CHAP. I. Prophecy.

Iſ. lii. 13. liii. "BEHOLD, my ſervant ſhall deal prudently, he ſhall be exalted, and extolled, and be very high. As many were aſtoniſhed at thee; his viſage was ſo marred more than any man, and his form more than the ſons of men: ſo ſhall he ſprinkle many nations; the kings ſhall ſhut their mouths at him; for that which had not been told them ſhall they ſee; and that which they had not heard ſhall they conſi⯑der. Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? [2] For he ſhall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comelineſs; and when we ſhall ſee him, there is no beauty that we ſhould deſire him. He is deſpiſed and re⯑jected of men, a man of ſorrows, and ac⯑quainted with grief: and we hid, as it were, our faces from him; he was deſpiſed, and we eſteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our ſorrows: yet we did eſteem him ſtricken, ſmitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our tranſgreſſions, he was bruiſed for our ini⯑quities: the chaſtiſement of our peace was upon him; and with his ſtripes we are healed. All we like ſheep have gone aſtray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppreſſed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the ſlaughter, and as a ſheep before her ſhearers is dumb, ſo he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from priſon and from judgement; and who ſhall declare his generation? for he was cut [3] off out of the land of the living: for the tranſgreſſion of my people was he ſtricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; becauſe he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleaſed the Lord to bruiſe him; he hath put him to grief. When thou ſhalt make his ſoul an offering for ſin, he ſhall ſee his ſeed, he ſhall prolong his days, and the pleaſure of the Lord ſhall proſper in his hand. He ſhall ſee of the travail of his ſoul, and ſhall be ſatisfied: by his knowledge ſhall my righteous ſervant juſtify many; for he ſhall bear their ini⯑quities. Therefore will I divide him a por⯑tion with the great, and he ſhall divide the ſpoil with the ſtrong; becauſe he hath poured out his ſoul unto death: and he was numbered with the tranſgreſſors; and he bare the ſin of many, and made interceſſion for the tranſgreſſors."

Theſe words are extant in a book, pur⯑porting to contain the predictions of a writer, [4] who lived ſeven centuries before the Chriſ⯑tian aera.

That material part of every argument from prophecy, namely, that the words alledged were actually ſpoken or written be⯑fore the fact, to which they are applied, took place, or could by any natural means be fore⯑ſeen, is, in the preſent inſtance, inconteſtable. The record comes out of the cuſtody of ad⯑verſaries. The Jews, as an ancient father well obſerved, are our librarians. The paſ⯑ſage is in their copies as well as in ours. With many attempts to explain it away, none has ever been made by them to diſ⯑credit its authenticity.

And, what adds to the force of the quo⯑tation is, that it is taken from a writing declaredly prophetic; a writing, profeſſing to deſcribe ſuch future tranſactions and changes in the world, as were connected with the fate and intereſts of the Jewiſh nation. It is not a paſſage in an hiſtorical or devotional compoſition, which, becauſe it [5] turns out to be applicable to ſome future events, or to ſome future ſituation of affairs, is preſumed to have been oracular. The words of Iſaiah were delivered by him in a prophetic character, with the ſolemnity be⯑longing to that character; and what he ſo delivered, was all along underſtood by the Jewiſh reader to refer to ſomething that was to take place after the time of the author. The public ſentiments of the Jews, con⯑cerning the deſign of Iſaiah's writings, are ſet forth in the book of Eccleſiaſticus: "He ſaw, by an excellent ſpirit, what ſhould come to paſs at the laſt, and he comforted them that mourned in Sion. He ſhewed what ſhould come to paſs for ever, and ſecret things or ever they came." (ch. xlviii. v. 24.)

It is alſo an advantage which this pro⯑phecy poſſeſſes, that it is intermixed with no other ſubject. It is entire, ſeparate, and uninterruptedly directed to one ſcene of things.

[6] The application of the prophecy to the evangelic hiſtory is plain and appropriate. Here is no double ſenſe: no figurative lan⯑guage, but what is ſufficiently intelligible to every reader of every country. The obſcu⯑rities, by which I mean the expreſſions that require a knowledge of local diction, and of local alluſion, are few, and not of great im⯑portance. Nor have I found that varieties of reading, or a different conſtruing of the original, produce any material alteration in the ſenſe of the prophecy. Compare the common tranſlation with that of Biſhop Lowth, and the difference is not conſider⯑able. So far as they do differ, Biſhop Lowth's corrections, which are the faithful reſult of an accurate examination, bring the deſcription nearer to the New Teſtament hiſtory than it was before. In the fourth verſe of the fifty-third chapter, what our Bible renders "ſtricken," he tranſlates "ju⯑dicially ſtricken:" and in the eighth verſe, the clauſe "he was taken from priſon and from judgement," the Biſhop gives "by an oppreſſive judgement he was taken off." [7] The next words to theſe, "who ſhall de⯑clare his generation?" are much cleared up in their meaning by the Biſhop's verſion, "his manner of life who would declare," i. e. who would ſtand forth in his defence? The former part of the ninth verſe, "and he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death," which inverts the circumſtances of Chriſt's paſſion, the Biſhop brings out in an order perfectly agreeable to the event; "and his grave was appointed with the wicked, but with the rich man was his tomb." The words in the eleventh verſe, "by his knowledge ſhall my righteous ſervant juſtify many," are in the Biſhop's verſion "by the knowledge of him ſhall my righteous ſervant juſtify many."

It is natural to enquire what turn the Jews themſelves give to this prophecy^*. There is [8] good proof that the ancient Rabbins explain⯑ed it of their expected Meſſiah^*; but their modern expoſitors concur, I think, in re⯑preſenting it, as a deſcription of the cala⯑mitous ſtate and intended reſtoration of the Jewiſh people, who are here, as they ſay, exhibited under the character of a ſingle perſon. I have not diſcovered that their ex⯑poſition reſts upon any critical arguments, or upon theſe in any other than a very minute degree. The clauſe in the ninth verſe, which we render "for the tranſgreſſion of my people was he ſtricken," and in the margin "was the ſtroke upon him," the Jews read, "for the tranſgreſſion of my peo⯑ple was the ſtroke upon them." And what they alledge in ſupport of the alteration amounts only to this, that the Hebrew pro⯑noun is capable of a plural, as well as of a ſingular ſignification, that is to ſay, is capa⯑ble of their conſtruction as well as ours^†. [9] And this is all the variation contended for: the reſt of the prophecy they read as we do. [10] The probability, therefore, of their expo⯑ſition is a ſubject of which we are as capable of judging as themſelves. This judgement is open indeed to the good ſenſe of every attentive reader. The application which the Jews contend for, appears to me to la⯑bour under inſuperable difficulties; in parti⯑cular, it may be demanded of them to explain, in whoſe name or perſon, if the Jewiſh people be the ſufferer, does the pro⯑phet ſpeak, when he ſays, "he hath borne our griefs, and carried our ſorrows, yet we. [11] did eſteem him ſtricken, ſmitten of God and afflicted; but he was wounded for our tranſ⯑greſſions, he was bruiſed for our iniquities, the chaſtiſement of our peace was upon him, and with his ſtripes we are healed." Again, the deſcription in the ſeventh verſe, "he was oppreſſed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a lamb to the ſlaughter, and as a ſheep before her ſhearers is dumb, ſo he openeth not his mouth," quadrates with no part of the Jew⯑iſh hiſtory with which we are acquainted. The mention of the "grave," and the "tomb," in the ninth verſe, is not very applicable to the fortunes of a nation; and ſtill leſs ſo is the concluſion of the prophecy in the twelfth verſe, which expreſsly repre⯑ſents the ſufferings as voluntary, and the ſufferer as interceding for the offenders, "becauſe he hath poured out his ſoul unto death, and he was numbered with the tranſ⯑greſſors, and he bare the ſin of many, and made interceſſion for the tranſgreſſors."

There are other prophecies of the Old [12] Teſtament, interpreted by Chriſtians to re⯑late to the goſpel hiſtory, which are deſerv⯑ing both of great regard, and of a very attentive conſideration: but I content my⯑ſelf with ſtating the above, as well becauſe I think it the cleareſt and the ſtrongeſt of all, as becauſe moſt of the reſt, in order that their value be repreſented with any to⯑lerable degree of ſidelity, require a diſcuſſion unſuitable to the limits and nature of this work. The reader will find them diſpoſed in order, and diſtinctly explained in Biſhop Chandler's treatiſe upon the ſubject: and he will bear in mind, what has been often, and, I think, truly, urged by the advocates of Chriſtianity, that there is no other eminent perſon, to the hiſtory of whoſe life ſo many circumſtances can be made to apply. They who object, that much has been done by the power of chance, the ingenuity of ac⯑commodation, and the induſtry of reſearch, ought to try whether the ſame, or any thing like it, could be done, if Mahomet, or any other perſon, were propoſed as the ſubject of Jewiſh prophecy.

[13] II. A ſecond head of argument from pro⯑phecy, is founded upon our Lord's predic⯑tions concerning the deſtruction of Jeruſa⯑lem, recorded by three out of the four evangeliſts.

Luke xxi. 5—25. "And as ſome ſpake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly ſtones and gifts, he ſaid, As for theſe things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there ſhall not be left one ſtone upon another, that ſhall not be thrown down. And they aſked him, ſaying, Maſ⯑ter, but when ſhall theſe things be? and what ſign ſhall there be when theſe things ſhall come to paſs? And he ſaid, Take heed that ye be not deceived, for many ſhall come in my name, ſaying, I am Chriſt; and the time draweth near. Go ye not there⯑fore after them. But, when ye ſhall hear of wars and commotions, be not terrified; for theſe things muſt firſt come to paſs, but the end is not by and by. Then ſaid he unto them, Nation ſhall riſe againſt nation, and kingdom againſt kingdom, and great [14] earthquakes ſhall be in divers places, and famines and peſtilences: and fearful ſights, and great ſigns ſhall there be from heaven. But before all theſe, they ſhall lay their hands on you, and perſecute you, delivering you up to the ſynagogues, and into priſons, being brought before kings and rulers for my name's ſake. And it ſhall turn to you for a teſtimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate before what ye ſhall anſwer; for I will give you a mouth and wiſdom, which all your adverſaries ſhall not be able to gainſay nor reſiſt. And ye ſhall be betrayed both by parents and brethren, and kinsfolk and friends; and ſome of you ſhall they cauſe to be put to death. And ye ſhall be hated of all men for my name's ſake. But there ſhall not an hair of your head periſh. In your patience poſſeſs ye your ſouls. And when ye ſhall ſee Jeruſa⯑lem compaſſed with armies, then know that the deſolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the moun⯑tains; and let them which are in the midſt of it depart out; and let not them that are [15] in the countries enter thereinto. For theſe be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give ſuck, in thoſe days; for there ſhall be great diſtreſs in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they ſhall fall by the edge of the ſword, and ſhall be led away captive into all nations; and Jeru⯑ſalem ſhall be trodden down of the Gen⯑tiles, until the time of the Gentiles be ful⯑filled."

In terms nearly ſimilar, this diſcourſe is related in the twenty-fourth chapter of Mat⯑thew, and the thirteenth of Mark. The proſpect of the ſame evils drew from our Saviour, upon another occaſion, the follow⯑ing affecting expreſſions of concern, which are preſerved by St. Luke (xix. 41): "And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, ſaying, If thou hadſt known, even thou, at leaſt in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace; but now they are hid from thine eyes, for [16] the days ſhall come upon thee, that thine enemies ſhall caſt a trench about thee, and compaſs thee round, and keep thee in on every ſide, and ſhall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee, and they ſhall not leave in thee one ſtone upon another, becauſe thou kneweſt not the time of thy viſitation." Theſe paſſages are direct and explicit predictions. References to the ſame event, ſome plain, ſome parabolical, or otherwiſe figurative, are found in divers other diſcourſes of our Lord ^*.

The general agreement of the deſcription with the event, viz. with the ruin of the Jewiſh nation, and the capture of Jeruſalem under Veſpaſian, thirty-ſix years after Chriſt's death, is moſt evident: and the accordancy in various articles of detail and circumſtance has been ſhewn by many learned writers. It is alſo an advantage to the enquiry, and to the argument built upon it, that we have [17] received a copious account of the tranſaction from Joſephus, a Jewiſh and contemporary hiſtorian. This part of the caſe is perfectly free from doubt. The only queſtion which, in my opinion, can be raiſed upon the ſub⯑ject, is whether the prophecy was really de⯑livered before the event. I ſhall apply, there⯑fore, my obſervations to this point ſolely.

1. The judgement of antiquity, though varying in the preciſe year of the publica⯑tion of the three goſpels, concurs in aſſign⯑ing them a date prior to the deſtruction of Jeruſalem ^*.

2. This judgement is confirmed by a ſtrong probability ariſing from the courſe of human life. The deſtruction of Jeruſalem took place in the ſeventieth year after the birth of Chriſt. The three evangeliſts, one of whom was his immediate companion, and the other two aſſociated with his com⯑panions, were, it is probable, not much [18] younger than he was. They muſt, conſe⯑quently, have been far advanced in life when Jeruſalem was taken; and no reaſon has been given why they ſhould defer writ⯑ing their hiſtories so long.

3. ^* If the evangeliſts, at the time of writing the goſpels, had known of the de⯑ſtruction of Jeruſalem, by which cataſtrophe the prophecies were plainly fulfilled, it is moſt probable, that, in recording the pre⯑dictions, they would have dropped ſome word or other about the completion; in like manner as Luke, after relating the denun⯑ciation of a dearth by Agabus, adds, "which came to paſs in the days of Claudius Cae⯑ſar ^†:" whereas the prophecies are given diſtinctly in one chapter of each of the three firſt goſpels, and referred to in ſeveral dif⯑ferent paſſages of each, and, in none of all theſe places, does there appear the ſmalleſt intimation that the things ſpoken of were [19] come to paſs. I do admit that it would have been the part of an impoſtor, who wiſhed his readers to believe that his book was written before the event, when in truth it was written after it, to have ſuppreſſed any ſuch intimation carefully. But this was not the character of the authors of the goſpel. Cunning was no quality of theirs. Of all writers in the world, they thought the leaſt of providing againſt objections. Moreover, there is no clauſe in any one of them, that makes a profeſſion of having written prior to the Jewiſh wars, which a fraudulent pur⯑poſe would have led them to pretend. They have done neither one thing nor the other. They have neither inſerted any words, which might ſignify to the reader that their accounts were written before the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, which a ſophiſt would have done; nor have they dropped a hint of the completion of the prophecies recorded by them, which an undeſigning writer, writing after the event, could hardly, on ſome or other of the many occaſions that preſented themſelves, have miſſed of doing.

[20] 4. The admonitions ^* which Chriſt is re⯑preſented to have given to his followers to ſave themſelves by flight, are not eaſily ac⯑counted for upon the ſuppoſition of the prophecy being fabricated after the event. Either the Chriſtians, when the ſiege ap⯑proached, did make their eſcape from Jeru⯑ſalem, or they did not: if they did, they muſt have had the prophecy amongſt them: if they did not know of any ſuch prediction at the time of the ſiege, if they did not take notice of any ſuch warning, it was an im⯑probable fiction, in a writer publiſhing his [21] work near to that time (which, upon any even the loweſt and moſt diſadvantageous ſuppoſition, was the caſe with the goſpels now in our hands), and addreſſing his work to Jews and to Jewiſh converts (which Matthew certainly did), to ſtate that the fol⯑lowers of Chriſt had received admonitions, of which they made no uſe when the occa⯑ſion arrived, and of which, experience then recent proved, that thoſe, who were moſt concerned to know and regard them, were ignorant or negligent. Even if the prophe⯑cies came to the hands of the evangeliſts through no better vehicle than tradition, it muſt have been by a tradition which ſub⯑ſiſted prior to the event. And to ſuppoſe, that, without any authority whatever, with⯑out ſo much as even any tradition to guide them, they had forged theſe paſſages, is to impute to them a degree of fraud and im⯑poſture, from every appearance of which their compoſitions are as far removed as poſſible.

5. I think that, if the prophecies had been [22] compoſed after the event, there would have been more ſpecification. The names or de⯑ſcriptions of the enemy, the general, the emperor, would have been found in them. The deſignation of the time would have been more determinate. And I am fortified in this opinion by obſerving, that the coun⯑terfeited prophecies of the Sybilline oracles, of the twelve patriarchs, and, I am inclined to believe, moſt others of the kind, are mere tranſcripts of the hiſtory moulded into a prophetic form.

It is objected that the prophecy of the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, is mixed, or con⯑nected with, expreſſions, which relate to the final judgement of the world; and ſo con⯑nected, as to lead an ordinary reader to expect, that theſe two events would not be far diſtant from each other. To which I anſwer, that the objection does not concern our preſent argument. If our Saviour ac⯑tually foretold the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, it is ſufficient; even although we ſhould allow, that the narration of the prophecy [23] had combined together what had been ſaid by him upon kindred ſubjects, without ac⯑curately preſerving the order, or always no⯑ticing the tranſition of the diſcourſe.

CHAP. II. The morality of the goſpel.

IN ſtating the morality of the goſpel as an argument of its truth, I am willing to admit two points; firſt, that the teaching of mo⯑rality was not the primary deſign of the miſſion; ſecondly, that morality, neither in the goſpel, nor in any other book, can be a ſubject, properly ſpeaking, of diſcovery.

If I were to deſcribe in a very few words the ſcope of Chriſtianity, as a revelation ^*, I ſhould ſay, that it was to influence the [25] conduct of human life, by eſtabliſhing the proof of a future ſtate of reward and puniſh⯑ment—"to bring life and immortality to light." The direct object, therefore, of the deſign is, to ſupply motives, and not rules; ſanctions, and not precepts. And theſe were what mankind ſtood moſt in need of. The members of civilized ſociety can, in all ordi⯑nary caſes, judge tolerably well how they ought to act; but without a future ſtate, or, which is the ſame thing, without credit⯑ed evidence of that ſtate, they want a motive to their duty; they want at leaſt ſtrength of motive, ſufficient to bear up againſt the force of paſſion, and the temptation of pre⯑ſent advantage. Their rules want authority. The moſt important ſervice that can be ren⯑dered to human life, and that, conſequently, which, one might expect beforehand, would be the great end and office of a revelation from God, is to convey to the world au⯑thoriſed aſſurances of the reality of a future exiſtence. And although, in doing this, or by the miniſtry of the ſame perſon by which this is done, moral precepts, or examples, [26] or illuſtrations of moral precepts, may be occaſionally given, and be highly valuable, yet ſtill they do not form the original pur⯑poſe of the miſſion.

Secondly, morality, neither in the goſpel, nor in any other book, can be a ſubject of diſcovery, properly ſo called. By which propoſition, I mean that there cannot, in morality, be any thing ſimilar to what are called diſcoveries in natural philoſophy, in the arts of life, and in ſome ſciences; as the ſyſtem of the univerſe, the circulation of the blood, the polarity of the magnet, the laws of gravitation, alphabetical writing, decimal arithmetic, and ſome other things of the ſame ſort; facts, or proofs, or con⯑trivances, before totally unknown and un⯑thought of. Whoever therefore expects, in reading the New Teſtament, to be ſtruck with diſcoveries in morals, in the manner in which his mind was affected, when he firſt came to the knowledge of the diſco⯑veries above mentioned; or rather in the manner in which the world was affected by [27] them, when they were firſt publiſhed; ex⯑pects what, as I apprehend, the nature of the ſubject renders it impoſſible that he ſhould meet with. And the foundation of my opinion is this, that the qualities of ac⯑tions depend entirely upon their effects, which effects muſt all along have been the ſubject of human experience.

When it is once ſettled, no matter upon what principle, that to do good is virtue, the reſt is calculation. But ſince the calcu⯑lation cannot be inſtituted concerning each particular action, we eſtabliſh intermediate rules: by which proceeding, the buſineſs of morality is much facilitated, for then, it is concerning our rules alone that we need en⯑quire, whether in their tendency they be beneficial; concerning our actions we have only to aſk, whether they be agreeable to the rules. We refer actions to rules, and rules to public happineſs. Now, in the formation of theſe rules, there is no place for diſcovery properly ſo called, but there is [28] ample room for the exerciſe of wiſdom, judgement, and prudence.

As I wiſh to deliver argument rather than panegyric, I ſhall treat of the morality of the goſpel, in ſubjection to theſe obſerva⯑tions. And after all, I think it ſuch a mo⯑rality, as, conſidering from whom it came, is moſt extraordinary; and ſuch, as, with⯑out allowing ſome degree of reality to the character and pretenſions of the religion, it is difficult to account for: or to place the argument a little lower in the ſcale, it is ſuch a morality, as completely repels the ſuppoſition of its being the tradition of a barbarous age or of a barbarous people, of the religion being founded in folly, or of its being the production of craft; and it repels alſo, in a great degree, the ſuppoſition of its having been the effuſion of an enthuſiaſtic mind.

The diviſion, under which the ſubject may be moſt conveniently treated of, is that [29] of the things taught, and the manner of teaching.

Under the firſt head, I ſhould willingly, if the limits and nature of my work ad⯑mitted of it, tranſcribe into this chapter the whole of what has been ſaid upon the mo⯑rality of the goſpel, by the author of the internal evidence of Chriſtianity; becauſe it perfectly agrees with my own opinion, and becauſe it is impoſſible to ſay the ſame things ſo well. This acute obſerver of hu⯑man nature, and, as I believe, ſincere con⯑vert to Chriſtianity, appears to me to have made out ſatisfactorily the two following poſitions, viz.

I. That the goſpel omits ſome qualities, which have uſually engaged the praiſes and admiration of mankind, but which, in rea⯑lity, and in their general effects, have been prejudicial to human happineſs.

II. That the goſpel has brought forwards ſome virtues, which poſſeſs the higheſt intrinſic [30] value, but which have commonly been overlooked and contemned.

The firſt of theſe propoſitions he exem⯑plifies, in the inſtances of friendſhip, patriot⯑iſm, active courage; in the ſenſe in which theſe qualities are uſually underſtood, and in the conduct which they often produce.

The ſecond, in the inſtances of paſſive courage or endurance of ſufferings, patience under affronts and injuries, humility, irre⯑ſiſtance, placability.

The truth is, there are two oppoſite de⯑ſcriptions of character, under which man⯑kind may generally be claſſed. The one poſſeſſes vigour, firmneſs, reſolution; is daring and active, quick in its ſenſibilities, jealous of its fame, eager in its attachments, inflexible in its purpoſe, violent in its re⯑ſentments.

The other, meek, yielding, complying, forgiving; not prompt to act but willing to [31] ſuffer, ſilent and gentle under rudeneſs and inſult, ſuing for reconciliation where others would demand ſatisfaction, giving way to the puſhes of impudence, conceding and in⯑dulgent to the prejudices, the wrong-head⯑edneſs, the intractability of thoſe with whom it has to deal.

The former of theſe characters is, and ever hath been, the favourite of the world. It is the character of great men. There is a dignity in it which univerſally commands reſpect.

The latter is poor-ſpirited, tame, and ab⯑ject. Yet ſo it hath happened, that, with the founder of Chriſtianity, this latter is the ſubject of his commendation, his precepts, his example; and that the former is ſo, in no part of its compoſition. This, and no⯑thing elſe, is the character deſigned in the following remarkable paſſages: "Reſiſt not evil, but whoſoever ſhall ſmite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other alſo; and if any man will ſue thee at the law, and [32] take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke alſo; and whoſoever ſhall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain; love your enemies, bleſs them that curſe you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which deſpitefully uſe you and perſecute you." This certainly is not common-place morality. It is very original. It ſhews at leaſt (and it is for this purpoſe we produce it) that no two things can be more different than the Heroic and the Chriſtian character.

Now the author, to whom I refer, has not only remarked this difference more ſtrongly than any preceding writer, but has proved, in contradiction to firſt impreſſions, to popular opinion, to the encomiums of orators and poets, and even to the ſuffrages of hiſtorians and moraliſts, that the latter character poſſeſſes the moſt of true worth, both as being moſt difficult either to be ac⯑quired or ſuſtained, and as contributing moſt to the happineſs and tranquillity of ſocial life. The ſtate of his argument is as fol⯑lows:

[33] I. If this diſpoſition were univerſal, the caſe is clear: the world would be a ſociety of friends. Whereas, if the other diſpo⯑ſition were univerſal, it would produce a ſcene of univerſal contention. The world could not hold a generation of ſuch men.

II. If, what is the fact, the diſpoſition be partial; if a few be actuated by it, amongſt a multitude who are not; in whatever de⯑gree it does prevail, in the ſame proportion it prevents, allays, and terminates quarrels, the great diſturbers of human happineſs, and the great ſources of human miſery, ſo far as man's happineſs and miſery depend upon man. Without this diſpoſition enmities muſt not only be frequent, but, once begun, muſt be eternal; for each retaliation being a freſh injury, and, conſequently, requiring a freſh ſatisfaction, no period can be aſſigned to the reciprocation of affronts, and to the progreſs of hatred, but that which cloſes the lives, or at leaſt the intercourſe, of the parties.

I would only add to theſe obſervations, [34] that, although the former of the two cha⯑racters above deſcribed may be occaſionally uſeful; although, perhaps, a great general, or a great ſtateſman, may be formed by it, and theſe may be inſtruments of important benefits to mankind, yet is this nothing more than what is true of many qualities, which are acknowledged to be vicious. Envy is a quality of this ſort. I know not a ſtronger ſtimulus to exertion. Many a ſcholar, many an artiſt, many a ſoldier, has been produced by it. Nevertheleſs, ſince in its general effects it is noxious, it is pro⯑perly condemned, certainly is not praiſed, by ſober moraliſts.

It was a portion of the ſame character as that we are defending, or rather of his love of the ſame character, which our Saviour diſplayed, in his repeated correction of the ambition of his diſciples; his frequent ad⯑monitions, that greatneſs with them was to conſiſt in humility; his cenſure of that love of diſtinction, and greedineſs of ſuperiority, which the chief perſons amongſt his countrymen [35] were wont, on all occaſions, great and little, to betray. "They (the ſcribes and phariſees) love the uppermoſt rooms at feaſts, and the chief ſeats in the ſynagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your maſter, even Chriſt, and all ye are brethren; and call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your father, which is in heaven; neither be ye called maſters, for one is your maſter, even Chriſt; but he that is greateſt among you ſhall be your ſervant, and who⯑ſoever ſhall exalt himſelf ſhall be abaſed, and he that ſhall humble himſelf ſhall be exalted ^*." I make no farther remark upon theſe paſſages, (becauſe they are, in truth, only a repetition of the doctrine, different expreſſions of the principle, which we have already ſtated) except that ſome of the paſ⯑ſages, eſpecially our Lord's advice to the gueſts at an entertainment, (Luke xiv. 7.) ſeem to extend the rule to what we call [36] manners; which was, both regular in point of conſiſtency, and not ſo much beneath the dignity of our Lord's miſſion as may at firſt fight be ſuppoſed, for bad manners are bad morals.

It is ſufficiently apparent, that the pre⯑cepts we have recited, or rather the diſpoſi⯑tion which theſe precepts inculcate, relate to perſonal conduct from perſonal motives; to caſes in which men act from impulſe, for themſelves, and from themſelves. When it comes to be conſidered, what is neceſſary to be done for the ſake of the public, and out of a regard to the general welfare, (which conſideration, for the moſt part, ought ex⯑cluſively to govern the duties of men in public ſtations) it comes to a caſe to which the rules do not belong. This diſtinction is plain; and, if it were leſs ſo, the conſe⯑quence would not be much felt, for it is very ſeldom that, in the intercourſe of pri⯑vate life, men act with public views. The perſonal motives, from which they do act, the rule regulates.

[37] The preference of the patient to the he⯑roic character, which we have here noticed, and which the reader will find explained at large in the work to which we have referred him, is a peculiarity in the Chriſtian inſti⯑tution, which I propoſe as an argument of wiſdom, very much beyond the ſituation and natural character of the perſon who de⯑livered it.

II. A ſecond argument, drawn from the morality of the New Teſtament, is the ſtreſs which is laid by our Saviour upon the re⯑gulation of the thoughts. And I place this conſideration next to the other, becauſe they are connected. The other related to the malicious paſſions; this to the voluptuous. Together they comprehend the whole cha⯑racter.

"Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, &c.—Theſe are the things which defile a man." Mat. xv. 19.

[38] "Wo unto you ſcribes and phariſees, hy⯑pocrites, for ye make clean the outſide of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and exceſs.—Ye are like unto whited ſepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanneſs; even ſo ye alſo outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypo⯑criſy and iniquity." Mat. xxiii. 25. 27.

And more particularly that ſtrong ex⯑preſſion, (Mat. v. 28.) "Whoſoever looketh on a woman to luſt after her, hath com⯑mitted adultery with her already in his heart."

There can be no doubt with any reflect⯑ing mind, but that the propenſities of our nature muſt be ſubjected to regulation; but the queſtion is, where the check ought to be placed, upon the thought, or only upon action. In this queſtion, our Saviour, in the texts here quoted, has pronounced a deciſive judgment. He makes the control [39] of thought eſſential. Internal purity with him is every thing. Now I contend that this is the only diſcipline which can ſucceed; in other words, that a moral ſyſtem, which prohibits actions, but leaves the thoughts at liberty, will be ineffectual, and is therefore unwiſe. I know not how to go about the proof of a point, which depends upon expe⯑rience, and upon a knowledge of the human conſtitution, better than by citing the judge⯑ment of perſons, who appear to have given great attention to the ſubject, and to be well qualified to form a true opinion about it. Boerhaave, ſpeaking of this very declaration of our Saviour, "Whoſoever looketh on a woman to luſt after her, hath already com⯑mitted adultery with her in his heart," and underſtanding it, as we do, to contain an injunction to lay the check upon the thoughts, was wont to ſay, that "our Sa⯑viour knew mankind better than Socrates." Haller, who has recorded this ſaying of Boerhaave's, adds to it the following remarks of his own ^*: "It did not eſcape the obſervation [40] of our Saviour, that the rejection of any evil thoughts was the beſt defence againſt vice; for, when a debauched perſon ſills his imagination with impure pictures, the licentious ideas which he recalls, fail not to ſtimulate his deſires with a degree of vio⯑lence which he cannot reſiſt. This will be followed by gratification, unleſs ſome exter⯑nal obſtacle ſhould prevent him from the commiſſion of a ſin, which he had internally reſolved on." "Every moment of time (ſays our author) that is ſpent in meditations upon ſin, increaſes the power of the dan⯑gerous object which has poſſeſſed our ima⯑gination." I ſuppoſe theſe reflections will be generally aſſented to.

III. Thirdly, had a teacher of morality been aſked concerning a general principle of conduct, and for a ſhort rule of life; and had he inſtructed the perſon who conſulted him, "conſtantly to refer his actions to what he believed to be the will of his Cre⯑ator, and conſtantly to have in view, not his own intereſt and gratiſication alone, but [41] the happineſs and comfort of thoſe about him," he would have been thought, I doubt not, in any age of the world, and in any, even the moſt improved ſtate of morals, to have delivered a judicious anſwer: becauſe, by the firſt direction, he ſuggeſted the only motive which acts ſteadily and uniformly, in ſight and out of ſight, in familiar oc⯑currences and under preſſing temptations; and in the ſecond, he corrected, what, of all tendencies in the human character, ſtands moſt in need of correction, ſelfiſhneſs, or a contempt of other men's conveniency and ſatisfaction. In eſtimating the value of a moral rule, we are to have regard, not only to the particular duty, but the general ſpirit; not only to what it directs us to do, but to the character which a compliance with its direction is likely to form in us. So, in the preſent inſtance, the rule here recited will never fail to make him who obeys it, conſiderate, not only of the rights, but of the feelings of other men, bodily and men⯑tal, in great matters and in ſmall; of the eaſe, the accommodation, the ſelf-complacency [42] of all with whom he has any concern, eſpecially of all who are in his power, or dependent upon his will.

Now what, in the moſt applauded philo⯑ſopher of the moſt enlightened age of the world, would have been deemed worthy of his wiſdom, and of his character, to ſay, our Saviour hath ſaid, and upon juſt ſuch an occaſion as that which we have feigned.

"Then one of them, which was a lawyer, aſked him a queſtion, tempting him, and ſaying, Maſter, which is the great com⯑mandment in the law? Jeſus ſaid unto him, Thou ſhalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy ſoul, and with all thy mind; this is the firſt and great com⯑mandment; and the ſecond is like unto it, Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thyſelf: on theſe two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Mat. xxii. 35—40.

The ſecond precept occurs in St. Mat⯑thew, on another occaſion ſimilar to this [43] (xix. 16.), and both of them upon a third ſimilar occaſion in Luke (x. 27). In theſe two latter inſtances, the queſtion propoſed was, "What ſhall I do to inherit eternal life?"

Upon all theſe occaſions, I conſider the words of our Saviour as expreſſing preciſely the ſame thing as what I have put into the mouth of the moral philoſopher. Nor do I think that it detracts much from the merit of the anſwer, that theſe precepts are extant in the Moſaic code: for his laying his fin⯑ger, if I may ſo ſay, upon theſe precepts; his drawing them out from the reſt of that voluminous inſtitution; his ſtating of them, not ſimply amongſt the number, but as the greateſt and the ſum of all the others; in a word, his propoſing of them to his hearers for their rule and principle, was our Savi⯑our's own.

And what our Saviour had ſaid upon the ſubject, appears to me to have fixed the ſen⯑timent amongſt his followers.

[44] St. Paul has it expreſsly, "If there be any other commandment, it is briefly com⯑prehended in this ſaying, Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thyſelf ^*;" and again, "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thy⯑ſelf ^†."

St. John, in like manner, "This com⯑mandment have we from him, that he who loveth God, love his brother alſo ^‡."

St. Peter, not very differently, "Seeing that ye have purified your ſouls in obeying the truth, through the ſpirit, unto unfeigned love of the brethren, ſee that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently ^§."

And it is ſo well known, as to require no citations to verify it, that this love, or charity, or, in other words, regard to the welfare of others, runs in various forms through all the preceptive parts of the apoſtolic [45] writings. It is the theme of all their exhortations, that with which their morality begins and ends, from which all their de⯑tails and enumerations ſet out, and into which they return.

And that this temper, for ſome time at leaſt, deſcended in its purity to ſucceeding Chriſtians, is atteſted by one of the earlieſt and beſt of the remaining writings of the apoſtolical fathers, the epiſtle of the Roman Clement. The meekneſs of the Chriſtian character reigns throughout the whole of that excellent piece. The occaſion called for it. It was to compoſe the diſſenſions of the church of Corinth. And the venerable hearer of the apoſtles does not fall ſhort, in the diſplay of this principle, of the fineſt paſſages of their writings. He calls to the remembrance of the Corinthian church its former character, in which "ye were all of you (he tells them) humble minded, not boaſting of any thing, deſiring rather to be ſubject than to govern, to give than to re⯑ceive, being content with the portion God [46] had diſpenſed to you, and hearkening dili⯑gently to his word; ye were enlarged in your bowels, having his ſufferings always before your eyes. Ye contended day and night for the whole brotherhood, that with compaſſion and a good conſcience the num⯑ber of his elect might be ſaved. Ye were ſincere, and without offence, towards each other. Ye bewailed every one his neigh⯑bour's ſins, eſteeming their defects your own^*." His prayer for them was for the "return of peace, long ſuffering, and pa⯑tience^†." And his advice to thoſe, who might have been the occaſion of difference in the ſociety, is conceived in the true ſpirit, and with a perfect knowledge, of the Chriſ⯑tian character. "Who is there among you that is generous? Who that is compaſſionate? Who that has any charity? Let him ſay, if this ſedition, this contention, and theſe ſchiſms, be upon my account, I am ready to depart, to go away whitherſoever ye pleaſe, and do whatſoever ye ſhall command [47] me, only let the flock of Chriſt be in peace, with the elders who are ſet over it. He that ſhall do this, ſhall get to himſelf a very great honour in the Lord; and there is no place but what will-be ready to receive him, for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullneſs thereof. Theſe things they, who have their converſation towards God, not to be repent⯑ed of, both have done, and will always be ready to do^*."

This ſacred principle, this earneſt recom⯑mendation of forbearance, lenity, and for⯑giveneſs, mixes with all the writings of that age. There are more quotations in the apoſtolical fathers of texts which relate to theſe points, than of any other. Chriſt's ſayings had ſtruck them. "Not rendering (faith Polycarp, the diſciple of John) evil for evil, or railing for railing, or ſtriking for ſtriking, or curſing for curſing^†." Again, ſpeaking of ſome whoſe behaviour had given great offence, "Be ye moderate (ſays he) upon this occaſion, and look not upon ſuch [48] as enemies, but call them back as ſuffering and erring members, that ye ſave your whole body^*."

‘"Be ye mild at their anger (ſaith Ignatius, the companion of Polycarp), humble at their boaſtings, to their blaſphemies return your prayers, to their error your firmneſs in the faith; when they are cruel, be ye gentle; not endeavouring to imitate their ways, let us be their brethren in all kindneſs and mo⯑deration, but let us be followers of the Lord, for who was ever more unjuſtly uſed, more deſtitute, more deſpiſed?"’

IV. A fourth quality, by which the mo⯑rality of the goſpel is diſtinguiſhed, is the excluſion of regard to fame and reputation.

‘"Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be ſeen of them, otherwiſe ye have no reward of your father which is in heaven.^†"’

[49] ‘"When thou prayeſt, enter into thy cloſet, and when thou haſt ſhut thy door, pray to thy father which is in ſecret; and thy father, which ſeeth in ſecret, ſhall re⯑ward thee openly^*."’

And the rule by parity of reaſon is ex⯑tended to all other virtues.

I do not think, that either in theſe, or in any other paſſage of the New Teſtament, the purſuit of fame is ſtated as a vice; it is only ſaid that an action, to be virtuous, muſt be independent of it. I would alſo obſerve, that it is not publicity, but oſtentation, which is prohibited; not the mode, but the motive of the action, which is regulated. A good man will prefer that mode, as well as thoſe objects of his beneficence, by which he can produce the greateſt effect; and the view of this purpoſe may dictate ſometimes pub⯑lication, and ſometimes concealment. Either the one or the other may be the mode of [50] the action, according as the end to be pro⯑moted by it appears to require. But from the motive, the reputation of the deed, and the fruits and advantage of that reputation to ourſelves, muſt be ſhut out, or, in what⯑ever proportion they are not ſo, the action in that proportion fails of being virtuous.

