?It was one of the princ.i.p.al tenets of the Oriental Philosophy, that all evil resulted from matter, and its first founder appears to have argued in the following manner:--?There are many evils in the world, and men seem impelled of a natural instinct to the practice of those things which reason condemns. But that eternal mind, from which all spirits derive their existence, must be inaccessible to all kinds of evil, and also of a most perfect and beneficent nature; therefore, the origin of these evils with which the world abounds, must be sought somewhere else, than in the Deity. It cannot abide in him who is all perfection, and, therefore, it must be without him. Now, there is nothing without or beyond the Deity but matter; therefore, matter is the centre and source of all evil, of all vice.?
One of the consequences they drew from this hypothesis was, that since All evil resulted from matter, the depravity of mankind arose from the pollution derived to the human soul, from its connexion with the material body which it inhabits; and, therefore, the only means by which the mind could purify itself from the defilement, and liberate itself from the bondage imposed upon it by the body, was to emaciate and humble the body by frequent fasting, and to invigorate the mind to overcome and subdue it by retirement and contemplation.
The New Testament, though it does not recognise this principle of the Oriental Philosophy, ?that evil originates from matter,? yet coincides with it in strenuously a.s.serting that the corruption of the human mind is derived from its connexion with the human body.
To prove this proposition, I shall show that Paul calls all crimes the works of the flesh.? ?Now, the works of the flesh are manifest, (says he, Gal. v. 19,) which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, rivalries, wrath, disputes, divisions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like.? He also describes the conflict between the flesh and the spirit, or mind, in these terms:-- ?For I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good, for to will is present with me, but to perform that which is good, I find not, but the evil which I would not, that I do. For I delight in the law of G.o.d according to the inner man, but I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of my sin in my members. O wretched man that I am! who will deliver me from the body of this death??
(or this body of death.) And he goes on to observe, ?That I, the same man, with my mind serve the law of G.o.d, but with my flesh the law of sin.?--Rom. vii. ?For the flesh desireth against (or in opposition to) the spirit, and the spirit against ?the flesh, and these are contrary the one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.?
?Those that are Christ?s (says Paul, Gal. v. 24) have crucified the flesh, with its pa.s.sions and desires.? And they are commanded (Rom. vi. 12 and viii. 13) ?to mortify,? or, according to the original, ?put to death or ?kill their members;? and Paul himself uses language upon this subject exceeding strong. He represents (1 Cor. ix. 27) his mind and body as engaged in combat, and says, ?I buffet my body, and subject it.? The word here translated ?
subject,? in the original, means ?to carry into servitude,? and is a term taken from the language of the olympic games where the boxers dragged off the arena, their conquered, disabled, and helpless antagonists like slaves, in which humbled condition the Apostle represents his body to be with respect to his mind.
From this notion of the sinfulness of ?the flesh,? we are enabled to apprehend Paul?s reasonings about the sufferings of Jesus ?in the flesh.? ?Since the children are partakers of flesh and blood, Christ himself also in like manner partook of them?--Heb. ii. 14. ?For (says Paul) what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, G.o.d hath done, who by having sent his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and on account of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh.?--Rom. viii. 3. ?But now, through Christ Jesus, ye who formerly were far off, are brought near by the blood of Christ.
For he is our Peace who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of part.i.tion between us, having abolished by his flesh the cause of enmity.?--Ephes. ii. 16. ?You that were formerly aliens, and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet he hath now reconciled by his fleshly body, through his death.?--Col.
i. 20.
Though these notions are sufficiently strange, yet they are not so very remarkable as the one I am about to consider. It is a singular, and a demonstrable fact, that the fundamental scheme of Christianity was derived from the religion of the ancient Persians, The whole of the New Testament scheme is built upon the hypothesis, that there is a powerful and malignant being, called the Devil and Satan, the chief of unknown myriads of other evil spirits; that he is, by the sufferance of G.o.d, the Prince of this world, and is the Author of sin, woe and death; the Tempter, the Tormentor of men, and the Tyrant of the Earth; that the Son of G.o.d, to deliver mankind from the va.s.salage of this monster, descended from heaven, and purchased their ransom of the Tyrant, at the price of his blood; for observe, my reader, that the idea of the death of Jesus being an atonement to G.o.d for the sins of men, is a modern notion; for the Primitive Christians, all of them, considered the death of Jesus as a ransom paid to the Devil, as may be proved from Origen and other Fathers. That the New Testament represents this character as the sovereign of this world, may be proved by the following pa.s.sages:--?All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them, (said the Tempter to Jesus, when he showed him all the kingdoms of the earth,) for it is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will, I give it.? Luke iv., Jesus calls him ?the Prince of this world;? John xii., and elsewhere. In his commission to Paul, he calls embracing his religion, ?turning from darkness unto light, and from the power of Satan to G.o.d.?--. Acts xxvi. 18.
