I agree with you, that the case of this apostle comes under the rule which you recollect I suggested in my sermon. He undoubtedly viewed the religion which he received in room of the one he parted with the most valuable. And to this agrees his own testimony. Phil. iii. 7, &c.
"But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung that I may win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."
As you promise to say more on this subject, I shall _continue_ to expect an attempt to deny the conversion of such a man as St. Paul is set forth to have been, to the Christian religion, under all the circumstances which the scripture account mentions; or an attempt to show that such a conversion could _probably_ take place without supposing the facts on which the religion of Christ was founded were realities; or lastly, an acknowledgment that this conversion may reasonably be allowed as evidence to us of the truth of the Christian religion.
Should you be disposed to disallow the account which the scripture gives of St. Paul, I will ask the favour of you to point out and show to my understanding where in Paley's Horae Paulinae fails of proving the truth of the scripture history of St. Paul.
What follows is designed to notice your sixth number; out of which the following subjects are selected, on which some remarks are made.
1st. You observe that "when we hear things, which to our understanding are improbable, the improbability of the facts raises a doubt in our minds; and certainly there can be no harm in suspending our judgment, nor yet in withholding our belief until we are fully satisfied." This first subject regards the degrees of evidences which are required in different cases, and the moral propriety of withholding the assent of the mind in the case of a want of evidence.
2d. You are not disposed to doubt that many of the prophets were good men; nor will you contend that they were not all such, and taught the people according to the best of their abilities--And yet you hesitate to allow the divinity of their testimony.
3d. I notice that you acknowledge that there are evidences in favour of divine revelation, which would support it, if there were nothing to counterbalance their testimony.
4th. You hardly know how to understand me where I suggest, that in disproving the religion of Jesus Christ, you disprove all religion, &c.
5th. An inquiry whether Jesus and the apostles might not be honest men, and yet their testimony in certain cases not to be relied on!
6th. You suppose that arguments equally energetic and equally conclusive might be drawn from our feelings against, as in favour of the necessity of divine revelation.
7th. In enumerating the virtues and enjoyments of one who does not even desire a future state, you mention unfeigned thankfulness for all the happiness of which he is made susceptible.
8th. You assert, that if a revelation ever was necessary, it was necessary only to reconcile man to his present state efexistence. And,
9th. You seem to fault me for supposing that in case you did not mean as I took you, on the subject of the apostles' testimony, you must mean the reverse, &c.
These nine particulars, it is true, do not comprehend every item contained in your sixth number, but I believe that a candid reply to each of them will satisfy you that a competent degree of attention has been paid to this communication.
1st. Concerning the degrees of evidence required in certain cases to carry conviction of facts to the mind; it has always been allowed by those who have vindicated the religion of Jesus, that a belief in miracles requires more evidence than a belief in ordinary events recorded in history. Having granted this they proceed to associate the evidences, which God in his divine economy has given and preserved, and conclude with grateful assurance that the evidence of the miracles of Jesus, his unspeakably glorious resurrection from the dead, together with the miracles with which the first promulgation of the gospel was effected, are abundantly sufficient to carry conviction to vastly the greatest part of candid minds.
In the mode the last sentence is concluded, I must, in justice to others, take the sentiment there expressed to myself; for I am sorry to say that christians, who have contended against infidelity have, generally, been less charitable than the genius of the religion they have, in many respects, most ably defended. I cannot find authority for denying candor to one who is unable to believe on the ground of such evidence as may satisfy my mind of a fact. I will therefore suppose that some who are candid, may, from some cause which we cannot analyze, be unable to believe the great truths of the gospel, on such evidence as is abundantly sufficient to convince others who are as scrupulous as necessary investigation requires.
