صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

knowledge of it to be highly conducive to the happiness of the species, a purpose which so many provisions of nature are calculated to promote: Suppose, nevertheless, almost the whole race, either by the imperfection of their faculties, the misfortune of their situation, or by the loss of some prior revelation, to want this knowledge, and not to be likely, without the aid of a new revelation, to attain it: Under these circumstances, is it improbable that a revelation should be made? is it incredible that God should interpose for such a purpose? Suppose him to design for mankind a future state; is it unlikely that he should acquaint him with it? Now in what way can a revelation be made, but by miracles? In none which we are able to conceive. Consequently, in whatever degree it is probable, or not very improbable, that a revelation should be communicated to mankind at all; in the same degree is it probable, or not very improbable, that miracles should be wrought. Therefore, when miracles are related to have been wrought in the promulgating of a revelation manifestly wanted, and, if true, of inestimable value, the improbability which arises from the miraculous nature of the things related, is not greater than the original improbability that such a revelation | should be imparted by God.

[ocr errors]

is a bar to every proof, and to all future reasoning
upon the subject, it may be necessary, before we
proceed further, to examine the principle upon
which it professes to be founded; which principle
is concisely this, That it is contrary to experience
that a miracle should be true, but not contrary to
experience that testimony should be false.
Now there appears a small ambiguity in the
term "experience," and in the phrases, "contrary
to experience," or contradicting experience,"
which it may be necessary to remove in the first
place. Strictly speaking, the narrative of a fact is
then only contrary to experience, when the fact is
related to have existed at a time and place, at
which time and place we being present, did not
perceive it to exist: as if it should be asserted, that
in a particular room, and at a particular hour of a
certain day, a man was raised from the dead, in
which room, and at the time specified, we being
present and looking on, perceived no such event
to have taken place. Here the assertion is con-
trary to experience properly so called: and this is
a contrariety which no evidence can surmount. It
matters nothing, whether the fact be of a miracu-
lous nature or not. But although this be the ex-
perience, and the contrariety, which Archbishop
Tillotson alleged in the quotation with which
Mr. Hume opens his Essay, it is certainly not
that experience, nor that contrariety, which Mr.
Hume himself intended to object. And, short of
this, I know no intelligible signification which can
be affixed to the term "contrary to experience,"
but one, viz. that of not having ourselves expe-
rienced any thing similar to the thing related, or
such things not being generally experienced by
others. I say "not generally" for to state con-
cerning the fact in question, that no such thing
was ever experienced, or that universal experience
is against it, is to assume the subject of the con-
troversy.

I wish it, however, to be correctly understood, in what manner, and to what extent, this argument is alleged. We do not assume the attributes of the Deity, or the existence of a future state, in order to prove the reality of miracles. That reality always must be proved by evidence. We assert only, that in miracles adduced in support of revelation, there is not any such antecedent improbability as no testimony can surmount. And for the purpose of maintaining this assertion, we contend, that the incredibility of miracles related to have been wrought in attestation of a message from God, conveying intelligence of a future state of rewards and punishments, and teaching mankind how to prepare themselves for that state, is not in itself greater than the event, call it either probable or improbable, of the two following propositions being true: namely, first, that a future state of existence should be destined by God for his human creation; and, secondly, that, being so destined, he should acquaint them with it. It is not necessary for our purpose, that these propositions be capable of proof, or even that, by arguments drawn from the light of nature, they can be made out to be probable; it is enough that we are able to say concerning them, that they are not so violently improbable, so contradictory to what we already believe of the divine power and character, that either the propositions themselves, or facts strictly connected with the propositions (and therefore no further improbable than they are improbable,) ought to be rejected at first sight, and to be reject-man testimony. ed by whatever strength or complication of evidence they be attested.

