By living witnesses, who were actually on the spot, both events are confirmed at this hour, when deceit and flattery can hope for no reward."[268:6]
The striking resemblance between the account of these miracles, and those attributed to Jesus in the Gospels "_according to_" Matthew and Mark, would lead us to think that one had been copied from the other, but when we find that Tacitus wrote his history A. D. 98,[269:1] and that the "_Matthew_" and Mark narrators" works were not known until _after_ that time,[269:2] the evidence certainly is that Tacitus was _not_ the plagiarist, but that this charge must fall on the shoulders of the Christian writers, whoever they may have been.
To come down to earlier times, even the religion of the Mahometans is a religion of miracles and wonders. Mahomet, like Jesus of Nazareth, did not claim to perform miracles, but the votaries of Mahomet are more a.s.sured than himself of his miraculous gifts; and their confidence and credulity increase as they are farther removed from the time and place of his spiritual exploits. They believe or affirm that trees went forth to meet him; that he was saluted by stones; that water gushed from his fingers; that he fed the hungry, cured the sick, and raised the dead; that a beam groaned to him; that a camel complained to him; that a shoulder of mutton informed him of its being poisoned; and that both animate and inanimate nature were equally subject to the apostle of G.o.d.
His dream of a nocturnal journey is seriously described as a real and corporeal transaction. A mysterious animal, the Borak, conveyed him from the temple of Mecca to that of Jerusalem; with his companion Gabriel he successively ascended the seven heavens, and received and repaid the salutations of the patriarchs, the prophets, and the angels in their respective mansions. Beyond the seventh heaven, Mahomet alone was permitted to proceed; he pa.s.sed the veil of unity, approached within two bow-shots of the throne, and felt a cold that pierced him to the heart, when his shoulder was touched by the hand of G.o.d. After a familiar, though important conversation, he descended to Jerusalem, remounted the Borak, returned to Mecca, and performed in the tenth part of a night the journey of many thousand years. His resistless word split asunder the orb of the moon, and the obedient planet stooped from her station in the sky.[269:3]
These and many other wonders, similar in character to the story of Jesus sending the demons into the swine, are related of Mahomet by his followers.
It is very certain that the same circ.u.mstances which are claimed to have taken place with respect to the Christian religion, are also claimed to have taken place in the religions of Crishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, aesculapius, Bacchus, Apollonius, Simon Magus, &c. Histories of these persons, with miracles, relics, circ.u.mstances of locality, suitable to them, were as common, as well authenticated (if not better), and as much believed by the devotees as were those relating to Jesus.
All the Christian theologians which the world has yet produced have not been able to procure any evidence of the miracles recorded in the _Gospels_, half so strong as can be procured in evidence of miracles performed by heathens and heathen G.o.ds, both before and after the time of Jesus; and, as they cannot do this, let them give us a reason why we should reject the one and receive the other. And if they cannot do this, let them candidly confess that we must either admit them all, or reject them all, for they all stand on the same footing.
In the early times of the Roman republic, in the war with the Latins, the G.o.ds Castor and Pollux are said to have appeared on white horses in the Roman army, which by their a.s.sistance gained a complete victory: in memory of which, the General Posthumius vowed and built a temple to these deities; and for a proof of the fact, there was shown, we find, in Cicero"s time (106 to 43 B. C.), the marks of the horses" hoofs on a rock at Regillum, where they first appeared.[270:1]
Now this miracle, with those which have already been mentioned, and many others of the same kind which could be mentioned, has as authentic an attestation, if not more so, as any of the Gospel miracles. It has, for instance: The decree of a senate to confirm it; visible marks on the spot where it was transacted; and all this supported by the best authors of antiquity, amongst whom Dionysius, of Halicarna.s.sus, who says that there was subsisting in his time at Rome many evident proofs of its reality, besides a yearly festival, with a solemn sacrifice and procession, in memory of it.[270:2]
With all these evidences in favor of this miracle having really happened, it seems to us so ridiculous, that we wonder how there could ever have been any so simple as to believe it, yet we should believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, after he had been in the tomb four days, our only authority being that _anonymous_ book known as the "Gospel according to St. John," which was not known until after A. D.