It is, sir, the opinion of some very learned authors, who stand in the very first rank, for candor and erudition, that the proofs of which the gospel is susceptible are, in all respects, equal to what they could have been in any other way concerted, within the reach of human conception. This is going to a great length I confess; and yet I am strongly inclined to their opinion. I will candidly state why I am so.--1st. Taking the subject in the gross, I am convinced of the truth of the gospel of Christ. Now as I believe this gospel is not of man, but of God, I likewise believe that God in consummate wisdom has planned the evidences by which it is and will be supported in the world, until it fills the whole earth. 2d. As I believe that divine wisdom has planned, ordered and directed all the means which will finally operate as evidences in defence of the gospel, I cannot believe that the wisdom or sagacity of man could have suggested a chain of evidences which could so well have secured the cause to be supported. And 3d. I have spent much time in reflecting and studying on this momentous subject, some time in reading authors on both sides of the question, a great deal of time in reading the scriptures, and have come to this conclusion that no set of men ever lived in this world that could either have planned such a scheme as the gospel, or ever have invented such a chain of evidences for its support.
If the single miracle of the resurrection be considered, as the fact on which all other facts relating to the gospel seem to rest, it is confidently believed that no human invention could have concerted a system so well calculated to secure the fact to all future generations, as that which has been adopted by the divine economy. Had the whole of the Jewish nation with their Gentile neighbours, together with the Roman authorities, all confessed Christianity, being fully convinced of the resurrection of Jesus, and had they inscribed all the miracles recorded in the new testament on monuments which should defy the hand of time to bring them to decay, it requires but a moment's reflection to see that all this would have vastly increased the difficulty now to prove that it was not all contrived by man's invention.
But let us consider the unbelief of the Jews, the violent opposition of that ancient priesthood, its coalition with the Roman government against the gospel, the great jealousy which the acknowledged miracles of Jesus had excited, the vigilance by which he was watched by his religious enemies, the careful scrutiny employed to discover fraud in his miracles if it were possible; and then add to these considerations that the miracles of Jesus were publically performed, and of such a nature as to admit of the easiest possible detection if they had not been real: and finally to disarm unbelief at once, consider that the ministry of the gospel was set up by the apostles, on the bold declaration that God had raised the crucified Jesus from the dead! A declaration, which if it had not been true, mark well, sir, could have been as easily refuted and rendered the derision of all people as any declaration that could have been made. But I shall lose myself, and forget that you have not yet called my attention so directly to this subject, as to justify my entering largely into it.
What you have said on the subject of believing in the testimony of David, that the "Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works," also the same sentiment communicated by Jesus Christ, that God loves his enemies and that he requires of us the same exercise towards our enemies, though perfectly reasonable, as I view the subject, seems to call up the question, how it happens that thousands of professed Christians, who believe in the miracles of Jesus, his resurrection and the miracles of the apostles, are notwithstanding hostile to this divine and glorious sentiment of the blessed Jesus! Being compelled, by the visible evidences of divine goodness, seen in the rain and sunshine, they advance so far as to acknowledge that _temporal_ favours are generally distributed, but that God does really love the wicked, they utterly deny. Now while you can believe this great moral truth without a miracle, Christian people in general cannot believe it with one. You are not to suppose that I am willing to allow that you believe this sentiment without a miracle, though you would insinuate, that this is the case. My opinion is, that had it not been for the miracles recorded in the new testament, the truth of which you are disposed to call in question, you and I, if we had existed, would have had no more light on this subject than the rudest savage, or what is worse, the most superstitious and contracted Christian. If you have any ground on which you can fairly refute my opinion on this subject, I hope you will faithfully perform it; if not, it will be expected that you will express your acquiescence. Such is the power of natural prejudice which we know exists in the human mind, that without a divine revelation from God, supported by the most evident miracles, man will not extend his views of divine benevolence scarcely beyond the rivers and mountains which environ the circumscribed vicinity of his birth. Trace the power and operation of this prejudice and you find it maintaining hostility against the light of revelation itself, and it is only by slow degrees that it is brought into submission. We reason very injudiciously when we bring ourselves to believe, that by the light of reason we could know and understand all the moral truths which we have been taught by revelation; we forget that revelation has illuminated our reason and taught it how to see and understand.--Just as well might the sprightly youth refuse to acknowledge that its mother learned it to walk, and ever gave it nourishment and strength to perform the exercise, and allege that it can walk as well as she can. As well might the learned graduate refuse the grateful honours due to his instructors, and say: my reason, my understanding comprehend these sciences, of what use then are these learned professors and this college institution? But would not reason point him to the condition of those, to whom the blessings of instruction, which, through much difficulty had given him the light of science, had not extended? Would it not force the comparison on his understanding, and humble him into gratitude?
