Evidences of Christianity by William Paley

W >> William Paley >> Evidences of Christianity

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30

The success, therefore, of Mahometanism stands not in the way of this
important conclusion; that the propagation of Christianity, in the
manner and under the circumstances in which it was propagated, is an
unique in the history of the species. A Jewish peasant overthrew the
religion of the world.

I have, nevertheless, placed the prevalency of the religion amongst the
auxiliary arguments of its truth; because, whether it had prevailed or
not, or whether its prevalency can or cannot be accounted for, the
direct argument remains still. It is still true that a great number of
men upon the spot, personally connected with the history and with the
Author of the religion, were induced by what they heard and saw, and
knew, not only to change their former opinions, but to give up their
time, and sacrifice their ease, to traverse seas and kingdoms without
rest and without weariness, to commit themselves to extreme dangers, to
undertake incessant toils, to undergo grievous sufferings, and all this
solely in consequence, and in support, of their belief of facts, which,
if true, establish the truth of the religion, which, if false, they must
have known to be so.

PART III.

A BRIEF CONSIDERATION OF SOME POPULAR OBJECTIONS.

CHAPTER I.

THE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE SEVERAL GOSPELS.

I know not a more rash or unphilosophical conduct of the understanding,
than to reject the substance of a story by reason of some diversity in
the circumstances with which it is related. The usual character of human
testimony is substantial truth under circumstantial variety. This is
what the daily experience of courts of justice teaches. When accounts of
a transaction come from the mouths of different witnesses, it is seldom
that it is not possible to pick out apparent or real inconsistencies
between them. These inconsistencies are studiously displayed by an
adverse pleader, but oftentimes with little impression upon the minds of
the judges. On the contrary, a close and minute agreement induces the
suspicion of confederacy and fraud. When written histories touch upon
the same scenes of action; the comparison almost always affords ground
for a like reflection. Numerous, and sometimes important, variations
present themselves; not seldom, also, absolute and final contradictions;
yet neither one nor the other are deemed sufficient to shake the
credibility of the main fact. The embassy of the Jews to deprecate the
execution of Claudian's order to place his statute, in their temple,
Philo places in harvest, Josephus in seed time; both contemporary
writers. No reader is led by this inconsistency to doubt whether such an
embassy was sent, or whether such an order was given. Our own history
supplies examples of the same kind. In the account of the Marquis of
Argyle's death, in the reign of Charles the Second, we have a very
remarkable contradiction. Lord Clarendon relates that he was condemned
to be hanged, which was performed the same day; on the contrary, Burnet,
Woodrew, Heath, Echard, concur in stating that he was beheaded; and that
he was condemned upon the Saturday, and executed upon the Monday. (See
Biog. Britann.) Was any reader of English history ever sceptic enough to
raise from hence a question whether the Marquis of Argyle was executed
or not? Yet this ought to be left in uncertainty, according to the
principles upon which the Christian history has sometimes been attacked.
Dr. Middleton contended, that the different hours of the day assigned to
the crucifixion of Christ, by John and by the other Evangelists, did not
admit of the reconcilement which learned men had proposed: and then
concludes the discussion with this hard remark; "We must be forced, with
several of the critics, to leave the difficulty just as we found it,
chargeable with all the consequences of manifest inconsistency."
(Middleton's Reflections answered by Benson, Hist. Christ. vol. iii. p.
50.) But what are these consequences? By no means the discrediting of
the history as to the principal fact, by a repugnancy (even supposing
that repugnancy not to be resolvable into different modes of
computation) in the time of the day in which it is said to have taken
place.

