THE PARTICULAR EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY.
The presumptions against revelation, and objections against the general
scheme of Christianity, and particular things relating to it, being
removed, there remains to be considered, what positive evidence we
have for the truth of it; chiefly in order to see, what the analogy
of nature suggests with regard to that evidence, and the objections
against it: or to see what is, and is allowed to be, the plain
natural rule of judgment and of action, in our temporal concerns, in
cases where we have the same kind of evidence, and the same kind of
objections against it, that we have in the case before us.
In the evidence of Christianity there seem to be several things of
great weight, not reducible to the head, either of miracles, or the
completion of prophecy, in the common acceptation of the words. But
these two are its direct and fundamental proofs: and those other
things, however considerable they are, yet ought never to be urged
apart from its direct proofs, but always to be joined with them. Thus
the evidence of Christianity will be a long series of things, reaching,
as it seems, from the beginning of the world to the present time, of
great variety and compass, taking in both the direct and also the
collateral, proofs, and making up, all of them together, one argument.
The conviction arising from this kind of proof may be compared to
what they call _the effect_, in architecture or other works of art;
a result from a great number of things, so and so disposed, and taken
into one view. I shall therefore, _first_, make some observations
relating to miracles, and the appearing completions of prophecy; and
consider what analogy suggests, in answer to the objections brought
against this evidence. And, _secondly_, I shall endeavor to give some
account of the general argument now mentioned, consisting both of the
direct and collateral evidence, considered as making up one argument:
this being the kind of proof, upon which we determine most questions
of difficulty, concerning common facts, alleged to have happened, or
seeming likely to happen; especially questions relating to conduct.
_First_, I shall make some observations upon the direct proof of
Christianity from miracles and prophecy, and upon the objections
alleged against it.[252]
I. Now the following observations relating to the _historical evidence
of miracles_ wrought in attestation of Christianity appear to be of
great weight.
1. The Old Testament affords us the same historical evidence of the
miracles of Moses and of the prophets, as of the common civil history
of Moses and the kings of Israel; or, as of the affairs of the Jewish
nation. And the _Gospels_ and _the Acts_ afford us the same historical
evidence of the miracles of Christ and the apostles, as of the common
matters related in them. This indeed could not have been affirmed by
any reasonable man, if the authors of these books, like many other
historians, had appeared to aim at an entertaining manner of writing,
and hence interspersed miracles in their works, at proper distances
and upon proper occasions. These might have animated a dull relation,
amused the reader, and engaged his attention. And the same account
would naturally have been given of them, as of the speeches and
descriptions given by such authors: the same account, in a manner, as
is to be given, why the poets make use of wonders and prodigies. But
the facts, both miraculous and natural, in Scripture, are related in
plain unadorned narratives, and both of them appear, in all respects,
to stand upon the same foot of historical evidence.[253]
Further: some parts of Scripture, containing an account of miracles
fully sufficient to prove the truth of Christianity, are quoted as
genuine, from the age in which they are said to be written, down to
the present: and no other parts of them, material in the present
question, are omitted to be quoted in such manner, as to afford any
sort of proof of their not being genuine. And, as common history, when
called in question in any instance, may often be greatly confirmed by
contemporary or subsequent events more known and acknowledged; and as
the common Scripture history, like many others, is thus confirmed;
so likewise is the miraculous history of it, not only in particular
instances, but in general. For, the establishment of the Jewish and
Christian religions, which were events contemporary with the miracles
related to be wrought in attestation of both, or subsequent to them,
these events are just what we should have _expected_, upon supposition
such miracles were really wrought to attest the truth of those
religions. These miracles are a satisfactory account of those events:
of which no other satisfactory account can be given; nor any account at
all, but what is merely imaginary and invented.
It is to be added, that the most obvious, the most easy and direct
account of this history, how it came to be written, and to be received
in the world as a true history, is that it really is so; nor can
any other account of it be easy and direct. Now, though an account,
not at all obvious, but very far-fetched and indirect, may be and
often is, the true account of a matter, yet it cannot be admitted on
the authority of its being asserted. Mere guess, supposition, and
possibility, when opposed to historical evidence, prove nothing, but
that historical evidence is not demonstrative.
The just consequence from all this, I think is, that the Scripture
history in general is to be admitted as an authentic genuine history,
till something positive be alleged sufficient to invalidate it. No
man will deny the consequence to be, that it cannot be rejected, or
thrown by as of no authority, till it can be proved to be of none; even
though the evidence now mentioned for its authority were doubtful. This
evidence may be confronted by historical evidence on the other side,
if there be any: or general incredibility in the things related, or
inconsistence in the general turn of the history, would prove it to be
of no authority. But since, upon the face of the matter, upon a first
and general view, the _appearance_ is, that it is an authentic history,
it cannot be determined to be fictitious, without some proof that it is
so. The following observations in support of these, and coincident with
them, will greatly confirm the historical evidence for the truth of
Christianity.
2. The Epistles of Paul, from the nature of epistolary writing, and
moreover from several of them being written, not to particular persons
but to churches, carry in them evidences of their being genuine, beyond
what can be in a mere historical narrative, left to the world at
large. This evidence,[254] joined with that which they have in common
with the rest of the New Testament, seems not to leave so much as any
particular pretence for denying their genuineness, considered as an
ordinary matter of fact, or of criticism: I say _particular_ pretence,
for _denying_ it; because any single fact, of such a kind and such
antiquity, may have _general doubts_ raised concerning it, from the
very nature of human affairs and human testimony. There is also to be
mentioned a distinct and particular evidence of the genuineness of the
epistle chiefly referred to here, the first to the Corinthians; from
the manner in which it is quoted by Clemens Romanus, in an epistle of
his own to that church.[255] Now these epistles afford a proof of
Christianity, detached from all others, which is, I think, a thing of
weight; and also a proof of a nature and kind peculiar to itself. For,
In them the author declares, that he received the Gospel in general,
and the institution of the Communion in particular, not from the rest
of the apostles, or jointly together with them, but alone, from Christ
himself; whom he declares likewise, conformably to the history in the
Acts, that he saw after his ascension.[256] So that the testimony of
Paul is to be considered, as detached from that of the rest of the
apostles.
He declares further, that he was endued with a power of working
miracles, as what was publicly known to those very people, speaks of
frequent and great variety of miraculous gifts as then subsisting in
those very churches, to which he was writing; which he was reproving
for several irregularities, and where he had personal opposers. He
mentions these gifts incidentally, in the most easy manner, and without
effort; by way of reproof to those who had them, for their indecent
use of them; and by way of depreciating them, in comparison of moral
virtues. In short he speaks to these churches, of these miraculous
powers, in the manner any one would speak to another of a thing, which
was as familiar, and as much known in common to them both, as any thing
in the world.[257] And this, as hath been observed by several persons,
is surely a very considerable thing.
