A
Letter
To the
Reverend Mr. Channing
Relative to
His Two Sermons
On
Infidelity
By George Bethune English, A.M.
Boston
Printed for the Author
1813
LETTER, &c.
Rev. Sir,
Your eloquent and interesting Sermons on Infidelity, I have read with
the interest arising from the nature of the subject you have discussed,
and the impressive manner in which you have treated it.
As it is understood that the appearance of those Sermons was owing to a
Book lately published by me, I request your pardon for a liberty I am
about to take, which in any other circumstances I should blush to
presume upon-it is sir, with deference, and great respect, to express
my sentiments with regard to some of the arguments contained in them,
where the reasoning does not appear to me so unexceptionable as the
language in which it is enveloped, is eloquent and affecting. There
are also some opinions of yours relative to matters of fact, in those
discourses, to which I would respectfully solicit your attention.
It afforded me much pleasure, though it caused me no surprise, to
perceive you to say in your introductory remarks, that these Sermons
were designed to procure for the arguments for Christianity "a serious,
and respectful attention" and, that if you should "be so happy as to
awaken candid and patient enquiry," your "principal object will be
accomplished" you wish, "that Christianity should be thoroughly
examined," you do "not wish to screen it from enquiry." It would cease,
you observe to be your support were you not "persuaded that it is able
to sustain the most deliberate investigation."
In considering Christianity as a fair subject for discussion, you do
justice to the cause you so eloquently defend for Christianity itself
honestly, and openly professes to offer itself, to the belief of all
mankind solely on account of the reasons which support it; and since
its learned, and liberal advocates always announce, and recommend it
from the Pulpit as reasonable in itself and confirmed by unanswerable
arguments; no one who believes them sincere can doubt, that they are
perfectly willing to have its claims openly discussed and think
themselves amply able to give valid reasons, "for the faith that is in
them," and which they so earnestly invite all men to receive.
You observe, p. 13, that the writings of Infidels, "have been injurious
not so much by the strength of their arguments, as by the positive, and
contemptuous manner In which they speak of Revelation, they abound in
sarcasm, abuse, and sneer, and supply the place of reasoning, by wit
and satire." If so sir, it is all in favor of the cause you defend; for
the tiny weapons of wit, and ridicule, will assuredly fly to shivers
under a few blows from the solid, and massy club of sound logic. The
man who attacks any system of Religion merely with wit, and ridicule,
can never, I conceive, be a very formidable antagonist.
The mental imbecility of the man who could touch such a subject as
religion in any shape with no other arms, would render him a harmless
adversary, and the intrinsic weakness of such shining but slender
weapons, when encountered with something more solid, would eventually
render him a contemptible one, I therefore cannot help doubting, that
wit and ridicule alone, and unsupported by reasoning, and good
reasoning too, could ever have been very successfully wielded against
such a thing as the Christian Religion, by its opposers.
No man it appears to me of common understanding will ever resign his
religion on account of a few jokes, and bon mots. The adherence of such
men as are weak enough to be subverted by such trifles can do as little
honor to Christianity, as their abandoning it for such reasons, can
affect it with disgrace. The belief of such men could never have been
more than habit, and their Infidelity nothing else than a freak of
folly, which is reproachful only to themselves. But after all, this
vehement objection to wit and ridicule, appears to me a little
imprudent; for a sarcastic opponent might reply, that sceptics, have
been not unfrequently attacked with irony most severe, and sometimes
sorely wounded by vollies of wit shot from the pulpit, a place too
where it can be done without fear of reprisals. You know sir, that the
famous Warburton, for instance, used to amuse himself with not only
cutting down every unlucky sceptic that came in his way, but he
absolutely cut them to pieces with the edge of ridicule, most bitterly
envenomed too with something else. It seems therefore a little
unreasonable, that what is fair for one party, should not be so for the
other too. Besides, the advocates of a cause, which is said not only
not to fear examination, but to challenge it, should not, it appears to
me, when taken at their words shrink, and draw back, on account of such
trifles as wit, and ridicule; because the style of an investigation
cannot certainly conceal the immutable distinction between a good
argument and a bad one, from such learned and penetrating adversaries
as the Clergy; and moreover does it appear clear that an advocate after
asserting a proposition, and defying refutation, has any right to
insist, that his opponent should put his arguments in just such a form
as would be most convenient to him? What would a penetrating Lawyer
think of the cause of his opponent, on finding him to insist upon his
arranging his objections, and expressing his arguments just so that it
might be most easy to him to reply to them?
