The Miracles of the Gospel Are Credible
Having shown, W the preceding chapter, that iiiiia cles 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 are established. This is the main point in our inquiry; for after all that has been said, it must be admitted that unless the Christian religion is attended with sufficient evidence, we cannot believe in it, even if we would.
Before entering directly on this discussion it may be useful to premise a few things respecting the nature and force of testimony, which, it is presumed, will be admitted by all who have attended to the subject. This species of evidence admits of all conceivable degrees, from the weakest probability to the fullest assurance; for while, on this ground, we yield to some reports the most hesitating assent, we are as certainly persuaded of others as of those things which we perceive by our senses, or have demonstrated by mathematical reasoning.
The exact force of testimony cannot be calculated by rule nor estimated by reason, but is known only from experience. Many things are believed on testimony with the most unwavering confidence, when we are utterly unable to explain the precise ground on which our conviction rests. The sources of our information have been so numerous, and the same facts presented to us in so many forms, that it is impossible to attribute to each its influence in gihiing our assent. If we were asked on what particular testimony we believe there is such a p.ace as Rome, or why we believe that such a person as Bonaparte lately figured in Europe, we could or.ly answer, in the general, that multiplied testimonies of these fact* had reached us so that all possibility of do: bting wai excluded. The same assurance, and resting on the same grounds, is experienced in relation to facts which occurred in ages long past. Who can bring himself to doubt whether such persons as Julius Caesar, Paul, Mohammed, Columbus, or Luther ever existed?
When we have obtained evidence to a certain amount, nothing is gained by the admission of more The mind becomes, as it were, saturated, and no increase of conviction is produced by multiplying witnesses. One sound demonstration of a theorem in mathematics is as good as a hundred. A few upright witnesses who agree and are uncontradicted by other evidence, are as satisfactory as any conceivable number. On a trial for murder, if there were a thousand witnesses who could attest the fact, a judicious court would not deem it necessary to examine more than half a dozen, or at most a dozen, if there were a perfect agreement in their testimony. Experience only can inform us what degree of evidence will produce complete conviction; but we may judge from former experience what will be the effect of the same evidence in future, and from the effect on our own minds, what it will be on the minds of others.
Testimony, not of the strongest kind, may be so corroborated by circumstances, and especially by the existing consequences of the facts reported, that It may be rendered credible and even irresistible. Should an historian of doubtful credit assert that an eclipse of the sun occurred on a certain day and was visible in a certain place; if we possessed no other evidence of the fact, it might be considered doubtful whether the testimony was true or false; but if by astronomical calculation it should be found, that there must have been an eclipse of the sun at thai time, and visible at that place, the veracity of the witness would be confirmed beyond all possibility of doubt. Or should we find it recorded by an anonymous author, that an earthquake at a certain time nad JV^rthrown a certain city; without further evi-FVIDKNCES OF v’HRISTI ANI TY. 91
lonce, w 3 should yield but a feeble assen to the statement; but if on personal observation or by the report of respectable travellers, it was ascertained, that the ruins of an ancient city existed in that place, we should consider the truth of the history as suffi- ?iently establisheo.
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 he intended by our Creator to De 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 kuid. that the sincere and diligent inquirer will be m no danger of fatal mistake; while men of pride and prejudice, who prefer darkness to light, will be almost sure to err.*
It is natural for all men to speak the truth; falsehood requnes an effort. Wicked men lie only when they have some sinister end in view. Combinations to deceive are never formed, but with a view to accomplish some object desirable to those concerned. No set of men will be at the trouble of forging and propagating a falsehood, which promises them no profit or gratification. Much less will they engage in such an enterprise, with the view of bringing evil on themselves, or when they foresee that it can be productive of nothing but oain and reproach.
Between truth and falsi.hood there is so great a difference, that it is extremely difficult for the lattei 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. The style and manner of t ulh are entirely different from those of falsehood, liie one pursues a direct course, is candid, unaffe led, and honest; the other is evasive, cunning, tort lous, and inconsistent; and is often betrayed by r.ie efforts made to avoid detection.
When both sides of a question are pressed with
See Pasra ‘e Thoughts.