3. It is an acknowledged historical fact, that Christianity offered
itself to the world, and demanded to be received, upon the allegation,
(_i.e._ as unbelievers would speak, upon the pretence,) of miracles,
publicly wrought to attest the truth of it, in such an age; and
that it was actually received by great numbers in that very age,
and upon the professed belief of the reality of these miracles. And
Christianity, including the dispensation of the Old Testament, seems
distinguished by this from all other religions. I mean, that this
does not _appear_ to be the case with regard to any other; for surely
it will not be supposed to lie upon any person, to prove by positive
historical evidence, that it was not. It does in no sort appear that
Mahometanism was first received in the world upon the foot of supposed
miracles,[258] _i.e._ public ones:[259] for, as revelation is itself
miraculous, all pretence to it must necessarily imply some pretence
of miracles. And it is a known fact, that it was immediately, at the
very first, propagated by other means. And as particular institutions,
whether in Paganism or Popery, said to be confirmed by miracles _after_
those institutions had obtained, are not to the purpose: so, were there
what might be called historical proof, that any of them were introduced
by a supposed divine command, believed to be attested by miracles;
these would not be in any wise parallel. For single things of this sort
are easy to be accounted for, after parties are formed, and have power
in their hands; and the leaders of them are in veneration with the
multitude; and political interests are blended with religious claims,
and religious distinctions. But _before_ any thing of this kind, for a
few persons, and those of the lowest rank, all at once, to bring over
such great numbers to a new religion, and get it to be received upon
the particular evidence of miracles; this is quite another thing.
I think it will be allowed by any fair adversary, that the fact
now mentioned, taking in all the circumstances, is peculiar to
the Christian religion. However, the fact itself is allowed, that
Christianity obtained, _i.e._ was professed to be received in the
world, upon the belief of miracles, immediately in the age in which
it is said those miracles were wrought: or that this is what its
first converts would have alleged, as the reason for their embracing
it. It is not to be supposed that such numbers of men, in the most
distant parts of the world, should forsake the religion of their
country, in which they had been educated; separate themselves from
their friends, particularly in their festival shows and solemnities,
to which the common people are so greatly addicted, and which were of
a nature to engage them much more, than any thing of that sort among
us: and embrace a religion, which could not but expose them to many
inconveniences, and indeed must have been a giving up the world in a
great degree, even from the very first, and before the empire engaged
in form against them: it cannot be supposed, that such numbers should
make so great, and to say the least, so inconvenient a change in their
whole institution of life, unless they were really convinced of the
truth of those miracles, upon the knowledge or belief of which they
professed to make it. And it will, I suppose, readily be acknowledged,
that the generality of the first converts to Christianity must have
believed them: that as by becoming Christians they declared to the
world, they were satisfied of the truth of those miracles; so this
declaration was to be credited. And this their testimony is the same
kind of evidence for those miracles, as if they had put it in writing,
and these writings had come down to us. And it is real evidence,
because it is of facts, which they had capacity and full opportunity to
inform themselves of.
It is also distinct from the direct or express historical evidence,
though it is of the same kind: and would be allowed to be distinct in
all cases. For were a fact expressly related by one or more ancient
historians, and disputed in after ages; that this fact is acknowledged
to have been _believed_ by great numbers of the age in which the
historian says it was done, would be allowed an additional proof of
such fact, quite distinct from the express testimony of the historian.
The credulity of mankind is acknowledged: and the suspicions of mankind
ought to be acknowledged too; and their backwardness even to believe,
and greater still to practise, what makes against their interest. And
it must particularly be remembered, that education, and prejudice, and
authority, were against Christianity, in the age I am speaking of. So
that the immediate conversion of such numbers is a real presumption
of somewhat more than human in this matter.[260] I say presumption,
for it is not alleged as a proof alone and by itself. Nor need any one
of the things mentioned in this chapter be considered as a proof by
itself: and yet all of them together may be one of the strongest.[261]
Upon the whole: as there is large historical evidence, both direct and
circumstantial, of miracles wrought in attestation of Christianity,
collected by those who have writ upon the subject; it lies upon
unbelievers to show why this evidence is not to be credited. This way
of speaking is, I think, just; and what persons who write in defence
of religion naturally fall into. Yet, in a matter of such unspeakable
importance, the proper question is, not whom it lies upon, according to
the rules of argument, to maintain or confute objections: but whether
there really are any, against this evidence, sufficient, in reason, to
destroy the credit of it. However, unbelievers seem to take upon them
the part of showing that there are.
They allege, that numberless enthusiastic people, in different ages
and countries, expose themselves to the same difficulties which the
primitive Christians did; and are ready to give up their lives for the
most idle follies imaginable. It is not very clear, to what purpose
this objection is brought. For surely, every one, in every case, must
distinguish between opinions and facts. And though testimony is no
proof of enthusiastic opinions, or of any _opinion_ at all; yet it
is allowed, in all other cases, to be a proof of _facts_. A person’s
laying down his life in attestation of facts or of opinions, is the
strongest proof of his believing them. And if the apostles and their
contemporaries did believe the facts, in attestation of which they
exposed themselves to sufferings and death; this their belief, or
rather knowledge, must be a proof of those facts: for they were such
as came under the observation of their senses. And though it is not of
equal weight, yet it is of weight, that the martyrs of the next age,
notwithstanding they were not eye-witnesses of those facts, as were
the apostles and their contemporaries, had, however, full opportunity
to inform themselves whether they were true or not, and gave equal
proof of their believing them to be true.
But enthusiasm, it is said, greatly weakens the evidence of testimony
even for facts, in matters relating to religion: some seem to think it
totally and absolutely destroys the evidence of testimony upon this
subject. The powers of enthusiasm, and of diseases too, which operate
in a like manner, are indeed very wonderful, in particular instances.
But if great numbers of men, not appearing in any peculiar degree weak,
nor under any peculiar suspicion of negligence, affirm that they saw
and heard such things plainly, with their eyes and their ears, and are
admitted to be in earnest; such testimony is evidence of the strongest
kind we can have, for any matter of fact. Possibly it may be overcome,
strong as it is, by incredibility in the things thus attested, or by
contrary testimony. And in an instance where one thought it was so
overcome, it might be just to consider, how far such evidence could be
accounted for by enthusiasm; for it seems as if no other imaginable
account were to be given of it. But till such incredibility be shown,
or contrary testimony produced, it cannot surely be expected, that so
far-fetched, so indirect and wonderful an account of such testimony, as
that of enthusiasm must be; an account so strange, that the generality
of mankind can scarce be made to understand what is meant by it; it
cannot, I say, be expected that such an account will be admitted of
such evidence; when there is this direct, easy, and obvious account of
it, that people really saw and heard a thing not incredible, which they
affirm, sincerely and with full assurance, they did see and hear.
