BOSS SS SS SS \S \ Y \\ . . VS D> S SSS RAN NS \ ys N AW : — WIR Te a iz 2 z. ere “y - veins ti = ta a ppt etry ttt Za Le Ze \ CY ~ Se WS \ . \ AE QS W ~~ AN S . \ SS & SS NY g = NS \ & . SS \\\ ~\ \ \ AY . RQ WS > SS Lo og J Yi S + J \ SSS AK i SS \} x oA Le ty) Ze QO o}}Yg,]YgK\_KQQGQAA__E YG GK LACED \ af the Theologicns Sem; PRINCETON, N. J. Pei 20667) 187s Gordon, William R. 1811- 1897. | The science of revealed truth impregnable as shown Ss “. + ; me Dees _ Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2022 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library https://archive.org/details/scienceofrevealeOOgord 17% dh = Frere nrnegt tl neice alistabil th AA ii sa i IMI LA THE VEDDER LECTURES, 1877. THE SGlEey ee OF REVEALED TRUTH IMPREGNABLE AS SHOWN BY THE ARGUMENTATIVE FAILURES OF Infidelity and Theoretical Geology. A Course of Lectures DELIVERED TO THE STUDENTS OF THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AND OF RUTGERS COLLEGE, AT NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY, BS BY 5 W: R..GORDON; S.T.D. AUTHOR OF ‘‘THE SUPREME GODHEAD OF CHRIST,” “PARTICULAR PROVIDENCE PROVED BY THE HISTORY OF JOSEPH,” “A THREE- FOLD TEST OF MODERN SPIRITUALISM,” ‘‘ESSAYS ON THE COMING AND KINGDOM OF CHRIST,” ‘“‘THE CHURCH AND HER SACRAMENTS,” ETC., ETC. “Lie not against the Truth.”—JAMES 3: 14. NEw YORK: BOARD OF PUBLICATION OF THE REFORMED CHURCH IN AMERICA, 34 VESEY STREET. 1878, ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1878, By WILLIAM R. GORDON, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. PROPERTY gf PRINCETON acO, NOV 1850 ‘ EV YGY ron 3 . POCO s baae 5 SU rye = ae GON TEN FS: LECTURE I. PAGE TRUTH IN GENERAL, REVEALED TRUTH IN PARTICULAR. THE @ priori ARGUMENT, .. : : ; . 9 LECTURE HII. REVEALED TRUTH. THE 4 fosteriori ARGUMENT, + 2 69 LECTURE III. REVEALED TRUTH. THE @ fosteriort ARGUMENT, . oe 123 LECTURE IV. THEORETICAL GEOLOGY AND THE MosAIC COSMOGONY, . 177 LECTURE V. THEORETICAL GEOLOGY AND THE MosAIc COSMOGONY, 237 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. —___—_ 4 ¢ __— Tue “Church militant” is a phrase which, however distasteful, the Church is obliged toown as measurably descriptive, because of the antag- onism of the world. In her current history cir- cumstances often arise, through the tactics of her enemies, that require restatements and new ad- justments of the general argument by which the interests of revealed truth must ever be de- fended. From this contest she need expect no ex- emption until her Lord shall come to put an end to it. Meanwhile, however weary, she must not grow impatient in the necessary duty of “ con- tending for the faith once delivered to the saints.” The exigencies of the times, if we may judge from his ‘‘ Will,” seemed to the Founder of this lec- tureship to require such a presentation of the argument anew as should pay especial attention to the “present aspects of modern infidelity,” which, seemingly, are as newly chiselled faces to the old stones of a badly battered and dismantled fortress. Whatever the aspects, however, infidel- ity is always and everywhere the same old malig- nant in spirit and intent; but its weapons and its 6 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. onsets may be expected to vary with the fancies and self-accredited resources of new opponents. To meet this requirement is the aim of the present volume. Recently new champions, calling them- selves scientists, have taken the field, and propose to continue a raking fire upon the Bible, converg- ing from castles in the air, based upon the Nebu- lar Hypothesis, and from the earthworks erected upon the ground of Theoretical Geology, which they seem to think will do the business for the old book and all its adherents; especially since some of its avowed friends have taken in hand to reconcile it with these scientists’ position—admitted by said friends to be irrefutable—whom on that account they hail as efficient coadjutors in demol- ishing the citadel of Christianity. Though in their judgment nothing is needed in its place, yet they propose, as best befitting human faith, the old theory of Materialism, with old cognate errors, to which they have added some fantastic ones of their own; and thus, with other revivals, we are to have, mayhap, a revival of Paganism within the domain of the Gospel! By large pretensions to wisdom—we do not dispute their knowledge—as advanced scientists, entitled on that account to lead in the van of public opinion, and to the deference of the world as well, they seek to overawe the zgnorance of theologians and of all Christian people. Such are the facts just now. This determination ap- pears to be as serenely calm as the bosom of that ancestral sponge at the bottom of the deep from which they say they have been developed. In PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 7 the present attempt nothing new is sought, be- cause nothing new is needed; and nothing new will be expected, unless it be in arrangement, adaptation, and method required by the new ‘position and approved missiles of modern assail- ants. They, however, only superadd physics to metaphysics ; and, by the help of the living and the dead, hope to make the combination argumenta- tively successful. Moreover, they are greatly en- couraged in their hope of success by the writ- ings of certain Christian geologists, who having adopted their theory of the vast age of the earth, have attempted to force the cosmogony of Moses into harmony with it. Such efforts have not only failed, but have yielded all that infidelity cares to ask for the logical subversion of the Scriptures as the inspired Word of God given to man as his only rule of faith and practice. This advantage bestowed upon modern infidelity was by no means meant; on the contrary, it was intended to take away the infidel’s objection to the Bible, arising from his theoretical geology ; but it has had the contrary effect, and elicited his contempt instead of his admiration, while he rejoices in the conces- sions made. In the last two lectures the author has attempted, so far as he could, to undo the mischief unintentionally occasioned. The effort may cost, but he feels willing to bear, conscious of aiming to do a duty just now required by the exigencies of the times. The audience to whom the following lectures were delivered will see that, as published, they are greatly extended. The explanation is that 8 PRELIMINARY REMARKS, no one of them, as written for the occasion, was fully delivered, for reasons which need not here be given. This was the less regretted, by the author at least, because in the intention of the Founder they were to be prepared for the press as well as for the lecture-room ; and inasmuch as they were designed for others more exposed to the danger of imbibing moral poison than the well-instructed students, whose especial benefit was first consulted, simplicity of style, condensa- tion, and suggestiveness were the points aimed at by the writer. Because the fund invested for this lectureship unfortunately has been ridden on a rail until ex- hausted, that was not considered a valid reason for withholding from the Church work to which she had appointed him, since it is the way of Providence to make feeble means reach impor- tant ends. Though sensible of defects which may need the forbearance of his brethren, he has no apology to make. If the lectures are good, they need none; if bad, they deserve none; and so he commits them to the Lord and his Church, espe- cially that part of it in which he began his minis- try, and in which he has been permitted to serve continuously for a period as long as that which the Israelites spent in the wilderness. pePPOROPERTY OF Aeeg Y PRINCETON — bEC, NOV 1860 \ THEOLOGICAL, pp SEMINKS Lie GAR OG Io TRUTH IN GENERAL, REVEALED TRUTH IN PARTICULAR. THE A PRIORI ARGUMENT. Human knowledge defective—Life—Inadequate definitions—Some of our scientists materialists—‘‘ The breath of lives’ —The human soul an entity—Its necessities—What is Truth ?—Definition—Divisions— Revealed Truth a science—Reason defined—Difference between it and Reasoning—Its processes: @ priori, 2 posteriori— Dishonesty of argu- ment—Dr. Johnson—Wilberforce—Rousseau, and remarkable quota- tions from him—What is Infidelity ?—Our sacred volume—The @ grtori process upon a proposition, in ten particulars—The same upon another, in five particulars—To maintain the part of a consistent liar most difficult—Brief accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John— Remarkable characteristics of the Gospels—The Hero of their story— His wonderful character and career—Its invention impossible—The Christian religion original in plan, doctrine, and adaptation—The a priori argument of infidelity a conspicuous failure—Correctly con- ducted, this process rolls up an overwhelming argument in favor of Revealed Truth. TuE American Centennial Exposition of 1876, to which all the nations of the earth largely contributed in honor of our country, naturally enough dazed the mind of every beholder, awak- IO VEDDER LECTURES. ened his admiration, and prompted his pride on account of the marvellous capabilities of man. But the abiding impression, after all, is this. In- vestigation and effort, on all subjects inviting them, steadily prove that human knowledge, at most, is very defective, and human power, at best, very limited. The first is imported from the world without by means of the five senses, all liable to deception and derangement; the second is re- strained by inexorable laws, in obedience to which it must work out its own small achievements. Take, for example, the plainest things. What are the natures, how the combinations, and whence the energy of those few well-known ele- ments that compose the universe ?- What is the nature, why the qualities, and how the operation of light? What the nature of that supposable imponderable substance existing between the at- mospheres of planets, stars, and suns? By what imaginable process could they have been formed? What is the cause of action and counteraction be- tween those forces that keep whirling masses of matter of various sizes and densities in their al- lotted circuits with such wonderful exactitude? Nay, let us come down to our own little planet, with easier questions. Our philosophers show us the proximate causes of rain, dew, frost, hail, snow, and explain the occurrences of atmospheric changes, of thunder and storm. These are phe- nomena at our very feet, or suspended just above our heads; but when explanation ventures but a little way back in the line of causation, how very soon does it need itself to be explained? How REVEALED TRUTH. EL soon in the effort does it stammer and stop? As clear light becomes obscure when it enters the bosom of the ocean, growing fainter and fainter in its downward progress, until lost in the darkness of the deep, so in their explanations, from the first immediate visible to the first mediate invisible, and so on to the next more deeply hidden cause, at only one or two removes, they come to an abyss where the wit of man is plunged in total dark- ness. Yet, regardless of this, some sturdy sci- entists of our day imply in their wastefully worded utterances that, by right of discovery, as the successful explorers of nature, they may as- sume to regulate the faith of mankind at the ex- pense of what has long been accepted as revealed truth; and in many instances at the expense of rejecting God himself. This fact is not new in the world—only the method of it. Pror. HAECKEL, a materialist, says (“ History of Greation, vol: il; pa’.123)2) “We need: “not trouble ourselves at all about the attacks of theo- logians and other unscientific men, who really know nothing whatever of nature.” But, with great deference, we may be allowed to ask: What now constitutes the superiority of qualification that justifies this assumed position? Surely it must be an acquired ability to reach and unfold the mysteries of nature, which have hitherto bid defiance to all powers of human penetration. Let us see. Some things which are most familiar to us are confessedly at the farthest remove beyond our powers of penetration. Such, for example, is the principle of life. Who can tell us what it is? 12 VEDDER LECTURES. Our scientists, be sure ; upon whose opinions, in more important matters, they ask us, “ who really know nothing whatever of nature,” to rely. CUVIER, in his “Animal Kingdom,” tells us that “Life ts that condition of being in which the form ts more essential than the matter.’ No doubt; but this is stating simply the difference between the organic and the inorganic, of which we need no information. ALPHONSE DE CANDOLLFE, in his “History of the Sciences,” says: “Life is the transformation of physical or chemical motion into plastic or nervous mo- tion.” No doubt; but that is stating an effect, not the cause of it. HERBERT SPENCER, in his “ Principles of Psy- chology,” says: ‘ Life ts the continuous adjustment of internal relations to external relations.’ No doubt; but this is informing us of no information. And again, in his “ Biology,” he says: “Life ds the definite combination of heterogeneous changes, both simultaneous and successive, in correspondence with external co-existences and sequences.” But to say that life is a “ combination of changes’ is to utter an evident absurdity. Dr. PARIS, after others, says: “Life ts the to- tality of those functions that resist death.’ No doubt; but this is saying a solemn nothing in dignified formality of speech. Dr. BUCHNER, equally lucid, says: “Life zs a peculiar and most complicate form of mechanical ac- tion, in which the usual mechanical laws act under the most unusual and most varied conditions, and in which the final results are separated from the origt- REVEALED TRUTH. 13 nal causes by such a number of intermediate links that their connection ts not easily established.” No doubt, perhaps, if we can get at the meaning of this cum- brous verbiage, which seems to be a definition by a declaration of ignorance of the thing defined. PROF. CarL VocT helps us to understand the meaning of these learned utterances by saying, scientifically, in regard to the highest manifesta- tions of life, that “ thought stands in the same rela- tion to the brain as the bile to the liver or the urine to the kidneys.” Such is the profound babble of those who ac- cuse us of really knowing nothing whatever of na- ture. How happy they must feel in this self-com- placency! Ourmodern scientists, such as these, are the grossest materialists imaginable, and although ambitious of being esteemed men of profound erudition, are only, by their own showing, men of uncommon sense. They are ever talking about “vital force,” but we have the authority of PROF. VocT himself for affirming that this talk means nothing but the keeping up of appearances. He says: “The appeal to a vital force is merely a periphrasis for ignorance. It constitutes one of those back doors, of which there so many in sci- ence.” But unfortunately this “ back door’ is the very one most in use when these learned authors are pushed upon such questions as that of life, and of other recondite matters which they assume to solve in such marvellous definitions as they have given. Nor can they tell us any more about where life is than what it is. To help their wild 14 VEDDER LECTURES. imaginations* they learnedly appeal to the micro- scope, and talk about the discovery of protoplasm, which is “germinal matter,” “a corpuscule of mucus without component parts,” and is alike the basis of life in the Monera, which are “ primeval creatures of the simplest kind conceivable, pro- duced by spontaneous generation,” according to Pror. HAECKEL (“History of Creation,” vol. 11, p. 41), and in Man as well, thence developed, ac- cording to Darwin’s “ Theory of Descent.” But the Bible informs us that “the life is in the blood,” and the microscope yields us evidence as con- clusive, at least, as that claimed for its existence inabitof mucus. Upon such imbecility, clothed with the garments of learning, do these ingenious gentlemen venture to impose upon the common- sense of mankind. The truth is, life, like many other things, eludes all definition. We only know that it is an organ- izing principle, of which there are three forms, dif- fering in manifestation. These forms are vegeta- ble life, known by growth; animal life, known by locomotion; and spiritual life, known by rational- ity, consciousness, and moral feeling. We know of no other form except a combination of these in * Prof. Huxley says in his speech at Nashville, “I know it is thought very often that men of science are in the habit of draw- ing largely from their imaginations, but it is really not so.” We beg pardon for differing with him on this point, and in proof of our being right we point to Prof. Haeckel’s ‘‘ Spontaneous Gen- eration,” as we might in many instances to Darwin, Spencer, and Huxley himself in his absurdity about ‘‘Bathybius,” which he has now given up as too heavy a draught upon his own imagina- tion. ; REVEALED TRUTH. 15 human nature. Revealed truth teaches us, in op- position to the theories of materialists, that God “formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.” But the original is in the plural—“ THE BREATH OF LIVES.” It is certainly remarkable that this descriptive lan- guage should be made to indicate plurality in the vital principle imparted. God spirited man with the spirit of lives. Besure this may be said to be simply a form of speech, meant only to intensify expression, just as God speaks of himself in the plural, “\et us make man,” indicating nothing more than the szmgular of dignity; but it is not proven, and is not true, for the reason that it isa pure assumption. God never stood in need of expressing the dignity of his nature in this way. It was quite too early, when Moses wrote, for the substitution of one number of a pronoun for another in descriptive language; and ever after such an expedient was contrary to the usage of the Hebrew tongue. This language is not alle- gorically figurative, but historically literal. As the author wrote not likea rhetorician, nor like a philosopher, nor yet like a physiologist, he nevertheless stated a fact that our physiology ac- cepts and teaches, namely, that in man is found this very trinity of lives—the vegetable, distinguished by growth; the animal, by locomotion; the spi- ritual, by rationality and consciousness. Now the method of imparting this compound life, and the terms descriptive of it, are highly suggestive as to that thing we call Auman nature. Breath is 16 VEDDER LECTURES. a term used in the Scriptures sometimes to mean spirit ; and in-breathing is another to denote the act of imparting spirit. As it would be absurd to suppose that God breathed oxygen out of himself to vitalize the first human form, we are clearly compelled to interpret the words descriptive of this culminating creative act as necessarily mean- ing that something more than mere life went out from God’s creative power into this noblest form, capacitated to receive and retain the “ likeness” of himself, which for obvious reasons no fleshly form nor any other could. Now, since God is defined to be a spirit, this something more must have been a spirit also, possessed of certain simi- larities necessary to constitute an “image;” and for the additional reason that this something more was not imparted to any other of living creatures, many varieties of which breathed the breath of life defore Adam did, and as he did. Supposing it to have been the intent of Moses to teach the creation of a spiritual entity as the great distin- guishing fact of the superiority of human nature over the brutal, can we think of any form of words that could more forcibly and so concisely express it? Or supposing he only meant to say that man -“ became a living being,” can we see the necessity or the propriety of verbal surplusage in the state- ment of a fact already indicated by the animal creation, every one of which had “become a liv- ing being” before him? Man, be sure, is an anl- mal: but he issomething more. Hence the phrase “became a living soul”—to be distinctively descriptive, must mean a spiritual entity apart REVEALED TRUTH. _ 17 from mere life and its functions. He was made in the image of his glorious Author, spiritual, intelli- gent, capable of immortality ; and for the accom- modation of a being so nobly formed, his bodily structure was “ made upright,” and vitalized by “the breath of lives.” It is inaccordance with human experience that man’s necessities are great in proportion to this complexity of his nature, and the enlargement of the sphere of his possible attainment. By his ma- terial organization there is necessity that he must eat, drink, sleep, and put forth such activity as is prompted by the instincts of animal life, under the penalty of inevitable decay. His spiritual life, in like manner, demands an aliment and an activity required by its necessities, under the penalty of ill-being for the entire length of the soul’s duration. And as the Author of his existence has bountifully provided for its corporeal part, possessed in com- mon with the lower creation, we cannot avoid the conclusion that he has as bountifully arranged for the wants of its spiritual part, which the lower creation does not possess in common with him. By an arrangement upon the principle of adapta- tion, everywhere seen in creation as the evidence of contriving benevolence, the human spirit can only grow into the capabilities of mental and moral strength, and up to its attainable excellence of faculty and force; for where there is failure in this growth, ignorance becomes the source of mental degradation, and sin the mother of woe— both uniting to display the horrors of savagism, not only as seen in the dark corners of the earth, 18 VEDDER LECTURES. but as unfolded by the daily prints of our own boasted civilization. How preposterous, then, is the assumption of our materialistic scientists, that man, having all requisite resources within himself, no more needs a revelation from God than the beasts of forest and field! If it be our happiness to know what to select as proper food for the health and growth of the body, no less is it our unspeakable advantage to know what aliment is needed for the welfare of the soul. This is TRUTH. Truth, suited to the spiritual ap- petite of the soul, is the only thing adapted to its nature; the only thing that will secure its health and promote its growth in whatever constitutes its happiness. As the body of a man thrives by what it feeds upon, or sickens and dies by poisoned food, so the soul grows and thrives by the life- keeping power of truth, or pines and perishes by the poison of error. What the act of eating is to the body, the act of believing is to the soul; as the thing eaten, and not the act of eating, is that which supports the life of the body or kills it, so the thing believed, and not the act of believing, is the pro- curing cause of health or disease to the soul; and as the nutriment of the one is taken up by its ten thousand absorbents and carried to all parts for strength and repair, so the food of the other, taken up by the powers of thought, reason, and judgment, is worked over and over, and made one with itself by digestion and transfusion throughout its whole spiritual being. Nothing can be plainer than this. But what is TRUTH? Pilate’s question will bear REVEALED TRUTH. 19 repeating, yet we cannot afford to be as thought- less as he in propounding it. The word is well known to be Saxon, derived from froth or trust, and indicates that which is trustworthy, or the matter of trust, apart from the act of it. TRUTH, strictly speaking, means the reality of facts and things. Facts are incidents which come to pass ; things are objects in existence; though these terms are often loosely used as interchangeable. Their reality covers their substance, natures, re- lations, and adjustments in the constitution of the universe. But inasmuch as truth includes both the state and the statement of facts and things, our definition needs some enlargement ; and therefore we say that ¢ruth ws the agreement of thought and speech with the reality of facts and things. False- hood, on the other hand, is disagreement in these particulars, indicating the errors of mind and heart in those who deceive and are deceived. The con- dition of both will be good or bad, according to choice. As the cravings of bodily hunger will make the appetite seize, in extremity, upon nox- ious if unable to get nutritious food, so the craving soul, if it do not get truth, will devour error regard- less of results—the only difference being this un- happy one, that the respective instincts of body and soul are not equally reliable for right selec- tion. The reason is familiar to those upon whom our materialistic scientists bestow their impotent contempt, and accounts for the ill condition of the human race. This much, however, may be said: There is a natural congeniality between the mind and truth, and if the intellect be allowed fair play 20 VEDDER LECTURES. by the passions, what is once accepted ‘by good evidence for fact cannot afterwards be taken for fiction ; yet it is our unhappy experience that pas- sion has got the reins, and rides the reason with whip and spur. Truth, as an abstract subject of thought, is one and indivisible; but for the con- venience of study is presented in subdivisions, exemplified by the species of a genus, and accord- ingly we specify: I, PHYSICAL TRUTH, sometimes called odjective, embracing facts and things in nature recognized by the senses, such as are grouped in Geography, Chemistry, Physiology, and Medical Science. 2. METAPHYSICAL TRUTH, not cognizable by the senses, but embracing the facts and things of mind, is known by the terms of Psychology and Mental Philosophy. 3. MorAL TRUTH, embracing the facts and things of our moral in distinction from our mental nature, includes the sciences of Moral Philosophy, Political Economy, Law, and Govern- ment. 4. LOGICAL TRUTH relates to facts and thing's of faith and conduct made clear by the reasoning faculty for the guidance of both. Its method is the Art of Persuasion. 5. MATHEMATICAL TRUTH embraces the facts and things discoverable by numbers, measure- ments, and quantities, and refers to Arithmetic, Algebra, Trigonometry, and cognate sciences em- ploying its means of calculation. 6. HISTORICAL TRUTH, comprises the facts and things of the past too remote for our personal ob- REVEALED TRUTH. 21 servation, and includes Narrative, Biography, and Chronology. 7. REVEALED TRUTH embodies facts, things, relations, doctrines, and duties not discoverable by human reason or research, but brought within our knowledge by supernatural agency. All this is contained in the HOLY BIBLE. Revealed truth, relating to all the future of eter- nity no less than to the whole period of time, is, on that account, more important to the welfare of man than the whole encyclopzdia of knowledges as above indicated, because these respect the in- terests of man throughout time, while this respects his highest interest through eternity, to which there is no outlet. Upon each of these species of. truth every one may know more or lessas he likes ; but the more he knows, and the better he knows it, the greater will be his intellectual grasp and power of retention. These seven divisions, each having its own peculiar principles and doctrines, make up the general subject of Truth; and as the seven colors are combined in the effulgence of white light, so these are united in the great prin- ciple of mental and moral illumination, which irra- diates, expands, and qualifies the mind for its highest dignity in the flesh; and, out of the flesh, for approximation toward the glorious Source of all things, “in whom it lives and moves and has its being.” I mention these divisions of truth mainly for the sake of prominence to the remark- able fact that, while each of them has its own pe- culiar set of proofs to enforce the consent of the mind, none of them has met with opposition, ex- 22 VEDDER LECTURES. cept the one last named, whose claims are the most powerful upon the attention and confidence of allmen. The great wonder prominent among mental and moral phenomena is resistance to these claims by men whose scientific attainments should seemingly forbid; while multitudes of equally sound minds, but of less pretentions, yield it the homage of head and heart. The only conceivable explanation is that in the former cases mind and heart have not been put to the same school. Men of cultured intellect, but, as themselves have shown, of uncultured moral nature, have claimed the right of rebellion against it, on the score of possessing an all-sufficient reason, set up by them- selves as the court of last resort on all questions fairly coming within the province of revealed truth for decision. In the outset of remonstrance this much is freely granted them: Reason is the judge of what is reasonable. I donot-mean the particular rea- son of any one man or setof men, but the general, the universal reason of mankind, whose intuitions and perceptions are common to the race, and mainly uniform. These, unbiassed by individual agencies or otherwise, are always trustworthy ; and because of their omnipresence in every gen- eration, there is no such thing as a universal error. Upon them we can rely to almost any extent for ability to discriminate between the true and the false, the right and the wrong in the details of duty. Of what conceivable use is the faculty of reason above brutal instinct, if she cannot arrive at the certainty of substantial truth? If the latter REVEALED TRUTH. 