Accordingly we find, that to become a Christian was considered as being freed from the tyranny of Satan. ?G.o.d hath given life to you, (says Paul) who were dead in offences, and sins; in which ye formerly walked, according to the course (or const.i.tution) of this world, according to the Prince of the Power of the air.?-- Ephesians ii., 1. And again:--?If our gospel be covered, (or hid) it is covered among those that are lost, among those unbelievers, whose minds the G.o.d of this world hath blinded, to the end that the glorious gospel of Christ should not enlighten them.?--2 Cor. iv.
4. John says in his Epistle, that ?the whole world lieth in the power of the wicked one;? and Jesus in the gospels compares him to ?a strong man armed, keeping his goods;? and himself to one stronger than he, who strippeth him of the arms in which he trusted, and spoileth his goods. ?For this purpose was the Son of G.o.d manifested, that he might destroy the works of the Devil.?--1 John iii. 8. And it is said, ?that he came to send forth the captive into liberty, and to heal those who were oppressed of the Devil.?
Men are also said to have been ?taken captive of the Devil, to fulfil his will.?--2 Timothy ii. 26. And we find that the Christians attributed all their sufferings to the opposition of this Being. ?Put on (says Paul) the whole armour of G.o.d, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the Devil. For we struggle not against flesh and blood only; but against princ.i.p.alities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in high places.?--Ephesians vi. 12. Christians are also said to be delivered by G.o.d from the power of darkness, and to be translated into the kingdom of his dear son. That is, as Christians were considered as being the subjects of Jesus, and the rest of the world as being of the kingdom of Satan, when a man became a Christian he was translated from the kingdom of one, to the kingdom of the other. Jesus accused the Devil as being the author of all evil, as a liar, and the father of lies, and a murderer of men, and of women, too, as appears in the Gospel, from the account of that one, whose back the Devil had bowed down for eighteen years--Luke xiii. 10--(on what account it does not appear.) In short, the New Testament represents to him as being the source of all evil and mischief, and the promoter of it; and the whole world as being his subjects, and combined with him against all good.
But how does all this prove that these notions were derived from the religion of the ancient Persians? I answer by requesting you, my reader, to peruse, attentively, the following account of the fundamental principles of the religion of Zoroaster, the prophet of the Persians.
The doctrine of Zoroaster was, that there was one Supreme Being, independent, and self-existing from all eternity; that inferior to him, there were two Angels, one the Angel of Light, who is the Author and Director of all Good; and the other, the Angel of Darkness, who is the Author and Director of all Evil; that these two are in a perpetual struggle with each other; and that where the Angel of Light prevails, there the most is good; awl where the Angel of Darkness prevails, there the most is evil. That this struggle shall continue to the end of the world; that then there shall be a general resurrection, and a day of judgment, wherein just retribution shall be rendered to all according to their works; after which, the Angel of Darkness, and his followers, shall go into a world of their own, where they shall suffer in darkness, the punishment of their evil deeds. And the Angel of Light, and his followers, shall also go into a world of their own, where they shall receive, in everlasting light, the reward due to their good deeds.
It is impossible but that the reader must see the agreement of the doctrines of the New Testament with all this; and since it is undoubted, that these tenets of Zoroaster are far more ancient than the New Testament, and since, as we have seen, that that book is much indebted to oriental notions for many of its dogmas, there is no way of accounting for this coincidence (that I know of), besides supposing the Devil of the New Testament to be of Persian origin.
It is, however, in my power to make this coincidence still more striking from the words of Jesus himself, who says, (Matthew xiii.
24), ?The kingdom of Heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while men slept, his enemy (mark the expression) his enemy came, and sowed tares among the wheat; but when the blade sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came near, and said unto him, ? Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence, then, hath it tares?? And he saith unto them, an enemy hath done this.? You know the rest of the parable. The explanation of it is as follows:--?He who soweth the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and the good seed are the sons of the kingdom, and the tares are the sons of the Evil One, and the enemy who sowed them is the Devil.? Here you see, as far as it goes, a precise agreement with the doctrine of Zoroaster; and to complete the resemblance, you need but to recollect, that at the day of Judgment, according to the words of Jesus, the wicked go into the fire prepared for the Devil and his angels; and the righteous go into life eternal with the Son of G.o.d.
