Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Christianity does not owe a single proselyte | renounced the faith of their ancestors, and to its doctrines, but to the power and credit embraced the religion of Jesus, they would of its evidences, and that Judea was the have been equivalent to a thousand adchief theatre on which these evidences were ditional testimonies in favour of Christianiexhibited. It cannot be too often repeated, ty, and testimonies too of the strongest and that these evidences rest not upon argu- most unsuspicious kind, that can well be ments, but upon facts; and that the time, imagined. But this evidence would make no and the place, and the circumstances, ren- impression on the mind of an infidel, and dered these facts accessible to the inquiries the strength of it is disguised, even from of all who chose to be at the trouble of this the eyes of the Christian. These thousand, examination. And there can be no doubt in the moment of their conversion, lose the that this trouble was taken, whether we re-appellation of Jews, and merge into the flect on the nature of the Christian faith, as name and distinction of Christians. The being so offensive to the pride and bigotry of the Jewish people, or whether we reflect on the consequences of embracing it, which were derision, and hatred, and banishment, and death. We may be sure, that a step which involved in it such painful sacrifices, would not be entered into upon light and insufficient grounds. In the sacrifices they made, the Jewish converts gave every evidence of having delivered an honest testimony in favour of the Christian miracles; and when we reflect, that many of them must have been eye-witnesses, and all of them had it in their power to verify these miracles, by conversation and correspondence with by-standers, there can be no doubt, that it was not merely an honest, but a competent testimony. There is no fact better established, than that many thousands among the Jews believed in Jesus and his apostles; and we have therefore to allege their conversion, as a strong additional confirmation to the written testimony of the original historians.

Jews, though diminished in number, retain the national appellation; and the obstinacy with which they persevere in the belief of their ancestors, is still looked upon as the adverse testimony of an entire people. So long as one of that people continues a Jew, his testimony is looked upon as a serious impediment in the way of Christian evidences. But the moment he becomes a Christian, his motives are contemplated with distrust. He is one of the obnoxious and suspected party. The mind carries a reference only to what he is, and not to what he has been. It overlooks the change of sentiment, and forgets, that, in the renunciation of old habits, and old prejudices, in defiance to sufferings and disgrace, in attachment to a religion so repugnant to the pride and bigotry of their nation, and above all, in submission to a system of doctrines which rested its authority on the miracles of their own time, and their own remembrance, every Jewish convert gives the most decisive testimony which man can give for the truth and divinity of our religion.

One of the popular objections against the truth of the Christian miracles, is the gene- But why, then, says the infidel, did they ral infidelity of the Jewish people. We are not all believe? Had the miracles of the convinced, that at the moment of proposing Gospel been true, we do not see how huthis objection, an actual delusion exists in man nature could have held out against an the mind of the infidel. In his conception, evidence so striking and so extraordinary; the Jews and the Christians stand opposed nor can we at all enter into the obstinacy to each other. In the belief of the latter, of that belief which is ascribed to the mahe sees nothing but a party or an interested jority of the Jewish people, and which led testimony, and in the unbelief of the for-them to shut their eyes against a testimony mer, he sees a whole people persevering in that no man of common sense could have their ancient faith, and resisting the new resisted.

faith on the ground of its insufficient evi- Many Christian writers have attempted dences. He forgets all the while, that the to resolve this difficulty, and to prove that testimony of a great many of these Chris- the infidelity of the Jews, in spite of the tians, is in fact the testimony of Jews. He miracles which they saw, is perfectly cononly attends to them in their present ca-sistent with the known principles of human pacity. He contemplates them in the light nature. For this purpose, they have enof Christians, and annexes to them all that suspicion and incredulity which are generally annexed to the testimony of an interested party. He is aware of what they are at present, Christians and defenders of Christianity; but he has lost sight of their original situation, and is totally unmindful of this circumstance, that in their transition from Judaism to Christianity, they have given him the very evidence he is in quest of. Had another thousand of these Jews

larged, with much force and plausibility, on the strength and inveteracy of the Jewish prejudices-on the bewildering influence of religious bigotry upon the understanding of men-on the woeful disappointment which Christianity offered to the pride and interest of the nation--on the selfishness of the priesthood-and on the facility with which they might turn a blind and fanatical multitude, who had been trained, by their earliest habits, to follow and to revere them.