23 insures good results to brutality, shall not the former insure superior results to humanity? To this end was reason made superior to instinct, and implanted in the soul of man, the glory of his being. Yet is reason lame and blind and dumb as to any power adequate to discovery or decision upon those great subjects that come within the scope of revealed truth. I hope this will be made clear in appearance, as it is incontrovertible in fact. The distinction between the modes of operation which reason takes for the discovery of truth must be clearly pointed out, since her processes vary according to the kinds of subject upon which she labors. My meaning is that reason, in the nature of things, cannot work out moral and mathemati- cal questions by the same method. We all know that. We all see there is as great a difference be- tween moral and mathematical qualities of truth as there is between the sciences of ethics and quan- tity. To meet this, reason has two hands to work with, and two ways of working, and is equally re- liable for good results by both operations. Not even a tyro need be told that algebraic expres- sions are not adapted to expound moral truth, nor moral reasoning competent to prove a theorem; yet the legitimate proof of a proposition within the sphere of moral truth is just as sure for a certainty -as the proof of any proposition within the sphere of mathematical truth. We need to nail this fact in the mind, if we would avoid many absurd mis- takes that others have made. REASON is the power of universal and necessary 24 VEDDER LECTURES. conviction, whose appeal is always to her own intuitions, looking into truths above sense, and that have their evidence in themselves. REASONING is the working of contemplation upon facts and pro- positions submitted as coming within the sphere of this power, from which there is no appeal. Between them we must distinguish, however, as accurately as between a laborer and his work. If the laborer attempt that which is above or beyond his natural force, his work will be an abor- tion. So with reason: she is powerful within her own limited sphere, but powerless beyond it. As I have said, she has two methods of procedure in the execution of her work. The first, techni- cally called the 4 priorz process, creates probabili- ties. The second, technically called the @ posterzort process, begets degrees of conviction.* When * For the sake of those not familiar with the formative terms of logic, definitions are here given. By the @ priori reason is meant the reason as it starts upon its work from perceptions and intui- tions ingrained within itself, and necessary to itself. It must perceive, ¢.g., that a whole is greater than its part. The distinc- tion between truth and falsehood is, by necessity, intuitively seen. No argument is necessary to establish these and similar first truths. Reasoning & priori means the process by which reason works out an argument from its own resources. It lays down, e.g., one of its own self-evident intuitions, and deduces conse- quences from it. Its argument is from cause to effect. It thus diverges from a starting-point within itself in lines of connected thought to reach a conclusion. By the @ posteriori reason is meant the reason as it starts upon its work from facts and things presenting themselves outside of itself. It begins with a view of them and the principles by which their nature and relations are determined, converging from facts and things its lines of thought to a final point or conclusion. Reasoning @ posteriori means the process by which reason works REVEALED TRUTH. 25 beth unite upon a verdict on any matter fairly coming within the province of her court, reason pronounces it with a certainty morally felt to be sure as her own existence. But this union is nec- essary to such a degree of confidence. It must not be forgotten that each method has its own peculiar advantages, and a union of them all is necessary to establish an absolute confidence in what is held to be truth. When one mind attempts to produce conviction in another, a world-wide experience proves that @ przorz reasoning depends for its success more upon the state of the mind addressed than upon the argument addressing it ; or if that mind rests upon this process alone for certainty to itself, it will most likely be deceived, because the power of its vision may be weakened or obscured by the influence of passion. It is otherwise with an 2 posteriori, argument, which does not so depend, but with its inductions increases light from without at every step. In the first in- stance the mind should believe, but may refuse, the power of intuition being subject to adverse in- fluence; in the second, the mind must believe, and cannot refuse, because induction is subject to no such drawback. In the first instance the progress is slow from probability to probability until an accumulation of them shall cover all incidental out an argument from the necessary connection of facts and events with their formative principles. It inducts consequences from premises outside of itself, and argues from effect to cause. “‘An individual may fall under suspicion of murder for two rea- sons: he may have coveted the deceased’s property, or he may be found with it in his possession ; the former is an @ priori, the latter an @ posterior? argument against him,” 26 VEDDER LECTURES. questions, leaving no room for doubt; yet, at the same time, there is some chance at every point of advance for the income of feelings unfavorable to fairness of judgment ; in the second, an argument starting with that which admits of no doubt, goes on with increase of power. When both processes are expended upon a subject, the result is compul- sion right up to a sure conclusion, satisfactory both to reason and conscience. Now, should any- thing claiming to come from God be found to offend the intuition of an unprejudiced reason, or | violate the decisions of an intelligent conscience, it ought at once to be rejected as inconsistent with our mental and moral nature, and set aside as an imposition. But while it is true that the unbiassed intuition of reason and the impressions of a clear- sighted conscience are perfectly reliable, and noth- ing in revealed truth can contradict them, there must be a union of processes as above indicated ; for the 4 priori, perfectly sure so far as it goes, by itself, can take us but a little way, because it is abstract reasoning, and on that account needs the auxiliary & postertorz, which is conjunct. I have purposely lingered around this point because I wish it to be clearly understood, that the dishonesty of INFIDELITY may stand out like the block letters upon a sign I once saw over a low door of a theatre, informing the public of “ The Way to the Pit.” Whenever its adherents have attempted to argue at all, avoiding that upon which Christians lay the greatest argumenta- tive weight, they have generally confined their efforts to the narrow limits of the 4 przorz process, REVEALED TRUTH. 27 like their great champions Voltaire and Hume, who, for reasons above given, while deceiving were deceived. They tell us it would be super- fluous trouble to wade through the mass of our proffered @ posterior? proof, and on this account: The Scriptures, say they, contain so many prodi- gies of witchcraft and wonders by invisible per- sonal agencies, good and bad; so many interpo- sitions among the affairs of men by angels and devils fighting for the mastery; so many vices adhering to the heroes of piety, while scrupulous- ly moral men, like the Pharisees, are mercilessly denounced for hypocrisy; so many unnatural stories, like those of Jonah and Balaam; so many absurd doctrines, like that of the resurrection, it is simply an act of wisdom, at the dictate of intui- tive reason, to close the Bible, since it carries with it the materials of its own refutation; and to reject the Christian religion, which was built upon the accredited facts and faithfulness of the Mosaic record, now torn to pieces by the remorse- less logic of geological science. To all this, and more of the same sort of flippancy, we are fre- quently treated by unbelievers of every kind, but it is irrelevant. We regard candor in a critic of the first and last qualification to entitle his objec- tions to respect. It is conceded on all hands that no man can urge objections against the doc- trines of others which lie with equal weight against his own; and for this reason the assertions of the deist respecting the absurdities of the Bible are not worthy of any other reply than this. Your doctrine is that nature fully demon- 28 VEDDER LECTURES. strates the benevolence of God, and natural re- ligion, revealed in the book of nature, supersedes the Bible and the religion founded upon it as well. But there are similar difficulties in the book of nature, lying across the path of the deist’s doc- trine. Destructive calamities constantly occurring by means of volcanoes, earthquakes, the wars of the elements, inundations, the inequalities of the earth’s surface and climate, the hard terms of subsistence imposed upon mankind, rendered still more afflictive by droughts and frequent famines, etc., prove, upon your own principles, that both the book and the religion of which you boast are equally worthless. His reply that these things, called natural evils, are, upon the whole, no evils at all, because nitre, sulphur, and carbon are thus driven all over the face of the earth, without which animal and vegetable life would perish, is an argument in favor of the cause he seeks to subvert ; for, by the same judgment, he ought to perceive that the extraordinary claims of the Bible and its religion could never be otherwise adequately proved than by those extraordinary means with which he finds fault. Marvellous claims require marvellous proof. Why, is it not reasonable, and a proof of divine wisdom, that the God of natural truth should make nature afford overwhelming evidence that he is also the God of supernatural truth, proving the Scriptures to be heavenly documents for the instruction of men as to their moral duties and ultimate des- tiny? Balaam’s ass, for example, speaking with an articulate voice for a given purpose, involves REVEALED TRUTH. 29 no greater absurdity than the assertion that the most awful engines of death and destruction should be regarded as appropriate means, in the hands of divine benevolence, for preserving life and augmenting human happiness the world over. Thus we dispose of a crowd of small objections that largely make up the whole stock of the in- fidel’s a priorc argument. Dr. Johnson on a certain occasion well observed that “no honest man could be a deist; for no man could be so after a fair examination of the proofs of Christianity.” On being reminded of Hume by his auditor, “ No, sir,” said he; “ Hume owned to a clergyman in the bishopric of Durham that he had never read the New Testament with at- tention.” This no doubt is the case with them all. “Tt is curious,” says Wilberforce (‘“ Practical View”), “to read the accounts which infidels give of themselves, the rather as they accord so exactly with the results of our own observation. We find that they once, perhaps, gave a sort of implicit hereditary assent to the truth of Christianity, and were what by a mischievous perversion of lan- guage the world denominates Jdelievers. How were they, then, awakened from their sleep of ig- norance? At what moment did the light of truth beam in upon them and dissipate the darkness in which they had been involved? The period of their infidelity is marked by no such determinate boundary. Reason and thought and inquiry had little or nothing to do with it. Having lived for many years careless and irreligious lives, and associated with companions equally careless and 30 VEDDER LECTURES. irreligious, not by force of study and reflection, but rather by the lapse of time, they at length attained to their infidel maturity. It is worthy of remark that when any are reclaimed from infi- delity, it is generally by a process much more rational than that which has here been described. They examine, they consider, and at length yield their assent to Christianity on what they deem sufficient grounds.” While this is true of many who have escaped out of the deadly snare, it is quite otherwise with the majority, whose moral nature is so debased, by their own showing, that even their reason, perversely swayed by likes and dislikes, has no chance to work fairly under the circumstances. In proof of this I shall produce the testimony of a great man among them, who was also an ex- ample of moral corruption prevailing and presid- ing over the @ grzort judgment of his own mind. JEAN JACQUES Rousseau still lives upon the roll of literary fame, whose name was of great bril- liancy in its zenith, whose character was of great infamy at the same time, and whose opportunities of judging were equal to his powers of delinea- tion. His well-known vigorous paragraphs, which I quote, should never be forgotten. He says: ‘‘T have consulted our philosophers, I have perused their books, I have examined their several opinions; I have found them all proud, positive, and dogmatizing in their skepticism, knowing everything, proving nothing, and ridiculing one an- other—and this is the only point in which they concur, and in which they are right. Daring, when they attack, they defend themselves with vigor. If you consider their arguments, they have none but for destruction ; if you count their number, each i 4 2 , Cee eC eS Dy eee ie eat, pein See ny jae kt tire tabi REVEALED TRUTH. ae one is reduced to himself; they never unite but to dispute ; to listen to them was not to relieve my doubts. I conceive that the insufficiency of the human understanding was the first cause of the prodigious diversity of sentiment, and that pride was the second. If our philosophers were able to discover truth, which of them would interest himself about it? Each of them knows that his system is no better established than the others, but he supports it because it is his own ; there is not one among them who, coming to distinguish truth from falsehood, would not prefer his own error to the truth that is discovered by another. Where is the philosopher who, for his own glory, would not will- ingly deceive the whole human race? Where is he who, in the secret of his heart, proposes any other object than his own dis- tinction, provided he can best raise himself above the common- alty ?—provided he can eclipse his competitors, he has reached the summit of his ambition. The great thing for him is to think differently from other people. Among believers he is an atheist ; among atheists, a believer.” “Shun, shun them,” he continues, ‘‘those who, under the pretence of explaining nature, sow in the hearts of men the most dispiriting doctrines, whose scepticism is far more affirmative and dogmatical than the most decided tone of their adversaries. Under the pretence of being themselves the only people enlight- ened, they impiously subject us to their magisterial decisions, and would fain palm upon us, for the true cause of things, the unintelligible systems they have erected in their own heads; whilst they overturn, destroy, and trample under foot all that man reveres: snatch from the afflicted the only comfort left them in their misery: from the rich and great the only curb that can restrain their passions: tear from the heart all remorse of vice, all hope of virtue, and still boast themselves the bene- factors of mankind. ‘ Truth,’ they say, ‘is never hurtful to man.’ I believe that, as well as they; and the same, in my opinion, is a proof that what they teach is not the truth.”—Gregory’s Letters. This is a picture dark and dismal, but true to the life at the time it was drawn. ROUSSEAU spoke from bitter experience. Fatally misled as he was, he turned “ State’s evidence,” and proved himself able and willing to expose the wickedness of 32 VEDDER LECTURES. others, not concealing his own. We have his own word for it, that he was a thief, liar, and profligate, upon an execrable principle he was not ashamed to avow. “I have only to consult myself concern- ing what I do. All that I fee/to be right, is right. Whatever I feel to be wrong, is wrong. All the morality of our actions lies in the judgment we ourselves form of them.’”’ He attained a high eminence in authorship. His works were pub- lished in no less than twenty volumes, the best edition of 1824, with the notes of a talented editor. Perhaps no writer of his school has ever gained an influence so incisive, resulting from the elo- quence, fervency, and fascination of style with which he defended his opinions. Preceded by Herbert, Hobbs, Woolston, and others of less note, cotemporary with Hume and Voltaire, all of whose works he had read, his opinion of them is competent and commanding, because he was en- listed in the same service and fought for the same object. His were the palmiest days of infidelity, and its defenders, whose mental acuteness no fair- minded man has ever disputed, whose moral sen- timents no right-minded man has ever approved, had gained an influence like himself, more or less extensive ; yet, in the bitterness of disappointment and disgust, he sets them forth in a strong light as the worst enemies of mankind. We are entitled to the testimony of one who was in sympathy with them, yet displeased by their arrogant im- becility which they sought to palm off upon the world as intellectual strength and unanswerable argument; and therefore, as a competent limner, REVEALED TRUTH. 33 he painted them in fiery paragraphs, with a pencil dipped in carmine. To delineate the conflict that often distracts the heads and hearts of such men as ROUSSEAU in their better moments, I shall let him speak for himself again, in another quotation, singularly beautiful in thought and expression. He says: ‘“‘T will confess to you that the majesty of the Scriptures strikes me with admiration, as the purity of the Gospel has its influence on my heart. Peruse the works of our philosophers, with all their pomp and diction ; how mean, how contemptible are they compared with the Scriptures! Is it possible that a book, at once so simple and sublime, should be merely the work of man? Is it possible that the sacred personage, whose history it contains, should be himself a mere man? Do we find that he assumed the tone of an enthusiast, or ambitious sectary ? What sweetness, what purity in his manners! What an affecting gracefulness in his delivery! What sublimityin his maxims! What profound wisdom in his discourse! What presence of mind in his replies ! How great the command over his passions! Where is the man, where the philosopher, who could so live, and so die, without weakness and without ostentation ? When Plato described his imaginary good man, with all the shame of guilt, yet meriting the highest rewards of virtue, he described the char- acter of Jesus Christ ; the resemblance was so striking, that all the Christian fathers perceived it. ‘“‘ What prepossessions, what blindness must it be to compare (Socrates) the son of Sopronicus to (Jesus) the son of Mary! What an infinite disproportion between them! Socrates, dying without pain or ignominy, easily supported his character to the last ; and if his death, however easy, had not crowned his life, it might have been doubted whether Socrates, with all his wis- dom, was any thing more than a vain sophist. He invented, it is said, the theory of morals; others, however, had before put them in practice; he had only to say, therefore, what they had done, and to reduce their examples to precepts. But where could Jesus learn, among his competitors, that pure and sublime morality, of which he only has given us both precept and exam- ple? Thedeath of Socrates, peacefully philosophizing with his 34 VEDDER LECTURES. friends, appears the most agreeable that could be wished for; that of Jesus, expiring in the midst of agonizing pains, abused, insulted, and accused by a whole nation, is the most horrible that could be feared. Socrates, in receiving the cup of poison, blessed the weeping executioner who administered it ; but Je- sus, in the midst of excruciating tortures, prayed for his merci- less tormentors. Yes! if the life and death of Socrates were those of a sage, the life and death of Jesus were those of a God. Shall we suppose the evangelistic history a mere fiction? In deed, my friend, it bears not the mark of fiction; on the con- trary, the history of Socrates, which nobody presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ. Such a supposi- tion, in fact, only shifts the difficulty, without obviating it ; it is more inconceivable that a number of persons should agree to write such a history, than that one should furnish the subject of it. The Jewish authors were incapable of the diction, and strangers to the morality contained in the Gospel, the marks of whose truths are so striking and inimitable, that the inventor would be a more astonishing character than the hero.” And yet, in proof of what I have said as to moral obliquity counteracting the reason of these infatuated men, the author of this contrast sub- joined to it the declaration: “I cannot believe the Gospel!” Alas, poor Rousseau, to what a sad degree of moral distraction did the dark spirit of infidelity lead thee! But what is Infidelity? It is dzsbelief of re- vealed truth, accompanied with mzsbelief as to some form of error. The two necessarily go to- gether, and there is no choice in the matter; for every man must believe something. If he will not feed upon truth, he must devour error and be- come the victim of his own delusion. Now the absurdity of infidelity, as thus popularly under- stood, glaringly appears in the fact that it is a — _™ 4 ‘ pee, pee ee 2 er ef. hor ae « * Lo” lL eee ee ee { —_ i REVEALED TRUTH. 35 moral insurrection of the heart against the reason, in which strong dislike blinds and perverts it, as in the case of RoussEAU. Men, under its sway, treat revealed truth as they treat no other form of truth—using arguments against it of which they would be utterly ashamed in other connections. The proposition, for example, that the world moves round the sun, is sustained by adequate evidence, and is accepted as an astronomical truth, notwithstanding appearances to the con- trary. The proposition that Cesar overran Gaul and made it part of the Roman empire, is a historical truth laid down in his Commentaries, and nobody calls it in question. The proposition that the square of the hypo- thenuse of a right-angled triangle is equal to the squares of the other two sides, is clearly proven, and no geometrician disputes it. The proposition that two and two make four, is an intuitive truth, and held to be a mathemati- cal necessity ; everybody believes it, though one of our modern scientists, Mr. HUXLEY, holds that in some other sphere they may make five / * In regard to these and similar things, reason has a fair chance to operate; and because the heart does not oppose, infidelity in regard to * «Every candid thinker will admit that there may be a world in which two and two do not make four, and in which two straight lines do not inclose a space.”—Zvidences of Evolution. He might as well have said that every thinker is uncandid, unless he admit that a triangle may be a circle, and a circle a square, in different sections of the universe; or that a lie, in the abstract, may be an absolute truth in either Venus or Jupiter. 36 VEDDER LECTURES. them is not known. But if these truths were as- sociated with man’s moral nature, as it now is, so as to require him to accept the Scriptures and become obedient to the Christian faith, infidelity would not only contend that two and two might make five, but would find some pretext for doubt- ing, if not denying, scientific truth altogether. This disbelief and misbelief go together in all who reject the Scriptures as inspired of God. Athe- ism, therefore, does not define infidelity ; for while it is true that every atheist is an infidel, it is not true that every infidel is an atheist. The rejec- tion of proof, indubitably true to an unbiased mind, sustaining the Scriptures in all their claims, is the crime of infidelity against both God and man; and, with Rousseau, I charge all infidels, himself included, with ill-design against both, no less than with inconsistency in rejecting revealed truth without an attempt to show that the pecu- liar proofs of it are inadequate, and inferior to the proof within the sphere of scientific truth which they accept without cavil. Our sacred volume asserts for itself the author- ity of the ever-living God, but does not ask to be accredited upon mere assertion. For this extra- ordinary claim it submits appropriate and extra- ordinary proof, as the case demands; proof in rich abundance, lying inside, outside, and all around itself; proof that has stood the test of sifting ten thousand times, and as often declared impregnable; proof that is always the same, but cumulative with the lapse of years; and proof that has endured the teeth of infidelity for ages = _ — . ie “ ee, val i ER a TN ee ee ee NN A ae ie B & REVEALED TRUTH. 37 without loss. By this evidence, like a munition of rocks around our volume, we hold it to be the casket of revealed truth, containing a_ perfect system of fact and doctrine, of means and ends, perfectly working for the realization of all it was intended to accomplish in the world; and there- fore revealed truth is a SCIENCE, the noblest known among men. Infidelity, however, denies all this, coolly advancing the same objections that have been answered over and over again, just as though they were fresh from its own logical mint. Against it Christianity has notoriously kept and gained ground for nearly two thousand years, and now the burden of proof is more heavily upon the shoulders of gainsayers than ever before; but instead of sustaining it with un- failing strength, they have to beg for a resting- place upon the new-made ground of theoretical geology. Infidelity claims that reason, illumined by the light of science, obviates the necessity of revelation, for which there is no requirement within the domain of human want. Just here am I best pleased to meet it. For this position, the only support depended upon is, as has been shown, the 2 priort process ; but unfortunately the argu- ment thence derived must fail its adherents, be- cause at variance with the @ przorz process itself, which subjects all propositions to the common intuitions of universal reason. Take, First, the proposition that there is one personal God, who has benevolently given to man for his guidance a system of revealed truth, which 1s the basis of the Christian religion ; what should the @ grzorz reason 38 VEDDER LECTURES. do with it? Clearly, without opening the Bible, it should argue upon the probabilities or improb- abilities of that proposition in some such way as the following. 1. If there be no God, there can be no Creator ; if no Creator, there can be no creature ; if no crea- ture, nothing was ever created; if nothing was ever created, every thing exists without a first cause. If there is no first cause, there can be no second cause; that is, no effect; if no effect, there could have been no change; and if no change, every thing now existing must have existed as 77 is, from the eternity of the past, and must con- tinue so to exist to the eternity of the future. But this is absurd; for, by the testimony of our senses and of all history, changes are constant, natural, unavoidable, necessary, in every thing and everywhere; therefore, undeniably, there is a chain of effects, each link of which is the proxi- mate cause of the one coming after. This chain is necessarily suspended upon a great first link, having the nature of a first cause; and whatever that is, must be God; because possessed of a mind shown to be intelligent, by adapting means to ends regularly reached by the operations of nature. Denying this, one must also deny the possibility of any effect ; and if there be no effect, nothing really exists but apparitions. Our very bodies and souls, in spite of consciousness, are only imaginary ; nay, not even that ; because there can be no imagination to fabricate an imaginary existence. But our existence is real, and the proof of it is, at the same time, the proof of a Crea- OS ae as tek tte = 5 ean 5 — v od, 3 Pe oh ales SI ESS, Seat iaes ton, REVEALED TRUTH. 