It seems impossible, sir, for reason to compare our situation with theirs, who have not been enlightened by the gospel, without kneeling, like the woman in Simon's house, at the feet of Jesus.
2d. If the prophets where not divinely inspired, will you suggest any way by which their pretentions to divine inspiration can be reconciled with their honesty? They all speak in the name of the Lord, and evidently aim at the high pretention of being spoken to, in a special manner, by God himself. Will you say: they were a set of poor deluded enthusiasts? But this would contradict your reason which can see in every page of their writings a very different character. A passage from the 1st chapter of Jeremiah is here quoted for an example. "Then the word of the Lord came unto me, saying, before I formed thee &c. I sanctified thee; and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Then said I, ah, Lord God! behold, I cannot speak, for I am a child: But the Lord said unto me, say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. Be not afraid of their faces; for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the Lord. Then the Lord put forth his hand and touched my mouth; and the Lord said unto me, behold, I have put my words in thy mouth."
Here Jeremiah evidently designed to declare himself an inspired prophet of God, by which he was justified in speaking in his name. Now if all this was mere fiction, how can it be entitled to a better character than that of blasphemy?
As a specimen of this prophet's knowledge of future events we may notice his prophesy of the seventy years captivity. See chap. xxv. 11, &c. xxix. 10, &c. Compare with 2 Kings xxiv. 2 Chron. xxxvi. Ezra i.
1, and other corresponding passages.
I will ask you to consult the character of Daniel, and observe with what genuine humility he pretends to divine inspiration, chap. ii.
xxx. "But as for me, the secret is not revealed to me for any wisdom that I have more than any living, but that the secret might be made known, and that thou mightest know the thoughts of thy heart." If Daniel did not receive a divine revelation, it must be allowed that he was deceived, or that he meant to deceive the king. But if he were deceived, or if he meant to deceive, can you give any good account how he could tell the king's dream and the interpretation, which reached into the far distant periods of time, and which has been remarkably fulfilled in the rise and fall of the four great empires of the world, and is still fulfilling by the advances of the kingdom of Christ? I will say nothing of the prophet Isaiah, who speaks of the Messiah more than seven hundred years before he was born, as if he had been his contemporary. Nor need I speak of Moses who foretold the dealings of God with the house of Israel as if he had lived now and had written their history. But I must insist on your paying some nice attention to the prophesies of Christ concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. This prophesy is recorded very circumstantially in the 24th of Matt. Be so good, sir, as to compare this prophesy with the history written by Josephus and let candor decide whether the author of that prophesy was divinely inspired, or whether he was a poor deceived enthusiast.
If you allow that Jesus Christ was an honest man how is it possible for you to deny his being divinely inspired? He certainly pretended to foretell events; he most surely pretended to perform most astonishing miracles. Of these facts we have as much evidence as we have that there was such a man. Now, sir, if he were honest, he was divinely inspired and endued, or he was an enthusiast even to insanity. And yet in every instance, where the powers of his mind were tried, by the profoundest learning, and sharpest wit that could be brought against him, he discovered a mind as clear as light. A volume of vast extent could not exhaust the subject I am now upon, but as you have the same opportunity and means which I have to trace it, I shall insist on your treating this subject with candor and shall expect you to acknowledge that Jesus was divinely inspired, or show how he could be honest, without this divine endowment.
3d. You acknowledge, that there are evidences in favour of divine revelation, which would support it, if there were nothing to counterbalance their testimony. I shall here find some fault. Why do you allow that there are evidences in favour of divine revelation, and not state what they are? Why do you insinuate that there is something to counterbalance their testimony and not state what it is? When an antagonist finds his opponent candid enough to allow that some evidence stands on his side of the argument is it not necessary for him at the same time to be informed what it is? Does he not need to know what his opponent is willing to allow to be evidence? And does he not likewise need to know how this evidence is counterbalanced?
