Gift of
Frank D. McQuesten
1918

*JL~ iMsuw ^J^^f,

^^r)^[c. £ifMMz^

/9/r.

TWO APOLOGIES,
ONE FOR
CHRISTIANITY, IN
A SERIES OF LETTERS
ADDRESSED TO
EDWARD GIBBON, ESQ.
THE OTHER FOR
THE BIBLE,
IN ANSWER TO
THOMAS PAINE.
TO WHICH ARE ADDED
TWO SERMONS, AND A CHARGE,
IN DEFENCE OF
REVEALED RELIGION.

BY RICHARD WATSON, D.D. F.R.S.
LORD BISHOP OF LANDAFF, AND REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.

Ilonaon t ,
PRINTED FOR SCATCHERD AND LETTERMAN ; C .DELL AND DAVIES J
F. C. AND J. RIVINGTONJ JOHN RICHARDSON; J.M.RICHARDSON;
LONGMAN, HURST, REES, ORME AND BROWN ; J. WALKER AND
EDWARDS ; LACKING TON AND CO. ; J. NUNN ; J. HATCHARD ;
BALDWIN, CRADOCK AND JOY ; GALE AND FENNER J AND R. HUNTER.
1816.

ADVERTISEMENT.

All the contents of this volume have been
so repeatedly brought before the Public,
that I had no intention of printing another
edition of any of them.
Understanding, however, that the Book
sellers had it in contemplation to publish
The Apology for Christianity, and The Apo
logy for the Bible, in one octavo volume,
from the expectation of its becoming what
they call a standard work, I have thought
it might be useful to subjoin to the Apo
logies two Sermons, and a Charge, origi
nally published in Defence . of Revealed
Religion in 1795. R. L.
Calgarth Park,
Sept. 28, 1805.
fhe favorable manner in which the
former edition was received by the Public,
have induced the proprietors to print a new
edition, in which a few errors of the press
are corrected. February, 1816.

CONTENTS.

. _GE

Apology for Christianity  1
 the Bible  161
Sermon I.
Atheism and Infidelity refuted from Reason
and History  399
Sermon II.
The Christian Religion no imposture  422
A Charge, Delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of
Lanclaff, in June, 1795  444

AN

APOLOGY

CHRISTIANITY,

A SERIES OF LETTERS,

ADDRESSED TO

EDWARD GIBBON, ES2.
author of the history of the decline and fall of
the roman empire.

^rittttfl. oftitum.

B

I know not whether I may be allowed,
without the imputation of vanity, to ex
press the satisfaction I felt on being told by
my Bookseller, that another Edition of the
Apology for Christianity was wanted. It
is a satisfaction, however, in which vanity
has no part ; it is altogether founded in the
delightful hope, that I may have been, in
a small degree, instrumental in recommend
ing the Religion of Christ to the attention
of some, who might not otherwise have con
sidered it, with that serious and unpreju
diced disposition which its importance re
quires. The celebrity of the work which gave
rise to this Apology, has, no doubt, prin
cipally contributed to its circulation : could
I have entertained a thought, that it would
have been called for so many years after its
first publication, I would have endeavoured
b 2

[ iv ]
to have rendered it more intrinsically worthy
the public regard. It becomes not me how
ever to depreciate what the world has ap
proved; rather let me express an earnest
wish, that those who dislike not this little
Book, will peruse larger ones on the same
subject : in them they will see the defects
of this so abundantly supplied, as will, I
trust, convince them, that the Christian
Religion is not a system of superstition,
invented by enthusiasts, and patronised by
statesmen, for secular ends, but a revelation
of the will of God.
London,
March 10,. 1791.

AN APOLOGY

CHRISTIANITY.

LETTER I.

SIR,
It would give me much uneasiness to be re
puted an enemy to free inquiry in religious mat
ters, or as capable of being animated into any
degree of personal malevolence against those
who differ from me in opinion. On the contra
ry, I look upon the right of private judgment,
in every concern respecting God and ourselves,
as superior to the controul of human authority ;
and have ever regarded free disquisition as the
best mean of illustrating the doctrine, and es
tablishing the truth of Christianity. Let the
followers of Mahomet, and the zealots of the
church of Rome, support their several religious
systems by damping every effort of the human
intellect to pry into the foundations of their faith :
but never can it become a Christian, to be
afraid of being asked a reason of ihe faith that
is in him; nor a Protestant, to be studious of

6 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
enveloping his religion in mystery and igno
rance j nor the church of England, to abandon
that moderation by which she permits every in
dividual et sentire qua? velit, et quae sentiat dicere.
It is not, Sir, without some reluctance, that,
under the influence of these opinions, I have
prevailed upon myself to address these letters to
you ; and you will attribute to the same motive
my not having given you this trouble sooner.
I had moreover an expectation, that the task
would have been undertaken by some person ca
pable of doing greater justice to the subject,
and more worthy of your attention. Perceiv
ing, however, that the two last chapters, the
fifteenth in particular, of your very laborious
and classical history of the Decline and Fall of
the Roman Empire, had made upon many am
impression not at all advantageous to Christiani
ty; and that the silence of others, ofthe clergy
especially, began to be looked upon as an ac
quiescence in what you had therein advanced ;
I have thought it my duty, with the utmost re
spect and goodwill towards you, to take the
liberty of suggesting to your consideration a few
remarks upon some of the passages which have

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 7
been esteemed (whether you meant that they
should be so esteemed or not) as powerfully mi
litating against that revelation, which still is to
many, what it formerly was to the Greeks— fool
ishness ; but which we deem to be true, to be
the power of God unto salvation to every one that
believeth. To the inquiry by what means the Christian
faith obtained so remarkable a victory over the
estabhshed religions of the earth, you rightly
answer, By the evidence of the doctrine itself,
and the ruling providence of its Author. But
afterwards, in assigning for this astonishing
event five secondary causes, derived from the
passions of the human heart and the general cir
cumstances of mankind, you seem to some to
have insinuated, that Christianity, like other
impostures, might have made its way in the
world, though its origin had been as human as
the means by which you suppose it was spread.
It is no wish or intention of mine, to fasten the
odium of this insinuation upon you: I shall
simply endeavour to shew, that the causes you
produce are either inadequate to the attainment
of the end proposed j or that their efficiency,

8 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
great as you imagine it, was derived from other
principles than those you have thought proper
to mention.
Your first cause is, " the inflexible, and, if
you may use the expression, the intolerant zeal
of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the
Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow
and unsocial spirit which, instead of inviting,
had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the
law of Moses." — Yes, Sir, we are agreed that the
zeal of the Christians was inflexible ; neither
death, nor life, nor principalities, nor powers, nor
things present, nor things to come, could bend it
into a separation from the love of God, which was
in Christ Jesus their Lord : it was an inflexible
obstinacy, in not blaspheming the name of
Christ, which everywhere exposed them to per
secution; and which even your amiable and
philosophic Pliny thought proper, for Want of
other crimes, to punish with death in the Chris
tians of his province. — We are agreed, too, that
the zeal of the Christians was intolerant ; for it
denounced tribulation and anguish upon every soul
of man that did evil, of the Jew first, and also of
the Gentile : it would not tolerate in Christian

AN APOLOGT FOR CHRISTIANITY. 9
worship those who supplicated the image of Cae
sar, who bowed down at the altars of Paganism,
who mixed with the votaries of , Venus, or wal
lowed in the filth of Bacchanalian festivals.
But though we are thus far agreed with
respect to the inflexibility and intolerance of
Christian zeal, yet, as to the principle from which
it was derived, we are toto ccelo divided in opinion.
You deduce it from the Jewish religion ; I would
refer it to a more adequate and a more obvious
source, a full persuasion of the truth of Christi
anity. What ! think you that it was a zeal
derived from the unsocial spirit of Judaism,
which inspired Peter with courage to upbraid the
whole people of the Jews in the very capital of
Judaea, with having delivered up Jesus, with
having denied him in the presence of Pilale, with
having desired a murderer to be granted them in
his stead, with having killed the Prince of life?
Was it from this principle that the same Apostle
in conjunction with John, when summoned, not
before the dregs ofthe people (whose judgments
they might have been supposed capable of mis
leading, and whose resentment they might have
despised), but before the rulers and the elders

10 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
and the scribes, the dread tribunal of the Jewish
nation, and commanded by them to teach no
more in the name of Jesus — boldly answered,
that they could not but speak the things which they
had seen and heard ? They had seen with their
eyes, they had handled with their hands, the word
of life ; and no human jurisdiction could deter
them from being faithful witnesses of what they
had seen and heard. Here then you may per
ceive the genuine and undoubted origin of that
zeal, which you ascribe to what appears to me a
very insufficient cause ; and which the Jewish
rulers were so far from considering as the ordi
nary effect of their religion, that they were ex
ceedingly at a loss how to account for it : — now
when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and
perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant
men, they marvelled. The Apostles, heedless of
consequences, and regardless of every thing but
truth, openly everywhere professed themselves
witnesses of the resurrection of Christ ; and with
a confidence which could proceed from nothing
but conviction, and which pricked the Jews to
the heart, bade the house of Israel know assuredly,
that God had made that same Jesus, whom they
had crucified, both Lord and Christ.

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIAKITY. 11
I mean not to produce these instances of apos
tolic zeal as direct proofs of the truth of Christi
anity; for every religion, nay, every absurd sect
of every religion, has had its zealots, who have
not scrupled to maintain their principles at the
expense of their lives : and we ought no more to
infer the truth of Christianity from the mere zeal
of its propagators, than the truth of Mahomet-
anism from that of a Turk. When a man suffers
himself to be covered with infamy, pillaged of
his property, and dragged at last to the block or
the stake, rather than give up his opinion : the
proper inference is, not that his opinion is true,
but that he believes it to be true ; and a ques
tion of serious discussion immediately presents
itself— upon what foundation has he built his be
lief? This is often an intricate inquiry, inclu
ding in it a vast compass of human learning : a
Bramin or a Mandarin, who should observe a
missionary attesting the truth of Christianity with
his blood, would, notwithstanding, have a right
to ask many questions, before it could be expect
ed that he should give an assent to our faith.
In the case indeed of the Apostles, the inquiry
would be much less perplexed ; since it would
briefly resolve itself into this — whether they were

12 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
credible reporters of facts which they themselves
professed to have seen : — and it would be an
easy matter to shew, that their zeal in attesting
what they were certainly competent to judge of,
could not proceed from any alluring prospect of
worldly interest or ambition, or from any other
probable motive than a love of truth.
But the credibility of the Apostles' testimony,
or their competency to judge of the facts which
they relate, is not now to be examined ; the
question before us simply relates to the principle
by which their zeal was excited : and it is a mat
ter of real astonishment to me, that any one
conversant with the history of the first propaga
tion of Christianity, acquainted with the oppo
sition it every where met with from the people
of the Jews, and aware of the repugnancy which
must ever subsist between its tenets and those
of Judaism, should ever think of deriving the
zeal of the primitive Christians from the Jewish
religion. Both Jew and Christian, indeed, believed in
one God, and abominated idolatry ; but this
detestation of idolatry, had it been unaccompa-

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. l3
nied with the belief of the resurrection of Christ,
would probably have been just as inefficacious in
exciting the zeal of the Christians to undertake
the conversion of the Gentile world, as it had
for ages been in exciting that of the Jew. But
supposing, what I think you have not proved,
and what I am certain cannot be admitted with
out proof, that a zeal derived from the Jewish
religion inspired the first Christians with forti
tude to oppose themselves to the institutions of
Paganism ; what was it that encouraged them to
attempt the conversion of their own country
men ? Amongst the Jews they met with no
superstitious observances of idolatrous rites ;
and therefore amongst them could have no op
portunity of " declaring and confirming their
zealous opposition to Polytheism, or of fortify
ing by frequent protestations their attachment to
the Christian faith." Here then, at least, the
cause you have assigned for Christian zeal ceases
to operate ; and we must look out for some other
principle than a zeal against idolatry, or we shall
never b'_ able satisfactorily to explain the ardour
with which the Apostles pressed the disciples of
Moses to become the disciples of Christ.

14 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
Again, does a determined opposition to, and
an open abhorrence of every the minutest part
of an established religion appear to you to be
the most likely method of conciliating to another
faith those who profess it ? The Christians, you
contend, could neither mix with the Heathens
in their convivial entertainments, nor partake
with them in the celebration of their solemn fes
tivals ; they could neither associate with them
in their hymeneal nor funeral rites ; they could
not cultivate their arts, or be spectators of their
shows ; in short, iri order to escape the rites of
Polytheism, they were in your opinion obliged
to renounce the commerce of mankind, and all
the offices dnd amusements of life. Now, how
such an extravagant and intemperate zeal as you
here describe, can, humanly speaking, be con
sidered as one of the chief causes of the quick
propagation of Christianity, iri opposition to all
the established powers of Paganism, is a circum
stance I can by no means comprehend. The
Jesuit missionaries, whose human prudence no
one will question, were quite of a contrary way
of thinking ; arid brought a deserved censure
upon therhselveS for not scrupling to propagate
the faith of Christ, by indulging to their Pagan

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 15
converts a frequent use of idolatrous ceremo
nies. Upon the whole it appears to me, that
the Christians were in 'no wise indebted to the
Jewish rehgion for the zeal with which they pro
pagated the gospel amongst Jews as well as gen
tiles ; and that such a zeal as you describe, let
its principle be what you] please, could never
have been devised by any human understanding
as a probable mean of promoting the progress
of a reformation in religion, much less could it
have been thought of or adopted by a few ig
norant and unconnected men.
In expatiating upon this subject you have
taken an opportunity of remarking, that " the
contemporaries of Moses arid Joshua had beheld
with careless indifference the most amazing
miracles — and that, in contradiction to every
known principle ofthe human mind, that singu
lar people (the Jews) seems to have yielded a
stronger and more ready assent to the traditions
of their remote ancestors than to the eviderice
of their own senses." This observation bears
hard upon the veracity of the Jewish Scriptures ;
and, was it true, would force us either to reject
them, or to admit a position as extraordinary as
7

16 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
a miracle itself— that the testimony of others
produced in the human mind a stronger degree
of conviction, concerning a matter of fact, than
the testimony of the senses themselves. It hap
pens however, in the present case, that we are
under no necessity of either rejecting the Jewish
Scriptures, or of admitting such an absurd posi-.
tion ; for the fact is not true, that the contem
poraries of Moses and Joshua beheld with care
less indifference the miracles related in the Bible
to have been performed in their favour. That
these miracles were not sufficient to awe the
Israelites into an uniform obedience to the The
ocracy, cannot be denied ; but whatever reasons
may be thought best adapted to account for the
propensity of the Jews Jto idolatry, and their fre
quent defection from the worship of the One true
God, " a stubborn incredulity" cannot be admit
ted as one of them.
To men, indeed, whose understandings have
been enlightened by the Christian revelation, and
enlarged by all the aids of human learning ;
who are under no temptations to idolatry from
without, and whose reason from within .would
revolt at the idea of worshipping the .infinite
6

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 17
Author of the universe under any created sym
bol ; — to men who are compelled, by the utmost
exertion of their reason, to admit as an irrefra
gable truth, what puzzles the first prm<_iple£.of
all reasoning. — the eternal existence of an un
caused Be'ing ; and who are conscious that they
cannot give a full account of any one ph_enome-
non in nature, from the rotation of the great orbs
of the universe to the germiriation of a blade of
grass,1 without having recourse to him as the pri*
mary incomprehensible "cause of it ;— ^-and who,
frbm seeing hifn every where, have, by a strange
fatality (converting an excess of evidence into a
principle of disbelief,) at" times doubted 'con
cerning his existence any where, and made the
very universe their God;— to men of such1 a
stamp, it appears almost an incredible' things
that any human being which had seen the order
of nature interrupted, or the - uniformity of its
course suspended, though but for a 'moment,
should ever afterwards lose the impression of
reverential awe which they s apprehend would
have been excited in > their minds. But what
ever effect the vi_ible interposition of the Deity
might have in temoving the scepticism, at Qoii*

18 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
firming the faith of a few philosophers, it is with*
me a very great doubt, whether the people in
general of our days would be more strongly af
fected by it than they appear to have been in
the days of M@ses.
Was any people under heaven to escape the
certain destruction impending over them, from
the close pursuit of an enraged and irresistible
eriemy, by seeing the waters of the ocean becom
ing a wall to them on their right hand and on their
lefi; they would, I apprehend, be agitated by
the very same passions we are told the Israelites
were, when they saw the sea returning to his
strength, and swallowing up the host of Pha
raoh ; they would fear the Lord, they would be
lieve the Lord, and they would express their faith
and their fear by praising the Lord : — they would
not behold such a great work with careless indif
ference, but with astonishment and terror ; nor
would you be able to detect the slightest vestige
of stubborn incredulity in their song of gratitude.
No length of time would be able to blot from
their minds the memory of such a transaction, or
induce a doubt concerning its Author j though

AN APOLOGY- FOR CHRISTIANITY. 19
future hunger and thirst might make them call
out for water and bread, with a desponding and
rebellious importunity.
But it was not at the Red Sea only that the
Israelites regarded with something more than a
careless indifference the amazing miracles which
God had wrought ; for, when the law was de
clared to them from mount Sinai, all the people
saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the
noise of the tempest, and the mountains smoking ;
and when the people saw it, they removed and stood
afar off: and they said unto Moses, Speak thou
with us, and we will hear ; but let not God speak
with us, lest we die. — This again, Sir, is the
Scripture account of the language of the con
temporaries of Moses and Joshua ; and I leave it
to you to consider whether this is the language of
stubborn incredulity and careless indifference.
We are told in Scripture, too, that whilst any
of the contemporaries of Moses and Joshua were
alive, the whole people served the Lord : the
impression which a sight of the miracles had
made, was never effaced-— nor the obedience,
which might have been expected as a natural
c 2

20 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
consequence, refused— till Moses and Joshua,
and all their contemporaries, were gathered
unto their fathers ; till another generation after
them arose, which knew not the Lord, nor yet ihe
works which he had done for Israel. But the
people served the Lord all the days of Joshua,
and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua,
who had seen all the great works of ihe Lord that
he did for Israel.
I am far from thinking you, Sir, unacquainted
With Scripture, or desirous of sinking the weight
of its testimony ; but as the words ofthe history
from which you must have derived your obser*-
vation, will not support you in imputing careless
indifference to the contemporaries of Moses, or
stubborn hjcredulity to the forefathers of the Jews,
I know not what can have- induced you to pass
so severe a censure upon them, except that you
look upon a lapse into idolatry as a proof of infi*
delity. In answer to this I would remark, that
with equal soundness of argument we ought to
infer, that every one who trarisgresses a rehgion,
disbelieves it ; and that every individual, who in
any community incurs civil pains and penalties,
is a disbeliever of the existence of the authority

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 21
by which they are inflicted. The sanctions of the
Mosaic law were, in your opinion, terminated
within the narrow limits of this life ; in that par
ticular, then, they must have resembled the sanc
tions of all other civil laws : transgress and die
is the language of every one of them, as well as
that of Moses ; and I know not what reason we
have to expect that the Jews, who were ani
mated by the same hopes of temporal rewards,
impelled by the same fears of temporal punish
ments, with the rest of mankind, should have
been so singular in their conduct, as never to
have listened to the clamours of passion before
the still voice of reason ; as never to have pre*
ferred a present gratification pf sense, in the'lewd
celebration of idolatrous rites, before the rigid
©bservance of irksome ceremonies.
Before I release you from the trouble qf this
Letter, I cannot help observing, that I cquld
have wished you had furnished your reader with
Limborch's answers to the objections of the Jew
Orobio, concerning the perpetual obligation of
the law of Moses. You have indeed mentioned
Limborch with respect, in a short note ; but
though you have studiously put into the mouths

22 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
of the Judaising Christians in the apostolic days,
and with great strength inserted in your text,
whatever has been said by Orobio or others
against Christianity, from the supposed perpe
tuity of the Mosaic dispensation ; yet you have
not favoured us with any one of the numerous
replies which have been made to these seemingly
strong objections. You are pleased, it is true,
to say, " that the industry of our learned divines
has abundantly explained the ambiguous lan
guage of the Old Testament, and the ambiguous
conduct of the apostolic teachers." It requires,
Sir, no learned industry to explain what is so ob
vious and so express, that he who runs may read
it. The language ofthe Old Testament is this:
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and
with the house of Judah ; not according to the
covenant that I made with their fathers, in the
day that I took them by the hand to bring them
out of the land of Egypt. This, methinks, is a
clear and solemn declaration — there is no ambi
guity at all in it— that the covenant with Moses
was not to be perpetual, but was in some future
time to give way to a new covenant. I will not
detain you with an explanation of what Moses
6

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 23
himself has said upon this subject ; but you may
try, if you please, whether you can apply the
following declaration, which Moses made to the
Jews, to any prophet or succession of prophets,
with the same propriety that you can to Jesus
Christ •."—The Lord thy God will raise up unto
thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy bre
thren, like unto me : unto him shall ye hearken.
If you think this ambiguous or obscure, I an
swer, That it is not a history, but a prophecy,
and, as such, unavoidably liable to some degree
of obscurity, till interpreted by the event.
Nor was the conduct of the Apostles more
ambiguous than the language of the Old Testa
ment : they did not indeed at first comprehend
the whole of the nature of the new dispensation ;
and when they did understand it better, they
did not think proper upon every occasion to use
their Christian liberty ; but, with true Christian
charity, accommodated themselves in matters of
indifference to the prejudices of their weaker
brethren. But he who changes his conduct with
a change of sentiments, proceeding from an in
crease of knowledge, is not ambiguous in his
conduct ; nor should he be accused of a culpable

24 .AN 4POLOG.Y FOR CHRISTIANITY.
duplicity, who in a matter of the! last importance
endeavours to conciliate the good, will r,qt' aH,vby
conforming in a few innocent observances to the
.particular persuasions of different men.. .:
One remark more, and I have done. In your
-account of the Gnostics, you have given us a very
impute catalogue of the objections which they
made to the authority of Moses, from his account
ofthe creation, ofthe patriarchs, of .he law, and
of the attributes of the Deity. I have not lei
sure to examine whether the Gpostics of former
.-ages really made all the objections you have
mentioned; I take it fbr granted, upon your
authority, that they did: but I am certain, if
they did. that the Gnostics of modern times have
no reason to be puffed up with their knowledge,
or to be had in admiration as men of subtile
penetration or refined erudition : they are all
miserable copiers of their brethren of antiquity;
and neither Morgan, nor Tindal, nor Boling-
broke, nor Voltaire, have been able to produce
scarce a single new objection. You think that
the Fathers have not properly answered the
Gnostics* I make no question, Sir, you are
able to answer them to your own satisfaction,

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 25
and informed of every thing that has been said by
our industrious divines upon the subject ; and we
should have been glad, if it had fallen in with
your plan to have administered together with the
poison its antidote : but since that is not the
case, lest its malignity should spread too far, I
must just mention it to my younger readers, that
Leland and others, in their replies to the modern
Deists, have given very full, and as many learn
ed men apprehend, very satisfactory answers to
every one of the objections which you have de
rived from the Gnostic Heresy.
I am, &c.

LETTER II.

SIR,
" The doctrine of a future life, improved by
every additional circumstance which could give
weight and efficacy to that important truth,"
is the second of the causes to which you at
tribute the quick increase of Christianity. Now
if we impartially consider the circumstances of
the persons to whom the doctrine, not simply of
a future life, but of a future life accompanied
with punishments as well as rewards ; not only
of the immortality of the soul, but of the immor
tality of the soul accompanied with that of the
resurrection, was delivered ; I cannot be of opi
nion that, abstracted from the supernatural tes
timony by which it was enforced, it could have
met with any very extensive reception amongst
them. It was not that kind of future life which they
expected ; it did not hold out to them the pu-

AN APOlOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 27
nishments of the infernal regions as amies fabulas.
To the question, Quid si post mortem maneant
animi ? they could not answer with Cicero and
the philosophers — Beatos esse concedo ; because
there was a great probability that it might be
quite otherwise with them. I am not to learn
that there are passages to be picked up in the
writings of the antients which might be produced
as proofs of their expecting a future state of
punishment for the flagitious ; but this opinion
was worn out of credit before the time of our
Saviour : the whole disputation in the first book
of the Tusculan Questions, goes upon the other
supposition. Nor was the absurdity of the doc
trine of future punishments confined to the
writings ofthe philosophers, or the circles ofthe
learned and polite ; for Cicero, to mention no
others, makes no secret of it in his public plead
ings before the people at large. You yourself,
Sir, have referred to his oration for Cluentius :
in this oration, you may remember, he makes
great mention of a very abandoned fellow, who
had forged I know not how many wills, mur
dered I know not how many wives, and perpe
trated a thousand other viUanies ; yet even to
this profligate, by name Oppianicus, he is per-

28 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRIBJP-ANITY;
suaded that death was not the occasion of any
evil*. Hence, I think, we may conclude,, that
sijph (of .he Romans as were not wholly infected
with the annihilating notions of Epicurus, but
eptertainpd (whether frpm remote tradition or
enlightened argumeptatipn) hopes of a future
life, had no" manner of expectation of such, a life
as included in it the severity of punishment de
nounced in the Christian scherrie against the
wicked. Nor was it that kind of future life which they
wished : they would , have been glad enough of
an Elysiuip which could have admitted into it
men who had spent this life in the perpetration
of every vice which can debase and pollute the
human heart. To abandon every seducing gra
tification of sense, to pluck up every latent root
of ambition, to subdue every impulse of revenge,
to divest themselves of every inveterate habit in
which their glory and their pleasure consisted;
* Nam nunc quidem quid tandem mali illi mors attulit ?
nisi fort, ineptiis ac fabulis ducimur, ut existimemus apud
inferos impiorum supplicia perferre, ac plures illic oflendisse
inimi cos quam hie reliquisse — quae si falsa sint, id quod omnes
mtellig'unt, &c.

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 29
to do all this and more, before they could* 'look
up to the doctrine of a future life without terror
and amazement, was not, one would think, an
easy undertaking : nor was it likely that many
would fOr_ake the religious institutions of their
ancestors, set at nought the gods utider whose
auspices the Capitol had been founded, and
Rome made mistress Ofthe world; and suffer
themselves to be persuaded into the belief of a
tenet, the very mention of which made Felix
tremble, by any thing less thari a full convic
tion of the supernatural authority of those who
taught it.
The several schools' of Gentile philosophy had
discussed, with no small subtlety, every argu
ment which reason could suggest* for and against
the immortality ofthe soul ; and those uncertain
glimmerings of the light of nature would have
prepared the minds of the learned for the recep
tion ofthe full illustration of this subject by the
gospel, had not the resurrection been a part of
the doctrine therein advanced* But that this
corporeal frame, which is hourly mouldering
away, and resolved at last into the undistinguished
mass of elements from which it was at first de*
3

30 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
rived, should ever be clothed with immortality;
that this corruptible should ever put on incorrupt
tion ; is a truth so far removed from the appre
hension of philosophical research, so dissonant
from the common conceptions of mankind, that
amongst all ranks and persuasions of men it was
esteemed an impossible thing. At Athens the
philosophers had listened with patience to St.
Paul, whilst they conceived him but a setter forth
of strange gods; but as soon as they compre
hended that by the av a.^atrig he meant the resur
rection, they turned from him with contempt. It
was principally the insisting Upon the same to
pic, which made Festus think that much learning
had made him mad. And the questions, How
are the dead raised up ? and, With what body do
they come ? seem, by Paul's solicitude to answer
them with fulness and precision, to have been
not unfrequently proposed to him by those who
were desirous of becoming Christians.
The doctrine of a future life then, as pro-
mulged in the gospel, being neither agreeable to
the expectations, nor corresponding with the
wishes, nor conformable to the reason, of the
Gentiles, I can discover no motive (setting aside

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 31
the true one, the divine power of its first
preachers)- which could induce them to receive
it ; and, in consequence of their belief, to con
form their loose morals to the rigid standard of
gospel purity, upon the mere authority of a few
contemptible fishermen of Judea. And even
you yourself, Sir, seem to have changed your
opinion concerning the efficacy ofthe expectation
of a future life in converting the Heathens, when
you observe, in the following chapter, that u the
Pagan multitude reserving their gratitude for
temporal benefits alone, rejected the inestima
ble present of life and immortaUty which was
offered to mankind by Jesus of Nazareth."
Montesquieu is of opinion that it will ever be
impossible fbr Christianity to establish itself in
China and the East, from this circumstance, that
it prohibits a plurality of wives. How then could
it have been possible for it to have pervaded the
voluptuous capital, and traversed the utmost
limits of the empire of Rome, by the feeble ef
forts of human industry, or human knavery ?
But the Gentiles, you are of opinion, were
converted by their fears 5 and reckon the doc

32 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
triries bf Christ's speedy appearance, of the mil
lennium, and, of the general '. conflagration *
amongst* those; additional circumstances which
gave weight to that concerning a future state.
Before I proceed to the examination of the effi
ciency of these several circumstances iri alarming
the apprehensions ofthe Gentiles, what if I should
grant your position ? still the main question re
curs — From what source did they derive the fears
which converted them ? Not surely frorn the
mere human labburs of men, who were every
where spoken against, made a spectacle of, and
considered as the filth of the world, and the off-
scouring of all things-i-.riot surely from the hu
man powers of him who professed himself rude
in speech, in bodily presence contemptible, and a
despiser Of the exceUency of speech^ and the enti
cing words of men's wisdom. No, such wretched
instruments were but ill fitted to inspire the
haughty and the learned Romans with any other
passions than those of 'pity or Contempt.
Now, Sir, if you please, we; will consider that
universal expectation of the approaching end of
the world, which, you think, had such great influ
ence in converting the Pagans to the profession

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 33
of Christianity. The near approach, you say,
of this wonderful event had been predicted by
the Apostles, " though the revolution of seven
teen centuries has instructed us not to press too
closely the mysterious language of prophecy and
revelation." That this opinion, even in the times
ofthe Apostles, had made its way into the Chris
tian church, I readily admit ; but that the Apos
tles ever either predicted this event to others, or
cherished the expectation of it in themselves,
does not seem probable to me. As this is a
point of some difficulty and importance, you will
suffer me to explain it at some length.
It must be owned that there are several pas
sages in the writings of the Apostles, which, at
first view, seem to countenance the opinion you
have adopted. Now, says St. Paul, in his Epistle
to the Romans, it is high time to awake out of
sleep ; fbr now is our salvation nearer than when
we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at
hand. And in his First Epistle to the Thessa
lonians he comforts such of them as were sorrow
ing for the loss of their friends, by assuring them
that they were not lost for ever ; but that the
Lord, when he came, would bring them with
D

34 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
him ; and that they would not, in the participa
tion of any blessings, be in any wise behind those
who should happen then to be alive : we, says
he (the Christians of whatever age or country,
agreeable to a frequent use of the pronoun we),
•which are alive and remain unto the coming of the
Lord, shall not prevent them which are asleep ;
for the Lord himself shall descend from heaven
•with a shout, with the voice ofthe archangel, and
•with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ
shall rise first ; then we which are alive, and re
main, shall be caught up together with them in the
clouds, to meet the Lord. In his Epistle to the
Philippians he exhorts his Christian brethren
not to disquiet themselves with carking cares
about their temporal concerns, from this power
ful consideration, that the Lord was at hand:
Let your moderation be known unto all men ; the
Lord is at hand; be careful about nothing. The
Apostle to the Hebrews inculcates the same doc
trine, admonishing his converts to provoke one
another to love, and to good works ; and so much
the more, as they saw the day approaching. The
age in which the Apostles hved, is frequently
called by them the end of the world, the last
days, the last hour. I think it unnecessary, Sir,

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 35
to trouble you with an explication of these and
other similar texts of Scripture, which are usually
adduced in support of your opinion ; since I
hope to be able to give you a direct proof, that
the Apostles neither comforted themselves, nor
encouraged others, with the delightful hope of
seeing their Master coming again into the world.
It is evident then that St. John, who survived all
the other Apostles, could not have had any such
expectation; since in the Book ofthe Revelation,
the future events ofthe Christian church, which
were not to take place, many of them, till a long
series of years after his death, and some of which
have not yet been accomplished, are there mi
nutely described. St. Peter, in like manner,
strongly intimates, that the day of the Lord
might be said to be at hand, though it was at
the distance of a thousand years or more ; for in
replying to the taunt of those who did then, or
should in future ask, Where is the promise of his
coming? he says, Beloved, be not ignorant of this
one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a
thousand years, and a thousand years as one day :
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as
some men count slackness. And he speaks 01
putting off his tabernacle, as the Lord had shewed
d 2

86 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
him ; and of his endeavour, that the Christians
after his decease might be able to have these
things in remembrance: so that it is past a
doubt, he could not be of opinion that the
Lord would come in his time. As to St. Paul,
upon a partial view of whose writings the doc
trine concerning the speedy coming of Christ is
principally founded; it is manifest that he was
conscious he should not live to see it, notwith
standing the expression before mentioned, we
which are alive ; for he foretels his own death in
express terms — the time of my departure is at
hand ; and he speaks of his reward, not as im
mediately to be conferred on him ; but as laid up
and reserved for him till some future day — I have
fought a good fight, I have finished my course ;
henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of
righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge,
shall give me at that day. There is moreover
one passage in his writings, which is so express
and full to the purpose, that it will put the mat
ter I think beyond all doubt; it occurs in his
Second Epistle to the Thessalonians: they, it
seems, had either by misinterpreting some parts
of his former letter to them, or by the preaching
of some, who had not the spirit of truth ; by

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 37
some means or other, they had been led to ex
pect the speedy coming of Christ, and been
greatly disturbed in mind upon that account.
To remove this error, he writes to them in the
following very solemn and affectionate manner:
We beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our
Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together
unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be
troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by
letter as from us, as that the day ofthe Lord is at
hand; let no man deceive you by any means. He
then goes on to describe a falling away, a great
corruption ofthe Christian church, which was to
happen before the day of the Lord. Now by
this revelation of the man of sin, this mystery of
iniquity, which is to be consumed with the spirit
of his mouth, destroyed by the brightness of his
coming, we have every reason to believe, is to
be understood the past and present abominations
of the church of Rome. How then can it be said
of Paul, who clearly foresaw this corruption
above seventeen hundred years ago, that he ex
pected the coming of the Lord in his own day?
Let us press, Sir, the mysterious language of
prophecy and revelation as closely as you please;
but let us press it truly ; and we may, perhaps,

38 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
find reason from thence to receive, with less re
luctance, a religion, which describes a corrup
tion, the strangeness of which, had it not been
foretold in unequivocal terms, might have
amazed even a friend to Christianity.
I will produce you, Sir, a prophecy, which
the more closely you press it, the more reason
you will have to believe, that the speedy coming
of Christ could never have been predicted by the
Apostles. Take it, as translated by Bishop
Newton: But the Spirit speaketh expressly, that
in the latter times, some shall apostatize from the
faith ; giving heed to erroneous spirits, and doc
trines concerning demons, through the hypocrisy
of liars ; having their conscience seared with a red
hot iron ; forbidding to marry, and commanding
to abstain from meats. — Here you have an ex
press prophecy — the Spirit hath spoken it — that
in the latter times — not immediately, but at
some distant period — some should apostatize
from the faith — some who had been Christians,
should in truth be so no longer— but should
give heed to erroneous spirits, and doctrines con
cerning demons : —Press this expression closely,
and you may, perhaps, discover in it the erro-

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 39
neous tenets, and the demon of saint worship,
ofthe church of Rome ;—through the hypocrisy
of liars: — You recognize, no doubt, the priest
hood, and the martyrologists ;-^-^-having their
conscience seared with a red-hot iron :— Callous
indeed, must his conscience be, who traffics in
indulgences; — forbidding to marry, and com
manding to abstain from meats;; — This language
needs no pressing; it discovers, at once, the un
happy votaries of monastic life, and the mortal
sin of eating flesh on fast days.
If, notwithstanding what has been said, you
should still be of Opinion, that the Apostles
expected Christ would come in their time; it
will not follow, that this their error ought in any
wise to diminish their authority as preachers of
the gospel. I am sensible this position may
alarm even some well-wishers to Christianity;
and supply its enemies with what they will think
an irrefragable argument. The Apostles, they
will say, were inspired with the spirit of truth j
and yet they fell into a gross mistake, concern
ing a matter of great importance : how is this to
be reconciled ? Perhaps, in the following manner :
When the time of our Saviour's ministry was
3

40 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
nearly at an end, he thought proper to raise the
spirits of his disciples, who were quite cast down
with what he had told them about his design of
leaving them; by promising, that he would send
to them the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, the
Spirit of truth ; who should teach them all things,
and lead them into all truth. And we know,
that this his promise was accomplished on the
day of Pentecost, when they were all filled with;
the Holy Ghost; and we know farther, that from
that time forward, they were enabled to speak
with tongues, to work miracles, to preach the
word with power, and to comprehend the mys
tery ofthe new dispensation which was commit
ted unto them. But we have no reason from
hence to conclude, that they were immediately
inspired with the apprehension of whatever might
be known ; that they became acquainted with
all kinds of truth: they were undoubtedly led
into such truths as it was necessary for them to
know, in order to their converting the world to
Christianity; but in other things, they were pro
bably left to the exercise of their understandings,
as other men usually are. But surely they might
be proper witnesses of the life and resurrection
of Christ, though they were not acquainted with

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 41
every thing which might have been known;
though, in particular, they were ignorant of the
precise time when our Lord would come to judge
the world. It can be no impeachment, either
of their integrity as men, or their ability as
historians, or their honesty as preachers of
the gospel, that they were unacquainted with
what had never been revealed to them ; that
they followed their own understandings where
they had no better light to guide them ; speaking
from conjecture, when they could not speak from
certainty ; of themselves, when they had no
commandment of the Lord. They knew but in
part, and they prophesied but in part ; and con
cerning this particular point, Jesus himself had
told them, just as he was about finally to leave
them, that it was not for them to know the times
and the seasons, which the Father had put in his
own power. Nor is it to be wondered at, that
the Apostles were left in a state of uncertainty
concerning the time in which Christ should
appear ; since beings far more exalted, and more
highly favoured of heaven, than they, were under
an equal degree of ignorance : Cf that day, says
our Saviour, and of that hour, knoweth no oner;
no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the

42 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
Son, but the Father only.— I am afraid* Sir, I
have tired you with Scripture quotations; but if
I have been fortunate enough to convince you,
either that the speedy coming of Christ was
never expected, much less predicted, by the
Apostles ; or that their mistake in that particu
lar expectation, can in no degree diminish the
general weight of their testimony as historians,
I shall not be sorry for the ennui I may have
occasioned you.
The doctrine of the Millennium is the second
of the circumstances which you produce, as giv
ing weight to that of a future state ; and you re
present this doctrine as having been " carefully
inculcated by a succession of the fathers, from
Justin Martyr and Irenseus down to Lactantius;"
and observed that, when " the edifice of the
chutch was almost completed, the temporary
support was laid aside :" and in the notes you
refer us, as a proof of what you advance, to
** Irenseus* the disciple of Papias, who had seen
the Apostle St. John," and to the second Dia
logue of Justin with Tryphto.
I wish, Sir, you had turned to Eusebius, for

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 45
the character of this Papias, who had seen the
Apostle St. John ; you would there have found
him represented as little better than a credulous
old woman ; very averse from reading, but
mightily given to pick up stories and traditions
next to fabulous ; amongst which Eusebius reckons
this of the Millennium one. Nor is it, I appre
hend, quite certain, that Papias ever saw, much
less discoursed, as seems to be insinuated, with
the Apostle St. John. Eusebius thinks rather, that
it was John the Presbyter he had seen. But
what if he had seen the Apostle himself? Many
a weak-headed man had undoubtedly seen him
as well as Papias ; and it would be hard indeed
upon Christians, if they were compelled to re
ceive as apostolical traditions the wild reveries
of ancient enthusiasm, or such crude concep
tions of ignorant fanaticism, as nothing but the
rust of antiquity can render venerable.
As to the works of Justin, the very dialogue
you refer to contains a proof, that the doctrine
of the Millennium had not, even in his time, the
universal reception you have supposed ; but that
many Christians of pure and pious principles

44 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
rejected it. I wonder how this passage escaped
you ; but it may be that you followed Tillotson,
who himself followed Mede, and read in the
original _ instead of «. ; and thus unwarily vio
lated the idiom ofthe language, the sense ofthe
context, and the authority of the best editions*.
In the note you observe, that it is unnecessary
for you to mention all the intermediate fathers
between Justin and Lactantius, as the fact, you
say, is not disputed. In a man who has read so
many books, and to so good a purpose, he must
be captious indeed, who cannot excuse small
mistakes. That unprejudiced regard to truth

* Justin, in answering the question proposed by Trypho,
Whether the Christians believed the doctrine of the Millen
nium, says, JljUoXoyncra an fl-i xcu WfOTEgoy, ot» lyu fill) x«i
«X_oi otoXJioj tcairx (fifoya^iEV, us xou marries egt&raovt, t_t»
ysvtu. o/_ev.v. XleWas %'av xai ._v ms KA0APAS KAI EYSEBOYS
ovT_y Xfio-Tiaiw TNfiMHS tsto fiw yvfcfi^Ejy, EO-npaya trot. The
note subjoined to this passage out of Justin, in Thirlby's Ed,
an. 1722. is, [_I._._ss 5'a. xai T_y r .; xaSaja;] Medus (quern
sequitur Tillotsonus, Reg. Fidei per iii. sect. 9, p. 756, & seq.
l_git t«» n t .; xaQagas. Vehementer errant viri prseclari.
And in Jebb's Edit. an. 1719, we have the following note :
Doctrina itaque de Millennio, neque erat universalis ecclesia.
traditio, nee opinio de fide recepta, &c.

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 45
however, which is the great characteristic of
every distinguished historian, will, I am per
suaded, make you thank me for recalling to your
memory, that Origen, the most learned of all
the fathers, and Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria,
usually for his immense erudition surnamed the
Great, were both of them prior to Lactantius,
and both of them impugners of the Millennium
doctrine. Look, Sir, into Mosheim, or almost
any writer of ecclesiastical history; and you will
find the opposition of Origen and Dionysius to
this system particularly noticed: look into so
common an author as Whitby, and in his learned
treatise upon this subject, you will find he has
well proved these two propositions : first, that
this opinion of the Millennium was never gene
rally received in the church of Christ ; secondly,
that there is no just ground to think it was de
rived from the Apostles. From hence, I think,
we may conclude, that this Millennium doctrine
(which, by the bye, though it be new modelled,
is not yet thrown aside) could not have been any
very serviceable scaffold in the erection of that
mighty edifice, which has crushed by the weight
of its materials, and debased by the elegance of

4S AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
its structure, the stateliest temples of heathen
superstition. With these remarks, I take leave
of the Millennium ; just observing, that your
third circumstance, the general conflagration,
seems to be effectually included in your first, the
speedy coming of Christ.
I am, &c.

LETTER III.

SIR,
You esteem " the miraculous powers ascribed
to the primitive church," as the third of the
secondary causes of the rapid growth of Chris
tianity. I should be willing to account the mi
racles, not merely ascribed to the primitive
church, but really performed by the Apostles, as
the one great primary cause of the conversion of
the Gentiles. But waving this consideration, let
us see whether the miraculous powers, which you
ascribe to the primitive church, were in any
eminent degree calculated to spread the behef of
Christianity amongst a great and an enlightened
people. They consisted, you tell us, " of divine inspi
rations, conveyed sometimes in the form of a
sleeping, sometimes of a waking vision ; and
were liberally bestowed on all ranks of the faith-

48 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
fill, on women as on elders, on boys as well as
upon bishops." " The design of these visions,"
you say, " was for the most part either to disclose
the future history, or to guide the present admi
nistration of the church." You speak of " the
expulsion of demons as an ordinary triumph of
religion, usually performed in a public manner;
and when the patient was relieved by the skill or
the power of the exorcist, the vanquished demon
was heard to confess, that he was one of the
fabled gods of antiquity who had impiously
usurped the adoration of mankind ;" and you re
present even the miracle of the resurrection of
the dead, as frequently performed on necessary
occasions. — Cast your eye, Sir, upon the church
of Rome, and ask yourself (I put the question to
your heart, and beg you will consult that for an
answer ; ask yourself) whether her absurd pre
tensions to that very kind of miraculous powers,
you have here displayed as operating to the in
crease of Christianity, have not converted half her
numbers to Protestantism, and the other half to
Infidelity ? Neither the sword of the civil magis
trate, nor the possession of the keys of heaven,
nor the terrors of her spiritual thunder, have been
able to keep within her pale, even those who

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 49
have been bred up in her faith ; how then should
you think, that the very cause which hath al
most extinguished Christianity among Christians,
should have established it among Pagans ? I beg
I may not be misunderstood ; I do not take upon
me to say, that all the miracles recorded in the
history of the primitive church after the aposto
lical age, were forgeries ; it is foreign to the pre
sent purpose to deliver any opinion upon that
subject ; but I do beg leave to insist upon this,
that such of them as were forgeries, must in that
learned age, by their easy detection, have rather
impeded than accelerated the progress of Chris
tianity ; and it appears very probable to me,
that nothing but the recent prevailing evidence
of real, unquestioned, apostolical miracles, could
have secured the infant church from being de
stroyed by those which were falsely ascribed
to it.
It is not every man who can nicely separate
the corruptions of religion from religion itself;
nor justly apportion the degrees of credit due to
the diversities of evidence ; and those who have
ability for the task, are usually ready enough to
emancipate themselves from gospel restraints

50 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
(which thwart the propensities of sense, check
the ebullitions of passion, and combat the pre
judices of the world at every turn) by blending
its native simplicity with the superstitions which
have been derived from it. No argument so
well suited to the indolence or the immorality
of mankind, as that priests of all ages and reli
gions are the same ; we see the pretensions of
the Romish priesthood to miraculous powers,
and we know them to be false; we are conscious,
that they at least must sacrifice their integrity
to their interest, or their ambition ; and being
persuaded, that there is a great sameness in the
passions of mankind, and in their incentives to
action ; and knowing, that the history of past
ages is abundantly stored with similar claims to
supernatural authority, we traverse back in ima
gination the most distant regions of antiquity ;
and finding, from a superficial view, nothing to
discriminate one set of men, or one period of
time from another; we hastily conclude, that all
revealed religion is a cheat, and that the miracles
attributed to the Apostles themselves are sup
ported by no better testimony, nor more worthy
our attention, than the prodigies of Pagan story,
or the lying wonders of Papal artifice. I have

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 51
no intention, in this place, to enlarge upon the
many circumstances, by which a candid inqui
rer after truth might be able to distinguish a
pointed difference between the miracles of Christ
and his Apostles, and the tricks of ancient or
modern superstition. One observation I would
just suggest to you upon the subject; the mi
racles recorded in the Old and New Testament
are so intimately united with the narration of
common events, and the ordinary transactions
of life, that you cannot, as in profane history,
separate the one from the other. My meaning
will be illustrated by an instance : Tacitus and
Suetonius have handed down to us an account of
many great actions performed by Vespasian ;
amongst the rest, they inform us of his having
wrought some miracles, of his having cured a
lame man, and restored sight to one that was
blind. But what they tell us of these miracles,
is so unconnected with every thing that goes
before and after, that you may reject the rela
tion of them without injuring, in any degree,
the consistency of the narration of the other cir
cumstances of his life: on the other hand, if you
reject the relation of the miracles said to have
been performed by Jesus Christ, you must

52 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
necessarily reject the account of his whole life,
and of several transactions, concerning which we
-have the undoubted testimony of other writers
besides the Evangelists. But if this argument
should not strike you, perhaps the following
observation may tend to remove a little of the
prejudice usually conceived against gospel mi
racles, by men of lively imaginations, from the
gross forgeries attributed to the first ages of the
church. The ph_enomena of physics are sometimes hap
pily illustrated by an hypothesis ; and the most
recondite truths of mathematical science not un
frequently investigated from an absurd position :
what if we try the same method of arguing in the
case before us? Let us suppose then, that a new
revelation was to be promulged to mankind ;
and that twelve unlearned and unfriended men,
inhabitants of any country most odious and des
picable in the eyes of Europe, should by the
power of God be endowed with the faculty of
speaking languages they had never learned, and
performing works surpassing all human ability ;
and that being strongly impressed with a parti
cular truth, which they were commissioned to

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 53
promulgate, they should travel not only through
the barbarous regions of Africa, but through all
the learned and polished states of Europe;
preaching every where with unremitted sedulity
a new religion, working stupendous miracles in
attestation of their mission, and communicating
to their first converts (as a seal of their conver
sion) a variety of spiritual gifts ; does it appear
probable to you, that after the death of these
men, and probably after the death of most of
their immediate successors, who had been zea
lously attached to the faith they had seen so mi
raculously confirmed, that none would ever at
tempt to impose upon the credulous or the igno
rant, by a fictitious claim to supernatural
powers ? would none of them aspire to the
gift of tongues ? would none of them mistake
phrenzy for illumination, and the delusions of a
heated brain for the impulses of the spirit?
would none undertake to cure inveterate dis
orders, to expel demons, or to raise the dead?
As far as I can apprehend, we ought, from such
a position, to deduce, by every rule of probable
reasoning, the precise conclusion, which was in
fact verified in the case of the Apostles ; every

54 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY^
species of miracles, which Heaven had enabled
the first preachers to perform, would be coun
terfeited, either from misguided zeal or interested
cunning, either through the imbecility or the
iniquity of mankind ; and we might just as rea
sonably conclude, that there never was any piety,
charity, or chastity in the world, from seeing
such plenty of pretenders to these virtues, as
that there never were any real miracles perform
ed, from considering the great store of those
which have been forged.
But, I know not how it has happened, there
are many in the present age (I am far from in
cluding you, Sir, in the number) whose prejudices
against all miraculous events have arisen to that
height, that it appears to them utterly impossible
for .any human testimony, however great, to
establish their credibility. I beg pardon for
styling their reasoning, prejudice ; I have no de
sign to give offence by that word ; they may,
with equal right, throw the same imputation
upon mine ; and I think it just as illiberal in
divines, to attribute the scepticism of every Deist
to wilful infidelity ; as it is in the "Deists to refer
the faith of every divine to professional bias. I

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 55
have not had so little intercourse with mankind,
nor shunned so much the delightful freedom
of social converse, as to be ignorant, that there
are many men of upright morals and good un
derstandings, to whom, as you express it, " a
latent and even involuntary scepticism adheres ;"
and who would be glad to be persuaded to be
Christians: and how severe soever some men may
be in their judgments concerning one another ;
yet we Christians, at least, hope and believe, that
the great Judge of all will make allowance for
" our habits of study and reflection," for various
circumstances, the efficacy of which, in giving a
particular bent to the understandings of men, we
can neither comprehend, nor estimate. For the
sake of such men, if such should ever be induced
to throw an hour away in the perusal of these
letters, suffer me to step for a moment out of my
way, whilst I hazard an observation or two upon
the subject.
Knowledge is rightly divided by Mr. Locke
into intuitive, sensitive, and demonstrative. It
is clear, that a past miracle can neither be the
object of sense nor of intuition, nor consequently
of demonstration ; we cannot then, philosophic

56 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
cally speaking, be said to know, that a miracle
has ever been performed. But, in all the great
concerns of life, we are influenced by probabi
lity rather than knowledge ; and of probability',
the same great author establishes two founda
tions ; a conformity to our own experience, and
the testimony of others. Now it is contended,
that by the opposition of these two principles,
probability is destroyed; or, in other terms,
that human testimony can never influence the
mind to assent to a proposition repugnant to
uniform experience. — Whose experience do you
mean ? You will not say, your own ; for the ex
perience of an individual reaches but a little way ;
and no doubt, you daily assent to a thousand
truths in politics, in physics, and in the business
of common life, which you have never seen veri
fied by experience. — You will not produce the
experience of your friends ; for that can extend
itself but a little way beyond your own. — But
by uniform experience, I conceive, you are
desirous of understanding the experience of all
ages and nations since the foundation of the
world. I answer, first ; how is it that you become
acquainted with the experience of all ages and
nations ? You will reply, from history. — Be it

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 57
so : — Peruse then by far the most ancient records
of antiquity : and if you find no mention of mi
racles in them, I give up the point. Yes ; — but
every thing related therein respecting miracles,
is to be reckoned fabulous. — Why? — Because
miracles contradict the experience of all ages
and nations. Do you not perceive, Sir, that you
beg the very question in debate ? for we affirm,
that the great and learned nation of Egypt, that
the Heathen inhabiting the land of Canaan, that
the numerous people of the Jews, and the nations
which, for ages, surrounded them, have all had
great experience of miracles. You cannot other-
ways obviate this conclusion, than by question
ing the authenticity of that book, concerning
which, Newton, when he was writing his Com
mentary on Daniel, expressed himself to jhe per
son* from whom I had the anecdote, and which
deserves not to be lost : " I find more sure marks
of authenticity in the Bible, than in any profane
history whatsoever."
However, I mean not to press you with the
argument ad verecundiam ; it is needless to so-
* Dr. Smith, late Master of Trinity College.

53 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
licit your modesty, when it may be possible,
perhaps, to make an impression upon your judg
ment : I answer,' therefore, in the second place,
that the admission ofthe principle by which you
reject miracles, will lead us into absurdity. The
laws of gravitation are the most obvious of all
the laws of nature ; every person in every part of
the globe, must of necessity have had experience
of them. There was a time when no one was
acquainted with the laws of magnetism ; these
suspend in many instances the laws of gravity ;
nor can I see, upon the principle in question,
how the rest of mankind could have credited the
testimony of their first discoverer ; and yet to
have rejected it, would have been to reject the
truth. But that a piece of iron should ascend
gradually from the earth, and fly at last with an
increasing rapidity through the air ; and attach
ing itself to another piece of iron, or to a parti
cular species of iron ore, should remain suspended
in opposition to the action of its gravity, is con
sonant to the laws of nature. — I grant it ; but
there was a time when it was contrary, I say not
to the laws of nature, but to the uniform expe
rience of all preceding ages and countries ; and
at that particular point of time, the testimony

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 59
of an individual, or of a dozen individuals, who
should have reported themselves eye witnesses of
such a fact, ought, according to your argumenta
tion, to have been received as fabulous. And
what are those laws of nature, which, you think,
can never be suspended ? are they not different
to different men, according to the diversities of
their comprehension and knowledge ? and if any
one of them (that, for instance, which rules the
operations of magnetism or electricity) should
have been known to you or to me alone, whilst
all the rest of the world were unacquainted with
it ; the effects of it would have been new, and
unheard of in the annals, and contrary to the ex
perience, of mankind ; and therefore ought not,
in your opinion, to have been believed. Nor do
I understand what difference, as to credibility,
there could be between the effects of such an
unknown law of nature and a miracle : for it is a
matter of no moment, in that view, whether the
suspension of the known laws of nature be
effected, that is, whether a miracle be performed,
by the mediation of other laws that are unknown,
or by the ministry of a person divinely commis
sioned ; since it is impossible for us to be certain,
that it is contradictory to the constitution of the

60 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY-
universe, that the laws of nature, which appear
to us general, should not be suspended, and their
action over-ruled by others, still more general,
though less known ; that is, that miracles should
not be performed before such a being as man, at
those times, in those places, and under those cir
cumstances, which God, in his universal provi
dence, had pre-ordained.

I am, &c.

LETTER IV.

