The Doubts Of Infidels Part 2

None but infidels, it is true, would utter impieties like the above; but, alas, 'the infidels of our days have become formidable to the true believers, by an attention to morality, and the mild and gentle offices of pity, and by warning their fellow-citizens to avoid and detest the cruelties of religious persecution: how egregiously they mistake! Your Lordships will rectify their notions, it is to be hoped, in these as well as in other respects.

They have an argument still more formidable against the truth of the foregoing accounts, concerning the death of Saul, which is, that they are so very different, that one of them must be false. To this we can only answer, as it becomes the faithful in all such cases of seeming contradiction; namely, that they were both written by the pen of inspiration, consequently must both be true, however contradictory or absurd they may seem to mere human reason.

21. David commanded that the children of Judah should be taught the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the Book of Jasher.* Many difficulties arise here about the Book of Jasher. It was extant previous to the writing the Book of Joshua,** the author of that book quoting it, and by the foregoing text it appears, it was not finished till after the accession of David to the throne of Israel. Now, if Joshua wrote the account of his own transactions, as is generally believed, the author of Jasher must have lived upwards of four hundred years; and if the Book of Joshua was not written till after the time of David, and by an unknown author, the infidels will affirm, that it comes under the description which is at the beginning of the second of these questions. And the misfortune is, we do not know how to confute them, but we hope your Lordships will easily remove this, among many Other very great difficulties, now your long dormant seal is at length awakened. Our enemies have reproached us with the examples of the primitive church; they observe, that the priests were poor and indefatigable, but are now pampered and lazy. Fat benefices and lordly bishoprics, they say, cause a total eclipse of the light of religion, by obtruding, their opake substances between the eye of the priest and the kingdom of Heaven. But, alas, how palpably they mistake!

* 2 Sara. i. 18.

** Josh. x. 13.

The ancient priests were ignorant of their business; they despised riches, because they knew no better, or, perhaps, because they could not get them. But how are the understandings of men enlightened! how great the wisdom of the modern times! how are the sciences improved! Has it not been for many centuries discovered, that pain and mortification are fit companions for the devil, and therefore totally improper for saints? Can a poor wretch, inured to penury and the scourge, be suddenly reconciled to happiness and Heaven? Instead of enjoying the manna of the promised land, would he not be prescribing himself a fast; and when it became him to sleep rec.u.mbent on his couch of blessedness, would he not envy the d.a.m.ned their whips and scorpions? So difficult it is to eradicate long confirmed habits. But wherefore dwell on so unprofitable a subject? The wisdom of our divines has taught them to avoid such absurdities, to detest such errors. They will not lose their relish for pleasure, for want of practice.

29. David, by the instigation of the Lord, numbered the people-of Israel and Judah;* but afterwards, being probably ignorant by whose instigation he had acted, he repented of the deed. This repentance did not excuse him in the sight of the Lord, who offered him to chuse either, "seven years" famine, three months defeat before his enemies, or three days pestilence.

David chose the latter, and seventy thousand men died. This memorable event has not escaped the inspired penman of the Book of Chronicles,**

who affirms, "that Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number them;" but G.o.d was displeased with this thing, and therefore smote Israel. David repenting, was offered from G.o.d his choice, either "three years famine, three months destruction before his enemies, or three days pestilence the latter of which he chose, and there died of Israel seventy thousand men.

Our too curious and inquisitive opposers, who are unwilling to believe "cunningly devised fables,"*** enquire how it could be a crime in David to number the people, especially as it was by the instigation of the Lord. They beg to be informed, whether the Lord, and Satan, be one and the same person; and if not, which of the two was the instigator of this unhappy, business, and likewise which of the two "infallible" and "inspired" writers tells the lie? Lastly, they cannot conceive how the seven years famine in the Book of Samuel is dwindled into three in the Chronicles. To all these questions we answer, that it was sufficient to make this action of David's criminal, that the Lord disliked it after it was done; and as to its being done by his instigation, we must observe, that it is no uncommon thing for the Lord to be angry with his servants for obeying his commands.

