the glittering of arms was observed; and
suddenly the fire from the clouds illuminated the temple; the doors of the
inner temple were suddenly thrown open; and a voice more than human was
heard proclaiming, the gods are departing: and at the same time, the motion
of their departure was perceived.” Men may form what judgment they please of
these narratives; but one thing is certain, that the minds of men were,
about this time, much agitated and terrified with what appeared to them to
be prodigies. There were, fearful sights, and great signs from heaven.
2. The circumstances accompanying the siege and rapture of the city, were as
exactly foretold, as the preceding signs. “The abomination of desolation,”
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, was nothing else than the Roman armies,
whose ensign was an eagle perched upon a spear: which ensigns were
worshipped, as divinities. These stood where “they ought not,” when they
were planted, not only in the holy land, but on the consecrated spot, where
the temple had stood. But the Christians had been warned, at the first
appearance of this desolating abomination, immediately to betake themselves
to flight; which they did, and instead of going into the city, they retired
to Pella, beyond Jordan.
The distress of the Jews, within the city, during the siege, where two or
three millions of people were crowded into a narrow space, almost exceeds
belief. What with their continual battles with the Romans; what with
intestine feuds and tumults; and what with famine and pestilence, the
sufferings which they endured, cannot now be conceived. No such distress was
ever experienced by any people, before or since.
Jerusalem was hemmed in on all sides, by the besieging army, and
notwithstanding the great strength of its fortifications, was taken.
Although Titus had given express orders, that the temple should be
preserved; yet the mouth of the Lord, had declared, that it should be
otherwise: and, accordingly, it was burnt to the ground, and the very
foundation dug up by the soldiers, with the hope of finding hidden
treasures. After the city had been destroyed, Titus ordered the whole space
to be levelled like a field; so that a person approaching the place, would
hardly suspect that it had ever been inhabited.
The number slain in the war has already been mentioned; to which we may now
add, that the captives amounted to ninety-seven thousand. Josephus, in
relating these events, adopts a language remarkably similar to that used by
Christ, in the prophecy. “The calamities of all people,” says he, “from the
creation of the world, if they be compared with those suffered by the Jews,
will be found to be far surpassed by them.” The words of Christ are; There
shall be great tribulation, such as was not from the beginning of the world
to this time; no, nor ever shall be.
That these unparalleled calamities proceeded from the vengeance of heaven,
against a people whose iniquities were full, was not only acknowledged by
Josephus, but by Titus, the Roman general. After taking a survey of the
city, the height of the towers and walls, the magnitude of the stones, and
the strength of the bands by which they were held together, he broke out
into the following exclamation: “By the help of God, we have brought this
war to a conclusion. It was God, who drew out the Jews from these
fortifications; for what could the hands, or military engines of men, avail,
against such towers as these?” And he refused to be crowned, after the
victory, saying, “That he was not the author of this achievement, but the
anger of God against the Jews, was what put the victory into his hands.”
3. Finally, the consequences of this catastrophe were as distinctly
predicted, and as accurately fulfilled, as the preceding events. The Jews,
who survived, were dispersed over the world, in which condition they
continue until this day. The Christians, availing themselves of the warnings
of their Lord, escaped all the calamities of the siege. Jerusalem was
trodden down of the Gentiles; and continues thus to be trodden down, until
this day.
Jerusalem was rebuilt by Adrian, but not precisely on the old site; and was
called Ælia, which name it bore, until the time of Constantine. The apostate
Julian, out of hatred to Christianity, and with the view of defeating the
prediction, “That Jerusalem should be trodden down by the Gentiles,”
determined to restore the Jews, and rebuild their temple. Immense sums were
appropriated for the work; the superintendence of which was assigned to one
of his lieutenants; and the governor of the province to which Jerusalem
belonged, assisted in it. “But horrible balls of fire, bursting forth from
the foundations, rendered the place inaccessible to the workmen, who were
often much burnt, so that the enterprise was laid aside.” The account now
given is attested by Julian himself, and his favorite heathen historian,
Ammianus. The witnesses are indeed numerous, and unexceptionable; “Annnianus
Marcellinus, a heathen; Zemach David, a Jew, who confesses that Julian was,
divinitus impeditus, providentially hindered, in his attempt; Nazianzen and
Chrysostom, among the Greeks; Ambrose and Ruffin, among the Latins; all of
whom flourished, at the very time when this wonderful event occurred.
Theodoret, Socrates, Sozomen, and Philostorgius, respectable historians,
recorded it within fifty years after the event; and while the eye witnesses
of the fact were still surviving.” [30] That part of the prophecy, which
relates to the restoration of the Jews, remains to be accomplished, and we
hope the accomplishment is not far distant. When this event shall take
place, the evidence from this prophecy will be complete, and almost
irresistible. This shall occur when “The times of the Gentiles shall be
fulfilled.” The circumstances of this glorious event, are more particularly
described by Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. xi. “If the fall if
them be the riches. of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of
the Gentiles; how much more their fulness? for I would not, brethren, that
ye should be ignorant of this mystery, that blindness in part is happened to
Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel
shall be saved.” The preaching of the Gospel to all nations, has been
considered in another place.
After this concise review of some remarkable prophecies contained in the
Bible, is there any one, who can persuade himself, that all these
coincidences are accidental? or that the whole is a cunningly, devised
fable? That man must indeed be blind, who cannot see ‘“This Light which
shineth in a dark place:”—“This SURE WORD OF PROPHECY, which holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
_________________________________________________________________
[19] Jer. x. 15.
[20] Lam. iv. 19.
[21] 2 Kings, xviii. 9, 10.
[22] 2 Kings, xxv. 10.
[23] 2 Kings, vi. 5.
[24] 2 Kings, xxv. 3.
[25] Josephus de Jud. Bello.
[26] Jer. xxvi. 29; Deut. xxviii. 53.
[27] 2 Kings, vi. 28, 29.
[28] Lam. iv. 10.
[29] Isa. xliv. xlv.
[30] See Whitby’s General Preface to the New Testament.
_________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER IX.
NO OTHER RELIGION POSSESSES THE SAME KIND AND DEGREE OF EVIDENCE AS
CHRISTIANITY: AND NO OTHER MIRACLES ARE AS WELL ATTESTED, AS THOSE RECORDED
IN THE BIBLE.
HAVING given a brief view of the external evidences of Christianity, it is
now proper to inquire, whether any system of religion, ancient or modern, is
as well supported by evidence; and whether, other miracles have testimony in
their favor, as satisfactory, as that by which the miracles of the Gospel
are accompanied.
The usual declamation of infidel writers, on this subject, is calculated to
make the impression on unsuspicious readers, that all religions are similar
in their origin;—that they all lay claim to miracles and divine
communications;—and that all stand upon an equal footing. But when we
descend to particulars, and inquire, what religions that now exist, or ever
did exist, profess to rest their claims on well attested miracles, and the
exact accomplishment, of prophecy, none besides the Jewish and Christian can
be produced. Among the multiform systems of Paganism, there is not one,
which was founded on manifest miracles or prophecies. They had, indeed,
their prodigies and their oracles, by which the credulous multitude were
deceived; and their founders pretended to have received revelations, or to
have held communion with the gods. But what well attested miraculous fact
can be produced, from all the religions of the heathen world? What oracle
ever gave responses so clear and free from ambiguity, as to furnish
evidence, that the knowledge of futurity was possessed? It is easy to
pretend to divine revelation: this is done by every fanatic.
It is not disputed, that many impostors have appeared in the world, as well
as many deluded fanatics. But the reason why all their claims and
pretensions may with propriety be rejected, is, that they were not able to
exhibit any satisfactory evidence, that they were commissioned from heaven,
to instruct mankind in religion.
In this we are all agreed. Of what use, therefore, can it be, to bring up
these impostures and delusions, when the evidences of the Christian religion
are under consideration? Can it be a reason for rejecting a religion which
comes well attested, that there have been innumerable false pretensions to
divine revelation? Must miracles, supported by abundant testimony, be
discredited, because there have been reports of prodigies and miracles which
have no evidence? And because heathen oracles have given answers to
inquiries respecting future events, dark, indeterminate, and designedly
ambiguous; shall we place no confidence in numerous authentic prophecies,
long ago committed to writing, which have been most exactly and wonderfully
accomplished?
It is alleged, that the early history of all ancient nations is fabulous,
and abounds in stories of incredible prodigies; and hence it is inferred,
that the miracles of the Old and New Testament, should be considered in the
same light. To which it may be replied, that this general consent of
nations, that miracles have existed, is favorable to the opinion that true
miracles have at some time occurred. It may again be observed, that the
history of Moses, which is more than a thousand years older than any profane
history, has every deuce of being a true relation of facts;—and, moreover,
that the age in which the miracles of the New Testament were performed, so
far from being a dark and fabulous age, was the most enlightened period of
the heathen world. It was the age of the most celebrated historians,
orators, and poets. There never was a time, when it would have been more
difficult to gain a general belief in miracles, which had no sufficient
testimony, than in the Augustan, and succeeding age. Not only did learning
flourish; but there was at that period, a general tendency to skepticism and
atheism. There can evidently, therefore, be no inference unfavorable to
Christianity, derived from the belief of unfounded stories of miraculous
events, in the dark ages of antiquity. The only effect of the prevalence of
false accounts of miracles, should be, to produce caution and careful
examination into the evidence of every report of this kind. Reason dictates,
that truth and falsehood should never be confounded. Let every fact be
subjected to the test of a rigid scrutiny, and let it stand or fall,
according as it. is supported or unsupported by testimony. If the miracles
of the Bible have no better evidence than the prodigies of the heathen, they
ought to receive no more credit; but if they have solid evidence, they ought
not to be confounded with reports which carry imposture on their very face;
or, at least, have no credible testimony in their favor.
There is no other way of deciding on facts, which occurred long since, but
by testimony. And the truth of Christianity is really a matter of fact. In
support of it, we have adduced testimony which cannot be invalidated; and we
challenge our opponents to show, that any other religion stands on the same
firm basis. Instead of this, they would amuse us with vague declamations on
the credulity of man, and the many fabulous stories which have been
circulated and believed. But what has this to do with the question? We admit
all this, and maintain that it does not furnish the semblance of an argument
against the truth of the well attested facts, recorded by the evangelists.
Because there is much falsehood in the world, is there no such thing as.
truth? It would be just as reasonable to conclude, that, because many men
have been convicted of false, hood, there were no persons of veracity in the
world; or that because there were many knaves, all pretensions, to honesty
were unfounded.
The Mohammedan religion is frequently brought forward by the enemies of
revelation, with an air of confidence, as though the pretensions and success
of that impostor, would derogate from the evidences of Christianity. It is
expedient, therefore, to bring this, subject under a particular examination.
And here, let it be observed, that we do not reject any timing, respecting
the origin and progress of this religion, which has been transmitted to us
by competent and credible witnesses. We admit that Mohammed existed, and was
the founder of a new sect; and, that from a small be, ginning, his religion
spread with astonishing rapidity over the fairest portion of the globe. We
admit, also, that he was the author of the Koran, which he composed, from
time to time, probably with the aid of some one or two, other persons.
Moreover, it is admitted;, that he was an extraordinary man, and prosecuted
the. bold scheme which he had projected, with uncommon perseverance and
address. Neither are we disposed to deny, that the Koran contains many
sublime passages, relative to God and his perfections, and many sound and
salutary precepts of morality. That the language is elegant, and a standard
of purity in the Arabic tongue, has been asserted by all Mohammedan writers,
and conceded by many learned Christians. But as to his pretended
revelations, there is no external evidence, whatever, that they were real;
and there is an overwhelming weight of internal evidence, that they are not
from God.
To bring this subject fairly before us, let the following considerations be
impartially weighed:
1. The pretensions of Mohammed were supported by no miracles, or prophecies.
Ile was often called upon by his opposers to confirm his mission, by this
decisive proof; but he always declined making the attempt; and resorted to
various excuses and subterfuges. In the Koran, God is introduced, as saying,
“Nothing hindered us from sending thee with miracles, except that the former
nations have charged them with imposture:—thou art a preacher only.” Again,
“That if he did perform miracles, the people would not believe, as they had
before rejected Moses, Jesus, and the prophets, who performed them.”
Dr. Paley [31] has enumerated thirteen different places in the Koran, where
this objection is considered, in not one of which, it is alleged, that
miracles had been performed for its confirmation. It is true, that this
artful man told of things, sufficiently miraculous; but for the truth of
these assertions, we have no manner of proof, except his own word, which, in
this case, is worth nothing.
Now, if it had been as easy a thing to obtain credit to stories of miracles,
publicly performed, as some suppose, surely Mohammed would have had recourse
to this measure, during the period, that he was so pressed and teased by his
enemies, with a demand for this very evidence. But he had too much cunning
to venture upon an expedient so dangerous: his opposers Would quickly have
detected and exposed the cheat. At length, however, he so far yielded to the
demand of his enemies, as to publish one of the most extravagant stories,
which ever entered into the imagination of man; and solemnly swore that
every word of it was true. I refer to his night journey to Jerusalem, and
thence to heaven, under the guidance of the angel Gabriel. As this story may
afford some amusement to the reader, I will subjoin, in a note, the
substance of it, omitting those particulars which are most ridiculous and
extravagant. [32]
This marvellous story, however, had well nigh ruined his cause. His enemies
treated it with deserved ridicule and scorn; and a number of his followers
forsook him, from that time. In fact, it rendered his further continuance at
Mecca, entirely inexpedient; and having before despatched some of his
disciples to Medina, he betook himself, with his followers, to that city,
where he met with a more cordial reception, than in his native place.
The followers of Mohammed, hundreds of years after his death, related many
miracles, which they pretended that he performed: but their report is not
only unsupported by testimony, but is in direct contradiction to the Koran,
where he repeatedly disclaims all pretensions to miraculous powers. And the
miracles which they ascribe to him, while they are marvellous enough, are of
that trifling and ludicrous kind, commonly to be met with in all forgeries,
in which miracles are represented as having been performed; such as, that
the trees walked to meet him;—that the stones saluted him;—that a beam
groaned to him;—that a camel made complaint to him;—and that a shoulder of
mutton told him that it was poisoned.
It appears, then, that Mohammedanism has no evidence, whatever, but the
declaration of the impostor. It is impossible, therefore, that. Christianity
should be placed in a more favorable point of light, than in comparison with
the religion of Mohammed. The one, as we have seen, rests on well attested
miracles; the other does not exhibit the shadow of a proof, that it was
derived from heaven.
2. It is fair to compare the moral characters of the respective founders of
these two religions. And here we have as perfect a contrast as history can
furnish. Jesus Christ was, holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from
sinners. His life was pure, without a stain. His most bitter enemies could
find no fault in him. He exhibited, through life, the most perfect example
of disinterested zeal, pure benevolence, and unaffected humility, which the
world ever saw. Mohammed was an ambitious, licentious, cruel, and unjust
man. His life was stained with the most atrocious crimes. Blasphemy,
perjury, murder, adultery, lust, and robbery, were actions of daily
occurrence. And to shield himself from censure, and open a door for
unbridled indulgence, he pretended revelations from heaven, to justify all
his vilest practices. He had the effrontery to pretend, that God had given
him privilege to commit, at pleasure, the most abominable crimes. The facts
which could be adduced in support of these general charges, are so numerous,
and so shocking, that I will not defile my paper, nor wound the feelings of
the reader, by a recital of them.
3. The Koran itself can never bear a comparison with the New Testament, in
the view of any impartial person. It is a confused and incongruous heap of
sublime sentiments, moral precepts, positive institutions, extravagant and
ridiculous stories, and manifest lies and contradictions. Mohammed, himself,
acknowledged, that it contained many contradictions; but he accounted for
this fact by alleging, that what had been communicated to him in one
chapter, was repealed in a subsequent one;—and so he charges this
inconsistency on his Maker. The number of abrogated passages is so great,
that a mussulman cannot be easily confuted by proving the falsehood of any
declaration in the Koran; for, he will have recourse to this doctrine of
abrogation. There is nothing in this book, which cannot easily be accounted
for; nothing above the capacity of impostors to accomplish. It is artfully
accommodated to the religions of Arabia, prevalent at the time. It gives
encouragement to the strongest and most vicious passions of human nature;
promotes ambition, despotism, revenge, and offensive war; opens wide the
door of licentiousness; and holds out such rewards and punishments, as are
calculated to make an impression on the minds of wicked men. It discourages,
and indeed forbids, all free inquiry, and all discussion of the doctrines
which it contains. Whatever is excellent in the Koran, is in imitation of
the Bible; but wherever the author follows his own judgment, or indulges his
own imagination, we find falsehood, impiety, or ridiculous absurdity. [33]
4. The means by which the religion of Mohammed was propagated, were entirely
different from those employed in the propagation of the Gospel. If there is
any point of strong resemblance between these two systems, it consists
merely in the circumstance of the rapid and extensive progress, and
permanent continuance, of each. But when we come to consider the means by
which this end was attained in the two cases, instead of resemblance we find
again, a perfect contrast. Mohammed did, indeed, attempt, at first, to
propagate his religion by persuasion and artifice; and these efforts he
continued for twelve years, but with very small success. At the end of three
years, he had gained no more than fourteen disciples; and at. the end of
seven years, his followers amounted to little more than eighty; and at the
end of twelve years, when he fled from Mecca, the number was very
inconsiderable. As far, therefore, as there can be a fair comparison between
the progress of Christianity and Mohammedanism; that is, during the time
that Mohammed employed argument and persuasion alone, there is no
resemblance. The progress of Christianity was like the lightning, which
shineth from one part of heaven to the other; extending in a few years, not
only without aid from learning and power, but in direct opposition to both,
throughout the whole Roman empire, and far beyond its limits. But
Mohammedanism, for twelve years, made scarcely any progress; yet it
commenced among an ignorant and uncivilized people. During this period, the
progress was scarcely equal to what might be expected from any artful
impostor. This religion never spread in any other way than by the sword. As
soon as the inhabitants of Medina declared in favor of Mohammed, he changed
his whole plan, and gave out that he was directed to propagate his religion
by force. From this time, he is found engaged in war. He began by attacking
mercantile caravans, and, as his force increased, went on to conquer the
petty kingdoms, into which Arabia was then divided. [34] Sometimes, he put
all the prisoners to death, and at other times, sold them into slavery. At
first, the order was, to massacre. every creature that refused to embrace
his religion; but he became more lenient afterwards, especially to Jews and
Christians. The alternative was, “The Koran, death, or tribute.”
But it is a great mistake, to suppose, that the conquests of Mohammed,
himself, were very extensive. The fact is, that he, never, during his life,
extended his dominion. beyond the limits of Arabia; except, that he overran
one or two inconsiderable provinces of Syria. It was by the Caliphs, his
successors, that so great a part of Asia, and Egypt, were brought into
subjection. But what is there remarkable in these successes, more than those
of other conquerors? Surely, the propagation of Mohammedanism by the sword,
however rapid or extensive, can never bear any comparison with that of
Christianity, by the mere force of truth, under the blessing of heaven.
5. The tendency and effects of Mohammedanism, when compared with the
tendency and effects of Christianity, serve to exhibit the latter in a very
favorable light. The Christian religion has been a rich blessing to every
country which has embraced it; and its salutary effects have borne
proportion to the care which has been taken to inculcate its genuine
principles, and the cordiality with which its doctrines have been embraced.
if we cast our eyes over the map of the world, and inquire what nations are
truly civilized? Where does learning flourish? Where are the principles of
morality and the dictates of humanity best understood? Where are the poor
and afflicted most effectually relieved? Where do men enjoy the greatest
security of life, property, and liberty? Where is the female sex treated
with due respect, and exalted to their proper place in society? Where is the
education of youth most assiduously pursued? Where are the brightest
examples of benevolence; and where do men enjoy most rational happiness?—I
say, if we were called upon to designate those countries, in which these
advantages are, moat highly enjoyed, every one of them would be found in
Christendom; and the superiority enjoyed by some over the others, would be
found to bear an exact proportion to the practical influence of pure
Christianity.