I readily acknowledge the utility of your
fourth cause, "the virtues of the first Chris
tians," as greatly conducing to the spreading
their religion ; but then you seem to quite mar
the compliment you pay them, by representing
their virtues as proceeding either from their re
pentance for having been the most abandoned
sinners, or from the laudable desire of supporting
the reputation of the society in which they were
engaged. That repentance is the first step to virtue, is
true enough ; but I see no reason for supposing,
according to the calumnies of Celsus and Julian,
" that the Christians allured into their party,
men who washed away in the waters of baptism
the guilt for which the temples ofthe gods refused
to grant them any expiation." The Apostles,

62 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
Sir, did not, like Romulus, open an asylum for
debtors, thieves, and murderers; for they had
not the same sturdy means of securing their ad
herents from the grasp of civil power : they did
not persuade them to abandon the temples of the
gods, because they could there obtain no expia
tion for their guilt, but because every degree of
guilt was expiated in them with too great faci
lity ; and every vice practised, not only without
remorse of private conscience, but with the pow
erful sanction of public approbation.
" After the example," you say, " of their
Divine Master, the missionaries of the gospel
addressed themselves to men, and especially to
women, oppressed by the consciousness, and
very often by the effects, of their vices." — This,
Sir, I really think, is not a fair representation of
the matter ; it may catch the applause of the un
learned, embolden many a stripling to cast off
for ever the sweet blush of modesty, confirm
many a dissolute veteran in the practice of his
impure habits, and suggest great occasion of
rrlen iment and wanton mockery to the flagitious
of every denomination and every age ; but still it
will want that foundation of truth, which alone

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 63
can recommend it to the serious and judicious.
The Apostles, Sir, were not like the Italian Fra-
tricelli of the thirteenth, nor the French Turlu-
pins of the fourteenth century ; in all the dirt
that has been raked up against Christianity,
even by the worst of its enemies, not a speck of
that kind have they been able to fix, either upon
the Apostles, or their Divine Master. The gos
pel of Jesus Christ, Sir, was not preached in
single houses or obscure villages, not in subter
raneous caves and impure brothels, not in lazars
and in prisons ; but in the synagogues and in the
temples, in the streets and in the market-places of
the great capitals of the Roman provinces ; in
Jerusalem, in Corinth, and in Antioch, in Athens,
in Ephesus, and in Rome. Nor do I any where
find that its missionaries were ordered particu
larly to address themselves to the shameless
women you mention ; I do indeed find the direct
contrary ; for they were ordered to turn away
from, to have no fellowship or intercourse with
such as were wont to creep into houses, and lead
captive silly women laden wilh sins, led away with
divers lusts. And what if a few women, who
had either been seduced by their passions, or
had fallen victims to the licentious manners ot
8

64 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
their age, should be found amongst those who
were most ready to receive a religion that forbade
all impurity ? I do not apprehend that this cir
cumstance ought to bring an insinuation of dis
credit, either upon the sex, or upon those who
wrought their reformation.
That the majority ofthe first converts to Chris
tianity, were of an inferior condition in life, may
readily be allowed ; and you yourself have in
another place given a good reason for it ; those
who are distinguished by riches, honours, or
knowledge, being so very inconsiderable in num
ber, when compared with the bulk of mankind:
but though not many mighty, not many noble,
were called ; yet some mighty, and some noble,
some of as great reputation as any of the age in
which they lived, were attached to the Christian
faith. Short indeed are the accounts, which
have been transmitted to us, of the first propa
gating of Christianity ; yet even in these we
meet with the names of many, who would have
done credit to any cause : I will not pretend to
enumerate them all; a few of them will be suffi
cient to make you recollect, that there were, at
least, some converts to Christianity, both from

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 65
among the Jews and the Gentiles, whose lives
were not stained with inexpiable crimes. Amongst
these we reckon Nicodemus, a ruler ofthe Jews ;
Joseph of Arimathea, a man of fortune and a
counsellor ; a nohleman and a centurion of Ca
pernaum; Jairus, Crispus, Sosthenes, rulers of
synagogues; Apollos, an eloquent and learned
man; Zenas, a Jewish lawyer, the treasurer of
Candace queen of Ethiopia; Cornelius, a centu
rion of the Italian band ; Dionysius, a member
of the Areopagus at Athens ; and Sergius Paulus,
a man of proconsular or praetorian authority, of
Whom it may be remarked, that if he resigned
his high and lucrative office in consequence of
his turning Christian, it is a strong presump
tion in its favour; if he retained it, we
may conclude, that the profession of Christi
anity was not so utterly incompatible with the
discharge of the offices of civil life, as you some
times represent it. This catalogue of men of
rank, fortune, and knowledge, who embraced
Christianity, might, was it necessary, be much
enlarged; and probably another conversation
with St. Paul would have enabled us to grace it
with the names of Festus, and king Agrippa
himself; riot that the writers of the Books of the

66 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
New Testament seem to have been at all soli
citous in mentioning the great or the learned
$yho were converted to the faith ; had that been
part of their design, they would, in the true style
of impostors, have kept out of sight the publicans
and sinners, the tanners and the tentmakers with
whom they conversed and dwelt ; and introduced
to our notice none but those who had been
brought up with Hewd, or the chief men of Asia
—whom they had the honour to number amongst
their friends.
That the primitive Christians took great care
to have an unsullied reputation, by abstaining
from the commission of whatever might tend to
pollute it, is easily admitted ; but we do not so
easily grant, that this care is a " circumstance
which usually attends small assemblies of men,
When they separate themselves from the body of
a nation, or the religion to which they belonged."
It did not attend the Nicolaitanes, the Simo-
nians, the Menandrians, and the Carpocratians
in the first ages of the church, of which you
are speaking ; and it cannot be unknown to yon,
Sir* that the scandalous vices of these very
early sectaries, brought a general aKid undi^tin^

AN AW>LbGY FOffe CftltiSTlANltY. 61
£*i_ished Censure upon th <e ;Chr__tiari name :; and
m _kr frotri pro.rioti'pg the i_ie_e,a'_e ofthe church*
excited in the mittds ofthe Pagans an abhbrrfchce
Bf whatever respected it: it cafinot be unknown
to you, Sir, that sevetal sectaries both at _io_rife
«rid abroad might be mentioned, who bave de
parted from the reBgioh to which they belohg-
fcd ; and which, Unhappily for the_h'_elve'_ arid
the ' eoittrhtmity, have takeri as little care to pre-
sgfve their reputatiori ti___£0__ed as tho_e of the
fingt and 'secbrid cfehturie_. If then the fifs*
Christians did take the Care you riiehtidh, (and 1
Jrai wholly 'Of youf Opinion in that point,) their*
50liC-t-idte iftight as Carididly, p'eiliaps, arid aS
feasOriably be derived from a 'sense of their duty,
Stnd an hoheSt ettde^Vcmr to discharge it, as fram
the mere desire of AftcteMtig the honour of thfeif-
confraternity by the ifltistribtis integrity <_# its
members. YoU are eloquent iri describing the austere mb-
fality of the primitive Christians, as adverse to
the propensities of serise, and abhofrerit from all
the inribcerit pleasures and amusements Of life •
Slid you enlarge, with a studied miriut'ehess,
tif-bn theft -.ensures of luxury, and their Seiiti-
F2

68 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
ments concerning marriage and chastity :— but
in this circumstantial enumeration of their errors
or their faults, (which. I am under no necessity of
denying or excusing,) you seem to forget the
very purpose for which you profess to have intro
duced the mention of them; for the picture you
have drawn is so hideous, and the colouring so
dismal, that instead of alluring to a closer in
spection, it must have made every man of plea-;
sure or of sense turn from it with horror or dis
gust, and so far from contributing to the rapid
growth of Christianity by the austerity of their
manners, it must be a wonder to any one, how
the first Christians ever made a single convert.—-
It was first objected by Celsus, that Christianity
was a mean religion, inculcating such a pusilla
nimity and patience under affronts, such a con
tempt of riches and worldly honours as must
weaken the nerves of civil government, and ex
pose a society of Christians to the prey of the
first invaders. This objection has been repeated
by Bayle ; and though fully answered by Bernard
and others, it is still the favourite thenje of every
esprit fort of our own age : even you, Sir,, think
the aversion of Christians to the business of war
and government, " a criminal disregard to the

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 69
public welfare." To all that has been said upon
this subject, it may with justice, I think, be
answered, that Christianity troubles not itselr
with ordering the constitutions of civil societies,
but levels the weight of all its influence at the
hearts of the individuals which compose them ;
and, as Origen said to Celsus, was every indivi
dual in every nation a gospel Christian, there
would be neither internal injustice nor external'
war ; there would be none of those passions
which embitter the intercourses of civil life, and
desolate the globe. What reproach then can it
be to a rehgion, that it inculcates doctrineswhich,
if universally practised, would introduce univer
sal tranquillity, and the most exalted happiness
amongst mankind?
It must proceed from a total misapprehension
pf the design of the Christian dispensation, or
from a very ignorant interpretation of the parti
cular injunctions, forbidding us to make riches
or honours a primary pursuit, or the prompt gra
tification of revenge a first principle of action,
to infer — that an individual Christian is obliged
by his religion to offer his throat to an assassin,
and his property to the first plunderer ; or that a

7<X A3?, APOLOGY. J(OR CH_U_#IANJ.T¥ .
sppi^ty of Christians, may not repej,, in the best
manner they are able, the unjust assaults of hos^
tile invasion.,
\ kjiow of no- precepts in the gpspel which)
dqbar a man, from the possession of domestic
comforts,, or. deaden, the actiivity of his, private,
friendships,, or prohibit the exertiqrj, of his ut-.
ippst ability in the. service of the public; the
r^isi qiijietuWr. nihil Ibeatym is no part of the: Chrisr-
tji^R's. creed : his virtue is an active virtue ; and,
w,ef justly refer to the school of Epicurus thedocK
triij^s concerning abstinencefrom marriage, ftpm*
l&e cu^ivajt^oni of friendship, from the manage-
ment of public affairs, as suited to that selfish
indolence, which was the favourite* tenet of his
philosophy. T-un,,&c,

LETTER V.

SIR,
" The union and the discipline of the Christian
draft.!]," or, as you are pleased to style it, bf the
Christian republic, is the last off the five secon-
dmy causes, to which you have referred the rapid
and) extensive spread1 of Christianity. It must
be acknowledged*, that union' essentially contri
butes to the strength of every association; civil,
military, and rehgious ; but unfortunately'' fW
your argument, and mufch to tlie reprokch of
Christians; nothing has been1 more1 wanting
amongst them, from the apostolic age to our
own', than union. I am of Paul, and' T of
Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ, are
expressions of disunion which we meet with in
the earliest period of church history: and we
canriot look into the writings of any, either friend

72 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
or foe to Christianity, but we find the one of
them lamenting, and the other exulting in an
immense catalogue of sectaries; and both of
them thereby furnishing us with great reason to
believe, that the divisions with respect to doc
trine, worship, and discipline, which have ever
subsisted in the church, must have greatly tended
to hurt the credit of Christianity, and to alienate
the minds of the Gentiles from the reception of
such a various and discordant faith.
I readily grant, that there was a certain com
munity of doctrine, an intercourse of hospita
lity, and a confederacy of discipline established
amongst the individuals of every church; so that
none could be admitted into any assembly of
Christians, without undergoing a previous exa
mination into his manner of life*, (which shews,
by the bye, that every reprobate could not, as
the fit seized him, or his interest induced him,
become a Christian,) and without protesting in
the most solemn manner, that he would neither
, * Nonnulli praepositi sunt, qui in vitam et mores eorum,
qui admittuntur, inquirant, ut non concessa facientes candi
dates religionis arceant a suis conventibus. — Orig. con. Cels.
Lib.. 2..

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 7S
be guilty of murder, nor adultery, nor theft, nor
perfidy ; and it may be granted also, that those
who broke this compact, were ejected by com
mon consent from the confraternity into which
they had been admitted : it may be further
granted, that this confederacy extended itself to
independent churches ; and that those who had,
for their immoralities, been excluded from Chris
tian community in any one church, were rarely,
if ever, admitted to it by another ; just as a
member, who had been expelled any one College
in an University, is generally thought unworthy
of being admitted by any other : but it is not
admitted, that this severity and this union of
discipline could ever have induced the Pagans
to forsake the gods of their country, and to
expose themselves to the contemptuous hatred
of their neighbours, and to all the severities of
persecution, exercised, with unrelenting barba
rity, against the Christians.
The account you give of the origin and pro
gress of episcopal jurisdiction, of the pre-emi
nence of the Metropolitan churches, and of the
ambition of the Roman Pontiff, I believe to be
in general accurate and true ; and I am not in

74 A'N APOLOGY FORI CHRISTIANITY.
the least su_prised at the bitterness* which now
and them escapes you in treating this subject :
for, to see the- most benign rehgion that irrfaigfc
nation can form, becoming' am instrument off op
pression ; and the most humble one administer
ing to the pride, the avarice', and the ambition
of those who. wished to be considered' as its guar
dians, and who avowed themselves its professoi-5j
would; extort a censure from; men more attached
probably to- church authority? than, yourself: not
that I think it: either a very candid, or a very
useful underfcaMngjto be? solely and industriously
engaged? irt pount_s_ying' the characters of the
professors ofr CM-riai-ity in the worst colours ;
it, is not caaididv. Because " the- great law of im
partiality,, which obliges an historian to reveal
the; imperfections \ of the : uninspired teachers and
believers of? the gospel^" obliges him also not to
conceal;, or toipass over with niggard and reluc
tant mention, the illustrious; virtues of those*
who gave up fortune and fame, all their comforts,
and- all. theie hopes in this ilife^ nay; life itself,- ra
ther than violate any one of! the precepts of that
gospel, which, from the testimony of inspired
toaahersj they conceived) they had* good* reason
to; beliewe;; itf is. not usefLd, because "toa> care-
6

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 75
less observer" (that is, to the generality of man
kind) " iheiir faults may seem to cast a shade oni
the faith which they professed ;" and may really
infect the minds of the young and unlearned espe
cially, with prejudices against a religion, upon,
their rational reception or rejection of which; a
matter of the utmost importance may (believe
me, Sir, it may, for aught you or any person
else can, prove tothe contrary) entirely depend.
It is an easy matter to amuse ourselves and
others with the immoralities of priests and the
ambition of prelates, withr the absurd virulence
of synods and councils, with the ridiculous doc
trines which visionary enthusiasts or interested
churchmen have sanctified with thename of Chris-,.
tian : but a display of ingenuity or erudition upon
such subjects is much misplaced ; since it excites
almost in, every person^ an unavoidable suspicion
of the purity of the-source itself, from which such
polluted streams have been derived. Db; not
mistake my meaning ; I am far from) wishing;
that the clergy should be looked up to with a
blind reverence, or their imperfections screened
by, the sanctity of their functions,; from ithe ani.
madversion- off the worlds quite thei contracy*:
their cpnduc.»,Iam of opinion, ought* to. hecmore

76 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
nicely scrutinized, and their deviation from the
rectitude of the gospel more severely censured,
than that of other men ; but great care should be ,
taken, not to represent their vices, or their indis
cretions, as originating in the principles of their
religion. Do not mistake me : I am not here
begging quarter for Christianity ; or contending,
that even the principles Of our rehgion should be
received with implicit faith ; or that every ob
jection to Christianity should be stifled, by a
representation of the mischief it might do, if
publicly promulged : on the contrary, we invite,
nay, we challenge you to a direct and liberal
attack ; though oblique glances, and disinge
nuous insinuations, we are willing to avoid ;
well knowing, that the character of our religion,
Hke that of an honest man, is defended with
greater difficulty against the suggestions of ridi
cule, and the secret malignity of pretended
friends, than against positive accusations, and
the avowed malice of open enemies.
In your account of the primitive church, you
set forth, that " the want of discipline and hu
man learning was supplied by the occasional
assistance of the prophets ; who were called to

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 77
that function without distinction of age, of
sex, or of natural abilities." — That the gift of
prophecy was one of the spiritual gifts by which
some of the first Christians were enabled to co
operate with the Apostles, in the general design
of preaching the Gospel ; and that this gift, or
rather, as Mr. Locke thinks, the gift of tongues
(by the ostentation of which, many of them were
prompted to speak in their assemblies at the same
time) was the occasion of some disorder in the
church of Corinth, which required the interposi
tion of the Apostle to compose, is confessed on
all hands. But if you mean, that the prophets
were ever the sole pastors of the faithful ; or that
no provision was made by the Apostles for the
good government and edification of the church,
except what might be accidentally derived from
the occasional assistance ofthe prophets, you are
much mistaken ; and have undoubtedly forgot
what is said of Paul and Barnabas having ordain
ed elders in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch ; and
of Paul's commission to Titus, whom he had left
in Crete, to ordain elders in every city ; and of
his instructions both to him and Timothy, con
cerning the qualifications of those whom they
were to appoint bishops ; one of which was, that
3

7& AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
a bishop shoi$d be able, by sound dOCtrifie, to<efc.
Itoit and to convince the gainsayer ; nor is it said,
that this sound doctrine was to be communicated
to the bishop by prophecy, or that all person*,
without distinction, might be called to that
office ; but a bishop was to be able to teach^ not
what he had learned by prophecy, but What
Paul had publicly preached; the things that thbw
hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same
tommit thou to faithful men, who shall be aMe to
teach others also. And in every place almost,
where prophets are mentioned, they are joined
with apostles and teachers, and Other ministers
¦ofthe gospel ; so that there is no reason for your
representing them as a distinct Order of men, who
were by their occasional assi_tance to Supply the
want of discipline and human learning in the
church. It would be taking too large a fields to
inquire, whether the prophets you speak of were
endowed with ordinary or extraordinary gifts ;
whether they always spoke by the immediate
Impulse ofthe Spirit, or according to the analogy
offaith ; whether their gift consisted in the for&
telling of future events, or in the interpreting df
scripture to the edification and exhortatidtt arid
comfort of the church, or in both : I wijl co__te_ft

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 79
myself with observing, , that he will judge very
improperly concerning the prophets ofthe apos-
tolic church, who takes his idea of their office
or importance from your description of them.
In speaking of the community of the goods,
which, you say, was adopted for a short time in
the primitive church, you hold as inconclusive
the arguments of Mosheim; who has endeavoured
to prove, that it was a community quite different
from that recommended by Pythagoras or Plato j
consisting principally in a common use, derived
from an unbounded liberality, which induced the
opulent to share their riches with their indigent
brethren: there have been others, as well as
Mosheim, who have entertained this opinion;
and it is not quite so indefensible as you repre
sent it : but whether it be reasonable or absurd,
need not now be examined ; it is far more neces
sary to take notice of an expression which you
have used, and which may be apt to mislead un
wary readers into a very injurious suspicion,
concerning the integrity of the Apostles. In
process of time, you observe, " the converts who
embraced the new rehgion, were permitted to
retain the possession of their patrimony."— Tbi.

tO AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.'
expression, permitted to retain, in ordinary ac
ceptation, implies an antecedent obligation to
part with : now, Sir, I have not the shadow of a
doubt in affirming, that we have no account in
scripture of any such obligation being imposed
upon the converts to Christianity, either by
Christ himself^ or by his Apostles, or by any
other authority ; nay, in the very place where
this community of goods is treated of, there is an
express proof (I know not how your impartiality
has happened to overlook it) to the contrary.
When Peter was about to inflict an exemplary
punishment upon Ananias (not for keeping back
a part of the price, as some men are fond of re
presenting it, but) for his lying and hypocrisy,
in offering a part of the price of his land, as the
whole of it ; he said to him, Whilst it remained
(unsold), was it not thine own ? and after it was
sold, was it not in thine own power? From this
account it is evident, that Ananias was under no
obligation to part with his patrimony; and,,
after he had parted with it, the price was in his
own power: the Apostle would have permitted
him to retain the whole of it, if he had thought
fit j though he would not permit his prevarica
tion to go unpunished. "

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 81
You have remarked, that " the feasts of love,
the agapae, as they were called, constituted a
very pleasing and essential part of public wor
ship." — Lest any one should from hence be led to
suspect, that these feasts of love,' this pleasing
part ofthe public worship ofthe primitive church,
resembled the unhallowed meetings of some im
pure sectaries of our own times, I will take the
liberty to add to your account, a short expli
cation of the nature of these agapse. Tertullian,
in the 3 9th chapter of his Apology, has done it
to my hands. " The nature of our supper,"
says he, " is indicated by its name ; it is called
by a word which, in the Greek language, signi
fies love. We are not anxious about the expense
ofthe entertainment ; since we look upon that as
gain, which is expended with a pious purpose, in
the relief and refreshment of all our indigent. —
The occasion of our entertainment being so
honourable, you may judge of the manner of its
being conducted ; it consists in the discharge of
religious duties ; it admits nothing vile, nothing
immodest. Before we sit down, prayer is made
to God. The hungry eat as much as they desire,
and every one drinks as much as can be useful to
sober men. We so feast, as men who have their

82 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
minds impressed with the idea of spending the
night in the worship of God ; we so converse; as
men who are conscious that the Lord heareth
them, &c." Perhaps you may object to this tes
timony, in favour of the innocence of Christian
meetings, as liable to partiality, because it is
the testimony of a Christian ; and you may, per
haps, be able to pick out, from the writings of
this Christian, something that looks like a con
tradiction of this account ; however, I will rest"
the matter upon this testimony for the present ;
forbearing to quote any other Christian writer
upon the subject, as I shall in a future letter pro
duce you a testimony superior to every objection.
You speak too of the agapae as an essential part
of the public worship : this is not according to
your usual accuracy ; for, had they been essen
tial, the edict of an heathen magistrate would
not have been able to put a stop to them ; yet
Pliny, in his letter to Trajan, expressly says,
that the Christians left them off, upon his pub*
lishing an edict prohibiting assemblies ; and we
know that, in the council of Carthage, in the
fourth century, on account of the abuses which
attended them, they began to be interdicted,
and ceased almost universally in the fifth.

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 83
I have but two observations to make upon
what you have advanced concerning the severity
of ecclesiastical penance : the first is, that even
you yourself do not deduce its institution from
the Scripture, but from the power which every
voluntary society has over its own members ; and
therefore, however extravagant, or however ab
surd ; however opposite to the attributes of a
commiserating God, or the feelings of a fallible
man, it may be thought ; or upon whatever tri
vial occasion, such as that you mention of ca
lumniating ai Bishop, a Presbyter, ¦ or. even a
Deacon, it may have been inflicted ; Christ and
his Apostles are not answerable for it. The
other is, that it was, of all .possible expedients,
the least fitted to accomplish the end for which
you think it was introduced, the propagation of
Christianity. The sight of a penitent humbled
by a public confession, emaciated by fasting,
clothed in sackcloth, prostrated at the. door ofthe
assembly, and imploring for years together the
pardon of his offences, and re-admissioujnto the
bosom: of the church, was a much more likely
means of deterring .the Pagans from Christian
community, than the pious liberality you men
tion was of alluring them into it. This pious
g 2

84 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
liberality, Sir, would exhaust even your elegant
powers of description, before you could exhibit
it in the amiable manner it deserves ; it is de
rived from the new commandment of loving one
another ; and it has ever been the distinguishing
characteristic of Christians, as opposed to every
other denomination of men, Jews, Mahometans,
or Pagans, In the times of the Apostles, and
in the first ages of the church, it shewed itself in
voluntary contributions for the relief of the poor
and the persecuted, the infirm and the unfortu
nate : as soon as the church was permitted to
have permanent possessions in land, and acquired
the protection of the civil power, it exerted itself
in the erection of hospitals of every kind; insti
tutions these, of charity and humanity, which
were forgotten in the laws of Solon and Lycur-
gus; and fbr even one example of which, you will,
I believe, in vain explore the boasted annals of
Pagan Rome. Indeed, Sir, you will think too
injuriously of this liberality, if you look upon
its origin as superstitious ; or upon its application
as an artifice of the priesthood, to seduce the in
digent into the bosom of the church : it was the
pure and uncorruptedfruit ofgenuine Christianity.
You are much surprised, and not a little con-

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 85
cerned, that Tacitus and the younger Pliny have
spoken so slightly of the Christian system ; and
that Seneca and the elder Pliny have not vouch
safed to mention it at allL This difficulty seems
to have struck others, as well as yourself; and I
might refer you to the conclusion of the second
volume of Dr. Lardner's Collection of Ancient
Jewish and Heathen Testimonies to the Truth
ofthe Christian Religion, for full satisfaction in
this point ; but perhaps an observation or two
may. be sufficient to diminish your surprise..
Obscure sectaries of upright morals, when they
separate themselves from the religion of their
country, do not speedily acquire the attention of
men of letters. The historians are apprehensive
of depreciating the. dignity of their learned la
bour,, and contaminating their splendid narra
tion of illustrious events, by mixingwith it a dis
gusting detail of religious combinations ; and the
philosophers are usually too deeply engaged in
abstract science, or in exploring the infinite in
tricacy of natural appearances, to busy them
selves with what they, perhaps hastily, esteem
popular superstitions. Historians and Philoso
phers, of no mean reputation, might be men.

86 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
tioned, I believe, who were the contemporaries
qf Luther >and the first reformers ; and who have
passed over in negligence or contemptuous si
lence, their daring and unpopular attempts to
shake the stability of St. Peter's Chair. Opposi
tion to the religion of a people must become
general, before it can deserve the notice of the
civil magistrate;, and till it does. that, it will
mostly be thought below the animadversion of
distinguished writers. This remark is peculiarly
applicable to, the case in point. The first Chris
tians, as Christ had foretold, were hated of all
men for his name's sake;; it was the name itself,
not any vices adhering to the name, which Pliny
punished ; and they were every where held in ex
ceeding contempt, till their numbers excited the
apprehension of the ruling powers. The philo
sophers considered them as enthusiasts, and neg
lected them ; the priests opposed them as inno
vators, and calumniated them ; the great over
looked them, and the learned despised them; and
the curious alone, who examined into the founda
tion of their faith, believed them. But the negli
gence of some half dozen of writers (most of them
however bear incidental testimony to the truth of
several facts respecting Christianity) innotrelating
6

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 87
circumstantially the origin, the progress, and the
pretensions of a new sect, is a very insufficient
reason for questioning either the evidence of the
principles upon which it was built, or the super
natural power by which it was supported.
The Roman historians, moreover, were not
only culpably incurious concerning the Chris
tians, but unpardonably ignorant of What con
cerned either them or the Jews : I say, unpar,
donably ignorant ; because the means of infor
mation were within their reach : the writings of
Moses were every where to be had in Greek; and
the works of Josephus were published before
Tacitus wrote his history ; and yet even Tacitus
has fallen into great absurdity, and self-contra
diction, in his account ofthe Jews; and though
Tertullian's zeal carried him much too far, when
he called him Mendaci6rum hquacissimus, yet
one cannot help regretting the little pains he took
to acquire proper information upon that subject.
He derives the name of the Jews, by a forced
interpolation, from mount Ida in Crete* ; and
* Inclytum in Creta Idam montem accolas Idaeos aucto in
barbarum cognomento Judaeos vocitari, — Tac. Hist. 1. 5, sub
si.it.

88 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
he represents them as abhorring all kinds of
images in public worship, and yet accuses them
of having placed the image of an Ass in the holy
of holies : and presently after he tells us, that
Pompey, when he profaned the Temple, found
the sanctuary entirely empty. Similar inaccura
cies might be noticed in Plutarch, and other
writers who have spoken of the Jews ; and you
yourself have referred to an obscure passage in
•Suetonius, as offering a proof how strangely the
Jews and Christians of Rome were confounded
with each other. Why then should we think it
remarkable, that a few celebrated writers, who
looked upon the Christians as an obscure sect of
the Jews; and upon the Jews as a barbarous and
detested people, whose history was not worth
the perusal, and who were moreover engaged in
the relation of the great events which either occa
sioned or accompanied the ruin of their eternal
empire ; why should we be surprised, that men
occupied in such interesting subjects, and influ
enced by such inveterate prejudices, should have
left us but short and imperfect descriptions of
the Christian system ?
" But how shall we excuse," you say," the supine

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 89
inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world,
to those evidences, which were presented by the
hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to
their senses?" — " The laws of nature were per
petually suspended, for the benefit of the church ;
but the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside
from the awful spectacle" — To their shame be it
spoken, that they did so — " and pursuing the
ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared
unconscious of any alterations in the moral or
physical government of the world." — To this ob
jection I answer, in the first place, that we have
no reason to believe that miracles were per
formed as often as philosophers deigned to give
their attention to them ; or that, at the period
of time you allude to, the laws of nature were
perpetually suspended for the benefit of the
church. It may be, that not one ofthe few hea
then writers, whose books have escaped the ra
vages of time, was ever present, when a miracle
was wrought ; but will it follow, because Pliny,
or Plutarch, or Galen, or Seneca, or Suetonius,
or Tacitus, had never seen a miracle, that no
miracles were ever performed? They indeed were
learned and observant men; and it may be a
matter of surprise to us, that miracles so cele-

90 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
brated as the friends of Christianity suppose the
Christian ones to have been, should never have
been mentioned by them though they had not
seen them ; and had an Adrian or a Vespasian
been the authors of but a thousandth part of the
miracles you have ascribed to the primitive
church, more than one probably of these very
historians, philosophers as they were, would
have adorned his history with the narration of
them : for though they turned aside from the
awful spectacle of the miracles of a poor despised
Apostle — yet they beheld with exulting compla
cency, and have related with unsuspecting cre
dulity, the Ostentatious tricks of a Roman Em
peror. It was not for want of faith in miraculous
events that these sages neglected the Christian
miracles, but for want of candour and impartial
examination. I answer, in the second place, that in the
Acts of the Apostles we have an account of a
great multitude of Pagans of every condition of
life, who were so far from being inattentive to
the evidences which were presented by the hand
of Omnipotence to their senses, that they con
templated them with reverence and wonder; and

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 91
forsaking the religion of their ancestors, and all
the flattering hopes of worldly profit, reputation,
and tranquillity, adhered with astonishing reso
lution to the profession of Christianity. From
the conclusion of the Acts, till the time in which
some of the sages you mention flourished, is a
very obscure part of church history ; yet we are
certain that many of the Pagan, and we have
. some reason to believe, that not a few of the
philosophic world, during that period, did not
turn aside from the awful. spectacle of miracles,
but saw and believed : and that a few others
should be found, who probably had never seen,
and therefore would not believe, is surely no very
extraordinary circumstance. Why should we
not answer to objections, such as these, with
the boldness of St. Jerome ; and bid Celsus, and
Porphyry, and Julian, and their followers, learn
the illustrious characters ofthe men who founded,
built up, and adorned the Christian church?*
* Discant Celsus, Porphyrius, Julianus, rabidi adversus
Christum canes, discant eorum sectatores, qui putant Eccle
siam nullos Philosophos et eloquentes, nullos habuisse Doc-
tores; quanti et quales viri earn fundaverint, extruxerint,
ornaverintque ; et desinant fidem nostram rusticse tantum
simplicitatis arguere, suamque potius imperitiam agnoscant.
— Jero. Pre. Lib. de Illus. Eccl. Scrip.

92 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
Why should we not tell them, with Arnobius, of
the orators, the grammarians, the rhetoricians,
the lawyers, the physicians, the philosophers, who
appeared conscious of the alterations in the moral
and physical government of the world ; and,
from that consciousness, forsook the ordinary
occupations of life and study, and attached them
selves to the Christian discipline* ?
I answer, in the last place, that the miracles
of Christians were falsely attributed to magic ;
and were for that reason thought unworthy the
notice of the- writers you have referred to.
Suetonius, in his life of Nero, calls the Christians,
men of a new and magical superstition t : I am
sensible that you laugh at those " sagacious com
mentators," who translate the original word by
magical; and adopting the idea of Mosheim,
you think it ought to be rendered mischievous
or pernicious : unquestionably it frequently has
that meaning ; with due deference, however, to
Mosheim and yourself, I cannot help being of
* Arnob. con. Gen. 1. 11.
-j- Genus hominum superstitionis novae et malefica. — Suel.
in Nero. c. 16.

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 93
Opinion, that in this place, as descriptive of the
Christian religion, it is rightly translated magi
cal. The Theodosian Code must be my excuse,
for dissenting from such respectable authority,
and in it, I conjecture, you will find good reason
for being of my opinion * . Nor ought any friend
to Christianity to be astonished or alarmed at
Suetonius applying the word Magical to the
Christian religion ; for the miracles wrought by
Christ and his Apostles principally consisted in
alleviating the distresses, by curing the obstinate
diseases of human kind; and the proper meaning
of magic, as understood by the ancients, is a
higher and more holy branch of the art of heal
ing t. The elder Pliny lost his life in an eruption
of Vesuvius, about forty-seven years after the
death of Christ : some fifteen years before the
* Chaldaei, ac Magi, et caeteri quos vulgus maleficoseb faci-
norum magnitudinem appellat.  Si quis magys vel magicis
contaminibus adsuetus, qui maleficus vulgi consuetudine nun-
cupatur. jx Cod. Theodos. tit. xvi.
f Pliny, speaking of the origin of magic, says, Natam
primum e medicina nemo dubitat, ac specie salutari irrepsisse
velut altiorem sanctioremque medicinam. — He afterwards says,
that it was mixed with mathematical arts ; and thus magici
and mathanaiici are joined by Pliny, as malefici and magici
are in the Theodosian Code. Plin. Nat. Hist. lib. 30. c. 1.

94 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
death of Pliny, the Christians were persecuted
at Rome for a crime, of which every person
knew them innocent ; but from the description
which Tacitus gives, of the low estimation they
were held in at that time, (for which, however, he
assigns no cause ; and therefore we may reason
ably conjecture it was the same for which the
Jews were every where become so odious, an
opposition to Polytheism,) and of the extreme
sufferings they underwent, we cannot be much
surprised, that their name is not to be found iri
the works of Pliny or of Seneca : the sect itself
must, by Nero's persecution, have been almost
destroyed in Rome ; and it would have been un-
courtly, not to say unsafe, to have noticed an
order of men, whose innocence an Emperor had
determined to traduce, in order to divert the
dangerous, but deserved stream of popular cen
sure from himself. Notwithstanding this, there
is a passage in the Natural History of Pliny,
which, how much soever it may have been over
looked, contains, I think, a very strong allusion
to the Christians ; and clearly intimates, he had
heard of their miracles. In speaking concerning
the origin of magic, he says— ^-there is also ano
ther faction of magic, derived from the Jews,

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 95
Moses, and Lotopea, and subsisting at present *.
—The word faction does not ill denote the opi
nion the Romans entertained of the religious as
sociations of the Christianst ; and a magical fac
tion implies their pretensions, at least to the mi
raculous gifts of healing ; and its descending from
Moses, is according to the custom of the Ro
mans, by which they confounded the Christians
with the Jews ; and its being then subsisting,
seems to have a strong reference to the rumours
Pliny had negligently heard 'reported of the
Christians. Submitting each of these answers to your cool
and candid consideration, I proceed to take no
tice of another difficulty in your fifteenth chap
ter, which some have thought one of the most
important in your whole book — The silence of
profane historians concerning the preternatural
* Est et alia magices factio, a Mose, etiamnum et Lotopea
Judaeis pendens. Plin. Nat. Hist. lib. 30. c. 2. Edit. Hardu.
— Dr. Lardner and others have made slight mention of this
passage, probably from their reading in bad editions Jamnf
for etiamnum, a Mose et Jamne et Jotape Judasis pendens.
f Tertullian reckons the sect of the Christians, inter licifas
factiones. Ad. c. 38.

96 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY,
darkness at the crucifixion of Christ. — You know,
Sir, that several learned men are of opinion, that
profane history is not silent upon this subject ; I
will, however, put their authority for the present
quite out of the question. I will neither trouble
you with the testimony of Phlegon, nor with the
appeal of Tertullian to the public registers of the
Romans; but meeting you upon your own
ground, and granting you every thing you de
sire, I -will endeavour, from a fair and candid
examination of the history pf this event, to sug
gest a doubt, at least to your mind, whether
this was " the greatest phaenomenon to which
the mortal eye has been witness since the crea
tion of the globe."
This darkness is mentioned by three of the
four Evangelists; St. Matthew thus expresses
himself: — Now from the sixth hour there was
darkness over all the land until the ninths hour ;
St. Mark says — And when the sixth hour was
come, there was darkness over the whole land
until the ninth hour; St. Luke — And it was about
the sixth hour, ahd there was darkness over all
the earth until the ninth hour ; and. the sun was
darkened. The three Evangelists agree, that

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 97
there was darkness ; — -and they agree in the ex
tent of the darkness: for it is the same expression
in the original, which our translators have ren
dered earth in Luke, and land in the two other
accounts; and they agree in the duration of the
darkness, it lasted three hours ;-^Luke adds a
particular circumstance, that the sun was dark
ened. I do not know whether this event be any
where else mentioned in Scripture, so that our
inquiry can neither be extensive nor difficult.
In philosophical property of speech, dairkness
consists in the total absence of light, and admits
of no degrees ; however, in the more common
acceptation of the word, there are degrees of
darkness, as well as of light; and as the Evan
gelists have said nothing, by which the par
ticular degree of darkness can be determined,
we have as much reason to suppose it was
slight, as you have that it was excessive ; but if
it was slight, though it had extended itself over
the surface of the whole globe, the difficulty
of its not being recorded by Pliny or Seneca va
nishes at once *. Do you not perceive, Sir, upon
* The author of L'Evangile de la Raison is mistaken in
saying, that the Evangelists speak of a thick darkness ; and
that mistake has led him into another, into a disbelief of the
H

98 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
what a slender foundation this mighty objection
is grounded ; when we have only to put you upon
proving, that the darkness at the crucifixion was
of so unusual a nature, as to have excited the
particular attention of all mankind, or even of
those who were witnesses to it ? But I do not
mean to deal so logically with you ; rather give
me leave to spare you the trouble of your proof,
by proving, or shewing the probability at least
of the direct contrary. There is a circumstance
mentioned by St. John, which seems to indicate,
that the darkness was not so excessive, as is gene
rally supposed ; for it is probable that, during
the continuance of the darkness, Jesus spoke
both to his mother and his beloved disciple, whom
he saw from the cross ; they were near the cross;
but the soldiers which surrounded it must have
kept them at too great a distance, for Jesus to
have seen them and know them, had the dark
ness at the crucifixion been excessive, like the
preternatural darkness which God brought upon
event, because it has not been mentioned by the writers of
the times — Ces historiens (the Evangelists) ont le front de
nous dire, qu'a sa mort la terre; a ete couverte d'epaisses te-
nebres en plein midi et en pleine lune; comme si tous les
ecrivains de ce terns-la n'auroient pas remarque un si etrange
miracle ! — L'Evan. de la Rais. p. 99.

-R

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 99
the land of Egypt ; for it is expressly said that,
during the continuance of that darkness, they
saw not one another. The expression in St. Luke,
the sun was darkened, tends rather to confirm
than to overthrow this reasoning. I am sensible
this expression is generally thought equivalent to
another: — the sun was eclipsed ; — but the Bible
is open to us all ; and there can be no presump
tion in endeavouring to investigate the meaning
of Scripture for ourselves. Luckily for the pre
sent argumentation, the very phrase ofthe sun's
being darkened, occurs, in so many words, in
one other place, (and in only one) of the New
Testament ; and from that place you may pos
sibly see reason to imagine, that the darkness
might not, perhaps, have been so intense as to
deserve the particular notice ofthe Roman natu
ralists : — And he opened the bottomless pit ; and
there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of
a great furnace ; and the sun was darkened*, and
the air, by reason of the smoke of the pit. If we
should say, that the sun at the crucifixion was
obnubilated, and darkened by the intervention
of clouds, as it is here represented to be by the
*¦  xat £<r KOTio-t) o n'Aiof. Am x. ix. 2.
H2

100 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
intervention of a smoke like the smoke of a fur
nace, I do not see what you could object to in
our account; but such a phaenomenon has surely
no right to be esteemed the greatest that mortal
eye has ever beheld. I may be mistaken in this
interpretation ; but I have no design to mis;-
represent the fact, in order to get rid of a diffi
culty ; the darkness may have been as intense
as many commentators have supposed it : but
neither they nor you can prove it was so ; and I
am surely under no necessity, upon this occa
sion, of granting you, out of deference to any
commentator, what you can neither prove nor
render probable.
But you still, perhaps, may think, that the
darkness, by its extent, made up for this defici
ency in point of intenseness. The original
word, expressive of its extent, is sometimes irt-
terpreted by the whole earth ; more frequently,
in the New Testament, of any little portion cf
the earth : for we read of the land of Judah, of
the land of Israel, of the land of Zabulon, arid
of the land of Nephthalim ; and it may very pre*
periy, I conceive, be translated in the place in
question by region. But why should all the

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 101
world take notice ©f a datkriess which extended
itself for a few miles about Jerusalem, and lasted
but three hours ? The Italians, especially, had
no reason to remark the everit as singular ; since
they were accustomed at that time* as they are
at present, to see the neighbouring regions so
darkened for days together by the eruptions of
JEtna and Vesuvius; that no mari could know
his neighbour **. We learrt from the Scripture
account, that an earthquake accompanied thfe
darkness ; and a dark clouded sky, I apprehend),
very frequently precedes an earthquake ; but its
extent is not great, ribr is its intenseness exces*
¦sive, nor is the phaenomenon itself so unusual,
as not commottly to pass unnoticed in ages of
science and history. I fear I may be liable to
misrepresentation iri this place ; but I beg it may
be observed, that however slight in degree, or
however confined iri eiterit the darkness at the
crucifixion may have beenj I am of opinion,

*  Nos autem tehel_r__ fcogitemus tantas, quanta, quon
dam eruptione Etnaeorum igmum Jinitimas regiones obscuravisse
dicuntur, ut per biduum nemo hominem homo agnosceret.
Cic. de Nat. Deo. 1. 2. And Pliny, in describing the eruption
of Vesuvius which suffocated his uncle, says— Dies alibi, illic
nox omnibus noctibus nigrior densiorque.

102 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
that the power of God was as supernaturally ex
erted in its production and in that of the earth
quake which accompanied it, as in the opening
of the graves, and the resurrection of the saints,
which followed the resurrection of Christ.
In another place, you seem not to believe
" that Pontius Pilate informed the emperor of
the unjust sentence of death, which he had pro
nounced against an innocent person." And the
same reason which made him silent as to the
death, ought, one would suppose, to have made
him silent as to the miraculous events which ac
companied it : and if Pilate, in his dispatches to
the Emperor, transmitted no account of the
darkness (how great soever you suppose it to have
been) which happened in a distant province ; I
cannot apprehend, that the report of it could
have ever gained such credit at Rome, as to in
duce either Pliny or Seneca to mention it as an
authentic fact. I am, &c.

LETTER VI.

SIR,
I mean not to detain you long with my remarks
upon your sixteenth Chapter; for in a short Apo
logy for Christianity, it cannot be expected that
I should apologize at length for the indiscretion
of the first Christians. Nor have I any disposi
tion to reap a malicious pleasure from exagge
rating what you have had so much good-natured,
pleasure in extenuating, the truculent barbarity
of their Roman persecutors.
M. de Voltaire has embraced every opportu
nity of contrasting the persecuting temper of the
Christians with the mild tolerance of the ancient
heathens ; and I never read a passage of his upon
this subject without thinking Christianity mate
rially, if not intentionally, obliged to him, for
his endeavour to depress the lofty spirit of reh
gious bigotry. I may with justice pay the same
compliment to you ; and I do it with sincerity ;
heartily wishing that, in the prosecution of your
work, you may render every species pf intole-

104 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
ranee universally detestable. There is no rea
son why you should abate the asperity of your
invective ; since no one can suspect you of a de
sign to traduce Christianity, under the guise of a
zeal against persecution ; or if any one should be
so simple, he need but open the gospel to be
convinced; that such a scheme is too palpably ab
surd to have ever entered the head of any sensible
and impartial man.
I wish, for the credit of human nature, that I
could find reason to agree with you in what you
have said of the "universal toleration of Poly
theism; of the mild indifference of antiquity; of
the Roman Princes beholding, without concern,
a thousarid forms of religion subsisting in peace
under their gentle sway." But there are some
passages in the Roman History, which make
me hesitate at least in this point ; and almost in
duce me to believe that the Romans were ex
ceedingly jealous of all foreign religions, whether
they were accompanied with immoral manners
or not.
It was the Roman custom, indeed, to invite
the tutelary gods of the nations which they in-

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 105
tended to subdue, to abandon their charge ; and
to promise them the same, or even a more
august worship in the city of Rome *; and their
triumphs were graced as much with the exhibi
tion of their captive gods, as with the less hu
mane one of their captive kings t. But this
custom, though it filled the city with hundreds
of gods of every country, denomination, and qua
lity, cannot be brought as a proof of Roman
toleration ; it may indicate the excess of their
vanity, the extent of their superstition, or the
refinement of their policy ; but it can never
shew that the religion of individuals, when it dif
fered from public wisdom, was either connived
at as a matter of indifference, or tolerated as an
inalienable right of human nature.
Upon another occasion, you, Sir, have refer
red to Livy as relating the introduction and sup-

* In oppugnationibus, ante omnia solitum a Romanis sa
cerdotibus evocari deum cujus in tutela id oppidum esset ;
promittique illi eundem, aut ampliorem apud Romanos cul-
tum. Plin. Nat. Hist. 1. xxxviii. c. iv.
f Roma triumphantis quotiens Ducis inclita currum
Plausibus excepit, totiens altaria Divum
Addidit spoliis, sibimet nova numina fecit.
Pruden,

106 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
pression of the rites of Bacchus ; and in that
very place we find him confessing, that the pro
hibiting all foreign religions, and the abolishing
every mode of sacrifice which differed from the
Roman mode, was a business frequently en
trusted by their ancestors to the care of the pro
per magistrates ; and he gives us this reason for
the procedure : That nothing could contribute
more effectually to the ruin of religion, than the
sacrificing after an external rite, and not after
the manner instituted by their fathers *.
Not thirty years before this event, the Praetor,
in conformity to a decree of the senate, had
issued an edict — that no one should presume to
sacrifice in any public place after a new or fo
reign manner t. And in a still more early pe-
* Quoties hoc patrum avorumque aetate negotium est ma-
gistratibus datum, ut sacra externa fieri vetarent ? sacrificulos
vatesque foro, circo,- urbe prohiberent ? vaticinos libros con-
quirerent comburerentque ? ornnem disciplinam sacrificandi,
praeterquam more Romano, abolerent ? Judicabant enim
prudentissimi viri omnis divini humanique juris, nihil aeque
dissolvendae religionis esse, quam ubi non patrio, sed externo
ritu sacrificaretur. — Liv. 1. xxxix. c, xvi.
t Ut quicumque libros vaticinos precationesve, aut artem sa.
crificandi conscriptam haberet, eos libros omnes litterasque
6

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 107
riod, the __Ediles had been commanded to take
care, that no gods were worshipped except the
Roman gods ; and that the Roman gods were
worshipped after no manner but the established
manner of the country*.
But to come nearer to the times of which you
are writing. In Dion Cassius you may meet
with a great courtier, one of the interior cabinet,
and a polished statesman, in a set speech upon
the most momentous subject, expressing himself
to the Emperor, agreeable enough to the prac
tice of antiquity, but utterly inconsistent with
the most remote idea of rehgious toleration. The
speech alluded to, contains, I confess it, nothing
more than the advice of an individual; but it ought
to be remembered, that that individual was Mae
cenas, that the advice was given to Augustus,
and that the occasion of giving it was no less
important than the settling the form of the Ro
ad se ante Kalendas Apriles deferret : neu quis in publico
sacrove loco, novo aut externo ritu sacrificarent. Liv. 1.
xxv. c. 1.
* Datum inde negotium asdilibus, ut animadverterent, ne
qui, nisi Romani dii, neu quo alio more quam patrio, cole r en-
tur. — Liv. 1. iv. c. 30.

108 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
man government. He recommends it to Cae
sar, to worship the gods himself according to
the established form ; and to force all others
to do the same ; and to hate and to punish all
those who should attempt to introduce foreign
religions*: nay, he bids him, in the same place,
have an eye upon the philosophers also ; so that
free thinking, free speaking at least, upon reli
gious matters, was not quite so safe under the
gentle sway of the Roman princes* as, thank
God, it is under the much more gentle govern
ment of our own.
In the Edict of Toleration published by Gale-
rius after six years' unremitted persecution of the
Christians, we perceive his motive for persecu
tion to have been the same with that which had
influenced the conduct of the more ancient Ro
mans, an abhorrence of all innovations iri reli
gion. You have favoured us with the translation
pf this edict, in which he says — " we were parti
cularly desirous of reclaiming into the way of rea-
* Tavru te out. i-jktIe, xai wjcxtet. to j_ev Shiov w« vt . i_a»Tw;
avros te tn _ou, k«t« t« waTpiKj xai Tov; «_...o. ; Tif_«'/ amyxafy'
to .5 Je .« ?;h£o»t_s Ti oteji _VT0 x&t (.10.1 k«i xoKafy. Dion.
Cas. 1. 52.

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY, 10$
son and nature," ad bonas mentes, (a good pretence
this for a polytheistic persecutor) " the deluded
Christians who had renounced the religion arid
ceremonies instituted by their fathers" — this is
the precise language of Livy, describing a perse
cution of a foreign religion three hundred years
before, turba erat nee sacrificantium nee precan-
Hum Deos patrio more. And the very expedient
of forcing the Christians to deliver up their reh>
gious books, which was practised in this perse
cution, and which Mosheim attributes to the ad
vice of Higrocles, and you to that of the philo
sophers of those times, seems clear to me, from
the places in Livy before quoted, to have been
nothing but an old piece of state policy, to which
the Romans had recourse as often as they appre
hended their established religion to be in any
danger. In the preamble of the letter of toleration,
which the emperor Maximin reluctantly wrote to
Sabinus about a year after the publication of
Galerius' Edict, there is a plain avowal of the
reasons which induced Galerius and Diocletian
to commence their persecution ; they had seen
the temples of the gods forsaken, and were de-
7

110 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
termined by the severity of punishment to re
claim men to their worship*.
In short, the system recommended by Maece
nas, of forcing every person to be of the empe
ror's religion, and of hating and punishing every
innovator, contained no new doctrine; it was
correspondent to the practice of the Roman se
nate, in the most illustrious times of the repub
lic ; and seems to have been generally adopted
by the emperors, in their treatment Of Christians,
whilst they themselves were Pagans ; and in their
treatment of Pagans, after they themselves be
came Christians ; and if any one should be wil
ling to derive those laws against Heretics (which
are so abhorrent from the mild spirit of the gos
pel, and so reproachful to the Roman code) from
the blind adherence of the Christian emperors to
the intolerant policy of their Pagan predecessors,
something, I think, might be produced in sup
port of his conjecture.
* EuraJov o-^e. ov awavTas; ai^^waovs, xaruXutyQatrvis td; t_h
8e_» Vgntrxuas, ru E§m ruv X§i;Tiav_v ekutou; o.f-jnEjiii^oT«s.
Og9_ij -iaTETa^E»ai TravTa; avSf.'ra.u; Tot/; awo twv Seoiv t_»
avamTm aiayuyritiavtas, wjo _t]_a> _o. «._ xai rtuupta ei; tot
Sjwo-CEiav twv S-iuii avax-.r)0tivai. Euseb. lib. ix. C. 4.

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. Ill
But I am sorry to have said so much upon
such a subject. — In endeavouring to palliate the
severity of the Romans towards the Christians,
you have remarked, " it was in vain, that the
oppressed believer asserted the inalienable rights
of conscience and private judgment." — " Though
his situation might excite the pity, his arguments
could never reach the understanding, either of
the philosophic, or of the believing part of the
Pagan world." How is this, Sir ? Are the argu
ments for liberty of conscience so exceedingly in
conclusive, that you think them incapable of
reaching the understanding, even of philosophers?
A captious adversary would embrace with avidity
the opportunity this passage affords him, of blot
ting your character with the odious stain of being
a persecutor ; a stain, which no learning can
wipe out, which no genius or ability can render
amiable. I am far from entertaining such an
opinion of your principles; but this conclusion
seems fairly deducible from what you have said —
that the minds of the Pagans were so pre-occu-
pied with the notions of forcing, and hating, and
punishing those who differed from them in reli
gion, that arguments for the inalienable rights of
conscience, which would have convinced your-

IH " AN APOLOGY FOR PHR_ST_ANITY-
self and every philosopher in Europe^ and' stag--
gered the resolution of an inquisitor, were inca
pable of reaching their understandings, or making
any impression on their hearts ; and you might,-
perhaps, have spared yourself some perplexity,
in the investigation of the motives which induced
the Roman emperors to persecute, and the Ro
man people to hate the Christians, if you had
not overlooked the true one, and adopted with .
too great facility the erroneous idea of the ex
treme tolerance of Pagan Rome,
The Christians, you observe, were accused of
atheism :•— and it must be owned that they were
the greatest of all atheists, in the opinion of the
poly theists; for, instead of Hesiod's thirty thou
sand gods, they could not be brought to acknow
ledge above One; and even that One they re
fused, at the hazard of their lives, to blasphetne
with the appellation' of Jupiter. But is it not
somewhat singular, that the pretensions of the
Christians to a constant intercourse with supe
rior beings, in the working of miracles, should
have been a principal cause of converting to their
faith, those who branded them with the imputa
tion of atheism ?

A.. APOLOGY FO_t CHRISTIANITY. ll_»
They were accused, too, of forming dangerous
conspiracies against the state: — This accusation,
you own, was as unjust as the preceding ; but
there seems to have been a peculiar hardship in
the situation of the Christians ; since the very
same men who thought them dangerous to the
state, on account of their conspiracies, con
demned them, as you have observed, for not
interfering in its concerns; for their criminal
disregard to the business of war and govern
ment; and for their entertaining doctrines, which
were supposed " to prohibit them from assuming
the. character of soldiers, of magistrates, and of
princes ;" men, such as these, would have made
but poor conspirators.
They were accused, lastly, of the most horrid
crimes : — This accusation, it is confessed, was
mere calumny; yet, as calumny is generally more
extensive in its influence than truth, perhaps this
calumny might be more powerful in stopping the
progress of Christianity, than the virtues of the
Christians were in promoting it : and in truth,
Origen observes that the Christians, on account
of the crimes which were maliciously laid to their
charge, were held in such abhorrence, that no
i

H4 AN APOLOGY FOR CHIIISTIA.I-TY.
gne would so much as speak to therm It may
be worth while to remark from him, that the
Jews, in Ihe very beginning of Christianity, were
the authors of all those calumnies, which Celsus
afterwards took such great delight in urging
against the Christians, and which you have men
tioned with such great precision*.
It is no improbable supposition, that the clan.
destine manner in which the persecuting spirit
pf the Jews and Gentiles obliged the Christians
to celebrate their Eucharist, together with the
expressions of eating the body, and drinking the
jblppd of Christ, which were used in its institu
tion, and the custom of imparting a kiss of cha
rity to each other, and of calling each other by
the appellations of brother and sistert,gave occa-
* Videtur mihi fecisse idem Celsus- quod Judsei, qui sub
Christianismi initium errorem spars_re, quasi ejus sectae ho
mines mactati pueri vescerentur earnibus ; et quod, quoties
eis libeat operam dare oecullis libidinibus, extincto lumine
cpnstupret, quam quisque nactus fuerit. Quae falsa et iniqua
opinio dudum valde multQS a religione nostra alienos tenuit ;
persuasos, quod tales sint Christiani ; et ad hoc temporis non-
nullos fallit, qui ea de causa Christianos aversantur, ut nee sim
plex colloquium cum eis habere velint._— Q_ig. con. Cels. lib. \u
t The Romans used these expressions in so impure a

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 115
sions to their enemies to invent, and induced
careless observers to believe, all the odious things
which were said against the Christians.
You have displayed at length, in expressive
diction, the accusations of the enemies of Chris
tianity ; and you have told us of the imprudent
defence by which the Christians vindicated the
purity of their morals ; and you have huddled up
in a short note (which many a reader will never
see) the testimony of Pliny to their innocence.
Permit me to do the Christians a little justice, by
producing in their cause the whole truth.
Between seventy and eighty years after the
death of Christ, Phny had occasion to consult
the emperor Trajan concerning the manner in
which he should treat the Christians ; it seems as
if there had been judicial proceedings against
them, though Phny had never happened to at
tend any of them. He knew, indeed, that men
were to be punished for being Christians, or he
would not, as a sensible magistrate, have received
the accusations of legal, much less of illegal, an o-
sense, that Martial calls them Nomina nequiora. — Lib. II.
epig. iv.
I 2

116 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
riymous informers against them ; nor would he,
before he wrote to the emperor, have put to death
those whom his threats could not hinder from
persevering in their confession, that they were
Christians. His harsh manner of proceeding " in
an office the most repugnant to his humanity,"
had made many apostatize from their profession:
persons of this complexion were well fitted to in
form him of every thing they knew concerning
the Christians; accordingly he examined them ;
but not one of them accused the Christians of
any other crime than of praying to Christ, as to
some God, and of binding themselves by an oath,
not to be guilty of any wickedness. Not con
tented with this information, he put two maid
servants, which were called ministers, to the tor
ture ; but even the rack could not extort from
the imbecility of the sex a confession of any
crime, any account different from that which
¦ the apostates had voluntarily given ; not a word
do we find of their feasting upon murdered in
fants, or of their mixing in incestuous commerce.
After all his pains, Pliny pronounced the meal
of the Christians to be promiscuous and innocent:
persons of both sexes, of all ages, and of every
condition, assembled promiscuously together;

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 117
there was nothing for chastity1 to blush at, or for
humanity to shudder at, in these meetings; there
was no secret initiation of proselytes by abhorred
rites ; but they eat a promiscuous meal in Chris
tian charity, and with the most perfect inno
cence *.
Whatever faults then the Christians may have
been guilty of in after-times ; though you could
produce to us a thousand ambitious prelates of
Carthage, or sensual ones of Antioch, and blot
ten thousand pages with the impurities of the
Christian clergy ; yet at this period, whilst the
memory of Christ and his Apostles was fresh in
their minds ; or, in the more emphatic language
of Jerome, " whilst the blood of our Lord was
warm, and recent faith was fervent in the be
lievers ;" we have the greatest reason to con
clude, that they were eminently distinguished
* — AfTirmabant autem, hanc fuisse summam v.l culpa, suae
vel erroris, quod es^ent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire ;
carmenque Christo, quasi Deo, dicere secum invicem; seque
sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta, ne
latrocinia, ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne
depositum appellati abnegarent : quibus peractis, morem sibi
discedendi fuisse, rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum,
promiscuum tamen, et innoxium. — Plin. Epis. xcvn. lib. x.