This excluſion of regard to human opi⯑nion, is a difference, not ſo much in the duties, to which the teachers of virtue would perſuade mankind, as in the manner and topics of perſuaſion. And in this view the difference is great. When we ſet about to give advice, our lectures are full of the ad⯑vantages of character, of the regard that is due to appearances and to opinion; of what the world, eſpecially of what the good or great, will think and ſay; of the value of public eſteem, and of the qualities by which men acquire it. Widely different from this was our Saviour's inſtruction: and the dif⯑ference was founded upon the beſt reaſons. For, however the care of reputation, the authority of public opinion, or even of the [51] opinion of good men, the ſatisfaction of be⯑ing well received and well thought of, the benefit of being known and diſtinguiſhed, are topics, to which we are fain to have re⯑courſe in our exhortations, the true virtue is that which diſcards theſe conſiderations abſolutely; and which retires from them all to the ſingle internal purpoſe of pleaſing God. This at leaſt was the virtue which our Saviour taught. And in teaching of this, he not only confined the views of his followers to the proper meaſure and prin⯑ciple of human duty, but acted in con⯑ſiſtency with his office as a monitor from heaven.

Next to what our Saviour taught, may be conſidered the manner of his teaching; which was extremely peculiar, yet, I think, preciſely adapted to the peculiarity of his character and ſituation. His leſſons did not conſiſt of diſquiſitions; of any thing like moral eſſays, or like ſermons, or like ſet treatiſes upon the ſeveral points which he mentioned. When he delivered a precept, [52] it was ſeldom that he added any proof or argument; ſtill ſeldomer, that he accom⯑panied it with, what all precepts require, limitations and diſtinctions. His inſtruc⯑tions were conceived in ſhort emphatic ſen⯑tentious rules, in occaſional reflections, or in round maxims. I do not think that this was a natural, or would have been a pro⯑per method, for a philoſopher or a moraliſt; or that it is a method which can be ſucceſs⯑fully imitated by us. But I contend that it was ſuitable to the character which Chriſt aſſumed, and to the ſituation in which, as a teacher, he was placed. He produced him⯑ſelf as a meſſenger from God. He put the truth of what he taught upon authority ^*. In the choice, therefore, of his mode of teaching, the purpoſe by him to be con⯑ſulted was impreſſion; becauſe conviction, which forms the principal end of our diſ⯑courſes, was to ariſe in the minds of his followers [53] from a different ſource, from their reſpect to his perſon and authority. Now, for the purpoſe of impreſſion ſingly and ex⯑cluſively (I repeat again, that we are not here to conſider the convincing of the un⯑derſtanding) I know nothing which would have ſo great force, as ſtrong ponderous maxims, frequently urged, and frequently brought back to the thoughts of the hearers. I know nothing that could in this view be ſaid better, than "Do unto others, as ye would that others ſhould do unto you; the firſt and great commandment is, Thou ſhalt love the Lord thy God; and the ſecond is like unto it, Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thyſelf." It muſt alſo be remembered, that our Lord's miniſtry, upon the ſuppoſi⯑tion either of one year or of three, com⯑pared with his work, was of ſhort duration; that, within this time, he had many places to viſit, various audiences to addreſs; that his perſon was generally beſieged by crowds of followers; that he was, ſometimes, driven away from the place where he was teaching, by perſecution, and, at other times, thought [54] fit to withdraw himſelf from the commo⯑tions of the populace. Under theſe circum⯑ſtances, nothing appears to have been ſo practicable, or likely to be ſo efficacious, as leaving, wherever he came, conciſe leſſons of duty. Theſe circumſtances at leaſt ſhew the neceſſity he was under of compriſing what he delivered within a ſmall compaſs. In particular, his ſermon upon the mount ought always to be conſidered with a view to theſe obſervations. The queſtion is not, whether a fuller, a more accurate, a more ſyſtematic, or a more argumentative diſ⯑courſe upon morals might not have been pronounced, but whether more could have been ſaid in the ſame room, better adapted to the exigencies of the hearers, or better calculated for the purpoſe of impreſſion. Seen in this light, it hath always appeared to me to be admirable. Dr. Lardner thought that this diſcourſe was made up of what Chriſt had ſaid at different times, and upon different occaſions, ſeveral of which occa⯑ſions are noticed in St. Luke's narrative. I can perceive no reaſon for this opinion. I [55] believe that our Lord delivered this diſcourſe at one time and place, in the manner related by St. Matthew, and that he repeated the ſame rules and maxims at different times, as opportunity or occaſion ſuggeſted; that they were often in his mouth, were repeated to different audiences, and in various con⯑verſations.

It is incidental to this mode of moral in⯑ſtruction, which proceeds not by proof but upon authority, not by diſquiſition but by precept, that the rules will be conceived in abſolute terms, leaving the application, and the diſtinctions that attend it, to the reaſon of the hearer. It is likewiſe to be expected, that they will be delivered in terms, by ſo much the more forcible and energetic, as they have to encounter natural or general propenſities. It is further alſo to be re⯑marked, that many of thoſe ſtrong inſtances, which appear in our Lord's ſermon, ſuch as "If any man will ſmite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other alſo: If any man will ſue thee at the law, and take away [56] thy coat, let him have thy cloke alſo: Who⯑ſoever ſhall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain;" though they appear in the form of ſpecific precepts, are intended as deſcriptive of diſpoſition and character. A ſpecific compliance with the precepts would be of little value, but the diſpoſition which they inculcate is of the higheſt. He who ſhould content himſelf with waiting for the occaſion, and with literally obſerv⯑ing the rule when the occaſion offered, would do nothing, or worſe than nothing; but he who conſiders the character and diſ⯑poſition which is hereby inculcated, and places that diſpoſition before him as the model to which he ſhould bring his own, takes, perhaps, the beſt poſſible method of improving the benevolence, and of calming and rectifying the vices of his temper.

If it be ſaid that this diſpoſition is unat⯑tainable, I anſwer, ſo is all perfection; ought therefore a moraliſt to recommend imperfections? One excellency, however, of our Saviour's rules is, that they are [57] either never miſtaken, or never ſo miſtaken as to do harm. I could feign a hundred caſes, in which the literal application of the rule, "of doing to others as we would that others ſhould do unto us," might miſlead us: but I never yet met with the man who was actually miſled by it. Notwithſtand⯑ing that our Lord bid his followers "not to reſiſt evil," and "to forgive the enemy, who ſhould treſpaſs againſt them, not till ſeven times but till ſeventy times ſeven," the Chriſtian world has hitherto ſuffered lit⯑tle by too much placability or forbearance. I would repeat once more, what has already been twice remarked, that theſe rules were deſigned to regulate perſonal conduct from perſonal motives, and for this purpoſe alone.

I think that theſe obſervations will aſſiſt us greatly in placing our Saviour's conduct, as a moral teacher, in a proper point of view; eſpecially when it is conſidered, that to deliver moral diſquiſitions was no part of his deſign, to teach morality at all was only [58] a ſubordinate part of it, his great buſineſs being to ſupply, what was much more wanting than leſſons of morality, ſtronger moral ſanctions, and clearer aſſurances of a future judgement ^*.

The parables of the New Teſtament are, many of them, ſuch as would have done honour to any book in the world, I do not [59] mean in ſtyle and diction, but in the choice of the ſubjects, in the ſtructure of the nar⯑ratives, in the aptneſs, propriety, and force of the circumſtances woven into them; and in ſome, as that of the good Samaritan, the prodigal ſon, the phariſee and the publi⯑can, in an union of pathos and ſimplicity, which, in the beſt productions of human genius, is the fruit only of a much exer⯑ciſed and well-cultivated judgement.

The Lord's prayer, for a ſucceſſion of ſo⯑lemn thoughts, for fixing the attention upon a few great points, for ſuitableneſs to every condition, for ſufficiency, for conciſeneſs without obſcurity, for the weight and real importance of its petitions, is without an equal or a rival.

From whence did theſe come? Whence had this man this wiſdom? Was our Savi⯑our, in fact, a well-inſtructed philoſopher, whilſt he is repreſented to us as an illiterate peaſant? Or ſhall we ſay that ſome early Chriſtians of taſte and education compoſed [60] theſe pieces, and aſcribed them to Chriſt? Beſide all other incredibilities in this ac⯑count, I anſwer, with Dr. Jortin, that they could not do it. No ſpecimens of compoſi⯑tion, which the Chriſtians of the firſt cen⯑tury have left us, authorize us to believe that they were equal to the taſk. And how little qualified the Jews, the countrymen and companions of Chriſt, were to aſſiſt him in the undertaking, may be judged of from the traditions and writings of theirs which were the neareſt to that age. The whole collection of the Talmud is one continued proof, into what follies they fell whenever they left their Bible; and how little capable they were of furniſhing out ſuch leſſons as Chriſt delivered.

But there is ſtill another view, in which our Lord's diſcourſes deſerve to be conſi⯑dered; and that is, in their negative charac⯑ter, not in what they did, but in what they did not contain. Under this head, the fol⯑lowing reflections appear to me to poſſeſs ſome weight.

[61] I. They exhibit no particular deſcription of the inviſible world. The future happi⯑neſs of the good, and the miſery of the bad, which is all we want to be aſſured of, is directly and poſitively affirmed, and is re⯑preſented by metaphors and compariſons, which were plainly intended as metaphors and compariſons, and as nothing more. As to the reſt, a ſolemn reſerve is maintained. The queſtion concerning the woman who had been married to ſeven brothers, "Whoſe ſhall ſhe be on the reſurrection?" was of a nature calculated to have drawn from Chriſt a more circumſtantial account of the ſtate of the human ſpecies in their future exiſt⯑ence. He cut ſhort, however, the enquiry by an anſwer, which at once rebuked in⯑truding curioſity, and was agreeable to the beſt apprehenſions we are able to form upon the ſubject, viz. "That they who are accounted worthy of that reſurrection, ſhall be as the angels of God in heaven." I lay a ſtreſs upon this reſerve, becauſe it repels the ſuſpicion of enthuſiaſm; for enthuſiaſm is wont to expatiate upon the condition of [62] the departed, above all other ſubjects; and with a wild particularity. It is moreover a topic which is always liſtened to with greedineſs. The teacher, therefore, whoſe principal purpoſe is to draw upon himſelf attention, is ſure to be full of it. The Koran of Mahomet is half made up of it.

II. Our Lord enjoined no auſterities. He not only enjoined none as abſolute duties, but he recommended none as carrying men to a higher degree of divine favour. Place Chriſtianity, in this reſpect, by the ſide of all inſtitutions which have been founded in the fanaticiſm, either of their author, or of his firſt followers: or rather compare, in this reſpect, Chriſtianity as it came from Chriſt, with the ſame religion after it fell into other hands; with the extravagant me⯑rit very ſoon aſcribed to celibacy, ſolitude, voluntary poverty; with the rigours of an aſcetic, and the vows of a monaſtic life; the hair ſhirt, the watchings, the midnight prayers, the obmuteſcence, the gloom and [63] mortification, of religious orders, and of thoſe who aſpired to religious perfection.

III. Our Saviour uttered no impaſſioned devotion. There was no heat in his piety, or in the language in which he expreſſed it; no vehement or rapturous ejaculations, no violent urgency in his prayers. The Lord's prayer is a model of calm devotion. His words in the garden are unaffected ex⯑preſſions, of a deep indeed, but ſober piety. He never appears to have been worked up into any thing like that elation, or that emotion of ſpirits, which is occaſionally ob⯑ſerved in moſt of thoſe, to whom the name of enthuſiaſt can in any degree be applied. I feel a reſpect for methodiſts, becauſe I believe that there is to be found amongſt them, much ſincere piety, and availing, though not always well-informed, Chriſtia⯑nity: yet I never attended a meeting of theirs, but I came away with the reflection, how different what I heard was from what I read; I do not mean in doctrine, with [64] which, at preſent, I have no concern, but in manner; how different from the calm⯑neſs, the ſobriety, the good ſenſe, and, I may add, the ſtrength and authority, of our Lord's diſcourſes.

IV. It is very uſual with the human mind, to ſubſtitute forwardneſs and fervency in a particular cauſe, for the merit of general and regular morality; and it is natural, and politic alſo, in the leader of a ſect or party, to encourage ſuch a diſpoſition in his fol⯑lowers. Chriſt did not overlook this turn of thought: yet, though avowedly placing himſelf at the head of a new inſtitution, he notices it only to condemn it. "Not every one that ſaith unto me, Lord, Lord, ſhall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven: many will ſay unto me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not propheſied in thy name? and in thy name have caſt out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? and then will I profeſs [65] unto you, I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work iniquity ^*." So far was the author of Chriſtianity from courting the at⯑tachment of his followers by any ſacrifice of principle, or by a condeſcenſion to the er⯑rors which even zeal in his ſervice might have inſpired! This was a proof both of ſincerity and judgement.

V. Nor, fifthly, did he fall in with any of the depraved faſhions of his country, or with the natural biaſs of his own education. Bred up a Jew, under a religion extremely technical, in an age, and amongſt a people, more tenacious of the ceremonies, than of any other part of that religion, he delivered an inſtitution, containing leſs of ritual, and that more ſimple, than is to be found in any religion, which ever prevailed amongſt mankind. We have known, I do allow, examples of an enthuſiaſm, which has ſwept away all external ordinances before it. But this ſpirit certainly did not dictate our Sa⯑viour's conduct, either in his treatment of [66] the religion of his country, or in the for⯑mation of his own inſtitution. In both he diſplayed the ſoundneſs and moderation of his judgement. He cenſured an overſtrained ſcrupulouſneſs, or perhaps an affectation of ſcrupulouſneſs, about the ſabbath; but how did he cenſure it? not by contemning or decrying the inſtitution itſelf, but by de⯑claring that "the ſabbath was made for man, not man for the ſabbath;" that is to ſay, that the ſabbath was to be ſubordinate to its purpoſe, and that that purpoſe was the real good of thoſe who were the ſub⯑jects of the law. The ſame concerning the nicety of ſome of the phariſees, in paying tithes of the moſt trifling articles, accom⯑panied with a neglect of juſtice, fidelity, and mercy. He finds fault with them for miſplacing their anxiety. He does not ſpeak diſreſpectfully of the law of tithes, or of their obſervance of it, but he aſſigns to each claſs of duties its proper ſtation in the ſcale of moral importance. All this might be expected perhaps from a well-inſtructed, cool, and judicious philoſopher, but was [67] not to be looked for from an illiterate Jew, certainly not from an impetuous enthuſiaſt.

VI. Nothing could be more quibbling, than were the comments and expoſitions of the Jewiſh doctors, at that time; nothing ſo puerile as their diſtinctions. Their eva⯑ſion of the fifth commandment, their expo⯑ſition of the law of oaths, are ſpecimens of the bad taſte in morals which then prevail⯑ed. Whereas in a numerous collection of our Saviour's apothegms, many of them re⯑ferring to ſundry precepts of the Jewiſh law, there is not to be found one example of ſophiſtry, or of falſe ſubtlety, or of any thing approaching thereunto.

VII. The national temper of the Jews was intolerant, narrow-minded, and ex⯑cluding. In Jeſus, on the contrary, whether we regard his leſſons or his example, we ſee not only benevolence, but benevolence the moſt enlarged and comprehenſive. In the parable of the good Samaritan, the very point of the ſtory is, that the perſon re⯑lieved [68] by him, was the national and reli⯑gious enemy of his benefactor. Our Lord declared the equity of the divine admini⯑ſtration, when he told the Jews (what, pro⯑bably, they were ſurpriſed to hear) "That many ſhould come from the eaſt and weſt, and ſhould ſit down with Abraham, Iſaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven, but that the children of the kingdom ſhoud be caſt into outer darkneſs ^*." His reproof of the haſty zeal of his diſciples, who would needs call down fire from heaven to re⯑venge an affront put upon their Maſter, ſhews the lenity of his character, and of his religion; and his opinion of the manner in which the moſt unreaſonable opponents ought to be treated, or at leaſt of the man⯑ner in which they ought not to be treated. The terms, in which his rebuke was con⯑veyed, deſerve to be noticed:—"Ye know not what manner of ſpirit ye are of ^†."

VIII. Laſtly, amongſt the negative qualities [69] of our religion, as it came out of the hands of its founder and his apoſtles, we may reckon its complete abſtraction from all views either of eccleſiaſtical or civil po⯑licy; or, to meet a language much in faſhion with ſome men, from the politics either of prieſts or ſtateſmen. Chriſt's declaration, that "his kingdom was not of this world," recorded by John; his evaſion of the queſ⯑tion, whether it was lawful or not to give tribute unto Ceſar, mentioned by the three other evangeliſts; his reply to an application that was made to him, to interpoſe his au⯑thority in a queſtion of property, "Man, who made me a ruler or a judge over you?" aſcribed to him by St. Luke; his declining to exerciſe the office of a criminal judge in the caſe of the woman taken in adultery, as related by John, are all intelligible ſignifica⯑tions of our Saviour's ſentiments upon this head. And with reſpect to politics, in the uſual ſenſe of that word, or diſcuſſions con⯑cerning different forms of government, Chriſtianity declines every queſtion upon the ſubject. Whilſt politicians are diſputing [70] about monarchies, ariſtocracies, and repub⯑lics, the goſpel is alike applicable, uſeful, and friendly to them all; inaſmuch as, 1ſt, it tends to make men virtuous, and as it is eaſier to govern good men than bad men under any conſtitution: as, 2dly, it ſtates obedience to government in ordinary caſes, to be not merely a ſubmiſſion to force, but a duty of conſcience: as, 3dly, it induces diſpoſitions favourable to public tranquillity, a Chriſtian's chief care being to paſs quietly through this world to a better: as, 4thly, it prays for communities, and for the go⯑vernors of communities, of whatever de⯑ſcription or denomination they be, with a ſolicitude and fervency proportioned to the influence which they poſſeſs upon human happineſs. All which, in my opinion, is juſt as it ſhould be. Had there been more to be found in ſcripture of a political nature, or convertible to political purpoſes, the worſt uſe would have been made of it, on which⯑ever ſide it ſeemed to lie.

When, therefore, we conſider Chriſt as a [71] moral teacher (remembring that this was only a ſecondary part of his office; and that morality, by the nature of the ſubject, does not admit of diſcovery, properly ſo called); when we conſider, either what he taught, or what he did not teach, either the ſub⯑ſtance or the manner of his inſtruction; his preference of ſolid to popular virtues, of a character which is commonly deſpiſed, to a character which is univerſally extolled; his placing, in our licentious vices, the check in the right place, viz. upon the thoughts; his collecting of human duty into two well deviſed rules, his repetition of theſe rules, the ſtreſs he laid upon them, eſpecially in compariſon with poſitive duties, and his fixing thereby the ſentiments of his fol⯑lowers; his excluſion of all regard to repu⯑tation in our devotion and alms, and, by parity of reaſon, in our other virtues: when we conſider that his inſtructions were de⯑livered in a form calculated for impreſſion, the preciſe purpoſe in his ſituation to be conſulted; and that they were illuſtrated by parables, the choice and ſtructure of which [72] would have been admired in any compoſi⯑tion whatever: when we obſerve him free from the uſual ſymptoms of enthuſiaſm, heat and vehemence in devotion, auſterity in inſtitutions, and a wild particularity in the deſcriptions of a future ſtate; free alſo from the depravities of his age and country; without ſuperſtition amongſt the moſt ſu⯑perſtitious of men, yet not decrying po⯑ſitive diſtinctions or external obſervances, but ſoberly recalling them to the principle of their eſtabliſhment, and to their place in the ſcale of human duties; without ſophiſ⯑try or trifling, amidſt teachers remarkable for nothing ſo much, as frivolous ſubtleties and quibbling expoſitions; candid and li⯑beral in his judgement of the reſt of man⯑kind, although belonging to a people, who affected a ſeparate claim to divine favour, and, in conſequence of that opinion, prone to uncharitableneſs, partiality, and reſtric⯑tion: when we find, in his religion, no ſcheme of building up a hierarchy, or of miniſtring to the views of human govern⯑ments: in a word, when we compare Chriſtianity, [73] as it came from its author, either with other religions, or with itſelf in other hands, the moſt reluctant underſtanding will be induced to acknowledge the probity, I think alſo, the good ſenſe of thoſe, to whom it owes its origin; and that ſome regard is due to the teſtimony of ſuch men, when they declare their knowledge that the reli⯑gion proceeded from God; and when they appeal, for the truth of their aſſertion, to miracles which they wrought, or which they ſaw.

Perhaps the qualities which we obſerve in the religion, may be thought to prove ſomething more. They would have been extraordinary, had the religion come from any perſon; from the perſon, from whom it did come, they are exceedingly ſo. What was Jeſus in external appearance? a Jewiſh peaſant, the ſon of a carpenter, living with his father and mother in a remote province of Paleſtine, until the time that he pro⯑duced himſelf in his public character. He had no maſter to inſtruct or prompt him. [74] He had read no books, but the works of Moſes and the prophets. He had viſited no poliſhed cities. He had received no leſſons from Socrates or Plato; nothing to form in him a taſte or judgement, different from that of the reſt of his countrymen, and of perſons of the ſame rank of life with him⯑ſelf. Suppoſing it to be true, which it is not, that all his points of morality might be picked out of Greek and Roman writings, they were writings which he had never ſeen. Suppoſing them to be no more, than what ſome or other had taught in various times and places, he could not collect them to⯑gether.

Who were his coadjutors in the under⯑taking, the perſons into whoſe hands the religion came after his death? a few fiſher⯑men upon the lake of Tiberias, perſons juſt as uneducated, and for the purpoſe of fram⯑ing rules of morality, as unpromiſing as himſelf. Suppoſe the miſſion to be real, all this is accounted for; the unſuitableneſs of the authors to the production, of the characters [75] to the undertaking, no longer ſur⯑priſes us; but, without reality, it is very difficult to explain, how ſuch a ſyſtem ſhould proceed from ſuch perſons. Chriſt was not like any other carpenter; the apo⯑ſtles were not like any other fiſhermen.

But the ſubject is not exhauſted by theſe obſervations. That portion of it, which is moſt reducible to points of argument, has been ſtated, and, I truſt, truly. There are, however, ſome topics, of a more diffuſe na⯑ture, which yet deſerve to be propoſed to the reader's attention.

The character of Chriſt is a part of the morality of the goſpel: one ſtrong obſer⯑vation upon which is, that, neither as repre⯑ſented by his followers, nor as attacked by his enemies, is he charged with any perſonal vice. This remark is as old as Origen:—"Though innumerable lies and calumnies had been forged againſt the venerable Jeſus, none had dared to charge him with an intemperance^*." [76] Not a reflection upon his moral character, not an imputation or ſuſ⯑picion of any offence againſt purity and chaſtity, appears for five hundred years after his birth. This faultleſſneſs is more pecu⯑liar than we are apt to imagine. Some ſtain pollutes the morals or the morality of almoſt every other teacher, and of every other law⯑giver^†. Zeno the ſtoic, and Diogenes the cynic, fell into the fouleſt impurities; of which alſo Socrates himſelf was more than ſuſpected. Solon forbad unnatural crimes to ſlaves. Lycurgus tolerated theft as a part of education. Plato recommended a com⯑munity of women. Ariſtotle maintained the general right of making war upon Bar⯑barians. The elder Cato was remarkable for the ill uſage of his ſlaves. The younger gave up the perſon of his wife. One looſe principle is found in almoſt all the Pagan moraliſts; is diſtinctly, however, perceived in the writings of Plato, Xenophon, Cicero, [77] Seneca, Epictetus, and that is, the allowing, and even the recommending to their diſci⯑ples, a compliance with the religion, and with the religious rites, of every country into which they came. In ſpeaking of the founders of new inſtitutions, we cannot forget Mahomet. His licentious tranſgreſ⯑ſions of his own licentious rules; his abuſe of the character which he aſſumed, and of the power which he had acquired, for the purpoſes of perſonal and privileged indul⯑gence; his avowed claim of a ſpecial per⯑miſſion from heaven of unlimited ſenſuality, is known to every reader, as it is confeſſed by every writer, of the Moſlem ſtory.

Secondly, in the hiſtories which are left us of Jeſus Chriſt, although very ſhort, and although dealing in narrative, and not in obſervation or panegyric, we perceive, be⯑ſide the abſence of every appearance of vice, traces of devotion, humility, benignity, mild⯑neſs, patience, prudence. I ſpeak of traces of theſe qualities, becauſe the qualities them⯑ſelves are to be collected from incidents; [78] inaſmuch as the terms are never uſed of Chriſt in the goſpels, nor is any formal cha⯑racter of him drawn in any part of the New Teſtament.

Thus we ſee the devoutneſs of his mind, in his frequent retirement to ſolitary prayer^*; in his habitual giving of thanks ^†; in his re⯑ference of the beauties and operations of nature to the bounty of providence ^‡; in his earneſt addreſſes to his Father, more parti⯑cularly that ſhort but ſolemn one before the raiſing of Lazarus from the dead ^§; and in the deep piety of his behaviour in the gar⯑den, on the laſt evening of his life ^2020𝄁: his humility, in his conſtant reproof of conten⯑tions for ſuperiority^¶: the benignity and affectionateneſs of his temper, in his kind⯑neſs to children ^**, in the tears which he ſhed [79] over his falling country ^*, and upon the death of his friend ^†; in his noticing of the widow's mite ^‡; in his parables of the good Samaritan, of the ungrateful ſervant, and of the phariſee and publican, of which parables no one but a man of humanity could have been the author: the mildneſs and lenity of his character is diſcovered, in his rebuke of the forward zeal of his diſciples at the Sama⯑ritan village ^§; in his expoſtulation with Pilate ^{2020𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁}; in his prayer for his enemies at the moment of his ſuffering ^¶, which, though it has been ſince very properly and frequently imitated, was then, I apprehend, new. His prudence is diſcerned, where pru⯑dence is moſt wanted, in his conduct upon trying occaſions, and in anſwers to artful queſtions. Of theſe the following are ex⯑amples:—His withdrawing, in various in⯑ſtances, from the firſt ſymptoms of tumult^**, and with the expreſs care, as appears from [80] St. Matthew ^*, of carrying on his miniſtry in quietneſs; his declining of every ſpecies of interference with the civil affairs of the country, which diſpoſition is manifeſted by his behaviour in the caſe of the woman caught in adultery ^†, and in his repulſe of the application which was made to him, to interpoſe his deciſion about a diſputed inhe⯑ritance ^‡: his judicious, yet, as it ſhould ſeem, unprepared anſwers, will be confeſſed in the caſe of the Roman tribute ^§; in the difficulty concerning the interfering relations of a future ſtate, as propoſed to him in the inſtance of a woman who had married ſeven brethren ^{2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁}; and, more eſpecially, in his reply to thoſe who demanded from him an explanation of the authority by which he acted, which reply conſiſted, in propounding a queſtion to them, ſituated between the very difficulties, into which they were inſi⯑diouſly endeavouring to draw him ^¶.

Our Saviour's leſſons, beſide what has already [81] been remarked in them, touch, and that oftentimes by very affecting repreſen⯑tations, upon ſome of the moſt intereſting topics of human duty, and of human medi⯑tation; upon the principles, by which the deciſions of the laſt day will be regulated ^*; upon the ſuperior, or rather the ſupreme, importance of religion ^†; upon penitence, by the moſt preſſing calls, and the moſt encouraging invitations ^‡; upon ſelf-denial ^§, watchfulneſs ^{2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁}, placability ^¶, confidence in God ^**, the value of ſpiritual, that is, of mental worſhip ^††, the neceſſity of moral obedience, and the directing of that obe⯑dience to the ſpirit and principle of the law, inſtead of ſeeking for evaſions in a technical conſtruction of its terms ^‡‡.

[82] If we extend our argument to other parts of the New Teſtament, we may offer, as amongſt the beſt and ſhorteſt rules of life, or, which is the ſame thing, deſcriptions of virtue, that have ever been delivered, the following paſſages:

‘"Pure religion, and undefiled, before God and the Father, is this; to viſit the fatherleſs and widows in their affliction, and to keep himſelf unſpotted from the world ^*."’

‘"Now the end of the commandment is, charity, out of a pure heart, and a good con⯑ſcience, and faith unfeigned ^†."’

‘"For the grace of God that bringeth ſal⯑vation, hath appeared to all men, teaching us, that, denying ungodlineſs and worldly luſts, we ſhould live ſoberly, righteouſly, and godly, in this preſent world ^‡."’

Enumerations of virtues and vices, and [83] thoſe ſufficiently accurate, and unqueſtion⯑ably juſt, are given by St. Paul to his con⯑verts in three ſeveral epiſtles ^*.

The relative duties of huſbands and wives, of parents and children, of maſters and ſer⯑vants, of Chriſtian teachers and their flocks, of governors and their ſubjects, are ſet forth by the ſame writer ^†, not indeed with the copiouſneſs, the detail, or the diſtinctneſs, of a moraliſt, who ſhould, in theſe days, ſit down to write chapters upon the ſubject, but with the leading rules and principles in each; and, above all, with truth, and with authority.

Laſtly, the whole volume of the New Teſtament is replete with piety; with, what were almoſt unknown to heathen moraliſts, devotional virtues, the moſt profound vene⯑ration of the Deity, an habitual ſenſe of his bounty and protection, a firm confidence in [84] the final reſult of his councils and diſpenſa⯑tions, a diſpoſition to reſort, upon all occa⯑ſions, to his mercy, for the ſupply of human wants, for aſſiſtance in danger, for relief from pain, for the pardon of ſin.

CHAP. III. The candour of the writers of the New Teſtament.

I MAKE this candour to conſiſt, in their putting down many paſſages, and noticing many circumſtances, which no writer what⯑ever was likely to have forged; and which no writer would have choſen to appear in his book, who had been careful to preſent the ſtory in the moſt unexceptionable form, or who had thought himſelf at liberty to carve and mould the particulars of that ſtory, according to his choice, or according to his judgement of the effect.

A ſtrong and well-known example of the fairneſs of the evangeliſts, offers itſelf in their account of Chriſt's reſurrection, name⯑ly, in their unanimouſly ſtating, that, after he was riſen, he appeared to his diſciples alone. I do not mean, that they have uſed [86] the excluſive word alone; but that all the inſtances which they have recorded of his appearance, are inſtances of appearance to his diſciples; that their reaſonings upon it, and alluſions to it, are conſined to this ſup⯑poſition; and that, by one of them, Peter is made to ſay, "Him God raiſed up the third day, and ſhewed him openly, not to all the people, but to witneſſes choſen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he roſe from the dead ^*." The commoneſt underſtanding muſt have perceived, that the hiſtory of the reſurrec⯑tion would have come with more advantage, if they had related that Jeſus appeared, after he was riſen, to his ſoes as well as his friends, to the ſcribes and phariſees, the Jewiſh coun⯑cil, and the Roman governor; or even if they had aſſerted the public appearance of Chriſt in general unqualified terms, with⯑out noticing, as they have done, the preſence of his diſciples upon each occaſion, and noticing it in ſuch a manner as to lead their [87] readers to ſuppoſe that none but diſciples were preſent. They could have repreſented it one way as well as the other. And if their point had been, to have the religion believed, whether true or falſe; if they had fabricated the ſtory ab initio, or if they had been diſ⯑poſed, either to have delivered their teſtimony as witneſſes, or to have worked up their mate⯑rials and information as hiſtorians, in ſuch a manner as to render their narrative as ſpe⯑cious and unobjectionable as they could; in a word, if they had thought of any thing but of the truth of the caſe, as they under⯑ſtood and believed it; they would, in their account of Chriſt's ſeveral appearances after his reſurrection, at leaſt have omitted this reſtriction. At this diſtance of time, the account as we have it, is perhaps more cre⯑dible than it would have been the other way; becauſe this manifeſtation of the hiſtorian's candour, is of more advantage to their teſ⯑timony, than the difference in the circum⯑ſtances of the account would have been to the nature of the evidence. But this is an effect which the evangeliſts would not foreſee; [88] and I think that it was by no means the caſe at the time when the books were compoſed.

Mr. Gibbon has argued for the genuine⯑neſs of the Koran, from the confeſſions which it contains, to the apparent diſad⯑vantage of the Mahometan cauſe ^*. The ſame defence vindicates the genuineneſs of our goſpels, and without prejudice to the cauſe at all.

There are ſome other inſtances in which the evangeliſts honeſtly relate what, they muſt have perceived, would make againſt them.

Of this kind is John the Baptiſt's meſſage, preſerved by St. Matthew and St. Luke, (xi. 2. vii. 18.) "Now when John had heard, in the priſon, the works of Chriſt, he ſent two of his diſciples, and ſaid unto him, Art thou he that ſhould come, or look we [89] for another? To confeſs, ſtill more to ſtate, that John the Baptiſt had his doubts con⯑cerning the character of Jeſus, could not but afford a handle to cavil and objection. But truth, like honeſty, neglects appear⯑ances. The ſame obſervation, perhaps, holds concerning the apoſtacy of Judas ^*.

[90] John vi. 66. "From that time many of his diſciples went back, and walked no more with him." Was it the part of a writer, who dealt in ſuppreſſion and diſguiſe, to put down this anecdote?

Or this, which Matthew has preſerved, (xiii. 58.) "He did not many mighty works there, becauſe of their unbelief."

Again, in the ſame evangeliſt (v. 17, 18.) "Think not that I am come to deſtroy the law or the prophets; I am not come to de⯑ſtroy, but to fulfil; for, verily, I ſay unto you, till heaven and earth paſs, one jot, or one tittle, ſhall in no wiſe paſs from the law, till all be fulfilled." At the time the goſpels were written, the apparent tendency of Chriſt's miſſion was to diminiſh the au⯑thority of the Moſaic code, and it was ſo conſidered by the Jews themſelves. It is very improbable, therefore, that, without the conſtraint of truth, Matthew ſhould have aſcribed a ſaying to Chriſt, which primo intuitu, militated with the judgement [91] of the age in which his goſpel was written. Marcion thought this text ſo objectionable, that he altered the words, ſo as to invert the ſenſe ^*.

Once more, Acts xxv. 19. "They brought none accuſation againſt him, of ſuch things, as I ſuppoſed, but had certain queſtions againſt him of their own ſuperſti⯑tion, and of one Jeſus which was dead, whom Paul affirmed to be alive." Nothing could be more in the character of a Roman governor than theſe words. But that is not preciſely the point I am concerned with. A mere panegyriſt, or a diſhoneſt narrator, would not have repreſented his cauſe, or have made a great magiſtrate repreſent it, in this manner, i. e. in terms not a little diſparaging, and beſpeaking on his part, much unconcern and indifference about the matter. The ſame obſervation may be re⯑peated of the ſpeech which is aſcribed to Gallio (Acts viii. 14.) "If it be a queſtion [92] of words, and names, and of your law, look ye to it, for I will be no judge of ſuch matters."

Laſtly, where do we diſcern a ſtronger mark of candour, or leſs diſpoſition to extol and magnify, than in the concluſion of the ſame hiſtory? in which the evangeliſt, after relating that Paul, upon his firſt arrival at Rome, preached to the Jews from morning until evening, adds, "And ſome believed the things which were ſpoken, and ſome believed not."

The following, I think, are paſſages, which were very unlikely to have preſented themſelves to the mind of a forger or a fabuliſt.

Matt. xxi. 21. "Jeſus anſwered and ſaid unto them, Verily I ſay unto you, if ye have faith and doubt not, ye ſhall not only do this, which is done unto the fig-tree, but alſo, if ye ſhall ſay unto this mountain, be thou removed, and be thou caſt into the [93] ſea, it ſhall be done; all things whatſoever ye ſhall aſk in prayer, believing, it ſhall be done ^*." It appears to me very improbable, that theſe words ſhould have been put into Chriſt's mouth, if he had not actually ſpoken them. The term "faith," as here uſed, is perhaps rightly interpreted of con⯑ſidence in that internal notice, by which the apoſtles were admoniſhed of their power to perform any particular miracle. And this expoſition renders the ſenſe of the text more eaſy. But the words, undoubtedly, in their obvious conſtruction, carry with them a difficulty, which no writer would have brought upon himſelf officiouſly.

Luke ix. 59. "And he ſaid unto an⯑other, follow me; but he ſaid, Lord, ſuffer me, firſt, to go and bury my father. Jeſus ſaid unto him, let the dead bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God ^†." This anſwer, though very expreſſive [94] of the tranſcendent importance of religious concerns, was apparently harſh and repulſive; and ſuch as would not have been made for Chriſt, if he had not really uſed it. At leaſt, ſome other inſtance would have been choſen.

The following paſſage, I, for the ſame reaſon, think impoſſible to have been the production of artifice, or of a cold forgery:—"But I ſay unto you, that whoſoever is angry with his brother, without a cauſe, ſhall be in danger of the judgement; and whoſoever ſhall ſay to his brother, Raca, ſhall be in danger of the council; but who⯑ſoever ſhall ſay, thou fool, ſhall be in dan⯑ger of hell-ſire (Gehennae)." Mat. v. 22. It is emphatic, cogent, and well calculated for the purpoſe of impreſſion; but is in⯑conſiſtent with the ſuppoſition of art or warineſs on the part of the relator.

The ſhort reply of our Lord to Mary Magdalen after his reſurrection (John xx. 16, 17.) "Touch me not, for I am not [95] yet aſcended unto my Father," in my opi⯑nion, muſt have been founded in a refer⯑ence or alluſion to ſome prior converſation, for the want of knowing which, his mean⯑ing is hidden from us. This very obſcurity, however, is a proof of genuineneſs. No one would have forged ſuch an anſwer.

John vi. The whole of the converſation, recorded in this chapter, is, in the higheſt degree, unlikely to be fabricated, eſpecially the part of our Saviour's reply between the fiftieth and the fifty-eighth verſe. I need only put down the firſt ſentence, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if any man eat of this bread, he ſhall live for ever; and the bread that I will give him is my fleſh, which I will give for the life of the world." Without calling in queſtion the expoſitions that have been given of this paſſage, we may be permit⯑ted to ſay, that it labours under an obſcu⯑rity, in which it is impoſſible to believe that any one, who made ſpeeches for the perſons of his narrative, would have voluntarily involved [96] them. That this diſcourſe was ob⯑ſcure even at the time, is confeſſed by the writer who has preſerved it, when he tells us at the concluſion, that many of our Lord's diſciples, when they had heard this, ſaid, "This is a hard ſaying, who can bear it?"

Chriſt's taking of a young child, and placing it in the midſt of his contentious diſciples (Mat. xviii. 2.), though as deci⯑ſive a proof, as any could be, of the benig⯑nity of his temper, and very expreſſive of the character of the religion which he wiſh⯑ed to inculcate, was not by any means an obvious thought. Nor am I acquainted with any thing in any ancient writing which reſembles it.