173. Albert Barnes, in his "Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity,"
speaking of the authenticity of the Gospel miracles, makes the following damaging confession:
"An important question is, whether there is any stronger evidence in favor of miracles, than there is in favor of witchcraft, or sorcery, or the re-appearance of the dead, of ghosts, of apparitions? Is not the evidence in favor of these as strong as any that can be adduced in favor of miracles?
Have not these things been matters of universal belief? In what respect is the evidence in favor of the miracles of the Bible stronger than that which can be adduced in favor of witchcraft and sorcery? Does it differ in nature and degrees; and if it differs, is it not in favor of witchcraft and sorcery? Has not the evidence in favor of the latter been derived from as competent and reliable witnesses? Has it not been brought to us from those who saw the facts alleged? Has it not been subjected to a close scrutiny in the courts of justice, to cross-examination, to tortures? Has it not convinced those of highest legal attainments; those accustomed to sift testimony; those who understood the true principles of evidence? Has not the evidence in favor of witchcraft and sorcery had, what the evidence in favor of miracles has not had, the advantage of strict judicial investigation? and been subjected to trial, where evidence should be, before courts of law? Have not the most eminent judges in the most civilized and enlightened courts of Europe and America admitted the force of such evidence, and on the ground of it committed great numbers of innocent persons to the gallows and to the stake? _I confess that of all the questions ever asked on the subject of miracles, this is the most perplexing and the most difficult to answer._ It is rather to be wondered at that it has not been pressed with more zeal by those who deny the reality of miracles, and that they have placed their objections so extensively on other grounds."
It was a common adage among the Greeks, "_Miracles for fools_," and the same proverb obtained among the shrewder Romans, in the saying: "_The common people like to be deceived--deceived let them be._"
St. Chrysostom declares that "miracles are proper only to excite sluggish and vulgar minds, _men of sense have no occasion for them_;"
and that "they frequently carry some untoward suspicion along with them;" and Saint Chrysostom, Jerome, Euthemius, and Theophylact, prove by several instances, that _real miracles_ had been performed by those who were not Catholic, but heretic, Christians.[271:1]
Celsus (an Epicurean philosopher, towards the close of the second century), the first writer who entered the lists against the claims of the Christians, in speaking of the miracles which were claimed to have been performed by Jesus, says:
"His miracles, _granted to be true_, were nothing more than the common works of those _enchanters_, who, for a few _oboli_, will perform greater deeds in the midst of the Forum, calling up the souls of heroes, exhibiting sumptuous banquets, and tables covered with food, which have no reality. Such things do not prove these jugglers to be sons of G.o.d; nor do Christ"s miracles."[271:2]
Celsus, in common with most of the Grecians, looked upon Christianity as a _blind faith_, that shunned the light of reason. In speaking of the Christians, he says:
"They are forever repeating: "Do not examine. _Only believe_, and thy _faith_ will make thee blessed. _Wisdom_ is a bad thing in life; _foolishness_ is to be preferred.""[272:1]
He jeers at the fact that _ignorant men_ were allowed to preach, and says that "weavers, tailors, fullers, and the most illiterate and rustic fellows," set up to teach strange paradoxes. "They openly declared that none but the ignorant (were) fit disciples for the G.o.d they worshiped,"
and that one of their rules was, "let no man that is learned come among us."[272:2]
The _miracles_ claimed to have been performed by the Christians, he attributed to _magic_,[272:3] and considered--as we have seen above--their miracle performers to be on the same level with all Gentile magicians. He says that the "wonder-workers" among the Christians "rambled about to play tricks at fairs and markets," that they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured.[272:4]
"The magicians in Egypt (says he), cast out evil spirits, cure diseases by a breath, call up the spirits of the dead, make inanimate things move as if they were alive, and so influence some uncultured men, that they produce in them whatever sights and sounds they please. But because they do such things shall we consider them the sons of G.o.d? Or shall we call such things the tricks of pitiable and wicked men?"[272:5]
He believed that Jesus was like all these other wonder-workers, that is, simply a _necromancer_, and that he learned his magical arts in Egypt.[272:6] All philosophers, during the time of the Early Fathers, answered the claims that Jesus performed miracles, in the same manner.