Granting then that enthusiasm is not (strictly speaking) an absurd,
but a possible account of such testimony, it is manifest, that the
very mention of it goes upon the previous supposition, that the things
so attested are incredible: and therefore need not be considered,
till they are shown to be so. Much less need it be considered, after
the contrary has been proved. And I think it has been proved, to full
satisfaction, that there is no incredibility in a revelation, in
general; or in such a one as the Christian, in particular. However, as
religion is supposed peculiarly liable to enthusiasm, it may just be
observed, that prejudices almost without number, and without name,
such as romance, affection, humor, a desire to engage attention, or
to surprise, party spirit, custom, little competitions, unaccountable
likings and dislikings; these influence men strongly in common matters.
And as these prejudices are often scarce know a or reflected upon
by the persons themselves who are influenced by them, they are to
be considered as influences of a like kind to enthusiasm. Yet human
testimony, in common matters, is naturally and justly believed,
notwithstanding.
It is intimated further, in a more refined way of observation, that
though it should be proved, that the apostles and first Christians
could not, in some respects, be deceived themselves, and in other
respects, cannot be thought to have intended to impose upon the world,
yet it will not follow that their general testimony is to be believed,
though truly handed down to us: because they might still in part,
_i.e._ in other respects, be deceived themselves, and in part also
designedly impose upon others; which, it is added, is a thing very
credible, from that mixture of real enthusiasm, and real knavery, to be
met with in the same characters.[262]
I must confess, I think the matter of fact contained in this
observation upon mankind is not to be denied; and that something
very much akin to it is often supposed in Scripture as a very common
case, and most severely reproved. But it were to have been expected,
that persons capable of applying this observation as applied in
the objection, might also frequently have met with the like mixed
character, in instances where religion was quite out of the case.
The thing plainly is, that mankind are naturally endued with reason,
or a capacity of distinguishing between truth and falsehood; and as
naturally they are endued with veracity, or a regard to truth in what
they say: but from many occasions they are liable to be prejudiced and
biassed and deceived themselves, and capable of intending to deceive
others, in every degree: insomuch that, as we are all liable to be
deceived by prejudice, so likewise it seems to be not an uncommon
thing, for persons who, from their regard to truth, would not invent
a lie entirely without any foundation at all, to propagate it with
heightening circumstances, after it is once invented and set a-going.
And others, though they would not _propagate_ a lie, yet, which is a
lower degree of falsehood, will let it pass without contradiction. But
notwithstanding all this, _human testimony_ remains still a natural
ground of assent; and this assent a natural principle of action.
It is objected further, that however it has happened, the _fact_
is, that mankind have, in different ages, been strangely deluded
with pretences to miracles and wonders. But it is by no means to be
admitted, that they have been oftener, or are at all more liable to be
deceived by these than by other pretences.
It is added, that there is a very considerable degree of historical
evidence for miracles, which are, on all hands, acknowledged to be
fabulous. But suppose there were even _the like_ historical evidence
for these, to what there is for those alleged in proof of Christianity,
which yet is in no wise allowed, but suppose this; the consequence
would not be, that the evidence of the latter is not to be admitted.
Nor is there a man in the world, who in common cases, would conclude
thus. For what would such a conclusion really amount to but this, that
evidence, confuted by contrary evidence, or any way overbalanced,
destroys the credibility of other evidence, neither confuted nor
overbalanced? To argue that because there is, if there were, like
evidence from testimony, for miracles acknowledged false, as for those
in attestation of Christianity, therefore the evidence in the latter
case is not to be credited; this is the same as to argue, that if two
men of equally good reputation had given evidence in different cases
no way connected, and one of them had been convicted of perjury, this
confuted the testimony of the other!
Upon the whole then, the general observation, that human creatures
are so liable to be deceived, from enthusiasm in religion, and
principles equivalent to enthusiasm in common matters, and in both from
negligence; and that they are so capable of dishonestly endeavoring
to deceive others; this does indeed weaken the evidence of testimony
in all cases, but does not destroy it in any. And these things will
appear, to different men, to weaken the evidence of testimony, in
different degrees: in degrees proportionable to the observations they
have made, or the notions they have any way taken up, concerning the
weakness and negligence and dishonesty of mankind; or concerning the
powers of enthusiasm, and prejudices equivalent to it. But it seems
to me, that people do not know what they say, who affirm these things
to destroy the evidence from testimony which we have, of the truth of
Christianity. Nothing can destroy the evidence of testimony in any
case, but a proof or probability, that persons are not competent judges
of the facts to which they give testimony; or that they are actually
under some indirect influence in giving it, in such particular case.
Till this be made out, the _natural_ laws of human actions require,
that testimony be admitted. It can never be sufficient to overthrow
direct historical evidence, indolently to say, that there are so many
principles, from whence men are liable to be deceived themselves,
and disposed to deceive others, especially in matters of religion,
that one knows not what to believe. And it is surprising persons can
help reflecting, that this very manner of speaking supposes they are
not satisfied that there is nothing in the evidence, of which they
speak thus; or that they can avoid observing, if they do make this
reflection, that it is on such a subject, a very material one.[263]
Over against all these objections is to be set the _importance_ of
Christianity, as what must have engaged the attention of its first
converts, so as to have rendered them less liable to be deceived from
carelessness, than they would in common matters; and likewise the
strong _obligations to veracity_, which their religion laid them under:
so that the first and most obvious presumption is, that they could not
be deceived themselves nor deceive others. And this presumption, in
this degree, is peculiar to the testimony we have been considering.
In argument, assertions are nothing in themselves, and have an air of
positiveness which sometimes is not very easy: yet they are necessary,
and necessary to be repeated; in order to connect a discourse, and
distinctly to lay before the view of the reader, what is proposed
to be proved, and what is left as proved. Now the conclusion from
the foregoing observations is, I think, beyond all doubt, this:
that unbelievers must be forced to admit the external evidence for
Christianity, _i.e._ the proof of miracles wrought to attest it, to be
of real weight and very considerable; though they cannot allow it to
be sufficient, to convince them of the reality of those miracles. And
as they must, in all reason, admit this; so it seems to me, that upon
consideration they would, in fact, admit it; those of them, I mean, who
know any thing at all of the matter; in like manner as persons, in many
cases, own they see strong evidence from testimony, for the truth of
things, which yet they cannot be convinced are true: cases, suppose,
where there is contrary testimony; or things which they think, whether
with or without reason, to be incredible. But there is no testimony
contrary to that which we have been considering: and it has been fully
proved, that there is no incredibility in Christianity in general, or
in any part of it.
II. As to the evidence for Christianity from prophecy, I shall only
make some few general observations, which are suggested by the analogy
of nature; _i.e._ by the acknowledged natural rules of judging in
common matters, concerning evidence of a like kind to this from
prophecy.
1. The obscurity or unintelligibleness of one part of a prophecy does
not, in any degree, invalidate the proof of foresight, arising from
the appearing completion of those other parts, which are understood.