9i EVIDENCES i” CHRISTIANIT r.
difliculties, reason teaches us to choose that whith iB 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 all the consequences which may burden it. If we reject the evidence of Christianity and deny that miracles ever existed, we are bound to account for the existence of the Christian Church, and for the conduct of the first preachers and primitive believers, on other principles. And whoever seriously undertakes this will impose on himself a difficult task. Gibbon has put forth his strength on this subject with very small success. His account of the origin of Christianity is very unsatisfactory and totally defective in historical evidence.*
If the evidence 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; for if we should be mistaken here, we shall suffir no loss and obtain some 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 propositions, which, if sustained, do overthrow the evidcice; but there are other nume-
Decline and Fall of tlic Roman Empire, c. xv, and xtL
EV/DEXCES JF CHRISTIANITY. 9*
r« IS objections which leave the substantial evidence undisturbed. Concerning these I speak when I say that objections, though not admitting 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 Pontiuj Pilate at the histigation of the Jewish rulers; 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 bo.ng of a miraculous nature, and it being necessary to suppose some such events, deists have commonly been disposed to admit them. But Volney and some others have pretended 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. Volney, however, has received a learned answer from a gentleman* who has met him on his own ground, and being as much attached to astror.omical allegories as ine. Frenchman, has vanquished him with his own weApons.
In the examination of written testimony, the firsl thing requisite is to prove the authenticity of the document in which it is recorded. The evidence on xvhich we depend for the truth of the miracles performed by Jesus Christ and by his apostles, is contained in the New Testament. Here we have four distinct narratives of the life, miracles, death, resurrection, ani ascension of Jesus of Nazareth; and also
Mr. Roberts.
94 EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIAN! 1 T,
a history of the acts and sufferings of the aprstles in preaching the gospel and laying the foi ndation ol ,he first Christian churches, after the resur/ection and ascension of their Master. We have also in this collection of writings a number of epistles addressed to the church in general, to particular churches, and to individuals. These, with a book of prophecy, compose the volume called the New Testament.
These books are certainly not of recent origin; for there are extant copies of the New Testament in the original Greek, which are, at the least, twelve hundred years old. And before the time when these manuscripts were penned, we have in other books numerous testimonies to the existence of the 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 eaily period. By these means we are able to trace these writings up to the time in which the apostles lived.
There is also ample proof, not only from Christian but heathen authors, that a society calling themselves Christians existed as early as the reign of Nero who was contemporary with the apostles. It is evident, from the necessity of the case, that some such accounts as those contained in the gospels must have been received as true from the first existence of the Christian church. Unless it had been preached and believed that Christ was a divine Teacher and performed extraordinary works in attestation of his mission, how is it possible that such a society could have been formed? To suppose such a thing would be to conceive of a superstructure without a foundation. The resurrection of Christ from the dead must have been an article of the faith of Christians, from their very origin; for it is the corner stone of the whole edifice. Take the belief of this away and the Chris- lan svstem has no existence. There are also some external institutions peculiar to Christianity, which we must suppose to be coeval with the formation of the society, for they are the badges of the Christian profession, and constitute a part of their worship. 1 refer to baptism and the eucharist. To suppose that in some way Christianity first existed, and after wards received these articles of faith and these institutions of worship, is too impronable to be admitted by any impartial man. It would be to suppose that a religious society existed without any principles, or that they rejected their original principles and adopted new ones; and that they who imposed these upon them, had the address to persuade them, that they had always belonged to their system; — than whic’^ it is not easy to conceive any thing more improbable. Let us for a moment attempt to imagine, that previously to the publication of the gospels, the Christian church had among them no report of the miracles, and no account of the institutions, recorded in these books. When they opened them, they would read that their society was founded on the belief of the resurrection of Jesus, and that baptism and the eucharist were instituted by him before he left the world, and had existed among them ever since. Nothing can be more evident than that the substance of what is contained in the gospels, was believed and practised by Christians from the commencement of the society.
As these books have come down to us under the names of certain apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ, so they were ascribed to the same persona 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 fiict. The most diligent inquiries were instituted nito matters of this kind. Other books were published in tl e name of the apostles, p’-^fessing to give an account of Jesus Christ, which were not genuine. The distinction between the books ol the New Testament and all others of every class, was as clearly marked in the earliest ages as it has ever Deen 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 anv alteration in them.
The style and dialect in which these books aie written furnishes an evidence of their authenticity, of a peculiar kind. It does not indeed ascertain the persons of the writers, but proves that they must have been exactly in the circumstances of those to whom these books have been uniformly ascribed. The words are Greek but the idiom is in Hebrew, or /•ather Syro-Chaldaic, the vernacular tongue of Judean the time of Christ and his apostles. This is a peculiarity which none could counterfeit, and which demonstrates that the New Testament was not composed by men of a different country and age from those in which the apostles lived.
