Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Such, in brief, is the character of the assailant whom I would endeavour to repel. I offer no apology for entering on a task, which, howsoever unpleasant, the actual condition of society, at least in this vicinity, seems to render necessary; and if I can succeed in rescuing one person from the demoralising tendency of this new philosophy, or show one person a safer and more useful path, I shall consider my efforts not ill rewarded.

The course of Lectures on which I am entering, is laid out so as to embrace the chief points on which Owenism appears as the assailant of the religion of Christ. As a basis of my observations, I take my stand on the Christian Scriptures; and their authority, in consequence, I am in the first place required to assert.

You will observe that it is the Christian, not the Jewish Scriptures, with which I have to do. I am a Christian, not a Jew; I defend the religion of Christ, not that of Moses. These Scriptures are various in kind, put forth by different authors, at different times, and for purposes more or less dissimilar in each case. Some are histories-some are letters. The histories it is which profess to give an account of what Jesus taught and did; and on that account, and also for the sake of definiteness in my remarks, I shall confine myself to the explanation and defence of their authority.

Let me premise, that we must not look for a kind of evidence of which the subject does not admit. It is one of the evils of the want of a good system of popular education, that in a case of such consequence as the authority of the Christian Scriptures, persons have, in each individual instance, to be the judges, who have not been accustomed to similar enquiries, and are therefore scarcely in a condition to recognise the features of truth, or to discriminate truth from falsehood. A mind that has been trained to investigations into the genuineness of ancient books, is at once more likely to be satisfied

with sufficient evidence, and less likely to be deluded by false appearances. One thing, however, must be borne in mind, that the question in regard to the authority of the Gospels is as much an historical one, as the question relatively to the authenticity of Cicero's Letters, or Virgil's Poems: the question in both cases is substantially the same, involving similar enquiries, depending on similar evidence, and leading to similar results. You may therefore enter on the subject of the authority of the Gospels without any of those prejudices which are apt to rise, in some minds, at the idea of religious investigations. There is no requirement of implicit faith, of belief without evidence, or of assent to mere authority. The Gospels are histories; and by the laws which determine the trustworthiness of histories in general, must they be tried. We but ask for the same measures of judgment in their case, as are observed in respect of any other ancient writing. If they are unable to abide this test, let them be disallowed; but, equally, let not a less impartial and a more rigid tribunal be erected for them, than that by which other histories are tried.

In thus considering the Gospels as histories, I forego the claim of infallibility which some Christians have preferred, on the ground of an alleged inspiration on the part of the Deity, which dictated to the writers, not merely the facts, but the words of the narration. For myself, I can find no warrant for such a claim. The books themselves make no such pretension. The authors do not declare themselves inspired. On the contrary, the books present every appearance which history ordinarily wears, and the writers profess to found their statements on such human knowledge as they had of themselves, or acquired from others. Why then should we force upon them a claim to which they prefer no title? Nay, nothing but an irrational and undue reverence can have suggested, or can still uphold, a charac

er which, like that of infallibility, is exploded by the unquestionable errors and discrepancies which are found in the narratives. Into illustrations of these statements this is not the time to enter. I make them in order that it may be distinctly understood, that I really consider the Gospels as histories, and would have them judged by the ordinary rules of historical criticism.

If, then, this is their character, all I am concerned to substantiate is, that they contain a narrative of real events; and you effect nothing against my position by adducing evidence to show that any one of these histories presents mistakes, and that all, taken together and in comparison, offer diversities in some parts of their narrative. Where is the history of which the same may not be affirmed? What event, at all complex in its nature, have any two historians narrated in precisely the same manner? Each writer has his own point of view, perhaps his own particular object, which, if he were liable to no errors from the infirmity of his nature, would of a necessity make his story in some respects different from that of a fellow-labourer. And so far are the few diversities which are found in the histories of Christ from invalidating their authority, that they serve to show that no collusion existed between the writers, that each gave his own independent testimony to the facts in question. Were there no errors in these books, we should have to deny their purely historical character; and were there no diversities, we might not unreasonably suspect some plan for imposing on mankind. All, then, that I could even wish to establish is, that the Gospel histories are substantially true. Agreement in material points, with diversity and even discrepancy in minor details, are the essential conditions of historical truth. Such are the qualities by which the canonical histories of Christ are distinguished; and so far are these qualities from impeaching their trust

worthiness, that in their case, as in every other, they are no slight presumption that the books contain an account of real events. The objection, therefore, of the unbeliever is converted into an evidence in their favour.

Now in respect of ancient works in general, the decision of the learned respecting their genuineness is considered satisfactory. Those whose lives are given to study, are held, and properly held, to be not only the best, but the only competent judges in such a matter. What working man thinks of inquiring into the authorship of Xenophon's Life of Socrates, or Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? Paine's Age of Reason is received without a suspicion that it was not written by the person to whom it is ascribed. I hear no doubts expressed of the authorship of 'The Book of the New Moral World.' Socialists receive, as much without a suspicion as without enquiry, the very works on whose authority they are wont to assail the Gospel histories. Why should an opposite course be pursued in relation to the histories of Christ? If the sanction of the learned-if common repute is considered sufficient in one case, I see not why those who have at the best very insufficient means of judging, should act in a reverse manner in respect of the other. Let it not be supposed that I am attempting to deprecate enquiry. I only wish that you should not be partial in your conduct. The enquiry has been made-made under the most diverse influences-made of old, and in modern times, by enemies as well as friends-by enemies whom few in these days can surpass in virulence, and none equal in opportunities; and the result is, that the trust-worthiness of the books has not been overthrown. Why, then, should the question still be mooted? Why should their truth be still made an open question?-especially by those who, at the best, can possess only very partial knowledge, and scarcely any experience, on such a matter? At all events, if the

subject must be kept perpetually under debate, let the question be made general, let your enquiries be into the evidence by which the trust-worthiness of all ancient works is ascertained. This is, in fairness, required. A spirit of scepticism may easily find, or make, grounds of suspicion. Who knows that even such a person as Mr. Paine ever existed?-or can place it beyond the possibility of a question that he wrote 'The Age of Reason?' Were I to deny both, Socialists might find the proof more difficult than they think; but they would have no right to complain of the application to themselves of the same argumentative measures, as they apply to the records of the Christian history. The wonders which characterise the career of Napoleon may each be made, in the hands of an inveterate doubter, or a skilful critic,' so many grounds for denying his existence, and for impeaching the truth of the narratives in which the improbabilities of his history are found recorded.* Let unbelief, then, hold an even balance. Let her take up a consistent position; let her question, or deny, the credibility of all the productions of former days; and soon would she find, by her investigations, that there is far less evidence in favor of most of these works, than for the histories of Christ. But, in reality, the decision of the learned, whether for or against the authenticity of ancient works, is altogether worthy of our confidence, and by no means least worthy in respect of the Gospels.

It cannot be denied that the Evangelical histories are in existence; as little can it be denied that their existence can be traced back into the first ages of

* Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Buonaparte,' published anonymously, but since acknowledged by Archbishop Whateley; 'in which it was shown that the existence of that extraordinary person could not, on Hume's principles, be received as a well-authenticated fact, since it rests on evidence less strong than tha which supports the Scripture histories.'-Whateley's Logic, p. 31.

« ForrigeFortsett »