Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

was not adopted by all; and that the testimony of those who were converts is the testimony of interested individuals. But it is obvious, that, if all had become converts, the same objection might have been made to the united testimony of Jews and Gentiles, adherents of the new faith,-that it comes with a suspicion annexed to it, as proceeding from interested parties. And we have the testimony of men who were Heathens, and who embraced the Christian faith, not from interested motives, but under a deep conviction of its truth.†

There is another aspect in which the subject may be considered. The evidence upon which our religion chiefly rests is, the truth of statements contained in the New Testament, as to certain events which are there reported to have taken place, at a strictly defined period of time, within the limits of Palestine. If these events really took place, our religion must be true; while, on the other hand, if the evangelical narrative is proved to be a fabrication, our religion can be little different from many of the superstitions that have appeared on the face of the earth. The positive evidence in favour of the truth of the Gospel record is of the strongest nature. We have competent witnesses offer

which could be laid to the charge of the first Christians was their religion. The greater number of the first converts were indeed of an inferior condition in life; for the lower orders compose the great proportion of mankind. But it is not true that there were no Christians from any other class. From the very first preaching of the Gospel, we find men yielding their assent to the Christian faith, of learning, of rank, of reputation, and who would have done credit to any cause. We have Nicodemus, a Ruler of the Jews; Joseph of Arimathea, a man of fortune, and a Counsellor; several Rulers of synagogues, and Centurions, and Lawyers; Apollos, a man of learning and eloquence; Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus; and Sergius Paulus, a man of proconsular authority.* At a period somewhat later, we find a philosopher of Athens addressing an Apology for Christianity to the Emperor Hadrian; though not so late but that even then a reference could be made to those upon whom miracles had been wrought by Jesus, who were still alive. And, by the middle of the second century, those who wrote in defence of Christianity are acknowledged to exhibit equal learning, and zeal, and talent, with the other writers of the age. We have the strongest external evidence for the accuracy of the statements as to the matters of fact that are contained in the New Testament. We find, from the very commencement, men of learning, of talents, of high station, uniting themselves with the lowly and despised, but pure and holy, followers of the Lord Jesus. But, on the other hand, we find men of undoubted ability and learning, and some of them of high reputation for virtue, making no mention of Christianity, or speaking Christian Fathers we see men who, if they had of it disrespectfully, or arguing professedly against it. How, then, does this bear upon the question as to the truth of our religion? Many adopted it, but many also rejected it.

The defect in the evidence, according to unbelievers, is, that it

*Watson's Apology, p. 65.

The argument is admirably put by Dr. Chalmers. "A direct testimony to the miracles of the New Testament from the mouth of a Heathen is not to be expected. We cannot satisfy this demand of the infidel; but we can

give him a host of much stronger testimonies than he is in quest of,-the testimony of those men who were Heathens, and who embraced a hazardous and a disgraceful profession, under a deep conviction of those facts to which they gave their testimony. O, but you now land us in the testimony of Christians!' This is very true; but it is the very fact of their being Christians in which the strength of the argument lies. In the

not been Christians, would have risen to a high eminence in the literature of the times; and whose direct testimony in that case would have been most impressive, even to the mind of an infidel. And are those testimonies to be less impressive, because they were preceded by con

viction and sealed by martyrdom? And yet, by a delusion common to the infidel with the believer, the argument is held to be weakened by the very circumstance which imparts greater force to it." (Chalmers's Evidences.)