For the case is evidently the same, as if those parts which are not
understood were lost, or not written at all, or written in an unknown
tongue. Whether this observation be commonly attended to or not, it is
so evident, that one can scarce bring oneself to set down an instance
in common matters, to exemplify it. However, suppose a writing, partly
in cipher, and partly in plain words at length; and that in the part
one understood, there appeared mention of several known facts; it would
never come into any man’s thoughts to imagine, that if he understood
the whole, perhaps he might find, that those facts were not in reality
known by the writer. Indeed, both in this example and in the thing
intended to be exemplified by it, our not understanding the whole (the
whole, suppose, of a sentence or a paragraph) might sometimes occasion
a doubt, whether one understood the literal meaning of such a part: but
this comes under another consideration.
For the same reason, though a man should be incapable, for want of
learning, or opportunities of inquiry, or from not having turned
his studies this way, even so much as to judge whether particular
prophecies have been throughout completely fulfilled; yet he may see,
in general, that they have been fulfilled to such a degree, as, upon
very good ground, to be convinced of foresight more than human in such
prophecies, and of such events being intended by them. For the same
reason also, though, by means of the deficiencies in civil history,
and the different accounts of historians, the most learned should not
be able to make out to satisfaction, that such parts of the prophetic
history have been minutely and throughout fulfilled; yet a very strong
_proof of foresight_ may arise, from that general completion of them,
which is made out. As much perhaps, as the giver of prophecy intended
should ever be afforded by such parts of prophecy.
2. A long series of prophecy being applicable to such and such events,
is itself a proof that it was intended of them: as the rules by which
we naturally judge and determine, in common cases parallel to this,
will show.[264] This observation I make in answer to the common
objection against the application of the prophecies, that, considering
each of them distinctly by itself, it does not at all appear, that they
were intended of those particular events to which they are applied by
Christians; and therefore it is to be supposed, that if they meant any
thing, they were intended of other events unknown to us, and not of
these at all.
Now there are two kinds of writing, which bear a great resemblance to
prophecy, with respect to the matter before us: the mythological, and
the satirical, where the satire is to a certain degree concealed. And
a man might be assured, that he understood what an author intended by
a fable or parable related without any application or moral, merely
from seeing it to be easily capable of such application, and that such
a moral might naturally be deduced from it. And he might be fully
assured, that such persons and events were intended in a satirical
writing, merely from its being applicable to them. And, agreeable to
the last observation, he might be in a good measure satisfied of it,
though he were not enough informed in affairs, or in the story of such
persons to understand half the satire. For, his satisfaction that
he understood the meaning, the intended meaning, of these writings,
would be greater or less in proportion as he saw the general turn
of them to be capable of such application; and in proportion to the
number of particular things capable of it. And thus, if a long series
of prophecy is applicable to the present state of the church, and to
the political situations of the kingdoms of the world, some thousand
years after these prophecies were delivered; and a long series of
prophecy delivered before the coming of Christ is applicable to him;
these things are in themselves a proof, that the prophetic history was
intended of him, and of those events: in proportion as the general turn
of it is capable of such application, and to the number and variety of
particular prophecies capable of it. And though, in all just way of
consideration, the obvious completion of prophecies is to be allowed to
be thus explanatory of, and to determine, their meaning; yet it is to
be remembered further, that the ancient Jews applied the prophecies to
a Messiah before his coming,[265] in much the same manner as Christians
do now: and that the primitive Christians interpreted the prophecies
respecting the state of the church and of the world in the last ages,
in the sense which the event seems to confirm and verify. From these
things it may be made appear:
3. That the showing even to a high probability, if that could be,
that the prophets thought of some other events, in such and such
predictions, and not those which Christians allege to be completions
of those predictions; or that such and such prophecies are capable of
being applied to other events than those, to which Christians apply
them--that this would not confute or destroy the force of the argument
from prophecy, even with regard to those very instances. For, observe
how this matter really is. If one knew such a person to be the sole
author of such a book, and was certainly assured, or satisfied to any
degree, that one knew the whole of what he intended in it; one should
be assured or satisfied to such degree, that one knew the whole
meaning of that book: for the meaning of a book is nothing but the
meaning of the author. But if one knew a person to have _compiled_ a
book out of memoirs, which he received from another, of vastly superior
knowledge in the subject of it, especially if it were a book full
of great intricacies and difficulties; it would in no wise follow,
that one knew the whole meaning of the book, from knowing the whole
meaning of the compiler: for the original author of them, might have,
and there would be no presumption, in many cases, against supposing
him to have, some further meaning than the compiler saw. To say then
that the Scriptures, and the things contained in them, can have no
other or further meaning than those persons had, who first recited or
wrote them, is evidently saying, that those persons were the original,
proper, and sole authors of those books, _i.e._ that they are not
inspired: which is absurd, while the authority of these books is under
examination; _i.e._ till you have determined they are of no divine
authority at all. Till this be determined, it must in all reason be
supposed, not indeed that they have, (for this is taking for granted
that they are inspired;) but that they may have, some further meaning
than what the compilers saw or understood. And, upon this supposition,
it is supposable also, that this further meaning may be fulfilled.
Events corresponding to prophecies, interpreted in a different meaning
from that, in which the prophets are supposed to have understood them;
affords in a manner, the same proof, that this different sense was
originally intended, as it would have afforded, if the prophets had
not understood their predictions in the sense it is supposed they did:
because there is no presumption of _their_ sense of them being the
whole sense of them. And it has been already shown, that the apparent
completions of prophecy must be allowed to be explanatory of its
meaning. So that the question is, whether a series of prophecy has
been fulfilled, in a natural or proper, _i.e._ in any real sense of
the words of it. For such completion is equally a proof of foresight
more than human, whether the prophets are, or are not, supposed to have
understood it in a different sense. I say, supposed: for, though I
think it clear, that the prophets did not understand the full meaning
of their predictions, it is another question, how far they thought they
did; and in what sense they understood them.
Hence may be seen, to how little purpose those persons busy themselves,
who endeavor to prove, that the prophetic history is applicable to
events of the age in which it was written, or of ages before it.
To have proved this, before there was any appearance of a further
completion of it, might have answered some purpose; for it might have
prevented the expectation of any such further completion. Thus could
Porphyry have shown, that some principal parts of the book of Daniel,
for instance the seventh verse of the seventh chapter, which the
Christians interpreted of the latter ages, was applicable to events,
which happened before or about the age of Antiochus Epiphanes; this
might have prevented them from expecting any further completion of
it. And, unless there was then, as I think there must have been,
external evidence concerning that book, more than is come down to
us; such a discovery might have been a stumbling-block in the way
of Christianity itself: considering the authority which our Savior
has given to the book of Daniel, and how much the general scheme of
Christianity presupposes the truth of it. But even this discovery,
had there been any such,[266] would be of very little weight with
reasonable men now; if this passage, thus applicable to events before
the age of Porphyry, appears to be applicable also to events, which
succeeded the dissolution of the Roman empire. I mention this, not at
all as intending to insinuate, that the division of this empire into
ten parts, for it plainly was divided into about that number, were,
alone and by itself, of any moment in verifying the prophetic history:
but only as an example of the thing I am speaking of. Thus upon the
whole, the matter of inquiry evidently must be, as above put, Whether
the prophecies are applicable to Christ, and to the present state of
the world, and of the church; applicable in such a degree, as to imply
foresight: not whether they are _capable_ of any other application.