39 tor, who isGod. Thus 4 priorz reason, beginning its work upon the aforesaid proposition, reaches the conclusion that it is infinitely more absurd to disbelieve the existence of God, than to believe it. Therefore nature teaches that there is a God, but the Bible teaches the same thing; so far, then, the Bible is true, because it accords with nature and reason. The Christian religion is founded on the truth of the Bible; so far, then, that is true also. 2. The @ proort reason says: What all men, in every age and everywhere generally, simultane- ously and unconventionally believe to be true, is true ; because such is ascertained to have been -and to be the inward conviction and outspoken voice of universal conscience. By the testimony of history, all men, of every sort, in all ages of the world, whatever peculiarities of customs or be- liefs, with a few exceptions here and there not worth counting, have believed in one Supreme Eternal God; therefore, there is one such God, since there is no such thing as a universal specu- lative error. But this is the doctrine of the Bible; therefore, so far the Bible must be true. The Christian religion, founded on the Bible, noto- riously teaches the same doctrine; so far, then, that is true also. 3. Non-existence cannot originate existence ; because nothing cannot produce something. But the heavens and the earth are produced ; there- fore they are the effect of an adequate cause. Whatever produces must be greater than the thing produced, and since the producer must be the Maker of heaven and earth, he must be that 40 VEDDER LECTURES. Supreme Power we call God. But the Bible teaches that God is omnipotent, and that he made heaven and earth. The Bible, then, is so far true ; but the Christian religion teaches the same thing; | therefore, so far, that is true also. 4. Nature is clearly a system of adaptations of means to ends, in a complicate contrivance for securing operations and results, such as we wit- ness every day. Light, for example, adapted to the eye, and the eye to light. But a contrivance necessitates the existence of a contriver ; which, in turn, necessitates intelligence; but there can be no intelligence without intellect, no intellect without © thought, no thought without a thinker, and no thinker without a person. Nature, therefore, teaches that the Omnipotent God is a person. But the Scriptures teach the same truth ; therefore the Bible is, so fav, true; and since the Christian religion is founded on the Bible, so far, then, that is true also. 3. If there be one Omnipotent Personal God, his nature must be independent, spiritual, uncom- pounded, and eternal; for every material thing is corruptible, and every compound thing imperfect. The contriver and his contrivance must forever be separate in nature and relation. Pantheism must, therefore, be an absurdity ; for, alleging that God is every thing, and every thing is God, con- founding the Maker with the thing made, combin- ing the material with the immaterial, making the mutable to be immutable, and the finite to be infi- nite as well, it does the greatest possible violence to reason and common-sense. The Bible teaches REVEALED TRUTH. 4I the spirituality and simplicity of God; therefore, so far, the Bible is true; but the Christian relig- ion teaches the same doctrine; therefore, so far, that is true also. 6. The works of God prove that he is good. He cannot be a malevolent being ; for a bad cause cannot produce a good effect. The Bible pro- claims the benevolence and the goodness of God; so far, then, is the Bible true; and so far is the Christian religion, which teaches the same doc- trines, true also. 7. It is impossible for an intelligent being, who once had no beginning, to have given being to him- self; but there are millions of intelligent beings in the world who have recently come into existence: and the same has been true of every generation of their predecessors; therefore their Creator - must have been not only intelligent, but without beginning ; because nothing can go before the first thing, and the first cannot originate itself; since that would make cause and effect to be the same thing, which is absurd. In agreement with this intuitive perception, the Bible teaches that God had no beginning ; so fav, then, the Bible is true; but the Christian religion is founded on the Bible; so far, then, is that true, also. 8. Reason sees that if God be a supremely good cause, he can never originate a bad effect. He cannot then be the author of sin. Man being a sinner, and God being sinless, it is evident that at some time and somewhere man must have lost his integrity, and so become at variance with his Maker. But this is the very doctrine taught in the 42 VEDDER LECTURES. Bible; so far, then, is the Bible true; but the Christian religion is founded upon the Bible; so far, then, is that true also. 9. God being supremely good, it may be held as most probable that he would find out some way for man’s restoration to happiness, without damage to any principle of law or government, if that were possible; but what reason sees might be possible and probable, the Bible shows to be certain. Thus both are in agreement, but the Christian religion is founded on the Bible ; there- fore it is also in agreement with reason on this point, and, so far, is true. 10. If it be supposable that God would find out a method of restoration, it is also supposable that he would make it known to those most interested in knowing it; but thisinvolvesthe possibility and probability of a revelation. Now what reason pronounces possible and probable, the Bible pro- nounces absolutely certain ; and reason cannot ob- ject in the face of sufficient proof. As it is clearly evident, by a world-wide experience and in the nature of the case, that man could never have found out the facts and doctrines specified in the Bible, it follows that the Bible must have been inspired ; since no other theory can account for it. This fact it claims as indubitably real, and since reason perceives that this fact alone will explain the nature of its contents, the Bible is so far true; but the Christian religion is founded on the Bible ; therefore the Christian religion is, so far, true also. Thus, in ten particulars, would the @ przorz reason naturally deal with the proposition above ‘REVEALED TRUTH. 43 laid down, without opening the Bible; and by a fair deduction from first principles come to the conclusion that, by the balance.of argument in their favor, the Bible and the religion founded upon it are probably true, at least to this extent : that unbelief involves a greater absurdity in fact, than the belief of them can involve by imputation, or by any amount of objections that have hitherto been rolled up by their enemies. How is it that they have not noticed these points at all, which seem self-suggestive to a fair mind, constructing an adverse argument by the @ priort process? The omission proves, beyond question, that infi- delity is a conspicuous failure. Take, Second, another proposition, that the Gospel of Fesus Christ, which ts the kernel of revealed truth, beginning with the first promise after the fall of man, and fully expounded in the New Testament, ts the hope of the world. How would the @ priorz reason naturally deal with it? Beyond doubt, a fair judgment would demand that the New Testament, at least, should be read. The general impression as to its agreement with the fitness of things, its adaptedness to the wants of man, its tendency to promote the interests of his spiritual being, must arise from a candid investigation. Upon these and kindred points, the @ grzorz reason would first seize as the foundation of an intelligent and just verdict ; and the following, or something analogous, would necessarily be the process of thought: 1. Does the Gospel represent God as an igno- rant, variable, arbitrary, and unjust Being? If 44 VEDDER LECTURES: so, the @ prior? reason must at once reject it as untrue, no matter what kind or amount of evi- dence may be offered in its favor. But the con- trary is the precise fact. The descriptions of di- vine wisdom compassion and power, working for , human welfare, perfectly accord with the intui- tions of reason as to what, by natural apprehen- sion, God should be both in his essence and attri- butes, and in his administration of government. The mind is satisfied with his revealed arrange- ments purposes and providences for the good of the universe. Nobody can find fault here. 2. Does the Gospel represent God with that grossness of nature with which Jupiter and other heathen divinities were clothed by their mytholo- gies? If so, it must at once be rejected as an imposition; but the reverse is the exact truth. “God is a spirit,” “ God is light,” “God is love.” The sublimity and beauty of these scriptural defi- nitions elicit the admiration and applause of all good men. Nobody can find fault here. 3. Does the Gospel prescribe a form of worship irreconcilable with reason or piety, or degrading to mind and heart? If so,it must be rejected as an abomination; but just the contrary is the precise fact. To be worshipped at all, God must be wor- shipped aright ; to be worshipped aright, he must be worshipped “in spirit and in truth;” and to this reason responds with hearty approbation. Nobody can find fault here. 4. Does the Gospel fail to denounce iniquity ; does it countenance injustice; does it tolerate impurity; does it confuse the mind on princi- REVEALED TRUTH. 45 ples of right and wrong? If so, it must be re- jected as at variance with the best interests of man’; ‘but the’ reverse is the precisé fact: It condemns all iniquity, reprobates all dishonesty, applauds all virtue, and clearly discriminates between things that dignify and degrade human character. Truth as opposed to falsehood, jus- tice as opposed to injustice, integrity as oppos- ed to treachery, patience as opposed to passion, virtue as opposed to licentiousness, temperance as opposed to excess, sobriety as opposed to drunkenness, charity as opposed to selfishness, propriety as opposed to looseness, piety as oppos- ed to irreligion, notoriously are set forth in the Gospel as the bright ornaments of a life accepta- ble to God; while the entire duty of man is summarized in a rule of universal application, and of marvellous comprehension: “ As ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.’’ Did these principles prevail all over the world, even the infidel will acknowledge that earth would bloom perpetually with the growths of heaven. Nobody can find fault here. 5. Does the Gospel fail to enlighten men about the future, respecting which universal conscience is most anxious? Does it say that the present world limits human existence, or to live well is to make the most of sensuous enjoyment, since death is the last of us, and the grave the eternal home of the dead? Does it speak in Delphic oracles to the inquiring soul of man on this most important subject? If so, it would have little claim to his regard, and few would be found willing to choose 46 VEDDER LECTURES. a faith so dismal. But the contrary is the pre- cise fact in every particular. It declares this life to be preliminary to another, the nature of which shall be settled forever by a judgment to come, whereby the wrongs of this life shall be righted, and the great Arbiter of human destiny shall dis- tribute it according to character. Nobody can find fault here. Now it is clear that the a przorz reason must pronounce these representations in keeping with the natural hopes and fears of the human mind ; they are in agreement with its perception of the fitness of things; they are suited to its apprehen- sions of a just moral government ; they are com- patible with the eternal principles of moral recti- tude; but they are peculiar to the Gospel—not being found in connection with any other system that ever bespoke for itself the confidence of men. How is it, I ask, that the champions of infidelity have paid no attention to these things in their a priort argument against revealed truth? De- monstrably they are the prominent points which should catch attention as quickly as the head- lands of a continent arrest the eye of the mariner far out at sea; but not a sentence is devoted to explanation. On this point profound silence reigns. The omission is a fatal one, and there- fore I say, again, the various efforts of infidelity have resulted in conspicuous failures during the whole progress of this time-worn debate. ; But there are other matters demanding atten- tion of still greater importance before the ene- mies of revealed truth are competent to con- REVEALED TRUTH. 47 struct an argument of this kind. They relate to incontrovertible facts connected with the compo- sition of the Gospels. It isa well-known fact that to play the part of a consistent liar is the most difficult task the shrewdest man can undertake. Should such a one present the world with an elaborate fiction purporting to be a truthful his- tory, exact in statement, of the most exciting na- ture, adapted to arouse universal interest, and challenging investigation, he would have to deal in generals, cautiously avoiding particulars and every apparent discrepancy. Should.he descend to the ordinary minuteness of time, place, and cir- cumstance, inevitably he would be caught trip- ping somewhere, and would be sure of exposure by some one less shrewd perhaps than himself. Aware of the danger, he would most likely betray here and there some little anxiety to evade it; but the very caution, by its excess, would insure exposure. How much more readily would the a priort reason entrap the unskilled in this kind of work? It would be as great an impossibility for ignorance to baffle intelligence in its examination of such a performance, as for a blind man to pur- sue the calling of a civil engineer. Such is our conviction, and with this advantage we come to the perusal of the “Gospels,” and “the Acts,” written by four such men, ignorant, and of low calling in life, with one exception, and at different times and places, without concert of action, and many years after the events related had taken place. Thus we are in the best possible position for a speedy detection of fraud; and if it exist, it 48 VEDDER LECTURES. can be infallibly made to appear as prominent as a mountain upon a plain. We now open these books, and find in them the most astounding facts and events that ever hap- pened, crowded together within a space short and comprehensive, and out of all proportion to their magnitude, judging by the ordinary rules and methods of composition. These books are not formal histories, but are put together, for the most part, as memorabilia, or annals, and for the most part unchronological in their details, relating the same facts, briefly, plainly, diversely but harmo- niously, in a fourfold biography of their Master, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Because their history, unlike any other, brings “ glad tid- ings of great joy, which shall be for all people,” as it is declared, each performance is called ‘‘ THE GOSPEL” according to each of the respective au- thors, of whom we have the following accounts: MATTHEW was a Jew, the son of a certain Al- pheus, residing at Capernaum, in Galilee ; and was well-known to its inhabitants; for he held the office of collector of taxes under the government, and was at his post in the discharge of his duty when called by Christ. He immediately left his place and business, and followed him. This fact of his life must have been well-known to the tax- payers. He became an apostle. MARK was also a Jew,the son of a certain Mary, residing at Jerusalem, and a woman of some little means. He might have been the young man referred to in his own gospel, Chap. 14, vs. 51, 52; and for that reason not named. He became the REVEALED TRUTH. 49 companion of St. Paul, and afterwards of St. ereter. LUKE was a Gentile, born at Antioch, educated a physician, became a proselyte to the Jewish re- ligion, and then, after embracing Christianity, be- came a companion of St. Paul. JOHN was a Jew, the son of Zebedee and Sa- lome, residing at Capernaum, who with his father pursued the business of a fisherman upon the Lake of Galilee. He became an apostle. Thus we have a better account of these persons than of any of the authors of the classics, whose works we accept without question. The matters of the Gospel were minutely known by thousands of witnesses, to whom LUKE thus refers in his pre- face: ‘“ Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, evenas they delivered them unto us,which from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect under- standing of all things from the very first, to write un- to thee, in order, most excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certazty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed.” Besides, their works have been quoted bya long succession of Christian and non-Christian authors, from their own time until the present, far more frequently than the accredited histories of Xenophon or Livy, or any other ancient historian.. Thus much for authorship. Now, after diligent inspection and collation, what do we find ? 1. From beginning to end of each book, we find 50 VEDDER LECTURES. them absolutely teeming with particulars out of all proportion, as men generally write, to the space occupied in relating them; particulars of fact reference and description, pertaining to cir- cumstances, times, places, names, localities, public affairs and private concerns, all within the period of well-known history, and involving a goodly number of facilities for testing the truth of their narratives so ready at hand, that any one of ordi- nary capacity can now turn critic at once, and be competenttothetask. Beyond doubt, at first blush, seeming discrepancies, in a few instances, will stag- ger him; but with these facilities he will see that discrepancies upon the surface can be reconciled by harmonies beneath it, which a little patience will surely bring up among them; and that it could not well be otherwise in such pregnant brevity. Moreover, they are few in comparison with a multitude of facts boldly uttered and con- fidently referred to the common knowledge of all men then living within the localities spoken of. An illustration is at hand. Four artists, stationed at the east, west, north, and south of a few neigh- boring houses, take the entire group, with sur- roundings, at different hours of the day. In their pictures there would necessarily be diversity of light and shade, as well as transposition of objects, so marked that great differences would at once be seen. On the face of them there is little or no harmony, but when the artists explain that cir- cumstantial variation is perfectly compatible with substantial agreement, all difficulty in identification of the same subject in the four pictures instantly REVEALED TRUTH. 51 vanishes. So of the Gospels. On their face there is not absolute harmony. It wasnot designed ; but when one comes to understand that each of these authors wrote from a different stand-point, ex- plaining his position with regard to the common subject, all is plain. Substantial agreement and circumstantial variation unite in proving the har- mony of these four narratives, no less than the beauty in each peculiar to itself. So that these very discrepancies vanish into circumstantial proof of the integrity of the authors. Now, 4 griorz reason says, this is just as it should be in any fourfold history, such as that here under her eye, as proven by the collation of any four histories of Greece or Rome. No human contrivance, thus put forth, could possibly prevail in making fiction and forgery to be universally accepted as fact and truth for any length of time, much less for the period of nearly two thousand years of conflict, during which the Gospel has out- lived allopposing forces. Thus far, then, the laws of evidence, and that by which 4 grzorz reason is gov- erned, seem to stamp the whole with the unmis- takable seal of truth. No man can deny it. No one, actuated by honesty and candor, can question that here is at least a degree of probability so high in favor of the absolute truth of the Gospel, that it demands to be explained away by all who oppose themselves. How is it, then, that our in- fidel authors who have attempted to write down the Gospel, or those who offer their sneers in lieu of better stuff, are profoundly silent on this point so vital to the legitimate construction of an &@ priore 2 VEDDER LECTURES. argument? In all other historical investigations, such particulars as I have mentioned are regard- ed as sure stepping-stones to the discovery of truth. Howcomes it, then, that the Gospel docu- ments are refused the benefits that learned infi- delity fully accords to all others of far less impor- tance by common consent? There can be but one answer. 2. The next and most important matter that arrests attention is the central theme of the Gos- pel—_the Hero of the story, JEsuSs CHRIST OF NAZARETH. In all the world, has any character like his ever before or since attracted the eyes of | men? Is it, in any of its aspects, like the best characters of Grecian or Roman story? Is it, in any thing, similar to those which descriptive talent has given to the heroes of tragedy or romance? Isit at all in keeping with any the world has been accustomed to look upon and applaud? Does it even accord in any one particular with the world’s best specimens of goodness and virtue? Some have ventured to single out Socrates from among the old heathen worthies. Let Rousseau’s an- swer, On a previous page, be recalled. Every man must say, No. Here we find a portrait the very reverse of human likeness, except in outward form ; a character too noble, too sublime for any mortal mind of that or any other age to zuvent. Its excellence is so absolutely perfect, that to mend it is-to mar it. Clearly it belongs not only to a real being, but to an original being, the like of whom never existed among men. This circumstance alone makes the gospel history of unrivalled in- REVEALED TRUTH. 53 terest, and naturally subjects it to the severest possible test. It challenges the wit of man to in- vestigation. We fail to receive the full impression it ought to make upon us, because we have been familiar with it from childhood; but, divesting ourselves as far as we can of prepossessions, when we take a fair comprehensive view of the history of Jesus Christ, we must see that it stands more completely apart from all other biographies, than the sun in its vertical brightness from the hosts of stars hidden by his rays. We can imagine other suns like ours around which planets lay their courses, but we cannot think of another Jesus, nor of another history like his. We read, in the beginning of our sacred volume and in con- nection with the great calamity of the fall, the promise of God, that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent’s head. Four thousand years elapse, filled with the melancholy results of sin. Then Jesus of Nazareth appears. He comes into the world as no other ever did. Though dorn, he is made of a woman; though free from sin, he is “made under the law” which holds all men with- out exception under a common condemnation. The wonders attending his birth find no parallel in human history. Nor is it much less wonderful that a being, whose birth was attended with such august manifestations, amidst the humblest cir- cumstances, instead of growing up to early dis- tinction, power, and renown, should absolutely sink out of sight for the first thirty years of his life. Nothing like this, in fact or fiction, is to be found in the annals of the world. At the end of 54 VEDDER LECTURES. that time, he suddenly comes out of obscurity, and from a district of country proverbial for ignorance and barbarity. He had never learned. Watch now his steps, and scan his conduct from day today. He pays no regard to riches, honors, or fame, but is ever found among the lowly; yet he opens up a public life of but three years’ contin- uance, or a little more, which for astounding re- sults has never been approached by the greatest of men of the longest life and most numerous ad- vantages. Wonders of godlike achievement, wisdom of godlike quality, attend him; an unos- tentatious benefactor to all, without fee or reward ; a stranger to ambition, and by choice a companion of the poor. Nothing of this kind has ever been known to mark the conduct of the world’s great men, who have been embalmed in its admiration. Follow him in his wearisome journeys, and wit- ness the displays of his wisdom, and his unselfish converse with men. He undertakes the moral transformation of the race. He purifies the whole body of moral science. He utters maxims that cast into the deepest shade the loftiest sayings of philosophy. He presents an unfaltering example of the noblest virtue—thus illustrating every pre- cept that fell from his lips. He devotes himself to the great business of reclaiming the world, not by his //e, as we would naturally expect, but by his death, of which we should never have dreamed. For this purpose he /oretells it shall be accom- plished by violent means. Living without offence, laboring without reward, suffering without com- plaint, he has arraigned against him implacable REVEALED ‘TRUTH. 55 enemies, whose burning hate is fired by their own ill-concealed malevolence of heart, whose skill is exhausted to betray him into some _indis- cretion, but who always come off second best in every attempt. His loving soul steadily directs his hand in wonderful sanative power for the re- lief of the afflicted; his innocence of guile and fortitude of purpose conduct him through sore privations and baffled plots, spotless as the un- fallen snow. Envy itself cannot find a flaw in his character, nor a plausible excuse for defamation. In every difficult position he is forced to take by “the contradiction of sinners,” he maintains the most dignified decorum, while managing his own cause with consummate skill. His penetration into the constitution of our moral being places him, in solitary majesty, far above all earthly sages, the anatomist of the human heart. The depth of his knowledge, the simplicity and sublim- ity of its utterance, the comprehensiveness of his thoughts, their coherence in showing the purity of his doctrine, extorted from soldiers sent to ap- prehend him this testimony, given by way of ex- cuse for not doing it: “ Never man spake as this man !” These words of unparalleled wisdom, these instructions of weightiest import, these works of benevolence in a life of love, we have in the sim- ple narratives of the Gospel; and every man can judge for himself. If they did not come from Jesus Christ, how did they get into that book, and whence did they come? If they did come from him, how is it that the @ frior¢ argument of infi- 56 VEDDER LECTURES. delity fails to show how such a wonderful char- acter can belong to a bad man? For bad man he surely was, if Jesus Christ was an impostor. If he was only a man, he was the worst man that ever lived, because he claimed eguality with God, and made himself the most enduring idol, and his system the most destructive form of idolatry the world ever saw. If he was a good man, he must have been God as well; because incapable of blas- phemy so hideous as that for which the Jews “took up stones to stone him;” and because his miracles were divine attestations to the truth of his claim, since they were clearly such as none but God could do; if he was a good man, then he was the Messiah; if the Messiah, then he was fore- told in numerous prophecies found in the Old Testament; and that proves the Bible to be the casket of revealed truth. So urgent are these things upon the attention of the infidel, that a satisfactory account of them must be made before he can be entitled to a hearing, before his objec- tions can find a spot to stand upon; but no such account has ever been given, hence the @ priorz argument of infidelity by its glaring omissions be- comes a conspicuous failure. That a life spent in doing good continually, and never discolored by a stain, should be ended upon a gibbet with the worst of criminals desery- ing such a fate, is not a little surprising. Jesus Christ could make this appeal to his enemies: ‘Which of you convinceth me of sin?” and they were as dumbas the dead. But, unfaltering in their purpose, a company of Jewish priests and rulers, REVEALED TRUTH. 