This is the prejudication we would resist. For to this length does a modern objection to miracles go, viz. that no human testimony can in any case render them credible. I think the reflection above stated, that, if there be a revelation, there must be miracles, and that under the circumstances in which the human species are placed, a revelation is not improbable, or not improbable in any great degree, to be a fair answer to the whole objection. But since it is an objection which stands in the very threshold of our argument, and if admitted,

Now the improbability which arises from the want (for this properly is a want, not a contradiction) of experience, is only equal to the probability there is, that, if the thing were true, we should experience things similar to it, or that such things would be generally experienced. Suppose it then to be true that miracles were wrought on the first promulgation of Christianity, when nothing but miracles could decide its authority, is it certain that such miracles would be repeated so often, and in so many places, as to become objects of general experience? Is it a probability approaching to certainty ? is it a probability of any great strength or force? is it such as no evidence can encounter? And yet this probability is the exact converse, and therefore the exact measure, of the improbability which arises from the want of experience, and which Mr. Hume represents as invincible by hu

It is not like alleging a new law of nature, or a new experiment in natural philosophy; because, when these are related, it is expected that, under the same circumstances, the same effect will follow universally; and in proportion as this expectation is justly entertained, the want of a corresponding experience negatives the history. But to expect concerning a miracle, that it should succeed upon a repetition, is to expect that which would make it cease to be a miracle, which is contrary to its nature as such, and would totally destroy the use and purpose for which it was wrought

The force of experience as an objection to mi

tacles, is founded in the presumption, either that that the course of nature is invariable, or that, if it be ever varied, variations will be frequent and general. Has the necessity of this alternative been demonstrated? Permit us to call the course of nature the agency of an intelligent Being; and is there any good reason for judging this state of the case to be probable? Ought we not rather to expect that such a Being, on occasions of peculiar importance, may interrupt the order which he had appointed; yet, that such occasions should return seldom; that these interruptions consequently should be confined to the experience of a few; that the want of it, therefore, in many, should be matter neither of surprise nor objection.

But as a continuation of the argument from experience, it is said that, when we advance accounts of miracles, we assign effects without causes, or we attribute effects to causes inadequate to the purpose, or to causes, of the operation of which we have no experience. Of what causes, we may ask, and of what effects does the objection speak? If it be answered that, when we ascribe the cure of the palsy to a touch, of blindness to the anointing of the eyes with clay, or the raising of the dead to a word, we lay ourselves open to this imputation; we reply, that we ascribe no such effects to such causes. We perceive no virtue or energy in these things more than in other things of the same kind. They are merely signs to connect the miracle with its end. The effect we ascribe simply to the volition of the Deity; of whose existence and power, not to say of whose presence and agency, we have previous and independent proof. We have, therefore, all we seek for in the works of rational agents,-a sufficient power and an adequate motive. In a word, once believe that there is a God, and miracles are not incredible.

Mr. Hume states the case of miracles to be a contest of opposite improbabilities, that is to say, a question whether it be more improbable that the miracle should be true, or the testimony false: and this I think a fair account of the controversy. But herein I remark a want of argumentative justice, that, in describing the improbability of miracles, he suppresses all those circumstances of extenuation, which result from our knowledge of the exist. ence, power, and disposition of the Deity; his concern in the creation, the end answered by the miracle, the importance of that end, and its subserviency to the plan pursued in the work of nature. As Mr. Hume has represented the question, miracles are alike incredible to him who is previously assured of the constant agency of a Divine Being, and to him who believes that no such Being exists in the universe. They are equally incredible, whether related to have been wrought upon occasions the most deserving, and for purposes the most beneficial, or for no assignable end whatever, or for an end confessedly trifling or pernicious. This surely cannot be a correct statement. In adjusting also the other side of the balance, the strength and weight of testimony, this author has provided an answer to every possible accumulation of historical proof by telling us, that we are not obliged to explain how the story of the evidence arose. Now I think that we are obliged: not, perhaps, to show by positive accounts how it did, but by a probable hypothesis how it might so happen. The existence of the testimony is a phenomenon; the truth of the fact solves the phenomenon. If we reject this solu

|

tion, we ought to have some other to rest in; and none, even by our adversaries, can be admitted, which is not inconsistent with the principles that regulate human affairs and human conduct at present, or which makes men then to have been a different kind of beings from what they are now.