The account of the inſtitution of the Euchariſt bears ſtrong internal marks of genuineneſs. If it had been feigned, it would have been more full. It would have come nearer to the actual mode of cele⯑brating the rite, as that mode obtained very [97] early in Chriſtian churches; and it would have been more formal than it is. In the forged piece, called the apoſtolic conſtitu⯑tions, the apoſtles are made to enjoin many parts of the ritual, which was in uſe in the ſecond and third centuries, with as much particularity, as a modern rubric could have done. Whereas, in the hiſtory of the Lord's ſupper, as we read it in St. Matthew's goſ⯑pel, there is not ſo much as the command to repeat it. This, ſurely, looks like unde⯑ſignedneſs. I think alſo that the difficulty, ariſing from the conciſeneſs of Chriſt's ex⯑preſſion, "This is my body," would have been avoided in a made-up ſtory. I allow that the explication of theſe words, given by Proteſtants, is ſatisfactory; but it is de⯑duced from a diligent compariſon of the words in queſtion, with forms of expreſſion uſed in ſcripture, and eſpecially by Chriſt, upon other occaſions. No writer would, arbitrarily and unneceſſarily, have thus caſt in his reader's way a difficulty, which, to ſay the leaſt, it required reſearch and erudi⯑tion to clear up.

[98] Now it ought to be obſerved, that the argument which is built upon theſe ex⯑amples, extends both to the authenticity of the books, and to the truth of the narrative: for it is improbable, that the forger of a hiſ⯑tory in the name of another ſhould have in⯑ſerted ſuch paſſages into it: and it is im⯑probable alſo, that the perſons whoſe names the books bear, ſhould have fabricated ſuch paſſages; or even have allowed them a place in their work, if they had not be⯑lieved them to expreſs the truth.

The following obſervation, therefore, of Dr. Lardner, the moſt candid of all advo⯑cates, and the moſt cautious of all enquirers, ſeems to be well founded:—"Chriſtians are induced to believe the writers of the goſpel, by obſerving the evidences of piety and probity that appear in their writings, in which there is no deceit or artifice, or cun⯑ning, or deſign." "No remarks," as Dr. Beattie hath properly ſaid, "are thrown in to anticipate objections; nothing of that caution, which never fails to diſtinguiſh the [99] teſtimony of thoſe, who are conſcious of impoſture; no endeavour to reconcile the reader's mind to what may be extraordi⯑nary in the narrative."

I beg leave to cite alſo another author ^*, who has well expreſſed the reflection, which the examples now brought forward were intended to ſuggeſt. "It doth not appear that ever it came into the mind of theſe writers, to conſider how this or the other action would appear to mankind, or what objections might be raiſed upon them. But, without at all attending to this, they lay the facts before you, at no pains to think whe⯑ther they would appear credible or not. If the reader will not believe their teſtimony, there is no help for it: they tell the truth, and attend to nothing elſe. Surely this looks like ſincerity, and that they publiſhed nothing to the world but what they believed themſelves."

[100] As no improper ſupplement to this chap⯑ter, I crave a place here for obſerving the extreme naturalneſs of ſome of the things related in the New Teſtament.

Mark ix. 24. Jeſus ſaid unto him, "If thou canſt believe, all things are poſſible to him that believeth. And ſtraightway the father of the child cried out, and ſaid with tears, Lord, I believe, help thou mine un⯑belief." The ſtruggle in the father's heart, between ſolicitude for the preſervation of his child, and a kind of involuntary diſ⯑truſt of Chriſt's power to heal him, is here expreſſed with an air of reality, which could hardly be counterſeited.

Again, (Mat. xxi. 9.) the eagerneſs of the people to introduce Chriſt into Jeruſa⯑lem, and their demand, a ſhort time after⯑wards, of his crucifixion, when he did not turn out what they expected him to be, ſo far from affording matter of objection, re⯑preſents popular favour, in exact agreement [101] with nature and with experience, as the flux and reflux of a wave.

The rulers and Phariſees rejecting Chriſt, whilſt many of the common people received him, was the effect, which, in the then ſtate of Jewiſh prejudices, I ſhould have expected. And the reaſon with which they, who rejected Chriſt's miſſion, kept them⯑ſelves in countenance, and with which alſo they anſwered the arguments of thoſe who favoured it, is preciſely the reaſon, which ſuch men uſually give:—"Have any of the Scribes or Phariſees believed on him?" John vii. 48.

In our Lord's converſation at the well, (John iv. 29.) Chriſt had ſurpriſed the Sa⯑maritan woman, with an alluſion to a ſingle particular in her domeſtic ſituation, "Thou haſt had five huſbands, and he, whom thou now haſt, is not thy huſband." The wo⯑man, ſoon after this, ran back to the city, and called out to her neighbours, "Come, ſee a man which told me all things that ever [102] I did." This exaggeration appears to me very natural; eſpecially in the hurried ſtate of ſpirits into which the woman may be ſuppoſed to have been thrown.

The lawyer's ſubtlſty in running a diſ⯑tinction upon the word neighbour, in the precept "Thou ſhalt love thy neighbour as thyſeiſ," was no leſs natural than our Sa⯑viour's anſwer was deciſive and ſatisfactory. (Luke x. 29.) The lawyer of the New Teſtament, it muſt be obſerved, was a Jewiſh divine.

The behaviour of Gallio, Acts xviii. 12—17, and of Feſtus, xxv. 18, 19, have been obſerved upon already.

The conſiſtency of St. Paul's character throughout the whole of his hiſtory (viz. the warmth and activity of his zeal, firſt againſt, and then for Chriſtianity) carries with it very much of the appearance of truth.

[103] There are alſo ſome proprieties, as they may be called, obſervable in the goſpels, that is, circumſtances ſeparately ſuiting with the ſituation, character, and intention of their reſpective authors.

St. Matthew, who was an inhabitant of Galilee, and did not join Chriſt's ſociety until ſome time after Chriſt had come into Galilee to preach, has given us very little of his hiſtory prior to that period. St. John, who had been converted before, and who wrote to ſupply omiſſions in the other goſ⯑pels, relates ſome remarkable particulars, which had taken place before Chriſt left Judea to go into Galilee ^*.

St. Matthew (xv. 1.) has recorded the cavil of the Phariſees againſt the diſciples of Jeſus, for eating "with unclean hands." St. Mark has alſo (vii. 1.) recorded the ſame tranſaction (taken probably from St. Matthew), but with this addition, "For the [104] Phariſees, and all the Jews, except they waſh their hands often, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market, except they waſh they eat not; and many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the waſhing of cups and pots, brazen veſſels, and of tables." Now St. Matthew was not only a Jew himſelf, but it is evident, from the whole ſtructure of his goſpel, eſpecially from his numerous references to the Old Teſtament, that he wrote for Jewiſh readers. The above explanation therefore in him would have been unnatural, as not being wanted by the readers whom he addreſſed. But in Mark, who, whatever uſe he might make of Matthew's goſpel, intended his own narrative for a general circulation, and who himſelf travelled to diſtant countries in the ſervice of the religion, it was properly added.

CHAP. IV. Identity of Chriſt's character.

THE argument expreſſed by this title I apply principally to the compariſon of the three firſt goſpels with that of St. John. It is known to every reader of ſcripture, that the paſſages of Chriſt's hiſtory preſerved by St. John, are, except his paſſion and reſur⯑rection, for the moſt part different from thoſe which are delivered by the other evangeliſts. And I think the ancient account of this dif⯑ference to be the true one, viz. that St. John wrote after the reſt, and to ſupply what he thought omiſſions in their narratives, of which the principal were our Saviour's con⯑ferences with the Jews of Jeruſalem, and his diſcourſes to his apoſtles at his laſt ſupper. But what I obſerve in the compariſon of theſe ſeveral accounts is, that, although ac⯑tions and diſcourſes are aſcribed to Chriſt by [106] St. John, in general different from what are given to him by the other evangeliſts, yet, under this diverſity, there is a ſimilitude of manner, which indicates that the actions and diſcourſes proceeded from the ſame perſon. I ſhould have laid little ſtreſs upon a repeti⯑tion of actions ſubſtantially alike, or of diſ⯑courſes containing many of the ſame expreſ⯑ſions, becauſe that is a ſpecies of reſemblance, which would either belong to a true hiſtory, or might eaſily be imitated in a falſe one. Nor do I deny, that a dramatic writer is able to ſuſtain propriety and diſtinction of character, through a great variety of ſeparate incidents and ſituations. But the evan⯑geliſts were not dramatic writers; nor poſ⯑ſeſſed the talents of dramatic writers; nor will it, I believe, be ſuſpected, that they ſtu⯑died uniformity of character, or ever thought of any ſuch thing, in the perſon who was the ſubject of their hiſtories. Such uni⯑formity, if it exiſt, is on their part caſual; and if there be, as I contend there is, a per⯑ceptible reſemblance of manner, in paſſages, and between diſcourſes, which are in themſelves [107] extremely diſtinct, and are delivered by hiſtorians writing without any imitation of, or reference to one another, it affords a juſt preſumption, that theſe are, what they profeſs to be, the actions and the diſcourſes of the ſame real perſon; that the evangeliſts wrote from fact, and not from imagination.

The article in which I find this agreement moſt ſtrong, is in our Saviour's mode of teaching, and in that particular property of it, which conſiſts in his drawing of his doc⯑trine from the occaſion; or, which is nearly the ſame thing, raiſing reflections from the objects and incidents before him, or turning a particular diſcourſe then paſſing into an opportunity of general inſtruction.

It will be my buſineſs to point out this manner in the three firſt evangeliſts; and then to enquire, whether it do not appear alſo, in ſeveral examples of Chriſt's diſcourſes, preſerved by St. John.

The reader will obſerve in the following [108] quotation, that the italic letter contains the reflection, the common letter the incident or occaſion from which it ſprings.

Mat. xii. 49, 50. "Then they ſaid unto him, Behold thy mother and thy brethren ſtand without, deſiring to ſpeak with thee. But he anſwered, and ſaid unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he ſtretched forth his hands towards his diſciples, and ſaid, Behold my mother and my brethren; for whoſoever ſhall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the ſame is my brother, and ſiſter, and mother.

Mat. xvi. 5. "And when his diſciples were come to the other ſide, they had for⯑gotten to take bread; then Jeſus ſaid unto them, Take heed, and beware of the leaven of the Phariſees, and of the Sadducees. And they reaſoned among themſelves, ſaying, It is be⯑cauſe we have taken no bread.—How is it that ye do not underſtand, that I ſpake it not to you concerning bread, that ye ſhould be⯑ware of the leaven of the Phariſees, and of [109] the Sadducees? Then underſtood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the DOCTRINE of the Phariſees and of the Sadducees."

Mat. xv. 1, 2. 10, 11. 17—20. "Then came to Jeſus Scribes and Phariſees, which were of Jeruſalem, ſaying, Why do thy diſ⯑ciples tranſgreſs the traditions of the elders? for they waſh not their hands when they eat bread.—And he called the multitude, and ſaid unto them, Hear and underſtand, not that which goeth into the mouth deſileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this deſileth a man.—Then anſwered Peter, and ſaid unto him, Declare unto us this pa⯑rable. And Jeſus ſaid, Are ye alſo yet with⯑out underſtanding? Do ye not yet under⯑ſtand, that whatſoever entereth in at the mouth, goeth into the belly, and is caſt out into the draught? but thoſe things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the man; for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, falſe witneſs, [110] blaſphemies; theſe are the things which deſile a man, BUT TO EAT WITH UNWASHEN HANDS DEFILETH NOT A MAN." Our Saviour, upon this occaſion, expatiates rather more at large than uſual, and his diſcourſe alſo is more divided, but the concluding ſen⯑tence brings back the whole train of thought to the incident in the ſirſt verſe, viz. the ob⯑jurgatory queſtion of the Phariſees, and renders it evident that the whole ſprung from that circumſtance.

Mark x. 13, 14, 15. "And they brought young children to him, that he ſhould touch them, and his diſciples rebuked thoſe that brought them; but when Jeſus ſaw it, he was much diſpleaſed, and ſaid unto them, Suffer the little chiidren to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of ſuch is the king⯑dom of God: verily I ſay unto you, whoſoever ſhall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he ſhall not enter therein."

Mark i. 16, 17. "Now as he walked by the ſea of Galilee, he ſaw Simon and [111] Andrew his brother caſting a net into the ſea, for they were fiſhers; and Jeſus ſaid unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you fiſhers of men."

Luke xi. 27. "And it came to paſs as he ſpake theſe things, a certain woman of the company lift up her voice and ſaid unto him, Bleſſed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou haſt ſucked; but he ſaid, Yea, rather bleſſed are they, that hear the word of God, and keep it."

Luke xiii. 1—5. "There were preſent at that ſeaſon ſome that told him of the Ga⯑lileans, whoſe blood Pilate had mingled with their ſacriſices; and Jeſus anſwering, ſaid unto them, Suppoſe ye that theſe Galileans were ſinners above all the Galileans, becauſe they ſuffered ſuch things? I tell you nay, but except ye repent, ye ſhall all likewiſe periſh."

Luke xiv. 15. "And when one of them, that ſat at meat with him, heard theſe things, he ſaid unto him, Bleſſed is he that ſhall eat [112] bread in the kingdom of God. Then ſaid he unto him, A certain man made a great ſupper, and bade many," &c. The parable is rather too long for inſertion, but affords a ſtriking inſtance of Chriſt's manner of raiſing a diſcourſe from the occaſion. Obſerve alſo in the ſame chapter, two other examples of advice, drawn from the circumſtances of the entertainment, and the behaviour of the gueſts.

We will now ſee, how this manner diſco⯑vers itſelf in St. John's hiſtory of Chriſt.

John vi. 26. "And when they had found him on the other ſide of the ſea, they ſaid unto him, Rabbi, when cameſt thou hither? Jeſus anſwered them, and ſaid, Verily I ſay unto you, ye ſeek me not be⯑cauſe ye ſaw the miracles, but becauſe ye did eat of the loaves and were filled. Labour not for the meat which periſheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlaſting life, which the Son of man ſhall give unto you."

[113] John iv. 12. "Art thou greater than our father Abraham, who gave us the well, and drank thereof himſelf, and his children, and his cattle? Jeſus anſwered and ſaid unto her (the woman of Samaria), Whoſoever drinketh of this water ſhall thirſt again, but whoſoever drinketh of the water that I ſhall give him, ſhall never thirſt; but the water that I ſhall give him, ſhall be in him a well of water, ſpringing up into everlaſting life."

John iv. 31. "In the mean while, his diſciples prayed him, ſaying, Maſter, eat; but he ſaid unto them, I have meat to eat that ye know not of. Therefore ſaid the diſciples one to another, Hath any man brought him aught to eat? Jeſus faith unto them, My meat is, to do the will of him that ſent me, and to finiſh his work."

John ix. 1—5. "And as Jeſus paſſed by, he ſaw a man which was blind from his birth: and his diſciples aſked him, ſaying, Who did ſin, this man or his parents, that he was born blind? Jeſus anſwered, Neither [114] hath this man ſinned, nor his parents, but that the works of God ſhould be made ma⯑nifeſt in him. I muſt work the works of him that ſent me, while it is day; the night cometh, when no man can work. As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."

John ix. 35—40. "Jeſus heard that they had caſt him (the blind man above men⯑tioned) out; and when he had found him, he ſaid unto him, Doſt thou believe on the Son of God? And he anſwered and ſaid, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jeſus ſaid unto him, Thou haſt both ſeen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he ſaid, Lord, I believe; and he worſhipped him. And Jeſus ſaid, For judge⯑ment I am come into this world, that they which ſee not might ſee, and that they which ſee might be made blind."

All that the reader has now to do, is to compare the ſeries of examples taken from St. John, with the ſeries of examples taken from the other evangeliſts, and to judge [115] whether there be not a viſible agreement of manner between them. In the above quoted paſſages, the occaſion is ſtated, as well as the reflection. They ſeem therefore the moſt proper for the purpoſe of our argument. A large, however, and curious collection has been made by different writers ^*, of inſtances, in which it is extremely probable, that Chriſt ſpoke in alluſion to ſome object, or ſome occaſion then before him, though the mention of the occaſion, or of the object, be omitted in the hiſtory. I only obſerve that theſe inſtances are common to St. John's goſpel with the other three.

I conclude this article by remarking, that nothing of this manner is perceptible in the ſpeeches recorded in the Acts, or in any other but thoſe which are attributed to Chriſt, and that, in truth, it was a very un⯑likely manner for a forger or fabuliſt to at⯑tempt; and a manner very difficult for any [116] writer to execute, if he had to ſupply all the materials, both the incidents, and the obſervations upon them, out of his own head. A forger or a fabuliſt would have made for Chriſt, diſcourſes exhorting to virtue and diſſuading from vice in general terms. It would never have entered into the thoughts of either, to have crowded to⯑gether ſuch a number of alluſions, to time, place, and other little circumſtances, as oc⯑cur, for inſtance, in the ſermon on the mount, and which nothing but the actual preſence of the objects could have ſug⯑geſted ^*.

II. There appears to me to exiſt an affi⯑nity between the hiſtory of Chriſt's placing a little child in the midſt of his diſciples, as related by the three firſt evangeliſts ^†, and the hiſtory of Chriſt's waſhing his diſciples' feet, as given by St. John ^‡. In the ſtories [117] themſelves there is no reſemblance. But the affinity, which I would point out, conſiſts in theſe two articles: firſt, that both ſtories denote the emulation which prevailed a⯑mongſt Chriſt's diſciples, and his own care and deſire to correct it. The moral of both is the ſame. Secondly, that both ſtories are ſpecimens of the ſame manner of teaching, viz. by action; a mode of emblematic in⯑ſtruction extremely peculiar, and, in theſe paſſages, aſcribed, we ſee, to our Saviour, by the three firſt evangeliſts and by St. John, in inſtances totally unlike, and with⯑out the ſmalleſt ſuſpicion of their borrowing from each other.

III. A ſingularity in Chriſt's language, which runs through all the evangeliſts, and which is found in thoſe diſcourſes of St. John, that have nothing ſimilar to them in the other goſpels, is the appellation of "the ſon of man;" and it is in all the evange⯑liſts found under the peculiar circumſtance of being applied by Chriſt to himſelf, but [118] of never being uſed of him, or towards him, by any other perſon. It occurs ſeventeen times in Matthew's goſpel, twelve times in Mark's, twenty-one times in Luke's, and eleven times in John's, and always with this reſtriction.

IV. A point of agreement in the conduct of Chriſt, as repreſented by his different hiſtorians, is that of his withdrawing him⯑ſelf out of the way, whenever the beha⯑viour of the multitude indicated a diſpoſition to tumult.

Mat. xiv. 22. "And ſtraightway Jeſus conſtrained his diſciples to get into a ſhip, and to go before him unto the other ſide, while he ſent the multitude away. And when he had ſent the multitude away, he went up into a mountain apart to pray."

Luke v. 15, 16. "But ſo much the more went there a fame abroad of him, and great multitudes came together to hear, and [119] to be healed by him of their infirmities: and he withdrew himſelf into the wilder⯑neſs and prayed."

With theſe quotations compare the fol⯑lowing from St. John.

Chap. v. 13. "And he that was healed wiſt not who it was, for Jeſus had con⯑veyed himſelf away, a multitude being in that place."

Chap. vi. 15. "When Jeſus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force to make him a king, he de⯑parted again into a mountain by himſelf alone."

In this laſt inſtance St. John gives the motive of Chriſt's conduct, which is left un⯑unexplained by the other evangeliſts, who have related the conduct itſelf.

V. Another, and a more ſingular circum⯑ſtance in Chriſt's miniſtry, was the reſerve, [120] which, for ſome time, and upon ſome occa⯑ſions at leaſt, he uſed in declaring his own character, and his leaving it to be collected from his works rather than his profeſſions. Juſt reaſons for this reſerve have been aſ⯑ſigned ^*. But it is not what one would have expected. We meet with it in Mat⯑thew's goſpel (xvi. 20), "Then charged he his diſciples that they ſhould tell no man that he was Jeſus the Chriſt." Again, and upon a different occaſion, in Mark's (iii. 4), "And unclean ſpirits, when they ſaw him, fell down before him, and cried, ſaying, Thou art the Son of God; and he ſtraitly charged them that they ſhould not make him known." Another inſtance ſimilar to this laſt is recorded by St. Luke (iv. 41). What we thus find in the three evangeliſts, appears alſo in a paſſage of St. John (x. 24. 35). "Then came the Jews round about him, and ſaid unto him, How long doſt thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Chriſt, tell us plainly." The occaſion here was different [121] from any of the reſt; and it was in⯑direct. We only diſcover Chriſt's conduct through the upbraidings of his adverſaries. But all this ſtrengthens the argument. I had rather at any time ſurpriſe a coincidence in ſome oblique alluſion, than read it in broad aſſertions.

VI. In our Lord's commerce with his diſciples, one very obſervable particular is the difficulty which they found in under⯑ſtanding him, when he ſpoke to them of the future part of his hiſtory, eſpecially of what related to his paſſion or reſurrection. This difficulty produced, as was natural, a wiſh in them to aſk for further explanation; from which, however, they appear to have been ſometimes kept back, by the fear of giving offence. All theſe circumſtances are diſtinctly noticed by Mark and Luke, upon the occaſion of his informing them (pro⯑bably for the firſt time) that the ſon of man ſhould be delivered into the hands of men. "They underſtood not," the evangeliſts tell us, "this ſaying, and it was hid from them, [122] that they perceived it not; and they feared to aſk him of that ſaying" (Luke ix. 45. Mark ix. 32). In St. John's goſpel we have, upon a different occaſion, and in a different inſtance, the ſame difficulty of ap⯑prehenſion, the ſame curioſity, and the ſame reſtraint:—"A little while, and ye ſhall not ſee me, and again a little while, and ye ſhall ſee me, becauſe I go to the Father. Then ſaid ſome of his diſciples among them⯑ſelves, What is this that he ſaith unto us? A little while and ye ſhall not ſee me, and again a little while and ye ſhall ſee me, and becauſe I go to the Father? They ſaid, therefore, What is this that he ſaith, a little while? We cannot tell what he ſaith. Now Jeſus knew that they were deſirous to aſk him, and ſaid unto them," &c. John xvi. 16 et ſeq.

VII. The meekneſs of Chriſt during his laſt ſufferings, which is conſpicuous in the narratives of the three firſt evangeliſts, is preſerved in that of St. John under ſeparate examples. The anſwer given by him, in [123] St. John ^*, when the high prieſt aſked him of his diſciples and his doctrine, "I ſpake openly to the world, I ever taught in the ſynagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always reſort, and in ſecret have I ſaid nothing; why aſkeſt thou me? Aſk them which heard me, what I have ſaid unto them;" is very much of a piece with his reply to the armed party which ſeized him, as we read it in St. Mark's goſpel, and in St. Luke's ^†: "Are ye come out as againſt a thief with ſwords and with ſtaves to take me? I was daily with you in the temple teaching, and ye took me not." In both anſwers we diſcern the ſame tranquillity, the ſame reference to his public teaching. His mild expoſtulation with Pilate upon two ſeveral occaſions, as related by St. John ^‡, is delivered with the ſame unruffled temper, as that which conducted him through the laſt ſcene of his life, as de⯑ſcribed by his other evangeliſts. His anſwer, [124] in St. John's goſpel, to the officer who ſtruck him with the palm of his hand, "If I have ſpoken evil, bear witneſs of the evil, but if well, why ſmiteſt thou me ^*?" was ſuch an anſwer, as might have been looked for from the perſon, who, as he pro⯑ceeded to the place of execution, bid his companions (as we are told by St. Luke ^†) weep not for him, but for themſelves, their poſterity, and their country; and who, whilſt he was ſuſpended upon the croſs, prayed for his murderers, "for they know not (ſaid he) what they do." The urgency alſo of his judges and his proſecutors to ex⯑tort from him a defence to the accuſation, and his unwillingneſs to make any (which was a peculiar circumſtance) appears in St. John's account, as well as in that of the other evangeliſts ^‡.

There are moreover two other correſpon⯑dencies between St. John's hiſtory of the [125] tranſaction and theirs, of a kind ſomewhat different from thoſe which we have been now mentioning.

The three firſt evangeliſts record what is called our Saviour's agony, i. e. his devo⯑tion in the garden, immediately before he was apprehended; in which narrative they all make him pray, "that the cup might paſs from him." This is the particular me⯑taphor which they all aſcribe to him. St. Matthew adds, "O my Father, if this cup may not paſs away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done ^*." Now St. John does not give the ſcene in the garden; but when Jeſus was ſeized, and ſome reſiſtance was attempted to be made by Peter, Jeſus, according to his account, checked the at⯑tempt with this reply: "Put up thy ſword into the ſheath; the cup which my Father hath given me, ſhall I not drink it ^†?" This is ſomething more than conſiſtency: it is coincidence: becauſe it is extremely [126] natural, that Jeſus, who, before he was ap⯑prehended, had been praying his Father, that "that cup might paſs from him," yet with ſuch a pious retractation of his requeſt, as to have added, "If this cup may not paſs from me, thy will be done;" it was natural, I ſay, for the ſame perſon, when he actually was apprehended, to expreſs the re⯑ſignation to which he had already made up his thoughts, and to expreſs it in the form of ſpeech which he had before uſed, "The cup which my Father hath given me, ſhall I not drink it?" This is a coincidence be⯑tween writers, in whoſe narratives there is no imitation, but great diverſity.

A ſecond ſimilar correſpondency is the following: Matthew and Mark make the charge, upon which our Lord was con⯑demned, to be a threat of deſtroying the temple; "We heard him ſay, I will deſtroy this temple, made with hands, and, within three days, I will build another made with⯑out hands ^*;" but they neither of them inform [127] us, upon what circumſtance this ca⯑lumny was founded. St. John, in the early part of his hiſtory ^*, ſupplies us with this information; for he relates, that, upon our Lord's firſt journey to Jeruſalem, when the Jews aſked him, "What ſign ſheweſt thou unto us, ſeeing that thou doeſt theſe things? He anſwered, Deſtroy this temple, and in three days I will raiſe it up." This agree⯑ment could hardly ariſe from any thing but the truth of the caſe. From any care or deſign in St. John, to make his narrative tally with the narratives of the other evan⯑geliſts, it certainly did not ariſe, for no ſuch deſign appears, but the abſence of it.

A ſtrong, and more general inſtance of agreement, is the following. The three firſt evangeliſts have related the appointment of the twelve apoſtles ^†; and have given a ca⯑talogue of their names in form. John, without ever mentioning the appointment, or giving the catalogue, ſuppoſes, throughout [128] his whole narrative, Chriſt to be accom⯑panied by a ſelect party of diſciples; the number of theſe to be twelve ^*; and when⯑ever he happens to notice any one as of that number ^†, it is one included in the ca⯑talogue of the other evangeliſts; and the names principally occurring in the courſe of his hiſtory of Chriſt, are the names ex⯑tant in their liſt. This laſt agreement, which is of conſiderable moment, runs through every goſpel, and through every chapter of each.

All this beſpeaks reality.

CHAP. V. Originality of our Saviour's character.

THE Jews, whether right or wrong, had underſtood their prophecies to foretell the advent of a perſon, who, by ſome ſuperna⯑tural aſſiſtance, ſhould advance their nation to independence, and to a ſupreme degree of ſplendour and proſperity. This was the reigning opinion and expectation of the times.

Now, had Jeſus been an enthuſiaſt, it is probable that his enthuſiaſm would have fallen in with the popular deluſion, and that, whilſt he gave himſelf out to be the perſon intended by theſe predictions, he would have aſſumed the character, to which they were univerſally ſuppoſed to relate.

[130] Had he been an impoſtor, it was his bu⯑ſineſs to have flattered the prevailing hopes, becauſe theſe hopes were to be the inſtru⯑ments of his attraction and ſucceſs.

But, what is better than conjectures, is the fact, that all the pretended Meſſiahs actually did ſo. We learn from Joſephus that there were many of theſe. Some of them, it is probable, might be impoſtors, who thought that an advantage was to be taken of the ſtate of public opinion. Others, perhaps, were enthuſiaſts, whoſe imagina⯑tion had been drawn to this particular ob⯑ject, by the language and ſentiments which prevailed around them. But, whether im⯑poſtors or enthuſiaſts, they concurred in producing themſelves in the character which their countrymen looked for, that is to ſay, as the reſtorers and deliverers of the nation, in that ſenſe in which reſtora⯑tion and deliverance were expected by the Jews.

[131] Why therefore Jeſus, if he was, like them, either an enthuſiaſt or impoſtor, did not purſue the ſame conduct as they did, in framing his character and pretenſions, it will be found difficult to explain. A miſ⯑ſion, the operation and benefit of which was to take place in another life, was a thing unthought of as the ſubject of theſe prophecies. That Jeſus, coming to them as their Meſſiah, ſhould come under a cha⯑racter totally different from that in which they expected him; ſhould deviate from the general perſuaſion, and deviate into pretenſions abſolutely ſingular and original; appears to be inconſiſtent with the impu⯑tation of enthuſiaſm or impoſture, both which, by their nature, I ſhould expect, would, and both which, throughout the ex⯑perience which this very ſubject furniſhes, in fact have, followed the opinions that ob⯑tained at the time.

If it be ſaid, that Jeſus, having tried the other plan, turned at length to this; I anſwer, [132] that the thing is ſaid without evi⯑dence; againſt evidence; that it was com⯑petent to the reſt to have done the ſame, yet that nothing of this ſort was thought of by any.

CHAP. VI.

ONE argument, which has been much re⯑lied upon (but not more than its juſt weight deſerves), is the conformity of the facts, oc⯑caſionally mentioned or referred to in ſcrip⯑ture, with the ſtate of things in thoſe times, as repreſented by foreign and independent accounts. Which conformity proves, that the writers of the New Teſtament poſſeſſed a ſpecies of local knowledge, which could only belong to an inhabitant of that coun⯑try, and to one living in that age. This argument, if well made out by examples, is very little ſhort of proving the abſolute genuineneſs of the writings. It carries them up to the age of the reputed authors, to an age, in which it muſt have been difficult to impoſe upon the Chriſtian public, forgeries in the names of thoſe authors, and in which there is no evidence that any forgeries were attempted. It proves at leaſt, that the books, [134] whoever were the authors of them, were compoſed by perſons living in the time and country in which theſe things were tranſ⯑acted; and conſequently capable, by their ſituation, of being well informed of the facts which they relate. And the argument is ſtronger, when applied to the New Teſta⯑ment, than it is in the caſe of almoſt any other writings, by reaſon of the mixed na⯑ture of the alluſions which this book con⯑tains. The ſcene of action is not confined to a ſingle country, but diſplayed in the greateſt cities of the Roman empire. Allu⯑ſions are made to the manners and prin⯑ciples of the Greeks, the Romans, and the Jews. This variety renders a forgery pro⯑portionably more difficult, eſpecially to wri⯑ters of a poſterior age. A Greek or Roman Chriſtian, who lived in the ſecond or third century, would have been wanting in Jewiſh literature; a Jewiſh convert in thoſe ages would have been equally deficient in the knowledge of Greece and Rome ^*.

[135] This, however, is an argument which de⯑pends entirely upon an induction of parti⯑culars; and as, conſequently, it carries with it little force, without a view of the in⯑ſtances upon which it is built, I have to re⯑queſt the reader's attention to a detail of ex⯑amples, diſtinctly and articulately propoſed. In collecting theſe examples, I have done no more than epitomize the firſt volume of the firſt part of Dr. Lardner's credibility of the goſpel hiſtory. And I have brought the argument within its preſent compaſs, firſt, by paſſing over ſome of his ſections in which the accordancy appeared to me leſs certain, or upon ſubjects not ſufficiently ap⯑propriate or circumſtantial; ſecondly, by contracting every ſection into the feweſt words poſſible, contenting myſelf for the moſt part with a mere appoſition of paſſages; and, thirdly, by omitting many diſquiſitions, which, though learned and accurate, are not abſolutely neceſſary to the underſtanding or verification of the argument.

The writer, principally made uſe of in [136] the enquiry, is Joſephus. Joſephus was born at Jeruſalem four years after Chriſt's aſcenſion. He wrote his hiſtory of the Jewiſh war ſome time after the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, which happened in the year of our Lord ſeventy, that is thirty-ſeven years after the aſcenſion; and his hiſtory of the Jews he finiſhed in the year ninety⯑three, that is, ſixty years after the aſcenſion.

At the head of each article, I have re⯑ferred, by figures included in brackets, to the page of Dr. Lardner's volume, where the ſection, from which the abridgement is made, begins. The edition uſed is that of 1741.

I. (p. 14.) Mat. xi. 22. "When he (Joſeph) heard, that Archelaus did reign in Judea, in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither; notwithſtand⯑ing, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aſide into the parts of Galilee."

In this paſſage it is aſſerted, that Archelaus [137] ſucceeded Herod in Judea; and it is implied, that his power did not extend to Galilee. Now we learn from Joſephus, that Herod the Great, whoſe dominion included all the land of Iſrael, appointed Archelaus his ſucceſſor in Judea, and aſſigned the reſt of his dominions to other ſons; and that this diſpoſition was ratified, as to the main parts of it, by the Roman emperor ^*.

St. Matthew ſays, that Archelaus reigned, was king in Judea. Agreeably to this, we are informed by Joſephus, not only that Herod appointed Archelaus his ſucceſſor in Judea, but that he alſo appointed him with the title of king; and the Greek verb [...], which the evangeliſt uſes to de⯑note the government and rank of Arche⯑laus, is uſed likewiſe by Joſephus ^†.

The cruelty of Archelaus's character, which is not obſcurely intimated by the [138] evangeliſt, agrees with divers particulars in his hiſtory, preſerved by Joſephus. "In the tenth year of his government, the chief of the Jews and Samaritans, not being able to endure his cruelty and tyranny, preſented complaints againſt him to Ceſar ^*."

II. (p. 19.) Luke iii. 1. "In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Ceſar—Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis—the word of God came unto John."

By the will of Herod the Great, and the decree of Auguſtus thereupon, his two ſons were appointed, one (Herod Antipas) te⯑trarch of Galilee and Peraea, and the other (Philip) tetrarch of Trachonitis and the neighbouring countries ^†. We have there⯑fore theſe two perſons in the ſituations in which St. Luke places them; and alſo, that they were in theſe ſituations in the fifteenth [139] year of Tiberius, in other words, that they continued in poſſeſſion of their territories and titles until that time, and afterwards, appears from a paſſage of Joſephus, which relates of Herod, "that he was removed by Caligula, the ſucceſſor of Tiberius ^*; and of Philip, that he died in the twentieth year of Tiberius, when he had governed Trachonitis and Batanea and Gaulanitis thirty-ſeven years ^†.

III. (p. 20.) Mark v. 17 ^‡. "Herod had ſent forth, and laid hold upon John, and bound him in priſon, for Herodias' ſake, his brother Philip's wife; for he had mar⯑ried her."

With this compare Joſ. Ant. l. 18. c. 6. ſec. 1. "He (Herod the tetrarch) made a viſit to Herod his brother—Here, falling in love with Herodias, the wife of the ſaid [140] Herod, he ventured to make her propoſals of marriage ^*."

Again, Mark vi. 22. "And when the daughter of the ſaid Herodias came in and danced—"

With this alſo compare Joſ. Ant. l. 18. c. 6. ſec. 4. "Herodias was married to Herod, ſon of Herod the Great. They had a daughter, whoſe name was Salome; after [141] whoſe birth, Herodias, in utter violation of the laws of her country, left her huſband then living, and married Herod the tetrarch of Galilee, her huſband's brother by the fa⯑ther's ſide."

IV. (p. 29.) Acts xii. 1. "Now, about that time, Herod the king ſtretched forth his hands, to vex certain of the church." In the concluſion of the ſame chapter, Herod's death is repreſented to have taken place, ſoon after this perſecution. The accuracy of our hiſtorian, or, rather, the unmeditated coin⯑cidence, which truth of it's own accord pro⯑duces, is in this inſtance remarkable. There was no portion of time, for thirty years be⯑fore, nor ever afterwards, in which there was a king at Jeruſalem, a perſon exerciſing that authority in Judea, or to whom that title could be applied, except the three laſt years of this Herod's life, within which pe⯑riod, the tranſaction recorded in the Acts is ſtated to have taken place. This prince was the grandſon of Herod the Great. In the Acts he appears under his family name [142] of Herod; by Joſephus he is called Agrippa. For proof that he was a king, properly ſo called, we have the teſtimony of Joſephus in full and direct terms:—"Sending for him to his palace, Caligula put a crown upon his head, and appointed him king of the te⯑trarchie of Philip, intending alſo to give him the tetrarchie of Lyſanias ^*." And that Judea was at laſt, but not until the laſt, included in his dominions, appears by a ſubſequent paſſage of the ſame Joſephus, wherein he tells us, that Claudius, by a decree, con⯑firmed to Agrippa the dominion which Caligula had given him, adding alſo Judea and Samaria, in the utmoſt extent, as poſſeſſed by his grandfather Herod ^†.

V. (P. 32.) Acts xii. 19, 23. "And he (Herod) went down from Judea to Ceſarea, and there abode.—And upon a ſet day, Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, ſat upon his throne, and made an oration unto them; and the people gave a ſhout, ſaying, It is the voice of a god, and not of a man; and immediately [143] the angel of the Lord ſmote him, becauſe he gave not God the glory, and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghoſt."

Joſ. Ant. lib. xix. c. 8. ſec. 2. "He went to the city Ceſarea. Here he celebrated ſhowes in honour of Ceſar. On the ſecond day of the ſhowes, early in the morning, he came into the theatre, dreſſed in a robe of ſilver, of moſt curious workmanſhip. The rays of the riſing ſun, reflected from ſo ſplendid garb, gave him a majeſtic and awful appearance. They called him a god, and intreated him to be propitious to them, ſay⯑ing, Hitherto we have reſpected you as a man, but now we acknowledge you to be more than mortal. The king neither re⯑proved theſe perſons, nor rejected the im⯑pious flattery.—Immediately after this he was ſeized with pains in his bowels, ex⯑tremely violent at the very firſt.—He was carried therefore with all haſte to his palace. Theſe pains continually tormenting him, he expired in five days time."