57 led by a traitor who was familiar with Christ’s little company, of whom he was one, with a band of soldiers finally go by night to capture him. Notwithstanding it was full moon, they take /an- terns as well as weapons to insure the success of their project. They soon find him, and are them- selves surprised by being mysteriously smitten to the ground with a word from his mouth, and then by a voluntary surrender of himself to their will. They hurry him through the mockery of a trial, before the dawn of day, and condemn him to death for blasphemy, without evidence; but, un- able to carry out their own wicked verdict, be- cause deprived of the power to inflict capital pun- ishment, they hurry him to another trial in a Roman court upon another charge—the charge of ¢reason—where he is tried and acguztted. Stung into madness, they make demonstrations so furl- ous as to induce the cowardly judge to surrender the prisoner to death, for a crime not recognized by Roman law—a most remarkable combination o1 circumstances, for which, however, no explana- tion is given. Jesus was superior to all others in his life; so he surpassed all others in his death. Amid the tortures of a Roman penalty for no crime by Roman law, when nailed to the cross, instead of the complaints of injured innocence and outcries against the cruelest outrage, a won- drous prayer for the poor wretches is heard from his lips, amidst the strokes of the hammer: “ Fa- ther, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Such another scene was never witnessed in this sin-cursed world, much less could it ever 58 VEDDER LECTURES. have been contrived by any imagination schooled in an age when revenge was held to be a virtue. Now, @ priori reason would naturally ask: How came it that men of no culture, emerging from the dark realm of ignorance, could conceive such a character; or how was it possible for them to write their narratives in such a way as to force all intelligent readers to the conviction that they have before them the most wonderful history ? Except upon the supposition that they relate nothing but genuine fact, their narratives are ab- solutely unaccountable ; for no man, or set of men, especially such men, could ever be able to fabricate any thing like them. This is so clearly self-evi- dent that it will not bear an attempt at proof. It is human to err; no one, therefore, could hope for credit should he run counter to human nature in description of character. Should any one at- tempt it, with no better model for general guid- ance than the best of men could furnish, he would be sure to fail. How much, then, is the difficulty increased, when four attempt the same thing, each independent of the others, and at periods variously distant from the time when the subject of their common biography was removed from the earth; and how much more difficult when that character must be the zucarnation of Godhead, and the writers Galilean fishermen? Yet here we have it by just such authors! They tell a plain, unvar- nished story, with all the incidents above referred to, involving the greatest apparent necessity for explanation without betraying any anxiety about the truth of their story, and without attempting REVEALED TRUTH. 59 to explain such strange thingsas, for example, the success of Jesus in whipping the money-changers out of the temple, after overturning their tables, without meeting resistance. Other matters, equally strange, are also recorded, that ordinary writers would be sure to accompany by explan- atory clauses for the sake of greater verisimilitude, but the language of the Evangelists have no such clauses. It is surprisingly calm, stating, in the briefest terms, the most astounding things, just as if relating the ordinary affairs of everyday life. We find no expressions of surprise, no pompous announcements, no studied arrangements, no de- clamation, no fondness for multiplying marvellous things, no explanations of apparent difficulties; and as the writers go artlessly on with their story, they state their own faults, as parts of it, without any attempt at concealment, even in disgraceful conduct. Pureunadorned nature, without a trope, is seen in every paragraph. Now here is a method of writing, common to them all, nowhere else found in any ordinary author, and is a point demand- ing special notice. Do we find authors of their time, or of any other time, marked by their pecu- liarities of style or diction? Do we find a single one, the Old Testament writers excepted, setting forth exciting and tragical events without some signs of emotion, or some little expression of Opinion and feeling with regard to them? Do other authors, of any age, whose works have come down to us, express themselves, like our Evangelists, as if under oath in a court of justice, adhering strictly to matters of fact, without a sin- 60 VEDDER LECTURES. gle comment? If not, then why are these authors so purely exceptional in their mode of diction? What can account for the restraint upon their pens, so utterly unfelt by all others? Surely there never was such a history, not only, but there never was such a writing of history since the world be- gan. Is it, then, credible that such men as our evangelists are known to have been could have invented such a character, and could have forged such a history as their respective Gospels contain? There can be but one answer. Admit that the Gospels are genuine, it must be admitted that the writers depict their Master from life. Say that the reputed authors were incompetent to the task: much less, it must be said, could any others, sub- sequent to their time, have accomplished it. In any case, these documents are no less wonderful on account of their authorship than for their con- tents. Now their existence is a fact which must be satisfactorily accounted for. Suppose two men of our own day, brought up to the fisherman’s calling, should abandon their nets, and, to improve their condition, should set about the writing of novels, how would they succeed? Need I ask? To say the least, their stories would smell of their fish, and they would soon discover it the better policy to return to their tackle and smacks. Can it then be reasonably supposed that such writers of the earliest age in Christian chronology, with no advantages whatever, could not only succeed . better, but actually eclipse the most gifted that ever wrote in any age; and by their simply formed works of fiction, multiplied and still multiplying REVEALED TRUTH. 61 by millions of copies, could have set in motion, and could have kept in progress for nearly two thousand years, a revolution that first swept the Roman Empire within four hundred years, and since has swept the world? A more preposterous supposition could not disgrace the brains of an idiot. But the brief works of our evangelists have actually done this very thing, and now are floating upon the popular tide more triumphantly than ever, translated in every language and extending into every clime. The first question now to be settled by the & priori reason of infidelity includes a settlement of this point: How did these naturally incom- petent authors write such a wonderful history, and how has it accomplished such a wonderful revolution? Undeniably, here is a mighty moral miracle, the effects of which all men know by their own experience. No mancandeny it. The Gospels themselves have predicted their own suc- cess, which is now confessedly great, but yet to be realized in a far greater degree, beyond the experience of our own age; andif any now dispute their claim, they are bound to support all oppo- sition by explaining this moral miracle to the sat- isfaction of the common-sense of mankind, or accept the doctrine of their inspiration and diffu- sion by divine efficiency. This is the alternative now set before the champions of infidelity; yet they decline to explain the facts of the documents, on the one hand, and to accept the doctrine, on the other. Whether the accredited evangelists be or be not the authors of these documents, the 62 VEDDER LECTURES. facts of their existence, contents, and influence are still the same, and must be accounted for by gainsayers. Why have these points been ignored ? There can be but one answer. Infidelity exhibits a failure in the field of argument, as great as its falsehood in the field of morals. 3. The religion of Jesus Christ is altogether original, and totally different from every other system that has obtained currency in the world. Every intelligent man knows this. It isa religion based upon fac¢s,and not uponopinions. Itis the outgrowth of principles long familiar to the He- brew mind, but to no other class of mind at or since the days of Moses who wrote of Christ. He endorsed Moses and the whole of the Old Testament, whose religious significance was sal- vation through himself, as “the Lamb of God slain from before the foundation of the world,” typified by the imposing service of the Hebrew ritual. Thus he spoke to certain disciples who bewailed their disappointment by the calamity of the crucifixion: “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken; ought not Christ to have suffered these things and . to enter into his glory?” And to the Apostles, just before he left the world: “These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the pro- phets, and in the psalms, concerning me.” The meaning of that ritual, then, was “ Christ and him crucified.” Take away this fact and the whole fabric falls into ruins, like a house blown from its foundation by an explosion of dynamite. The REVEALED TRUTH. 63 scriptures of the Old Testament, of which those of the New are the flowering and the fruitage, he held to be revealed truth, recognizing all its facts to be true facts just as they are recorded ; the written moral law to be the divine standard of right and wrong; and the doctrines contained in them as the true principles of sound religious belief, needing only the expositions and illustra- tions of the Messiah, who came not to destroy “ the law and the prophets, but to fulfil them.” His religion, therefore, has been in the world from the beginning, divided into two dispensations, the ante-Messianic and the post-Messianic, but essen- tially the same; original in its plan, doctrine, and adaptation, and in all these particulars wonder- fully comprehensive. (1.) It is original in its plan. Go among all the nations that have been and are now upon earth, where can you find any thing like it? Observe the nature and tendency of their beliefs and wor- ship. Their respective religions are based upon opinions designed to control distinctive commu- nities; hence they are local in their influences, united with secular government for political pur- poses, and for nothing else. But the Christian religion is planned for the whole human race, and is meant to be general, emancipating men from the grasp of spiritual despotism, and at the same time making them more efficient for political duties, by the infusion of principles which bind the human conscience to the law of God and set it free from guilt by faith in a Saviour who “died, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” 64 VEDDER LECTURES. (2.) It is original in its doctrines, all of which are founded upon facts and principles of which other religious systems are wholly destitute. They are mainly as follows: [1.] It teaches the being, attributes and provi- dence of a personal God, in whose unity there is a triplicity, distinguished by names and personal pro- nouns; who, having created, governs the universe —being everywhere present, knowing all things, and upholding all things, at every instant of time. [2.] It teaches that the human race is totally depraved—having descended from and inherited the moral corruption of an apostate representative parentage—and is, therefore, under the condem- nation of moral law, without help from its own resources, and without hope from any superior order of created intelligences. [3.] It teaches that the love of God devised, and the power of God executed, the only plan of a plenary and perfect recovery for all who will accept the gospel of grace, relying solely upon the vicarious atonement of a Saviour, through whom mercy is thus made to flow to the guilty. [4.] It teaches that this Saviour is an original being, uniting godhead and manhood in one personality, that, as a competent mediator, he might be egual to both parties between whom he mediates. [5.] It teaches that all who come to God through Christ are regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, whose office it is to glorify Christ and gather “out of the Gentiles a people for his name”—Christians in deed and in truth. REVEALED TRUTH. 65 [6.] It teaches the resurrection of Christ, and the resurrection of all men from the grave, who shall appear before his judgment-seat at the grand assizes of the last day; a judgment to come; a heaven to be won, anda hell to be shunned, by those who have to this end yielded obedience to the Gospel. [7.] It teaches that Christ is personally to come _ back to this earth, to reign and rule, recovering it from the dominion of evil and establishing “a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed ;” that this “kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all (other) kingdoms, and it shall stand forever” in their place and room; and that “the kingdom, and do- minion, and the greatness of the kingdom UNDER THE WHOLE HEAVEN, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High.” (Dan., chap. vii.) Such is the frame of doctrine built upon a foun- dation of facts which constitutes the holy temple of revealed truth, the best boon of Heaven for the religious instruction and salvation of men. The originality of the facts, the sublimity of the doctrine, and the efficiency of the plan, with the practical duties thence arising for the moral im- provement and eternal benefit of man, prove the science of revealed truth to be of all others the greatest, most comprehensive and most needful to the welfare of the human race. Now, the won- derful contrast between the matter and the lan- 66 -VEDDER LECTURES. guage of the Gospels shows that the marks of human authorship are not in them. No labored periods commensurate with dignity of sentiment, novelty of miracle, or profundity of truth are found in them. The writers seem to be alike reined in by the steady hand of a mysterious con- trolling power, so that their writings might wear an aspect that should ever distinguish them from all others of mere human authorship. Have the sacred books of other religions, let me ask, ever ventured upon a definitionof God? Have any of them ever declared the unpardonable nature of sin or declared forgiveness to be a cardinal grace inman? Whence then did this religion come? Could one of its facts or of its doctrines ever have been woven into a fabric of an all-comprehensive utility to mankind in the loom of human inge- nuity? These are pertinent questions in the judgment of 4 griord reason; and since infidelity professedly argues itself out upon this line, its de- fenders are bound to answer them satisfactorily to common-sense. Why has there been no attempt in this direction? There can be but one answer. As to recent efforts, we believe that the modern sophistry of scientists shall meet with no better success than the old science of sophists, in their attacks upon revealed truth. (3.) The Christian religion is original in its adaptation. Wherever it has gone over the globe, it has proved itself adequate to the spiritual and intellectual necessities of all kinds of men, irre- spective of differences in race, climate, language, habit, or in any thing else that modifies social REVEALED TRUTH. 67 life. Human nature is the same the world over. Evil actions everywhere proceed from evil thoughts, and no human law can reach them. The wretchedness of the world comes from the seething passions of the depraved heart, and no human power can quench the fire; but the reli- gion of Christ alone has proved itself able to do this, wherever it has had a fair chance to operate. To this end the Holy Scriptures are adapted, and by the testimony of millions they reach it. Learned works are written for learned men, whose influence over others below them is relied upon by the world’s reformers for controlling human affairs. It would be absurd to put a book like Hamilton’s Lectures on Logic in the hands of an illiterate man, and equally foolish to offer a common-school book to a philosopher; but the Holy Scriptures are adapted to all classes of mind, from that of the child to that of the wisest of men. The theory of religion found in them is adapted to the spiritual and moral wants of the human race. The writers are better known to us than the authors of ancient histories or of philoso- phies, whose works have always been accredited to them by name without dispute; and in the face of this fact, it is in vain to call in question the personal histories of our evangelists for the pur- pose of discrediting the Gospels. Now, the @ priori reason must ask: Where did this history and this theory come from? Is it possible that the base- born, the low-bred and illiterate, could have in- vented it? Why has infidelity overlooked this matter? There can be but one answer. 68 VEDDER LECTURES. The @ friorz argument, correctly conducted to the fair disposition of such points as I have men- tioned, and upon which the infidel is so profoundly silent, rolls up an amount of internal evidence from the Scriptures themselves absolutely over- whelming. The pretence that it goes all the other way, in the face of omissions above indi- cated, is a gross absurdity and an amazing imper- tinence, because an attempt to palm off the bald- est fallacy upon the common-sense of the world. Bie Cris Urabe hk. REVEALED TRUTH. THE A POSTERIORI ARGUMENT. Facts to be proved 2 fosteriori—Nature of the argument—Prophecy— Pentateuch—Greenleaf's ‘‘ Testimony of the Evangelists '’ commended —Legal Rules of Evidence—Prophecy and fulfilment a standing mira- cle—Fulfilment in spite of millions of chances against it an overwhelm- ing argument—Prophecies of the Messiah—A dilemma—How the ful- filment of prophecy is proof of a doctrine—Prophecies uttered by Christ and their fulfilment—Eusebius’s comparison between Evangelists and Josephus—Two ends gained by Prophecy—Miracles—Infidel argu- ments retorted—Gospel miracles such as none but God could do— Illustration—Egyptian miracles—The credentials of Revealed Truth early given, and continued to the end—Miracles of Christ classified— Proof of their performance tested by legal rules of evidence—Hume'’s argument—They imply no suspension of the laws of nature—Two objects gained by the miracles of Christ—The possibility of Revealed Truth fatal to the force of infidel arguments. IF it be proved that God has spoken to man at any time and in azy manner, it will not be doubted that he may have spoken to him at “sundry times and in divers manners;” and such communica- tions will be readily admitted as revealed truth; by which is meanta class of facts, not discoverable 70 VEDDER LECTURES. by the human mind, underlying a class of doctrines supernaturally taught as necessary to the present, prospective, and permanent welfare of our race. Nor can it be reasonably doubted that natural ignorance and absolute dependence show how much man needs revealed truth, for the good- ness of God on the one hand, and the necessities of man on the other, will be seen by intuition and felt by consciousness of want, to be the made ground of all moral certainty attainable in this matter. If it be shown that these facts and doctrines are adapted to the intellectual and moral nature of man, it will at the same time become obvious that it is necessary they should be made known to him, that they should be confidently believed by him, and that to this end they should be adequately attested by such evidence asall men rely upon for the reality of things. This being made clear, we have really come to the end of all debate; for a supposable rational counter-belief, in the face of such proof, would either reduce the reason to in- sanity, or the mind, in all its emotions, to a state of moral distraction, and is therefore plainly absurd. Every man, made a Christian by the power of revealed truth upon his own heart, has the wit- ness in himself; and although it removes all doubt from him, it cannot be made by a mere statement to do the same service for others; hence he must establish the truth of his facts and doctrines by arguments which the common-sense of mankind will allow, and respecting which the experience of one man cannot be opposed to the experience of another. Hitherto I have confined myself to REVEALED TRUTH. 71 the @ griort argument, which is independent of all experience and observation, to show, first, the fallacy of the infidel in his way of conducting it; and, secondly, that when properly unfolded, from the working of the mind with abstract thought, it is most powerfully upon the side of revealed truth. From the force of circumstances, the na- ture of things, and the laws of mind, that argu- mentative process shows that the Gosnel of Jesus Christ, while it teaches wonderful things, does not teach inconsistencies ; it shows that the very ex- istence of the Gospel is inexplicable on any other supposition than that of its heavenly origin; and that, regarding it asa mere human performance, it is seen to be girt about with self-evident im- possibility, asserting a mightier miracle than has ever been witnessed since the world began. In the nature of things, the Gospel cannot exist un- less it be true; but it does exist, therefore it is true. In what I shall have to say of the Scriptures, I shall mainly confine my references to the five his- torical books of the Evangelists, and the five books of Moses, commonly called the Pentateuch, and for this reason: The science of revealed truth, like every other science, is built upon a foundation of facts; and because no other but the Christian religion can say this, no other religion can claim connection with science. These books contain all the facts in the case, which, if shown to be indubit- ably true, just as all other historical facts are proven, infidelity will be left speechless, though it may long gibber like a drunken man. 72 VEDDER LECTURES. Supposing the facts of our volume to be as represented, the doctrines built upon them are unquestionably true; but their vea/zty can only be laid bare by ¢estémony which the @ posteriort argu- ment must furnish. That is dependent both upon observation and experience. Now if this testi- mony be such as will establish any fact in civil courts, it ought to satisfy every man; but if it pe more than this, if it be such as one but God could give, in addition to all that man can give, there must be an end of the matter, and infidelity is bound to account for all these facts, proven to be true, before it can support a contradiction; it must show this testimony of God and man to be false, before it can justify unbelief; and if it do neither, as it has not yet done, it must prove itself at once an im- placable enemy to both. I need hardly say that the @ posteriort argument is directly the reverse process of the one already considered. It proceeds by observation, back- wards, from plain matters of fact to those more recondite, and so on to the discovery of hidden causes; and whenits results come out in confirma- tion of those arrived at by the & priori process, probability becomes moral certainty. It cannot be otherwise, because the assurance of reasoning thus gained is just as reliable for the certainty of truth as is the assurance of reason for its own ex- istence. The argument, in brief, is this: : The existence and power of God, as the first cause of all things, being granted, the facts de- clared to have been done by him, if proved to be such as none but God could do, prove the doc- REVEALED TRUTH. 73 trines thereby attested to be infallibly true. Begin- ning with the date of four thousand years be- fore Christ, the Old Testament reveals the facts of the creation, of the fall of man, and the prom- ise of his recovery by ¢he seed of the woman. This is the mother-promise and the mother-prophe- cy; all others subsequently issuing from human lips throughout this period were suspended upon it. Some of them were to be fulfilled before, some at, and some after the appearance of the great Deliverer. All these are contained in the sacred books of an early and peculiar people, existing down to the present day, preserved as no other nation has ever been preserved, and holding these books as a peculiar heritage, more sacred in their regard than life itself. The fulfilment of all of them was to be the unanswerable proof that this Deliverer, indicated in the mother-promise afore- said, was no other than JESUS CHRIST, born in Bethlehem of Judea, under the reign of Augustus Czesar. The New Testament, which is the com- plement of the Old, contains the wonderful history of the birth, life, death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, attested by stupendous miracles wrought by himself continuously, for more than three years, in the face of day and of multitudes, includ- ing enemies who at the time, and sore against their will, admitted them to be real facts, just as related, These were followed by another series of miracles, wrought in his name for a long time after he had left the earth by those whom he qualified to work them, and whom he commissioned to teach his sys- tem of doctrine, in confirmation of which miracles 74 “VEDDER LECTURES. were continued until the evidence of revealed truth was so thoroughly established that nothing against it should ever be able to prevail. The @ postertort argument compares the alleged facts of fulfilment with the facts of prediction, ¢ as it goes back from effect to cause. The evidence of revealed truth is such as none but God could give. This falls under the heads of prophecy and miracle. | I, PROPHECY.—New Testament facts are largely the fulfilments of Old Testament prophecy, cov- ering a period of four thousand years. These ful- filments, like image and object in photography, so exactly correspond, that, in order to get rid of the forcible proof, infidels have exhausted their ingenuity in the effort of showing that the Old Testament was forged, to give credibility to the New! This is so utterly preposterous that noth- ing but the maliciousness of the charge can equal its stupidity. Had the Jews been friendly to Christ, and at one with him in a common inter- est, there might have been some color for this pretext, though not a particle of hope in making it good; but, instead, they were his bitter ene- mies; and so strong was it, that their enmity has flowed with their blood down through their de- scendants, unabated, to this day. So far did they carry their malice that, on account of the argu- mentative power in favor of the Messiahship of Christ which the early Christians derived from the prophecy of Daniel, they degraded that book from the high position it held among their pro- phetical books to a lower one in another division REVEALED TRUTH. 76 of their scriptures called the Hagiographa, or sacred writings. They dared not to mutilate the Sacred Canon, but they did all they dared, with a hearty good will, to destroy the force of the Christians’ argument from prophecy. They would indeed have had no remorse for forging any amount of lies against Christ and Christian- ity, but they would rather die than admit a single sentence of their sacred books to bea forgery. In this matter all their history proves they can be trusted to any extent. But the fact is, we are not dependent upon Jewish fidelity at all. It is well known that the Old Testament was translated into Greek two hundred and eighty-seven years before Christ was born, and scattered all over the world wherever Jews were found. This transla- tion was read in every synagogue, and commonly used by the Jewish people at the time of the birth of Christ, and for a long time after, and is at this day widely circulated as an important help to the exposition of the Word of God. Now, in this translation, which is a fair rendering of the orig- inal, all the prophecies are found; therefore the absurd plea of forgery betrays a worse feeling than that of weakness on the part of all who ven- ture it. This is circumstantial evidence keen enough to cut every sinew of the infidel argu- ment, if it ever had any, that Old Testament prophecies were written subsequent to the events alleged as their fulfilment. To make certainty doubly sure, however, the antiquity of the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses, is attested by a most singular fact. It will 76 VEDDER LECTURES. be remembered that Nehemiah was appointed by the King of Persia to rebuild the walls of Jeru- salem. In this great work he was opposed by Sanballat, governor of Samaria, but in vain. Nehemiah completed the work, and made regu- lations for the people under his charge. Some of them were so highly offensive to Manasseh, son- in-law to Sanballat, that he retired into Samaria and. became the founder of a religious sect im- placably hostile to the Jews, arrogating to them- selves the honor of being the only true Israelites. Manasseh built a temple to the God of Israel on Mount Gerizzim, and provided his converts with the five books of Moses, as their rule of faith, concealing the later books, lest the respectful allusions made in them to the sanctity of Jeru- salem should disparage his own temple in Sama- ria. This schism took place many centuries before Christ, and produced a quarrel so violent that the common civilities of life were not extended by Jew to Samaritan, nor by Samaritan to Jew, though they dwelt together in the same land. However divided on all other matters, they were, neverthe- less, perfectly united in a common veneration for the Pentateuch. For either of them to have cor- rupted it in the smallest particular was utterly impossible, because both parties had eyes of reli- gious prejudice glaring upon each other. The singular fact above alluded to is this: In the beginning of the seventeenth century, after being unknown for a thousand years, copies of the Sa- maritan Pentateuch were found among the rem- nant that worshipped still at Gerizzim, and six REVEALED TRUTH. 