But the short consideration which, independently of every other, convinces me that there is no solid foundation in Mr. Hume's conclusion, is the following. When a theorem is proposed to a mathematician, the first thing he does with it is to try it upon a simple case, and if it produce a false result, he is sure that there must be some mistake in the demonstration. Now, to proceed in this way with what may be called Mr. Hume's theorem. If twelve men, whose probity and good sense I had long known, should seriously and circumstantially relate to me an account of a miracle wrought before their eyes, and in which it was impossible that they should be deceived; if the governor of the country, hearing a rumour of this account, should call these men into his presence, and offer them a short proposal, either to confess the imposture, or submit to be tied up to a gibbet; if they should refuse with one voice to acknowledge that there existed any falsehood or imposture in the case; if this threat were communicated to them separately, yet with no different effect; if it was at last executed; if I myself saw them, one after another, consenting to be racked, burnt, or strangled, rather than give up the truth of their account; still, if Mr. Hume's rule be my guide, I am not to believe them. Now I undertake to say that there exists not a sceptic in the world who would not believe them, or who would defend such incredulity.

Instances of spurious miracles supported by strong and apparent testimony, undoubtedly demand examination; Mr. Hume has endeavoured to fortify his argument by some examples of this kind. I hope in a proper place to show that none of them reach the strength or circumstances of the Christian evidence. In these however, consists the weight of his objection: in the principle itself, I am persuaded, there is none.

PART 1.

OF THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY, AND WHEREIN IT IS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE EVIDENCE ALLEGED FOR OTHER MIRACLES.

THE two propositions which I shall endeavour to establish are these:

I. That there is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original witnesses of the Christian Miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.

II. That there is not satisfactory evidence, that persons professing to be original witnesses of other miracles, in their nature as certain as these are, have ever acted in the same manner, in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and

properly in consequence of their belief of those accounts.

The first of these propositions, as it forms the argument, will stand at the head of the following nine chapters.

CHAPTER I.

scenes, or the desire, which is common to all, of personal ease and freedom, but conviction.

Secondly, it is also highly probable, from the nature of the case, that the propagation of the new religion was attended with difficulty and danger. As addressed to the Jews, it was a system adverse not only to their habitual opinions, but to those opinions, upon which their hopes, their partialities, their pride, their consolation, was founded. This people, with or without reason, had worked themselves into a persuasion, that some signal and There is satisfactory evidence that many, pro- greatly advantageous change was to be effected in fessing to be original witnesses of the Chris- the condition of their country, by the agency of a tian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dan-long-promised messenger from heaven. The rugers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone lers of the Jews, their leading sect, their priesthood, in attestation of the accounts which they de- had been the authors of this persuasion to the livered, and solely in consequence of their be- common people. So that it was not merely the lief of those accounts; and that they also sub-conjecture of theoretical divines, or the secret exmitted, from the same motives, to new rules of pectation of a few recluse devotees, but it was beconduct. come the popular hope and passion, and like all popular opinions, undoubting, and impatient of contradiction. They clung to this hope under every misfortune of their country, and with more tenacity as their dangers or calamities increased. To find, therefore, that expectations so gratifying were to be worse than disappointed; that they were to end in the diffusion of a mild unambitious religion, which, instead of victories and triumphs, instead of exalting their nation and institution Before we produce any particular testimony to above the rest of the world, was to advance those the activity and sufferings which compose the sub- whom they despised to an equality with themject of our first assertion, it will be proper to con- selves, in those very points of comparison in which sider the degree of probability which the assertion they most valued their own distinction, could be derives from the nature of the case, that is, by in-no very pleasing discovery to a Jewish mind; nor ferences from those parts of the case which, in point of fact, are on all hands acknowledged.

To support this proposition, two points are necessary to be made out: first, that the Founder of the institution, his associates and immediate followers, acted the part which the proposition imputes to them: secondly, that they did so in attestation of the miraculous history recorded in our Scriptures, and solely in consequence of their belief of the truth of this history.