Though I know no pretence for saying the general turn of them is
capable of any other.
These observations are, I think, just, and the evidence referred to
in them real: though there may be people who will not accept of such
imperfect information from Scripture. Some too have not integrity and
regard enough to truth, to attend to evidence, which keeps the mind
in doubt, perhaps perplexity, and which is much of a different sort
from what they expected. It plainly requires a degree of modesty and
fairness, beyond what every one has, for a man to say, not to the world
but to himself, that there is a real appearance of great weight in this
matter, though he is not able thoroughly to satisfy himself about it;
but that it shall have its influence upon him, in proportion to its
apparent reality and weight. It is much more easy, and more falls in
with the negligence, presumption, and wilfulness of the generality, to
determine at once, with a decisive air, There is nothing in it. The
prejudices arising from that absolute contempt and scorn, with which
this evidence is treated in the world, I do not mention. For what can
be said to persons, who are weak enough in their understandings to
think this any presumption against it; or, if they do not, are yet weak
enough in their temper to be influenced by such prejudices, upon such a
subject?
_Secondly_, I shall endeavor to give some account of the general
argument for the truth of Christianity, consisting both of the direct
and circumstantial evidence considered as making up one argument. To
state and examine this argument fully, would be a work much beyond the
compass of this whole treatise; nor is so much as a proper abridgment
of it to be expected here. Yet the present subject requires to have
some brief account of it given. For it is the kind of evidence, upon
which most questions of difficulty, in common practice, are determined:
evidence arising from various coincidences, which support and confirm
each other, and in this manner prove, with more or less certainty, the
point under consideration. I choose to do it also: First, because it
seems to be of the greatest importance, and not duly attended to by
every one, that the proof of revelation is not some direct and express
things only, but a great variety of circumstantial things also; and
that though each of these direct and circumstantial things is indeed
to be considered separately, yet they are afterwards to be joined
together; for that the proper force of the evidence consists in the
result of those several things, considered in their respects to each
other, and united into one view. In the next place, because it seems
to me, that the matters of fact here set down, which are acknowledged
by unbelievers, must be acknowledged by them also to contain together
a degree of evidence of great weight, if they could be brought to
lay these several things before themselves distinctly, and then with
attention consider them together; instead of that cursory thought of
them, to which we are familiarized. For being familiarized to the
cursory thought of things as really hinders the weight of them from
being seen, as from having its due influence upon practice.
The thing asserted, and the truth of which is to be inquired into,
is this: That over and above our reason and affections, which God
has given us for the information of our judgment and the conduct
of our lives, he has also, by external revelation, given us an
account of himself and his moral government over the world, implying
a future state of rewards and punishments; _i.e._ hath revealed
the system of natural religion: (for natural religion may be
externally[267] revealed by God, as the ignorant may be taught it by
their fellow-creatures)--that God, I say, has given us the evidence
of revelation, as well as the evidence of reason, to ascertain this
moral system; together with an account of a particular dispensation of
Providence, which reason could no way have discovered, and a particular
institution of religion founded on it, for the recovery of mankind out
of their present wretched condition, and raising them to the perfection
and final happiness of their nature.
This revelation, whether real or supposed, may be considered as wholly
historical. For prophecy is nothing but the history of events before
they come to pass; doctrines also are matters of fact; and precepts
come under the same notion. The general design of Scripture, which
contains in it this revelation, thus considered as historical, may be
said to be, to give us an account of the world in this one single view,
as God’s world: by which it appears essentially distinguished from all
other books, so far as I have found, except such as are copied from
it. It begins with an account of God’s creation of the world, in order
to ascertain, and distinguish from all others, who is the object of
our worship, by what he has done: in order to ascertain, who he is,
concerning whose providence, commands, promises, and threatenings,
this sacred book, all along, treats; [viz.] the Maker and Proprietor
of the world, he whose creatures we are, the God of nature: in order
likewise to distinguish him from the idols of the nations, which are
either imaginary beings, _i.e._ no beings at all; or else part of that
creation, the historical relation of which is here given. And John, not
improbably with an eye to this Mosaic account of the creation, begins
his Gospel with an account of our Savior’s pre-existence, and that _all
things were made by him; and without him, was not any thing made that
was made_:[268] agreeably to the doctrine of Paul, that _God created
all things by Jesus Christ_.[269] This being premised, the Scripture,
taken together, seems to profess to contain a kind of an abridgment of
the history of the world, in the view just now mentioned: that is, a
general account of the condition of religion and its professors, during
the continuance of that apostasy from God, and state of wickedness,
which it everywhere supposes the world to lie in. And this account
of the state of religion carries with it some brief account of the
political state of things, as religion is affected by it. Revelation
indeed considers the common affairs of this world, and what is going
on in it, as a mere scene of distraction; and cannot be supposed to
concern itself with foretelling at what time Rome, or Babylon, or
Greece, or any particular place, should be the most conspicuous seat
of that tyranny and dissoluteness, which all places equally aspire
to be; cannot, I say, be supposed to give any account of this wild
scene for its own sake. But it seems to contain some very general
account of the chief governments of the world, as the general state of
religion has been, is, or shall be, affected by them, from the first
transgression, and during the whole interval of the world’s continuing
in its present state, to a certain future period, spoken of both in
the Old and New Testament, very distinctly, and in great variety of
expression: _The times of the restitution of all things_:[270] when
_the mystery of God shall be finished, as he hath declared to his
servants the prophets_:[271] when _the God of heaven shall set up a
kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be
left to other people_,[272] as it is represented to be during this
apostasy, but _judgment shall be given to the saints_,[273] and _they
shall reign_:[274] _and the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of
the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the
saints of the Most High_.[275]
Upon this general view of the Scripture, I would remark, how great a
length of time the whole relation takes up, near six thousand years
of which are past; and how great a variety of things it treats of;
the natural and moral system or history of the world, including the
time when it was formed, all contained in the very first book, and
evidently written in a rude and unlearned age; and in subsequent
books, the various common and prophetic history, and the particular
dispensation of Christianity. Now all this together gives the largest
scope for criticism; and for the confutation of what is capable of
being confuted, either from reason, or from common history, or from
any inconsistence in its several parts. And it deserves, I think, to