I _ 8 an Apology for Christianity.
for the probity and the purity of their lives. Had
there been but a shadow of a crime in their as
semblies, it must have been detected by the in
dustrious search of the intelligent Pliny ; and it
is a matter of real surprise, that no one of the
apostates thought of paying court to the gover*
nor by a false testimony; especially, as their apo
stasy seems to have been exceeding general:
sirice the temples, which had beeri almost de
serted, began again to ,be frequented ; and the
victims, for which a little time before scarce a
purchaser Was to be found, began agairi every
where to be bought up. This, Sir, is a valuable
testimony in our favour ; it is not that of a de
claiming apologist, of a deluding priest, or of a
deluded martyr, of an orthodox bishop, or of any
" ofthe most pious of men" the Christians ; but
it is that of a Roman magistrate, philosopher,
and lawyer ; who cannot be supposed to have
wanted inclination to detect the immoralities or
the conspiracies of the Christians ; since, in his
treatment of them, he had stretched the autho
rity of his office, and violated alike the laws of
his country, and of humanity.
With this testimony I will conclude my re-

AN APOLOGY FOR CHfiiSTlAtflTY. 11$
marks : for I have no disposition to blacken the
character you have giveti of Nero ; or to lesser!
the humanity of the Roman magistrates; or to
magnify the number of Christians, of of martyrs;
•or to undertake the defence of a few fanatics,
who by their injudicious zeal brought ruin upori
themselves, and disgrace upori their profession. I
may not probably have convinced you that yOtt
are wrong in any thing which you have advanced*;
or that the authors you have quoted, will not sup
port you in the inferences you have drawn from
their works ; or that Christianity ought to be
distinguished from its corruptions : yet I may,
perhaps, have had the good fortune to lessen, in
the minds of Others, some of that dislike to the
Christian religion which the perusal of your book
had unhappily excited. I have touched but upon
general topics ; fbr I should have wearied out
your patience, to say nothing of my readers",
or my own, had I enlarged upon every thing in
which I dissent from you ; and a minute exami*
nation of your work would, moreover, have had
the appearance of a captious disposition to de
scend into illiberal personalities; arid might have
produced a certain acrimony of sentiment or ex
pression, which may be serviceable in supplying

120 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
the place of argument, or adding a zest to adult
composition ; but has nothing to do with the in
vestigation of truth. Sorry shall I be, if what I
have written should give the least interruption
to the prosecution of the great work in which you
are engaged : the world is now possessed of. the
opinion of us both upon the subject in question ;
and it rnay, perhaps, be proper for us both to
leave it in this state. I say not this from any
backwardness to acknowledge my mistakes, when
I am convinced that I am in an error, but to ex
press the almost insuperable reluctance which I
feel to the bandying abusive argument in public
controversy : it is not, in good truth, a difficult
task to chastise the froward petulance of those
who mistake personal invective for reasoning, and
clumsy banter for ingenuity ; but it is a dirty
business at best, and should never be undertaken
by a man of any temper, except when the inte
rests of truth may suffer by his neglect. Nothing
of this nature, lam sensible, is to be expected
from you ; and if any thing of the kind has hap
pened to escape myself, I hereby disclaim the
intention of saying it, and heartily wish it un
said.

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 121
Will you permit me, Sir, through this channel
(I may not, perhaps, have another so good an
opportunity of doing it) to address a few words,
not to yourself, but to a set of men who disturb
all serious company with their profane declama
tion against Christianity; and who having picked
up in their travels, or the writings ofthe deists, a
few flimsy objections, infect with their ignorant
and irreverent ridicule the ingenuous minds of
the rising generation ?

__}2 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.

GENTLEMEN,

Suppose the mighty work accomplished, the
cross trampled upon, Christianity every where
proscribed, and the religion of Nature once more
become the religion of Europe ; what advantage
will you have derived to your country, or to
yourselves, from the exchange? I know your
answer — you will have freed the world from the
hypocrisy of Priests, and the tyranny of Super
stition. — No ; you forget that Lycurgus, and
Numa, and Odin, and Mango-Copac, and all the
great legislators of ancient and modern story,
have been of opinion, that the affairs of civil so
ciety could not be well conducted without some
religion; you must of necessity introduce a priest
hood, with probably as much hypocrisy ; a reli
gion, with assuredly more superstition, than that
which you now reprobate with such indecent
and_ ill-grounded contempt. But I will tell you
from what you will have freed the world ; you
will have freed it from its abhorrence of vice, and
from every powerful incentive to virtue; you will,
with the religion, have brought back the de-

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 123
praved morality of Paganism ; you will have
robbed mankind of their firm assurance Of ano
ther life ; and thereby you will have despoiled
them of their patience, of their humility, of their
charity, of their chastity, of all those mild and
silent virtues, which (however despicable they
may appear in your eyes) are the Only ones which
meliorate and sublime our nature ; which Pagan
ism never knew, which spring from Christianity
alone, which do or might constitute our comfort
in this life, and without the possession of which,
another life, if after all there should happen to
be one, must (unless a miracle be exerted in the
alteration of our disposition) be more vicious arid
more miserable than this is.
Perhaps you will contend, that the universal
light of reason, that the truth and fitness of
things, are of themselves sufficient to exalt the
nature, and regulate the manners of mankind.
Shall we never have done with this groundless
commendation of natural law ? Look into the
first chapter of Paul's Epistle to the Romans,
and you will see the extent of its influence over
the Gentiles of those days ; or if you dislike
Paul's authority, arid the manners of antiquity,

124 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
look into the more admired accounts of modern
voyagers ; and examine its influence over the
Pagans of our own times, over the sensual inha
bitants of Otaheite, over the Cannibals of New
Zealand, or the remorseless Savages of America.
— But these men are barbarians. Your law of
nature, notwithstanding, extends even to them.
> — But they have misused their reason : — they
have then the more need of, and would be the
more thankful for that revelation, which you,
with an ignorant and fastidious self-sufficiency,
deem useless. — Brit they might of themselves, if
they thought fit, become wise and virtuous. — I
answer with Cicero, Ut nihil interest, utrum ne
mo valeat, an nemo valere possit ; sic non intelligo
quid intersit, utrum nemo sit sapiens, an nemo
esse possit.
These, however, you will think, are extraor
dinary instances ; and that we ought not from
these to take our measure of the excellency of
the law of nature, but rather from the civilized
states of China or Japan, or from the nations
which flourished in learning and in arts, before
Christianity was heard of in the world. You
mean to say, that by the law of nature, which

AM APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 125
you are desirous of substituting in the room of
the gospel, you do not understand those rules of
conduct, which an individual, abstracted from
the community, and deprived of the institution
of mankind, could excogitate for himself; but
such a system of precepts, as the most enlight
ened men of the most enlightened ages have re
commended to our observance. Where do you
find this system ? We cannot meet with it in the
works of Stobaeus, or the Scythian Anacharsis ;
nor in those of Plato, or of Cicero ; nor in those
ofthe Emperor Antoninus, or the slave Epicte-
tus ; ..or we are persuaded, that the most ani
mated considerations of the _w.#o. . and the ho-
nestum, ofthe beauty of virtue, and the firmness
of things, are not able to furnish even a Brutus
himself with permanent principles of action;
much less are they able to purify the polluted re
cesses of a vitiated heart, to curb the irregularity
of appetite, or restrain the impetuosity of passion
in common men. If you order us to examine
the works of Grotius, or Puffendorf, or Burlama-
qui, or Hutcheson, for what you understand by
the law of nature ; we apprehend that you are
in a great error, in taking your notions of natu
ral law, as discoverable by natural reason, from

H$ Atf APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
the elegant systems of it tyhich have been drawn
rip by Christian Philosophers ; since they have all
laid their foundations, either tacitly or expressly,
Upon a principle derived from revelation —a tho
rough knowledge of the being and attributes of
God : and even those amongst ourselves, who,
rejecting Christianity, still continue Theists, are
indebted to revelation (whether you are either
aware of, or disposed to acknowledge the debt,
or not) for those sublime speculations concerning
the Deity, which you have fondly attributed to
the excellency of your own unassisted reason.
If you would know the real genius of natujjj,l law,
and how far it can proceed in the investigation
or enforcement of moral duties ; you must con
sult the manners and the writings of those who
have never heard of either the Jewish or the Chris
tian dispensation, or of those other manifesta
tions of himself, which God vouchsafed to Adam
and to the Patriarchs before and after the flood.
It would be difficult perhaps any where, to find a
people entirely destitute of traditionary notices
concern ing a Deity, and of traditionary fears or
expectations of another life ; and the morals of
mankind may have, perhaps, been no where quite
so abandoned as they would have been, had they

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY, 127
been left wholly to themselves in these points ;
however, it is a truth which cannot be denied,
how much soever it may be lamented, that though
the generality of mankind have always had some
faint conceptions of God and his providence ;
yet they have been always greatly inefficacious
in the production of good morahty, and highly
derogatory to his nature, amongst all the people
of the earth, except the Jews and Christians ;
and some may perhaps be desirous of excepting
the Mahometans, who derive all that is good in
their Koran from Christianity.
The laws concerning justice, and the repara
tion of damages, concerning the security of pro
perty, and the performance of contracts ; con
cerning, in short, whatever affects the welhbeing
of civil society, have been every where under
stood with sufficient precision; and if you choose
to style Justinian's code, a code of natural law,
though you will err against propriety of speech,
yet you are so far in the right, that natural reason
discovered, and the depravity of human nature
compelled human kind to establish by proper
sanctions the laws therein contained ; and you
wiU have moreover Carneades, no mean philo-

128 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
sopher, on your side ; who knew of no law of
nature different from that which men had insti
tuted for their common utility, and which was
various according to the manners of men in dif
ferent climates, and changeable with a change of
times in the same. And in truth, in all coun
tries where Paganism has been the established
religion, though a philosopher may now and then
have stepped beyond the paltry prescript of civil
jurisprudence in his pursuit of virtue ; yet the
bulk of mankind have ever been contented with
that scanty pittance of morality which enabled
them to escape the lash of civil punishment : I
call it a scanty pittance, because a man may
be intemperate, iniquitous, impious, a thousand
ways a profligate and a villain, and yet elude the
cognizance, and avoid the punishment of civil
laws. I am sensible you will be ready to sayj what
is all this to the purpose ? Though the, bulk of
mankind may never be able to investigate, the
laws of natural religion, nor disposed to reverence
their sanctions when investigated by others, nor
solicitous about any other standard of moral rec
titude than civil legislation; yet the inconve-

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 129
niences which may attend the extirpation of
Christianity can be no proof of its truth : — I have
not produced them as a proof of its truth ; but
they are a strong and conclusive proof, if not of
its truth, at least of its utility ; and the conside
ration of its utility may be a motive to yourselves
for examining, whether it may not chance to be
true ; and it ought to be a reason with every
good citizen, and with every man of sound judg
ment, to keep his opinions to himself, if, from any
particular circumstances in his studies or in his
education, he should have the misfortune to think
that it is not true. If you can discover to the
rising generation a better religion than the Chris
tian, one that will more effectually animate their
hopes and subdue their passions, make them bet
ter men or better members of society, we impor
tune you to publish it for their advantage ; but
till you can do that, we beg of you not to give
the reins to their passions, by instilling into their
unsuspicious minds your pernicious prejudices.
Even now, men scruple not, by their lawless lust,
to ruin the repose of private families, and to fix
a stain of infamy upon the noblest : even now,
they hesitate not in lifting up a murderous arm
against the life of their friend, or against their
K

ISO AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
own, as often as the fever of intemperance stimu
lates their resentment, or the satiety of an useless
life excites their despondency : even now, whilst
we are persuaded of a resurrection from the
dead, and of a judgment to come, we find it diffi
cult enough to resist the solicitations of sense,
and to escape unspotted from the licentious man
ners of the world ; but what will become of our1
yirtue, what of the consequent peace and happi
ness of society, if you persuade us that there are
no such things? In two words — you may ruin
yourselves by your attempt, and you will cer
tainly ruin your country by your success.
But the consideration of the inutility of "your de
sign, is not the only one which should induce you
to abandon it; the argument a tuto ought to be wa
rily managed, or it may tend to the silencing our
opposition to any system of superstition, which
has had the good fortune to be sanctified by pub
lic authority ; it is, indeed, liable to no objection in
the present case ; we do not, however, wholly
rely upon its cogency. It is not contended, that
Christianity is to be received merely because it is
useful, but because it is true. This you deny, and
think your objections well grounded : we con-

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 131
ceive them originating in your vanity, your im
morality, or your misapprehension. There are
many worthless doctrines, many superstitious
observances, which the fraud or folly of mankind
have every where annexed to Christianity (espe*
dally in the church of Rome), as essential parts
of it : if you take these sorry appendages to
Christianity for Christianity itself, as preached
by Christ, and by the Apostles ; if ypu confound
the Roman with the Christian religion, you quite
misapprehend its nature, and are in a state simi
lar to that of men mentioned by Plutarch, in
his treatise of Superstition ; who, flying fron?
superstition, leapt over religion, and sunk into
downright Atheism*. — Christianity is not a re
ligion very palatable to a voluptuous age ; it will
not conform its precepts to the standard of

* Le Papisme (says Helvetius in ,a posthumous work) n'est
aux yeux d'un homme sens, qu'une pure idolatrie — nous
sommes etonnes de l'ajbsurdjte de la religion paienne. Celle
de la religion Papiste ejonnera bien d'avantage un jour la
posterite. — We trust that day is not at a great distance, and
deism will then be buried in fhe ruins of the church of
Koine ; for the taking the superstition, tbe avarice , the am
bition, the intolerance of Antichristianism for Christianity,
has been the great error upon which infidelity has built its
system, both at home and abroad.
K 2

132 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
fashion ; it will not lessen the deformity of vice
by lenient appellations; but calls keeping, whore
dom ; intrigue, adultery ; and duelling, murder:
it will not pander the lust, it will not license the
intemperance of mankind ; it is a troublesome
monitor to a man of pleasure ; and your way of
life may have made you quarrel with your reli
gion. — As to your vanity, as a cause of your
infidelity, suffer me to produce the sentiments of
M. Bayle upon that head : if the description
tloes not suit your character, you will not be
offended at it ; and if you are offended with it-
freedom, it will do you good. " This inclines
me to believe, that Libertines, like Des-Barreaux,
are not greatly persuaded of the truth of what
they say. They have made no deep examina
tion ; they have learned some few objections*
which they are perpetually making a noise with ;
they speak from a principle of ostentation, and
give themselves the lie in the time of danger. — •
Vanity has a greater share in their disputes than
conscience ; they imagine that the singularity
and boldness of the opinions which they main
tain, will give them the reputation of men of
parts.; by degrees, they get a habit of holding
impious discourses ; and if their vanity be ac-
3

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 133
companied by a voluptuous life, their progress.
in that road is the swifter *."
The main stress of your objections rests not
upon the insufficiency of the external evidence
to the truth of Christianity ; for few of you,
though you may become the future ornaments
of the senate, or of the bar, have ever employed
an hour in its examination ; but upon the diffi
culty of the doctrines contained in the New Tes
tament : they exceed, you say, your comprehen
sion ; and you felicitate yourselves, that you
are not yet arrived at the true standard of ortho
dox faith — credo quia impossibile* You think it
would betaking a superfluous trouble, to inquire
into the nature of the external proofs by which
Christianity is established ; since, in your opi
nion, the book itself carries with it its own refu
tation. A gentleman as acute, probably, as any of
you, and who once believed, perhaps, as little as
any of you, has drawn a quite different conclusion
from the perusal of the New Testament: his book
(however exceptionable it may be thought in some
particular parts) exhibits, not only a distin-
* Bayle, Hist. Diet. Art. Des-Barreaux.

134 AN AP0L6GY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
guished triumph of reason over prejudice, of
Christianity over Deism ; but it exhibits, what
is infinitely more rare, the character of a man
who has had courage and candour enough to ac
knowledge it*.
But what if there should be some incompre
hensible doctrines in the Christian religion; stmi_
circumstances, which in their causes, or their con
sequences, surpass the reach of human reason ;
are they to be rejected upon that account ? You
aa?e, or would be thought, men of reading, and
knowledge, and enlarged understandings ; weigh
the matter fairly ; and consider whether revealed
religion be not, in this respect, just upon the
Same footing With every other object of your
contemplation. Even in mathematics, the sci
ence of demonstration itself, though yougetoveT
its first principles, and learn to digest the idea
of a point without parts, a line without breadthj
arid a surface without thickness ; yet you will
find yourself at" a loss to comprehend the perpe
tual approximation of lines which Can never

* See A View of the Internal Evidence, &c. by Soarae
Jenyns. 8

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 135
meet ; the doctrine of incommensurables, and of
an infinity of infinities, each infinitely greater,
or infinitely less, not only than any infinite quan
tity, but than each other. In physics, you can
not comprehend the primary cause of any thing;
not of the light, by which you see ; nor of the
elasticity of the air, by which you hear ; nor of
the fire, by which you are warmed. In physi
ology, you cannot tell what first gave motion to
the heart ; nor what continues it ; nor why its
motion is less voluntary than that of the lungs ;
nor why you are able to move your arm to the
right or left, by a simple volition : you cannot
explain the cause of animal heat ; nor compre
hend the principle by which your body was at
first formed, nor by which it is sustained, nor by
which it will be reduced to earth. In natural
religion, you cannot comprehend the eternity or
omnipresence ofthe Deity; nor easily understand
how his prescience can be consistent with your
freedom, or his immutability with his govern
ment of moral agents ; nor why he did not make
all his creatures equally perfect ; nor why he did
not create them sooner : in short, you cannot
look into any branch of knowledge, but you
will meet with subjects above your comprehen-

136 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
sion. The fall and the redemption of human
kind are not more incomprehensible than the
creation and the conservation of the universe ;
the - infinite Author of the works of providence,
and of nature, is equally inscrutable, equally past
our finding out in them both. And it is some
what remarkable, that the deepest inquirers into
nature have ever thought with most reverence,
and spoken with most diffidence, concerning
those things which, in revealed religion, may
seem hard to be understood; they have ever
avoided that self-sufficiency of knowledge which
springs from ignorance, produces indifference,
and ends in infidelity. Admirable to this pur
pose is the reflection of the greatest mathema
tician of the present age, when he is combating
an opinion of Newton's by an hypothesis of his
OAvn, still less defensible than that which he op
poses : — Tous les jours que je vois de ces esprits-
forts, qui critique les verites de notre religion, et
s'en mocquent meme avec la plus impertinente
suffisance, je pense, chetifs mortels ! combien et
combien des choses sur lesquelles vous raisonriez
si legerement, sont elles plus sublimes, et plus
el iv6s, que celles sur lesquelles le grand Newton
s'egare si grossierement!* *Euler.

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 137
Plato mentions a set of men who were very
ignorant, and thought themselves supremely wise,
and who rejected the argument for the being of
a God, derived from the harmony and order of
the universe, as old and trite*. There have been
men, it seems, in all ages, who, in affecting sin
gularity, have overlooked truth : an argument,
however, is not the worse for being old ; and
surely it would have been a more just mode bf
reasoning, if you had examined the external
evidence for the truth of Christianity, weighed
the old arguments from miracles, and from pro
phecies, before you had rejected the whole ac
count from the difficulties you met with in it. You
would laugh at an Indian, who in peeping into a
history of England, and meeting with the mention
of the Thames being frozen, or of a shower of
hail, or of snow, should throw the book aside, as
unworthy of his further notice, from his want of
ability to comprehend these phaenomena.
In considering the argument from miracles,
you will soon be convinced, that it is possible for
God to work miracles; and you will be con
vinced, that it is as possible for human testimony
* De Leg. lib. x.

138 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
to establish the truth of miraculous, as of physical
or historical events : but before you can be con
vinced that the miracles in question are supported
by such testimony as deserves to be credited, you
must inquire, at what period, and by what per
sons, the books of the Old and New Testament
were composed. If you reject the account, with
out making this examination, you reject it from
prejudice, not from reason.
There is, however, a short method of exa
mining this argument, which may, perhaps,
make as great an impression on your minds as
any other. Three men of distinguished abilities
rose up at different times, and attacked Christi
anity with every objection which their malice
could suggest, or their learning could devise :
but neither Celsus in the second century, nor
Porphyry in the third, nor the emperor Julian
himself in the fourth century, ever questioned the
reality of the miracles related in the Gospels.
Do but you grant us what these men (who were
more likely to know the truth of the matter than
you can be) granted to their adversaries, and we
will very readily let you make the most of the
Magic, to which, as the last wretched shift, they

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 139
were forced to attribute them. We can find you
men, in our days, who, from the mixture of two
colourless liquors, will produce you a third as
red as blood, or of any other colour you desire;
et dicto citius, by a drop resembling Water, will
restore the transparency ; they will make two
fluids coalesce into a solid body ; and, from the
mixture of liquors colder than ice, will instantly
raise you a horrid explosion and a tremendous
flame : these, and twenty other tricks they will
perform, without having been sent with Our Sa
viour to Egypt to learn magic; nay, with a bottle
or two of oil, they will compose the undulation
of a lake ; and, by a little art, they will restore
the functions of life to a man, who has been an
hour or two under water, or a day or two buried
in the snow : but in vain will these men, or the
greatest magician that Egypt ever saw, say to a
boisterous sea, Peace, be still; in vain they will
say to a carcass rotting in the grave, Cbmefotth:
the winds and the sea will not obey them, and
the putrid carcass will not hear them. You need
not suffer yourselves to be deprived of the weight
of this argument, from its having been observed,
that the Fathers have acknowledged the superna
tural part of Paganism ; since the fathers were in

140 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
no condition to detect a cheat, which was sup
ported both by the disposition of the people,, and
the power of the civil magistrate *; and they
were from that inability forced to attribute to
infernal agency, what was too cunningly con
trived to be detected, and contrived for too im
pious a purpose, to. be credited as the work of
God. With respect to prophecy, you may, perhaps,
have accustomed yourselves to consider it as ori
ginating in Asiatic enthusiasm, in Chaldean mys.
tery, or in. the subtle stratagem of interested
Priests; and have given yourselves no more
trouble concerning the predictions of sacred, than
concerning the oracles of Pagan history. Or if
you have ever cast a glance upon this subject,
the dissensions of learned men concerning the
proper interpretation ofthe Revelation, and other
difficult prophecies, may have made you rashly
conclude, that all prophecies were equally unin
telligible, and more indebted for their accom-*,
plishment to a fortunate concurrence of events,
and the pliant ingenuity of the expositor, than
* See Lord Lyttlet. Obs. on St. Paul, p. 59.

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 141
to the inspired foresight ofthe prophet. In all that
the prophets ofthe Old Testament have delivered,
concerning the destruction of particular cities,
and the desolation of particular kingdoms, you
may see nothing but shrewd conjectures, which
any one acquainted with the history of the rise
and fall of empires might certainly have made :
and as you would not hold him for a prophet,
who should now affirm, that London or Paris
would afford to future ages a spectacle just as
melancholy as that which we now contemplate,
with a sigh, in the ruins of Agrigentum or Pal
myra ; so you cannot persuade yourselves to be
lieve that the denunciation ofthe prophets against
the haughty cities of Tyre or Babylon, fbr in
stance, proceeded from the inspiration of the
Deity. There is no doubt, that by some such
general kind of reasoning, many are influenced
to pay no attention to an argument, which, if
properly considered, carries with it the strongest
conviction. Spinoza said, That he would have broken his
atheistic system to pieces, and embraced with
out repugnance the ordinary faith of Christians,

142 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
if he could have persuaded himself of the resur.
reetion of Lazarus from the dead ; and I question
not, that there are many disbelievers who would
relinquish their Deistic tenets, and receive the
gospel, if they could persuade themselves 'that
God had ever so far interfered in the moral gQ«
vernment of the world, as to illumine the mincl
of any one man with the knowledge of future
events. A miracle strikes the senses of the per?
sons who see it; a prophecy addresses itself to
the understandings of those who behold its com'1
pletion ; and it requires, in many cases, some
learning, in all some attention, to judge of the
correspondence of events with the prediction .
concerning them. No one can be convinced that,
what Jeremiah and the other prophets foretold of
the fate of Babylon, that it should be besieged
by the Medes; that it should be taken when her
mighty men were drunken, when her spring.
were dried up ; and that it should become a pool
of water, and should remain desolate for ever ; no
one, I say, can be convinced, that all these, and
other parts of the prophetic denunciation, have
been minutely fulfilled, without spending some
time in reading the accounts which profane his?

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 143
torians have delivered down to us concerning its
being taken by Cyrus ; and which modern tra
vellers have given us of its present situation.
Porphyry was so persuaded of the coincidence
between the prophecies of Daniel and the events,
that he was forced to affirm, the prophecies were
written after the things prophesied of had hap
pened. Another Porphyry has, in our days,
been so astonished at the correspondence between
the prophecy concerning the destruction of Je
rusalem, as related by St. Matthew, and the his
tory of that event, as recorded by Josephus; that
rather than embrace Christianity, he has ventured
(contrary to the faith of all ecclesiastical history,
the opinion of the learned of all ages, and all the
rules of good criticism) to assert, that St. Matthew
wrote his Gospel after Jerusalem had been taken
and destroyed by the Romans. You may from
these instances perceive the strength of the argu
ment from prophecy ; it has not been able indeed
to vanquish the prejudices of either the ancient
or the modern Porphyry ; but it has been able to
conipel them both to be guilty of obvious false
hoods, which have nothing but impudent asser
tions to support them.

144 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
Some over-zealous interpreters of scripture
have found prophecies in simple narrations, ex
tended real predictions beyond the times and cir
cumstances to which they naturally were applied,
and perplexed their readers with a thousand
quaint allusions and allegorical conceits : this
proceeding has made men of sense pay less regard
to prophecy in general. There are some pre
dictions, however, such as those' concerning the
present state ofthe Jewish people, and the cor
ruption of Christianity, which are now fulfilling
in the world ; and which, if you will take the
trouble to examine them, you will find of such
an extraordinary nature, that you will not per
haps hesitate to refer them to God as their author;
and if you once become persuaded of the truth of
any one miracle, or of the completion of any one
prophecy, you will resolve all your difficulties
(concerning the manner of God's interposition in
the moral government of our species, and the
nature of the doctrines contained in revelation)
into your own inability fully to comprehend the
whole scheme of divine Providence.
We are told, however, that the strangeness of
the narration, and the difficulty of the doctrines

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 145
contained in the New Testament, are not the
only circumstances which induce you to reject it;
you have discovered, you think, so many contra
dictions in the accounts which the Evangelists
have given of the life of Christ, that you are com
pelled to consider the whole as an ill- digested and
improbable story. You would not reason thus
upon any other occasion ; you would not reject
as fabulous the accounts given by Livy and Po-
lybius of Hannibal and the Carthaginians, though
you should discover a difference betwixt them in
several points of little importance. You cannot
compare the history of the same events as delivered
by any two historians, but you will meet with
many circumstances, which, though mentioned
by one, are either wholly omitted, or differently
related by the other ; and this observation is pe
cuharly applicable to biographical writings : but
no one ever thought of disbelieving the leading
circumstances of the lives of Vitellius or Vespa
sian, because Tacitus and Suetonius did not in
every thing correspond in their accounts of these
emperors. And if the memoirs bf the life and
doctrines of M. de Voltaire himself were, some
twenty or thirty years after his death, to be de
livered to the world by four of his most intimate

140 AN APOLOGY J?OR CHRISTIANITY.
acquaintance, I do not apprehend that we should
discredit the whole account of such an extraordi
nary man, by reason of some slight incon_i?tj3n-.
cies and contradictions which the av°wed e,_$r
mies of his name might chance to discover in th?
several narrations. Though we should grant you
then, that the Evangelists had, fallen into sc$a$
trivial contradiction8- in what they h%ve relal^
concerning tljie life of Christ ; yet ypu %ygfo\ yfr
to draw any other inference frpoi our cpncessioH
than that they had not plotted together, as ebe»M
wpnld have done, in order to give a,n unexcep
tionable consistency tp theijf fraud. We are nqt
however disposed to m#^e you any suph conces
sion ; we will rather shew you th$ futility ofyfi^
general argument, by topching ^p&av fi$wq£%
place? which you think are nap^t fe^lfV t ft yPP?
censure.

You observe, tl^at nether Luke. nor -^wn.
nor John haye mentioned the cruelty, o£ Hej^
in murdering the infants off I^hl^hw;. aflf^t^
noaccpunt is to, bfc found pf this, matter in. J^*
phus, who wrote the, hfe of Herodi; and, %$.
fpf^ tlie, feet, rscprded by Matthew is; i^ tfljft
— T^e ponjQi^r^ftt^ testimony o£ ipa^y ^ej^Jr.

AN APOLOPY FOIt CHRISTIANITY. 14 j
dent writers concerning a matter of fact unques
tionably adds to its probability ; but if nothing
is to be received as true, upon the testimony pf
a single author, we must give up some of the
best writers, and disbelieve some of the most in
teresting facts of ancient history.
According to JVJatthew, Mark, and Luke*
there was only an interval of three months, you
say, between the baptism and crucifixion of Je
sus ; from which time, taking away the forty days
of the temptation, there will only remain about
six weeks for the whole period of his public mi
nistry ; which lasted however, according to St.
John, at the least above three years. — Your ob
jection fairly stated stands thus : Matthew,
Mark, and Luke, in writing the history of Jesus
Christ, mention the several events of his life, as
following one another in continued succession,
without taking notice ofthe times in which they
happened : but is it a just Conclusion from their
silence, to infer that there really were no inter
vals of time between the transactions which they
seem to have connected ?' Many instances might
be produced from the most admired biographers
of antiquity, in which events are related, as im-
l 2

148 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
mediately consequent to each other, which did
not happen but at very distant periods : we have
an obvious example of this manner of writing in
St. Matthew; who connects the preaching of
John the Baptist with the return of Joseph from
Egypt, though we are certain that the latter
event preceded the former by a great many
years. John has said nothing of the institution of the
Lord's Supper ; the other Evangelists have said
nothing of the washing of the disciples' feet: —
What then ? are you not ashamed to produce
these facts, as instances of contradiction? If
omissions are contradictions, look into the his
tory of the age of Louis the Fourteenth, or into
the general history of M. de Voltaire, and you
will meet with a great abundance of contradic
tions. John, in mentioning the discourse which
Jesus had with his mother and his beloved dis
ciple, at the time of his crucifixion, says, that
she with Mary Magdalene stood near the cross:
Matthew, on the other hand, says, that Mary
Magdalene and the other women were there, be-
7

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 149
liolding afar off. This you think a manifest con
tradiction : and scoffingly inquire, whether the
women and the beloved disciple, which were
near the cross, could be the same with those who
stood far from the cross ?— It is difficult not to
transgress the bounds of moderation and good
manners, in answering such sophistry. What !
have you to learn, that though the Evangelists
speak of the crucifixion as of one event, it was
not accomplished in one instant, but lasted se
veral hours ? And why the women, who were at
a distance from the cross, might not, during its
continuance, draw near the cross ; or, from being
near the cross, might not move from the cross,
is more than you can explain to either us or your
selves. And we take from you your only refuge,
by denying expressly, that the different Evange
lists, in their mention of the women, speak of
the same point of time.
The Evangelists, you affirm, are fallen into
gross contradictions, in their accounts of the ap
pearances by which Jesus manifested himself to
his disciples, after his resurrection from the dead;
for Matthew speaks of two, Mark of three, Luke

150 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
of two, and John of four. That contradictory
propositions cannot be true, is readily granted ;
and if you will produce the place in which Mat
thew says, that Jesus, Christ appeared twice and
nq oftener, it will be further granted, that he is
contradicted by John in a very material part of
his narration : but till you do that, you must ex
cuse me, if I cannot grant, that the Evangelists
have contradicted each other in this point ; for
to common understandings it is pretty evident,
that if Christ appeared four times, according to
John's account, he must have appeared twice,
according to that of Matthew and Luke, and
thrice according to that of Mark.
The different Evangelists are not only accused
of contradicting each other, but Luke is said to
have contradicted himself; for in his Gospel be
tells us, that Jesus ascended into heaven from Be
thany ; and in the Acts of the Apostles, of which
he is the reputed author, he informs us that he as
cended from Mount Olivet. — Your objection pro-
ceeds.either from your ignorance of geography; or
your ilhwill to Christianity ; and upon either sup
position deserves our contempt : be pleased, how-

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITt. 151
ever, to remember for the future, that Bethany
was not only the name of a town, but of a dis
trict of Mount Olivet adjoining to the town.
From this specimen of the contradictions
ascribed to the historians of the life of Christ, you
may judge for yourselves what little reason there
is to reject Christianity upon their account ; and
how sadly you will be imposed upon (in a matter
of more consequence to yOu than any other) if you
take every thing fbr a contradiction, which the
uncandid adversaries Pf Christianity think pro
per to call one.
Before I put an end to this address, I cannot
help taking notice of an argument by which some
philpsophers have of late endeavoured to overturn
the whole system of revelation : and it is the
more necessary to give an answer to their objec
tion, as it is become a common subject of philo
sophical conversation, especially amongst those
who haVe visited the Continent. The objection
tends to invalidate, as is supposed, the authority of
MoseSj by shewing that the earth is much older
than it can be proved to be from his account of
the creation, and the Scripture chronology. We
6

152 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
contend, that six thousand years have not yet
elapsed since the creation ; and these philoso
phers contend, that they have indubitable proof
of the earth's being at the least fourteen thousand
years old ; and they complain that Moses hangs
as a dead weight upon them, and blunts all their
zeal for inquiry*.
The Canonico Recupero, who, it seems, is
engaged in writing the history of Mount Etna,
has discovered a stratum of lava which flowed
from that mountain, according to his opinion, in
the time ofthe second Punic war, or about two
thousand years ago ; this stratum is not yet co
vered with soil sufficient for the production of
either corn or vines ; it requires then, says the
Canon, two thousand years at least to convert a
stratum of lava into a fertile field. In sinking a
pit near Jaci, in the neighbourhood of Etna, they
have discovered evident marks of seven distinct
lavas one under the other ; the surfaces of which
are parallel, and most of them covered with a
thick bed of rich earth : now, the eruption which
formed the lowest of these lavas (if we may be
* Brydone's Travels.

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 153
allowed to reason, says the Canon, from analogy)
flowed from the mountain at least fourteen thou
sand years ago. — It might be briefly answered to
this objection, by denying that there is any thing
in the history of Moses repugnant to this opinion
concerning the great antiquity of the earth ; for
though the rise and progress of arts and sciences,
and the small multiplication of the human spe
cies, render it almost to a demonstration pro
bable, that man has not existed longer upon the
surface of this earth than according to the Mosaic
account ; yet that the earth itself was then cre
ated out of nothing, when man was placed upon
it, is not, according to the sentiments of some
philosophers, to be proved from the original text
of sacred Scripture : we might, I say, reply
with these philosophers to this formidable objec
tion pf the Canon, by granting it in its full ex
tent ; we are under no necessity, however, of
adopting their opinion in order to shew the weak
ness of the Canon's reasoning. For, in the first
place, the Canon has not satisfactorily established
his main fact, that the lava in question is the
identical lava which Diodorus Siculus mentions
to have flowed from Etna, in the second Cartha
ginian war ; and, in the second place it may be

154 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
observed, that the time necessary for converting
lavas into fertile fields must be very different, ac
cording to the different consistencies of the lavas,
and- their different situations, with respect to
elevation or depression ; to their being eXpO_ed
to winds, rains, and to other circumstances; just
as the time in which the heaps of iron slag (which
resembles lava) are covered with verdure, is dif
ferent at different furnaces according to the na
ture of the slag, and situation of the furnace ; and
something of this kind is deducible from the ac
count of the Canon himself ; since the crevices
of this famous stratum are really full of rich, good
soil, and have pretty large trees growing in them-.
But if all this1 should be thought Pot sufficient
to remove the objection, I will produce the
Canon an analogy in opposition to his analogy,
and which is grounded on more certain facts.
Etna and Vesuvius resemble each other, in the
causes which produce their eruptions, and in the
nature of their lavas, and in the time necessary to
mellow them into soil fit for vegetation ; or if
there be any slight difference in this respect* it
is probably not greater than what subsists be
tween different lavas of the same mountain. This

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 155
being admitted, which no philosopher will deny,
the Canon's analogy will prove just nothing at all,
if we can produce an instance of seven different
lavas (with interjacent strata of vegetable earth)
which have flowed from Mount Vesuvius, within
the space, not of fourteen thousand, but of some
what less than seventeen hundred years; for then,
according to our analogy, a stratum of lava may
be covered with vegetable soil in about two hun
dred and fifty years, instead of requiring two thou
sand for the purpose. The eruption of Vesuvius,
which destroyed Herculaneum and Pompeii, is
rendered still more famous by the death of Pliny,
recorded by his nephew in his letter to Tacitus ;
this py,ent happened in the year 79 ; it is not yet
then quite seventeen hundred years since Hercula
neum was swallowed up ; but we are informed by
unquestionable authority, that "the matter which
covers the ancient town of Herculaneum is not
the produce of one eruption only ; for there are
evident marks, that the matter of six eruptions
has taken its course over that which lies imme<-
diately above the town, and was the cause of its
destruction. These strata are either of lava
or burnt matter, with veins of good soil betwixt

156 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
them*." — I will not add another word upon this
subject ; except that the bishop of the diocese
was not much out in his advice to Canonico
Recupero — to take care not to make his moun-
tain older than Moses ; though it would have
been full as well to have shut his mouth with a
reason, as to have stopped it with the dread of
an ecclesiastical censure.
You perceive with what ease a little attention
will remove a great difficulty ; but had we been
able to say nothing in explanation of this phaeno
menon, we should not have acted a very rational
part in making our ignorance the foundation of
our infidelity, or suffering a minute philogophef
to rob us of our religion.
Your objections to revelation may be nume
rous; you may find fault with the account which
Moses has given of the Creation and the Fall; you
may not be able to get water enough for an
universal deluge ; nor room enough in the ark of
Noah for all the different kinds of aerial and ter-
* See Sir William Hamilton's Remarks upon the Nature
of the Soil of Naples and its neighbourhood, in the Philos.
Trans, vol. lxi. p. 7.

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 157
restrial animals ; you may be dissatisfied with the
command for sacrificing of Isaac, for plundering
the Egyptians,and for extirpating the Canaanites;
you may find fault with the Jewish economy,
for its ceremonies, its sacrifices, and its multipli
city of priests; you may object to the imprecations
in the Psalms,and think the immoralities of David
a fit subject for dramatic ridicule*; you may
look upon the partial promulgation of Christianity
as an insuperable objection to its truth, and way-
wardly reject the goodness of God toward your
selves, because you do not comprehend how you
have deserved it more than others ; you may
know nothing of the entrance of sin and death
into the world by one man's transgression ; nor
be able to comprehend the doctrine of the cross
and of redemption by Jesus Christ ; in short, if
your mind is so disposed, you may find food for
your scepticism in every page ofthe Bible, as well
as in every appearance of nature; and it is not in
the power of any person, but yourselves, to clear
up your doubts ; you must read, and you must
* See Saul et David Hyperdrame.
Whatever censure the author of this composition may de
serve for his intention, the work itself deserves none; its ri
dicule is too gross to mislead even the ignorant.

158 AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY.
think for yourselves ; and you must do both with
temper, with candour, and with care. Infide^
lity is a rank weed ; it is nurtured by our vices,
and cannot be plucked up as easily as it may be
planted : your difficulties with respect to revela
tion may have first arisen from your own reflec
tion on the rehgious indifference of those, whom,
from your earliest infancy; you have been accus
tomed to revere and imitate ; domestic irreligion
may have made you a willing hearer of libertine
conversation; and the uniform prejudices ofthe
world may have finished the business, at a very
saarly age, and left you to wander through life,
without a principle to direct your conduct, and
to die without hope. We are far from wishing
you to trust the word ofthe Clergy for the truth
of your religion ; we beg of you to examine it to
the bottom1, to try it, to prove it, and not to
hold it fast unless you find it good. Till you are
disposed to undertake this task, it becomes yoa
to consider with great seriousness1 and attention,
whether it can be for your interest to esteem a
few witty sarcasms, or metaphysic subtleties, or
ignorant misrepresentations, or unwarranted as
sertions, as unanswerable arguments against re
velation ; .ind a very slight reflection will con-

AN APOLOGY FOR CHRISTIANITY. 159
vince you, that it will certainly be for your re
putation to employ the flippancy of your rhetoric,
and the poignancy of ybur ridicule, upon any
subject rather than upon the subject of Religion.
I take my leave with recommending to your
notice, the advice which Mr. Locke gave to a
young man who was desirous of becoming ac
quainted with the doctrines of the Christian reh
gion. — " Study the holy Scriptures, especially the
New Testament : therein are contained the words
of eternal life. It has God for its author, salva
tion for its end, and truth without any mixture
of error for its matter*." I am, &c.

* Locke's Posth. Works.

AN APOLOGY

THE BIBLE,

A SERIES OF LETTERS,
ADDRESSED TO
THOMAS PAINE,
AUTHOR OF A BOOK ENTITLED, " THE AGE OF REASON, PART THE
SECOND, BEING AN INVESTIGATION OF TRUE AND OF FABULOUS
THEOLOGY."

t_. ; ntgj ._. ttttum*

M

LETTER I.

I have lately met with a book of yours, en
titled — " The Age of Reason, part the second,
being an investigation of true and of fabulous
theology ;" — and I think it not inconsistent
with my station, and the duty I owe to society,
to trouble you and the world with some obser
vations on so extraordinary a performance. Ex
traordinary I esteem it ; not from any novelty in
the objections which you have produced against
revealed religion, (for I find little or no novelty
in them,) but from the zeal with which you la
bour to disseminate your opinions, and from the
confidence with which you esteem them true.
You perceive, by this, that I give you credit for
your sincerity, how much soever I may question
your wisdom, in writing in such a manner on
such a subject : and I have no reluctance in ac
knowledging that you possess a considerable
M 2

164 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
share of energy of language, and acuteness of
investigation ; though I must be allowed to la
ment, that these talents have not been applied
in a manner more useful to human kind, and
more creditable to yourself.
I begin with your preface. You therein state
-—that you had long had an intention of publish
ing your thoughts upon religion, but that you
had originally reserved it to a later period in life.
—I hope there is no want of charity in saying,
that it would have been fortunate for the Christian
world, had your hfe been terminated before you
had fulfilled your intention. In accomplishing
your purpose you wih have unsettled the faith of
thousands; rooted from the minds of the un
happy virtuous all their comfortable assurance of
a future recompence; have annihilated in the
minds of the flagitious all their fears of future
punishment; you will have given the reins to the
domination of every passion, and have thereby
contributed to the introduction of the pubHc in
security, and of the private unhappiness, usually
and almost necessarily accompanying a state of
corrupted morals.

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 165
No one can think worse of confession to a
priest and subsequent absolution, as practised in
the church of Rome, than I do ; but I cannot,
with you, attribute the guillotine-massacres to
that cause. Men's minds were not prepared, as
you suppose, for the commission of all manner
of crimes, by any doctrines of the church of
Rome, corrupted as I esteem it, but by their
not thoroughly believing even that religion.
What may not society expect from those who
shall imbibe the principles of your book ?
A fever, which you and those about you ex
pected would prove mortal, made you remem
ber, with renewed satisfaction, that you had
written the former part of your Age of Reason —
and you know therefore, you say, by experience,
the conscientious trial of your own principles. I
admit this declaration to be a proof of the since
rity of your persuasion, but I cannot admit it to
be any proof of the truth of your principles.
What is conscience ? Is it, as has been thought,
an internal monitor implanted in us by the Su
preme Being, and dictating to us on all occa
sions, what is right or wrong ? Or is it merely
our own judgment ofthe moral rectitude or tur-

166 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
pitude of our own actions? I take the word (with
Mr. Locke) in the latter, as in the only intelli
gible sense. Now who sees not that our judg-
ments of virtue and vice, right and wrong, are
not always formed from an enlightened and dis
passionate use of our reason, in the investigation
of truth ? They are more generally formed from the
nature ofthe religion we profess; from the quality
ofthe civil government under which we hve ; from
the general manners of the age, or the particular
manners ofthe persons with whom we associate;
from the education we have had in our youth ;
from the books we have read at a more advanced
period ; and from other accidental causes. Who
sees not that, on this account, conscience may
be conformable or repugnant to the law of na
ture? — maybe certain, or doubtful ? — and that
it can be no criterion of moral rectitude, even
when it is certain, because the certainty of an
opinion is no proof of its being a right opinion ?
A man may be certainly persuaded of an error
in reasoning,, or of an untruth in matters of fact.
It is a maxim of every law, human and divine,
that a man ought never to act in opposition to
his conscience ; but it will not from thence fol
low, that he will, in obeying the dictates of his

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 167
conscience, on all occasions act right. An in
quisitor who burns Jews and heretics : a Robe
spierre, who massacres innocent and harmless
women ; a robber, who thinks that all things
ought to be in common, and that a state of pro
perty is an unjust infringement of natural liberty ;
— these, and a thousand perpetrators of different
crimes, may all follow the dictates of conscience;
and may, at the real or supposed approach of
death, remember " with renewed satisfaction"
the worst of their transactions, and experience,
without dismay, " a conscientious trial of their
principles." But this their conscientious com
posure can be no proof to others ofthe rectitude
of their principles, and ought to be no pledge to
themselves of their innocence, in adhering to
them. I have thought fit to make this remark, with
a view of suggesting to you a consideration of
great importance — whether you haye examined
calmly, and according to the best of your abi
lity, the arguments by which the truth of re
vealed religion may, in the judgment of learned
and impartial men, be established? — You will
allow that thousands of learned and impartial

168 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
men, (I speak not of priests, who, however, are,
I trust, as learned and impartial as yourself, but
of laymen of the most splendid talents,) — you
will allow that thousands of these, in all ages,
have embraced revealed religion as true. Whether
these men have all been in an error, enveloped iri
the darkness of ignorance, shackled by fhe chains
of superstition, whilst you and a few others have
enjoyed light and liberty, is a question I submit
to the decision of your readers.
If you have made the best examination you
can, and yet reject revealed religion as an impos
ture, I pray that God may pardon what I es
teem your error. And whether you have made
this examination or not, does not become me or
any man to determine. That gospel, which you
despise, has taught me this moderation ; it has
said to me — " Who art thou that judgest ano
ther man's servant? To his own master he stand.
eth or falleth." — I think that you are in an error; ,
but whether that error be to you a vincible or an
invincible error, I presume not to determine. I
know indeed where it is said — ¦" that the preach
ing of the cross is to them that perish foolishness,
—and that if the gospel be hid, it is hid to them

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 169
that are lost." The consequence of your unbe
lief must be left to the just and merciful judgment
of Him, who alone knoweth the mechanism and
the liberty of our understandings ; the origin of
our opinions; the strength of our prejudices; the
excellencies and the defects of our reasoning fa
culties. I shall, designedly, write this and the following
letters' in a popular manner; hoping that thereby
they may stand a chance of being perused by
that class of readers, for whom your work seems
to be particularly calculated, and who are the
most likely to be injured by it. The really learned
are Hi no danger of being infected by the poison
of infidelity : they will excuse me, therefore, for
having entered, as little as possible, into deep
disquisitions concerning the authenticity of the
Bible. The subject has been so learnedly, and
so frequently handled by other writers, that it
does not want (I had almost said, it does not
admit) any farther proof. And it is the more
necessary to adopt this mode of answering
your book, because you disclaim all learned
appeals to other books, and undertake to prove,
from the Bible itself, that it is unworthy of

170 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
credit. I hope to shew, from the Bible itself,
the direct contrary. But in case any of your
readers should think that you had not put forth
all your strength, by not referring for proof of
your opinion to ancient authors; lest they should
suspect that all ancient authors are in your fa
vour; I will venture to affirm, that had you
made a learned appeal to all the ancient books in
the world, sacred or profane, Christian-Jewish,
or Pagan, instead of lessening, they would have
established, the credit and authority of the Bible
as the Word of God.
Quitting your preface, let us proceed to the
work itself; in which there is much repetition,
and a defect of proper arrangement. I will fol
low your track, however, as nearly as I can. The
first question you propose for consideration is —
" Whether there is sufficient authority for believ
ing the Bible to be the Word of God, or whether
there is not ?" — You determine this question in
the negative, upon what you are pleased to call
moral evidence. You hold it impossible that
the Bible can be the Word of God, because it is
therein said, that the Israelites destroyed the
Canaanites by the express command of God :

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 171
and to believe the Bible to be true, we must,
you affirm, unbelieve all our belief of the moral
justice of God; for wherein, you ask, could crying
or smiling infants offend ? — I am astonished that
so acute a reasoner should attempt tp disparage
the Bible, by bringing forward this exploded
and frequently refuted objection of Morgan,
Tindal, and Bolingbroke. You profess yourself
to be a deist, and to believe that there is a God,
who created the universe, and established the
laws of nature, by which it is sustained in exist
ence. You profess that from the contemplation
of the works of God, you derive a knowledge of
his attributes; and you reject the Bible, because
it ascribes to God things inconsistent (as you sup
pose) with the attributes which you have disco
vered to belong to him ; in particular, you think
it repugnant to his moral justice, that he should
doom to destruction the crying or smiling infants
of the Canaanites. — Why do you not maintain it
to be repugnant to his moral justice, that he
should suffer crying or smihng infants to be swal
lowed up by an earthquake, drowned by an
inundation, consumed by a fire, starved by a fa
mine, or destroyed by a pestilence ? The Word
of God is in perfect harmony with his work; cry-

172 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
ing or smiling infants are subjected to death in
both. We believe that the earth, at the express
command of God, opened her mouth, and swal
lowed up Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, with
their wives, their sons, and their little ones. This
you esteem so repugnant to God's moral justice,
that you spurn, as spurious, the book in which
the circumstance is related. When Catania,
Lima, and Lisbon, were severally destroyed by
earthquakes, men with their wives, their sons,
and their little ones, were swallowed up alive —
why do you not spurn, as spurious, the book of
nature, in which this fact is certainly written, and
from the perusal of which you infer the moral jus
tice of God ? You will, probably, reply, that the
evils which the Canaanites suffered from the ex
press command of God, were different from those
which are brought on mankind by the operation
of the laws of nature. — Different! in what? —
Not in "the magnitude of the evil — not in the sub
jects of sufferance — not in the author of it — for my
philosophy, at least, instructs me to beheve, that
God not only primarily formed, but that he hath,
through all ages, executed, the laws of nature ;
ahd that he will, through all eternity, administer
them, for the general happiness of his creatures,

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 173
whether we can, on every occasion, discern that
end or not.
I am far from being guilty of the impiety of
questioning the existence of the moral justice of
God, as proved either by natural or revealed re
ligion ; what I contend for is shortly this — that
you have no right, in fairness of reasoning, to
urge any apparent deviation from moral justice
as an argument against revealed rehgion, because
you do not urge an equally apparent deviation
from it, as an argument against natural religion :
you reject the former, and admit the latter, with
out considering that, as to your objection, they
must stand or fall together.
As to the Canaanites, it is needless to enter
into any proof of the depraved state of their mo
rals; they were a wicked people in the time of
Abraham, and they, even then, were devoted
to destruction by God ; but their iniquity was
not then full. In the time of Moses, they were
idolaters, sacrificers of their own crying or smiling
infants ; devourers of human flesh ; addicted to
unnatural lust ; immersed in the filthiness of all
manner of vice. Now, I think, it will be impo_-

i74 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
sible to prove* that it was a proceeding contrary
to God's moral justice to exterminate so wicked
a people. He made the Israelites the executors
of his vengeance ; and, in doing this, he gave
such an evident and terrible proof of his abomi
nation of vice, as could not fail to strike the sur
rounding nations with astonishment and terror,
and to impress on the minds ofthe Israelites what
they were to expect, if they followed the exam
ple ofthe nations whom he commanded them to
cut off. " Ye shall not commit any of these
abominations— that the land spew not you out
also, as it spewed out the nations that were before
you." How strong and descriptive this language !
the vices of the inhabitants were so abominable,
that the very land was sick of them, and forced
to vomit them forth, as the stomach disgorges a
deadly poison.
I have often wondered what could be the rea
son that men, not destitute of talents, should be
desirous of undermining the authority of revealed
rehgion, and studious in exposing, with a mahg
nant and illiberal exultation, every httle diffi
culty attending the Scriptures, to popular ani
madversion and contempt. I am not willing to

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 175
attribute this strange propensity to what Plato
attributed the atheism of his time — to profligacy
of manners — to affectation of singularity — to gross
ignorance, assuming the semblance of deep re
search and superior sagacity ; — I had rather refer
it to an impropriety of judgment, respecting the
manners, and mental acquirements, of human
kind in the first ages of the world. Most unbe
lievers argue as if they thought that man, in re
mote and rude antiquity, in the very birth and
infancy of our species, had the same distinct con
ceptions of one, eternal, invisible, incorporeal,
infinitely wise, powerful, and good God, which
they themselves have now. This I look upon as
a great mistake, and a pregnant source of infide
lity. Human kind, by a long experience ; by
the institutions of civil society ; by the cultiva
tion of arts and sciences ; by, as I believe, divine
instruction actually given to some, and tradition
ally communicated to all; is in a far more distin
guished situation, as to the powers of the mind,
than it was in the childhood ofthe world. The
history of man is the history of the providence of
God; who, willing the supreme felicity of all his
creatures, has adapted his government to the ca
pacity of those, who in different ages were the

1 76 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
subjects of it. The history of any one nation
throughout all ages, and that of all nations in the
same age, are but separate parts of one great
plan, which God is carrying on for the moral
melioration of mankind. But who can compre
hend the whole of this immense design ? The'
shortness of life, the. weakness of our faculties,
the inadequacy of our means of information,
conspire to make it impossible for us, worms of
the earth ! insects of an hour ! completely to
understand any one of its parts. No man, who
well weighs the subject, ought to be surprised,
that in the histories of ancient times many things
should occur foreign to our manners, the pro
priety and necessity of which we cannot clearly
apprehend. It appears incredible to many, that God Al
mighty should have had colloquial intercourse
with our first parents ; that he should have con
tracted a kind of friendship for the patriarchs,
and entered into covenants with them ; that he
should have suspended the laws of nature io
Egypt ; should have been so apparently partial
as to become the God and governor of one par
ticular nation ; and should have so far demeaned

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 177
himself as to give to that people a burthensome
ritual of worship, statutes and ordinances, many
of which seem to be beneath the dignity of his
attention, unimportant and impolitic. I have
conversed with many deists, and have always
found that the strangeness of these things was
the only reason for their disbelief of them : no
thing similar has happened in their time ; they
will not, therefore, admit, that these events have
really taken place at any time. As well might
a child, when arrived at a state of manhood, con
tend that he had never either stood in need or
experienced the fostering care of a mother's
kindness, the wearisome attention of his nurse,
or the instruction and discipline of his school
master. The Supreme Being selected one family
from an idolatrous world ; nursed it up, by va
rious acts of his providence, into a great nation ;
communicated to that nation a knowledge of his
holiness, justice, mercy, power, and wisdom;
disseminated them at various times, through every
part of the earth, that they might be a " leaven
to leaven the whole lump," that they might as
sure all other nations ofthe existence of one su
preme God, the creator and preserver of the
world, the only proper object of adoration. With
N

178 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
what reason can we expect, that what was done
to one nation, not out of any partiality to them,
but for the general good, should be done to
all ? that the mode of instruction, which was
suited to the infancy of the world, should be ex-
tended to the maturity of its manhood, or to the
imbecility of its old age ? I own to you, that
when I consider how nearly man, in a savage
state, approaches to the brute creation, as to in
tellectual excellence ; and when I contemplate
his miserable attainments as to the knowledge of
God, in a civilized state, when he has had no di
vine instruction on the subject, or when that in
struction has been forgotten, (for all men have
known something of Gpd from tradition,) I can
not but admire the wisdom and goodness of the
Supreme Being, in having let himself down to
our apprehensions ; in having given to mankind,
in the earliest ages, sensible and extraordinary
proofs of his existence and attributes ; in having
made the Jewish and Christian dispensations me
diums to convey to all men, through all ages,
that knowledge concerning himself, which he had
vouchsafed to give immediately to the first. 1
own it is strange, very strange, that he should
have made an immediate manifestation, pf himself

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 179
in the first ages of the world ; but what is there
that is not strange ? It is strange that you and I
are here— that there is water, and earth, and air,
and fire — that there is a sun, and moofi, and stars
— that there is generation, corruption, repro
duction. I can account ultimately for none of
these things, without recurring to him who made
every thing. I also am his workmanship, and
look up to him with hope of preservation through
all eternity ; I adore him for his word as well as
for his work : his work I cannot comprehend,
but his word hath assured me of all that I am
concerned to know — that he hath prepared ever
lasting happiness for those who love and obey
him. This you will call preachment : — I will
have done with it ; but the subject is so vast, and
the plan of Providence, in my opinion, so obvi
ously wise and good, that I can never think of it
without having my mind filled with piety, admi
ration, and gratitude.
In addition to the moral evidence (as you are
pleased to think it) against the Bible, you threaten
in the progress of your w:ork, to produce such
other evidence as even a priest cannot deny. A
philosopher in search of truth forfeits with me
N 2

180 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
all claim to candour and impartiality, when he
introduces railing for reasoning, vulgar and illi
beral sarcasm in the room of argument. I will
not imitate the example you set me; but examine
what you shall produce, with as much coolness
and respect, as if you had given the priests no
provocation ; as if you were a man of the most
unblemished character, subject to no prejudices,
actuated by no bad designs, not liable to have
abuse retorted upon you with success.

