4. The learned Professor Marsh in his dissertation upon the three first
gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, (in his notes to Michaelis'
Introduction to the N. T.) represents, and gives ingenious reasons to
prove, that those gospels are Compilations from pre-existing documents,
written by nobody knows who. So that the pieces from which the three
first gospels were composed were, according to this Hypothesis,
anonymous, and the gospels themselves written by we do not know what
authors; and yet, you know sir, that these patch-work narratives of
miracles have passed not only for credible, bat for inspired!
5. The Book of Acts was rejected by the Jewish Christians, as
containing accounts untrue, and contradictory to their Acts of the
Apostles. It was rejected also by the Encratites, and the Severians,
and I believe by the Marcionites. The Jewish Christians were the
oldest Christian Church, and they pronounced that the Book of Acts in
our Canon was written by a partizan of Paul's; and it will be
recollected that our Book of Acts is in fact, principally taken up in
recording the travels and preaching of Paul, and contains little
comparatively of the other Apostles. The Jewish Christians had a Book
of Acts different from ours. And besides the fact, that the oldest
Christian church, the mother church of Judea, with whom we should
expect to find the truth if any where, rejected the Acts, Chrysostom
Bishop of Constantinople, at the end of the 4th century, in a homily
upon this Book says, that "not only the author and collector of the
Book, but the Book itself was unknown to many." This mother church had
not only a book of Acts of the apostles different from ours, but also a
gospel of their own, called the gospel of the twelve apostles, which is
supposed by the learned in important particulars to differ from ours.
According to Augustine however, this gospel was publickly read in the
churches as authentick for 300 years. This gospel in the opinion of
Grabe, Mills, and other learned men, was written before the gospels now
received as canonical. See Toland's Nazarenus.
6. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, those to the Ephesians, and
Colossians, are nearly proved to be apocryphal by Evanson, and about
the rest there are some suspicious circumstances. You refer the reader
of your Sermons in that note to Paley's Evidences, 9th chapter, for
evidence for the authenticity of the rest of the gospels; but if the
reader goes there he will find, that all the testimony Paley quotes for
the first 200 years after Christ except that of Papias, Irenaeus, and
Tertullian, (the value of whose testimony to the authenticity of the
gospels, has been considered in the 16th ch. of my work; and which may
further appear from these circumstances, that Irenaeus considered the
Book of Hermas an inspired Scripture as much as he did the four
gospels, and that Tertullian contended stoutly for the inspiration of
the ridiculous book of Enoch, one of the most stupid forgeries that
ever was seen,) the quotations and supposed allusions in the earlier
fathers are uncertain, since it is acknowledged by Dodwell, and also by
others, that it cannot be shown with any certainty, whether these
quotations and allusions belong to ours or to apocryphal gospels. And
to conclude, would you not require as much evidence for the
authenticity of the gospels, which relate supernatural events, as we
have for most of the classics, and yet if you examine the subject
closely, you will be satisfied to your astonishment that we have not so
much as we have for the works of Virgil or Cicero; and that we have not
by a great deal so much testimony for the miracles of Jesus, which were
supernatural events which require at least as great proof as natural
ones as we have for the deaths of Pompey and of Julius Caesar, though
you seem from your note to think otherwise. As to Celsus, Porphyry, and
Julian, if they allowed the gospels to be genuine, they might have done
so, and taken advantage of such an allowance to show that they could
net, from their contradictions, have been written by men having a
mission from the God of Truth. But Sir, is it certain that they did
acknowledge it? Since the only fragments of their works upon
Christianity we have remaining, are just such parts as their Christian
answerers have picked out, and selected; the works themselves were
carefully burned. And that these answerers have not acted fairly may be
more than suspected, I think from a hint given us by Jerom, (which you
will find in Dr. Middleton's Free Enquiry) that Origen in his answer to
Celsus, sometimes fought the devil at his own weapons, i.e. lied for
the sake of the truth; and it is notorious, that the Fathers of the
church allowed this to be lawful, and practiced it abundantly. See the
note at the end.
You allow in the 20th page that the sincerity of the propagators of
opinions is no proof of their truth; and yet you seem to think, that
the twelve apostles must have been correct, because the opinions they
propagated were, you think, contrary to their prejudices as Jews. This
argument cannot, I conceive, support the consequences you lay upon it,
were it true that the apostles had abandoned their opinions as Jews
about the nature of the Messiah's Kingdom. But I believe you will not
be a little surprized, when I shall show you, that in preaching Jesus
as the Messiah they did by no means adopt the very spiritual ideas you
ascribe to them, but in fact believed that Jesus would soon return and
"restore the Kingdom to Israel" in good earnest, and in a sense by no
means spiritual. This argument, if I can establish it, you observe,
sir, no doubt, must consequently subvert a very considerable part of
your system, by which you endeavour to account for the discrepancies
which you do allow as yet to subsist between the prophecies of the
Messiah, and Jesus of Nazareth. I beseech you therefore to heed me
carefully.