On the contrary, if we take a survey of the rich and salubrious regions,
possessed by Mohammedans, we behold a wide spread desolation. The fairest
portion of the globe, where arts, literature, and refinement, formerly most
flourished, are now blighted. Every noble institution has sunk into
oblivion. Despotism extends its iron sceptre over these ill-fated countries,
and all the tranquillity ever enjoyed, is the dead calm of ignorance and
slavery. Useful learning is discouraged; free inquiry proscribed, and
servile submission required of all. Justice is perverted, or disregarded. No
man has any security for life or property; and as to liberty, it is utterly
lost, wherever the Mohammedan religion prevails. While the fanatic ardor of
making proselytes continued, the fury of the propagators of this faith
rendered them irresistible. Indeed, their whole system is adapted to a state
of war. The best work that can be performed, according to the Koran, is to
fight for the propagation of the faith; and the highest rewards are promised
to those who die in battle. There is no doubt, but that the principles of
the Koran greatly contributed to the conquests of the Saracens; by divesting
them of all fear of death, and inspiring them with an assurance of being
admitted into a sensual paradise, if it should be their fate to be slain in
battle. “The sword,” said he, “is the key of heaven and hell: a drop of
blood shed in the cause of God, a night spent under arms, is of more avail
than two months of fasting and prayer. Whosoever falls in battle, his sins
are forgiven. At the day of judgment, his wounds shall be resplendent as
vermillion, and odoriferous as musk; and the loss of his limbs shall be
replaced by the wings of angels and cherubim.” But when they had finished
their conquests, and a state of peace succeeded their long and bloody wars,
they sunk into torpid indolence and stupidity. While other nations have been
making rapid improvements in all the arts, they have remained stationary; or
rather have been continually going backward. They have derived no advantages
from the revival of letters, the invention of printing, or the improvement
in the arts and sciences. The people who have been subjected to their
despotism, without adopting their religion, are kept in the most degrading
subjection.
At present, [35] the Greeks are making noble exertions to break the cruel
yoke, which has oppressed them, and though unsupported by Christian nations,
have succeeded in expelling the Turks from a large portion of their country.
God grant them success, and give them wisdom to make a good use of their
liberty and independence, when acquired and established! [36] Mohammedanism
was permitted to prevail, as a just punishment to Christians, for their
luxury and dissensions. It is to be hoped, however, that the prescribed time
of these locusts of the abyss, [37] is nearly come to an end; and that a
just God, who has so long used them as a scourge to Christians, as he
formerly did the Canaanites to be thorns in the eyes and in the skies of the
Israelites, will soon bring to an end this horrible despotism, which has
been founded on a vile imposture. The signs of the times give strong
indications, that the Mohammedan power will shortly be subverted. But it is
not for us “to know the times and the seasons, which the Father hath put in
his own power.”
The only thing further, necessary to be considered, in this chapter, is, the
miracles which have been brought forward as a counterpoise to the miracles
of Christ and his apostles. This is an old stratagem—at. least as early as
the second century, when one, Philostratus, at the request of Julia Augusta,
wife of the emperor Severus, wrote a history, or rather romance, of
Apollonius of Tyana, a town in Capadocia. This Apollonius, was nearly
contemporary with Jesus Christ; but whether he was a philosopher, or a
conjurer, cannot now be ascertained; for as to the story of Philostratus,
which is still extant, it is totally unsupported by any reference to
eye-witnesses of the facts, or any documents of credit, and has, throughout,
as much the air of extravagant fiction, as any thing that was ever
published. That the design of the writer was to set up this Apollonius as a
rival to Jesus Christ, is not avowed, but is sufficiently evident from the
similarity of many of the miracles ascribed to him, to facts recorded in the
Gospels, and which are manifestly borrowed from the evangelical history. He
is made to raise the dead, to cast out demons, and to rise from the dead,
himself. In one instance, the very words of the demons expelled by Jesus
Christ, as recorded by St. Luke, “Art thou come to torment us before the
time,” are put into the mouth of a demon, said to be cast out by Apollonius.
But in addition to these miracles, his biographer pretends, that he saw
beasts with a human head and lion’s body;—women half white and half
black;—together with phœnixes, griffins, dragons, and similar fabulous
monsters.
In the fourth century, Hierocles, a bitter enemy of Christianity, instituted
a comparison between Jesus and Apollonius, in which, after considering their
miracles, he gives the preference to the latter. This book was answered by
Eusebius, from whose work only, we can now learn how Hierocles treated the
subject, as the book of the latter is not extant. The only conclusion which
can be deduced from this history of Apollonius, is, that the miracles of
Christ were so firmly believed, in the second century, and were attended by
such testimony, that, the enemies of Christianity could not deny the facts,
and therefore resorted to the expedient of circulating stories of equal
miracles performed by another.
Modern infidels have not been ashamed to resort to the same stale device.
Mr. Hume has taken much pains to bring forward a great array of evidence, in
favor of certain miracles, in which he has no faith, with the view of
discrediting the truth of Christianity. These have been so fully and
satisfactorily considered by Dr. Douglass, Bishop of Salisbury, in his
Criterion; and Dr. Campbell, in his Essay on Miracles, that I need only
refer to these learned authors, for a complete confutation of Hume’s
arguments, from this source.
For the sake, however, of those who may not have access to these works, I
will lay down a few general principles, by which we may distinguish between
true and false miracles; for which I am indebted, principally, to the author
of the Criterion, above mentioned.
1. The nature of the facts should be well considered, whether they are
miraculous. The testimony which supports a fact may be sufficient, and yet
it may have been brought about by natural causes.
The miracles of Jesus Christ were such, that there was no room for doubt
respecting their supernatural character; but a great part of those performed
by others, which have received the best attestation, were of such a nature,
that they may readily be accounted for, without supposing any divine
interposition. The case of the man diseased in his eyes, said to have been
cured by Vespasian’s rubbing his hand over them, and the lame man cured by a
touch of the emperor’s foot, were, no doubt, impositions practised by the
priests of the temple, where they were performed. The emperor did not
pretend to possess any miraculous power, and was induced, only after much
persuasion, to make the experiment. The facts, as related by Tacitus, though
he was not an eye-witness—it may be admitted—are true. Such persons were
probably brought forward, and a cure pretended to be made, but there is no
evidence that there was a real miracle. There was no one present who felt
interested, to examine into the truth of the miracle. The priests, who
proposed the thing, had, no doubt, prepared their subjects; and the emperor
was flattered by the honor of being selected by their god, to work a
miracle. How often do beggars in the street impose upon many, by pretending
to be blind and lame? The high encomiums which Mr. Flume bestows on the
historian Tacitus, in order to set off the testimony to the best advantage,
can have. no weight here; for he only related what he bad heard from others,
and showed pretty evidently, that. he did not credit the story himself.
The same may be said, respecting the man spoken of by Cardinal de Retz, at
Saragossa, who was represented as having been seen without a leg, but
obtained one by rubbing the stump with holy oil. The cardinal had no other
evidence of his having ever been maimed, than the suspicious report of the
canons of the Church; and he took no pains to ascertain, whether the leg
which he obtained, was really flesh and blood, or an artificial limb.
A great part of the cures said to have been performed at the tomb of the
Abbé Paris, were proved, upon examination, to be mere pretences; and those,
which were real, may easily be accounted for, from the influence of a heated
imagination, and enthusiastic feelings; especially, since we have seen the
wonderful effects of animal magnetism, and metallic tractors. [38]
2. A second consideration of great weight, is, that in true miracles, we can
trace the testimony to the very time time when the facts are said to have
occurred, but in false miracles, the report of the facts originates a long
time afterwards, as in the case of Apollonius. And in the case of the
miracles ascribed to Mohammed by Abulfeda and Al-Janabbi; and, also, of the
miracles ascribed by the Jesuits, to Ignatius Loyola, their founder; which
were never heard of, until long after his death.
3. Another criterion of importance, is, that the report of miracles should
originate, and first obtain credit, in the place, and among the people,
where they are said to have been performed. This is too remarkably the fact,
in regard to the miracles of the Bible, to require any proof. But many
stories of miracles are rendered suspicious by the circumstance that they
were first reported and believed, in some place, far from that in which they
were alleged to have been wrought. The miracles ascribed by the Romanists to
Francis Xavier, are condemned by both the rules last mentioned. In all his
letters, while a missionary in the east, he never hints that miracles had
been wrought; and a reputable writer, who gave some account of his labors,
nearly forty years after his death, not only is silent about Xavier’s
miracles, but confesses, that no miracles had been performed among the
Indians. These miracles were said to be performed in the remote parts of
India, and Japan, but the report of them was published first, in Europe.
Almost all the miracles ascribed by the Romish Church, to her saints, fall
into the same predicament. The history of them was written long after they
are said to have been performed, and often in countries remote from the
place where it is pretended they occurred.
4. Another thing necessary to be taken into view, in judging of the
genuineness of miracles, is, whether the facts were .scrutinized at the
time, or were suffered to pass without examination. When the miracles
reported, coincide with the passions and prejudices of those before whom
they are performed;—when they are exhibited by persons in power, who can
prevent all examination, and put what face they please on facts, they may
well be reckoned suspicious. Now, the cures at the tomb of the Abbé Paris,
were not performed in these circumstances. The Jansenists were not in power,
and their enemies not only had the opportunity to examine into the facts,
but actually did so, with the utmost diligence. We have reason to believe,
therefore, that we have now a true report of those occurrences. The defect
of these miracles is, in their nature, not in their evidence.
But in most cases, the miracles which have been reported, took place, when
there was no opportunity of examining into the facts—when the people were
pleased to be confirmed in their favorite opinions—or, when the ruling
powers had some particular end to answer. [39]
But, supposing these miracles to be ever so well attested, I do not perceive
how the evidence of divine revelation can be affected by them; for, if it
could be made to appear, that these were supported by testimony, as strong
as that which can be adduced in favor of the miracles of the New Testament,
the only fair conclusion is, that, in consistency, they who believe in
Christianity, should admit them to be true—but what then? Would it follow,
because miracles had been wrought on some rare occasions, different from
those recorded in the Bible, that, therefore, these were of no validity, as
evidence of divine revelation? Would not the fact, that other miracles had
been wrought, rather confirm our belief in those which were performed with
so important a design? Mr. Hume does, indeed, artfully insinuate, that the
various accounts of miracles which exist, cannot be true, because the
religions which they were wrought to confirm, are opposite; yet not one of
those which he brings forward, as being best attested, was performed in
confirmation of any new religion, or to prove any particular doctrine,
therefore they are not opposed to Christianity. If they had actually
occurred, it would not in the least disparage the evidence for the facts
recorded in the New Testament. And, especially, it is a strange conceit,
that miracles performed within the bosom of the Christian Church, should
furnish any proof against Christianity.
It is, however, no part of the object of those who bring forward such an
array of testimony, in support of certain miracles, to prove that such facts
ever occurred. This is diametrically opposite to their purpose. Their design
is, to discredit all testimony in favor of miracles, by showing, that facts
acknowledged to be false, have evidence as strong as those ou which revealed
religion rests. But they have utterly failed in the attempt, as we have
shown; and if they had succeeded in adducing as strong testimony for other
miracles, then we would readily admit their truth, and that, in perfect
consistency with our belief in Christianity.
_________________________________________________________________
[31] Paley’s Evidences.
[32] See Note A.
[33] See Ryan’s History of the Effects of Religion on Mankind.
[34] See Prideaux’s Life of Mahomet.
[35] A. D. 1825
[36] Since the above was written, several of the governments of Europe have
interposed to rescue the Greeks from the persecution and oppression of the
Ottoman power; but they are yet in a very unsettled state, and it cannot be
foreseen what will be the result of all their struggles. A. D. 1832.
[37] Rev. ix. 3.
[38] See Note B.
[39] On this whole subject, see Douglass’ Criterion.
_________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER X.
THE BIBLE CONTAINS INTERNAL EVIDENCE THAT ITS ORIGIN IS DIVINE.
As the Old and New Testaments are intimately connected, and form parts of
the same system, it is unnecessary to make any distinction between them, in
considering this branch of the evidence of divine revelation.
A late writer, [40] of great eminence and popularity, has represented this
species of evidence as unsatisfactory; as not capable of being so treated,
as to produce conviction in the minds of philosophical infidels; and as
opening a door to their most specious objections to Christianity. But,
certainly, this is not the most effectual method of supporting the credit of
the Scriptures. Another popular writer [41] has gone to the other extreme;
and seems to set little value on the external evidences of Christianity,
while be exhibits the internal, in a light so strong, that his argument
assumes the appearance of demonstration.
But these two species of evidence, though distinct, are harmonious, and
strengthen each other. There is, therefore, no propriety in disparaging the
one, for the purpose of enhancing the value of the other. I believe, the
fact is, however, that more instances have occurred of skeptical men being
convinced of the truth of Christianity, by the internal, than the external
evidences. It is the misfortune of most infidels, that they have no intimate
acquaintance with the Bible; and even many of those who have undertaken to
write against it, appear never to have read it, with any other view, than to
find some ground of objection.
No doubt, it is necessary to come to the examination of this species of
evidence, with a candid and docile disposition. If reason be permitted
proudly to assume the seat of judgment, and to undertake to decide what a
revelation ought to contain in particular; in what manner, and with what
degree of light it should be communicated; whether it should be made
perfectly at once, or gradually unfolded; and whether, from the beginning,
it should be universal: no doubt, the result of an examination of the
contents of the Bible, conducted on such principles, will prove
unsatisfactory; and insuperable objections will occur .at every step in the
progress. It was wise in Dr. Chalmers, to endeavor to discourage such a mode
of investigation, as being most unreasonable; for how is it possible, that
such a creature as man, should be able to know what is proper for the
infinite God to do, or in what way he should deal with his creatures upon
earth? To borrow the language of this powerful writer; [42] “We have
experience of man, but we have no experience of God. We can reason Upon the
procedure of man in given circumstances, because this is an accessible
subject, and comes under the cognizance of observation; but we cannot reason
on the procedure of the Almighty in given circumstances.” But when he speaks
“of disclaiming all support from what is commonly understood by the internal
evidence,” and “saving a vast deal of controversy, by proving that all this
is superfluous and uncalled for,” I am constrained to think, that, instead
of aiding the cause of Christianity, the excellent author has attempted to
take away one of its firmest props. The internal evidence of revelation is
analogous to the evidence of the being and perfections of God, from the
works of creation: and the same mode of reasoning winch the deist adopts,
relative to the doctrines and institutions of the Bible, the atheist may
adopt, with equal force, against the existence of a God. If men will be so
presumptuous as to determine, that if God makes a world, he will form it
according to their idea of fitness, and that the apparent imperfections and
incomprehensibilities in the material universe, could never have proceeded
from a Being of infinite perfection, atheism must follow of course. But, if,
notwithstanding all these apparent evils and obscurities, there is in the
structure of the world, the most convincing evidence of the existence of an
all-wise and all-powerful Being; why may we not expect to find the same kind
of evidence, impressed on a revelation from God? Upon Dr. Chalmers’
principles, we ought to depend simply on historical testimony, for the fact,
that God created this world; and “disclaim all support” from what. may,
without, impropriety, be termed the internal evidence of the existence of
God, derived from the contemplation of the work itself. The truth, however,
is, that every thing which proceeds from God, whatever difficulties or
obscurities accompany it, will contain and exhibit the impress of his
character. As this is resplendently visible in the heavens and the earth, it
is reasonable to. think that it will not be less manifest in his word. If
the truths contained in a revelation be worthy of God, they will be stamped
with his image; and if this can be, in any measure, discovered, undoubtedy
it furnishes the most direct and convincing evidence of their divine origin.
In fact this is, without being reduced to the form of a regular argument,
precisely the evidence on which the faith of the great body of Christians
has always rested. They are incapable of appreciating the force of the
external evidence. It requires an extent, of learning, which plain laboring
Christians, cannot be supposed commonly to posse.. But the internal evidence
is within their reach: it acts directly upon their minds, whenever they read
or hear a portion of the word of God. The belief of common, unlearned
Christians, is not necessarily founded in the mere prejudice of education:
it rests on the best possible evidence. And as there is a faith which is
saving, and to which a purifying efficacy is ascribed; if we inquire, on
what species of evidence this depends, it must be answered, on internal
evidence: not, indeed, as perceived by the unaided intellect of man, but as
it is. exhibited to the mind, by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. We
cannot consent, therefore, to give up this species of evidence, as
“superfluous and uncalled for,” but must consider it, if not the most
effectual to silence gainsayers, yet certainly the most useful to the real
Christian; and if unbelievers could be induced to attend to it, with
docility and impartiality, there is reason to think, that they would
experience its efficacy, in the gradual production of a firm conviction of
the truth of Christianity. The internal evidence of the truth of the
Scriptures, cannot be fully brought into view, in any other way, than by a
careful study of the Bible. It cannot easily be put into the form, of
logical argument, for it consists in moral fitness and beauty: in the
adaptation of truth to the constitution of the human mind; in its
astonishing power of penetrating and searching the heart, and affecting the
conscience. There is a sublime sanctity in the doctrines and precepts of the
Gospel; a devotional and heavenly spirit pervading the Scriptures; a purity
and holy tendency, which cannot but be felt by the serious reader of the
word of God; and a power to soothe and comfort the sorrowful mind: all which
qualities may be perceived, and will have their effect, but cannot be
embodied and presented, with their full force, in the form of argument. But,
although this evidence, from the nature of the case, cannot be exhibited in
its entire body, to any but those who study the Scriptures, and meditate on
their truths, day and night, yet it is possible to select some prominent
points, and present them to the reader, in such a light., as to produce a
salutary impression. This is what will now be briefly attempted, in the
following remarks, which might, without difficulty, be greatly enlarged:
1. The Scriptures speak of God and his attributes; in a way which accords
with what right reason would lead us to expect, in a divine revelation. He
is uniformly represented in the Bible, as ONE, and as a Being of infinite
perfection; as eternal,—omnipotent,—omniscient,—omnipresent—and immutable.
And it is truly remarkable, that these correct and sublime views of theology
were entertained by those who possessed the Scriptures, when all other
nations had fallen into the grossest polytheism, and most degrading
idolatry. Other nations were more powerful, and greatly excelled the
Israelites in human learning; but in the knowledge of God, all were in thick
darkness, whilst this people enjoyed the light of truth. Learned men and
philosophers arose in different countries, and obtained celebrity on account
of their theories, but they effected no change in the popular opinions;
indeed, they could not enlighten others, when they were destitute of the
light of truth, themselves. However deists may deride and scoff at the
Bible, it is a fact capable of the clearest proof, that had it not been for
the Scriptures, there would, not, at this time, be such a thing as pure
theist upon earth. There is not now in the world, an individual who believes
in one infinitely perfect God, whose knowledge of this truth may not be
traced, directly or indirectly, to the Bible.
How can it be accounted for, that the true theology should be found
accompanying the Scriptures, in ages, while it was last, every where else,
unless we admit that they are a revelation from God? If the knowledge of the
true God, as received by the Jews, was the discovery of reason, why was it
that other nations, advanced far beyond them in learning and mental culture,
never arrived at the knowledge of his important truth?
It is true, indeed, that the Scriptures sometimes represent God as having
bodily parts, and human passions; but a little consideration will show the
attentive reader that all these expressions are used in accommodation to the
manner of speaking among men. The truth is, that all human language is
inadequate to express the attributes and operations of the Supreme Being. He
is infinitely above our conceptions,. both in his essence; and mode of
existence and acting. We can do no more than approximate towards just ideas,
on this subject. When we speak of Him, we are under the necessity of
conceiving of his perfections, with some relation to the operations of the
human mind, and to employ language expressive of human acts, and feelings:
for all other language would be unintelligible. The necessity of this
accomodation extends much thriller than many seem to suppose: it exists not
only in relation to words, which taken literally, convey the idea of bodily
members and human passions, but also in regard to those which express the
operations of will and intellect. This mode of speaking, therefore, instead
of-being an objection against the Bible, is an argument of the wisdom of its
Author, who has spoken to man in the only way in which he could be
understood.