77 were purchased by Usher in the early part of it. “Thus we are brought to the conclusion that the Samaritan, as well as the Jewish copy, originally flowed from the autograph of Moses. The two constitute, in fact, different recensions of the same work, and coalesce tn point of history.” The Pentateuch contain a series of first facts and first things, followed by a system of moral and ceremonial laws which, by the authority of all history, were observed by the Israelites down to their dispersion among the nations of the earth. Other books of the Old Testament imply the previous existence of the five books of Moses; and throughout them all references are had to these facts and things, but more frequently to these laws as regulating the religion and civil polity of the Jews. The whole of the temple ser- vice was arranged by Solomon, a thousand years before Christ, according to the law of the Penta- teuch; and at his advent all the books of the Old Testament, as we have them, were known throughout the world as the sacred books of the Jews. No intelligent infidel will deny this state- ment. ‘““The genuineness of these writings,” says Dr. Greenleaf, an eminent lawyer, author, and Professor of Law in Harvard Uni- versity, ‘‘ really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise ; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of mere convenience, be designated as our first rule” (of evidence), “Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper re- 78 VEDDER LECTURES. posttory or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of for- gery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it otherwise.” —(Testimony of the Evan- gelists, p. 7.)* : ; ‘Tf it be objected that the originals are lost, and that copies alone are now produced, the principles of the municipal law here also afford a satisfactory answer. For the multiplication of copies was a public fact, in the faithfulness of which all the Christian community had an interest; and it isa rule of law that ‘*In matters of public and general interest all persons must be presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.” —p. 9. Thus, it appears, the principles of civil law, common to every enlightened country, recognize the genuineness of our sacred books; and all the more, because they have sustained themselves against all manners of attack for ages, and are more multiplied now than ever before. How comes it that our infidel writers are so profoundly silent upon these points of law and fact; and how is it that such a marvellous history as that of the Bible, the like of which is nowhere found, re- ceives no explanation at their hands going to show that it is not of so extraordinary a character as to justify the belief of supernatural preserva- tion by a special providence? There can be but one answer. I claim that this point is forever settled upon the principles of common law. In several passages of these books, God him- self is represented as appealing to prophecy in proof of his own revealed truth. This challenge is an example: “Produce your cause, saith the Lord ; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the * No minister’s library is as well furnished as it should be, without this admirable volume. REVEALED TRUTH. 79 King of Jacob. Let them bring them forth, and show us what shall happen: let them show the former things, what they be, that we may con- sider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come. Show the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know foaeye are gods. -Is..41 ; 21,/22... Now 11; God ever consented to reason with his intelligent but fallen creatures, to overcome their fears, remove their doubts, and win their confidence, and if no absurdity is involved, how natural is this appeal P How well adapted to prove, beyond all peradven- ture, the fact of a divine revelation? No one needs even a word to convince him that prediction of future certainties is alone within the power of Omniscience ; for if the wisest of men cannot assur- edly tell on one day what shall take place on the next, of all the contingencies that may turn up, how much less able are they to show what shall occur beyond or within a hundred years, or even one? A prophecy, therefore, locating its own fulfil- ment hundreds of years ahead, or even one, must undeniably be, by the evidence of fulfilment, the utterance of God; and is a standing miracle on the page of history, open to the inspection of all men. Whilst it say be said of miracles. per- formed eighteen hundred years ago, that they are passed away and gone, and were to those that saw them in the first age of our era sensible proofs of revealed truth, it #us¢ be said of an old prophecy, whose fulfilment has passed into his- tory, that it is thenceforth an omnipresent miracle to all intelligent minds in the world acquainted 80 VEDDER LECTURES. with the record. Infidelity cannot deny it. Let us adduce just two examples: the predictions of the Pentateuch, compared with the present state of the Jews; and of Ezekiel, compared with the present state of Egypt. With regard to the Jews, their dispersion is in accordance with the prediction of Moses. (Deut. chs. 28-30.) Egypt was, perhaps, the very oldest, as it was the mighti- est kingdom of the earth, long before the Jewish nation had an existence. The pyramids of Egypt are the monuments of its primitive greatness, and all history has borne, down to the present time, the varied record of its prolonged renown. Its civiliza- tion was the oldest, its line of kings the longest, its learning the greatest, its resources the richest, its population the largest, its territory the most pro- ductive, and its influence the most commanding of all the nations of antiquity ; and yet in the face of this combination of apparently exhaustless strength and power and influence, the voice of prophecy was lifted up against Egypt, and thus it was written nearly six hundred years before Christ: “It shall be the basest of the kingdoms ; neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations.” Ezek. 29:15. “I will make the land waste, and all that is therein, by the hand of strangers: I the Lord have spoken it. There shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt.” Ezek. 30: 12,13. The whole of this prophecy is very long and very minute, occupying four chap- ters, and the fulfilment was very remarkable. Egypt retained her greatness more than two hun- dred years after the prophecy had been uttered. REVEALED TRUTH. SI Three hundred and fifty years before Christ, the Persians subdued Egypt. Again it passed into the hands of other masters, and “was governed by the Ptolemies for the space of two hundred and ninety-four years, until, about thirty years before Christ, it became a province of the Roman empire.” To this day it has continued in its fluc- tuating fortunes “the basest of the kingdoms ;” and nothing is more wonderful than the accurate fulfilment of this prophecy, whose verification is still clearly manifest under the rule of the Turk. All we have to do, then, is to fix the respective dates of a prophecy and its fulfilment in corre- sponding historical facts to complete an unan- swerable argument. The process is a short one, and as conclusive as it is short. I need not stop to prove that in Old Testament history are found a number of predictions, great in age and variety, and minutely descriptive, all uttered by men pro- fessing themselves to be inspired of God. To show their honesty and confidence, they unhesi- tatingly appeal to the fulfilment of their predic- tions in the events spoken of, which should justify their extraordinary claims. Thus every thing was put out of their own hands, and referred to the decisions of supreme power. Nothing could be fairer, and although for the world at large it might take a long time to reach the fulness of proof, yet when reached it should be all the more powerful. These prophecies pertain to a great variety of things, some of them to events declared as sure to take place hundreds of years after the utterance of them. For example, there are cer- 82 VEDDER LECTURES. tain predictions respecting the ancient and once magnificent city of Nineveh, in the book of Na- hum, pronounced more than seven hundred years before Christ, and containing remarkable specifi- cations as to the method of its destruction, which occurred after a lapse of one hundred and fifteen years from the time of their publication. Several historians give an account of its downfall, and the manner of it tallies exactly with the prophecy. The same is true of Tyre, the ancient emporium of the world. Isaiah announced its downfall in remarkable language, specifying such particulars as these: “J will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth her waves to come up, and they shall destroy the walls of Tyre, and break down her towers; I will Scrape her dust from her, and make her like the {Op -oltayrockn: “All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee; thou shalt bea terror, and never shalt thou be any more.” When these pre- dictions were uttered, Tyre was in the full blaze of her glory, and so continued for at least one hundred and thirty years before the calamity came; and when it did come, these and other particulars contained in the prophecy became literal facts. There are also numerous prophecies respect- ing the various fortunes of the Jewish people ; prophecies declaring the birth and achievements of Cyrus, calling him by this name long before - he was born; prophecies respecting the char- acter and conduct of Alexander; prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem and the disper- REVEALED TRUTH. 83 sion of the Jews, with many others too numer- ous to mention and too minute for transcription here, whose descriptive phraseology will never admit of the supposition that they were fortunate guesses of the men who uttered them, and who staked their own character for veracity and piety upon the events that should occur in the history of the world long after themselves should be dead. It surely appears that God had a wonderful purpose to accomplish by a late fulfilment of early proph- ecy, in reserving for modern times the strong- est argument for the reality of revealed truth to be unfolded in the riper ages of the world. We are in a condition with regard to historic devel- opment, and live in an age late enough to test these old prophets by their own criteria fur- nished for that purpose. We are fully prepared to prove that the events thus predicted in early ages so precisely correspond to the predictions as to time, place, circumstance, and personality, that no room is left for doubt as to this correspond- ence. For example: Expressly at the time fixed by the prophecy the Jews were carried by Nebuchadnezzar captive into Babylon, and re- mained in bondage during the predicted time of seventy years. Expressly at the time fixed by the prophecy Cyrus was born, was named, did per- form the achievements predicted of him, and did rescue the Jews from the Babylonish yoke. Ex- pressly at the time fixed by the prophecy Alex- ander the Great ascended the throne of Greece, conquered Persia and all the East, and visited the Temple of Jerusalem. Expressly at the time 84. VEDDER LECTURES. fixed by the prophecy Jesus of Nazareth, the pre- dicted Messiah, appeared, laid the foundation of Christianity and suffered the death of the cross. Expressly at the time fixed by the prophecy Jeru- salem was destroyed by the Roman armies, and not one stone of the Temple left on another. Pre- cisely according to prophecy the Jews, subse- quent to this event, were scattered over all the earth, and were commingled, though not mixed, with all sorts of people, doomed to persecution and oppression in all lands, a hissing and a by- word among all nations. And as it was pre- dicted that they should be kept a distinct people in their state of dispersion until regathered in their own land, so they have to this hour con- tinued, for eighteen hundred years, a distinct people; just as much separated from Gentiles as they ever were; retaining their own laws, cus- toms, and synagogue worship as they had them when they were driven out of their land by the punitive hand of God for their unparalleled iniq- uity. There never was such a preservation of a world-wide scattered people, yet remaining close- ly bound together, without a country, without a government, without any political bond of union, and resisting every thing like tendency to separ- ation or absorption. They are the only nation on earth existing in solution, as no other ever did, whose nationality is as sharply defined and as dis- tinctively preserved as it ever was. Wherever a Gentile sees a Jew, he sees a living, walking argument for the truth of the religion of Christ. At the risk of prolixity, however, I shall briefly dispose of this argument of guesswork. REVEALED TRUTH. 85 Infidels say that the prophets were impostors, and chance rules the world. Well, “suppose that there had been only ¢ez men in ancient times who pretended to be prophets, each of whom exhibited only jive independent criteria as to place, govern- ment, concomitant events, doctrine taught, charac- ter, sufferings, death, the meeting of all which in one person should prove the reality of their call- ing as prophets, and of his mission in the charac- ter they have assigned him; suppose, moreover, that all events were left to chance merely, and we were to compute, from the principle employed by mathematicians in the investigation of such sub- jects, the probability of these f/ty independent cir- cumstances happening a¢ a//. Assume that there is, according to the technical phrase, an egual chance for the happening or the failure of any one of the specified particulars; then the probability agadnst the occurrence of all the particulars in any way, is that of the fiftieth power of two to unity ; that is, the probability is greater than 1,125,000,000,- 000,000 to I; or greater than eleven hundred and twenty-five mttlions of millions to one, that all these circumstances do not turn up, even at distant periods. This computation, however, is independent of the consideration of ¢zme. Let it then be recollected that if any one of the specified circumstances hap- pen, it may be the day after the delivery of the prophecy, or at any period from that time to the end of the world, this will so indefinitely aug- ment the probability against the contemporaneous occurrence of merely these fifty circumstances, that it surpasses the power of numbers to express 86 VEDDER LECTURES. the immense improbability of its taking place at all; how much greater the improbability when all events are under the control of a Being who con- trols all things and hates imposture ?” * Accord- ing, then, to the infidel argument, the tex impos- tors could not have established their claim at all, whether there be a God or not; but if a far greater number, with far more numerous crite- ria, all prophecy of the Messiahship of Christ, and all their predictions be demonstrably fulfilled in: corresponding events, then these things will be fully established :—the existence of God, the fact of his general and special providence, and the ab- solute certainty of revealed truth. These are to be determined by well-established facts, to some of which let us pay attention. _ The prophecy of Daniel relating to the first ad- vent of Christ declares the time of it to be four hundred and ninety years from the rebuilding of Jerusalem. Now, any one can see that there were as many chances against an accidental fulfilment as there were other periods of time beside that fixed in the prophecy for the Saviour’s birth ; but he ac- tually came at the very time set by the prediction. Prophecies relating to the same event announce the country and the town in the country in which he should be born. This again swells the chances against an accidental fulfilment by the number of all the towns in the country, and of all the countries in the world where a great deliverer might possibly be born. Again, all these towns * Gregory’s Letters. ‘ —-—— ow © a REVEALED TRUTH. 87 and countries must be multiplied by all the periods of time besides that in which Christ appeared, in order to get at the number of chances against an accidental fulfilment of the prediction. Very early in Old Testament history it was foretold not only that the promised deliverer should de- scend from the first parents of the race, but that he should be of the seed of Abraham. This in- creased the chances against an accidental fulfil- ment by all the men in the world contemporary with Abraham, from whom this deliverer might possibly come. As time rolled on the prophecy was limited to Isaac, excluding the other children of Abraham ; then it was limited to Jacob, exclud- ing the other children of Isaac; then again it was limited to Judah, excluding the other chil- dren of Jacob; then it was limited again to the family of David, excluding all other families in the tribe of Judah; then again it was limited to Solomon, excluding the other children of David ; then again it was limited to Mary, excluding all other contemporary virgins of the line of Solomon. Now, with each of these limitations, a large num- ber of chances against an accidental fulfilment was connected, and all these numbers must be made, in turn, multipliers to preceding amounts increased by each; so that the progression of chances against an accidental fulfilment with the lapse of time becomes absolutely incalculable. Failure in any one particular would have ruined _the prophecy; but amid billions of chances for failure, the family records of the tribes of Israel, which they were obliged to keep by statute, prove, 88 VEDDER LECTURES. to the confusion of the Jew and the infidel, that the prophecy came out exactly right, according to all its limitations, at the end of four thousand years! What now becomes of the argument for guess- work? Will any one, in the face of these facts, have the courage to plead it? But this is not all. The very peculiar circum- stances of life inwhich Christ should appear were also foretold long before his advent, some by one prophet, others by another, and so on in different periods of the age of revelation. Though de- scended from a king, this deliverer, according to prophecy, was to be “despised and rejected of men ;” though of unparalleled majesty, he was to be of “a meek and lowly spirit ;” though of no repute among men, he was to work miracles in giving sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, succor to the afflicted, comfort to the poor ; though immaculately innocent, he was to be “numbered with transgressors.” Then he was to be put to a cruel death, the exact form of which was foretold; his hands and feet were to be pierced, but none of his bones broken. His gar- ments were to be distributed, his enemies to utter reproaches and taunts; they were to give him vinegar to drink. The very words he should utter upon the cross were recorded hundreds of years before he was born, the manner of his burial as well, and the success that should attend his cause through all subsequent time. These circumstances in the history of Christ, according to the tenor of human affairs, were most unlikely to occur to one of the royal house of David, who REVEALED TRUTH. 89 was to be a great deliverer. I might take up each and show how unlikely it was to happen, because so seemingly in conflict with the natural course of things when viewed in the light of attending circumstances. Thus, for example, the prophecy says, ‘‘ They appointed him his grave with the wick- ed, yet was he with the rich in his death.” Is. 53: g. (Heb.) Answering thereto, it was a fact that though Jesus was crucified between two thieves, he was not buried with them, as intended by the Jewish rulers, but was the first that was laid in a new and costly tomb of a rich man. Matt. 27: 60. How unlikely was this! yet it was brought about in the sovereignty of God by the most natural means, and with the utmost freedom of human action. These facts, accurately recorded, were never con- tradicted by early enemies, who most felt the necessity of proving them false, had such a thing been possible. Now, the hastiest review will show us ata glance that the history of Christ was pre-written by sev- eral persons, who lived at long intervals of time during the age of revelation, each contributing a little ; but no two of them, in the nature of the case, could have had any intercourse with, or knowl- edge of each other. This age was a little more than four thousand years, but the time of wr7ting was Only about three-eighths of the period. The contributors to the Old Testament were men dif- fering widely in ability, education, and social life. Thus, Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians ; David and Solomon were kings ; Dan- iel was a minister of state; Ezra, Jeremiah, and gO VEDDER LECTURES. Ezekiel were priests; Amos was a herdsman. David wrote some four hundred years after Moses, Isaiah about two hundred and fifty years after David; Daniel about one hundred and fifty years after Isaiah ; Ezekiel about one hundred years after Daniel; and Malachi about two hundred years after Ezekiel. Between Moses and John there was an interval of more than fifteen hundred years, during which the whole of revelation was made. All the books of these authors were writ- ten amid the strangest diversity of time, place, and condition; and in different forms of history, biography, laconics, poems, and prophecy ; yet there is an evident unity of design pervading the whole, which proves a unity of origin in some source not wzthin the minds of the authors, but without ; and so controlling each as to bring each man’s thoughts to crystallize around the same thread extended through all these centuries, and especially with regard to Messiah, the Hope of Israel. How is all this to be explained? Shall we say, it may be accounted for by the infidel’s suggestion that the Old Testament was forged to give credibility to the New? This is not only absurd in itself, but plainly impossible by the fact that the Old Testament was translated into Greek nearly three hundred years before the birth of Christ, in which the titles above referred to are all recorded, and when brought together make an anticipated biography of him wonderfully minute and distinct for an outline. The supposition of forgery is therefore a monstrosity in foolishness. REVEALED TRUTH. gi This question then pushes itself before us: How could such a variety of events be predicted by such a variety of men living amid such a variety of times and places, and not one of the predictions fail as proved by correspondent events? There can be but one answer that avoids all absurdity. Thus we are reduced to this dilemma, Zzther the Christian religion ts the truth of God, or God himself is the author of a horrible delusion. There is no escape, for we have the books, and whoever will may search for himself. Now, I contend that even one such prophecy as that in Isaiah 53, in its fulfilment, furnishes an unanswerable proof to the general fact of Re- vealed Truth, and to the specific truth of each doc- trine in whose interest it was published. But here it may be questioned, how is the fulfilment of a prophecy the proof of a doctrine? [answer, the very object of the one is to beget confidence in the other. Take away this idea, and the whole body of prophecy becomes utterly insignificant, having the character of enigmas, apparently de- signed only for exciting the wonder of mankind ; but when it is considered that doctrine needs proof in proportion to its importance, it will be seen that any doctrine claiming to come directly from God needs proof coming in a sure way, and from a sure source, independent of the laws of nature, and mounting above the capabilities of man. Astronomers foretell eclipses and the return of comets many years in advance, and when they appear men are apt to wonder at such predictions always coming true toa moment of 92 VEDDER LECTURES, time; but this is not prophecy, because the re- sult of scientific calculation based upon a knowl- edge of the mechanism of the universe. Such predictions are only like those of an ordinary me- chanic or machinist, who foretells what will come out of some complicate contrivance working in ac- cordance with previously existing laws of motion. How different is this from the prediction of events that happen without any such dependence upon the established laws of nature, such as the birth, life, and death of an individual, which may or may not happen at certain specified times rr Ormet hes ine fortunate end of a flourishing city or nation, when at the time of prediction all appearances and probabilities were against it? These things nei- ther man nor angel can know, because neither of them is omniscient. Hence it is plain that the fulfilment of a prophecy is proof of the doctrine whose truth it was designed to establish. Jesus Christ himself was truly held to be a prophet, mighty in word and deed, who proved his own claims by both. Of the Christian Church he said it should be founded upon a rock, and the powers of hell should not prevail against it, when as yet it had no distinctive existence. How now is this verified by the history intervening be- tween his time and ours? Behold! a vast conti- nent not then discovered, all studded with the monuments of its glory. Here is a vast territory, of the existence of which no one for a long time after Christ ever dreamed, all under its mighty influence, whence issue perennial gospel streams to irrigate the world. Was there ever such a won- REVEALED TRUTH. 93 derful fulfilment as this! Christ also predicted, in reference to the loving female disciple who be- stowed upon him the fragrant contents of her ala- baster box, that wheresoever the Gospel should be preached in the whole world, this little act of love demonstrative should be told for a memorial of her. How is it now and here? The name of Mary, associated with her box of ointment, is pro- claimed from every pulpit. Wall infidelity tell us this is all a fabrication ? Three of the Evangelists, who wrote before the sacking of Jerusalem by Titus, record the won- derfully minute prophecy of our Lord as to the ways and means of its destruction; and, true enough, it was accurately fulfilled some forty years after he uttered it, and as he uttered it. I need only say that Josephus, who was an eye- witness of that appalling calamity, so describes it as to make his own history unwittingly the most valuable exposition of the prophecy. Eusebius, who wrote two hundred and sixty years after him, says of it: ‘“On comparing the declarations of our Saviour with the parts of the historian’s work, where he describes the whole war, how can one fail to acknowledge and wonder at the truly divine and extraordinary foreknowledge and pre- diction of our Saviour ?”—B. iii., ch. 7. | Now here is a multitude of historical facts, both of prediction and fulfilment, recorded in the book of Revealed Truth, as it claims to be, overlying the whole time from Adam to Christ, a period of four thousand years, all of which were designed and adapted to prove its claim to be a valid one. 94 VEDDER LECTURES. It is just such proof as the nature of the case de- mands; just such proof as well comports with the nature of the claim set up ; just such proof as none but God could give; and therefore just such proof as none but a malignant can resist. To meet it with the bare assertion of forgery or guess- work is clearly a confession of discomfiture. From this general view of the subject of prophecy it will appear that two great ends have been unde- niably reached by it, namely, solid ground for ex- pectation defore Christ came, and solid ground for faith in him after he came. ; (1.) Prophecy afforded solid ground for expecta- tion to the whole nation of the Jews who waited for “the consolation of Israel.” It will not be de- nied that for some time previous to the advent every individual of that nation, whether at home or abroad, was standing on the tiptoe of expecta- tion with regard to it; and that, explain it as we may, the same feeling of expectation, though of a far more indefinite kind, largely pervaded the Gentile world. This expectation of the Messiah was well laid upon the divine origin and supernat- ural source of prophecy, the main feature of which was a medium between too great obscurity on the one hand, and too great precision on the other. The general impatience, however, hurried all of them into the mistake of overlooking prophecies relating to the first advent of Christ to suffer and die, and fixing all their heartfelt anxiety upon the speedy fulfilment of prophecies pertaining to his second advent to reign, and to advance their nation to the predicted dignity of which they read out of REVEALED TRUTH. 