A great deal of the discrepancy observable in the Gospels arises from
omission; from a fact or a passage of Christ's life being noticed by one
writer which is unnoticed by another. Now, omission is at all times a
very uncertain ground of objection. We perceive it, not only in the
comparison of different writers, but even in the same writer when
compared with himself. There are a great many particulars, and some of
them of importance, mentioned by Josephus in his Antiquities, which, as
we should have supposed, ought to have been put down by him in their
place in the Jewish Wars. (Lardner, part i. vol. ii. p. 735, et seq.)
Suetonius, Tacitus, Dio Cassius, have, all three, written of the reign
of Tiberius. Each has mentioned many things omitted by the
rest, (Lardner, part i. vol. ii. p. 743.) yet no objection is from thence
taken to the respective credit of their histories. We have in our own
times, if there were not something indecorous in the comparison, the
life of an eminent person written by three of his friends, in which
there is very great variety in the incidents selected by them; some
apparent, and perhaps some real contradictions; yet without any
impeachment of the substantial truth of their accounts, of the
authenticity of the books, of the competent information or general
fidelity of the writers.

But these discrepancies will be still more numerous, when men do not
write histories, but memoirs: which is, perhaps, the true name and
proper description of our Gospels: that is, when they do not undertake,
nor ever meant to deliver, in order of time, a regular and complete
account of all the things of importance which the person who is the
subject of their history did or said; but only, out of many similar
ones, to give such passages, or such actions and discourses, as offered
themselves more immediately to their attention, came in the way of their
inquiries, occurred to their recollection, or were suggested by their
particular design at the time of writing.

This particular design may appear sometimes, but not always, nor often.
Thus I think that the particular design which Saint Matthew had in view
whilst he was writing the history of the resurrection was to attest the
faithful performance of Christ's promise to his disciples to go before
them into Galilee; because he alone, except Mark, who seems to have
taken it from him, has recorded this promise, and he alone has confined
his narrative to that single appearance to the disciples which fulfilled
it. It was the preconcerted, the great and most public manifestation of
our Lord's person. It was the thing which dwelt upon Saint Matthew's
mind, and he adapted his narrative to it. But, that there is nothing in
Saint Matthew's language which negatives other appearances, or which
imports that this his appearance to his disciples in Galilee, in
pursuance of his promise, was his first or only appearance, is made
pretty evident by Saint Mark's Gospel, which uses the same terms
concerning the appearance in Galilee as Saint Matthew uses, yet itself
records two other appearances prior to this: "Go your way, tell his
disciples and Peter, that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall
ye see him as he said unto you" (xvi. 7). We might be apt to infer from
these words, that this was the first time they were to see him; at
least, we might infer it, with as much reason as we draw the inference
from the same words in Matthew: the historian himself did not perceive
that he was leading his readers to any such conclusion; for, in the
twelfth and following verses of this chapter, he informs us of two
appearances, which, by comparing the order of events, are shown to have
been prior to the appearance in Galilee. "He appeared in another form
unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country; and they
went and told it unto the residue, neither believed they them:
afterwards he appeared unto the eleven, as they sat at meat, and
upbraided them with their unbelief, because they believed not them that
had seen him after he was risen."

Probably the same observation, concerning the particular design which
guided the historian, may be of use in comparing many other passages of
the Gospels.

CHAPTER II.

ERRONEOUS OPINIONS IMPUTED TO THE APOSTLES.

A species of candour which is shown towards every other book is
sometimes refused to the Scriptures: and that is, the placing of a
distinction between judgment and testimony. We do not usually question
the credit of a writer, by reason of an opinion he may have delivered
upon subjects unconnected with his evidence: and even upon subjects
connected with his account, or mixed with it in the same discourse or
writing, we naturally separate facts from opinions, testimony from
observation, narrative from argument.

To apply this equitable consideration to the Christian records, much
controversy and much objection has been raised concerning the quotations
of the Old Testament found in the New; some of which quotations, it is
said, are applied in a sense and to events apparently different from
that which they bear, and from those to which they belong in the
original. It is probable, to my apprehension, that many of those
quotations were intended by the writers of the New Testament as nothing
more than accommodations. They quoted passages of their Scripture which
suited, and fell in with, the occasion before them, without always
undertaking to assert that the occasion was in the view of the author of
the words. Such accommodations of passages from old authors, from books
especially which are in every one's hands, are common with writers of
all countries; but in none, perhaps, were more to be expected than in
the writings of the Jews, whose literature was almost entirely confined
to their Scriptures. Those prophecies which are alleged with more
solemnity, and which are accompanied with a precise declaration that
they originally respected the event then related, are, I think, truly
alleged. But were it otherwise; is the judgment of the writers of the
New Testament, in interpreting passages of the Old, or sometimes,
perhaps, in receiving established interpretations, so connected either
with their veracity, or with their means of information concerning what
was passing in their own times, as that a critical mistake, even were it
clearly made out, should overthrow their historical credit?--Does it
diminish it? Has it anything to do with it?

