* Josephus, de Antiq. Jud. lib. xviii. cap. 4.** Matt. xvi. 27, 28.—Matt. xxiv. 29, 34.—Mark xiii. 24,31.—Lukexxi. 25, 33.—1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.
27. The oracles of Delphos were obscure and capable of various interpretations, but the prophecies of sacred writ are all so clear and obvious, they shine so bright by their own native lustre, that no one has ever pretended to doubt their divine origin, except those infidels who are unfortunately blinded by the too great suffusion of light, which the Scriptures so continually emit. If the gift of curing the blind be not entirely lost among the apostles of the present day, it must be Christian charity to describe the symptoms of their disorder, that your Lordships may attempt the cure. These unfortunate people observe, that God said to Adam concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil,* "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die;" he transgressed, and, nevertheless, lived at least eight hundred years afterwards. They observe, that the great evangelical prophet Isaiah,* could foresee the downfall of Babylon by Cyrus, but could not tell the name of the Messiah, though his coming was an event of infinitely greater consequence; nay, they even charge him with a blunder, if we admit the opinion, that Christ was intended by the names, Mahershalal-hash-baz and Immanuel,** since he was never called by them. But they impiously solve this, difficulty, by affirming, that Isaiah might take the advantage of writing his prophecy concerning Cyrus after the events took place, but could not avail himself of the same pious cunning in the affair of the Messiah. And, in fact, we, the true believers, are in great want of evidence to overthrow their supposition. They demand, if the prophecies be so evident and clear, so different from those of the Heathens, how happened it that the whole Jewish nation, then living, together with the angel Gabriel, should mistake, and suppose the kingdom of the Messiah to be temporal; and that it should not be discovered that his kingdom was not of this world, until his enemies, the unbelievers, had prevailed and sent him out of it? They ask, whether those inspired writers who prophesied concerning things of no consequence, as the thirty pieces of silver, and the casting lots for his garments, could not, with equal certainty, have predicted the more important circumstances of his death and resurrection? In short, they beg to be shewn a single prophecy concerning which divines are agreed, and desire to know why, in the days of gospel light, the great prophecy of John the Divine should be more obscure and enigmatical than any which was written during the typical and shadowy dispensation of Moses? All which absurd questions your Lordships will, no doubt, answer, overthrow, and expose in the most palpable manner, to the great joy of us weak Christians.
* Isaiah xiv. and xlv.** Iaiah*** Luke i. 32.
28. How came it to pass, say our enemies, the cavillers and unbelievers, that Jesus, the Son of God, should curse a fig-tree* for being without fruit in March; was he, by whom the world was made,** ignorant that it was not the season for figs? They likewise demand, whether it was by design or mistake that he affirmed*** that wheat does not produce fruit unless it first die? If Scripture was not meant to instruct philosophers, yet why should it mislead them? But though these infidels may please to assert, that wheat in our days is governed by laws directly contrary to these, as all naturalists indeed acknowledge, yet who can affirm that it was so eighteen hundred years ago? On the contrary, since these things are recorded in the sacred writings, we ought to submit and believe that the system of Nature is changed from what it was in ancient times. This event probably came to pass when the sun was darkened, and the stars fell from Heaven, as mentioned in a former question.
* Matt. xxi. 18. Mark xi. 13, 20.** John i. 3.*** John xii. 24. |**** Quest. 26.
29. Your Lordships, no doubt, will readily explain and settle the mysterious disagreement between John the Baptist and Jesus Christ.* John being asked if he was Elias, answered, I am not; but Jesus** affirms, the contrary. As few even of the Christians have faith enough to believe that John was and was not Elias at the same time, a word or two of explanation would afford them infinite satisfaction. Commentators in divinity can do miracles in the way of explaining; but, unfortunately for us, all other miracles have long ceased, though at no time so much wanted as at present.
