nerated, a bad taste beginning to prevail, which made them despise the unaffected style of the New Testament. They complained of the gospel, that it treated men like children 3, and required an unreasonable condescension and submission from them, commanding them to believe every thing without examination, and upon the bare authority of Christ and his apostles, and not proving its assertions in an argumentative method. The truths relating to faith and practice, propounded to us in the gospel, are indeed usually affirmed, and not proved according to the rules of reasoning. But every studious person knows that argumentative proofs of these things are sometimes intricate, obscure, and above the reach of the bulk of mankind, and that they may be opposed by ingenious men with subtil objections which may perplex a person of an ordinary capacity h. Therefore we may suppose, that one sent from God to reform and instruct the world will have recourse to some plain and satisfactory way of establishing his authority, which must be by working miracles, or by fulfilling antient prophecies, or by foretelling future events; and that, when he hath thus prepared men to obey him and trust in him, he will command as a law-giver, rather than reason as a philosopher. The end of religious teaching is to make men wise to salvation; and if nothing be wanted to accomplish this end, there is no reason to complain that the style is rude litore stantes, et tyrannos edicta scribentes, quibus imperent filiis, ut patrum suorum capita præcidant, sed responsa in pestilentià data, ut virgines tres aut plures immolentur,' &c. But Petronius himself, as Huetius thinks, judicio usus est in literis valde limato et subtili: styla deteriore, affectato, fucato, interpolato: ut plus ei ad existimationem profuisse putem obscenitatem rerum, quam sermonis elegantiam.' 6 See also Lucian, Quomodo hist. conscribenda sit. * Origen contra Cels. i. p. 8. et vi. Credo quia impossibile est,' is often mentioned as a sally of zeal in some old Christian writer. Take it as it stands in Tertullian; Crucifixus est Dei Filius: non pudet, quia pudendum est. Et mortuus est Dei Filius: prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est. Et sepultus resurrexit: certum est, quia impossibile est.'-De Carne Christi. 'Pagani nobis objicere solent, quod religio nostra, quia quasi rationibus deficit, in sola credendi persuasione constat.'-Ruf. in Symb. h Argumenta a philosophis producuntur speciosa in utramque partem, nec omnium est de eorum vi dijudicare,-Grot. ad Hebr. xi. 3. and homely, or that the common ways of arguing are not observed. He who undertakes to instruct others, and has no authority besides that which he can obtain by raising in them a good opinion of his wisdom and abilities, should omit none of those arts of persuasion which ingenious and learned men have cultivated, that he may set truth in the fairest light; but he who comes from God, and to whom God bears testimony, hath no occasion for these methods of gaining credit. He ought to be heard with reverence and submission, though, as St. Paul says, his bodily presence be weak, and his speech contemptible. His very imperfections are in one respect a recommendation, as they tend to prove that his doctrines are not of his own invention. Besides, the simplicity of the gospel suits with the subject, which is for the most part either an historical narra. tion, or a collection of precepts. Even in human laws studied eloquence is out of place. When God speaks and commands, perspicuity and brevity are the most proper ornaments. Yet we need not acknowledge that the scriptures are void of those graces which are esteemed in human compositions. There is in them beauty and sublimity where the i Le Clerc on 2 Cor. xi. 6. and Hammond and Le Clerc on Gal. xi. 6. and Junius on Clemens, 1 Ep. ad Corinth. iii. * Quæ quidem tradita sunt breviter, ac nude ; nec enim decebat aliter: ut cum Deus ad hominem loqueretur, argumentis assereret suas voces, tanquam fides ei non haberetur: Sed, ut oportuit, est locutus, quasi rerum omnium maximus judex; cujus est non argumentari, sed pronunciare verum.-Lactantius iii. 1. Simplex et nuda veritas est luculentior, quia satis ornata per se est: adeoque ornamentis extrinsecus additis fucata corrumpitur: mendacium vero specie placet alienâ.-Idem. Non probo, quod Platonis legibus adjecta principia sunt. Legem enim brevem esse opportet, quo facilius ab imperitis teneatur, velut emissa divinitus vox sit. Jubeat non disputet. Nihil videtur mihi frigidius, nihil ineptius, quam lex cum prologo. Mone, dic quid me velis fecisse: non disco, sed pareo.-Seneca Epist. 94. Βραχεῖς δὲ καὶ σύντομοι παρ' αυτοῦ λόγοι γεγόνασιν, οὐ γὰρ σοφιστὴς TYPE Breves autem et compendiosi fuere [Christi] sermones, non enim sophista erat'-Justin M. Apol. i, Grotius says that St. Paul, in his epistle to the Ephesians, rerum sublimitatem adæquat verbis sublimioribus quam ulla unquam habuit lingua humana.' subject requires or admits it; though it seems often rather owing to the things of which they treat, than to the choice and disposition of words. When the Christians appealed to the miracles by which the gospel was supported, the Gentiles replied that those miracles were wrought by magic m. This was certainly a foolish prejudice, and a weak objection". If the Gentiles meant that the miracles were not real, but only illusions and false appearances, this was confuted by the testimony of thousands, who had seen those wonderful works, and by the nature of many of those works, which was such that there could be no deceit in them. Or, if they meant that there were certain wicked arts and charms, by which bad men could compel the gods to obey them, and to assist them in performing supernatural things, this was a notion which was only fit for poetry. Or, lastly, if they meant that the miracles were wrought by the interposition of inferior or evil powers, and not