{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_24594/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_24594","id":"gutenberg_24594","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/24594","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Rationalism"],"text":"Produced by Charles Klingman\n\n\n\n\n  A\n  Letter\n  To the\n  Reverend Mr. Channing\n  Relative to\n  His Two Sermons\n  On\n  Infidelity\n\n  By George Bethune English, A.M.\n  Boston\n  Printed for the Author\n  1813\n\nLETTER, &c.\n\nRev. Sir,\n\nYour eloquent and interesting Sermons on Infidelity, I have read with\nthe interest arising from the nature of the subject you have discussed,\nand the impressive manner in which you have treated it.\n\nAs it is understood that the appearance of those Sermons was owing to a\nBook lately published by me, I request your pardon for a liberty I am\nabout to take, which in any other circumstances I should blush to\npresume upon-it is sir, with deference, and great respect, to express\nmy sentiments with regard to some of the arguments contained in them,\nwhere the reasoning does not appear to me so unexceptionable as the\nlanguage in which it is enveloped, is eloquent and affecting.  There\nare also some opinions of yours relative to matters of fact, in those\ndiscourses, to which I would respectfully solicit your attention.\n\nIt afforded me much pleasure, though it caused me no surprise, to\nperceive you to say in your introductory remarks, that these Sermons\nwere designed to procure for the arguments for Christianity \"a serious,\nand respectful attention\" and, that if you should \"be so happy as to\nawaken candid and patient enquiry,\" your \"principal object will be\naccomplished\" you wish, \"that Christianity should be thoroughly\nexamined,\" you do \"not wish to screen it from enquiry.\" It would cease,\nyou observe to be your support were you not \"persuaded that it is able\nto sustain the most deliberate investigation.\"\n\nIn considering Christianity as a fair subject for discussion, you do\njustice to the cause you so eloquently defend for Christianity itself\nhonestly, and openly professes to offer itself, to the belief of all\nmankind solely on account of the reasons which support it; and since\nits learned, and liberal advocates always announce, and recommend it\nfrom the Pulpit as reasonable in itself and confirmed by unanswerable\narguments; no one who believes them sincere can doubt, that they are\nperfectly willing to have its claims openly discussed and think\nthemselves amply able to give valid reasons, \"for the faith that is in\nthem,\" and which they so earnestly invite all men to receive.\n\nYou observe, p. 13, that the writings of Infidels, \"have been injurious\nnot so much by the strength of their arguments, as by the positive, and\ncontemptuous manner In which they speak of Revelation, they abound in\nsarcasm, abuse, and sneer, and supply the place of reasoning, by wit\nand satire.\" If so sir, it is all in favor of the cause you defend; for\nthe tiny weapons of wit, and ridicule, will assuredly fly to shivers\nunder a few blows from the solid, and massy club of sound logic.  The\nman who attacks any system of Religion merely with wit, and ridicule,\ncan never, I conceive, be a very formidable antagonist.\n\nThe mental imbecility of the man who could touch such a subject as\nreligion in any shape with no other arms, would render him a harmless\nadversary, and the intrinsic weakness of such shining but slender\nweapons, when encountered with something more solid, would eventually\nrender him a contemptible one, I therefore cannot help doubting, that\nwit and ridicule alone, and unsupported by reasoning, and good\nreasoning too, could ever have been very successfully wielded against\nsuch a thing as the Christian Religion, by its opposers.\n\nNo man it appears to me of common understanding will ever resign his\nreligion on account of a few jokes, and bon mots. The adherence of such\nmen as are weak enough to be subverted by such trifles can do as little\nhonor to Christianity, as their abandoning it for such reasons, can\naffect it with disgrace. The belief of such men could never have been\nmore than habit, and their Infidelity nothing else than a freak of\nfolly, which is reproachful only to themselves.  But after all, this\nvehement objection to wit and ridicule, appears to me a little\nimprudent; for a sarcastic opponent might reply, that sceptics, have\nbeen not unfrequently attacked with irony most severe, and sometimes\nsorely wounded by vollies of wit shot from the pulpit, a place too\nwhere it can be done without fear of reprisals.  You know sir, that the\nfamous Warburton, for instance, used to amuse himself with not only\ncutting down every unlucky sceptic that came in his way, but he\nabsolutely cut them to pieces with the edge of ridicule, most bitterly\nenvenomed too with something else. It seems therefore a little\nunreasonable, that what is fair for one party, should not be so for the\nother too.  Besides, the advocates of a cause, which is said not only\nnot to fear examination, but to challenge it, should not, it appears to\nme, when taken at their words shrink, and draw back, on account of such\ntrifles as wit, and ridicule; because the style of an investigation\ncannot certainly conceal the immutable distinction between a good\nargument and a bad one, from such learned and penetrating adversaries\nas the Clergy; and moreover does it appear clear that an advocate after\nasserting a proposition, and defying refutation, has any right to\ninsist, that his opponent should put his arguments in just such a form\nas would be most convenient to him? What would a penetrating Lawyer\nthink of the cause of his opponent, on finding him to insist upon his\narranging his objections, and expressing his arguments just so that it\nmight be most easy to him to reply to them?\n\nFor my own part, I have no claims to wit, and if I have been sometimes\nsarcastic it was more than I meant to be, it was the premeditated\nconsequence of bitter feelings arising from considering myself as\nhaving been betrayed by my credulity into taking a situation in\nsociety, which I had discovered I must quit at no less a hazard than\nthat the destruction of all my plans and prospects for life. At any\nrate I am satisfied, that no ridicule of mine has been intentionally\nadduced by me in order to corroborate a false position, or a weak\nargument; I believe that it seldom appears except in the rear of\nsomething more respectable and efficient.\n\nYou observe, that Christianity \"deserves at least respectful, and\nserious attention, must be evident to every man who has honesty of\nmind.\" Nothing can be more true than this, it is a subject which does\ndeserve a respectful, and serious attention: because every thing\nclaiming to be from God ought to be carefully, coolly, and respectfully\nexamined on these accounts.\n\n1. If it be from God it is of the highest importance to the welfare of\nmankind that its truth should be investigated thoroughly, and settled\nfirmly.\n\n2. Because if it is not from God it must be the fruit of either of\nerror or fraud, if of the first it ought to be rejected as a delusion;\nif of the second it ought to be cast off as a deception practiced in\nthe name of the God of truth, and therefore disrespectful to him.\n\nIt also merits, you most truly say, a respectful examination on account\nof the character of its founder, for the character of Jesus you justly\nconsider as too excellent and unexceptionable to be reproached.