Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

extent, should have been mentioned by any Roman historian or philosopher. They might or they might not have recorded it. At the best, there is only an even chance that they would have alluded to it, even on the supposition that they had known it.

2. As the age in which the phenomenon occurred was exceedingly credulous, and, as we have before said, the greatest prodigies were received without much question, even by scientific men, and as little or no use was made of physical facts in a scientific point of view, we may infer that the historian would record only those occurrences which to him seemed the most remarkable, or which, owing to some peculiar circumstances, were especially interesting to himself or his readers. It is antecedently improbable, therefore, that a Roman writer would have mentioned an obscuration of the sun which lasted only three hours, which happened in one of the most remote and despised provinces of the empire, nearly two thousand miles from Rome, and which in that age and to an ordinary observer could not have seemed very remarkable. "Why," asks Bp. Watson, "should all the world take notice of a darkness which extended itself for a few miles about Jerusalem, and lasted but three hours? The Italians, especially, had no reason to remark the event 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 Etna and Vesuvius, that no man could know his neighbour."

66

3. In the age to which we have referred, there was no spirit of scientific research. There were no collectors of facts. Scientific knowledge had gradually, and in a certain sense accidentally, become accumulated in books. Pliny gives us to understand that he had drawn nearly all his facts from writers who had gone before him. Now it is altogether probable, at least there is nothing to the contrary, that the only record of the darkness at the crucifixion was to be found in the evangelical accounts. But the sect of the Christians was obscure and despised. It is not even mentioned by Pliny † or Seneca.

* The memorable darkness which occurred in New England, May 19, 1780, was so great in most parts of the country "that people were unable to read common print, determine the time of day by their clocks or watches, dine, or manage their domestic business, without the light of candles." - Mem. Amer. Acad. Vol. I. pp. 234-5. Yet how little interest did this excite out of New England!

t Bishop Watson, indeed, says, "There is a passage in the Natural

What books of the New Testament had as yet been written were still less known. It is not at all probable, therefore, that Pliny and Seneca should have resorted to them. Besides, they were the religious books of a sect, and for this reason, also, it is highly improbable that they would have searched such writings for scientific facts. Indeed, we have almost conclusive evidence that Pliny did not. He might have found in the sacred books of the Christians, especially in the Old Testament, an abundance of the most remarkable facts, which to a pagan would have appeared no more incredible than many which he has mentioned. But among the numerous references he has given to the works which he consulted, we do not find the Jewish writings or the evangelical narratives alluded to in a single instance.

4. It was not the object of either Pliny or Seneca to record all the facts within his knowledge. Seneca, especially, had a very different design. It cannot be very wonderful, therefore, that they should have omitted to mention the occurrence we have been considering. But what makes the case still stronger, and, in our opinion, settles the question, is, that both the one and the other have failed to record important phenomena which happened in their own land, and which were of such a character that they could not have failed to record them had it been their object to mention all the natural phenomena of which they knew. If they omitted these, no reasoning will convince us that they should necessarily have recorded the other. It is more illogical, therefore, to doubt the veracity of Luke or Matthew because two Roman writers have not alluded to the darkness at the crucifixion, than it is to question the authority of Seneca because Pliny has given us no account of the earthquake at Pompeii.

We here close the argument. We have presented sufficient considerations, we think, to satisfy a candid mind that there is little force in the objection to which our attention has been called. It never would have been so prominent, had it not been for the imposing aspect in which Gibbon has clothed

History of Pliny, which, how much soever it may have been overlooked, 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 another faction of magic, derived from the Jews, Moses and Lotopea, and subsisting at present.'" See also the Bishop's note on this. But it is well known that the Jews themselves practised magic in that age, and Pliny probably alluded to that fact; regarding the later practice of magic as the same with the Old-Testament miracles. 13

VOL. I.

it. Its strength vanishes when his misrepresentations are exposed. But if this were not the fact, and even if the objection were formidable in itself, still it could only be regarded as a difficulty, which it might not be easy to clear up, but it could never impeach the authority of three independent, honest witnesses, unless it were demonstrated that Pliny and Seneca must have known and must have recorded the darkness of the Passion had it really occurred.

In some future number we shall endeavour to explain the phenomenon and some of the attendant circumstances.

J. Q. DAY.

Letters to Unbelievers.

No. II.

UNREASONABLE MODES OF ATTACKING

CHRISTIANITY.