ing an account of what they saw, in circumstances of all others best calculated to give us the assurance that they would speak nothing but the truth. So strong is the evidence that we are thus in possession of, that it is difficult to conceive of any amount of counter evidence that would warrant us in setting it aside. We might, however, be reduced to a painful state of scepticism, if, among the philosophers who flourished soon after the first preaching of the Gospel, any had thoroughly examined the whole circumstances connected with the propagation of Christianity, and brought forward facts affecting the credibility of the Gospel witnesses as men, or inconsistent with some of their averments. Those who lived near the time in which our Saviour appeared, may be supposed to have possessed facilities, which we cannot enjoy, of sifting all the statements which were made respecting the character, and miracles, and doctrine of Christ and his Apostles. Now, is there any thing of this description to be found in the works referred to? Did Pliny, or Tacitus, or Plutarch, or any other of those illustrious men whose names are so ostentatiously brought forward as the lovers of truth, as the practisers of virtue,-did they institute an inquiry while the events were yet recent? did they shake the credit due to the Apostles by detected instances of falsehood, or did they bring forward other witnesses who bore a contrary testimony? Did even those who, at a later period, professedly attacked Christianity, make any attempt of this description? Did Celsus, or Lucian, or Porphyry, deny that there was such an individual as Jesus Christ, or impeach the general correctness of the account of his life? Nothing of this description is to be found in any of these writers. We have from heathen testimony, during the first and second centuries, a confirmation of the general history of the New Testament; no endeavour is made to set aside the facts upon which our religion rests its claim upon our acceptance; and we find nothing more than expressions

of dislike to the Christian cause; satirical descriptions of peculiarities, or supposed peculiarities, in the character or conduct of individual Christians; and reasonings of a general nature against the truth of our religion. This being the case, the early adversaries of Christianity are entitled to no peculiar authority in the judgment that is formed upon the subject. They did not avail themselves of their opportunities; they brought forward no facts that might throw new light upon the subject; the evidence is open to us as it was to them; and their opinion is entitled to no more weight than the opinion of unbelievers in any later age. The positive testimony of an individual who examines and believes, is surely not to be set aside by the mere opinion of one who does not examine and disbelieves; nor by him who questions not the fact, but the conclusions to which the fact leads.

These considerations weaken the objection against the Gospel from the scepticism or opposition of many of the ancient philosophers. It must also be taken into account, that a considerable time often elapses ere those remote from the scene of events fully credit them, and deduce from them their proper consequences. Often aversion to consequences prolongs doubts as to the facts and reasonings from whence they are deduced. Even in physical or moral science, when any discovery is made that overturns long-established systems, or that interferes with the fame of rival philosophers, we see that, while some readily admit the truth, others as obstinately reject it. Scepticism is long maintained on the part of many, as to the accuracy of the observations which have been made, or as to the conclusiveness of the reasoning founded upon them. And nothing but the weight of public opinion at last forces attention to facts which, when attended to, lead to conviction. We know that there was not a Physician in England, above the age of forty, at the time

* Vernet.

of Harvey's discovery, who believed in his doctrine as to the circulation of the blood; and there were philosophers of great eminence, forty years after the death of Newton, who were believers in the vortices of Descartes. And if prejudice has so much influence in matters of mere science, can we wonder that its power should be greater in questions affecting our religious belief? Is it to be wondered at, that men trained up in scepticism should look upon Christianity as one of the forms of religious delusion that craft or superstition was imposing upon mankind? The report of miracles performed at a distance would attract little notice in an age when there were so many pretenders to magical arts. It was a considerable time ere the books of the New Testament were collected together; and they might never come under the notice of the philosophers of the first century, who would know Christianity, therefore, only from the false representations of its enemies. The self-indulgent witlings of an irreligious age would see nothing, in the high and self-denying virtues of the professors of the new religion, but a system of severity abhorrent to all their maxims, that afforded a popular subject of their mockery and derision; and in the humbling doctrines of the Cross, the philosophers, whether of the Porch or of the Academy, would see nothing but foolishness. The causes of the opposition of both these sects are well explained by Neander. As for the self-righteous Stoics, the advocates of an apathy founded on philosophical persuasion, they saw in the religion of the people nothing but a blind fanaticism, because the influence which it exerted over man's spirit did not repose on philosophical grounds of demonstration. The Platonists were nearest of all philosophers to Christianity; and they might find in their religious notions and their psychology many points of union with Christianity. Many Platonists accordingly became converts, and used

* See vol. i., p. 165, Rose's Translation.