LETTER II.

Before you commence your grand attack upon
the Bible, you wish to establish a difference be
tween the evidence necessary to prove the authen
ticity of the Bible, and that of any other ancient
book. I am not surprised at your anxiety on
this head ; for all writers on the subject have
agreed in thinking that St. Austin reasoned well,
when, in vindicating the genuineness of the Bible,
he asked — " What proofs have we that the works
of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and other pro
fane authors, were written by those whose names
they bear ; unless it be that this has been an opi
nion generally received at all times, and by all
those who have lived since these authors ?" This
writer was convinced, that the evidence which
established the genuineness of any profane book
would establish that of a sacred book, and I pro
fess myself to be of the same opinion, notwith
standing what you have advanced to the con
trary.

182 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
In this part your ideas seem to me to be con
fused ; I do not say that you, designedly, jumble
together mathematical seience and historical evi
dence ; the knowledge acquired by demonstra*
tion, and the probability derived from testimony.
—You know but of one ancient book, that au
thoritatively Challenges universal consent and be
lief, and that is Euclid's Elements.— If I were
disposed to make frivolous objections, I should
say that even Euclid's Elements had not met
with universal consent; that there had been men,
both hr ancient and modern times, who had ques
tioned theintuitive evidence of spmeof his axioms,
attd denied the justness of some of his demonstra
tions: but, admitting the truth, I do not see the
pertinency of your observation. You are at*
tempting td subvert the authenticity of the Bible,
and you tell us that Euclid's Elements are cer
tainly true.— —What then ? Does it follow that
the Bible is certainly false ? The most illiterate
scrivener in the kingdom does not want to be
i-tfofmed, that the examples in his Wfrigate's
Arithmetic, are ptoved by a different kind of rea
soning from that by which he persuades himself
to believe, that there was such a person as H&iry
VIII. or that there is such a city as Paris.

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 183
It may be of use to remove this confusion ifr
your argument to state, distinctly, the difference
between the genuineness, and the authenticity,
of a book. A genuine book, is that which was
written by the person whose name it bears, as the
author of it. An authentic book, is that Which
relates matters of fact, as they really happened.
A book may be genuine, without being authen
tic; and a book may be authentic, without being
genuine. The books written by Richardson and
Fielding are genuine books, though the histories
of Clarissa and Tom Jones are fables. The his
tory of the island of Formosa is a genuine book ;
it was written by Psalmanazar : but it is not att
authentic book, (though it was long esteemed as
such, and translated into different languages,)
for the author, in the latter part of his life, took
shame to himself for having imposed on the world,
and confessed that it was a mere romance. An
son's Voyage may be considered as an authentic
book, it, probably, containing a true narration
of the principal events recorded in it ; but it is
not a genuine book, having not been written by
Walter, to whom it is ascribed, but by Robins.
This distinction between the genuineness and

184 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
authenticity of a book, will assist us in detecting
the fallacy of an argument, which you state with
great confidence < in the part of your work now
under consideration, and. which you frequently
allude to, in other parts, as conclusive evidence
against the truth of the Bible. Your argument
stands thus — If it befound that the books ascribed
to Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, were not writ
ten by Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, every part
of the authority and authenticity of these books
is gone at once. — I presume to think otherwise.
The genuineness of these books (in the judgment
of those who say that they were written by these
authors) will certainly be gone ; but their authen
ticity may remain ; they may still contain a true
account of real transactions, though the names
of the writers of them should be found to be dif
ferent from what they are generally esteemed to
be. Had, indeed, Moses said that he wrote the
first five books of the Bible ; and had Joshua and
Samuel said that they wrote the books which are
respectively attributed to them ; and had it been
found, that Moses, Joshua, and Samuel, did not
write these books ; then, I grant, the authority

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 185
ofthe whole would have been gone at once ; these
men would have been found liars, as to the ge
nuineness of the books; and this proof of their
want of veracity, in one point, would have inva
lidated their testimony in every other ; these
books would have been justly stigmatized, as nei
ther genuine nor authentic.
An history may be true, though it should not
only be ascribed to a wrong author, but though
the author of it should not be known ; anony
mous testimony does not destroy the reality of
facts, whether natural or miraculous. Had Lord
Clarendon published his History ofthe Rebellion,
without prefixing his name to it ; or had the his
tory of Titus Livius come down to us, under the
name of Valerius Flaccus, or Valerius Maximus;
the facts mentioned in these histories would have
been equally certain.
As to your assertion, that the miracles re
corded in Tacitus, and in other profane historians,
are quite as well authenticated as those of the Bible
— it, being a mereassertion destitute of proof, may
be properly answered by a contrary assertion. I
take the liberty then to say, that the evidence

186 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
for the miracles recorded in the Bible isj both in
kind and degree* so greatly superior to that for
the prodigies mentioned by Livy, or the mirack.
related by Tacitus, as to justify us in giving Cre
dit to the one as the work of God, and in with
holding it from the other as the effect of super
stition and imposture. This method of dero
gating from the credibility of Christianity, by op
posing to the miracles of our Saviour, the tricks
of ancient impostors, seems to have originated
with Hierocles in the fourth century ; and it has
been adopted by unbelievers from that time to
this ; with this difference, indeed, that the hea
thens of the third and fourth century admitted
that Jesus wrought miracles ; but lest that ad
mission should have compelled them to abandon
their gods and become Christians, they said, that
their ApoUonius, their Apuleius, their Aristeas,
did as great : whilst modern deists deny the fact
of Jesus having ever wrought a miracle. And
they have Some reason for this proceeding ; they
are sensible that the gospel miracles are so dif
ferent in all their circumstances, from those re
lated ir. Pagan story, that, if they admit then.
to have been performed, they must admit Chris
tianity to be true ; hence they have fabricated a

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE* 187
kind of deistical axiom— that no human testi
mony can establish the credibility of a miracle.
—This, though it has been an hundred times re
futed, is still insisted upon, as if its truth had ne
ver been questioned, and could not be disproved.
You " proceed to examine the authenticity
of the Bible ; and you begin, you say, with what
are called the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exo
dus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. .
Your intention, you profess, is to shew that
these books are spurious, and that Moses is not
the author of them ; and still farther, that they
were not written in the time of Moses, nor till
several hundred years afterwards ; that they are
no other than an attempted history bf the life of
Moses, and of the times in which he is said to
have lived, and also of the times prior thereto,
Written by some very ignorant and stupid pre
tender to authorship, several hundred years after
the death of Moses. "—In this passage the ut
most force of your attack on the authority of the
five books of Moses is clearly stated. You are
not the first who has started this difficulty ; it is
a difficulty, indeed, Of modern date ; having not
been heard of, either in the synagogue, or out

lS8 Aft Apology for the bible.
of it, till the twelfth century. About that time
Eben Ezra, a Jew of great erudition, noticeds6me
passages (the sarhe that you have brought forward)
in the five first books of the Bible, which he
thought had not been written by Moses, but in
serted by some person after the death of Moses.
But he was far from maintaining as you do, that
•these books were written by some ignorant and
stupid pretender to authorship, many hundred
years after the death of Moses. Hobbes con
tends that the books of Moses are so called, not
from their having been written by Moses, but
from their containing an account of Moses.
Spinoza supported the same Ppiriion ; arid Le
Clerc, a verj. able theological critic ofthe last and
present centhry, once entertained the same no
tion., You see that this fancy has had some
patrons before you ; the merit or the demerit,
the sagacity or the temerity of having asserted,
that Moses is not the author of the Pentateuch, is
not exclusively yours. Le Ckrc, indeedj 'you
riitik hot boast of. When his judgment was
matured by age, he was ashamed of what he had
written on the subject in his younger years ; he
made a public recantation of his error, by annex-
ihg to his commentary on Genesis, a Latin dis-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 18_»
sertation — concerning Moses, the author of the
Pentateuch, and his design in composing it. If
in your future life you should chance to change
your opinion on the subject, it will be an honour
to your character to emulate the integrity, and
to imitate the example of Le Clerc. The Bible
is not the only book which bas undergone the fate
of being reprobated as spurious, after it had been
received as genuine, and authentic for many ages.
It has been maintained that the history of He
rodotus was written in the time of Constantine ;
and that the classics are forgeries.of the thirteenth
or fourteenth century. These extravagant reve
ries amused the world at the time of their publi
cation, and have long since sunk into oblivion.
You esteem all prophets to be such lying rascals,
that I dare not venture to predict the fate of
your book.
Before you produce your main objection to the
genuineness ofthe books of Moses, you assert
— " That there is no affirmative evidence that
Moses is the author of them." — What? no affir
mative evidenpe ! In the eleventh century Mai-
monides drew up a confession of faith for the Jews,
which all of them at this day admit ; it consists of
7

190 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BipLE-
only thirteen articles ; and two of them have re
spect to Moses ; one affirming the authenticity,
the other the genuineness of his books. — The
doctrine and prophecy of Moses is true— The law
that we have was given by Moses. — This is the
filith of the Jews at present, and has been their
faifh ever since the destruction of their city and
temple ; it was their faith in the time when the
authors of the New Testament wrote ; it was
_h.eir faith during their paptivity in Babylon ; in
the time of their kings and judges ; and no pe
riod can be shewn, from the age of Moses to the
present hour, in which it was not their faith — Is
this no affirmative eyidence ? I cannot desire a
stronger. Josephus, in his book against Appion,
writes thus—*' We have only two and twenty
bopk$ which are to be believed as of divine an.
thority, and which comprehend the history of
all ages; five belong to Moses, which contain
the original of man, and the tradition of the suc
cession of generations, down to his death, which
lakes in a compass of about three thousand years."
Do you consider this as no affirmative evidence?
Why should I mention Juvenal speaking of the
volume which Moses had written ? Why enume.
sate a long list of profane authors, all bearing

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 191
testimony to the fact of Moses being the leader
and the law-giver of the Jewish nation ? and if a
law-giver, surely a writer of the laws. But what
says the Bible ? In Exodus it says — " Moses
wrote all the words of the Lord, and took the
book of the covenant, and read in the audience
ofthe people." — In Deuteronomy it says — " And,
it came to pass, when Moses had made an end
of writing the words of this law in a book, until
they were finished, (this surely imports the finish
ing a laborious work,) that Moses commanded
the Levites which bare the ark of the covenant
of the Lord, saying, ' Take this book of the
law, and put it in the side of the ark of the cove
nant of the Lord your God, that it may be there
for a witness agaipst thee'." This is said in Deu
teronomy, which is a kind of repetition or abridg
ment of the four preceding books ; and it is well
known that the Jews gave the name of the Law
to the first five books of the Old Testament.
What possible doubt can there be that Moses
wrote the books in question ? I could accumu
late many other passages from the Scriptures to
this purpose ; but if what I have advanced will
not convince you that there is affirmative evi
dence, and of the strongest kind, for Moses's

192 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
being the author of these books, nothing that I
can advance will convince you.
What if I should grant all you undertake to
prove (the stupidity and ignorance of the writer
excepted ?-r-) What if I should admit, that Sa
muel, or Ezra, or some other learned Jew, com
posed these books, from public records, many
years after the death of Moses ! Will it follow,
that there was no truth in them ? According to
my logic, it will only follow, that they are not
genuine books ; every fact recorded in them may
be true, whenever, or by whomsoever they were
written. It cannot be said that the Jews had no
public records, the Bible furnishes abundance of
proof to the contrary. I by no means admit,
that these books, as to the main part of them;
were not written by Moses ; but I do contend,
that a book may contain a true history, though
we know not the author of it, or though we may
be mistaken in ascribing it to a wrong author.
The first argument you produce against Mo
ses being the author of these books is so old that
I do not know its original author ; and it is so
miserable an one, that I wonder you should

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 193
adopt it — " These books cannot be written by
Moses, because they are written in the third
person — it is always, The Lord said unto Moses,
or Moses said unto the Lord. This, you say,
is the style and manner that historians use in
speaking of the persons whose lives and actions
they are writing." This observation is true, but
it does not extend far enough; for this is the style
and manner not only of historians writing of
other persons, but of eminent men, such as Xe
nophon and Josephus, writing of themselves. . If
General Washington should write the history of
the American war, and should, from his great
modesty, speak of himself in the , third person,
would you think it reasonable that, two or three
thousand years hence, any person should, on
that account, contend, that the history was not
true ? C&sar writes of himself in the third person
— -it is always, Ccesar made a speech, or a speech
was made to Caesar; Caesar crossed the Rhine;
Caesar invaded Britain ; but every schoolboy
knows that this circumstance cannot be adduced
as a serious argument against Caesar's being the
author of his own Commentaries.
But Moses, you urge, cannot be the author of
o

194 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
ihe book of Numbers,— because, he says of him
self— " that Moses was a very meek man, above
all the men that were on the face of the earth."
If he said this of himself, he was, you say, " a
vain and arrogant coxcomb, (such is your phrase!)
and unworthy of credit — and if he did not say
it, the books are without authority." This your
dilemma is perfectly harmless ; it has not an horn
to hurt the weakest logician. If Moses did not
write this httle verse, if it was inserted by Sa
muel, or any of his countrymen, who knew his
character and revered his memory, will it follow
that he did not write any other part of the book
of Numbers ? Or if he did not write any part
ofthe book of Numbers, will it follow that he did
not write any of the other books of which he is
usually reputed the author? And if he did write
this of himself, he was justified by the occasion
which extorted from him this commendation.
Had this expression been written in a modern
style and manner, it would probably have given
you no offence. For who would be so fastidious
as to find fault with an illustrious man, who,
being calumniated by his nearest relations; as
guilty of pride, and fond of power, should vin
dicate his character by saying, My temper was

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 195
naturally as meek and unassuming as that of any
man upon earth ? There are occasions, in which
a modest man, who speaks truly, may speak
proudly of himself, without forfeiting his general
character ; and there is no occasion, which either
more requires, or more excuses this conduct, than
when he is repelling the foul and envious asper
sions of those who both knew his character and
had experienced his kindness ; and in that predi
cament stood Aaron and Miriam, the accusers of
Moses. You yourself have, probably, felt the
stings of calumny, and have been anxious to re
move the impression. I do not call you a vain
and arrogant coxcomb for vindicating your cha
racter, when in the latter part of this very work
you boast, and I hope truly, " that the man
does not exist that can say, I have persecuted
him, or any man, or any set of men, in the
American revolution, or in the French revolu
tion ; or that I have in any case returned evil for
evil." I know not what kings and priests may
say to this ; you may not have returned to them
evil for evil, because they never, I believe, did
you any harm ; but you have done them all the
harm you could, and that without provocation.

o 2

196 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
I think it needless to notice your observation
upon what you call the dramatic style of Deute
ronomy ; it is an ill-founded hypothesis. You
might as well ask where the author of Caesar's
Commentaries got the speeches of Caesar, as
where the author of Deuteronomy got the
speeches of Moses. But your argument — that
Moses was not the author of Deuteronomy,
because the reason given in that book for the
observation of the,. sabbath, is different from
that given in Exodus, merits a reply.
, You need not be told that the very name of
this book imports, in Greek, a repetition of a
law ; and that the Hebrew doctors have called it
by a word of the same meaning. In the fifth
verse of the first chapter it is said in our Bibles,
" Moses began to declare this law ;" but the
Hebrew words more properly translated, import
that Moses " began, or determined, to explain
the law." This is no shift of mine to get over a
difficulty ; the words are so rendered in most of
the ancient versions, and by Fagius, Vetablus,
and Le Clerc, men eminently skilled in the He
brew language. This repetition and explanation
of the law, was a wise and benevolent proceed-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 197
ing in Moses ; that those who were either not
born, or were mere infants, when it was first
(forty years before) delivered in Horeb, might
have an opportunity of knowing it ; especially as
Moses their leader was soon to be taken from
them, and they were about to be settled in the
midst of nations given to idolatry, and sunk in
vice. Now where is the wonder, that some va
riations, and some additions, should be made to
a law, when a legislator thinks fit to republish it
many years after its first promulgation ?
With respect to the sabbath, the learned are
divided in opinion concerning its origin ; some
contending that it was sanctified from the crea
tion of the world ; that it was observed by the
patriarchs before the Flood; that it was neglected
by the Israelites during their bondage in Egypt,
revived on the falling of manna in the. wilderness,
and enjoined, as a positive law, at Mount Sinai.
Others esteem its institution to have been no
older than the age of Moses; and argue, that
what is said of the sanctification of the sabbath
in the book of Genesis, is said by way of antici
pation. There may be truth in both these ac
counts. To me it is probable, that the meriiory

198 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
of the Creation was handed down from Adam to
all his posterity ; and that the seventh day was,
for a long time, held sacred by all nations, in
commemoration of that event ; but that the pe
culiar rigidness of its observance was enjoined by
Moses to the Israelites alone. As to there being
two reasons given for its being kept holy, — one,
that on that day God rested from the work of cre
ation — the other, that on that day, God had
given them rest from the servitude of Egypt—
I see no contradiction in the accounts. If a man,
in writing the history of England, should inform
his readers, that the parliament had ordered the
fifth of November to be kept holy, because on
that day God had delivered the nation from a
Jdoody intended massacre by gunpowder ; and
if, in another part of his history, he should as
sign the deliverance of our church and nation
from popery and arbitrary power, by the arrival
pf King William, as a reason for its being kept
holy ; would any one contend, that he was not
justified in both these ways of expression, or that
we ought from thence to conclude, that he was
not the author of them both ?
You think-—" that law in Deuteronomy inhu-
8

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 199
man and brutal, which authorizes parents, the
father and the mother, to bring their own chil
dren to have them stoned to death for what it is
pleased to call stubbornness." — You are aware, I
suppose, that paternal power, amongst the Ro
mans, the Gauls, the Persians, and other nations,
was of the most arbitrary kind ; that it extended
to the taking away the life of the child. I do not
know whether the Israelites in the time of Moses
exercised this paternal power ; it was not a cus
tom adopted by ah nations, but it was by many;
and in the infancy of society, before individual
families had coalesced into communities, it was
probably very general, Now Moses, by this
law, which you esteem brutal and inhuman, hin
dered such an extravagant power from being
either introduced or exercised amongst the Is
raelites. This law is so far from countenancing
the arbitrary power of a father over the life of his
child, that it takes from him the power of ac
cusing the child before a magistrate — the father
and the mother of the child must agree in bring
ing the child to judgment — and it is not by their
united will that the child was to be condemned
to death ; the elders of the city were to judge
whether the accusation was true; and the accu-

200 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
sation was to be not merely, as you insinuate,
that the child was stubborn, but that he was
" stubborn and rebellious, a glutton and a drunk
ard." Considered in this light, you must allow
the law to have been an humane restriction of a
power improper to be lodged with any parent.
That you may abuse the priests, you abandon
your subject — " Priests, you say, preach up
Deuteronomy, for Deuteronomy preaches up
tithes." — I do not know that priests preach up
Deuteronomy, more than they preach up other
books of Scripture ; but I do know that tithes
are not preached up in Deuteronomy, more than
in Leviticus, in Numbers, in Chronicles, in Ma
lachi, in the law, the history, and the prophets
of the Jewish nation. — You go on-r" It is from
this book, chap. xxv. ver. 4, they have taken
the phrase, and applied it to tithing, " Thou
shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the
corn;" and that this might not escape observa
tion, they have noted it in. the table of contents
at the head of the chapter, though it is only a
single verse of less than two lines. " O priests!
priests! ye are willing to be compared to an ox
fbr the sake of tithes !" — I cannot call this — rea-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 201
soning^ — and I will not pollute my page by giving
it a proper appellation. Had the table of con
tents, instead of simply saying — the ox is not
to be muzzled — said — tithes enjoined, or priests
to be maintained — there would have been a little
ground for your censure. Whoever noted this
phrase at the head of the chapter, had better
reason for doing it than you have attributed to
them. They did it because St. Paul had quoted
it when he was proving to the Corinthians, that
they who preached the gospel had a right to live
by the gospel ; it was Paul, and not the priests
who first applied this phrase to tithing. St. Paul,
indeed, did not avail himself of the right he con
tended for ; he was not, therefore, interested in
what he said. The reason on which he grounds
the right, is not merely this quotation, which you
ridicule ; nor the appointment of the law of M0-
ses, which you think fabulous ; nor the injunc
tion of Jesus, which you despise ; no, it is a rea
son founded in the nature of things, and which
no philosopher, no unbeliever, no man of com
mon sense can deny to be a solid reason; it
amounts to this — that " the labourer is worthy
of his hire." Nothing is so much a man's own,
as his labour and ingenuity : and it is entirely

202 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
consonant to the law of nature, that by the inno
cent use of these he should provide for his sub
sistence. Husbandmen, artists, soldiers, physi
cians, lawyers, all let out their labour and talents
for a stipulated reward : why may not a priest do
the same ? Some accounts of you have been pub
lished in England ; but conceiving them to have
proceeded from a design to injure your cha
racter, I never read them. I know nothing of
your parentage, your education, or condition in
life. You may have been elevated, by your
birth, above the necessity of acquiring the means
of sustaining life by the labour either of hand or
head ; if this be the case, you ought not to de
spise those who have come into the world in less
favourable circumstances. If your origin has
been less fortunate, you must have supported
yourself, either by manual labour, or the exer
cise of your genius. Why should you think that
conduct disreputable in priests, which you pro
bably consider as laudable in yourself? I know not
whether you have as great a dislike of kings as
of priests ; but that you may be induced to think
more favourably of men of my profession, I will
just mention to you that the payment of tithes
is no new institution, but that they were paid in

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 203
the most ancient times, not to priests only, but
to kings. I could give you an hundred instances
of this : two may be sufficient, Abraham ,paid
tithes to the king of Salem, four hundred years
before the law of Moses was given. The king
of Salem was priest also of the most high God.
Priests, you see, existed in the world, and were
held in high estimation, for kings were priests,
long before the impostures, as you esteem them,
of the Jewish and Christian dispensations were
heard of. But as this instance is taken from a
book which you call " a book of contradictions
and lies" — the Bible ; — I will give you another,
from a book, to the authority of which, as it is
written by a profane author, you probably will
not object. Diogenes Laertius, in his life of
Solon, cites a letter of Pisistratus to that law
giver, in which he says — " I Pisistratus, the
tyrant, am contented with the stipends which
were paid to those who reigned before me ; the
people of Athens set apart a tenth of the fruits
of their land, not for my private use, but to be
expended in the public sacrifices, and for the
general good."

LETTER III.

Having done with what you call the grammati
cal evidence that .Moses was not the author of
the books attributed to him, you come to your
historical and chronological evidence ; and you
begin with Genesis. Your first argument is
taken from the single word — Dan — being found
in Genesis, when it appears from the book of
Judges, that the town of Laish was not called
Dan, till above three hundred and thirty years
after the death of Moses : therefore the writer of
Genesis, you conclude, must have lived after the
town of Laish had the name of Dan given to it.
Lest this objection should not be obvious enough
to a common capacity, you illustrate it in the
following manner : " Havre-de-Grace was called
Havre-Marat in 1793 ; should then any dateless
writing be found, in after times, with the name
of Havre-Marat, it would be certain evidence
that such a writing could not have been written

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 205
till after the year 1793." This is a wrong con
clusion. Suppose some hot republican should at
this day publish a new edition of any old history
of France, and instead of Havre-de-Grace should
write Havre-Marat ; and that, two or three thou
sand years hence, a man, like yourself, should,
on that account, reject the whole history as spu
rious, would he be justified in so doing? Would
it not be reasonable to tell him — that the name
Havre-Marat had been inserted, not by the ori
ginal author of the history, but by a subsequent
editor of it ; and to refer him, for a proof of the
genuineness of the book, to the testimony of the
whole French nation ? This supposition so obvi
ously applies to your difficulty, that I cannot
but recommend it to your impartial attention.
But if this solution does not please you, I desire
it may be proved, that the Dan, mentioned in
Genesis, was the same town as the Dan, men
tioned in Judges. I desire, further, to have it
proved, that the Dan mentioned in Genesis, was
the name of a town, and not of a river. It is
merely said — Abraham pursued them, the ene
mies of Lot, to Dan. Now a river was full as
likely as a town to stop a pursuit. Lot, we know,
was settled in the plain of Jordan ; and Jordan,

206 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
we know, was composed of the united streams
of two rivers, called Jqr and Dan.
Your next difficulty respects its being said in
Genesis — " These are the kings that reigned in
Edom before there reigned any king over the
children of Israel ; — this passage could only have
been written,you say (and I think you say rightly),
after the first king began to reign over Israel ; so
far from being written by Moses, it could not
havebeen written till the time of Saul at the least."
I admit this inference, but I deny its application.
A small addition to a book does not destroy
either the genuineness or the authenticity ofthe
whole book. I am not ignorant of the manner
in which commentators have answered this objec
tion of Spinoza, without making the concession
which I have made ; but I have no scruple in ad
mitting, that the passage in question, consisting
of nine verses containing the genealogy of some
kings of Edom, might have been inserted in the
book of Genesis, after the book of Chronicles
(which was called in Greek by a name importing
that it contained things left out in other books)
was written. The learned have shewn, that in
terpolations have happened to other books ; but

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 207
these insertions by other hands have never been
considered as invalidating the authority of those
books. " Take away from Genesis," you say, " the
belief that Moses was the author, on which only
the strange belief that it is the Word of God has
stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but
an anonymous book of stories, fables, traditionary
or invented absurdities, or of downright hes." —
What ! is it a story then, that the world had a
beginning, and that the author of it was God ?
If you deem this a story, I am not disputing with
a deistical philosopher, but with an atheistic
madman. It is a story, that our first parents
fell from a paradisaical state — that this earth was
destroyed by a deluge — that Noah and his family
were preserved in the ark — and that the world has
been repeopled by his descendants ? — Look into
a book so common that almost every body has it,
and so excellent that no person ought to be with
out it — Grotius on the truth of the Christian re
ligion — and you will there meet with abundant
testimony to the truth of all the principal facts
recorded in Genesis. The testimony is not that
of Jews, Christians, and priests; it is the testi-

208 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
mony of the philosophers, historians, and poets
of antiquity. The oldest book in the world is
Genesis ; and it is remarkable that those books
which come nearest to it in age, are those which
make, either the most distinct mention of, or the
most evident allusion to, the facts related in Ge
nesis concerning the formation of the world from
a chaotic mass, the primeval innocence and sub
sequent fall of man, the longevity of mankind
in the first ages of the world, the depravity of the
antediluvians, and the destruction of the world.
-—Read the tenth chapter of Genesis.— It may
appear to you to contain nothing but an un
interesting narration of the descendants of 5 hem,
Ham, and Japheth ; a mere fable, an invented
absurdity, a downright lie. No, Sir, it is one
of the most valuable, and the most venerable
records of antiquity. It explains what all pro
fane historians were ignorant of — the origin of
nations. Had it told us, as other books do, that
one nation had sprung out of the earth they inha
bited ; another from a cricket or a grasshopper ;
another from an oak; another from a mush
room ; another from a dragon's tooth ; then in
deed it would have merited the appellation you,
with so much temerity, bestow upon it. Instead
7

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 209
of these absurdities; it gives such an account ©f
the peopling the earth after the deluge, as no
other book in the world ever did give ; and the
truth of which all other books in the world, which
contain any thing on the subject, Gonfirm. The
last verse of the chapter says—" These are the
families of the sons of Noah, after their genera
tions, in their nations : and by these were the
nations divided in the earth, after the flood." It
would require great learning to trace out, pre
cisely, either the actual situation of all the coun
tries in which these founders of empires settled,
or to ascertain the extent of their dominions.
This, however, has been done by various authors,
to the satisfaction of all competent judges ; so
much at least to my satisfaction, that had I no
other proof of the authenticity of Genesis, I
should consider this as sufficient. But, without
the aid of learning, any man who can barely read
his Bible, and has but heard of such people as
the Assyrians, the Elamites, the Zydians, the
Medes, the Ionians, the Thracians, will rea
dily acknowledge that they had Assur, and
Elam, and Lud, and Madai, and Javan, and
Tiros, grandsons of Noah, for their respective
founders; and knowing this, he will not, I hope,

210 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE,
part with his Bible, as a system of fables. I am
no enemy to philosophy j but when philosophy
would rob me of my Bible, I must say of it, as
Cicero said of the twelve tables,— This little
book alone exceeds the libraries of all the philo
sophers in the weight of its authority, and in the
extent of its utility.
From the abuse of the Bible, you proceed to
that of Moses, and again bring forward the sub
ject of his wars in the land of Canaan. There
are many men who look upon all war (would to
God that all men saw it in the same hght !) with
extreme abhorrence, as afflicting mankind with
calamities not necessary, shocking to humanity,
and repugnant to reason. But is it repugnant to
reason that God should, by an express act of his
providence, destroy a wicked nation ? I am fond
of considering the goodness of God as the leading
principle of his conduct towards mankind, of con
sidering his justice as subservient to his mercy.
He punishes individuals and nations with the rod
of his wrath; but I am persuaded that all his
punishments originate in his abhorrence of sin ;
are calculated to lessen its influence; and are
proofs of his goodness ; inasmuch as it may not

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 211
be possible for Omnipotence itself to communi
cate supreme happiness to the human race, whilst
they continue servants of sin. The destruction
of the Canaanites exhibits to all nations, in all
ages, a signal proof of God's displeasure against
sin ; it has been to others, and it is to ourselves,
a benevolent warning. Moses would have been
the wretch you represent him, had he acted by
his own authority alone ; but you may as reason
ably attribute cruelty and murder to the judge
ofthe land in condemning criminals to death, as
butchery and massacre to Moses in executing
the command of God.
The Midianites, through the counsel of Ba
laam, and by the vicious instrumentality of their
women, had seduced a part of the Israelites to
idolatry ; to the impure worship of their infa
mous god Baalpeor: — for this offence, twenty-
four thousand Israelites had perished in a plague
from heaven, and Moses received a command
from God " to smite the Midianites who had be
guiled the people." An army was equipped, and
sent against Midian. When the army returned
victorious, Moses and the pniices ofthe congre
gation went to meet it ; " and Moses was wroth
p 2

212 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
with the officers." He observed the women cap
tives, and he asked with astonishrhent, "Have
ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these
Caused the children of Israel, through the counsel
of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord
in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague
among the congregation." He then gave an or-
der that the boys and the women should be put
tp death, but that the young maidens should be
kept alive for themselves. I see nothing in this
proceeding, but good policy, combined with
mercy. The young men might have become
dangerous avengers of, what they would esteem,
their country's wrongs; the mothers might have
again allured the Israelites to the love of licen.
tious pleasures and the practice of idolatry, and
brought another plague upon the congregation ;
but the young maidens, not being polluted by
the flagitious habits of their mothers, nor likely
to create disturbance by rebelHon, were kept
alive. You give a different turn to the matter ;
you say—" that thirty-two thousand women-
children were consigned to debauchery by the
order of Moses." — Prove this, and I will allow
that Moses was the horrid monster you make
him— prove this, and I will allow that the Bible

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 213
is what you call it — " a book of lies, wickedness,
and blasphemy." — Prove this, or excuse my
warmth if I say to you, as Paul said to Elymas
the sorcerer, who sought to turn away Sergius
Paulus from the faith, " O full of all subtilty, and
all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy
of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to per
vert the right ways of the Lord ?" — I did not,
when I began these letters, think that I should
have been moved to this severity of rebuke, by
any thing you could have written ; but when so
gross a misrepresentation is made of God's pro
ceedings, coolness would be a crime. The wo
men-children were not reserved for the purposes
of debauchery, but of slavery ; a custom abhor
rent from our manners, but every where prac
tised in former times, and still practised in coun
tries where the benignity ofthe christian religion
has not softened the ferocity of human nature.
You here admit a part of the account given in
the Bible respecting the expedition against Mi
dian to be a true account ; it is not unreasonable
to desire that you will admit the whole, or shew"
sufficient reason why you admit one part, and re
ject the other. I will mention the part to which
you have paid no attention. The Israelitish
8

214 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
army consisted but of twelve thousand men, a
mere handful when opposed to the people of
Midian ; yet, when the officers made a muster
of their troops after their return from the war,
they found that they had not lost a single man !
This circumstance struck them as so decisive an
evidence of God's interposition, that out of the
spoils they had taken they offered ** an oblation
to the Lord, an atonement for their souls." Do
but believe what the captains of thousands, and
the captains of hundreds, believed at the time
when these things happened, and we shall never
more hear of your objection to the Bible, from
its account of the wars of Moses.
You produce two or three other objections re
specting the genuineness of the first five books
of the Bible. — I cannot stop to notice them :
every commentator answers them in a manner,
suited to the apprehension of even a mere Eng
lish reader. You calculate, to the thousandth
part of an inch, the length of. the iron bed of
Og the king of Basan ; but you do not prove
that the bed was too big for the body, or that a
Patagonian would have been lost in it. You make
no allowance for the size of a royal bed; nor ever

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 215
suspect that king Og might have been possessed
with the same kind of vanity, which occupied the
mind of king Alexander, when he ordered his-
soldiers to enlarge the size of their beds, that
they might give to the Indians, in succeeding
ages, a great idea of the prodigious stature of
a Macedonian. In many parts of your work
you speak much in commendation of science.
I join with you in every commendation you can
give it ; but you speak of it in such a manner
as gives room to believe, that you are a great
proficient in it ; if this be the case, I would re
commend a problem to your attention, the so
lution of which you will readily aUow to be far
above the powers of a man conversant only, as
you represent priests and bishops to be, in hie,
hcec, hoc. The problem is this — To determine
the height to which a human body, preserving
its similarity of figure, may be augmented, be
fore it will perish by its own weight. — When you
have solved this problem, we shall know whether
the bed of the king of Basan was too big for any
giant ; whether the existence of a man twelve or
fifteen feet high is in the nature of things impos
sible. My philosophy teaches me to doubt of
many things ; but it does not teach me to reject

216 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
every testimony which is opposite to my expe
rience : had I been born in Shetland, I could, on
proper testimony, have beheved in the existence
ofthe Lincolnshire ox, or of the largest dr&y-
horse in London ; though the oxen and horses in
Shetland had not been bigger than mastiffs.

LETTER IV.

Having finished your objections to the genuine
ness of the book of Moses, you proceed to your
remarks on the book of Joshua ; and from its in
ternal evidence you endeavour to prove, that
this book was not written by Joshua. — What
then? what is your conclusion? — " that it is ano
nymous and without authority." — Stop a little ;
your conclusion is not connected with your pre
mises; your friend Euclid would have been
ashamed of it. " Anonymous, and therefore
without authority!" I have noticed this sole
cism before ; but as you frequently bring it for
ward, and, indeed, your book stands much in
need of it, I will submit to your consideration
another observation upon the subject. The book
called Fleta is anonymous ; but it is not on that
account without authority.— -Doomsday book is
anonymous, and was written above seven' hun
dred years ago; yet our courts of law do not hold

218 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
it to be without authority, as to the matters of
fact related in it. Yes, you will say, but this
book has been preserved with singular care
amongst the records of the nation. And who
told you that the Jews had no records, or that
they did not preserve them with singular care ?
Josephus says the contrary; and, in the Bible
itself, an appeal is made to many books, which
have perished ; such as the book of Jasher, the
book of Nathan, of Abijah, of Iddo, of Jehu, of
natural history of Solomon, of the acts of Ma
nasseh, and others which might be mentioned.
If any one having access to the journals of the
lords and commons, to the books of the treasury,
war-office, privy-council, and other public do
cuments, should at this day write an history of
the reigns of George the First and Second, and
should publish it without his name, would any
man, three or four hundreds or thousands of years
hence, question the authority of that book, when
he knew that the whole British nation had re
ceived it as an authentic book, from the time of
its first publication to the age in which he lived?
This supposition is in point. The books of the
Old Testament were composed from the records
ofthe Jewish nation, and they have been received

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 219
as true by that nation, from the time in which
they were written to the present day. Dodsley's
Annual Register is an anonymous book, we only
know the name of its editor ; the New Annual
Register is an anonymous book; the Reviews are
anonymous books;' but do we, or will our poste
rity, esteem these books as of no authority? On
the contrary, they are admitted at present, and
will be received in after-ages, as authoritative re
cords of the civil, military, and literary history
of England and of Europe. So little founda
tion is there for our being startled by your asser
tion, " It is anonymous and without authority."
If I am right in this reasoning, (and I protest
to you that I do not see any error in it,) all the
arguments you adduce in proof that the book of
Joshua was not written by Joshua, nor that of
Samuel by Samuel, are nothing to the purpose
for which you have brought them forward: these
books may be books of authority, though all you
advance against the genuineness of them should
be granted. No article of faith is injured by al
lowing that there is no such positive proof, when
or by whom these, and some other books of Holy
Scripture, were written, as to exclude all possi.

220 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
bility of doubt and cavil. There is no necessity,
indeed, to allow this. The chronological and his
torical difficulties, which others before you have
produced, have been answered, and as to the
greatest part of them, so well answered, that I
will not waste the reader's time by entering into
a particular examination of them.
You make yourself merry with what you call
the tale of the sun standing still upon mount Gi-
beon, and the moon in the valley of Ajalon ; and
you say that " the story detects itself, because
there is not "a nation in the world that knows
any thing about it." How can you expect that
there should, when there is not a nation in the
world whose annals reach this sera by many hun
dred years ? It happens, however, that you are
probably mistaken as to the fact: a confused tra
dition concerning this miracle, and a similar one
in the time of Ahaz, when the sun went back
ten degrees, had been preserved among one of
the most ancient nations^ as we are informed by
ette ofthe most ancient historians. Herodotus, in
his Euterpe, speaking ofthe Egyptian priests, says
— " They told me that the sun four times devi
ated from his course^ having twice risen where

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 221
he uniformly goes down, and twice gone down
where he uniformly rises. This however had pro
duced no alteration in the climate of Egypt, the
fruits of the earth and the phaenomena of the Nile
had always been the same." (Beloe's Transl.)
The last part of this observation confirms the
conjecture, that this account of the Egyptian
priests had a reference to the two, miracles re
specting the sun mentioned in Scripture; for they
were not of that kind, which could introduce any
change in climates or seasons. You would have
been contented to admit the account of this mi
racle as a fine piece ofpoetical imagery;— you may
have seen some Jewish doctors and some Christian
commentators, who consider it as such ; but im
properly in my opinion, I think it idle, at least,
if not impious, to undertake to explain how the
miracle was performed ; but one who is not able
to explain the mode of doing a thing, argues ill
if he thence infers that the thing was not done.
We are perfectly ignorant how the sun was
formed, how the planets were projected at the
creation, how they are still retained in their or
bits by the power of gravity; but we admit, not
withstanding, that the sun was formed, that the
planets were then projected, and tha;L they are

222 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
still retained in their orbits. The machine of
the universe is in the hand of God ; he can stop
the motion of any part, or ofthe whole of it, with
less trouble and less danger of injuring it, than
you can stop your watch. In testimony of the
reality of the miracle, the author of the book
says — " Is this not written in the book of
Jasher?" — No author in his senses would have
appealed in proof of his veracity, to a book
which did not exist, or in attestation of a fact,
which, though it did exist, was not recorded in
it ; we may safely therefore conclude that, at the
time the book of Joshua was written, there was
such a book as the book of Jasher, and that the
miracle of the sun's standing still was recorded
in that book. But this observation, you will say,
does not prove the fact of the sun's having stood
stiU ; I have not produced it as a proof of that
fact ; but it proves that the author of the book
of Joshua believed the fact, and that the people
of Israel admitted the authority of the book of
Jasher. An appeal to a fabulous book would
have been as senseless an insult upon their un
derstanding, as it would have been upon ours,
had Rapin appealed to the Arabian Nights' En
tertainment, as a proof of the battle of Hastings.

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 223
I cannot attribute much weight to your argu
ment against the genuineness of the book of Jo
shua, from its being said that — " Joshua burned
Ai, and made it an heap for ever, even a de
solation unto this day." Joshua lived twenty-four
years after the burning of Ai : and if he wrote
his history in the latter part of his life, what ab
surdity is there in saying, Ai is still in ruins, or
Ai is in ruins to this very day ? A young man
who had seen the heads of the rebels, in forty-
five, when they were first stuck upon poles at
Temple Bar, might, twenty years afterwards, in
attestation of his veracity in speaking of the fact
have justly said — And they are there to this very*
day. Whoever wrote the gospel of St. Matthew,
it was written not many centuries, probably (I
had almost said certainly) not a quarter of one
century after the death of Jesus ; yet the author,
speaking ofthe Potter's field which had been pur
chased by the chief priests with the money they
had given Judas to betray his master, says, that
it was therefore called the field of blood unto this
day ; and in another place he says, that the story
of the body of Jesus being stolen out of the se
pulchre was commonly reported among the Jews
until this day. Moses, in his old age, had' made

224 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
use of a similar expression, when he put the Is
raelites in mind of what the Lord had done to
the Egyptians in the Red Sea, " The Lord hath
destroyed them unto this day." (Deut. xi. 4.)
In the last chapter of the book of Joshua it is
related, that Joshua assembled all the tribes of
Israel to Shechem ; and there,, in the presence
of the elders and principal men of Israel, he reca*
pitulated, in a short speech, all that God had
done for their nation, from the calling of Abra
ham to that time, when they were settled in the
land which God had promised to their forefa-
thers- In finishing his speech, he said to them
— " Choose you this day whom you will serve,
whether the gods which your fathers served, that
were on the other side of the flood, or the gods
ofthe Amorites, in whose land' ye dwell; but as
for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
And the people answered and said, God forbid
that we should forsake the Lord to serve other
gods." Joshua urged farther, that God would
not suffer them to worship other gods in fellow
ship with him ; they answered that " they would
serve the Lord." Joshua then said to them, " Ye
are witnesses against yourselves that ye haye cho-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE* 225
sen you the Lord to serve him. And they said,
We are witnesses." Here was a solemn cove*
nant between Joshua, on the part of the Lord,
and all the men of Israel, on their own part. —
The text then says — " So Joshua made a cove
nant with the people that day, and set them a
statute and an ordinance in Sechem, and Joshua
wrote these words in the book ofthe Law of God."
Here is a proof of two things — first, that there
was then, a few years after the death of Moses,
existing a book called The book of the Law of
God; the same, without doubt, which Moses
had written, and committed to the custody of
the Levites, that it might be kept in the ark of
the covenant ofthe Lord, that it might be a wit
ness against them — secondly, that Joshua wrote
a part at least of his own transactions in that very
book, as an addition to it. It is not a proof that
he wrote all his own transactions in any book ;
but I submit entirely to the judgment of every
candid man, whether this proof of his having re
corded a very material transaction, does not
make it probable that he recorded other material
transactions ; that he wrote the chief part ofthe
book of Joshua ; and that such things as hap
pened after his death, have been inserted in it by
Q

226 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
others, in order to render the history more com
plete. The book of Joshua, chap. vi. ver. 26, is
quoted in the first book of Kings, chap. xvi. ver.
44. " In his (Ahab's) days did ,Hiel the Beth..
elite build Jericho : he laid the foundation there.
of in Abiram his first-born, and set up the gates.
thereof in his youngest son Segub, according, to
the word of the Lord, which he spake by Joshua.
the son of Nun." Here is a proof that the book
of Joshua is older than the first book of Kings ;
but that is not all which may be reasonably in
ferred, I do not say proved, from this quotation..
• — It may be inferred from the phrase^— according,
to the word of the Lord, which he spake by Jo
shua the son of Nun — that Joshua wrote down,
the word which the Lord had spoken. In Ba-
ruch (which, though an apocryphal book, is au
thority for this purpose) there is a similar phrase
—as thou spakestby thy servant Moses in the day
when thou didst coinmand him to write thy law.

I think it unnecessary to make any observa
tions on what -you say relative to the book, of
Judges ; but I cannot pass unnoticed your cen-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 227
sure of the book of Ruth, which you call " an
idle bungling story, foolishly told, nobody knows
by whom, about a strolling country girl creeping
slily to bed to her cousin Boaz ; pretty stuff, in
deed," you exclaim, " to be called the word of
God !" — It seems to me that you do not perfectly
comprehend what is meant by the expression —
the word of God — or the divine authority of the
Scriptures : — I will explain it to you in the words
of Dr. Law, late bishop of Carlisle, and in those
of St. Austin. My first quotation is from bishop'
Law's Theory of Religion, a book not undeserv
ing your notice. — " The true sense then of the
divine authority of the books of the Old Testa
ment, and which, perhaps, is enough to denomi
nate them in general divinely inspired, seems to
be this ; that as in those times God has all along,
beside the inspection, or superintendency of his
general providence, interfered upon particular
occasion's, by giving express commissions to some
persons (thence called prophets) to declare his
will invarious manners, and degrees of evidence,
as best suited the occasion, time, and nature of
the subject; and in all other cases, left them
wholly to themselves : in like manner, he has in
terposed his rnore immediate assistance, and no-
Q2

228 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
tified it to them, as they did to the world,) in the
recording of these revelations ; so far as that was
necessary, amidst the common, (but from hence
termed sacred) history of those times ; and mixed
with various other occurrences; in which the his
torian's own natural qualifications were sufficient
to enable him to relate things, with all the accura
cy they required." — The passage from St. Austin
is this — "lam of opinion, that those men,to whom
the HolyGhost revealed what ought tobe received
as authoritative in religion, might write some
things as men with historical diligence, and other
things as prophets by divine inspiration ; and that
these things are so distinct, that the former may
be attributed to themselves as contributing to the
increase of knowledge, and the latter to God
speaking by them things appertaining to the
authority of religion." Whether this opinion
be right or wrong, I do not here inquire ;, it is
the opinion of many learned men and good Chris
tians ; and if you will adopt it as your opinion,
you will see cause, perhaps, to become a Chris
tian yourself; you will see cause to consider chro
nological, geographical, or genealogical errors —
apparent mistakes or real contradictions as to
historical facts — needless repetitions and trifling

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 229
interpolations — indeed you will see cause to con
sider all the principal objections of your book to
be absolutely without foundation. Receive but
the Bible as composed by upright and well in
formed, though, in some points, fallible men,
(for I exclude all fallibility when they profess to
deliver the word of God,) and you must receive it
as a book revealing to you, in many parts, the
express will of God ; and in other parts, relating
to you the ordinary history of the times. Give
but the authors of the Bible that credit which
you give to other historians ; believe them to de
liver the word of God, when they tell you that
they do so ; believe when they relate other things
as of themselves, and not of the Lord, that they
wrote to the best of their knowledge and capa
city ; and you will be in your belief something
very different from a deist : you may not be al
lowed to aspire to the character of an orthodox
believer, but you will not be an unbeliever in the
divine authority ofthe Bible; though you should
admit human mistakes and human opinions to
exist in some parts of it. This I take to be the
first step towards the removal of the doubts of
many sceptical men ; and when they are ad
vanced thus far, the grace of God, assisting a

230 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
teachable disposition, and a pious intention, may
carry them on to perfection.
As to Ruth, you do an injury to her charac
ter. She was not a strolling country girl. She
had been married ten years ; and being left a
widow without children, she accompanied her
mother-in-law, returning into her native coun
try, out of which with her husband and her two
sons she had been driven by a famine. The dis
turbances in France have driven many men with
their families to America ; if, ten years hence,
a woman, having lost her husband and her chil
dren, should return to France with a daughter-
in-law, would you be justified in calling the
daughter-in-law a strolling country girl? — But
she " crept slily to bed to her cousin Boaz." —
I do not find it so in the history — as a person im
ploring protection, she laid herself down at the
foot of an aged kinsman's bed, and she rose up
with as much innocence as she had laid herself
down ; she was afterwards married to Boaz, and
reputed by all her neighbours a virtuous woman;
and they were more likely to know her character
than you are. Whoever reads the book of Ruth,
bearing in mind the simplicity of ancient man-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 231 .
ners, will find it an interesting story of a poor
young woman following, in a strange land, the
advice, and affectionately attaching herself to
the fortunes, of the mother of her deceased hus
band. The two books of Samuel come next under
your review. You proceed to shew that these
books were not written by Samuel, that they are
anonymous, and thence you conclude without
authority. I need not here repeat what I have
said upon the fallacy of your conclusion ; and as
to your proving that the books were not written
by Samuel, you might have spared yourself some
trouble, if you had recollected, that it is generally
admitted, that Samuel did not write any part of
the second book which bears his name, and only
a part of the first. It would, indeed, have been
an inquiry not undeserving your notice, in many
parts of your work, to have examined what was
the opinion of learned men respecting the authors
of the several books bf the Bible ; you would
have found, that you were in many places fight
ing a phantom of your own raising, and proving
what was genetally adhiit ted. Very little cer»
tainty, I think, can at this time be obtained on
6

232 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
this subject ; but that you may have some know
ledge of what has been conjectured by men of
judgment, I will quote to you a passage from Dr.
Hartley's Observations on Man. The author
himself does not vouch for the truth of his ob
servation, for he begins it with a supposition.
 " I suppose then, that the Pentateuch con
sists of the writings of Moses, put together by
Samuel, with a very few additions; that the
books of Joshua and Judges were, in like man
ner, collected by him ; and the book of Ruth,
with the first part ofthe first book of Samuel, writ
ten by him ; that the latter part ofthe first book
of Samuel, and the second book were written
by the prophets who succeeded Samuel, suppose
Nathan and Gad; that the book of Kings and
Chronicles are extracts from the records of the
succeeding prophets, concerning their own times,
and from the public genealogical tables, made by
Ezra ; that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah
are collections of like records, some written by
Ezra and Nehemiah, and some by their prede
cessors ; that the book of Esther was written by
some eminent Jew, in or near the times of the
transaction there recorded, perhaps Mordecai ;
the book of Job by a Jew, of an uncertain time;

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 4^33
the Psalms by David, and other pious persons ;
the books of Proverbs and Canticles by Solomon ;
the book of Ecclesiastes by Solomon, or perhaps
by a Jew of later times, speaking in his person,
but not with an intention to make him pass for
the author ; the prophecies by the prophets whose
names they bear; and the books ofthe New Tes
tament by the persons to whom they are usually
ascribed."  1 have produced this passage
to you, not merely to shew you that, in a great
part of your work, you are attacking what no
person is interested in defending ; but to con
vince you that a wise and good man, and a firm
believer in revealed religion, for such was Dr.
Hartley, and no priest, did not reject the anony
mous books of the Old Testament as books with
out authority. I shall not trouble either you or
myself with anymore observations on that head;
you may ascribe the two books of Kings, and the
two books of Chronicles, to what authors you
please ; I am satisfied with knowing that the an
nals of the Jewish nation were written in the
time of Samuel, and, probably, in all succeeding
times, by men of ability, who lived in or near
the times in which they write. Of the truth of
this observation we have abundant proof, not

2-# AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
only from the testimony of Josephus, and ofthe
writers ofthe Talmuds, but from the Old Testa
ment itself. I will content myself with citing a
few places — " Now the acts of David the king,
first and last, behold they are written in the book
of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan
the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer."
1 Chron. xxix. 29. — " Now the rest of the acts
of Solomon, first and last, are they not written
in the book of Nathan the prpphet, and in the
prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the vi
sions of lddo the seer?" 2 Chron. ix. 29. — "Now
the acts of Rehoboam, first and last, are they not
written in the book of Shemaiah the prophet,
and of lddo the seer, concerning genealogies ?"
2 Chron. xii. 15. — " Now the rest of the acts of
Jehoshaphat, first and last, behold they are writ
ten in the book of Jehu the son of Hanani,"
2 Chron. xx. 34. Is it possible for writers to give
a stronger evidence of their veracity than by re
ferring their readers to the books from which
they had extracted the materials of their history?
" The two books of Kings," you say, " are
little more than an history of assassinations, trea
chery, and war." That the kings of Israel and

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 235
Judah were many of them very wicked persons,
is evident from the history which is given of them
in the Bible; but it ought to be remembered that
their wickedness is not to be attributed to their
religion; nor were the people of Israel chosen to
be the people of God, on account of their wick
edness ; nor was their being chosen, a cause of
it. One may wonder, indeed, that, having ex
perienced so many singular marks of God's good"
ness towards their nation, they did not at once
become, and continue to be, (what, however,
they have long been,) strenuous advocates for the
worship of one only God, the Maker of heaven
and earth. This was the purpose for which they
were chosen, and this purpose has been accom
plished. For above three and twenty hundred
years the Jews have uniformly witnessed to all the
nations of the earth the unity of God, and his
abomination of idolatry. But as you look upon
" the appellation of the Jews being God's chosen
people as a Ue, which the priests and leaders of
the Jews had invented to cover the baseness of
their own characters, and which Christian priests,
sometimes as corrupt, and often as cruel, have
professed to believe," I will plainly state to you
the reasons which induce me to believe that it is

236 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
no lie, and I hope they will be such reasons as
you will not attribute either to cruelty or corr
ruption. To any one contemplating the universality of
things, and the fabric of nature, this globe of
earth, with the men dwelling on its surface, will
not appear (exclusive ofthe divinity of their souls)
of more importance than an hillock of ants ; all
of which, some with corn, some with eggs, some
without any thing, run hither and thither, bust
ling about a little heap of dust. — This is a thought
of the immortal Bacon; and it is admirably fitted
to humble the pride of philosophy, attempting to
prescribe forms to the proceedings, and bounds
to the attributes of God. We may as easily
circumscribe infinity, as penetrate the secret pur
poses ofthe Almighty. There are but two ways by
which I can acquire any knowledge of the nature
ofthe Supreme Being, — by reason, and by revela
tion ; to you, who reject revelation, there is but one.
Now my reason informs me, that God has made
a great difference between the kinds of animals,
with respect to their capacity of enjoying happi
ness. Every kind is perfect in its order ; but if
we compare different kinds together, one willap-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 287
pear to be greatly superior to another. An ani
mal, which has but one sense, has but one source
of happiness; but if it be supplied with what is
suited to that sense, it enjoys all the happiness
of which it is capable, and is in its nature per
fect. Other sorts of animals, which have two or
three senses, and which have also abundant
means of gratifying them, enjoy twice or thrice
as much happiness as those do which have but
one. In the same sort of animals there is a great
difference amongst individuals, one having the
senses more perfect, and the body less subject to
disease, than another. Hence, if I were to form
a judgment of the divine goodness by this use of
my reason, I could not but say that it was par
tial and unequal. — " What shall we say then? Is
God unjust ? God forbid !" His goodness may
be unequal, without being imperfect ; it must be
estimated from the whole, and not from a part.
Every order of beings is so sufficient for its own
happiness, and so conducive at the same time to
the happiness of every other, that in one view
it seems to be made for itself alone, and in an.
other not for itself but for every other. Could
we comprehend the whole ofthe immense fabric
which God hath formed, I am persuaded, that

238 AN APbLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
we should see nothing but perfection, harmony,
and beauty, in every part of it; but whilst we
dispute about parts, we neglect the whole, and
discern nothing but supposed anomalies and de
fects. The maker of a watch, or the builder of
a ship, is not to be blamed because a spectator
cannot discover either the beauty or the use of
disjointed parts. And shall we dare to accuse God
of injustice; for not having distributed the gifts
ofnaturein the same degree to all kinds of ani-1
mais, when it is probable that this very inequa
lity' of distribution may be the means of pro
ducing the greatest sum total of happiness to the
whole system? In' exactly the' same manner may
we reason concerning the acts of God's especial
providence. If we consider any one act, such as
that of appointing the Jews to be his peculiar
people, as unconnected with every other, it may
appear to be a partial' display of his goodness j
it may excite doubts concerning, the wisdom or
the benignity of his divine nature." But if we
connect the history of the Jews with that of otheif
nations, frbm the most remote antikjuity to the
present time, we shall discover that they were
not chosen so much for their own benefit, or on
account of their own merit, as for the general

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 239
benefit of mankind, To the Egyptians, Chal
deans, Grecians, Romans, to all the people of
the earth, they were formerly, and they are still
to all civilized nations, a beacon set upon an
hill, to warn them from idolatry, to light them to
the sanctuary of a God holy, just, and good.
Why should we suspect such a dispensation: of
being a lie ? when even from the httle which we'
can understand of it, we see that it is founded in
wisdom, carried on for the general good, and
analogous to all that reason teaches us concern
ing the nature of God.
Several things you observe' are mentioned in
the book of the Kings, such as the drying up of
Jeroboam's hand, the ascent of Elijah into hea
ven, the destruction of the children who mocked
Elisha, and the resurrection of a dead man ; —
these circumstances being mentioned in the book
of Kings, and not mentioned in that of Chro
nicles, is a proof to you that they are lies. I es
teem it a very erroneous mode of : reasoning,
which, from the silence of one author concerning)
a particular circumstance, infers the want of ve4
racity in another who mentions iti Affld this
observation is still more cogenty whenappKed:to>

240 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
a book which is only a supplement to, 01. ail
abridgment of, other books: and under this de
scription the book of Chronicles has been consi.
dered by all writers. But though you will not
believe the miracle of the drying up of Jero
boam's hand, what can you say to the prophecy
which was then delivered concerning the future
destruction of the idolatrous altar of Jeroboam ?
The prophecy is thus written, 1 Kings xiii. 2. —
" Behold, a child shall be born unto the house of
David; Josiah by name, and upon thee (the altar)
shall he offer the priests of the high places." —
Here is a clear prophecy ; the name, family, and
office of a particular person are described in the
year 975 (according to the Bible chronology) be
fore Christ. Above 350 years after the delivery
of the prophecy, you will find, by consulting the
second book of Kings, (chap, xxiii. 15, 16.) this
prophecy fulfilled in all its parts.
You make a calculation that Genesis was not
written till 800 years after Moses, and that it is
of the same age, and you may probably think of
the same authority, as iEsop's Fables. You give
what you call the evidence of this, the air of a
demonstration — "It has but two stages: — first*

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 241:
the account of the kings of Edom, mentioned in
Genesis, is taken from Chronicles, and therefore
the book of Genesis was written after the book of
Chronicles ; — secondly, the book of Chronicles
was not begun to be written till after Zedekiah,
in whose time Nebuchadnezzar conquered Jeru
salem, 588 years before Christ, and more than
860 years after Moses." — Having answered this
objection before, I might be excused taking any
more notice of it; but as you build much, in this
place, upon the strength of your argument, I
will shew you its weakness, when it is properly
stated.— A few verses in the book of Genesis
could not be written by Moses :— therefore no
part of 'Genesis could be written by Moses ;— a
child would deny your thereJbre.-^Agam, a few
verses in the book of Genesis could not be writ
ten by Moses, because they speak of kings of
Israel, there having been no kings of Israel in
the time of Moses ; and therefore they could not
:be written by Samuel, or by Solomon, or by any
other person who lived after there were kings in
Israel, except by the author of the book of
Chronicles ; — this is also an illegitimate inference
from your position. — Again, a few verses in the
book of Genesis are, word for word, the same
R

242 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
as a few verses in the book of Chronicles ^there
fore the author of the book of Genesis must
have taken them from Chronicles; — another lame
conclusion ! Why might not the author of the.
book of Chronicles have taken them from Gene
sis, as he has taken many other genealpgies,
supposing them to have been inserted in Genesis
by Samuel? But where, you may ask, could
Samuel, or any other person have found the ac
count of the kings of Edom ? Probably, in the
public records of the nation, which were certainly
as open for inspection tp Samuel, and the other
prophets, as they were to the author of Chroni
cles. I hold it needless to employ more time
on the subject.