[144] The reader will perceive the accordancy of theſe accounts in various particulars. The place (Ceſarea), the ſet day, the gorgeous dreſs, the acclamations of the aſſembly, the peculiar turn of the flattery, the reception of it, the ſudden and critical incurſion of the diſeaſe, are circumſtances noticed in both narratives. The worms mentioned by St. Luke are not remarked by Joſephus, but the appearance of theſe is a ſymptom, not unuſually, I believe, attending the diſeaſe, which Joſephus deſcribes, viz. violent affec⯑tions of the bowels.

VI. (p. 41.) Acts xxiv. 24. "And after certain days, when Felix came with his wife Druſilla, which was a Jeweſs, he ſent for Paul."

Joſ. Ant. lib. xx. c. 6. ſec. 1, 2. "Agrippa gave his ſiſter Druſilla in marriage to Azizus, king of the Emeſenes, when he had con⯑ſented to be circumciſed—But this marriage of Druſilla with Azizus was diſſolved in a ſhort time after, in this manner:—When Felix was procurator of Judea, having had a ſight [145] of her, he was mightily taken with her—She was induced to tranſgreſs the laws of her country, and marry Felix."

Here the public ſtation of Felix, the name of his wife, and the ſingular circumſtance of her religion, all appear in perfect conformity with the evangeliſt.

VII. (p. 46.) "And after certain days, King Agrippa and Bernice came to Ceſarea to ſalute Feſtus." By this paſſage we are in effect told, that Agrippa was a king, but not of Judea; for he came to ſalute Feſtus, who at this time adminiſtered the govern⯑ment of that country at Ceſarea.

Now how does the hiſtory of the age cor⯑reſpond with this account? The Agrippa here ſpoken of, was the ſon of Herod Agrippa mentioned in the laſt article; but that he did not ſucceed to his father's king⯑dom, nor ever recovered Judea, which had been a part of it, we learn by the information of Joſephus, who relates of him, that, when [146] his father was dead, Claudius intended, at firſt, to have put him immediately in poſ⯑ſeſſion of his father's dominions; but that, Agrippa being then but ſeventeen years of age, the emperor was perſuaded to alter his mind, and appointed Cuſpius Fadus prefect of Judea and the whole kingdom ^*; which Fadus was ſucceeded by Tiberius Alexander, Cumanus, Felix, Feſtus ^†. But that, though diſappointed of his father's kingdom, in which was included Judea, he was never⯑theleſs rightly ſtyled King Agrippa; and that he was in poſſeſſion of conſiderable territories bordering upon Judea, we gather from the ſame authority; for after ſeveral ſucceſſive donations of country, "Claudius, at the ſame time that he ſent Felix to be procura⯑tor of Judea, promoted Agrippa from Chal⯑cis to a greater kingdom, giving to him the tetrarchie which had been Philip's; and he added moreover the kingdom of Lyſanias, and the province that had belonged to Varus ^‡."

[147] St. Paul addreſſes this perſon as a Jew: "King Agrippa, believeſt thou the prophets? I know that thou believeſt." As the ſon of Herod Agrippa, who is deſcribed by Joſe⯑phus to have been a zealous Jew, it is rea⯑ſonable to ſuppoſe that he maintained the ſame profeſſion. But what is more material to remark, becauſe it is more cloſe and cir⯑cumſtantial, is, that St. Luke, ſpeaking of the father, (xii. 1. 3.) calls him Herod the king, and gives an example of the exerciſe of his authority at Jeruſalem; ſpeaking of the ſon, (xxv. 13.) he calls him king, but not of Judea; which diſtinction agrees cor⯑rectly with the hiſtory.

VIII. (p. 51.) Acts xiii. 7. "And when they had gone through the iſle (Cyprus) to Paphos, they found a certain ſorcerer, a falſe prophet, a Jew, whoſe name was Barjeſus, which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man."

The word, which is here tranſlated de⯑puty, ſignifies Proconſul, and upon this word [148] our obſervation is founded. The provinces of the Roman empire were of two kinds; thoſe belonging to the emperor, in which the governor was called Propretor; and thoſe belonging to the ſenate, in which the go⯑vernor was called Proconſul. And this was a regular diſtinction. Now it appears from Dio Caſſius ^*, that the province of Cyprus, which in the original diſtribution was aſſign⯑ed to the emperor, had been transferred to the ſenate, in exchange for ſome others; and that, after this exchange, the appropriate title of the Roman governor was Proconſul.

Ib. xviii. 12. (p. 55.) "And when Gal⯑lio was deputy (Proconſul) of Achaia."

The propriety of the title "Proconſul" is in this paſſage ſtill more critical. For the province of Achaia, after paſſing from the ſenate to the emperor, had been reſtored again by the emperor Claudius to the ſenate (and conſequently its government had become [149] proconſular) only ſix or ſeven years before the time in which this tranſaction is laid to have taken place ^*. And what con⯑fines with ſtrictneſs the appellation to the time is, that Achaia under the following reign ceaſed to be a Roman province at all.

IX. (p. 152.) It appears, as well from the general conſtitution of a Roman pro⯑vince, as from what Joſephus delivers con⯑cerning the ſtate of Judea in particular ^†, that the power of life and death reſided ex⯑cluſively in the Roman governor; but that the Jews, nevertheleſs, had magiſtrates and a council, inveſted with a ſubordinate and municipal authority. This oeconomy is diſ⯑cerned in every part of the goſpel narrative of our Saviour's crucifixion.

X. (p. 203.) Acts ix. 31. "Then had the churches reſt throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria."

[150] This reſt ſynchroniſes with the attempt of Caligula to place his ſtatue in the Tem⯑ple of Jeruſalem; the threat of which out⯑rage produced amongſt the Jews a conſter⯑nation, that, for a ſeaſon, diverted their attention from every other object ^*.

XI. (p. 218.) Acts xxi. 31. "And they took Paul, and drew him out of the temple; and forthwith the doors were ſhut. And as they went about to kill him, tidings came to the chief captain of the band, that all Jeruſalem was in an uprore. Then the chief captain came near, and took him, and com⯑manded him to be bound with two chains, and demanded who he was, and what he had done; and ſome cried one thing, and ſome another, among the multitude: and, when he could not know the certainty for the tumult, he commanded him to be car⯑ried into the caſtle. And when he came upon the ſtairs, ſo it was, that he was borne of the ſoldiers for the violence of the people."

[151] In this quotation, we have the band of Roman ſoldiers at Jeruſalem, their office (to ſuppreſs tumults), the caſtle, the ſtairs, both, as it ſhould ſeem, adjoining to the temple. Let us enquire whether we can find theſe particulars in any other record of that age and place.

Joſ. de Bell. lib. v. c. 5. ſec. 8. "Anto⯑nia was ſituated at the angle of the weſtern and northern porticoes of the outer temple. It was built upon a rock fifty cubits high, ſteep on all ſides.—On that ſide, where it joined to the porticoes of the temple, there were ſtairs reaching to each portico, by which the guard deſcended; for there was always lodged here a Roman legion, and poſting themſelves in their armour in ſeve⯑ral places in the porticoes, they kept a watch on the people on the feaſt days to prevent all diſorders; for, as the temple was a guard to the city, ſo was Antonia to the temple."

XII. (p. 224.) Acts iv. 1. "And as they ſpake unto the people, the prieſts, and [152] the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them." Here we have a public officer, under the title of captain of the tem⯑ple, and he probably a Jew, as he accom⯑panied the prieſts and Sadducees in appre⯑hending the apoſtles.

Joſ. de Bell. lib. ii. c. 17. ſec. 2. "And at the temple Eleazar, the ſon of Ananias the high prieſt, a young man of a bold and re⯑ſolute diſpoſition, then captain, perſuaded thoſe who performed the ſacred miniſtra⯑tions, not to receive the gift or ſacrifice of any ſtranger."

XIII. (p. 225.) Acts xxv. 12. "Then Feſtus, when he had conferred with the council, anſwered, Haſt thou appealed unto Ceſar? unto Ceſar ſhalt thou go." That it was uſual for the Roman preſidents to have a council, conſiſting of their friends, and other chief Romans in the province, appears expreſsly in the following paſſage of Cicero's oration againſt Verres:—"Illud negare poſſes, aut nunc negabis, te, concilio tuo dimiſſo, [153] viris primariis, qui in conſilio C. Sa⯑cerdotis fuerant, tibique eſſe volebant, re⯑motis, de re judicatâ judicâſſe?"

XIV. (p. 235.) Acts xvi. 13. "And (at Philippi) on the ſabbath, we went out of the city by a river ſide, where prayer was wont to be made," or where a proſeucha, oratory, or place of prayer, was allowed. The particularity to be remarked, is the ſituation of the place where prayer was wont to be made, viz. by a river ſide.

Philo, deſcribing the conduct of the Jews of Alexandria upon a certain public occa⯑ſion, relates of them, that, "early in the morning, flocking out of the gates of the city, they go to the neighbouring ſhores (for the proſeuchoe were deſtroyed), and, ſtand⯑ing in a moſt pure place, they lift up their voices with one accord ^*."

Joſephus gives us a decree of the city of [154] Halicarnaſſus, permitting the Jews to build oratories, a part of which decree runs thus.—"We ordain that the Jews, who are wil⯑ling, men and women, do obſerve the ſab⯑baths, and perform ſacred rites according to the Jewiſh laws, and build oratories by the ſea-ſide ^*."

Tertullian, among other Jewiſh rites and cuſtoms, ſuch as feaſts, ſabbaths, faſts, and unleavened bread, mentions orationes lito⯑rales, that is, prayers by the river ſide ^†.

XV. (p. 255.) Acts xxvi. 5. "After the moſt ſtraiteſt ſect of our religion, I lived a Phariſee."

Joſ. de Bell. l. i. c. 5. ſec. 2. "The Phariſees were reckoned the moſt religious of any of the Jews, and to be the moſt exact and ſkilful in explaining the laws."

In the original there is an agreement, [155] not only in the ſenſe but in the expreſſion, it being the ſame Greek adjective, which is rendered "ſtrait" in the Acts, and "exact" in Joſephus.

XVI. (p. 255.) Mark viii. 3, 4. "The Phariſees and all the Jews, except they waſh, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and many other things there be which they have received to hold."

Joſ. Ant. lib. xiii. c. 10. ſec. 6. "The Phariſees have delivered to the people many inſtitutions, as received from the fathers, which are not written in the law of Moſes."

XVII. (p. 259.) Acts xxiii. 8. "For the Sadducees ſay, that there is no reſurrec⯑tion, neither angel, nor ſpirit, but the Pha⯑riſees confeſs both."

Joſ. de Bell. lib. ii. c. 8. ſec. 14. "They (the Phariſees) believe every ſoul to be im⯑mortal, but that the ſoul of the good only paſſes into another body, and the ſoul of [156] the wicked is puniſhed with eternal puniſh⯑ment." On the other hand, Ant. lib. xviii. c. 1. ſec. 4. "It is the opinion of the Sad⯑ducees that ſouls periſh with the bodies."

XVIII. (p. 268.) Acts v. 17. "Then the High Prieſt roſe up, and all they that were with him, which is the ſect of the Sadducees, and were filled with indigna⯑tion." St. Luke here intimates that the High Prieſt was a Sadducee, which is a character one would not have expected to meet with in that ſtation. This circum⯑ſtance, remarkable as it is, was not however without examples.

Joſ. Ant. lib. xiii. c. 10. ſec. 6, 7. "John Hyrcanus, High Prieſt of the Jews, forſook the Phariſees upon a diſguſt, and joined himſelf to the party of the Sadducees." This High Prieſt died one hundred and ſeven years before the Chriſtian aera.

Again, (Ant. lib. xx. c. 8. ſec. 1.) "This Ananus the younger, who, as we have ſaid [157] juſt now, had received the high prieſthood, was fierce and haughty in his behaviour, and above all men bold and daring; and, moreover, was of the ſect of the Sadducees." This High Prieſt lived little more than twenty years after the tranſaction in the Acts.

XIX. (p. 282.) Luke ix. 51. "And it came to paſs, when the time was come, that he ſhould be received up, he ſteadfaſtly ſet his face to go to Jeruſalem, and ſent meſ⯑ſengers before his face. And they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans to make ready for him, and they did not re⯑ceive him, becauſe his face was as though he would go to Jeruſalem."

Joſ. Ant. lib. xx. c. 5. ſec. 1. "It was the cuſtom of the Galileans, who went up to the holy city at the feaſts, to travel through the country of Samaria. As they were in their journey, ſome inhabitants of the village called Ginaea, which lies on the borders of Samaria and the great plain, [158] falling upon them, killed a great many of them."

XX. (p. 278.) John iv. 20. "Our fa⯑thers," ſaid the Samaritan woman, "wor⯑ſhipped in this mountain, and ye ſay, that Jeruſalem is the place where men ought to worſhip."

Joſ. Ant. lib. xviii. c. 5. ſec. 1. "Com⯑manding them to meet him at Mount Ge⯑rizim, which is by them (the Samaritans) eſteemed the moſt ſacred of all mountains."

XXI. (p. 312.) Mat. xxvi. 3. "Then aſſembled together the chief prieſts, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the High Prieſt, who was called Caiaphas." That Caiaphas was High Prieſt, and High Prieſt throughout the preſidentſhip of Pon⯑tius Pilate, and conſequently at this time, appears from the following account:—He was made High Prieſt by Valerius Gratus, predeceſſor of Pontius Pilate, and was re⯑moved from his office by Vitellius, preſident [159] of Syria, after Pilate was ſent away out of the province of Judea. Joſephus re⯑lates the advancement of Caiaphas to the High Prieſthood in this manner: "Gratus gave the High Prieſthood to Simon, the ſon of Camithus. He having enjoyed this honour not above a year, was ſucceeded by Joſeph, who is alſo called Caiaphas ^*. After this Gratus went away for Rome, having been eleven years in Judea; and Pontius Pi⯑late came thither as his ſucceſſor." Of the removal of Caiaphas from his office, Joſe⯑phus likewiſe afterward informs us; and connects it with a circumſtance, which fixes the time to a date, ſubſequent to the deter⯑mination of Pilate's government. "Vitel⯑lius (he tells us) ordered Pilate to repair to Rome; and after that went up himſelf to Jeruſalem, and then gave directions con⯑cerning ſeveral matters. And, having done theſe things, he took away the prieſthood from the High Prieſt Joſeph, who is called Caiaphas ^†."

[160] XXII. (Michaelis, c. xi. ſec. 11.) Acts xxiii. 4. "And they that ſtood by ſaid, Revileſt thou God's High Prieſt? Then ſaid Paul, I wiſt not, brethren, that he was the High Prieſt." Now, upon enquiry into the hiſtory of the age, it turns out, that Ananias, of whom this is ſpoken, was, in truth, not the High Prieſt, though he was ſitting in judgement in that aſſumed capa⯑city. The caſe was, that he had formerly held the office, and had been depoſed; that the perſon who ſucceeded him had been murdered; that another was not yet ap⯑pointed to the ſtation; and that, during the vacancy, he had, of his own authority, taken upon himſelf the diſcharge of the of⯑fice ^*. This ſingular ſituation of the high prieſthood took place during the interval between the death of Jonathan, who was murdered by order of Felix, and the acceſ⯑ſion of Iſmael, who was inveſted with the high prieſthood by Agrippa; and preciſely in this interval it happened, that St. Paul [161] was apprehended, and brought before the Jewiſh council.

XXIII. (p. 323.) Mat. xxvi. 59. "Now the chief prieſts and elders, and all the coun⯑cil, ſought falſe witneſs againſt him."

Joſ. Ant. lib. xviii. c. 15. ſec. 3, 4. "Then might be ſeen the high prieſts themſelves with aſhes on their heads, and their breaſts naked."

The agreement here conſiſts in ſpeaking of the high prieſts, or chief prieſts (for the name in the original is the ſame), in the plural number, when in ſtrictneſs there was only one High Prieſt: which may be con⯑ſidered as a proof, that the evangeliſts were habituated to the manner of ſpeaking then in uſe, becauſe they retain it, when it is neither accurate nor juſt. For the ſake of brevity I have put down from Joſephus, only a ſingle example of the application of this title in the plural number; but it is his uſual ſtyle.

[162] Ib. (p. 871.) Luke iii. 1. "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Ceſar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, Annas and Caiaphas being the High Prieſts, the word of God came unto John." There is a paſſage in Joſephus very nearly parallel to this, and which may at leaſt ſerve to vindicate the evangeliſt from objection, with reſpect to his giving the title of High Prieſt ſpecifically to two perſons at the ſame time: "Qua⯑dratus ſent two others of the moſt powerful men of the Jews, as alſo the High Prieſts Jonathan and Ananias ^*." That Annas was a perſon in an eminent ſtation, and poſ⯑ſeſſed an authority co-ordinate with, or next to that of the High Prieſt properly ſo called, may be inferred from St. John's goſpel, which, in the hiſtory of Chriſt's crucifixion, relates that "the ſoldiers led him away to Annas firſt ^†." And this might be noticed [163] as an example of undeſigned coincidence in the two evangeliſts.

Again, (p. 870.) Acts iv. 6. Annas is called the High Prieſt, though Caiaphas was in the office of the High Prieſthood. In like manner in Joſephus ^*, "Joſeph the ſon of Gorion, and the High Prieſt Ana⯑nus, were choſen to be ſupreme governors of all things in the city." Yet Ananus, though here called the High Prieſt Ananus, was not then in the office of the High Prieſthood. The truth is, there is an inde⯑terminateneſs in the uſe of this title in the goſpel; ſometimes it is applied excluſively to the perſon, who held the office at the time; ſometimes to one or two more, who probably ſhared with him ſome of the powers or functions of the office; and, ſometimes, to ſuch of the prieſts as were eminent by their ſtation or character ^†: and there is the very ſame indeterminateneſs in Joſephus.

[164] XXIV. (p. 347.) John xix. 19, 20. "And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the croſs." That ſuch was the cuſtom of the Romans upon theſe occaſions, appears from paſſages of Suetonius and Dio Caſſius: "Patrem familias—canibus objecit, cum hoc titulo, impie locutus parmularius." Suet. Do⯑mit. cap. x. And in Dio Caſſius we have the following: "Having led him through the midſt of the court or aſſembly, with a writing ſignifying the cauſe of his death, and afterwards crucifying him." Book liv.

Ib. "And it was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin." That it was alſo uſual, about this time, in Jeruſalem, to ſet up ad⯑vertiſements in different languages, is gather⯑ed from the account which Joſephus gives, of an expoſtulatory meſſage from Titus to the Jews, when the city was almoſt in his hands; in which he ſays, Did ye not erect pillars with inſcriptions on them, in the Greek and in our language, "Let no one paſs beyond theſe bounds?"

[165] XXV. (p. 352.) Mat. xxvii. 26. "When he had ſcourged Jeſus, he delivered him to be crucified."

The following paſſages occur in Joſe⯑phus: ‘"Being beaten, they were cruciſied oppo⯑ſite to the citadel ^*."’ ‘"Whom, having firſt ſcourged with whips, he crucified ^†."’ ‘"He was burnt alive, having been firſt beaten ^‡."’

To which may be added one from Livy, Lib. xi. c. 5. "Productique omnes, vir⯑giſque caeſi, ac ſecuri percuſſi."

A modern example may illuſtrate the uſe we make of this inſtance. The preceding [166] of a capital execution by the corporal puniſh⯑ment of the ſufferer, is a practice unknown in England, but retained, in ſome inſtances at leaſt, as appears by the late execution of a regicide, in Sweden. This circumſtance, therefore, in the account of an Engliſh ex⯑ecution purporting to come from an Engliſh writer, would not only bring a ſuſpicion upon the truth of the account, but would, in a conſiderable degree, impeach its preten⯑ſions, of having been written by the author whoſe name it bore. Whereas the ſame circumſtance, in the account of a Swediſh execution, would verify the account, and ſupport the authenticity of the book in which it was found; or, at leaſt, would prove that the author, whoever he was, poſſeſſed the information and the knowledge which he ought to poſſeſs.

XXVI. (p. 353.) John xix. 16. "And they took Jeſus, and led him away, and he, bearing his croſs, went forth."

Plutarch. De iis qui ſero puniuntur, p. 554. [167] A. Paris, 1624. "Every kind of wicked⯑neſs produces its own particular torment, juſt as every malefactor, when he is brought forth to execution, carries his own croſs."

XXVII. John xix. 32. "Then came the ſoldiers, and brake the legs of the firſt, and of the other, which was crucified with him."

Conſtantine aboliſhed the puniſhment of the croſs; in commending which edict, a heathen writer notices this very circum⯑ſtance of breaking the legs: "Eo pius, ut etiam vetus veterrimumque ſupplicium, pa⯑tibulum, et cruribus ſuffringendis, primus removerit." Aur. Vict. Ceſ. cap. xli.

XXVIII. (p. 457.) Acts iii. 1. "Now Peter and John went up together into the temple, at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour."

Joſ. Ant. Iib. xv. c. 7. ſec. 8. "Twice every day, in the morning, and at the ninth [168] hour, the prieſts perform their duty at the altar."

XXIX. (p. 462.) Acts xv. 21. "For Moſes, of old time, hath, in every city, them that preach him, being read in the ſy⯑nagogues every ſabbath day."

Joſ. contra Ap. l. ii. "He (Moſes) gave us the law, the moſt excellent of all inſtitu⯑tions; nor did he appoint that it ſhould be heard, once only, or twice, or often, but that, laying aſide all other works, we ſhould meet together every week to hear it read, and gain a perfect underſtanding of it."

XXX. (p. 465.) Acts xxi. 23. "We have four men, which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyſelf with them, that they may ſhave their heads."

Joſ. de Bell. l. xi. c. 15. "It is cuſtomary for thoſe who have been afflicted with ſome diſtemper, or have laboured under any other difficulties, to make a vow thirty days [169] before they offer ſacrifices, to abſtain from wine, and ſhave the hair of their heads."

Ib. v. 24. "Them take, and purify thy⯑ſelf with them, and be at charges with them, that they may ſhave their heads."

Joſ. Ant. l. xix. c. 6. "He (Herod Agrippa) coming to Jeruſalem, offered up ſacrifices of thankſgiving, and omitted no⯑thing that was preſcribed by the law. For which reaſon he alſo ordered a good number of Nazarites to be ſhaved." We here find that it was an act of piety amongſt the Jews, to defray, for thoſe who were under the Naza⯑ritic vow, the expences which attended its completion; and that the phraſe was, "that they might be ſhaved." The cuſtom and the expreſſion are both remarkable, and both in cloſe conformity with the ſcripture ac⯑count.

XXXI. (p. 474.) 2 Cor. xi. 24. "Of the Jews five times received I forty ſtripes, ſave one."

[170] Joſ. Ant. iv. c. 8. ſec. 21. "He that acts contrary hereto, let him receive forty ſtripes, wanting one, from the public officer."

The coincidence here is ſingular, becauſe the law allowed forty ſtripes:—"Forty ſtripes he may give him, and not exceed." Deut. xxv. 3. It proves that the author of the epiſtle to the Corinthians was guided not by books, but by facts; becauſe his ſtate⯑ment agrees with the actual cuſtom, even when that cuſtom deviated from the written law, and from what he muſt have learnt by conſulting the Jewiſh code, as ſet forth in the Old Teſtament.

XXXII. (p. 490.) Luke iii. 12. "Then came alſo publicans to be baptized." From this quotation, as well as from the hiſtory of Levi or Matthew (Luke v. 29.), and of Zaccheus (Luke xix. 2.), it appears, that the publicans or tax-gatherers were, frequently at leaſt, if not always, Jews: which, as the country was then under a Roman govern⯑ment, and the taxes were paid to the [171] Romans, was a circumſtance not to be ex⯑pected. That it was the truth however of the caſe, appears from a ſhort paſſage of Joſephus.

De Bell. lib. ii. c. 14. ſec. 45. "But Florus not reſtraining theſe practices by his authority, the chief men of the Jews, among whom was John the publican, not knowing well what courſe to take, wait upon Florus, and give him eight talents of ſilver to ſtop the building."

XXXIII. (p. 496.) Acts xxii. 25. "And, as they bound him with thongs, Paul ſaid unto the centurion that ſtood by, Is it lawful for you to ſcourge a man that is a Roman, and uncondemned?"

XXXIV. (p. 513.) Acts xxii. 27. "Then the chief captain came, and ſaid unto him (Paul), Tell me, Art thou a Roman? He ſaid, Yea." The circumſtance here to be noticed is, that a Jew was a Roman citizen.

Joſ. Ant. lib. xiv. c. 10. ſec. 13. "Lucius Lentulus, the conſul, declared, I have diſ⯑miſſed from the ſervice, the Jewiſh Roman citizens, who obſerve the rites of the Jewiſh religion at Epheſus."

Ib. v. 27. "And the chief captain an⯑ſwered, With a great ſum obtained I this freedom."

Dio Caſſius, lib. lx. "This privilege, which had been bought formerly at a great price, became ſo cheap, that it was com⯑monly ſaid, a man might be made a Roman citizen for a few pieces of broken glaſs."

[173] XXXV. (p. 521.) Acts xxviii. 16. "And when we came to Rome, the centurion de⯑livered the priſoners to the captain of the guard, but Paul was ſuffered to dwell by himſelf, with a ſoldier that kept him."

With which join v. 20. "For the hope of Iſrael I am bound with this chain."

"Quemadmodum eadem catena, et cuſto⯑diam et militem copulat, ſic iſta, quae tam diſſimilia ſunt, pariter incedunt." Seneca, ep. v.

"Proconſul aeſtimare ſolet, utrum in car⯑cerem recipienda ſit perſona, an militi tra⯑denda." Ulpian. l. i. ſec. De cuſtod. et ex⯑hib. reor.

In the confinement of Agrippa by the order of Tiberius, Antonia managed, that the centurion who preſided over the guards, and the ſoldier to whom Agrippa was to be bound, might be men of mild character. Joſ. Ant. lib. xviii. c. 7. ſec. 5. After the acceſſion [174] of Caligula, Agrippa alſo, like Paul, was ſuffered to dwell, yet as a priſoner, in his own houſe.

XXXVI. (p. 531.) Acts xxvii. 1. "And when it was determined that we ſhould ſail into Italy, they delivered Paul, and certain other priſoners, unto one named Julius." Since not only Paul, but certain other pri⯑ſoners, were ſent by the ſame ſhip into Italy, the text muſt be conſidered, as carrying with it an intimation, that the ſending of perſons from Judea to be tried at Rome, was an ordinary practice. That in truth it was ſo, is made out by a variety of examples which the writings of Joſephus furniſh; and amongſt others by the following, which comes near both to the time and the ſubject of the inſtance in the Acts. "Felix, for ſome ſlight offence, bound and ſent to Rome ſeveral prieſts of his acquaintance, and very good and honeſt men, to anſwer for them⯑ſelves to Ceſar." Joſ. in Vit. ſec. 3.

XXXVII. (p. 539.) Acts xi. 27. "And, [175] in theſe days, came prophets from Jeruſalem unto Antioch; and there ſtood up one of them, named Agabus, and ſignified by the ſpirit that there ſhould be a great dearth throughout all the world (or all the country), which came to paſs in the days of Claudius Ceſar."

Joſ. Ant. l. xx. c. 4. ſec. 2. "In their time (i. e. about the fifth or ſixth year of Claudius) a great dearth happened in Judea."

XXXVIII. (p. 555.) Acts xviii. 1, 2. "Becauſe that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome."

Suet. Claud. c. xxv. "Judaeos, impulſore Chreſto aſſiduè tumultuantes, Româ expulit."

XXXIX. (p. 664.) Acts v. 37. "After this man roſe up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him."

Joſ. de Bell. l. vii. "He (viz. the perſon, [176] who, in another place, is called by Joſephus, Judas the Galilean, or Judas of Galilee) perſuaded not a few not to enroll themſelves, when Cyrenius the cenſor was ſent into Judea."

XL. (p. 942.) Acts xxi. 38. "Art not thou that Egyptian, which, before theſe days, madeſt an uprore, and leddeſt out into the wilderneſs four thouſand men, that were murderers?"

Joſ. de Bell. l. ii. c. 13. ſec. 5. "But the Egyptian falſe prophet brought a yet heavier diſaſter upon the Jews; for this im⯑poſtor, coming into the country, and gaining the reputation of a prophet, gathered toge⯑ther thirty thouſand men, who were deceived by him. Having brought them round out of the wilderneſs, up to the mount of olives, he intended from thence to make his attack upon Jeruſalem; but Felix coming ſuddenly upon him with the Roman ſoldiers, pre⯑vented the attack.—A great number, or (as it ſhould rather be rendered) the greateſt [177] part of thoſe that were with him, were either ſlain, or taken priſoners."

In theſe two paſſages, the deſignation of the impoſtor, an "Egyptian," without his proper name; "the wilderneſs;" his eſcape, though his followers were deſtroyed; the time of the tranſaction, in the preſidentſhip of Felix, which could not be any long time before the words in Luke are ſuppoſed to have been ſpoken; are circumſtances of cloſe correſpondency. There is one, and only one, point of diſagreement, and that is, in the number of his followers, which in the Acts are called four thouſand, and by Joſephus thirty thouſand: but, beſide that the names of numbers, more than any other words, are [...]able to the errors of tranſcribers, we are, in the preſent inſtance, under the leſs concern to reconcile the evangeliſt with Joſephus, as Joſephus is not, in this point, conſiſtent with himſelf. For whereas, in the paſſage here quoted, he calls the number thirty thouſand, and tells us that the great⯑eſt part, or a great number (according as [178] his words are rendered) of thoſe that were with him, were deſtroyed; in his Antiquities, he repreſents four hundred to have been killed upon this occaſion, and two hundred taken priſoners^*: which certainly was not the "greateſt part," nor "a great part," nor "a great number," out of thirty thou⯑ſand. It is probable alſo, that Lyſias and Joſephus ſpoke of the expedition in its dif⯑ferent ſtages: Lyſias, of thoſe who followed the Egyptian out of Jeruſalem; Joſephus, of all who were collected about him afterwards, from different quarters.

XLI. (Lardner's Jewiſh and Heathen Teſtimonies, vol. iii. p. 21.) Acts xvii. 22. "Then Paul ſtood in the midſt of Mars-hill, and ſaid, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too ſuperſtitious, for, as I paſſed by and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inſcription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worſhip, him declare I unto you."

[179] Diogenes Laertius, who wrote about the year 210, in his hiſtory of Epimenides, who is ſuppoſed to have flouriſhed nearly ſix hundred years before Chriſt, relates of him the following ſtory: that, being invited to Athens for the purpoſe, he delivered the city from a peſtilence in this manner—"Taking ſeveral ſheep, ſome black, others white, he had them up to the Areopagus, and then let them go where they would, and gave orders to thoſe who followed them, wherever any of them ſhould lie down, to ſacrifice it to the god to whom it belonged; and ſo the plague ceaſed. Hence," ſays the hiſtorian, "it has come to paſs, that, to this preſent time, may be found in the boroughs of the Athenians ANONYMOUS altars; a me⯑morial of the expiation then made ^*." Theſe altars, it may be preſumed, were called anonymous, becauſe there was not the name of any particular deity inſcribed upon them.

Pauſanias, who wrote before the end of [180] the ſecond century, in his deſcription of Athens, having mentioned an altar of Jupiter Olympius, adds, "And nigh unto it is an altar of unknown gods ^*." And, in another place, ſpeaks "of altars of gods called un⯑known ^†."

Philoſtratus, who wrote in the beginning of the third century, records it as an obſerva⯑tion of Apollonius Tyanaeus, "That it was wiſe to ſpeak well of all the gods, eſpecially at Athens, where altars of unknown demons were erected ^‡."

The author of the dialogue Philopatris, by many ſuppoſed to have been Lucian, who wrote about the year 170, by others ſome ano⯑nymous heathen writer of the fourth century, makes Critias ſwear by the unknown god of Athens; and, near the end of the dialogue, has theſe words, "But let us find out the unknown god at Athens, and, ſtretching our [181] hands to heaven, offer to him our praiſes and thankſgivings ^*."

This is a very curious, and a very im⯑portant coincidence. It appears beyond controverſy, that altars with this inſcription were exiſting at Athens, at the time when St. Paul is alledged to have been there. It ſeems alſo, which is very worthy of obſer⯑vation, that this inſcription was peculiar to the Athenians. There is no evidence that there were altars inſcribed "to the unknown God" in any other country. Suppoſing the hiſtory of St. Paul to have been a fable, how is it poſſible, that ſuch a writer as the author of the Acts of the Apoſtles was, ſhould hit upon a circumſtance ſo extraor⯑dinary, and introduce it by an alluſion ſo ſuitable to St. Paul's office and character?

The examples here collected, will be ſuf⯑ficient, I hope, to ſatisfy us, that the writers [182] of the Chriſtian hiſtory knew ſomething of what they were writing about. The argu⯑ment is alſo ſtrengthened by the following conſiderations:

I. That theſe agreements appear, not only in articles of public hiſtory, but, ſometimes, in minute, recondite, and very peculiar cir⯑cumſtances, in which, of all others, a forger is moſt likely to have been found tripping.

II. That the deſtruction of Jeruſalem, which took place forty years after the com⯑mencement of the Chriſtian inſtitution, pro⯑duced ſuch a change in the ſtate of the country, and the condition of the Jews, that a writer who was unacquainted with the circumſtances of the nation before that event, would find it difficult to avoid miſtakes, in endeavouring to give detailed accounts of tranſactions connected with thoſe circum⯑ſtances, foraſmuch as he could no longer have a living exemplar to copy from.

III. That there appears, in the writers of [183] the New Teſtament, a knowledge of the affairs of thoſe times, which we do not find in authors of later ages. In particular, many of the Chriſtian writers of the ſecond and third centuries, and of the following ages, had falſe notions concerning the ſtate of Judea, between the nativity of Jeſus and the deſtruction of Jeruſalem ^*. Therefore they could not have compoſed our hiſtories.

Amidſt ſo many conformities, we are not to wonder that we meet with ſome difficul⯑ties. The principal of theſe I will put down, together with the ſolutions which they have received. But in doing this I muſt be contented with a brevity, better ſuited to the limits of my volume, than to the nature of a controverſial argument. For the hiſtorical proofs of my aſſertions, and for the Greek criticiſms upon which ſome of them are founded, I refer the reader to the ſecond volume of the firſt part of Dr. Lardner's large work.

[184] I. The taxing, during which Jeſus was born, was "firſt made," as we read, accord⯑ing to our tranſlation, in St. Luke, "whilſt Cyrenius was governor of Syria ^*." Now it turns out, that Cyrenius was not governor of Syria until twelve, or, at the ſooneſt, ten years after the birth of Chriſt; and that a taxing, cenſus, or aſſeſſment, was made in Judea in the beginning of his government. The charge, therefore, brought againſt the evangeliſt is, that, intending to refer to this taxing, he has miſplaced the date of it, by an error of ten or twelve years.

The anſwer to the accuſation is found in his uſing the word "firſt"—"And this taxing was firſt made;" for, according to the miſtake imputed to the evangeliſt, this word could have no ſignification whatever: it could have had no place in his narrative; becauſe, let it relate to what it will, taxing, cenſus, enrollment, or aſſeſſment, it imports that the writer had more than one of theſe [185] in contemplation. It acquits him therefore of the charge, it is inconſiſtent with the ſuppoſition, of his knowing only of the taxing in the beginning of Cyrenius's go⯑vernment. And if the evangeliſt knew, which this word proves that he did, of ſome other taxing beſide that, it is too much, for the ſake of convicting him of a miſtake, to lay it down as certain, that he intended to refer to that.

The ſentence in St. Luke may be con⯑ſtrued thus: "This was the firſt aſſeſſment (or enrollment) of Cyrenius, governor of Syria ^*;" the words "governor of Syria" being uſed after the name of Cyrenius as his [186] addition or title. And this title, belonging to him at the time of writing the account, was naturally enough ſubjoined to his name, though acquired after the tranſaction which the account deſcribes. A modern writer, who was not very exact in the choice of his expreſſions, in relating the affairs of the Eaſt-Indies, might eaſily ſay, that ſuch a thing was done by Governor Haſtings, though, in truth, the thing had been done by him before his advancement to the ſta⯑tion from which he received the name of governor. And this, as we contend, is pre⯑ciſely the inaccuracy which has produced the difficulty in St. Luke.

At any rate, it appears from the form of the expreſſion, that he had two taxings or enrollments in contemplation. And if Cy⯑renius had been ſent upon this buſineſs into Judea, before he became governor of Syria (againſt which ſuppoſition there is no proof, but rather external evidence of an enroll⯑ment going on about this time under ſome [187] perſon or other ^*), then the cenſus on all hands acknowledged to have been made by him in the beginning of his government, would form a ſecond, ſo as to occaſion the other to be called the firſt.

II. Another chronological objection ariſes upon a date aſſigned in the beginning of the third chapter of St. Luke ^†. "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caeſar—Jeſus began to be about thirty years of age;" for ſuppoſing Jeſus to have been born, as St. Matthew, and St. Luke alſo himſelf, relates, in the time of Herod, he muſt, according to the dates given in Jo⯑ſephus, and by the Roman hiſtorians, have [188] been at leaſt thirty-one years of age in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. If he was born, as St. Matthew's narrative intimates, one or two years before Herod's death, he would have been thirty-two, or thirty-three years old, at that time.

This is the difficulty: the ſolution turns upon an alteration in the conſtruction of the Greek. St. Luke's words in the original are allowed, by the general opinion of learned men, to ſignify, not "that Jeſus began to be about thirty years of age," but "that he was about thirty years of age when he be⯑gan his miniſtry." This conſtruction being admitted, the adverb "about" gives us all the latitude we want, and more; eſpecially when applied, as it is in the preſent inſtance, to a decimal number, for ſuch numbers, even without this qualifying addition, are often uſed in a laxer ſenſe than is here con⯑tended for ^*.

[189] III. Acts v. 36. "For before theſe days roſe up Theudas, boaſting himſelf to be ſomebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themſelves: who was ſlain; and all, as many as obey⯑ed him, were ſcattered and brought to nought."