"They even ventured to call him a _magician_ and a deceiver of the people," says Justin Martyr,[272:7] and St. Augustine a.s.serted that it was generally believed that Jesus had been initiated in _magical art_ in Egypt, and that he had written books concerning magic, one of which was called "_Magia Jesu Christi_."[272:8] In the Clementine Recognitions, the charge is brought against Jesus that he did not perform his miracles as a Jewish prophet, but as a magician, an initiate of the heathen temples.[272:9]
The casting out of devils was the most frequent and among the most striking and the oftenest appealed to of the miracles of Jesus; yet, in the conversation between himself and the Pharisees (Matt. xii. 24-27), he speaks of it as one that was constantly and habitually performed by their own _exorcists_; and, so far from insinuating any difference between the two cases, _expressly puts them on a level_.
One of the best proofs, and most unquestionable, that Jesus was accused of being a _magician_, or that some of the early Christians believed him to have been such, may be found in the representations of him performing miracles. On a _sarcophagus_ to be found in the _Museo Gregoriano_, which is paneled with bas-reliefs, is to be seen a representation of Jesus raising Lazarus from the grave. He is represented as a young man, beardless, and equipped with a _wand_ in the received guise of a _necromancer_, whilst the corpse of Lazarus is swathed in bandages exactly as an Egyptian mummy.[273:1] On other Christian monuments representing the miracles of Jesus, he is pictured in the same manner.
For instance, when he is represented as turning the water into wine, and multiplying the bread in the wilderness, he is a necromancer with a _wand_ in his hand.[273:2]
_Horus_, the Egyptian Saviour, is represented on the ancient monuments of Egypt, _with a wand in his hand raising the dead to life_, "just as we see Christ doing the same thing," says J. P. Lundy, "in the same way, to Lazarus, in our Christian monuments."[273:3]
Dr. Conyers Middleton, speaking of the primitive Christians, says:
"In the performance of their miracles, they were always charged with fraud and imposture, by their adversaries. Lucian (who flourished during the second century), tells us that whenever any crafty juggler, expert in his trade, and who knew how to make a right use of things, went over to the Christians, he was sure to grow rich immediately, by making a prey of their simplicity. And Celsus represents all the Christian wonder-workers as mere vagabonds and common cheats, who rambled about to play their tricks at fairs and markets; not in the circles of the wiser and the better sort, for among such they never ventured to appear, but wherever they observed a set of raw young fellows, slaves or fools, there they took care to intrude themselves, and to display all their arts."[273:4]
The same charge was constantly urged against them by Julian, Porphyry and others. Similar sentiments were entertained by Polybius, the Pagan philosopher, who considered all miracles as fables, invented to preserve in the unlearned a due sense of respect for the deity.[273:5]
Edward Gibbon, speaking of the miracles of the Christians, writes in his familiar style as follows:
"How shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world, to those evidences which were represented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses? During the age of Christ, of his apostles, and of their first disciples, the doctrine which they preached was confirmed by innumerable prodigies. The lame walked, the blind saw, the sick were healed, the dead were raised, demons were expelled, and the laws of nature were frequently suspended for the benefit of the church. But the sages of Greece and Rome turned aside from the awful spectacle, and, pursuing the ordinary occupations of life and study, appeared unconscious of any alterations in the moral or physical government of the world."[274:1]
The learned Dr. Middleton, whom we have quoted on a preceding page, after a searching inquiry into the miraculous powers of the Christians, says:
"From these short hints and characters of the primitive wonder-workers, as given both by friends and enemies, we may fairly conclude, that the celebrated gifts of these ages were generally engrossed and exercised by the primitive Christians, chiefly of the laity, who used to travel about from city to city, to a.s.sist the ordinary pastors of the church, and preachers of the Gospel, in the conversion of Pagans, by the extraordinary gifts with which they were supposed to be indued by the spirit of G.o.d, and the miraculous works which they pretended to perform. . . .