But is there not a Satan mentioned in the Old Testament, and is he not there represented as an evil and malevolent angel? I think not.
This notion probably arises from the habit of interpreting the Old Testament by the New. The Satan mentioned in the Old Testament, is represented as G.o.d?s minister of punishment, and as much his faithful servant as any of his angels. The prologue to the book of Job certainly supposes that this angel of punishment, by office, appeared in the court of Heaven, nay, he is ranked among ?the Sons of G.o.d.? This Satan is merely the supposed chief of those ministers of G.o.d?s will, whose office is to execute his ordered commands upon the guilty, and who may be sometimes, as in the case of Job, the minister of probation only, rather than of punishment; and there is no reason why he should be ashamed of his office more than the General of an army, or the Judges of the criminal courts, who, though they are not unfrequently ministers of punishment are not, therefore, excluded the royal presence; but on the contrary, their office is considered as honourable;--i. e., punishment without malevolence, does not pollute the inflictor.
Consider the story of the destruction of Sodom, Genesis xix.; of Egypt; Exodus xxii.; of Sennacherib, 1 Kings xxix. 35; also Joshua v. 13. The term Satan signifies an adversary, and is applied to any angel sent upon an errand of punishment For example, Numbers xxii. 23, ?The Angel of the Lord stood in the way, for an adversary (literally, for a Satan) against Balaam, with his sword drawn in his hand.? ?Curse ye Meroz, saith the Angel of the Lord,? whose office is to punish. So also Psalms x.x.xv. 5, ?Let the Angel (of punishment) of the Lord chase them, (i. e., drive them before him in a military manner; pursue them:) let their way be dark and slippery, and the Angel of the Lord following them.?
2 Samuel xxiv. 16:--?The Lord sent a pestilence upon Israel--the angel (of punishment) stretched forth his hand and smote the people.?--1 Chronicles xxi. 16:--?David saw the angel (of punishment) having a drawn sword in his hand.?
This notion is referred to, in the Apocryphal History of Susannah, verse 69. ?The Angel of the Lord waiteth with his sword that he may cut thee in two.?
Thus we see, that the term Satan is in the Old Testament applied to any Angel of the Lord sent upon an errand of punishment. And the term itself is so far from being reproachful (for David is said, 1 Samuel xxix. 4, to have been ?a Satan to the Philistines,?) that I am not sure, that if I had by me a Hebrew concordance, but I could point out places, where G.o.d himself is represented as saying, that he would be an adversary or a Satan to bad men and wicked nations. And though there is in the Old Testament a particular angel styled, by way of eminence, ?The Satan,? it is so far from being evident that he is an evil being, that I would undertake to give good reasons to prove that this distinguished angel is the real prototype, from whence the impostor Mahomet took the idea of his ?Azrael,? the ?Angel of Death;? who, in the Koran, is certainly represented as being as much the faithful servant of G.o.d, as any of the Angelic Hosts.
In fine, the doctrine of the Old Testament upon this matter may be thus expressed:--?These be spirits created for vengeance, which in their fury lay on sore strokes; in the time of destruction, they pour out their force, sad appease the wrath of him that made them.
They shall rejoice in his (G.o.d?s) commandment, and they shall be ready upon earth, when need is: and when their time is come, they shall not transgress his word.? Ecclesiasticus x.x.xix. 28.
CHAPTER XIV.
A CONSIDERATION OF THE ?GIFT OF TONGUES,? AND OTHER MIRACULOUS GIFTS ASCRIBED O THE PRIMITIVE CHRISTIANS; AND WHETHER RECORDED MIRACLES ARE INFALLIBLE PROOFS OF THE DIVINE AUTHORITY OF DOCTRINES SAID TO HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THEM.
Paul, in his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, speaks to them as possessing several spiritual gifts, conferred on them by his ministration; such as the gift of prophecy, discerning of spirits, and speaking in unknown tongues. He gives them directions about the proper use of their gifts, and speaks to them as absolutely possessing those gifts, with the utmost confidence. Dr. Paley, in his Defence of Christianity, lays great stress upon the manner in which Paul addresses the Corinthians upon these miraculous powers; and he considers it as an absolute proof of the truth of Christianity-- because, he says, it is not conceivable that Paul could have had the boldness and presumption to speak to these men concerning the use and abuse of these gifts, if they really had them not.