\nWhatever may be said concerning the moral excellence of that person's\ncharacter I will cheerfully assent to, and I could not listen without\ndisgust to language impeaching his moral purity. This I can do without\nceasing to suppose him an enthusiast; for there appears to me to be too\nmany marks of it in the New Testament for the idea to be set aside by a\nfew eloquent exclamations, and notes of admiration; if I am wrong in\nthis idea or in others, I will not prove indocile to arguments that\nshall sufficiently show the contrary.\n\nYou observe, p. 16. \"another consideration which entitles Christianity\nto respectful attention is this. That Jesus Christ appeared at a time\nwhen there prevailed in the east a universal expectation of a\ndistinguished personage who was to produce a great and happy change in\nthe world. This expectation was built on writings which claimed to be\nprophetic, which existed long before Jesus was born.\"\n\nI cannot help thinking the very great stress which has been laid upon\nthis \"rumour spread all over the east\" a little unreasonable.\n\nFor 1. \"A rumour\" is not as I apprehend an adequate foundation on which\nto build such a thing as the Christian religion, which claims to be\nderived from heaven.\n\n2. Those who have brought forward with so much earnestness this popular\nrumour, have not, I conceive, paid due attention to the causes that\nmight naturally have produced it, which were possibly these. There is\nin the Jewish prophets frequent mention of a great deliverer, and it is\nrepresented that he should appear in the time when the Jewish nation\nshould be suffering under most grievous afflictions, and who should\ndeliver them therefrom, Now was it not perfectly natural for the Jews,\ndispersed over Asia, to expect, and to circulate the notion of this\ndeliverer when their own sufferings, inflicted by their enemies, were\nintolerable? If you will open Josephus, you will there read that about\nand after the time of the crucifixion of Jesus the Jews were dreadfully\noppressed by the Romans, and were designedly driven to desperation, by\nFlorus with the express purpose of exciting a rebellion, and thus\nprevent their accusing him of his crimes before the tribunal of Caesar.\nWas it at all unnatural therefore for the Jews thus oppressed, and\nreading in their sacred books, that they should be delivered from their\noppressors by the appearance of their great deliverer when their\nsufferings were at the heighth; was it extraordinary that the Jews,\nwrithing under the lash of tyrannical conquerors, and considering their\nthen circumstances, to expect this deliverer at that time?  And to\nconclude, does it, after all, appear that this rumour prevailed in the\nlife time of Jesus, or not till about thirty years after his\ncrucifixion?\n\nYou add, \"now this is a remarkable circumstance which distinguishes\nJesus from the founders of all other religions.\" This was no doubt a\nslip of the memory, as so learned a man as Mr. Channing, no doubt knows\nthat the Mahometans, who are the most numerous sect of religionists now\nin the world, affirm, that there was a very general expectation of\ntheir victorious prophet Mahomet, about the time of his birth grounded\non tradition, and, as they say, originally on very many texts of the\nOld Testament, which texts, with divers more from the New Testament,\nare urged by the Mahometan Divines as to the same purpose: these texts,\nand their irrelevancy are collected and shown by Father Maracci in his\nfirst Dissertation prefixed to his edition of the Koran, printed at\nPadua 1698. Collins, in his answer to the Bishop of Litchfield, and\nCoventry, states this fact, and refers to \"Addison's first state of\nMahometanism\" p. 35. \"Life of Mahomet\" before four treatises concerning\nthe doctrine of the Mahometans, p. 9.  Maracci's Appendix ad Prodromum\nprimum.p. 36-46.\n\nIn p. 18, you say, that the prophecies with regard to the Messiah,\n\"describe a deliverer of the human race very similar to say the least\nto the character in which Jesus appeared.\"  I must confess that after\nreading again the prophecies collected in the third chapter of \"The\nGrounds of Christianity examined\" this similarity still remains\ninvisible to me. I hope you will not be offended at my avowing that you\nappear to me to be sensible of the difficulty of this affair of the\nMessiahship, for you content yourself with adducing that characteristic\nof the Christ recorded in the Old Testament, his teaching and\nenlightening the Gentiles with the knowledge of God, and true religion,\nas applicable to Jesus, and sufficient to prove him the Messiah. Yet\nsupposing that this characteristic would apply to Jesus, it would not,\nI think, be sufficient to prove him to be the Messiah or Christ: since\nthis characteristic is merely one among twenty other marks given, and\nrequired to be found.\n\n2. It would, it appears to me, prove Mahomet the Messiah sooner than\nJesus; since Mahomet in person converted more Gentiles to the knowledge\nand worship of one God during his life time, than Christianity did in\none hundred years.\n\n3. But what is still more to the purpose, it cannot, I conceive, apply\nto Jesus at all, since he did not fulfill even this solitary\ncharacteristic; for he did not preach to the Gentiles, but confined his\nmission and teaching to \"the lost sheep of the house of Israel.\"  It\nwas Paul who established Christianity among the Gentiles.\n\nIn p. 18, you appear to admit that all the characteristic marks of the\nMessiah were not manifested in Jesus, but will be manifested at some\nfuture period. To which a Jew might answer, by politely asking you,\nwhether then you do not require too much of him for the present, in\ndemanding faith upon credit?\n\nBut that when Jesus of Nazareth in this future time shall fulfill the\nprophecies; will it not be time enough to believe him to be the Messiah?\n\nYou ask, p. 19, \"was ever character more pacific than that of Jesus?\nCan any religion breathe a milder temper than his? Into how many\nferocious breasts has it already infused the kindest and gentlest\nspirit? And after all these considerations is Jesus to be rejected\nbecause some prophecies which relate to his future triumphs are not yet\naccomplished?\"  This argument I can easily conceive must have had great\nweight with such a man as Mr. Channing, whose heart accords with every\nthing that is mild and amiable. But after all my dear sir, what are\n\"all these considerations\" to the purpose? Show that Jesus was as\namiable and as good as the most vivid imagination can paint; nay, prove\nhim to have been an angel from heaven, and it will not, it seems to me,\nat all tend towards demonstrating him to be the Messiah of the Old\nTestament, and if his religion was as mild as doves, and as beneficent\nas the blessed sun of heaven, still I might respectfully insist, that\nunless he answers to the description of the Messiah given in the Old\nTestament, it is all irrelevant, and \"some prophecies\" (or even one)\nunaccomplished, which it is expressly said should be accomplished at\nthe appearance of the Messiah, are quite sufficient I conceive to\nnullify his claims.\n\nIn the 29th page you say that \"the Gospels are something more than\nloose and idle rumours of events which happened in a distant age, and a\ndistant nation. We have the testimony of men who were the associates of\nJesus Christ; who received his instructions from his own lips and saw\nhis works with their own eyes.