Another error imputed to the first Christians was the expected approach
of the day of judgment. I would introduce this objection by a remark
upon what appears to me a somewhat similar example. Our Saviour,
speaking to Peter of John, said, "If I will that he tarry till I come,
what is that to thee?"' (John xxi. 22.) These words we find had been so
misconstrued, as that a report from thence "went abroad among the
brethren, that that disciple should not die." Suppose that this had come
down to us amongst the prevailing opinions of the early Christians, and
that the particular circumstance from which the mistake sprang had been
lost (which, humanly speaking, was most likely to have been the case),
some, at this day, would have been ready to regard and quote the error
as an impeachment of the whole Christian system. Yet with how little
justice such a conclusion would have been drawn, or rather such a
presumption taken up, the information which we happen to possess enables
us now to perceive. To those who think that the Scriptures lead us to
believe that the early Christians, and even the apostles, expected the
approach of the day of judgment in their own times, the same reflection
will occur as that which we have made with respect to the more partial,
perhaps, and temporary, but still no less ancient, error concerning the
duration of Saint John's life. It was an error, it may be likewise said,
which would effectually hinder those who entertained it from acting the
part of impostors.

The difficulty which attends the subject of the present chapter is
contained in this question; If we once admit the fallibility of the
apostolic judgment, where are we to stop, or in what can we rely upon
it? To which question, as arguing with unbelievers, and as arguing for
the substantial truth of the Christian history, and for that alone, it
is competent to the advocate of Christianity to reply, Give me the
apostles' testimony, and I do not stand in need of their judgment; give
me the facts, and I have complete security for every conclusion I want.

But, although I think that it is competent to the Christian apologist to
return this answer, I do not think that it is the only answer which the
objection is capable of receiving. The two following cautions, founded,
I apprehend, in the most reasonable distinctions, will exclude all
uncertainty upon this head which can be attended with danger.

First, to separate what was the object of the apostolic mission, and
declared by them to be so, from what was extraneous to it, or only
incidentally connected with it. Of points clearly extraneous to the
religion nothing need be said. Of points incidentally connected with it
something may be added. Demoniacal possession is one of these points:
concerning the reality of which, as this place will not admit the
examination, nor even the production of the argument on either side of
the question, it would be arrogance in me to deliver any judgment. And
it is unnecessary. For what I am concerned to observe is, that even they
who think it was a general, but erroneous opinion of those times; and
that the writers of the New Testament, in common with other Jewish
writers of that age, fell into the manner of speaking and of thinking
upon the subject which then universally prevailed, need not be alarmed
by the concession, as though they had anything to fear from it for the
truth of Christianity. The doctrine was not what Christ brought into the
world. It appears in the Christian records, incidentally and
accidentally, as being the subsisting opinion of the age and country in
which his ministry was exercised. It was no part of the object of his
revelation, to regulate men's opinions concerning the action of
spiritual substances upon animal bodies. At any rate it is unconnected
with testimony. If a dumb person was by a word restored to the use of
his speech, it signifies little to what cause the dumbness was ascribed;
and the like of every other cure wrought upon these who are said to have
been possessed. The malady was real, the cure was real, whether the
popular explication of the cause was well founded or not. The matter of
fact, the change, so far as it was an object of sense, or of testimony,
was in either case the same.