Again, it is seen by the most cursory reader, that truth is not taught in
the Bible, in a scientific, or-systematic order. We have here no profound
metaphysical disquisitions; no discussion of philosophical principles; no
array of artificial dialectics; and no systematic arrangement of the
subjects treated. In all this, there may be great wisdom, and whether we.
can see the reason or not, the objection to revelation, on this ground, is
not greater than the one which may be made to the natural world, because the
materials for building, which it contains, are not found erected into
houses; and because all its fields and forests, are not placed in the order
of an artificial garden, or regular orchard.
The method of speaking of God, in the Sacred Scriptures, is at once most
simple, and sublime. Few words are employed, but these are most
significant., When Moses wished to receive an appropriate name, which he
might mention to Pharaoh, to whom he was sent, he was directed to say, I am
that I am hath sent me. And when, on another occasion, the name of the Most
High was declared to Moses, it was in the following remarkable words, THE
LORD, THE LORD GOD, MERCIFUL AND GRACIOUS, LONG SUFFERING AND ABUNDANT IN
GOODNESS AND TRUTH. KEEPING MERCY FOR THOUSANDS; FORGIVING INIQUITY, AND
TRANSGRESSION AND SIN; AND THAT WILL BY NO MEANS CLEAR THE GUILTY. If the
most perfect simplicity, united with the highest sublimity, would be
received as a proof; that the writers of these books were inspired, we could
adduce hundreds of passages of this description; but we mean not to lay any
undue stress on the argument derived from this source.
The glory of the Scriptures is, the revelation which they contain of the
moral attributes of God. These are manifested with but a feeble light, in
the works of creation; but, in the Bible they shine with transcendent
lustre. It would, by no means comport with the intended brevity of this
work, to enter much into detail on this subject, but I must beg the
indulgence of the reader, while I endeavor to bring distinctly into view,
the account which the Scriptures give us, of the HOLINESS, and the GOODNESS
of GOD.
These two attributes are stamped on the pages of the Bible, and form its
grand characteristic. It is of no importance, whether we consider these as
distinct, or as expressive of two aspects, in which the same infinite
excellence is exhibited. Who can open this sacred book, without perceiving
that the God of the Bible was Holy? All his laws, institutions, and
dispensations, are holy; even those laws which are ceremonial, have this
characteristic. Every person, edifice, and utensil, employed in his worship,
must be solemnly consecrated; and all must approach God with caution and
reverence, because he is Holy. The very ground where he occasionally makes
himself known, is rendered holy. Every external sign and emblem of profound
reverence, is required in them, who worship Him; and when he manifests
himself with more than usual clearness, the holiest men are overwhelmed, and
become as dead men, under a sense of their own vileness. And not only so,
but even the heavenly hosts, who are free from every stain of sin, seem to
be overwhelmed with the view of the HOLINESS of God: They not only cry to
one another, as they worship around his august throne, HOLY, HOLY, HOLY, but
they are represented, as falling prostrate at his feet, and veiling their
faces, in token of profound veneration. All those passages of Scripture,
which speak of the WRATH, the INDIGNATION, the FURY, the JEALOUSY, or the
ANGER of the Almighty, are no more than strong expressions of his infinite
holiness. All his severe judgments and threatenings; all the misery which he
ever inflicts on his creatures, in this world, or the next; and above all,
the intense and ineffable sufferings of Christ, are exhibitions of the
holiness of God.
Now, if there be a God, he must be holy; and if he make a revelation of
himself, it will be marked with. this impress of character. But. wicked men
would, never have made this attribute so prominent; they would rather have
been disposed to keep it entirely out of view. There is no truth more
evident to the attentive observer of human nature, than that men do not
naturally love holiness, although they are obliged to acknowledge its worth.
This, I believe, is the true reason, why the Scriptures, although they
contain the highest excellence in composition, both in prose and poetry, of
which a good taste cannot be insensible, are neglected by literary men; or
rather studiously avoided. A mere fragment of any other book, if it could
claim pp equal antiquity with. the Bible; and, especially, if it contained
any thing like as much excellence of composition, would be sought after with
avidity, by all men of taste; but the Bible remains almost as much unstudied
by men of this description, as the Koran. This has often appeared to me
paradoxical; but I am now persuaded, that the true reason is, the awful
holiness of God, as exhibited in this book, and impressed on almost every
page. This glares upon the conscience of an unholy man, as the meridian sun
on diseased eyes. God is a consuming fire. But this common dislike of the
Bible, even in men of refined taste and decent lives, furnishes a strong
argument for its divine origin. The question before us, is, who composed
this book—inspired men, or wicked impostors? The characteristic, which we
have been considering, will accord perfectly with the former supposition,
but never can be reconciled with the latter. There is a moral certainty,
that base impostors never would have written a book, the most remarkable
trait of which is HOLINESS.
The goodness of God, or that benevolence which he exercises towards his
creatures, as it appears in the providence which sustains and feeds so great
a multitude of creatures, and which is conspicuously manifested to the human
family, is often celebrated in the Scriptures. Some of the most beautiful
and sublime poems which were ever written, are employed in celebrating the
praise of God, for his marvellous goodness. The reader is requested to turn
to the xxxiv, the ciii, civ, cxlv, cxlvi, cxlvii, and cxlviii, Psalms, as an
exemplification of this remark.
But there is another, and a peculiar view of the divine goodness, given in
the Scriptures. It is that form of goodness, called MERCY. It is the love of
creatures, who had forfeited all claim to any kindness. It is the bestowing
of pardon and salvation on those, who are condemned to death by the
righteous laws of God; and this, without showing himself less displeased
with their sins, than if he had punished them forever. This is the view of
divine goodness, which is peculiar to the Bible. Reason could not have
formed a conjecture concerning it. It is the development of a trait in the
divine character, before unknown. To reveal the mercy of God, may, with
truth, be said, to be the principal object of the Bible. But our idea of
this divine goodness is very imperfect, until we learn, in what way it was
manifested. No words can express this so well, as those of Christ himself,
“God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever
believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.”
To many, perhaps, it will appear, that this love is so extraordinary, that
it rather forms an objection against the Bible, than an argument in its
favor. If the wonderful and unparalleled nature of any thing were an
objection to it, then I acknowledge, that there would be some ground for
this opinion. But what is there which is not full of wonders, when we come
to contemplate it attentively? It is wonderful that there should exist such
a creature as man, or such a body of light as the sun; but shall we,
therefore; refuse to believe in their existence? To conic nearer to the
subject, what is there in the character of God, or his works, which is not
calculated to fill the mind with surpassing wonder! His eternity—His
omniscience—His omnipresence—His creating power, and universal providence,
are so wonderful, that we are at a loss to say which is most wonderful; or
whether any thing else can be more wonderful. But is this any argument
against their reality? And if God is so wonderful in his other attributes,
shall we expect to find nothing of this kind, in his LOVE, which is his
highest glory? There is, indeed, no goodness of this sort among men; but
shall we make our faint and limited shadow of perfection, the measure by
which to judge of the character of the infinite God? How unreasonable such a
procedure! The objection derived from the insignificance of man, the object
of this wonderful love, is delusive; for the same objection would lie, if
his powers were increased ever so much. in comparison with God, all
creatures may be considered as on a level; in this view, all distinctions
among them are, as it were, annihilated. How easy would it be to construct
an argument against the providence of God, on the same principles! There are
innumerable myriads of animalcules, invisible to man, all of which have a
perfect organization, and no more than an ephemeral existence, It might be
said, these minute creatures are too diminutive, to occupy the attention of
an infinite Being. It might be said, that the display of so much skill in
the organization of creatures of a day, was unsuitable to the wisdom of God.
But however plausible such objections may be made to appear, they are all
founded in a presumptuous intrusion into what does not appertain to us, and
concerning which we have no ability to form any correct judgment. The truth
is, that man has an infinitude below him, as well as above him, in the
gradation of being. I do not mean to say, that creation is absolutely
infinite, but that we can fix no bounds to the possibility of a continual
existence of creatures in the scale of perpetual diminution, any more than
we can to the possibility of creatures still increasing in magnitude above
us. In this respect, as in others, we stand between two infinitudes, the
great and the small, if I may so speak. A single drop of liquid contains
myriads of perfectly organized creatures; and who knows but every particle
of the blood of these invisible animalcules may contain other worlds of
beings still more minute, without it being possible for us to fix any limit
to the diminution in the size of creatures.
But, to return; unless it can be shown, that such love, as that exhibited in
the Gospel, is impossible, which will not be pretended, or that it is
repugnant to the moral attributes of God, its wonderful nature can never be
properly used as an argument against its existence. Rather, it should be
argued, the more wonderful, the more like God; the more wonderful, if no
appearance of human weakness accompany it, the more unlikely to be the
invention of man.
And, here, I would mention an idea, which, if correct, will shed light on
the subject; namely, that wonder is congenial to the constitution of our
minds. The soul of man never enjoys more elevated emotions, and more exalted
pleasure, than in the contemplation of objects so great and vast, as to he
perfectly incomprehensible. This is the foundation of that perpetual
adoration which occupies the inhabitants of heaven. An incomprehensible God,
is the object of contemplation and wonder to every creature.
2. The account which the Bible gives of the origin and character of man,
accords, very exactly, with reason and experience.
Indeed, this is the only source of our knowledge respecting the
circumstances in which man was placed, when he came from the hand of his
Creator. Here we learn the origin of many things which we observe, but the
reason of which we never could have discovered. The Bible teaches us, that
the wickedness which has existed in all ages and among all people,
originated in the apostacy of the first pair. It tells us the reason of
covering the body with clothing, which is the custom of all nations, even
where clothing is unnecessary to preserve the body from the effects of cold.
Here, we learn the cause of the earth’s producing briers and thorns
spontaneously, while useful grain and fruits must be cultivated. Here, we
learn the origin of marriage, and, of the curse which has followed the
female sex, through all ages. Moses has also given us the origin of that
species of religious worship, which was anciently practised among all
people, but of which, reason can teach us nothing. I mean the sacrifice of
animals on an altar, and the offerings of grain, of incense, &c. He has also
related the fact of a universal deluge, of which we have so many ocular
proofs, in every country, and on every mountain, as well as so many ancient
traditions.
The dispersion of the human family over the face of the earth, and the
origin of the several nations of antiquity, are recorded in the Bible: and,
although, this record is contained in a single short chapter, and has to us
much obscurity, yet Bishop Watson declared, that if he had no other evidence
of the authenticity of the Pentateuch, besides the tenth chapter of Genesis,
he would deem that alone satisfactory. [43]
The origin of the diversity of language, is also found in the Bible, and not
learned from any other source. Indeed, the origin of language itself,
concerning which philosophers have disputed so much, is very evident., from
the history of Moses. Many learned men have thought, that alphabetical
writing took its rise from the writing of the decalogue, by the finger of
God, upon the tables of stone; and I believe, that it would be found very
difficult to prove, by any authentic documents, that this art existed
before. Be this as it may, it must be admitted, that the earliest specimen
of alphabetical writing now extant, is contained in the Bible.
To these particulars it may be added, that we have an account in the Bible,
of those nations and people, concerning whom the earliest profane historians
treat, long before their histories commence; and when history comes down to
that period when the affairs of nations are described by others, it receives
ample corroboration from their narratives, as well as gives great light, to
enable us to understand many things which they have imperfectly recorded.
But the account which the Bible gives of the moral condition of man, is that
which is now most to our purpose. In all ages and circumstances, the human
race are represented as exceedingly depraved and wicked. Every man is
declared to be a transgressor, and the root of this depravity is placed in
the heart. Many of the gross crimes, to which we all are inclined, and into
the practice of which many fall, are enumerated; and where these are avoided
and concealed, the heart is described as deceitful and desperately wicked;
and that pride and hypocrisy, which spread a false covering over the true
character of man, are denounced, as among the things most hateful to God.
Now, if this picture is not taken from the life; if the character of man is
entirely different from that delineated in the Scriptures; or, if the vices
of our nature are exaggerated; however difficult it may be to account for
such misrepresentation, still it would furnish a strong argument against the
inspiration of the writers of the several books of which the Bible consists.
But on the other hand, if the character of man, as- given in the Scriptures,
is found exactly to correspond with universal experience and observation, it
will be an incontestable proof, that the writers were guided by a strict
regard to truth, in their compositions. To enter into a particular
consideration of this subject, does not comport with the plan of this work;
but for the truth of the representations of Scripture, I would appeal to all
authentic history, and to every man’s own observation and experience. The
description which the apostle Paul gives of the vices of the heathen world,
in his time, is corroborated by all the historians and satirists who lived
near that period. And who needs a labored proof, to show, that men have
generally a tendency to be wicked? Every civil institution, and all the mist
expensive provisions of civil government, are intended to set up barriers
against the violence, injustice, and licentiousness of man. Indeed, civil
government itself, originated in nothing else, than the necessity of
protection against the wickedness of men. This, however, is a painful and
mortifying conclusion; and it is not wonderful, that pride and self-flattery
should render us reluctant to admit it; nevertheless, every impartial man
must acknowledge, that our character is correctly drawn in the Bible.
There is something wonderful in the power, which the word of God possesses
over the consciences of men. To those who never read or hear it, this fact
must be unknown; but it is manifest to those who are conversant with the
sacred volume, or who are in the habit of hearing it expounded. Why should
this book, above all others, have the power of penetrating, and, as it were,
searching, the inmost recesses of the soul, and shewing to a man, the
multitude and enormity of the evils of his heart and life? This may, by
some, be attributed to early education, but I believe, that if the
experiment could be fairly tied, it would be found, that men who had never
been brought up with any sentiments of reverence for the Bible, would
experience its power over the conscience. The very best cure, therefore, for
infidelity, would be, the serious perusal of the Holy Scriptures. “The
entrance of thy word giveth light. The Law of the Lord is perfect,
converting the soul.”
3. It deserves our special attention, in considering the internal evidences
of Christianity, that the Scriptures contain explicit information on those
points, on which man stands most in need of instruction. These may be
reduced to three: first., the doctrine of a future state of retribution;
secondly, the assurance that sin may be pardoned, and the method by which
this can consistently be done; and, thirdly, the means for restoring. the
depraved nature of man, to a state of rectitude. We are not capable of
determining, in particular, as we have before shown, what a revelation
should contain, but it is reasonable to think, that if God gives a
revelation, it will contain some instruction on these important points.
And when we examine what the Scriptures teach, on these subjects, it is
found, that the doctrine is worthy of God, and so adapted to the necessities
of man, that it affords a strong argument in favor of their inspiration.
The certainty of a future existence to man, is a prominent feature in the
New Testament. The connexion between our present conduct and future
condition, is clearly and expressly inculcated. Many interesting and
momentous truths, connected with the world to come, are presented in a
light, the best calculated to make a deep and salutary impression on the
mind. It is revealed, that there will be a general judgment of all then and
that God hath appointed a day when this event shall take place. It is,
moreover, taught, in the New-Testament, that not only will every man be
judged, but every action of every individual, whether it be good or bad,
will be brought under review; and that the eternal destiny of all men will
be fixed, agreeably to the judicial decision of this impartial trial. Some
will be admitted to everlasting life, in the world above, while others shall
go away into. everlasting misery, into that place, “prepared for the devil
and his angels.”
Another interesting fact revealed in the New Testament, is, that there will
be a general resurrection of the bodies of all men, previously to the final
judgment. This fact, reason could never have conjectured: it must, from its
nature, be a matter of pure revelation. We may, indeed, discover some remote
analogy to the resurrection, in the apparent death and resuscitation of
vegetables and some animals, but this could never have authorized, the
conclusion that the bodies of men, after being mingled with the dust of the
earth, would be reorganized and re-animated, by the same souls which were
connected with them before their death. This doctrine, however, is very
interesting; and to the pious, must be very pleasing and animating, as we
may learn from the beautiful and striking description of the resurrection,
given by Paul, “It is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it
is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is
raised a spiritual body;—For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and
this mortal must put on immortality.”
It is worthy of remark, that although the Scriptures express the joys of
heaven, and the miseries of hell, by the strongest figures, they do not
enter much into detail, respecting the condition of men, in the future
world. There is true wisdom in this silence; because it is a subject, of
which we are, at present, incapable. of forming any distinct conceptions.
Paul, after being caught up “to paradise, and to the third heaven,” gave no
account of what he saw and heard, when he returned. How different is this
from the ridiculous description of the seven heavens, by Mohammed; and from
the reveries of Emmanuel Swedenborg! The account of a future state,
contained in the New Testament, is just that which is best suited to our
present imperfect mode of conceiving; and at the same time, adapted to make
the deepest impressions on the minds of men.
The method of obtaining the pardon of sin, which is made known in the
Scriptures, is so extraordinary, and yet so perfectly calculated to
reconcile the forgiveness of the sinner, with the justice and holiness of
God, that it seems very improbable, that it is a mere human device. The
mission from heaven, of a person called the Son of God; his miraculous
assumption of human nature; his holy and benevolent. character; and his
laying down his life as an expiation for the sins of men, are, indeed
wonderful events, but on that account, not likely to be the invention of
impostors. The death of Christ, may be considered the central point in the
Christian system. This was so far from being an incidental thing, or an
event occurring in the common course of nature, that it is, every where,
represented to be the very purpose of Christ’s coming into the world. This,
according to the Gospel, is the grand means of obtaining all blessings for
sinners. It is the great vicarious sacrifice, offered up to God in behalf of
the people, in consequence of which God can be just and the justifier of all
who believe in Jesus. To know Christ crucified, therefore, is to know the
whole Gospel;—to preach Christ crucified, is to preach the whole Gospel;—for
all its doctrines are involved in this event. The plan of salvation revealed
in the Scriptures, is founded on the principle of receiving satisfaction for
the transgressions of the sinner, from another person, who is able to render
to the law all that is required from the offender This satisfaction was made
by the obedience of Christ unto death, and is accepted by the Judge of all,
in place of a perfect obedience of the sinner, in behalf of all those to
whom it shall be applied. This method of obtaining pardon is honorable to
God, because, while he receives the transgressor into favor, he expresses
his hatred of sin in the strongest manner, and requires that the demands of
his holy law be perfectly fulfilled; and it is suited to man, for it comes
down to his impotence and wretchedness, and offers him a finished and
gratuitous salvation, without works or merit of his own. And that there may
be no room for an abuse of this doctrine of FREE GRACE, it is provided, that
all who hope for the benefits of this redemption, shall yield a sincere
obedience to the Gospel; and thus evince their penitence for their sins, and
their love to the Saviour. Ungodly men may pervert this doctrine, and turn
the grace. of God into licentiousness, but this receives no encouragement
from the principles of the Gospel: it is merely the effect of the
perverseness of sinful men.
This leads me to speak of the third thing, which was mentioned as important
to be known by man, which is the means by which a depraved nature may be
restored to rectitude; or in other words, how the thorough reformation of a
sinner may be effected. On this subject, philosophy has never been able to
shed any light. And this is not wonderful; for the most that human wisdom if
ever so perfect could effect, would be the direction and regulation of the
natural principles and passions of men; but in this way no true reformation
can be produced. Whatever changes are effected, will be only from one
species of sin to another. In order to a radical restoration of the soul to
moral rectitude, or to any degree of it, there is a necessity for the
introduction, into the mind, of some new and powerful principle of action,
sufficient to counteract or expel the principles of sin. It is in vain that
men talk of producing a restoration to virtue, by reason: the mere
perception of the right way will answer no purpose, unless there is some
inclination to pursue it. Now, the want of virtuous affections, or to speak
more correctly, of holy dispositions, is the great defect of our nature, in
which our depravity radically consists; and the only way by which man can be
led to lore and pursue the course of obedience to the law of God, is, by
having love to God and to holiness excited, or implanted in his soul. But to
effect this, is not in the power of any creature; it is a work which
requires a divine energy—a creating power; and therefore a true conversion
from the ways of sin, was never effected without supernatural aid. There may
be an external reformation. There may be, and often is, a change of
governing principles. The man who in his youth was under the predominant
influence of the love of pleasure, may, in advanced years, fall completely
under the control of avarice or ambition; but in every such case, the change
is effected by one active principle becoming so strong, as to counteract or
suppress another. It may be laid down as a universal maxim, that all changes
of character are brought about by exciting, implanting, or strengthening,
active principles, sufficient to overcome those which before governed the
man.