However, as you have not favoured me with such necessary assistance, I will attempt to proceed without it. But here I must go partly on presumption and partly by guess. In the first place I will inquire what particular circumstance recorded in scripture, which, if true, would substantiate revelation; and which you may suppose there is evidence sufficient to prove, if there was nothing to counterbalance it? This I will presume is the resurrection of Jesus. Why I think you would be most likely to have this particular in your mind, is, because on this event, I believe all will agree, depend the validity of the prophecies, the truth of the testimony of Christ himself, and the authority of the apostles. I will then presume that you acknowledge that there is evidence of this wonderful fact; but at the same time I am to understand, that, in your mind there is something to counterbalance, in some degree, if not entirely, this evidence.
Having proceeded so far, I am now to guess what the evidence is that you think would support this all important fact, if it were not counterbalanced. But here I find myself in difficulty. My difficulty is in finding any kind of evidence which could prove such an event, if there were nothing to counterbalance it, that could possibly be counterbalanced. Will you say that the testimony of the disciples, that they had seen the man alive after his death would be sufficient evidence to prove the fact? Suppose twelve men of honest fame, should report, and even depose, that the last man who was publicly executed in Boston, had actually arose from the dead, and that they had ate and drank with him a number of times since he was executed. Should you suppose this sufficient evidence, if there were nothing to do it away?
But what could do it away? If the people could go to the grave and find the body there, the testimony of the twelve would remain no evidence at all, and therefore could not afterwards be called evidence sufficient to support the fact if there were nothing to counterbalance it. But suppose the people cannot find the body, would it not be thought that the body might possibly have been conveyed away by design of some who might have occasion to keep it a secret? But a guard is placed to watch the grave; but a guard might be bribed. The one we have account of was bribed, according to the story; and if they could be bribed by the chief priests and rulers, why not by some body else?
Finally, would the testimony of these men be sufficient to prove such an extraordinary fact even if the body could not be found? I think for myself, that various opinions would result from such evidence. Some would believe that these men had entered into some very extraordinary plot, and calculated that they should be most likely to succeed by means of persuading the people that they were favoured with a knowledge of this resurrection. Others might believe them honest men, but by some crafty contrivance imposed on. Others might believe that the spirit of this man had appeared to the twelve, but that no real resurrection had taken place. But I very much doubt whether any very stable people would consider the testimony of the twelve men sufficient to support this fact if there were nothing brought, or if nothing could be brought against it. Such a circumstance would no doubt cause a great deal of talk, the depositions and the names of the deponents would be published in the newspapers, perhaps for several weeks, but after a little time it would die away.
Finally, I cannot conceive of any evidence that could sufficiently support the fact that Jesus who was crucified, did actually rise from the dead, if nothing could be brought to counterbalance it, that could possibly admit of being counterbalanced.
The question seems to remain, and the substance of it is this. 1st. If Jesus did actually rise from the dead what kind of evidence would his disciples need in order to be satisfied of the fact? And 2d. What kind of evidence must they be able to bring to the people in order to convince them of the fact?
I will here suppose that it is not necessary to prove that the disciples of Jesus, who preached him and his resurrection all their lives after they commenced at the day of pentecost, really believed what they preached; but the evidence by which they believed it I now inquire for. We must notice that the disciples did not expect the resurrection, they were not believers of this fact when their master was crucified. They were awfully disappointed, and not _only_ disappointed but intimidated, as the account fully shows. They all forsook Jesus at his trial, and Peter for fear of being involved with him denied being his disciple.
The evidence then of his resurrection must be such as will convince those of the fact who have no expectation of the event. We will now look at the account. "And when the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him." This very rational account shows as plainly as the case will admit that these women had no expectation of his resurrection. I omit here what passed at the sepulchre when these women were there, for this does not relate to the disciples. The angel at the sepulchre told these women that Jesus had risen, and directed them to go and tell his disciples. "Now when Jesus was risen eariy, the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils. And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept." This mourning and weeping could not be the effect of the pleasing expectation of soon having their divine master with them; no, it was the natural effect of the amazing disappointment which had closed all the hopes they had entertained. "And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her," believed? no, "believed not." After that he appeared in another form to two of them as they walked, and went into the country.--And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them. "Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he had risen."
It seems unnecessary to quote into this communication all the instances related by the four deponents of Jesus' being seen of the eleven; his frequently being with them, eating with them, holding lengthy conversations with them, &c. Now as these disciples knew that Jesus had been crucified and buried, and a guard had been placed to guard the sepulchre, and moreover knowing for certainty that the body of Jesus was not where it had been deposited, and being favoured with his presence on a variety of occasions for forty days, the evidence to the disciples was of a character described by the author of the Acts.