For my own part, I have no claims to wit, and if I have been sometimes
sarcastic it was more than I meant to be, it was the premeditated
consequence of bitter feelings arising from considering myself as
having been betrayed by my credulity into taking a situation in
society, which I had discovered I must quit at no less a hazard than
that the destruction of all my plans and prospects for life. At any
rate I am satisfied, that no ridicule of mine has been intentionally
adduced by me in order to corroborate a false position, or a weak
argument; I believe that it seldom appears except in the rear of
something more respectable and efficient.
You observe, that Christianity "deserves at least respectful, and
serious attention, must be evident to every man who has honesty of
mind." Nothing can be more true than this, it is a subject which does
deserve a respectful, and serious attention: because every thing
claiming to be from God ought to be carefully, coolly, and respectfully
examined on these accounts.
1. If it be from God it is of the highest importance to the welfare of
mankind that its truth should be investigated thoroughly, and settled
firmly.
2. Because if it is not from God it must be the fruit of either of
error or fraud, if of the first it ought to be rejected as a delusion;
if of the second it ought to be cast off as a deception practiced in
the name of the God of truth, and therefore disrespectful to him.
It also merits, you most truly say, a respectful examination on account
of the character of its founder, for the character of Jesus you justly
consider as too excellent and unexceptionable to be reproached.
Whatever may be said concerning the moral excellence of that person's
character I will cheerfully assent to, and I could not listen without
disgust to language impeaching his moral purity. This I can do without
ceasing to suppose him an enthusiast; for there appears to me to be too
many marks of it in the New Testament for the idea to be set aside by a
few eloquent exclamations, and notes of admiration; if I am wrong in
this idea or in others, I will not prove indocile to arguments that
shall sufficiently show the contrary.
You observe, p. 16. "another consideration which entitles Christianity
to respectful attention is this. That Jesus Christ appeared at a time
when there prevailed in the east a universal expectation of a
distinguished personage who was to produce a great and happy change in
the world. This expectation was built on writings which claimed to be
prophetic, which existed long before Jesus was born."
I cannot help thinking the very great stress which has been laid upon
this "rumour spread all over the east" a little unreasonable.
For 1. "A rumour" is not as I apprehend an adequate foundation on which
to build such a thing as the Christian religion, which claims to be
derived from heaven.
2. Those who have brought forward with so much earnestness this popular
rumour, have not, I conceive, paid due attention to the causes that
might naturally have produced it, which were possibly these. There is
in the Jewish prophets frequent mention of a great deliverer, and it is
represented that he should appear in the time when the Jewish nation
should be suffering under most grievous afflictions, and who should
deliver them therefrom, Now was it not perfectly natural for the Jews,
dispersed over Asia, to expect, and to circulate the notion of this
deliverer when their own sufferings, inflicted by their enemies, were
intolerable? If you will open Josephus, you will there read that about
and after the time of the crucifixion of Jesus the Jews were dreadfully
oppressed by the Romans, and were designedly driven to desperation, by
Florus with the express purpose of exciting a rebellion, and thus
prevent their accusing him of his crimes before the tribunal of Caesar.
Was it at all unnatural therefore for the Jews thus oppressed, and
reading in their sacred books, that they should be delivered from their
oppressors by the appearance of their great deliverer when their
sufferings were at the heighth; was it extraordinary that the Jews,
writhing under the lash of tyrannical conquerors, and considering their
then circumstances, to expect this deliverer at that time? And to
conclude, does it, after all, appear that this rumour prevailed in the
life time of Jesus, or not till about thirty years after his
crucifixion?
You add, "now this is a remarkable circumstance which distinguishes
Jesus from the founders of all other religions." This was no doubt a
slip of the memory, as so learned a man as Mr. Channing, no doubt knows
that the Mahometans, who are the most numerous sect of religionists now
in the world, affirm, that there was a very general expectation of
their victorious prophet Mahomet, about the time of his birth grounded
on tradition, and, as they say, originally on very many texts of the
Old Testament, which texts, with divers more from the New Testament,
are urged by the Mahometan Divines as to the same purpose: these texts,
and their irrelevancy are collected and shown by Father Maracci in his
first Dissertation prefixed to his edition of the Koran, printed at
Padua 1698. Collins, in his answer to the Bishop of Litchfield, and
Coventry, states this fact, and refers to "Addison's first state of
Mahometanism" p. 35. "Life of Mahomet" before four treatises concerning
the doctrine of the Mahometans, p. 9. Maracci's Appendix ad Prodromum
primum.p. 36-46.