LETTER V.

At length you come to two books, Ezra and
Nehemiah, which you allow to be genuine books,
giving an account of the return ofthe Jews from
the Babylonian captivity, about 536 years before
Christ: but then you say, " Those accounts are
nothing to us, nor to any other persons, unless
it be to the Jews, as a part of the history of
their nation ; and there is just as much of the
Word of God in those books as there is in any of
the histories of France, or in Rapin's History of
England." Here let us stop a moment, and try
if from your own concessions it be not possible to
confute your argument. Ezra and Nehemiah,
you grant, are genuine books — " but they are
nothing to us !" — The very first verse of Ezra
says — the prophecy of Jeremiah was fulfilled : —
is it nothing to us to know that Jeremiah, was a
true prophet? Do but grant that the Supreme
Being communicated to any of the sons of men
R2

244 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
a knowledge of future events, so that their pre>-
dictions were plainly verified, and you will find
little difficulty m admitting the truth of revealed
religion. Is it nothing to us to know that, five
hundred and thirty-six years before Christ, the
books of Chronicles, Kings, Judges, Joshua,
Deuteronomy, Numbers, Leviticus, Exodus,
Genesis, every book the authority of which you
have attacked, are all referred to by Ezra and
Nehemiah, as authentic books, containing the
history ofthe Israelitish nation from Abraham to
that very time ?— Is it nothing to us to know that
the history of the Jews is true ?— It is every
thing to us ; for if that history be not true^
Christianity must be false. The Jews are the
roofy we are branches " grafted in amongst
them ;" to them pertain " the adoption, and
the glory, and the covenants, and the giving cf
the law, and the service of God, and the pro
mises ; whose are the fathers, and of whom, as
concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over
all, God blessed for ever. Amen."
The history of the Old Testament has, without
doubt, some difficulties in it ; but a minute phi
losopher, who busies himself in searching them

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 24.5
out, whilst he neglects to contemplate the har
mony of all its parts, the wisdom and goodness
of God displayed throughout the whole, appears
to me to be like a purblind man, who, in sur
veying a picture, objects to the simplicity ofthe
design, and the beauty of the execution, from
the asperities he has discovered in the canvas and:
the colouring. The history of the Old Testa
ment, notwithstanding the real difficulties which
occur in it, notwithstandingthe scoffs and cavils of
unbelievers, appears to me to have such internal
evidences of its truth, to be so corroborated by
the most ancient profane histories, so confirmed
by the present circumstances of the world, that
if I were not a Christian, I would become a Jew.
You think this history to be a collection of lies,
contradictions, blasphemies.: I look upon it to
be the oldest, the truest, the most comprehen
sive, and the most important history in. the world.
I consider it as giving more satisfactory proofs
ofthe being and attributes of God, ofthe origin
and end of human kihd, than ever were attained
by the deepest researches of the most enlightened
philosophers. The exercise of our reason in the
investigation of truths respecting the nature of
God, and the future expectations of human kind,
6

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
is highly useful ; but I hope I shall be pardoned
by the metaphysicians in saying, that the chief
utility of such disquisitions consists in this — that
they bring us acquainted with the weakness of
our intellectual faculties. I do not presume to
measure other men by my standard ; you may
have clearer notions than I am able to form of
the infinity of space ; of the eternity of dura
tion; of necessary existence ; of the connection
between necessary existence and intelligence,
between intelligence and benevolence ; you may
see nothing in the universe but organized mat
ter; or, rejecting a material, you may see nothing
but an ideal world. With a mind weary of con
jecture, fatigued by doubt, sick of disputation,
eager for knowledge, anxious for certainty, and
unable, to attain it by the best use of my reason
in matters of the utmost importance, I have
long ago turned my thoughts to an impartial ex
amination of the proofs on which revealed reli
gion is grounded, and I am convinced of its
truth. This examination is a subject within the
reach of human capacity; you have come to
one conclusion respecting it, I have come to
another ; both of us cannot be right ; may God
forgive him that is in an error !

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 247
You ridicule, in a note, the story of <tn angel
appearing to Joshua. Your mirth you will per
ceive to be misplaced, when you consider the de
sign of this appearance; it was to assure Joshua,
that the same God who had appeared to Moses,
ordering him to pull off his shoes,becausehe stood
on holy ground, had nOw appeared to himself.
Was this no encouragement to a man who was
about to engage in War with many nations? Had
it no tendency to confirm his faith ? Was it no
lesson to him to Pbeyj in all things, the com
mands of God, and to give the glory of his con
quests to the Author of them, the God of Abra
ham, Isaac, and Jacob ? As to your wit about
pulling off the shoe, it originates, I think, in
your ignorance ; you ought to have known, that
this rite was an indication of reverence for the
divine presence ; and that the custom of enter
ing barefoot into their temples subsists, in some
countries, to this day.
You allow the book of Ezra to be a genuine
book ; but that the author of it may not escape
without a blow, you say, that in matters of re
cord it is not to be depended on ; and as a proof
of your assertion, you tell us that the total! amount
3

248 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
of the numbers who returned from Babylon does
not correspond with the particulars ; and that
every child may haye an argument for its infide
lity, you display the particulars, and shew your
own skill in arithmetic, by summing them up.
And can you suppose that Ezra, a man of great
learnTng, knew so little of science, so little of the
lowest branch of science, that he could not give
his readers the sum total of sixty particular sums ?
You know, undoubtedly, that the Hebrew letters
denoted also numbers ; and that there was such
a great similarity between some of these letters,
that it was extremely easy for a transcriber of .a
manuscript to mistake a n for a 3 (or 2 for 20), a 3 ,
for a _ (or 3 for 50), a n for n (or 4 for 200). Now
what have we to do with numerical contradic
tions in the Bible, but to attribute them, wherever
they occur, to this obvious source of error — the
inattention of the transcriber in writing one let
ter for another that was like it ?
I should extend those letters to a length trou
blesome to the reader, to you, and to. myself, if
I answered minutely every objection you have
made, and rectified every error into which you
have fallen ; it may be sufficient briefly to notice

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 249
some of the chief. The character represented in
Job under the name of Satan is, you say, " the
first and the only time this name is mentioned in
the Bible." Now I find this name, as denoting
an enemy, frequently occurring in the Old Tes
tament ; thus 2 Sam. xix. 22. « What have I to
do with you, ye sons of Zeruiah, that you should
this day be adversaries unto me ?" In the origi
nal it is satans unto me. Again, 1 Kings v. 4.
« The Lord my God hath given me rest on every
side, so that there is neither adversary, nor evil
occurrent"' — in the original, neither satan nor
evil. I need not mention other places ; these
are sufficient to shew, that the word satan, de
noting an adversary, does occur in various places
of the Old Testament ; and it is extremely pro
bable to me, that the root satan was introduced
into the Hebrew and other eastern languages, to
denote an adversary, from its having been the
proper name of the great enemy of mankind. I
know it is an opinion of Voltaire, that the word
satan is not older than the Babylonian captivity ;
this is a mistake, for it is met with in the hundred
and ninth Psalm, which all allow to have been
written by David, long before the captivity.
Now we are upon this subject, permit me to re-

250 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
commend to your consideration the universality
of the doctrine concerning an evil being, who in
the beginning of time had opposed himself,
who still continues to PppPse himself, to the
supreme source of all good. Amongst all na
tions, in all ages, this opinion prevailed, that hu
man affairs were subject to the will of the gods,
and regulated by their interposition. Hettce has
been derived whatever we have read ofthe wan.
dering stars of the Chaldeans, two of them be-
neficent,and two malignant— hence the Egyptian
Typho and Osiris — the Persian Arimanius and
Oromasdes — the Grecian celestial and infernal
Jove — the Brama and the Zupay of the Indians,
Peruvians, Mexicans — the good and evil princi
ple, by whatever names they may be called, of
all other barbarous nations— and hence the struc
ture of the whole book of Job, in whatever light,
of history or drama, it be considered. Now does
it not appear reasonable to suppose, that an opi
nion so ancient and so universal has arisen from
tradition concerning the fall of our first parents;
disfigured indeed, and obscured, as all traditions
must be, by many fabulous additions ?
The Jews, you tell us, " never prayed but
when they were in trouble." I do not believe

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 251
this of the Jews; but that they prayed more fer
vently when they were in trouble than at other
times, may be true of the Jews, and I appre
hend is true of all nations and all individuals. But
" the Jews never prayed for any thing but vic
tory, vengeance, and riches."— Read Solomon's
prayer at the dedication of the temple, ahd
blush for your assertion,— illiberal and unchari
table in the extreme!
It appears, you observe, " to hare been the
custom of the heathens to personify both virtue
and vice, by statues and images, as is done now-
a-days both by statuary and by paintings ; but it
does not follow from this that they worshipped
them any more than we do." Not worshipped
them ! What think you of the golden image
which Nebuchadnezzar set up ?— Was it not wor
shipped by the princes, the rulers, the judges,
the people, the nations, and the languages of
the Babylonian empire ? Not worshipped them 1
What think' you of the decree of the Roman se
nate for fetching the statue of the mother of the
gods from Pessinum? Was it only that they
might admire it as a piece of workmanship? Not
worshipped them ! " What man is there that

252 , AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE;
knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians
was a worshipper ofthe great goddess. Diana,
and ofthe image which fell down from Jupiter ?"
Not worshipped them! — The worship was uni
versal. " Every nation made gods of their own,
and put them in "the houses of the high places,
which the Samaritans had made ; the men of Ba
bylon made Succoth-benoth, and the men of Cuth
made Nergal, and the men of Hamath made
Ashima, and the Avites made Nibhaz and Tar-
tak, and the Sepharvites burned their children in
fire to Adrammelech, and Anammelech, the gods
of Sepharvaim." (2 Kings, chap, xvii.) The
heathens are much indebtedto you for this your
curious apology for their idolatry; for a mode of
worship the most cruel, senseless; impure, abo
minable, that can possibly; cffsgriticesthe faculties
of the human mind. Had this your conceit oc
curred in ancient times, it might have saved Mi-
cah's teraphims, the golden calves of Jeroboam^
and of Aaron, and quite superseded the neces
sity of the second commandment ! ! ! Heathen
morality has had its advocates before you ; the
facetious gentleman who pulled off his.haf_to:thfe
statue of Jupiter, that he might have a friend
when heathen idolatry should again be in repute,

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 253
seems to have had some foundation for his im
proper humour, some knowledge that certain
men esteeming themselves great philosophers
had entered into a cbrifipiracy to abolish Christi
anity, some foresight of the consequences which
will certainly attend their success.
It is an error, you say, to call the Psalms— -the
Psalms of David — This error was observed by St.
Jerome, many hundred years before you were
born ; his words are — " We know that they are
in an error who attribute all the Psalms to Da
vid." — You, I suppose, will not deny, that Da*
vid wrote some of them. Songs are of various
sorts ; we have hunting songs, drinking songs,
fighting songs, love songs, foolish, wanton, wick
ed songs; — if you will have the " Psalms of Da
vid to be nothing but a collection from different
Song-writers," you must allow that the writers of
them were inspired by no ordinary spirit j that
this is a collection, incapable of being degraded
by the name you give it; that it greatly excels
every other collection in matter and in manner.
Compare the book of Psalms with the odes of
Horace or Anacreon, with the hymns of Calli-
machus, the golden verses of Pythagoras, the

254 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
choruses of the Greek tragedians, (no contemp.
tible compositions any of these,) and you will
quickly see how greatly it surpasses them all, in
piety of sentiment, in sublimity of expression,
in purity of morality, and in rational theology.
As you esteem the Psalms of David a song-
book, it is consistent enough in you to esteem
the Proverbs of Solomon a jest-book; there have
not come down to us above eight hundred of his
jests; if we had the whole three thousand, which
he wrote, our mirth would be extreme. Let us
open the book, and see what kind of jests it con
tains ; take the very first as a specimen—" The
fear of tbe Lord is the beginning of knowledge ;
but fools despise wisdom and instruction."-— Do
you perceive any jest in this ? The fear of the
Lord! What Lord does Solomon mean? He
means that Lord who took the posterity of Abra
ham to be his peculiar people — who redeemed
that people from Egyptian bondage by a mira
culous interposition of his power— rwho gave the
law to Moses — who commanded the Israelites td
exterminate the nations of Canaan. — Now this
Lord you will not fear; the jest says; you despise
wisdom and instruction. — Let us try again —

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 255
" My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and
forsake not the law of thy mother."— If your
heart has been ever touched by parental feelings,
you will see no jest in this. — Once more—" My
son, if sinners entice thee, consent thou not."
These are the three first proverbs in Solomon's
" jest-book ;" if you read it through, it may not
make you merry; I hope it will make you wise;
that it will teach you, at least, the beginning of
wisdom— the fear of that Lord whom Solomon
feared. Solomon, you tell us, was witty; jesters
are sometimes witty ; but though all the world,
from the time of the queen of Sheba, has heard
of the wisdom of Solomon, his wit was never
heard of before. There is a great difference,
Mr. Locke teaches us, between wit and judg
ment, and there is a greater between wit and
wisdom. Solomon " was wiser than Ethan the
Ezahite, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda,
the sons of Mahol." — These men you may think
were jesters ; and so you may call the seven wise
men of Greece: but you will never convince the
world that Solomon, who was wiser than them
all, was nothing but a witty jester. As to the
sins and debaucheries of Solomon, we have no
thing to do with them but to avoid them ; and

^36 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
to give full credit to his experience, when he
preaches to us his admirable sermon on the va
nity of every thing but piety and virtue.
Isaiah has a greater share of your abuse than
any other writer in the Old Testament, and the
reason of it is obvious — the prophecies of Isaiah
have received such a full and circumstantial com
pletion, that, unless you can persuade yourself
to consider the whole book, (a few historical
sketches excepted) " as one continued bombas-
tical rant, full of extravagant metaphor, without
application, and destitute of meaning," you must
of necessity allow its divine authority. You com
pare the burden of Babylon, the burden of
Moab, the burden of Damascus, and the other
denunciations of the prophet against cities and
kingdoms, to the " story of the knight of the
burning mountain, the story of Cinderilla, &c."
I may have read these stories, but I remember
nothing of the subjects of them ; I have read also
Isaiah's burden of Babylon, and I have compared
it with the past and present state of Babylon,
and the comparison has made such an impression
on my mind, that it will never be effaced from
my memory. I shall never cease to believe that

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 257
the Eternal alone, by whom things future are
more distinctly known than past or present things
are by man, that the eternal God alone could
have dictated to the prophet Isaiah the subject of
the burden of Babylon.
The latter part of the forty-fourth, and the
beginning ofthe forty-fifth chapter of Isaiah, are,
in your opinion, so far from being written by
Isaiah, that they could only have been written
by some person who lived at least an hundred
and fifty years after Isaiah was dead! — these
chapters, you go on, " are a compliment to
Cyrus, who permitted the Jews to return to Je
rusalem from the Babylonian captivity above one
hundred and fifty years after the death oflsaiah:"
— and is it for this, sir, that you accuse the
church of audacity and the priests of ignorance,
in imposing, as you call it, this book upon the
world as the writing of Isaiah ? What shall be
said of you, who, either designedly or ignorantly,
represent one of the most clear and important
prophecies in the Bible, as an historical compli
ment, written above an hundred and fifty years
after the death of the prophet ?— We con
tend, sir, that this is a prophecy and not a hisv
s

258 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
tory ; that God called Cyrus by his name ; de
clared that he should conquer Babylon ; and de
scribed the means by which he should do it,
above one hundred years before Cyrus was born,
and when there was no probability of such an
event. Porphyry could not resist the evidence
of Daniel's prophecies, but by saying, that they
were forged after the events predicted had taken
place ; Voltaire could not resist the evidence of
the prediction of Jesus, concerning the destruc
tion of Jerusalem, but by saying that the account
was written after Jerusalem had been destroyed ;
and you, at length, (though for aught I know,
you may have had predecessors in this presump
tion,) unable to resist the evidence of Isaiah's
prophecies, contend that they are bombastical
rant, without application, though the application
is circumstantial; and destitute of meaning,
though the meaning is so obvious that, it cannot
be mistaken ; and that one of them is not a pro- ,
phecy, but an historical compliment written
after rkthe event. We will not, sir, give up Da
niel and St. Matthew to the impudent assertions
of Porphyry and Voltaire, nor will we give up
Isaiah to your assertion. Proof, proof is what
we require, and not assertion : we will not re-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 259
linquish our religion, in obedience to your abu
sive assertion respecting the prophets of God.
That the wonderful absurdity of this hypothesis
may be more obvious to you, I beg you to con
sider that Cyrus was a Persian, had been brought
up in the religion of his country, and was pro
bably addicted to the magian superstition of two
independent Beings, equal in power but different
in principle, one the author of light and of all
good, the other the author of darkness and all
evil. Now is it probable that a captive Jew,
meaning to compliment the greatest prince in
the world, should be so stupid as to tell the
prince that his religion was a lie ? " I am the
Lord, and there is none else; I form the Ught and
create darkness, I make peace and create evil ; I
the Lord do all these things."
But if you will persevere in believing, that the
prophecy concerning Cyrus was written after the
event, peruse the burden of Babylon ; was that
also written after the event ? Were the Medes
tlien stirred up against Babylon ? Was Babylon,
the glory of the kingdoms, the beauty of the
Chaldees, then overthrown, and become as So
dom and Gomorrah ? Was it then uninhabited ?
s 2

260 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BlBLE.
Was it then neither fit for the Arabian's tent nor
the shepherd's fold ? Did the wild beasts of the
desert then lie there ? Did the wild beasts ofthe
islands then cry in their desolate houses, and dra-
gons in their pleasant palaces? Were Nebuchad
nezzar and Belshazzar, the son and the grand
son, then cut off? Was Babylon then become a
possession of the bittern, and pools of water ?
Was it then swept with the besom of destruction,
so swept that the world knows not now where to
find it ?
I am unwilling to attribute bad designs, deli
berate wickedness, to you, or to any man ; I
cannot avoid believing, that you think you have
truth on your side, and that you are doing ser
vice to mankind in endeavouring to root out
what you esteem superstition. What I blame
you for is this — that you have attempted to les
sen the authority ofthe Bible by ridicule, more
than by reason ; that you have brought forward
every petty objection which your ingenuity could
discover, or your industry pick up from the
writings of others ; and without taking any no
tice of the answers which have been repeatedly
given to these objections, you urge and enforce

A^ APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 2.61
them as if they were new. There is certainly
some novelty, at least in your manner, for you
go beyond all others in boldness of assertion, and
in profaneness of argumentation ; Bolingbroke
and Voltaire must yield the palni of scurrility to
Thomas Paine.
, Permit me to state to you, what would, in my
opinion, have been a better mode pf proceeding ;
befter suited to the character of an honest man,
sincere in his endeavours to search put truth.
Such a man, in reading the Bible, would, in the
first place, examine whether the Bible attributed^
to the Supreme Being any attributes repugnant
to holiness, truth, justice, goodness ; whether i%
represented him as subject to human infirmities ;
whether it excluded him from the government of
the world, or assigned the origin of it to chance,
and an eternal conflict of atoms. Finding no
thing of this kind in the Bible, (for the destruction
of the Canaanites by his express command, I
have shewn not to be repugnant to his moral jus
tice,) he would, in thp second place, consider tba,t
,the Bible being, as to many of its parts, a very
old book, and written by various authors, and at
different and distant peqpds, there might, pj-Q-

262 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
bably, occur some difficulties and apparent con~
tradictions in the historical part of it ; he would
endeavour to remove these difficulties, to recon
cile these apparent contradictions, by the rules
of such sound criticism as he would use in ex
amining the contents of any other book ; and
if he found that most of them were of a trifling
nature, arising from short additions inserted into
the text as explanatory and supplemental, or
from mistakes and omissions of transcribers, he
would infer that all the rest were capable of
being accounted for, though he was not able to
do it ; and he would be the more willing to make
this concession, from observing, that there ran
through the whole book an harmony and con
nection, utterly inconsistent with every idea of
forgery and deceit. He would then, in the
third place, observe, that the miraculous and
historical parts of this book were so intermixed,
that they could not be separated ; that they must
either both be true, or both false; and front
"finding that the historical part was as well or
.better authenticated than that of any other
history, he would admit the miraculous part; and
to confirm himself in this belief, he would advert
to the prophecies ; well knowing that the pre-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 263
diction of things to come, was as certain a proof
of the divine interposition, as the performance
of a miracle could be. If he should find, as he
certainly would, that many ancient prophecies
had been fulfilled in all their circumstances, and
that some were fulfilling at this very day, he
would not suffer a few seeming or real difficul
ties to overbalance the weight of this accumu
lated evidence fbr the truth ofthe Bible. Such,
I presume to think, would be a proper conduct
in all those who are desirous of forming a rational
and impartial judgment on the subject of re
vealed religion.-— To return _ — ¦
As to your observation, that the book of Isaiah.
is (at least in translation) that kind of composi
tion and false taste, which is properly called prose
run mad — I have only to remark, that your
taste for Hebrew poetry, even judging of it from
translation, would be more correct if you would
suffer yourself to be informed on the subject by
Bishop Lowth, who tells you in his Prelections
— " that a poem translated literally from the
Hebrew into any other language, whilst the
same forms of the sentences remain, will still
retain, even as far as relates to versification,

264 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
much ;,pf its native dignity, and a faint ap
pearance of versification."^ (Gregory's Trapsl )
If this is what you mean by prose run mad, your
observation may be admitted.
You explain at some length your notion of
the misapplication made by St. Matthew of the
prophecy in Isaiah — " Behold, a virgin shall
conceive and bear a son." That passage has
been handled largely and minutely by almost
every commentator, and it is too important to
be handled superficially by any one : I am not
on the present occasion concerned to explain it.
It is quoted by you to prove, and it is the only
instance you produce — that Isaiah was "a lying
prophet and an impostor." Now I maintain,
that this very instance proves, that he was a
true prophet, and no impostor. The history of
the prophecy, as delivered in the seventh chap
ter, is this — Rezin king of Syria, and Pekah
king of Israel, made war upon Ahaz king of
Judah ; not merely, or perhaps, not at all, for
the sake of plunder or the conquest of territory,
but with a declared purpose of making an entire
revolution in the government of Judah, of de
stroying the royal house of David, and of placing

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 265
another family on the throne. Their purpose is
thus expressed—" Let us go up against Judah,
and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for
us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son
of Tabeal." — Now what did the Lord commission
Isaiah to say to Ahaz ? Did he commission him
to say, The kings shall not vex thee ? No. — The
kings shall not conquer thee ? No. — The kings
shall not succeed against thee ? No : — he com
missioned him to say, " It (the purpose of the
two kings) shall not stand, neither shall it come
to pass." I demand — Did it stand, did it come to
pass ? Was any revolution effected? Was the roy
al bouse of David dethroned and destroyed? Was
Tabeal ever made king of Judah ? No. The pro
phecy was perfectly accomplished. You say,
" Instead of these two kings failing in their at
tempt against Ahaz, they succeeded ; Ahaz was
defeated and destroyed." — I deny the fact; Ahaz
was defeated, but not destroyed ; and even the
" two hundred thousand women, and sons, and
daughters," whom you represent as carried into
captivity, were not carried into captivity : they
were made captives, but they were not carried in
to captivity: for the chief men of Samaria, being
admonished by a prophet, would not suffer Pekah

266 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
to bring the captives into the land — " They rose
up, and took the captives, and with the spoil
clothed all that were naked among them, and
arrayed them, and shod them, and gave them
to eat and to drink, and anointed them, and
carried all the feeble of them upon asses, (some
humanity, you see, amongst those Israelites,
whom you every where represent as barbarous
brutes), and brought them to Jericho, the city
of palm-trees, to their brethren." 2 Chron.
xxviii. 15. — The kings did fail in their attempt;
their attempt was to destroy the house of David,
and to make a revolution ; but they made no
revolution, they did not destroy the house of
David, for Ahaz slept with his fathers ; and He-
zekiah, his son, of the house of David, reigned
in his stead.

LETTER VI.

After what I conceive to be a great misrepre
sentation of the character and conduct of Jere
miah, you bring forward an objection which
Spinoza and others before you had much insisted
upon, though it is an objection which neither af
fects the genuineness, nor the authenticity, of the
book of Jeremiah, any more than the blunder of
a bookbinder, in misplacing the sheets of your
performance, would lessen its authority. The
objection is, that the book of Jeremiah has been
put together in a disordered state. It is ac
knowledged, that the order of time is not every
where observed ; but the cause of the confusion
is not known. Some attribute it to Baruch
collecting into one volume all the several pro
phecies which Jeremiah had written, and neg
lecting to put them in their proper places : —
others think that the several parts of the work
were at first properly arranged, but that through
accident, or the carelessness of transcribers, they

268 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
were deranged : — others contend, that there is
no confusion ; that prophecy differs from history,
in not being subject to an accurate observance
of time and order. But leaving this matter to
be settled by critical discussion, let us come to
a matter of greater importance — to your charge
against Jeremiah for his duplicity, and for his
false prediction. First, as to his duplicity :
Jeremiah, on account of his having boldly
predicted the destruction of Jerusalem, had been
thrust into a miry dungeon by the princes of
Judah who sought his life ; there he would have
perished, had not one of the eunuchs taken com
passion on him, and petitioned king Zedekiah
in his favour, saying, " These men (the princes)
have done evil in all that they have done to
Jeremiah the prophet, (no small testimony this,
ofthe probity ofthe prophet's character,) whom
they have cast into the dungeon, and he is like
to die for hunger." — On this representation
Jeremiah was taken out of the dungeon by an
order from the king, who soon afterwards sent
privately for him, and desired him to conceal
nothing from him, binding himself, by an oath,
that, whatever might be the nature of his pro-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 269
phecy, he would not put him to death, or deliver
him into the hands of the princes who sought
his life. Jeremiah delivered to him the purpose
of God respecting the fate of Jerusalem. The
conference being ended, the king, anxious to
perform his oath, to preserve the life ofthe pro
phet, dismissed him, saying, "Let no man know
of these words, and thou shalt not die. But if
the princes hear that I have talked with thee,
and they come unto thee, and say unto thee,
Declare unto us now what thou hast said unto
the king, hide it not from us, and we will not
put thee to death ; also what the king said unto
thee : then thou shalt say unto them, I presented
my supplication before the king, that he would
not cause me to return to Jonathan's house to
die there. Then came all the princes unto Je
remiah, and asked him, and he told them accord
ing to all these words that the king had com
manded." — Thus, you remark, "this man of
God, as he is called, could tell a lie, or very
strongly prevaricate ; for certainly he did not go
to Zedekiah to make his supplication, neither
did he make it."— It is not said that he told the
princes he went to make his supplication, but that
he presented it : now it is said in the preceding

270 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
chapter, that he did make the supplication, and
it is probable that in this conference he renewed
it; but be that as it may, I contend that Jere
miah was not guilty of duplicity, or, in more
intelligible terms, that he did not violate any
law of nature, or of civil society, in what he did
on this occasion. He told the truth, in part, to
save his life ; and he was under no obligation to
tell the whole to men who were certainly his
enemies, and no good subjects to his king.
" In a matter (says Puffendorf ) which I am not
obliged to declare to another, if I cannot, with
safety, conceal the whole, I may fairly discover
no more than a part." Was Jeremiah under any
obligation to declare to the princes what had
passed in his. conference with the king ? You
may as well say, that the house of lords has a
right to compel privy counsellors to reveal the
king's secrets. The king cannot justly require
a privy counsellor to tell a lie for him ; but he
may require him not to divulge his counsels to
those who have no right to know them. — Now
for the false prediction — I will give the descrip
tion of it in your own words.
" In the 34th chapter is a prophecy of Jere-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 271
miah toZedekiah,in these words, ver. 2 :— « Thus
saith the Lord, Behold, I will give this city into
the hands of the king of Babylon, and will burn
it with fire ; and thou shalt not escape out of his
hand, but thou shalt surely be taken, and de
livered into his hand ; and thine eyes shall behold
the eyes of the king of Babylon, and he shall
speak with thee mouth to mouthy and thou shalt
go to Babylon. Yet hear the word ofthe Lord,
O Zedekiah, King of Judah ; thus saith the Lord,
Thou shall not die by the sword, but thou shalt
die in peace ; and with the burnings of thy fathers,
the former kings that were before thee, so shall
they burn odours for thee, and will lament thee,
saying, Ah, lord ! for I have pronounced the word,
saith the Lord.'
" Now, instead of Zedekiah beholding the
eyes of the king of Babylon, and speaking with
him mouth to mouth, and dying in peace, and
with the burnings of odours, as at the funeral of
his fathers (as Jeremiah had declared the Lord
himself had pronounced) the reverse, according
to the 52d chapter, was the case ; it is there stated,
verse 10, ' That the King of Babylon slew the
sons of Zedekiah before his eyes ; that he put out

272 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BII.LE.
the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in chains,1'
and carried him to Babylon, and put him in
prisPn till the day of his death.' What can we
say of these prophets, but that they are impostors
and liars ?" I can say this— that the prophecy
you have produced, was fulfilled in all its parts ;
and what then shall be said of those who call
Jeremiah a liar and an impostor ? Here then we
are fairly at issue — you affirm that the prophe
cy was not fulfilled, and I affirm that it was
fulfilled in all its parts. " I will give this city
into the hands of the king of Babylon, and he
shall burn it with fire :" so says the prophet ;
what says the history ? " They (the forces of
the king of Babylon) burnt the house of God,
and brake down the walls of Jerusalem, and
burnt all the palaces thereof with fire." (2 Chron.
xxxvi. 19.) — " Thou shalt not escape out of his
hand, but shalt surely be taken and delivered
into his hand:" so says the prophet; what says
the history ? " The men of war fled by night,
and the king went the way towards the plain,
and the army of the Chaldees pursued after the
king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho ;
and all his army were scattered from him ; so
they took the king, and brought him up to ihe

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 273
ling of Babylon, to Riblah." (2 Kings xxv. 5.)
— The prophet goes on, " Thine eyes shall be
hold the eyes of the king of Babylon, and he
shall speak with thee mouth to mouth." No
pleasant circumstance this to Zedekiah, who had
provoked the king of Babylon, by revolting from
him ! The history says, " The king of Babylon
gave judgment upon Zedekiah," or as it is more.
literally rendered from the Hebrew, " spake
judgments with him at Riblah." — The prophet
concludes this part with, " And thou shalt go to
Babylon :" the history says, " The king of Ba
bylon bound him in chains, and carried him to
Babylon, and put him in prison till the day of
his death." (Jer. lii. 11.) — " Thou shalt not die
by the sword." He did not die by the sword,
he did not fall in battle. — " But thou shalt die in
peace." He did die in peace, he neither expired
on the rack, nor on the scaffold ; was neither
strangled nor poisoned; no unusual fate of captive
kings ! he died peaceably in his bed, though that
bed was in a prison. — " And with the burnings
of thy fathers shall they burn odours for thee."
I cannot prove from the history that this part of
tlie prophecy was accomplished, nor can you

274 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
prove that it was not. The probability is, that
it was accomplished; and I have two reasons on
which I ground this probability. — Daniel, Sha-
drach, Meshach, and Abednego, to say nothing
of other Jews, were men of great authority in the
court ofthe king of Babylon, before and after the
commencement of the imprisonment of Zede
kiah ; and Daniel continued in power till the
subversion of the kingdom of Babylon by Cyrus.
¦ — Now it seems to me to be very probable, that
Daniel, and the other great men of the Jews,
would both have inclination to request, and in
fluence enough with the king of Babylon to
obtain, permission to bury their deceased prince
Zedekiah, after the manner of his fathers. —
But if there had been no Jews at Babylon of
consequence enough to make such a request,
still it is probable that the king of Babylon
would have ordered the Jews to bury and lament
their departed prince, after the manner of their
country. Monarchs, hke other men, are con
scious ofthe instability of human condition; and
when the pomp of war has ceased, when the
insolence of conquest is abated, and the fury of
resentment subsided, they seldom fail to revere

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 275
royalty even in ifs ruins, and grant without re.
luctance proper obsequies to the remains of cap
tive kings. «
You profess to have been particular in treat
ing of the books ascribed to Isaiah and Jeremiah.
— Particular ! in what ? You have particula
rized two or three passages, which you have en
deavoured to represent as objectionable, and
which I hope have been shewn, to the reader's
satisfaction, to be not justly liable to your cen
sure ; and you have passed over all the other
parts of these books without notice. Had you
been particular in your examination, you would
have found cause to admire the probity and the
intrepidity of the characters of the authors of
them ; you would have met with many instances
of sublime composition, and what is of more
consequence, with many instances of propheti
cal veracity : — particularities of these kinds you
have wholly overlooked. I cannot account for
this ; I have no right, no inclination, to call
you a dishonest man : am I justified in consi
dering you as a man not altogether destitute
of ingenuity, but so entirely under the domi
nion of prejudice in every thing respecting the
t 2

276 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE-
Bible, that, like a corrupted judge previously
determined to give sentence on one side, you
are negligent in the examination of truth ?
You proceed to the rest of the prophets, and
you take them collectively, carefully however
selecting for your observations such particula
rities as are best calculated to render, if possible,
the prophets odious or ridiculous in the eyes of
your readers. You confound prophets with
poets and musicians : I would distinguish them
thus : many prophets were poets and musicians,
but all poets and musicians were not prophets.
Prophecies were often delivered .in' poetic lan
guage and measure ; but flights and metaphors
ofthe Jewish poets, have not, as you affirm, been
foolishly erected into what are now called pro
phecies  they are now called, and have al
ways been called, prophecies— because they were
real predictions, some of which have received,
some are now receiving, and all will receive,
their full accomplishment.
That there were false prophets, witches, ne
cromancers, conjurers, fortune-tellers, among
the Jews, no person will attempt to deny ; no

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 277
nation, barbarous or civilized, has been without
them : but when you would degrade the pro
phets ofthe Old Testament to alevel with these
conjuring, dreaming, strolling, gentry — when
you would represent them as spending their
lives in fortune-telling, casting nativities, pre
dicting riches, fortunate or unfortunate mar
riages, conjuring for lost goods, &c. I must be
allowed to say, that you wholly mistake their
office, and misrepresent their character: their of
fice was to convey to the children of Israel the
commands, the promises, the threatenings of Al
mighty God : and their character was that of
men sustaining, with fortitude, persecution in the
discharge of their duty. There were false pro
phets in abundance amongst the Jews ; and if
you oppose these to the true prophets, and call
them both party prophets, you have the liberty of
doing so, but you will not thereby confound the
distinction between truth and falsehood. False
prophets are spoken of with detestation in many
parts of scripture ; particularly by Jeremiah,
who accuses them of prophesying lies in the
name of the Lord, saying, " I have dreamed, I
have dreamed : — Behold, I am against the pro
phets, saith the Lord, that use their tongues, and

278 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
say, He saith ; that prophesy false dreams, and
cause my people to err by their lies, and by their
lightness." Jeremiah cautioris his countrymen
against giving credit to their prophets, to their
diviners, to their dreamers, to their enchanters,
to their sorcerers, " which speak unto you, Say
ing, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon."
You cannot think more contemptibly of these
gentry, than they were thought of by the true
prophets at the time they hved; but, as Jeremiah
says on this subject, "what is the chaff to the
wheat ?" what are the false prophets to the true
ones ? Every thing good is hable to abuse ; but
who argues against the use of a thing from the
¦abuse' of it? against physicians, because there
are pretenders to physic ? Was Isaiah a fortune
teller, predicting riches, when he said to king
Hezekiah, "Behold the days come, that all that
is in thine house, and that which thy fathers
have laid up in store until this day, shall be car
ried to Babylon : nothing shall be left, saith the
Lord. And of thy sons that shall issue from
thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take
away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of
the king of Babylon." Fortune-tellers generally
predict good luck to their simple customers,

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 279
that they may make something by their trade ;
but Isaiah predicts to a monarch, desolation of
his country, and ruin of his family. This pro
phecy was spoken in the year before Christ 713 ;
and, above an hundred years afterwards, it was
accomplished; when Nebuchadnezzar took Jeru
salem, and carried out thence all the treasures of
the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the
king's house, (2 Kings xxiv. 1 3.) and when he
commanded the master of his eunuchs, (Dan. i.
3.) that he should take certain of the children
of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the
princes, and educate them for three years, till
they were able to stand before the king.
Jehoram king of Israel, Jehoshaphat king of
Judah, and the king of Edom, going with their
armies to make war on the king of Moab, came
into a place where there was no water either for
their men or cattle. In this distress they waited
upon Elisha, (an high honour for one of your
conjurers,) by the advice of Jehoshaphat, who
knew that the word of the Lord was with him.
The prophet, on seeing Jehoram, an idolatrous
prince, who had revolted from the worship of
the true God, come to consult him, said to him,

280 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
— " Get thee to the prophets of thy father and
the prophets of thy mother." — This you think
shews Elisha to have been a party prophet, full
of venom and vulgarity — it shews him to have
been a man of great courage, who respected the
dignity of his own character, the sacredness of
his office as a prophet of God, whose duty it
was to reprove the Avickedness of kings, as of
other men. He ordered them to make the
valley where they were full of ditches :  this,
you say, " every countryman could have told,
that the way to get water was to dig fbr it :" —
but this is not a true representation of the case ;
the ditches were not dug that water might be
gotten by digging for it, but that they might
hold the .water when it should miraculously come,
" without wind or rain," from another country ;
and it did come " from the way of Edom, and
the country was filled with water." — As to Eli-
sha's cursing the little children who had mocked
him, and their destruction in consequence of
his imprecation, the whole story must be taken
together. The provocation he received is, by
some, considered as an insult offered to him,
not as a man but as a prophet, and that the per
sons who offered it were not what we understand

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 281
by little children, but grown-up youths; the
term child being applied, in the Hebrew lan
guage, to grown-up persons. Be this as it may,
the cursing was the act of the prophet ; had it
been a sin it would not have been followed by a
miraculous destruction of the offenders ; for this
was the act of God, who best knows who de
serves punishment. What effect such a signal
judgment had on the idolatrous inhabitants of
the land, is no where said ; but it is probable it
was not without a good effect.
Ezekiel and Daniel lived during the Baby
lonian captivity ; you allow their writings to be
genuine. In this you differ from some of the
greatest adversaries of Christianity ; and in my
opinion cut up, by this concession, the very
root of your whole performance. It is next to
an impossibility for any man, who admits the
book of Daniel to be a genuine book, and who
examines that book with intelligence and im
partiality, to refuse his assent to the truth of
Christianity. As to your saying, that the in
terpretations, which commentators and priests
have made of these books, only shew the fraud,
or the extreme folly, to which credulity and

282 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
priestcraft can go : I consider it as nothing but
a proof of the extreme folly or fraud to which
prejudice and infidelity can carry a minute phi
losopher. You profess a fondness for science ;
I will refer you to a scientific man, who was
neither a commentator nor a priest, — to Fer
guson. — In a tract entitled — The Year of our
Saviour's Crucifixion ascertained ; and the dark
ness, at the time of his crucifixion, proved to
be supernatural — this real philosopher interprets
the remarkable prophecy in the 9th chapter of
Daniel, and concludes his dissertation in the
following words — "Thus we have an astronomi
cal demonstration of the truth of this ancient
prophecy, seeing that the prophetic year of the
Messiah's being cut off, was the very same with
the astronomical." I have somewhere read an
account of a solemn disputation which was held
at Venice, in the last century, between a Jew and
a Christian ; — the Christian strongly argued from
Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks, that
Jesus was the Messiah whom the Jews had long
expected, from the predictions of their prophets ;
— the learned Rabbi, who presided at this dispu
tation, was so forcibly struck by the argument,
that he put an end to the business, by saying

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 283
— " Let us shut up our Bibles ; for if we pro
ceed in the examination of this prophecy, it will
make us all become Christians." Was it a similar
apprehension which deterred you from so much
as opening the book of Daniel ? You have not
produced from it one exceptionable passage. I
hope you will read that book with attention, with
intelligence, and with an unbiassed mind follow
the advice of our Saviour when he quoted this
very prophecy — " Let him that readeth under
stand" — and I shall npt despair of your conver
sion from deism to Christianity.
In order to discredit the authority of the books
which you allow to be genuine, you form a strange
and prodigious hypothesis concerning Ezekiel
and Daniel, for which there is no manner of
foundation either in history or probability. You
suppose these two men to have had no dreams,
no visions, no revelation from God Almighty ;
but to have pretended to these things ; and,
under that disguise, to have carried on an enig
matical correspondence relative to the recovery
of their country from the Babylonian yoke.
That any man in his senses should frame or adopt
such an hypothesis, should have so little regard

284 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
to his own reputation as an impartial enquirer
after truth, so little respect for the understanding
of his readers, as to obtrude it on the world,
would have appeared an incredible circumstance,
had not you made it a fact.
You quote a passage from Ezekiel ; in the
29th chapter, ver. 11, speaking of Egypt, it is
said — " No foot of man shall pass through it,
nor foot of beast shall pass through it; nei
ther shall it be inhabited forty years:" — this,
you say, " never came to pass, and consequently
it is false, as all the books I have already re
viewed are." Now that this did come to pass,
we have, as Bishop Newton observes, "the testi
monies of Megasthenes and Berosus, two heathen
historians, who lived about SOO years before
Christ ; one of whom affirms, expressly, that Ne
buchadnezzar conquered the greater part of
Africa ; and the other affirms it, in effect, in say
ing, that when Nebuchadnezzar heard of the
death of his father, having settled his affairs in
Egypt, and committed the captives whom he
took in Egypt, to the care of some of his friends
to bring them after him, he hasted directly to
Babylon." And if we had been possessed of no

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 28.5
testimony in support of the prophecy, it would
have been an hasty conclusion, that the pro
phecy never came to pass. The history of Egypt
at so remote a period, being no where accurately
and circumstantially related, I admit that no pe
riod can be pointed out, from the age of Ezekiel
to the present, in which there was no foot of
man or beast to be seen for forty years in all
Egypt ; but some think that only a part of Egypt
is here sppken of; and surely you do not expect
a literal accomplishment of an hyperbolical ex
pression, denoting great desolation; importing
that the trade of Egypt, which was carried on
then, as at present, by caravans, by the foot of
man and beast, should be annihilated. Had you
taken the trouble to have looked a little farther
into the book from which you have made your
quotation, you would have there seen a prophecy
delivered above two thousand years ago, and
which has been fulfilling from that time to this
— " Egypt shall be the basest of the kingdoms,
neither shall it exalt itself any more above the
nations— there shall be no more a prince of the
land of Egypt."— This you may call a dream, a
vision, a lie ; I esteem it a wonderful prophecy ;
for " as is the prophecy, so has been the event.

286 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
Egypt was conquered by the Babylonians ; and
after the Babylonians by the Persians ; and after
the Persians it became subject to the Macedo
nians ; and after the Macedonians to the Ro
mans ; and after the Romans to the Saracens;
and then to the Mamelukes ; and is now a pro
vince of the Turkish empire."
Suffer me. to produce to you from this author
not an enigmatical letter to Daniel respecting
the recovery of Jerusalem, from the hands ofthe
king of Baby.on, but an enigmatical prophecy
concerning Zedekiah the king of Jerusalem, be
fore it was taken by the Chaldeans. — " I will
bring him (Zedekiah) to Babylon, to the land
ofthe Chaldeans; yet shall he not see it, though
he shall die there ." — How ! not see Babylon,
when he should die there ! How, moreover, is
this consistent, you may ask, with what Jeremiah
had foretold — that Zedekiah should see the eyes
of the king of Babylon ? — This^darkness of ex
pression, and apparent contradiction between
the two prophets, induced Zedekiah (as Josephus
informs us) to give no credit to either of them :
yet he unhappily experienced, and the fact is
worthy your observation, the truth of them both.

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 287
He saw the eyes of the king of Babylon, not at
Babylon, but at Riblah ; his eyes were there put
out ; and he was carried to Babylon, yet he saw
it not ; and thus were the predictions of both
the prophets verified, and the enigma of Ezekiel
explained. As to your wonderful discovery that the pro
phecy of Jonah is a book of some gentile, " and
that it has been written as a fable, to expose the
nonsense, and to satirise the vicious and malig
nant character of a Bible prophet, or a predict
ing priest," I shall put it, covered with hellebore,
for the service of its author, on the same shelf
with your hypothesis concerning the conspiracy,
of Daniel and Ezekiel, and shall not say another
word about it.
You conclude your objections to the Old Tes
tament in a triumphant style ; an angry oppo
nent would say, in a style of extreme arrogance,
and sottish self-sufficiency — " I have gone," you
say, " through the Bible (mistaking here, as in
other places, the. Old Testament for the Bible)
as a man would go through a wood, with an axe
on his shoulders, and fell trees ; here they lie ;

288 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
and the priests if they can may replant them.
They may, perhaps, stick them in the ground,
but they will never grow." — And is it possible
that you should think so highly of your per
formance, as to believe, that you have thereby
demolished the authority of a book, which
Newton himself esteemed the most authentic
of all histories; which, by its celestial light, illu
mines tlie darkest ages of antiquity; which is
the touchstone whereby we are enabled to distin
guish between true and fabulous theology, be
tween the God of Israel, holy, just, and good,
and the impure rabble of heathen Baalim ; which
has been thought, by competent judges, to have
afforded matter for the laws of Solon, and a foun
dation for fhe philosophy of Plato ; which has
been illustrated by the labour of learning, in
all ages and countries ; and been admired and
venerated for its piety, its sublimity, its veracity,
by all who were able to read and understand it ?
No, Sir; you have gone indeed through the
Wood, with the best intention in the world to cut
it down ; but you have merely busied yourself in
exposing to vulgar contempt a few unsightly
shrubs, which good men had wisely concealed
from public view ; you have" entangled yourself

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 289
in thickets of thorns and briars ; you have lost
your way on the mountains of Lebanon ; the
goodly cedar trees whereof, lamenting the mad
ness, and pitying the blindness of your rage
against them, have scorned the blunt edge and
the base temper of your axe, and laughed un
hurt at the feebleness of your stroke.
In plain language, you have gone through the
Old Testament hunting after difficulties, and you
have found some real ones ; these you have en
deavoured to magnify into insurmountable ob
jections to the authority of the whole book.
When it is considered that the Old Testament is
composed of several books, written by different
authors, and at different periods, from Moses to
Malachi, comprising an abstracted history of a
particular nation for above a thousand years, I
think the real difficulties which occur in it are
much fewer, and of much less importance, than
could reasonably have been expected. Apparent
difficulties you have represented as real ones,
without hinting at the manner in which they
have been explained. You have ridiculed things
held most sacred, and calumniated characters
esteemed most venerable ; you have excited the
u

290 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
scoffs of the profane; increased the scepticism
of the doubtful ; shaken the faith of the un
learned ; suggested cavils to the " disputers of
this world ;" and perplexed the minds of honest
men who wish to worship the God of their fathers
in sincerity and truth. — This and more you have
done in going through the Old Testament ; but
you have not so much as glanced at the great
design ofthe whole, at the harmony and mutual
dependence ofthe several parts. You have said
nothing of the wisdom of God in selecting a
particular people from the rest of mankind, not
for their own sakes, but that they might witness
to the whole world, in successive ages, his exist
ence and attributes ; that they might be an in-
strument of Subverting idolatry, of declaring the
name of the God of Israel throughout the whole
earth. It was through this nation that the
Egyptians saw the wonders of God; that the
Canaanites (whom wickedness had made a re
proach to human nature) felt his judgments;
that the Babylonians issued their decrees— "That
none should dare to speak amiss of the God of
Israel — that all should fear and tremble before
him"— and it is through them that you and I,
and all the world, are not at this day worshippers

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 291
of idols. You have said nothing ofthe goodness
of God in promising, that, through the seed of
Abraham, all the nations of the earth were to be
blessed ; that the desire of all nations, the blessing
of Abraham to the gentiles, should come.. You
have passed by all the prophecies respecting the
coming of the Messiah ; though they absolutely
fixed the time of his coming, and of his being
cut off; described his office, character, condition,
sufferings, and death, in so circumstantial a man
ner, that we cannot but be astonished at the
accuracy of their completion in the person of
Jesus of Nazareth. You have neglected noticing
the testimony of the whole Jewish nation to the
truth both of the natural and miraculous facts
recorded in the Old Testament. That we may
better judge of the weight of this testimony, let
us suppose that God should now manifest himself
to us, as we contend he did to the Israelites in
Egypt, in the desert, and in the land of Canaan ?
and that he should continue these manifesta
tions of himself to our posterity for a thousand
years or more, punishing or rewarding them ac
cording as they disobeyed or obeyed his com
mands ; what would you expect should be the
issue ? You would expect that our posterity
u 2

292 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
would, in the remotest period of time, adhere
to their God, and maintain against all opponents
the truth of the books in which the dispensations
of God to us and to our successors had been re
corded. They would not yield to the objections
of men, who, not having experienced the same
divine government, should, for want of such ex
perience, refuse assent to their testimony. No ;
they would be to the then surrounding nations,
what the Jews are to us, witnesses of the exist
ence and of the moral government of God.

LETTER VII.