Joſephus has preſerved the account of an impoſtor, of the name of Theudas, who created ſome diſturbances, and was ſlain; but, according to the date aſſigned to this man's appearance (in which, however, it is very poſſible that Joſephus may have been miſtaken ^*), it muſt have been, at the leaſt, ſeven years, after Gamaliel's ſpeech, [190] of which this text is a part, was delivered. It has been replied to the objection ^*, that there might be two impoſtors of this name: and it has been obſerved, in order to give a general probability to the ſolution, that the ſame thing appears to have happened in other inſtances of the ſame kind. It is proved from Joſephus, that there were not fewer than four perſons, of the name of Simon, within forty years, and not fewer than three, of the name of Judas, within ten years, who were all leaders of inſurrec⯑tions: and it is likewiſe recorded by this hiſtorian, that, upon the death of Herod the Great, (which agrees very well with the time of the commotion referred to by Ga⯑maliel, and with his manner of ſtating that time "before theſe days") there were innu⯑merable diſturbances in Judea ^†. Archbi⯑ſhop Uſher was of opinion, that one of the three Judas's above mentioned was Gama⯑liel's Theudas ^‡; and that, with a leſs variation [191] of the name than we actually find in the goſpels, where one of the twelve apo⯑ſtles is called by Luke, Judas; and by Mark, Thaddeus ^*. Origen, however he came at his information, appears to have believed, that there was an impoſtor of the name of Theudas before the nativity of Chriſt ^†.

IV. Matt. xxiii. 34. "Wherefore, be⯑hold, I ſend unto you prophets, and wiſe men, and ſcribes: and ſome of them ye ſhall kill and crucify; and ſome of them ſhall ye ſcourge in your ſynagogues, and perſecute them from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood ſhed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, ſon of Barachias, whom ye ſlew between the temple and the altar."

There is a Zacharias, whoſe death is re⯑lated in the ſecond book of Chronicles, in [192] a manner which perfectly ſupports our Sa⯑viour's alluſion ^*. But this Zacharias was the ſon of Jehoiada.

There is alſo Zacharias the prophet; who was the ſon of Barachiah, and is ſo de⯑ſcribed in the ſuperſcription of his pro⯑phecy, but of whoſe death we have no ac⯑count.

I have little doubt, but that the firſt Za⯑charias was the perſon ſpoken of by our Saviour; and that the name of the father has been ſince added, or changed, by ſome one, who took it from the title of the pro⯑phecy, which happened to be better known to him than the hiſtory in the Chronicles.

[193] There is likewiſe a Zacharias, the ſon of Baruch, related by Joſephus to have been ſlain in the temple a few years before the deſtruction of Jeruſalem. It has been in⯑ſinuated, that the words put into our Savi⯑our's mouth, contain a reference to this tranſaction, and were compoſed by ſome writer, who either confounded the time of the tranſaction with our Saviour's age, or inadvertently overlooked the anachroniſm.

Now ſuppoſe it to have been ſo; ſuppoſe theſe words to have been ſuggeſted by the tranſaction related in Joſephus, and to have been falſely aſcribed to Chriſt; and obſerve what extraordinary coincidences (acciden⯑tally, as it muſt in that caſe have been) at⯑tend the forger's miſtake.

Firſt, That we have a Zacharias in the book of Chronicles, whoſe death, and the manner of it, correſponds with the alluſion.

Secondly, that although the name of this perſon's father be erroneouſly put down in [194] the goſpel, yet we have a way of account⯑ing for the error, by ſhewing another Za⯑charias in the Jewiſh ſcriptures, much better known than the former, whoſe patronymic was actually that which appears in the text.

Every one, who thinks upon the ſubject, will find theſe to be circumſtances, which could not have met together in a miſtake, which did not proceed from the circum⯑ſtances themſelves.

I have noticed, I think, all the difficulties of this kind. They are few; ſome of them admit of a clear, others of a probable ſolu⯑tion. The reader will compare them with the number, the variety, the cloſeneſs, and the ſatisfactorineſs, of the inſtances which are to be ſet againſt them; and he will re⯑member the ſcantineſs, in many caſes, of our intelligence, and that difficulties always attend imperfect information.

CHAP. VII. Undeſigned Coincidences.

BETWEEN the letters which bear the name of St. Paul in our collection, and his hiſtory in the Acts of the Apoſtles, there exiſt many notes of correſpondency. The ſimple peruſal of the writings is ſufficient to prove, that neither the hiſtory was taken from the letters, nor the letters from the hiſtory. And the undeſignedneſs of the agree⯑ments (which undeſignedneſs is gathered from their latency, their minuteneſs, their obliquity, the ſuitableneſs of the circum⯑ſtances in which they conſiſt, to the places in which thoſe circumſtances occur, and the circuitous references by which they are traced out) demonſtrates that they have not been produced by meditation, or by any fraudulent contrivance. But coincidences, from which theſe cauſes are excluded, and [196] which are too cloſe and numerous to be ac⯑counted for by accidental concurrences of fiction, muſt neceſſarily have truth for their foundation.

This argument appeared to my mind of ſo much value (eſpecially for its aſſuming nothing beſide the exiſtence of the books), that I have purſued it through St. Paul's thirteen epiſtles, in a work publiſhed by me four years ago under the title of Horae Pau⯑linae. I am ſenſible how feebly any argu⯑ment, which depends upon an induction of particulars, is repreſented without examples. On which account, I wiſhed to have abridg⯑ed my own volume, in the manner in which I have treated Dr. Lardner's in the preced⯑ing chapter. But, upon making the at⯑tempt, I did not find it in my power to render the articles intelligible by fewer words than I have there uſed. I muſt be content, therefore, to refer the reader to the work itſelf. And I would particularly in⯑vite his attention to the obſervations which are made in it upon the three firſt epiſtles. [197] I perſuade myſelf that he will find the proofs, both of agreement and undeſigned⯑neſs, ſupplied by theſe epiſtles, ſufficient to ſupport the concluſion which is there main⯑tained, in favour both of the genuineneſs of the writings, and the truth of the narrative.

It remains only, in this place, to point out how the argument bears upon the ge⯑neral queſtion of the Chriſtian hiſtory.

Firſt, St. Paul in theſe letters affirms, in unequivocal terms, his own performance of miracles, and, what ought particularly to be remembered, "That miracles were the ſigns of an apoſtle ^*." If this teſtimony come from St. Paul's own hand, it is invaluable. And that it does ſo, the argument before us fixes in my mind a firm aſſurance.

Secondly, it ſhows that the ſeries of ac⯑tion, repreſented in the epiſtles of St. Paul, was real; which alone lays a foundation [198] for the propoſition, which forms the ſubject of the firſt part of our preſent work, viz. that the original witneſſes of the Chriſtian hiſtory devoted themſelves to lives of toil, ſuffering, and danger, in conſequence of their belief of the truth of that hiſtory, and for the ſake of communicating the know⯑ledge of it to others.

Thirdly, it proves that Luke, or whoever was the author of the Acts of the Apoſtles (for the argument does not depend upon the name of the author, though I know no reaſon for queſtioning it) was well acquaint⯑ed with St. Paul's hiſtory; and that he pro⯑bably was, what he profeſſes himſelf to be, a companion of St. Paul's travels: which, if true, eſtabliſhes, in a conſiderable degree, the credit even of his goſpel, becauſe it ſhews, that the writer, from his time, ſitua⯑tion, and connections, poſſeſſed opportuni⯑ties of informing himſelf truly concerning the tranſactions which he relates. I have little difficulty in applying to the Goſpel of St. Luke what is proved concerning the [199] Acts of the Apoſtles, conſidering them as two parts of the ſame hiſtory; for, though there are inſtances of ſecond parts being for⯑geries, I know none where the ſecond part is genuine, and the firſt not ſo.

I will only obſerve, as a ſequel of the argument, though not noticed in my work, the remarkable ſimilitude between the ſtyle of St. John's goſpel, and of St. John's firſt epiſtle. The ſtyle of St. John's is not at all the ſtyle of St. Paul's epiſtles, though both are very ſingular; nor is it the ſtyle of St. James's or of St. Peter's epiſtle: but it bears a reſemblance to the ſtyle of the goſpel in⯑ſcribed with St. John's name, ſo far as that reſemblance can be expected to appear, which is not in ſimple narrative, ſo much as in reflections, and in the repreſentation of diſcourſes. Writings, ſo circumſtanced, prove themſelves, and one another, to be genuine. This correſpondency is the more valuable, as the epiſtle itſelf aſſerts, in St. John's manner indeed, but in terms ſuffi⯑ciently explicit, the writer's perſonal knowledge [200] of Chriſt's hiſtory: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have ſeen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life, that which we have ſeen and heard, declare we unto you ^*." Who would not deſire, who perceives not the value of an account, de⯑livered by a writer ſo well informed as this?

CHAP. VIII. Of the Hiſtory of the Reſurrection.

THE hiſtory of the reſurrection of Chriſt is a part of the evidence of Chriſtianity; but I do not know, whether the proper ſtrength of this paſſage of the Chriſtian hiſtory, or wherein its peculiar value, as a head of evi⯑dence, conſiſts, be generally underſtood. It is not that, as a miracle, the reſurrection ought to be accounted a more deciſive proof of ſupernatural agency than other miracles are; it is not that, as it ſtands in the Go⯑ſpels, it is better atteſted than ſome others; it is not, for either of theſe reaſons, that more weight belongs to it than to other miracles, but for the following, viz. That it is completely certain, that the apoſtles of Chriſt, and the firſt teachers of Chriſtianity, aſſerted the fact. And this would have been certain, if the four goſpels had been loſt, or never written. Every piece of ſcripture recognizes [202] the reſurrection. Every epiſtle of every apoſtle, every author contemporary with the apoſtles, of the age immediately ſucceeding the apoſtles, every writing from that age to the preſent, genuine or ſpurious, on the ſide of Chriſtianity or againſt it, con⯑cur in repreſenting the reſurrection of Chriſt as an article of his hiſtory, received without doubt or diſagreement by all who called themſelves Chriſtians, as alledged from the beginning by the propagators of the inſtitu⯑tion, and alledged as the center of their teſ⯑timony. Nothing, I apprehend, which a man does not himſelf ſee or hear, can be more certain to him than this point. I do not mean that nothing can be more certain than that Chriſt roſe from the dead; but that nothing can be more certain, than that his apoſtles, and the firſt teachers of Chriſ⯑tianity, gave out that he did ſo. In the other parts of the goſpel narrative, a queſtion may be made, whether the things, related of Chriſt, be the very things which the apoſtles and firſt teachers of the religion delivered concerning him? And this queſtion depends [203] a good deal upon the evidence we poſſeſs of the genuineneſs, or rather perhaps, of the antiquity, credit, and reception of the books. Upon the ſubject of the reſurrection, no ſuch diſcuſſion is neceſſary, becauſe no ſuch doubt can be entertained. The only points, which can enter into our conſideration, are, whether the apoſtles knowingly publiſhed a falſehood, or whether they were themſelves deceived; whether either of theſe ſuppoſi⯑tions be poſſible. The firſt, I think, is pretty generally given up. The nature of the un⯑dertaking, and of the men; the extreme unlikelihood that ſuch men ſhould engage in ſuch a meaſure as a ſcheme; their perſonal toils and dangers and ſufferings in the cauſe; their appropriation of their whole time to the object; the warm and ſeemingly unaf⯑fected zeal and earneſtneſs with which they profeſs their ſincerity, exempt their memory from the ſuſpicion of impoſture. The ſo⯑lution more deſerving of notice, is that which would reſolve the conduct of the apoſtles into enthuſiaſm; which would claſs the evidence of Chriſt's reſurrection with [204] the numerous ſtories that are extant of the apparitions of dead men. There are cir⯑cumſtances in the narrative, as it is preſerv⯑ed in our hiſtories, which deſtroy this com⯑pariſon entirely. It was not one perſon, but many, who ſaw him; they ſaw him not only ſeparately, but together, not only by night but by day, not at a diſtance but near, not once but ſeveral times; they not only ſaw him, but touched him, converſed with him, eat with him, examined his per⯑ſon to ſatisfy their doubts. Theſe particu⯑lars are deciſive; but they ſtand, I do ad⯑mit, upon the credit of our records. I would anſwer, therefore, the inſinuation of enthu⯑ſiaſm, by a circumſtance which ariſes out of the nature of the thing; and the reality of which muſt be confeſſed by all, who al⯑low, what I believe is not denied, that the reſurrection of Chriſt, whether true or falſe, was aſſerted by his diſciples from the be⯑ginning: and that circumſtance is, the non⯑production of the dead body. It is related in the hiſtory, what indeed the ſtory of the reſurrection neceſſarily implies, that the [205] corpſe was miſſing out of the ſepulchre: it is related alſo in the hiſtory, that the Jews reported that the followers of Chriſt had ſtolen it away ^*. And this account, though loaded with great improbabilities, ſuch as the ſituation of the diſciples, their fears for their own ſafety at the time, the unlikeli⯑hood of their expecting to ſucceed, the dif⯑ficulty of actual ſucceſs ^†, and the inevitable [206] conſequence of detection and failure, was, nevertheleſs, the moſt credible account that could be given of the matter. But it pro⯑ceeds entirely upon the ſuppoſition of fraud, as all the old objections did. What account can be given of the body, upon the ſuppoſi⯑tion of enthuſiaſm? It is impoſſible our Lord's followers could believe that he was riſen from the dead, if his corpſe was lying before them. No enthuſiaſm ever reached to ſuch a pitch of extravagancy as that: a ſpirit may be an illuſion, a body is a real thing; an object of ſenſe, in which there can be no miſtake. All accounts of ſpectres leave the body in the grave. And, although the body of Chriſt might be removed by fraud, and for the purpoſes of fraud, yet, without any ſuch intention, and by ſincere but deluded men, which is the repreſenta⯑tion of the apoſtolic character we are now examining, no ſuch attempt could be made. The preſence and the abſence of the dead body are alike inconſiſtent with the hypo⯑theſis of enthuſiaſm: for if preſent, it muſt have cured their enthuſiaſm at once; if abſent, [207] fraud, not enthuſiaſm, muſt have car⯑ried it away.

But further, if we admit upon the con⯑current teſtimony of all the hiſtories, ſo much of the account as ſtates that the reli⯑gion of Jeſus was ſet up at Jeruſalem, and ſet up with aſſerting, in the very place in which he had been buried, and a few days after he had been buried, his reſurrection out of the grave, it is evident that if his body could have been found, the Jews would have produced it, as the ſhorteſt and com⯑pleteſt anſwer poſſible to the whole ſtory. The attempt of the apoſtles could not have ſurvived this refutation a moment. If we alſo admit, upon the authority of St. Mat⯑thew, that the Jews were advertiſed of the expectation of Chriſt's followers, and that they had taken due precaution in conſe⯑quence of this notice, and that the body was in marked and public cuſtody, the obſerva⯑tion receives more force ſtill. For, notwith⯑ſtanding their precaution, and although thus prepared and forewarned; when the ſtory [208] of the reſurrection of Chriſt came forth, as it immediately did; when it was publicly aſſerted by his diſciples, and made the ground and baſis of their preaching in his name, and collecting followers to his reli⯑gion, the Jews had not the body to pro⯑duce: but were obliged to meet the teſti⯑mony of the apoſtles by an anſwer, not containing indeed any impoſſibility in itſelf, but abſolutely inconſiſtent with the ſuppoſi⯑tion of their integrity; that is, in other words, inconſiſtent with the ſuppoſition, which would reſolve their conduct into enthuſiaſm.

CHAP. IX. The Propagation of Chriſtianity.

IN this argument, the firſt conſideration is the fact; in what degree, within what time, and to what extent, Chriſtianity ac⯑tually was propagated.

The accounts of the matter, which can be collected from our books, are as follow: A few days after Chriſt's diſappearance out of the world, we find an aſſembly of diſ⯑ciples at Jeruſalem, to the number of "about one hundred and twenty^*;" which hundred and twenty were, probably, a little aſſocia⯑tion of believers, met together, not merely as believers in Chriſt, but as perſonally con⯑nected with the apoſtles, and with one an⯑other. Whatever was the number of believers [210] then in Jeruſalem, we have no reaſon to be ſurpriſed that ſo ſmall a company ſhould aſſemble; for there is no proof that the followers of Chriſt were yet formed into a ſociety, that the ſociety was reduced into any order, that it was at this time even un⯑derſtood, that a new religion (in the ſenſe which that term conveys to us) was to be ſet up in the world, or how the profeſſors of that religion were to be diſtinguiſhed from the reſt of mankind. The death of Chriſt had left, we may ſuppoſe, the gene⯑rality of his diſciples in great doubt, both as to what they were to do, and concerning what was to follow.

This meeting was held, as we have al⯑ready ſaid, a few days after Chriſt's aſcen⯑ſion; for, ten days after that event was the day of pentecoſt, when, as our hiſtory re⯑lates ^*, upon a ſignal diſplay of divine agency attending the perſons of the apoſtles, there were added to the ſociety "about [211] three thouſand ſouls ^*." But here, it is not, I think, to be taken, that theſe three thouſand were all converted by this ſingle miracle; but rather that many, who were before believers in Chriſt, became now pro⯑feſſors of Chriſtianity; that is to ſay, when they found that a religion was to be eſta⯑bliſhed, a ſociety formed and ſet up in the name of Chriſt, governed by his laws, avowing their belief in his miſſion, united amongſt themſelves, and ſeparated from the reſt of the world, by viſible diſtinctions, in purſuance of their former conviction, and by virtue of what they had heard and ſeen and known of Chriſt's hiſtory, they publicly became members of it.

We read in the fourth ^† chapter of the Acts, that, ſoon after this, "the number of the men," i. e. of the ſociety openly profeſſ⯑ing their belief in Chriſt, "was about five thouſand." So that here is an increaſe of two thouſand within a very ſhort time. And it is probable that there were many, [212] both now and afterwards, who, although they believed in Chriſt, did not think it neceſſary to join themſelves to this ſociety; or who waited to ſee what was likely to be⯑come of it. Gamaliel, whoſe advice to the Jewiſh council is recorded Acts iv. 34, ap⯑pears to have been of this deſcription; per⯑haps Nicodemus, and perhaps alſo Joſeph of Arimathea. This claſs of men, their character and their rank, are likewiſe point⯑ed out by St. John, in the twelfth chapter of his goſpel: "Nevertheleſs among the chief rulers alſo many believed on him; but becauſe of the Phariſees they did not confeſs him, leſt they ſhould be put out of the ſynagogue: for they loved the praiſe of men more than the praiſe of God." Per⯑ſons ſuch as theſe, might admit the miracles of Chriſt, without being immediately con⯑vinced that they were under obligation to make a public profeſſion of Chriſtianity, at the riſk of all that was dear to them in life, and even of life itſelf^*.

[213] Chriſtianity, however, proceeded to in⯑creaſe in Jeruſalem by a progreſs equally rapid with its firſt ſucceſs; for, in the next^* chapter of our hiſtory, we read that "be⯑lievers were the more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women." And [214] this enlargement of the new ſociety appears in the firſt verſe of the ſucceeding chapter, wherein we are told, that, "when the num⯑ber of the diſciples was multiplied, there aroſe a murmuring of the Grecians againſt the Hebrews becauſe their widows were ne⯑glected ^*;" and, afterwards in the ſame chapter, it is declared expreſsly, that "the number of the diſciples multiplied in Jeru⯑ſalem greatly, and that a great company of the prieſts were obedient to the faith."

This I call the firſt period in the propa⯑gation of Chriſtianity. It commences with the aſcenſion of Chriſt; and extends, as may be collected from incidental notes of time ^†, to ſomething more than one year after that event. During which term the preaching of Chriſtianity, ſo far as our do⯑cuments inform us, was confined to the ſingle city of Jeruſalem. And how did it ſucceed there? The firſt aſſembly which we [215] meet with of Chriſt's diſciples, and that a few days after his removal from the world, conſiſted of "one hundred and twenty." About a week after this "three thouſand were added" in one day; and the number of Chriſtians, publicly baptized, and public⯑ly aſſociating together, were very ſoon in⯑creaſed to "five thouſand." "Multitudes both of men and women continued to be added:" "diſciples multiplied greatly," and "many of the Jewiſh prieſthood, as well as others, became obedient to the faith;" and this within a ſpace of leſs than two years from the commencement of the inſtitution.

By reaſon of a perſecution raiſed againſt the church at Jeruſalem, the converts were driven from that city, and diſperſed through⯑out the regions of Judea and Samaria ^*. Wherever they came, they brought their re⯑ligion with them; for our hiſtorian informs us ^†, that "they, that were ſcattered abroad, went every where preaching the word." [216] The effect of this preaching comes after⯑wards to be noticed, where the hiſtorian is led, in the courſe of his narrative, to ob⯑ſerve, that then (i. e. about three years ^* poſterior to this) "the churches had reſt throughout all Judea, and Galilee and Sa⯑maria, and were ediſied, and walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghoſt, were multiplied." This was the work of the ſecond period, which com⯑priſes about four years.

Hitherto the preaching of the goſpel had been conſined to Jews, to Jewiſh proſelytes, and to Samaritans. And I cannot forbear from ſetting down, in this place, an obſer⯑vation of Mr. Bryant's, which appears to me to be perfectly well founded:—"The Jews ſtill remain, but how ſeldom is it that we can make a ſingle proſelyte! There is reaſon to think, that there were more con⯑verted by the apoſtles in one day, than have [217] ſince been won over in the laſt thouſand years ^*."

It was not yet known to the apoſtles, that they were at liberty to propoſe the religion to mankind at large. That "myſtery," as St. Paul calls it ^†, and as it then was, was revealed to Peter by an eſpecial miracle. It appears to have been ^‡ about ſeven years after Chriſt's aſcenſion, that the goſpel was preached to the Gentiles of Ceſarea. A year after this, a great multitude of Gentiles were converted at Antioch in Syria. The expreſ⯑ſions employed by the hiſtorian are theſe—"a great number believed, and turned to the Lord;" "much people was added unto the Lord;" "the apoſtles Barnabas and Paul taught much people ^§." Upon Herod's death, which happened in the next year ^{2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁}, it is obſerved that "the word of God grew [218] and multiplied ^*." Three years from this time, upon the preaching of Paul at Ico⯑nium, the metropolis of Lycaonia, "a great multitude both of Jews and Greeks be⯑lieved ^†;" and afterwards, in the courſe of this very progreſs, he is repreſented as "making many diſciples" at Derbe, a prin⯑cipal city in the ſame diſtrict. Three years ^‡ after this, which brings us to ſixteen after the aſcenſion, the apoſtles wrote a public letter from Jeruſalem to the Gentile con⯑verts in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, with which letter Paul travelled through theſe countries, and found the churches "eſta⯑bliſhed in the faith, and increaſing in num⯑ber daily ^§." From Aſia the apoſtle pro⯑ceeded into Greece, where, ſoon after his arrival in Macedonia, we find him at Theſ⯑ſalonica; in which city "ſome of the Jews believed, and of the devout Greeks a great multitude ^{2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁}." We meet alſo here with an [219] accidental hint of the general progreſs of the Chriſtian miſſion, in the exclamation of the tumultuous Jews of Theſſalonica, "that they, who had turned the world upſide down, were come thither alſo ^*." At Berea, the next city at which St. Paul arrives, the hiſtorian, who was preſent, informs us that "many of the Jews believed ^†." The next year and half of St. Paul's miniſtry was ſpent at Corinth. Of his ſucceſs in that city we receive the following intimations: "that many of the Corinthians believed and were baptized," and "that it was revealed to the apoſtle by Chriſt, that he had much people in the city^‡." Within leſs than a year af⯑ter his departure from Corinth, and twenty⯑five ^§ years after the aſcenſion, St. Paul fixed his ſtation at Epheſus, for the ſpace of two years ^{2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁} and ſomething more. The effect of his miniſtry in that city and neighbour⯑hood, drew from the hiſtorian a reflection, "how mightily grew the word of God and [220] prevailed ^*." And at the concluſion of this period, we find Demetrius at the head of a party, who were alarmed by the progreſs of the religion, complaining, that "not only at Epheſus, but alſo throughout all Aſia, (i. e. the province of Lydia, and the country ad⯑joining to Epheſus) this Paul hath perſuaded and turned away much people ^†." Beſide theſe accounts, there occurs, incidentally, mention of converts at Rome, Alexandria, Athens, Cyprus, Cyrene, Macedonia, Phi⯑lippi.

This is the third period in the propaga⯑tion of Chriſtianity, ſetting off in the ſeventh year after the aſcenſion, and ending at the twenty-eighth. Now, lay theſe three pe⯑riods together, and obſerve how the pro⯑greſs of the religion by theſe accounts is repreſented. The inſtitution, which pro⯑perly began only after its author's removal from the world, before the end of thirty years had ſpread itſelf through Judea, Galilee, [221] and Samaria, almoſt all the numerous diſtricts of the Leſſer Aſia, through Greece, and the iſlands of the Aegean Sea, the ſea coaſt of Africa, and had extended itſelf to Rome, and into Italy. At Antioch in Syria, at Joppa, Epheſus, Corinth, Theſſalonica, Berea, Iconium, Derbe, Antioch in Piſidia, at Lydda, Saron, the number of converts is intimated by the expreſſions "a great num⯑ber," great multitudes," "much people." Converts are mentioned, without any de⯑ſignation of their number ^*, at Tyre, Ceſa⯑rea, Troas, Athens, Philippi, Lyſtra, Damaſcus. [222] During all this time, Jeruſalem continued not only the centre of the miſſion, but a principal ſeat of the religion; for when St. Paul returned thither, at the concluſion of the period of which we are now conſi⯑dering the accounts, the other apoſtles point⯑ed out to him, as a reaſon for his compliance with their advice, "how many thouſands (myriads, ten thouſands) there were in that city who believed ^*."

Upon this abſtract, and the writing from which it is drawn, the following obſerva⯑tions ſeem material to be made:

I. That the account comes from a perſon, who was himſelf concerned in a portion of what he relates, and was contemporary with the whole of it; who viſited Jeruſalem, and frequented the ſociety of thoſe who had act⯑ed, and were acting, the chief parts in the tranſaction. I lay down this point poſitively; [223] for had the ancient atteſtations to this valuable record been leſs ſatisfactory than they are, the unaffectedneſs and ſimplicity with which the author notices his preſence upon certain occaſions, and the entire ab⯑ſence of art and deſign from theſe notices, would have been ſufficient to perſuade my mind, that, whoever he was, he actually lived in the times, and occupied the ſitua⯑tion, in which he repreſents himſelf to be. When I ſay "whoever he was," I do not mean to caſt a doubt upon the name, to which antiquity hath aſcribed the Acts of the Apo⯑ſtles (for there is no cauſe, that I am ac⯑quainted with, for queſtioning it), but to ob⯑ſerve, that in ſuch a caſe as this, the time and ſituation of the author, is of more im⯑portance than his name; and that theſe ap⯑pear from the work itſelf, and in the moſt unſuſpicious form.

II. That this account is a very incom⯑plete account of the preaching and propaga⯑tion of Chriſtianity; I mean, that, if what we read in the hiſtory be true, much more [224] than what the hiſtory contains muſt be true alſo. For, although the narrative from which our information is derived has been intitled the Acts of the Apoſtles, it is in fact a hiſtory of the twelve apoſtles, only during a ſhort time of their continuing together at Jeruſalem; and even of this period the ac⯑count is very conciſe. The work afterwards conſiſts of a few important paſſages of Pe⯑ter's miniſtry, of the ſpeech and death of Stephen, of the preaching of Philip the dea⯑con; and the ſequel of the volume, that is, two thirds of the whole, is taken up with the converſion, the travels, the diſcourſes and hiſtory of the new apoſtle Paul, in which hiſtory alſo large portions of time are often paſſed over with very ſcanty notice.

III. That the account, ſo far as it goes, is for this very reaſon more credible. Had it been the author's deſign to have diſplayed the early progreſs of Chriſtianity, he would undoubtedly have collected, or, at leaſt, have ſet forth, accounts of the preaching of the reſt of the apoſtles, who cannot, without extreme [225] improbability, be ſuppoſed to have re⯑mained ſilent and inactive, or not to have met with a ſhare of that ſucceſs which at⯑tended their colleagues. To which may be added, as an obſervation of the ſame kind,

IV. That the intimations of the number of converts, and of the ſucceſs of the preach⯑ing of the apoſtles, come out for the moſt part incidentally; are drawn from the hiſto⯑rian by the occaſion; ſuch as the murmuring of the Grecian converts, the reſt from per⯑ſecution, Herod's death, the ſending of Bar⯑nabas to Antioch and Barnabas calling Paul to his aſſiſtance, Paul coming to a place and finding there diſciples, the clamour of the Jews, the complaint of artificers intereſted in the ſupport of the popular religion, the reaſon aſſigned to induce Paul to give ſa⯑tisfaction to the Chriſtians of Jeruſalem. Had it not been for theſe occaſions, it is probable that no notice whatever would have been taken of the number of converts, in ſeveral of the paſſages in which that no⯑tice now appears. All this tends to remove [226] the ſuſpicion of a deſign to exaggerate or deceive.

PARALLEL TESTIMONIES with the hiſ⯑tory, are the letters which have come down to us of St. Paul, and of the other apoſtles. Thoſe of St. Paul are addreſſed to the churches of Corinth, Philippi, Theſſalonica, the church of Galatia, and, if the inſcription be right, of Epheſus, his miniſtry at all which places is recorded in the hiſtory; to the church of Coloſſe, or rather to the churches of Coloſſe and Laodicea jointly, which he had not then viſited. They re⯑cognize by reference the churches of Judea, the churches of Aſia, and "all the churches of the Gentiles ^*." In the epiſtle ^† to the Romans, the author is led to deliver a re⯑markable declaration, concerning the extent of his preaching, its efficacy, and the cauſe to which he aſcribes it, "to make the Gen⯑tiles obedient by word and deed, through mighty ſigns and wonders, by the power of [227] the Spirit of God; ſo that from Jeruſalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the goſpel of Chriſt." In the epiſtle to the Coloſſians ^*, we find an oblique, but very ſtrong ſignification, of the then general ſtate of the Chriſtian miſſion, at leaſt as it appeared to St. Paul: "If ye continue in the faith, grounded and ſettled, and be not moved away from the hope of the goſpel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every creature which is under heaven;" which goſpel, he had reminded them near the beginning ^† of his letter, "was preſent with them as it was in all the world." The expreſſions are hyperbolical; but they are hyperboles which could only be uſed by a writer who entertained a ſtrong ſenſe of the ſubject. The firſt epiſtle of Pe⯑ter accoſts the Chriſtians diſperſed through⯑out Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Aſia and Bithynia.

It comes next to be conſidered, how far [228] theſe accounts are confirmed, or followed up, by other evidence.

Tacitus, in delivering a relation, which has already been laid before the reader, of the fire which happened at Rome in the tenth year of Nero, which coincides with the thirtieth year after Chriſt's aſcenſion, aſ⯑ſerts, that the emperor, in order to ſuppreſs the rumours of having been himſelf the au⯑thor of the miſchief, procured the Chriſtians to be accuſed. Of which Chriſtians, thus brought into his narrative, the following is ſo much of the hiſtorian's account, as be⯑longs to our preſent purpoſe: "They had their denomination from Chriſtus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate. This pernicious ſuperſtition, though checked for a while, broke out again, and ſpread not only over Judea, but reached the city alſo. At firſt they only were apprehended, who confeſſed themſelves of that ſect; afterwards a vaſt multitude were diſcovered by them." This teſtimony to the early propagation of [229] Chriſtianity is extremely material. It is from an hiſtorian of great reputation, living near the time; from a ſtranger and an ene⯑my to the religion: and it joins immediately with the period through which the ſcrip⯑ture accounts extend. It eſtabliſhes theſe points, that the religion began at Jeruſalem, that it ſpread throughout Judea, that it had reached Rome, and not only ſo, but that it had there obtained a great number of con⯑verts. This was about ſix years after the time that St. Paul wrote his epiſtle to the Romans, and ſomething more than two years after he arrived there himſelf▪ The converts to the religion were then ſo nume⯑rous at Rome, that of thoſe who were be⯑trayed by the information of the perſons firſt perſecuted, a great multitude (multitudo in⯑gens) were diſcovered and ſeized.

It ſeems probable, that the temporary check which Tacitus repreſents Chriſtianity to have received (repreſſa in praeſens) refer⯑red to the perſecution at Jeruſalem, which followed the death of Stephen (Acts viii.); [230] and which, by diſperſing the converts, cauſed the inſtitution, in ſome meaſure, to diſappear. Its ſecond eruption at the ſame place, and within a ſhort time, has much in it of the character of truth. It was the firm⯑neſs and perſeverance of men who knew what they relied upon.

Next in order of time, and perhaps ſupe⯑rior in importance, is the teſtimony of Pliny the younger. Pliny was the Roman go⯑vernor of Pontus and Bithynia, two conſi⯑derable diſtricts in the northern part of Aſia Minor. The ſituation in which he found his province, led him to apply to the empe⯑ror (Trajan) for his direction as to the con⯑duct he was to hold towards the Chriſtians. The letter, in which this application is con⯑tained, was written not quite eighty years after Chriſt's aſcenſion. The preſident, in this letter, ſtates the meaſures he had already purſued, and then adds, as his reaſon for re⯑ſorting to the emperor's counſel and autho⯑rity, the following words:—"Suſpending all judicial proceedings, I have recourſe to [231] you for advice; for it has appeared to me a matter highly deſerving conſideration, eſpe⯑cially upon account of the great number of perſons who are in danger of ſuffering: for many of all ages, and of every rank, of both ſexes likewiſe, are accuſed, and will be ac⯑cuſed. Nor has the contagion of this ſu⯑perſtition ſeized cities only, but the leſſer towns alſo, and the open country. Never⯑theleſs it ſeemed to me that it may be re⯑ſtrained and corrected. It is certain that the temples, which were almoſt forſaken, begin to be more frequented; and the ſacred ſo⯑lemnities, after a long intermiſſion, are re⯑vived. Victims, likewiſe, are everywhere (paſſim) bought up; whereas, for ſome time, there were few to purchaſe them. Whence it is eaſy to imagine, what numbers of men might be reclaimed, if pardon were granted to thoſe that ſhall repent ^*."

It is obvious to obſerve, that the paſſage of Pliny's letter, here quoted, proves, not [232] only that the Chriſtians in Pontus and Bi⯑thynia were now numerous, but that they had ſubſiſted there for ſome conſiderable time. "It is certain (he ſays) that the tem⯑ples, which were almoſt forſaken (plainly aſcribing this deſertion of the popular wor⯑ſhip to the prevalency of Chriſtianity), be⯑gin to be more frequented; and the ſacred ſolemnities, after a long intermiſſion, are re⯑vived." There are alſo two clauſes in the former part of the letter which indicate the ſame thing; one, in which he declares that he had "never been preſent at any trials of Chriſtians, and therefore knew not what was the uſual ſubject of enquiry and puniſhment, or how far either was wont to be urged:" the ſecond clauſe is the following, "others were named by an informer, who, at firſt, confeſſed themſelves Chriſtians, and after⯑wards denied it; the reſt ſaid, they had been Chriſtians, ſome three years ago, ſome longer, and ſome above twenty years." It is alſo apparent that Pliny ſpeaks of the Chriſtians as a deſcription of men well known to the perſon to whom he writes. [233] His firſt ſentence concerning them is, "I have never been preſent at the trials of Chriſ⯑tians." This mention of the name of Chriſ⯑tians, without any preparatory explanation, ſhews that it was a term familiar both to the writer of the letter, and the perſon to whom it was addreſſed. Had it not been ſo, Pliny would naturally have begun his letter by in⯑forming the emperor, that he had met with a certain ſet of men in the province called Chriſtians.

Here then is a very ſignal evidence of the progreſs of the Chriſtian religion in a ſhort ſpace. It was not fourſcore years after the crucifixion of Jeſus when Pliny wrote this letter; nor ſeventy years ſince the apoſtles of Jeſus began to mention his name to the Gentile world. Bithynia and Pontus were at a great diſtance from Judea, the centre from which the religion ſpread; yet in theſe provinces Chriſtianity had long ſubſiſted, and Chriſtians were now in ſuch numbers as to lead the Roman governor to report to the emperor, that they were found, not only [234] in cities, but in villages and in open coun⯑tries; of all ages, of every rank and condi⯑tion; that they abounded ſo much as to have produced a viſible deſertion of the temples, that beaſts brought to market for victims had few purchaſers, that the ſacred ſolemnities were much neglected; circum⯑ſtances noted by Pliny, for the expreſs pur⯑poſe of ſhewing to the emperor the effect and prevalency of the new inſtitution.

No evidence remains, by which it can be proved that the Chriſtians were more nu⯑merous in Pontus and Bithynia than in other parts of the Roman empire; nor has any reaſon been offered to ſhew why they ſhould be ſo. Chriſtianity did not begin in theſe countries, nor near them. I do not know, therefore, that we ought to confine the de⯑ſcription in Pliny's letter to the ſtate of Chriſtianity in thoſe provinces, even if no other account of the ſame ſubject had come down to us; but, certainly, this letter may fairly be applied in aid and confirmation of the repreſentations given of the general ſtate [235] of Chriſtianity in the world, by Chriſtian writers of that and the next ſucceeding age.