In the Gospel history itself, we have a measure, a voluntary act; and that it is very consistent account at least of the Jew- often in the power of the mind, both to turn ish opposition to the claims of our Saviour. away its attention from what would land` We see the deeply wounded pride of a na- it in any painful or humiliating conclusion, tion, that felt itself disgraced by the loss of and to deliver itself up exclusively to those its independence. We see the arrogance arguments which flatter its taste and its of its peculiar and exclusive claims to the prejudices. All this lies within the range favour of the Almighty. We see the antici- of familiar and every-day experience. We pation of a great prince, who was to deliver all know how much it insures the success them from the power and subjection of their of an argument, when it gets a favourable enemies. We see their insolent contempt hearing. In by far the greater number of for the people of other countries, and the instances, the parties in a litigation are not foulest scorn that they should be admitted merely each attached to their own side of to an equality with themselves in the hon- the question; but each confident and beours and benefits of a revelation from hea-lieving that theirs is the side on which jusven. We may easily conceive, how much tice lies. In those contests of opinion, which the doctrine of Christ and his apostles was take place every day between man and calculated to gall, and irritate, and disap- man, and particularly if passion and inpoint them; how it must have mortified terest have any share in the controversy, their national vanity; how it must have it is evident to the slightest observation, alarmed the jealousy of an artful and in- that though it might have been selfishness, terested priesthood; and how it must have in the first instance, which gave a peculiar scandalized the great body of the people, direction to the understanding, yet each of by the liberality with which it addressed it- the parties often comes, at last, to entertain self to all men, and to all nations, and raised a sincere conviction in the truth of his own to an elevation with themselves, those argument. It is not that truth is not one whom the firmest habits and prejudices of and immutable. The whole difference lies their country had led them to contemplate in the observers; each of them viewing the under all the disgrace and ignominy of object through the medium of his own prejudices, or cherishing those peculiar habits of attention and understanding, to which taste or inclination had disposed him.

outcasts.

Accordingly, we know, in fact, that bitterness, and resentment, and wounded pride, lay at the bottom of a great deal of the opIn addition to all this, we know, that position, which Christianity experienced though the evidence for a particular truth from the Jewish people. In the New Tes-be so glaring, that it forces itself upon the tament history itself, we see repeated ex- understanding, and all the sophistry of pasamples of their outrageous violence; and sion and interest cannot withstand it; yet this is confirmed by the testimony of many if this truth be of a very painful and huother writers. In the history of the mar-miliating kind, the obstinacy of man will tyrdom of Polycarp, it is stated, that the often dispose him to resist its influence, Gentiles and Jews inhabiting Smyrna, in a and, in the bitterness of his malignant feelfurious rage, and with a loud voice, cried ings, to carry a hostility against it, and that out, "This is the teacher of Asia, the father too in proportion to the weight of the arguthe Christians, the destroyer of our gods, ment which may be brought forward in its who teaches all men not to sacrifice, nor to favour. worship them!" They collected wood, and Now, if we take into account the inveteracy the dried branches of trees for his pile; and of the Jewish prejudices, and reflect how unit is added, "the Jews also, according to palatable and how mortifying to their pride custom, assisting with the greatest forward- must have been the doctrine of a crucified ness." It is needless to multiply testimo- Saviour; we believe that their conduct, in nies to a point so generally understood; as, reference to Christianity and its miraculous that it was not conviction alone, which lay evidences, presents us with nothing anomaat the bottom of their opposition to the lous or inexplicable, and that it will appear Christians; that a great deal of passion en- a possible and a likely thing to every untered into it; and that their numerous acts derstanding, that has been much cultivated of hostility against the worshippers of Jesus, in the experience of human affairs, in the carry in them all the marks of fury and re-nature of mind, and in the science of its character and phenomena.

sentment.