\"\n\nI presume that after what I have represented to Mr. Cary upon the\nsubject of the Gospels according to Matthew and John, who know are the\nonly Evangelists supposed to have heard with their ears, and seen with\ntheir eyes the doctrines and facts recorded in those books, you will be\nwilling to allow, that this is very strong language. You observe in\nyour note to p. 19, that the other writings of the New Testament,\n(except Luke, Acts, and Paul's Epistles) \"may be all resigned, and our\nreligion and its evidences will be unimpaired.\" This language too\nappears to me to be too strong, since if you give up all but the\nwritings you mention we shall by no means have \"the testimony of men\nwho were the associates of Jesus Christ, who received his instructions\nfrom his own lips, and saw his works with their own eyes,\" for in\ngiving up so much do you not resign the gospels according to Matthew\nand John?\n\n2. It requires some softening I think on these accounts; since 1. Luke\nwas not an eyewitness of the facts he records in his gospel, it is only\na hearsay story. 2. It contradicts the other gospels.\n\n3. It has been grossly interpolated.\n\n4. The learned Professor Marsh in his dissertation upon the three first\ngospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, (in his notes to Michaelis'\nIntroduction to the N. T.) represents, and gives ingenious reasons to\nprove, that those gospels are Compilations from pre-existing documents,\nwritten by nobody knows who.  So that the pieces from which the three\nfirst gospels were composed were, according to this Hypothesis,\nanonymous, and the gospels themselves written by we do not know what\nauthors; and yet, you know sir, that these patch-work narratives of\nmiracles have passed not only for credible, bat for inspired!\n\n5. The Book of Acts was rejected by the Jewish Christians, as\ncontaining accounts untrue, and contradictory to their Acts of the\nApostles.  It was rejected also by the Encratites, and the Severians,\nand I believe by the Marcionites.  The Jewish Christians were the\noldest Christian Church, and they pronounced that the Book of Acts in\nour Canon was written by a partizan of Paul's; and it will be\nrecollected that our Book of Acts is in fact, principally taken up in\nrecording the travels and preaching of Paul, and contains little\ncomparatively of the other Apostles. The Jewish Christians had a Book\nof Acts different from ours. And besides the fact, that the oldest\nChristian church, the mother church of Judea, with whom we should\nexpect to find the truth if any where, rejected the Acts, Chrysostom\nBishop of Constantinople, at the end of the 4th century, in a homily\nupon this Book says, that \"not only the author and collector of the\nBook, but the Book itself was unknown to many.\" This mother church had\nnot only a book of Acts of the apostles different from ours, but also a\ngospel of their own, called the gospel of the twelve apostles, which is\nsupposed by the learned in important particulars to differ from ours.\nAccording to Augustine however, this gospel was publickly read in the\nchurches as authentick for 300 years. This gospel in the opinion of\nGrabe, Mills, and other learned men, was written before the gospels now\nreceived as canonical. See Toland's Nazarenus.\n\n6. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, those to the Ephesians, and\nColossians, are nearly proved to be apocryphal by Evanson, and about\nthe rest there are some suspicious circumstances. You refer the reader\nof your Sermons in that note to Paley's Evidences, 9th chapter, for\nevidence for the authenticity of the rest of the gospels; but if the\nreader goes there he will find, that all the testimony Paley quotes for\nthe first 200 years after Christ except that of Papias, Irenaeus, and\nTertullian, (the value of whose testimony to the authenticity of the\ngospels, has been considered in the 16th ch. of my work; and which may\nfurther appear from these circumstances, that Irenaeus considered the\nBook of Hermas an inspired Scripture as much as he did the four\ngospels, and that Tertullian contended stoutly for the inspiration of\nthe ridiculous book of Enoch, one of the most stupid forgeries that\never was seen,) the quotations and supposed allusions in the earlier\nfathers are uncertain, since it is acknowledged by Dodwell, and also by\nothers, that it cannot be shown with any certainty, whether these\nquotations and allusions belong to ours or to apocryphal gospels.  And\nto conclude, would you not require as much evidence for the\nauthenticity of the gospels, which relate supernatural events, as we\nhave for most of the classics, and yet if you examine the subject\nclosely, you will be satisfied to your astonishment that we have not so\nmuch as we have for the works of Virgil or Cicero; and that we have not\nby a great deal so much testimony for the miracles of Jesus, which were\nsupernatural events which require at least as great proof as natural\nones as we have for the deaths of Pompey and of Julius Caesar, though\nyou seem from your note to think otherwise. As to Celsus, Porphyry, and\nJulian, if they allowed the gospels to be genuine, they might have done\nso, and taken advantage of such an allowance to show that they could\nnet, from their contradictions, have been written by men having a\nmission from the God of Truth. But Sir, is it certain that they did\nacknowledge it? Since the only fragments of their works upon\nChristianity we have remaining, are just such parts as their Christian\nanswerers have picked out, and selected; the works themselves were\ncarefully burned. And that these answerers have not acted fairly may be\nmore than suspected, I think from a hint given us by Jerom, (which you\nwill find in Dr. Middleton's Free Enquiry) that Origen in his answer to\nCelsus, sometimes fought the devil at his own weapons, i.e. lied for\nthe sake of the truth; and it is notorious, that the Fathers of the\nchurch allowed this to be lawful, and practiced it abundantly. See the\nnote at the end.\n\nYou allow in the 20th page that the sincerity of the propagators of\nopinions is no proof of their truth; and yet you seem to think, that\nthe twelve apostles must have been correct, because the opinions they\npropagated were, you think, contrary to their prejudices as Jews. This\nargument cannot, I conceive, support the consequences you lay upon it,\nwere it true that the apostles had abandoned their opinions as Jews\nabout the nature of the Messiah's Kingdom.  But I believe you will not\nbe a little surprized, when I shall show you, that in preaching Jesus\nas the Messiah they did by no means adopt the very spiritual ideas you\nascribe to them, but in fact believed that Jesus would soon return and\n\"restore the Kingdom to Israel\" in good earnest, and in a sense by no\nmeans spiritual. This argument, if I can establish it, you observe,\nsir, no doubt, must consequently subvert a very considerable part of\nyour system, by which you endeavour to account for the discrepancies\nwhich you do allow as yet to subsist between the prophecies of the\nMessiah, and Jesus of Nazareth. I beseech you therefore to heed me\ncarefully.\n\nIn Luke i. verse 32. The angel tells Mary that her son Jesus should be\ngreat, and be called: the son of the Highest and the Lord God shall\ngive unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over\nthe house of Israel forever and to his kingdom there shall be no end,\nand in verse 67, &c. Zachariah, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost\ntoo, thus praises God concerning Jesus \"Blessed be the Lord God of\nIsrael, because he hath visited and redeemed his people, and he hath\nraised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant\nDavid; as he spake by the month of his holy prophets which have been\nsince the world began, that we should be saved from our enemies and\nfrom the hand of all that hate us, &c. that we being delivered from the\nhand of our enemies should serve him with holiness and righteousness\nbefore him all the days of our lives.