95 the books of the prophets in their synagogues every Sabbath day. The Jewish people were not confined to the territory of Palestine at the time of the advent of Christ. N otwithstanding the per- mission by Cyrus to return to it after the predicted seventy years of captivity had ended, a large num- ber remained in Babylon, being about as indiffer- ent to the fatherland as are our Jews, who prefer to remain in the comfortable social condition they have ever enjoyed in the United States. Their condition in Babylon was much improved. Great privileges were granted them, and their colonies consequently became so numerous, and had been so well located for trade, that at the time of the advent there was no portion of the Roman empire where Jews were not found. Their religion and their sacred books became as widely known as themselves. But although Judaism was respected among the heathen as a religious system mainly for its antiquity, yet the Jews themselves were both hated and feared ; for the political character with which they imprudently as well as falsely invested their coming Messiah, awakened the suspicions of the Roman officials, and kept them on the lookout for insurrections. Hence, when Herod heard of the visit of the Magi in search of him who had been born king of the Jews, he was much excited, and all Jerusalem with him, though on different grounds; and sending for the chief priests and other dignitaries, demanded of them where their Messiah should be born. How could they tell in any other way than by reference to prophecy? Accordingly, they submitted to 96 VEDDER LECTURES. | Herod for his own inspection, or at least recited to him the prophecy of Micah 5: 2, uttered seven hundred years before its fulfilment in their own day: “ But thou, Bethlehem, in the land of Ju- dah, art not the least among the princes of Judah, for out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule my people Israel.” This, though substan- tially the same asthe Hebrew in sense, is somewhat different in phraseology ; the explanation is that the Jews loosely quoted the Greek version to which I have already alluded, and probably had a copy with them out of which the king could read for himself. Thus, by their own showing, and at the expiration of the time appointed, as they believed, the Messiah came, “made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that are under the law, that we might receive the adop- tion of sons.” This, however, for the reason above given, was not the faith of the Jews. The whole nation had long been misled by the false glosses of their teachers, and this explains the fact that when “he came to his own, his own received him not.” Their expectation as to the ¢zme met with no disappointment ; but with respect to the object and manner of his coming, his character - and his work, their great mistake was a fatal be- cause a careless one, as above indicated. (2.) Prophecy afforded solid ground for faith in the Messiah after he came. In proof of this I have only to refer to the occasion when John the Baptist sent messengers from the place of his imprisonment to Him, saying: “ Art thou he who should come, or do we look for another?’’ Christ REVEALED TRUTH. 97 returned the answer: “Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.” Reference was had to the acknowl- edged predicted work of the Messiah, by the per- formance of which he was to be known when he came. John had previously borne witness to him as the antitype of the Jewish piacular sacrifice, “the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world ;” and now he was substantially told to base his confidence upon the evidence of his own dis- ciples, spread out before their eyes as the creden- tials of the Messiah specified in prophecy. To this evidence Christ often referred all cavillers whose prejudices proved that they could be satis- fied with no amount of evidence, because their ambitious views and carnal expectations were disappointed. For reasons not now necessary to specify, he never formally declared himself in public, as he did in private to the Samaritan woman. He preferred to let the point of Messiah- ship be first settled in the convictions of men forced to the conclusion by seeing the works wrought by his own hand, which the prophecy said should prove his wonderful character. How eminently wise was this, and how well calculated to carry conviction to honest minds,—‘ What manner of man is this, that even the winds and the sea obey him!” Previously none had ever claimed the august character of “Shiloh;” but in agreement with the prediction of Jesus, many, 98 VEDDER LECTURES. subsequent to his ascension, taking advantage of the national expectation, set up the claim without justifying it in any way; and crowds who refused Christ, though well attested, madly ran after these impostors and miserably perished. II. MrrAcLES.—Whatisa miracle? It isa work performed by divine power counteracting the laws of nature in attestation of the fact and truth of revelation. Infidels, from the days of Hume down to the present, depending upon his often- refuted argument about experience, retail it as if original with each of themselves; and think they have made a successful stand in the assertion that ‘‘a miracle is an impossibility.” But opposite as- sertions are equally good or equally bad in the line -of any debate; and as in all others, so in this, the use of an old exploded argument is only the evi- dence of ignorance or weakness upon the part of him who ventures to use it as fresh and available material. They all unite in saying what is not true, namely, that the laws of nature are invariable ; they never change; consequently miracles can never occur: but this is assuming the very thing to be proved. By the testimony of an eminent physiolo- gist, BICHAT, the laws of vitality do change, being variable in their influences and uncertain in their results. Thus he says, in his “Introduction to his General Anatomy,” p. 21: “The vital properties are at every instant undergoing some change in degree and kind; they are scarcely ever the same.” Again he says: “ They are subject toa number of varieties ; they frequently baffle all calculation, and would require as many formulz as the cases which PL REVEALED TRUTH. 99 occur. In their phenomena nothing can be fore- seen, foretold, or calculated; we judge of them only by their analogies, and these are, in the vast proportion of instances, extremely uncertain.” But the laws of vitality de/ong to the laws of na- ture. What then becomes of the infidel’s assertion that the laws of nature never change? Perhaps now he will say the physzcal laws of matter never change. But here again he is begging the ques- tion. The laws of matter are not definable prin- ciples, but general facts of observation, by which we perceive that one thing always follows another, as cause and effect. Who does not know of the wonderful and inexplicable variety of atmospheric phenomena? When we speak of showers, we re- fer generally to showers of rain; but there are well-established facts of showers of stones, some out of clouds, and some when no clouds were to be seen; showers of dust, and showers of red infu- soria, which in early times were called showers of blood. Rain is generally “dmpid, and snow is white, but there are instances on record of black rain and /uminous rain; of black snow and red snow. Rain generally falls from clouds, but there are well-attested instances on record where copious showers have fallen without any clouds to be seen, but stars instead, in their usual appearance, shin- ing brightly. Snow, when it falls, is of the same appearance; but its crystals vary in shape, with consecutive showers in the same day, it may be, from eight to ten varieties of form. Lightning is generally seen as zigzag or sheet lightning; but sometimes it is ardorescent, taking the form of a tree 100 VEDDER LECTURES. with its branches. Be sure, for some of these won- ders explanations are offered, because there is no such thing as denying facts; but they are for the most part conjectural and unsatisfactory, as well as partial. Now we may ask, Do these phenomena apparently sustain, or apparently contradict the assertion that the laws of nature are always con- stant, regular, and unchangeable? Any one can decide for himself. Disbelief, then, founded on circumscribed experience, is both fallacious and absurd. But, for the sake of argument, let us allow “that things contrary to experience ought not to be believed.” What then? Why, according to this position, revealed truth, and Christianity, founded upon it, must be received as heaven’s greatest boon; for example: 1. Jt ts contrary to all known experience that men of low grade and of no culture can naturally pro- duce literary works that shall outlive all cotempo- rary productions on ordinary subjects of discus- sion; but such have been the living works of the various writers, both of the Old and New Testa- ments, not on ordinary but on extraordinary sub- jects; therefore the assertions of infidels concern- ing them cannot consistently be believed. 2. It is contrary to all known experience that a re- | cord of facts and principles having abundance of proof to sustain it—such as is accepted in civil courts—should ever be regarded as false; but such is the record of revealed truth; therefore the assertions of infidels respecting it cannot con- sistently be believed. er ee Le ee eer oe ee ee ee oe REVEALED TRUTH. IOI 3. Lt ts contrary to all known experience that bad men should go about the world to reform Jad men; but infidels say that the apostles were bad men; therefore their assertions are not to be be- lieved. 4. It 1s contrary to all known experience that good men should go about the world practising decep- tion to make good men; but infidels say that in their performances, called miracles, the apostles practised deception, while it is undeniable they taught the purest moral and religious sentiment ; therefore the assertions of infidels respecting them are not to be believed. 5. Lf 1s contrary to all known experience that men should ever lay down their lives in attestation of a false fact; but the apostles laid down their lives in attestation of the resurrection of their Master from the dead; therefore the allegations of infidels against the doctrine of the resurrection are not to be believed. 6. Lt ts contrary to all known experience that the religion of a whole nation, and that the largest in the world, should ever be overturned by the preaching of lies by a few ignorant men; but the religion of the Roman empire was overturned by the preaching of the primitive converts to Christ; therefore the assertions of infidelity are absurd and not to be believed. 7. ft ts contrary to all known experience that counterfeits should be ever issued of that which never had an existence; but counterfeit szracles have always been more or less thrust upon the attention and acceptance of men as genuine; there- 102 VEDDER LECTURES. fore genuine miracles have been performed; and ‘the assertions of infidels, contrary to their own boasted axiom, and against a vast amount of testi- mony, both of enemies and friends, cannot con- sistently be believed. Thus, dy ¢heer own showing, revealed truth, and the Christian religion founded upon it, should be accepted as the hope of the world. : Nicodemus, who was a master in Israel, and well acquainted with the evidence by which the presence of the Messiah should be known, was so impressed that he came to Christ with this lan- guage upon his lips: “ Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God, for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.” These miracles to which he referred, Christ himself on several occasions called “the works of God,” and such was the belief of this Jewish Rabbi not only, butof many other con- siderate men whom his personal pronoun included. But what kind of works were they? Nothing can move without the concurrence of divine power, and in this sense all things are of God. Were they then such works as enlisted the co-opera- tion of men? No; for in that case they could not have proved any thing in behalf of the character which some had inferred from them. Were they ‘such works as left it inferrible that they were wrought by superior, but still human skill, to which ordinary men were incompetent? No; for in that case the discovery would have been fatal to the claim they were designed to sustain. They were such as no created being could of REVEALED TRUTH. 103 himself perform, and necessarily so; because when God sends special messengers to men, if he ever do, he must verify the fact by such credentials as shall compel acceptance; and these, in the nature of the case, must be the performance of works 2x the sight of men suchas none but God can do. To illustrate this point, let us go back to Old Testament history. Moses was a divinely com- missioned messenger sent to Pharaoh, king of ' Egypt. He appeared before the haughty mon- arch with this extraordinary information: “The God of the Hebrews hath sent me to thee, O Pharaoh, to demand the release of his people from that severe bondage in which thou hast enthrall- edthem.” The tyrant was superstitious, and from the boldness of the stranger probably thought it best to be cautious. Instead of seizing Moses and his more eloquent brother, and treating them with that indignity or violence which might have been expected from such a man, he thought proper to say in the outset something that might, as he would naturally think, quench their ardor. “If thou art a commissioner from heaven, give me some proof of thy authority.”” This wasa reason- able requirement, and no sooner said than done. Aaron threw down his rod upon the ground, and it became a serpent. This was sufficiently start- ling, and reduced the king to a commendable degree of meekness; but not trusting to his own bewildered wits, while anxious to discover whether this astonishing transformation was really an evi- dence of divine authority or the effect of magic, to 104. VEDDER LECTURES. which he was superstitiously devoted, he speedily sent for his own trusted magicians, commanding them to attempt the same experiment. Without hesitancy they had to obey, though reluctant, from the knowledge that this was an original phenome- non, wholly baffling their skill. They threw down their rods, which, to their great astonishment, in like manner became serpents; but Aaron’s rod swallowed up their rods before it regained its normal condition! This was ominous, and doubt- less intimated to them the hoplessness of the con- test into which they had been forced. But the effect was to relieve the mind of Pharaoh, and settled him in the belief that Moses and Aaron were expert magicians, who sought to make use of their art to frighten him into the indiscretion of liberating a people whom he was most anxious to retain; and he may be supposed to have dismissed | them, with the intimation that he was quite too smart for them in this particular. At various times these men of God appeared before his majesty, making the same demand, with like results. They converted the water of the Nile into blood, so did the magicians; they produced a prodigious num- ber of frogs, so did the magicians; they perform- ed seven other miracles, no more difficult than the former; so did Nor the magicians; and therefore they informed their king that such marvellous things were beyond the artifice of human skill, and could only be done by divine power. They there- fore gave their opinion in favor of the divine legation of Moses and his brother. This was the end to be gained in showing Pharaoh to be with- Se ee, ee a Sen ee ea REVEALED TRUTH. 105 out excuse, and to have taken the initiative in hardening his own heart. As this is one of the difficult passages of Scrip- ture, so called, it may not be amiss to attempt re- moving that absurdity which has been affixed to it by infidels, and the ridicule that has been drawn out by inadequate exposition. The first question here is this: Were the miracles of Moses and Aaron and those of the Egyptians of the same kind, or were the former genuine, while the latter were the effects of magic or the devil? The his- tory is so plain upon the subject, that without any reasonable doubt they were all alike genuine, all alike the product of divine power. To maintain that the miracles of these servants of God were true, and those of the magicians false, all alike being designated in the narrative as real miracles without a hint to the contrary, is to throw the greatest advantage into the hands of the infidel, who finds in the Old Testament, as he thinks, an arsenal of weapons for swift destruction to the claims of Revealed Truth. It is to say that the character of the men determined the character of the miracles, and not God. It is to say that the magicians, by a mysterious influence of their art over the air, light, and organs of vision, deceived Pharaoh and the Egyptians, making them believe that they saw things which did not exist; it is to say, with the same breath, that they wrought no real miracle, and that they produced what was equal to the greatest of them; for it may be con- fidently referred to any man of common under- standing, if a greater miracle could be supposed 106 . VEDDER LECTURES. than to convince the king and the whole nation of the Egyptians that they saw rods changed into serpents, water turned into blood, frogs covering the land, when no such thing took place; for all this was done by the magicians as well as by Moses. Such a supposition, if not regarded as absurd, must at least be seen to be dangerous to biblical exegesis; for an infidel wants nothing more to secure a triumph. He would argue, and that correctly, that if the magicians could so thor- oughly deceive the king and the whole nation, why might not Moses also deceive them, since we are informed that he was skilled in all the learning of the Egyptians? The consequence of this would be that no respect is due to the testimony of our senses, and that every degree of evidence founded upon them may be disregarded as unreliable, be- cause of this possibility of deception. Hence it can never be proved that any miracle was ever performed, because the appropriate source of all certain proof in the behalf of miracles is dried up forever. Such is the consequence of abandoning the plain words of Scripture and the laws of lan- guage to answer the demands of human opinion. Nothing, in my judgment, can be plainer than this, that the power by which these magicians did the same things done by Moses was the power of God, and for this plain reason, that their acts, no less than his, were creative acts, and therefore could not have been accomplished by the art of man or by the agency of the devil. Toturna rod into a living, crawling serpent, to give animal life to a dead substance that had been deprived of = 2 ——. REVEALED TRUTH. 107 another kind natural to it, namely, vegetable life, was a creative act, which none but God could do; to convert the waters of a kingdom into blood, and to call a vast multitude of full-grown frogs into existence and activity in one night, are deeds which required no less a power than that which made the world. Works of creation come not within the power of man, angel, or devil; for if ever such could be the case, a creature would be- come a creator, and one of the strongest proofs of the existence of a personal God would be blotted out forever. The contrary opinion, assigning the miracles of the magicians to the agency of the devil, is indefensible, not only because it gives an inalienable attribute of the Almighty to the devil, but for another reason. If the magicians worked by the energy of Satan, it is perfectly evi- dent that when they gave up the contest, saying that they could not imitate any of the other seven miracles performed by Moses and Aaron, they were mistaken, for surely it was no easier to make frogs than locusts; it was no easier to convert a dead rod into a living serpent, than to convert dead dust into living lice: the power was substan- tially the same in both cases, because the result was the same in kind. This opinion must there- fore be abandoned, because it is at war with com- mon-sense, and is fatal to the truth of the whole story, making the reason given by the magicians for their discontinuance evidently and stupidly false, and unlikely to have been presented at all, because of previous successes in works of no less difficulty. 108 VEDDER LECTURES. Another question just here is suggested. What good reason can be given why God should not only allow, but enable the magicians of Pharaoh to work real miracles in opposition to his own ser- vants? I reply, the best in the world. By means of the success of his magicians, Pharaoh reassured himself, and was the cause of hardening his own heart on the occasion furnished by God for that purpose; so that the cruel tyrant should be pun- ished for his crimes through his own agency. Besides, the attempted performances of the magi- clans were not impositions by their own con- trivance, but were divinely made true miracles, apparently opposed, but really in aid of the ser- vants of God. These magicians were the privy councillors of the king, to whose united wisdom he was accustomed to defer. God gave them power, amazing to themselves, to work three mira- cles in succession, as fast as Aaron did, but denied them the power to work another one in imitation of any of the seven subsequently wrought, neither of which was of more difficult execution. There was no apparent reason why they should not con- tinue to be successful. Their trial and failure, in this view of matters, showed them that their pre- vious success was not attributable to their own art, but to a higher power; hence their declara- tion to Pharaoh, that these miracles were wrought by the hand of God. Pharaoh therefore had the united evidence of those to whose decision he had committed this case, and therefore was bound to respect the demand of Moses and Aaron, as of divine authority. If the magicians had not suc- hes tie © eee ee ee” ee ad + ¥ ‘ 7 if ; { REVEALED TRUTH. 109 ceeded at all, they could not have explained the matter any more or better than Pharaoh; but by working three of the miracles, the like of which they were conscious they never did before, and which they well knew was not in consequence of any power within their art, because the other seven were no harder to perform than the first three, they spoke from experience, and not from mere opinion, in their advice to the king. Siding with him in the first instance, they were at length made to feel that they were all in the wrong, and in danger, too, unless they turned over to the side of Moses. As his councillors they therefore made known their convictions to the king, who, in his obstinacy, was thus left without excuse. This interesting narrative shows us that God himself established in early history this fact, that he sent and should send chosen men as messen- gers to men to declare his will; and set forth — that the working of miracles should be their cre- dentials, furnished by himself in testimony of the fact, and of the right divinely invested in them to proclaim Revealed Truth. Ex. 4:6-9. The evi- dence of a divine mission must be made clear to the senses of men, and in no other way, before it can be accepted. It is the “votce of the sign,” which is divine. The nature of the proof must correspond to the nature of theclaim. As it can- not be shown that a divine mission of a man to men is an impossibility, it cannot be shown that the evidence of such mission is incompatible with the nature of things. Hence, during the continu- ance of such extraordinary missions as we find I1O VEDDER LECTURES. spoken of throughout the Old Testament, we look not in vain for the evidence divinely given to secure human confidence in them. Miracles therefore were not new phenomena in the world, when the antitype of Moses appeared to con- vince men by “the works of God” of his own divine mission. Thus I return to the question—What kind of works did Christ perform which brought a Jewish Rabbi to the conviction that ‘ God was with him” ? How do they compare with those of Moses? A glance should satisfy all men, as it satisfies us, that while some were equal and others immeasur- ably superior, all were far beyond them in this respect, that Moses as the servant performed in the name and by the authority of Jehovah; while Christ as the Son of God wrought his works in his own name and by his own authority, and directed others so to do. Moses was powerless without the rod of God in his hand, Christ was powerful because God was in him. His works were there- fore “the works of God,” and no one can deny it, because they fall within classes, all necessarily ex- cluding every other agency. They are: 1. Works of creation, such as turning water into wine by the mere act of willing it; and mul- tiplying a few loaves and fishes into a quantity of provision adequate to feed many thousands, with a surplus of fragments left greatly exceeding the original supply. 2. Works of mercy, such as curing organic de- fects, giving sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, power of limbs to the lame, and perfect REVEALED TRUTH. III health to those afflicted with diseases incurable by human means. 