Page images
PDF
EPUB

time, and against so great opposition, could prevail over both Jews and Gentiles: but if we reflect on the nature of their doctrine, we can never imagine that these men did proceed by the same methods that men of subtlety do make use of. If it were their own contrivance, it was in their power to have framed it as they thought fit themselves, and in all probability they would have done it in a way most likely to be successful: but the Christian religion was so far from it, as though they had industriously designed to advance a religion against the genius and inclination of all mankind. For it neither gratifies the voluptuous in their pleasures, nor the ambitious in their desires of external pomp and greatness, nor the covetous in their thirst after riches, but lays a severe restraint on all those common and prevailing passions of mankind; which Mahomet well understood, when he suited his religion to them. Christianity was neither accommodated to the temper and genius either of Jews or Gentiles. The Jews were in great expectation of a temporal prince at that time, to deliver them from the Roman slavery; and every one that would have set up for such a Messias, might have had followers enough among them, as we find afterwards by the attempts of Barcochebas and others. But the Messias of the Christians was so directly contrary to their hopes and expectations, being a poor and suffering prince, that this set them the more against his followers, because they were hereby frustrated of their greatest hopes, and defeated in their most pleasing expectations. But besides, if they would have taken in the Mosaic law, it might in probability have succeeded better; but this St. Paul would by no means hear of. But if they rejected Jews, methinks they should have been willing to have had some assistance from the Gentiles. No, they charged them with idolatry where

[ocr errors]

ever they came, and would not join in any parts of their worship with them, nor so much as eat of the remainder of their sacrifices. But supposing they had a mind to set up wholly a new sect of their own, yet we should think they should have framed it after the most plausible manner, and left out all things that were most liable to reproach and infamy: but this they were so far from, that the most contemptible part of the Christian religion, viz. a crucified Saviour, they insist the most upon, and preach it on all occasions, and, in comparison of it, strangely despise all the wisdom and philosophy of the Greeks. What did these men mean, if Christianity had been only a contrivance of theirs? If they had but left out this one circumstance, in all human probability the excellent moral precepts in Christianity would have been highly magnified among all those who had been bred up under the instructions of philosophers. Nay, they would not make use of the most commendable methods of human wisdom, nor do as the Jesuits have done in China, make men have a better opinion of the religion they brought, for their skill in mathematics and astronomy; but as much as it was possible, to let the world see it was no contrivance of human wisdom, they shunned all the ways of shewing it in the manner of its propagation. Nay, when the people would have given the Apostles divine worship, never were vain men more concerned to have it, than they to oppose it. And do these things look like the actions of men that designed only to make themselves great, by being the heads of a new sect of religion?

3. Men that made it their design to deceive the world, if they had thought it necessary to bring in any matter of story concerning the author of their religion, would have placed it at such a distance of time, that

it was not capable of being disproved: as it is apparent in the heathen mythology; for the stories were such, as no person could ever pretend to confute them, otherwise than by the inconsistency of them with the common principles of religion. But if we suppose Christianity to have been a mere device, would the Apostles have been so senseless to have laid the main proof of their religion on a thing which was but newly acted, and which they were very capable of inquiring into all the circumstances that related to it, viz. the resurrection of Christ from the dead. We may see, by the whole design of the New Testament, the great stress of Christianity was laid upon the truth of this. To this Christ himself appealed beforehand; to this all the Apostles refer as the mighty confirmation of their religion; and this they deliver as a thing which themselves had seen, and had conversed with him for forty days together, with all the demonstrations imaginable of a true and real body; and that not to one or two credulous persons, but so many of them who were hard to be satisfied, and one not without the most sensible evidence: but besides these, they tell us of five hundred at once who saw him, whereof many were then living when those things were written. Now, I pray, tell me what religion in the world ever put itself upon so fair a trial as this? Of a plain matter of fact, as capable of being attested as any could be. Why did not Amida, or Brahmà, or Xaca, or any other of the authors of the present religions of the East Indies; why did not Orpheus, or Numa, or any other introducers of religious customs among the Greeks or Romans; or Mahomet, among the Arabians, put the issue of the truth of their religion on such a plain and easy trial as this? If you say, that Christ appeared only to his friends, who were ready to believe such things, and not among

his enemies; I answer, that though they were his friends, yet they were very hard to be persuaded of the truth of it at first; and afterwards gave larger testimonies of their fidelity, than the testimony of the greatest enemies would have been; for we should have had only their bare words for it, (if they would have given that, which is very questionable, considering their dealing with the other miracles of Christ.) But the Apostles manifested their sincerity by all real proofs that could be thought sufficient to satisfy mankind; appealing to the very persons who were concerned the most in it, having a hand in the death of Christ, declaring their greatest readiness to suffer any thing rather than deny the truth of it, and laying down their lives at last for it. If all this had been a mere fiction, how unlikely is it, that, among so many as were conscious of it, no one person, by hopes or fears, by flatteries or threatenings, could ever be prevailed upon to deny the truth of it! If there had been any such thing, what triumphing had there been among the Jews! And no doubt his name had been recorded to posterity among the writers both of Jews and Gentiles, that were professed enemies of Christianity. But they are all wonderfully silent in this matter; and instead of saying enough to overthrow the truth of Christianity, as you seem to suggest, I do assure you I am mightily confirmed in the belief of the truth of it, by carefully observing the slightness of the objections that were made against it by its most professed enemies.

But you seem to imply, that all this story concerning Christ was invented long after the pretended time of his being in the world. Why may not you as well suspect that Julius Cæsar lived before Romulus, or that Augustus lived at the siege of Troy? For you might as well reject all history upon such grounds as those

you assign; and think Mahomet as right in his chronology as the Bible. It is time for us to burn all our books, if we have lived in such a cheat all this while. Methinks you might as well ask, whether Lucretia were not Pope Joan? Or Alexander the Sixth one of the Roman emperors? Or whether Luther were not the emperor of Turkey? For there is no greater evidence of any history in the world, than there is that all the things reported in the New Testament were done at that time when they are pretended to be.

4. Therefore we offer this story of the New Testament to be compared with all the circumstances of that age, delivered by any other historians, to try if any inconsistencies can be found therein; which is the most reasonable way that can be taken to disprove any history. If it could be proved that there could be no such taxation of the empire as is mentioned in the time of Augustus, that Herod did not live in that age, or that the Jews were not under the Roman government, or that there were no high priests at that time, nor the sects of Pharisees and Sadducees, or that there were any other remarkable characters of time set down in the history of the New Testament, which could be manifestly disproved, there were some pretence to call in question the truth of the story; but there is not the least foundation for any scruple on this account; all things agreeing so well with the truest accounts we have of that age, both from Josephus and the Roman history. I shall not insist on the particular testimony of Josephus concerning Christ, because we need it not; and if those who question it would proceed with the same severity against many other particular passages in good authors, they might as well call them in question as they do that; since it is confessed that all the ancient manuscripts have it in them and supposing that it doth not come in well,

« PreviousContinue »