\
" The New Testament, they tell us, is founded
upon the prophecies of the Old ; if so, it must
follow the fate of its foundation." — Thus you
open your attack upon the New Testament ; and
I agree with you, that the New Testament must
follow the fate of the Old ; and that fate is to
remain unimpaired by such efforts as you have
made against it. The New Testament, however,
is not founded solely on the prophecies of the
Old. If an heathen from Athens or Rome, who
had never heard of the prophecies of the Old
Testament, had been an eye-witness of the mi
racles of Jesus, he would have made the same
conclusion that the Jew Nicodemus did--" Rabbi,
we know that thou art a teacher come from God ;
for no man can do these miracles that thou
doest, except God be with him." — Our Saviour
fells the Jews> — " Had ye believed Moses, ye
would have believed me ; for he wrote of me" —
and he bids them search the Scriptures ; for they

294 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
testified of him ; — but, notwithstanding > this ap
peal to the prophecies of the Old Testament,
Jesus said to the Jews, " Though ye believe not
me, believe the works "— " believe me for the
very works' sake " — " if I had not done among
them the works which none other man did, they
had not had sin." — These are sufficient proofs
that the truth of Christ's mission was not even
to the Jews, much less to the gentiles, founded
jsolelyon the truth ofthe prophecies of the Old
Testament. So that if you could prove some
of these prophecies to have been misapplied,
and not completed in the person of Jesus, the
truth of the Christian religion would not thereby
be overturned. — That Jesus of Nazareth was the
person, in whom all the prophecies, direct and
typical, in the Old Testament, respecting the
Messiah, were fulfilled, is a proposition founded
on those prophecies, and to be proved by com
paring them with the history of his hfe. That
Jesus was a prophet sent from God, is one pro
position — that Jesus was the prophet, the Mes
siah, is another: and though he certainly was
both a prophet and ihe prophet, yet the founda
tions ofthe proof of these propositions are sepa
rate and. distinct.

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 295
The " mere existence of such a woman as
Mary, and of such a man as Joseph, and Jesus,
is," you say, " a matter of indifference, about
which there is no ground either to believe or to
disbelieve."— Belief is different from knowledge,
with which you here seem to confound it. We
know that the whole is greater than its part-r
and we know that all the angles in the same
segment of a circle are equal to each other — we
have intuition and demonstration as grounds of
this knowledge ; but is there no ground for be
lief of past or future existence ? Is there no
ground for believing that the sun will exist to
morrow, and that your father existed before you ?
You condescend, however, to think it probable,
that there were such persons as Mary, Joseph,
and Jesus ; and, without troubling yourself about
their existence or non-existence, assuming, as it
were, for the sake of argument, but without po
sitively granting, their existence, you proceed to
inform us, " that it is the fable of Jesus Christ,
as told in the New Testament, and the wild and
visionary doctrine raised thereon," against which
. you contend. You will not repute it a fable,
that there was such a man as Jesus Christ ; that
he lived in Judea near eighteen hundred years
ago ; that he went about doing good, and preach-

296 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
ing, not only in the villages of Galilee, but in
the city of Jerusalem ; that he had several fol
lowers who constantly attended him ; that he was-
put to death by Pontius Pilate ; that his disciple-
were numerous a few years after his death, not
only in Judea, but in Rome the capital of the
world, and in every province of the Roman em
pire ; that a particular day has been observed in
a religious manner by all his followers, in com
memoration of a real or supposed resurrection ;
and that the constant celebration of baptism,
and of the Lord's supper, nay be traced back
from the present time to him, as the author of
those institutions. These things constitute, I
suppose, no part of your fable ; and if these
things be facts, they will, when maturely consi
dered, draw after them so many other things re
lated in the New Testament concerning Jesus,
that there will be left for your fable but very
scanty materials, which will require great fertihty
of invention before you will dress them up into
any form which will not disgust even a superfi
cial observer.
The miraculous conception you esteem a fable,
and in your mind it is an obscene fable. — Impure
indeed must that man's imagination be, who can

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 297
discover any obscenity in the angel's declaration
to Mary — " The Holy Ghost shall come upon
thee, and the power of the Highest shall over
shadow thee : therefore that Holy thing which
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of
God." — I wonder you do not find obscenity in
Genesis, where it is said, " The Spirit of God
moved upon the face of the waters," and brought
order out of confusion, a world out of a chaos,
by his fostering influence. As to the Christian
faith being built upon the heathen mythology,
there is no ground whatever for the assertion ;
there would have been some for saying, that
much of the heathen mythology was built upon
the events recorded in the Old Testament.
You come now to a demonstration, or, which
amounts to the same thing, to a proposition
which cannot, you say, be controverted : — first,
" That the agreement of all the parts of a story
does not prove that story, to be true, because the
parts may agree and the whole may be false ; —
secondly, That the disagreement of the parts of
a story proves that the whole cannot be true.
The agreement does not prove truth, but the dis
agreement proves falsehood positively." Great

298 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
use, I perceive, is to be made of this proposition.
You will pardon my unskilfulness in dialectics,
if I presume to controvert the truth of this ab
stract proposition, as applied to any purpose in
life. The agreement of the parts of a story im
plies that the story has been told by, at least,
two persons (the life of Doctor Johnson, for in
stance, by Sir John Hawkins and Mr. Boswell).
Now I think it scarcely possible for even two per.
sons, and the difficulty is increased if there are
more. than two, to write the history ofthe life of
any one of their .acquaintance, without there be
ing a considerable difference between them, with
respect to the number and order of the incidents
of his life. Some things will be omitted by one,
and mentioned by the other ; some things will
be briefly touched by one, and the same things
will be circumstantially detailed by the other;
the same things, which are mentioned in the
same way by them both, may not be mentioned as
having happened exactly at the same point of
time ; with other possible and probable differ
ences. But these real or apparent difficulties,
in minute circumstances, wiU not invalidate their
testimony as to the material transactions of his
life, much less will they render the whole of it a

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 299
fable. If several independent witnesses, of fair
character, should agree in all the parts of a story,
(in testifying, for instance, that a murder or a
robbery was committed at a particular time, in
a particular place, and by a certain individual,)
every court of justice in the world would admit
the fact, notwithstanding the abstract possibility
of the whole being false : — again, if several ho
nest men should agree in saying, that they saw
the king of France beheaded, though they should
disagree as to the figure of the guillotine, or the
size of his executioner, as to the king's hands
being bound or loose, as to his being composed
or agitated in ascending the scaffold, yet every
court of justice in the world would think, that
such difference, respecting the circumstances of
the fact, did not invalidate the evidence respect
ing the fact itself. When you speak of the whole
of a story, you cannot mean every particular cir
cumstance connected with the story, but not es
sential to it ; you must mean the pith and mar
row of the story ; for it would be impossible to
establish the truth of any fact, (of Admirals Byng
or Keppel, for example, having neglected or not
neglected their duty,) if a disagreement in the
evidence of witnesses, in minute points, should

300 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
be considered as annihilating the weight of their
evidence in points of importance. In a word,
the relation of a fact differs essentially from the
demonstration of a theorem. If one step is left
out, one link in the chain of ideas constituting
a demonstration is omitted, the conclusion will
be destroyed ; but a fact may be established,
notwithstanding a disagreement of the witnes
ses in certain trifling particulars of their evidence
suspecting it
You apply your incontrovertible proposition to
the genealogies of Christ given by Matthew and
Luke — there is a disagreement between them;
therefore, you say, " If Matthew speak truth,
Luke speaks falsehood ; and if Luke speak truth,
Matthew speaks falsehood : and thence there
is no authority for believing either ; and if they
cannot be believed even in the very first thing
they say and set out to prove, they are not
entitled to be believed in any thing they say
afterwards." I cannot admit either your pre
mises or your conclusion ; — not your conclusion;
because two authors, who differ in tracing back
the pedigree of an individual for above a thousand
years, cannot, on that account, be esteemed in-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 301
competent to bear testimony to the transactions
of his life, unless an intention to falsify could be
proved against them. If two Welsh historians
should at this time write the life of any remark
able man of their country, who had been dead
twenty or thirty years, and should, through dif
ferent branches of their genealogical tree, carry
Up their pedigree to Cadwallon, would they, on
account of that difference, be discredited in every
thing they said? Might it not be believed that they
gave the pedigree as they had found it recorded
in different instruments, but without the least
intention to write a falsehood ? — I cannot admit
your premises ; because Matthew speaks truth,
and Luke speaks truth, though they do not speak
the same truth ; Matthew giving the genealogy
of Joseph the reputed father of Jesus, and Luke
giving the genealogy of Mary the real mother
of Jesus. If you will not admit, this, other ex
planations of the difficulty might be given ; but
I hold it sufficient to say, that the authors had
no design to deceive the reader, that they took
their accounts from the public registers, which
were carefully kept, and that had they been fa
bricators of these genealogies, they would have
been exposed at the time to instant detection ;

302 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
and the certainty of that detection would have
prevented them from making the attempt to im
pose a false genealogy on the Jewish nation.
But that you may effectually overthrow the
credit of these genealogies, you make the follow
ing calculation : — " From the birth of David to
the birth of Christ is upwards of 1O80 years ;
and as there were but 27 full generations, to
find the average age of each person mentioned
in St. Matthew's list at the time his first son
was born, it is only necessary to divide 1080
by 27, which gives 40 years for each person.
As the life-time of man was then but of the
same extent it is now, it is an absurdity to
suppose, that 27 generations should all be old
batchelors, before they married. So far from this
genealogy being a solemn truth, it is not even a
reasonable lie." — This argument assumes the
appearance of arithmetical accuracy, and the con
clusion is in a style which even its truth would
not excuse : — yet the argument is good for no
thing, and the conclusion is not true. You have
read the Bible with some attention ; and you are
extremely liberal in imputing to it lies and ab
surdities; read it over again, especially the books

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 303
of the Chronicles, and you will there find, that,
in the genealogical list of St. Matthew, three
generations are omitted between Joram and
Ozias ; Joram was the father of Azariah, Aza
riah of Joash, Joash of Amaziah, and Amaziah
of Ozias. — I inquire not, in this place, whence
this omission proceeded ; whether it is to be at
tributed to an error in the genealogical tables
from whence Matthew took his account, or to a
corruption of the text of the evangelist : still it
is an omission. Now if you will add these three
generations to the 27 you mention, and divide
1080 by 30, you will find the average age when
these Jews had each of them their first son born
was 36. They married sooner than they ought
to have done, according to Aristotle, who fixes
thirty-seven as the most proper age, when a man
should marry. Nor was it necessary that they
should have been old batchelors, though each of
them had not a son to succeed him till he was
thirty -six ; they might have been married at
twenty, without having a son till they were forty.
You assume in your argument, that the first born
son succeeded the father in the list — this is not
true. Solomon succeeded David ; yet David had
at least six sons, who were grown to manhood
3

304 an Apology for the bible.
before Solomon was born ; and Rehoboam had at
leastthree sons before he had Abia (Abijah) who
succeeded him.— It is needless to cite more in
stances to this purpose ; but from these, and
other circumstances which might be insisted up
on, I can see no ground for believing, that the
genealogy of Jesus Christ, mentioned by St. Mat
thew, is not a solemn truth.
You insist much upon some things being men
tioned by one evangelist, which are not men
tioned by all or by any of the others : and you
take this to be a reason why we should consider
the gospels, not as the works of Matthew, Mark,
Luke, and John, but as the productions of some
unconnected individuals, each of whom made his
own legend. I do not admit the truth of this
supposition ; but I may be allowed to use it as
an argument against yourself — it removes every
possible suspicion of fraud and imposture, and
confirms the gospel history in the strongest man
ner. Four unconnected individuals have each
written memoirs of the life of Jesus ; from what
ever source they derived their materials, it is evi
dent that they agree in a great many particulars
ofthe last importance ; such as the purity of his

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 805
manners ; the sanctity of his doctrines ; the mul
titude and publicity of his miracles ;. the perse
cuting spirit of his enemies •, the manner of his
death ; and the certainty of his resurrection :
and whilst they agree in these great points, their
disagreement in points of little consequence is
rather a confirmation of the truth, than an indi
cation of the falsehood, of their several accounts.
— Had they agreed in nothing, their testimony
ought to have been rejected as a legendary tale ;
had they agreed in every thing, it might have
been suspected, that, instead of unconnected in
dividuals, they were a set of impostors. The
manner in which the evangelists have recorded
the particulars of the life of Jesus, is wholly
conformable to what we experience in other bio
graphers, and claims our highest assent to its
truth ; notwithstanding the force of your incon
trovertible proposition.
As an instance of contradiction between the
evangelists, you tell us, that Matthew says, the
angel announcing the immaculate conception
appeared unto Joseph; but Luke says, he ap
peared unto Mary. — The angel, Sir, appeared
unto them both; to Mary when he informed
x

306 AN1, APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
herthfet she should, by the power of God; con
ceive a _on ; to Joseph, some months afterwards,
when Mary's pregnancy was visible ; in the in
terim she had paid a visit of three months to hm
cousin Elisabeth. It might have been expected,
that, from the accuracy with which yp__ have
read your Bible, you could not have confounded
these obviously distinct- appearances ; but men,
even of candour, are-liable to mistakes. Who,
you ask, would now believe a girl, who shot-Id
say she was gotten with child by a ghost ?— Who,
but yourself, would ever have asked a question
so abominably indecent and profane ? I rcanaot
argue with you on this subject.-— You will never
persuade the world, that the Holy Spirit of God
has any resemblance to the stage ghosts' in Ham
let or Macbeth, "from which you seem to have
derived your idea of it.
The story of the massacre of the young chil
dren by the order of Herod, is mentioned only
by Matthew ; and therefore you think it is a lie.
We- must give tip all history if we refuse to *&-
mit-fkcts recorded by only one historian. Mat
thew addressed his gospel to the Jewfe, and put
them in mind of a circumstance, of which they

AN APOLOGY FOR Trite BIBLE. 307
must have had a melancholy rerhen.b. ance ; but
gentile converts were less interested in that
event. The evangelists were not writing the life
of Herod, but of Jesus ; it is no wonder that
they omitted, above half a century after ".he
death of Herod, an instance of his cftlelty, which
was not essentially connected with thgfr subject.
The massacre, however, wa. probably knowri
even at Rome ; and it was certainly corre
spondent to the character of Herod. John,
you say, at the time of the massacre, " wa_ un
der two years of age, arid yet he escaped ; so
that the story circumstantially belies __self;"—
John w^as six months older than Jesus : and you
cannot prove that he was 'rib _ beyond the age to
which the order of Herod extended ; itbrobiably
reached no farther than to those who had coril-
pleted their first year, without including those
who had entered upon their second : but withbat
insisting upon this, still I contend that you can
not pr'dVe John to have been urider two ye'drs' of
age at the time of the rhkssacre ; arid I could
give many probable reasons to the contrary.
Nor is it certain that Johri was, at that time,
in that part of the country to which the edict of
Herod extended. But there would be no end
x 2

308 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
of answering, at length, all your little objec
tions. No two of the evangelists, you observe, agree
in reciting, exactly in the same words, the written
inscription which was put over Christ when he
was crucified. — I admit that there is an unessen
tial verbal difference ; and are you certain that
there was not a verbal difference in the inscrip
tions themselves ? — One was written in Hebrew,
another in Greek, another in Latin ; and though
they had all the same meaning, yet it is probable,
that, if two men had translated the Hebrew and
the Latin into Greek, there would have been a
verbal difference between their translations. You
have rendered yourself famous by writing a book
called — The Rights of Man : — had you been
guillotined by Robespierre, with this title, written
in French, English, and German, and affixed to
the guillotine — Thomas Paine, of America, au
thor of the Rights of Man — and had four per
sons, some of whom had seen the execution, and
the rest had heard of it from eye-witnesses, writ
ten short accounts of your life twenty years or
more after your death, and one had said the in
scription was— This is Thomas Paine, the author

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 309
of The Rights of Man — another, The author of
The Rights of Man — a third, This is the author
of The Rights of Man — and a fourth, Thomas
Paine, of America, the author of The Rights of
Man — would any man of common sense have
doubted, on account of this disagreement, the
veracity of the authors in writing your life?—
" The only one," you tell us, " of the men called
apostles, who appears to have been near the spot ,
where Jesus was crucified, was Peter." — This
your assertion is not true — we do not know that
Peter was present at the crucifixion ; but we do
know that John, the disciple whom Jesus loved,
was present ; for Jesus spoke to him from the
cross. — You go on, " But why should we believe
Peter, convicted by their own account of per
jury, in swearing that he knew not Jesus ?" I
will tell you why — because Peter sincerely re
pented of the wickedness into which he had been
betrayed through fear for his life, and suffered
martyrdom in attestation of the truth of the
Christian rehgion.
But the evangelists disagree, you say, not only
as to the superscription on the cross, but as to
the time of the crucifixion, w Mark saying it was

310 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
at the third hour (pine in the morning,) and
•John at the sixth hour (twelve, as you ; suppose,
at nopn)-" Various solptions have fyeen given
pf this difficulty, none pf which satisfied Doctor
Middleton, much less can it be expected that
any of them should satisfy you ; but there is a
solution not noticed b,y him, in which many ju
dicious men have acquiesced — That John, writing
hjs, gospel in Asia, used the Roman method of
computing, , time ; which \yas the same as our
own:, §p t_.at.by the sixth, hour, when Jesus was
q^d^nnf^p we arp tp understand six o'clock in
the j^pi'i^ng ; the interrnejdiate time^frpm six to
nine, -when h^ w^fts crucified, being employed in
preparing for the crucifixion. But if this diffi
culty should b© still esteemed insuperable, it does
not follow- that it will ^.WftjVf remain so : fra_4 if
it should, the main point,, the crucifixion pf Je
sus, w_U not be affected thereby.
I cannpt, in this place, ©*ni1| remarking spine
circumstances attending the crucifixion, whieh
are so natural, that we might have wondered if
theyr ha4 nM occurred, 0£ all tfef d^ipjgf of
Jesus, 4»hn.was beloved by,feji$ with a pjfcghar
decree <af a^ept$ji : and, as kindness produces

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 311
kindness, there Can be little doubt that the regard
was reciprocal. Now whom should we expect to
be the attendants of Jesus in his last suffering ?
Whom but John the friend of his heart ? — Whom
but his mother, whose soul was now pierced
through by the sword of sorrow, which Simeon
had foretold ?— Whom but those, who had been
attached to him through life ; who, having been
healed by him of their infirmities, Were impelled
by gratitude to minister to him of their substance,
to be attentive to all his wants ? — These were the
persons whom we should have expected to have
attended his execution ; and these were there.
To whom would an expiring son, of the best af
fections, recommend a poor, aridj probably, a
widowed mother, but to his warmest friend ?^-
And this did Jesus.— -Unmindful of the extremity
of his own torture, and anxious to alleviate the
burden of her sorrows; and to protect her old age
from future wsant and misery, he said to his be
loved disciple — " Behold thy mother ! arid from
that hour that disciple took her to his owri hoirie."
I own to you, that such instances as these, Of
the conformity of events to our probable expec
tation, are to me genuine marks ofthe simplicity
and truth of the gospels ; and far outweigh a

312 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
thousand little objections, arising from our ig
norance of manners, times, and circumstances,
or from our incapacity to comprehend the means
used by the Supreme Being in the moral govern
ment of his creatures.
St, Matthew mentions several miracles which
attended our Saviour's crucifixion — the darkness
which overspread the land — the rending of the
veil of the temple — an earthquake which rent
the rocks— and the resurrection of many saints,
and their going into the holy city — " Such," you
say, " is the account which this dashing writer
of the book of Matthew gives, but in which he
is not supported by the writers of the other
books." This is not accurately, expressed ; Mat
thew is supported by Mark and Luke, with re
spect to two ofthe miracles— the darkness— and
the rending of the veil ;— and their omission of
the others does not prove that they were either
ignorant of them, or disbelieved them. I think
it idle to pretend to say positively what influ
enced them to, mention only two miracles ; they
probably thought them sufficient to convince any
person, as they convinced the centurion, that
Jesus " was a righteous man"— " the Son of

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 313
God." And these two miracles were better cal
culated to produce general conviction, amongst
the persons for whose benefit Mark and Luke
wrote their gospels, than either the earthquake
or the resurrection of the saints. The earth
quake was, probably, confined to a particular
spot, and might, by an objector, have been called
a natural phenomenon ; and those to whom the
saints appeared might, at the time of writing the
gospels of Mark and Luke, have been dead; but
the darkness must have been generally known
and remembered ; and the veil of the temple
might still be preserved at the time these authors
wrote^ — As to John not mentioning any of these
miracles — it is well known that his gospel was
written as a kind of supplement to the other
gospels ; he has therefore omitted many things
which the other three evangelists had related,
and he has added several things which they had
not mentioned ; in particular, he has added a
circumstance of great importance : he tells us
that he saw one of the soldiers pierce the side of
Jesus with a spear, and that blood and water
flowed through the wound; and lest anyone
should doubt of the fact, from its not being men
tioned by the other evangelists, he asserts it with
7

314 AN AFQLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
peculiar earnestness—" And he that saw it, bare
record, and his record is true ; and he kriP^eth
that he saith. true, that ye might believe." — John
saw blood and water flowing from the wound ;
the blood is easily accounted for ; but whence
came the water ? The anatomists tell us — that
it came from the pericwdium ; — so consistent is
evangelical testimony with the most curious re
searches into natural scjence ! — You amuse your
self with the account of what the Scripture calls
many saints, and yqu call an a rmy of saints, and
are angry with Matthew for npt having told you
a great many things about them.— Jt is very pos
sible that Matthew might have known the fact
of their resurrection, without knowing every thing
about them ; but if he had gratified your curio
sity in every particular, I am of opinion that you
would not have beheved a WQi'd of what he had
told you. I have no curiosity on the subject ; it
is. enough for me to know that " Christ was the
first fruits of thjgm that slept," and " that all that
are in the graves shall hear his voice and shall
pome forth," as thosie holy men did, who heard
the voice of the Son pf God at bis -riasurrectipn,
and pas .§4 frpm d§#Ah to life. If I durst indulge
ijnpelf in being wise above what is written, I

AN OOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 315
might be able to answer many of your inquiries
relative to these saints ; but I dare not touch the
ark of the Lord, I dare not support the authority
of Scripture by the boldness of conjecture. What
ever difficulty there may be in accounting for
the silence of the other evangelists, and of St.
Paul also, on this subject, yet there is a greater
difficulty in supposing that Matthew did not giv?
a true narration of what had happened at the
crucifixion. If there had been no supernatural
darkness, no earthquake, no rending of the veil
of the temple, no graves opened, no resurrection
of holy men, no appearance of them unto many
— if none of these things had been true, or ra
ther if any one of them had been false, what
motive could Matthew, writing to the Jews, have
had for trumping up such wonderful stories ? He
wrote, as every man does, with an intention to
be believed ; and yet every Jew he met would
have stared him in the face, and told him that
he was a liar and an impostor. What author,
who twenty years hence should address to the
French nation an history of Louis XVI. would
venture to affirm, that when he was beheaded
there was darkness for three hours over all France?
that there was an earthquake ? that rocks were

316 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
split ? graves opened ? and dead men brought to
life, who appeared to many persons in Paris ? —
It is quite impossible to suppose, that any one
would dare to publish such obvious lies ; and I
think it equally impossible to suppose, that Mat
thew would have dared to publish his account of
what happened at the death of Jesus, had not
that account been generally known to be true.

LETTER VIII.

The " tale of the resurrection," you say, " fol
lows that of the crucifixion." — You have accus
tomed me so much to this kind of language, that
when I find you speaking of a tale, I have no
doubt of meeting with a truth. From the ap
parent disagreement in the accounts, which the
evangelists have given of some circumstances
respecting the resurrection, you remark — " If
the writers of these books had gone into any
court of justice to prove an alibi , (for it is of
the nature of an alibi that is here attempted to
be proved, namely, the absence of a dead body
by supernatural means,) and had given their evi
dence in the same contradictory manner, as it is
here given, they would have been in danger of
having their ears cropt for perjury, and would
have justly deserved it" — " hard words, or hang
ing," it seems, if you had been their judge. Now
I maintain, that it is the brevity with which the
account of the resurrection is given by all the

318 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
evangelists, which has occasioned the seeming
confusion ; and that this confusion would have
been cleared up at once, if the witnesses of the
resurrection had been examined before any judi
cature. As we cannot have this viva voce exa
mination of all the witnesses, let us call up and
question tiie evangelists as witnesses to a super
natural alibi. — Did you find the sepulchre of Je
sus empty ? One of us actually saw it empty,
aftd the rest heard from eye-witnesses, that it
was empty. — Did you, or any of the followers of
Jesus, take away the dead body from the sepul
chre ? All answer, No. — Did the soldiers, or the
Jews, take away the body? No. — How are you
certain of that ? Because we saw the body when
it was dead, attd we saw it afterwards when it
was alive. — 'How do you know that what you
saw was the body of Jesus ? We had been long
and intimately acquainted with Jesus, and knew
his person perfectly. — Were you not affrighted,
arid mistook a spirit for a body ? No: tlie body
had flesh and bones ; we are sure that it was the
Very body which hung upon the cross, for we
saw the wound in the side, and the print- of the
nails in the hands and feet.' — And all this y©u
are ready to swear ? We are ; and we are ready

AN APOLOGY1 FOR THE BIBLE. 319
to die ais% sooner than we will deny any part
of it. —This is the te_ti_aP_Jy which all the evan
gelists would give, in whatever court of justice
they were examined ; and this, I Apprehend,
would _u__-ciently establish the alibi of the dead
body from the Sepulchre by supernatural means.
But as the resurrection of Jesus is a point
which you attack with all your force, I will exa
mine minutely the principal of your objections;
I do not think them deserving of this notice,
but they shall have it. The book of Matthew,
you say, " states that when Christ was put in
the sepulchre, the Jews applied to Pilate for a
watch or a guard to be placed ov*r the sepulchre,
to prevent the body being stolen by the disci
ples." — I admit this account, but it is not the
whole ofthe account: you have omitted the rea
son for the request which the chief priests made
to Pilate—" Sir, we remember that that deceiver
said, while he was y .ft alive, After thrie days I
will rise1 again/' — ^It is material to rema.k this ;
for at the very time that Jesus predicted his re-
surrecstiPn, he predicted also his crucifixion, and
all that he should Suffer from the malice of those
very men Who now applied to Pilate fbr a guard.

320 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
— " He shewed to his disciples, how that he must
ga unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of
the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and
be killed, and be raised again the third day."
(Matt. xvi. 21.) These men knew full well that
the first part of this prediction had been accu
rately fulfilled through their malignity ; and,
instead of repenting of what they had done,
they were so infatuated as to suppose, that
by a guard of soldiers they could prevent the
completion of the second. — The other books,
you observe, " say nothing about this applica
tion, nor about the sealing of the stone, nor the
guard, nor the watch, ,and according to these
accounts there were none." — This, Sir, I deny.
The other books do not say that there were
none of these things ; how often must I repeat,
that omissions are not contradictions, nor silence
concerning a fact a denial of it ?
You go on — " The book of Matthew conti
nues its account, that at the end of the sabbath,
as it began to dawn, towards the first day of the
week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
to see the sepulehre. Mark says it was sun-ris
ing, and John says it was dark. Luke says, it

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 321
was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary
the mother, of James, and other women, that came
to the sepulchre ; and John says that Mary
Magdalene came alone. So well do they agree
about their first evidence ! they all appear, how
ever, to have known most about Mary Magda
lene ; she was a woman of a large acquaintance,
and it was not an ill conjecture that she might
be upon the stroll."— This is a long paragraph ;
I will answer it distinctly : — first, there is no dis
agreement of evidence with respect to the time
when the women went to. the sepulchre ; all the
evangelists agree as to the day on which they
went; and, as to the time of the day, it was
early in the morning ; what court of justice in
the world would set aside this evidence, as in
sufficient to substantiate the fact ofthe women's
having gone to the sepulchre, because the wit
nesses differed as to the degree of twilight which
lighted them on their way ? Secondly, there is
no disagreement of evidence with respect to the
persons who went to the sepulchre. John states
that Mary Magdalene went to the sepulchre ;
but he does not state, as you make him state,
that Mary Magdalene went alone ; she might,
for any thing you have proved, or can prove, to
S Y

322 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
the contrary, have been accompanied by all the
women mentioned by Luke : — is it an unusual
thing to distinguish by name a principal person
going on a visit, or an embassy, without men
tioning his subordinate attendants ? Thirdly, in
opposition to your insinuation that Mary Mag
dalene was a common woman, I wish it to be
considered, whether there is any scriptural au
thority for that imputation ; and whether there
be or not, I must contend, that a repentant and
reformed woman ought not to be esteemed an
improper witness of a fact. The conjecture,
which you adopt concerning her, is nothing less
than an illiberal, indecent, unfounded calumny,
not excusable in the mouth of a libertine, and
intolerable in yours.
The book of Matthew, you observe, goes on
to say — " And behold there was an earthquake,
for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven,
and came and rolled back the stone from the
door, and sat upon it : — but the other books say
nothing about any earthquake,"— what then?
does their silence prove that there was none ? —
" nor about the angel rolling back the stone and
sitting upon it ;" — what then ? does their silence

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 323
prove that the stone was not rolled back by an
angel, and that he did not sit upon it ? — " and
according to their accounts there was no angel
sitting there." This conclusion I must deny ;
their accounts do not say there was no angel
sitting there, at the time that Matthew says he
sat upon the stone. They do not deny the fact,
they simply omit the mention of it ; and they all
take notice that the women, when they arrived
at the sepulchre, found the stone rolled away :
hence it is evident that the stone was rolled away
before the women arrived at the sepulchre ; and
the other evangelists, giving an account of what
happened to the women when they reached the
sepulchre, have' merely omitted giving an account
of a transaction previous to their arrival. Where
is the contradiction ? What space of time inter
vened between the rolling away the stone, and
the arrival of the women at the sepulchre, is no
where mentioned ; but it certainly- was long
enough for the angel to have changed his posi
tion j from sitting on the outside he might have
entered into the sepulchre ; and another angel
might have made his appearance ; or, from the
first, there might have been two, one on the out
side rolling away the stone, and the other within.
Y 2

324 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
Luke, you tell us, " says there were two, and
they were both standing ; and John says there
were two, and both sitting."— It is impossible,
I grant, even for an angel to be sitting and
standing at the same instant of time ; but Luke
and John do not speak of the same instant, nor
of the same appearance — Luke speaks of the
appearance to all the women ; and John of the
appearance to Mary Magdalene alone, who tar
ried weeping at the sepulchre after Peter and
John had left it. But I forbear making any
more minute remarks on still minuter objections,
all of which are grounded on this mistake — that
the angels were seen at one particular time, in
one particular place, and by the same indivi
duals. As to your inference, from Matthew's using
the expression unto this day, " that the book
must have been manufactured after a lapse of
some generations at least," it cannot be admit
ted against the positive testimony of all an
tiquity. That the story about stealing away the
body was a bungling story, I readily admit ; but
the chief priests are answerable for it ; it is not
worthy either your notice or mine, except as it

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 325
is a strong instance to you, to me, and to every
body how far prejudice may mislead the under
standing. You come to that part of the evidence in
those books that respects, you say, " the pre
tended appearances of Christ after his pretended
resurrection ; the writer of the book of Matthew
relates, that the angel that was sitting on the
stone at the mouth of the sepulchre said to the
two Marys, (chap, xxviii. 7.) " Behold, Christ is
gone before you into Galilee, there shall you see
hirq." The gospel, Sir, was preached to poor
and illiterate men : and it is the duty of priests
to preach it to them in all its purity ; to guard
them against the errors of mistaken, or the de
signs of wicked men. You then, who can read
your Bible, turn to this passage, and you will
find that the angel did not say, " Behold, Christ
is gone before you into Galilee," — but, " Behold,
he goeth before you into Galilee." I know not
what Bible you made use of in this quotation,
none that I have seen render the original word
by — he is gone :— it might be properly rendered,
he will go ; and it is literally rendered, he is go
ing. This phrase does not imply an immediate

326 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
setting out fbr Galilee : when a man has fixed
upon a long journey to London or Bath, it is
common enough to say, he is going to London
or Bath, though the time of his going may be
at some distance. Even your dashing Matthew
could not be guilty of such a blunder as to make
the angel say he is gone ; for he tells us immedi
ately afterwards, that as the women were de
parting from the sepulchre to tell his disciples
what the angels had said to them, Jesus himself
met them. Now how Jesus could be gone into
Galilee, and yet meet the women at Jerusalem,
I leave you to explain, fbr the blunder is not
chargeable upon Matthew. I excuse your in
troducing the expression — " then the eleven dis
ciples went away into Galilee," for the quotation
is rightly made ; but had you turned to the Greek
Testament, you would not have found in this
place any word answering to then ; the passage
is better translated — and the eleven. Christ had
said to his disciples, (Matt. xxvi. 32.) " After I
am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee :"
— and the angel put the women in mind of the
very expression and prediction — He is risen, as
he said ; and behold, he goeth before you into Ga
lilee. Matthew, intent upon the appearance in

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 327
Galilee, of which there were, probably, at the
time he wrote, many living witnesses in Judea,
omits the mention of many appearances taken
notice of by John, and, by this omission, seems
to connect the day of the resurrection of Jesus,
with that of the departure of the disciples for
Galilee. You seem to think this a great diffi
culty, and incapable of solution ; for you say— -
" It is not possible, unless we admit these disci
ples the right of wilful lying, that the writers of
these books could be any of the eleven persons
called disciples ; for if, according to Matthew,
the eleven went into Galilee to meet Jesus in a
mountain, by his own appointment, on the same
day that he is said to have risen, Luke and John
must have been two of that eleven ; yet the
writer of Luke says expressly, and John implies
as much, that the meeting was that same day in
a house at Jerusalem : and on the other hand,
if, according to Luke and Jphn, the eleven were
assembled in a house at Jerusalem, Matthew
must have been one of that eleven ; yet Matthew
says, the meeting was in a mountain in Galilee ;
and consequently the evidence given in those
books destroys each other." When I was a young
man in the university, I was pretty much ac-

328 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
customed to drawing of consequences ; but my
Alma Mater did not suffer me to draw conse
quences after your manner ; she taught me — that
a false position must end in an absurd conclusion.
I have shewn your position — that the eleven went
into Galilee on the day of the resurrection — to
be false, and hence your consequence — that the
evidence given in those two books destroys each
other — is not to be admitted. You ought, more
over, to have considered, that the feast of un
leavened bread, which immediately followed the
day on which the passover was eaten, lasted seven
days ; and that strict observers ofthe law did not
think themselves at liberty to leave Jerusalem,
till that feast was ended ; and this is a collateral
proof that the disciples did not go to Galilee on
the day of the resurrection.
You certainly have read the New Testament,
but not, I think, with great attention, or you
would have known who the apostles were. In
this place you reckon Luke as one ofthe eleven,
and in other places you speak of him as an. eye
witness of the things he relates ; you ought to
have known that Luke was no apostle ; and he
tells you himself, in the preface to his gospel,

AN. APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 329
that he wrote from the testimony of others. If
this mistake proceeds from your ignorance, you
are not a fit person to write comments on the
Bible ; if from design, (which I am unwilling to
suspect,) you are still less fit ; in either case it
may suggest to your readers the propriety of
suspecting the truth and accuracy of your asser
tions, however daring and intemperate.' — ¦" Of
the numerous priests or parsons of the present
day, bishops and all, the sum total of whose
learning," according to you, " is a b ab, and
hie, h_ec, hoc, there is not one amongst them,"
you say, " who can write poetry like Homer, or
science like Euclid," — If I should admit this,
(though there are many of them, I doubt not,
who understand these authors better than you
do,) yet I cannot admit that there is one amongst
them, bishops and all, so ignorant as to rank
Luke the evangelist among the apostles of Christ.
I will not press this point ; any man may fall in
to a mistake, and the consciousness of this falli
bility should create in all men a little modesty,
a little diffidence, a little caution, before they
presume to call the most illustrious characters pf
antiquity liars, fools, and knaves.

330 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
You want to know why Jesus did not shew
himself to all the people after his resurrection. —
This is one of Spinoza's objections ; and it may
sound well enough in the mouth of a Jew, wish
ing to excuse the infidelity of his countrymen ;
but it is not judiciously adopted by deists of other
nations. God gives us the means of health, but
he does not force us to the use of them ; he gives
us the powers of the mind, but he does not com
pel us to the cultivation of them : he gave the
Jews opportunities of seeing the miracles of Jesus,
but he did not oblige them to believe them.
They who persevered in their incredulity after
the resurrection of Lazarus, would have perse
vered also after the resurrection of Jesus. Laza
rus had been buried four days, Jesus but three ;
the body of Lazarus had begun to undergo cor
ruption, the body of Jesus saw no corruption ;
why should you expect, that they would have
believed in Jesus on his own resurrection, when
they had not believed in him on the resurrection
of Lazarus ? When the Pharisees were told of
the resurrection of Lazarus, they, together with
the chief priests, gathered a council, and said —
" What do we ? for this man doeth many mira-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 331
cles. If we let him thus alone, all men will be
lieve on him ; — then from that day forth they
took counsel together to put him to death."
The great men at Jerusalem, you see, admitted
that Jesus had raised Lazarus from the dead ;
yet the belief of that miracle did not generate
conviction that Jesus was the Christ ; it only ex
asperated their malice, and accelerated their
purpose of destroying him. Had Jesus shewn
himself after his resurrection, the chief priests
would probably have gathered another council,
have opened it with, What do we ? and ended it
with a determination to put him to death. As
to us, the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus,
which we have in the New Testament, is far more
convincing, than if it had been related that he
shewed himself to every man in Jerusalem ; for
then we should have had a suspicion, that the
whole story had been fabricated by the Jews_
You think Paul an improper witness of the
resurrection ; I think him one of the fittest that
could have been chosen ; and for this reason—
his testimony is the testimony pfa former enemy.
He had, in his own miraculous conversion, suffi
cient ground for changing his opinion as to a

332 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
matter of fact ; for believing that to have been a
fact, which he had formerly, through extreme
prejudice, considered as a fable. For the truth of
the resurrection of Jesus he appeals to above two
hundred and fifty living witnesses ; and before
whom does he make this appeal? — Before his ene
mies, who were able and willing to blast his cha
racter, if he had advanced an untruth. — You
know, undoubtedly, that Paul had resided at Co
rinth near two years ; that, during a part of that
time, he had testified to the Jews, that Jesus was
the Christ ; that, finding the bulk of that nation
obstinate in their unbelief, he had turned to the
gentiles, and had converted many to the faith in
Christ ; that he left Corinth, and went to preach
the gospel in other parts ; that, about three years
after he had quitted Corinth, he wrote a letter to
the converts which he had made in that place,
and who, after his departure, had been split into
different factions, and had adopted different
teachers in opposition to Paul. From this ac
count we may be certain, that Paul's letter, and
every circumstance in it, would be minutely ex
amined. "The city of Corinth was full of Jews ;
these men were, in general, Paul's bitter enemies;
yet, in the face of them all, he asserts, " that

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 333
Jesus Christ was buried ; that he rose again the
third day ; that he was seen of Cephas, then of
the twelve ; that he was afterwards seen of above
five hundred brethren at once, of whom the
greater part were then alive. An appeal to above
two hundred and fifty living witnesses, is a pretty
strong proof of a fact ; but it becomes irresist
ible, when that appeal is submitted to the judg
ment of enemies. St. Paul, you must allow, was
a man of ability ; but he would have been an
idiot, had he put it in the power of his enemies
to prove, from his own letter, that he was a lying
rascal. They neither proved, nor attempted to
prove, any such thing ; and therefore we may
safely conclude, that this testimony of Paul to
the resurrection of Jesus was true : and it is a
testimony, in my opinion, of the greatest weight.
You come, you say, to the last scene, the
ascension ; upon which in your opinion, " the
reality of the future mission of the disciples was
to rest for proof." — I do not agree with you in
this. The reality of the future mission of the
apostles might have been proved, though Jesus
Christ had not visibly ascended into heaven. Mi
racles are the proper proofs of a divine mission ;

334 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
and when Jesus gave the apostles a commission
to preach the gospel, he commanded them to
stay at Jerusalem, till they " were endued with
power from on high." Matthew has omitted the
mention of the ascension; and John, you say,
has not said a syllable about it. I think other
wise. John has not given an express account of
the ascension, but has certainly said something
about it; for he informs us, that Jesus said to
Maary— •*' Touch me not j for I am not yet ascended
to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say
unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your
Father, and to my God and your God." This is
surely saying something about the ascension;
and if the fact of the ascension be not related
by John or Matthew, it m&y reasonably be sup
posed, that the omission was made, on account
of the notoriety of the fact. That the fact was
generally known, may be justly collected from
the reference which Peter makes to it in the hear
ing of all the Jews, a very few days after it had
happened— " This Jesus hath God raised up,
whereof we are all witnesses. Therefore being
by the fight hand of God exalted." — Paul bears
testimony also to the ascension, when he says,
that Jesus, was received up into glory. As to

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 335
the difference you contend for, between the ac
count of the ascension, as given by Mark and
Luke, it does not exist ; except in this, that
Mark omits the particulars of Jesus going with
his apostles to Bethany, and blessing them there,
which are mentioned by Luke. But omissions,
I must often put you in mind, are not contra
dictions. You have now, you say, " gone through the
examination of the four books ascribed to Mat
thew, Mark, Luke, and John ; and when it is
considered that the whole space of time, from
the crucifixion to what is called the ascension, is
but a few days, apparently not more than three
or four, and that all the circumstances are re
ported to have happened near the same spot,
Jerusalem, it is, I believe, impossible to find, in
any story upon record, so many, and such glaring
absurdities, contradictions, and falsehoods, as are
in those books." — What am I to say to this ?
Am I to say that, in writing this paragraph, you
have forfeited your character as an honest man ?
Or, admitting your honesty, am I to say that
you are grossly ignorant ofthe subject ? Let the
reader judge. — John says, that Jesus appeared to

336 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
his disciples at Jerusalem on the day of his re
surrection, and that Thomas was not then with
them. — The same John says, that after eight days
he appeared to them again, when Thomas was
with them. — Now, Sir, how apparently three or
four days can be consistent with really eight days,
I leave you to make put. But this is not the whole
of John's testimony, either with respect to place
or time — for he says — After these things (after
the two appearances to the disciples at Jerusalem,
on the first and on the eighth day after the resur
rection) Jesus shewed himself again to his disci
ples at the sea of Tiberias. The sea of Tiberias,
I presume you know, was in Galilee ; and Gali
lee, you may know, was sixty or seventy miles
from Jerusalem; it must have taken the disciples
some time, after the eighth day, to travel from
Jerusalem into Galilee. What, in your own in
sulting language to the priests, what have you to
answer, as to the same spot Jerusalem, as to your
apparently three or four days ? — But this is not
all. Luke, in the beginning of the Acts, refers
to his gospel, and says — " Christ shewed himself
alive after his passion, by many infallible proofs,
being seen of the apostles forty days, and speak
ing of the things pertaining to the kingdom of
6

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 337
God :" instead of four, you perceive there were
forty days between the crucifixion and the ascen
sion. I need not, I trust, after this, trouble my
self about the falsehoods and contradictions which
you impute to the evangelists ; your readers can
not but be upon their guard, as to the credit due
to your assertions, however bold and improper.
You will suffer me to remark, that the evange
lists were plain men ; who, convinced of the truth
of their narration, and conscious of their own in
tegrity, have related what they knew, with ad
mirable simplicity. They seem to have said to
the Jews of their time, and to say to the Jews
and unbelievers of all times — We have told you
the truth ; and if you will not believe us, we
have nothing more to say. — Had they been im
postors, they would have written with more cau
tion and art, have obviated every cavil, and
avoided every appearance of contradiction. This
they have not done ; and this I consider as a
proof of their honesty and veracity.
John the Baptist had given his testimony to
the truth of our Saviour's mission in the most
unequivocal terms; he afterwards sent two of his
disciples to Jesus, to ask him whether he was

338 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
really the expected Messiah or not. Matthew
relates both these circumstances : had the writer
ofthe book of Matthew been an impostor, would
he have invalidated John's testimony, by bring
ing forward his real or apparent doubt ? Impos
sible ! Matthew, having proved the resurrection
of Jesus, tells us, that the eleven disciples went
away into Galilee into a mountain where Jesus
had appointed them, and " when they saw him,
they worshipped him : but some doubted." —
Would an impostpr, in the very last place where
be mentions the resurrection, and in the conclu
sion of his book, have suggested such a cavil to
unbelievers, as to say — some doubted ? Impos
sible ! The evangelist has left us to collect the
reason why some doubted : — The disciples saw
Jesus, at a distance, on the mountain ; and some
of them fell down and worshipped him ; whilst
others doubted whether the person they saw was
really Jesus ; their doubt, however, could not
have lasted long, for in the very next verse we
are told, that Jesus came and spake unto them.
Great and laudable pains have been taken by
many learned men, to harmonize the several ac
counts given us by the evangelists of the resur-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 339
rection. .It does not seerii to me to be a matter
of any great consequence to Christianity, whether
the accounts can, in every niinute' particular, be
harmonized or not ; since there is no such dis
cordance in them, as to render the fact of the
resurrection ' doubtful to any impartial mind. If
any man, in a court of justice, should give posi
tive evidence of a fact ; and three others should
afterwards be examined, arid'all Pf them should
corifir-ri the evidence of the first as to the fact,
but should apparently differ from him and from
each other, by being more or less particular in
their accounts of the circuiristances attending the
fact ; ought we to doubt of the fact, because we'
could not harmonize the evidence respectirig the
circuiristances relating to it ? The oiriissiori of
any one circumstance (such as that of Mary
Magdalene having "gone twice to the sepulchre ;
or that of the angel having, after he had rolled
away the stone from the sepulchre, entered into
the sepulchre) may render an harmony impos
sible, without having recourse to supposition to
supply the defect. You deists laugh at all such
attempts, and call thetn priestcraft. I think if
better then, in argiiing with you, to admit that
there may be (hot granting, however, that there
z 2

340 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
is) an irreconcileable difference between the evan
gelists in some of their accounts respecting the
life of Jesus, or his resurrection. — Be it so ; what
then ? Does this difference, admitting it to be
real, destroy the credibility of the gospel history
in any of its essential points ? Certainly, in my
opinion, not. As I look upon this to be a gene
ral answer to most of your deistical objections,
I profess my sincerity, in saying, that I consider
it as a true and sufficient answer ; and I leave it
to your consideration. I have, purposely, in the
whole of this discussion, been silent as to the
inspiration of the evangelists ; well knowing that
you would have rejected with scorn any thing
I could have said on that point ; but, in dis
puting with a deist, I do most solemnly contend,
that the christian religion is true, and worthy of
all acceptation, whether the evangehsts were in
spired or not.
Unbelievers, in general, wish to conceal their
sentiments ; they have a decent respect for pub
lic opinion; are cautious of affronting the religion
of their country ; fearful of undermining the
foundations of civil society. Some few have been
more daring, but less judicious ; and have, with-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 341
out disguise, professed their unbelief. But you
are the first who ever swore that he was an infidel,
concluding your deistical creed with — So help
me God ! I pray that God may help you : that
he may, through the influence of his Holy Spirit,
bring you to a right mind ; convert you to the
religion of his Son, whom, out of his abundant
love to mankind, he sent into the world, that all
who believe in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life.
You swear, that you think the christian reli
gion is not true. I give full credit to your oath;
it is an oath in confirmati.n — -of what ? — of an
opinion. — It proves the sincerity of your declara
tion of your opinion ; but the opinion, notwith
standing the oath, may be either true or false.
Permit me to produce to you an oath not con
firming an opinion, but a fact: it is the oath of
St. Paul, when he swears to the Galatians, that,
in what he told them of his miraculous conver
sion, he did not tell a lie: "Now the things which
I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not."
— Do but give that credit to Paul which I give
to you, do but consider the difference between
an opinion and a fact, and I shall not despair of
your becoming a christian.

342 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
Deism* you.say, consists in a belief of one God,
and an imitation of his moral character, or the
practice of what is called virtue ; and in this (as
far as religion is concerned) you rest all your
hopes.— There is nothing in deism but what is
in Christianity, but there is much in Christianity
which is not in deism- The christian has no
doubt concerning a future state ; every deist,
from Plato to Thomas Paine, is on this subject
overwhelmed with doubts insuperable by human
reason. The christian has no misgivings as to
the pardon of penitent sinners, through the in
tercession of a mediator ; the deist is harassed
with apprehension lest the moral justice of God
should demand, with inexorable rigour, punish
ment for transgression. The christian has no
doubt concerning the lawfulness and the efficacy
of prayer; the deist is disturbed on this point
by abstract considerations concerning the good
ness of God, which wants not to be intreated ;
concerning his foresight, which has no need of
our information; concerning his immutability,
which cannot be changed through our supplica
tion. The christian admits the providence of
God, and the. liberty pf human actions ; the deist
is inyolve4 in great difficulties, when he under
takes the proof of either. The christian has as-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 343
surance that the Spirit of God will help his infir
mities ; the deist does not deny the possibihty
that God may have access to the human mind,
but he has no ground to believe the fact of his
either enlightening tbe understanding, influ
encing the will, or purifying the heart.

LETTER IX.

" Those," you say, " who are not much ac
quainted with ecclesiastical history, may suppose
that the book called the New Testament has
existed ever since the time of Jesus Christ ; but
the fact is historically otherwise : there was no
such book as the New Testament till more than
three hundred years after the time that Christ is
said to have lived." — This paragraph is calcu
lated to mislead common readers : it is necessary
to unfold its meaning. The book, called the
New Testament, consists of twenty-seven dif
ferent parts ; concerning seven of these, viz. the
Epistles to the Hebrews, that of James, the se
cond of Peter, the second of John, the third of
John, that of Jude, and the Revelation, there
were at first some doubts ; and the question,
whether they should be received into the canon,
might be decided, as all questions concerning
opinions must be, by vote. With respect to the
otfier twentyparts,thosewho are most acquainted

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 345
with ecclesiastical history will tell you, as Du Pin
does after Eusebius, that they were owned as ca
nonical, at all times, and by all christians. Whe
ther the council of Laodicea was held before or
after that of Nice, is not a settled point ; all the
books of the New Testament, except the Reve
lations, are enumerated as canonical in the Con
stitutions of that council ; but it is a great mis
take to suppose, that the greatest part of the
books of the New Testament were not in general
use amongst christians, long before the council
of Laodicea was held. This is not merely my
opinion on the subject ; it is the opinion of one
much better acquaintedwith ecclesiastical history
than I am, and, probably, than you are, — Mo
sheim. " The opinions," says this author, " or
rather the conjectures, ofthe learned concerning
the time when the books of the New Testament
were collected into one volume, as also about
the authors of that collection, are extremely dif
ferent. This important question is attended with
great and almost insuperable difficulties to us in
these latter times. It is however sufficient for
us to know, that, before the middle of the second
century, the greatest part of the books of the
New Testament were read in every christian so-

346 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
ciety throughout the world, and received as a
divine rule of faith and manners. Hence it ap
pears, that these sacred writings were carefully
separated from several human compositions upon
the same subject, either by some of the apostles
themselves, who lived so long, or by their disci
ples and successors, who were spread abroad
through all nations. We are well assured, that
the four gospels were collected during the life of
St. John, and that the three first received the ap
probation of this divine apostle. And why may
we not suppose, that the other books ofthe New
Testament were gathered together at the same
time ? What renders this highly probable is, that
the most urgent necessity required its being done.
For, not long after Christ's ascension into heaven,
several histories of his life and doctrines, full of
pious frauds, and fabulous wonders, were com
posed by persons, whose intentions, perhaps,
were not bad, but whose writings discovered the
greatest superstition and ignorance. Nor was
this all : productions appeared, which were im
posed on the world by fraudulent men as the
writings of the holy apostles. These apocryphal
and spurious writings must have produced a sad
confusion, and rendered both the history and the

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 347
doctrine of Christ uncertain, had not the rulers
of the church used all possible care and diligence
in separating the books that were truly apostoli
cal and divine, from all that spurious trash, arid
conveying them down to posterity in one vo
lume." Did you ever read the apology for the chris
tians, which Justin Martyr presented to the em
peror Antoninus Pius, to the senate, and people
of Rome ? I should sooner expect a falsity in a
petition, which any body of persecuted men, im
ploring justice, should present to the king and
parliament of Great Britain, than in this apo
logy. — Yet in this apology, which was presented
not fifty years after the death of St. John, not
only parts of all tlie four gospels are quoted, but
it is expressly said, that on the day called Sun
day, a portion of them was read in the public
assemblies of the christians. I forbear pursuing
this matter farther; else it might easily be shewn,
that probably the gospels, and certainly some of
St. Paul's epistles, were known to Clement, Igna
tius, and Polycarp, contemporaries with the apos
tles. These men could not quote or refer to books
which did not exist : and therefore, though you

348 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
could make it out that the book called the New
Testament did not formally exist under that title,
till three hundred and fifty years after Christ ;
yet I hold it to be a certain fact, that all the
books, of which it is composed, were written,
and most of them received by all christians,
within a few years after his death.
You raise a difficulty relative to the time which
intervened between the death and resurrection of
Jesus, who had said, that the Son of Man shall
be three days and three nights in the heart of the
earth. — Are you ignorant then that the Jews used
the phrase three days and three nights to denote
what we understand by three days ? — It is said
in Genesis, chap. vii. 12. " The rain was upon
the earth forty days and forty nights;" and this is
equivalent to the expression, (ver. 17.) " And
the flood was forty days upon the earth." In
stead then of saying three days and three nights,
let us simply say — three days — and you will not
object to Christ's being three days — Friday, Sa
turday, and Sunday — in the heart of the earth.
I do not say that he was in the grave the whole
of either Friday or Sunday; but an hundred in
stances might be produced, from writers of all

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 349
nations, in which a part of a day is spoken of as
the whole. — Thus much for the defence of the
historical part of the New Testament.
You have introduced an account of Faustus,
as denying the genuineness of the books of the
New Testament. Will you permit that great
scholar in sacred literature, Michaelis, to tell you
something about this Faustus ? — " He was igno
rant, as were most of the African writers, of the
Greek language, and acquainted with the New
Testament merely through the channel of the
Latin translation : he was not only devoid of a
sufficient fund of learning, but illiterate in the
highest degree. An argument which he brings
against the genuineness ofthe gospel affords suf
ficient ground for this assertion ; for he contends,
that the gospel of St. Matthew could not have
been written by St. Matthew himself, because he
is always mentioned in the third person." You
know who has argued like Faustus, but I did not
think myself authorized on that account to call
you illiterate in the highest degree ; but Michaelis
makes a still more severe conclusion concerning
Faustus ; and he extends his observation to every
man who argued hke him — " A man capable of

350 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
such an argument must have been ignorant not
only of the Greek writers, the knowledge of
which could1 not haVe been expected from Faustus,
but even of the Commentaries of Caesar. And
were it thought improbable that soheavya chafge
could be laid with justice on the side of his know
ledge, it Would fall ; With double weight on the
side of his honesty, and induce us to suppose,
that, preferring the arts of sophistry to the plain
ness of truth, he maintained opinions which he
believed to be false.1' (Marsh's Transl:) Never
more, I think, shall wC hear of Moses not being
the author of the Pentateuch, on account of its
being written in the third person!
Not being able to produce any argument to
render questionable either the geriuineness or the
authenticity of St. Paul's Epistles, you tell -us,
that "it is a matter of no great importance by"
whom they were written, since the writer, who
ever he was, attempts to prove his doctrine by
argument ; he does not pretend to have been wit
ness to any of the scenes told of the resurrection
and ascension ; and he declares that he had not
believed them." That Paul had so far resisted
the evidence which the apostles had given of the

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 351
resurrection and ascension of Jesus, as to be a
persecutor of the disciples of Christ, is certain ;
but I do not remember the place where he de
clares that he had not believed them. The high
priest and the senate ofthe children of Israel did
not deny the reality of the miracles, which had
been wrought by Peter and the apostles; they did
not contradict their testimony concerning the re
surrection and the ascension ; but whether they
believed it or not, they were fired with indigna
tion, and took counsel to put the apostles to
death : and this was also the temper of Paul ; whe
ther he believed or did not believe the story of
the resurrection, he was exceedingly mad against
the saints. The writer of Paul's Epistles does not
attempt to prove his doctrine by argument ; he
in many places tells us that his doctrine was not
taught him by man, or any invention of his own,
which required the ingenuity of argument to
prove it: — "I certify you, brethren, that the
gospel, which was preached of me, is not after
man. For I neither received it of man, neither
was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus
Christ." Paul does not pretend to have been a
witness of the story of the resurrection, but he
does much more ; he asserts, that he was himself
8

352 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
a witness of the resurrection. After enumerating
many appearances of Jesus to his disciples, Paul
says of himself, " Last of all, he was seen of me
also, as of one born out of due time." Whether
you will admit Paul to have been a true witness
or not; you cannot deny that he pretends to have
been a witness of the resurrection.
The story of his being struck to the ground,
as he was journeying to Damascus, has nothing
in it, you say, miraculous or extraordinary : you
represent him as struck by lightning. — It is some
what extraordinary for a man, who is struck by
lightning, to have, at the very time, full posses
sion of his understanding ; to hear a voice issuing
from the lightning, speaking to him in the He
brew tongue, calling him by his name, and en
tering into conversation with him. His compa- ,
nions, you say, appear not to have suffered in
the same manner : — the greater the wonder. If
it was a common storm of thunder and lightning
which struck Paul and all his companions to the
ground, it is somewhat extraordinary that he
alone should be hurt ; and that, notwithstanding ,
his being struck blind by lightning, he should in
other respects be so little hurt, as to be immedi-
6

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 353
ately able to walk into the city of Damascus.
So difficult is it to Opj)Pse truth by an hypothesis !
— In fhe character of Paul you discover a great
deal of violence and fanaticism ; and such men,
you observe, are never good moral evidences of
any doctrine they preach. — Read, Sir, Lord Lyt-
telton's observations ori the conversion and apos
tleship of St. Paul ; and I think you will be con
vinced of the contrary. That elegant writer thus
expresses his1 opinion on this subject — " Besides
all the proofs of the christian religion, which may
be drawn from the prophecies of the Old Testa-
frierit, from the necessary connection it has with
the whole system of the Jewish religion, from the
miratles of Christ, and from the evidence given
of his resurrection by all the other apostles, I
thirik the conversion and apostleship of St. Paul
atone, duly Corisidered, is, of itself, a demonstra-
• tion sufficient to prove Christianity to be a divine
revelation." I hope this Opinion will have some
weight with you ; it is not the Ppiniori of a lying
Bible-prophet, of a stupid evangelist, or of an
a b ab priest,— but of a learned layman, whose il
lustrious rank received splendor from his talents.
You are displeased with St. Paul " for setting
A A

354 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
out to prove the resurrection of the same body."
— You know, I presume, that the resurrection of
the same body is not, by all, admitted to be a
scriptural doctrine.— " In the New Testament
(wherein, I think, are contained all the articles
of the christian faith) I find our Saviour and the
apostles to preach the resurrection of the dead,
and the resurrection from the dead, in many
places ; but I do not remember any place where
the resurrection of the same body is so much as
mentioned." This observation of Mr. Locke I
so far adopt, as to deny that you can produce
any place in the writings of St. Paul, wherein he
sets out to prove the resurrection of the same
body. I do not question the possibility of the
resurrection of the same body, and I am not ig
norant ofthe manner in which some learned men
have explained it ; (somewhat after the way of
your vegetative speck in the kernel of a peach ;)
but as you are discrediting St. Paul's doctrine,
you. ought to shew that what you attempt to dis
credit is the doctrine of the apostle. As a mat
ter of choice, you had rather have a better body
— you will have a better body, — " your natural
body will be raised a spiritual body, your cor
ruptible will put on incorruption." You are so

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 355
much out of humour with your present body,
that you inform us, every animal in the creation
excels us in something. Now I had always
thought, that the single circumstance of our
having hands, and their having none, gave us an
infinite superiority not only over insects, fishes,
snails, and spiders, (which you represent as ex
celling us in loco-motive powers,) but over all
the animals of the creation ; and enabled us, in
the language of Cicero, describing the manifold
utility of our hands, to make as it were a new
nature of things. As to what you say about the
consciousness of existence being the only con
ceivable idea of a future life — it proves nothing,
either for or against the resurrection of a body,
or of the same body ; it does not inform us,
whether to any or to what substance, material
or immaterial, this consciousness is annexed. I
leave it, however, to others, who do not admit
personal identity to consist in consciousness, to
dispute with you on this point, and willingly
subscribe to the opinion of Mr. Locke, " that
nothing but consciousness can unite remote ex-
istencies into the same person." •
From a caterpillar's passing into a torpid state
a a 2

356 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
resembling death, and afterwards appearing a
splendid butterfly, and from the (supposed) con-
sciousness of existence which the animal had in
these different states, you ask, "Why must I be
lieve, that the resurrection of the same body is
necessary to continue in me the consciousness of
existence hereafter?" — I do not dislike analogical
reasoning, when applied to proper objects, and
kept within due bounds : — But where is it said in
Scripture, that the resurrection ofthe same body
is necessary to continue in you the consciousness
of existence ? Those who admit a conscious state
of the soul between death and the resurrection,
will contend, that the soul is the substance in
which consciousness is continued without' inter
ruption : — those who deny the intermediate state
of the soul as a state of consciousness, will con
tend that consciousness is not destroyed by death,
but suspended by it, as it is suspended during a
sound sleep ; and that it may as easily be restored
after death, as after sleep, during which the fa
culties of the soul are not extinct, but dormant.
Those who think that the soul is nothing distinct
from the compages of the body, not a substance
but a mere quality, will maintain, that the con
sciousness appertaining to every individual per-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 357
son is not lost when the body is destroyed ; that
it is known to God ; and may, at the general re
surrection, be annexed to any system of matter
he may think fit, or to that particular compages
to which it belonged in this life.
In reading your book I have been frequently
shocked at the virulence of your zeal, at the in
decorum of your abuse in applying vulgar and
offensive epithets to men who have been held,
and who will long, I trust, continue to be holden,
in, high estimation. I know that the scar of ca
lumny is seldom wholly effaced ;, it remains long'
after the wound, is healed ; and your abuse of1
holy men and holy things will be remembered,/
when your arguments against them are refuted
and forgptten. Moses you term: an arrogant
coxcomb, a chief assassin ; Aaron, Joshua, Sa
muel, David, monsters and impostors; the Jewish
kings a parcel of rascals ; Jeremiah and the rest
ofthe prophets, liars ; and Paula fool, for hav
ing written one of the sublimest compositions,
and on the: most important subject that ever oc
cupied the mind of man — the lesson in our burial
service ;— this lesson you call a doubtful jargon ,
as destitute of meaning as the tolling of the bell

358 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
at the funeral. Men of low condition ! pressed
down, as you often are, by calamities generally
incident to human nature, and groaning under
burdens of misery peculiar to your condition,
what thought you when you heard this lesson
read at the funeral of your child, your parent,
or your friend ? Was it mere jargon to you, as
destitute of meaning as the tolling of a bell ? —
No. — You understood from it, that you would
not all sleep, but that you would all be changed
in a moment at the last trump ; you understood
from it, that this corruptible must put on incor-
.ruption, that this mortal must put on immorta
lity, and that death would be swallowed up in
victory ; you understood from it, that if (not
withstanding profane attempts to subvert your
faith) ye continue steadfast, unmoveable, always
abounding in the work Pf the Lord, your labour
will not be in vain.
You seem fond of displaying your skill in sci
ence and philosophy ; you speak more than once
of Euclid ; and, in censuring St. Paul, you inti
mate to us, that when the apostle says — one star
differeth from another star in glory — he ought to
have said— in distance. — All men we that one

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 3.59
Star differeth from another star in glory or bright
ness ; but few men know that their difference in
brightness arises from their difference in distance;
and I beg leave to say, that even you, philoso
pher as you are, do not know it. You make an
assumption which you cannot prove — that the
stars are equal in magnitude, and placed at dif
ferent distances from the earth ; — but you cannot
prove that they are not different in magnitude,
and placed at equal distances, though none of
them may be so near to the earth, as to have
any sensible annual parallax. — I beg pardon of
my readers for touching upon this subject ; but
it really moves one's indignation, to see a smatter
ing in philosophy urged as an argument against
the veracity of an apostle. — " Little learning is
a dangerous thing."
Paul, you say, affects to be a naturalist ; and
to prove (you might more properly have said
illustrate) his system of resurrection from the
principles of vegetation — " Thou fool," says he,
" that which thou sowest is not quickened except
it die ;" — to which one might reply, in his own
language, and say — " Thou fool, Paul, that which
thou sowest is not quickened except it die not."