I am ready to confess, that this argument of Dr. Paley puzzled me; for though I was satisfied that Paul had imposed upon their credulity many irrelevant pa.s.sages from the Scriptures as proofs of Christianity, yet I could not imagine that he could presume so much upon their stupidity, as to give them directions about the management of their miraculous powers, which being matters of fact known to themselves, therefore, if false, I conceived must place Paul in their minds in the light of a banterer, when he told them of gifts, which their own consciousness, I thought, must make them sensible they had not. I say I was puzzled with this argument, until I happened to meet with some extracts from Brown?s ?History of the Shakers,? which convinced me at once, from the obvious likeness between these Shakers and the primitive Christians, that Paul might have written to the Corinthians ?
concerning their spiritual gifts,? with perfect impunity.
This Brown had been a Shaker himself, and while with them, he was as great a believer in his own and their gifts, as the Corinthians could be; and since it must be obvious, that the gifts of these Shakers are mere self-delusions, there is, then, in our own times an example of the gifts of the primitive Christians, which enables us to comprehend their nature and character perfectly well.
?Many of them,? (the Shakers) says Mr. Brown, ?professed to have visions, and to see numbers of spirits, as plain as they saw their brethren and sisters, and to look into the invisible world, and to converse with many of the departed spirits, who had lived in the different ages of the world, and to learn and to see their different states in the world of spirits. Some they saw, they said, were happy, and others miserable. Several declared, that they often were in dark nights surrounded with a light, sometimes in their rooms, but more often when walking the road, so strong, that they could see to pick up a pin, which light would continue a considerable time, and enlighten them on their way. Many had gifts to speak languages, and many miracles were said to be wrought, and strange signs and great wonders shown, by the believers.
And these poor creatures believed, and at this day do believe, all this. They are not, you will observe, artful impostors, for the Shakers are, certainly, a harmless and a moral people, and yet they confidently a.s.serted (and continue to a.s.sert), that they had these miraculous powers of ?discerning spirits, speaking with tongues, and doing great signs and wonders? Nevertheless, it must be evident, that these powers were conferred upon them only by their enthusiasm and heated imaginations.
I have heard of the Shakers before, and have been informed, that those in New England are so convinced of their miraculous capabilities, that they have been known, in order to save their neighbours the trouble of applying to the tinman, charitably to offer to join the gaping seams of their worn-out tin coffee-pots, and other vessels, ?without the carnal aid of solder,? merely by a touch of their wonder-working fingers.
Mr. Brown, in describing their mode of conduct, in their religious a.s.semblies, unwittingly gives a striking exposition of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians. He describes ?the brethren and sisters?
praying, singing, dancing, and preaching in known and unknown tongues, and sticking out their arms, and extatically following their noses round the church.
He says, respecting such as speak in unknown tongues, ?they have a strong faith in this gift, and think a person greatly favoured who has the gift of tongues; and at certain times, when the mind is overloaded with a fiery, strong zeal, it must have vent some way or other; their faith, or belief, at the time being in this, gift, and a will strikes the mind according to their faith, and then such break out in a fiery, energetic manner, and speak they know not what, as I have done several times. Part of what I spake at one time was--
?Liero devo jerankemango, ad sileambano, durem subramo, deviranto diacerimango, ja.s.se vah pe cri evanigalio; de vom grom seb crinom, os vare cremo domo.?
?When a person runs on in this manner for any length of time, I now thought it probable that he would strike into different languages, and give some words in each their right p.r.o.nounciation, as I have heard some men of learning, who were present, say a few words, were Hebrew, three or four Greek, and a few Latin.?
In another place he gives an account of his maiden speech in an unknown tongue; and it is easy to conjecture how he came by his gift, by attending to what pa.s.sed before he broke out. Here it is:-- ?We danced for near an hour, several turned round like tops, and, to crown all, I had a gift to speak in some other language; but the greatest misfortune was, that neither I, nor any other, understood what I said.?
My reader will not be surprized after this, at hearing them say, that the spectators of ?these signs and wonders,? instead of being properly affected, considered the performers as ?out of their wits.?