could the messengers of such intelligence expect to be well received or easily credited. The docFirst, then, the Christian religion exists, and trine was equally harsh and novel. The extendtherefore by some means or other was established.ing of the kingdom of God to those who did not Now it either owes the principle of its establish- conform to the law of Moses, was a notion that ment, i. e. its first publication, to the activity of the had never before entered into the thoughts of a Person who was the founder of the institution, and Jew. of those who were joined with him in the under- The character of the new institution was, in taking, or we are driven upon the strange supposi- other respects also, ungrateful to Jewish habits tion, that, although they might lie by, others would and principles. Their own religion was in a high take it up; although they were quiet and silent, degree technical. Even the enlightened Jew placed other persons busied themselves in the success a great deal of stress upon the ceremonies of his and propagation of their story. This is perfectly law, saw in them a great deal of virtue and effiincredible. To me it appears little less than cer-cacy; the gross and vulgar had scarcely any thing tain, that, if the first announcing of the religion else; and the hypocritical and ostentatious magby the Founder had not been followed up by the nified them above measure, as being the instruzeal and industry of his immediate disciples, the ments of their own reputation and influence. attempt must have expired in its birth. Then as The Christian scheme, without formally repealto the kind and degree of exertion which was em- ing the Levitical code, lowered its estimation exployed, and the mode of life to which these persons tremely. In the place of strictness and zeal in submitted, we reasonably suppose it to be like performing the observances which that code prethat which we observe in all others who volunta- scribed, or which tradition had added to it, the rily become missionaries of a new faith. Fre- new sect preached up faith, well-regulated affec quent, earnest, and laborious preaching, constant- tions, inward purity, and moral rectitude of disly conversing with religious persons upon religion, position, as the true ground, on the part of the a sequestration from the common pleasures, en-worshipper, of merit and acceptance with God. gagements, and varieties of life, and an addiction to one serious object, compose the habits of such men. I do not say that this mode of life is without enjoyment, but I say that the enjoyment springs from sincerity. With a consciousness at the bottom, of hollowness and falsehood, the fatigue and restraint would become insupportable. I am apt to believe that very few hypocrites engage in these undertakings; or, however, persist in them long. Ordinarily speaking, nothing can overcome the indolence of mankind, the love which is natural to most tempers of cheerful society and cheerful

This, however rational it may appear, or recommending to us at present, did not by any means facilitate the plan then. On the contrary, to dis parage those qualities which the highest characters in the country valued themselves most upon,

"Percrebuerat oriente toto vetus et constans opinie, esse in fatis, ut eo tempore Judæa profecti rerum pots rentur."-Sueton Vespasian. cap. 4---8.

"Pluribus persuasió inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret oriens, profectique Judæa rerum potirentur."-Tacit. Histor. lib. v. cap. 9-13.

was a sure way of making powerful enemies. As | ject of their worship. It accepted no compromise; if the frustration of the national hope was not it admitted no comprehension. It must prevail, enough, the long-esteemed merit of ritual zeal and if it prevailed at all, by the overthrow of every punctuality was to be decried, and that by Jews statue, altar, and temple, in the world. It will preaching to Jews. not easily be credited, that a design, so bold as this was, could in any age be attempted to be carried into execution with impunity.

For it ought to be considered, that this was not setting forth, or magnifying the character and worship of some new competitor for a place in the Pantheon, whose pretensions might be discussed or asserted without questioning the reality of any others; it was pronouncing all other gods to be false, and all other worship vain. From the facility with which the polytheism of ancient nations admitted new objects of worship into the number of their acknowledged divinities, or the patience with which they might entertain propo sals of this kind, we can argue nothing as to their toleration of a system, or of the publishers and active propagators of a system, which swept away the very foundation of the existing establishment. The one was nothing more than what it would be, in popish countries, to add a saint to the calendar; the other was to abolish and tread under foot the calendar itself.