\"  [See the Original.] You see,\nsir the notion that these words allude to, they certainly appear to me\nto mean something else than deliverance from spiritual foes.  See also\nin the 2d ch. 25 verse, where Simeon a man who was \"looking for the\nconsolation of Israel\" and was full of the Holy Ghost, expresses\nsimilar sentiments. And Anna the prophetess also spake concerning Jesus\nto all who \"were expecting deliverance in Jerusalem,\" i.e. undoubtedly\ndeliverance from the Romans. The carnal ideas of the Apostles with\nregard to the nature of their Master's Kingdom, and their consequent\nexpectations with regard to Jesus, before his crucifixion, are\nacknowledged; and in the 24th chapt. of Luke 21st v. they say in\ndespair, \"But we trusted that it had been he who should have redeemed\nIsrael.\" And after the resurrection, and just before the ascension of\nJesus, after they had been for forty days \"instructed in the things\npertaining to the kingdom of God,\" which was the same as that of the\nMessiah, by Jesus himself, they do not seem to have had the least idea\nof the metaphysical kingdom of modern Christians, for they ask him,\n\"Lord wilt thou now (or at this time) restore the kingdom to Israel?\"\nAnd his answer is, not that it should never be restored, but that \"it\nwas not for them to know the times, and the seasons,\" see Acts 1. And\neven after the day of Pentecost, ch. iii. verse 19, Peter tells the\nJews to repent, that their sins may be blotted out \"when the times of\nrefreshing [i.e. of deliverance] shall come from the face of the Lord,\nand he shall send Jesus Christ [i.e.  the Messiah] before preached, (or\npromised) unto you, whom the heavens must receive until the times of\nthe restoration of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all\nhis holy prophets since the world began.\" From this we see, that the\nApostles thought that Jesus was gone to heaven for a time, and was to\nreturn again [there is no mention whatever in the Prophets of a double\ncoming of the Messiah] and fulfill the prophecies with regard to \"the\nrestoration of all things\" to a paradisiacal state, and the temporal\nkingdom of the Messiah sitting upon the throne of David in Jerusalem,\nall which is contained in the words of \"the holy prophets\" which have\nbeen since the world began. And what sort of a kingdom it was to be\nwill appear from the not very spiritual description of the reign of\nJesus upon earth during the Millennium, described in the 20th chapter\nof Revelations, and not only so, but the author of that book represents\nthe final, and permanent state of the blessed as fixed, not in heaven,\nas modern Christians suppose, but on a new earth, or the earth renewed,\nand in a superb city, called \"the new Jerusalem.\"\n\nIn fact, the ideas of the twelve Apostles upon the subject of the\nkingdom of the Messiah were precisely as carnal as those of their\nunbelieving brethren of the Jewish nation.  They believed, as has been\nshown abundantly in the 15th chapter of \"The Grounds of Christianity\nExamined,\" that their Master Jesus would come again, as he had told\nthem he would, in that generation, and perform for Israel all the\nglorious things promised; that he would come in a cloud with power and\ngreat glory, and all the holy angels with him; that many from the east,\nand from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in\nthat kingdom; and that the disciples were to eat and drink at Jesus'\ntable in his kingdom, and were to sit on twelve thrones judging the\ntwelve tribes of Israel. The author of the book of Revelations, after\ndescribing the magnificence and felicity of Jesus' kingdom upon earth,\nrepresents him as saying that he should come quickly: and in the first\nchapters, that they who had pierced him should see him coming in the\nclouds. The Apostles, as appears from the epistles, were on tiptoe with\nexpectation, and frequently assured their converts that \"the Lord is at\nhand, the judge stood before the door, &c.\"  And to conclude, Can you\nnot now, sir, conceive, and guess the cause of the gradual\ndisappearance of the Jewish Christians after \"that generation had\npassed away?\" The fact was, that the Jewish Christians never dreamed of\nthat figment a spiritual Messiah. They expected that Jesus would come\nagain in \"that generation\" as he had told them he would; he did not\ncome; in consequence the Jewish Church, after waiting, and waiting a\ngreat while, dwindled into annihilation.\n\nYou conclude your most eloquent sermons by an appeal to the feelings in\nbehalf of opinions which ought I think to be defended by reason and\nproof rather than by sentiment. You complain of ridicule in an\nexamination of this kind. I hope you will excuse my expressing some\ndoubts whether eloquent sentiment, and appeals to the feelings are less\nexceptionable in a discussion of the causes why we ought to give\nChristianity a respectful and dispassionate examination. If I were so\nhappy as to be so eloquent as you, and in a manner which such power of\npersuasion as you possess would give me ability to do, had described\nthe burnings, the tortures, the murders, and the plundering of the\nJew's during the last thousand years, in order to cause my readers to\nwish to find reason to hate Christianity; would you not have said it\nwas unfair? It cannot be necessary to inform so finished a scholar as\nMr. Channing, that in a discussion about the truth of a system the\nconsideration of the consequences of the system's being proved to be\nfalse, is irrelevant and contrary to rule. You will say that you were\nnot discussing the truth of a system, but the reasons why we should\ngive it a respectful examination. This is true-The question you advised\nyour auditors to examine was, whether the Christian religion was true\nor otherwise. Be it so. I appeal then to your candour, whether it was\nthe way to send them to the important enquiry unprejudiced and\nunbiased, to impress them by authority, and by arguments which are good\nonly when used as subsidiary to proof or demonstration and by\nterrifying them with what you imagine would be the consequences of\nfinding that Christianity is unfounded? Ah sir, does the advocate of a\ncause \"founded on adamant\" wish to dazzle the judges and fascinate the\njury before he ventures to bring the merits of his cause to trial? Must\nthey be made to shed tears, must their hearts be made to feel that you\nare right, in order that their understandings may be able to perceive\nit? Should the learned and able champion of a system, who offers it as\ntrue, and to be received only because it is true, when its claims are\nthreatened with a scrutiny, lay so much stress upon its supposed\nutility when the question is its truth? Is it an argument that\nChristianity is true, because if false, you think we should have no\nreligion left? This argument no doubt looks ludicrous to you, and yet I\nam told that it has been gravely offered by some well meaning men after\nreading your sermons, who thought it of no small weight. You may see\nfrom this, my dear sir, how easily simplicity is satisfied.