Let us, now, compare this account with what Paul says upon similar subjects, in the 14th chapter of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians. He advises them, in exercising their gifts, to a discreet use of them, as follows:--?He who speaketh in an unknown tongue, speaketh not to men, but to G.o.d, for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.? Again: ?For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to battle? So, likewise, unless ye utter by the tongue words to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken, for ye will speak to the air?? And as others did not understand the Corinthians speaking in unknown tongues, so it seems, too, that the Corinthians themselves were in the same unfortunate predicament with the Shakers, in not knowing the meaning of what they themselves said on these occasions. This is clear from this argument of Paul:--?Wherefore, let him that speaketh in an unknown tongue, pray that he may interpret.? Why, pray that he may interpret, if he understood himself? Does a man who speaks with understanding a foreign language, need to pray that he may be enabled to interpret what he says in his mother tongue? Surely every man who understands himself, can naturally do this? After more to the same purpose, Paul wisely concludes his argument by declaring, ?that he would rather speak in the church five words with understanding, (i. e., knowing what he said) that he might instruct others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue.? And he fortifies his reasoning by this sensible remark, ?If, therefore, the whole church come together into one place, and all speak in unknown tongues, and those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, come in, will they not say, that ye are mad?? as the spectators said of the Shakers.
He advises them, therefore, to conduct their a.s.semblies with less uproar than formerly, and exhorts them as follows:--?How is it, then, brethren, when you come together, hath each of you a psalm, hath he a doctrine, hath he an unknown tongue, hath he a revelation? Let all things be done to edifying. Now, if any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at most by three, and that in succession, and let one interpret; but if there be no interpreter, let such keep silence in the church, and let him speak to himself and to G.o.d. And let two or three prophets speak, and let the others discern. But if any thing be revealed to another who sitteth by, let the first keep silence. For ye may all prophecy, one by one, that all may learn, and all may be exhorted.?
I presume it will be needless to point out more particularly, the perfect correspondence between ?the spiritual gifts? of the Corinthians, and those of the Shakers. And I would ask the venerable Paley, if it were now possible, whether an apostolical epistle of Ann Lee, William Lee, or Whitaker, (the spiritual mother and. fathers of the Shakers,) addressed to them, and seriously giving directions about the use of ?their gifts of working miracles, and speaking with tongues,? would be sufficient to prove that they really had those gifts? And, moreover, (to make the cases more a.n.a.logous) suppose that the Shakers from this time become the dominant sect throughout the religious world, and kept the upper hand during a series of a thousand or two thousand years, taking especial care to collect and burn up every writing of their enemies and opposers. How should we, (supposing ourselves all the while invisible spectators of the thing), how should we pity our posterity, who, at the end of that period, should be gravely told by the learned and mitred advocates of Shakerism, that the miracles of the founders, and first followers of their religion were certainly true, for that they were honest and good men, with no motive to deceive, and had addressed letters to their first converts, wherein they make express mention of their possessing these gifts; and give in the simplest and most una.s.suming manner, directions for using them. Suppose, then, that our posterity, having been deprived by the prudential care of the old fathers of the then established church, of the means of detecting the fallacy which we possess; suppose that they should believe all this, and devoutly praise G.o.d every day for confirming the doctrines of his servants Lee and Whitaker, ?
with signs following?--how should we pity their delusion, and.
what should we think of the unlucky authors of it.
From all this, I think my reader must be sensible how extremely fallacious are all proofs of doctrines, pretended to be from G.o.d, derived from Miracles said to have been wrought in proof of their Divine authority.
Miracles are related to have been performed in support of all religions without exception; even the followers of Mahomet, though he did not claim the power of working miracles, have said that he did. And they will tell you, that in proof of his mission, he, in the presence of hundreds, divided the moon with his finger, and put half of it in his pocket!*
Speaking of the gift of healing diseases, which the Primitive Christians claimed. Dr. Middleton, in his Free Inquiry, observes-- ?But be that as it will the pretence of curing diseases, by a miraculous power, was so suc-cessfully maintained in the heathen world by fraud, and craft, that when it came to be challenged by the Christians, it was not capable of exciting any attention to it among those who themselves pretended to the same power; which, although the certain effect of imposture, was yet managed with so much art, that the Christians could neither deny nor detect it; but insisted always that it was performed by demons, or evil spirits, deluding mankind to their ruin; and from the supposed reality of the fact, they inferred the reasonableness of believing what was more credibly affirmed by the Christians, to be performed by the power of the true G.o.d. ?We do not deny says Athenagoras, ?that, in different places, cities, and countries, there are some extraordinary works performed in the name of idols, from which some have received benefit, others harm.? And then he goes on to prove that they were not performed by G.o.d, but by demons.