In the New Testament there are numerous references to rivers, mountains, seas, cities, and countries, which none bur a person well acquainted with the geography of Judea and the neighbouring countries could have made, without falling into innumerable error?. 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 writmgs of the apostles, and of those particular persons o whom they are ascribed. It would not however ,stroy their credibi’.ity even if other persons had
EVinENCKS OF CH llISTIANlTir. 9*7
A’ritteii th ;in, siixe they were certainly composed ir that age and were received by the whole body of Christian?.. Bat what imaginable reason is there f(«r doubting 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 <>f them to others? But their universal reception without opposition or contradiction should siknce every cavil. The persons who lived at this time knew the apostles, and were deeply interested in the subject, and they are the proper judges of this question. They have decided it unanimously, as it relates to the historical books oi the New Testament. From them thi testimony has come down, through all succeeding ages, without chasm. Evcfa heathen writers and heretics are witnesses that the gospels were written by the persons whose names they bear.*
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 evidences of genuineness, no books of antiquity stand upon a level with the books of the New Testament. The works of the Greek and Latin his-I3rians and poets have no such eviv.ence 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 nvirely 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 ar-? the genuine productions of the apostles, and consequently contain
* See Lardner’s Heathen Testimomes.
iS, EVILENCES O? CHRISTIANirr.
thcrir testimony to the miracles of Jesus Christ, anc also to those miracles which in his name they performed after his ascension.
It is also certain that the books of the New Testament have not undergone any material change since they were written; for there is a general agreement in all copies, in all the versions, and in all the quotations. There arep it is true, small discrepancies, which have occurred through the ignorance or carelessness of transcribers, but not more than might naturally be expected. There is no ancient book which has come down to us so entire as the Scriptures, and which is accompanied by so nmny mean.s of correcting an erroneous reading where it has occurred. This representation may appear surprising to those who have heard of the vast multitude of various readings which learned critics have collected from a collation of the manuscripts; but it ought to be understood by all who have ever heard of these discrepancies, that not one in a thousand is of the least consequence; that a great majority of them are merely differences in orthography, in the collocation of words, or in the use of words perfectly synonymous, by which the sense is not in the least affected A cursory reader would find as little difference in the various manuscripts of the New Testament, as in the different printed editions of the English version.
Having established the authenticity of the recora which contains the testimony, we shall next proceeil to consider its credibility.
I. Many of the facts related in the gospel are undoubtedly of a miraculous nature. It is declared (hat Jesus Christ, in several instances, raised the dead. lu one case 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 sy)eaking a word. It is declared that he healed multitudes ot the most inveterate and incurable diseases; that h« gave sight to the blind, heiring to the deaf, speech ‘o the dumb, and ac.ivf. lim is to the withered and
EVIDENCKS OK CHRISTIANITY. 9i
the maimed; that he delivered those who were lari ous and unmanageable by reason of the possession ol demons; that on different occasions he fed thousands of people with a few loaves and fishes until they were satisfied, and that the fragments which were gathered up were much greater in quantity than the original materials; that he walked upon the sea and with a word allayed the raging storm and produced a great calm. And finally, it is repeatedly and solemnly declared by all the witnesses, that Jesus Christ after being crucified and after having continued ir the sepulchre three days, rose from the dead, and after showing himself frequently to his disciples, ascended to heaven in their presence.
That all these were real miracles, none can for a moment doubt. It is true, we do not know all the powers of nature; but we do know, as certainly as we know any thing, that such works as these could not be performed but by the immediate power of God. The same remark may be extended to the miracles wrought by the apostles in the name of the Lord Jesus, and especially to that stupendous miracle on the day of Pentecost, when the Holy Ghost descended on the apostles invisible 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 vaiiety of circumstances, and for several years in succession. There was here no room for trick, sleight of hand, illusion of the senses, or any thing else which cou’H impose on the spectators. This circumstance is important, because it proves to a certainty, that the apostles themselves could not be deluded and deceived in the testimony which they have given. To suppose that they could think that they saw such miracles every day for years, and yet be deceived, would be near])’ as extravagant a supposition, as that wewcrtdeceii’ed in all that we ever experienced in c ur whole lives.