their philosophical education afterwards in the cause of religion. But others struggled more earnestly against the new doctrines of Christianity, because, in what they once possessed, they had the complete advantage over the rest of the Heathens. It would be a bitter draught to them to drink the waters of humility and self-denial, as they must have done, had they consented to form their habits of thought on a revelation given as a matter of history. But there were, besides, decided differences in their habits of thought, and those which the Gospel requires. They must renounce their superiority in religion, and unite themselves with the multitude whom they despised in one faith; and they must limit their love of speculation by the definite facts of a revelation. They must find pure truth in one only religion, and give up their fanciful Heathenism, open as it was to speculation, and decked with all the graces of poetry and rhetoric; and exchange an imaginative polytheism for a dry and empty monotheism. Uninstructed Jews must become more to them than their god-like Plato. Instead of the god of their contemplative conception, from which all existence eternally flows by the principles of philosophical necessity, they were to recognise a personal Deity, who created and who guides all things by his own free will; and who looks not on the vast whole alone, but on each individual portion of it.

Notice has already been taken of all the references to Christianity in the rescripts and other writings of the Emperors, and in the works of the chief heathen authors, till the middle of the second century; and in none of them do we find even the attempt to substantiate any thing to the disadvantage of the new faith; on the contrary, Pliny bears testimony to their unexceptionable conduct as citizens; while from these sources we have evidence of the fact, that the Christians were known

Upon the same principle, I may remark, we find both Epictetus and Marcus Antoninus displeased with the Christians for exceeding their own sect in patience and fortitude. 2 L

VOL. XXIII. Third Series. JUNE, 1844.

as a sect before the end of the first century; and that, amidst terrible persecution, their numbers were rapidly increasing.

The silence of Seneca upon the subject of the Christian religion has been differently viewed. He was intimately connected with the court of Nero; where, from various causes, the changes and commotions in Judea must have been much talked of. He was a Minister of State in 61, when Paul was brought a prisoner to Rome; and it is not improbable that he might be present, if the Apostle pleaded his cause before the Emperor. There were saints in Cæsar's household, the Apostle's bonds were known in the palace, and there were disturbances occasioned in Rome among the Jews on account of Christianity; his brother Gallio might inform him of the proceedings against Paul in Corinth; and from these circumstances it is scarcely possible but that he should have known something of the new sect. It has been conjectured by some, that Paul's Epistle to the Romans might be communicated to him by some of the members of the royal household; and that all the things which have been mentioned might contribute to the comparatively favourable treatment which Paul experienced. This, however, is mere conjecture. There is an ancient tradition, that there was an epistolary correspondence between Paul and Seneca. Even this is not impossible. The letters, however, that have come down to us are certaiuly spurious; though this by no means proves that a genuine correspondence may not at one time have been in existence. Had Seneca been impressed with favourable sentiments towards the Christians, his silence would not be extraordinary. With all his admiration of virtue, he wanted firmness of mind to act up to his own ideas of excellence. He amassed riches, but always gave the advice to live above them; and while he urged others to benevolence, he could forget its dictates himself. Such a man was not likely to subject himself to any hazard in proclaiming his attachment in any

degree favourable to a doubtful cause. St. Austin thus accounts for his silence: If he had commended the Christians, he might have seemed unfriendly to the ancient rites of his country. If he had blamed them, his censure would have been contrary to the dictates of his own heart. It was no wonder that, under a bad Prince, and an intriguing court, the philosopher judged caution to be necessary.

The only notice of the Christians by Epictetus, who flourished about the time of Trajan, is that in the passage where he inquires, whether a man could not, by the inquiries of reason into the laws and order of the world, obtain that fearlessness which the Galileans obtained by habit and mad enthusiasm. Many authors have considered that allusion is made to the Christians in another part of the works of this philosopher; but it appears doubtful whether he confounded the Jews with the Christians; nor is it, perhaps, of much importance. passage is as follows (he is blaming those who assume any character without acting up to it):-" Why," says he, "do you call yourself a Stoic? Why do you deceive the multitude? Why should you pretend to be a Greek, when you are a Jew? Do you not perceive upon what terms a man is called a Jew, a Syrian, an Egyptian? When we see a man inconstant to his principles, we say, 'He is not a Jew, but only pretends to be so;' but when he has the temper of a man dipped ↓

*De Civ. Dei, cap. vi.