\n\nYou lay great stress upon the comforts derived from believing\nChristianity true. But ought men to be encouraged to lean and build\ntheir hopes on what may perhaps when examined turn out to be a broken\nreed? The expiring Indian dies in peace-holding a cow's tail in his\nhand. If he was in his full health, and vigour of understanding, would\nyou think It charitable to let that man remain uninformed of his\ndelusion in trusting to such a staff of comfort? Would you not\nendeavour to enlighten him, and make him ashamed of his superstition? I\nknow you would, and you would do him a kindness deserving his\ngratitude. To conclude, the Christian religion is either a divine and\nsolid foundation of morals, hope, and consolation, or it is not. If it\nis, there is no reason in the world to fear, that it can be undermined,\nor hurt in the least. To believe so would be I conceive to doubt the\nProvidence of God. For it cannot be supposed, that a religion really\ngiven by the Almighty and All wise can be undermined by a wretched\nmortal, a child of dust and infirmity; the supposition is monstrous,\nand therefore no examination of its claims ought to be deprecated, or\nfrowned at by those who think it \"founded on adamant,\" for no man\nshrinks at having that examined which he is positively confident of\nbeing able to prove.\n\n2.  If this foundation be not divine and solid it ought I conceive to\nbe undermined, and abandoned. For willfully, and knowingly to suffer\nconfiding men to be duped, or allured into building their hopes and\nconsolation upon a delusion, is in my opinion to maltreat, and to\ndespise them. And to suffer them to be imposed upon is both unbrotherly\nand dishonest. And to advocate, or to insinuate a defense of an unsound\nfoundation upon the principle of pious frauds, viz. because it is\nsupposed by its defenders to be useful, you will no doubt agree with me\nis both absurd, and immoral. For in the long run truth is more useful\nthan error, \"nothing (says Lord Bacon) is so pernicious as deified\nerror.\" And it must not be supposed, or insinuated, that the good God\nhas made it necessary, that the morals, comfort, and consolation of his\nrational creatures should be founded on, or be supported by a mistake\nand a delusion; for it would be virtually to deny his Providence.  In\nfine, Christianity come to us as from God, and says to us, \"He that\nbelieveth shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned.\"\nTherefore, he that receives such extraordinary claims without\nexamination, is \"in my opinion, a wittol; and he who suffers himself to\nbe compelled to swallow such pretensions without the severest scrutiny,\naccording to my notions of things, has no claims to be considered as a\nman of common sense.\n\nBefore I close my letter, it occurs to me to observe, that you appear\nto me to have misconceived the state of the case, in representing in\nyour sermons, that if you give up Christianity you will have no\nreligion left. Christianity, if I understand it, is properly contained\nand taught in the New Testament alone. I am not aware, my dear sir,\nthat if you were to give up the New Testament you would be without a\nreligion, or even what you acknowledge as divine revelation. It appears\nto me, that a Christian might, if he chose, give up the New Testament\nand place himself on the footing of the devout Gentiles mentioned in\nthe Acts, who worshipped the one God, and kept the moral law of the Old\nTestament. You will recollect, that I have not attempted to affect the\nauthority of the Old Testament which you acknowledge to contain a\nDivine revelation. I never shall because, I would never quarrel with\nany thing merely for the sake of disputing.  Whether the Old Testament\ncontains a revelation from God, or not, its moral precepts are, as far\nas I know unexceptionable; there is not, I believe, any thing\nextravagant or impracticable in them, they are such as promote the good\norder of society. Its religion in fact is merely Theism garnished, and\nguarded by a splendid ritual, and gorgeous ceremonies; the belief of it\ncan produce no oppression and wretchedness to any portion of mankind,\nand for these reasons I for one will never attempt to weaken its\ncredit, whatever may be my own opinion with regard to its supernatural\nclaims.\n\nIn fact, to speak correctly, the Old Testament is at this moment the\nsole true canon of Scripture, acknowledged as such by genuine\nChristianity; it was the only canon which was acknowledged by Christ,\nand his immediate Apostles. The books of the New Testament are all\noccasional books, and not a code or system of religion; nor were they\nall collected into one body, nor declared by any even human authority\nto be all canonical till several hundred years after Jesus Christ. They\nare books written by Christians, and contain proofs of Christianity\nalleged from the Old Testament, but contain Christianity itself no\notherwise, it appears to me, than as explaining, illustrating, and\nconfirming Christianity supposed to be taught in the Old Testament.\nThey are mostly, where they inculcate doctrines, Commentaries on the\nOld Testament deriving from thence, and giving what the writers\nimagined to be contained in and hidden under the letter of it.  And\nupon the same principle that the books of the New Testament were\nreceived as canonical, so was the Pastor of Hermas, the Book of Enoch,\nand others, just as highly venerated by the early Christians. But they\ndid not at first, as I apprehend their expressions, rank them with the\nOld Testament, which was called \"the Scriptures,\" by way of excellence.\nThe Old Testament was in fact supposed by the writers of the New, to\ncontain Christianity under the bark of the letter; and they represent\nChristianity as having been preached to the ancient Jews under the\nfigure of types, and allegories. See Gal. iii. 8. Heb. xi. and the\nfirst Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, ch. x. In a word, the\nApostles professed to \"say none ether things than those which the\nprophets and Moses did say.\" Acts xxvi. 22,\n\nJesus and his Apostles do frequently, and emphatically style the books\nof the Old Testament \"The Scriptures,\" and refer men to them as their\nrule, and canon. And Paul says, Acts xxiv. 14, \"After the [Christian]\nway, which ye call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers;\nbelieving all things that are written in the law, and the prophets.\"\nBut it does not appear, that any new books were declared by them to\nhave that character. Nor was there any new canon of Scripture, or any\ncollection of books as Scripture made whether of Gospels or Epistles\nduring the lives of the Apostles; as is well known to you.--And if\nneither Jesus nor his apostles declared any other books to be canonical\nbesides those of the Old Testament, I would ask the Christian who did?\nOr who had a right and authority to declare or make any books\ncanonical? If Christianity required a new canon, or new digest of laws,\nit should seem that it ought to have been done by Jesus and his\napostles, and not left to be executed by any after them: especially not\nleft to be settled long after their deaths by weak, enthusiastic,\nignorant, silly and factious men, such as the fathers, who were so\nbadly informed of the genuine writings of the founders of their\nreligion, that they were, when they came to collect and make a new\ncanon, greatly divided: about the genuineness of all books bearing the\nnames of the apostles, and contended with one another bitterly about\ntheir authority; and after all decree to be genuine some which are\npalpably forgeries.