The ruling party at Jerusalem had just before crucified the Founder of the religion. That is a fact which will not be disputed. They, therefore, who stood forth to preach the religion, must necessarily reproach these rulers with an execution, which they could not but represent as an unjust and cruel murder. This would not render their office more easy, or their situation more safe. With regard to the interference of the Roman government which was then established in Judea, should not expect, that, despising as it did the religion of the country, it would, if left to itself, animadvert, either with much vigilance or much severity, upon the schisms and controversies which arose within it. Yet there was that in Christianity which might easily afford a handle of accusation with a jealous government. The Christians avowed an unqualified obedience to a new master. They avowed also that he was the person who had been foretold to the Jews under the suspected title of King. The spiritual nature of this kingdom, the consistency of this obedience with civil subjection, were distinctions too refined to be entertained by a Roman president, who viewed the business at a great distance, or through the medium of very hostile representations. Our histories accordingly inform us, that this was the turn which the enemies of Jesus gave to his cha-lytes from amongst the common people; to form racter and pretensions in their remonstrances with in the heart of the country societies professing Pontius Pilate. And Justin Martyr, about a hun- their tenets; to provide for the order, instruction, dred years afterwards, complains that the same and permanency of these societies; nor did they mistake prevailed in his time: "Ye, having heard enjoin their followers to withdraw themselves from that we are waiting for a kingdom, suppose, with- the public worship of the temples, or refuse a comout distinguishing, that we mean a human king-pliance with rites instituted by the laws. These dom, when in truth we speak of that which is with God." And it was undoubtedly a natural source of calumny and misconstruction.

Secondly, it ought also to be considered, that this was not the case of philosophers propounding in their books, or in their schools, doubts concerning the truth of the popular creed, or even avowing their disbelief of it. These philosophers did not go about from place to place to collect prose

things are what the Christians did, and what the philosophers did not; and in these consisted the activity and danger of the enterprise.

Thirdly, it ought also to be considered, that this danger proceeded not merely from solemn acts and public resolutions of the state, but from sudden bursts of violence at particular places, from the license of the populace, the rashness of some magistrates, and negligence of others; from the influence and instigation of interested adversaries, and, in general, from the variety and warmth of opinion which an errand so novel and extraor

The preachers of Christianity had, therefore, to contend with prejudice backed by power. They had to come forward to a disappointed people, to a priesthood possessing a considerable share of municipal authority, and actuated by strong motives of opposition and resentment; and they had to do this under a foreign government, to whose favour they made no pretensions, and which was constantly surrounded by their enemics. The well-known, because the experienced fate of re-dinary could not fail of exciting. I can conceive formers, whenever the reformation subverts some reigning opinion, and does not proceed upon a change that has already taken place in the sentiments of a country, will not allow, much less lead us to suppose, that the first propagators of Christianity at Jerusalem and in Judea, under the difficulties and the enemies they had to contend with, and entirely destitute as they were of force, authority, or protection, could execute their mission with personal ease and safety.

Let us next inquire, what might reasonably be expected by the preachers of Christianity when they turned themselves to the heathen public. Now the first thing that strikes us is, that the religion they carried with them was exclusive. It denied without reserve the truth of every article of heathen mythology, the existence of every ob

* Ap. Ima. p. 16. Ed. Thirl.

that the teachers of Christianity might both fear and suffer much from these causes, without any general persecution being denounced against them by imperial authority. Some length of time, I should suppose, might pass, before the vast machine of the Roman empire would be put in motion, or its attention be obtained to religious controversy: but during that time, a great deal of ill usage might be endured, by a set of friendless, unprotected travellers, telling men, wherever they came, that the religion of their ancestors, the religion in which they had been brought up, the re

The best of the ancient philosophers, Plato, Cicero, and Epictetus, allowed, or rather enjoined, men to wor ship the gods of the country, and in the established

form. See passages to this purpose, collected from their works by Dr. Clarke, Nat. and Rev. Rel. p. 180. ed. 5.Except Socrates, they all thought it wiser to comply with the laws than to contend.

ligion of the state, and of the magistrate, the rites | solemnities, to which the common people are

which they frequented, the pomp which they admired, was throughout a system of folly and delusion.

