Page images
PDF
EPUB

CHAPTER IV.

REJECTION OF CHRISTIANITY.

WE acknowledge that the Christian religion, 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 extensive success, is called the rejection of the Christian history and miracles; and has been thought by some to form a strong objection 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: because the minds of these two descriptions of men may have been, with respect to Christianity, under the influence of very different causes. The case of the Jews, inasmuch as our Saviour's ministry was originally addressed to them, offers itself first to our consideration.

Now, upon the subject of the truth of the

Christian religion, with us, there is but one question; namely, whether the miracles were actually wrought? From acknowledging the miracles, we pass instantaneously to the acknowledgment of the whole. No doubt lies between the premises and the conclusion. 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 apprehend how it could ever have been otherwise. Yet it appears to me perfectly certain, that the state of thought, in the mind of a Jew of our Saviour's age, was totally different from this. After allowing the reality of the miracle, he had a great deal to do to persuade himself that Jesus was the Messiah. This is clearly intimated by various passages of the Gospel history. It appears that, in the apprehension of the writers 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 exercise of candour, or the effects of prejudice. And to this point, at least, the Evangelists may be allowed to be good witnesses; because 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, 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 temple 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 exhibits

the reasoning of different sorts of persons 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 extraordinary in all this; but that still Jesus could not be the Christ, because there was a circumstance in His appearance, which militated 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,—namely, that "when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence He is." Another sort were inclined to believe Him to be the Messiah. But even these did not argue as we should; did not consider the miracle as of itself decisive of the question; as what, if once allowed, excluded all further 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 Lazarus; "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 bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith 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 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. Unquestionably, he states the miracle to have been fully allowed; yet the persons who allowed it were, according to his representation, capable 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 difference is apparent in this transaction. If Saint 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 shows clearly the principles upon which their judgment

« PreviousContinue »