Doctor Middleton then proceeds, (p. 77.) ?whatever proof, then, the primitive Church had among themselves, yet it could have but little effect towards making proselytes among those who pretended to the same gift; possessed more largely, and exerted more openly, than in the private a.s.semblies of the Christians. For in the Temple of Esculapius, all kinds of diseases were believed to be publicly cured by the pretended help of that deity: in proof of which, there were erected in each temple columns, or tables of bra.s.s, and marble, on which a distinct narrative of each particular cure was inscribed.? He also observes that--?Pausanias writes, ? that in the temple at Epidauras there were many columns anciently of this kind, and six of them remaining in his time inscribed with the names of men and women cured by the G.o.d, with ?an account of their several cases, and the method of their cure; and that there was an old pillar besides, which stood apart, dedicated to the memory of Hippolytus, who had been raised from the dead!? Strabo, also, another grave writer, informs us, that these temples were constantly filled with the sick, imploring the help of the G.o.d: and that they had tables hanging around them, in which all the miraculous cures were described.? Dr. Middleton then proceeds thus--?There is a remarkable fragment of one of these tables still extant, and exhibited by Gruter, in his collection, as it was found in the ruins of Esculapius? Temple, in the island of the Tyber, at Rome, which gives an account of two blind men restored to sight, by Esculapius, in the open view, and with loud declamations of the people, acknowledging the manifest power of the G.o.d!!? Upon which he remarks, that ?the learned Montfaucon makes this reflection, ? that in this, are seen either the wiles of the Devil, or the tricks of Pagan priests, suborning men to counterfeit diseases, and miraculous cures.?? He then proceeds, (p.79)--?Now, though nothing can support the belief, or credit of miracles more authentically than public monuments erected in proof, and memory of them at the time they were performed, yet, in defiance of that authority, it is certain all these Heathen miracles were pure forgeries, contrived to delude the mult.i.tude; and, in truth, this particular claim of curing diseases miraculously, affords great room for such a delusion, and a wide field for the exercise of craft.?
I need not observe, that by far the greater part of the miracles recorded in the New Testament, are casting out devils, and healing diseases, powers claimed by the heathens as well as these Christians: and these miracles, (undoubtedly false) are as well, if not far better authenticated than those of the New Testament: for books may be forged, but public monuments of bra.s.s and marble are not so capable of being so: and these are always con-sidered as better evidence for facts than books. What then will the Christian say to this? for since these miracles, recorded on bra.s.s and marble, inscribed with the narratives of them almost immediately after the occurrence of them, are unquestionably Lies; what can he pretend to say of those recorded in books certainly written many years after the events they record, and, as will be proved hereafter, more than suspected to be apocryphal?
And what would become of truth? and who would be able to distinguish truth from falsehood, in matters of religion, if attested miracles, such as these, are sufficient to establish the divine authority of doctrines said to be confirmed by them? Miracles are as numerous, and better authenticated on the part of Jupiter, Apollo, and Esculapius, than on the part of Christianity. They are strong on the part of Popery against Protestantism: for the Roman Catholic Churches in Europe are full of monumental records of miracles wrought by the Virgin Mary and the Saints, in favour of their worshippers. Nay, there never were miracles better proved, as far as human testimony could prove them, than the famous miracle mentioned by Gibbon in his History of the Roman Empire, where he relates the story of the Arian Vandals cutting out the tongues of a great number of orthodox Athanasians, who, strange to tell, preached as much to the purpose, in favour of the Trinity, without their tongues, as they did with them! Never was there a miracle better authenticated by testimony than this. It is mentioned by all the Christian writers of that age. It is mentioned by two contemporary Roman historians, one of whom lived in Constantinople, and who says he looked into the mouths of some of these confessors, who had in fact their tongues cut out entirely by the roots; and it is recorded in the archives of the Eastern Empire.
Is not this testimony enough; and yet, is it sufficient to prove the doctrine of the Trinity? Is it adequate to prove, that ?the ancient of days? became a little child; was born of a woman, suckled, *******, &c., &c.; and that ?He who liveth for ever and ever,?
was whipped, was hanged, and died upon the cross, and was buried?
Can this miracle, well attested as it is, prove for truths, such strange, such shocking things as these?
The miracles of the Abbe Paris, too, are proved to be true, as far as testimony can prove any thing of the kind. For they happened within a hundred years, were seen by many, and were sworn to before the magistrates; by some of the most respectable inhabitants of the city of Paris. How can men, who pretend to believe the miracles of the New Testament upon such meagre evidence as they have in their favour, consistently reject the miracles of the Abbe Paris? attested by evidence recent, respectable, and so strong, that to this day, the juggle, and the means by which so many respectable people were imposed upon, have never yet been thoroughly developed, and explained.