Secondly, that, in reading the apostolic writings, we distinguish
between their doctrines and their arguments. Their doctrines came to
them by revelation properly so called; yet in propounding these
doctrines in their writings or discourses they were wont to illustrate,
support, and enforce them by such analogies, arguments, and
considerations as their own thoughts suggested. Thus the call of the
gentiles, that is, the admission of the Gentiles to the Christian
profession without a previous subjection to the law of Moses, was
imported to the apostles by revelation, and was attested by the miracles
which attended the Christian ministry among them. The apostles' own
assurance of the matter rested upon this foundation. Nevertheless, Saint
Paul, when treating of the subject, often a great variety of topics in
its proof and vindication. The doctrine itself must be received: but it
is not necessary, in order to defend Christianity, to defend the
propriety of every comparison, or the validity of every argument, which
the apostle has brought into the discussion. The same observation
applies to some other instances, and is, in my opinion, very well
founded; "When divine writers argue upon any point, we are always bound
to believe the conclusions that their reasonings end in, as parts of
divine revelation: but we are not bound to be able to make out, or even
to assent to all the premises made use of by them, in their whole
extent, unless it appear plainly, that they affirm the premises as
expressly as they do the conclusions proved by them." (Burnets Expos.
art. 6.)

CHAPTER III.

THE CONNEXION OF CHRISTIANITY WITH THE JEWISH HISTORY.

Undoubtedly our Saviour assumes the divine origin of the Mosaic
institution: and, independently of his authority, I conceive it to be
very difficult to assign any other cause for the commencement or
existence of that institution; especially for the singular circumstance
of the Jews adhering to the unity when every other people slid into
polytheism; for their being men in religion, children in everything
else; behind other nations in the arts of peace and war, superior to the
most improved in their sentiments and doctrines relating to the Deity.*

_________

* "In the doctrine, for example, of the unity, the eternity, the
omnipotence, the omniscience, the omnipresence, the wisdom, and the
goodness of God; in their opinions concerning providence, and the
creation, preservation, and government of the world." Campbell on Mir.
p. 207. To which we may add, in the acts of their religion not being
accompanied either with cruelties or impurities: in the religion itself
being free from a species of superstition which prevailed universally in
the popular religions of the ancient world, and which is to be found
perhaps in all religions that have their origin in human artifice and
credulity, viz. fanciful connexions between certain appearances and
actions, and the destiny of nations or individuals. Upon these conceits
rested the whole train of auguries and auspices, which formed so much
even of the serious part of the religions of Greece and Rome, and of the
charms and incantations which were practised in those countries by the
common people. From everything of this sort the religion of the Jews,
and of the Jews alone, was free. Vide. Priestley's Lectures on the Truth
of the Jewish and Christian Revelation; 1794.
_________

Undoubtedly, also, our Saviour recognises the prophetic character of
many of their ancient writers. So far, therefore, we are bound as
Christians to go. But to make Christianity answerable, with its life,
for the circumstantial truth of each separate passage of the Old
Testament, the genuineness of every book, the information, fidelity, and
judgment of every writer in it, is to bring, I will not say great, but
unnecessary difficulties into the whole system. These books were
universally read and received by the Jews of our Saviour's time. He and
his apostles, in common with all other Jews, referred to them, alluded
to them, used them. Yet, except where he expressly ascribes a divine
authority to particular predictions, I do not know that we can strictly
draw any conclusion from the books being so used and applied, beside the
proof, which it unquestionably is, of their notoriety and reception at
that time. In this view, our Scriptures afford a valuable testimony to
those of the Jews. But the nature of this testimony ought to be
understood. It is surely very different from what it is sometimes
represented to be, a specific ratification of each particular fact and
opinion; and not only of each particular fact, but of the motives
assigned for every action, together with the judgment of praise or
dispraise bestowed upon them. Saint James, in his Epistle, says, "Ye
have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord."
Notwithstanding this text, the reality of Job's history, and even the
existence of such a person, have been always deemed a fair subject of
inquiry and discussion amongst Christian divines. Saint James's
authority is considered as good evidence of the existence of the book of
Job at that time, and of its reception by the Jews; and of nothing more.
Saint Paul, in his Second Epistle to Timothy, has this similitude: "Now,
as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the
truth." These names are not found in the Old Testament. And it is
uncertain whether Saint Paul took them from some apocryphal writing then
extant, or from tradition. But no one ever imagined that Saint Paul is
here asserting the authority of the writing, if it was a written account
which he quoted, or making himself answerable for the authenticity of
the tradition; much less that he so involves himself with either of
these questions as that the credit of his own history and mission should
depend upon the fact whether Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses or not.
For what reason a more rigorous interpretation should be put upon other
references it is difficult to know. I do not mean, that other passages
of the Jewish history stand upon no better evidence than the history of
Job, or of Jannes and Jambres (I think much otherwise); but I mean, that
a reference in the New Testament to a passage in the Old does not so fix
its authority as to exclude all inquiry into its credibility, or into
the separate reasons upon which that credibility is founded; and that it
is an unwarrantable as well as unsafe rule to lay down concerning the
Jewish history, what was never laid down concerning any other, that
either every particular of it must be true, or the whole false.