3. Works of control over the spirit-world, as in the expulsion of demons from those possessed by them. 4. Works of omnipotence, such as allaying the winds ; bringing the tossing waves of a sea to an instant calm by a word of command : bringing its fishes in a great multitude instantly within nets that had been set for them a whole night without success ; withering a fig-tree from the roots by a word; walking on the waves of the sea, and rais- ing the dead. I need specify no others. That these, if ever performed, were “ the works of God,” no believer in the divine existence will deny. The only question is, Were they actually done? If so, then the claims of Christ in all their extent are indubitably true, and Revealed Truth is a stupendous fact. How then shall these mir- acles be verified? By what way can we prove their reality ? Clearly in no other way than the common one by which all other facts are proven. They are so wonderful in their nature and effects that confessedly mere human power is not com- petent to execute any one of them; and there- fore they were the only proof that could be suit- able for the verification of claims so extraordinary as those set up by and in the behalf of Jesus of Nazareth. These miracles are abundantly proved to have been wrought by him day after day, for the space of three years, in the midst of multi- tudes; and the fame of them spread all over the country of the Jews and far beyond, by the re- 112 VEDDER LECTURES. ports of all kinds of men who had witnessed them, enemies as well as friends ; and these reports were uniform in one remarkable respect, that they were such works as none but God could do. Even the malice of enemies admitted their performance by superhuman power, though they decried that as an evil agency ; now the admission of enemies is the best of proof. The natural incredulity be- gotten of experience in a world where deceptions abound, made it the interest of every beholder to dispute them if possible, and to this end, to ex- amine them and the effects of them with the closest continuous scrutiny ; and now, what is the final result? We find nothing on earth so abun- dantly and unanimously proven to be true, as the miracles of Christ and his apostles. To dispute it, is to set up individual opinion against the greatest amount of the most positive testimony that has ever been gathered in defence of any subject or thing in the world; and that such tes- timony to known deception as absolute truth should exist at all, is an impossibility in the nature of things. This testimony does not relate to abstractions, but to one simple objective fact. What, then, is the law upon such a matter by which Courts of justice are governed? It is this: “In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry ts not whether tt is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there ts sufficient probability that tt is true.” —Greenleaf, as above, p23. Can there, then, be any appreciable probability that the mass of testimony aforesaid to the fact of a REVEALED TRUTH. I13 the performance of miracles is false, when all known experience proves that no such amount of testimony on any secular matter of fact has ever occurred in the world? Certainly not; there can be but one rational opinion on this point. ‘“‘In proceeding to weigh the evidence of any proposition of fact, the previous question to be determined is, When may it be said to be proved? The answer to this question is furnished by another rule of municipal law, which may be thus stated : ““A proposition of fact is proved when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. “By competent evidence is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires ; and by satisfactory evidence is meant that amount of proof which ordinarily satisfies an unpre- judiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt. “In a question of fact in human affairs, nothing more than moral evidence can be required, for this is the best evidence which, from the nature of the case, is attainable. Now as the facts stated in Scripture History are not of the (mathematical) kind, but are cognizable by the senses, they may be said to be proved when they are established by that kind and degree of evidence which, as we have just observed, would, in the affairs of human life, satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man. When we have this degree of evidence, it is unreason- able to require more. A juror would violate his oath, if he should refuse to acquit or condemn a person charged with an offence, where this measure of proof was adduced. ‘Proceeding further to inquire whether the facts related by the four evangelists are proved by competent and satisfactory evidence, we are led, first, to consider on which side lies the burden of establishing the credibility of witnesses. On this point the municipal law furnishes a rule, which is of constant application in all trials by jury, and is indeed the dictate of that charity which thinketh no evil : “In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible until the contrary ts shown, the ~ burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.” —Lbid., p. 25. ‘This rule serves to show the injustice with which the writers of 114 VEDDER LECTURES. the Gospels have ever been treated by infidels—an injustice silent- ly acquiesced in even by Christians—in requiring the Christian affirmatively, and by positive evidence, aliunde, to establish the credibility of his witnesses above all others, before their testimony is entitled to be considered, and in permitting the testimony of a single profane writer, alone and uncorroborated, to outweigh that of any single Christian. It is time that this injustice should cease ; that the testimony of the evangelists should be admitted to be true, until it can be disproved by those who would impugn it; that the silence of one sacred writer on any point should no more detract from his own veracity or that of the other histo- rians than the like circumstance is permitted to do among pro- fane writers ; and that the four evangelists should be admitted in corroboration of each other as readily as Josephus and Tacitus, or Polybius and Livy. ‘‘But if the burden of establishing the credibility of the evan- gelists were devolved on those who affirm the truth of their nar- ratives, it is still capable of a ready moral demonstration, when we consider the nature and character of the testimony, and the essential marks of difference between true narratives of facts and the creations of falsehoods. It is universally admitted that the credit to be given to witnesses depends chiefly on their ability to discern and comprehend what was before them, their oppor- tunities for observation, the degree and accuracy with which they are accustomed to mark passing events, and their integrity in relating them. The rule of municipal law on this subject embraces all these particulars, and is thus stated by a legal text- writer of the highest repute. “* The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty ; secondly, their ability ; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony ; fourthly, the conformity of their tes- timony with experience and fifthly, the coincidence of their testi- mony unth collateral circumstances. ‘‘Let the evangelists be tried by these tests. “And fst, as to their honesty. Here they are entitled to the benefit of the general course of human experience, that men ordinarily speak the truth when they have no prevailing motive or inducement to the contrary. This presumption is applied in courts of justice, even to witnesses whose integrity is not wholly free from suspicion ; much more is it applicable to the evangel- ists, whose testimony went against all their worldly interests. REVEALED TRUTH. II5 “‘In the second place, as to their adility. The text-writer before cited observes that the ability of a witness to speak the truth de- pends on the opportunities which he has had for observing the fact, the accuracy of his powers of discerning, and the faithful- ness of his memory in retaining the facts once observed and known, “Tt is always to be presumed that men are honest and of sound mind, and of the average and ordinary degree of intelli- gence. This is not the judgment of mere charity; it is also the uniform presumption of the law of the land, a presumption which is always allowed freely and fully to operate, until the fact is shown to be otherwise by the party who denies the ap- plicability of this presumption to the particular case in question. Whenever an objection is raised in opposition to ordinary pre- sumptions of law, or to the ordinary experience of mankind, the burden of proof is devolved on the objector by the common and ordinary rules of evidence and of practice incourts. No lawyer is permitted to argue in disparagement of the intelligence or in- tegrity of a witness against whom the case itself afforded no par- ticle of testimony. This is sufficient for our purpose, in regard to these witnesses. But more than this is evident from the mi- nuteness of their narratives and from their history. Matthew was trained, by his calling, to habits of severe investigation and sus- picious scrutiny, and Luke’s profession demanded an exactness of observation equally close and searching. The other two evangelists were as much too unlearned to forge the story of their Master’s life, as they were too learned and acute to be de- ceived by an imposture. “Tn the third place, as to the umber and consistency of their testimony there is substantial truth, under circumstantial vari- ety, enough of discrepancy to show there could have been no previous concert among them, and at the same time such sub- stantial agreement as to show that they were all independent narrators of the same great transaction as the events actually occurred, “In the fourth place, as to the conformity of their testimony with experience, The title of the evangelists to full credit for veracity would be readily conceded by the objector, if the facts they relate were such as ordinarily occur in human experience.” —Greenleaf, pp. 26-36. 116 VEDDER LECTURES. The estimable and talented author whom [| have so largely quoted has rendered valuable service in the discussion now in hand; and I am happy to say that, as a /egal question, he has placed the claims of the Gospel beyond reasona- ble dispute, and has left infidelity crimsoned with the disgrace of an opposition demonstrably due to pure malevolence. These narratives record many and wonderful. miracles. Here we may be told that “it is quite unnecessary to expend breath upon that which is taken for granted, when it needs to be proved; for such a thing as a miracle can never occur, and is plainly impossible, because every one knows that the course of things is uniform, and pro- ceeds upon an established uniformity according to the laws of nature, which admit of no suspen- sion, much less infraction. They secure the con- fidence of all men, savage and civilized, and upon their undeviating exactitude of operation all men of all ages have relied and do rely.” But in this statement there is an evident assumption of the thing to be proved, and the objector has no right to use an argument encumbered with the same difficulty he charges upon the one he combats. Besides, it isa fallacy ; because it presupposes that the so-called laws of nature are princzples instead of general facts, and that they are pre-existent to nature itself. Moreover, the objector bases his assertion upon another, that matter is eternal, and consequently that the universe is either eternal or an effect without a cause. This would be to admit the mightiest of miracles, for whether the REVEALED TRUTH. 117 universe be created, or has ever existed as a causeless fact, it is the miracle of greatest magni- tude. David Hume, who had, it would seem, the acutest mind that ever soared among the clouds of infidelity, is the parent of that celebrated argu- ment from experience against the possibility of miracles, with which the most of us perhaps are acquainted. Hume was indebted to Hobbes for the doctrine that there is no necessary connection between cause and effect, but since this is an as- sumption, and more manifestly contrary to uni- versal observation and experience than miracles can be supposed to be, he evidently could not con- sistently plead against them the very difficulty that encumbered his own doctrine. He, however, was so effectually answered by Campbell that he failed to make any attempt at reply, yet the infidels of our day continue to employ this exploded ar- gument, just as if it had never been refuted by Brougham, Chalmers, and others who have thrice slain the slain since Campbell wrote. We take it for granted, that no one who ac- credits the works of nature to the designing mind and creative power of God will be fool enough to say, that in shaping and adapting her laws of progress by an arrangement of things called by us causes and consequents, he unwittingly legislated himself out of the control of his own universe. It is then as evidently consistent with reason as it is clearly competent to omnipotence, that the divine energy should work for special purposes away back in the line of causation, without disturbing the general laws of nature; or in a more imme- 118 VEDDER LECTURES. diate and direct way, to create miracles without interfering with their operation at all. For this purpose it is not necessary that God should sus- pend any one of them for a moment. A law of nature may simultaneously act, and be acted upon even by ourselves in a small way. Does any one suppose that the law of gravity, for example, is suspended when he sees a huge stone ascending mid-air, to its destined place at the top of a lofty building? No, because he sees the mechanical contrivance at work by which that law is coun- teracted, while acting all the time with its full force upon the ascending stone. Dida bystander, ignorant of this contrivance, and not seeing its connection with the stone, behold the ascent, he would exclaim, A miracle! and to him profoundly ignorant of mechanics, and seeing nothing but the stone, it would be a miracle. Will any one, then, pretend to believe that what man can do on 4 small scale with visible means of counteraction, God cannot do on a large scale without the means of counteraction being made visible to his creatures? Surely not, if he have a mind bigger than that of a beetle. Every wonder is not a mir- acle, though every miracle is a wonder ; and con- sists in the power of God counteracting the laws of nature for a special purpose. Hence the differ- ence between the false and the true in this matter. Now when we consider the moral end of miracles, I think they must be viewed as the most appro- priate evidence God could give in order to beget confidence in any new truth or truths necessary to be known for human welfare. | ee eee eed ‘REVEALED TRUTH. 119g Two objects were to be gained by the miracles of our Redeemer and his apostles: the one to illustrate his own glory as the Son of God, the Messiah of Israel, and to prove his mission as God’s great apostle, competent to instruct men in divine fact and truth, necessary to be known for their salvation; and the other to give proof cor- responding to the claim that the Gospel is “worthy of all acceptation,’ and the only true religion upon the face of the earth. These ob- jects were secured not merely by the miraculous nature of his works, overwhelming men with the utmost astonishment, but by their moral charac- ter, leading them to see that the moral ailments of the soul could only find relief in him whose divine benevolence was expended in curing those natural diseases which were beyond the reach of human skill; for these miracles were not only great, but gracious; not only mighty, but merci- ful; not only demonstrative of inherent divine power, but of unspeakably benevolent design in him who came to announce himself able and will- ing to save every soul reposing in him for abso- lute deliverance from “the second death,” and for absolute bestowment of a glorious immortality. Considered as works of supernatural power, mir- acles were designed as the seal of heaven to stamp his mission and his gospel with the authority of Almighty God ; considered as works of benevo- lence, they were intended to win the confidence of every generous heart to both, as the Saviour and the means of salvation befitting the nature of divine mercy, and every way suited to the 120 VEDDER LECTURES. wretchedness of man. They were the natural signs of the moral thing signified, pointing to higher wonders than those addressed to the natural eye. Christ came to seek and save the lost; to this end, all that he did and all that he said had a uniform tendency. Hence it is that every miracle had its moral, and was symbolical of greater, higher, holier things than were imme- diately apparent to the crowd of spectators whose applause followed its performance. To suppose miracles only designed to attest the truth of doc- trine, would be to overlook much of their actual use, to miss the impressive lessons which they teach every mind apt to learn, and to lose the richest repast which they bring to the hungry heart. In their attesting character, they all have the same object, like so many concurring witnesses, to make up cubic solidity of testimony, and they have done it; but in their 2//ustrative character, they illumine the important lessons of the Gos- pel. They show how Christ destroys the works of the devil, and that he is able and assuredly will rescue this little province, revolted from the Em- pire of God, from its present ill condition, and bring it back to allegiance never again to be broken. ROM. 8: 19-23. From what I have now said, one thing at least must appear plain. Upon the supposition that Revealed Truth is possible, it is to a certain ex- tent probable. So far, then, miracles in attesta- tion of it ought to be performed, because they afford extraordinary proof commensurate with REVEALED TRUTH. I21 extraordinary claims; because, as we have shown, they do not violate the laws of nature, and be- cause human confidence could not in any other way be so well secured ; therefore, if revelation be possible, the position of the infidel is impossible in the nature of things, and this shows the absur- dity of its assumption. I therefore say, that the denial of well-established facts, unsupported by any thing but the 4 griorz apprehension of a mind averse to the truth which they circumstantially confirm, is worth no more for an argument than the slaver of a laboring beast impatient of restraint. ~ woe a 4 ee ‘lt C3 OM NSD gE REVEALED TRUTH. THE A POSTERIORI ARGUMENT. Humanity not derived from brutality—Quotations from Darwin and Haeckel—Facts unshaken must be accounted for—Testimony of ene- mies most reliable—Testimony of Judas, what it proves—Why Christ chose him—Josephus’ testimony shown to be unimpeachable— Testimony of Tacitus—Admitted by Gibbon—Pilate’s report—Impor- tance of it in the d posteriori argument—Celsus—Porphyry—Pliny’s letter and Trajan’s answer—Julian—Facts established by twelve prin- cipal enemies, and a multitude of friends—Infidel argument a con- spicuous failure—Strauss—Renan—The @ posteriori argument irre- futable—Revealed Truth triumphant—Disbelief and misbelief. THE great Author of our being did not develop man out of any of the lower animals. He did not make him simply the most respectable brute, such as some of our scientists seem to claim that they are, and avow themselves contented with the an- cestral character; but he created him an incar- nated soul, endowed with reason and conscience, and never required him to believe any thing con- founding to the one or in conflict with the other. 124 VEDDER LECTURES. Our “scientists,” as they call themselves, affect to put contempt upon this, gravely informing us that reason is nothing but a development of mat- ter, common to men and beasts, and conscience a thing of educational instinct. Darwin says: “Prof. Huxley, in the opinion of most competent judges, has conclusively shown that in every single visible character man differs less from the higher apes than these do from the lower members of the same order of primates.” “The conclusion that man is the co-descendant with other species of some ancient, lower, and ex- tinct form is not in any degree new. Lamarck long ago came to this conclusion, which has lately been maintained by several eminent naturalists and philosophers ; for instance, Wallace, Huxley, Lyell, Vogt, Biichner, Rolle, and especially by Haeckel.” — The Descent of Man, vol. i. pp. 3, 4- Their volumes, filled with such irrational senti- ments, are offered as proof of a position so in- tensely absurd that it defies the resources of rationality to do more in the way of an answer than express its indignation, pointing to such theorists as the most conspicuous examples of what infidelity can do for besotting the intellect. The assumption that this is the result of science, is a joke at their own expense. Viewing man, as he everywhere recognizes himself, and as the Scriptures describe him, an original being from the start, endowed with an intellectual and moral nature, we must see that he isa creature of necessities which grow out of that nature, which can alone be met out of the REVEALED TRUTH. 125 storehouse of divine benevolence, and which are not included in the wants of the brute creation. If God, who is repudiated by our learned authors aforesaid, have given man to know a class of facts and doctrines answering to these necessities of his mental and moral being, but impossible to be known in any other way than that of supernatural revelation, he must have given him therewith cer- tain infallible proofs of it whenever and wherever made. If we now show that this is just what has been done, by a line of facts infinitely more re- liable than those depended upon by our “ scien- tists’ for their enormous conclusions, and that the evidence is just what is befitting, and, so far as we can see, imparted by the best possible methods, we may fairly claim a triumph so abso- lute as to drive all gainsayers into the position, not merely of atheists, but of anti-theists, whose only remaining excuse for their opposition to Re- vealed Truth will be a dogged assertion that there cannot possibly be a God to reveal it. To this position our more advanced “scientists” have already come. Bruno has thus expressed it: “A spirit exists in all things, and no body is so small but contains a part of the divine substance, by which it is animated.” In quoting this amazing sentence, Haeckel calls it “anoble idea of God”’! Drunkenness then must be a divine virtue, since it is produced by imbibing God distilled from vegetable matter! However absurd such sentiments are, the most determined of their authors cannot deny the facts of Christianity as they are now known 120 VEDDER LECTURES. the world over, with which the & posteriort reason begins investigation. I mean such facts as the existence of the visible Church, her Bible, her ministry, her sacraments, her Sabbath, her assem- blies, her forms of worship, her monumental structures, her working force, her world-wide in- fluence in the formation and continuance of the Christian chronology ; an influence that has grown up from a beginning the most unpromising and most unlikely to produce it. These facts they are bound to account for in some such way as shall show our theory of them to be not only wrong but unreasonable, and shall prove their existence possible upon some other ground more satisfac- tory, and more in accordance with the philosophy of history and the natural sequences of things. We show by every possible method’ of proof, direct, indirect, and circumstantial, that, unlike any other, the Christian religion is based on a Joundation of facts unique in themselves, and satis- factorily explaining all the consequential facts just named, all of which are links of the same chain upon which the hand of honest investigation may glide along until it reaches the very manger in Bethlehem, where the young child lay who was “called Jesus, because he should save his people from their sins.” Our opponents must show either that there is no necessary connection between the former and the latter facts with which themselves are familiar, or that the whole chain is suspended upon a hook of fiction fastened in an obscure corner of the world, nearly two thousand years ago. But they have never made any respectable REVEALED TRUTH. 127 attempt to do either; yet, until this is done, the Christian religion remains unshaken in its claim to be a system which carries in the van of its march the most indubitable evidence of its super- natural origin. If such had not been the fact, nothing could have saved it from instant exposure by its earliest enemies, whose ability, opportuni- ties, and inclination were fully equal to insure success. If the birth, life, death, and resurrec- tion of Jesus Christ, with all their attending cir- cumstances as recorded, had not taken place; if the miraculous works, the prophetical announce- ments, the wonderful utterances, the great prin- ciples, the original doctrines predicated of him had been mere accretions of fable, gradually gathered ,with the lapse of time around some small nucleus of inadequate fact—nothing could have been easier than an early demonstration of the imposture. It is utterly incredible that, in- stead of this, such an imposture should have so succeeded as to have been prized more than life by thousands upon thousands who suffered for the sake of the Gospel rather than disown it as the cause of God. Surely, then, it these facts were false, and these doctrines the unsupported fig- ments of an imbecile fanaticism, the world, for the first three centuries of the Gospel’s most con- spicuous success, must have been peopled with races of knaves, or cursed with generations of fools. In either case they. would have left the legacy. of their debased character to their succes- sors. But nothing of the kind existed. On the contrary, the first hundred years of our era was 128 VEDDER LECTURES. a very enlightened age compared with previous centuries, and for this reason. Conquests of bar- barians had been made, Roman civilization largely extended, and the times favored the culture of letters. “‘ Literature and the arts,” says Mosheim, “with the study of humanity and philosophy, be- came generally diffused, and the cultivation of them extended to countries that previously had formed no other scale by which to estimate the dignity of man than that of corporeal vigor or muscular strength.” Amid these circumstances, so favorable to popular elevation, Christianity began its history. Fifty years after the crucifix- ion, multitudes in all parts of the Roman empire accepted it as true, and based its facts and its success upon the great foundation fact of the re- surrection of Christ. No system of fact and doc- trine was ever taught which so soon as commonly known, as to their tendency, met with universal hostility. But this hostility did not begin with the denial of proffered truth. Jew and Gentile were bitterly opposed to each other, but both unitedly opposed Christianity, simply because it assailed the false hope and self-righteousness of the one, and the idolatry and licentiousness of the other, as alike ruinous to the interests of man- kind in every aspect. While it enforced moral truth that was or might have been known, it taught original truth that could not otherwise have been known. It won strong friends, for which reason it excited strong enemies, whose aim was to destroy it; and to suppose they did not act in obedience to such motives as hatred REVEALED TRUTH. 129 always prompts, is to suppose that the men of that period were more virtuous than those of suc- ceeding generations. At no time in human his- tory have the instincts of an evil nature acted more vigorously than at the period of which lam speaking. It has brought down to us the indis- putable knowledge of a conflict between the friends and foes of Christianity, so long, so sharp, so ferocious and bloody as to form one of the most unmanageable arguments that infidelity has to encounter: I mean the admission of early and competent enemies when they did speak, and their significant silence when they could not speak. The beginning of it we have in the gospel history. It is admitted on all hands that the testimony of an enemy is worthy of implicit reliance. If one man known to be hostile to another is compelled to bear witness to his integrity, that evidence is more surely taken for exact truth than the evi- dence of a friend who may be supposed some- what biassed in his favor. Keeping this in view, I propose to prove the truth of the four gospel narratives by just such testimony, contenting my- self with bare references to that of friends, who by thousands sacrificed their dearest worldly in- terests, braved dangers, and embraced the cruel- est forms of death rather than surrender their faith and hope in Christ. I begin with Judas Iscariot. , He was a chosen apostle, who with the rest was familiar with Christ in private and in public during the whole of his ministry. If ever Christ had a subtle enemy in the world, Judas Iscariot 130 VEDDER LECTURES. was that enemy. If ever there was an apostate who belied all his professions with the utmost coolness, Judas was that apostate. If ever there was a traitor who, unprompted by malice, could sacrifice the dearest interests of others to the self-interest of calculating ambition, Judas was that traitor; and if ever there was a wretch com- bining in his heart of falsehood the meanest ele- ments of human villany by his own showing, Judas was that man. To find this enemy, this apostate, this traitor, this wretch tortured at last into the necessity of proclaiming the innocence of Christ and the justness of his cause, sealing the truth of his evidence with his own blood, is some- thing so surprising in itself, that the warmest friends could never have expected it. Let us not forget that the testimony of an enemy is ever admitted to be the strongest positive evidence possible in favor of the one against whom his en- mity is directed. Peter, Paul, and John have nobly proved the truth of Christianity, but oppo- nents like Strauss and Renan remind us that they were the ardent friends of its Founder, and be- coming deeply involved in his plans, or acting upon their own after-thoughts, they very likely felt themselves pledged to carry them out by every means in their power. Very well; let these gentlemen observe that we present now a witness to whom they can take no such exception, whose testimony is of an irresistible nature, and enforced by circumstances so strangely corroborative and so strongly demonstrative, that it can be subject to no such drawback as they imagine hampers REVEALED TRUTH. 131 the evidence of all the other apostles; a testi- mony which meets them upon the very thresh- old of entrance to logical investigation; a testi- mony which they cannot ignore without im- peaching their own honesty, which they cannot discredit without disgracing their own claims as competent investigators, and for which they can- not account except upon the ground of fact and truth underlying the very cause they seek to dis- credit. No man can possibly deny its value to that cause, nor criticise the fairness which insists that an opponent is unworthy of respect who affects to despise, or will not consent to dispose of, an argument claimed to be unanswerable. . The assumption that Judas Iscariot is a myth, is a precious piece of wit in those who cannot otherwise displace his testimony. How happened it that the general sagacity of the Jewish rulers, with whom he is said to have driven his bargain, became all at once so particularly foolish as not to have published to the world the invention that _ heaped infamy upon their own heads? Why did they fail to convict-the history of their investment of Judas’ money in the Potter’s Field asa forgery? There can be but one answer. The first men- tion of Judas in the New Testament is when Christ chose twelve out of the small number of his followers, and appointed them to be associated with himself in the strictest family intimacy, to be educated by himself for the work of the gos- pel ministry, and to be officially known by the term “Apostle.” The catalogue of their names is thrice given, and every time ends with the name i132 VEDDER LECTURES. and description of “ Judas Iscariot, who also be- trayed him.” Only a short time elapses after their appointment, when we find Judas, together with the rest, receiving from his Master power over unclean spirits, diseases, and other physical evils, and commissioned to go preaching the Gos- pel, and confirming it by the exercise of this mi= raculous power. From thistime we hear nothing of him until near the close of that precious life, which his treason put into the hands of its ene- mies. When Peter said, in answer to a question by his Master, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life, and we believe that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God,” Judas united with the rest in this declara- tion; but his attempted concealment of character from the knowledge of the Master was in vain, for Christ immediately responded, “ Have I not chosen you twelve? and one of you is a devil.” The historian explains by saying: ‘He spoke of Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon ; for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.” On the Sabbath preceding the execution of his trea- son, we find all these disciples at a dinner, mani- festing indignation at Mary for wasting her box of ointment upon the feet of their Master, to which Judas thus ventured to give expression: “ Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?” The interpreta- tion of his cant is thus given by the historian: “This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bore what was put therein.” As the result of his trea- REVEALED TRUTH. 