360 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
It may be seen, I think, from this passage, who
affects to be a naturalist, tp be v acquainted with
the microscopical discoveries of mpdern times ;
which we^e probably neither known to Paul, nor
to the porinthians ; and wl|ich, had they been
Jppwn to them both, would have been of little
use in the illustration o(f the subject o|" £he, resur
rection' Paul said— that which thou spwest is
not quickened except it die : — every husbandman
in Corinti}, though unable perhaps to define the
term death, would understand the apostle's phrase
in a popular sense, and agree with him that a
grain pf wheat must become rotten in the ground
before }t could sprput : and that, as God raise d
from a rotten grain of wheat, the roots, the stem,
the leaves, the ear of a new plant, he might also
cause a new body to spring up from the rotten
carcass in the grave. — Doctor Clarke observes,
" In like manner as in every grain of corn there
is cpntajii^d a minute insensible seminal principle,
which is itself the entire future blade and ear,
and in due season, when aU the rest; ofthe grain
is corrupted, evolves and unfoldsv itself visibly to
the. eye ; sp Pur Pre. ent mprta 1 and corruptible
body may be b.ujt the epfifyipe, as it were, of some.
hidden and at present insensible principle, (goa.

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 361
sibly the present seat ofthe soul,) which at the
resurrection shall discover itself in its proper
form." I do not agree with this great man (for
such I esteem him in this philosophical conjec
ture ;) but the quotation may serve to shew you,
that the germ does not evolve and unfold itself
visibly to the eye till all the rest of the grain is
corrupted ; that is, in the language and meaning
of St. Paul, till it dies. — Though the authority of
Jesus may have as httle weight with you as
that of Paul, yet it may not be improper to quote
to you our Saviour's expression, when he foretells
the numerous disciples which his, death would
produce — " Except a corn of wheat fall into the
ground and die, it abideth alone ; but if it die,
it bringeth forth much fruit." — You perceive
from this, that the Jews thought the death of the
grain was, necessary to its reproduction : — hence
every one may see what little reason you had to
object to the apostle's pppular illustration of the
possibility of a resurrection- Had he known as
muph as any naturalist in Europe does, of the
progress of an, animal from one state to another,
as from a worm to a butterfly,, (which you thjipk
apgjiesj to the case,) I am of opinion he wpi^d
npt, have used that illustration in preference $0

362 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
what he has used, which is obvious and satis
factory. Whether the fourteen epistles ascribed to Paul
were written by him or not, is, in your judgment,
a matter of indifference. — So far from being a
matter of indifference, I consider the genuine
ness of St. Paul's epistles to be a matter of the
greatest importance : for if the epistles, ascribed
to Paul, were written by him, (and there is un
questionable proof that they were,) it will be
difficult for you, or for any man, upon fair prin
ciples of sound reasoning, to deny that the chris
tian religion is true. The argument is a short
one, and obvious to every capacity. It stands
thus : — St. Paul wrote several letters to those
whom, in different countries, he had converted
to the christian faith ; in these letters he affirms
two things ; — first, that he had wrought miracles
in their presence; — secondly, that many of them
selves had received the gift of tongues, and other
miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost. The persons
to whom these letters were addressed, must, on
reading them, have certainly known, whether
Paul affirmed what was true, or told a plain lie ;
they must have known, whether they had seen

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 363
him work miracles : they must have been consci
ous, whether they themselves did or did not pos
sess any miraculous gifts. — Now can you, or can
any man, believe, for a moment, that Paul (a man
certainly of great abilities) would have written
public letters, full of lies, and which could not
fail of being discovered to be lies, as soon as his
letters were read ? — Paul could not be guilty of
falsehood in these two points, or in either of
them ; and if either of them be true, the chris
tian religion is true. References to these two
points are frequent in St. Paul's epistles : I will
mention only a few. In his Epistle to the Gala
tians, he says, (chap. iii. 2, 5.) " This only would
I learn of you, received ye the spirit (gifts of the
spirit) by the works of the law ? — He ministreth
to you the spirit, and worketh miracles among
you." — To the Thessalonians he says, (1 Thess.
ch. i. 5.) " Our gospel came not unto you in
word only, but also in power, and in the Holy
Ghost." — To the Corinthians he thus expresses
himself: (1 Cor. ii. 4.) "My preaching was not
with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in the
demonstration ofthe spirit and of power;" —
and he adds the reason for his working miracles
— " That your faith should not stand in the wis-

36,4 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
dom of men, but in the power of God." — With
what alacrity would the faction at Corinth, which
opposed the apostle, have laid hold of this and
many similar declarations, in the letter, had they
been able to have detected any falsehood in them !
There is no need to multiply words on so clear a
point — the genuineness of Paul's Epistles proves
their authenticity, independently of every other
proof: for it is absurd in the extreme to suppose
him, under circumstances of obvious detection,
capable of advancing what was not true ; and if
Paul's Epistles be both genuine and authentic,
the christian religion is true. — Think of this ar
gument, You close your observations in the following
manner : — «' Should the Bible (meaning, as I
have before remarked, the Old Testament) and
Testament hereafter fall, it is not I that have
been the occasion." You look, I think, upon
your production with a parent's partial eye, when
you speak of it in such a style of self-compla
cency. The Bible, Sir, has withstood; the learn
ing of Porphyry, and the power of Julian, to say
nothing of the manichean Faustus-r-it, hasresisjted
the genius; of Bolingbroke, and the wit. of Voltaire^
6

AN A_»0LOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 365
to say nothing of a numerous herd of inferior
assailants — and it will not fall by your force.
You have barbed anew the blunted arrows of
former adversaries; you have feathered them with
blasphemy and ridicule ; dipped them in your
deadliest poison ; aimed them with your utmost
skill ; shot them against the shield of faith with
your utmost vigour ; but, like the feeble javelin
of aged Priam, they will scarcely reach the mark,
will fall to the ground without a stroke.

LETTER X.

The remaining part of your work can hardly be
made the subject of animadversion. It princi
pally consists of unsupported assertions, abusive
appellations, illiberal sarcasms, strifes of words,
profane babblings, and oppositions of science falsely
so called. I am hurt at being, in mere justice to
the subject, under the necessity of using such
harsh language; and am sincerely sorry that,
from what cause I know not, your mind has re
ceived a wrong bias in every point respecting
revealed religion. You are capable of better
things ; for there is a philosophical sublimity in
some of your ideas, when you speak of the Su
preme Being, as the creator of the universe.
That you may not accuse me of disrespect, in
passing over any part of your work without be
stowing proper attention upon it, I will wait
upon you through what you call your — con
clusion.

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 367
You refer your reader to the former part of
the Age of Reason : in which you have spoken
of what you esteem three frauds — mystery, mi
racle and prophecy. — I have not at hand the
book to which you refer, and know not what
you have said on these subjects ; they are sub
jects of great importance, and we, probably,
should differ essentially in our opinion concern
ing them ; but I confess, I am not sorry to be
excused from examining what you have said on
these points. The specimen of your reasoning,
which is now before me, has taken from me every
inclination to trouble either my reader, or my
self, with any observations on your former book.
You admit the possibility of God's revealing
his will to man : yet " the thing so revealed,"
you say, " is revelation to the person only to
whom it is made ; his account of it to another is
not revelation." — This is true; his account is
simple testimony. You add, " there is no pos
sible criterion to judge of the truth of what he
says." — This I positively deny : and contend,
that a real miracle, performed in attestation of
a repealed truth, is a certain criterion by which
we may judge of the truth of that attestation.

368 AN AfrOLOfcY FOR T__fc BIBLE.
1 afh perfectly awai-e of the bbjectibfis which
may be iriade to this position ; I have examified
them With care ; I afcknpwledge them to he of
weight ; but I do not speak unadvisedly, or as
Wishing to dictate to other men, wheri I say,
that I am persuaded the position is true. So
thought Moses, When, in the matter of Kofah,
he Said to the Israelites—" If these men die the
common death of all mSn, then the Lord hath
not sent me."— So thought Elijah, when he said,
" Lord God of Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel;
let it be knoWn this day, that thou art God in
Israel, ahd that I am tHy servant ;" — and the
people, before whom he spake, were of the same
opinion ; for, when the fire of the Lord fell and
consumed the burnt-sacrifice, they said — " The
Lord he is the God." — So thought our Saviour,
When he said—" The works that I do in my Fa
ther's name, they bear witriess of ihe ;" and,
" If I dd not the works of my Father, believe
me not." What reason have we to believe Jesus
speaking iri the gospel, arid to disbelieve Maho
met speaking iri the Koran ? Both of them lay
claim to a divine cbfriiriis&iori ; arid yet We receive
the Wbrds off the orife as a^revelatiori from God, arid.
we reject the words^ of the other as an imposture

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 369
of man. The reason is evident; Jesus estabhshed
his pretensions, not by alleging any secret com
munication with the Deity, but by working nu
merous and indubitable miracles in the preserice
of thousands, and which the most bitter and
watchful of his enemies could not disallow; but
Mahomet -wrought no miracles at all. — Nor is a
miracle the only criterion by which we may judge
of the truth of a revelation. If a series of pro
phets should, through a course of many centuries,
predict the appearance of a certain person, whom
God would, at a particular time, send into the
world for a particular end ; and at length a per
son should appear, in whom all the predictions
were minutely accomplished : such a completion
of prophecy would be a criterion of the truth of
that revelation, which that person should deliver
to mankind. Or ifa person should now say, (as
many false prophets have said, and are daily sayi
ing) that he had a commission to declare the Will
of God:; and; as a proof of his veracity, should
predict — that, after his death, he would rise from
the dead on the third- day ;^-the completion of
such a prophecy would, I presume, be a sufficient
criterion of the truth of what this man might
have said concerning the will of God. Now I
B B

370 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
fell you, (says Jesus to his disciples, concerning
Judasj who was to betray him,) before it come,
that when it is come to pass ye may believe that
I am he. In various parts of the gospels our
Saviour, with the utmost propriety, claims to be
received as the messenger of God, not only
from the miracles which he wrought, hut from
the prophecies which were fulfilled in his person,
and from the predictions which he himself deli
vered. Hence, instead pf there beirig no crite-
ripfl by which we may judge of tfye truth of the
Christian revelation, there are clearly three. It
is an easy matter to use an indecorous flippancy
pf language in speaking ofthe Christian religion;
and With a supercilious negligence to class. Christ
and his apostles amongst the impostors who have
figured in the world ; but it is not, I think, an
easy matter for any man, of good sense and sound
erudition, to make an impartial examination into
any one of the three grounds of Christianity
.Khich \ haye here mentioned; and to reject it.
¦ . {*.«¦
What is it, you ask, the Bible tejach,e&?— /Th?
prophet tylicah shall answer you: it t;each^th us— <•
" to do, justly, to loye mercy,, and to wajl£ hum
bly wjjth our God jM— justice, me^cy;, and piety,

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 371
instead of what you contend for — rapine, cruelty,
and murdter. What is it, you demand, the Testa
ment teaches us ? You answer your question — to
believe that the Almighty committed debauchery
with a woman. — Absurd and impious assertion !
No, Sir, no ; this profane doctrine, this miserable.
stuff, this blasphemous perversion of Scripture,,
is your doctrine; not that of the New Testament,
I will tell you the lesson which it teaches, to infi
dels as well as to behevers ; it is a lesson which
philosophy never taught, Which wit cannpt. ridi*
cule, nor sophistry disprove: the lesson is. this —
"The dead shall hear the voice of the Spm of
God, and they that hear shall live : all. that are
in their graves shall come forth ; they that have
done good, unto the resurrection, of life ; and
they that have done evil, unto the resurrection;
of damnation."
The moral precepts of the gospel are so well
fitted to promote the happiness of mankind in
this world, and to prepare human nature for the
future enjoyment of that blessedness, of which,
in our present state, we can form no conception,
that I had no expectation they would have met
with your disapprobation. You say, however, —
BB 2

372 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
"As to the scraps of morality that are irregularly
and thinly scattered in those books, they make
no part of the pretended thing, revealed reli->
gion." — " Whatsoever ye would that men should
do to you, do ye even so to them." — Is this a
Scrap of morality ? Is it not rather the concen
tred essence of all ethics, the vigorous root from
which every branch of moral duty towards each
other may be derived ? Duties, you know, are
distinguished by moralists into duties of perfect
and imperfect obligation ; does the Bible teach
you nothing, when it instructs you, that this
distinction is done away? when it bids you "put
oh bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of
mind, meekness, long-suffering, forbearing one
another and forgiving one another, if any man
have a quarrel against any." These, and pre
cepts such as these, you will in vain look for in
the codes of Frederic, or Justinian; you cannot
find them in our statute books ; they were not
taught, nor are they taught, in the schools of
heathen philosophy ; or, if some one or two of
them should chance to be glanced at by a Plato;
a Seneca, or a Cicero, they are not bound upon
the consciences of mankind by any sanction. It
is in the gospel, and in the gospel alone, that we

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 373
learn their importance ; acts of benevolence and
brotherly love may be tp an unbeliever voluntary
acts, to a christian they are indispensable duties.
— Is a new commandment no part of revealed
religion ? " A new commandment I give unto
you, That ye love one another;" the law of chris
tian benevolence is enjoined us by Christ himself
in the most solemn manner, as the distinguishing
badge of our being his disciples.
Two precepts you particularize as inconsistent
with the dignity and the nature of man — that pf
not resenting injuries, and that of loving ene
mies — Who but yourself ever interpreted literally
the proverbial phrase — " If a man smite thee on
thy right cheek, turn to him the other also?" —
Did Jesus himself turn the other cheek when the
officer of the high priest smote him ? It is evi
dent, that a patient acquiescence under slight
personal injuries is here enjoined ; and that a
proneness to revenge, which instigates men to
savage acts of brutality, for every trifling offence,
is forbidden. As to loving enemies, it is ex
plained, in another place, to mean, the doing
them all the good in our power ; " if thine enemy
hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give him drink:"

374 AN APOLOGY FOR _'HE BIBLE.
and what think you is more likely to preserve
peace, and to promote kind affections amongst
men, than the returning good for evil ? Christia
nity does not order us to love in proportion to
the injury — " it does not offer a premium for a
crime," — it orders us to let our benevolence ex
tend alike to all, that we may emulate the benig
nity of God himself, who maketh " his suri to
rise on the evil and on the good."
In the law of Moses, retaliation for deliberate
injuries had been ordained — an eye for an eye,
a tooth for a tooth.— Aristotle, in his treatise of
morals, says, that some thought retaliation of
personal wrongs an equitable proceeding ; Rha-
damanthus is said to have given it his sanction ;
the decemviral laws allowed it; the common law
of England did not forbid it; and it is said to be
still the law of some countries, even in Christen-
"dom : but the mild spirit of Christianity abso
lutely prohibits, not only the retaliation of inju
ries, but the indulgence of every resentful pro
pensity. ** It has been," you affirm, " the scheme of
the christian church to hold man in ignorance of

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 1_75
the Creator, as it is of governrhent to hpld him
in ignorance of his rights." — I appeal to the plain
sense of any honest man to judge whether this
representattionbetrriein either particular, When
he sittends the service of the church, does he dis
cover any design irt the minister to keep him in
ignorance of his Creator? Are not the public
prayers in which he joins, the lessons Which are
read to him, the sermons which are preached to
him, all calculated to impress upon his mind a
strong conviction ofthe mercy, justice, holiness,
power, and wisdom of the one adorable God,
bldssed for ever ? By these rhedns which the
christian church hath provided for our instruc
tion, I will venture to say, feat the; most un
learned congregation of christia._s in Great Bri
tain have more just and sublime conceptions of
the Creator, a more perfect knowledge of their
duty towards him, arid a stronger inducement to
the practice of virtue, holiness; #nd temperance,
than all the philosophers of all the heathen coun
tries in the World ever had, pr now haye, If>
indeed, your scheme should take place, and men
should ho longer believe, their Bible, then would
they soon beeofci .. as ignorant of tl^e, Creator, as
all the wdrld was when God called' Abraham frpm

376 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
his kindred ; and as all the world, which has had
no communication with either Jews or Christians,
now is. Then would they soon bow down to
stocks and stones, kiss their hand (as they did in
the time of Job, and as the poor African does
now,) to. the moon walking in brightness, and deny
the God that is above ; then would they worship
Jupiter, Bacchus, and Venus, and emulate, in
the transcendent flagitiousness of their lives, the
impure morals of their gods.
What design has government to keep men in
ignorance of their rights ? None whatever. — All
wise statesmen are persuaded, that the more men
know of their rights, the better subjects they
will become. Subjects, not from necessity but
choice, are the firmest friends of every govern
ment. The people of Great Britain are well ac
quainted with their natural and social rights ;'
they understand them better than the people of
any other country do ; they know that they have
a right to be free, not only from the capricious
tyranny of any one man's will, but from the
more afflicting despotism of republican factions ;
and it is this very knowledge which attaches them
to the constitution of their country. I have no

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 377
fear that the people should know too much of
their rights ; my fear is that they should not
know them in all their relations, and to their full
extent. The government does not desire that
men should remain in ignorance of their rights ;
but it both desires, and requires, that they should
not disturb the public peace, under vain pre
tences ; that they should make themselves ac
quainted, not merely with the rights, but with
the duties also of men in civil society. I am far
from ridicuhng (as some have done) the rights of
man ; I have long ago understood, that the poor
as well as the rich, and that the rich as well as
the poor, have, by nature, some rights, which no
human government can justly take from them,
without their tacit or express consent ; and some
also, which they themselves have no power to
surrender to any government. One of the prin
cipal rights of man, in a state either of nature
or of society, is a right of property in the fruits
of his industry, ingenuity, or good fortune. —
Does government hold any man in ignorance of
this right ? So much the contrary, that the chief
care of government is to declare, ascertain, mo
dify, and defend this right ; nay, it gives right,
where nature gives none ; it protects the goods

378 A.? aFolOgy for the bible.
of an intestate ; and it allows a man, at his death,
to dispose of that property, which the law of na»
ture would cause to revert into the common stock.
SincerelyaS I am attached to the liberties of man
kind, I cannot but profess myself an ritter enemy
to that spurious philosophy, that democratic in
sanity, which would equalize all property, and
level all distiriCtioris in civil society. Personal
distinctions, arising from superior probity, learn
ing, eloquence, skill, courage, and from every
other excellency of talents, are the very blood
and nerves of the body politic ; thfey animate the
whole, and invigorate every part; without them,
its bones Would become reeds, and its marrow
water; it would presently sink into a fetid, sense
less mass of corruption.— Power may be used for
privateends,attd in opposition to the priblicgood ;
rank maybe improperly conferred, and insolently
sustained ; riches may be Wickedly acquired, and
viciously applied : but as this is neither necessa
rily, nor generally the case, I cannot agree With
those who, irt asserting the natural equality of
men, spurn the instituted distinctions attending
power, rank, and riches. — But I mean not to
enter into any d-Sdussioti on this subject, farther
than to say, that yotir crimination of government

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 379
appears to me to be wholly unfounded ; and to
express my hope, that no one individual will be
so far misled by disquisitions on the rights Pf
man, as to think that he has any right to do
wrong, as to forget that other men have rights
as well as he.
You are animated with proper sentiments of
piety, when you speak of the structure of the
universe. No one, indeed, who considers it with
attention, can fail of having his mind filled with
the supremest veneration for its Author. Who
can contemplate, without astonishment, the mo
tion of a comet, running far beyond the orb of
Saturn, endeavouring to escape into the pathless
regions of unbounded space, yet feeling, at its
utmost distance, the attractive influence of the
sun, hearing, as it were, the voice of God arrest
ing its progress, and compelling it, after a lapse
of ages, to reiterate its ancient course ?— Who
can comprehend the distance of the stars from
the earth, and from each other ? — It is so great,
that it mocks our conception ; our very imagina
tion is terrified, confounded, and lost, when we
are told, that a ray of light, which moves at the
rate of above ten millions of miles in a minute,

380 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
will not, though emitted at this instant from the
brightest star, reach the earth in less than six
years. — We think this earth a great globe ; and
we see the sad wickedness; which individuals are
often guilty of, in scraping together a little of its
dirt: we view, with still greater astonishment and-
horror, the mighty ruin which has, in all ages,
been brought upon human kind, by the low am
bition of contending powers, to acquire a tern*
porary possession of a little portion of its surface.
But how does the whole of this globe sink, as it
were, to nothing, when we consider that a million
of earths will scarcely equal the bulk ofthe sun ;
that all the stars are suns ; and that millions of
suns constitute, probably, but a minute portion
of that material world, which God hath distri
buted through the immensity of space ! — Systems,
however, of insensible matter, though arranged
in exquisite order, prove only the wisdom and
the. power of the great Architect of nature.- — As
percipient beings, we look for something more —
for his goodness — and we cannot open our eyes
without seeing it.
Every portion of the earth, sea, and air, is full
of sensitive beings, capable, in their respective

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 381
orders, of enjoying the good things which God
has prepared for their comfort. All the orders of
beings are enabled to propagate their kind ; and
thus provision is made! for a successive, continua
tion of happiness. Individuals yield to the law
of dissolution,inseparable from the material struc
ture of their bodies : but no gap is thereby left
in existence ; their place is occupied by other in
dividuals capable of participating in the goodness
of the Almighty. Contemplations such as these
fill the mind with humility, benevolence, and
piety. But why should we stop here ? why not
contemplate the goodness of God in the redemp
tion, as well as in the creation of the world ?
By the death of his only begotten Son Jesus
Christ, he hath redeemed the whole human race
from the eternal death, which the transgression
of Adam had entailed on all. his posterity. — You
believe nothing about the transgression of Adam.
The history of Eve and the serpent excites your s
eontempt ; you will not admit that it is either a
real history, or an allegorical representation of
death entering into the world through sin, thrpugh
disobedience to the command of God.— Be it so.
— You find, however, that death doth reign over
all mankind, by whatever meansit was introduced :

382 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
this is not a matter of belief, but of lamentable
knowledge. — The New Testament tells us, that,
through the merciful dispensation of God, Christ
hath overcome death, and restored man to that
immortality which Adam had lost :— this also you
refuse to believe. — Why? Because you cannot
account for the propriety of this redemption.
Miserable reason ! stupid objection ! What is
there that you can account for ? Not for the ger
mination of a blade of grass, not for the fall of
a leaf of the forest — and will you refuse, to eat of
the fruits ofthe earth, because God has not given
you wisdom equal to his own ?. Will you refuse
to lay hold on immortality, because he has not
given you, because he, probably, could not give
to such a being as man, a foil manifestation of
the end for which he designs him, nor of the
means requisite for the attainment of that end?
What father of a family can make level to the
apprehension of his infant children, all the views
of happiness which his paternal goodness is pre
paring for them ? How can he explain to them
the utility of reproof, correction, instruction, ex*
ample, of all the various means by which he forms
their minds to piety, temperance; and probity ?
We are children in the hand of God : we are in

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 383
the very infancy of our existence ; just separated
from the womb of eternal duration ', it may not
be possible for the Father of the universe to ex
plain to us (infants in apprehension !) the good
ness and the wisdom of his dealings with the
sons of men. What qualities of mind will be
necessary for our well-doing through all eternity,
we know not ; what discipline in this infancy of
existence may be necessary for generating these
qualities, we know not : whether God cpuld or
could not, consistently with the general good,have
forgiven the transgression of Adam, without any
atonement, we know not; whether themahgnity
of sin be not so great, so opposite to the general
good, that it cannot be forgiven whilst it exists,
that is, whilst the mind retains a prppensify to it,
we know not : so that, if there should be much
greater difficulty in comprehending the mode of
God's moral government of mankind than there
really is, there would be no reason for doubting
of its rectitude. If the whole, human race be
considered as but one small member pf a large
community of free and intelligent beings of dif
ferent or4ers, and if this whple community bs
subject to discipline and laws productive of the
greatest possible good to the whole system 3 thea
6

384' AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
may we stilt riiore reasonably suspect our capa
city to comprehend the wisdorirahd goodness of
all God's proceedings in the moral government
of the universe.
You are lavish in your ptaise of deism; it is
so much better than atheism, that I mean not to
say any thing to its discredit ; it is not, however;
without its difficulties. What think you of an
Uncaused cause of every thing ? of a Being who
has no relation to time, not being older to-day
than he was yesterday, nor younger to-day than.
he will be to-morrow ? who has no relation to
space, not being a part here and a part there;
or a whole any where ? What think you of an
omniscient Being, who cannot know the future
actions of a man? Or, if his omniscience enables
him to know them, what think you of the con
tingency of human actions ? And if human ac
tions are not contingent, what think you of the
morality of actions, of the distinctiori between
vice and virtue, crime and innocence, sin and
duty? What think ybu of the infinite goodness
of a Being; who existed through eternity, without
any emanation of his goodness manifested in the
creation of sensitive beings? Or, if you contend
3

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 385
that there has been an eternal creation, what
think you of an effect coeval with its cause, of
matter not posterior to its Maker ? What think
you of the existence of evil, moral and natural,
in the work of an infinite Being, powerful, wise,
and good ? What think you of the gift of free
dom of will, when the abuse of freedom becomes
the cause of general misery ? I could propose to
your consideration a great many other questions
of a similar tendency, the contemplation of"
which has driven not a few from deism to athe
ism, just as the difficulties in revealed religion
have driven yourself, and some others, from
Christianity to deism.
For my own part, I can see no reason why
either revealed or natural religion should be
abandoned, on account of the difficulties which L
attend either of them. I look up to the incom
prehensible Maker of heaven and earth with un
speakable admiration and self-annihilation, and
am a deist. — I contemplate, with the utmost
gratitude and humility of mind, his unsearcha-'
ble wisdom and goodness in the redemption of
the, world from eternal death, through the inter
vention of his Son Jesus Christ, and am a
c c

386 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
christian. — As a deist I have little expectation; as
a christian, I have no doubt of a future state. I
speak fbr myself, and may be in an error, as to
the ground of the first part of this opinion. You
and other men may conclude differently. From
the inert nature of matter — from the faculties of
the human mind — from the apparent imperfec
tion of God's moral government of the world—
from many modes of analogical reasoning, and
from other sources, some of the philosophers of
antiquity did collect, and modern philosophers
may, perhaps, collect a strong probability of a
future existence ; and not only of a future exist
ence, but (which is quite a distinct question) of
a future state of retribution, proportioned to our
moral conduct in this world. Far be it from me
tolposen any of the obligations to virtue ; but I
must confess, that I cannot, from the same
sources of argumentation, derive any positive
assurance on the subject. Think then with what
thankfulness of heart I receive the word of God,
which tells me, that though " in Adam (by the
condition of our nature) all die ; " yet " in
Christ (by the covenant of grace) shall all be
made alive." I lay hold on " eternal life as the
gift of God through Jesus Christ •" I consider

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 387
it not as any appendage to the nature I derive
from Adam, but as the free gift of the Al
mighty, through his Son, whom he has consti
tuted Lord of all, the Saviour, the Advocate,
and the Judge of human kind.
" Deism," you affirm, " teaches us, without
the possibility of being mistaken, all that is ne
cessary or proper to be known." — There are three
things, which all reasonable men admit are neces
sary and proper to be known — the being of God
— the providence of God — a future state of re
tribution. — Whether these three truths are so
taught us by deism, that there is no possibihty
of being mistaken concerning any of them, let
the history of philosophy, and of idolatry, and
superstition, in all ages and countries, determine.
A volume might be filled with an account of the
mistakes into which the greatest reasoners have
fallen, and ofthe uncertainty in which they lived,
with respect to every one of these points. I will
advert, briefly, only to the last of them. Not
withstanding the illustrious labours of Gassendi,
Cudworth, Clarke, Baxter, and of above two
hundred other modern writers on the subject,
the natural mortality or immortality of the hu-
c c 2

388 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
man soul is as little understood by us, as it was
by the philosophers of Greece or Rome. The
opposite opinions of Plato and of Epicurus, on
this subject, have their several supporters amongst
the learned of the present age, in Great Britain,
Germany, France, Italy, in every enlightened
part of the world : and they who have been most
seriously occupied in the study of the question
concerning a future state, as deducible from the
nature of the human soul, are least disposed to
give from reason a positive decision of it either
Way. The importance of revelatiori is by nothing
rendered more apparent, than by the discordant
sentiments of learned and good men (for I speak
riot of the ignorant and immPral) on this point.
They shew the insufficiency of human reason, in
a course of above two thousand years, to unfold
the mysteries of human nature j and to furnish,
from the contemplation of it, any assurance froni
the quality of our future Condition. If you should
ever become persuaded of this insufficiency, (and
you can scarce fail of becoming so, if you exa
mine the matter deeply,) you will, if you act
rationally, be disposed to investigate, with se
riousness and impartiality, the truth of Chris-
tiariity. You will say of the Gospel, as the Nor-

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 389
thumbrian heathens said of Paulinus, by whom
they were converted to the Christian religion —
" The more we reflect on the nature of our soul,
the less we know of it. Whilst it animates our
body, we may know some of its properties ; but
when once separated, we know not whither it
goes, or from whence it came. Since then the
gospel pretends to give us clearer notions of these
matters, we ought to hear it, and, laying aside
all passion and prejudice, follow that which shall
appear most conformable to right reason."
What a blessing is it to beings, with such li
mited capacities as ours confessedly are, to have
God himself for our instructor in every thing
which it much concerns us to know! We are
principally concerned in knowing— not the origin
of arts, or the recondite depths of science — not
the histories of mighty empires desolating the
globe by their contentions — not the subtilties of
logic, the mysteries of metaphysics, the sublimi
ties of poetry, or the nicetiesof criticism. — These,
and subjects such as these, properly occupy the
learned leisure pf a few ; but the bulk of human
kind have ever been, and must ever remain, ig
norant of them all j they must, of necessity, re-

390 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
main in the same state with that which a Ger
man emperor voluntarily put himself into, when
he made a resolution, bordering on barbarism,
that he would never read a printed book. We
are all, of every rank and condition equally con
cerned in knowing — what will become of us af
ter death ; — and, if we are to live again, we are
interested in knowing — whether it be possible for
us to do any thing whilst we live here, which
may render that future life an happy one.— Now,
" that thing called Christianity," as you scof-
finglyspeak — that last best gift of AlmightyGod,
as I esteem it, the gospel of Jesus Christ, has
given us the most clear and satisfactory informa
tion on both these points. It tells us, what de
ism never could have told us, that we shall cer-
tainlybe raised from the dead — that, whatever be
the nature of the soul, we shall certainly live for
ever — and that, whilst we live here, it is possible
for us to do much towards the rendering that
everlasting life an happy one. — These are tre
mendous truths to bad men ; they cannot be
received and reflected on with indifference by
the best ; and they suggest to all such a cogent
motive to virtuous action, as deism could not
furnish even to Brutus himself.

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 391
Some men have been warped to infidelity by
viciousness of life ; and some may have hypocri
tically professed Christianity from prospects of
temporal advantage ; but, being a stranger to your
character, I neither impute the former to you,
nor can admit the latter as operating on myself.
The generality of unbelievers are such, from want
of information on the subject of religion ; having
been engaged from their youth in struggling for
worldly distinction, or perplexed with the inces
sant intricacies of business, or bewildered in the
pursuits of pleasure, they have neither ability,
inclination, nor leisure, to enter into critical dis
quisitions concerning the truth of Christianity.
Men of this description are soon startled by ob
jections which they are not competent to answer :
and the loose morahty of the age (so opposite
to christian perfection !) co-operating with their
3Vant of scriptural knowledge, they presently get
V": rid of their nursery faith, and are seldom sedu-
; ilea, in the acquisition of another, founded, not
on authority, but sober investigation. Presum
ing, however, that many deists are as sincere in
their belief as I am in mine, and knowing that
some are more able, and all as- much interested
as myself, to make a rational inquiry into the

392 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
truth of revealed religion, I feel no propensity
to judge uncharitably of any of them. They do
not think as I do, on a subject surpassing all
others in importance ; but they are not on that
account, to be spoken of by me with asperity of
language, to be thought of by me as persons
alienated from the mercies of God. The gospel
has been offered to their acceptance ; and from
whatever cause they reject it, I cannot but esteem
their situation to be dangerous. Under the in
fluence of that persuasion I have been induced
to write this book. I do not expect to derive from
it either fame or profit : these are not improper
incentives to honourable activity ; but there is a
time of life when they cease to direct the judg
ment of thinking men. What I have written
will not, I fear, make any impression on you ;
but I indulge an hope, that it may not be with
out its effect on some of your readers. Infidelity
is a rank weed, it threatens to overspread the
land ; its root is principally fixed amongst the
great and opulent ; but you are endeavouring to
extend the malignity of its poison through all
the classes of the community. There is a class
of men, for whom I have the greatest respect,
and whom' I am anxious to. preserve from the

AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE. 393
contamination of your irrehgipn— the merchants,
manufacturers, and tradesmen of the kingdom.
I consider the influence of the example of this
class as essential to the welfare of the community.
I knpw that they are in general given to reading,
and desirous of information on all subjects.
If this little book should chance to fall into
their hands after they have read yours, and they
should think that any of your objections to the
authority of the Bible have not been fully an
swered, I intreat them to attribute the omission
to the brevity which I have studied ; to my desire
of avoiding learned disquisitions ; to my inadver
tency ; to my inability ; to any thing, rather than
to an impossibility of completely obviating every
difficulty you have brought forward. I address
the same request to such of the youth of both
sexes, as may unhappily have imbibed,from your
writings, the poison of infidelity ; beseeching
them to believe, that all their religious doubts
may be removed, though it maynot have been
in my power to answer, to their satisfaction, ah
your objections. I pray God that the rising ge
neration of this land may be preserved from that
" evil heart of unbelief," which has brought ruin
7

394 AN APOLOGY FOR THE BIBLE.
on a neighbouring nation ; that neither a ne
glected education, nor domestic irreligion, nor
evil communication, nor the fashion of a licen
tious world may ever induce them to forget, that
rehgion alone ought to be their rule of life.
In the conclusion of my Apology for Christi
anity, I informed Mr. Gibbon of my extreme
aversion to public controversy. I am now twenty
years older than I was then, and I perceive that
this my aversion has increased with my age. I
have, through life, abandoned my little literary
productions to their fate ; such of them as have
been attacked, J&!S%. never received any defence
fy f .¦¦
from me ; nor will this receive any, if it should
meet with your public notice, or with that of
any other man.
Sincerely wishing that you may become a par
taker of that faith in revealed rehgion, which is
the foundation of my happiness in this world,
and of all my hopes in another, I bid you fare
well. R. LANDAFF.
Calgarth Park,
Jan. 20, 1796.

A
DEFENCE OF
REVEALED RELIGION,
IN
TWO SERMONS,
PttpACHED TN THE
CATHEDRAL CHURCH OF LANDAFF;
AND
A CHARGE,
DELIVERED TO
THE CLERGY OF THAT DIOCESE, IN JUNE, 1795.

dftfurtf) edition.

ADVERTISEMENT.

The following discourses are published, in
compliance with the united request of the
principal clergy and laity, before whom
they were delivered. They assured me,
that, at this conjuncture, a publication of
them would be peculiarly useful in my
diocese. If this their partiality of judgment
(for such I must esteem it) should in fact
be verified in any degree, I shall have no
reason to regret my having yielded to a so
licitation urged by such respectable autho
rity, and in the most obliging manner. At
all events, I intreat the inhabitants of my
diocese to accept this publication, as a small
proof of my sincere desire to promote, ac
cording to my poor ability, their spiritual
welfare. I have no place of residence
amongst them ; but I have not, I trust, du
ring any part of the thirteen years in which
I have been connected with them, been un
mindful of the duties of my station. R. L.
Landaff,
July 2d, 1795.

SERMON I.

COL. ii. 8.
BEWARE LEST ANY MAN SPOIL YOU THROUGH
PHILOSOPHY.

This apostolic admonition is peculiarly appli
cable to the age in which we live. It has been
called — the age of philosophy — the age of rea
son : if by reason and philosophy, irreligion he
understood, it undoubtedly merits the appella
tion ; for there never was an age since the death
of Christ, never one since the commencement of
the history of the world, in which atheism and
infidelity have been more generally professed.
Nature and reason have been proclaimed as gods,
festivals have been instituted in honour of ab
stract ideas, and all revealed religion has been
scoffingly rejected as a system of statecraft and
priestcraft, as a gross imposition on the under
standing of mankind.

400 ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED.
This impious fever of the mind, this paralysis
of human intellect, originated in a neighbouring
nation ; its contagion has been industriously in
troduced, and is rapidly spreading in our own ;
it becomes us all in our several stations to endea
vour to stop its progress ; for of this we may all
be well assured, that when religion shall have
lost its hold on men's consciences, government
will. lose its authority over their persons, and a
state of barbarous anarchy will ensue.
I know it has been made a question both in
ancient and modern times- — whether a society of
atheists could subsist. This is no question with
me ; I think it could not, Many speculative opi
nions, in every system of religion, are of httle
consequence to the safety of the community,
and, in all well regulated states, they are left to
the free discussion of those, who think themselves,
interested, as advocates, for truth, in defending
or opposing them ; but atheism seems to. be irre-
concileably hostile, not only to the peace, but to
the very existence of civil society. If there be
no God, there can be no punishment for any
crime, except what is denounced against it hy
the laws of the land, or what is connected with

ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED. 401
it by the laws of nature ; and these are restraints
incapable of controlling the selfish and licentious
passions of human kind. He who removes from
the mind of man the hopes and fears of futurity,
opens the floodgates of immorality, and lets in
a deluge of vices and crimes, destructive alike of
the dignity of human nature, and of the tran
quillity of the world. There never yet hath ex
isted, and there never can exist, a nation without
religion. If Christianity be abolished, paganism,
mahometanism, some religious imposture or other
must be introduced in its stead, or civil society
must be given up. But in the opinion of Bacon,
(a philosopher with whom our modern philoso
phers cannot be compared) " there hath not in
any age been discovered any philosophy, opi
nion, religion, law, or discipline, which so greatly
exalts the common, and lessens individual inter
est, as the christian religion doth ;" so that I know
not which most to admire and deplore, their
wickedness as men, or their weakness as states
men, who have attempted to govern mankind
without religion, and to estabHsh society on the
ruins of Christianity.
The time, usually allotted to discourses from
D D

402 ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED.
this place, Will not allow me to refute at length
the atheistic tenets, or to answer the deistic ob
jections which have been so recently propagated
to the downfall of one nation, and to the danger
Pf all ; I will, however, crave your patience, Whilst
I state some arguments of importance, in oppo
sition to the principles of those philosophers,
who have been the authors of this mischief in a
foreign country, and of their admirers in our
own. Nature and reason, they tell us, are their gods.
Let them not impose upon themselves and others
by the use of words, the meaning of which they
do not understand. What is nature ? What is
reason ? —These terms ought to be defined, for
there is cause to suspect, that men who introduce,
or Who adopt, such impiety of expression, are ra
ther ignorant of what atheism is, than that they
are, what they affect to be thought, atheists on
conviction. By nature then we may understand,
the order and constitution of things composing
the universe— and by reason, that faculty ofthe
human mind by which we are able to discover
truth.— And can it be thought, that this system
of things, consisting of an infinityof parts fitted

ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED. 403
to answer ends which human wisdom can never
comprehend in their full extent, but which, as
far as it can comprehend them, appear to be be
neficial to man and all other percipient beings —
can it be thought, that this system had not an
intelligent, benevolent, powerful Author ?
'When a man makes a watch, builds a ship,
erects a silk-mill, constructs a telescope, we do
not scruple to say, that the man has a design in
what he does. And can we say, that this solar
system, a thousand times more regular in all its
motions than watches, ships, or silk-mills — that
the infinity of other systems dispersed through
the immensity of space, inconceivably surpassing
in magnitude and complication of motion, this,
of which our earth is but a minute part — or even
that the eye which now reads what is here writ
ten, a thousand times better fitted for its function
than any telescope — can we say, that there was
no design in the formation of these things ?
TeM us not, that it is allowed there must be
intelligence in an artificer who makes a watch or
a telescope, but that, as to the Artificer of the
universe, we cannot comprehend his nature.
d D 2

,404 ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED.
What then ? shall we on that account deny his
existence ? With better reason might a grub,
buried in the bowels of the earth, deny the ex
istence of a man, whose nature it cannot com
prehend ; for a grub is indefinitely nearer to man
in all intellectual endowments (if the expression
can be permitted) than man is to his Maker.—
With better reason may we deny the existence
of an intellectual faculty in the man who makes
a machine ; we know not the nature ofthe man ;
we see not the mind which contrives the figure,
-.ize, and adaptation of the several parts ; we
simply see the hand which forms and puts them
together. Shall a shipwrecked mathematician, on observ
ing a geometrical figure accurately described on
the sand of the sea-shore, encourage his follow
ers with saying, " Let us hope for the best, for
I see the traces of man ;" — and shall not man,
in contemplating the structure of the universe,
or of any part of it, say to the whole human
race — Brethren ! be of good comfort, we are not
begotten of chance, we are not born of atoms,
our progenitors have not come into existence by
crawling out of the mud of the Nile ; behold the

ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED. 405
footsteps of a Being powerful, wise, and good —
not nature, but the God of nature, the Father of
the universe ?
I will not entangle the understanding of my
audience, or bewilder mine own, in the labyrinths
of metaphysical researches ; but I must say to
these — the great philosophers of the age — you
ought to know, that matter cannot have been
from eternity— and that if, with Plato, you con
tend for the eternity of matter, you ought to
know, that motion connot have been from eter
nity—and that if, with Aristotle, you contend for
the eternity of motion, you ought to know, that
with him also you must contend for the eternity
of a first mover — you must introduce, what you
labour to exclude^ a God, causing, regulating,
and preserving, by established laws, the motion
of every particle of matter in the universe.
You affirm that nature is your God, and you
inform us that the energy of nature is the cause
of every thing — that nature has power to pro
duce a man. — In all this you seem to substitute
the term nature for what we understand by the
term God. But when you tell us that nature

406 ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED.
acts (if such exertion can be called action) ne
cessarily and without intelligence, we readily ac
knowledge that your God is essentially different
from our God. " All novelty is but oblivion ;"
this famous system of nature, which has excited,.
so much unmerited attention, and done such in
credible mischief throughout Europe, is in little
or in nothing different from the system of certain
atheistic philosopher's mentioned by Cicero, who
maintained, that " nature was a certain energy,
destitute of intelligence, exciting in bodies ne
cessary motions." — The answer is obvious and
short — an energy destitute of freedom and of
intelligence cannot produce a man possessing
both ; as well may it be said, that an effect may
be produced without a cause.
The proof of the existence of a Supreme Be
ing, which is derived from the constitution of
the visible world, is of a popular cast ; but you
jnust not therefore suppose it to be calculated to
convince only persons who cannot reason philo
sophically. What think you of Newton ? He
certainly could reason philosophically. He cer
tainly, of all the sons of men, best understood
the structure of the universe ; and he esteemed

ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED. 407
that structure to be so irrefragable a proof of the
existence and providence of an almighty, wise,
and good Architect of nature, that he never pro
nounced the word — God — without a pause. —
What think you of Cotes — second in sublimity
of philosophic genius to none but Newton ? —
" That man," says he, " must be blind, who,
from the most wise and excellent disposal of
things, cannot immediately perceive the infinite
wisdom and goodness of their almighty Creator ;
and he must be mad, who refuses to acknowledge
them." The argument, which I have been hitherto
insisting upon, may be called a natural argument
for the Being of God, as it is taken from the
contemplation of nature ; I proceed to another
of great weight, which may be called an histori
cal argument, as it is grounded on testimony
concerning past transactions.
That this world has not been from eternity,
but that it was either created from nothing, or
fitted up by the Supreme Being for the habita
tion of man, a few thousand years ago — that it
was afterwards destroyed by an universal deluge,

408 ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED.
brought upon it by the same Being — that it has
been repeopled by the descendants of three men,
Who escaped the general destruction — these things
are either ancient facts, or ancient fables — if they
are facts, both atheism and infidelity must be
given up — and that they are facts and not fables,
might, if time would permit, be satisfactorily
proved from a detailed examination of the his
tory of every nation in the world.
The credible annals of all nations, not except
ing Egypt or Chaldea, China or India, fall short
of the deluge. — The annals of all nations, an
cient and modern, barbarous and civilized, speak
of a deluge as of a dreadful catastrophe which
had destroyed human kind, through the interpo
sition of a superior Being offended by the vices
of the world. — The annals of all nations bear
witness to the existence of a God who had created
all things, for even in the time of Aristotle there
was, as he observes, " an ancient tradition (he
does not say a deduction of reason, but a report
or tradition) which all men had derived from their
ancestors, that all things were from God, and
that by God all things did consist."— (-« rs ®ia
r(x, nana,} %ai ha Qm ri^tv trvnsr'/izsv. Arist. de

ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED. 409
Mund. Cr.) — Remarkable words these ! and ana
logous to those of St. Paul, speaking of Christ,
and, as is generally thought, on the creation of
the material world, " All things were created by
him, and for him ; and he is before all things,
and by him all thing consist." (ra iravla _.' avis
xai ei$ avrov estrtgrai, scat avrog sen 'argo Travrwv, xai
ra Ta. roc .. avrca <ruv ..r^_;.. Col. i. 17.)
He who has employed most time in examining
the history of remote ages, will be most con
vinced of the truth of the following propositions
— that profane authors derived their notions of
a Supreme Being from patriarchal tradition — that
they corrupted this tradition — that the Bible is
the only book in the world in which this tradition
is preserved in its original purity — that this in
valuable book throws light upon the origin and
ancient history of every nation in the world —
and that the history of the Jews, contained in the
Bible, and connected with their history to the
present time, is the strongest proof which can be
brought, not only against atheism, but against
that species of deism which contends that God
never visibly interposed in the government of
the Jewish nation.