* 2 Sam. xxiv.

**1 Chron. xxi.

*** 2 Pet. i. 10.

23. The instance of Balaam is a case in point.* Hence we infer, that, in the commands of the Lord, there is always a clause implied or understood, which leaves it to the discretion of the faithful to act as they think proper. It is true, that this position leads immediately to the doctrines of the Jesuits, which have been so universally abhorred: but why need we regard the abhorrence of the world, while we are convinced that our tenets are scriptural? With regard to the affairs of Satan and the Lord, we leave it to your Lordships' management; but cannot help observing with derision, the futility of the objections respecting the three and seven years' famine. They have little skill in divine arithmetic, if this affords them any embarra.s.sment. They know nothing of the sublime logic by which divines prove three to be one, and one to be three. For example, if it were affirmed that Eldon is a Lord, Castlereagh is a Lord, and Sidmouth is a Lord, and yet they are not three Lords, but one Lord, this would be termed absolute and ridiculous nonsense, notwithstanding their close Ministerial union. But in holy matters it is quite otherwise,** as might easily be elucidated by instances too sacred to be commented upon by any unconsecrated individual.

* Qu. 16.

** See an excellent specimen of this in the Creed commonly ascribed to St. Athanasius.

94. Another instance of the imperfection of the art of arithmetic, as it is erroneously taught in our schools, appears in its affording no rule by which the two genealogies of Jesus Christ may be reconciled to each other. Matthew reckons twenty-seven generations from David to Christ.

Luke reckons forty-two; and the names totally disagree. Matthew traces the descent from Solomon, and Luke from Nathan, both sons of David.

According to our feeble notions, twenty-seven cannot be equal to forty-two, neither can Nathan, &c. be imagined to be Solomon, &c. The infidels suppose, that the two evangelists, rather than the church should be without the genealogy of its founder, chose to invent them; but we good Christians, who know that both writers were infallible and inspired, are ready to reject the clearest axioms of mere human science, and allow that, in sacred matters, the greater number may be equal to the less. These cavillers and infidels also demand how these genealogies of Joseph prove, that Jesus was the son of David, when it is avowed that Joseph was not his father? But they do not consider, that a married man is obliged to father all the children his wife may produce; and if this answer does not satisfy them, they must at all events confess, that Joseph was father-in-law to Jesus, by being married to his mother; consequently Jesus was son (in-law) to Joseph, Q. E. D. As there is no answering for the perverseness of men, there may perhaps be some, whom even this demonstration will not satisfy. To these we offer an argument discovered by the truly profound Mr. Pascal.* He justly observes, that when two witnesses disagree in the circ.u.mstances of a fact, we ought to believe them so much the more readily on that account, as it shews that they did not contrive the story in concert. This remark, it is to be hoped, will likewise put an end to the absurd custom which prevails in our courts of justice, of discrediting evidences, which, contradict each other, such contradictions being in reality a mark of truth, "_a ceux qui prennent bien les choses_."

* Les "faiblesses" les plus apparentes sont des "forces" a ceux qui prennent bien les choses, Par example les deux geneo logies de St. Matthieu, et de St. Luc, il est visible, que cela n'a pasete fait de concept. Voyes remarques sur les Pensees de Pastal Ed. Geneve, 1773.

25. It is mouch to be wished, that some of our spiritual directors, who have leisure time and large incomes, would be at the pains to rectify and adjust to the standard of holy writ, the many errors and omissions of profane historians.

When Christ was baptized by John, the heavens were, opened, and a voice was heard, declaring his divine origin. Such a prodigy must have awakened the attention of all Judea; yet we find the historians totally silent on the matter. It is strange, that the horrid ma.s.sacre of the children by the command of Herod should be totally unnoticed by Josephus, and even by the evangelists, Mark, Luke, and John.* Matthew alone mentions it; but his authority is fully sufficient to justify an interpolation (like many others) into the text of the other three evangelists, who are defective in that particular.