III The character 3f the miracles recoried in the gos])els ought to be carefully observed. They were all worthy of the majesty, justice, and benevolence
f 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 gicut 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. He made n) 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, 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 apocryphal and spurious gospels still extant, and ne will be struck with the remarkatle contrast between them. The same result will be the consequence of a comparison of the miracles of Christ with those ascribed to Mohammed by his followers, or those contained in the legends of the church of Rome. 1 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
EVIDENCE.S OF CHRISTI ANl r Y. 1 ii
te disoivered in the record itself. There is, on the contrary, every indication of truth, honesty, and good intentnn in the writers. Although they differ from each other in style and manner so much that it is evident the same person did not compose the four gospels; yet there is a character of style which belongs 10 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 thtj 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 gospel as an expression of admiration of any discourse or action, on the part of the evangelists. If they relate such things, they are the words of others which they faithfully set down. When they describe the sufferings of Christ, they never fall, as men usually do, into pathetic declamation. They are never carried away from their simple course by the power of sympathy. The facts are related as though the writer felt nothing but the strong purpose of declaring the truth, without giving any colouring whatever to the facts. Neither do they indulge themselves in those vehement expressions of indignation against the enemies Df Christ, which we should naturally have expected. They never give utterance to a harsh expression against any one. They relate the treachery of Judas with the same unaffected simplicity as if they had no feelings relative to his base ^ondct,
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 themselvea without ^etraying the “strength of self-l’)ve. Wenit
F02 EVIDKNCKS OF ( ifRISTIAN. FT.
men, when they speak on this topic, are coir/.nvjiily disgusting: and even when persons seem willing to let the truth be known, there is usually an effort t.”> seek compensation in something for every sacrifice which they make of reputation. But we mav 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 candour which characterizes their narrative in regard to others. They describe in the most artless manner, the lowness of their origin, the meanness of their occupation, the grossness of their ignorance, the inveteracy of their prejudices, their childish contentions for superiority, their cowardice in the hour of danger, the fatal apostacy of one, and the temporary delinquency of another of their number. If any person supposes that it is an easy thing to write as the evangelists have done, he must have attended very little to the subject. It cannot be imitated even now when the model is fully before us. That these unlearned men should be able to vvrrite books at all with propriety, is wonderful. Few fishermen or mechanics, confined all their lives to laborious occupations and untutored in the art of composition, could produce, without committing great faults, a narrative of their own lives. But that men of such an education should possess such self-command and self-denial, as is manifest in these compositions, cannot be accounted for on common principles.
That, however, which deserves our special attention, is the absence of all appearance of ill-design. 1 should like to ask a candid infidel to pvint 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 pat of them betray the least appearmce of ill design )r sinister pui*pose. Certainly nc
EVIDENCES OF CH KIS’lI ANIT f 103
•^tuer (jooks written by deceivers possess tl e same rharacteristics.
We havi some instances of men of learning and piety manii’estina nncommon candoni, in the acconntej which they have left of their own eirors, prejudicen, and faults; but in all of them you perceive the semblance, if not reality, of human frailty. These works, however, are very valuable. Some eminent infidels also have come forward before the world, with confessions and narratives of their lives, and even of dieir secret crimes. None has made himself more conspicuous in this way than J. J. Rousseau, who ])rofesses to exhibit to the world a full confession of his faults, during a period of many years. And to do him jnstu-e, 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 hand and present it to his judge as his confession, and apology. Through the transparent covering of «:ffectation, 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 he shameless apolofi;ist of vice. By his unreserved disclosures he aspired to a new sort of reputation and glory. Perhaps there ia not, in any language, a composition more strongly marked with pride and presumption. His confessions were manifestly made in a confidence of the (corruption of mankind, from whom he expelled much applause for his candour, and small censure for his vices; but as he has appealed 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 fuch impious confessions as these, and the simp’’©, imnible, and sober statements of the evangelist? there car. be no c<>n)parison.
104 EVIDENCES Or” CHUIS’I lANIT r.
There is only one thing in the style of the apj/stlos, which I wish to bring into view. In all tho detailed narratives which they have given of Jesus Christ, no allusion is ever made to his personal appearance. We are as much unacquainted with his stature, his aspect, his coniplexion, his gait and manner, as if the gospel had never been written. There is profound wisdom in this silence; yet I doubt whether any writers, following merely the impulse of their own feelings, would have avoided every allusion to this srbject.