Juſtin Martyr, who wrote about thirty years after Pliny, and one hundred and ſix after the aſcenſion, has theſe remarkable words: "There is not a nation, either of Greek or Barbarian, or of any other name, even of thoſe who wander in tribes, and live in tents, amongſt whom prayers and thankſgivings are not offered to the Father and Creator of the univerſe by the name of the crucified Jeſus ^*." Tertullian, who comes about fifty years after Juſtin, appeals to the governors of the Roman empire in theſe terms: "We were but of yeſterday, and we have filled your cities, iſlands, towns and boroughs, the camp, the ſenate, and the fo⯑rum. They (the heathen adverſaries of Chriſtianity) lament, that every ſex, age and condition, and perſons of every rank alſo, are converts to that name ^†." I do allow that theſe expreſſions are looſe, and [236] may be called declamatory. But even de⯑clamation hath its bounds: this public boaſt⯑ing upon a ſubject, which muſt be known to every reader, was not only uſeleſs but un⯑natural, unleſs the truth of the caſe, in a con⯑ſiderable degree, correſponded with the de⯑ſcription; at leaſt unleſs it had been both true and notorious, that great multitudes of Chriſtians, of all ranks and orders, were to be found in moſt parts of the Roman em⯑pire. The ſame Tertullian, in another paſ⯑ſage, by way of ſetting forth the extenſive diffuſion of Chriſtianity, enumerates as be⯑longing to Chriſt, beſide many other coun⯑tries, the "Moors and Gaetulians of Africa, the borders of Spain, ſeveral nations of France, and parts of Britain inacceſſible to the Romans, the Sarmatians, Daci, Germans, and Scythians ^*:" and, which is more ma⯑terial than the extent of the inſtitution, the number of Chriſtians in the ſeveral countries in which it prevailed, is thus expreſſed by him: "Although ſo great a multitude, that in [237] almoſt every city we form the greater part, we paſs our time modeſtly and in ſilence^*." Clement Alexandrinus, who preceded Ter⯑tullian by a few years, introduces a compa⯑riſon between the ſucceſs of Chriſtianity, and that of the moſt celebrated philoſophical inſtitutions. "The philoſophers were con⯑fined to Greece, and to their particular re⯑tainers; but the doctrine of the Maſter of Chriſtianity did not remain in Judea, as phi⯑loſophy did in Greece, but is ſpread through⯑out the whole world, in every nation and village and city, both of Greeks and Barba⯑rians, converting both whole houſes and ſeparate individuals, having already brought over to the truth not a few of the philoſo⯑phers themſelves. If the Greek philoſophy be prohibited, it immediately vaniſhes; whereas, from the firſt preaching of our doctrine, kings and tyrants, governors and preſidents, with their whole train, and with the populace on their ſide, have endeavoured with their whole might to exterminate it, [238] yet doth it flouriſh more and more ^*." Ori⯑gen, who follows Tertullian at the diſtance of only thirty years, delivers nearly the ſame account: "In every part of the world (ſays he), throughout all Greece, and in all other nations, there are innumerable and immenſe multitudes, who, having left the laws of their country, and thoſe whom they eſteemed gods, have given themſelves up to the law of Moſes, and the religion of Chriſt; and this, not without the bittereſt reſentment from the idolaters, by whom they were fre⯑quently put to torture, and ſometimes to death: and it is wonderful to obſerve, how, in ſo ſhort a time, the religion has increaſed, amidſt puniſhment and death, and every kind of torture ^†." In another paſſage Ori⯑gen draws the following candid compariſon between the ſtate of Chriſtianity in his time, and the condition of its more primitive ages:—"By the good providence of God the Chriſtian religion has ſo flouriſhed and increaſed continually, that it is now preached [239] freely without moleſtation, although there were a thouſand obſtacles to the ſpreading of the doctrine of Jeſus in the world. But as it was the will of God that the Gentiles ſhould have the benefit of it, all the coun⯑cils of men againſt the Chriſtians were de⯑feated; and by how much the more em⯑perors and governors of provinces, and the people every where, ſtrove to depreſs them, ſo much the more have they increaſed and prevailed exceedingly ^*."

It is well known, that within leſs than eighty years after this, the Roman empire became Chriſtian under Conſtantine; and it is probable that Conſtantine declared him⯑ſelf on the ſide of the Chriſtians, becauſe they were the powerful party; for Arnobius, who wrote immediately before Conſtantine's acceſſion, ſpeaks of the whole world as fill⯑ed with Chriſt's doctrine, of its diffuſion throughout all countries, of an innumerable body of Chriſtians in diſtant provinces, of [240] the ſtrange revolution of opinion, of men of the greateſt genius, orators, grammarians, rhetoricians, lawyers, phyſicians, having come over to the inſtitution, and that alſo in the face of threats, executions, and tor⯑tures ^*." And not more than twenty years after Conſtantine's entire poſſeſſion of the empire, Julius Firmicus Maternus calls upon the emperors Conſtantius and Conſtans to extirpate the relics of the ancient religion; the reduced and fallen condition of which is deſcribed by our author in the following words:—"Licet adhuc in quibuſdam regio⯑nibus idololatriae morientia palpitent mem⯑bra, tamen in eo res eſt, ut a Chriſtianis om⯑nibus terris peſtiferum hoc malum funditùs amputetur;" and in another place, "modi⯑cum tantum ſupereſt, ut legibus veſtris—ex⯑tincta idololatriae pereat funeſta contagio ^†." It will not be thought that we quote this [241] writer in order to recommend his temper or his judgement, but to ſhew the comparative ſtate of Chriſtianity and of Heatheniſm at this period. Fifty years afterwards, Jerome repreſents the decline of Paganiſm in lan⯑guage which conveys the ſame idea of its approaching extinction: "Solitudinem pa⯑titur et in urbe gentilitas. Dii quondam nationum, cum bubonibus et noctuis, in ſo⯑lis culminibus remanſerunt ^*." Jerome here indulges a triumph, natural and allowable in a zealous friend of the cauſe, but which could only be ſuggeſted to his mind by the conſent and univerſality with which he ſaw the religion received. "But now (ſays he) the paſſion and reſurrection of Chriſt are celebrated in the diſcourſes and writings of all nations. I need not mention Jews, Greeks and Latins. The Indians, Perſians, Goths and Egyptians, philoſophiſe, and ſirmly believe the immortality of the ſoul and future recompences, which, before, the greateſt philoſophers had denied, or doubted [242] of, or perplexed with their diſputes. The fierceneſs of Thracians and Scythians is now ſoftened by the gentle ſound of the goſpel; and every where Chriſt is all in all ^*." Were therefore the motives of Con⯑ſtantine's converſion ever ſo problematical, the eaſy eſtabliſhment of Chriſtianity, and the ruin of Heatheniſm under him and his immediate ſucceſſors, is of itſelf a proof of the progreſs which Chriſtianity had made in the preceding period. It may be added alſo, "that Maxentius, the rival of Conſtan⯑tine, had ſhewn himſelf friendly to the Chriſtians. Therefore, of thoſe who were contending for worldly power and empire, one actually favoured and flattered them, and another may be ſuſpected to have join⯑ed himſelf to them, partly from conſidera⯑tion of intereſt: ſo conſiderable were they become, under external diſadvantages of all ſorts ^†." This at leaſt is certain, that through⯑out the whole tranſaction hitherto, the great [243] ſeemed to follow, not to lead, the public opinion.

It may help to convey to us ſome notion of the extent and progreſs of Chriſtianity, or rather of the character and quality of many early Chriſtians, of their learning and their labours, to notice the number of Chriſ⯑tian writers who flouriſhed in theſe ages. St. Jerome's catalogue contains ſixty-ſix wri⯑ters within the three firſt centuries, and the ſix firſt years of the fourth; and fifty-four between that time and his own, viz. A. D. 392. Jerome introduces his catalogue with the following juſt remonſtrance:—"Let thoſe who ſay the church has had no phi⯑loſophers, nor eloquent and learned men, obſerve who and what they were, who founded, eſtabliſhed, and adorned it; let them ceaſe to accuſe our faith of ruſticity, and confeſs their miſtake^*." Of theſe wri⯑ters, ſeveral, as Juſtin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Bardeſanes, [244] Hippolitus, Euſebius, were voluminous wri⯑ters. Chriſtian writers abounded particularly about the year 178. Alexander, biſhop of Jeruſalem, founded a library in that city A. D. 212. Pamphilus, the friend of Ori⯑gen, founded a library at Ceſarea A. D. 294. Public defences were alſo ſet forth, by vari⯑ous advocates of the religion, in the courſe of its three firſt centuries. Within one hun⯑dred years after Chriſt's aſcenſion, Quadra⯑tus and Ariſtides, whoſe works, except ſome few fragments of the firſt, are loſt; and about twenty years afterwards, Juſtin Mar⯑tyr, whoſe works remain, preſented apolo⯑gies for the Chriſtian religion to the Roman emperors; Quadratus and Ariſtides to Ad⯑rian, Juſtin to Antoninus Pius, and a ſecond to Marcus Antoninus. Melito biſhop of Sardis, and Apollinaris biſhop of Hierapo⯑lis, and Miltiades, men of great reputation, did the ſame to Marcus Antoninus twenty years afterwards ^*: and ten years after this, [245] Apollonius, who ſuffered martyrdom under the emperor Commodus, compoſed an apo⯑logy for his faith, which he read in the ſe⯑nate, and which was afterwards publiſhed ^*. Fourteen years after the apology of Apollo⯑nius, Tertullian addreſſed the work, which now remains under that name, to the go⯑vernors of provinces in the Roman empire; and, about the ſame time, Minucius Felix compoſed a defence of the Chriſtian religion, which is ſtill extant; and, ſhortly after the concluſion of this century, copious defences of Chriſtianity were publiſhed by Arnobius and Lactantius.

CHAP. I. The Diſcrepancies between the ſeveral Goſpels.

I KNOW not a more raſh or unphiloſo⯑phical conduct of the underſtanding, than to reject the ſubſtance of a ſtory, by reaſon of ſome diverſity in the circumſtances with which it is related. The uſual character of human teſtimony is ſubſtantial truth under circumſtantial variety. This is what the daily experience of courts of juſtice teaches. When accounts of a tranſaction come from the mouths of different witneſſes, it is ſeldom [290] that it is not poſſible to pick out appa⯑rent or real inconſiſtencies between them. Theſe inconſiſtencies are ſtudiouſly diſplay⯑ed by an adverſe pleader, but oftentimes with little impreſſion upon the minds of the judges. On the contrary, a cloſe and mi⯑nute agreement induces the ſuſpicion of confederacy and fraud. When written hiſ⯑tories touch upon the ſame ſcenes of action, the compariſon almoſt always affords ground for a like reflection. Numerous, and ſome⯑times important, variations preſent them⯑ſelves; not ſeldom alſo, abſolute and final contradictions; yet neither one nor the other are deemed ſufficient to ſhake the credibility of the main fact. The embaſſy of the Jews to deprecate the execution of Claudian's or⯑der to place his ſtatue in their temple, Philo places in harveſt, Joſephus in ſeed-time; both contemporary writers. No reader is led by this inconſiſtency to doubt, whether ſuch an embaſſy was ſent, or whether ſuch an order was given. Our own hiſtory ſupplies ex⯑amples of the ſame kind. In the account of the Marquis of Argyle's death in the reign [291] of Charles the Second, we have a very re⯑markable contradiction. Lord Clarendon re⯑lates that he was condemned to be hanged, which was performed the ſame day: on the contrary, Burnet, Woodrow, Heath, Echard, concur in ſtating that he was beheaded; and that he was condemned upon the Saturday, and executed upon the Monday ^*. Was any reader of Engliſh hiſtory ever ſceptic enough to raiſe from hence a queſtion, whe⯑ther the Marquis of Argyle was executed, or not? Yet this ought to be left in uncertainty, according to the principles upon which the Chriſtian hiſtory has ſometimes been attack⯑ed. Dr. Middleton contended, that the dif⯑ferent hours of the day aſſigned to the cru⯑cifixion of Chriſt, by John and by the other evangeliſts, did not admit of the reconcile⯑ment which learned men had propoſed; and then concludes the diſcuſſion with this hard remark: "We muſt be forced▪ with ſeveral of the critics, to leave the difficulty juſt as [292] we found it, chargeable with all the conſe⯑quences of manifeſt inconſiſtency ^*." But what are theſe conſequences? by no means the diſcrediting of the hiſtory as to the prin⯑cipal fact, by a repugnancy (even ſuppoſing that repugnancy not to be reſolvable into different modes of computation) in the time of the day in which it is ſaid to have taken place.

A great deal of the diſcrepancy, obſervable in the Goſpels, ariſes from omiſſion; from a fact or a paſſage of Chriſt's life being noticed by one writer, which is unnoticed by ano⯑ther. Now omiſſion is at all times a very uncertain ground of objection. We per⯑ceive it, not only in the compariſon of dif⯑ferent writers, but even in the ſame writer, when compared with himſelf. There are a great many particulars, and ſome of them of importance, mentioned by Joſephus in his Antiquities, which, as we ſhould have ſuppoſed, [293] ought to have been put down by him in their place in the Jewiſh Wars ^*. Sueto⯑nius, Tacitus, Dio Caſſius, have, all three, written of the reign of Tiberius. Each has mentioned many things omitted by the reſt ^†, yet no objection is from thence taken to the reſpective credit of their hiſtories. We have in our own times, if there were not ſome⯑thing indecorous in the compariſon, the life of an eminent perſon, written by three of his friends, in which there is very great variety in the incidents ſelected by them; ſome ap⯑parent, and perhaps ſome real contradictions; yet without any impeachment of the ſub⯑ſtantial truth of their accounts, of the authen⯑ticity of the books, of the competent informa⯑tion or general fidelity of the writers.

But theſe diſcrepancies will be ſtill more numerous, when men do not write hiſtories, but memoirs; which is perhaps the true name, and proper deſcription of our Goſpels: that is, when they do not undertake, or ever [294] meant to deliver, in order of time, a regular and complete account of all the things of importance, which the perſon, who is the ſubject of their hiſtory, did or ſaid; but only, out of many ſimilar ones, to give ſuch paſ⯑ſages, or ſuch actions and diſcourſes, as offer⯑ed themſelves more immediately to their at⯑tention, came in the way of their enquiries, occurred to their recollection, or were ſug⯑geſted by their particular deſign at the time of writing.

This particular deſign may appear ſome⯑times, but not always, nor often. Thus I think that the particular deſign, which St. Matthew had in view whilſt he was writing the hiſtory of the reſurrection, was to atteſt the faithful performance of Chriſt's promiſe to his diſciples to go before them into Gali⯑lee; becauſe he alone, except Mark, who ſeems to have taken it from him, has record⯑ed this promiſe, and he alone has confined his narrative to that ſingle appearance to the diſciples which fulfilled it. It was the pre⯑concerted, the great and moſt public manifeſtation [295] of our Lord's perſon. It was the thing which dwelt upon St. Matthew's mind, and he adapted his narrative to it. But, that there is nothing in St. Matthew's lan⯑guage, which negatives other appearances, or which imports that this his appearance to his diſciples in Galilee, in purſuance of his promiſe, was his firſt or only appearance, is made pretty evident by St. Mark's Goſpel, which uſes the ſame terms concerning the appearance in Galilee as St. Matthew uſes, yet itſelf records two other appearances prior to this; "Go your way, tell his diſciples and Peter, that he goeth before you into Ga⯑lilee, then ſhall ye ſee him as he ſaid unto you." (xvi. 7.) We might be apt to infer from theſe words, that this was the firſt time they were to ſee him: at leaſt, we might in⯑fer it, with as much reaſon as we draw the inference from the ſame words in Matthew: yet the hiſtorian himſelf did not perceive that he was leading his readers to any ſuch concluſion; for, in the twelfth and two following verſes of this chapter, he informs us of two appearances, which, by comparing [296] the order of events, are ſhewn to have been prior to the appearance in Galilee. "He ap⯑peared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country; and went and told it unto the reſidue, neither be⯑lieved they them: afterwards he appeared unto the eleven, as they ſat at meat, and up⯑braided them with their unbelief, becauſe they believed not them that had ſeen him after he was riſen."

Probably the ſame obſervation, concern⯑ing the particular deſign which guided the hiſtorian, may be of uſe in comparing many other paſſages of the Goſpels.

CHAP. II. Erroneous Opinions imputed to the Apoſtles.

A Species of candour which is ſhewn to⯑wards every other book, is ſometimes refuſ⯑ed to the Scriptures; and that is, the placing of a diſtinction between judgment and teſti⯑mony. We do not uſually queſtion the credit of a writer, by reaſon of any opi⯑nion he may have delivered upon ſubjects unconnected with his evidence; and even upon ſubjects connected with his account, or mixed with it in the ſame diſcourſe or writing, we naturally ſeparate facts from opinions, teſtimony from obſervation, narra⯑tive from argument.

To apply this equitable conſideration to the Chriſtian records, much controverſy, and much objection has been raiſed, concerning [298] the quotations of the Old Teſtament found in the New; ſome of which quotations, it is ſaid, are applied in a ſenſe, and to events, apparently different from that which they bear, and from thoſe to which they belong, in the original. It is probable to my appre⯑henſion, that many of thoſe quotations were intended by the writers of the New Teſta⯑ment as nothing more than accommodations. They quoted paſſages of their ſcripture, which ſuited, and fell in with, the occaſion before them, without always undertaking to aſſert, that the occaſion was in the view of the author of the words. Such accommoda⯑tions of paſſages from old authors, from books eſpecially, which are in every one's hands, are common with writers of all coun⯑tries; but in none, perhaps, were more to be expected, than in the writings of the Jews, whoſe literature was almoſt entirely confined to their ſcriptures. Thoſe prophecies which are alledged with more ſolemnity, and which are accompanied with a preciſe declaration, that they originally reſpected the event then related, are, I think, truly alledged. But [299] were it otherwiſe; is the judgment of the writers of the New Teſtament, in interpret⯑ing paſſages of the Old, or ſometimes, per⯑haps, in receiving eſtabliſhed interpretations, ſo connected, either with their veracity, or with their means of information concerning what was paſſing in their own times, as that a critical miſtake, even were it clearly made out, ſhould overthrow their hiſtorical cre⯑dit?—Does it diminiſh it? Has it any thing to do with it?

Another error, imputed to the firſt Chriſ⯑tians, was the expected approach of the day of judgment. I would introduce this objec⯑tion, by a remark, upon what appears to me a ſomewhat ſimilar example. Our Saviour, ſpeaking to Peter of John, ſaid, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee ^*." Theſe words, we find, had been ſo miſconſtrued, as that "a report" from thence "went abroad among the brethren, that that diſciple ſhould not die." Suppoſe that this [300] had come down to us amongſt the prevail⯑ing opinions of the early Chriſtians, and that the particular circumſtance, from which the miſtake ſprung, had been loſt, (which hu⯑manly ſpeaking was moſt likely to have been the caſe) ſome, at this day, would have been ready to regard and quote the error, as an impeachment of the whole Chriſtian ſyſtem. Yet with how little juſtice ſuch a concluſion would have been drawn, or rather ſuch a preſumption taken up, the information, which we happen to poſſeſs, enables us now to perceive. To thoſe who think that the Scriptures lead us to believe, that the early Chriſtians, and even the Apoſtles, expected the approach of the day of judgment in their own times, the ſame reflection will occur, as that which we have made, with reſpect to the more partial perhaps and temporary, but ſtill no leſs ancient error, concerning the duration of St. John's life. It was an error, it may be likewiſe ſaid, which would effec⯑tually hinder thoſe, who entertained it, from acting the part of impoſtors.

[301] The difficulty which attends the ſubject of the preſent chapter, is contained in this queſ⯑tion; if we once admit the fallibility of the apoſtolic judgment, where are we to ſtop, or in what can we rely upon it? To which queſtion, as arguing with unbelievers, and as arguing for the ſubſtantial truth of the Chriſtian hiſtory, and for that alone, it is competent to the advocate of Chriſtianity to reply, Give me the apoſtle's teſtimony, and I do not ſtand in need of their judgment; give me the facts, and I have complete ſe⯑curity for every concluſion I want.

But, although I think that it is compe⯑tent to the Chriſtian apologiſt to return this anſwer; I do not think that it is the only anſwer which the objection is capable of re⯑ceiving. The two following cautions, found⯑ed, I apprehend, in the moſt reaſonable diſ⯑tinctions, will exclude all uncertainty upon this head, which can be attended with danger.

Firſt, to ſeparate what was the object of the apoſtolic miſſion, and declared by them [302] to be ſo, from what was extraneous to it, or only incidentally connected with it. Of points clearly extraneous to the religion, nothing need be ſaid. Of points inciden⯑tally connected with it, ſomething may be added. Demoniacal poſſeſſion is one of theſe points: concerning the reality of which, as this place will not admit the examination, or even the production of the arguments on either ſide of the queſtion, it would be arro⯑gance in me to deliver any judgment. And it is unneceſſary. For what I am concerned to obſerve is, that even they who think that it was a general, but erroneous, opinion of thoſe times; and that the writers of the New Teſtament, in common with other Jewiſh writers of that age, fell into the man⯑ner of ſpeaking and of thinking upon the ſubject, which then univerſally prevailed; need not be alarmed by the conceſſion, as though they had any thing to fear from it, for the truth of Chriſtianity. The doctrine was not what Chriſt brought into the world. It appears in the Chriſtian records, inciden⯑tally and accidentally, as being the ſubſiſting [303] opinion of the age and country in which his miniſtry was exerciſed. It was no part of the object of his revelation, to regulate mens opinions concerning the action of ſpiritual ſubſtances upon animal bodies. At any rate it is unconnected with teſtimony. If a dumb perſon was by a word reſtored to the uſe of his ſpeech, it ſignifies little to what cauſe the dumbneſs was aſcribed; and the like of every other cure wrought upon thoſe who are ſaid to have been poſſeſſed. The malady was real, the cure was real, whether the popular explication of the cauſe was well founded, or not. The matter of fact, the change, ſo far as it was an object of ſenſe, or of teſtimony, was in either caſe the ſame.

Secondly, that, in reading the apoſtolic writings, we diſtinguiſh between their doc⯑trines and their arguments. Their doc⯑tines came to them by revelation properly ſo called; yet in propounding theſe doctrines in their writings or diſcourſes, they were wont to illuſtrate, ſupport and enforce them, [304] by ſuch analogies, arguments, and conſider⯑ations as their own thoughts ſuggeſted. Thus the call of the Gentiles, that is, the admiſſion of the Gentiles to the Chriſtian profeſſion without a previous ſubjection to the law of Moſes, was imparted to the Apo⯑ſtles by revelation, and was atteſted by the miracles which attended the Chriſtian mi⯑niſtry amongſt them. The Apoſtles own aſſurance of the matter reſted upon this foundation. Nevertheleſs, St. Paul, when treating of the ſubject, offers a great variety of topics in its proof and vindication. The doctrine itſelf muſt be received; but is it ne⯑ceſſary, in order to defend Chriſtianity, to defend the propriety of every compariſon, or the validity of every argument, which the apoſtle has brought into the diſcuſſion? The ſame obſervation applies to ſome other inſtances; and is, in my opinion, very well founded. "When divine writers argue upon any point, we are always bound to be⯑lieve the concluſions that their reaſonings end in, as parts of divine revelation; but we are not bound to be able to make out, or [305] even to aſſent to, all the premiſes made uſe of by them, in their whole extent, unleſs it appear plainly, that they affirm the premiſes as expreſsly as they do the concluſions prov⯑ed by them ^*."

CHAP. III. The Connection of Chriſtianity with the Jewiſh Hiſtory.

UNDOUBTEDLY, our Saviour aſſumes the divine origin of the Moſaic inſtitution: and, independently of his authority, I con⯑ceive it to be very difficult to aſſign any other cauſe for the commencement or exiſtence of that inſtitution; eſpecially for the ſingular circumſtance of the Jews adhering to the unity, when every other people ſlid into po⯑lytheiſm; for their being men in religion, children in every thing elſe; behind other nations in the arts of peace and war, ſupe⯑rior to the moſt improved in their ſentiments and doctrines relating to the deity ^*. Undoubtedly [307] alſo, our Saviour recogniſes the prophetic character of many of their ancient writers. So far, therefore, we are bound as Chriſtians to go. But to make Chriſtianity anſwerable with its life, for the circumſtan⯑tial truth of each ſeparate paſſage of the Old Teſtament, the genuineneſs of every book, the information, fidelity, and judgment of every writer in it, is to bring, I will not ſay [308] great, but unneceſſary difficulties, into the whole ſyſtem. Theſe books were univer⯑ſally read and received by the Jews of our Saviour's time. He and his apoſtles, in common with all other Jews, referred to them, alluded to them, uſed them. Yet, except where he expreſsly aſcribes a divine authority to particular predictions, I do not know that we can ſtrictly draw any concluſion from the books being ſo uſed and applied, beſide the proof, which it unqueſ⯑tionably is, of their notoriety and reception at that time. In this view our ſcriptures af⯑ford a valuable teſtimony to thoſe of the Jews. But the nature of this teſtimony ought to be underſtood. It is ſurely very different from, what it is ſometimes repre⯑ſented to be, a ſpecific ratification of each particular fact and opinion; and not only of each particular fact, but of the motives aſſigned for every action, together with the judgment of praiſe or diſpraiſe beſtowed upon them. St. James, in his epiſtle ^*, [309] ſays, "Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have ſeen the end of the Lord." Notwithſtanding this text, the reality of Job's hiſtory, and even the exiſtence of ſuch a perſon, has been always deemed a fair ſubject of enquiry and diſcuſſion amongſt Chriſtian divines. St. James's authority is conſidered as good evidence of the exiſtence of the book of Job at that time, and of its reception by the Jews, and of nothing more. St. Paul, in his ſecond epiſtle to Timothy^*, has this ſimilitude: "Now, as Jannes and Jambres withſtood Moſes, ſo do theſe alſo reſiſt the truth." Theſe names are not found in the Old Teſtament. And it is uncertain, whether St. Paul took them from ſome apo⯑cryphal writing then extant, or from tradi⯑tion. But no one ever imagined, that St. Paul is here aſſerting the authority of the writing, if it was a written account which he quoted, or making himſelf anſwerable for the authenticity of the tradition; much leſs, that he ſo involves himſelf with either [310] of theſe queſtions, as that the credit of his own hiſtory and miſſion ſhould depend upon the fact, whether "Jannes and Jam⯑bres withſtood Moſes, or not." For what reaſon a more rigorous interpretation ſhould be put upon other references, it is difficult to know. I do not mean, that other paſſages of the Jewiſh hiſtory ſtand upon no better evidence than the hiſtory of Job, or of Jan⯑nes and Jambres (I think much otherwiſe); but I mean, that a reference in the New Teſtament, to a paſſage in the Old, does not ſo ſix its authority, as to exclude all enquiry into its credibility, or into the ſe⯑parate reaſons upon which that credibility is founded; and that it is an unwarrantable, as well as unſafe rule to lay down concern⯑ing the Jewiſh hiſtory, what was never laid down concerning any other, that either every particular of it muſt be true, or the whole falſe.

I have thought it neceſſary to ſtate this point explicitly, becauſe a faſhion revived by Voltaire, and purſued by the diſciples of his [311] ſchool, ſeems to have much prevailed of late, of attacking Chriſtianity through the ſides of Judaiſm. Some objections of this claſs are founded in miſconſtruction, ſome in ex⯑aggeration; but all proceed upon a ſuppoſi⯑tion, which has not been made out by argu⯑ment, viz. that the atteſtation, which the author and firſt teachers of Chriſtianity gave to the divine miſſion of Moſes and the pro⯑phets, extends to every point and portion of the Jewiſh hiſtory; and ſo extends, as to make Chriſtianity reſponſible in its own cre⯑dibility, for the circumſtantial truth, I had almoſt ſaid for the critical exactneſs, of every narrative contained in the Old Teſta⯑ment.

CHAP. IV. Rejection of Chriſtianity.

WE acknowledge that the Chriſtian re⯑ligion, although it converted great numbers, did not produce an univerſal, or even a general conviction in the minds of men, of the age and countries in which it appeared. And this want of a more complete and ex⯑tenſive ſucceſs, is called the rejection of the Chriſtian hiſtory and miracles; and has been thought by ſome, to form a ſtrong objec⯑tion to the reality of the facts which the hiſtory contains.

The matter of the objection divides itſelf into two parts, as it relates to the Jews, and as it relates to Heathen nations; be⯑cauſe the minds of theſe two deſcriptions of men may have been, with reſpect to Chriſ⯑tianity, under the influence of very different cauſes. The caſe of the Jews, inaſmuch as [313] our Saviour's miniſtry was originally ad⯑dreſſed to them, offers itſelf firſt to our con⯑ſideration.

Now, upon the ſubject of the truth of the Chriſtian religion, with us there is but one queſtion, viz. whether the miracles were actually wrought? From acknowledging the miracles we paſs inſtantaneouſly to the ac⯑knowledgment of the whole. No doubt lies between the premiſes and the conclu⯑ſion. If we believe the works, or any one of them, we believe in Jeſus. And this order of reaſoning is become ſo univerſal and familiar, that we do not readily appre⯑hend how it could ever have been other⯑wiſe. Yet it appears to me perfectly cer⯑tain, that the ſtate of thought, in the mind of a Jew of our Saviour's age, was totally different from this. After allowing the re⯑ality of the miracle, he had a great deal to do to perſuade himſelf that Jeſus was the Meſſiah. This is clearly intimated by vari⯑ous paſſages of the goſpel hiſtory. It ap⯑pears that, in the apprehenſion of the writers [314] of the New Teſtament, the miracles did not irreſiſtibly carry, even thoſe who ſaw them, to the concluſion intended to be drawn from them; or ſo compel aſſent, as to leave no room for ſuſpenſe, for the exer⯑ciſe of candour, or the effects of prejudice. And to this point at leaſt, the evangeliſts may be allowed to be good witneſſes; be⯑cauſe it is a point, in which exaggeration or diſguiſe would have been the other way. Their accounts, if they could be ſuſpected of falſehood, would rather have magnified, than diminiſhed, the effects of the miracles.

John vii. 21—31. "Jeſus anſwered, and ſaid unto them, I have done one work, and ye all marvel—If a man on the Sabbath⯑day receive circumciſion, that the law of Moſes ſhould not be broken, are ye angry at me, becauſe I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath-day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Then ſaid ſome of them of Jeruſalem, Is not this he whom they ſeek to kill? but lo, he ſpeaketh boldly, [315] and they ſay nothing to him; do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Chriſt? Howbeit we know this man, whence he is; but, when Chriſt cometh, no man knoweth whence he is. Then cried Jeſus in the tem⯑ple as he taught, ſaying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am; and I am not come of myſelf, but he that ſent me is true, whom ye know not; but I know him, for I am from him, and he hath ſent me. Then they ſought to take him, but no man laid hands on him becauſe his hour was not yet come; and many of the people believed on him, and ſaid, When Chriſt cometh, will he do more miracles than thoſe which this man hath done?"

This paſſage is very obſervable. It ex⯑hibits the reaſoning of different ſorts of per⯑ſons upon the occaſion of a miracle, which perſons of all ſorts are repreſented to have acknowledged as real. One ſort of men thought, that there was ſomething very ex⯑traordinary in all this; but that ſtill Jeſus could not be the Chriſt, becauſe there was [316] a circumſtance in his appearance, which mi⯑litated with an opinion concerning Chriſt, in which they had been brought up, and of the truth of which, it is probable, they had never entertained a particle of doubt, viz. that "when Chriſt cometh no man know⯑eth whence he is." Another ſort were in⯑clined to believe him to be the Meſſiah. But even theſe did not argue as we ſhould; did not conſider the miracle as of itſelf de⯑ciſive of the queſtion, as what, if once al⯑lowed, excluded all farther debate upon the ſubject, but founded their opinion upon a kind of comparative reaſoning, "When Chriſt cometh, will he do more miracles than thoſe which this man hath done?"

Another paſſage in the ſame evangeliſt, and obſervable for the ſame purpoſe, is that, in which he relates the reſurrection of La⯑zarus: "Jeſus," he tells us, (xi. 43, 44.) "when he had thus ſpoken, cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth; and he, that was dead, came forth, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes, and his face was [317] bound about with a napkin. Jeſus faith unto them, Looſe him and let him go." One might have expected, that at leaſt all thoſe who ſtood by the ſepulchre, when Lazarus was raiſed, would have believed in Jeſus. Yet the evangeliſt does not ſo repreſent it. "Then many of the Jews which came to Mary, and had ſeen the things which Jeſus did, believed on him; but ſome of them went their ways to the Phariſees, and told them what things Jeſus had done." We cannot ſuppoſe that the evangeliſt meant, by this account, to leave his readers to imagine that any of the ſpectators doubted about the truth of the miracle. Far from it. Unqueſ⯑tionably he ſtates the miracle to have been fully allowed: yet the perſons who allowed it, were, according to his repreſentation, ca⯑pable of retaining hoſtile ſentiments towards Jeſus. "Believing in Jeſus" was not only to believe that he wrought miracles, but that he was the Meſſiah. With us there is no difference between theſe two things; with them there was the greateſt. And the dif⯑ference is apparent in this tranſaction. If [318] St. John has repreſented the conduct of the Jews upon this occaſion truly (and why he ſhould not I cannot tell, for it rather makes againſt him than for him), it ſhews clearly the principles upon which their judgment proceeded. Whether he has related the matter truly or not, the relation itſelf diſ⯑covers the writer's own opinion of thoſe principles, and that alone poſſeſſes conſider⯑able authority. In the next chapter, we have a reflection of the evangeliſt, entirely ſuited to this ſtate of the caſe; "but though he had done ſo many miracles before them, yet believed they not on him ^*." The evan⯑geliſt does not mean to impute the defect of their belief to any doubt about the mi⯑racles, but to their not perceiving, what all now ſufficiently perceive, and what they would have perceived had not their under⯑ſtandings been governed by ſtrong preju⯑dices, the infallible atteſtation, which the works of Jeſus bore, to the truth of his pre⯑tenſions.

[319] The ninth chapter of St. John's goſpel contains a very circumſtantial account of the cure of a blind man; a miracle ſub⯑mitted to all the ſcrutiny and examination, which a ſceptic could propoſe. If a mo⯑dern unbeliever had drawn up the interro⯑gatories, they could hardly have been more critical or ſearching. The account contains alſo a very curious conference between the Jewiſh rulers and the patient, in which the point for our preſent notice, is their reſiſt⯑ance of the force of the miracle, and of the concluſion to which it led, after they had failed in diſcrediting its evidence. "We know that God ſpake unto Moſes, but as for this fellow we know not whence he is." That was the anſwer which ſet their minds at reſt. And by the help of much prejudice, and great unwillingneſs to yield, it might do ſo. In the mind of the poor man re⯑ſtored to ſight, which was under no ſuch biaſs, felt no ſuch reluctance, the miracle had its natural operation. "Herein," ſays he, "is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, yet he hath opened [320] mine eyes. Now we know that God hear⯑eth not ſinners; but if any man be a wor⯑ſhipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard, that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind. If this man were not of God he could do nothing." We do not find, that the Jewiſh rulers had any other reply to make to this defence, than that which authority is ſometimes apt to make to argument, "Doſt thou teach us?"

If it ſhall be enquired how a turn of thought, ſo different from what prevails at preſent, ſhould obtain currency with the ancient Jews, the anſwer is found in two opinions, which are proved to have ſubſiſt⯑ed in that age and country. The one was, their expectation of a Meſſiah, of a kind to⯑tally contrary to what the appearance of Jeſus beſpoke him to be: the other, their perſuaſion of the agency of demons in the production of ſupernatural effects. Theſe opinions are not ſuppoſed by us for the pur⯑poſe of argument, but are evidently recogniſed [321] in the Jewiſh writings, as well as in ours. And it ought moreover to be con⯑ſidered, that in theſe opinions the Jews of that age had been from their infancy brought up; that they were opinions, the grounds of which they had probably few of them enquired into, and of the truth of which they entertained no doubt. And I think that theſe two opinions conjointly af⯑ford an explanation of their conduct. The firſt put them upon ſeeking out ſome ex⯑cuſe to themſelves, for not receiving Jeſus in the character in which he claimed to be received; and the ſecond ſupplied them with juſt ſuch an excuſe as they wanted. Let Jeſus work what miracles he would, ſtill the anſwer was in readineſs, "that he wrought them by the aſſiſtance of Beelze⯑bub." And to this anſwer no reply could be made, but that which our Saviour did make, by ſhewing that the tendency of his miſſion was ſo adverſe to the views with which this Being was, by the objectors themſelves, ſuppoſed to act, that it could not reaſonably be ſuppoſed that he would [322] aſſiſt in carrying it on. The power diſ⯑played in the miracles did not alone refute the Jewiſh ſolution, becauſe, the interpoſi⯑tion of inviſible agents being once admitted, it is impoſſible to aſcertain the limits by which their efficiency is circumſcribed. We of this day may be diſpoſed, poſſibly, to think ſuch opinions too abſurd to have been ever ſeriouſly entertained. I am not bound to contend for the credibility of the opinions. They were at leaſt as reaſonable as the belief in witchcraft. They were opi⯑nions in which the Jews of that age had from their infancy been inſtructed: and thoſe who cannot ſee enough in the force of this reaſon, to account for their conduct towards our Saviour, do not ſufficiently conſider how ſuch opinions may ſometimes become very general in a country, and with what pertinacity, when once become ſo, they are, for that reaſon alone, adhered to. In the ſuſpenſe which theſe notions, and the prejudices reſulting from them, might occaſion, the candid and docile and humble minded would probably decide in Chriſt's [323] favour; the proud and obſtinate, together with the giddy and the thoughtleſs, almoſt univerſally againſt him.

This ſtate of opinion diſcovers to us alſo the reaſon of what ſome chooſe to wonder at, why the Jews ſhould reject miracles when they ſaw them, yet rely ſo much upon the tradition of them in their own hiſtory. It does not appear, that it had ever entered into the minds of thoſe who lived in the time of Moſes and the Prophets, to aſcribe their miracles to the ſupernatural agency of evil Beings. The ſolution was not then invented. And the authority of Moſes and the Prophets being eſtabliſhed, and become the foundation of the national policy and religion, it was not probable that the later Jews, brought up in a reverence for that religion, and the ſubjects of that policy, ſhould apply to their hiſtory a reaſoning which tended to overthrow the foundation of both.

II. The infidelity of the gentile world, [324] and that more eſpecially of men of rank and learning in it, is reſolvable into a principle, which, in my judgment, will account for the inefficacy of any argument or any evi⯑dence whatever, viz. contempt prior to ex⯑amination. The ſtate of religion amongſt the Greeks and Romans had a natural ten⯑dency to induce this diſpoſition. Dionyſius Halicarnaſſenſis remarks, that there were ſix hundred different kinds of religions or ſa⯑cred rites exerciſed at Rome ^*. The ſupe⯑rior claſſes of the community treated them all as fables. Can we wonder then, that Chriſtianity was included in the number, without enquiry into its ſeparate merits, or the particular grounds of its pretenſions? It might be either true or falſe for any thing they knew about it. The religion had no⯑thing in its character which immediately engaged their notice. It mixed with no po⯑litics. It produced no fine writers. It con⯑tained no curious ſpeculations. When it did reach their knowledge, I doubt not but that [325] it appeared to them a very ſtrange ſyſtem—ſo unphiloſophical—dealing ſo little in argu⯑ment and diſcuſſion, in ſuch arguments however and diſcuſſions as they were ac⯑cuſtomed to entertain. What is ſaid of Jeſus Chriſt, of his nature, office, and mi⯑niſtry, would be, in the higheſt degree, aliene from the conceptions of their theo⯑logy. The redeemer, and the deſtined judge, of the human race, a poor young man exe⯑cuted at Jeruſalem with two thieves upon a croſs! Still more would the language, in which the Chriſtian doctrine was delivered, be diſſonant and barbarous to their ears. What knew they of grace, of redemption, of juſtification, of the blood of Chriſt ſhed for the ſins of men, of reconcilement, of mediation? Chriſtianity was made up of points they had never thought of; of terms which they had never heard.