Now let us inquire, what plan of reformation is proposed in the Scriptures.
It is such a one, as precisely accords with the principles laid down. The
necessity of regeneration, by the power of God, is taught almost in every
variety of form, both in the Old and New Testament. The effect of the divine
energy on the soul, is, A NEW HEART; or, new principles of moral action, the
leading exercises of which are love to God, and love to man. Let a
philosophical survey be taken of the nature of man, with his complete system
of perceptions, passions, appetites, and affections; and then suppose this
powerful and holy principle introduced into the soul, and it will be seen,
that all the faculties and propensities of man, will be reduced to order;
and the vices of our nature will be eradicated. Pretenders to reason and
philosophy have often ridiculed this doctrine, as absurd; whereas, it is, in
every respect, consistent with the soundest philosophy. It is the very thing
which a wise philosopher, who should undertake to solve the problem, how
depraved man might be restored to virtue, would demand. But like the
foundation Archimedes required for his lever to raise the the principle
necessary for a sinner’s reformation, which reason and philosophy cannot
furnish.
The Bible is the only book which ever taught the method of purifying the
soul from sin. A thousand actual devices have been tried by philosophers,
and es of other systems. One of the most common een, to endeavour to
extricate the soul from the nce of the body, by various methods of
mortification, and purgation; but all these plans have adopted lse
principle, that the body is the chief seat of rity, and therefore they have
ever proved unsuccessful. The disease lies deeper, and is further removed
... the reach of their remedies, than they supposed. he Gospel which teaches
the true philosophy regarding the seat of sin, and its cure. Out of the
heart d all evils, according to the Bible. And if we make the fruit good, we
must first make the od.
This necessity of divine agency to make men truly us, does not, however,
supersede the use of means, lude the operation of rational motives. When a
principle is introduced into a rational soul, in the e of this principle,
the soul is governed by the general laws of understanding and choice, as be
The principle of piety is pre-eminently a rational le, in its operation. God
is loved, because he is viewed to be a most excellent and amiable being. n
is preferred to earth, because it is seen to be a ter and more enduring
inheritance; and so of all exercises.
naturally led, from the consideration of this t, to speak of the moral
system of the New Testament. I confine my remarks here, to the New
Testament, not because it teaches a different rule of moral duty, from the
Old, but because it teaches it more clearly.
I need say nothing in general commendation of the moral precepts of the
Gospel. They have extorted the highest praise from many of the most
determined enemies of Christianity. No man has been able to show how they
could be improved in any one point. It has sometimes, indeed, been objected,
that this system was not suited to man, because it requires a purity and
perfection to which he can never attain; but the objection concedes the very
point which we wish to establish,—namely, the absolute perfection of the
Gospel system of morality. It surely requires no argument to prove, that if
God revealed a rule for the regulation of his creatures, it will be a
perfect rule. It will never do to admit, that the law must be lowered in its
demands, to adapt it to the imperfection of creatures. This would be
destructive of all law.
It has again been objected, that in the precepts of the New Testament, many
splendid virtues, acknowledged by the heathen moralists, have been omitted.
Patriotism, friendship, bravery, &c., have been specified as be. longing to
this class. To which we reply, that so far as patriotism and friendship are
moral virtues, they are included in the general precepts of the Gospel,
which require us to love our fellow men, and do them good; and in those
which command us to think of “Whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever
things are of good report;” but when the love of country, and the attachment
to a friend, interfere with the general obligations of loving all men, they
are no longer virtues, but vices.
The excellence of the moral system of the New Testament, will be manifest,
if we consider,—
1. Its simple, yet comprehensive character. All moral duties which can be
conceived, as obligatory on man, are here reduced to two grand principles,
the love of God, and the love of man. The measure of the first is, the full
extent of our capacity; of the second, the love which we have for ourselves.
On these two, says Christ, hang all the law and the prophets. The duties
which relate to temperance and self-government, do not need any additional
principle. If the soul be filled with love to God, and with love to man,
self-love will be so regulated and directed, as to answer every purpose in
moving us to perform what has been called our duty to ourselves.
2. The precepts of morality, in the New Testament; although sometimes
expressed in comprehensive language, are often applied to the actual
relations and various conditions of men. We are not left to infer particular
duties from general principles, but the duties of individuals, according to
their circumstances, are distinctly enjoined. Parents and children, husbands
and wives, magistrates and subjects, ministers and people, the rich and the
poor, the friend and the stranger, have all their respective duties clearly
marked out.
3. Moral duties which have been overlooked, or misunderstood, by other
teachers, are here prominently exhibited, and solemnly inculcated. The
virtues of humility, meekness, forbearance, and the forgiveness of injuries
were not acknowledged by the heathen moralists; but in the New Testament
they are made to assume their proper place, and much of true goodness is
made to consist in their exercise. At the time of the advent of Christ, many
false principles of morality had gained currency. The duty of loving all
men, had been circumscribed within narrow limits. Men charged with heresy,
as the Samaritans, or notorious sinners, as the Publicans, were, by the
Jews, considered as properly excluded from all participation in their
kindness, or courtesy. The duty of subjection to a foreign power, by which
they had been conquered; and especially, the duty of yielding obedience to a
wicked tyrannical prince, was one on which it required much wisdom to decide
aright. The people were divided among themselves on this point; it was
therefore selected by a combination of both parties, as a fit subject to
entangle our Lord, by obliging him to decide one way or the other, and thus
expose himself to the opposition of one of the parties. But when they asked
him whether it was lawful to give tribute unto Cæsar or not, he called for a
denarius, and looking at the image stamped upon it, asked whose it was; and
upon being answered, Cæsar’s, made the following remarkable reply, “Render
unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are
God’s.” By which he decided, that, inasmuch as they permitted the coin of
Cæsar to circulate among them, which was an evidence of his sovereignty over
them, and availed themselves of this money for purposes of trade, there
could be no impropriety in rendering to Cæsar what properly belongs to him;
and, also, that this was not incompatible with their allegiance to God. So
that, virtually, in this answer, he reproved both the Pharisees and the
Herodians; the former, of whom made their duty to God a pretext for refusing
to pay tribute to the Emperor; and the latter, to secure the favor of the
reigning powers, neglected their duty to God.
Paul, living under the government of Nero, prescribes obedience to the
existing powers, not from fear of suffering their displeasure, but “for
conscience sake.” This is the general rule of duty, on this difficult
subject, than which none can be wiser; but it must not be considered, as
inculcating passive obedience and nonresistance, in all cases. Yet, as long
as a government has authority, so long we are bound to obey. Christianity is
so constituted, as not to interfere with any civil institution. It takes men
as it finds them, in all the relations of life, and teaches them their duty.
It never can, therefore, be the cause of sedition, and opposition to
existing governments. It considers all civil rulers, as the ministers of
God, for the peace and good order of society, and for the punishment of
those that do evil. It is made the duty of Christians, therefore, to be
“subject unto the higher powers,” and “not to resist the ordinance of
God.—To render to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due, custom to
whom custom, fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.” [44] —But when they
who have the right to change the government, of a country, exercise it, and
put down one set of rulers, and set up another, the principle of Christian
duty remains the same. And if, in any country, Christians form a majority of
the nation, there is no reason why they may not exercise this right of new
modelling their government, or changing their rulers, as well as others.
4. The moral system of the New Testament traces all virtue to the heart, and
sets no value on the most splendid and costly offerings, or the most
punctilious discharge of religious duties, when the motives are not pure.
The first inclination of the mind to an illicit object, is denounced to be a
violation of the law; and words of reproach, and all idle words, are among
the sins for which an account must be given in the Judgment. Prayers and
alms, proceeding from vain glory, are represented as receiving no reward
from God, however they may be applauded by men.
The love of this world, and the love of money, are represented as radical
sins, from which many others proceed.
Pride and revenge are exhibited as not only odious, but incompatible with
the divine favor. Purity of heart, and heavenly mindedness, with trust in
God. and submission to his will, are; in this system, cardinal, virtues.
5. The moral precepts of the New Testament were exemplified in the lives of
the apostles and primitive Christians; and especially, and to the utmost
perfection, in the example of Jesus Christ. It is impossible to conceive a
character more perfect than that given by the evangelists, of the Founder of
the Christian religion; and it has already been observed, that this
character, embracing every variety of excellence, often exhibited in
delicate and difficult circumstances, is delineated by a simple narrative of
facts. There is no panegyric; no effort or art to excite admiration; but the
writers merely inform us what Jesus said, did, and suffered. From this
narrative we learn, that he connected himself with no sect, and courted the
favor of neither the rich nor the poor. He adopted none of the errors or
prejudices of his nation; but by his discourses and his conduct, showed that
he acted from far higher views than national prejudices. The apparent
sanctity of the Pharisees, he denounced as hypocrisy;—the traditions of the
elders, as subversive of the law of God;—the sceptical opinion of the
Sadducees, as proceeding from ignorance of the true meaning of the
Scriptures.
Jesus Christ continually turned the attention of his hearers, from earthly
to heavenly things, as alone worthy of their affections and pursuit.
Although he flattered no class of men, his attention was particularly
directed to the poor; their spiritual necessities and their bodily
afflictions excited his most tender compassion; and to them he addressed
many kind and encouraging declarations. But his healing power was exerted in
behalf of all applicants, rich and pool; and without regard to their sect or
nation. Jews, Samaritans, Heathens, Publicans, and sinners, were the objects
of his compassion. He was not deterred by the proud prejudices of the
Scribes and Pharisees, from associating with penitents, however vile and
infamous they had before been. He graciously received returning sinners,
comforted them with the assurance of pardon, and permitted them to manifest
their grateful affection to his person; by, the most expressive signs and
actions.
He manifested the kindest sympathy with his friends in their afflictions,
weeping with those that wept, and often exerting his omnipotence in raising
their dear relations from the bed of sickness, or from death. And although
he often uttered severe rebukes against the incorrigibly wicked, and was
sometimes grieved and angry with them, yet his compassion towards them never
failed; and even when their day of grace was ended, he wept over them with
the most affecting tenderness.
Jesus Christ was often brought into conflict with insidious, malignant, and
learned adversaries. They attacked him with deliberate craft, and. proposed
to him questions on delicate and difficult subjects, to which he was
required to return an immediate answer; but in no case of this sort was he
ever confounded, or even puzzled by the cunning craftiness of his enemies.
His answers were so appropriate, and so fraught with wisdom, that his
adversaries were commonly confounded, and the audience filled with
admiration.
The parables of Christ are unparalleled for beauty and force, in the species
of composition to which they belong. But this is the smallest part of their
excellence. They contain so much important truth, and so happily adapted to
the subject, and the occasion, that often, the. persons intended to be
reproved by them, were constrained to give judgment against themselves. In
these discourses, the leading doctrines of the Gospel are exhibited in a
beautiful dress of allegory, which rivets the attention, and greatly aids us
in understanding the. fulness and freeness of the grace of the. Gospel. They
are also prophetical of the rejection of the Jews, and of the calling of the
Gentiles; of the various reception of the Gospel by different classes, of
hearers; of the mixture of sincere and unsound Christians, of which the
Church should consist; of the cruel persecutions which the followers of
Christ should endure; and of the final overthrow and destruction of his
enemies.
Jesus Christ spake, in all his discourses; as never man spake. He removed
the false glosses which had been put on the law, and set its precepts in
their proper light. He mingled the dogmas of no philosophical system with
his instructions. He entered into no metaphysical and abstruse disquisition,
but taught the truth with simplicity and authority.
His zeal for the honor of God, and for the purity and sanctity of his
worship, and his dislike of all human inventions and will-worship, are
manifest, in all his conduct. A spirit of fervent and, elevated devotion,
was a remarkable characteristic of Jesus of Nazareth. Whole nights he spent
in prayer; and before day he would retire for the purposes of devotion. He
was in the habit of praying and giving thanks on all occasions; but his
devotion was free from all tincture of superstition, or enthusiasm. He
taught, that not the. words, but the heart;—not the length of prayers, but
their, spirit, was regarded.
His benevolence, meekness, and laborious diligence, in promoting the welfare
of men, were manifested, every day of his life. But in his acts of mercy,
and in his most extraordinary miracles, there was no appearance of parade or
ostentation. “He went about doing good,” but he sought no glory from men. He
was humble, retired, and contented with the lowest state of poverty.
When the people applauded him, he withdrew unto some other place. When they
would have made him a king, he escaped from their hands. When they asked
curious questions, he directed them to something important. When they
uttered unmeaning expressions of praise, he took occasion to announce some
important truth, or deliver some interesting discourse.
In nothing did he discover more profound wisdom,. than in declining to
interfere, in any case, with temporal concerns, and disputes about earthly
possessions. He showed by his conduct, what lie solemnly declared on his
trial, that, “his kingdom was not of this world.”
In his intercourse with his disciples, we observe a sweet mixture of dignity
and gentleness, of faithfulness and humble condescension to their weakness
and prejudices.. No wonder that they should love such a Master. But his last
discourses with them before his passion, and the remarkable prayer offered
in their behalf, for affectionate tenderness, and the sweet spirit of
consolation which pervade them, are altogether inimitable. How flat and
unsatisfactory are the conversations of Socrates with his friends, when
compared with those of Christ, recorded in the xiv, xv, and xvi chapters of
the Gospel of St. John! Indeed, it would be impossible to refer to any
discourses, in any language, which could bear a comparison with this
valedictory of Christ: and that which should enhance our admiration of the
pure benevolence of the author; is, that he was aware, that his own
sufferings were near, and would be most cruel and ignominious; and vet his
attention is turned to the case of his sorrowful disciples; and all that he
says has relation to them. The institution of the Eucharistical Supper,
intended to be commemorative of his death, was attended with circumstances,
which exhibit the character of Jesus, in a very peculiar and interesting
light. This scene will be best understood by a perusal of the simple and
affecting narrative of the evangelists, to which the reader is referred.
The last thing in the character of Christ, which I shall bring into view at
this time, is the patience and fortitude with which he endured sufferings,
which were intense and overwhelming, beyond conception. There is something
mysterious in this whole affair. The intense agonies which Jesus suffered,
seem to have had no connexion with external circumstances. When he was
betrayed, deserted, and arrested, he discovered no signs of fear or
perturbation. He gave himself up, and submitted with unruffled composure, to
every species of contumely and insult. While his trial was going on before
the Sanhedrim, and before Pilate, he maintained, for the most part, a
dignified silence, uttering no reproaches or complaints; not even speaking
in his own defence. When particularly interrogated by the judges, he
answered directly to the questions proposed, and avowed himself to be the
Messiah, the Son of God, and the King of Israel. Under the mockery and
insult which were heaped upon him, he remained perfectly composed, and
uttered not a word indicative of impatience or resentment. “As a sheep
before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.” When he was
bewailed by the daughters of Jerusalem, as he ascended the hill of Calvary,
bearing his cross, he requested them not to weep for him, but for themselves
and their children, on account of the calamities that were coming on that
devoted city. While suspended on the cross, he saw his beloved mother among
the spectators, and knowing that she would need a friend and protector, he
recommended her to the care of the. disciple he most tenderly loved.
Although no compassion was mingled with the vindictive feelings with which
he was persecuted, yet he set a glorious example of that most difficult
duty, of loving our enemies: as says the apostle Peter, “Because Christ also
suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: who
did no sin, neither was guile found in his month; who, when he was reviled,
reviled not again; when he suffered; he threatened not, but committed
himself to him that judgeth righteously.” Among his last words, before he
expired, was a prayer for those that were then engaged in crucifying
him;—“Father forgive them, for they know not what they do.” A penitent
thief, who was crucified with him, implored his blessing and remembrance,
when he should come to the possession of his kingdom, to whom he replied,
“This day shalt thou be with me in paradise.” And finally, he said, “Father,
into thy hands I commit my spirit,” and bowed his head, and died.
The moral excellence of the character of Christ is very remarkable, for
uniting in perfection, qualities which among men are considered almost
incompatible, He exhibited a complete indifference to the possessions and
glory of the world, and a devout and heavenly temper, without the least
mixture of austerity. He combined uniform dignity, with humility and
condescension:—manifested strong indignation against all manner of sin, and
against impenitent sinners, but the most affectionate tenderness, towards
every humble penitent. He united the spirit of elevated devotion also, with
a life of activity and incessant exertion. While he held free intercourse
with men of all classes, he adopted the prejudices, and spared the vices of
none. On this subject, I will take the liberty of quoting a passage from an
excellent discourse of Dr. Charming, referred to already: “I will only
observe,” says the eloquent author, speaking of the character of Christ,
“that it had one distinction, which, more than any thing, forms a perfect
character. It was made up of contrasts: in other words, it was a union of
excellencies which are not easily reconciled, which seem at first sight
incongruous, but which, when blended, and duly proportioned, constitute
moral harmony, and attract with equal power, love, and veneration. For
example, we discover in Jesus Christ an unparalleled dignity of character, a
consciousness of greatness, never discovered or approached by any other
individual in history; and yet this was blended with a condescension,
loveliness, and unostentatious simplicity, which had never before been
thought consistent with greatness. In like manner, he puked an utter
superiority to the world, to its pleasures and ordinary interests, with
suavity of manners, and freedom from austerity. He joined to strong feeling
and self-possession, an indignant sensibility to sin, and compassion to the
sinner; an intense devotion to his work, and calmness under opposition and
ill success; a universal philanthropy, and a susceptibility of private
attachments; the authority which became the Saviour of the world, and the
tenderness and gratitude of a son.”
The salutary effects of Christianity on communities and individuals, open a
wide field for important remarks; but it is a subject which we have not time
to pursue; yet we must not pass it over in entire silence. The argument from
this topic may, however, be reduced to a point. Take a survey of the whole
world, at this time, and let an impartial judgment be formed, of the
condition of all the nations; and let the question be answered, whether
Christian nations are in a less favorable, or more favorable condition, than
others. And again, whether among Christians, those nations who have the free
use of the Bible, and are carefully instructed in the doctrines of
Christianity, are in a better or worse condition, than those to whom the
Scriptures are interdicted, and who are permitted to remain in ignorance of
the religion which they profess? The answers to these questions are so
obvious, that I cannot but presume, that all readers will be of the same
mind. It may then be asked, would a vile imposture be the means of
meliorating the condition of the world, and prove salutary in proportion as
it is known and obeyed? “I speak as unto wise men judge ye what I say.”
We have, moreover, seen, in our own time, the wonderful effects of the
Gospel, in civilizing some of the most barbarous people on the face of the
earth. Men who seemed to be sunk to a level with the beasts, have been
reclaimed, enlightened, and exalted, to a participation of the blessings of
civilized life—their ferocious temper being completely subdued and softened.
Look at Greenland, at Africa, at the islands in the Pacific; and nearer
home, at the Cherokees, Choctaws, and other Indian tribes, and see what the
Gospel can effect! I know not what infidels think of these things, but for
my own part, I should not esteem one coming from the dead, or a voice of
thunder from the heavens. so undoubted an evidence of the truth of .the
Gospel, as these effects. Will a series of falsehoods produce such effects
as these?
I know that it has been objected, that Christianity has been the cause of
many bloody wars and cruel persecutions;—but this is impossible. That
religion which breathes nothing but benevolence and peace, and which
requires its disciples not to resist evil, but freely to forgive their most
malignant enemies, never can be the cause of war and persecution. It may
indeed be the occasion, and no doubt has been made the occasion. of such
evils; but it would be absurd to attribute to Christianity, the evils of
which it has been the innocent. occasion, when its own spirit is in direct
opposition to those evils. As well might we charge civil government with all
the wars and tumults which it has occasioned. As reasonably might we accuse
liberty, as being the cause of all the atrocities of the French revolution.