410 ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED.
When it is said that the annals of all nations
fall short of the deluge, it must be understood,
that the nation of the Jews is excepted. I look
upon that people with astonishment and reve
rence ; they are living proofs of facts most an
cient and most interesting to mankind. Where
do we meet with an Assyrian, Persian, Grecian,
Roman, corroborating, by his testimony, any
one of the events mentioned in the history of
their respective empires ? But we meet with mil
lions of Jews in every quarter, and in eyery coun
try of the world, who acknowledge not only the
existence of a God, as other nations do — but
that he is the very God who enabled Moses to
work miracles in Egypt ; who delivered to him
that law which they now observe ; who called
Abraham, the father of their nation, from the
midst of his idolatrous kinsmen ; who preserved
Noah and his family in the ark'; who formed
Adam out of the dust of the earth ; who created
all things by the word of his power.
Wherever we have a Jew on the surface of the
earth, there we have a man, whose testimony
and whose conduct connect the present time
with the beginning of all time. He now believes,

ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED. 411
and he declares that all his progenitors have con
stantly believed, the history contained in the
book of Moses to be a true history — he now
obeys the laws which God gave to Moses above
three thousand years ago — now practises the cir
cumcision which God enjoined to Abraham —
now observes the passover in commemoration of
the mercy vouchsafed to his nation when God
destroyed the first-born throughout the land of
Egypt — now keeps holy the seventh day, on
which God rested from the works ofthe creation.
When nations institute rites to preserve the me
mory of great events, the uniform observance of
the rite authorizes us to admit the certainty of
the fact. The Jews have for thousands of years
(and the patriarchs, before the Jews, probably
did the same) observed a very significant rite in
commemoration of the creation ; and another in
commemoration of their preservation from one
of the plagues of Egypt : why should we hesitate
to admit the certainty of these events ? Adam
lived with Methuselah two hundred and forty
years, Methuselah lived with Shem the son of
Noah ninety-eight years, and Shem hved with
Abraham one hundred and fifty years : what ap-

412 ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED.
prehension can we reasonably entertain that the
account of the creation could either have been
forged or misrepresented, when it had passed
through so few hands before it reached the found
er of the Jewish nation ?
But I have already gone beyond the limit I
had prescribed to myself in this argument, I can
not pursue it farther ; sceptical men, however,
will do well to consider the nature and weight
of historic evidence, not only for the existence
of God, but for his having made a revelation of
himself to the Jewish nation. Let them examine
the matter freely and fully, and I cannot but be
lieve that they will come to the following conclu
sions- — that the creation is a fact— that the deluge
is a fact — that the repeopling the world by the
descendants of Noah is a fact — that the Jewish
theocracy is a fact — and that these' facts may be
established, as all past transactions of great an
tiquity must be, by the authority of history, and
especially by the history ofthe Jews, whom God
appears to have constituted witnesses of his ex
istence and providence to all nations in all ages.
Of the Chaldeans, Egyptians, Tyrians, and of

ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED. 413
other nations, God hath made, or will make, a
full end : but the seed of Israel shall not cease
from being a nation before him for ever.
If the refutation of atheism and deism be so
easy and certain as I have here stated it to be,
whence comes it that there are now so many, or
that there ever were any either atheists, or unbe
lievers in the truth of the Jewish and Christian
dispensations ? I put these dispensations toge
ther, because those amongst us (I speak not of
the Jews) who deny or admit the divine mission
of Moses, will deny also or admit the divine mis
sion of Jesus Christ.
There are many causes of infidelity, such as —
profligacy of manners, which induces men to hope
that religion may not be true — want of serious
attention to the proofs on which it is established
— hasty conclusions that, because some religions
have been proved to be impostures, all are so-
superstitious ceremonies and revolting doctrines,
which are, in many parts of Christendom, perti
naciously maintained as parts of Christianity —
intolerance, secularity, hypocrisy, conspicuous in
the lives of Christians — these and other causes of
6

414 ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED.
infidelity might be enlarged upon at great length ;
but I will only beg your attention to one other,
less obvious, and less general, but more danger
ous than any of those which I have mentioned —
more dangerous, inasmuch as it operates chiefly
on the minds of men of the most cultivated
and enlarged understandings, I mean — mistaken
piety. That the Creator and Governor ofthe universe,
Who endureth through eternity, and filleth im
mensity ; that this Almighty Being, who hath dis
tributed innumerable systems of material worlds
through the profundity of space, and hath, pro
bably, replenished them all with percipient be
ings, capable of enjoying the happiness which his
goodness hath wisely allotted to their respective
stations ; that this self-existent, uncaused cause
of all being, whom no language can describe,
no thought can comprehend, should at sundry
times and in divers instances have suspended the
laws of nature which he had established, visited
in an extraordinary manner this little globe, this
atom 'of the universe, and by signs and wonders
have made a revelation of his will to such a worm
ais man — this appears to many men, pf good Hves
8

ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED. 415
and strong minds, so strange a fact, that they
are persuaded no human testimony can establish
its credibility. They venerate the majesty ofthe
Supreme Being, they are persuaded that all things
were made by him, and that all things are sus
tained by him ; but they think that it derogates
from the infinity of his wisdom and of his power,
to suppose things to have been at first so ill made,
as to require his subsequent interposition to. re
gulate or amend them.
Blessed God ! what is this but making our ways
thy ways, but measuring thy infinity by the
standard of our philosophy ? We know the diffi
culty of regulating the minute concerns of a
kingdom, a province, or a family, by special inter
positions of any one man's wisdom or authority ;
and thence we may simply infer, that the inter
position of the Almighty in governing every part
of the universe is a circumstance not to be ex
pected. We know that a machine of our con
struction approaches to perfection in proportion
as it wants not external aid to direct or preserve
its motion, and thence we simply infer that the
works of God, which cannot but be perfect in
their kind, want not his interposition. Absolute

4l6

ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED.

perfection belongs to God alone ; in all the things
which he hath made there is a gradation of ex
cellence, each thing is as perfect as its nature
will admit : — now why may it not be the nature
of man to admit indefinite improvement from
divine institution ? It will be granted that man
would be a more perfect being than he is, if, on
all occasions, his passions were kept in subjec
tion to his reason, if he was guilty of no impiety
towards his Maker, of no uncharitableness to
wards his neighbour, of no violence towards him
self in an intemperate indulgence of his appe-
¦ tites : — where then is the absurdity of supposing
that God may have thought fit to strengthen the
reason and to weaken the passions of mankind
by bringing immortality to light, by giving an
actual example of a resurrection from the dead,
by promulgating the certainty of rewards and
punishments in another state ?
Surely it is a mistaken piety, which, from a
sublime idea of the Divine Essence, would ex
clude the Supreme Being from interfering in the
works which he hath made, which would hinder
him from still working, tiU he hath brought all
things to that perfection for which his goodness in-

ATHEISM AN»: INFIDELITY REFUTED. 417
tended them. What that perfection is we know
not ; it must ever fail infinitely short of the per
fection of God hionsielf, but it is not possible for
us to say to what degree it may be advanced,, or
to poimt out the best means -fitted to advance it
to the degree predetermined in the councils of
the Almigihty. We cannot look into the depths
of God's wisdom, nor comprehend the ends he
has in view, or the ways by which he effects
them. It is the not pnoperiy considering the extent
of oat capacity, the not clearly distinguishing
the things to which our ideas are suited, from
those to which they are inadequate, that has
made many men fall into; an irksome scepticism,
sorffi.. into actuoi infidelity, and- a few into the
madness of artheism.-
Fpr what purpose was I bows. ?—-i__ whatco-u. se
of actions does the feficity of my nature consist ?
—am I author of tifoiese reputed' actions, or am I
a machine incessantly and4rresis«-blylmpelled to
acflica_), by external motives over which I have no
ooH-rpl^wail my existence be terminated by
death,, or continued beyond it ? — w_l-ltlieuuali-y
E E

418 ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY EEFUTED.
of my future existence (if there should happen
to be one) depend on my moral conduct here?
These and other questions of similar import
every man of reflection must, at one time or
other, put to himself; and when he does put
them, he will perceive that his reason is unequal to
the clear solution of any of them. That Jesus
Christ was born in Judea near eighteen hundred
years ago — that he wrought miracles in that
country — that he was crucified at Jerusalem—
that he arose from the dead — that he ascended
into heaven — that he enabled his disciples to
work miracles, and commanded them to teach the
world the doctrines which he had taught them —
these are some of the main facts on which the
truth of the Christian religion is founded. Now
it appears to me to be a much easier matter to
prove the truth of these facts, than to give, from
reason, a satisfactory answer to any of the diffi
culties which I have mentioned.
In the ardour of youth, in the tumult of sen
sual passion, in the profligacy of dissipation, in
the bustle of business, in the sordidness of ava
rice, in the loftiness of ambition, thoughts of
such a serious cast may either not occur, or not

ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED. 419
be regarded. But they will obtrude themselves
on a bed of sickness at any period of Hfe ; they
will surround the piUow of the unfortunate ; they
will penetrate the recesses of retirement, whether
occasioned by a satiety of enjoyment, the cha
grin of disappointment, or by any of the sad
vicissitudes incident to every human station; and
if they should arrest our notice on no other oc
casion, they will certainly steal upon us with the
increase of our age, and generate, in those who
reject Christianity, no small perturbation, when
the feebleness of declining Hfe most requires tran
quillity and consolation.
Be it our business then, as it is our duty and
our interest, to confirm ourselves in the belief of
that gospel by which all difficulties of this nature
are done away. If that gospel be true, (as it
certainly is,) we know for what purpose we are
born — that we may Hve for ever. We know that
we are not machines, but accountable for our
actions, which machines cannot be. We know
in what the feHcity of our nature doth consist —
in living soberly, righteously, and godly in this
present world. We know that death is not eter-
E E 2

420 ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED.
nal sleep-, but the commencement of everlasting
life;

I conclude with recommending one observation
to the serious attention of all unbelievers, who
are sincerely desirous of becoming christians—
that they would well consider the quality of the
proof which the subject admits. The truth of
the Christian religion is, as to us, founded on the
reality of past transactions. Now past transac
tions are neither the objects of sense, nor of in
tuition, nor of demonstration ; we cannot, cor
rectly speaking, be said to know that they ever
existed ; but the probability, which is grounded
on testimony, approaches, in many cases, so near
to certainty, that our belief of past transactions
is little different from knowledge itself He who
requires more than probability before he will
embrace Christianity, requires what the nature;.
of the subject does not admit, and subverts the
foundation of all history, sacred and Jprofanei
That Jesus wrought miracles in 3udfea, and arose
from the dead at Jerusalem, are facts as capable
Pf being ascertained, and- as worthy of being
credited, as that Caesar lived at Rome, and) was
murdered in the capitol'. •

ATHEISM AND INFIDELITY REFUTED. 421
May the merciful Father of the whole human.
race, who, for reasons best known to his un
searchable wisdom, hath suffered many milhons
to die, and suffers many miUions also now to live,
in utter ignorance of that revelation of his will,
which he hath given to the christian world, ac
cept our humble thanksgivings for such an ines
timable benefit! May he establish, strengthen,
settle the inhabitants of these kingdoms in the
faith of Christ ; and be graciously pleased to re
move from all others the ignorance thdt is in
them, lest, in being aliens from the commonwealth
of Israel, strangers from the covenants of pro
mise, having no hope and without God in the
world, they become to every good Work reprobate;
lest, in being spoiled through philosophy and vain
deceit, they fall into perdition, temporal and
eternal.

SERMON II.

2 Pet. i. 16.
WE HAVE NOT FOLLOWED CUNNINGLY DEVISED FA
BLES, WHEN WE ' MADE KNOWN UNTO YOU THE
POWER AND COMING OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST,
BUT WERE EYE-WITNESSES OF HIS MAJESTY-

Whether the Christian religion be a revelation
of the will of God, or a cunningly devised fable,
is a question which, one might think, every se
rious man would examine witlr impartial atten
tion. He would take, it might be expected, the
New Testament into his hand, and observing that
it consisted of various parts, and had been writ
ten by different authors, he would inquire what
evidence there was for its being a genuine book.
If he found, as I am persuaded he would find,
that there were as soHd reasons for believing that
the gospel of St, Luke, and the Acts of the Apos-

THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE. 423
ties, were written by him, and the other parts of
the New Testament by the persons to whom they
are ascribed, as that the history of the Pelopon-
nesian war was written by Thucydides, or the
lives of the Caesars by Suetonius ; he would then
inquire, whether the book was not only a genuine
but an authentic one ; that is, whether it con
tained a narration of eventswhich had really taken
place in Judea, near eighteen hundred years ago,
or whether there was any reasonable cause to
suspect that the authors of the New Testament
had not honestly related what had really happened.
With respect to the honesty of the writers, he
would judge of that from their characters ; and
with respect to the reality of the facts mentioned
by them, he would consider, that most of the
writers of the New Testament did not relate what
they had heard, but what they had seen; so that,
if they were honest men, there could remain no
doubt of the truth of what they had^dehvered.
He would be ready to admit, that, as simple his
torians, they might,notwithstandingtheirhonesty,
have fallen into trivial mistakes in their narration
of what they had seen ; and that, notwithstand
ing their honesty, they might have been foil of
credulity, and liable to imposition ; but he would

424 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE.
think it quite impossible, that facts of such pub
lic notoriety and importance as the life, death,
and resurrection of Jesus Christ, Cpuld have been
the subjects either of human error, ot credulity,
in those who professed to have been eye-witnesses
of What they related. He would therefore cer
tainly conclude, that the Christian religion was
true, if the Writers of the New Testament were
honest men.
If the Writers ofthe New Testament were not
honest men, they were impostors : now, that they
Were not impostors, may appear from consider
ing — that they had neither motive to commence,
nor ability to Carry on an imposture-^and from
examining the account they give of themselves
and of their associates, immediately before, and
soon after the resurrection of Jesus.
Impostors ate moved to the attempt of de
ceiving mankind by prospects of wealth, fame,
"power, pleasure ; by some real Or imaginary ad
vantage to be derived to themselves, or, through
them, to tho_e whom they love and regard as
themselves. Now no expectation of this kind
can, With the least shadow of probability, be

THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE. 425
ascribed to all, or to any of the writers of the
New Testament. There is no need of entering
into the proof of this ; every one knows that Jews
and Romans, Greeks and barbarians ; that the
powers of the world, wherever they went, were
against the apostles ; they durst not any where
lift up so much as an arm in their own defence.
Instead of temporal advantages of any kind, they
had to expect, and they did in fact experience,
hunger, and cold, and nakedness, and scorn, and
contempt, and hatred, all the miseries incident to
a state of poverty, all the calamities attendant
on a state of religious persecution: — these are
not the motives which induce men to become
impostors.— Read the history of the impostor
Mahomet, or that of Alexander as described by
Lucian, or that of Apollonius of Tyana ; and con
trast them with that of Christ, or any of his
apostles ; and you will at once perceive the dif
ference between the manner in which imposture
and truth are introduced and established in the
world. Compare the miracles recorded in the
New Testament, with respect to their publicity,
their beneficial tendency, and their influence on
the thousands who saw them, with the tricks of
ancient or modern pretenders to magic ; and you

426 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE.
will at once perceive the difference between cun
ningly devised delusions operating on fanatical
minds, and the simpHcity of gospel wonders ex
torting conviction from the most incredulous.
The apostles were as destitute of ability to de
ceive, as of inducement to impose a fable on the
world. It requires great power, or great talents,
to be a successful impostor ; and the difficulty is
increased, when the plot cannot be carried on
without the concurrence of many assistants ; and
especially when it is to be carried on, in opposi
tion to men able and willing to detect the cheat.
What should we think of twelve fishermen, who
should now undertake to proclaim, in the hearing
of the learned and unlearned, that a few years
ago a certain man wrought many miracles, not
only in a distant country, but in the streets and
churches of the metropolis of the kingdom ; not
only before them, the relators of the fact, but in
the presence of thousands of others ; and that
this man was publicly tried by order of govern
ment, and put to death in London ; and that he
rose from the dead ; and that after his resurrec
tion he was seen not only by themselves, but by
hundreds of others, and by some who were still
alive? — What should we think of such assertions,

THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE. 427
of such audacious appeals to living witnesses,
when in truth this man had not risen from the
dead, nor wrought any miracle whatever? —
What should we think of twelve fishermen, who,
without understanding any language but their
own, should go to Paris, Rome, Madrid, Con
stantinople, and endeavour to propagate the same
thing ? Is it credible that any men could be
found so mad as to make the attempt, or that, if
they did make it, they should have the good
fortune to succeed in their imposition ?
That a great part ofthe world is converted to
Christianity, is a fact ; — that the foundation of
this conversion was laid by the apostles, is another
fact ; — that the apostles were men of mean con
nections, slender talents, slow apprehensions ; of
powers, faculties, and dispositions, utterly inade
quate to the introducing and supporting an im
posture, are other facts, of which, when properly
considered, we cannot, it is apprehended, suffer
ourselves to doubt. If we admit the account,
contained in the New Testament, concerning the
means by which the Christian religion was esta
blished, every thing is credible ; if we reject it,
every thing is incredible ; no satisfactory reason
6

428 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE.
can be assigned for the zeal, or for the success
of the apostles in propagating an untruth ; their
zeal will want a motive, and their success will
want a cause adequate to the effect.
Consider farther, that there is no book now in
the world, nor, as far as we know, ever was one,
contradicting any of the facts recorded in the
New Testament; but that there are several books,
written by men who were not christians, which
confirm many of them : Tacitus, in particular,
confirms a fact of principal importance : for he
tells us, that Jesus Christ was put to death by
Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea. — There is not
therefore any external testimony, that the writers
of the New Testament have written a fable ; if
we refuse to beHeve their narration, our refusal,
if it has any foundation beside that of prejudice
and ignorance of the subject, must be built on
something contained in the New Testament it
self; now every thing related in the New Testa
ment, and especially what is related concerning
the conduct of the apostles, before and after the
resurrection of Jesus, carries with it the strongest
proof of the honesty of the writers of it ; and if
they were honest men, the Christian rehgion is truer

THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE. 429
What would have been the conduct of dishonest
men, who had combined to cheat the world into
a belief of what had never happened, into the
adoption of a new religion of which they them
selves were to be the principal promoters ?
Would they have ever told to the world circum
stances so disgraceful to their characters, as the
evangelists have done ? Impostors carefully con
ceal their ambition,their avarice, their cowardice,
their insincerity, their vices and imperfections of
every kind, and make an ostentatious display of
virtues and excellencies which they do not really
possess. But the evangelists, having no design
to deceive, relate, without disguise, facts tending
to lower their characters in the general estimation
of mankind. They tell1 us that there was a strife
among the apostles, which of them should be the
greatest ; and that, as interested and ambitious
men are wont to dp, they had all been very for
ward in professing to Jesus their strong attach^
ment to him — "that if they should die with him,
they would not deny him :" — they then proceed
to inform us, disgraceful as the account is, that in
a very feWhours after they had made these solemn
professions, when the moment of peril came, and
their selfish views were blasted,—" they all fori-

430 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE.
sook him and fled." — This humiliating narrative
is a proof of their veracity as historians, and
their conduct on the occasion is highly credible.
Notwithstanding the long intimacy which the
apostles of Jesus had enjoyed with him ; notwith
standing the distinction with which they had
been honoured by him ; notwithstanding the
knowledge they had of the probity of his man
ners, of the purity of his doctrines, and of the
greatness of his power in working miracles ; not
withstanding the promise he had made them of
his going to prepare a place for them in his Fa
ther's kingdom, of his rising from the dead, of
his returning to them again, and of his not leav
ing them comfortless ; notwithstanding these and
many other circumstances, sufficient, one might
at first view have imagined, to have generated
courage, and secured attachment in all his fol
lowers, yet they all abandoned him in his distress
— "forsook him and fled — the shepherd was
smitten, and the sheep were scattered."
This conduct was extremely natural. The dis
ciples of Jesus, and his apostles especially, ex
pected that their Master would become a great

THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE. 431
temporal prince, and that they were to partici
pate in the power, wealth, and honour, which
he would at length attain. But when they saw
him seized by his enemies, and dragged as a
malefactor before the great council of the nation,
they not only gave up their hopes of advance
ment, but were alarmed for their own personal
safety ; they yielded to fears inseparable from
humanity ; and which are seldom overcome, ex
cept by persons impressed with high notions of
honourable reputation. This conduct of the
apostles is so entirely conformable to what we
every day observe, that it forces, as it were, our
assent to the truth of the narration. When the
founder of a sect in religion, or the leader of a
faction in the state, happens to fall into disgrace,
his adherents presently begin to be shy of his
acquaintance ; and if he happens not merely to
fall into disgrace, but to be arrested as a pesti
lent disturber ofthe pubHc peace, then do they
begin to avoid him, and if they cannot escape
the suspicion of being known to him, they be
gin, especially if they be men of low education,
to He and to swear, as Peter did, that they know
not the man, never had communication or con
nection with him.

432 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE.
Compare this selfishness and cowardice of the
apostles with the courage and disinterestedness
which soon after adorned their character, and try
if you can discover any sufficient reason for so
remarkable a change of conduetand principle.
Did Pilate, repenting of his wickedness, ex
tend the protection ofthe civil power to the fol
lowers Pf Jesus, whom, contrary to all the rules
of civil justice, he had condemned to death,
though he confessed that he found no cause of
death in him ? No, we hear nothing of the re
pentance of Pilate.— Did the chief priests and
elders of the Jewish people, repenting of the
premeditated malice by which they had sought
the life of Jesus, by which they had bribed Judas
to betray innocent Mood, by which they had in
timidated Pilate to crucify a just person; did
these men, struck with remorse, encourage the
aposties to adhere to their crucified' Master ?
Jffo, these men retained their maliee after the
object of tt was removed, they ^persecuted the
apostles for- preaching in the name of Jesus.^-
Did the multitude; who a few daysbeforehis trial
had ushered Jesus into Jerusalem with triumphant
acclamations of applause ; who; at the time of

THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE. 433
his trial, as if drunk with fury, had cried out,
"Crucify him, crucify him, his blood be on us
and our children ;" did this multitude (as is not
unusual with multitudes to do) once more change
their mind, and undertake the defence of the. fol
lowers of that man, whom in their phrenzy they
had murdered ? No, we read nothing ofthe mul
titude becoming supporters of the apostles, till
the wonders and signs which were done by them,
brought fear on every soul ; the support of the
multitude was subsequent to the preaching of
Peter and the apostles, it could not therefore
have been the cause of their courage. — Joseph
of Arimathea was a disciple of Christ, and a rich
man ; Nicodemus was a disciple of Christ, and
a powerful man, for he Was a ruler of the Jews ;
did these or any other men by their wealth or
authority inspire the apostles with fortitude to
face their enemies, and the enemies of their cru
cified Lord ? No, nothing of this kind, but the
contrary of it appears in the history ; for it ap
pears that the disciples, on the day of the resur
rection, and for some days afterwards, were so
full of apprehension, that they assembled pri
vately, with the door of their apartment shut,
for fear of the Jews. What was it then that
r F

434 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. NO IMPOSTURE.
caused the apostles tp change their cowardice
into courage, ,jheir desertion into attachment,
their aim at worldly advancement into a volun .
tary surrender of every worldly comfort, intp a
patient submission to every evil which could af-,
fiict human nature ? What, but. the conviction
that their Lord was risen from the dead ? This
is a cause adequate to the effect ; it is a misuse
of time, and a perversion of talents, to seek for
any other. This conduct of the apostles before
apd after tlie resurrection of their Lord,, is a
strong argument in support of the truth of our
holy religion.
Let us consider more particularly the account
which i? given of their conduct, After the cru
cifixion of Jesus, the apostles were obliged to
stay, at Jerusalem ptt least a week, that they-,,
might keep the passover according to the law ;
during this period Jesus appeared, twice to them,
when they were assembled together, After the
feast. was ended, they returned to their natiye
country, Galilee ; and Jesus appeared to them,
at the place he had before appointed ; it is pro
bable that he shewed, himself frequently to them
in that country, for he was seen of them. forty

THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE. 43£
days, speaking ofthe things pertaining to the
kingdom of God. On the approach of the feast
of Pentecost, or the feast of -weeks, which, ac
cording to the law, was to be kept at Jerusalem
by all the Jews, fifty days after the celebration
of 'the passover, the apostles went from Galilee
to Jerusalem ; and there they were again met by
their Master ; who commanded them to stay at
Jerusalem, till they were endued with pOWer
from on high, till they were baptized by the
Holy Ghost, which he assured them they would
be in a little time. He gave them also thefr
commission — " Ye shall receive power, after that
the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye
shall be witnesses unto me, both in Jerusalem,
and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the
uttermost parts of the earth. — And when he had
spoken these things, while they beheld, he was1
taken up, and a cloud received him out of their
sight." — A few days after this, they were all filled
with the Holy Ghost, and enabled to speak a va
riety of languages which they had never learned,
and to work miracles surpassing all human power.
Now supposing the Scripture account of the
resurrection of Jesus ; of his frequently appear-
• f f 2

436 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE.
ing to his disciples after his resurrection ; of his
instructing them in the nature of his kingdom ;
of his giving them a commission to bear witness
concerning him to all the world ; of his ascend
ing into heaven while they looked on him ; of his
sending the Holy Ghost, by which they were
enabled to speak with tongues, and to work mi
racles ; supposing these things to have really
Happened, what conduct would you have ex
pected from the apostles ? precisely that which
they adopted. They no longer denied their
Master, no longer shut themselves up in secret,
no longer feared the Jewish rulers, no longer dis
puted amongst themselves which of them should
haye the first place in the kingdom of Christ ;
but relinquishing all earthly comfort, setting at
defiance all opposition, braving all persecution,
they went through the world executing the com
mission they had received, every where main
taining — that Jesus of Nazareth, whilst he was
alive, Was a man proved to be from God, by
miracles which God did by him ; that God raised
him from the dead ; that after his resurrection
they frequently conversed with him ; that they
saw him ascend into heaven ; and that , they re
ceived from him the power of speaking with
tongues, and of working miracles.

THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE. 437
Had Jesus Christ never risen from the dead,
Christianity would, probably, never have been
extended beyond the limits of Judea. His dis
ciples might have acquired a peculiar denomina
tion, and would certainly have esteemed him a
great prophet ; but not the prophet, not the
Messiah, whom they expected to come into the
world. In the interval between his death and
his resurrection, the minds of his apostles were
perplexed with doubts concerning his being the
person who was to restore Israel. They Were so.
backward in crediting the reports which were
brought to them of his resurrection, that it m
evident, they either did npt believe, or, in thei
tumult of their grief, did not advert to what he
had told them of his rising again the third day j
and it is very probable that, if he had not risen
from the dead, his disciples would have con
tented themselveswith reverencing, in Secret, the
memory of their Master ; they could not have
doubted concerning the reality of the miraclesi
which they had seen him perform ; buft they
would neither have had tbe co&ragje tp atteipjgt
the conversion of the world to a dead man, npr
the means to effect it.

438 THE. CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE..
History affords many instances of men who
have sustained with fortitude the greatest perse
cutions in support of opinions perfectly erro
neous, as well as in support of those which are
founded in truth. A Jew will sooner be tortured
by the inquisition, and burned at the stake, than
he will acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah. A
Christian will suffer martyrdom, sooner than he
will deny that Jesus is the Messiah. A Maho
metan will sooner be put to death, than he will
own -Mahomet to have been an impostor ; and
both Jews and Christians will suffer any persecu
tion sooner than they will acknowledge him to
have been a prophet sent from God. It is not
only in these great points that human fortitude
triumphs over pain and death ; but there is no
christian sect which cannot boast of numbers who
would seal, I do not say, the truth, but their
opinion of the truth, with their blood. Seryetus
was burned to death, because he would not pro
fess, that he believed Christ tp be the eternal Son
of God, though, in the midst of the flames,, he
professed that Christ was the Son, of the eternal
God : — and Calvin would have, suffered the dpatfet,
which he m^de Seryetus suffer, sooner, tjian he

THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE. 439
would have acknowledged, that Christ was not
the eternal Son of the eternal God. — We learn
from the history of fanaticism and superstition,
that men have died martyrs to opinions unintel
ligible, absurd, immoral, impious. All this may
be allowed, but the inference, which is generally
drawn by sceptical men from such observations,
cannot be allowed ; the inference is this — that
the fortitude of the apostles, in sustaining perse
cution, is no proof of the truth of the christian
religion, inasmuch as an equal degree of forti
tude has often been displayed by other men in
support of opinions evidently not true.— *This in
ference cannot be allowed, for this reason— that
an essential difference is to be made between
him who dies in attestation of a matter of fact,
and him who dies in attestation of an opinion.
The apostles died in attestation of their having
seen Jesus work miracles, whilst he was alive ;
and of their having conversed with him after his
resurrection from the dead. These are not ab
struse opinions, but things which either did; or
did not happen ; any man is competent to say
whether he saw1 them happen or not ; and the
apostles died in maintaining that they did see
them happen : they " were eye-witnesses of his

440 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE.
majesty." The christian martyrs who had never
seen Jesus, nor been eye-witnesses of any mira
cles wrought by him, or by others in his name,
but who died, rather than they would abandon
the belief which they had adopted, contributed,
hy their constancy, to the propagation of the
christian religion ; but they did- not establish its
trulh in the same way that the apostles did.
The Christians of the present age are strong
in ppinion, that Jesus was raised from the dead—
the Jews and unbelievers of the present age are
strong in opinion, that Jesus was not raised from
the dead- Christians and Jews, of all preceding
ages, till we came to the very time when this great
eyent — the resurrection of Jesus — either did or
did not happen, have been uniform in their re
spective opinions, and both are now ready to
shed their blood in support of them ; there is no
hypocrisy in the profession of either ; what rea
son then has an impartial inquirer after truth to
credit the Christian rather than the Jew ? — He has
thj,s„ reason ; the ground-work of the belief of the
Christian is a matter of fact attested by eye-wit
nesses, ; but the gifound-wojjk of the belief of the
Jew is an assertion destitute of prpof. The Jews.

THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE. 441
who lived at the time when Jesus either did or
did not rise from the dead, found the sepulchre,
in which his body had been laid, empty. The
sepulchre might have become empty two ways,
either by the body having been raised from the
dead, or by its having been taken away. The
Jews asserted that it was taken away by his dis
ciples, but they gave no proof of their assertion ;
they neither pretended to have seen it taken
away, nor to have seen it after it had been taken
away. The apostles also found the sepulchre
empty, but they did not, from that circumstance,
assert, that Jesus was risen from the dead ; no,
they asserted that they had seen him, handled
him, eaten with him, conversed with him, not
only once, but often, and in different places,
after his resurrection from the dead. Now, no
one, who understands the nature of evidence,
can hesitate in pronouncing, that the behef of
the Christians of the present age, when traced
back to its origin, is founded on a rock, on the
testimony of eye-witnesses to a matter of fact ;
whilst that of the Jews is founded on an assertion
of their ancestors not only destitute of proof,
but utterly incredible, as might easily be shewn

442 THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE.
from an examination of the circumstances at
tending the crucifixion and interment of Jesus.
Had the chief priests reported, that, in conse
quence of the precautions they had taken, the
body of Jesus was on the third day after the
crucifixion found in the sepulchre ; and had the
apostles reported, that on the third day the body
was not found in the sepulchre, and said no more
upon the subject ; the Christians and Jews of
succeeding ages might; with some appearance of
reason, have disputed concerning the degree of
credit due to the testimony of their respective
progenitors. Yet even^on this supposition, the
Christian would have had a better foundation for
his belief, than the Jew could lay claim to; for
the predecessors of the Christian sacrificed their
lives in support of their testimony, but the pre--'
decessors of the Jew gave no such proof of their
sincerity and truth.
The sum of what has been said amounts to
this — we have as great, if not greater reason to
believe, that the history of the life,- death, and
resurrection of Jesus Christ, as related in the

THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION NO IMPOSTURE. 443
New Testament, is a genuine and authentic his
tory, as we have to beHeve in the genuineness
and authenticity of any other ancient book —
we have no evidence, external or internal, to in
duce us to conclude, that the apostles had either
ability or motive to introduce and propagate an
imposture. The selfishness, ambition, and cow
ardice of the apostles, shewn during the life, and
at the death of Jesus, are perfectly natural and
credible ; and when contrasted with their subse
quent disinterestedness, humility, and fortitude,
afford an exceeding strong proof, both of the
general veracity of the evangelists as historians,
and of the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, as a,
cause adequate to the production of so great-.
and otherwise unaccountable change in their
character and conduct.

A
CHARGE,
DELIVERED TO THE
CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF LANDAFF,
IN JUNE, 1795.

REVEREND BRETHREN,
The pleasure^ which I experience in meeting you
on such occasions as the present, is always ac
companied with some degree of anxiety. I anl
fearful, lest I should have nothing to produce to
you worthy of your attention, as scholars, and
divines ; and I think too well of your general
good conduct, in the discharge of your parochial
duties, to employ the time in reprehending you
for faults, which probably do not exist ; or in
cautioning you against errors, to which you pro
bably are not prone.
On a former occasion I took the liberty of
giving you my advice, on the necessity of your

A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 445
thoroughly examining the foundation on which
your faith, as Christians, is built ; and I, at this
time, repeat the advice with great earnestness
and sincerity. An attack has been openly made
in a foreign country, and is secretly carrying on
in our own ; not on modes of worship, or church
discipline; not on disputable articles of faith;
not on any of the out-works of Christianity ; but
on the citadel itself. We know, indeed, that this
citadel is founded on a rock, which no human
force can subvert ; yet we are placed in it as
sentinels, to detect the artifice of those who co
vertly undermine, and to repel the aggression of
those who openly assail it ; and we know the pu
nishment which awaits soldiers sleeping on their
post. There have been men in former ages, and
there are not a few in our own, who think and
speak of the clergy, as destitute either of under
standing, or honesty ; who represent them as in.
terested in the support of a superstition ; and
ready, at all times, to sacrifice their probity as
men, on the altar of professional hypocrisy ; who
stigmatize them as the protectors of ignorance,
and the persecutors of science. A philosopher,

446 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY.
says Helvetius, has for his enemies, the bonzes,
the dervises, the bramins, the ministers of every
religion in the world. Let us forgive these philo
sophers, whether foreign or domestic, this wrong;
but let us, at the same time, beg them to con
sider—that we, as well as they, are subjects of a
free state, in which the road to wealth and; dis
tinction is open to every man of ability ; and
more open, perhaps, to men : of ability in other
professions, than in that of the church — that we;
as well as they, enjoy talents from the gift of
God> and have been as sedulous as themselves,
(speaking without arrogance) in the improvement
of them. Are they mathematicians, natural philo
sophers, metaphysicians, logicians, classical scho
lars ? So are we. — I speak n°t of individuals,.
much less of myself^ but of the great body of
the British clergy. There is not a single branch
of knowledge, in which the clergy are not equal,
at least, to those who injuriously impute to them
the grossness of ignorance in believing an impos
ture, or the more degrading and flagitious in
famy of supporting what they do not believe.
It is true, that lawyers, physicians, soldiers,
rnert in eveiy profession, are wont to acquire a

A CHARCE TO THE CLERGY. 447
partiality for that in which they have been edu
cated ; and, by the almost irresistible force of
habit, think more highly of its excellencies, and
are disposed to defend its defects with more per
tinacity than reason will -.allow. If a preposses
sion of this kind should be observable in the pro
fessors of Christianity, or in the advocates for any
particular system of Christianity, a candid mind
would be ready rather to apologize for the infir
mity, than to condemn it, as springing from a
corrupted source of interest or ambition. What
interest can an Unitarian or an Arian have in dis
senting from the faith esteemed orthodox ? If
either, or both of them are in an error, may the
mercy of God forgive them ! but let not the un
merciful judgment of man condemn them.—
What interest can a deist of upright moral..
(and there are many such) have in contending,
that the Supreme Being gave no law to Moses,
no revelation of his will to mankind by Jesus
Christ; but that. Moses and the prophets, that
Jesus and the apostles, were like Confucius, Zo
roaster, Numa, Mahomet, and their several as
sociates ; that they pretended to a divine autho
rity, which was not vouchsafed to them ? We
believe, that the divine missions of Moses and'

448 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY.
of Jesus may be estabhshed, and that they have
been Repeatedly established, by arguments, which
are utterly inapplicable to every other religion
which hath taken place among mankind ; but
we do not take upon us to anathematize, with
fiery zeal, every one who does not believe as we
do; we pray for his conversion to What we es
teem the truth, and we request him to admit,
that the sincerity of our belief in Christianity is
as great as that of his unbelief; if he thinks
otherwise of us, he thinks amiss ; if he speaks
otherwise, he becomes a calumniator.
This moderation, which, on all occasions, I
recommend as proper for us to observe towards
those who differ from us, either partially, or
wholly, and which, in return, we have a right to
expect from them, is not to be interpreted into
an indifference either towards Christianity in ge
neral, or towards that particular mode of it which
is established in these kingdoms. The church of
England may be maintained, and it is our duty
to maintain it, with zeal regulated by charity,
against all its enemies, till they have convinced
us, that a less defective system of doctrine, wor
ship, and discipline, might be peaceably intro-

A CHARGE TO -THE CLERGY. 449
duced in its stead ; and this, if we may judge .
from what we have read of former times, or obr
served of our own, the opposers of the establish
ment will not be able speedily to accomplish.
He wbp wishes to repair an ancient fortress,
when he sees it attacked by a thousand enemies,
disfigured by the rubbish of a thousand ages,
cannot, without great injustice, be ranked with
those who labour tp overturn it. . -
Npr is the defence ofthe Christian . reHgion
abandoned, ^y hen we allow unbehevers the full
liberty of producing all the arguments they can
ui support of their infidelity. Our liberaHty in
this respect proceeds not from any supineness,
or inattentipn towards what we esteem of inesti
mable value, but from a total dislike of dogma
tism and intolerance ; — principles ill comporting
with the weakness of human understanding, and
with the benignity of the Christian religion ; and
from a strong persuasion that the result of the
most critical scrutiny into the foundations of pur
faith will be a . pp.nfirmation of its truth.. Thp
time I think, is approachyig, or is already cqxaf,
when Christianity will pndergo a more severe in-
G G

450 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY.
vestigation than it has ever yet done. My ex
pectation, as to the issue, is this — that catholic
countries will become protestant,' and that pro-
testant countries will admit a farther reformation.
— In expressing this expectation, which I am far
from having the vanity to propose with oracular
confidence, I may possibly incur the censure of
some, who think that protestantism, as established
in Germany, in Switzerland, in Scotland, in Eng
land, is, in aU these, and in other countries, so
perfect a system of Christianity, that it is inca
pable of any amendment in any of them. If
this should be the case, I must console myself
with reflecting, that the greatest men could not,
in their day, escape unmerited calumny. Every
age has had its Sacheverells, its Hickes's, and its
Chenells's ; who, with the bitterness of theologi
cal odium, sharpened by party rancour, have not
scrupled to break the bonds of christian charity.
Hoadly was called a dissenter, Chilling worth a
Socinian, and TiUotson both Socinian and atheist ;
and all of them experienced this obloquy, from
contemporary zealots, on account of the Hbera-
lity of their sentiments, on account of their en
deavouring to render Christianity more rational
than it was in certain points generally esteemed

A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 451
to be. I had certainly rather submit to imputa
tions, which even these great men could not avoid,
than be celebrated as the mightiest champion of
the church on the system of intolerance, or the
most orthodox contender for the faith on the
system of those who maintain, that our first re
formers have left us no room for improvement in
scriptural learning. With whatever assurance
other men may be persuaded, that they have
attained certain knowledge of the truth of all
Christian doctrines ; with whatever zeal, in con
sequence of that persuasion, they may foster the
seeds of persecution, I confess that there are
many points in theology on which I feel myself
disposed to adopt an expression of St. Austin,
when he is stating the different ways, in which
he conjectures that original sin may have been
propagated from parents to children — quid autem
horum sit verum libentius disco, quam dico, ne
audeam docere quod nescio.
Herodotus tells us, that Darius asked some of
the Greeks, what sum of money he should give
them to eat the bodies of their deceased parents,
after the manner of the Indians. Upon their re
fusal to comply on any consideration, he asked
g g 2

452 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY.
some of the Indians, who were accustomed to eat
the bodies of their parents, what sum they would
take to burn the bodies of their parents after the
Grecian manner : but they, setting up a general
outcry, desired the king to have better thoughts
pf them. Thus it is in religion, every man is
attached to the mode of worship, and the system
of doctrines, to which be has been accustomed,
and he'looks upon other modes, and other doc
trines, as bordering on impiety. This disposition
is so- general, that it may be considered as natu-
ral ; yet, Hke many other natural propensities,
it may be corrected ; it is an evil which may be
overcome by good sense. I call it an evil, be
cause it misleads the judgment, and subjects men
to the tyranny of prejudice. It was a prejudice
of this sort which made St. Paul a persecutor of
Jesus ; which made the Jews persecutors of the
Christians ; which made the heathens persecutors
of both Jews and Christians ; and which has, at
times, rendered the different denominations of
Christians in this country, and in all other parts
of Christendom, persecutors of each other. There
can be no question that it is the duty of all men to
oppose reason to prejudice ; but, unluckily, every
man thinks that he does so ; he mistakes his own

A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 453
conclusions for truths, which ought not to be
disputed, and which cannot be illustrated ; and
every argument tending to subvert them is re
jected without examination. This perversion of
the understanding is a great reproach to men of
education and learning ; we may lament it and
excuse it in the bulk of mankind, who, letting
their reason lie without exercise, go, on most oc
casions, in matters of opinion, not in the way in
which they ought to go, but in that which they
have gone before. But in men habituated to the
cultivation of their faculties, and to impartial in
vestigation in other branches of knowledge, this
prepossession in religion, the most important of
all branches, is wholly reprehensible.
The great disputes which at present agitate
Europe, respect the first principle of natural re
ligion, and the truth of all revealed religion. The
first principle of natural reHgion is — the existence
of a God, the maker, the preserver, and the mo
ral governor of the universe. No created being
can comprehend the essence ofthe divine nature,
much less is it in the power of man to do it;
but to deny the existence of a God, is such a
degree of insanity, as few men in any age have

454 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY.
fallen into ; and those who have fallen into it,
have been deservedly looked upon as dangerous
prodigies in nature.
Protagoras, a philosopher of antiquity, we are
told by Cicero, began a work with saying —
" Whether there are gods, or whether there are
none, I have nothing certain to deliver on the
subject." The Athenians, fired with indignation
at this daring declaration of the sophist's scepti
cism, banished him from their city and territory,
and burned his book before a public assembly
of the people. In our days, a philosopher has
been heard to exclaim, in a solemn convention
of his countrymen, " I am an atheist." Far from
resenting this public avowal of his impiety, his
countrymen called out, " What is that to us ?
you are an honest man." I do not deny the pos
sibility of an atheist being an honest man —
Spinoza is said to have been one — and I am an
enemy to every degree of persecution for ophiiori;
but surely the people of Athens manifested, on a
similar occasion, not only more piety, but infi
nitely more poHtical wisdom, than the people Pf
Paris — for there has yet been no instance in the
world, of a state subsisting without religion,

A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 455
I think it unnecessary to enter into any la
boured proof of the Being and Providence of
God before this audience ; it is known, I pre
sume, to every one of you, my brethren, that
the existence of a Supreme Being may be esta
blished from three different sources of argumen
tation—from a metaphysical consideration of the
absurdity of an infinite series of dependent beings
— from the contemplation ofthe order and beauty
of the universe — and from the consent of all na
tions ; which consent has been derived by tradi
tion from our first parents. Many writers, an
cient and modern, have maintained, that the idea
of God was implanted in our nature; they were
driven to this expedient, which Mr. Locke has
shewn to have no foundation, from their not
having been able otherwise to account for that
universal consent, which prevailed not amongst
the learned only, but amongst the unlearned part
of mankind, concerning the Being of a God. Had
they been acquaintedwith, or properly considered
the writings of Moses, they would have seen the
great facility with which a knowledge of the cre
ation, and of the existence of God, might have
been disseminated throughout the world, by the
descendants of Noah. AU mankind are sprung

456 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY.
from a common stock, and all have retained, as
might haVe been expected, some knowledge of
the cause of their common origin. There was a
time When I was fond of metaphysical inquiries
into the nature of the Supreme Being, and much
delighted with the works of Cudworth, King,
Clarke,' Leibnitz, ah& other acute reasoners on
the subject; but I have iPiig thought that the
motions of the heavenly bodies, the propagation
and growth of animals and plants, the faculties
ofthe human mind, and even the ability of mov
ing my hand up or down, by a simple voHtion,
afford; when deliberately reflected on, more con
vincing argument, against atheism, than all the
recondite lucubrations ofthe most profound phi
losophers. In a Word, the argument for the ex
istence of God, which is drawn from the contem
plation of nature, is so clear and so strong, that
the most ignorant can comprehend it, and the
most learned cannot invent a better. This argu
ment is SO obvious to a thinking mind, that I
Suspect the accuracy of Cicero's information,
when he tells us that Anaxagoras Was J the first,
who' taught that the universe was formed by an
intelligeht mind, distinct from matter. He him
self, indeed,' gives reasPn for this suspicion, When
7

A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 457
he observes, that Thales, the predecessor of Anax
agoras, maintained (probably from some tradition
concerning the creation) that God was that mind
which formed all things out of water. I will
conclude this head with a passage from Chardin's
travels into Persia, as cited by Fdbricius ; it may
be better remembered, as an argument against a-
theism, than a more acute disquisition would be.
The Mahometans, says this author, have in
vented many fabulous accounts concerning the
prophets and the patriarchs of the Old Testa
ment ; amongst the rest, they tell us — that Moses
having preached a long time to kingPharaoh,who
was an atheist and a tyrant, on the existence of
one eternal God, and on the creation of theworld ;
and finding that he made no impression either
upon Pharaoh or his courtiers ; ordered a fine
palace to be erected privately, at a considerable
distance from a country residence of the king.
It happened that the king, as he was hunting,
saw this palace, and inquired by whom it had
been built. None of his followers could give him
any information ; at length Moses came forward,
and said to him — that the palace must certainly
have built itself. The king fell a laughing at his

458 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY.
absurdity, telling him that it was a pretty thing
for a man, who called himself a prophet, to say
that such a palace had built itself in the middle
of a desert. Moses interrupted him with saying,
" You think it a strange extravagance to affirm
that this palace built itself, the thing being im
possible ; and yet you believe that the world made
itself. If this fine palace, which is but an atom
in comparison, could not spring from itself in this
desert, how much more impossible is it that this
world, so solid, so great, so admirable in all its
parts, could be made by itself, and that it should
not, on the contrary, be the work of an Architect
wise and powerful !" The king was convinced,
and worshipped God, as Moses had instructed
him to do. There is much good sense in this
fable, and its substance is thus expressed by Ci
cero — quod si mundum efficere potest concursus
atomorum, cur porticum, cur templum, cur domum,
cur urbem non potest ?
When we speak concerning the truth of re
vealed religion, we include not only the certainty
of the divine missions of Moses and of Jesus,
but the nature of the several doctrines promul
gated by them to mankind. Now you may ask

A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 459
me, what these doctrines are ? I know what they
are to me ; but, pretending to no degree of in
fallibility, I think it safer to tell you where they
are contained, than what they are. They are
contained in the Bible ; and if, in the reading of
that book, your sentiments concerning the doc
trines of Christianity should be different from
those of ybur neighbour, or from those of the
church, be persuaded on your part, that infalhbi- t
Hty appertains as Httle to you, as it does to the
church of which you are a member, or to any
individual who differs from you. Towards the
church you ought to preserve reverence and re
spect ; and in your public teaching, you ought
¦not, whilst you continue a minister in it, to dis
turb the public peace, by opposition to its doc
trines ; and towards individuals of whatever
denomination of Christians they may be, who dif
fer from you, you ought to preserve charity of
thought, and courtesy of conduct ; and if you do
.this, your discordance of opinion wiU be attend
ed with no mischief pubHc or private.
Many learned men have bestowed much useless
labour in defining, what are the fundamental ve
rities of the Christian religion ; useless I esteem

460 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY.
it, because the same things are not fundamental
to all men, and there is no infallible judge of
controversy to settle the disputes which may arise.
A papist believes the doctrine of transubstantia-
tion, of worshipping of images, of invocation of
saints, of purgatory, of the insalvability (if the
word may be admitted) of heretics, and of the
infalHbility of pope_, councils, and churches, to
be fundamental doctrines: — a protestanf does not
believe any of these doctrines to be fundamental.
Protestants differ from each other in their senti
ments concerning the eucharist, concerning the
Trinity, concerning satisfaction, original sin, and
personal predestination ; — but the wisest amongst
them do not esteem any particular opinion con
cerning any of these points, to be so fundamen
tally right, that salvation will not belong to those
who think otherwise.
Personal predestination appears to many to be
a doctrine foil of impiety and despair. They
think it impious, as it represents God to be a blind
or malignant being — blind, if he dooms a man
to eternal destruction without knowing whether
he will do good or evil; and malignant, if, know
ing, he makes no distinction, in his decrees; be-

A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 461
tween them who obey and them who disobey him.
They think it a doctrine pregnant with despair — •
for now to be persuaded that you are inevitably
doomed to everlasting punishment, that no future
rectitude of conduct,no penitence forwhat is past,
no supplication, no intercession, nothing which
can be done by yourself, or by any other for you,
can in the least avail to the altering of your fate ;
what is this, say they, but to overwhelm the soul
with the blackness of despondent horror ? Is it
not, they ask, a more impious doctrine than that
of Epicurus ? for that represented God as not
troubling himself in the government ofthe world,
as making no distinction between the righteous
and the wicked, as suffering both to die and be
come extinct ; but this represents him, as con
signing to everlasting torments, those whom he
had from all eternity determined to condemn.
This doctrine, which St. Chrysostom amongst the
ancients, and Arminius amongst the moderns, re
probated as unworthy of God, has been zealously
maintained by Calvin and St. Austin. In my hum
ble judgment, they have done great service to
Christianity, who have endeavoured to shew that
it is not founded in Scripture. For nothing has
contributed more to the propagation of deism,

462 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY.
than the making doctrines abhorrent from reason,
parts of the Christian system. There may be doc
trines above reason ; but nothing, which is evi
dently contrary to reason, can ever be justly
considered as a part of the Christian dispensa
tion. — -1 will instance in another point.
A deist stumbles at the very threshold of reli
gion,* and turns with scorn and terror from the
temple of God, when he is told that he cannot
enter into it but through the gate of original sin,
as described by Fulgentius, the disciple of St.
Austin. He admits original sin in a certain sense,
acknowledging that it is not contrary to reason,
that the whole human race should, from the trans
gression of Adam, become subject to labour, dis
ease, and death ; but he bids us combine into
one idea whatever we have read of the Mani-
chean doctrine concerning an evil principle, of
•the sanguinary tenets of the worshippers of Mo
loch, of the cruel superstitions of paganism in
every age and country ; and he defies us to form
any thing so hideous to imagination, so repug
nant to reason, so destructive of every just no
tion of a Supreme Being, as the doctrine of an
orthodox father ofthe Christian church, concern-

A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 463
ing original sin. The doctrine, in the words of
Fulgentius, stands thus— -firmissime tene, et nul-
latenus dubites, parvulos, sive in uteris matrum
vivere incipiunt et ibi moriuntur, sive cum de ma-
tribus nati sine Sacramento sancti baptismatis de
hoc seculo transeunt, ignis asterni sempiterno sup-
plicio puniendos. — Parent of universal good ! mer
ciful Father of the human race ! how hath the
benignity of thy nature been misrepresented!
how hath the gospel of thy Son been misinter
preted by the burning zeal of presumptuous man !
I mean not, on this occasion, to enter into the
various questions which learned men have too
minutely discussed, concerning the lapse of our
first parents, the original rectitude, and subse
quent depravation of human nature ; I simply
mean to say, that a proposition which asserts,
that infants dying in the womb will be tormented
in everlasting fire, on account of Adam's trans
gression, is a proposition so entirely subversive
of all our natural notions of the justice arid
mercy ofthe Supreme Being, that it cannot; be
admitted, unless a passage in Scripture could; be
produced, in which it is clearly, and in so many
words revealed ; and I am certain that no such
passage can be produced.

464 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY.
The gospel was preached to the poor, to ig
norant and unlearned men; its leading doctrines
concerning providence, a resurrection from th?
dead, and a future state of retribution , are so ob
vious, that no one who can read the Scripture
can fail to see them. Can it be a matter pf sur
prise, then, that a reluctance is felt against the
admission of abstruse doctrines, which require
the subtlety of argute logic, and scholastic dis^
quisition, to discover and enforce them ? When
men are desirous of forming systems, they are
apt to collect together a number of texts, which,
being taken as abstract propositions, seem to
establish the point; but which, when interpreted
by the context, appear to have no relation to it.
There is no greater source of error than this
practice ; it has prevailed in the Christian church
from the earliest ages, and it stiU prevails. We
owe to it the corruptions pf popery, and that in
finity of heresies, which haye so much debased
the simpHcity of gospel-truth, and driven so many
men of sense from embracing Christianity. I atn
far from considering unbelievers as devoid of abi
lity, or of integrity, I think they haye not given
the subject an unprejudiced and serious examina
tion ; and that the principal matters to which

A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 465
they object are the doctrines of men, rather than
the commands of God. Every one who will well
weigh the subject, must perceive the unfairness
with which men usually proceed, in forming
systems in theology. By stringing together de
tached sentences, an Ausonius may compel the
chaste Virgil to furnish materials for an indecent
poem ; and, from the Bible itself, a system of im
piety might, by such means, be extracted.
But there is no doctrine of our holy religion,
whiph has given greater offence to unbehevers,
or occasioned greater perplexity to sincere chris
tians, than the doctrine of satisfaction. Why
might not God have restored human kind to the
immortality which was lost by the transgression
of Adam, without requiring any atonement, sa
tisfaction, or price of redemption ? Can the be
nevolent Author of the universe be induced, by
the death of an innocent being, to bestow a
blessing on mankind, which, without such a sacri
fice, he would have withheld from them ? Does
God Almighty, like the demons of pagan super
stition, delight in blood ? — These, and innumer
able other questions such as these, obtrude them
selves on the reluctant minds of pious and think-
H H

466 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY.
ing men ; and they are the rocks on which impipus
and unthinking men make shipwreck of their
faith. There is one general answer which may
.be given to them all; and it is an answer in
which intelligent and sober men will acquiesce —
our incapacity to comprehend the ways ofthe
Almighty. — What mortal knoweth for what we
are reserved in another world ? Who can describe
the means requisite for exalting our present hu
man nature to that degree of angelic excellence,
without which it may not be possible for us to
participate in the joys of heaven ? Who hath
such an insight into the past, present, and future
dispensations of God — into the relation which
this state bears to a future "one— into the con
nection which the human race may now have,
though unknown to us, or may hereafter have,
though it hath not now, with other orders of
beings, as positively to pronounce, that the blood
of Christ was not requisite to remove from man
kind the consequences of Adam's transgression?
We know assuredly, that God delighteth not in
blood ; that he hath no cruelty, no vengeance,
no malignity, no infirmity of any passion in his
nature ; but we do not know, whether the requi
sition of an atonement for transgression, may

A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 467
not be an emanation of his infinite mercy, rather
than a demand of his infinite justice. We do not
know, whether it may not be the very best means
of preserving the' innocence and happiness, not
only of us, but of all other free and intelfi-
gent beings. We do not know, whether the suf
fering of an innocent person may not be produc
tive of a degree of good, infinitely surpassing
the evil of such sufferance ; nor whether such a
quantum of good could by any other mean have
been produced. The death of Christ was volun
tary ; he laid down his own life, that he might
give life to all mankind. This, no doubt, was a
great instance of his love, and is a great motive
for our gratitude, and ought to be a great incen
tive to holiness of life, since transgression was
expiated by so great a sacrifice. But was God
cruel, unmerciful, unjust in accepting this vo
luntary suffering of Christ as an instrument of
our salvation ? No, certainly ; this must not be
admitted, unless it could be shewn, which never
can be shewn, that our salvation could have been
accomplished, and to the same extent, by other
less valuable means-sunless it could be shewn,
which never can be shewn, that more evil than
good, either to Christ himself, to the human rape,,
H h 2

46? A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY.
or to sonn© other part pf God's creation, has flowed
from the death of Christ. I Hke not that arrogant
theology, which presumes tp explore what cwgeb
desire to hole into,, and which,', failing in its at
tempt, rejects: as absurd what it is not able to
understand. If God though, fit tp accept for our redemp-.
tion any price, there is nothing, that we know of,
but his own wisdnm which could determine, what
pric}§ he- would accept. Hence I seeino difficulty
in admitting, that the death of an angel, or of a
mere man, might have been the price which God
fixed upon- The Socinians contend that Christ
was a man, who had no existence before he was
born of Mary ; but they seem to me not to draw
a just consequence, when from thence they infer,
that an atonement could not have been made for
the sins of mankind by the death of Jesus. The
Arians maintain* that Jesus had an existence
before he was born of Mary ;; and there is no
reason for thinking, that the death of such a be
ing might not have made an atonement for the
sins of mankind* All depends on the appoint
ment of Gxxd ; and if, instead of the death of a
super-angeHc, of an angehc; or of an human be-

A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY. 469
ing, God had fixed upon any other instrument,
as a medium of restoring man to immortality, it
would have been highly improper in us to have
quarrelled with the mean which hia goodness had
appointed, merely because we could not see how
it was fitted to attain the end. God so loved the
world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that who
soever believeth in him should not perish, but have
everlasting life-: — lie sent him into the world to be
a propitiation for our sins ; and it is our duty to
believe that the death of Christ was the fittest
ransom which could have been provided for our
redemption, though we may not be able, from our
great ignorance, fully to comprehend its peculiar
expediency. With great humility, and self-abasement, does
it become us to think and speak of every dispen
sation of God ; we cannot fathom the depth of
his councils, we cannot reach the sublimity of
his designs, we cannot apprehend the wisdom of
the means by which he worketh out the happiness
of the universe. In fine, my brethren, it is our
duty freely to examine the meaning ofthe words
in which God has revealed his will, lest we should
be led, by the authority of men, to adopt supei-
8

470 A CHARGE TO THE CLERGY.
stitious opinions as divine truths ; but it is not
consistent with good sense, to reject every thing
which we cannot comprehend ; the extent of our
intellectual capacity is extremely circumscribed,
and we fall into a dangerous delusion, when we
affect to make it commensurate with the wisdom
of the Almighty ; thinking ourselves to be some
thing, when in fact we are nothing, we deceive
ourselves, and lead others into error.

THE END.

G. Wood.ai.-, Printer,
Angel Cqurt, Skinner Street, London.

YALE UNIVERSITY L

3 9002 08844 3750