"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God." I believe, sir, that such evidence as Jesus is said to have given his disciples of his resurrection would be entirely sufficient to remove all doubts in their mind, however prone they were to unbelief. I am of opinion that such evidence would convince you and me of a similar fact.--Two questions are here necessary. 1st. Can we conceive how the evidence could have been less without being insufficient? And 2d. Can we conceive how it could have been stronger? I will not take up time to argue these questions, I feel satisfied on them myself. I will now ask whether we can imagine the possibility of any evidence that could counterbalance the evidence of the resurrection in the minds of the disciples? Thus we are brought to the suggestion, that any evidence which could be sufficient to prove such a fact, if no evidence appeared against it, must be such as admits of no refutation.
You will not forget, and think that I have been endeavouring to prove the resurrection of Jesus, or that the disciples even believed it; all I have been seeking for is that kind of evidence which would be necessary to prove to the disciples such a fact, and to show that such evidence cannot admit of refutation. However, you will at once see that, allowing our reasoning to be correct, and allowing the disciples did really believe the resurrection, either of which, I do not believe you will undertake to dispute, the resurrection is proved beyond all contradiction.
2d. Let us now inquire what kind of evidence was necessary for the disciples of Jesus to bring to the people, in order to convince them of this all-important fact on which the whole scheme and ministry of the gospel rested. It seems that the disciples did not believe on the testimony of others, though of their own intimate acquaintance, persons in whom they would place as much confidence as in any in the world, no doubt. Of course, they could not expect other people, who had not been the disciples of Jesus, would believe in his resurrection on their testimony. The evidence which the disciples had was sufficient for them, but their testimony would surely be much less; and any thing less would be insufficient as before stated.
We will now have recourse to the account. But first let us notice, that we are not endeavouring to prove that the disciples ever persuaded any to believe in the resurrection of Jesus; this is, as it must be, considered a fact, not disputed. The question is by what evidence did the apostles convince thousands of the people in Jerusalem and its vicinity, that Jesus who was publicly executed, was not only the true Messiah promised in the law and prophets, but that he had actually arose from the dead and ascended into heaven. Before Jesus ascended, he, after saying many other things to his disciples who were together in the city of Jerusalem, said to them; "Thus it is written, and thus it behoveth Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. And ye are witnesses of these things. And behold, I send the promise of my father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be endued with power from on high." See the same account in Acts, "But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth." According to this account, Jesus did not direct his disciples to undertake to convince the people by their testimony, but charged them to wait for divine power. Accordingly they did wait. Now look at the account which we have, of what took place on the day of pentecost. I will not mutilate this account by quoting parts, there is no need of quoting what you have perfectly in your memory. Take particular notice of what Peter said to the people who had been accessary to the crucifixion of Jesus. He who was so intimidated as to deny Christ, now stands in the midst of the people and boldly asserts, that Jesus of Nazareth was a man approved of God among them by miracles and wonders, and signs which God did by him, among them; and that they knew this to be the case. He further tells them that they had with wicked hands crucified and slain this man who was thus approved of God. And he assured the whole house of Israel, that God had made this same Jesus whom they had crucified both Lord and Christ. He moreover boldly declared that God had raised Jesus from the dead. Now add to the testimony of Peter, the astonishing manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit, as described in the account, and you have the evidence by which about three thousand souls were convinced of the resurrection of Jesus in one day. Here let us consider; the people had been acquainted with Jesus, and had been eye witnesses of his miracles; many of them were personally acquainted with Lazarus whom Jesus raised from the dead.
They had been, many of them, fed by his miracles and had seen his wonderful works. Now put all together and it is evident that they had sufficient reason to believe. I cannot conceive how reasonable people in the candid exercise of their judgments, could avoid believing.