The truth is, that the wickedness of man is the cause of these evils; and
the most excellent things in the universe, may be made the occasion of
exciting, or calling it into exercise. Christ foretold that his religion
would be an occasion of family discord; and to express the certainty of the
event predicted, he said, “Think not not I am come to send peace on earth; I
came not to send peace, but a sword; which some superficial readers have
strangely misconstrued, as though he had signified, that it was the tendency
of his religion to produce strife among friends. No man can remain in error
on this subject who will take the pains to read the New Testament. And I
will venture to predict, or rather to publish what is already predicted,
that as soon as the world shall sincerely embrace the Christian religion,
wars will cease to the ends of the earth. Then shall men beat their swords
into plough shares, and their spears into pruning hooks, and learn war no
more.
But the salutary effects of the Gospel on those individuals who cordially
embrace it, furnish the most manifest proof of its divinity. flow often, by
the secret, powerful influence of the truths of the Bible, have the proud
been humbled; the impure rendered chaste; the unjust, honest; the cruel and
revengeful, meek and forgiving; the drunkard, temperate; the profane,
reverent; and the false swearer and liar, conscientious in declaring nothing
but the truth! Under the influence of what other system are such salutary
changes effected? Will it be said, that many who profess to experience such
a change, prove themselves to be hypocrites? Admitted; but does this evince
that they who give evidence of sincerity by the most incontestible proofs,
all their lives, are also hypocrites? All men wish to be thought honest; but
if many are discovered to be knaves, does this prove that there is not an
honest man in the world?
But however this argument may affect those who have had no experience of the
power of the Gospel, it will have great weight with all those who have, by
means of the truth, been converted from the error of their ways. There are
thousands who can attest that they have experienced the salutary efficacy of
the Bible, in turning them away from their iniquities and enkindling within
them the love of God, and of virtue. They cannot but believe that the
Christian religion is from God, and are persuaded that no imposture could so
elevate and sanctify the mind:—that no human device could possess such a
power over the conscience and the heart, as they have experienced from the
Scriptures. These persons, therefore, may truly be said to have the witness
of the truth in themselves.
But there is an efficacy in the truths of the Bible, not only to guide and
santify, but also to afford consolation to the afflicted, in body or mind.
Indeed, the Gospel brings peace into every bosom, where it is cordially
received. When the conscience is pierced with the stings of guilt, and the
soul writhes under a wound which no human medicine can heal, the promises of
the Gospel are like the balm of Gilead, a sovereign cure for this
intolerable and deeply seated malady. Under its cheering influence, the
broken spirit is healed, and the burden of despair is removed far away. The
Gospel, like an angel of mercy, can bring consolation into the darkest
scenes of adversity; it can penetrate the dungeon, and soothe the sorrows of
the penitent in his chains, and on his bed of straw. It has power to give
courage to the heart, and to brighten the countenance of the man who meets
death on the scaffold, or on the gibbet, if its precious invitations to the
chief of sinners, be sincerely embraced. It mitigates the sorrows of the
bereaved, and wipes away the bitter tears, occasioned by the painful
separation of affectionate friends and relatives. By the bright prospects
which it opens, and the lively hopes which it inspires, the darkness of the
tomb is illumined; so that Christians are enabled, in faith of the
resurrection of the body, to commit the remains of their dearest friends to
the secure sepulchre, in confident hope, that after a short sleep, they will
awake to life everlasting.
The cottages of the poor, are often blessed with the consolation of the
Gospel, which is peculiarly adapted to the children of affliction and
poverty. It was one of the signs of Jesus being the true Messiah, “that the
poor had the Gospel preached unto them.” Here, it produces contentment,
resignation, mutual kindness, and the longing after immortality. The aged
and infirm, who, by the gradual failure of their faculties, or by disease
and decrepitude are shut out from the business and enjoyments of this world,
may find in the word of God, a fountain of consolation. They- may, while
imbued with its celestial spirit, look upon the world without the least
regard for its loss, and may rejoice in the prospect before them, with a joy
unspeakable and full of glory. The Gospel can render tolerable, even the
yoke of slavery, and the chains of the oppressor. How often is the pious
slave, through the blessed influence of the word of God, a thousand Limes
happier than his lordly master! He cares not for the short deprivation of
liberty; he knows and feels that he is “Christ’s freeman,” and believes
“that all things work together for his good,” and that “these light
afflictions which are for a moment, will work out for him a fax more
exceeding and eternal weight of glory!” But, moreover, this glorious gospel
is an antidote to death itself. He that does the sayings of Christ shall
never taste of death; that is, of death as a curse;—he shall never feel the
envenomed sting of death. How often does it overspread the spirit of the
departing saint, with serenity! How often does it elevate, and fill with
celestial joy, the soul which is just leaving the earthly house of this
tabernacle? It actually renders, in many instances, the bed of the dying, a
place of sweet repose. No terrors hover over them;—no anxious care corrodes
their spirit;—no burden oppresses their heart. All is light;—all is hope and
assurance;—all is joy and triumph!
Now, the question to be decided is, whether a book which is replete with
such sublime and correct views of theology;—which exhibits the true history
and true character of man, without flattery, distortion, or exaggeration;
and which possesses such an astonishing power of penetrating the human heart
and affecting the conscience,—which gives us information on the very points,
with which it is most important that we should be acquainted;—which opens to
us the future world, and shows us how we may attain its felicity and
glory;—which exhibits a perfect system of moral duty adapted to our nature
and circumstances, and free from all the defects of other systems of
morality; forbidding nothing which is innocent, and requiring nothing which
is not reasonable and virtuous;—which reduces all duty to a few general
principles, and yet illustrates the application of these principles by a
multitude of particular precepts, addressed to persons in every relation of
life, and exemplifies them, by setting before us the lives of holy men, who
are portrayed according to truth, with such imperfections, as experience
teaches us, belong to the best men;—which delineates the character of Jesus
Christ, the founder of Christianity, with such a perfection of moral
excellencies, by simply relating his words, actions, and sufferings, that
nothing can be taken from it, or added to it, without detracting from its
worth;—and finally, which contains the true sources of consolation for every
species of human suffering, and comfort in death itself. I say, is it
reasonable to believe, that such a book is the production of vile impostors;
and especially, of uneducated fishermen of Galilee?
Would such men have fallen into no palpable blunders in theology or
morality? Could they have preserved so beautiful a harmony and consistency
between all the parts? Could they have exhibited such a character as that of
Jesus Christ? and while they introduce him acting and speaking so often, and
in circumstances so peculiar and difficult, never ascribe to him any error
or weakness, in word or deed? Would impostors have denounced all manner of
falsehood and deceit, as is done in the New Testament? Would they have
insisted so much on holiness, even in the thoughts and purposes of the
heart? Could they have so perfectly adapted their forgery to the
constitution of the human mind, and to the circumstances of men? Is it,
probable that they would have possessed the wisdom to avoid all the
prejudices of their nation, and all connexion with existing sects and civil
institutions? And finally, could they have provided so effectually for the
consolation of the afflicted? What man now upon earth could compose even the
discourses, said by the evangelists to have been spoken by Christ?
If any man can bring himself, after an impartial examination of the
Scriptures, to believe that they were written by unprincipled impostors,
then he may believe, that au untutored savage might construct a ship of the
line; that a child might have written the Iliad, or Paradise Lost: or even
that the starry firmament was the work of mere creatures. No: it cannot be,
that this is a forgery. No man or set of men ever had sufficient talents and
knowledge, to forge such a book as the Bible. It evidently transcends all
human effort. It has upon its face the impress of divinity. It shines with a
light, which from its clearness and its splendor, shows itself to be
celestial. It possesses the energy and penetrating influence which bespeak
the omnipotence and omniscience of its Author. It has the effect of
enlightening, elevating, purifying, directing, and comforting all those who
cordially receive it. Surely, then, it is the word of God, and we will hold
it fast, as the best blessing which God has vouchsafed to man.
O precious gospel! Will any merciless liana endeavor to tear away from our
hearts this best, this last, this sweetest consolation? Would you darken the
only avenue through which one ray of hope can enter? Would you tear from the
aged and infirm poor, the only prop on which their souls can repose in
peace? Would you deprive the dying of their only source of consolation?
Would you rob the world of its richest treasure? Would you let loose the
flood-gates of every vice, and bring back upon the earth, the horrors of
superstition, or the atrocities of atheism? Then endeavor to subvert the
Gospel—throw around you the fire-brands of infidelity—laugh at religion, and
make a mock of futurity;—but be assured, that for all these things, God will
bring you into judgment. But no; I will not believe, that any who reflect on
what has been said in these pages, will ever cherish a thought so
diabolical. 1 will persuade myself, that a regard for the welfare of their
country, if no higher motive, will induce them to respect the Christian
Religion. And every pious heart will say, RATHER LET THE SUN BE DARKENED IN
THE HEAVENS, THAN THE PRECIOUS LIGHT OF THE GOSPEL BE EXTINGUISHED!
_________________________________________________________________
[40] Dr. Chalmers.
[41] Soame Jenyns.
[42] Chalmers’ Evidences.
[43] See Watson’s Address to Scoffers.
[44] Rom. xiii.
_________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER XI.
THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT, WERE WRITTEN BY THE INSPIRATION
OF GOD; AND THIS INSPIRATION, HOWEVER IT MAY BE DISTINGUISHED, WAS PLENARY;
THAT IS, THE WRITERS WERE UNDER AN INFALLIBLE GUIDANCE, 130TH AS IT RELATES
TO THE IDEAS AND WORDS: AND YET, THE ACQUIRED KNOWLEDGE, HABITS, AND
PECULIAR DISPOSITIONS OF THE WRITERS, WERE NOT SUPERSEDED.
HAVING endeavored to establish the authenticy of the Scriptures, I come now
to say something respecting the inspiration of the writers of the several
books. These two subjects are, it is true, involved, in each other; and many
of the arguments for the former, are conclusive in favor of the latter; but
still, there is a distinction which it is important to observe. A book may
be authentic, without having the least claim to inspiration, as are all true
narratives of facts, written by men of veracity, in the exercise of their
unassisted powers. The gospel history may be established on the common
principles of human testimony, in the same manner, as any other history.
Indeed, this must be done, in the order of proof, before any convincing
argument can be formed, in favor of divine revelation. Accordingly, all
judicious writers on the Evidences of Christianity, first attempt to
establish the facts recorded in the Gospels, by an appeal to merely human
testimony. This distinction is so clear, and practically so important, that
many persons believe in the facts—miracles as well as others—and yet have no
conviction that the history of these events was written by divine
inspiration. This is understood to be the case in regard to most of those
called Unitarians. Dr. Priestley, in his “Institutes of the Christian
Religion,” has established the authenticity of the facts, recorded by the
evangelists, with great force of reasoning; and yet, in the same work, he
utterly denies the plenary inspiration of these writers; but alleges, that
they were men of veracity, and that their testimony should be received, just
as we receive that of other credible historians; but without ascribing
infallibility to them The same opinions have been maintained by many others.
The authenticity of the facts is sufficient to demonstrate, that the
Christian religion is of divine origin; but it does. not follow, as a matter
of course, that the historian who gives an account of the facts orr which it
rests, was inspired. This is a distinct inquiry; and, although, not so
vitally important as the former, yet is of great moment, and deserves a
serious and impartial consideration.
It may be proper, also, in this place, to distinguish between inspiration,
and that illumination, which every true Christian must receive, and which is
the foundation of that saving faith which is produced in the mind, by the
operation of the Holy Spirit. The distinction is, that the object of
inspiration is commonly to reveal some new truths; or more clearly to reveal
such as were before but obscurely revealed; or, it is intended, to direct
the mind, in a supernatural way, to write and speak certain things; and so
superintends or strengthens its faculties, that it is enabled to
communicate, with unerring certainty, truths before known; or, to form ideas
and adopt expressions so sublime, as to be above the range of the natural
powers of the person. But the illumination of the Holy Spirit communicates
no new truths, but enables the soul spiritually to apprehend truths already
revealed. Here then is the grand distinction between those spiritual
influences which all Christians enjoy, and enthusiasm, which claims
something of the nature of inspiration. The sober Christian can appeal to
the word of God, as containing all the ideas by which his mind is affected,
in its highest elevations of joy and love: but the enthusiast departs from
the written word, and trusts to impulses, impressions on the imagination,
immediate suggestions, dreams, or supposed visions. If these impulses or
suggestions were from the Spirit of God, they would be strictly of the
nature of inspiration. And, accordingly, most fanatics believe themselves to
be inspired; but however strong their persuasion, we are not bound to
believe in their pretensions, unless they can exhibit these external proofs,
by which God is pleased to give attestation to those communications which he
makes to men.
There is also a difference between inspiration, and revelation. All
revelations are not made by a suggestion of truth to the mind of an
individual. God often spike to people of old, by audible voices; and
communicated his will by the missions of angels. Many persons have thus
received divine revelations, who had no pretensions to inspiration. All the
people of Israel, who stood before God at Mount Sinai, heard his voice,
uttering the ten commandments, and yet no one would say, that all these were
inspired. So, also, when Christ was upon earth, in more instances than one,
a voice was heard declaring, that he was the beloved Son of God. Indeed, all
who had the opportunity of hearing Christ’s discourses, might be said to
receive a revelation immediately from God; but it would be absurd to say,
that all these were inspired. Dr. Dick is of opinion, that the word
revelation would be more expressive, as being more comprehensive than
suggestion, which last conveys the idea of an operation on the mind;
whereas, truth, in many cases was made known, in other ways. But for the
reasons stated above, it would not do to substitute the word revelation for
inspiration; inasmuch as, multitudes received revelations, who had no claim
to inspiration. And when inspiration is confined to those who wrote the
books of Scripture, no other word would so clearly express the idea.
Inspiration has, by theologians, been distinguished into three kinds; that
of superintendence, of suggestion, and elevation. The first of these takes
place, when a historian is influenced, by the Holy Spirit, to write, and in
writing is so directed as to select those facts and circumstances, which
will answer the end proposed; and so assisted and strengthened in the
narrative of events, as to he preserved from all error and mistake. The
facts need not be revealed, because they may be well known to the writer
from his own observation, and may be deeply impressed on his memory; but, no
man can avoid inaccuracies and mistakes, in a narrative of facts, long past.
If it is important that such a narrative be exempt from error, the writer
must be inspired. But as the chief object of inspiration is, to communicate
truths before unknown; so, the inspiration of suggestion is requisite, in
all such eases; as when the prophets were inspired to predict the
revolutions of empires; or, to communicate a message from God to a whole
people, or to an individual, the ideas must of course, have been immediately
suggested, by the Holy Spirit. The third species of inspiration, is, when,
by a divine influence, persons are enabled to bring forth productions, in
speaking or writing, far more sublime and excellent, than they could have
attained, by the exercise of their own faculties. Thus, often, women, under
the inspiration of God, have instantly uttered, in elevated strains of
poetry, discourses in praise of God, which, by their unassisted powers, they
could never have produced. In these compositions, there may be no revelation
of new truth; nor is there a mere superintendence of the human faculties, as
in the first case, was described; but the powers of the mind, are, for the
occasion, wonderfully elevated above their common level, so that the
conceptions are more vivid and sublime, and expressed in language more
appropriate and striking, than would have naturally occurred to them. By an
inspiration of this sort, David wrote the Psalms, and Solomon the Proverbs,
and the Speakers in the book of Job, the sublime discourses, which are there
recorded. Many things of this kind, are also found in the writings of the
prophets.
Here, another question of some perplexity, demands our attention. It is,
whether the words of Scripture, as well as the ideas, were given by
inspiration. On the one hand, it is alleged, that there is no necessity for
supposing that the words used in communicating revealed truth, should be
suggested by the Holy Spirit; and that the fact proves that no such
inspiration existed, because the style of each of the writers is peculiar,
and accords precisely with his education, disposition, and turn of mind. But
on the other hand, it is argued that unless the words were inspired, as well
as the ideas we cannot be certain, that the writer has, in any case,
communicated accurately, the mind of the Spirits; for, men are liable to
mistake, in the selection of appropriate words, as much as in any thing
else; and as men often fail in conveying their own ideas, in language which
correctly expresses their meaning; so, also, they might make similar
mistakes in the use of language, to express ideas received by inspiration;
if in this matter they were left to the guidance of their own minds. It has
also been plausibly urged in favor of inspiration extending to the words,
that we can scarcely conceive of a revelation of truths to the mind, without
supposing, that they were clothed in language. We cannot even think
distinctly, much less reason conclusively, on any subject, without the
intervention of words.
Now, it is probable, that, that has occured in this controversy, which has
in many others; namely, that both parties are right; or, rather, that the
truth will be fully possessed, by adopting the views entertained on both
sides, and endeavoring to reconcile them. The fact is, that the same
principles which apply to the ideas, may, without any alteration, be applied
to the words. When the truths revealed were before unknown to the inspired
person; and, especially—as seems often to have been the case with the
prophets—when they did not fully comprehend the import of what was revealed,
it is necessary to suppose, that the words, as well as ideas, were
immediately suggested by the Holy Spirit. This was remarkably the case, when
the apostles and others received the gift of tongues; which was nothing else
but the inspiration of words, as they were needed, for the communication of
the truths of the Gospel.
But as in the narration of well-known facts, the writer did not need a
continual suggestion of every idea, but only to be so superintended, as to
be preserved from error; in the use of language, in recording such familiar
things, there existed no necessity that every word should be inspired; but
there was the same need of a directing and superintending influence, as in
regard to the things themselves. Here then, we see, that the language of the
sacred writers might be preserved from impropriety, and inaccuracy; and yet,
all the characteristics of style, peculiar to each writer, be retained. Just
as if a master should so guide the hand of a child in writing, that the pen
should be actually moved by the pupil; but governed and directed by the
master, so as not to transgress the limits prescribed. Or, this
superintendence, both as to ideas and words, may be illustrated, by the case
of a father conducting a child along a narrow path. The child walks by its
own activity, and takes steps according to its ability; but the father
preserves it from falling, and keeps it in the straight path. Just so it is
with men, when under the superintending influence of the Holy Spirit. Their
own powers of understanding, memory, and invention, are not superseded, but
only directed, and preserved from inaccuracy and error; but the man pursues
his own peculiar method of thinking, reasoning, and expression. Ile speaks
or writes in the language which he has learned, and uses that idiom and
style, which have become habitual; so that inspired men, will, according to
this theory, retain their peculiarity of style and expression, just as fully
as if they were writing or speaking, without inspiration.
Some object to this theory of superintendence, under the impression, that it
is less perfect, than if every thing was inspired by direct suggestion of
the Holy Spirit. But there is really no foundation for this objection. It
certainly is a matter of no consequence, how our knowledge is obtained, if
only it is rendered infallibly certain. There are many things, concerning
which we could not acquire a greater degree of assurance than we already
possess, by inspiration of any kind: and such knowledge, acquired by the
exercise of reason or intuition, is not the less valuable, because it has
been obtained in a natural way. Indeed, these natural faculties, by which we
are so constituted as to be capable of certain knowledge of the first
principles of truth, are the gift of God, as much as any inspiration can be;
and the clear intuitive knowledge, which we .possess of certain truths, may
be considered as a sort of permanent inspiration; for, suppose a man, by a
constant plenary inspiration, to be made absolutely sure of the truth of
certain propositions, so that he could not entertain any doubt respecting
them, in what respect would there be any difference between this, and the
intuitive perception of self-evident principles, which every rational man by
nature possesses? There would, then, be nothing gained by the inspiration of
direct suggestion, in regard to our knowledge of those things, of which we
already possess intuitive certainty; so, it is also evident, that in
relation to all our knowledge acquired by experience, or testimony, we only
need such an influence, as will enable us to communicate what ought to be
recorded, for the benefit of the church, and to do this without error,
either as to matter or manner.