I have thought it necessary to state this point explicitly, because a
fashion, revived by Voltaire, and pursued by the disciples of his
school, seems to have much prevailed of late, of attacking Christianity
through the sides of Judaism. Some objections of this class are founded
in misconstruction, some in exaggeration; but all proceed upon a
supposition, which has not been made out by argument, viz. that the
attestation which the Author and first teachers of Christianity gave to
the divine mission of Moses and the prophets extends to every point and
portion of the Jewish history; and so extends as to make Christianity
responsible, in its own credibility, for the circumstantial truth (I had
almost said for the critical exactness) of every narrative contained in
the Old Testament.

CHAPTER IV.

REJECTION OF CHRISTIANITY.

We acknowledge that the Christian religion, although it converted great
numbers, did not produce an universal, or even a general conviction in
the minds of men of the age and countries in which it appeared. And this
want of a more complete and extensive success is called the rejection of
the Christian history and miracles; and has been thought by some to form
a strong objection to the reality of the facts which the history
contains.

The matter of the objection divides itself into two parts; as it relates
to the Jews, and as it relates to Heathen nations: because the minds of
these two descriptions of men may have been, with respect to
Christianity, under the influence of very different causes. The case of
the Jews, inasmuch as our Saviour's ministry was originally addressed to
them, offers itself first to our consideration.

Now upon the subject of the truth of the Christian religion; with us
there is but one question, viz., whether the miracles were actually
wrought? From acknowledging the miracles, we pass instantaneously to the
acknowledgment of the whole. No doubt lies between the premises and the
conclusion. If we believe the works of any one of them, we believe in
Jesus. And this order of reasoning has become so universal and familiar
that we do not readily apprehend how it could ever have been otherwise.
Yet it appears to me perfectly certain, that the state of thought in the
mind of a Jew of our Saviour's age was totally different from this.
After allowing the reality of the miracle, he had a great deal to do to
persuade himself that Jesus was the Messiah. This is clearly intimated
by various passages of the Gospel history. It appears that, in the
apprehension of the writers of the New Testament, the miracles did not
irresistibly carry even those who saw them to the conclusion intended to
be drawn from them; or so compel assent, as to leave no room for
suspense, for the exercise of candour, or the effects of prejudice. And
to this point, at least, the evangelists may he allowed to be good
witnesses; because it is a point in which exaggeration or disguise would
have been the other way. Their accounts, if they could he suspected of
falsehood, would rather have magnified than diminished the effects of
the miracles.

John vii. 21--31. "Jesus answered and said unto them, I have done one
work, and ye all marvel.--If a man on the Sabbath-day receive
circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry
at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath-day?
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this he whom they seek to
kill? But lo, he speaketh boldly, and they say nothing to him: do the
rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this
man, whence he is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence he is.
Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me,
and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but He that sent
me is true, whom ye know not. But I know Him, for I am from Him, and He
hath sent me. Then they sought to take him: but no man laid hands on
him, because his hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed
on him and said, When Christ cometh, will he do more miracles than those
which this man hath done?"

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30