Now we know that the power of passion There is a difficulty, however, in the way will often carry it very far over the power of this investigation. From the nature of of conviction. We know that the strength the case, it bears no resemblance to any of conviction is not in proportion to the thing else, that has either been recorded in quantity of evidence presented, but to the history, or has come within the range of quantity of evidence attended to, and per- our own personal observation. There is no ceived, in consequence of that attention. other example of a people called upon to We also know, that attention is, in a great renounce the darling faith and principles

E

of their country, and that upon the authority of miracles exhibited before, them. All the experience we have about the operation of prejudice, and the perverseness of the human temper and understanding, cannot afford a complete solution of the question. In many respects, it is a case sui generis, and the only creditable information which we can obtain to enlighten us in this inquiry, is through the medium of that very testimony upon which the difficulty in question has thrown the suspicion that we want to get rid of.

we do know of human nature, is not consistent with the conduct of the Christian party. Granting that we are not sure whether a miracle would force the Jewish nation to renounce their opinions, all that we can say of the conduct of the Jewish party is, that we are not able to explain it. But there is one thing that we are sure of. We are sure, that if the pretensions of Christianity be false, it never could have forced any part of the Jewish nation to renounce their opinions, with its alleged miracles, so open to detection, and its doctrines so of

of the Christian party, then, is not only what we are able to explain, but we can say with certainty, that it admits of no other explanation than the truth of that hypothesis which we contend for. We may not know in how far an attachment to existing opinions will prevail over an argument which is felt to be true; but we are sure, that this attachment will never give way to an argument which is perceived to be false; and particularly when danger, and hatred, and persecution, are the consequences of embracing it. The argument for Christianity, from the conduct of the first proselytes, rests upon the firm ground of experience. The objection against it, from the conduct of the unbelieving Jews, has no experience whatever to rest upon.

Let us give all the weight to this argu-fensive to every individual. The conduct ment of which it is susceptible, and the following is the precise degree in which it affects the merits of the controversy. When the religion of Jesus was promulgated in Judea, its first teachers appealed to miracles wrought by themselves in the face of day, as the evidence of their being commissioned by God. Many adopted the new religion upon this appeal, and many rejected it. An argument in favour of Christianity is derived from the conduct of the first. An objection against Christianity is derived from the conduct of the second. Now, allowing that we are not in possession of experience enough for estimating, in absolute terms, the strength of the objection, we propose the following as a solid and unexceptionable principle, upon which to estimate a comparison between the strength of The conduct of the Jews may be consithe objection and the strength of the argu- dered as a solitary fact in the history of the ment. We are sure that the first would not world, not from its being an exception to have embraced Christianity had its miracles the general principles of human nature, but been false; but we are not sure beforehand, from its being an exhibition of human nawhether the second would have rejected ture in singular circumstances. We have this religion on the supposition of the mi- no experience to guide us in our opinion as racles being true. If experience does not to the probability of his conduct; and noenlighten us as to how far the exhibition of thing, therefore, that can impeach a testimoa real miracle would be effectual in in-ny which all experience in human affairs ducing men to renounce their old and favourite opinions, we can infer nothing decisive from the conduct of those who still kept by the Jewish religion. This conduct was a matter of uncertainty, and any argument which many be extracted from it cannot be depended upon. But the case is widely different with that party of their nation who were converted from Judaism to Christianity. We know that the alleged miracles of Christianity were perfectly open to examination. We are sure, from our experience of human nature, that in a question so interesting, this examination would be given. We know, from the very nature of the miraculous facts, so remote from every thing like what would be attempted by jugglery, or pretended to by enthusiasm, that, if this examination were given, it would fix the truth or falsehood of the miracles. The truth of these miracles, then, for any thing we know, may be consistent with the the conduct of the Jewish party; but the falsehood of these miracles, from all that

leads us to repose in as unquestionable. But after this testimony is admitted, we may submit to be enlightened by it; and in the history which it gives us of the unbelieving Jews, it furnishes a curious fact as to the power of prejudice upon the human mind, and a valuable accession to what we before knew of the principles of our nature. It lays before us an exhibition of the human mind in a situation altogether unexampled, and furnishes us with the result of a singular experiment, if we may so call it, in the history of the species. We offer it as an interesting fact to the moral and intellectual philosopher, that a previous attachment may sway the mind even against the impression of a miracle; and those who believe not in the historical evidence which established the authority of Christ and of the apostles, would not believe even though one rose from the dead.