Some, who do not deny the inspiration of the sacred writers, in the general,
have thought it necessary to make concessions on this subject, which are not
called for, from the nature of the case, and have thus involved the cause
which they defend, in real difficulties. They have granted, that while, in
all matters of real importance, the penmen of the Scriptures were guided by
a plenary inspiration; yet, in trivial matters, and the relation of
unimportant circumstances, they were left to their own unassisted powers;
and in such matters; have, therefore, fallen into mistakes, such as are
incident to other honest historians, in similar circumstances. Now, no evil
or inconvenience would result from this hypothesis, if the line could be
definitely drawn, between the parts of the book, written by inspiration, and
those in which the writers were left, to themselves. But as no human wisdom
is sufficient to draw this line, the effect of this opinion is, to introduce
uncertainty and doubt, in a matter, concerning which assurance is of the
utmost importance. And it is in itself an improbable supposition, that the
spirit of God should infallibly guide a writer in some parts of his
discourse, and forsake him in other parts. If we find a witness mistaken in
some particulars, it weakens our confidence in his general testimony. And
could it be shown, that the evangelists had fallen into palpable mistakes,
in facts of minor importance, it would be impossible to demonstrate, that
they wrote any thing by inspiration.
The case of Paul is often adduced to prove, that a writer, who, for the most
part, was inspired, may, in particular cases, be left to follow his own
opinions. [45] If the meaning here ascribed to this apostle, and which,
perhaps, is the most obvious, should be admitted, yet it. would riot
authorise the opinion which we are now opposing. It would only follow, that
in these few excepted cases, Paul was not inspired; which would leave us to
enjoy full confidence in what he says, in all other cases, as being spoken
by divine inspiration. But it may well be doubted, whether this was the true
meaning of the apostle. It is much more probable, that all that he intended
to teach, was, that our Lord Jesus Christ had delivered no opinion on the
point which he was treating; but that he, by the aid of the spirit which was
in him, expressed an opinion, which evidently he intended should be
authoritative. And he plainly intimates, that be spoke by inspiration, when
he says, “And I think also that I have the spirit of God.” The import of
this declaration, according to the usage of the New Testament, is, that Paul
was persuaded that he was inspired, in uttering the sentiments which he did.
The words “I think” should not be interpreted as signifying any doubt or
uncertainty, for that is not at all the meaning of the original; but as
being the expression of the conviction of his own mind. There is, therefore,
no need to suppose, that Paul intended to intimate, that lie wrote any thing
without the aid of divine inspiration. It would be strange, indeed, that lie
who was inspired for all other purposes, should be left to himself in this
one instance: and this is not to be reckoned among the least important
matters which have fallen from his pen.
The true doctrine of inspiration then, is, SUCH A DIVINE INFLUENCE ON THE
MINDS OF THE SACRED WRITERS, AS RENDERED THEM EXEMPT FROM ERROR, BOTH IN
REGARD TO THE IDEAS AND WORDS.
This is properly called PLENARY inspiration. Nothing can be conceived more
satisfactory. Certainty, infallible certainty, is the utmost that can be
desired, in any narrative; and if we have this, in the sacred Scriptures,
there is nothing more to be wished, in regard to this matter.
That the Scriptures of the Old Testament were appealed to, and constantly
spoken of; as inspired, and as free from error, is capable of the clearest
proof. Christ said to the Jews, “Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think
ye have eternal life, but they are they which testify of me.” “For had ye
believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me.” On another
occasion, he said, “Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures,” where, it is
evidently implied, that the Scriptures are an unerring rule. In the same
chapter, it is recorded, that Jesus confounded the Pharisees by asking them,
how David could, IN SPIRIT, call Christ, Lord, when he was his son. Again,
Christ, after his resurrection, expresses this sentiment in the strongest
terms: “These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with
you; THAT ALL THINGS MUST BE FULFILLED, which were written in the Law of
Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened he
their understandings, that they should understand the Scriptures; and said
unto them, thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer and to
rise from the dead, on the third day.” In the preceding part of the same
discourse, this idea is also clearly exhibited. “Then he said unto them, O
fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken. Ought
not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? And
beginning at Moses and all. the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the
Scriptures, the things concerning himself. And they said one to another, did
not our hearts burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while
he opened to us the Scriptures?” So, also, in the garden of Gethsemene, our
Lord in addressing Peter, said, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my
Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be.” The
same infallible authority is ascribed to the Old Testament, by Christ, in
his dispute with the Jews, recorded in the tenth chapter of John. “Jesus
answered them, is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods? If he
called them gods to whom the word of God came; and THE SCRIPTURE CANNOT BE
BROKEN.” We have, besides, many passages, in which the evangelists refer to
the Holy Scriptures, as an infallible standard of truth. “But though he had
done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him, that the
saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake—Lord, who
hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?”
“Therefore, they could not believe, because that Esaias said again—he hath
blinded their eyes,” &c. “For these things were done that the Scripture
should be fulfilled, a bone of him shall not be broken. And again, another
Scripture saith, they shall look on him whom they have pierced.”
The apostles are not less explicit, in testifying to the inspiration of the
Scriptures of the Old Testament, than Christ and the evangelists. Paul, in
his second epistle to Timothy, puts him in mind, “that from a child he had
known the Holy Scriptures, which were able to make him wise unto salvation,
through faith which is in Christ Jesus;” and then adds, “All Scripture is
given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness; that the man of God may be
perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” The Scriptures, which
Timothy knew from his childhood, must have been the books of the Old
Testament, for, at that time, no others had been written: but when Paul goes
on to declare, that “all Scripture was given by inspiration of God,” he
might have included under this general expression, all the books of the New
Testament, which had been published, before his second imprisonment at Rome;
and this would comprehend, probably, the first three Gospels, the Acts of
the Apostles, and all his own epistles, besides; for this seems to have been
the last of Paul’s writings; for in the close of this epistle, he says, “For
I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand.” And
that, about this time, the writings of Paul were, by the Church, reckoned
among the sacred Scriptures, we learn from the second epistle of Peter,
which was probably written about this time, or a little before. His words
are remarkable, as containing the only clear testimony, on record, of one
apostle, to the writings of another. “And account,” says he, “that the long
suffering of our Lord is salvation, even as our beloved brother Paul also,
according to the wisdom given unto him, hath written unto you. As, also, in
all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things
hard to be understood; which they that are unlearned and unstable pervert,
as they do also the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” Hence, it
would appear, that Paul’s epistles were now well known, and were reckoned
among the other Scriptures, by the apostle Peter. Certainly, then, Paul
himself might have included them, as well as the other published books of
the New Testament, under the phrase “all Scripture;” and if so, this passage
will contain a strong testimony to the inspiration of the whole of the Old
Testament, and a large part of the New Testament. And admitting the facts,
of Paul’s miraculous conversion, divine mission as an apostle, and that he
was richly endowed with the gifts of tongues, of healing, of prophecy, &c.,
we cannot deny that he is a witness, in this case, on whom we may repose the
most perfect confidence.
The apostle Peter has also given the most unequivocal testimony, to the
inspiration of the prophets who penned the Old Testament. He had been
speaking concerning the wonderful scene of which he was a witness, on the
mount of transfiguration, whereupon, he goes on to say, “We have a more sure
word of prophecy, whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light
that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in
your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any
private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of
man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” There
is another testimony of this apostle, in his first epistle; in which he
clearly speaks of the inspiration of the prophets. “Of which salvation the
prophets have inquired, and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace
that should come unto you; searching what, or what manner of time, the
Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it certified beforehand
the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was
revealed, that not unto themselves but unto us, they did minister the things
which are now reported unto you, by them that have preached the Gospel unto
you, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven.”
That the Scriptures of the Old Testament were continually recognized by4he
apostles, as given by inspiration of God, is so evident from every mention
of them, that it may seem to be a waste of time, to adduce the testimonies;
but the subject is exceedingly important, and we cannot too frequently have
these evidences set before our eyes.
In the epistle to the Hebrews, there are many clear testimonies, some of
which I will bring forward. In the very first sentence, it is said, “God,
who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in time past unto the
fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days, spoken unto us by his
Son.” Whatever is spoken by the prophets is represented throughout this
book, as spoken by God himself. Thus, in the same chapter, it is declared,
“And when he bringeth the first begotten into the world, HE saith, And let
all the angels of God worship him. And to the angels, HE saith, who maketh
his angels spirits—but to the Son, HE saith, thy throne O God is for ever
and ever.” Now, all these passages, where God is said to speak, are
quotations from the Psalms. Certainly then, we may conclude, that whatever
is spoken in this book of Psalms, is from the inspiration of God. The same
is the fact, in the next chapter, where a large part of the eighth Psalm is
quoted, and applied to Christ. So, also, the Captain of our Salvation is
represented as saying certain things, which are found written in the Old
Testament. “Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren”—“And again, I
will put my trust in him.” And in the third chapter of this epistle, we have
a quotation from the Psalms in the following remarkable words, “Wherefore,
as the Holy Ghost saith, To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your
hearts.” And in the fourth chapter, the same style is used as before.” For
HE spake in a certain place of the seventh day, in this wise, and God did
rest the seventh day from all his works.” And in the fifth. “But HE said
unto him, thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in
another place, thou art a priest, forever after the order of Melchisedek.”
And God is represented as the speaker; not only in what is written in the
Psalms, but in the prophets also. Thus, in the eighth chapter, we have a
long quotation from Jeremiah, which is declared to be, the word of the Lord.
“Behold the days come saith the Lord,” &c. One more testimony from this book
shall suffice. In the tenth chapter, it is said, “Wherefore the Holy Ghost
also is a witness unto us; for after that he had said before, this is the
covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord.”
Nothing can be more evident then, than that as the writers of the Old
Testament declared themselves to speak what they received from the Lord, so
the whole of the Scriptures are continually referred to, and recognized, as
given by inspiration; insomuch, that it would he difficult to find a single
passage, in which these Scriptures are mentioned, in which this idea is not
expressed, or clearly implied. And it will be shown, hereafter, that the
writers of the New Testament claim inspiration for themselves.
lf, as has been shown, the Old Testament was written by inspiration, and if
the New Testament contains a revelation from God, not less important; and
which, in fact, is the completion of the Old, can we believe, that. while
prophets were inspired to write the former, the latter was left to be marred
and obscured, by the weaknesses of uninspired men?
To accomplish the purpose intended by revelation, it seems necessary, that
the writers who communicate it to posterity, should be guided by
inspiration. The end of revelation is, to convey to men, a certain knowledge
of truth, to guide their faith and practice. But if the book which contains
such a revelation, is composed by erring, fallible men, we never can be
sure, in any particular case, that we are in possession of the truth
revealed. The men may be honest and faithful, but we know that all men are
liable to errors and mistakes; and all men are more or less under the
influence of prejudices and prepossessions. It is evident, therefore, that
the purpose of giving a revelation, would be, in a great measure defeated,
unless inspired men were employed to make the record by which it is to be
transmitted to the various nations of the earth, and to posterity.
Again, when we carefully consider the subject matter of the books of the New
Testament, we cannot repose implicit confidence in what is taught, unless we
have evidence that the pens of the writers were under the guidance of
inspiration. To record the discourses which a man hears, and transactions
which he sees, seems, at first sight, to require nothing more than veracity
and integrity, in the historian. This might, to a certain extent, be
admitted, if the witness instantly noted down what he heard, or saw; but who
can believe, that after the lapse of eight, fifteen, or fifty years, the
evangelists would be able to record, with perfect accuracy, long discourses
of their Master; and, to relate correctly, all the circumstances of the
miracles, of which they have given an account? It may be said, indeed, that
they could give, substantially, the facts of which they were witnesses; but
this is far from being satisfactory. Such a record would lose a portion of
that reverence which it ought to receive, to give it a commanding authority
over the conscience, and to be a solid foundation for unshaken confidence,
And in regard to mysterious and sublime doctrines, which the apostles teach
in their epistles, if once we admit the idea, that they were fallible men,
we shall continually be liable to doubt;—we shall be afraid that they have
misapprehended, or forgotten, what they had heard: or, that under the bias
of prejudice or inclination, they may have been led, insensibly, to give a
distorted view of the truths which they inculcate.
But we are not left to conclude, from the necessity of the case merely, that
the writers of the New Testament were inspired, by the Holy Ghost. We have
clear and abundant proof, that our blessed Lord promised infallible guidance
to his disciples, whom he chose to be his witnesses to the world; and to
whom he committed the propagation of his religion, through all nations, and
all ages, “And I will pray the father, and he shall give you another
Comforter, that he may abide with you forever: even the spirit of truth,
whom the world cannot receive because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him;
but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.” And that
the Holy Spirit here promised, was to guide the apostles in delivering their
testimony, may be inferred from what is said in the xv. chapter. “But when
the COMFORTER is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the
Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me.
And ye shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the
beginning.” The promise of plenary inspiration is, however, more explicitly
given, in the xvi. chapter of John. “Howbeit, when he the Spirit of truth is
come, HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL TRUTH; for he shall not speak of himself;
but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak; and he will show you
things to come. He shall glorify me; for be shall receive of mine, and shall
show it unto you. All things that the father hath are mine; therefore, said
I, that he shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you.” Christ also
promised the inspiration of immediate suggestion to his disciples, when
called to answer before kings and rulers, and commanded them not to
premeditate what they should say, for it would be given to them at the
moment what they ought to say, “For,” said he, “It is not you that speak,
but the Holy Ghost who speaketh in you.” Now we may argue, with irresistible
force, if plenary inspiration was granted to the apostles to enable diem to
make a proper defence, when arraigned at a human tribunal, surely they would
not be abandoned to their own weakness, when preparing a record of Christ’s
words and actions, which was, through all ages, to be the guide of his
church? If the apostles were ever inspired, we may be sure that it was, when
directed to finish and record the testimony of God. The very idea, that
every book of the Old Testament was given by inspiration, but that the whole
of the New was composed without this aid, is revolting to the reason of man.
And this will appear the more unreasonable, when we consider, that the light
of the new dispensation is seven-fold clearer than that of the Old. The very
forerunner of Christ, was superior to all the prophets that preceded him:
but the least in the kingdom of heaven was greater than he. Then, certainly,
if all the prophets only spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, the
apostles, who were the chosen witnesses of Christ, and chief officers of his
kingdom, were not left without this infallible guidance, when engaged in
performing the most important part of the responsible duty assigned them;
when executing that part of their commission, which was most effectual in
extending and perpetuating his spiritual kingdom? Accordingly, the apostles
claim to be inspired men; and speak with an authority which would be
arrogant, if they had not written under an infallible guidance. They do not
merely express their own private opinions, and endeavor to support them by
argument; but they speak as men assured of the truth of what they deliver;
and decide with authority and without hesitation, questions, which none but
men inspired by the Holy Spirit could undertake thus positively to
determine, without, exposing themselves to the charge of dogmatism and
self-sufficiency.
Besides, some parts of the New Testament—like much of the old—are prophetic;
and if true, could be written in no other way, than by inspiration. The
Apocalypse, or Revelation given to John, is either a mere enthusiastic
fable, or, it was written by inspiration; and such is the majesty of the
ideas here presented, and the awful sublimity of the style, that even Dr.
Priestly, was constrained to acknowledge, that it bore on its face, marks of
a superhuman origin. And if we bad time to compare the prophetic
representations .of this singular book with authentic history, there would
arise an evidence of its inspiration, which could not be easily
contradicted. Such men as, Sir Isaac Newton, Dr. Clarke, bishop Hurd, bishop
Newton, and a multitude of others, have seen in this book, the most
convincing .proof of divine inspiration. The same may be said of all the
prophecies of the Old and New Testament. if there is any truth, whatever, in
them, they must be inspired; for, none but inspired men can foretell future,
contingent events. Indeed, in all the cases, where Moses and others declare,
that God spoke to them, and communicated instructions, or laws, they must be
considered as divinely directed, unless we deny their veracity. But we are
now reasoning on the hypothesis, that the books are authentic, and written
by men of truth and honesty.
The style of the evangelists has often been adduced as an evidence of their
inspiration. Not that they write with an elegance and sublimity which cannot
be imitated; but because they write as persons divested of the feelings
which commonly belong to men. They write with an unaffected simplicity, and
with an impartial, dispassionate regard to truth, that has no parallel, and
has never been successfully initiated. How could illiterate men produce such
works as the Gospels, without inspiration? Select a thousand sensible men,
but unaccustomed to composition, and set them to write a simple history of
the most remarkable transactions with which they have been conversant, and
there will not be in any one of them, an approximation to the characteristic
manner of the evangelists. Others, and men possessed of more learning than
the apostles, have undertaken, without inspiration, to write Gospels, as if
composed by some one or other of these holy men; but you cannot place the
evidence of the inspiration of the genuine Gospels, in a stronger light,
than by contrasting them with any, or all the apocryphal writings, under the
names of the apostles.
But we are in danger here of repeating what has already been said, under the
head of the Internal Evidences of Christianity. The truth is, that the whole
of the arguments from this source, for divine revelation, are directly in
point, to prove the doctrine of inspiration; and, therefore, instead of
going over the ground a second time, I would refer to what has been said, in
the preceding chapter.
Miracles, also, furnish the most conclusive proof of inspiration, where it
can be ascertained, that the writer of any book of Scripture possessed the
power of performing such works; for, the very end for which miracles were
exhibited, was to prove that the person speaking was sent from God, to
deliver some message. As Nicodemus properly said, “We know that thou art a
teacher come from God, for no man can do the miracles which thou doest,
unless God be with him.” Well, if miracles are sufficient to prove the truth
of an oral communication, will they not also be equally conclusive, in favor
of a written declaration? If there be any difference, it is in favor of the
latter, because it is much more important, that a written discourse,
intended for the instruction of all ages, should be well attested, than a
discourse from the lips, which is heard by few, and can never be recovered
after it has been spoken.
In the whole of what has been said on the subject of inspiration, the truth
of the facts recorded in the New Testament has been taken for granted; and,
also, that the Scriptures contain a divine revelation. We are not arguing
with infidels, but with those, who, while they acknowledge the divine origin
of the Christian religion, doubt, or deny, that the persons who wrote the
books of the Old and New Testament, were guided by a plenary inspiration.
Now, as these persons admit that the apostles and evangelists were men of
veracity and integrity, their testimony, on this subject, ought to be
decisive. If they claim inspiration, we cannot deny it to them, without
invalidating all the strongest evidences of the truth of Christianity. Why
were they endowed with the power of working miracles, but that full credence
might be given to what they testified; and when they declare, that they were
moved by the Holy Ghost; and that what they delivered, was not the word of
men but the word of God, received by divine revelation, do not these
miraculous powers which they possessed, as fully confirm what they wrote, as
what they spoke?
Having before shown, that the apostles furnish ample testimony to the
inspiration of the Old Testament, we shall now adduce a few texts to prove,
that they claimed inspiration for themselves. Their message is every where
called THE WORD OF GOD; and Paul declares, that what he preached, he
received not from man, but “from the revelation of Jesus Christ.” that the
things which he wrote, were “The commandments of the Lord;” and that the
things which he and his brethren taught, “God had revealed them to them by
his Spirit.” He, therefore, declared, “He who despiseth the things which he
taught, despised not men but God.” Peter ranks “the commandments delivered
by the apostles, with the words of the Holy Prophets; and as has been before
remarked, reckons the epistles of Paul, with the other Scriptures.” John
says, “We are of God; he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God,
heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of
error.”