30. Out of forty Gospels we receive four as canonical; the rest are the fruitful produce of that spirit of forgery which the Christian world has always been celebrated for. Their piety was indefatigable in burning the books of the heretics and unbelievers, and the same piety was not sparing in furnishing apocryphal books. It is for the salvation of mankind that Christianity should prevail; and how can its propagation be advanced, and its dominion confirmed, more than by preventing the arguments against it from being exposed to view? Some may indeed pretend, that this mode of proceeding is tyrannical, and destructive of the rights of mankind; but we, the faithful, insist that it is zealous and politic. How can a man be said to be injured, even if we allow that he is cheated, since he is cheated into salvation, though perhaps against his will? Yet it will be doing a singular service to us weaker Christians, if your Lordships will point out by what particular emanation of the Holy Spirit the Church was enabled to select the divine out of such a number of apocryphal writings.
* John i. 21.** Matt. xi. 14.
Our enemies, the infidels, say, that time has obliterated the primitive disputes on this subject, and that the sanction of custom has confirmed the authority of the four Gospels, which, so far from external and historical, have not even the internal evidence of truth. They observe, that the gospel of Mark, though evidently an abridgement of that of Matthew, yet differs from it in many very material particulars; that the grand circumstance of the conspiracy by which Christ lost his life, is told differently and discordantly by all the four. They express the highest astonishment that the sending of Jesus to Herod by Pilate should be related by Luke, and that the other three Evangelists should not only omit that occurrence, but relate the proceedings in this affair so as entirely to exclude the possibility of its insertion. They think it also impossible that an earthquake should rend rocks, and that many saints should arise from the dead, and go into the holy city, as Matthew relates; and yet that these great events should not only have escaped contemporary historians, but even the other three Evangelists. And to this they add, that it is particularly strange and amazing that John, who was present at the crucifixion,* should not only forbear to mention any one of the terrible appearances recorded in Matthew on that occasion, but that even the darkness of three hours' duration, which must have made the most lasting impression on every individual in Judea, should also be by him totally unnoticed.
* Such as we behold even in the present enlightened day bythat great prophetess, Joanna Southcott, and her followers!who are now deceiving the people of this kingdom with herprophecies. Edit.
31. The malevolence and incredulity of our adversaries, the unbelievers, are visible in nothing so much as the criticisms they make on the resurrection. They complain, and with some degree of reason, that this most miraculous and important event, instead of possessing that extraordinary and uncommonly clear evidence, which its incredible nature requires, bears, on the contrary, every mark of a forgery. Instead of Christ's re-appearing to all the world, that the world might believe, he is said to have appeared to his disciples, who were the only men on earth whose evidence could be exceptionable in the case; men who already engaged in the attempt of forming a sect or party,* could by no means be disinterested in their report; the only men on earth who could be suspected of forgery in the present instance. These are the men, say our enemies, who were to preach Jesus Christ to the world, and to find arguments to support the fact, which Christ might haveuncontrovertiblyestablished by appearing again in public. But the generation was unworthy of that condescension, we reply, which they wickedly paraphrase thus: "God, who desireth: not the death of a sinner, left them in their sins, that they might die—God, who spared not his beloved Son, but gave him to the bitterness of death, thatsinners might be saved, chose, nevertheless, to deprive all mankind of the properevidence of the resurrection, because the Jews of that age weresinners!" Mercy is the character of the first act, but how shall we characterize the latter? Is the God of theChristiansinconsistent with himself? Did the great and merciful Being act thus? Did he inspire four men to write accounts of theresurrection,* which disagree with each other in almost every circumstance? Does his divine truth bear the resemblance of forgery and invention, that we may shew our faith and reliance on him, by making a sacrifice of our reason; and believing by an act, not of the understanding but of the will? But why, O thou Supreme Governor! why hast thou given us reason, if reason be the accursed thing which we ought to cast from us? Or rather, is not reason the first and only revelation from thee; and are not those enthusiasts accursed, who, promulgating vile systems unworthy of thee, find their base purposes are not to be accomplished, till they have first deprived us of thy best gift?
* See the concluding chapters of the four Evangelists.
These, my Lords, are the reflections of infidels and unbelievers; reflections which our truly Christian zeal and detestation would have prevented us from repeating, if we had not been supported by a pleasing anticipation of the glorious and satisfactory manner in which they will be answered, explained, and overthrown by your Lordships, to the entire satisfaction and conviction of us weak Christians. Not by persecution, pains, penalties, fines and imprisonment, otherwise the unbelievers will then sneeringly say, that your Lordships are incapable of answering them, or, what is more unfortunate, that they are really unanswerable.
FINIS.