We are inclined to think, that the argument has come down to us in the best possible form, and that it would have been en

feebled by that very circumstance, which Janity were partial. We, in this way, sethe infidel demands as essential to its vali-cure all the support which is derived from dity. Suppose for a moment that we could the inexplicable fact of the silence of its give him what he wants, that all the priests enemies, inexplicable on every supposition, and people of Judea were so borne down by but the undeniable evidence and certainty the resistless evidence of miracles, as by one of the miracles. Had the Roman empire universal consent to become the disciples made a unanimous movement to the new of the new religion. What interpretation religion, and all the authorities of the state might have been given to this unanimous lent their concurrence to it, there would have movement in favour of Christianity? A been a suspicion annexed to the whole hisvery unfavourable one, we apprehend, to tory of the Gospel, which cannot at present the authenticity of its evidences. Will the apply to it; and from the collision of the infidel say, that he has a higher respect for opposite parties, the truth has come down the credibility of those miracles which to us in a far more unquestionable form than ushered in the dispensation of Moses, be- if no such collision had been excited. cause they were exhibited in the face of a The silence of Heathen and Jewish wriwhole people, and gained their unexcepted ters of that period, about the miracles of submission to the laws and the ritual of Ju-Christianity, has been much insisted upon daism? This new revolution would have by the enemies of our religion; and has received the same explanation. We would even excited something like a painful suspihave heard of its being sanctioned by their cion in the breasts of those who are attachprophecies, of its being agreeable to their ed to its cause. Certain it is, that no anprejudices, of its being supported by the cient facts have come down to us, supportcountenance and encouragement of their ed by a greater quantity of historical priesthood, and that the jugglery of its mi-evidence, and better accompanied with all racles imposed upon all, because all were the circumstances which can confer crediwilling to be deceived by them. The ac- bility on that evidence. When we demand tual form in which the history has come the testimony of Tacitus to the Christian down, presents us with an argument free miracles, we forget all the while that we of all these exceptions. We, in the first in- can allege a multitude of much more destance, behold a number of proselytes, cisive testimonies; no less than eight conwhose testimony to the facts of Christianity temporary authors, and a train of succeedis approved of by what they lost and suffering writers, who follow one another with a ed in the maintenance of their faith; and closeness and a rapidity, of which there is we, in the second instance, behold a num- no example in any other department of anber of enemies, eager, vigilant, and exaspe- cient history. We forget that the authentirated at the progress of the new religion, city of these different writers, and their who have not questioned the authenticity pretensions to credit, are founded on consideof our histories, and whose silence, as to rations, perfectly the same in kind, though the public and widely talked of miracles of much stronger in degree, than what have Christ and his apostles, we have a right to been employed to establish the testimony interpret into the most triumphant of all of the most esteemed historians of former estimonies. ages. For the history of the Gospel, we behold a series of testimonies, more continuous, and more firmly sustained, than there is any other example of in the whole compass of erudition. And to refuse this evidence, is a proof that in this investigation there is an aptitude in the human mind to abandon all ordinary principles, and to be carried away by the delusions which we have already insisted on.

Tacitus

The same process of reasoning is applicable to the case of the Gentiles. Many adopted the new religion, and many rejected it. We may not be sure, if we can give an adequate explanation of the conduct of the latter on the supposition that the evidences are true; but we are perfectly sure, that we can give no adequate explanation of the conduct of the former, on the supposition that the evidences are false. For any thing we But let us try the effect of that testimony know, it is possible that the one party may which our antagonists demand. have adhered to their former prejudices, in has actually attested the existence of Jesus opposition to all the force and urgency of Christ; the reality of such a personage; argument, which even an authentic miracle his public execution under the administracarries along with it. But we know that it tion of Pontius Pilate; the temporary check is not possible that the other party should which this gave to the progress of his relirenounce these prejudices, and that too in gion; its revival a short time after his death; the face of danger and persecution, unless its progress over the land of Judea, and to the miracles had been authentic. So great Rome itself, the metropolis of the empire:is the difference between the strength of the all this we have in a Roman historian; and, argument and the strength of the objection, in opposition to all established reasoning that we count it fortunate for the merits of upon these subjects, it is by some more firmthe cause, that the conversions to Christi-ly confided in upon his testimony, than upon

fact, his testimony becomes stronger-in point of impression it becomes less; and, by a delusion, common to the infidel and the believer, the argument is held to be weakened by the very circumstance which imparts greater force to it. The elegant and accomplished scholar becomes a believer. The truth, the novelty, the importance of this new subject, withdraw him from every other pursuit. He shares in the common enthusiasm of the cause, and gives all his talents and eloquence to the support of it. Instead of the Roman historian, Tacitus comes down to posterity in the shape of a Christian father, and the high authority of his name is lost in a crowd of similar testimonies.

