CHAPTER VII. POSITIVE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY

CHAPTER VII.
POSITIVE EVIDENCES OF CHRISTIANITY.

Having considered the objections both to the general scheme of Christianity, and to particular doctrines in it, it only remains to consider the positive evidence of its truth; i.e. what analogy teaches with regard to that evidence.

There are many evidences of Christianity, beside those from miracles or prophecy, which are the principal; embracing a great variety of proofs, direct and collateral, and reaching through all past time. We shall now consider the proofs from MIRACLES and PROPHECY.

• 1. Bible history gives the same evidence for the miracles described, as for common events.
  • 1.) The miracles are evidently not put in for ornament, as speeches are by historians and poets put into the mouths of heroes.
  • 2.) The accounts of them have been quoted as genuine, by various writers, from that day to this.
  • 3.) These accounts are confirmed by subsequent events; and the miracles alone, can account for those events.
  • 4.) The only fair way of accounting for these statements, and their reception in the world, is that the things really happened.
  • 5.) The statements should be admitted till disproved, even if doubtful.
• 2. Paul’s Epistles have evidences of genuineness, beyond what can attach to mere history.
  • 1.) Additional. His evidence is quite detached. He received the gospel not in common with the other apostles, but separately, and direct from Christ, after his ascension.
  • 2.) Peculiar. He speaks of Christ’s miracles and those of others incidentally, as familiar facts, fully believed by those to whom he wrote.
• 3. Christianity demands credence on the ground of its miracles, and was so received by great numbers, at the time and on the spot; which is the case with no other religion.
  • 1.) Its first converts embraced it on this ground.
  • 2.) It is not conceivable that they would have done so, at such fearful sacrifice, unless fully satisfied of the truth of these miracles.
  • 3.) Such a profession and sacrifices furnish the same kind of evidence as if they had testified to the truth of the miracles in writing.
  • 4.) It is real evidence, for they had full opportunity to inform themselves.
  • 5.) It is a sort of evidence distinct from direct history, though of the same nature.
  • 6.) Men are suspicious as well as credulous, and slow to believe against their interests, as these did.
• 4. It lies upon unbelievers to show why all this array of proof is to be rejected; but in such an important concern we shall proceed to notice some possible objections.
  • Objec. 1. Enthusiasts make similar sacrifices for idle follies.
    • Ans. 1. This objection ignores the distinction between opinions and facts. Suffering for an opinion is no proof of its truth; but in attestation of observed facts, it is proof.
    • 2. Enthusiasm weakens testimony, it is true, even as to facts; and so does disease, in particular instances. But when great numbers, not weak, nor negligent, affirm that they saw and heard certain things, it is the fullest evidence.
    • 3. To reject testimony on the ground of enthusiasm, requires that the things testified be incredible; which has not been shown, as to religion, but the contrary.
    • 4. Religion is not the only thing in regard to which witnesses are liable to enthusiasm. In common matters, we get at the truth through witnesses, though influenced by party spirit, custom, humor, romance, &c. &c.
  • Objec. 2. Enthusiasm and knavery may have been combined in the apostles and first Christians.
    • Ans. Such a mixture is often seen, and is often reproved in Scripture; but not more in religious than in common affairs. Men in all matters deceive themselves and others, in every degree, yet human testimony is good ground of belief.
  • Objec. 3. Men have been deluded by false miracles.
    • Ans. Not oftener than by other pretences.
  • Objec. 4. Fabulous miracles have historical evidence.
    • Ans. 1. If this were equal to that for Scripture miracles, the evidence for the latter would not be impaired. The objection really amounts to this, that evidence proved not to be good, destroys evidence which is good and unconfuted! Or to this, that if two men, of equal reputation, testify, in cases not related to each other, and one is proved false, the other must not be believed!
    • 2. Nothing can rebut testimony, but proof that the witness is incompetent, or misled.
    • 3. Against all such objections must be set the fact that Christianity was too serious a matter to allow the first converts to be careless as to its evidence; and also that their religion forbid them to deceive others.

• 1. Obscurity as to part of a prophecy does not invalidate it, but is, as to us, as if that part were not written, or were lost. We may not see the whole prophecy fulfilled, and yet see enough fulfilled to perceive in it more than human foresight.
• 2. A long series of prophecies, all applicable to certain events, is proof that such events were intended. This answers the objection that particular prophecies were not intended to be applied as Christians apply them.
  Mythological and satirical writings greatly resemble prophecy. Now we apply a parable, or fable, or satire, merely from seeing it capable of such application.
  So if a long series of prophecies be applicable to the present state of the world, or to the coming of Christ, it is proof that they were so intended.
  Besides, the ancient Jews, before Christ, applied the prophecies to him, just as Christians do now.
• 3. If it could be shown that the prophets did not understand their own predictions, or that their prophecies are capable of being applied to other events than those to which Christians apply them, it would not abate the force of the argument from prophecy, even with regard to those instances. For,
  • 1.) To know the whole meaning of an author we must know the whole meaning of his book, but knowing the meaning of a book is not knowing the whole mind of the author.
  • 2.) If the book is a compilation, the authors may have meanings deeper than the compiler saw. If the prophets spoke by inspiration, they are not the authors, but the writers of prophecy, and may not have known all that the Divine Spirit intended. But the fulfilment of the prophecy shows a foresight more than human.

This whole argument is just and real; but it is not expected that those will be satisfied who will not submit to the perplexity and labor of understanding it; or who have not modesty and fairness enough to allow an argument its due weight; or who wilfully discard the whole investigation.