The only thing wanting to complete the evidence of the inspiration of the
New Testament, and consequently that of the Old, is to show, that these
writings were received unanimously by the Christian Church, as inspired
writings. But although, there exists abundant evidence of this fact, yet to
pursue it would lead., us too much into detail, and would not comport with
the studied brevity of this work. And I am the less inclined to enter on the
labor of collecting this testimony, here, because I have attempted this in
another work. I may say, however, that in the early ages of the Church, no
Christian ever called in question the inspiration of the sacred volume; but
all held this as a fundamental point, in their religion. It was left for
those, who chose to style themselves rationalists, in modern times, to admit
the authenticity of the facts recorded in the Bible; while they utterly deny
the plenary inspiration of the writers. But this is ground on which no
consistent reasoner can long stand. The truth is, if the miracles and
prophecies of the Scriptures be acknowledged, and the divine origin of
Christianity be admitted, the inspiration of the penmen of these books must
follow as a corollary. It cannot be denied without the greatest
inconsistency. And, on the other hand, if inspiration be denied, the
authenticity of the miracles and prophecies will soon Le abandoned. The
course of theological opinion among the neologists of Germany, for a number
of years past, furnishes a striking illustration of the truth of the
aforesaid observations. For a while, the assault, in that country, was
merely upon the doctrine of inspiration; but no sooner was that ground
conceded, than the critics directed their artillery against the authenticity
of the miraculous facts and prophecies.
There is no end to the objections which may be started against the plenary
inspiration of the Scriptures, just as is the fact in regard to the visible
universe, as. the work of God; and it cannot be denied, that there is a
striking analogy between the mode of reasoning pursued by atheists and
deists. But the foundation of all their arguments is human ignorance and
they cannot, form the conception of a creation, by a Being of almighty power
and infinite wisdom, and of a supernatural revelation from such a being,
which would not be liable. to as great, and much greater objections, than
they are able to bring forward against his works and word, as they do
actually exist. If such men could be induced,. in a calm and unprejudiced
manner, to examine this subject, I would recommend to them a careful perusal
of Butler’s Analogy, between Natural and Revealed Religion; and to the
deist, I would especially recommend the seventh chapter, of the second Part,
where. the author, in a manner peculiar to himself, makes first, some
observations ON THE PARTICULAR EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY, and then, in the
close, exhibits a view of the evidence arising from a general survey of the
contents of the Bible. The argument, as presented in this last form, is so
original and striking, that I would insert it in this place, were I not
afraid of swelling this volume to an inconvenient size. The whole of the
second book of the Analogy may be considered as the most satisfactory method
of meeting the popular objections to divine revelation, which was ever
adopted.
And in regard to particular objections, arising from apparent discrepancies,
from extraordinary facts, and from mysterious doctrines, found in the sacred
volume, it will be sufficient to refer the inquisitive reader, to the first
volume of Horne’s Introduction, and to Dr. Dick’s deservedly popular work,
on Inspiration; and also, to learned commentators, some of whom have taken
much pains to reconcile seeming contradictions, and to elucidate obscure
passages, by an application of the rules of sacred criticism. I would only
further remark, in relation to the usual objections to the inspiration of
the Scriptures, that they militate as fully against the authenticity of the
facts, as against, the inspiration of the writers; and, therefore, do not
require to be considered and obviated under this head.
A summary of the whole evidence for the plenary inspiration of the
Scriptures, of the Old and New Testament, is as follows:—All the Internal
Evidences of Christianity, whether arising from the peculiar excellence of
the matter, or the simplicity and sublimity of the style—from the perfection
of the character ascribed to Jesus Christ—from the continual recognition of
the over-ruling Providence of God—from the pure and elevated spirit of
devotion which breathes through the sacred pages—from the penetrating and
transforming efficacy of the Holy Scriptures—and from, their adaptation to
the constitution of the human mind,. and to the existing relations among
men;—go to prove, that they were written under the infallible guidance of
the Holy Spirit.
Again, every prophecy which has been fulfilled, furnishes undoubted and
independent evidence of the inspiration of that particular part of the
Scriptures; and all the laws which proceeded from the mouth of Jehovah, must
be considered as infallible precepts, unless we should call in question the
whole truth of the narrative.
The writers, for the most part, were endued with the power of working
miracles. These facts, it is admitted, prove that God spake by them; and if
the: prophets and apostles were inspired in the discourses, which they
delivered, then a fortiori, they must have been inspired in preparing those
writings which were intended to guide the faith and practice of believers,
through all ages.
Moreover, the sacred writers, generally lay claim to inspiration. They speak
authoritatively in the name of the Lord. They call their message, the WORD
OF GOD and Christ has set his seal to the plenary inspiration of all the
Scriptures of the Old Testament. The apostles and evangelists, in the most
explicit manner; declare the same truth.
Besides, Christ promised plenary inspiration to his disciples; and they
professed to be under the guidance of the Spirit, in what they wrote.
And, finally, while some of the apostles were living, their writings were
classed with the divine Scriptures; and were universally received as
inspired, and as the infallible word of God, by the whole primitive Church.
We cannot but conclude, therefore, that all the books of the Old and New
Testament, were written by the inspiration of God; and contain an infallible
rule, to guide the faith and practice of the church, to the end of the
world.
_________________________________________________________________
[45] See 1 Cor. vii. 12-40.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
NOTES.
_________________________________________________________________
NOTE A.
AN APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VI.
On the Proof of Miracles by Testimony.
IN a recent popular, but anonymous publication, entitled, Essays on the
Pursuit of Truth, on the Progress of Knowledge, and the Fundamental
Principles of all Evidence and Expectation, By the Author of Essays on the
Formation and Publication of Opinions,” the doctrine of ne, on the subject
of testimony, has been exhibited in a ...a somewhat new and imposing, And as
this writer has ired considerable celebrity in England, and his Essays have
been republished in Philadelphia, and recommended strongly to the public,
upon the authority of the Westminster Review, it seems necessary to guard
the public against the insidious design of these Essays; which we have
reason to think, was not known to those concerned in the republication of
the work in this country. Indeed, the ingenious author, never brings the
subject of divine revelation directly into view, in all that he has written;
and I believe, the word “miracles” does not occur in either of the volumes
which he has published nevertheless, it is a fact, that in the last of his
essays, he has revived, in substance, the famous argument of Hume, on
miracles; and has, with even more concealed istry; than that celebrated
infidel employed, endeavored to e that no testimony, however strong, is
sufficient to establish fact which involves a deviation from the regular
course of the laws of Nature. But that I may not be suspected of
misrepresenting the sentiments of this discriminating and popular writer, I
will here insert an extract, from the Essay before-mentioned, which contains
the substance of the whole argument.
“But it is only a small part of our knowledge of past events which we gather
from physical evidence. By far the most important source of information of
such events is the testimony of human beings; and it,is a curious,
interesting, and momentous inquiry, whether we proceed on the same principle
when we avail ourselves of this moral evidence to penetrate into the past,
as when we make use of that which is of a purely physical character.
“Testimony must be either oral or written. As far as the mere physical
circumstances are concerned, we evidently commence our use of it by
reasoning from effects to causes. We infer, for example, that the writing
before us has been the work of some human being, in doing which we of course
assume the uniformity of causation. If from the circumstances attending the
testimony we infer that is entitled to be received as veracious; if for
instance, we find that it has proceeded from a man of tried integrity, and
who acted under the influence of motives which render it unlikely that he
should deceive, our inference still proceeds on the assumption of the same
principle. I may have in other cases found these circumstances to have been
the precursors or causes of true testimony; but how can I or any one tell
that they have operated in the same way in the instance before me? The reply
must evidently I be, that it is impossible to avoid assuming that the same
causes have invariably the same effects.
“In fact, if we examine any of the rules which have been laid down for the
reception of testimony, or any of those marks which have been pointed out as
enabling us to judge of its credibility, we shall find them all involving
the uniformity of causation. It is allowed on all hands, that the
concurrence of a number of witnesses in the same assertion, their reputation
for veracity, the fact of the testimony being against their own interest,
the probability of detection in any false statements, are all circumstances
enhancing the credibility of what they affirm. These are considered as
general principles on the subject gathered from experience, and we apply
them instinctively to any new case which may be presented to us, either in
the course of our own observation, or as having taken place at some former
period. But it is obvious from what has just been said, that unless we
assume a uniformity in the succession of causes and effects, we cannot
transfer our experience from any one case to another. That certain
circumstances have produced true testimony in one or a hundred instances,
can be no reason why they should produce it in a different instance, unless
we assume that the same causes have necessarily the same effects.
“It is clearly shown by this reasoning, that in the reception of testimony
and the use of physical evidence we proceed on the same principle. But in
the case of testimony there is a peculiarity not belonging to physical
evidence. In the former we not only have certain effects from which it is
our task to infer the causes, or certain causes from which to infer the
effects; as when we judge the writing before us to have been the work of
some human being, or the testimony to be true on account of the
circumstances under which it was given; but the testimony itself consists of
the assertion of facts, and the nature of the facts asserted often forms
part of the grounds on which the veracity of the testimony is determined; it
frequently happens, that while external circumstances tend to confirm the
testimony, the nature and circumstances of the facts attested render it
highly improbable that any such facts should have taken place, and these two
sets of circumstances -may be so exactly equivalent as to leave the mind in
irremediable doubt. In the consideration of both, however, the same
assumption is involved. We think the facts improbable, because we have found
them rarely occurring under the circumstances stated; we think the testimony
likely to be true, because we have generally found true testimony to proceed
from witnesses acting under the influence of similar motives, and what we
have found to happen in other cases we are irresistibly led to conclude must
also happen in the case before us.
“The opposition of the circumstances of the evidence and the nature of the
facts may be carried still further. Assertions are frequently made which in
themselves imply a breach of the uniformity of causation. From such cases
the conclusions already established remove all difficulty. To weigh
probabilities, to determine what credit is due to two sets of conflicting
circumstances, neither of which as far as our knowledge extends is
irreconcilable to the usual course of nature, is often a nice and arduous
task; but if the principles of this essay are correct, it is easy to see
what reception ought to be given to assertions professedly implying a
deviation from the uniform succession of causes and effects.
“Suppose, for instance, any person to affirm that he had exposed a cubic
inch of ice to a temperature of 200 degrees of Fahrenheit, and that at the
expiration of an hour it had retained its solidity. Here is a sequence of
events asserted which is entirely at variance with the admitted course of
nature; and the slightest reflection is sufficient to show that to believe
the assertion would involve a logical absurdity. The intrinsic discrepancy
of the facts could never be overcome by any possible proofs of the truth of
the testimony.
“For let us put the strongest case imaginable; let us suppose that the
circumstance of the ice remaining unmelted, rests on the concurrent
testimony of a great number of people, people too of reputation, science,
and perspacity, who had no motive for falsehood, who had discernment to
perceive and honesty to tell the real truth, and whose interests would
essentially suffer from any departure from veracity. Under such
circumstances false testimony it may be alleged is impossible.
“Now mark the principle on which this representation proceeds. Let us
concede the positions, that what is attested by a great number of witnesses
must inevitably be true,—that people of reputation and intelligence without
any apparent motive for falsehood are invariably accurate in their
testimony, and that they are above all, incapable of violating truth, when a
want of veracity would be ruinous to their interests. Granting all this, I
ask the objector, how he knows that these things are so; that men of this
character and in these circumstances speak truth? He will reply that he has
invariably found them to act in this manner: but why, because you found them
to act in this manner in a few or even in many cases, within your own
experience or in the experience of ages, do you conclude that they have
acted so in all cases and in the case before us? The only answer is, that it
is impossible not to take for granted, that in precisely similar
circumstances similar results will ensue, or that like causes have always
like effects.
“Thus on the ground of the uniformity of causation, he would be maintaining
the competency of testimony to prove a fact which implies a deviation from
that uniformity.”
Now it will abbreviate the answer to this specious argument, to acknowledge,
that the general principle which this author takes so much pains to
establish, and on which he builds his reasoning, is freely admitted, to be
not only correct, but self-evident. That the same causes uniformly produce
the same effects, is a truth so obvious, and so generally admitted, that it.
was unnecessary for the ingenious author of this essay, to spend so much
time in rendering it evident. And I am willing to admit its certainty to be
as undoubted in moral, as in physical subjects. But while I freely admit,
that the same causes will uniformly be followed by the same effects, I do by
no means accede to the proposition, which our author seems to consider as of
the same import; namely, that the course of nature, or the laws of nature,
never have been interrupted, or suspended; and the whole appearance of force
and plausibility which the argument of this writer possesses, arises from
the artful confounding of these distinct propositions. I agree, that no
testimony can be strong enough to induce a rational man to believe that the
same causes will not be attended with the same effects: for this would be to
assent to an evident absurdity. But it is an entirely different thing to
believe, that the laws of nature have sometimes been suspended; for in this
case, we suppose, that an extraordinary cause has intervened. To believe,
that a divine power has interposed to change the course of nature, is surely
not the same thing, as to believe that the same cause which commonly
produced one effect, is now attended by another entirely different. The
natural causes, it is true, remain the same, but the general proposition
slated above, is not true, if confined only to these. If there exist
supernatural causes, or a power superior to the laws of nature,—and this our
author does not profess to deny—then the laws of nature, or mere natural
causes may remain the same; and yet, by the operation of these supernatural
causes, effects entirely diverse from those that would be the sequence of
natural causes, may take place, And the author himself seems in one place
to, have been aware of this distinction, and to admonish the reader of its
existence; and yet, through the whole of the argument he proceeds, as if the
two propositions were identical. fie ought, however, to have recollected,
that while no man in his senses disbelieves the first proposition, much the
greater number of men have believed, that in some cases the laws of nature
have been suspended; not, that they thought that the same causes did not, in
these instances, produce the same effects, but that other causes of greater
potency than natural causes, were put into operation.
When our author, therefore, infers from the uniformity of causation, that no
testimony is sufficient to be the foundation of a rational belief, that
there has been a deviation from the common course of nature, be applies a
correct principle to a case to which it evidently does not belong. Because,
the same cause must produce the same effects, does it follow, that when
another and superior cause operates, the same effects must be produced? This
would be in direct repugnance to his own maxim. Then, before this principle
of the uniformity of causes and effects can he applied, it must be
demonstrated, that in the case under consideration, no other causes operate,
but such as are usual and natural, and whenever he shall be able to
establish this, there will be no further contest respecting the matter.
That I do not misrepresent the argument of the author, wilt appear
satisfactorily, by considering the cases which be has adduced. “Suppose, for
instance,” says he, “any person to affirm, that he had exposed a cubic Inch
of ice to a temperature of 200 degrees of Fahrenheit, and that at the
expiration of an hour, it had retained its solidity. Here is a sequence of
events asserted, which is entirely at variance with the admitted course of
nature; and the slightest reflection is sufficient to show, that to believe
the assertion, would involve a logical absurdity, The intrinsic discrepancy
of the facts could never be overcome by any possible proofs of the truth of
testimony.”
In another page, he says, “If a number of Men were to swear, that they had
seen the mercury of the barometer remain at the height of thirty inches,
when placed in the exhausted receiver of an air-pump, their testimony would
be instantly rejected. The universal conclusion would be, that such an event
was impossible.” What is here so confidently asserted, would only be true
upon the supposition, that no causes but such as were natural operated in
the cases adduced; but on the hypothesis of the operation of a supernatural
cause, there would be neither absurdity nor impossibility in either of the
facts. What! could not He, who established these laws, and gave to heat and
air, respectively, their peculiar powers and qualities, suspend their usual
operation? Could not He, clause the ice to remain unmelted in any
temperature; and the mercury to remain suspended, without the pressure of
the atmosphere? But the sophistical nature of the argument used, is most
evident. The principle is, that similar causes must have similar effects.
Very good—what then? Why, if ice remain unmelted at 200 degrees of
Fahrenheit, then this principle would be violated. I answer, not at all,
provided another cause is in operation, of such potency as to counteract the
usual effects of caloric; or to counteract the gravity of the quicksilver,
in vacuo. And it will not do to allege, that God, who established these
laws, will not contravene them, on any occasion; for this would be an entire
change of the ground of the argument, and a relinquishment of the principle
on which the reasoning of our author is founded. Besides, it would be a mere
begging the question in dispute.
Now, in both the cases adduced by this writer, to illustrate and confirm his
argument, on which he pronounces so confidently, that the judgment of men
would universally reject any testimony, I beg leave to be of a different
opinion, and will appeal to the common sense of all reflecting men, whether,
on the supposition, that a dozen men of perspicacity and undoubted
integrity, should solemnly affirm that they had seen a cubic inch of ice
remain an hour unmelted at 200 degrees of Fahrenheit, whether they could
refuse their assent? even if they knew of no good reason why the laws of
nature should be suspended. But if they knew that an important purpose in
the divine government could be answered by such a miracle, much less
testimony would be sufficient to produce unwavering conviction of the truth
of the extraordinary fact. And while they assent to such facts, on
sufficient testimony; they are guilty of no absurdity, and violate no rule
of common sense. It is true, that the credibility of the event reported, may
be reduced to this question—whether is it more probable, that the laws of
nature should, for a good end, be suspended, or that twelve men of tried
veracity, should agree to assert a falsehood, without any motive to induce
them to do so? And here our ingenious author revives the metaphysical
balance or Mr. Hume; and after admitting that the evidence from testimony
may be so strong that nothing is wanting to give it force, yet the maxim,
that the same causes must have the same effects, is also a truth so certain,
that no evidence can countervail it. We have, therefore, according to this
statement, the equipoise of evidence, which we have already considered, in
Mr. Hume’s argument. The rational mina, in such circumstance, must remain
neutral; it can neither believe nor disbelieve; for the evidence for the one
exactly counterbalances that for the other. But after stating this
hypothesis, our author finds that the evidence from testimony never can be
so convincing, as that which we have for the uniformity of causation. His
words are—“If the rejection and the admission of the testimony equally
implied a deviation from the uniform sequence of causes and effects, there
could be no reason for rejecting or admitting it.”—“But the rejection of the
testimony is not in this predicament. The causes of testimony, or in other
words, those considerations which operate on the minds of the witness,
cannot always be ascertained; and as we are uncertain as to the causes in
operation, we cannot be certain of the effects, we cannot be sure that the
circumstances of the witness are such as have given rise to true testimony,
and consequently we cannot be sure that the testimony is true.”
On this whole subject I have several remarks to make.—First, this method of
destroying the equipoise of evidence granted by Mr. Hume, and conceded by
himself, is not altogether fair; because it does not adroit what Is
obviously true, that in regard to some kinds of testimony, the evidence is
so certain, that we might as soon doubt of our own existence as of the truth
of the facts attested. Now, this being the case, there was no propriety in
representing all testimony as being involved in some degree of uncertainty.
Again, what is here said of testimony will apply just as fully to what we
ourselves witness, and for the truth of which we have the testimony of our
own senses. I mean, that if the argument of our author is at all valid, it
will prove, that if we saw the ice remain unmelted in the heat, and beheld
it ever so often; and found that thousands around us received the same
impression, we must not credit our own senses, nor believe what we saw with
our own eyes; because, however certain this kind of, evidence may be, it
cannot be more certain, than the principle, that the same causes will
uniformly produce the same effects. Therefore, although we should, under all
manner of circumstances, see such events, they could not be believed; for to
believe them would be a logical absurdity. And thus, would these men, by
their metaphysics, reason us out of the evidence of our very eye-sight. I
know, indeed, that neither Hume, nor the author whose reasoning, we are now
considering, have pushed the argument to this its just consequence; but I
would defy any man to show, that it is not as applicable to the evidence of
the senses as to that derived from testimony. Now, as the kind of evidence
which will invariably command assent, is not learned by metaphysical
reasoning, but by experience, I would leave the matter to be decided by
every man of impartial judgment, for himself. Every man knows, whether or
not, he would believe his own eyes, if lie should see ice remain unmelted in
200 degrees of temperature, according to Fahrenheit: or would be say, it
seems to be so, but it cannot be true, because it contradicts a self-evident
principle, “that the same causes must always be followed by the same
effects.” To which a man of plain, unsophisticated common sense would reply,
“I must believe my own senses; if doing so contradicts a thousand abstract
principles, I care not—‘seeing is believing.’” And the same may be said in
regard to testimony. Suppose a thousand persons entirely disinterested to
aver, that they had seen ice remain unmelted in a very high temperature, we
could not but believe them, account for the fact as we might. But we have
already proved, that believing in such an event violates no maxim, but only
supposes that some extraordinary power or cause is in operation; and when it
is understood, that this deviation from the laws of nature is intended to
confirm the declarations of some person who claims to be a messenger of God,
there is not only no absurdity in the thing; but all presumption against the
probability of such supernatural interposition is removed, as has been shown
in the argument on that subject.
