Page images
PDF
EPUB

reference is made to miracles in the long speech of Stephen. Notwithstanding the numerous miracles ascribed to Paul, his appeals to any miracles are rare and incidental.

Q. What argument arises from these facts?

A. That it is unwarrantable to contend that, the unfrequency of such recitals in these speeches negatives the existence of the miracles, when the speeches are given in conjunction with the history of the miracles, and that a conclusion which cannot be inferred from the speeches, without contradicting the whole book that contains them, cannot be inferred from letters in this respect similar only to the speeches.

Q. What does the consent between St. Paul's letters and speeches imply?

A That the miraculous history was all along presupposed.

Q. Does the general observation made upon the apostolic writings, viz. that the subject did not lead to any direct recital, belong to the writings of the apostolic fathers ?

A. Yes; to the epistle of Barnabas; to that of Clemens Romanus, to the vision of Hermas; to the epistles of Polycarp and Ignatius, but there is another class of writings to which the above answer does not apply, viz, the class of ancient apologists for Christianity.

Q. Who is the most ancient of these apologists? A. Quadratus who lived 70 years after the ascension, and presented his apology to Adrian. He

notices Christ's miracles in a most rational and satisfactory manner: Justin Martyr, thirty years after, asserts the miracles of Christ in words as strong and positive as the language possesses.

Q. What does Justin expressly assign as his reason for appealing to prophecy rather than to Christ's miracles?

A. That the persons with whom he contended would ascribe them to magic. Irenæus, about forty years after, notices the same evasion in the adversaries of Christianity, and Lactantius, a century lower, delivers the same sentiment.

Q. Proceed with the Christian apologists in their order.

A. Tertullian observes, that him whom the Jews first thought to be a mere man, they afterwards considered as a magician. Origen in his defence of Christianity, in reply to Celsus, appeals to Christ's miracles in the plainest and most positive manner. He also notices the old solution of magic; and from Jerome it appears that Porphyry, the most learned of the adversaries of Christianity, resorted to the same solution.

Q. Being now convinced of the futility of such a supposition as magic in these miracles, what is our inference ?

A. That the miracles, in their literal sense, were positively and precisely appealed to by the apologists for Christianity, which answers the allegation of the objection.

Q. But would you not have insisted more frequently upon those miracles in argument?

A. I would, but they had to contend with notions of magical agency. However, since it is proved that this sparingness of appeal to miracles arose not from ignorance nor 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.

CHAPTER VI.

Q. What is the objection contained in this chapter? A. Want of universality in the greater knowledge and reception of Christianity, and of greater clearness in the evidence.

Q. What is the ground of this objection?

A. Of a religion which really came from God, the proof, it has been said, would be so public and manifest, that no man could remain ignorant of it, no understanding could fail to be convinced of it.

Q. Do the advocates of Christianity pretend that the evidences of their religion possesses these qualities ?

A. No; the question therefore is not whether has the highest possible evidence, but whether the not having of more evidence be a sufficient cause for rejecting what we have.

Q. What appears to be a fair method of judging the case ?

things which are Throughout the find a system of

A. By comparing it with other acknowledged to come from God. order of nature, then, though we beneficence, we are seldom or ever able to make out a system of optimism. The rain from heaven is an instance which, though confessedly designed to nourish the productions of the earth, is sometimes long withheld from inhabited countries, or never falls upon desart tracts, while it descends in unnecessary torrents upon the sea.

Q. Does Christianity partake of this character?

A. Yes; the true similitude between nature and revelation consists in this; they each bear strong marks of their original; they also bear appearances of irregularity and defect. A system of strict optimism may nevertheless be the real system in both cases.

Q. Will the argument of the objector gain any thing if Christianity be compared with the progress of natural religion?

A. No; if a savage knows nothing of Christianity, he knows no more of the principles of deism or morality, which notwithstanding his ignorance are neither untrue, unimportant, or uncertain.

Q. Suppose Christianity regarded as a providential instrument for the melioration of mankind? A. Its progress and diffusion resemble other causes by which human life is improved. The advance is

not more slow in religion than we find it to be in learning, liberty, government, and laws.

Q. Do we not go too far on one side, when we argue that Christianity must necessarily be true from its beneficence ?

A. Yes; but we as certainly go too far on the other, when we conclude that it must be false because it is not so efficacious as we could have supposed.

Q. What would be the real effect of such an overpowering evidence as is required?

A. It is difficult to foretell, we must speak of it as of a dispensation of which we have no experience.

Q. Would not modes of communication which leave no place for internal evidence be undesirable?

A. Probably they would; for this ought, perhaps, to bear a considerable part in the proof of every revelation, because it is a species of evidence which applies itself to the knowledge and practice of virtue.

Q. May it not be said that irresistible evidence would confound all characters ?

A. It may, because the true purpose of the divine councils is, not to produce a forced obedience, but to treat moral agents agreeably to what they are.

Q. May it not be asked, whether the perfect display of future existence would be compatible with the ac tivity of civil life ?

A. Yes; I can easily conceive that this impression may be overdone.

Q. What decided advantage results from the manner in which the religion is now proposed ?

« PreviousContinue »