It was preſented alſo to the imagination of the learned heathen, under additional diſ⯑advantage, by reaſon of its real, and ſtill more of its nominal, connection with Judaiſm. [326] It ſhared in the obloquy and ridi⯑cule, with which that people and their reli⯑gion were treated by the Greeks and Ro⯑mans. They regarded Jehovah himſelf only as the idol of the Jewiſh nation, and what was related of him, as of a piece with what was told of the tutelar deities of other coun⯑tries: nay, the Jews were in a particular manner ridiculed for being a credulous race; ſo that whatever reports of a miraculous na⯑ture came out of that country, were looked upon by the heathen world as falſe and fri⯑volous. When they heard of Chriſtianity, they heard of it as a quarrel amongſt this people, about ſome articles of their own ſu⯑perſtition. Deſpiſing therefore, as they did, the whole ſyſtem, it was not probable that they would enter, with any degree of ſeri⯑ouſneſs or attention, into the detail of its diſputes, or the merits of either ſide. How little they knew, and with what careleſſneſs they judged of theſe matters, appears, I think, pretty plainly from an example of no leſs weight than that of Tacitus, who, in a grave and profeſſed diſcourſe upon the [327] hiſtory of the Jews, ſtates that they wor⯑ſhipped the effigy of an aſs ^*. The paſſage is a proof, how prone the learned men of theſe times were, and upon how little evi⯑dence, to heap together ſtories, which might increaſe the contempt and odium in which that people was held. The ſame fooliſh charge is alſo conſidently repeated by Plu⯑tarch ^†.

It is obſervable, that all theſe conſidera⯑tions are of a nature to operate with the greateſt force upon the higheſt ranks; upon men of education, and that order of the public from which writers are principally taken: I may add alſo, upon the philoſophi⯑cal as well as the libertine character; upon the Antonines or Julian, not leſs than upon Nero or Domitian; and, more particularly, upon that large and poliſhed claſs of men, who acquieſced in the general perſuaſion, that all they had to do was to practiſe the duties of morality, and to worſhip the deity [328] more patrio; a habit of thinking, liberal as it may appear, which ſhuts the door againſt every argument for a new religion. The conſiderations above-mentioned, would ac⯑quire alſo ſtrength, from the prejudice which men of rank and learning univerſally enter⯑tain againſt any thing that originates with the vulgar and illiterate; which prejudice is known to be as obſtinate as any prejudice whatever.

Yet Chriſtianity was ſtill making its way: and, amidſt ſo many impediments to its progreſs, ſo much difficulty in procuring au⯑dience and attention, its actual ſucceſs is more to be wondered at, than that it ſhould not have univerſally conquered ſcorn and indifference, fixed the levity of a voluptu⯑ous age, or, through a cloud of adverſe pre⯑judications, opened for itſelf a paſſage to the hearts and underſtandings of the ſcholars of the age.

And the cauſe which is here aſſigned for the rejection of Chriſtianity, by men of [329] rank and learning among the heathens, namely, a ſtrong antecedent contempt, ac⯑counts alſo for their ſilence concerning it. If they had rejected it upon examination, they would have written about it. They would have given their reaſons. Whereas what men repudiate upon the ſtrength of ſome prefixed perſuaſion, or from a ſettled con⯑tempt of the ſubject, of the perſons who propoſe it, or of the manner in which it is propoſed, they do not naturally write books about, or notice much in what they write upon other ſubjects.

The letters of the younger Pliny furniſh an example of this ſilence, and let us, in ſome meaſure, into the cauſe of it. From his celebrated correſpondence with Trajan, we know that the Chriſtian religion pre⯑vailed in a very conſiderable degree in the province over which he preſided; that it had excited his attention; that he had enquired into the matter, juſt ſo much as a Roman magiſtrate might be expected to enquire, viz. whether the religion contained any opinions [330] dangerous̄ to government; but that of its doctrines, its evidences, or its books, he had not taken the trouble to inform him⯑ſelf with any degree of care or correctneſs. But although Pliny had viewed Chriſtianity in a nearer poſition, than moſt of his learn⯑ed countrymen ſaw it in; yet he had re⯑garded the whole with ſuch negligence and diſdain (farther than as it ſeemed to concern his adminiſtration), that, in more than two hundred and forty letters of his which have come down to us, the ſubject is never once again mentioned. If out of this number the two letters between him and Trajan had been loſt, with what confidence would the obſcurity of the Chriſtian religion have been argued from Pliny's ſilence about it, and with how little truth?

The name and character which Tacitus hath given to Chriſtianity, "exitiabilis ſu⯑perſtitio" (a pernicious ſuperſtition), and by which two words he diſpoſes of the whole queſtion of the merits or demerits of the religion, afford a ſtrong proof how little [331] he knew, or concerned himſelf to know, about the matter. I apprehend that I ſhall not be contradicted, when I take upon me to aſſert, that no unbeliever of the preſent age would apply this epithet to the Chriſ⯑tianity of the New Teſtament, or not allow that it was entirely unmerited. Read the inſtructions given, by a great teacher of the religion, to thoſe very Roman converts, of whom Tacitus ſpeaks; and given alſo a very few years before the time of which he is ſpeaking; and which are not, let it be ob⯑ſerved, a collection of fine ſayings, brought together from different parts of a large work, but ſtand in one entire paſſage of a public letter, without the intermixture of a ſingle thought, which is frivolous or exceptionable. "Abhor that which is evil, cleave to that which is good. Be kindly affectioned one to another, with brotherly love, in honour preferring one another. Not ſlothful in buſineſs, fervent in ſpirit, ſerving the Lord, rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing inſtant in prayer, diſtributing to the neceſſity of ſaints, given to hoſpitality. [332] Bleſs them which perſecute you; bleſs, and curſe not; rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep. Be of the ſame mind one towards another: mind not high things, but condeſcend to men of low eſtate. Be not wiſe in your own conceits. Recompenſe to no man evil for evil. Pro⯑vide things honeſt in the ſight of all men. If it be poſſible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. Avenge not yourſelves, but rather give place unto wrath; for it is written, Vengeance is mine! I will repay, faith the Lord: therefore, if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirſt, give him drink; for, in ſo doing, thou ſhalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."

Read this, and then think of exitiabilis ſuperſtitio!!—Or if we be not allowed, in contending with heathen authorities, to pro⯑duce our books againſt theirs, we may at leaſt be permitted to confront theirs with one another. Of this "pernicious ſuperſtition," what could Pliny ſind to blame, when he was led by his office, to inſtitute ſomething like an examination into the conduct and [335] principles of the ſect? He diſcovered no⯑thing, but that they were wont to meet to⯑gether on a ſtated day before it was light, and ſing among themſelves a hymn to Chriſt as a God, and to bind themſelves by an oath, not to the commiſſion of any wickedneſs, but not to be guilty of theft, robbery, or adultery; never to falſify their word, nor to deny a pledge committed to them, when called upon to return it.

Upon the words of Tacitus we may build the following obſervations:

Firſt, That we are well warranted in call⯑ing the view, under which the learned men of that age beheld Chriſtianity, an obſcure and diſtant view. Had Tacitus known more of Chriſtianity, of its precepts, duties, conſtitu⯑tion or deſign, however he had diſcredited the ſtory, he would have reſpected the prin⯑ciple. He would have deſcribed the reli⯑gion differently, though he had rejected it. It has been very ſatisfactorily ſhewn, that the "ſuperſtition" of the Chriſtians conſiſted [336] in worſhiping a perſon unknown to the Roman calendar; and that the "perniciouſ⯑neſs" with which they were reproached, was nothing elſe but there oppoſition to the eſtabliſhed polytheiſm: and this view of the matter was juſt ſuch a one as might be ex⯑pected to occur to a mind, which held the ſect in too much contempt to concern itſelf about the grounds and reaſons of their con⯑duct.

Secondly, We may from hence remark, how little reliance can be placed upon the moſt acute judgments, in ſubjects which they are pleaſed to deſpiſe; and which, of courſe, they from the firſt conſider as unworthy to be enquired into. Had not Chriſtianity ſur⯑vived to tell its own ſtory, it muſt have gone down to poſterity as a "pernicious ſuperſti⯑tion;" and that upon the credit of Tacitus's account, much, I doubt not, ſtrengthened by the name of the writer, and the reputa⯑tion of his ſagacity.

Thirdly, That this contempt prior to [337] examination, is an intellectual vice, from which the greateſt faculties of mind are not free. I know not, indeed, whether men of the greateſt faculties of mind are not the moſt ſubject to it. Such men feel themſelves ſeated upon an eminence. Looking down from their height upon the follies of man⯑kind, they behold contending tenets waſt⯑ing their idle ſtrength upon one another, with a common diſdain of the abſurdity of them all. This habit of thought, however comfortable to the mind which entertains it, or however natural to great parts, is ex⯑tremely dangerous; and more apt, than al⯑moſt any other diſpoſition, to produce haſty and contemptuous, and, by conſequence, erroneous judgments, both of perſons and opinions.

Fourthly, We need not be ſurpriſed at many writers of that age not mentioning Chriſtianity at all, when they, who did men⯑tion it, appear to have entirely miſconceived its nature and character; and, in conſequence [338] of this miſconception, to have re⯑garded it with negligence and contempt.

To the knowledge of the greateſt part of the learned heathens, the facts of the Chriſ⯑tian hiſtory could only come by report. The books, probably, they had never look⯑ed into. The ſettled habit of their minds was, and long had been, an indiſcriminate rejection of all reports of the kind. With theſe ſweeping concluſions truth hath no chance. It depends upon diſtinction. If they would not enquire, how ſhould they be convinced? It might be founded in truth, though they, who made no ſearch, might not diſcover it.

I think it by no means unreaſonable to ſuppoſe, that the heathen public, eſpecially that part which is made up of men of rank and education, were divided into two claſſes; thoſe who deſpiſed Chriſtianity beforehand, and thoſe who received it. In correſpond⯑ency with which diviſion of character, the [340] writers of that age would alſo be of two claſſes, thoſe who were ſilent about Chriſti⯑anity, and thoſe who were Chriſtians. "A good man, who attended ſufficiently to the Chriſtian affairs, would become a Chriſtian; after which his teſtimony ceaſed to be Pa⯑gan, and became Chriſtian ^*."

I muſt alſo add, that I think it ſufficient⯑ly proved, that the notion of magic was reſorted to by the heathen adverſaries of Chriſtianity, in like manner as that of diabo⯑lical agency had before been by the Jews. Juſtin Martyr alledges this as his reaſon for arguing from prophecy, rather than from miracles. Origen imputes this evaſion to Celſus; Jerome to Porphyry; and Lactan⯑tius to the heathen in general. The ſeve⯑ral paſſages, which contain theſe teſtimonies, will be produced in the next chapter. It be⯑ing difficult however to aſcertain, in what de⯑gree this notion prevailed, eſpecially amongſt [341] the ſuperior ranks of the heathen communi⯑ties, another, and I think an adequate cauſe, has been aſſigned for their infidelity. It is probable that in many caſes the two cauſes would operate together.

CHAP. V. That the Chriſtian miracles are not recited, or appealed to, by early Chriſtian writers themſelves, ſo fully or frequently as might have been expected.

I SHALL conſider this objection, firſt, as it applies to the letters of the Apoſtles, pre⯑ſerved in the New Teſtament; and ſecondly, as it applies to the remaining writings of other early Chriſtians.

The epiſtles of the apoſtles are either hor⯑tatory or argumentative. So far as they were occupied, in delivering leſſons of duty, rules of public order, admonitions againſt cer⯑tain prevailing corruptions, againſt vice, or any particular ſpecies of it, or in fortifying and encouraging the conſtancy of the diſ⯑ciples under the trials to which they were expoſed, there appears to be no place or [343] occaſion for more of theſe references than we actually find.

So far as the epiſtles are argumentative, the nature of the argument which they handle, accounts for the infrequency of theſe alluſions. Theſe epiſtles were not written to prove the truth of Chriſtianity. The ſubject under conſideration was not that which the miracles decided, the reality of our Lord's miſſion; but it was that which the miracles did not decide, the nature of his perſon or power, the deſign of his ad⯑vent, its effects, and of thoſe effects the va⯑lue, kind, and extent. Still I maintain, that miraculous evidence lies at the bottom of the argument. For nothing could be ſo prepoſterous, as for the diſciples of Jeſus to diſpute amongſt themſelves, or with others, concerning his office or character, unleſs they believed that he had ſhewn, by ſuperna⯑tural proofs, that there was ſomething extra⯑ordinary in both. Miraculous evidence, therefore, forming not the texture of theſe [344] arguments, but the ground and ſubſtratum, if it be occaſionally diſcerned, if it be inci⯑dentally appealed to, it is exactly ſo much as ought to take place, ſuppoſing the hiſtory to be true.

As a further anſwer to the objection, that the apoſtolic epiſtles do not contain ſo fre⯑quent, or ſuch direct and circumſtantial re⯑citals of miracles as might be expected, I would add, that the apoſtolic epiſtles reſemble in this reſpect the apoſtolic ſpeeches, which ſpeeches are given by a writer, who diſ⯑tinctly records numerous miracles wrought by theſe apoſtles themſelves, and by the founder of the inſtitution in their preſence; that it is unwarrantable to contend, that the omiſſion, or infrequency, of ſuch recitals in the ſpeeches of the apoſtles, negatives the exiſtence of the miracles, when the ſpeeches are given in immediate conjunction with the hiſtory of thoſe miracles; and that a conclu⯑ſion which cannot be inferred from the ſpeeches, without contradicting the whole [345] tenor of the book which contains them, can⯑not be inferred from letters, which, in this reſpect, are ſimilar only to the ſpeeches.

To prove the ſimilitude which we alledge, it may be remarked, that although in St. Luke's goſpel, the apoſtle Peter is repreſent⯑ed to have been preſent at many deciſive miracles wrought by Chriſt; and although the ſecond part of the ſame hiſtory aſcribes other deciſive miracles to Peter himſelf, par⯑ticularly the cure of the lame man at the gate of the temple (Acts iii. 1.), the death of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts v. 1.), the cure of Aeneas (Acts ix. 40.), the reſur⯑rection of Dorcas (Acts ix. 34.); yet out of ſix ſpeeches of Peter, preſerved in the Acts, I know but two, in which reference is made to the miracles wrought by Chriſt, and only one in which he refers to miraculous powers poſſeſſed by himſelf. In his ſpeech upon the day of Pentecoſt, Peter addreſſes his audience with great ſolemnity thus: "Ye men of Iſrael, hear theſe words; Jeſus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among [346] you, by miracles and wonders and ſigns, which God did by him in the midſt of you, as ye yourſelves alſo know, &c. ^*" In his ſpeech upon the converſion of Cornelius, he delivers his teſtimony to the miracles per⯑formed by Chriſt in theſe words: "We are witneſſes of all things which he did, both in the land of the Jews, and in Jeruſalem ^†." But in this latter ſpeech no alluſion appears to the miracles wrought by himſelf, notwith⯑ſtanding that the miracles above enumerat⯑ed, all preceded the time in which it was delivered. In his ſpeech upon the election of Matthias ^‡, no diſtinct reference is made to any of the miracles of Chriſt's hiſtory, ex⯑cept his reſurrection. The ſame alſo may be obſerved of his ſpeech upon the cure of the lame man at the gate of the temple ^§; the ſame in his ſpeech before the Sanhedrim ^{2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁}; the ſame in his ſecond apology in the pre⯑ſence of that aſſembly. Stephen's long ſpeech contains no reference whatever to [347] miracles, though it be expreſsly related of him, in the book which preſerves the ſpeech, and almoſt immediately before the ſpeech, "that he did great wonders and miracles among the people ^*." Again, although miracles be expreſsly attributed to St. Paul in the Acts of the Apoſtles, firſt generally, as at Iconium (Acts xiv. 3.), during the whole tour through the Upper Aſia (xiv. 27. xv. 12.), at Epheſus (xix. 11, 12.); ſe⯑condly, in ſpecific inſtances, as the blindneſs of Elymas at Paphos ^†, the cure of the crip⯑ple at Lyſtra ^‡, of the Pythoneſs at Phi⯑lippi ^§, the miraculous liberation from pri⯑ſon in the ſame city ^{2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁}, the reſtoration of Eutychus ^¶, the predictions of his ſhip⯑wreck ^**, the viper at Milita ^††, the cure of Publius's father ^‡‡; at all which miracles, except the two firſt, the hiſtorian himſelf was preſent: notwithſtanding, I ſay, this poſitive aſcription of miracles to St. Paul, yet in the ſpeeches delivered by him, and given as delivered [348] by him, in the ſame book in which the miracles are related, and the miraculous powers aſſerted, the appeals to his own mi⯑racles, or indeed to any miracles at all, are rare and incidental. In his ſpeech at An⯑tioch in Piſidia ^*, there is no alluſion, but to the reſurrection. In his diſcourſe at Mi⯑letus ^†, none to any miracle; none in his ſpeech before Felix ^‡; none in his ſpeech before Feſtus ^§; except to Chriſt's reſurrec⯑tion, and his own converſion.

Agreeably hereunto, in thirteen letters aſcribed to St. Paul, we have inceſſant refe⯑rences to Chriſt's reſurrection, frequent re⯑ferences to his own converſion, three indu⯑bitable references to the miracles which he wrought ^{2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁2020𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁𝄁}, four other references to the ſame, leſs direct yet highly probable ^¶; but more copious or circumſtantial recitals we have not. The conſent, therefore, between St. Paul's ſpeeches and letters, is in this reſpect [349] ſufficiently exact: and the reaſon in both is the ſame; namely, that the miraculous hiſ⯑tory was all along preſuppoſed, and that the queſtion, which occupied the ſpeaker's and the writer's thoughts, was this: whether, allowing the hiſtory of Jeſus to be true, he was, upon the ſtrength of it, to be received as the promiſed Meſſiah; and, if he was, what were the conſequences, what was the object and benefit of his miſſion?

The general obſervation which has been made upon the apoſtolic writings, namely, that the ſubject, of which they treated, did not lead them to any direct recital of the Chriſtian hiſtory, belongs alſo to the writ⯑ings of the apoſtolic fathers. The epiſtle of Barnabas is, in its ſubject and general compoſition, much like the epiſtle to the Hebrews; an allegorical application of di⯑vers paſſages of the Jewiſh hiſtory, of their law and ritual, to thoſe parts of the Chriſ⯑tian diſpenſation, in which the author per⯑ceived a reſemblance. The epiſtle of Cle⯑ment was written for the ſole purpoſe of [350] quieting certain diſſenſions that had ariſen amongſt the members of the church of Co⯑rinth; and of reviving, in their minds, that temper and ſpirit of which their predeceſſors in the goſpel had left them an example. The work of Hermas is a viſion; quotes neither the Old Teſtament nor the New; and merely falls now and then into the lan⯑guage, and the mode of ſpeech, which the author had read in our goſpels. The epiſtles of Polycarp and Ignatius had, for their prin⯑cipal object, the order and diſcipline of the churches which they addreſſed. Yet, un⯑der all theſe circumſtances of diſadvantage, the great points of the Chriſtian hiſtory are fully recognized. This hath been ſhewn in its proper place ^*.

There is, however, another claſs of wri⯑ters, to whom the anſwer above given, viz. the unſuitableneſs of any ſuch appeals or references as the objection demands to the ſubjects of which the writings treated, does [351] not apply; and that is, the claſs of ancient apologiſts, whoſe declared deſign it was, to defend Chriſtianity, and to give the reaſons of their adherence to it. It is neceſſary, therefore, to enquire how the matter of the objection ſtands in theſe.

The moſt ancient apologiſt, of whoſe works we have the ſmalleſt knowledge, is Quadratus. Quadratus lived about ſeventy years after the aſcenſion, and preſented his apology to the emperor Adrian. From a paſſage of this work, preſerved in Euſebius, it appears that the author did directly and formally appeal to the miracles of Chriſt, and in terms as expreſs and conſident as we could deſire. The paſſage (which has been once already ſtated) is as follows: "The works of our Saviour were always conſpicu⯑ous, for they were real; both they that were healed, and they that were raiſed from the dead, were ſeen, not only when they were healed or raiſed, but for a long time after⯑wards; not only whilſt he dwelled on this earth, but alſo after his departure, and for a [352] good while after it; inſomuch as that ſome of them have reached to our times ^*." No⯑thing can be more rational or ſatisfactory than this.

Juſtin Martyr, the next of the Chriſtian apologiſts whoſe work is not loſt, and who followed Quadratus at the diſtance of about thirty years, has touched upon paſſages of Chriſt's hiſtory in ſo many places, that a tolerably complete account of Chriſt's life might be collected out of his works. In the following quotation, he aſſerts the perform⯑ance of miracles by Chriſt, in words as ſtrong and poſitive as the language poſſeſſes: "Chriſt healed thoſe who from their birth were blind, and deaf, and lame; cauſing by his word, one to leap, another to hear, and a third to ſee: and having raiſed the dead, and cauſed them to live, he by his works excited attention, and induced the men of that age to know him. Who, however, ſee⯑ing theſe things done, ſaid that it was a [353] magical appearance; and dared to call him a magician, and a deceiver of the people ^*."

In his firſt apology ^†, Juſtin expreſsly aſſigns the reaſon for his having recourſe to the argument from prophecy, rather than alledging the miracles of the Chriſtian hiſ⯑tory: which reaſon was, that the perſons with whom he contended would aſcribe theſe miracles to magic; "leſt any of our opponents ſhould ſay, What hinders, but that he who is called Chriſt by us, being a man ſprung from men, performed the mi⯑racles which we attributed to him by magi⯑cal art." The ſuggeſting of this reaſon meets, as I apprehend, the very point of the preſent objection; more eſpecially when we find Juſtin followed in it, by other writers of that age. Irenaeus, who came about forty years after him, notices the ſame evaſion in the adverſaries of Chriſtianity, and re⯑plies to it by the ſame argument: "But, if [354] they ſhall ſay, that the Lord performed theſe things by an illuſory appearance [...], leading theſe objectors to the prophecies, we will ſhew from them, that all things were thus predicted concerning him, and ſtrictly came to paſs ^*." Lactan⯑tius, who lived a century lower, delivers the ſame ſentiment, upon the ſame occaſion. "He performed miracles—we might have ſuppoſed him to have been a magician, as ye ſay, and as the Jews then ſuppoſed, if all the prophets had not with one ſpirit fore⯑told that Chriſt would perform theſe very things ^†."

But to return to the Chriſtian apologiſts in their order; Tertullian—"That perſon whom the Jews had vainly imagined, from the meanneſs of his appearance, to be a mere man, they afterwards, in conſequence of the power he exerted, conſidered as a magician, when he, with one word, ejected devils out of the bodies of men, gave ſight [355] to the blind, cleanſed the leprous, ſtrengthen⯑ed the nerves of thoſe that had the palſy, and laſtly, with one command, reſtored the dead to life; when he, I ſay, made the very elements obey him, aſſuaged the ſtorms, walked upon the ſeas, demonſtrating him⯑ſelf to be the word of God ^*."

Next in the catalogue of profeſſed apolo⯑giſts we may place Origen, who, it is well known, publiſhed a formal defence of Chriſ⯑tianity, in anſwer to Celſus, a heathen, who had written a diſcourſe againſt it. I know no expreſſions, by which a plainer or more poſitive appeal to the Chriſtian miracles can be made, than the expreſſions uſed by Ori⯑gen; "Undoubtedly we do think him to be the Chriſt, and the Son of God, becauſe he healed the lame and the blind; and we are the more confirmed in this perſuaſion, by what is written in the prophecies, Then ſhall the eyes of the blind be opened, and the ears of the deaf ſhall hear, and the lame men ſhall [356] leap as an hart. But that he alſo raiſed the dead, and that it is not a fiction of thoſe who wrote the Goſpels, is evident from hence, that, if it had been a fiction, there would have been many recorded to be raiſed up, and ſuch as had been a long time in their graves. But, it not being a fiction, few have been recorded; for inſtance, the daugh⯑ter of the ruler of a ſynagogue, of whom I do not know why he ſaid, ſhe is not dead but ſleepeth, expreſſing ſomething peculiar to her, not common to all dead perſons; and the only ſon of a widow, on whom he had compaſſion, and raiſed him to life, after he had bid the bearer of the corpſe to ſtop; and the third Lazarus, who had been buried four days." This is poſitively to aſſert the miracles of Chriſt, and it is alſo to comment upon them, and that with a conſiderable de⯑gree of accuracy and candour.

In another paſſage of the ſame author ^*, we meet with the old ſolution of magic [357] applied to the miracles of Chriſt by the ad⯑verſaries of the religion. "Celſus," faith Origen, "well knowing what great works may be alledged to have been done by Jeſus, pretends to grant that the things related of him are true; ſuch as healing diſeaſes, raiſing the dead, feeding multitudes with a few loaves, of which large fragments were left." And then Celſus gives, it ſeems, an anſwer to theſe proofs of our Lord's miſſion, which, as Origen underſtood it, reſolved the pheno⯑mena into magic; for Origen begins his re⯑ply, by obſerving, "You ſee that Celſus in a manner allows that there is ſuch a thing as magic ^*."

It appears alſo from the teſtimony of St. Jerome, that Porphyry, the moſt learned and able of the heathen writers againſt Chriſti⯑anity, reſorted to the ſame ſolution: "Un⯑leſs," ſays he, ſpeaking to Vigilantius, "ac⯑cording to the manner of the Gentiles, and [358] the profane, of Porphyry and Eunomius, you pretend that theſe are the tricks of de⯑mons ^*."

This magic, theſe demons, this illuſory appearance, this compariſon with the tricks of jugglers, by which many of that age ac⯑counted ſo eaſily for the Chriſtian miracles, and which anſwers, the advocates of Chriſ⯑tianity often thought it neceſſary to refute, by arguments drawn from other topics, and particularly from prophecy (to which, it ſeems, theſe ſolutions did not apply), we now perceive to be groſs ſubterfuges. That ſuch reaſons were ever ſeriouſly urged, and ſeri⯑ouſly received, is only a proof, what a gloſs and varniſh faſhion can give to any opi⯑nion.

It appears, therefore, that the miracles of Chriſt, underſtood, as we underſtand them, in their literal and hiſtorical ſenſe, were po⯑ſitively and preciſely aſſerted and appealed [359] to by the apologiſts for Chriſtianity; which anſwers the allegation of the objection.

I am ready, however, to admit, that the ancient Chriſtian advocates did not inſiſt upon the miracles in argument, ſo frequently as I ſhould have done. It was their lot to contend with notions of magical agency, againſt which the mere production of the facts was not ſufficient for the convincing of their adverſaries: I do not know whether they themſelves thought it quite deciſive of the controverſy. But ſince it is proved, I conceive, with certainty, that the ſparing⯑neſs with which they appealed to miracles, was owing neither to their ignorance, nor their doubt of the facts, it is, at any rate, an objection, not to the truth of the hiſtory, but to the judgment of its defenders.

CHAP. VI. Want of univerſality in the knowledge and re⯑ception of Chriſtianity, and of greater clear⯑neſs in the evidence.

OF a revelation which really came from God, the proof, it has been ſaid, would in all ages be ſo public and manifeſt, that no part of the human ſpecies would remain ig⯑norant of it, no underſtanding could fail of being convinced by it.

The advocates of Chriſtianity do not pre⯑tend that the evidence of their religion poſ⯑ſeſſes theſe qualities. They do not deny, that we can conceive it to be within the compaſs of divine power, to have commu⯑nicated to the world a higher degree of aſ⯑ſurance, and to have given to his communi⯑cation a ſtronger and more extenſive influ⯑ence. For any thing we are able to diſcern, [361] God could have ſo formed men, as to have perceived the truths of religion intuitively; or to have carried on a communication with the other world, whilſt they lived in this; or to have ſeen the individuals of the ſpe⯑cies, inſtead of dying, paſs to heaven by a ſenſible tranſlation. He could have pre⯑ſented a ſeparate miracle to each man's ſenſes. He could have eſtabliſhed a ſtanding miracle. He could have cauſed miracles to be wrought in every different age and coun⯑try. Theſe, and many more methods, which we may imagine, if we once give looſe to our imaginations, are, ſo far as we can judge, all practicable.

The queſtion, therefore, is not, whether Chriſtianity poſſeſſes the higheſt poſſible de⯑gree of evidence, but whether the not hav⯑ing more evidence be a ſufficient reaſon for rejecting that which we have.

Now there appears to be no fairer method of judging, concerning any diſpenſation which is alledged to come from God, when [362] a queſtion is made whether ſuch a diſpenſa⯑tion could come from God or not, than by comparing it with other things, which are acknowledged to proceed from the ſame council, and to be produced by the ſame agency. If the diſpenſation in queſtion la⯑bour under no defects but what apparently belong to other diſpenſations, theſe ſeeming defects do not juſtify us, in ſetting aſide the proofs which are offered of its authenticity, if they be otherwiſe entitled to credit.

Throughout that order then of nature, of which God is the author, what we find is a ſyſtem of beneficence, we are ſeldom or ever able to make out a ſyſtem of optimiſm. I mean, that there are few caſes in which, if we permit ourſelves to range in poſſibili⯑ties, we cannot ſuppoſe ſomething more per⯑fect, and more unobjectionable, than what we ſee. The rain which deſcends from hea⯑ven is confeſſedly amongſt the contrivances of the Creator, for the ſuſtentation of the animals and vegetables which ſubſiſt upon the ſurface of the earth. Yet how partially [363] and irregularly is it ſupplied? How much of it falls upon the ſea, where it can be of no uſe; how often is it wanted where it would be of the greateſt? What tracts of continent are rendered deſarts by the ſcarci⯑ty of it? Or, not to ſpeak of extreme caſes, how much, ſometimes, do inhabited coun⯑tries ſuffer by its deficiency or delay?—We could imagine, if to imagine were our buſi⯑neſs, the matter to be otherwiſe regulated. We could imagine ſhowers to fall, juſt where and when they would do good; al⯑ways ſeaſonable, everywhere ſufficient; ſo diſtributed as not to leave a field upon the face of the globe ſcorched by drought, or even a plant withering for the lack of moiſ⯑ture. Yet does the difference between the real caſe and the imagined caſe, or the ſeeming inferiority of the one to the other, authorize us to ſay, that the preſent diſpoſition of the atmoſphere is not amongſt the productions or the deſigns of the Deity. Does it check the inference which we draw from the confeſſed beneficence of the proviſion? or does it make us ceaſe to admire the contrivance?— [364] The obſervation, which we have exemplified in the ſingle inſtance of the rain of heaven, may be repeated concerning moſt of the phe⯑nomena of nature: and the true concluſion to which it leads is this, that to enquire what the Deity might have done, could have done, or, as we even ſometimes preſume to ſpeak, ought to have done, or, in hypothetical caſes, would have done, and to build any propo⯑ſitions upon ſuch enquiries againſt evidence of facts, is wholly unwarrantable. It is a mode of reaſoning, which will not do in na⯑tural hiſtory, which will not do in natural religion, which cannot therefore be applied with ſafety to revelation. It may have ſome foundation, in certain ſpeculative apriori ideas of the divine attributes; but it has none in experience, or in analogy. The general cha⯑racter of the works of nature is, on the one hand, goodneſs both in deſign and effect; and, on the other hand, a liability to diffi⯑culty, and to objections, if ſuch objections be allowed, by reaſon of ſeeming incom⯑pleteneſs or uncertainty in attaining their end. Chriſtianity participates of this character [365] The true ſimilitude between nature and revelation conſiſts in this; that they each bear ſtrong marks of their original; that they each alſo bear appearances of irre⯑gularity and defect. A ſyſtem of ſtrict optimiſm may nevertheleſs be the real ſyſtem in both caſes. But what I contend is, that the proof is hidden from us; that we ought not to expect to perceive that in revelation, which we hardly perceive in any thing; that beneficence, of which we can judge, ought to ſatisfy us, that optimiſm, of which we can⯑not judge, ought not to be ſought after. We can judge of beneficence, becauſe it de⯑pends upon effects which we experience, and upon the relation between the means which we ſee acting, and the ends which we ſee produced. We cannot judge of op⯑timiſm, becauſe it neceſſarily implies a com⯑pariſon of that which is tried, with that which is not tried; of conſequences which we ſee, with others which we imagine, and concerning many of which, it is more than probable we know nothing; concerning ſome, that we have no notion.

[366] If Chriſtianity be compared with the ſtate and progreſs of natural religion, the argu⯑ment of the objector will gain nothing by the compariſon. I remember hearing an unbeliever ſay, that, if God had given a re⯑velation, he would have written it in the ſkies. Are the truths of natural religion writ⯑ten in the ſkies, or in a language which every one reads? or is this the caſe with the moſt uſeful arts, or the moſt neceſſary ſciences of human life? An Otaheitean or an Eſqui⯑maux knows nothing of Chriſtianity; does he know more of the principles of deiſm or morality? which, notwithſtanding his igno⯑rance, are neither untrue, nor unimportant, nor uncertain. The exiſtence of the Deity is left to be collected from obſervations, which every man does not make, which every man, perhaps, is not capable of mak⯑ing. Can it be argued, that God does not exiſt, becauſe, if he did, he would let us ſee him; or diſcover himſelf to mankind by proofs (ſuch as, we may think, the nature of the ſubject merited), which no inadvertency could miſs, no prejudice withſtand?

[367] If Chriſtianity be regarded as a providen⯑tial inſtrument for the melioration of man⯑kind, its progreſs and diffuſion reſembles that of other cauſes, by which human life is improved. The diverſity is not greater, nor the advance more ſlow in religion, than we find it to be in learning, liberty, government, laws. The Deity hath not touched the or⯑der of nature in vain. The Jewiſh religion produced great and permanent effects: the Chriſtian religion hath done the ſame. It hath diſpoſed the world to amendment. It hath put things in a train. It is by no means improbable, that it may become uni⯑verſal; and that the world may continue in that ſtate ſo long as that the duration of its reign may bear a vaſt proportion to the time of its partial influence.

When we argue concerning Chriſtianity, that it muſt neceſſarily be true, becauſe it is beneficial, we go perhaps too far on one ſide: and we certainly go too far on the other, when we conclude that it muſt be falſe, be⯑cauſe it is not ſo efficacious as we could have [368] ſuppoſed. The queſtion of its truth is to be tried upon its proper evidence, without de⯑ferring much to this ſort of argument, on either ſide. "The evidence," as Biſhop Butler hath rightly obſerved, "depends up⯑on the judgment we form of human con⯑duct, under given circumſtances, of which it may be preſumed that we know ſomething; the objection ſtands upon the ſuppoſed con⯑duct of the Deity, under relations with which we are not acquainted."

What would be the real effect of that over⯑powering evidence which our adverſaries re⯑quire in a revelation, it is difficult to foretell; at leaſt, we muſt ſpeak of it as of a diſpen⯑ſation, of which we have no experience. Some conſequences however would, it is pro⯑bable, attend this oeconomy, which do not ſeem to beſit a revelation that proceeded from God. One is, that irreſiſtible proof would reſtrain the voluntary powers too much; would not anſwer the purpoſe of trial and probation; would call for no exerciſe of candour, ſeriouſneſs, humility, enquiry; no [369] ſubmiſſion of paſſions, intereſts, and preju⯑dices, to moral evidence and to probable truth; no habits of reflection; none of that previous deſire to learn, and to obey the will of God, which forms perhaps the teſt of the virtuous principle, and which induces men to attend, with care and reverence, to every credible intimation of that will, and to reſign preſent advantages and preſent plea⯑ſures to every reaſonable expectation of pro⯑pitiating his favour. "Men's moral proba⯑tion may be, whether they will take due care to inform themſelves by impartial con⯑ſideration; and, afterwards, whether they will act as the caſe requires, upon the evi⯑dence which they have. And this, we find by experience, is often our probation in our temporal capacity ^*."

II. Theſe modes of communication would leave no place for the admiſſion of internal evidence; which ought, perhaps, to bear a conſiderable part in the proof of every revelation, [370] becauſe it is a ſpecies of evidence, which applies itſelf to the knowledge, love, and practice of virtue, and which operates in proportion to the degree of thoſe quali⯑ties which it finds in the perſon whom it ad⯑dreſſes. Men of good diſpoſitions, amongſt Chriſtians, are greatly affected by the im⯑preſſion which the ſcriptures themſelves make upon their minds. Their conviction is much ſtrengthened by theſe impreſſions. And this perhaps was intended to be one ef⯑fect to be produced by the religion. It is likewiſe true, to whatever cauſe we aſcribe it (for I am not in this work at liberty to in⯑troduce the Chriſtian doctrine of grace or aſſiſtance, or the Chriſtian promiſe, "that, if any man will do his will, he ſhall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God ^*,")—it is true, I ſay, that they who ſincerely act, or ſincerely endeavour to act, according to what they believe, that is, according to the juſt reſult of the probabilities, or, if you pleaſe, the poſſibilities in natural and revealed [371] religion, which they themſelves perceive, and according to a rational eſtimate of conſe⯑quences, and, above all, according to the juſt effect of thoſe principles of gratitude and de⯑votion, which even the view of nature ge⯑nerates in a well-ordered mind, ſeldom fail of proceeding farther. This alſo may have been exactly what was deſigned.

Whereas may it not be ſaid, that irreſiſt⯑ible evidence would confound all characters, and all diſpoſitions? would ſubvert, rather than promote, the true purpoſe of the divine councils, which is not to produce obedience by a force little ſhort of mechanical con⯑ſtraint (which obedience would be regula⯑rity not virtue, and would hardly perhaps differ from that which inanimate bodies pay to the laws impreſſed upon their nature), but to treat moral agents agreeably to what they are; which is done, when light and mo⯑tives are of ſuch kinds, and are imparted in ſuch meaſures, that the influence of them depends upon the recipients themſelves? "It is not meet to govern rational free agents [372] in viâ by ſight and ſenſe. It would be no trial or thanks to the moſt ſenſual wretch to forbear ſinning if heaven and hell were open to his ſight. That ſpiritual viſion and fruition is our ſtate in patriâ." (Baxter's Reaſons, p. 357.) There may be truth in this thought, though roughly expreſſed. Few things are more improbable than that we (the human ſpecies) ſhould be the high⯑eſt order of beings in the univerſe; that ani⯑mated nature ſhould aſcend from the loweſt reptile to us, and all at once ſtop there. If there be claſſes above us of rational intelli⯑gences, clearer manifeſtations may belong to them. This may be one of the diſtinc⯑tions. And it may be one, to which we ourſelves hereafter ſhall attain.