The

† Mrs. Carter remarks upon this passage: "Epictetus probably means, not any remaining disciples of Judas of Galilee, but the Christians, whom Julian afterwards affected to call Galileans. It helps to confirm this opinion, that M. Antoninus (lib. ii., sect. 3) mentions them by their proper name of Christians, as suffering death out of mere obstinacy. It would have been more reasonable, and more worthy the character of these great men, to have inquired into worship heathen deities, and by which they were the principles on which the Christians refused to enabled to support their sufferings with such amazing constancy, than rashly to pronounce their behaviour the effect of obstinacy and habit."

βεβαμμένου και ᾑρημένου, τότε και εστι # Όταν δ' αναλαβῃ το πάθος, το του τῷ όντι, και καλείται Ιουδαιος. (Lib. ii., cap. 9.)

and professed, then he is indeed, and is called, a Jew. Even so we are counterfeits,-Jews in name, but in reality something else."

And

There is an anecdote related of Epictetus, which has been employed by Celsus in his work against Christianity. When this philosopher was in the condition of a slave, his master one day amused himself in torturing his leg. Epictetus smiling, said, "You will break it." when it was broken, he said, "Did I not tell you, you would break it?" This, Celsus pronounces to be superior to any thing recorded of our Saviour's patience.* The * Τι τοιούτον δ' ύμετερος Θεος κολαζομενος εφθεγξατο;

story is not in Aulus Gellius; nor can it be considered as well authenticated. But, allowing that it were true, how inferior is the display of real moral dignity here, to that which is recorded upon different occasions of our Saviour! †

Where the disparity is so great, I feel that it is almost doing injustice to the character of our

divine Master to enter into a comparison.

"When reviled, he reviled not again." Insensibility to cruelty, however, he did not recom

mend. When one of the officers of the High Priest struck him with the palm of his hand, Jesus answered him, "If I have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil: but if well, why smitest thou me?" (John xviii. 23.) The arguments of Origen are very striking. (Lib. vii.)

REVIEW.

1. Lectures delivered at Broadmead Chapel, Bristol. By John Foster. 8vo. pp. xii, 419. Jackson and Walford.

2. Contributions, Biographical, Literary, and Philosophical, to the Eclectic Review. By John Foster. Two Volumes. 8vo. pp. viii, 570; iv, 527.

T. Ward and Co.

Ar a very early period of Christian history did party spirit, with that narrowness which is its unfailing, because natural, characteristic, -and by which, as a certain diagnostic, is this dangerous disease of the soul to be distinguished from that healthy zeal which has all the expansiveness and generosity of Christian love,-make its appearance among the disciples of our Lord. "Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us." Devils were cast out; and it was not human might that could prevail against that terrible mischief, and rescue the prey from the very jaws of the ravening wolf. And it was done, not in that proud reliance on an arm of flesh which, above all hinderances, separates from the power which only doeth marvellous things, but in the name of Christ. And yet,-" We forbade him, because he

He

followeth not us!" In the honest simplicity of his heart, John exhibited the principle of his error. thought not of saying, "He followeth not THEE." That was reserved for an age, as of greater malignity, so of greater cunning,-an age when falsehood not only assumed the garb of truth, but deliberated on the argumentation by which the hypocrisy was to be supported. Christ, indeed, could not be, in plain terms, set on one side, that his place might be taken by an unregenerate, though baptized, society, bearing the hallowed name of church; but that society, merely in virtue of a ritual (in the stead of the Levitical lineal) descent, was assumed to be so identified with Christ, as to be the only means of union with him, and to have the right to say, "He who is not united to us, is not united to Christ." This was not John's error; but its tendency was towards it. But our Lord at once put down

« VorigeDoorgaan »