FELLOW-CITIZENS,

My last letter contained an explanation of the nature, causes, occasions, and present state of infidelity. In the present communication I shall endeavour to prove, to the satisfaction of every honest mind, that most of your modes of attacking Christianity are irrational. Let the same kind of reasoning which you employ against the gospel be applied in a similar way to any opinion, system, society, or institution whatsoever, and I sincerely believe that you would unhesitatingly pronounce it sophistical and unsatisfactory. And if you will give your candid attention to my remarks and illustrations, I think you will admit my conclusions and acknowledge to your own souls that most of your opposition to religion is unreasonable.

I. Christians of Past Ages.

1. What has been the intellectual, moral, and religious condition of heathen nations? Have they not been degraded by ignorance, enslaved by priestcraft, tormented by supersti

tion, debased by idolatry, polluted by crime, and made wretched by wickedness? Have they not excluded woman from her rightful share in the blessings of life? Have they not sacrificed human victims to their idols? No one acquainted with history will deny these facts.

Now suppose I should reason concerning these undisputed truths in the following manner : "You learn from these particulars the true condition of the heathen world. You see what unaided reason can do for mankind. Her natural, her best, her only fruits are ignorance, superstition, iniquity, and wretchedness. She is therefore a great curse to the human family; for these evils do not exist among the brute creation; and consequently it becomes our solemn duty to labour for her destruction."

Would you consider this correct reasoning? No. You would doubtless reply: "We admit the accuracy of your statement, but we deny the legitimacy of your conclusion. Your description, however, is partial and deceptive. For reason produces other and better results even among the uncivilized; and the evils mentioned arise principally from her want of cultivation. Let her be educated and enlightened, and she will yield a rich return of virtue and happiness. And to attempt her destruction, because in a state of ignorance she does not perform impossibilities, would be as absurd as to kill the child because he does not exhibit the powers of manhood. Your attack upon reason, on account of the conduct of the heathen, is truly unreasonable."

2. Let me now apply this illustration. What has been the condition of Christians in some former ages of the church? Many of the number were uneducated, superstitious, fanatical, bigoted. They persecuted each other for an honest difference of opinion. They waged wars for the promotion of sectarian views of religion. They submitted to the tyranny of a corrupt priesthood. They exhibited little of the spirit and few of the virtues of the gospel. These and similar facts no one will deny.

What use do you make of these facts in your attacks upon Christianity? Call to mind the contents of some of your papers, pamphlets, and books. Recollect the burden of many a conversation and lecture. The amount of what you have said may be stated thus: "You see in these particulars the only legitimate fruits of the gospel. And will you suffer a system to survive which has produced such an abundant harvest of ignorance, vice, and misery? No; down with super

stition, down with priestcraft; down with the Bible." This is one of your favourite modes of attacking Christianity. But is it not as unreasonable to condemn religion on account of the conduct of professed believers of past ages, as to condemn reason on account of the conduct of ancient heathen nations? Yes; in my estimation the former is much more irrational than the latter. For unassisted reason has uniformly produced ignorance, superstition, idolatry, priestcraft, and wickedness. Read the history of ancient and modern heathen nations, and you will not feel disposed to controvert this assertion. When the Christian church was in its most degraded condition, the great body of professed believers were much superior to their heathen neighbours; and many of the number acquired knowledge and exhibited a virtuous character amidst the general corruption. Besides, the gospel never authorized any one of the evils mentioned; it condemned the whole, in the most unequivocal language; so that, after all, we must attribute them to reason or infidelity. Is it not, then, infinitely more unreasonable to condemn Christianity on account of the unchristian conduct of practical unbelievers, than it would be to condemn reason on account of the evils which have always existed in every heathen nation? I appeal to your honesty for an answer.

II. Christians of the Present Period.

[ocr errors]

You

What has been the character of unbelievers in modern times? Collect into one company all the individuals of both sexes who have professed to reject Christ and Christianity. Among the number you will discover a considerable portion of the ignorant, the degraded, the abandoned. will notice many of the intemperate, many of the corrupters of youth, many thieves, robbers, and pirates, many of the inmates of prisons and the victims of the gallows. I state facts which no intelligent person will deny; not in order to cast reproach upon the virtuous portion of the company, but for the sake of the argument.

Suppose I should make these facts a foundation for the following conclusions: "In the lives and deaths of these debased men and women you behold the natural fruits of infidelity. Some of the number have confessed that their downward course commenced in the neglect of the means of religious improvement. No doubt others would have made similar confessions, had they disclosed the whole truth in re

« AnteriorContinuar »