\n\nBut the truth is, that the present New Testament Canon, was collected\nand established by the Gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians\nreceived none of them, but acknowledged nothing for Scripture but the\nbooks of the Old Testament which was the sole Canon left them by the\ntwelve apostles.  Their Gospel and Acts, if my memory does not deceive\nme, they regarded as histories only. They were merely a small body of\nJews who thought that Jesus was the Messiah of the Old Testament. This\narticle was the only one which made them Heretical: In all other\nrespects they were as other Jews after the way which their countrymen\ncalled heresy, so worshipped they the God of their Fathers at the\nNational Temple; believing and preaching \"no other things than what\n[they imagined] Moses and the Prophets did say.\"\n\nI have made this statement and representation, sir, on two accounts.\n\n1. In order to repel the shocking and groundless imputation which I\nunderstand that some pains have been taken to fix upon me, I do not\nmean by you, sir, for you know the contrary that the object of my late\npublication was to aim at destroying all religion, and the annihilation\nof the publick worship of God, a charge which I reject with horror, and\nalso with bitter indignation, that it should ever have been attributed\nto me. God forbid! that the publick worship and stated reverence which\nall ought to pay to the Great and Tremendous Being from whom we receive\nlife and its every blessing; and to whose Providence we are subject;\nand by whose goodness we are sustained, should ever be caused to be\nneglected, or forgotten, by any man, or by the subvertion of any\nopinions whatever. The propriety of the publick worship of God stands\nindependent and without need of support from the peculiar doctrines of\nany sect. And the idea that this great duty would be superceded by the\ndismission of the New Testament is so utterly groundless and absurd:\nthat to make it appear so, any man has only to recollect that the\npublic worship of the Supreme existed before the New Testament was\nwritten or thought of; and to look round the world and see millions of\nmen worshipping God in houses of prayer, who know nothing about the New\nTestament except by report. I regard, sir, the imputation I have spoken\nof, as either a gross mistake of the simple, or a cunning and\ndeliberate calumny of the crafty. I have made this statement and\nrepresentation to show, that it does not follow, that in giving up the\nNew Testament Christians will be deprived of all religion. For in\nretaining the Old Testament they would adopt nothing new, and would\nretain nothing but what they now acknowledge as containing a divine\nrevelation; and in giving up the New Testament they would not, as I\nthink has been shown, give up a jot of what had ever any right to the\nname of Scripture.\n\nWhether however, people give up both, or retain one, or both, is their\nconcern. I have stated what I have merely to show, that in giving up\nthe New Testament they would not necessarily give up more than a part\nof their bibles, or any part of their bible, except that whose\nauthenticity cannot be proved; nor any more of their faith, than that\npart of it which for almost eighteen hundred years has produced\ninterminable disputes among themselves and misfortunes, and causeless\nreproach to others.\n\n\"With great regard, and the most respectful esteem, I subscribe myself,\nReverend Sir, Your obliged and humble servant\n\nGEO. BETHUNE  ENGLISH.\n\n\n\nNOTE\n\nJerom speaking of the different manner which writers found themselves\nobliged to use, in their controversial, and dogmatical writings,\nintimates, that in controversy whose end was victory, rather than\ntruth, it was allowable to employ every artifice which would best serve\nto conquer an adversary; in proof of which \"Origen, says he, Methodius,\nEusebius, Apollinaris, have written many thousands of lines against\nCelsus, and Porphyry: consider with what arguments and what slippery\nproblems they baffle what was contrived against them by the spirit of\nthe devil: and because they are sometimes forced to speak, they speak\nnot what they think, but what is necessary against those who are called\nGentiles. I do not mention the Latin writers, Tertullian, Cyprian,\nMinutius, Victorinus, Lactantius, Hilarius, lest I be thought not so\nmuch defending myself, as accusing others, &c.\"  Op. Tom. 4. p. 2.\np.:256.  Middleton's Free Enquiry, p. 158. It is remarkable that the\nnames mentioned by Jerom are the names of the early apologists for\nChristianity. When the Church got the upper hand however, they found a\nbetter way to confute those wicked men, Celsus and Porphyry, than by\n\"slippery problems\" and by speaking \"not what they thought (to be true)\nbut what was necessary against those who are called Gentiles,\" viz. by\nseeking after, and burning carefully their troublesome works. Of the\nfathers of the Church who were its pillars, leaders, and great men. Dr.\nMiddleton observes in his Preface to his Enquiry, &c, p. 31, as\nfollows: \"I have shown by many indisputable facts, that the ancient\nFathers were extremely credulous and superstitious, possessed with\nstrong prejudices, and an enthusiastic zeal in favor not only of\nChristianity in general, but of every particular doctrine, which a wild\nimagination could engraft upon it, and scrupling no art or means by\nwhich they might propagate the same principles. In short they were of a\ncharacter front which nothing could be expected that was candid and\nimpartial; nothing but what a weak or crafty understanding could supply\ntowards confirming those prejudices with which they happened to be\npossessed, especially where religion was the subject, which above all\nother motives strengthens every bias, and inflames every passion of the\nhuman mind.  And that this was actually the case, I have shown also, by\nmany instances in which we find them roundly affirming as true things\nevidently false and fictitious; in order to strengthen as they fancied\nthe evidences of the Gospel or to serve a present turn of confuting an\nadversary: or of enforcing a particular point which they were labouring\nto establish.\"\n\nIn p. 81 of the Introductory Discourse, he says, \"Let us consider then\nin the next place what light these same forgeries [those of the Fathers\nof the fourth century] will afford us in looking backwards also into\nthe earlier ages up to the times of the Apostles. And first, when we\nreflect on that surprising confidence and security with which the\nprincipal fathers of this fourth age have affirmed as true what they\nthemselves had either forged, or what they knew at least to be forged;\nit is natural to suspect, that so bold a defiance of sacred truth could\nnot be acquired, or become general at once, but must have been carried\ngradually to that heighth, by custom and the example of former times,\nand a long experience of what the credulity and superstition, of the\nmultitude (i.e. of Christians) would bear.\"\n\n\"Secondly, this suspicion will be strengthened by considering, that\nthis age [the 4th century] in which Christianity was established by the\ncivil power, had no real occasion for any miracles. For which reason,\nthe learned among the Protestants have generally supposed it to have\nbeen the very era of their cessation and for the same reason the\nfathers also themselves when they were disposed to speak the truth,\nhave not scrupled to confess, that the miraculous shifts were then\nactually withdrawn, because the church stood no longer in need of them.