be mentioned, that whereas some imagine the supposed doubtfulness of
the evidence for revelation implies a positive argument that it is not
true; it appears, on the contrary, to imply a positive argument that
it is true. For, could any common relation of such antiquity, extent,
and variety (for in these things the stress of what I am now observing
lies) be proposed to the examination of the world: that it could not,
in an age of knowledge and liberty, be confuted, or shown to have
nothing in it, to the satisfaction of reasonable men; would be thought
a strong presumptive proof of its truth. Indeed it must be a _proof_
of it, just in proportion to the probability, that if it were false,
it might be shown to be so: which, I think, is scarce pretended to be
shown, but upon principles and in ways of arguing, which have been
clearly obviated.[276] Nor does it at all appear, that any set of men,
who believe natural religion, are of the opinion, that Christianity has
been thus confuted. But to proceed:
Together with the moral system of the world, the Old Testament contains
a chronological account of the beginning of it, and from thence, an
unbroken genealogy of mankind for many ages before common history
begins; and carried on as much farther as to make up a continued
thread of history, of the length of between three and four thousand
years. It contains an account of God’s making a covenant with a
particular nation, that they should be his people, and he would be
their God, in a peculiar sense; of his often interposing miraculously
in their affairs; giving them the promise, and long after, the
possession, of a particular country; assuring them of the greatest
national prosperity in it, if they would worship him, in opposition
to the idols which the rest of the world worshipped, and obey his
commands; and threatening them with unexampled punishments if they
disobeyed him, and fell into the general idolatry: insomuch that
this one nation should continue to be the observation and the wonder
of all the world. It declares particularly, that _God would scatter
them among all people, from one end of the earth unto the other_; but
that _when they should return unto the Lord their God, he would have
compassion upon them, and gather them from all the nations, whither he
had scattered them_: that _Israel should be saved in the Lord, with an
everlasting salvation; and not be ashamed or confounded world without
end_.[277] And as some of these promises are conditional, others are as
absolute as any thing can be expressed: that the time should come, when
_the people should be all righteous, and inherit the land forever_:
that _though God would make a full end of all nations whither he had
scattered them, yet would he not make a full end of them_: that _he
would bring again the captivity of his people Israel, and plant them
upon their land, and they should be no more pulled up out of their
land_: that _the seed of Israel should not cease from being a nation
forever_.[278] It foretells, that God would raise them up a particular
person, in whom all his promises should finally be fulfilled; the
Messiah, who should be, in a high and eminent sense, their anointed
Prince and Savior. This was foretold in such a manner, as raised a
general expectation of such a person in the nation, as appears from
the New Testament, and is an acknowledged fact; an expectation of his
coming at such a particular time, before any one appeared claiming to
be that person, and when there was no ground for such an expectation,
but from the prophecies: which expectation, therefore, must in all
reason be presumed to be explanatory of those prophecies, if there were
any doubt about their meaning. It seems moreover to foretell, that this
person should be rejected by the nation to whom he had been so long
promised, though he was so much desired by them.[279] And it expressly
foretells, that he should be the Savior of the Gentiles; and that the
completion of the scheme contained in this book, and then begun, and in
its progress, should be something so great, that in comparison with it,
the restoration of the Jews alone would be but of small account. _It is
a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes
of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee
for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be for salvation unto the
end of the earth._ And, _In the last days, the mountain of the Lord’s
house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be
exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow into it--for out of
Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
And he shall judge among the nations--and the Lord alone shall be
exalted in that day, and the idols he shall utterly abolish._[280]
The Scripture further contains an account, that at the time the Messiah
was expected, a person rose up in this nation, claiming to be that
Messiah, to be the person to whom all the prophecies referred, and in
whom they should center: that he spent some years in a continued course
of miraculous works; and endued his immediate disciples and followers
with a power of doing the same, as a proof of the truth of that
religion, which he commissioned them to publish: that invested with
this authority and power, they made numerous converts in the remotest
countries, and settled and established his religion in the world; to
the end of which the Scripture professes to give a prophetic account of
the state of this religion among mankind.[281]
Let us now suppose a person utterly ignorant of history, to have all
this related to him out of the Scripture. Or suppose such an one,
having the Scripture put into his hands, to remark these things in
it, not knowing but that the whole, even its civil history, as well
as the other parts of it, might be, from beginning to end, an entire
invention; and to ask, What truth was in it, and whether the revelation
here related was real, or a fiction? And, instead of a direct answer,
suppose him, all at once, to be told the following confessed facts; and
then to unite them into one view.
Let him first be told, in how great a degree the profession and
establishment of natural religion, the belief that there is one God
to be worshipped, that virtue is his law, and that mankind shall be
rewarded and punished hereafter, as they obey and disobey it here; in
how very great a degree, I say, the profession and establishment of
this moral system in the world is owing to the revelation, whether
real or supposed, contained in this book: the establishment of this
moral system, even in those countries which do not acknowledge the
proper authority of the Scripture.[282] Let him be told also, what
number of nations do acknowledge its proper authority. Let him then
take in the consideration, of what importance religion is to mankind.
And upon these things he might, I think, truly observe, that this
supposed revelation’s obtaining and being received in the world, with
all the circumstances and effects of it, considered together as one
event, is the most conspicuous and important event in the history of
mankind: that a book of this nature, and thus promulged and recommended
to our consideration, demands, as if by a voice from heaven, to have
its claims most seriously examined; and that, before such examination,
to treat it with any kind of scoffing and ridicule, is an offence
against natural piety. It is to be remembered, that how much soever
the establishment of natural religion in the world is owing to the
Scripture revelation, this does not destroy the proof of religion from
reason, any more than the proof of Euclid’s Elements is destroyed, by
a man’s knowing or thinking, that he should never have seen the truth
of the several propositions contained in it, nor had those propositions
come into his thoughts, but for that mathematician.
Let such a person as we are speaking of be, in the next place,
informed of the acknowledged antiquity of the first parts of this book;
and that its chronology, its account of the time when the earth, and
the several parts of it, were first peopled with human creatures, is
no way contradicted, but is really confirmed, by the natural and civil
history of the world, collected from common historians, from the state
of the earth, and from the late invention of arts and sciences.