In Luke i. verse 32. The angel tells Mary that her son Jesus should be
great, and be called: the son of the Highest and the Lord God shall
give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over
the house of Israel forever and to his kingdom there shall be no end,
and in verse 67, &c. Zachariah, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost
too, thus praises God concerning Jesus "Blessed be the Lord God of
Israel, because he hath visited and redeemed his people, and he hath
raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant
David; as he spake by the month of his holy prophets which have been
since the world began, that we should be saved from our enemies and
from the hand of all that hate us, &c. that we being delivered from the
hand of our enemies should serve him with holiness and righteousness
before him all the days of our lives." [See the Original.] You see,
sir the notion that these words allude to, they certainly appear to me
to mean something else than deliverance from spiritual foes. See also
in the 2d ch. 25 verse, where Simeon a man who was "looking for the
consolation of Israel" and was full of the Holy Ghost, expresses
similar sentiments. And Anna the prophetess also spake concerning Jesus
to all who "were expecting deliverance in Jerusalem," i.e. undoubtedly
deliverance from the Romans. The carnal ideas of the Apostles with
regard to the nature of their Master's Kingdom, and their consequent
expectations with regard to Jesus, before his crucifixion, are
acknowledged; and in the 24th chapt. of Luke 21st v. they say in
despair, "But we trusted that it had been he who should have redeemed
Israel." And after the resurrection, and just before the ascension of
Jesus, after they had been for forty days "instructed in the things
pertaining to the kingdom of God," which was the same as that of the
Messiah, by Jesus himself, they do not seem to have had the least idea
of the metaphysical kingdom of modern Christians, for they ask him,
"Lord wilt thou now (or at this time) restore the kingdom to Israel?"
And his answer is, not that it should never be restored, but that "it
was not for them to know the times, and the seasons," see Acts 1. And
even after the day of Pentecost, ch. iii. verse 19, Peter tells the
Jews to repent, that their sins may be blotted out "when the times of
refreshing [i.e. of deliverance] shall come from the face of the Lord,
and he shall send Jesus Christ [i.e. the Messiah] before preached, (or
promised) unto you, whom the heavens must receive until the times of
the restoration of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all
his holy prophets since the world began." From this we see, that the
Apostles thought that Jesus was gone to heaven for a time, and was to
return again [there is no mention whatever in the Prophets of a double
coming of the Messiah] and fulfill the prophecies with regard to "the
restoration of all things" to a paradisiacal state, and the temporal
kingdom of the Messiah sitting upon the throne of David in Jerusalem,
all which is contained in the words of "the holy prophets" which have
been since the world began. And what sort of a kingdom it was to be
will appear from the not very spiritual description of the reign of
Jesus upon earth during the Millennium, described in the 20th chapter
of Revelations, and not only so, but the author of that book represents
the final, and permanent state of the blessed as fixed, not in heaven,
as modern Christians suppose, but on a new earth, or the earth renewed,
and in a superb city, called "the new Jerusalem."
In fact, the ideas of the twelve Apostles upon the subject of the
kingdom of the Messiah were precisely as carnal as those of their
unbelieving brethren of the Jewish nation. They believed, as has been
shown abundantly in the 15th chapter of "The Grounds of Christianity
Examined," that their Master Jesus would come again, as he had told
them he would, in that generation, and perform for Israel all the
glorious things promised; that he would come in a cloud with power and
great glory, and all the holy angels with him; that many from the east,
and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in
that kingdom; and that the disciples were to eat and drink at Jesus'
table in his kingdom, and were to sit on twelve thrones judging the
twelve tribes of Israel. The author of the book of Revelations, after
describing the magnificence and felicity of Jesus' kingdom upon earth,
represents him as saying that he should come quickly: and in the first
chapters, that they who had pierced him should see him coming in the
clouds. The Apostles, as appears from the epistles, were on tiptoe with
expectation, and frequently assured their converts that "the Lord is at
hand, the judge stood before the door, &c." And to conclude, Can you
not now, sir, conceive, and guess the cause of the gradual
disappearance of the Jewish Christians after "that generation had
passed away?" The fact was, that the Jewish Christians never dreamed of
that figment a spiritual Messiah. They expected that Jesus would come
again in "that generation" as he had told them he would; he did not
come; in consequence the Jewish Church, after waiting, and waiting a
great while, dwindled into annihilation.