\nSo that it must have been a rash and dangerous experiment, to begin to\nforge miracles, at a time when there was no particular temptation to\nit; if the use of such fictions had not long been tried, and the\nbenefit of them approved; and recommended by their ancestors; who\nwanted every help towards supporting themselves under the pressures and\npersecutions with which the powers on earth were afflicting them.''\n\n\"Thirdly, if we compare the principal fathers of the fourth with those\nof the earlier ages. We shall observe the same characters of zeal and\npiety in them all, but more learning, more judgment, and less credulity\nin the later fathers. If these then be found either to have forced\nmiracles themselves, or to have propagated what they knew to be forged,\nor to have been deluded so far by other people's forgeries as to take\nthem for real miracles; (of the one or the other of which they were all\nunquestionably guilty) it will naturally excite in us the same\nsuspicion of their predecessors, who in the same cause, and with the\nsame zeal were less learned and more credulous, and in greater need of\nsuch arts for their defence and security.\n\n\"Fourthly. As the personal characters of the earlier fathers give them\nno advantage over their successors, so neither does the character of\nthe earlier ages afford any real cause of preference as to the point of\nintegrity above the latter. The first indeed are generally called and\nheld to be the purest: but when they had once acquired that title from\nthe authority of a few leading men; it is not strange to find it\nascribed to them by every body else; without knowing or inquiring into\nthe grounds of it. But whatever advantage of purity those first ages\nmay claim in some particular respects, it is certain that they were\ndefective in some others, above all which have since succeeded them.\nFor there never was any period of time in all ecclesiastical history,\nin which so many rank heresies were publicly professed, nor in which so\nmany spurious books were forged and published by the Christians, under\nthe name of Christ, and the apostles, and the apostolic writers, as in\nthose primitive ages; several of which forged hooks are frequently\ncited and applied to the defence of Christianity by the most eminent\nfathers of the same ages, as true and genuine pieces, and of equal\nauthority with the scriptures themselves. And no man surely can doubt\nbut that those who would either forge or make use of forged books,\nwould in the same cause and for the same ends, make use of forged\nmiracles.\" Let the reader remember that the Gospels according to\nMatthew and John are forgeries, and then apply this reasoning of Dr.\nMiddleton's to the miracles contained in those Gospels. With regard to\nall the miracles of the New Testament, we know them only by report, and\nit is an acknowledged, because a demonstrable fact, that the age in\nwhich the accounts of these miracles were published, was an age\noverflowing with imposture and credulity. \"Such,\" says Bishop Fell,\n\"was the license of fiction in the first ages, and so easy the\ncredulity, that testimony of the facts of that time is to be received\nwith great caution, as not only the pagan world, but the church of God,\nhas just reason to complain of its fabulous age.\" Stillingfleet says,\n\"that antiquity is defective most where it is most important, In the\nawe immediately succeeding that of the apostles.\" Now be it\nrecollected, that the Gospels first appeared in this age of fraud and\ncredulity; and be it further remembered, that the authenticity of the\nGospels, according to Matthew and John can be subverted, if marks of\nimposture, which would cause the rejection of any other books, are\nsufficient to affect the authenticity of those received as sacred. It\nis to be remarked farther, that the church in its first ages was full\nof forged hooks, giving accounts of the same events, different from\nthose of the books of the New Testament. The different sects, and the\nchurch itself, was torn by as many schisms then as it ever has been\nsince, who mutually accuse each other of corrupting the Christians\nscriptures, and of lying, and cheating most abominably.\n\nAll reasoning therefore from books published at this time, and whose\nauthenticity is supported only by the testimony of acknowledged liars;\nand which have been tampered with too as these certainly were, is\nexceedingly unsatisfactory.  And yet such is the basis on which rests\nthe credibility of the miracles of the New Testament.  Dr. Middleton,\nafter having shown, beginning at the earliest of the fathers\nimmediately after the apostles, that they were all most amazingly\ncredulous and superstitious: and having demonstrated from their own\nwords, that from Justin Martyr downwards they were all liars, observes\nas follows, p. 157, Free Inquiry: \"Now it is agreed by all, that these\nfathers, whose testimonies I have been just reciting were the most\neminent lights of the fourth century; all of them sainted by the\ncatholic church, and highly reverenced at this day in all churches, for\ntheir piety, probity, and learning.  Yet from the specimens of them\nabove given, it is evident, that they would not scruple to propagate\nany fiction, how gross so ever, which served to promote the interest\neither of Christianity in general, or of any particular rite or\ndoctrine which they were desirous to recommend. St. Jerom in effect\nconfesses it, for after the mention of a silly story, concerning the\nChristians of Jerusalem, who used to shew in the ruins of the temple,\ncertain stones of a reddish color, which they pretended to have been\nstained by the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was slain\nbetween the temple and the altar, he adds, but I do not find fault with\nan error which flows from a hatred of the Jews, and a pious zeal for\nthe Christian faith. If the miracles then of the fourth century, so\nsolemnly attested by the most celebrated and revered fathers of the\nchurch, are to be rejected after all as fabulous, it must needs give a\nfatal blow to the credit of all the miracles even of the preceding\ncenturies; since there is not a single father whom I have mentioned in\nthis fourth age, who for zeal and piety may not be compared with the\nbest of the more ancient, and for knowledge, and for learning be\npreferred to them all. For instance, there was not a person in all the\nprimitive church more highly respected in his own days than St.\nEpiphanius, for the purity of his life as well as the extent of his\nleaning. He was master of five languages, and has left behind him one\nof the most useful works which remain to us from antiquity. St. Jerom,\nwho personally knew him, calls him the father of all bishops, and a\nshining star among them; the man of God of blessed memory; to whom the\npeople used to flock in crowds, offering their little children to his\nbenediction, kissing his feet, and catching the hem of his garment.\nThis holy man and light of the church, the great man of his day,\nasserts upon his own knowledge, \"that in imitation of our Saviour's\nmiracle at Cana in Galilee several fountains and rivers in his days\nwere annually turned into wine. A fountain at Cibyra, a city of Caria,\nand another at Gerasa in Arabia, prove the truth of this. I myself have\ndrunk out of the fountain at Cibyra, and my brethren out of the other\nat Gerasa; and many testify the same thing of the river Nile in Egypt.\"\nAdvers. Haeres, 1. 