greatly addicted, and which were of a nature to engage them much more than any thing of that sort among us. These things would retain great numNor do I think that the teachers of Christianity bers on its side by the fascination of spectacle and would find protection in that general disbelief of pomp, as well as interest many in its preservation the popular theology, which is supposed to have by the advantage which they drew from it." It prevailed amongst the intelligent part of the hea- was moreover interwoven," as Mr. Gibbon rightthen public. It is by no means true that unbely represents it, "with every circumstance of bulievers are usually tolerant. They are not dis-siness or pleasure, of public or private life, with posed (and why should they?) to endanger the all the offices and amusements of society." On present state of things, by suffering a religion of the due celebration also of its rites, the people were which they believe nothing, to be disturbed by taught to believe, and did believe, that the prosanother of which they believe as little. They are perity of their country in a great measure deready themselves to conform to any thing; and pended. are, oftentimes, amongst the foremost to procure I am willing to accept the account of the matter conformity from others, by any method which they which is given by Mr. Gibbon: "The various think likely to be efficacious. When was ever a modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman change of religion patronized by infidels? How world, were all considered by the people as equally little, notwithstanding the reigning scepticism, and true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the magnified liberality of that age, the true prin- the magistrate as equally useful:" and I would ciples of toleration were understood by the wisest ask from which of these three classes of men were men amongst them, may be gathered from two the Christian missionaries to look for protection or eminent and uncontested examples. The younger impunity? Could they expect it from the people, Pliny, polished as he was by all the literature of "whose acknowledged confidence in the public that soft and elegant period, could gravely pro-religion" they subverted from its foundation? nounce this monstrous judgment:-"Those who persisted in declaring themselves Christians, I ordered to be led away to punishment, (i. e. to execution,) for I DID NOT DOUBT, whatever it was that they confessed, that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished." His master, Trajan, a mild and accomplished prince, went, nevertheless, no further in his sentiments of moderation and equity, than what appears in the following rescript: "The Christians are not to be sought for; but if any are brought before you, and convicted, they are to be punished." And this direction he gives, after it had been reported to him by his own president, that, by the most strict examination nothing could be discovered in the principles of these persons, but "a bad and excessive superstition," accompanied, it seems, with an oath or mutual federation, "to allow Lastly, the nature of the case affords a strong themselves in no crime or immoral conduct what-proof, that the original teachers of Christianity, in ever." The truth is, the ancient heathens considered religion entirely as an affair of state, as much under the tuition of the magistrate, as any other part of the police. The religion of that age was not merely allied to the state; it was incorporated into it. Many of its offices were administered by the magistrate. Its titles of pontiffs, augurs, and flamens, were borne by senators, consuls, and generals. Without discussing, there fore, the truth of the theology, they resented every affront put upon the established worship, as a direct opposition to the authority of government.

Add to which, that the religious systems of those times, however ill supported by evidence, had been long established. The ancient religion of a country has always many votaries, and sometimes not the fewer, because its origin is hidden in remoteness and obscurity. Men have a natural veneration for antiquity, especially in matters of religion. What Tacitus says of the Jewish, was more applicable to the heathen establishment: "Hi ritus, quoquo modo inducti, antiquitate defenduntur." It was also a splendid and sumptuous worship. It had its priesthood, its endowments, its temples. Statuary, painting, architecture, and music, contributed their effect to its ornament and magnificence. It abounded in festival shows and

From the philosopher, who, "considering all religions as equally false," would of course rank theirs among the number, with the addition of regarding them as busy and troublesome zealots? Or from the magistrate, who, satisfied with the "utility" of the subsisting religion, would not be likely to countenance a spirit of proselytism and innovation;-a system which declared war against every other, and which, if it prevailed, must end in a total rupture of public opinion; an upstart religion, in a word, which was not content with its own authority, but must disgrace all the settled religions of the world? It was not to be imagined that he would endure with patience, that the religion of the emperor and of the state should be calumniated and borne down by a company of superstitious and despicable Jews.

consequence of their new profession, entered upon a new and singular course of life. We may be allowed to presume, that the institution which they preached to others, they conformed to in their own persons; because this is no more than what every teacher of a new religion both does, and must do, in order to obtain either proselytes or hearers. The change which this would produce was very considerable. It is a change which we do not easily estimate, because, ourselves and all about us being habituated to the institutions from our infancy, it is what we neither experience nor observe. After men became Christians, much of their time was spent in prayer and devotion, in religious meetings, in celebrating the eucharist, in conferences, in exhortations, in preaching, in an affectionate intercourse with one another, and correspondence with other societies. Perhaps their mode of life, in its form and habit, was not very unlike the Unitas Fratrum, or the modern Metho dists. Think then what it was to become such at Corinth, at Ephesus, at Antioch, or even at Jerusalem. How new! how alien from all their former habits and ideas, and from those of every body about them! What a revolution there must have been of opinions and prejudices to bring the matter to this!"

« السابقةمتابعة »