* If such an act of cruelty had been committed, it could not by any contrivance have been concealed, and Josephus, the inveterate enemy of Herod, and many of the most impartial historians of the Romans, living at that period, would have taken care to record such a public act of barbarity on the part of Herod.

Editor.

It is well known with what success the primitive Christians began the holy work of interpolating, suppressing, forging, and altering profane histories; but as we believe their piety always prevented their meddling with the sacred text, notwithstanding the arguments of infidels, who attempt to prove the contrary, these holy frauds have been found of infinite service in establishing the cause of Christianity. Why do we forbear to pursue their great and laudable example? The modesty or the mistaken candour of these antients* have allowed them to interpolate no more than one paragraph concerning Jesus into the text of Josephus.

Would it not shew our superior zeal, and be of infinite service to posterity, if some divine of the present age would incorporate the whole narrative of Matthew into the same text? But, alas, the sneers of our adversaries, the unbelievers, have prevailed too much, and good works, like these, are now no more!

26. About eighteen centuries ago, (according to the prophecy of Christ and his apostle Paul,** the sun was darkened, the moon ceased to give light, and the stars fell from heaven; the sign of the Son of Man was seen, the Lord himself descended from heaven with a shout, the trumpets of the archangels were heard, the dead in Christ arose, St. Paul and others of the elect, who were then living, were caught up in the clouds, went to meet the Lord in the air, and have been with him ever since. It is truly astonishing, that a phenomenon so awful as the destruction of the system of nature should have made no interruption in the state of nations and affairs at that time, that all the historians should omit to record so dreadful an event, nay, that they should survive it; and that the primitive fathers should forbear to mention a circ.u.mstance which was so well calculated to establish the Christian religion, and confute all the arguments of the Jews, heathens, and unbelievers. When your Lordships set about the great work of rectifying antient histories, you will doubtless be careful to insert an account of this tremendous occurrence; for Christians can have no doubt but that it really happened, since it was so directly foretold both in time and circ.u.mstances, by Christ and his apostle Paul.

* Josephus, de Antiq. Jud. lib. xviii. cap. 4.

** Matt. xvi. 27, 28.--Matt. xxiv. 29, 34.--Mark xiii. 24, 31.--Lukexxi. 25, 33.--1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.

27. The oracles of Delphos were obscure and capable of various interpretations, but the prophecies of sacred writ are all so clear and obvious, they shine so bright by their own native l.u.s.tre, that no one has ever pretended to doubt their divine origin, except those infidels who are unfortunately blinded by the too great suffusion of light, which the Scriptures so continually emit. If the gift of curing the blind be not entirely lost among the apostles of the present day, it must be Christian charity to describe the symptoms of their disorder, that your Lordships may attempt the cure. These unfortunate people observe, that G.o.d said to Adam concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil,*

"In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die;" he transgressed, and, nevertheless, lived at least eight hundred years afterwards. They observe, that the great evangelical prophet Isaiah,*

could foresee the downfall of Babylon by Cyrus, but could not tell the name of the Messiah, though his coming was an event of infinitely greater consequence; nay, they even charge him with a blunder, if we admit the opinion, that Christ was intended by the names, Mahershalal-hash-baz and Immanuel,** since he was never called by them.

But they impiously solve this, difficulty, by affirming, that Isaiah might take the advantage of writing his prophecy concerning Cyrus after the events took place, but could not avail himself of the same pious cunning in the affair of the Messiah. And, in fact, we, the true believers, are in great want of evidence to overthrow their supposition.

They demand, if the prophecies be so evident and clear, so different from those of the Heathens, how happened it that the whole Jewish nation, then living, together with the angel Gabriel, should mistake, and suppose the kingdom of the Messiah to be temporal; and that it should not be discovered that his kingdom was not of this world, until his enemies, the unbelievers, had prevailed and sent him out of it? They ask, whether those inspired writers who prophesied concerning things of no consequence, as the thirty pieces of silver, and the casting lots for his garments, could not, with equal certainty, have predicted the more important circ.u.mstances of his death and resurrection? In short, they beg to be shewn a single prophecy concerning which divines are agreed, and desire to know why, in the days of gospel light, the great prophecy of John the Divine should be more obscure and enigmatical than any which was written during the typical and shadowy dispensation of Moses? All which absurd questions your Lordships will, no doubt, answer, overthrow, and expose in the most palpable manner, to the great joy of us weak Christians.