Look, sir, at the account of the miraculous cure of the lame man, who lay at the gate of the temple. Notice the words used to effect it. "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." "And all the people saw him walking and praising God: and they knew that it was he who sat for alms at the beautiful gate of the temple." Hear what Peter says to the wondering multitude on this occasion. "Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But ye denied the holy one and the just, and desired a murderer to be granted unto you; and killed the prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead: whereof we are witnesses. And his name, through faith in his name, hath made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, and the faith which is by him hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all." Here we have the evidence by which about five thousand men, besides women, believed--that is, owned their belief.
When the high priest and others called Peter and John before them, and demanded, by what power, or by what name they had done this thing, Peter answers, filled with the Holy Spirit; "Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, if we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole: be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at naught by you builders." Hear what these rulers say when Peter and John were sent aside. "What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it."
Such evidence as we have noticed, which the disciples were enabled to bring to the people, of the resurrection of Jesus, was sufficient to remove every reasonable doubt and to bring over to this faith, those who had been his murderers.
I will now inquire whether it is reasonable to suppose that less evidence would have effected such conviction?--And on the other hand, I will ask whether stronger proof could in the nature of things be given? And lastly, to come to our object again, does such evidence possibly admit of being counterbalanced? I understand that these questions admit of no other answers than such as go to show, that if there be any evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, sufficient to support it, if there were no evidence to counterbalance it, such evidence is not capable of being counterbalanced.--You will perceive that our reasoning must issue in the truth of the resurrection, unless we assume the extravagant notion, that the people who lived in Jerusalem and its vicinity, at the time of the crucifiction of Jesus, were not brought over to believe it.
It is hoped that no objection will be brought from the circumstance of the rejection of the gospel by the rulers of the Jews, and by the major part of that hierarchy, as long as it is perfectly evident that their opposition and unbelief were indispensably necessary for the fulfilling of the prophecies, for the carrying of conviction to the Gentiles, and for the purpose of perpetuating the necessary evidences on which we, at this day, must rest our belief of this religion.
4th. You hardly know how to understand me when I suggest, that in disproving the religion of Jesus Christ, you disprove all religion, &c. I think I added, that there is no choosing between this religion and some other, we must have this, or none.
By the religion of Jesus Christ, I mean to comprehend all that the doctrine of the scriptures encourage us to believe in and hope for, and also all that this doctrine requires, also all that it teaches us to expect as resulting from obedience and disobedience. I am fully persuaded that you never can disprove this religion, so as to do away its effects on your own mind. Its maxims contain all the morality you know of, and all that a Deist calls natural religion, he has been taught from the revealed wisdom of God. The further you advance into the society of man, where the light of the holy scriptures has least extended, so much the more do you lose sight of the moral virtues; and so much the more do you lose sight of the simple unity and divine benevolence of God.
My meaning, sir, however, was not very extensive. It was to say, as in a familiar conversation, I might express myself as follows: Brother, if we disprove the religion of Jesus Christ, that is, if we give up our present belief, there is no other religion, that we have heard of, that can have the least claim to our belief. Judaism, Paganism, Mahomedanism, could neither of them have any claims; nor in fact could what people call Deism, or the belief in one God. If you say there is certainly demonstrated in the very nature of things an eternal unchangeable principle or law which governs all things; I will answer, I am surprised to hear a rational being, who cannot remember forty-five of our short years, and knows not that he shall live in the world another hour, talk about eternal things, use great swelling words of vanity about unchangeability, and yet deny that God has made a revelation to man! I am really of the sentiment expressed by him who is justly styled the light of the world, who said "No man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whom the Son revealeth him."
5th. You seem to inquire whether Jesus and his apostles might not be honest men; and yet their testimony, concerning a future state be erroneous. Answer, this case comes into the same argument as the case of the prophets, to which attention has been paid. We have no more reason to believe that Jesus and his apostles were honest men, than we have to believe that they pretended to divine inspiration, and to the power of working many very astonishing miracles. It does not appear reasonable to suppose that these servants of God, thought they could, and did heal the sick and raise the dead, when in fact they could do no such thing. Therefore, if they pretended to do such things and did them not, they were all impostors, and surely deserve no better appellation. Now if I can bring to your mind my inference, it is this.
God would not endue Jesus Christ and his apostles with power to work miracles, by which the attention of the people would be drawn to them and by which they would naturally be led to place confidence in their testimony, and yet leave them in the dark concerning those things of which they speak to the people.