You conclude your most eloquent sermons by an appeal to the feelings in
behalf of opinions which ought I think to be defended by reason and
proof rather than by sentiment. You complain of ridicule in an
examination of this kind. I hope you will excuse my expressing some
doubts whether eloquent sentiment, and appeals to the feelings are less
exceptionable in a discussion of the causes why we ought to give
Christianity a respectful and dispassionate examination. If I were so
happy as to be so eloquent as you, and in a manner which such power of
persuasion as you possess would give me ability to do, had described
the burnings, the tortures, the murders, and the plundering of the
Jew's during the last thousand years, in order to cause my readers to
wish to find reason to hate Christianity; would you not have said it
was unfair? It cannot be necessary to inform so finished a scholar as
Mr. Channing, that in a discussion about the truth of a system the
consideration of the consequences of the system's being proved to be
false, is irrelevant and contrary to rule. You will say that you were
not discussing the truth of a system, but the reasons why we should
give it a respectful examination. This is true-The question you advised
your auditors to examine was, whether the Christian religion was true
or otherwise. Be it so. I appeal then to your candour, whether it was
the way to send them to the important enquiry unprejudiced and
unbiased, to impress them by authority, and by arguments which are good
only when used as subsidiary to proof or demonstration and by
terrifying them with what you imagine would be the consequences of
finding that Christianity is unfounded? Ah sir, does the advocate of a
cause "founded on adamant" wish to dazzle the judges and fascinate the
jury before he ventures to bring the merits of his cause to trial? Must
they be made to shed tears, must their hearts be made to feel that you
are right, in order that their understandings may be able to perceive
it? Should the learned and able champion of a system, who offers it as
true, and to be received only because it is true, when its claims are
threatened with a scrutiny, lay so much stress upon its supposed
utility when the question is its truth? Is it an argument that
Christianity is true, because if false, you think we should have no
religion left? This argument no doubt looks ludicrous to you, and yet I
am told that it has been gravely offered by some well meaning men after
reading your sermons, who thought it of no small weight. You may see
from this, my dear sir, how easily simplicity is satisfied.
You lay great stress upon the comforts derived from believing
Christianity true. But ought men to be encouraged to lean and build
their hopes on what may perhaps when examined turn out to be a broken
reed? The expiring Indian dies in peace-holding a cow's tail in his
hand. If he was in his full health, and vigour of understanding, would
you think It charitable to let that man remain uninformed of his
delusion in trusting to such a staff of comfort? Would you not
endeavour to enlighten him, and make him ashamed of his superstition? I
know you would, and you would do him a kindness deserving his
gratitude. To conclude, the Christian religion is either a divine and
solid foundation of morals, hope, and consolation, or it is not. If it
is, there is no reason in the world to fear, that it can be undermined,
or hurt in the least. To believe so would be I conceive to doubt the
Providence of God. For it cannot be supposed, that a religion really
given by the Almighty and All wise can be undermined by a wretched
mortal, a child of dust and infirmity; the supposition is monstrous,
and therefore no examination of its claims ought to be deprecated, or
frowned at by those who think it "founded on adamant," for no man
shrinks at having that examined which he is positively confident of
being able to prove.
2. If this foundation be not divine and solid it ought I conceive to
be undermined, and abandoned. For willfully, and knowingly to suffer
confiding men to be duped, or allured into building their hopes and
consolation upon a delusion, is in my opinion to maltreat, and to
despise them. And to suffer them to be imposed upon is both unbrotherly
and dishonest. And to advocate, or to insinuate a defense of an unsound
foundation upon the principle of pious frauds, viz. because it is
supposed by its defenders to be useful, you will no doubt agree with me
is both absurd, and immoral. For in the long run truth is more useful
than error, "nothing (says Lord Bacon) is so pernicious as deified
error." And it must not be supposed, or insinuated, that the good God
has made it necessary, that the morals, comfort, and consolation of his
rational creatures should be founded on, or be supported by a mistake
and a delusion; for it would be virtually to deny his Providence. In
fine, Christianity come to us as from God, and says to us, "He that
believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned."
Therefore, he that receives such extraordinary claims without
examination, is "in my opinion, a wittol; and he who suffers himself to
be compelled to swallow such pretensions without the severest scrutiny,
according to my notions of things, has no claims to be considered as a
man of common sense.