the numerous and concurring testimonies | becoming a Christian in consequence of it. of nearer and contemporary writers. But Yet the moment that this transition is be this as it may, let us suppose that Taci-made-a transition by which, in point of tus had thrown one particular more into his testimony, and that his sentence had run thus; "They had their denomination from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate, and who rose from the dead on the third day after his execution, and ascended into heaven." Does it not strike every body, that however true the last piece of information may be, and however well established by its proper historians, this is not the place where we can expect to find it? If Tacitus did not believe the resurrection of our Saviour, (which is probably the case, as he never, in all likelihood, paid any attention to the evidence of a faith which he was led to regard, from the outset, as a pernicious superstition, and a mere modification of Judaism,) it is not to be supposed that such an assertion could ever have been made by him. If Tacitus did believe the resurrection of our Saviour, he gives us an example of what appears not to have been uncommon in these ages-he gives us an example of a man adhering to that system which interest and education recommended, in opposition to the evidence of a miracle which he admitted to be true. Still, even on this supposition, it is the most unlikely thing in the world, that he would have admitted the fact of our Saviour's resurrection into his history. It is most improbable, that a testimony of this kind would have been given, even though the resurrection of Jesus Christ be admitted; and, therefore, the want of this testimony carries in it no argument that the resurrection is a falsehood. If, however, in opposition to all probability, this testimony had been given, it would have been appealed to as a most striking confirmation of the main fact of the evangelical history. It would have figured away in all our elementary treatises, and been referred to as a master argument in every exposition of the evidences of Christianity. Infidels would have been challenged to believe in it on the strength of their own favourite evidence, the evidence of a classical historian; and must have been at a loss how to dispose of this fact, when they saw an unbiassed heathen giving his round and unqualified testimony in its fa

vour.

Let us now carry the supposition a step farther. Let us conceive that Tacitus not only believed the fact, and gave his testimony to it, but that he believed it so far as to become a Christian. Is his testimony to be refused, because he gives this evidence of its sincerity? Tacitus asserting the fact, and remaining a heathen, is not so strong an argument for the truth of our Saviour's resurrection, as Tacitus asserting the fact and

A direct testimony to the miracles of the New Testament from the mouth of a heathen, is not to be expected. We cannot satisfy this demand of the infidel; but we can give him a host of much stronger testimonies than he is in quest of-the testimonies of those men who were heathens, and who embraced a hazardous and a disgraceful profession, under a deep conviction of those facts to which they gave their testimony. "O, but you now land us in the testimony of Christians!" This is very true; but it is the very fact of their being Christians in which the strength of the argument lies: and in each of the numerous fathers of the Christian church, we see a stronger testimony than the required testimony of the heathen Tacitus. We see men who, if they had not been Christians, would have risen to as high an eminence as Tacitus in the literature of the times; and whose direct testimonies to the gospel history would, in that case, have been most impressive, even to the mind of an infidel. And are these testimonies to be less impressive, because they were preceded by conviction, and sealed by martyrdom?

Yet though, from the nature of the case, no direct testimony to the Christian miracles from a heathen can be looked for, there are heathen testimonies which form an important accession to the Christian argument. Such are the testimonies to the state of Judea; the testimonics to those numerous particulars in government and cus toms, which are so often alluded to in the New Testament, and give it the air of an authentic history; and above all, the testimonies to the sufferings of the primitive Christians, from which we learn, through a channel clear of every suspicion, that Christianity, a religion of facts, was the object of persecution at a time, when eye-witnesses taught and eye-witnesses must have bled for it.

The silence of Jewish and heathen wri

« AnteriorContinuar »