And as the Scripture contains an unbroken thread of common and civil
history, from the creation to the captivity, for between three and
four thousand years; let the person we are speaking of be told, in the
next place, that this general history, as it is not contradicted, but
confirmed by profane history[283] as much as there would be reason
to expect, upon supposition of its truth; so there is nothing in the
whole history _itself_, to give any reasonable ground of suspicion
of its not being, in the general, a faithful and literally true
genealogy of men, and series of things. I speak here only of the common
Scripture history, or of the course of ordinary events related in it,
as distinguished from miracles, and from the prophetic history. In
all the Scripture narrations of this kind, following events arise out
of foregoing ones, as in all other histories. There appears nothing
related as done in any age, not conformable to the manners of that
age: nothing in the account of a succeeding age, which one would say
could not be true, or was improbable, from the account of things in the
preceding one. There is nothing in the characters, which would raise a
thought of their being feigned; but all the internal marks imaginable
of their being real. It is to be added also, that mere genealogies,
bare narratives of the number of years, which persons called by such
and such names lived, do not carry the face of fiction; perhaps do
carry some presumption of veracity: and all unadorned narratives, which
have nothing to surprise, may be thought to carry somewhat of the like
presumption too. And the domestic and the political history is plainly
credible. There may be incidents in Scripture, which, taken alone in
the naked way they are told, may appear strange; especially to persons
of other manners, temper, education: but there are also incidents of
undoubted truth, in many or most persons’ lives, which, in the same
circumstances, would appear to the full as strange.[284] There may be
mistakes of transcribers, there may be other real or seeming mistakes,
not easy to be particularly accounted for: but there are certainly
no more things of this kind in the Scripture, than what were to have
been expected in books of such antiquity; and nothing, in any wise,
sufficient to discredit the general narrative.
Now, that a history, claiming to commence from the creation, and
extending in one continued series, through so great a length of time,
and variety of events, should have such appearances of reality and
truth in its whole contexture, is surely a very remarkable circumstance
in its favor. And as all this is applicable to the common history
of the New Testament, so there is a further credibility, and a very
high one, given to it by profane authors: many of these writing of
the same times, and confirming the truth of customs and events, which
are incidentally as well as more purposely mentioned in it. And this
credibility of the common Scripture-history, gives some credibility
to its miraculous history: especially as this is interwoven with the
common, so as that they imply each other, and both together make up one
relation.
Let it then be more particularly observed to this person, that it is an
acknowledged matter of fact, which is indeed implied in the foregoing
observation, that there was such a nation as the Jews, of the greatest
antiquity, whose government and general polity was founded on the law,
here related to be given them by Moses as from heaven: that natural
religion, with rites additional yet no way contrary to it, was their
established religion, which cannot be said of the Gentile world: and
that their very being as a nation, depended upon their acknowledgment
of one God, the God of the universe. For, suppose in their captivity in
Babylon, they had gone over to the religion of their conquerors, there
would have remained no bond of union, to keep them a distinct people.
And while they were under their own kings, in their own country, a
total apostasy from God would have been the dissolution of their whole
government. They in such a sense nationally acknowledged and worshipped
the Maker of heaven and earth, when the rest of the world were sunk in
idolatry, as rendered them, in fact, the peculiar people of God. This
remarkable establishment and preservation of natural religion among
them, seems to add peculiar credibility to the historical evidence for
the miracles of Moses and the prophets. Because these miracles are a
full satisfactory account of this event, which plainly needs to be
accounted for, and cannot be otherwise.
Let this person, supposed wholly ignorant of history, be acquainted
further, that one claiming to be the Messiah, of Jewish extraction,
rose up at the time when this nation, from the prophecies above
mentioned, expected the Messiah: that he was rejected, as it seemed
to have been foretold he should, by the body of the people, under the
direction of their rulers: that in the course of a very few years, he
was believed on and acknowledged as the promised Messiah, by great
numbers among the Gentiles, agreeably to the prophecies of Scripture,
yet not upon the evidence of prophecy, but of miracles,[285] of which
miracles we have also strong historical evidence; (by which I mean here
no more than must be acknowledged by unbelievers; for let pious frauds
and follies be admitted to weaken, it is absurd to say they destroy
our evidence of miracles wrought in proof of Christianity:)[286] that
this religion approving itself to the reason of mankind, and carrying
its own evidence with it, so far as reason is a judge of its system,
and being no way contrary to reason in those parts of it which require
to be believed upon the mere authority of its Author; that this
religion, I say, gradually spread and supported itself for some hundred
years, not only without any assistance from temporal power, but under
constant discouragements, and often the bitterest persecutions from
it; and then became the religion of the world: that in the mean time
the Jewish nation and government were destroyed in a very remarkable
manner, and the people carried away captive and dispersed through the
most distant countries; in which state of dispersion they have remained
fifteen hundred years: and that they remain a numerous people, united
among themselves, and distinguished from the rest of the world, as they
were in the days of Moses, by the profession of his law; and everywhere
looked upon in a manner, which one scarce knows how distinctly to
express, but in the words of the prophetic account of it, given so
many ages before it came to pass: _Thou shalt become an astonishment,
a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the Lord shall lead
thee_.[287]
The appearance of a standing miracle, in the Jews remaining a distinct
people in their dispersion, and the confirmation which this event
appears to give to the truth of revelation, may be thought to be
answered, by their religion’s forbidding them intermarriages with those
of other nations, and prescribing them many peculiarities in their
food, by which they are debarred from incorporating with the people in
whose countries they live. This is not, I think, a satisfactory account
of that which it pretends to account for. But what does it pretend to
account for? The correspondence between this event and the prophecies;
or the coincidence of both, with a long dispensation of Providence,
of a peculiar nature, towards that people? No. It is only the event
itself, which is offered to be thus accounted for: which single event,
taken alone, abstracted from all such correspondence and coincidence,
perhaps would not have appeared miraculous: but that correspondence
and coincidence may be so, though the event itself be supposed not.
Thus the concurrence of our Saviour’s being born at Bethlehem, with a
long foregoing series of prophecy and other coincidences, is doubtless
miraculous; the series of prophecy, and other coincidences, and the
event, being admitted: though the event itself appears to have been
brought about in a natural way; of which, however, no one can be
certain.
As several of these events seem, in some degree expressly, to have
verified the prophetic history already, so likewise they may be
considered further, as having a peculiar aspect towards the full
completion of it; as affording some presumption that the whole of it
shall, one time or other, be fulfilled. Thus, that the Jews have been
so wonderfully preserved in their long and wide dispersion; which is
indeed the direct fulfilling of some prophecies, but is now mentioned
only as looking forward to somewhat yet to come: that natural religion
came forth from Judea, and spread, in the degree it has done over
the world, before lost in idolatry; which, together with some other
things, have distinguished that very place, in like manner as the
people of it are distinguished: that this great change of religion over
the earth was brought about under the profession and acknowledgment,
that Jesus was the promised Messiah: things of this kind naturally
turn the thoughts of serious men towards the full completion of the
prophetic history, concerning the final restoration of that people;
concerning the establishment of the everlasting kingdom among them, the
kingdom of the Messiah; and the future state of the world, under this
sacred government. Such circumstances and events, compared with these
prophecies, though no completions of them, yet would not, I think,
be spoken of as nothing in the argument, by a person upon his first
being informed of them. They fall in with the prophetic history of
things still future, give it some additional credibility, and have the
appearance of being somewhat in order to the full completion of it.