* Isaiah xiv. and xlv.

** Iaiah

*** Luke i. 32.

28. How came it to pa.s.s, say our enemies, the cavillers and unbelievers, that Jesus, the Son of G.o.d, should curse a fig-tree* for being without fruit in March; was he, by whom the world was made,** ignorant that it was not the season for figs? They likewise demand, whether it was by design or mistake that he affirmed*** that wheat does not produce fruit unless it first die? If Scripture was not meant to instruct philosophers, yet why should it mislead them? But though these infidels may please to a.s.sert, that wheat in our days is governed by laws directly contrary to these, as all naturalists indeed acknowledge, yet who can affirm that it was so eighteen hundred years ago? On the contrary, since these things are recorded in the sacred writings, we ought to submit and believe that the system of Nature is changed from what it was in ancient times. This event probably came to pa.s.s when the sun was darkened, and the stars fell from Heaven, as mentioned in a former question.

* Matt. xxi. 18. Mark xi. 13, 20.

** John i. 3.

*** John xii. 24.

**** Quest. 26.

29. Your Lordships, no doubt, will readily explain and settle the mysterious disagreement between John the Baptist and Jesus Christ.* John being asked if he was Elias, answered, I am not; but Jesus** affirms, the contrary. As few even of the Christians have faith enough to believe that John was and was not Elias at the same time, a word or two of explanation would afford them infinite satisfaction. Commentators in divinity can do miracles in the way of explaining; but, unfortunately for us, all other miracles have long ceased, though at no time so much wanted as at present.

30. Out of forty Gospels we receive four as canonical; the rest are the fruitful produce of that spirit of forgery which the Christian world has always been celebrated for. Their piety was indefatigable in burning the books of the heretics and unbelievers, and the same piety was not sparing in furnishing apocryphal books. It is for the salvation of mankind that Christianity should prevail; and how can its propagation be advanced, and its dominion confirmed, more than by preventing the arguments against it from being exposed to view? Some may indeed pretend, that this mode of proceeding is tyrannical, and destructive of the rights of mankind; but we, the faithful, insist that it is zealous and politic. How can a man be said to be injured, even if we allow that he is cheated, since he is cheated into salvation, though perhaps against his will? Yet it will be doing a singular service to us weaker Christians, if your Lordships will point out by what particular emanation of the Holy Spirit the Church was enabled to select the divine out of such a number of apocryphal writings.

* John i. 21.

** Matt. xi. 14.

Our enemies, the infidels, say, that time has obliterated the primitive disputes on this subject, and that the sanction of custom has confirmed the authority of the four Gospels, which, so far from external and historical, have not even the internal evidence of truth. They observe, that the gospel of Mark, though evidently an abridgement of that of Matthew, yet differs from it in many very material particulars; that the grand circ.u.mstance of the conspiracy by which Christ lost his life, is told differently and discordantly by all the four. They express the highest astonishment that the sending of Jesus to Herod by Pilate should be related by Luke, and that the other three Evangelists should not only omit that occurrence, but relate the proceedings in this affair so as entirely to exclude the possibility of its insertion. They think it also impossible that an earthquake should rend rocks, and that many saints should arise from the dead, and go into the holy city, as Matthew relates; and yet that these great events should not only have escaped contemporary historians, but even the other three Evangelists. And to this they add, that it is particularly strange and amazing that John, who was present at the crucifixion,* should not only forbear to mention any one of the terrible appearances recorded in Matthew on that occasion, but that even the darkness of three hours' duration, which must have made the most lasting impression on every individual in Judea, should also be by him totally unnoticed.

* Such as we behold even in the present enlightened day by that great prophetess, Joanna Southcott, and her followers!

who are now deceiving the people of this kingdom with her prophecies. Edit.