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 fact which they relate. Two of these, Matthew and John, were of the number of the twelve who accompanied Jesus wherever he went, and saw t’rom 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 even if they were not, they may have been his followers, and often present in Jerusalem and other places where he performed his miracles. It is not necessary, however, to resort to either of these suppositions. They were contemporaries, early di;<:iples, constant companions of the apostles, and travelled much among the churches. JNIark was at first the companion of Paul and Barnabas, and afterwards attached himself to Peter, from whose preaching, according to the universal tradition of the early Fathers, he composed his gospel. Luke was chosen by the churches in Asia to accompany Paul in his labours, and was ilniost constantly with him until his firsJ
EVIDENCES or JHHISTIANITT 10£
{mprisjiiinent at Rome; at which time lpis history ol he life and labours of that apostle terminates.
Besides these four evangelists, who have professedly written an account of the miracles of Jesus Christ, we have the incidental testimony of those apostles who wrote the epistles, especially of Paul. It is true, Paul was not one of the twelve apostles who accompanied Christ on earth, but he became an apostle under circumstances which 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 threatening and slaughter” against the disciples of Christ; that he 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 favour with the chiei’ 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 uifFerings, which he gives in one of his epistles, is 3nougli to appal the stoutest heart; yet he never repented of his becoming a Christian, but continued to devote all his energies to the promotion of the gospel as long as he lived This change, in a person of Paul’s character and prospects, will never be accounted for upon the supposition of imposture or enthusiasm.* Here, then, we can produce what deists often demand, the testimony of an enemy; not of one who was unconvinroi by the evidence of Christianity, wliicl wouH
* See Lord Lyttleton’s Conversion ot Paid.
De an inconsistent testimony and liable to great ph lections; but of one whose mind had been long inflamed with zeal against Christianity; and yet by the force of evidence was converted to be a zealous disciple, and retained all his life a deep and unwavering conviction of the truth of the gospel.* This man, although he has not written a gospel, has given repeated testimonies to the iruth of the leading facts which are now in question. He is especially one of the best witnesses on the subject of the resurrection of Christ; for he not only saw and conversed with Jesus after his ascension, but has informed us of some circumstances of great importance not mentioned by any of the evangelists. He asserts that Christ was seen by five hundred persons at one time, most of whom were still living when he wrote. If there had been any falsehood in this declaration, how soon must it have been detected! His letters, no doubt, were immediately transcribed and conveyed to every part of the church; and how easy would it have been to prove the falsehood of such a declaration, if it had not been a fact! But almost every page of Paul’s writings recognises as true the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is constantly assumed as a truth most assuredly believed by all Christians. It is the great motive to exertion and source of consolation, in oU his epistles. And when he would convince certain heretics of the absurdity of denying the resurrection of the body, he reduces them to this conclusion, thai “if the dead rise not, then is Christ not risen,” which would be at once to “subvert the Christian religifn. His appeal to the coma on assured belief of Christians is remarkably strong and pertinent to our purpose:” If,” says he, “Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we
There ’s a remarkable testimony to the extraordinary cliaractet »nd worits of Jesus Christ, in Josephus, wliicli lias been rejected as spurious by modern critics; not for want of external evidence, for it is found in all the oldest and best manuscripts, but principally because it is conceived that Joscplins, being a .Tew and a Pharisee, never could have giif n such a testimony in faro ir of one in where ic. did not believe.
aru found false litnesses of God; because we have teslifipd of God that he raised up Christ, whom he /aised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.” Would any man in his senses have written thus, if the resurrection of Christ had not been a fundamental article of faith among Christians, or if he had not been fully persuaded of its truth? Had Paul been an impostor, would he have dared to appeal to five hundred persons, most of whom were living, for the truth of what he knew to be false? How easy and how certain must have been the detection of an imposture thus conducted!
The same is evident from the epistles of the other apostles, and from the Apocalypse.