by the assistance of the supreme God, the answer to their objection is this: The Christian religion is founded upon natural religion, and supposes that there is a God, and that he is most wise, most powerful, and most good. Christ and the apostles appealed to the God and Father of the universe, to the first Cause of all things; they declared themselves to be his ministers, appointed by him to reform mankind; they declared that all other religions were false, and that all the gods of the Gentiles were no gods; they declared that they were sent to extirpate idolatry, and to overturn the dominion of evil spirits; and in attestation to this they wrought miracles. Here was a solemn appeal to the Almighty, and a public challenge to all other deities, and to evil dæmons: it is not therefore m Celsus, in Origen. p. 7. and many others. n Many Pagans were of opinion that the boasted arts of magic were folly and deceit. See Plin. xxx. 2. Sueton. Nero, 51. • See Broukus. on Tibull. I. ii. 43. and Grotius de Ver. R. C. iv. 8. Menander p. 88. εἰ γὰρ ἕλκοι τὸν θεὸν Τοῖς κυμβάλοις ἄνθρωπος εἰς ὃ βούλεται, Where see Le Clerc. reasonable to suppose either that God would permit men to abuse his name and authority for bad purposes, and give such power to impostors P, or that the gods of the Gentiles and evil spirits would not exert their utmost power against their professed and open enemies, and hinder them from working miracles, if they were able 9. It hath been objected to miracles in general, that God, who is most wise and unchangeable, cannot alter that course of nature, which with perfect wisdom and prescience he hath established. 1. It would be proper to know what notions the objectors have of the Deity. If by the word God they mean the god of Strato, or of Spinosa, it is very true that such a god cannot alter any thing. 2. When a miracle is wrought, the course of nature is altered, but the will and purpose of God is not altered, who could not establish a course of things which he should not be able to change; and who, when he established it, knew what changes he would at certain times make in it. Though miracles seem to be the best credentials which a person can produce, it is possible that, by being frequently repeated, they may lose some of their effect on some tem pers, and make a fainter impression upon them. May we suppose this to have been the case of some careless and P This will likewise answer the objection of the Jews, that Christ wrought miracles by the assistance of the devil. a The Pagans were sometimes offended at their gods, and forsook them, because they did not show their power in resenting affionts and vindicating their own injured honour. In the reign of Theodosius, it happened that the Nile did not overflow at the common time. The Ægyptian Pagans grew tumultuous about it, and said that this evil befel them because they were not permitted to offer their accustomed sacrifices to the River,' and were afraid that he would be quite dried up; ... At ille Labitur, et labetur in omne volubilis ævum.' Soon after he began to swell, and flowed much more plentifully than was usual; whereupon the Alexandrians, who were ever famous for scoff and ridicule, cried out in the theatre, ὡς οἷα γέρων καὶ λῆρος ἐξούρησεν ὁ ποταμὸς. Nilum, tanquam senem ac delirum, urinam effudisse;' and many of them becaine Christians. Sozomen. H. E. vii. 20. negligent men who saw the miracles of Christ and of his apostles? Christ often appeals to his miracles, as to a sufficient proof of his authority; and his apostles speak the same language. The Pagans, when they were afterwards pressed with this argument, to elude the force of it, used to say that Christ and his disciples wrought miracles by magic art. r To remove the objection, some of the fathers had recourse to this solution, that the miracles of our Saviour were expressly foretold by the prophets, as well as his sufferings, his exaltation, and his everlasting kingdom. This circumstance, said they, distinguished the miracles of Christ from all illusions and fascinations, from all operations of evil spirits, and showed that the same Spirit of God, who so long before had declared them, was also assisting in the performance of them. Thus far the observation was ingenious, and the reply reasonable and pertinent. But others went further, and said, that this circumstance was absolutely necessary, and * Justin. Apol. i. p. 48. Irenæus ii. 57. $ The miracles of Christ were foretold by the prophets, and acknowledged by adversaries. Grotius de Ver. R. C. ii. 5. iii. 7. 14. v. 17. and Le Clerc's notes. Cudworth Intell. Syst. p. 271. Huetius Dem. Ev. prop. iii. 6. 8. Bayle Dict. Hierocles. Bishop Chandler Def. of Christian. p. 429. As Tertullian in a certain place, and Lactantius v. 3. Arnobius, in his first book, hath reasoned better on this subject, though reasoning was not his talent, and his judgment was not equal to his learning and vivacity. Origen also insists upon miracles, as proving the truth of Christianity no less than prophecy. Contr. Cels. p. 5. The Gentiles also opposed miracles to miracles, and the Fathers would not undertake to affirm that such a thing could not possibly be. When the Pagans said that some, by imploring the aid of their gods, had been cured of diseases, the Christians replied that it might be true, for that their gods were devils, who, irrepentes corporibus occulte, ut spiritus tenues, morbos fingunt, terrent mentes, membra distorquent, ut ad cultum sui cogant, ut nidore altarium vel hostiis pecudum saginati, remissis quæ constrinxerant, curasse videantur.'-Minucius Felix, p. 137. Our Saviour also foretold that false Christs and false prophets should arise, and show signs and wonders. To the objection which hath been made from this prediction, an answer is given in Remarks on Eccl. Hist. under the section of 'The miracles of Christ were of a prophetic nature, and represented future events.' |