It might also be demonstrated, that upon the principles of this author, not
only would it be absurd, upon any evidence, to believe in a fact which
involved a real deviation from the laws of nature, but in any one which was
entirely different from all our own experience of the laws of nature. For if
it would be absurd to believe, on the testimony of thousands of unconnected
witnesses that ice did not melt in a certain case when placed in the fire;
then it was altogether rational for the king of Siam, and all others in
similar circumstances, to disbelieve the fact, that water had been known to
become as hard as a stone so that men and animals could walk upon it.
Persons so situated never could know that. such an effect existed but by
testimony; yet as this testimony contradicted all their own experience about
the laws of nature, in relation to water, they ought rather to reject the
testimony, however strong, than to credit a fact which seemed to involve a
deviation from “the sequence of causes and effects,” to use the language f
this author. And thus we should be reduced to the necessity of rejecting all
facts not consonant to our own personal experience; for to receive them on
the ground of testimony, would be to violate the principle, that causation
is uniform.
But the zeal of our author to establish his favorite point, has led him, not
only to assert, that a deviation from the regular succession of the laws of
nature was incredible, on the ground of testimony, but that it is, in the
nature of things. impossible. In this assertion, he certainly may lay claim
to originality; for I believe no one before him, not even Hume, has gone so
far, in bold affirmation. His words are—“An event is impossible which
contradicts our experience, or which implies that the same causes have
produced different effects, or the same effects been preceded by different
causes. Thus, when we pronounce that it was impossible for a piece of ice to
remain in the midst of burning coals without being dissolved,. our
conclusion involves a complete knowledge of this particular effect of fire
on ice.”
And he is so confident that this is the true import of the word impossible,
that he says, “If I am not greatly deceived, the acutest reasoner, the
closest thinker, the most subtle analyser of words, will find himself unable
to produce any other meaning of the term, impossible, than that which is
here assigned to it.” But he seems to have felt that he had gone too far in
this dogmatical, and I must say, irrational assertion; for in a note he
gives himself, another, and one of the true meanings of the word,
impossible. But as confident assertion, accompanied by no proof nor reason,
is sufficiently answered by a confident denial, I would take the liberty of
saying, therefore, that if I am not greatly mistaken, no accurate
philologist will admit, that this is the true meaning of the word,
impossible. And certainly, men of plain common sense, never can be
persuaded, that it is impossible for the succession of events according to
the laws of nature, to be changed. It is true, when we confine our ideas to
the mere powers and qualities of nature, we do assert that their effects
will be uniform, and that it is impossible that the same causes should
produce different effects; but when we extend our views to the Great FIRST
CAUSE, it is not only absurd, but impious, to assert, that he cannot suspend
or alter the laws of nature. Nothing is impossible to him which does not
imply a contradiction, or is not repugnant to his attributes.
The conclusion which is rational on this subject, is, that all things are
possible to God, and whatever is possible may be believed on sufficient
testimony; which testimony, however, must be strong, in proportion to the
improbability of the. event to be confirmed.
_________________________________________________________________
NOTE B.
Mohammed asserted, that while he was in his bed one night, the Angel Gabriel
knocked at his door, and that when he went out, he saw him with seventy pair
of expanded wings, whiter than snow, and clearer than chrystal. The angel
informed him that he had come to conduct him to heaven; and directed him to
mount an animal, which stood ready at the door, and which was between the
nature of an ass and a mule. They name of this beast was Alborak, in color
whiter than milk, and swift as lightning. But when the prophet went to
mount, the animal proved refractory, and he could not seat himself upon its
back, until he promised it a place in Paradise.
The journey from Mecca to Jerusalem was performed in the twinkling of an
eye. When he arrived at the latter place, the departed prophets and saints
came forth to meet him, and saluted him. Here, he found a ladder of light,
and tying Alborak to a rock, he followed Gabriel on the ladder, until they
arrived at the first heaven, where admittance was readily granted by the
porter, when he was told by Gabriel, that the person who accompanied him,
was Mohammed, the prophet of God. Here, he met an old decrepit man, who it
seems was no other than our father Adam; and who greatly rejoiced at having
so distinguished a son. He saw also innumerable angels, in the shape of
birds, beasts, and men. This heaven was made of pure silver, and he saw the
stars suspended from it, by chains of gold.
In like manner, he ascended to the second heaven, a distance of five hundred
years journey, which was of pure gold, and contained twice as many angels as
the former. Here, he met Noah. Thence he proceeded to the third, which was
made of precious stones, where he met Abraham. The fourth was all of
emerald, where he met Joseph, the son of Jacob. In the fifth, which was of
adamant, lie met Moses. In the sixth, which was of carbuncle, he saw John
the Baptist. In the seventh which was made of divine light, he saw Jesus
Christ, and commended himself to his prayers. All the persons he had seen
before, however, begged an interest in his prayers. Here Gabriel informed
him, that he could go no further, and he proceeded alone, through snow and
water, until he came near the throne of God, when he heard a voice, saying,
“O Mohammed, salute thy Creator!” He was not permitted to come near the
throne of the Almighty, on the right side of which he saw inscribed the
sentence, there is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet; which is the
fundamental article of the Mohammedan creed.
After being permitted to bold a long conversation with the Creator, he
returned as he came, and found Alborak ready to convey him home, on whose
back he swiftly glided again to Mecca. All this happened in the space of the
tenth part of a night.
In the third heaven, he says, he saw an angel of so great a size, that the
distance between his eyes, was of seventy thou. sand days journey. This was
the angel of death, who has a large table before him on which he is ever
writing and blotting out; whenever a name is blotted, the person immediately
dies. He speaks also of another angel, in the sixth heaven; which had
seventy thousand heads and as many tongues.
_________________________________________________________________
NOTE C.
The Abbe Paris was the oldest son of a counsellor of Paris, but being much
inclined to a life of devotion, he relinquished his patrimony to his younger
brother, and retired to an obscure part of Paris, where he spent his life in
severe penance, and in charitable exertions, for the relief of the
distressed poor, He was buried in the ground of the church of St. Medard,
near the wall, where his brother erected a tomb-stone over the grave. To
this spot many poor people, who knew his manner of life, came to perform
their devotions, as much, probably out of feelings of gratitude, as any
thing else. Some among the devotees who attended at this place, professed
that they experienced a salutary change in their ailments. This being noised
abroad, as the Abbe had been a jealous Jansenist, all who were of this party
encouraged the idea of miracles having been performed; and multitudes who
were indisposed, were induced to go to the tomb of the saint; and some, as
they confessed before a competent tribunal, were persuaded to feign diseases
which they never bad. It is a fact, however, that the greater part received
no benefit, and that more diseases were produced than were cured; for, soon,
many of the worshippers were seized with convulsions, from which procceeded
the sect of Convulsionists, which attracted attention for many years. It was
soon found expedient to close up the tomb; but cures were still said to be
performed by the saint, on persons in distant places. The Jesuits exerted
themselves to discredit the whole business, and the Archbishop of Paris had
a judicial investigation made of a number of the most remarkable cases, the
results of which were various, and often ludicrous. A young woman, said to
have been cured at the tomb of blindness and lameness, was proved to have
been neither blind nor lame. A man with diseased eyes was relieved, but it
appeared that he was then using powerful medicine, and that after all, his
eyes were not entirely healed. A certain Abbe who had the misfortune to have
one of his legs shorter than the other, was persuaded that he experienced a
sensible elongation of the defective limb, but on measurement no increase
could be discovered. A woman in the same situation danced on the tomb daily,
to obtain an elongation of a defective limb, and was persuaded that she
received benefit; but it was ascertained, that she would have to dance there
fifty-four years, before the cure would be effected, at the rate at which it
was proceeding; but for the unfortunate Abbe, seventy-two years would have,
been requisite. In short, the whole number of cures, after examination, was
reduced to eight or nine, all of which can be easily accounted for, on
natural principles; and in several of these instances, the cures were not
perfect.
_________________________________________________________________
Indexes
_________________________________________________________________
Index of Scripture References
Leviticus
[1]26:1-46
Deuteronomy
[2]28:1-68 [3]28:53
2 Kings
[4]6:5 [5]6:28 [6]6:29 [7]18:9 [8]18:10 [9]25:3 [10]25:10
2 Chronicles
[11]36:17
Psalms
[12]22:1 [13]34:1-22 [14]103:1-22 [15]104:1-35 [16]145:1-21
[17]146:1-10 [18]147:1-20 [19]148:1-14
Isaiah
[20]44:1-28 [21]45:1-25
Jeremiah
[22]10:15 [23]26:29
Lamentations
[24]4:10 [25]4:19
Matthew
[26]24:1-51
Mark
[27]13:1-37
Luke
[28]12:57 [29]19:1-48 [30]21:1-38
John
[31]14:1-31 [32]15:1-27 [33]15:26-27 [34]16:1-33 [35]16:13-15
Romans
[36]11:12 [37]13
1 Corinthians
[38]7:12-40
Hebrews
[39]3:7-8 [40]4:4 [41]5:5-6 [42]8:8 [43]10:15-16
Revelation
[44]9:3
_________________________________________________________________
Index of Latin Words and Phrases
* Cujus impugnatio testimonium veritatis est. Tanta enim dictorum fides
fuit, ut propheta incredulis hominibus non videatur futura dixisse, sed
narrasse, præterita.: [45]1
* a fortiori: [46]1
* divinitus impeditus: [47]1
* in vacuo: [48]1
* petitio principii: [49]1
_________________________________________________________________
Index of Pages of the Print Edition
[50]i [51]ii [52]iii [53]iv [54]5 [55]6 [56]7 [57]8 [58]9 [59]10
[60]11 [61]12 [62]13 [63]14 [64]15 [65]16 [66]17 [67]18 [68]19
[69]20 [70]21 [71]22 [72]23 [73]24 [74]25 [75]26 [76]27 [77]28
[78]29 [79]30 [80]31 [81]32 [82]33 [83]34 [84]35 [85]36 [86]37
[87]38 [88]39 [89]40 [90]41 [91]42 [92]43 [93]44 [94]45 [95]46
[96]47 [97]48 [98]49 [99]50 [100]51 [101]52 [102]53 [103]54 [104]55
[105]56 [106]57 [107]58 [108]59 [109]60 [110]61 [111]62 [112]63
[113]64 [114]65 [115]66 [116]67 [117]68 [118]69 [119]70 [120]71
[121]72 [122]73 [123]74 [124]75 [125]76 [126]77 [127]78 [128]79
[129]80 [130]81 [131]82 [132]83 [133]84 [134]85 [135]86 [136]87
[137]88 [138]89 [139]90 [140]91 [141]92 [142]93 [143]94 [144]95
[145]96 [146]97 [147]98 [148]99 [149]100 [150]101 [151]102 [152]103
[153]104 [154]105 [155]106 [156]107 [157]108 [158]109 [159]110
[160]111 [161]112 [162]113 [163]114 [164]115 [165]116 [166]117
[167]118 [168]119 [169]120 [170]121 [171]122 [172]123 [173]124
[174]125 [175]126 [176]127 [177]128 [178]129 [179]130 [180]131
[181]132 [182]133 [183]134 [184]135 [185]136 [186]137 [187]138
[188]139 [189]140 [190]141 [191]142 [192]143 [193]144 [194]145
[195]146 [196]147 [197]148 [198]149 [199]150 [200]151 [201]152
[202]153 [203]154 [204]155 [205]156 [206]157 [207]158 [208]159
[209]160 [210]161 [211]162 [212]163 [213]164 [214]165 [215]166
[216]167 [217]168 [218]169 [219]170 [220]171 [221]172 [222]173
[223]174 [224]175 [225]176 [226]177 [227]178 [228]179 [229]180
[230]181 [231]182 [232]183 [233]184 [234]185 [235]186 [236]187
[237]188 [238]189 [239]190 [240]191 [241]192 [242]193 [243]194
[244]195 [245]196 [246]197 [247]198 [248]199 [249]200 [250]201
[251]202 [252]203 [253]204 [254]205 [255]206 [256]207 [257]208
[258]209 [259]210 [260]211 [261]212 [262]213 [263]214 [264]215
[265]216 [266]217 [267]218 [268]219 [269]220 [270]221 [271]222
[272]223 [273]224 [274]225 [275]226 [276]227 [277]228 [278]229
[279]230 [280]231 [281]232 [282]233 [283]234 [284]235 [285]236
[286]237 [287]238 [288]239 [289]240 [290]241 [291]242 [292]243
[293]244 [294]245 [295]246 [296]247 [297]248 [298]249 [299]250
[300]251 [301]252 [302]253 [303]254 [304]255 [305]256
_________________________________________________________________
This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal
Library at Calvin College, http://www.ccel.org,
generated on demand from ThML source.
References
1. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Lev&scrCh=26&scrV=1#ii.ix-p8.1
2. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Deut&scrCh=28&scrV=1#ii.ix-p8.2
3. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Deut&scrCh=28&scrV=53#ii.ix-p23.2
4. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=6&scrV=5#ii.ix-p18.1
5. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=6&scrV=28#ii.ix-p24.1
6. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=6&scrV=29#ii.ix-p24.1
7. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=18&scrV=9#ii.ix-p15.1
8. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=18&scrV=10#ii.ix-p15.1
9. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=25&scrV=3#ii.ix-p20.1
10. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=2Kgs&scrCh=25&scrV=10#ii.ix-p16.1
11. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=2Chr&scrCh=36&scrV=17#ii.ix-p13.1
12. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=22&scrV=1#ii.ix-p54.1
13. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=34&scrV=1#ii.xi-p17.2
14. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=103&scrV=1#ii.xi-p17.2
15. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=104&scrV=1#ii.xi-p17.2
16. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=145&scrV=1#ii.xi-p17.2
17. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=146&scrV=1#ii.xi-p17.2
18. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=147&scrV=1#ii.xi-p17.2
19. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Ps&scrCh=148&scrV=1#ii.xi-p17.2
20. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=44&scrV=1#ii.ix-p41.1
21. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Isa&scrCh=45&scrV=1#ii.ix-p41.1
22. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Jer&scrCh=10&scrV=15#ii.ix-p10.1
23. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Jer&scrCh=26&scrV=29#ii.ix-p23.1
24. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Lam&scrCh=4&scrV=10#ii.ix-p25.1
25. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Lam&scrCh=4&scrV=19#ii.ix-p11.1
26. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=24&scrV=1#ii.ix-p61.1
27. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=13&scrV=1#ii.ix-p61.2
28. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=12&scrV=57#i-p2.1
29. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=19&scrV=1#ii.ix-p61.3
30. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Luke&scrCh=21&scrV=1#ii.ix-p61.3
31. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=John&scrCh=14&scrV=1#ii.xi-p62.1
32. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=John&scrCh=15&scrV=1#ii.xi-p62.1
33. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=John&scrCh=15&scrV=26#ii.xii-p24.1
34. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=John&scrCh=16&scrV=1#ii.xi-p62.1
35. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=John&scrCh=16&scrV=13#ii.xii-p24.3
36. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=11&scrV=12#ii.ix-p79.1
37. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=13&scrV=0#ii.xi-p48.1
38. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=1Cor&scrCh=7&scrV=12#ii.xii-p12.1
39. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=3&scrV=7#ii.xii-p19.4
40. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=4&scrV=4#ii.xii-p19.5
41. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=5&scrV=5#ii.xii-p19.7
42. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=8&scrV=8#ii.xii-p19.9
43. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Heb&scrCh=10&scrV=15#ii.xii-p19.10
44. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/?scrBook=Rev&scrCh=9&scrV=3#ii.x-p29.1
45. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-p43.1
46. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-p36.1
47. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-p78.1
48. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-p15.1
49. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-p11.1
50. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#i-Page_i
51. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#i-Page_ii
52. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#i-Page_iii
53. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.i-Page_iv
54. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.i-Page_5
55. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_6
56. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_7
57. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_8
58. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_9
59. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_10
60. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_11
61. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_12
62. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_13
63. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_14
64. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ii-Page_15
65. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_16
66. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_17
67. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_18
68. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_19
69. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_20
70. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_21
71. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_22
72. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iii-Page_23
73. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_24
74. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_25
75. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_26
76. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_27
77. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_28
78. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_29
79. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_30
80. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_31
81. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_32
82. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_33
83. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_34
84. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_35
85. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_36
86. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.iv-Page_37
87. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_38
88. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_39
89. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_40
90. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_41
91. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_42
92. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_43
93. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_44
94. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_45
95. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_46
96. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_47
97. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_48
98. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_49
99. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_50
100. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_51
101. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_52
102. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_53
103. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_54
104. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_55
105. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_56
106. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_57
107. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_58
108. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_59
109. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_60
110. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_61
111. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_62
112. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_63
113. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_64
114. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_65
115. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_66
116. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_67
117. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.v-Page_68
118. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vi-Page_69
119. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vi-Page_70
120. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vi-Page_71
121. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vi-Page_72
122. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vi-Page_73
123. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vi-Page_74
124. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_75
125. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_76
126. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_77
127. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_78
128. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_79
129. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_80
130. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_81
131. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_82
132. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_83
133. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_84
134. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_85
135. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_86
136. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_87
137. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_88
138. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.vii-Page_89
139. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_90
140. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_91
141. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_92
142. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_93
143. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_94
144. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_95
145. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_96
146. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_97
147. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_98
148. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_99
149. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_100
150. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_101
151. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_102
152. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_103
153. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_104
154. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_105
155. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_106
156. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_107
157. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_108
158. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_109
159. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_110
160. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_111
161. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_112
162. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_113
163. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_114
164. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_115
165. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_116
166. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_117
167. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_118
168. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_119
169. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_120
170. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_121
171. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_122
172. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_123
173. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_124
174. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_125
175. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_126
176. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_127
177. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_128
178. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_129
179. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.viii-Page_130
180. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_131
181. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_132
182. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_133
183. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_134
184. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_135
185. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_136
186. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_137
187. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_138
188. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_139
189. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_140
190. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_141
191. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_142
192. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_143
193. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_144
194. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_145
195. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_146
196. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_147
197. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_148
198. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_149
199. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_150
200. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_151
201. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_152
202. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_153
203. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.ix-Page_154
204. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_155
205. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_156
206. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_157
207. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_158
208. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_159
209. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_160
210. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_161
211. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_162
212. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_163
213. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_164
214. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_165
215. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_166
216. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_167
217. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_168
218. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_169
219. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_170
220. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_171
221. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_172
222. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.x-Page_173
223. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_174
224. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_175
225. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_176
226. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_177
227. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_178
228. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_179
229. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_180
230. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_181
231. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_182
232. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_183
233. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_184
234. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_185
235. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_186
236. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_187
237. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_188
238. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_189
239. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_190
240. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_191
241. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_192
242. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_193
243. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_194
244. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_195
245. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_196
246. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_197
247. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_198
248. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_199
249. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_200
250. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_201
251. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_202
252. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_203
253. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_204
254. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_205
255. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_206
256. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_207
257. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_208
258. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_209
259. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_210
260. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_211
261. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_212
262. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_213
263. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_214
264. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_215
265. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xi-Page_216
266. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_217
267. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_218
268. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_219
269. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_220
270. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_221
271. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_222
272. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_223
273. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_224
274. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_225
275. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_226
276. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_227
277. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_228
278. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_229
279. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_230
280. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_231
281. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_232
282. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_233
283. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_234
284. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_235
285. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_236
286. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_237
287. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_238
288. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_239
289. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_240
290. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_241
291. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_242
292. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#ii.xii-Page_243
293. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_244
294. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_245
295. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_246
296. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_247
297. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_248
298. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_249
299. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_250
300. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_251
301. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_252
302. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.i-Page_253
303. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.ii-Page_254
304. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.ii-Page_255
305. file://localhost/ccel/a/alexander_a/evidences/cache/evidences.html3#iii.iii-Page_256