Now, when we can clearly ascertain what any persons believed in relation to a fact, we have virtually their testimony to that fact; because, when they come forward and give testimony explicitly, they do no more than express the conviction of their own minds. Certainly, then, if we can, by any means, ascertain what the primitive Christians believed in regard to the resurrection of Christ and other miraculous facts, we are in possession of all the testimony which they could give.* This is an important point as it relates to the number of witnesses. Now, that all Christians, from the beginning, did believe in the facts recorded in the gospels and epistles of the apostles, we have the strongest possible evidence. It is proved incontestably from the fact of their becoming L’hristians; for hov, could they be Christians without faith in Christianity? unless any one will be so extravagant as to believe, that not only the apostles, but all their converts, were wilful deceivers. It is proved also from the manner in which Christians are addressed by the apostles in all their epistles. Suppose, for a moment, that the Corinthian Church had no benef in the resurrection of Christ, when they received the above mentioned epistle from Paul, would <hey not have considered him perfectly insaie T5ut the universal reception of the gospeh
See Dr. Cl;.-inning’8 Dudleian Lvv-mre.
and epistles, by all Christian churches throughou! the world, is the best possible evidence that ‘huy believed what they contained. These books were adopted as the creed and guide of ail Christians. It is manifest, therefore, that we are in possession of the testimony of the whole primitive church, to the truth of the miracles recorded in the gospels. Suppose a document had come down to us, containing a profession of the belief of every person who embraced the Christian religion, and a solemn attestation to :he facts on which Christianity is founded, would any man object that the witnesses were too few? The fact is, that we have substantially this whole body of testimony. I do not perceive, that its force would have been sensibly greater had it been transmitted to us with all the formalities just mentioned. There is, therefore, no defect in the number of witnesses. If every one of the twelve apostles had written a gospel, and a hundred other persons had done the same, the evidence would not be essentially improved. We should have no more, after all, than the testimony of the whole primitive church, which, as has been proved, we possess already.
VI. The credibility of the testimony is not impaired by any want of agreement among the witnesses. In their attestation to the leading facts and to the doctrines and character of Christ, they are perfectly harmonious. The selection of facts by the several evangelists is different, and the same fact is sometimes related more circumstantially by one than another; but there is no inconsistency between them In their general character and prominent features, there is a beautiful harmony in the gospels. There IS no din’erence which can effect, in the judgnent 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 appear to have been written in concert, which would weaken their testimony. But it is almost demonstrable, from in- •cna’ rvide.’.ce, that the evangelistj with the excep-EVIDENCES OP CHRISTIANIiy. 109
tion of John, never had seen each other’s productions before they wrote. Their agi cement therefore ought to nave the elFect of witnesses examined apart from each other; and their discrepancies serve to prove that there could be no concerted scheme to deceive; for in that case every appearance of this kind would have been carefully removed.
I am aware, 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 adopted 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, thai the gospels were written almost two thousand years ago, in a language not now spoken, and in a remote country, whose manners and customs were very different from ours. In all such cases, there will be obscurities and dilficulties, 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; in other cases, the arrangement has been suggested by the subject previously treated, or by some other circumstance.
In recording a miracle, tue number of persons benefited is not of much consequence; the miracle is the same, whether sight be restored to one person or two: or whether demons be expelhed from one or many. If one historian, intent on recording the extraordinary fact, selects the case of one person, which might in some respects be moie remarkable, and
I 10 EVIDENCES JF CHRISTIANITy.
another mentions two. ihere is no contradiction, ll they professed to give an accurate account ol the number healed, there would be ground lor this objection; but this was no part of the design of the evangelists.
If a writer, in order to exhibit the skill of an oculist, should mention a remarkable instance of sighl being restored to a person who had been long blind, it coald not be fairly inferred from the narrative thai no person received the same benefit at that time; an’/ 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 particulars.