"We have just reason to suspect that there was some original fraud in the case; and that the strolling wonder-workers, by a dexterity of jugglery which art, not heaven, had taught them, imposed upon the credulity of the pious Fathers, whose strong prejudices and ardent zeal for the interest of Christianity would dispose them to embrace, without examination, whatever seemed to promote so good a cause. That this was really the case in some instances, is certain and notorious, and that it was so in all, will appear still more probable, when we have considered the particular characters of the several Fathers, on whose testimony the credit of these wonderful narratives depends."[274:2]
Again he says:
"The pretended miracles of the primitive church were all mere fictions, which the pious and zealous Fathers, partly from a weak credulity, and partly from reasons of policy, believing some perhaps to be true, and knowing all of them to be useful, were induced to espouse and propagate, for the support of a righteous cause."[274:3]
Origen, a Christian Father of the third century, uses the following words in his answer to Celsus:
"A vast number of persons who have left those horrid debaucheries in which they formerly wallowed, and have professed to embrace the Christian religion, shall receive a bright and ma.s.sive crown when this frail and short life is ended, _though they don"t stand to examine the grounds on which their faith is_ built, nor defer their conversion till they have a fair opportunity and capacity to apply themselves to rational and learned studies. And since our adversaries are continually making such a stir about our _taking things on trust_, I answer, that we, who see plainly and have found the vast advantage that the common people do manifestly and frequently reap thereby (who make up by far the greater number), I say, we (the Christian clergy), who are so well advised of these things, _do professedly teach men to believe without examination_."[275:1]
Origen flourished and wrote A. D. 225-235, which shows that at that early day there was no rational evidence for Christianity, but it was professedly taught, and men were supposed to believe "_these things_"
(_i. e._ the Christian legends) _without severe examination_.
The primitive Christians were perpetually reproached for their gross credulity, by all their enemies. Celsus, as we have already seen, declares that they cared neither to receive nor give any reason for their faith, and that it was a usual saying with them: "Do not examine, but believe only, and thy faith will save thee;" and Julian affirms that, "the sum of all their wisdom was comprised in the single precept, "_believe_.""
Arn.o.bius, speaking of this, says:
"The Gentiles make it their constant business to laugh at our faith, and to lash our credulity with their facetious jokes."
The Christian Fathers defended themselves against these charges by declaring that they did nothing more than the heathens themselves had always done; and reminds them that they too had found the same method useful with the uneducated or common people, who were not at leisure to examine things, and whom they taught therefore, to believe without reason.[275:2]
This "believing without reason" is ill.u.s.trated in the following words of Tertullian, a Christian Father of the second century, who reasons on the evidence of Christianity as follows:
"I find no other means to prove myself to be impudent with success, and happily a fool, than by my contempt of shame; as, for instance--I maintain that the son of G.o.d was born: why am I not ashamed of maintaining such a thing? Why! but because it is a shameful thing. I maintain that the son of G.o.d died: well, _that_ is wholly credible because it is monstrously absurd. I maintain that after having been buried, he rose again: and _that_ I take to be absolutely true, because it was manifestly impossible."[275:3]
According to the very books which record the miracles of Jesus, he never claimed to perform such deeds, and Paul declares that the great reason why Israel did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah was that "the Jews required a sign."[276:1] He meant: "Signs and wonders are the only proofs they will admit that any one is sent by G.o.d and is preaching the truth. If they cannot have this palpable, external proof, they withhold their faith."
A writer of the second century (John, in ch. iv. 18) makes Jesus aim at his fellow-countrymen and contemporaries, the reproach: "Unless you see signs and wonders, you do not believe." In connection with Paul"s declaration, given above, these words might be paraphrased: "The reason why the Jews never believed in Jesus was that they never saw him do signs and wonders."
Listen to the reply he (Jesus) made when told that if he wanted people to believe in him he must first prove his claim by a miracle: "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a _sign_, and no sign shall be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonas."[276:2] Of course, this answer did not in the least degree satisfy the questioners; so they presently came to him again with a more direct request: "If the kingdom of G.o.d is, as you say, close at hand, show us at least some _one_ of the signs in heaven which are to precede the Messianic age." What could appear more reasonable than such a request? Every one knew that the end of the present age was to be heralded by fearful signs in heaven. The light of the sun was to be put out, the moon turned to blood, the stars robbed of their brightness, and many other fearful signs were to be shown![276:3]
If any _one_ of these could be produced, they would be content; but if not, they must decline to surrender themselves to an idle joy which must end in a bitter disappointment; and surely Jesus himself could hardly expect them to believe in him on his bare word.