2, c. 130. Middleton's Inquiry, p. 151, 152] \"All\nthe rest (Dr. Middleton goes on to say) were men of the same character,\nwho spent their lives and studies in propagating the faith, and in\ncombating the vices and the heresies of their times. Yet none of them\nhave scrupled, we see, to pledge their faith for the truth, of facts\nwhich no man of sense can believe, and which their warmest admirers are\nforced to give up as fabulous. If such persons then could willfully\nattempt to deceive; and if the sanctity of their characters cannot\nassure us of their fidelity, what better security can we have from\nthose who lived before them? Or what cure for our scepticism with\nregard, to any of the miracles above mentioned? Was the first asserter\nof them, Justin Martyr more pious, cautious, learned, judicious, or\nless credulous than Epiphanius? Or were those virtues more conspicuous\nin Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius, than in\nAthanasius, Gregory, Chrysostom, Jerom, Austin? Nobody, I dare say,\nwill venture to affirm it. If these later fathers, then, biased by a\nfalse zeal or interest, could be tempted to propagate a known lie, or\nwith all their learning and knowledge could be so weakly credulous as\nto believe the absurd stories which they themselves attest, there must\nbe always reason to suspect, that the same prejudices would operate\neven more strongly in the earlier fathers, prompted by the same zeal\nand the same interests, yet endued with less learning, less judgment,\nand more credulity.\n\nSuch Christian reader, were the fathers, the leaders, and the great men\nof the church, and the apologists for your religion. And it is upon the\ncredibility of these convicted knaves that ultimately, and\nsubstantially depends your belief. For it is upon their testimony and\ntradition that you receive and believe in the authenticity of the N.T.,\nits doctrines and miracles.\n\nI hope that if you choose to build your faith upon the testimony of\nsuch witnesses, that you will not think it unreasonable in me to\npresume to doubt the truth of opinions and miracles supported by the\ntestimony of men like the fathers. I am willing, because I think it\nreasonable, to let every man follow his own judgment, and do I ask too\nmuch to be permitted without offence to enjoy the same liberty with\nregard to these things; which I conceive no fair man will now say, (if\nwhat has been brought forward be true) are positively provable as true,\nand worthy of unhesitating assent.\n\nFor the case is thus. The gospels are accused of being written by\ncredulous and superstitious authors whose names are not certainly\nknown; as containing too inconsistent and contradictory accounts of\nprodigies and miracles; and also palpable marks of forgery.  Now to\nconvince a thinking man, that histories of such suspected character,\ncontaining relations of miracles, are divine or even really written, by\nthe persons to whom they are ascribed, and not either some of the many\nspurious productions, with which it is notorious and acknowledged, the\nage in which they appeared abounded, calculated to astonish the\ncredulous and superstitious! or else writings of authors who were\nthemselves infected with the grossest superstitious credulity, what is\nthe testimony?\n\nFor the first hundred years after the lives of the supposed authors,\nnone at all. And the earliest fathers who speak of them are all\nconvicted of gross credulity, and incapacity to distinguish genuine\nfrom, fictitious writings, (for they admitted as genuine scripture many\nbooks confessedly nonsensical forgeries,) but what is worse, are\nmanifestly guilty by the evidence of their own words of having been\npalpable liars, cheats, and forgers. But, \"it is an obvious rule in the\nadmission of evidence in any cause whatsoever, that the more important\nthe matter to be determined by it is, the more unsullied, and\nunexceptionable ought to be the characters of the witnesses to be. And\nwhen no court of justice among us in determining a question of fraud to\nthe value of sixpence will admit the testimony of witnesses who are\nthemselves notoriously convicted of the same offence of which the\ndefendant is accused;\"  how can it be expected that any reasonable\nunprejudiced person should reasonably be required to admit similar\nevidence, i.e. the testimony of such men as the fathers in favor of the\ndivine authority of books which are accused of being the offspring of\nfraud and credulity; and which relate too to a case of the greatest\nimportance possible, not to himself only, but to the whole human race?!\n\nFor my own part, I cannot; and I think I could not without renouncing\nall those rules and principles of evidence, and of good sense, which in\nall other cases are universally respected. And when we consider the\ncharacter of those by whom these histories were first received and\nbelieved, the unreasonableness of insisting upon the belief of these\naccounts will appear aggravated. What was the character of the early\nGentile Christians? This we can ascertain from only two sources--the\nwritings of their leaders, and those of their heathen contemporaries.\nAccording to the latter they were very weak and credulous. The\nprimitive Christians were perpetually reproached for their gross\ncredulity by all their enemies. Celsus says that they cared neither to\nreceive nor to give any reason of their faith, and that it was an usual\nsaying with them, do not examine, but believe only, and thy faith will\nsave thee. Julian affirms, that the sum, of all their wisdom was\ncomprised in this single precept, believe. The Gentiles, says Arnobius,\nmake it their constant business to laugh at our faith, and to lash our\ncredulity with their facetious jokes.\n\n\"The fathers on the other hand, defend themselves by saying, that they\ndid nothing more: on this occasion than what the philosophers had\nalways done; that Pythagoras' precepts were inculcated by an ipse\ndixit, and that they had found the same method useful with the vulgar,\nwho were not at leisure to examine things; whom they taught therefore\nto believe, even without reasons: and that the heathens themselves,\nthough they did not confess it in words, yet practiced the same in\ntheir acts.\" Middleton's Free Enquiry. Introduc. Disc. p. 92. Lucian\nsays, \"that whenever any crafty juggler expert in his trade, and who\nknew how to make a right use of things, went over to the Christians, he\nwas sure to grow rich immediately, by making a prey of their\nsimplicity.\" [De Morte Pereg.]\n\nIf we turn to the writings of the earliest fathers; from these writings\nof the great men of the Church at that time we shall form but a very\nmean idea of the understandings of the little ones, since their\nwritings are not one whit superior to the \"godly Epistles\" of the\nlowest orders of fanatics in the last, and present century, they are\nremarkable for nothing more than manifesting the extreme simplicity,\nand credulity, together with the sincere piety of the writers. The\nfathers who succeeded them were better informed, but not at all behind\nthem in credulity, and enthusiasm.  Tertullian, the most powerful mind\namong them during the first two hundred years, reasons as follows.\n\n\"The Son of God was crucified: it is no shame to own it, because it is\na thing to be ashamed of. The Son of God died: it is wholly credible,\nbecause it is absurd. When buried he rose again to life: it is certain,\nbecause it is impossible.\" De Carne Christi, Section 5.","title":"Letter to the Reverend Mr. Cary: Containing Remarks upon his Review of the Grounds of; Christianity Examined by Comparing the New Testament to; the Old","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":10346}