In p. 18, you say, that the prophecies with regard to the Messiah,
"describe a deliverer of the human race very similar to say the least
to the character in which Jesus appeared." I must confess that after
reading again the prophecies collected in the third chapter of "The
Grounds of Christianity examined" this similarity still remains
invisible to me. I hope you will not be offended at my avowing that you
appear to me to be sensible of the difficulty of this affair of the
Messiahship, for you content yourself with adducing that characteristic
of the Christ recorded in the Old Testament, his teaching and
enlightening the Gentiles with the knowledge of God, and true religion,
as applicable to Jesus, and sufficient to prove him the Messiah. Yet
supposing that this characteristic would apply to Jesus, it would not,
I think, be sufficient to prove him to be the Messiah or Christ: since
this characteristic is merely one among twenty other marks given, and
required to be found.
2. It would, it appears to me, prove Mahomet the Messiah sooner than
Jesus; since Mahomet in person converted more Gentiles to the knowledge
and worship of one God during his life time, than Christianity did in
one hundred years.
3. But what is still more to the purpose, it cannot, I conceive, apply
to Jesus at all, since he did not fulfill even this solitary
characteristic; for he did not preach to the Gentiles, but confined his
mission and teaching to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." It
was Paul who established Christianity among the Gentiles.
In p. 18, you appear to admit that all the characteristic marks of the
Messiah were not manifested in Jesus, but will be manifested at some
future period. To which a Jew might answer, by politely asking you,
whether then you do not require too much of him for the present, in
demanding faith upon credit?
But that when Jesus of Nazareth in this future time shall fulfill the
prophecies; will it not be time enough to believe him to be the Messiah?
You ask, p. 19, "was ever character more pacific than that of Jesus?
Can any religion breathe a milder temper than his? Into how many
ferocious breasts has it already infused the kindest and gentlest
spirit? And after all these considerations is Jesus to be rejected
because some prophecies which relate to his future triumphs are not yet
accomplished?" This argument I can easily conceive must have had great
weight with such a man as Mr. Channing, whose heart accords with every
thing that is mild and amiable. But after all my dear sir, what are
"all these considerations" to the purpose? Show that Jesus was as
amiable and as good as the most vivid imagination can paint; nay, prove
him to have been an angel from heaven, and it will not, it seems to me,
at all tend towards demonstrating him to be the Messiah of the Old
Testament, and if his religion was as mild as doves, and as beneficent
as the blessed sun of heaven, still I might respectfully insist, that
unless he answers to the description of the Messiah given in the Old
Testament, it is all irrelevant, and "some prophecies" (or even one)
unaccomplished, which it is expressly said should be accomplished at
the appearance of the Messiah, are quite sufficient I conceive to
nullify his claims.
In the 29th page you say that "the Gospels are something more than
loose and idle rumours of events which happened in a distant age, and a
distant nation. We have the testimony of men who were the associates of
Jesus Christ; who received his instructions from his own lips and saw
his works with their own eyes."
I presume that after what I have represented to Mr. Cary upon the
subject of the Gospels according to Matthew and John, who know are the
only Evangelists supposed to have heard with their ears, and seen with
their eyes the doctrines and facts recorded in those books, you will be
willing to allow, that this is very strong language. You observe in
your note to p. 19, that the other writings of the New Testament,
(except Luke, Acts, and Paul's Epistles) "may be all resigned, and our
religion and its evidences will be unimpaired." This language too
appears to me to be too strong, since if you give up all but the
writings you mention we shall by no means have "the testimony of men
who were the associates of Jesus Christ, who received his instructions
from his own lips, and saw his works with their own eyes," for in
giving up so much do you not resign the gospels according to Matthew
and John?
2. It requires some softening I think on these accounts; since 1. Luke
was not an eyewitness of the facts he records in his gospel, it is only
a hearsay story. 2. It contradicts the other gospels.