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 that if the two miracles of feeding the multitude had been mentioned by two different evangelists, each giving an account of one case, it would have been supposed by many that they were accounts of the same occurrence, and that the evangelists did not agree in their testimony; but in this case, both these miracles are distinctly related by the same evangelist, and distinctly referred to by Christ in his conversation with his disciples. This confounding of distinct things is never more commonly done, than when a fact was attended with a great number of circumstances and occurrences, rapidly succeeding each other, and the nistorian mentions only a few out of many. This remark is fully verified with respect to Christ’s resurrection. The narrative of all the evangelists is very concise. Few y)articulars are mentioned; and yet from the nature of the case, there nuist have been an extraordinaiy degree of agitation among the disciples; a great running from one part of Jerusalem to another, to tell the news; and a frequent passing ‘o and from the sepulchre. It is not wonderful,
EVIi>ENCKS OF ( HUIM’l AN. i’T. Ill
therefore, that, as each evangchst mentions only a few of the accompanying occurrences, there should seem, at first view, to be some discrepancy in their accounts. Companies of womoE are mentioned by each, and it is nastily taken for granted that they were all the same; and the obje tor proceeds on the supposition, that these women all arrived at the Bepulchre 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 lodged at very diiferent distances from the place, and allows nothing for the agitation and distraction produced by the reports and visions of this inttu’esting 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.*
The genealogy of Jesus Christ, as given by Matthew and Lukf., has furnished to modern infidels much occasion of cavil; but it ought to be sufficient to silence these objectors that the early enemies of Christianity made no objections on this ground. If one of these is the genealogy of Joseph and the other of Mary, there will be no discrepancy between them. Why it was proper to -give the descent of Joseph the husband of Mary, it is not now necessary to inquire. But on this whole subject I would remark, that we are very little acquainted with the plan on whicl genealogical tables were constructed. It seems t have been a very intricate business, and it is not surprising that we should be at a .?ss to elucidate every ditiiculty. Again, it is highly probable that •ihese lists were taken from some genealogical tables if the tribe and family of the persons to whom they (cfer. Every family must have had access to such ‘.ables, on account of their inheritance. Public tables )( acknowledged authority would be far better for
* See West on the Resurrecti’ n; Townson; Macknight; Drtton “^herlock, &.c.
the purpos3 which the evangeUsts had in vie-v tnan new ones, even though these should have been more full and accurate. Tl)ese genealogies had no other object than to prove ihat Jesus of Nazareth was a hneal descendant of David and Abraham; which purpose is completely answered by them; and there are no difficulties which may not be accounted foj by our ignorance of the subject.
Finally, it may be admitted that some slight inaccuracies have crept into the copies of the New Testament, through the carelessness of transcribers. It is impossible for men to write the whole of a book without making some mistakes; and if there be some small discrepancies in the gospels with respect to names and numbers, they ought to be attributed to this cause.
VII. The witnesses of the miracles of Christ could have had no conceivable motive for propagating an imposture. That they were not themselves deceived is manifest from the nature of the facts, and from the full opportunity which they had of examining them It is evident, therefore, that if the miracles recordeil by them never existed, they were wilful impostors. They must have wickedly combined to impose upon the world. But what motives could have influenced them to pursue such a course we cannot imagine; or how men of low condition and small education should have ever conceived it possible to deceive the world in such a case is equally inconceivable. These men had worldly interests which it was natural for them to regard: but every thing of this kind was fully rehnquished. They engaged in an enterprise not only dangerous, but attended with certain and immediate ruin to all their worldly interests. They exposed themselves to the indignation of all aut’urity, and to the outrageous fury of the nuillitude. They .xuist have foreseen, that they would bring down ui)on themselves the vengeance of the civil and ecclesiastical powers, and that every species of sutleringawailid them. Their leader was crucified, and what ■^oulfJ hey expe t from declaring that he was alive
EMDKNCEb Of CHRISTIANITY. 113
ai.(J had performed wonderful miracles? If they could have entertained any hopes of exemption from evils so apparent, experence must soon have convinced them that they nad engaged not only in a wicked, but most unprofitable undertaking. It was not long after they began their testimony, before they were obliged to endure unrelenting persecution from Jews and Gentiles. Could they have been influenced by a regard to fame? What renown could they expect from proclaiming a crucified man to be their master, and the ground of all their hope and confidence? If this was their object, why did ^hey give all the glory to another who was dead? But the fact is that instead of fame they met with infamy. No name was ever more derided and hated than that of Chyistian. They were vilified as the most contemptible miscreants that ever lived, as the refuse and otfscouring of all things, as the pests and disturbers of society, and the enemies of the gods. The; were pursued as outlaws, and punished for no othei reason but because they acknowledged themselves to be Christians. Would men persevere in propagating an imposture for such fame as this? It cannot be supposed that they expected their compensation in another world; for the supposition is that they were wilful impostors, who were every day asserting, in the most solemn manner, what they knew to be false. It would be just as reasonable to suppose that the murderer or highway rcbber is influenced in the commission of his atrocious crimes, by the hope of a future reward.