Indeed it requires a good degree of knowledge, and great calmness and
consideration, to be able to judge thoroughly of the evidence for the
truth of Christianity, from that part of the prophetic history which
relates to the situation of the kingdoms of the world, and to the state
of the church, from the establishment of Christianity to the present
time. But it appears from a general view of it, to be very material.
And those persons who have thoroughly examined it, and some of them
were men of the coolest tempers, greatest capacities, and least liable
to imputations of prejudice, insist upon it as determinately conclusive.
[CONCLUSION.] Suppose now a person quite ignorant of history, first
to recollect the passages above mentioned out of Scripture, without
knowing but that the whole was a late fiction, then to be informed
of the correspondent facts now mentioned, and to unite them all into
one view: that the profession and establishment of natural religion
in the world is greatly owing, in different ways, to this book, and
the supposed revelation which it contains; that it is acknowledged to
be of the earliest antiquity; that its chronology and common history
are entirely credible; that this ancient nation, the Jews, of whom it
chiefly treats, appear to have been, in fact, the people of God, in a
distinguished sense; that, as there was a national expectation among
them, raised from the prophecies, of a Messiah to appear at such a
time, so one at this time appeared claiming to be that Messiah; that
he was rejected by this nation, but received by the Gentiles, not upon
the evidence of prophecy, but of miracles; that the religion he taught
supported itself under the greatest difficulties, gained ground, and
at length became the religion of the world; that in the mean time the
Jewish polity was utterly destroyed, and the nation dispersed over the
face of the earth; that notwithstanding this, they have remained a
distinct numerous people for so many centuries, even to this day; which
not only appears to be the express completion of several prophecies
concerning them, but also renders it, as one may speak, a visible and
easy possibility that the promises made to them as a nation, may yet be
fulfilled.
To these acknowledged truths, let the person we have been supposing
add, as I think he ought, whether every one will allow it or no, the
obvious appearances which there are, of the state of the world, in
other respects besides what relates to the Jews, and of the Christian
church, having so long answered, and still answering to the prophetic
history. Suppose, I say, these facts set over against the things before
mentioned out of the Scripture, and seriously compared with them;
the joint view of both together must, I think, appear of very great
weight to a considerate reasonable person: of much greater indeed, upon
having them first laid before him, than is easy for us, who are so
familiarized to them, to conceive, without some particular attention
for that purpose.
All these things, and the several particulars contained under them,
require to be distinctly and most thoroughly examined into; that the
weight of each may be judged of, upon such examination, and such
conclusion drawn, as results from their _united force_. But this has
not been attempted here. I have gone no further than to show, that the
general imperfect view of them now given, the confessed historical
evidence for miracles, and the many obvious appearing completions of
prophecy, together with the collateral things[288] here mentioned, and
there are several others of the like sort; that all this together,
which, being fact, must be acknowledged by unbelievers, amounts to
real evidence of somewhat more than human in this matter: evidence
much more important, than careless men, who have been accustomed
only to transient and partial views of it, can imagine; and indeed
abundantly sufficient to act upon. And these things, I apprehend, must
be acknowledged by unbelievers. For though they may say, that the
historical evidence of miracles wrought in attestation of Christianity,
is not sufficient to convince them, that such miracles were really
wrought: they cannot deny, that there is such historical evidence,
it being a known matter of fact that there is. They may say, the
conformity between the prophecies and events is by accident: but there
are many instances in which such conformity itself cannot be denied.
They may say, with regard to such kind of collateral things as those
above mentioned, that any odd accidental events, without meaning, will
have a meaning found in them by fanciful people: and that such as are
fanciful in any one certain way, will make out a thousand coincidences,
which seem to favor their peculiar follies. Men, I say, may talk
thus: but no one who is serious, can possibly think these things to
be nothing, if he considers the importance of collateral things, and
even of lesser circumstances, in the evidence of probability, as
distinguished in nature, from the evidence of demonstration. In many
cases indeed it seems to require the truest judgment, to determine with
exactness the weight of circumstantial evidence: but it is very often
altogether as convincing, as that which is the most express and direct.
This general view of the evidence for Christianity, considered as
making one argument, may also serve to recommend to serious persons,
to set down every thing which they think may be of any real weight at
all in proof of it, and particularly the many seeming completions of
prophecy: and they will find, that, judging by the natural rules, by
which we judge of probable evidence in common matters, they amount to
a much higher degree of proof, upon such a _joint review_, than could
be supposed upon considering them separately, at different times;
how strong soever the proof might before appear to them, upon such
separate views of it. For probable proofs, by being added, not only
_increase_ the evidence, but _multiply_ it.[289] Nor should I dissuade
any one from setting down, what he thought made for the contrary
side. But then it is to be remembered, not in order to influence his
judgment, but his practice, that a mistake on one side may be, in its
consequences, much more dangerous, than a mistake on the other. And
what course is most safe, and what most dangerous, will be thought a
very material consideration, when we deliberate, not concerning events,
but concerning conduct in our temporal affairs. To be influenced by
this consideration in our judgment, to believe or disbelieve upon it,
is indeed as much prejudice, as any thing whatever. And, like other
prejudices, it operates contrary ways, in different men; for some are
inclined to believe what they hope, and others what they fear. And
it is manifest unreasonableness to apply to men’s passions in order
to gain their assent. But in deliberations concerning conduct, there
is nothing which reason more requires to be taken into the account,
than the importance of it. For, suppose it doubtful, what would be the
consequence of acting in this, or in the contrary manner: still, that
taking one side could be attended with little or no bad consequence,
and taking the other might be attended with the greatest, must appear,
to unprejudiced reason, of the highest moment towards determining how
we are to act. The truth of our religion, like the truth of common
matters, is to be judged of by all the evidence taken together.
And unless the whole series of things which may be alleged in this
argument, and every particular thing in it, can reasonably be supposed
to have been by accident (for here the stress of the argument for
Christianity lies); then is the truth of it proved: in like manner, as
if in any common case, numerous events acknowledged, were to be alleged
in proof of any other event disputed; the truth of the disputed event
would be proved, not only if any one of the acknowledged ones did of
itself clearly imply it, but, though no one of them singly did so, if
the whole of the acknowledged events taken together could not in reason
be supposed to have happened, unless the disputed one were true.
It is obvious, how much advantage the nature of this evidence gives
to those persons who attack Christianity, especially in conversation.
For it is easy to show, in a short and lively manner, that such and
such things are liable to objection, that this and another thing is of
little weight in itself; but impossible to show, in like manner, the
united force of the whole argument in one view.
Lastly, as it has been made appear, that there is no presumption
against a revelation as miraculous; that the general scheme of
Christianity, and the principal parts of it, are conformable to the
experienced constitution of things, and the whole perfectly credible:
so the account now given of the positive evidence for it, shows, that
this evidence is such, as, from the nature of it, cannot be destroyed,
though it should be lessened.