Before I close my letter, it occurs to me to observe, that you appear
to me to have misconceived the state of the case, in representing in
your sermons, that if you give up Christianity you will have no
religion left. Christianity, if I understand it, is properly contained
and taught in the New Testament alone. I am not aware, my dear sir,
that if you were to give up the New Testament you would be without a
religion, or even what you acknowledge as divine revelation. It appears
to me, that a Christian might, if he chose, give up the New Testament
and place himself on the footing of the devout Gentiles mentioned in
the Acts, who worshipped the one God, and kept the moral law of the Old
Testament. You will recollect, that I have not attempted to affect the
authority of the Old Testament which you acknowledge to contain a
Divine revelation. I never shall because, I would never quarrel with
any thing merely for the sake of disputing. Whether the Old Testament
contains a revelation from God, or not, its moral precepts are, as far
as I know unexceptionable; there is not, I believe, any thing
extravagant or impracticable in them, they are such as promote the good
order of society. Its religion in fact is merely Theism garnished, and
guarded by a splendid ritual, and gorgeous ceremonies; the belief of it
can produce no oppression and wretchedness to any portion of mankind,
and for these reasons I for one will never attempt to weaken its
credit, whatever may be my own opinion with regard to its supernatural
claims.
In fact, to speak correctly, the Old Testament is at this moment the
sole true canon of Scripture, acknowledged as such by genuine
Christianity; it was the only canon which was acknowledged by Christ,
and his immediate Apostles. The books of the New Testament are all
occasional books, and not a code or system of religion; nor were they
all collected into one body, nor declared by any even human authority
to be all canonical till several hundred years after Jesus Christ. They
are books written by Christians, and contain proofs of Christianity
alleged from the Old Testament, but contain Christianity itself no
otherwise, it appears to me, than as explaining, illustrating, and
confirming Christianity supposed to be taught in the Old Testament.
They are mostly, where they inculcate doctrines, Commentaries on the
Old Testament deriving from thence, and giving what the writers
imagined to be contained in and hidden under the letter of it. And
upon the same principle that the books of the New Testament were
received as canonical, so was the Pastor of Hermas, the Book of Enoch,
and others, just as highly venerated by the early Christians. But they
did not at first, as I apprehend their expressions, rank them with the
Old Testament, which was called "the Scriptures," by way of excellence.
The Old Testament was in fact supposed by the writers of the New, to
contain Christianity under the bark of the letter; and they represent
Christianity as having been preached to the ancient Jews under the
figure of types, and allegories. See Gal. iii. 8. Heb. xi. and the
first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, ch. x. In a word, the
Apostles professed to "say none ether things than those which the
prophets and Moses did say." Acts xxvi. 22,
Jesus and his Apostles do frequently, and emphatically style the books
of the Old Testament "The Scriptures," and refer men to them as their
rule, and canon. And Paul says, Acts xxiv. 14, "After the [Christian]
way, which ye call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers;
believing all things that are written in the law, and the prophets."
But it does not appear, that any new books were declared by them to
have that character. Nor was there any new canon of Scripture, or any
collection of books as Scripture made whether of Gospels or Epistles
during the lives of the Apostles; as is well known to you.--And if
neither Jesus nor his apostles declared any other books to be canonical
besides those of the Old Testament, I would ask the Christian who did?
Or who had a right and authority to declare or make any books
canonical? If Christianity required a new canon, or new digest of laws,
it should seem that it ought to have been done by Jesus and his
apostles, and not left to be executed by any after them: especially not
left to be settled long after their deaths by weak, enthusiastic,
ignorant, silly and factious men, such as the fathers, who were so
badly informed of the genuine writings of the founders of their
religion, that they were, when they came to collect and make a new
canon, greatly divided: about the genuineness of all books bearing the
names of the apostles, and contended with one another bitterly about
their authority; and after all decree to be genuine some which are
palpably forgeries.
But the truth is, that the present New Testament Canon, was collected
and established by the Gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians
received none of them, but acknowledged nothing for Scripture but the
books of the Old Testament which was the sole Canon left them by the
twelve apostles. Their Gospel and Acts, if my memory does not deceive
me, they regarded as histories only. They were merely a small body of
Jews who thought that Jesus was the Messiah of the Old Testament. This
article was the only one which made them Heretical: In all other
respects they were as other Jews after the way which their countrymen
called heresy, so worshipped they the God of their Fathers at the
National Temple; believing and preaching "no other things than what
[they imagined] Moses and the Prophets did say."