The only alternative is to suppose that they were fanatics, as it is known that men under the government of enthusiasm contemn all the common considerations which usually influence human conduct, and often act in a way totally unaccourjtable. This representation of enthusiasm is just, I at it wii. „ot answer the purpose for which ii is adduced. Enthusiasts are always stroi gly persuaded of the truth of the religion which they wish to propagate; but these men, upon the hypotl ^.sis under consideration, knew that al which they said was false. Enthusiasm and niiv»ofture are irreconcilable. It is true that what begins in enthusiasm may end in imposture; but in this case the imposture must have been the beginning, as well as the end, of the whole business. There was no room for enthusiasm; all was imposture, if the facts reported were not true. But the best evidence that the evangelists were not fanatics, is derived from (heir writings. These are at the greatest remove from the ravings or reveries of enthusiasm. They are t le most simple, grave, and dispassionate narratives that ever were written. The writers are actuated by no phrensy; they give no indication of a heated imagination; they speak uniformly the Ian ,;juage of” truth and soberness.”
VIIT. 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; 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 forefathers, received from God: and not only so, but bring upon ourseh es and families the vengeance of those that rule over .is, and the haired 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 {.revent the cir ctil.ifon of such a sinry; it implicated them iii a hipr rid crime. Would they not have exerted themyclvea to lay open the forgery, and would there have been the least difiicnlty in accomplishing the object, if the testimony of these witnesses had been false? The places of many of the miracles are recorded, and the names of the persi3ns healed or raised from the dead, are mentioned. It was only one or two miles to the dwelling of Lazarus; how easy would u have been to prove that the story of his resurrection was a falsehood, had it not been a fact! Jerusalem, and indeed the temple itself, were the scenes of many of the miracles ascribed to Christ. As he spent much time in that city, it is presumable that not a person residing there could have been totally ignorant of facts which must have occupied the attention and excited the curiosity of the public. An imposture like this coulo never be successful in such circumstances. The presence of an interested, inimical, and powerful body of men, would soon have put down every attempt at an imposition so gross and groundless. If the apostles had pretended that at some remote period, or in some remote country, a man had performed miracles, they might have persuaded some weak and credulous persons; but they appealed to the people to whom they preached, as the witnesses of what they related. No more than a few weeks had elapsed after the death of Jesus, before this testimony was published in Jerusalem: and notwithstanding all the opposition of those in authority, it was received, and multitudes willingly offered themselves as the disciples of him whom they had recently crucified.
IX. The last particular which I shall mention, to 5et 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 evidenc(iS which we possess of their integrity and intelligence, suffers no deduction on account of other person? giving a different testi nony.
116 EII)KNCK.S OF CHUISl. AMTT.
The Jewish priests and rulers did indeed cause t Etory 10 be circulated relative to the dead body of Christ, contrary lo 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 favour of a religion which, through prejudice or worldly policy, they opposed, could not reasonably be expected. 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 thaji that which is negative or merely incidental, ought to oe expected from the enemies of the gospel; unless, like Paul, they were convinced by the evidence exhibited to them. But no denial of the reality of the miracles of Christ has reached us from any quarter. As far as we have any accounts, there is no reason to think that they were ever denied by his most implacable enemies; they said that he performed his works by help of Beelzebub. The first heathen writers against Christianity did not dare to deny Christ’s miracles. Neither Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, nor Julian, ])retend that these facts were entirely false, for they attempted to account for them. The Jewish rabbies, m the Talmud, acknowledge these miracles, and pretend that they wee wrought by magic, or by ‘he powar of the venerab 3 name of Jkhovah, called tetratrammuton, which they ridiculously pretended th;it Jesus stole out of the temple, and by which they say he performed his woiideiful works.
From what has been said, I trust it is sufficiently manifest that we have such testimony for the miracles of the New Testament, as will render them crep dible 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, ii 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, even if they could have attempted it; that it would have been the easiest thing in the world for the Jewish rulers to have silenced such reports if they had been false; that the commencement of preaching at Jerusalem, and the success of Christianity there, cannot be accounted for on any other supposition than the truth df the miracles; that the conduct of the apostles in going to the most enlightened countries and cities, and their success in those places, can never be reconciled with the idea that they were ignorant impostors; and finally, that no contrary evidence exists, but that even the early enemies of Christianity have been obliged to admit that such miracles were performed.
When all these things are fairly and fully considered, is it not more probable that miracles were performed, than that such a body of testimony, s(» corroborated by circumstances, and by effects, reach irg to our own times, should be false?
If all this testimony is false, we may call in que 3
118 kVlDENOEs OK CllrtlSTIAR ITTtion all historical testimony whatever; for what facts have ever been so fully aitestod?
But why should this testimony be rejecttj? 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.