—Τί δὲ καὶ ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτῶν οὐ κρίνετε τὸ δίκαιον;
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.
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to the ideas and words: and yet, the acquired knowledge, habits, and peculiar dispositions of the writers, were not superseded.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.
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
Atheistical men, have, indeed, attempted to trace all
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
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
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 Gregoire.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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. 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.
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
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
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 Thomas Paine was one of them.
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, Histoire de Theophilanthropie, par M. Gregoire.—See Quarterly Review for January,
1823.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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,
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:
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
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,
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,
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,
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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 Dr. Campbell, Prof. Vince, Mr. Adam, Dr. Douglas.
The argument of Mr. Hume will be best exhibited in his own words.
“A miracle,” says he, “supported
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 Dr. Gleig.
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
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
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
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. See Pascal’s Thoughts.
It is natural for all men to speak the truth; falsehood requires
an effort. Wicked men lie, only when they
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 Decline and fall of the Roman Empire, c. iv., & xvi.
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, Mr. Roberts.
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
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
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
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 See Lardner’s Heathen Testimonies.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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 See Lord Lyttleton’s Conversion of Paul. 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.
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, See Dr. Channing’s Dudleian Lecture.
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
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
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, Dr. Macknight.
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 lived 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. See West on the Resurrection; Townson; Macknight;
Ditton; Sherlock;
&c.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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. See Dr. S. S. Smith’s Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity.
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
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. See Addison’s Evidences.
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
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 See the Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp.
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
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
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,
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.
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
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,
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
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.
But with still greater propriety may it be said, that the Romans
were a nation from afar; the rapidity
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. 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:
In their sieges they were to suffer much by famine,
And when Jerusalem was besieged by Nebuchadnezzar, the famine
prevailed in the city, and there was no bread for the people of the land. Josephus de Jud. Bello.
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.
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
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,
“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.
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
I will first collect into one view, all the most remarkable
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
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
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 Suetonius, 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
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
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
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; See Whitby’s General Preface to the New Testament.
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.”
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
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
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;
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
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 Paley’s Evidences.
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. See
Note A.
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
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,
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 See Ryan’s History of the Effects of Religion on Mankind.
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 See Prideaux’s Life of Mahomet.
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
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
At present, A. D. 1825 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.
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
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
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
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; See Note B.
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
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. On this whole subject, see Douglass’ Criterion.
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
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.
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, Dr. Chalmers. Soame Jenyns.
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
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; Chalmers’ Evidences.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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. See Watson’s Address to Scoffers.
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
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;
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
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
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 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
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.
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
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
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
Paul, living under the government of Nero, prescribes obedience
to the existing powers, not from fear of suffering their displeasure, but “for
conscience sake.”
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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.
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,
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.
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
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,
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
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
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 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. See
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
“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
“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
“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
“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,
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
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
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
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 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.
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
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
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.
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
i ii iii iv 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256