III. But thirdly; may it not alſo be aſked, whether the perfect diſplay of a future ſtate of exiſtence would be compatible with the activity of civil life, and with the ſucceſs of human affairs? I can eaſily conceive that this impreſſion may be overdone; that it may ſo ſeize and fill the thoughts, as to [373] leave no place for the cares and offices of men's ſeveral ſtations, no anxiety for world⯑ly proſperity, or even for a worldly provi⯑ſion, and, by conſequence, no ſufficient ſti⯑mulus to ſecular induſtry. Of the firſt Chriſtians we read, "that all that believed were together, and had all things common; and ſold their poſſeſſions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need; and, continuing daily with one ac⯑cord in the temple, and breaking bread from houſe to houſe, did eat their meat with glad⯑neſs and ſingleneſs of heart^*." This was extremely natural, and juſt what might be expected, from miraculous evidence coming with full force upon the ſenſes of mankind: but I much doubt, whether, if this ſtate of mind had been univerſal, or long continued, the buſineſs of the world could have gone on. The neceſſary arts of ſocial life would have been little cultivated. The plough and the loom would have ſtood ſtill. Agri⯑culture, manufactures, trade, and navigation, [374] would not, I think, have flouriſhed, if they could have been exerciſed at all. Men would have addicted themſelves to contem⯑plative and aſcetic lives, inſtead of lives of buſineſs and of uſeful induſtry. We ob⯑ſerve that St. Paul found it neceſſary, fre⯑quently to recall his converts to the ordi⯑nary labours and domeſtic duties of their condition; and to give them, in his own example, a leſſon of contented application to their worldly employments.

By the manner in which the religion is now propoſed, a great portion of the hu⯑man ſpecies is enabled, and of theſe, multi⯑tudes of every generation are induced, to ſeek and to effectuate their ſalvation through the medium of Chriſtianity, without inter⯑ruption of the proſperity, or of the regular courſe of human affairs.

CHAP. VII. The ſuppoſed Effects of Chriſtianity.

THAT a religion, which, under every form in which it is taught, holds forth the final reward of virtue, and puniſhment of vice, and propoſes thoſe diſtinctions of vir⯑tue and vice, which the wiſeſt and moſt cul⯑tivated part of mankind confeſs to be juſt, ſhould not be believed, is very poſſible; but that, ſo far as it is believed, it ſhould not produce any good, but rather a bad effect upon public happineſs, is a propoſition, which it requires very ſtrong evidence to render credible. Yet many have been found to contend for this paradox, and very confi⯑dent appeals have been made to hiſtory, and to obſervation, for the truth of it.

In the concluſions, however, which theſe writers draw, from what they call experience, [376] two ſources, I think, of miſtake, may be perceived.

One is, that they look for the influence of religion in the wrong place:

The other, that they charge Chriſtianity with many conſequences, for which it is not reſponſible.

1. The influence of religion is not to be ſought for in the councils of princes, in the debates or reſolutions of popular aſſemblies, in the conduct of governments towards their ſubjects, or of ſtates and ſovereigns towards one another; of conquerors at the head of their armies, or of parties intriguing for power at home (topics, which alone almoſt occupy the attention, and fill the pages of hiſtory); but muſt be perceived, if perceived at all, in the ſilent courſe of private and do⯑meſtic life. Nay more; even there its in⯑fluence may not be very obvious to obſer⯑vation. If it check, in ſome degree, per⯑ſonal diſſoluteneſs, if it beget a general probity [377] in the tranſaction of buſineſs, if it pro⯑duce ſoft and humane manners in the maſs of the community, and occaſional exertions of laborious or expenſive benevolence in a few individuals, it is all the effect which can offer itſelf to external notice. The king⯑dom of Heaven is within us. That which is the ſubſtance of the religion, its hopes and conſolations, its intermixture with the thoughts by day and by night, the devotion of the heart, the control of appetite, the ſtea⯑dy direction of the will to the commands of God, is neceſſarily inviſible. Yet upon theſe depend the virtue and the happineſs of millions. This cauſe renders the repreſen⯑tations of hiſtory, with reſpect to religion, defective and fallacious, in a greater degree than they are upon any other ſubject. Re⯑ligion operates moſt upon thoſe of whom hiſtory knows the leaſt; upon fathers and mothers in their families, upon men ſervants and maid ſervants, upon the orderly tradeſ⯑man, the quiet villager, the manufacturer at his loom, the huſbandman in his fields. Amongſt ſuch its influence collectively may [378] be of ineſtimable value, yet its effects in the mean time little, upon thoſe who figure up⯑on the ſtage of the world. They may know nothing of it; they may believe nothing of it; they may be actuated by motives more impetuous than thoſe which religion is able to excite. It cannot, therefore, be thought ſtrange, that this influence ſhould elude the graſp and touch of public hiſtory; for what is public hiſtory, but a regiſter of the ſuc⯑ceſſes and diſappointments, the vices, the follies, and the quarrels, of thoſe who en⯑gage in contentions for power?

I will add, that much of this influence may be felt in times of public diſtreſs, and little of it in times of public wealth and ſe⯑curity. This alſo increaſes the uncertainty of any opinions that we draw from hiſtorical repreſentations. The influence of Chriſti⯑anity is commenſurate with no effects which hiſtory ſtates. We do not pretend, that it has any ſuch neceſſary and irreſiſtible power over the affairs of nations, as to ſurmount the force of other cauſes.

[379] The Chriſtian religion alſo acts upon pub⯑lic uſages and inſtitutions, by an operation which is only ſecondary and indirect. Chriſ⯑tianity is not a code of civil law. It can only reach public inſtitutions through pri⯑vate character. Now its influence upon private character may be conſiderable, yet many public uſages and inſtitutions, repug⯑nant to its principles, may remain. To get rid of theſe, the reigning part of the com⯑munity muſt act, and act together. But it may be long before the perſons who com⯑poſe this body, be ſufficiently touched with the Chriſtian character, to join in the ſup⯑preſſion of practices, to which they and the public have been reconciled, by cauſes which will reconcile the human mind to any thing, by habit and intereſt. Nevertheleſs, the ef⯑fects of Chriſtianity, even in this view, have been important. It has mitigated the con⯑duct of war, and the treatment of captives. It has ſoftened the adminiſtration of deſpo⯑tic, or of nominally deſpotic governments. It has aboliſhed polygamy. It has reſtrain⯑ed the licentiouſneſs of divorces. It has put [380] an end to the expoſure of children, and the immolation of ſlaves. It has ſuppreſſed the combats of gladiators ^*, and the impu⯑rities of religious rites. It has baniſhed, if not unnatural vices, at leaſt the toleration of them. It has greatly meliorated the con⯑dition of the laborious part, that is to ſay, of the maſs of every community, by pro⯑curing for them a day of weekly reſt. In all countries, in which it is profeſſed, it has produced numerous eſtabliſhments for the relief of ſickneſs and poverty; and, in ſome, a regular and general proviſion by law. It has triumphed over the ſlavery eſtabliſhed in the Roman empire: it is contending, and, I truſt, will one day prevail, againſt the worſe ſlavery of the Weſt Indies.

A Chriſtian writer ^†, ſo early as in the [381] ſecond century, has teſtified the reſiſtance which Chriſtianity made to wicked and li⯑centious practices, though eſtabliſhed by law and by public uſage. "Neither in Parthia, do the Chriſtians, though Parthians, uſe po⯑lygamy; nor in Perſia, though Perſians, do they marry their own daughters; nor, among the Bactri or Galli, do they violate the ſanc⯑tity of marriage; nor, wherever they are, do they ſuffer themſelves to be overcome by ill-conſtituted laws and manners."

Socrates did not deſtroy the idolatry of Athens, or produce the ſlighteſt revolution in the manners of his country.

But the argument to which I recur is, that the benefit of religion being felt chiefly in the obſcurity of private ſtations, neceſſa⯑rily eſcapes the obſervation of hiſtory. From the firſt general notification of Chriſtianity to the preſent day, there have been in every age many millions, whoſe names were never heard of, made better by it, not only in their conduct, but in their diſpoſition; and happier, [382] not ſo much in their external circum⯑ſtances, as in that which is inter praecordia, in that which alone deſerves the name of happineſs, the tranquillity and conſolation of their thoughts. It has been, ſince its commencement, the author of happineſs and virtue to millions and millions of the hu⯑man race. Who is there that would not wiſh his ſon to be a Chriſtian?

Chriſtianity alſo, in every country in which it is profeſſed, hath obtained a ſenſi⯑ble, although not a complete influence, up⯑on the public judgment of morals. And this is very important. For without the oc⯑caſional correction which public opinion re⯑ceives, by referring to ſome fixed ſtandard of morality, no man can foretell into what extravagancies it might wander. Aſſaſſina⯑tion might become as honourable as duel⯑ling; unnatural crimes be accounted as venial, as fornication is wont to be account⯑ed. In this way it is poſſible, that many may be kept in order by Chriſtianity, who are not themſelves Chriſtians. They may [383] be guided by the rectitude which it com⯑municates to public opinion. Their con⯑ſciences may ſuggeſt their duty truly, and they may aſcribe theſe ſuggeſtions to a mo⯑ral ſenſe, or to the native capacity of the human intellect, when in fact they are no⯑thing more, than the public opinion reflect⯑ed from their own minds; an opinion, in a conſiderable degree, modified by the leſſons of Chriſtianity. "Certain it is, and this is a great deal to ſay, that the generality, even of the meaneſt and moſt vulgar and igno⯑rant people, have truer and worthier notions of God, more juſt and right apprehenſions concerning his attributes and perfections, a deeper ſenſe of the difference of good and evil, a greater regard to moral obligations and to the plain and moſt neceſſary duties of life, and a more firm and univerſal ex⯑pectation of a future ſtate of rewards and puniſhments, than, in any heathen country, any conſiderable number of men were found to have had ^*."

[384] After all, the value of Chriſtianity is not to be appreciated by its temporal effects. The object of revelation, is to influence hu⯑man conduct in this life; but what is gained to happineſs by that influence, can only be eſtimated by taking in the whole of human exiſteiice. Then, as hath already been ob⯑ſerved, there may be alſo great conſequences of Chriſtianity, which do not belong to it as a revelation. The effects upon human ſalvation, of the miſſion, of the death, of the preſent, of the future agency of Chriſt, may be univerſal, though the religion be not univerſally known.

Secondly, I aſſert that Chriſtianity is charged with many conſequences for which it is not reſponſible. I believe that religi⯑ous motives have had no more to do, in the formation of nine-tenths of the intolerant and perſecuting laws, which in different countries have been eſtabliſhed upon the ſubject of religion, than they have had to do in England with the making of the game laws. Theſe meaſures, although they have [385] the Chriſtian religion for their ſubject, are reſolvable into a principle which Chriſti⯑anity certainly did not plant (and which Chriſtianity could not univerſally condemn, becauſe it is not univerſally wrong), which principle is no other than this, that they who are in poſſeſſion of power do what they can to keep it. Chriſtianity is anſwer⯑able for no part of the miſchief which has been brought upon the world by perſecu⯑tion, except that which has ariſen from con⯑ſcientious perſecutors. Now theſe perhaps have never been, either numerous, or pow⯑erful. Nor is it to Chriſtianity that even their miſtake can fairly be imputed. They have been miſled by an error, not properly Chriſtian or religious, but by an error in their moral philoſophy. They purſued the particular, without adverting to the general conſequence. Believing certain articles of faith, or a certain mode of worſhip, to be highly conducive, or perhaps eſſential to ſalvation, they thought themſelves bound to bring all they could, by every means, into them. And this they thought, without [386] conſidering what would be the effect of ſuch a concluſion, when adopted amongſt mankind as a general rule of conduct. Had there been in the New Teſtament, what there are in the Koran, precepts authorizing coercion in the propagation of the religion, and the uſe of violence towards unbeliev⯑ers, the caſe would have been different. This diſtinction could not have been taken, or this defence made.

I apologize for no ſpecies nor degree of perſecution, but I think that even the fact has been exaggerated. The ſlave trade de⯑ſtroys more in a year, than the inquiſition does in a hundred, or perhaps hath done ſince its foundation.

If it be objected, as I apprehend it will be, that Chriſtianity is chargeable with every miſchief, of which it has been the occaſion, though not the motive; I anſwer, that, if the malevolent paſſions be there, the world will never want occaſions. The noxious element will always ſind a conductor. Any [387] point will produce an exploſion. Did the applauded intercommunity of the Pagan theology preſerve the peace of the Roman world? Did it prevent oppreſſions, pro⯑ſcriptions, maſſacres, devaſtations? Was it bigotry that carried Alexander into the Eaſt, or brought Caeſar into Gaul? Are the nations of the world, into which Chriſ⯑tianity hath not found its way, or from which it hath been baniſhed, free from con⯑tentions? Are their contentions leſs ruinous and ſanguinary? Is it owing to Chriſtianity, or to the want of it, that the fineſt regions of the Eaſt, the countries inter quatuor maria, the peninſula of Greece, together with a great part of the Mediteranean coaſt, are at this day a deſart? or that the banks of the Nile, whoſe conſtantly renewed fertility is not to be impaired by neglect, or deſtroyed by the ravages of war, ſerve only for the ſcene of a ferocious anarchy, or the ſupply of unceaſing hoſtilities? Europe itſelf has known no religious wars for ſome centu⯑ries, yet has hardly ever been without war. Are the calamities, which at this day afflict [388] it, to be imputed to Chriſtianity? Hath Po⯑land fallen by a Chriſtian cruſade? Hath the overthrow in France, of civil order and ſecurity, been effected by the votaries of our religion, or by the foes? Amongſt the awful leſſons, which the crimes and the mi⯑ſeries of that country afford to mankind, this is one, that, in order to be a perſecutor, it is not neceſſary to be a bigot: that in rage and cruelty, in miſchief and deſtruc⯑tion, fanaticiſm itſelf can be outdone by in⯑fidelity.

Finally, if war, as it is now carried on between nations, produce leſs miſery and ruin than formerly, we are indebted per⯑haps to Chriſtianity for the change, more than to any other cauſe. Viewed therefore even in its relation to this ſubject, it appears to have been of advantage to the world. It hath humaniſed the conduct of wars; it hath ceaſed to excite them.

The differences of opinion, that have in all ages prevailed amongſt Chriſtians, fall [389] very much within the alternative which has been ſtated. If we poſſeſſed the diſpoſition, which Chriſtianity labours, above all other qualities, to inculcate, theſe differences would do little harm. If that diſpoſition be want⯑ing, other cauſes, even were theſe abſent, would continually riſe up, to call forth the malevolent paſſions into action. Differ⯑ences of opinion, when accompanied with mutual charity, which Chriſtianity forbids them to violate, are for the moſt part inno⯑cent, and for ſome purpoſes uſeful. They promote enquiry, diſcuſſion, and knowledge. They help to keep up an attention to reli⯑gious ſubjects, and a concern about them, which might be apt to die away in the calm and ſilence of univerſal agreement. I do not know that it is in any degree true, that the influence of religion is the greateſt, where there are the feweſt diſſenters.

CHAP. VIII. The Concluſion.

IN religion, as in every other ſubject of human reaſoning, much depends upon the order in which we diſpoſe our enquiries. A man who takes up a ſyſtem of divinity with a previous opinion that either every part muſt be true, or the whole falſe, ap⯑proaches the diſcuſſion with great diſadvan⯑tage. No other ſyſtem, which is founded upon moral evidence, would bear to be treat⯑ed in the ſame manner. Nevertheleſs, in a certain degree, we are all introduced to our religious ſtudies under this prejudication. And it cannot be avoided. The weakneſs of the human judgment in the early part of youth, yet its extreme ſuſceptibility of im⯑preſſion, renders it neceſſary to furniſh it with ſome opinions, and with ſome princi⯑ples, or other. Or indeed, without much [391] expreſs care, or much endeavour for this purpoſe, the tendency of the mind of man, to aſſimilate itſelf to the habits of thinking and ſpeaking which prevail around him, pro⯑duces the ſame effect. That indifferency and ſuſpenſe, that waiting and equilibrium of the judgment, which ſome require in re⯑ligious matters, and which ſome would wiſh to be aimed at in the conduct of education, are impoſſible to be preſerved. They are not given to the condition of human life.

It is a conſequence of this ſituation that the doctrines of religion come to us before the proofs; and come to us with that mix⯑ture of explications and inferences from which no public creed is, or can be, free. And the effect which too frequently follows, from Chriſtianity being preſented to the un⯑derſtanding in this form, is, that when any articles, which appear as parts of it, contra⯑dict the apprehenſion of the perſons to whom it is propoſed, men of raſh and con⯑fident tempers haſtily and indiſcriminately reject the whole. But is this to do juſtice, [392] either to themſelves, or to the religion? The rational way of treating a ſubject of ſuch acknowledged importance is to attend, in the firſt place, to the general and ſubſtan⯑tial truth of its principles, and to that alone. When we once feel a foundation; when we once perceive a ground of credibility in its hiſtory, we ſhall proceed with ſafety to en⯑quire into the interpretation of its records, and into the doctrines which have been de⯑duced from them. Nor will it either endan⯑ger our faith, or diminiſh or alter our mo⯑tives for obedience, if we ſhould diſcover that theſe concluſions are formed with very diffe⯑rent degrees of probability, and poſſeſs very different degrees of importance.

This conduct of the underſtanding, dictat⯑ed by every rule of right reaſoning, will up⯑hold perſonal Chriſtianity, even in thoſe countries in which it is eſtabliſhed under forms, the moſt liable to difficulty and objec⯑tion. It will alſo have the further effect of guarding us againſt the prejudices which are wont to ariſe in our minds to the diſadvantage [393] of religion, from obſerving the nume⯑rous controverſies which are carried on amongſt its profeſſors; and likewiſe of indu⯑cing a ſpirit of lenity and moderation in our judgment, as well as in our treatment, of thoſe who ſtand, in ſuch controverſies, upon ſides oppoſite to ours. What is clear in Chriſtianity we ſhall find to be ſufficient, and to be infinitely valuable; what is dubious, unneceſſary to be decided, or of very ſubor⯑dinate importance; and what is moſt ob⯑ſcure, will teach us to bear with the opinions which others may have formed upon the ſame ſubject. We ſhall ſay to thoſe who the moſt widely diſſent from us, what Au⯑guſtine ſaid to the worſt heretics of his age; "Illi in vos ſaeviant, qui neſciunt, cum quo labore verum inveniatur, et quam difficile caveantur errores—qui neſciunt, cum quantâ difficultate ſanetur oculus interioris hominis—qui neſciunt, quibus ſuſpiriis et gemitibus fiat, ut ex quantulacunque parte poſſit intelligi Deus ^*."

[394] A judgment, moreover, which is once pretty well ſatisfied of the general truth of the religion, will not only thus diſcriminate in its doctrines, but will poſſeſs ſufficient ſtrength to overcome the reluctance of the imagination to admit articles of faith which are attended with difficulty of apprehenſion, if ſuch articles of faith appear to be truly parts of the revelation. It was to be expect⯑ed beforehand, that what related to the oeco⯑nomy, and to the perſons, of the inviſible world, which revelation profeſſes to do, and which, if true, it actually does, ſhould con⯑tain ſome points remote from our analogies, and from the comprehenſion of a mind which hath acquired all its ideas from ſenſe and from experience.

It hath been my care, in the preceding work, to preſerve the ſeparation between evidences and doctrines as inviolable as I could; to remove from the primary queſ⯑tion all conſiderations which have been unneceſſarily joined with it: and to offer a defence of Chriſtianity, which every Chriſtian [395] might read, without ſeeing the tenets in which he had been brought up attacked or decried: and it always afforded a ſatisfaction to my mind to obſerve that this was practi⯑cable; that few or none of our many con⯑troverſies with one another affect or relate to the proofs of our religion; that the rent never deſcends to the foundation.

The truth of Chriſtianity depends upon its leading facts, and upon them alone. Now of theſe we have evidence which ought to ſatisfy us, at leaſt until it appear that man⯑kind have ever been deceived by the ſame. We have ſome unconteſted and inconteſti⯑ble points, to which the hiſtory of the human ſpecies hath nothing ſimilar to offer. A Jewiſh peaſant changed the religion of the world, and that, without force, without power, without ſupport; without one natural ſource or circumſtance of attraction, influ⯑ence, or ſucceſs. Such a thing hath not happened in any other inſtance. The com⯑panions of this perſon, after he himſelf had been put to death for his attempt, aſſerted [396] his ſupernatural character, founded upon his ſupernatural operations; and, in teſtimony of the truth of their aſſertions, i. e. in conſe⯑quence of their own belief of that truth, and in order to communicate the knowledge of it to others, voluntarily entered upon lives of toil and hardſhip, and, with a full expe⯑rience of their danger, committed themſelves to the laſt extremities of perſecution. This hath not a parallel. More particularly, a very few days after this perſon had been publicly executed, and in the very city in which he was buried, theſe his companions declared with one voice that his body was reſtored to life; that they had ſeen him, handled him, eat with him, converſed with him; and, in purſuance of their perſuaſion of the truth of what they told, preached his religion, with this ſtrange fact as the foundation of it, in the face of thoſe who had killed him, who were armed with the power of the country, and neceſſarily and naturally diſpoſed to treat his followers as they had treated himſelf; and having done this upon the ſpot where the event took [397] place, carried the intelligence of it abroad, in deſpite of difficulties and oppoſition, and where the nature of their errand gave them nothing to expect but deriſion, inſult, and outrage. This is without example. Theſe three facts, I think, are certain, and would have been nearly ſo, if the Goſpels had never been written. The Chriſtian ſtory, as to theſe points, hath never varied. No other hath been ſet up againſt it. Every letter, every diſcourſe, every controverſy, amongſt the followers of the religion; every book written by them, from the age of its com⯑mencement to the preſent time, in every part of the world in which it hath been profeſſed, and with every ſect into which it hath been divided (and we have letters and diſcourſes written by contemporaries, by witneſſes of the tranſaction, by perſons themſelves bear⯑ing a ſhare in it, and other writings follow⯑ing that age in regular ſucceſſion), concur in repreſenting theſe facts in this manner. A religion, which now poſſeſſes the greateſt part of the civiliſed world, unqueſtionably ſprang up at Jeruſalem at this time. Some account [398] muſt be given of its origin; ſome cauſe aſ⯑ſigned for its riſe. All the accounts of this origin, all the explications of this cauſe, whether taken from the writings of the early followers of the religion (in which, and in which perhaps alone, it could be expected that they ſhould be diſtinctly unfolded) or from occaſional notices in other writings of that or the adjoining age, either expreſsly alledge the facts above ſtated as the means by which the religion was ſet up, or advert to its commencement in a manner which agrees with the ſuppoſition of theſe facts being true, and which teſtifies their operation and effects.

Theſe propoſitions alone lay a foundation for our faith; for they prove the exiſtence of a tranſaction, which cannot even in its moſt general parts be accounted for, upon any reaſonable ſuppoſition, except that of the truth of the miſſion. But the particulars, the detail of the miracles or miraculous pre⯑tences (for ſuch there neceſſarily muſt have been) upon which this unexampled tranſaction [399] reſted, and for which theſe men acted and ſuffered as they did act and ſuffer, it is undoubtedly of great importance to us to know. We have this detail from the foun⯑tain head, from the perſons themſelves; in accounts written by eye-witneſſes of the ſcene, by contemporaries and companions of thoſe who were ſo; not in one book, but four, each containing enough for the verifi⯑cation of the religion, all agreeing in the fundamental parts of the hiſtory. We have the authenticity of theſe books eſtabliſhed by more and ſtronger proofs than belong to almoſt any other ancient book whatever, and by proofs which widely diſtinguiſh them from any others claiming a ſimilar au⯑thority to theirs. If there were any good reaſon for doubt concerning the names to which theſe books are aſcribed (which there is not, for they were never aſcribed to any other, and we have evidence not long after their publication of their bearing the names which they now bear), their antiquity, of which there is no queſtion, their reputation and authority amongſt the early diſciples of [400] the religion, of which there is as little, form a valid proof that they muſt, in the main at leaſt, have agreed with what the firſt teachers of the religion delivered.

When we open theſe ancient volumes, we diſcover in them marks of truth, whether we conſider each in itſelf, or collate them with one another. The writers certainly knew ſomething of what they were writing about, for they manifeſt an acquaintance with local circumſtances, with the hiſtory and uſages of the times, which could only belong to an inhabitant of that country, living in that age. In every narrative we perceive ſimplicity and undeſignedneſs; the air and the language of reality. When we compare the different narratives together, we find them ſo varying as to repel all ſuſpicion of confederacy; ſo agreeing under this variety, as to ſhew that the accounts had one real tranſaction for their common foundation; often attributing different actions and diſcourſes, to the per⯑ſon whoſe hiſtory, or rather memoirs of whoſe hiſtory, they profeſs to relate, yet [401] actions and diſcourſes ſo ſimilar, as very much to beſpeak the ſame character; which is a coincidence, that, in ſuch writers as they were, could only be the conſequence of their writing from fact, and not from imagination.

Theſe four narratives are confined to the hiſtory of the founder of the religion, and end with his miniſtry. Since however it is certain that the affair went on, we cannot help being anxious to know how it pro⯑ceeded. This intelligence hath come down to us in a work purporting to be written by a perſon, himſelf connected with the buſi⯑neſs during the firſt ſtages of its progreſs, taking up the ſtory where the former hiſto⯑ries had left it, carrying on the narrative, oftentimes with great particularity, and throughout with the appearance of good ſenſe ^*, information and candour; ſtating [402] all along the origin, and the only probable origin, of effects which unqueſtionably were produced, together with the natural conſe⯑quences of ſituations which unqueſtionably did exiſt; and confirmed, in the ſubſtance at leaſt of the account, by the ſtrongeſt poſſible acceſſion of teſtimony which a hiſtory can receive, original letters, written by the per⯑ſon who is the principal ſubject of the hiſ⯑tory, written upon the buſineſs to which the hiſtory relates, and during the period, or ſoon after the period, which the hiſtory compriſes. No man can ſay that this alto⯑gether is not a body of ſtrong hiſtorical evidence.

When we reflect that ſome of thoſe, from whom the books proceeded, are related to have themſelves wrought miracles, to have been the ſubject of miracles, or of ſuperna⯑tural aſſiſtance in propagating the religion, we may perhaps be led to think, that more credit, or a different kind of credit, is due to theſe accounts, than what can be claimed by merely human teſtimony. But this is an [403] argument which cannot be addreſſed to ſceptics or unbelievers. A man muſt be a Chriſtian before he can receive it. The in⯑ſpiration of the hiſtorical ſcriptures, the na⯑ture, degree, and extent of that inſpiration, are queſtions undoubtedly of ſerious diſcuſ⯑ſion, but they are queſtions amongſt Chriſ⯑tians themſelves, and not between them and others. The doctrine itſelf is by no means neceſſary to the belief of Chriſtianity, which muſt, in the firſt inſtance at leaſt, depend upon the ordinary maxims of hiſtorical cre⯑dibility ^*.

In viewing the detail of miracles recorded in theſe books, we find every ſuppoſition negatived, by which they can be reſolved into fraud or deluſion. They were not ſe⯑cret, nor momentary, nor tentative, nor ambiguous; nor performed under the ſanc⯑tion of authority, with the ſpectators on their ſide, or in affirmance of tenets and practices already eſtabliſhed. We find alſo [404] the evidence alledged for them, and which evidence was by great numbers received, different from that upon which other mira⯑culous accounts reſt. It was contemporary, it was publiſhed upon the ſpot, it continued; it involved intereſts and queſtions of the greateſt magnitude; it contradicted the moſt fixed perſuaſions and prejudices of the per⯑ſons to whom it was addreſſed; it required from thoſe who accepted it, not a ſimple indolent aſſent, but a change, from thence⯑forward, of principles and conduct, a fub⯑miſſion to conſequences the moſt ſerious and the moſt deterring, to loſs and danger, to inſult, outrage, and perſecution. How ſuch a ſtory ſhould be falſe, or, if falſe, how un⯑der ſuch circumſtances it ſhould make its way, I think impoſſible to be explained: yet ſuch the Chriſtian ſtory was, ſuch were the circumſtances under which it came forth, and in oppoſition to ſuch difficulties did it prevail.

An event ſo connected with the religion, and with the fortunes, of the Jewiſh people, [405] as one of their race, one born amongſt them, eſtabliſhing his authority and his law throughout a great portion of the civilized world, it was perhaps to be expected, ſhould be noticed in the prophetic writings of that nation; eſpecially when this perſon, together with his own miſſion, cauſed alſo to be ac⯑knowledged, the divine original of their in⯑ſtitution, and by thoſe who before had al⯑together rejected it. Accordingly we per⯑ceive in theſe writings, various intimations concurring in the perſon and hiſtory of Jeſus, in a manner, and in a degree, in which paſſages taken from theſe books could not be made to concur, in any perſon arbitrarily aſſumed, or in any perſon, except him, who has been the author of great changes in the affairs and opinions of mankind. Of ſome of theſe predictions the weight depends a good deal upon the concurrence. Others poſſeſs great ſeparate ſtrength: one in parti⯑cular does this in an eminent degree. It is an entire deſcription, manifeſtly directed to one character and to one ſcene of things: it is extant in a writing, or collection of [406] writings, declaredly prophetic; and it applies to Chriſt's character, and to the circum⯑ſtances of his life and death, with conſider⯑able preciſion, and in a way which no di⯑verſity of interpretation hath, in my opi⯑nion, been able to confound. That the ad⯑vent of Chriſt, and the conſequences of it, ſhould not have been more diſtinctly reveal⯑ed in the Jewiſh ſacred books, is, I think, in ſome meaſure accounted for by the conſide⯑ration, that for the Jews to have foreſeen the fall of their inſtitution, and that it was to merge at length into a more perfect and comprehenſive diſpenſation, would have cooled too much, and relaxed, their zeal for it, and their adherence to it, upon which zeal and adherence the preſervation in the world of any remains, for many ages, of religious truth, might in a great meaſure depend.

Of what a revelation diſcloſes to man⯑kind, one, and only one, queſtion can pro⯑perly be aſked, "Was it of importance to mankind to know, or to be better aſſured [407] of?" In this queſtion, when we turn our thoughts to the great Chriſtian doctrine of the reſurrection of the dead, and of a future judgment, no doubt can poſſibly be enter⯑tained. He who gives me riches or ho⯑nours does nothing; he who even gives me health does little, in compariſon with that which lays before me juſt grounds for ex⯑pecting a reſtoration to life, and a day of account and retribution: which thing Chriſ⯑tianity hath done for millions.

Other articles of the Chriſtian faith, al⯑though of infinite importance when placed beſide any other topic of human enquiry, are only the adjuncts and circumſtances of this. They are however ſuch as appear worthy of the original to which we aſcribe them. The morality of the religion, whe⯑ther taken from the precepts or the example of its founder, or from the leſſons of its primitive teachers, derived, as it ſhould ſeem, from what had been inculcated by their maſter, is, in all its parts, wiſe and pure; neither adapted to vulgar prejudices, [408] nor flattering popular notions, nor excuſing eſtabliſhed practices, but calculated, in the matter of its inſtruction, truly to promote human happineſs, and, in the form in which it was conveyed, to produce impreſſion and effect; a morality which, let it have pro⯑ceeded from any perſon whatever, would have been ſatisfactory evidence of his good ſenſe and integrity, of the ſoundneſs of his underſtanding and the probity of his de⯑ſigns; a morality, in every view of it, much more perfect than could have been expect⯑ed from the natural circumſtances and cha⯑racter of the perſon who delivered it; a mo⯑rality, in a word, which is, and hath been, moſt beneficial to mankind.

Upon the greateſt therefore of all poſſible occaſions, and for a purpoſe of ineſtimable value, it pleaſed the Deity to vouchſafe a miraculous atteſtation. Having done this for the inſtitution, when this alone could fix its authority, or give to it a beginning, he committed its future progreſs to the natural means of human communication, and to the [409] influence of thoſe cauſes by which human conduct and human affairs are governed. The ſeed being ſown, was left to vegetate; the leaven being inſerted, was left to fer⯑ment; and both according to the laws of nature: laws, nevertheleſs, diſpoſed and controlled by that Providence which con⯑ducts the affairs of the univerſe, though by an influence inſcrutable, and generally un⯑diſtinguiſhable by us. And in this, Chriſ⯑tianity is analogous to moſt other proviſions for happineſs. The proviſion is made; and being made, is left to act according to laws, which, forming part of a more general ſyſ⯑tem, regulate this particular ſubject, in com⯑mon with many others.

LET the conſtant recurrence to our obſer⯑vation, of contrivance, deſign, and wiſdom in the works of nature, once fix upon our minds the belief of a God, and after that all is eaſy. In the councils of a Being poſ⯑ſeſſed of the power and diſpoſition which the Creator of the univerſe muſt poſſeſs, it is not improbable that there ſhould be a [410] future ſtate; it is not improbable that we ſhould be acquainted with it. A future ſtate rectifies every thing; becauſe if moral agents be made, in the laſt event, happy or miſerable, according to their conduct in the ſtation, and under the circumſtances in which they are placed, it ſeems not very material by the operation of what cauſes, according to what rules, or even, if you pleaſe to call it ſo, by what chance or ca⯑price, theſe ſtations are aſſigned, or theſe circumſtances determined. This hypotheſis, therefore, ſolves all that objection to the divine care and goodneſs, which the promiſ⯑cuous diſtribution of good and evil (I do not mean in the doubtful advantages of riches and grandeur, but in the unqueſtion⯑ably important diſtinctions of health and ſickneſs, ſtrength and infirmity, bodily eaſe and pain, mental alacrity and depreſſion) is apt on ſo many occaſions to create. This one truth changes the nature of things: gives order to confuſion: makes the moral world of a piece with the natural.

[411] Nevertheleſs, a higher degree of aſſur⯑ance than that to which it is poſſible to ad⯑vance this, or any argument drawn from the light of nature, was neceſſary, eſpecially to overcome the ſhock, which the imagina⯑tion and the ſenſes receive, from the effects and the appearances of death; and the ob⯑ſtruction which from thence ariſes to the expectation of either a continued or a fu⯑ture exiſtence. This difficulty, although of a nature, no doubt, to act very forcibly, will be found, I think, upon reflection, to reſide more in our habits of apprehenſion, than in the ſubject; and that the giving way to it, when we have any reaſonable grounds for the contrary, is rather an indulging of the imagination, than any thing elſe. Abſtract⯑edly conſidered, that is, conſidered without relation to the difference, which habit, and merely habit, produces in our faculties and modes of apprehenſion, I do not ſee any thing more in the reſurrection of a dead man, than in the conception of a child; ex⯑cept it be this, that the one comes into his world with a ſyſtem of prior conſciouſneſſes [412] about him, which the other does not: and no perſon will ſay, that he knows enough of either ſubject to perceive, that this cir⯑cumſtance makes ſuch a difference in the two caſes, that the one ſhould be eaſy, and the other impoſſible; the one natural, the other not ſo. To the firſt man the ſucceſ⯑ſion of the ſpecies would be as incompre⯑henſible, as the reſurrection of the dead is to us.

Thought is different from motion, per⯑ception from impact: the individuality of a mind is hardly conſiſtent with the diviſibi⯑lity of an extended ſubſtance; or its voli⯑tion, that is, its power of originating mo⯑tion, with the inertneſs which cleaves to every portion of matter, which our obſerva⯑tion or our experiments can reach. Theſe diſtinctions lead us to an immaterial prin⯑ciple: at leaſt, they do this; they ſo nega⯑tive the mechanical properties of matter, in the conſtitution of a ſentient, ſtill more of a rational being, that no argument, drawn from theſe properties, can be of any great [413] weight in oppoſition to other reaſons, when the queſtion reſpects the changes of which ſuch a nature is capable, or the manner in which theſe changes are effected. Whatever thought be, or whatever it depend upon, the regular experience of ſleep makes one thing concerning it certain, that it can be completely ſuſpended, and completely re⯑ſtored.

If any one find it too great a ſtrain upon his thoughts, to admit the notion of a ſub⯑ſtance ſtrictly immaterial, that is, from which extenſion and ſolidity are excluded, he can find no difficulty in allowing, that a particle as ſmall as a particle of light, minuter than all conceiveable dimenſions, may juſt as eaſily be the depoſitary, the organ, and the vehicle of conſciouſneſs, as the congeries of animal ſubſtance, which forms a human body, or the human brain; that, being ſo, it may transfer a proper identity to whatever ſhall hereafter be united to it; may be ſafe amidſt the deſtruction of its integuments; may connect the natural with the ſpiritual, [414] the corruptible with the glorified body. If it be ſaid, that the mode and means of all this is imperceptible by our ſenſes, it is only what is true of the moſt important agencies and operations. The great powers of na⯑ture are all inviſible. Gravitation, electri⯑city, magnetiſm, though conſtantly preſent, and conſtantly exerting their influence; though within us, near us, and about us; though diffuſed throughout all ſpace, over⯑ſpreading the ſurface, or penetrating the contexture of all bodies with which we are acquainted, depend upon ſubſtances and ac⯑tions, which are totally concealed from our ſenſes. The Supreme Intelligence is ſo himſelf.

But whether theſe, or any other attempts to ſatisfy the imagination, bear any reſem⯑blance to the truth, or whether the imagi⯑nation, which, as I have ſaid before, is the mere ſlave of habit, can be ſatisfied, or not; when a future ſtate, and the revelation of a future ſtate, is not only perfectly conſiſtent with the attributes of the Being who governs [415] the univerſe; but when it is more; when it alone removes the appearances of contra⯑riety, which attend the operations of his will towards creatures capable of comparative merit and demerit, of reward and puniſh⯑ment; when a ſtrong body of hiſtorical evi⯑dence, confirmed by many internal tokens of truth and authenticity, gives us juſt rea⯑ſon to believe that ſuch a revelation hath actually been made; we ought to ſet our minds at reſt with the aſſurance, that, in the reſources of creative wiſdom, expedients cannot be wanted to carry into effect what the Deity hath purpoſed: that either a new and mighty influence will deſcend upon the human world, to reſuſcitate extinguiſhed conſciouſneſs; or that, amidſt the other wonderful contrivances with which the uni⯑verſe abounds, and by ſome of which we ſee animal life, in many inſtances, aſſuming improved forms of exiſtence, acquiring new organs, new perceptions, and new ſources of enjoyment, proviſion is alſo made, though by methods ſecret to us (as all the great proceſſes of nature are), for conducting the [416] objects of God's moral government, through the neceſſary changes of their frame, to thoſe final diſtinctions of happineſs and miſery, which he hath declared to be re⯑ſerved for obedience and tranſgreſſion, for virtue and vice, for the uſe and the neglect, the right and the wrong employment, of the faculties and opportunities, with which he hath been pleaſed, ſeverally, to entruſt, and to try us.