133 son, Jesus was condemned by Pilate, after that functionary had judicially acquitted him, to suffer the most ignominious penalty known to Roman law. Matters had now gone so far as to convince Judas that his innocent Master would suffer death. Knowing his power, he had perhaps thought that Christ would miraculously escape; but now that all was against it, smitten with remorse, the poor devil brought back his thirty pieces of silver to the priests and elders, confessing his guilt in terms which he probably hoped might avail for the stay of proceedings: “I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood;’ but met, as he was, with the bitter taunt, “ What is that to us? See thou to that,” frantically he dashed: down his ill-gotten gain before them, and went out and hanged himself. This completes the account given of the traitor, and it is mainly valuable as the basis of an argument which, in my judgment, cannot be shaken. Here is a man of sense and ability, qualities for which he was made the treasurer of Christ’s little company, and one in whom they all reposed_ con- fidence. He was thoroughly acquainted with the private life, knew the habits and sentiments, and finally learned the ultimate views of his Master. He was, by his silence and caution, evidently fit- ted to detect any imposture that might have been attempted, a man not only able but willing to gra- tify any resentment begotten of disappointment or miscalculating ambition. Swayed by avarice, covetous of money, prompted by selfishness, it was not in his nature that he should fail to make 134 VEDDER LECTURES. a strong case against Christ, if within his power ; yet this very man, having betrayed him for money into the hands of his enemies, without assigning any reason beyond that couched in the obsequious question, “ What will you give me?” no sooner reflects upon his horrible deed, than his conscience, aroused like a lion, seizes him and hurries him back to confess his iniquity, and in the strongest possible language to declare the in- nocence of Jesus before those malignant rulers to whom he had sold him, but a few hours before, for the price of a slave; and finding he could not re- cover him, in a paroxysm of remorse he expires by his own hand almost in their very presence. Now I claim this short but sharp tragedy to be an attestation of the integrity of Christ, and of his claims, as strong as strength can make it. It is an instance of overwhelming evidence extorted from the conscience of an enemy writhing under the plunging sting of remorse, and sealed with his own blood. If by his excited manner and excit- ing exclamation Judas had meant no more than this, that Christ had done nothing worthy of bonds, ‘much less of death, he clearly enough indicated that Christ’s capture by them was the result of his own treason, and the absurdly wicked process by which he was condemned, the procurement of their reckless and daring malice; but the full mean- ing of Judas evidently was, that innocence in all things covered the character and life of Jesus. Consequently, the following me were A in his wailing confession: 1. Judas believed that Jesus was the Measale REVEALED TRUTH. 135 but he found out by his teaching that the Messiah was different in all respects from the imaginary one he had been instructed to believe in by the false glosses of the Rabbis, and hence his disap- pointment. The wings of his carnal imagination had been clipped, and the hopes of his ambition destroyed ; yet at the same time he believed that Christ told the truth about himself, and had cor- roborated it by the divine testimony of works impossible to man. The Jews had accused him of blasphemy in these plain words: “ Because, being a man, thou makest thyself equal with God.” Now if Christ had been only a man, he would have been guilty of blasphemy; if only a good man, he would have corrected their mistake and repudiated their imputation, but he did not-do it ; if, then, Judas had not been convinced that he was more than man, how easily and how justly could he have accused him with a good conscience! How much more than a man, perhaps he would not have undertaken to say; but when Christ manifested before his eyes the incommunicable at- tributes of God, which cannot be imparted to any of his creatures without destroying the distinction between Creator and creature, and enabled him to perform miraculous works, he could not say that the Saviour of sinners was himself a sinner. Hence by “innocent blood’”’ he meant purity of principle and holiness of life. i 2. By this declaration Judas must have meant that the miracles of Christ were genuine, and his doctrines divine. He himself had been empowered with the other apostles to work miracles, and 136 VEDDER LECTURES. therefore could tell whether he and they had per- formed them. Matthew is particular in his infor- mation that Christ on a certain occasion called his twelve chosen apostles together, and formally conferred upon them this power, and bid them to go forth and exercise it, and among their names he specifies that of Judas Iscariot. Can we for a moment doubt that he made the experiment on the first demoniac or diseased person he met? Must he not therefore have known whether he did actually heal the sick and expel demons, or failed? Surely his own experience must have inwrought the conviction that Christ was precisely what he represented himself to be. On the other hand, if he had been imposed upon in this matter he was not the man to have failed in making it known for self-justification. 3. Having had perfect knowledge of the views of his Master so far as he could penetrate, he had no ground for the least suspicion that Christ pro- posed any interference with the Roman Govern- ment. It was precisely this refusal that exasper- ated the Jews, whose highest aspiration and ex- pectation from the Messiah was deliverance from subjection to it; hence their malevolence. If Christ had uttered a word against Cesar, it would have been considered treasonable, but not- withstanding all their efforts his captious enemies could not elicit from him any thing of the kind ; nor could Judas report any such word spoken in private. He was therefore “innocent” on this point. 4. The remorseful declaration of the traitor REVEALED TRUTH. 137 implies also that his Master was compassionate, beneficent, kind, and always doing good. Hence he had no charge to make when he received the price of his treason; nor when he returned it, had he to recall any accusation, or to unsay any dis- paraging word. He simply confessed himself a vile traitor, and hastened to extinguish his own guilty life before the “innocent blood” should be shed. | The leading inquiry, therefore, must now relate to Judas himself. Was he a wise man or a fool? Was he or was he not competent to form a just opinion of Christ and his designs, so far as he knew them? Unless we can be assured on this point his testimony is of little worth. Happily we have not the least difficulty here, for although Christ chose his apostles from the lower walks of life, he took care that they should be men of sound minds and good sense. The most deter- mined of our opponents have conceded this, in their impeachment of the apostles on the score of artfulness and natural shrewdness, altogether in- compatible with imbecility of mind and adapt- edness to their business as remarkably successful impostors. That Judas was one of their number is therefore a strong presumption in favor of his intellectual and executive ability; but to this must be added the fact that Christ raised him to a post of trust by making him treasurer for the whole, a fact indicative of his special fitness so far as the qualities of sound sense and aptness for business are concerned; and if we may build upon the opinions of his fellows, he seems to have 138 VEDDER LECTURES. been in good repute among them; for when the plainest intimation was given by Christ that one of their own number should betray him, so far as the history shows, not one of them was led to suspect Judas, until he was pointed out to John; and even then they misinterpreted the words of the Master. The manner, too, in which Judas conducted himself from first to last is indicative of no failure of qualification in the particulars named. However he may have come to form his treasonable design, he showed much tact in con- cealment, at such times as the unsparing lash of language against fraud, hypocrisy, and wicked- ness must have fallen with a heavily felt weight upon himself. Prudence no less than secrecy was the result of his forethought. Frequently his brethren expressed their old inherited idea and expectation of a sensuous kingdom; but marking and mistaking the silence of the Master on this point, cautious Judas was silent too, though this very thing had formed the only attraction which had drawn his covetous heart to the cause of Christ, and into which, from its immense popular- ity among the common people, he hoped it would issue. Two of them on a certain occasion dis- played a merciless zeal for calling down fire from heaven upon the Samaritans who had not treated their Master with becoming respect, but Judas was never guilty of such folly. The sons of Zebedee wanted to sit on either side of Christ upon his throne, in the kingdom they thought he would establish; but Judas betrayed no such weakness. In short, we hear nothing from this REVEALED TRUTH. 139 close-mouthed man except an occasional sentiment after others had spoken. Silence, smoothness, and a studied carriage covered his cunning and shielded him from rebuke. So marked are these things that no one can tax Judas with a want of sense, or any other quality prized by the business men of the world. He had clearly all the requi- sites for a shrewd spy, an ample opportunity and sufficient inclination to do the work of one. Various reasons have been surmised why Christ selected such a man to be an apostle, since he must have known from the first his real charac- ter. Without pretending to explain or pro- nounce, it may be allowed me to suggest that by this choice he would show to the world, in all after ages, that he had not been afraid to have his most secret conduct and private intercourse pass under the eye of an exemy , and lest some un- discoverable and unworthy end should be plausibly imputed to him, he would initiate a man of a thoroughly worldly spirit into his little company, who, having received the delegated power and exercised the privileges conferred upon the rest, might be able to testify on any matter connected with himself. This choice at any rate proves him to have been unsullied with any impure design. Now, it will be readily granted that, upon the supposition Jesus was practising upon the cre- dulity of the people, such was the nature of his undertaking it absolutely required accomplices. None would of course be thought of but his apostles, and they have been so represented by the champions of infidelity. Well, Judas was one 140 VEDDER LECTURES. of them, and enjoyed all the privileges of the rest, and appears to have been admitted equally with them to the greatest familiarity with Christ ; be- sides, he was the treasurer, and was active in pro- viding for their temporal wants, not forgetting himself. Whatever may have been their enthusi- asm, he was free from all such feeling as might have overriden his judgment.’ Having at length discovered that no worldly emolument or grand _ office of state was likely to reward any of Christ's adherents, there was no motive for his longer continuance with them, but that which lay in the money-bag, from which he could pick and steal as adroitly as any of subsequent times in the line of his succession, and when he finally parted com- pany with them without resigning his office, he did not as a matter of course resign the bag. What now does this man resolve upon? Doeshe go to the Jewish rulers with any revelations of wrong respecting the design or the conduct of Christ ? Does he indicate that their charge of blasphemy could be sustained ? Does he unfold any political sentiments that might be construed into a charge of treason against the government they themselves abhorred ? Does he say any thing that could afford an excuse to these rulers of his nation to apprehend the object of their hate? It is quite evident that their anxiety to make out a clear case led them to examine Judas with all sharpness. Had he uttered a word that could have been used with any show of evidence, it would have been made prominent in the history of the mock trials before the High Priest and Pi- REVEALED TRUTH. I4!I late ; it would have been cast in the teeth of the traitor when he returned to confess his crimi- nality ; it would have been hurled at the apos- tles when they were afterwards brought before the dignitaries of the Sanhedrim; but on no occasion after his crucifixion was a word from Judas produced in evidence against Christ. ‘“T have sinned, in that I have betrayed inno- cent blood!” Let now any man attempt to ac- count for the paroxysm of horror which drove the unhappy traitor to suicide, with the supposi- tion that Jesus was other than he claimed to be, and that Judas knew all. I would venture to pre- dict that his logic would crimson his cheek before he had gotten half through; for then all reason for the traitor’s violence would be swept away. So far from being tormented with remorse, his course in the delivery of Jesus, however cow- ardly, would have admitted of some justification. Can any one fail to see that such a person as Ju- das would never have killed himself for justifying his conduct? Unless Christ was what he claimed to be, Judas was a madman and a fool. I there- fore feel quite sure of my ground when I say that the very strongest historical argument in favor of Christ and Christianity is found to lie in this inci- dental tragedy of iniquity punishing itself. After all was over, the cause of the risen Re- deemer became more powerful than ever. Thou- sands of Jewish converts spread consternation among its enemies. They had indeed crucified Christ, but they had not killed Christianity. His resurrection was an astounding fact, first proved 142 VEDDER LECTURES. to his murderers by their own guard set over his tomb, and afterwards by evidence of overwhelm- ing preponderance, giving mighty power to all preceding miracles, and becoming in itself an overshadowing fact like a mountain among hil- locks at its base. - . Josephus, who was born not long after the cru- cifixion of Christ, became the celebrated Jewish historian, whose work is still a standard among us. He bore testimony,to Christ in a celebrated passage of his “ Antiquities,” which has long been a matter of dispute, and is as follows: “ Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the sug- gestion of the principal men among us, had con- demned him to the cross, those who loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine propthes had foretold these and ten thousand other things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.” 3 : This passage has been branded as an interpola- tion, and on that account many have hesitated to quote it as fairly among the available proofs of Christianity. While doubtful passages of historians are not needed for our purpose, | am not at all prepared to surrender this one as such, on account of such objections as Lardner REVEALED TRUTH. 143 and some others have thought fatal to it. To me the balance of argument seems largely in its favor. ) I. It is said to appear doubtful from this fact : Josephus was a Jew, and an enemy to the Gospel ; therefore it cannot be supposed he would pen a passage admitting that Jesus was the Messiah and the worker of miracles which went to prove the truth of his claims. Allowing that he was an enemy, he wrote as a narrator of facts of such magnitude, that he could not suppress them without beclouding his own reputation as a faithful historian ; besides, the above is at best but an inference ; and one, too, which seems to me to be drawn from a mistaken view of the passage. Its author mentions some facts loosely admitted by his people, while he re- ferred to Jesus not as the true Messiah in his own regard, but as te Christ who was successful in forming an important eventin Jewish history, and a large party called out from his nation and after his name. While Josephus professed impartiality as a historian, he purposely put into his statement inaccurate facts with a record ot the main one relied upon by Christians as the test of _the truth of their faith—namely, the resurrection ; and then, with apparent contempt, called them ‘a tribe not extinct at this day.” There is an ambiguity about the whole paragraph, which makes it appear to the Jew as teaching one thing, and to the Gentile another.. For example; he says Christ was “a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure.” To the Jew, a sarcasm appears in the 144 VEDDER LECTURES. word “such,” implying a contrast between the followers of Christ and the Pharisees, of whom Josephus was one; to the Gentile, men of un- prejudiced minds are meant. He says Christ ‘drew over to him many of the Gentiles,” which was not true of him personally when on earth, but was true afterwards; yet this way of putting it sugared the pill for the Jews. He says that Pilate condemned him to the cross “ at the sugges- tion of the principal-men among us,” which is a very soft impeachment of the Sanhedrim, whose frantic violence intimidated the cowardly pol- troon. He says again, Christ “appeared to them alive the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other things con- cerning him.” To the Gentile, this is a plain ad- mission of the fact; but to the Jew, the sarcasm thickens in the words I have italicised. Josephus, therefore, admitted the facts, and all the facts, of the life and death of Christ, and of its mighty re- sults in forming a ¢ride which for numbers might equal or exceed the natural ¢rzbe of Judah at the time he wrote; or, while admitting the facts, he put in a predicate of the word ¢ribe, which to Jews certainly would carry the idea of sarcasm meant as well as expressed. Now this very am- biguity is in favor of the integrity of the passage, which is so ingeniously written that it shall not necessarily offend the Jews nor implicate the his- torical faithfulness of the author. 2, We are told that this passage is seemingly an interpolation, because it was not found in several early copies of the “ Antiquities,” and that its oc- REVEALED TRUTH. 145 currence in other and later copies throws suspi- cion upon its genuineness. But on what principle? We know it is much easier to erase than it is to interpolate. Josephus wrote more for others than for his own people, and when a copy of his work came into the hands of the Jews, they might have judged this passage fitted to popularize the facts they were most anx- ious to cover up, and so erased it that it should not appear in copies made by Jewish transcribers ; while those, and the more numerous, falling into the hands of Gentile Christians, would not be so mutilated. There is, therefore, no force in this objection. 3. Weare told that this passage was not quot- ed by any of the Fathers before Eusebius, who wrote A.D. 324, from which time it was found in all subsequent copies; and this proves that it was an interpolation by him or some other Christian writer. I regard this as the weakest reason assigned for the opinion I am striving to show as unwarranted. First, Because many of the writings of the Fathers are Jost ; and no one can say that this passage was not quoted by some of them. Second, Because neither Eusebius nor any other Christian writer would put such sentences together in an interpola- tion, in some particulars contradicting the Evan- gelists, and in others slurring the Christians, and extenuating the fact of Jewish violence in the mur- der of Christ. TZ/zrd, Because the Roman histo- rian Tacitus, who wrote A.D. 110, narrates in his own language the main ideas of this passage, which 146 VEDDER LECTURES. he must have gotten from Josephus; and therefore Eusebius did not interpolate; or, if not from Jose- phus, he must have gotten it from the Roman rec- ord, or from a gospel in his own hands; in either case, the passage of Josephus is proved in its facts to be true. Now it is customary among deceivers to evase the truth, but never to interpolate it. fourth, Many authors quoted the same words from Josephus, besides Eusebius. Whiston enumerates twenty-two, from A.D. 324 to A.D. 1480. And, aithough they all wrote after he did, it is entirely gratuitous to say that they all copied from him. I therefore believe the passage in question to be genuine, and ought not tobegiven up. But, sup- posing Josephus to have been silent on this whole matter, about which he had abundant knowledge, and which he could not entirely suppress without bringing suspicion upon his own reliability as a historian, the Roman historians confessedly could have had no motive to be silent about the most wonderful event of their own or near their own day. It had been the settled policy of the Roman Government to tolerate all forms of religion, so long as they did not interfere with their own sys- tem of idolatry; and this policy continued until it became evident that Christianity was making great inroads upon the state religion. It had some twenty-five years for a start, and a fair field to work in for that time. It had been popularly re- garded by Gentiles as a new form of Judaism for that length of time, and excited no special atten- tion among Roman officials until it came to be REVEALED TRUTH. 147 understood as hostile to every other religious SYS tem, and an enemy to idolatry, daily increasing its power and success. Then the most violent persecution began, and all the power of the state was enlisted for its destruction. During a long term of years, a mountain of guilt absolutely fright- ful to look upon, was rolled up by these officials. They soaked their soil with Christian blood > but while the followers of Jesus fell by thousands, by some mysterious agency they rose by tens of thou- sands. Like the oppressed Hebrews, the more they were cut down, the more they multiplied and grew. This amazing fact begot the proverb— “The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church.” About thirty years after the crucifixion, and in the tenth of Nero’s reign, a great fire occurred in the city of Rome. Not long after, by some means, it came to be generally believed that the odious tyrant himself was the cause of the calamity, in order to find a plausible pretext for murdering Christians, upon whom he strove to throw the odium due to himself; and thenceforward he car- ried on a most bloody work of cruelty and crime. Some forty or fifty years after, Tacitus published his history, A.D. 110, and in it he speaks of this conflagration as follows: | “They (Christians) derive their name and origin from Christ, who in the reign of Tiberius had suf- fered death by the sentence of the procurator, Pontius Pilate-—The confessions of those that were seized discovered a vast number of their ac- complices; and they were all convicted, not so 148 VEDDER LECTURES. much for setting fire to the city, as for their hatred of the human kind. They died in torments, and their torments were embittered by insult and de- rision. Some were nailed on crosses ; others sewn up in the skins of wild beasts, and exposed to the fury of the dogs; others again, smeared over with combustible materials, were used as torches to il- luminate the darkness of the night. The gardens of Nero were destined for the melancholy spec- tacle, which was accompanied with a horse-race, and honored with the presence of the emperor, who mingled with the populace in the dress and attitude of a charioteer. The guilt of the Chris- tians deserved, indeed, the most exemplary pun- ishment, but the public abhorrence was changed into commiseration from the opinion that the un- happy wretches were sacrificed, not so much to the public welfare, as to the cruelty of a jealous tyrant.” The most artful infidel that ever wrote thus speaks of this quotation, and his authority as a historian doubles its value: “‘ The most sceptical criticism is obliged to respect the truth of this extraordinary fact, and the integrity of this cele- brated passage of Tacitus.”—Gzdbdon's Rome, vol. i1., p. 399. Now Tacitus knew nothing of the nature of the Gospel or its religion. He was a bigoted heathen, and took no pains to ascertain the true character of those he vilified as “ wretches ;” but he was well acquainted with civil history, and in no instance has been detected in falsifying facts. On the contrary, he shows his disposition to be fair, notwithstanding his prepossessions, by say- REVEALED TRUTH. 149 ing that “ Nero, with a view to divert suspicion from himself, inflicted the most exquisite tortures on those men who, under the vulgar appellation of Christians, were branded with deserved in- famy.” The facts thus set forth by Tacitus have never been denied, while they have been abundantly confirmed by other writers; and I make the ex- tract to show from the mouth of an exemy, the plenary proof that Jesus Christ really lived, taught, and suffered under Pontius Pilate, pre- cisely as narrated in the New Testament. It fur- ther shows that he was the author of Christianity, which, surviving his crucifixion and rapidly over- spreading Judea, had reached and extensively prevailed in the Imperial City itself. Although his narrative did not require Tacitus to refer to the Roman record of Reports of Provincial Gover- nors, to which he may have been indebted, yet he was well aware that it had been the custom of the Home Government to require accurate periodical statements, officially sealed, from all such subor- dinates of all public affairs within the limits of their respective provinces. In accordance with this regulation, Pontius Pilate had drawn up a statement concerning the trial and crucifixion of Christ, with the extraordinary concomitants of his life and death, and sent it to be deposited in the archives of the Senate. This Roman procur- ator, who against his own conscience, and con- trary to his own verdict, gave up Christ to the ignominy of capital punishment, merely to satiate the malice of a Jewish mob by which he was in- 150 VEDDER LECTURES. timidated, had to make the best explanation he could of hiscriminal conduct. To this document, written shortly after the event, he affixed his own signature and seal of office, and it was constantly appealed to by the early Christians, who stood up in the face of the emperors, officers, and people of Rome, calling upon them to search it for the facts which sustained their cause, and to produce it for the satisfaction of all men; but they never received aresponse. Thus Justin Martyr, in his Apology to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, written about A.D. 140, said: “ It was predicted that our Christ should heal all diseases and raise the dead ; hear what was said. There are-these words: ‘At His coming the lame shall leap as an hart, and the tongue of the stammerer shall be clear-speaking ; the blind shall see, and the lepers shall be cleansed ; and the dead shall rise, and walk about.’ And that He did those things YOU can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.” —Ch. 48. Now, is it likely that Justin would have dared, in his Apology, to direct the Emperor to search a document containing a record of these things, as above stated, and to which he had immediate access, if there had been no such document as “The Acts of Pilate’? The supposition is incredible, since such temerity would have ruined the cause in whose behalf this apology was made. Thus too Tertullian, in his apology for the Christians, written about fifty years later, and addressed to the Roman Government, after enumerating his facts, said: ‘“‘ All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now, in fact, a Christian in his own convictions, he REVEALED TRUTH. I5!I sent word of Him to the reigning Cesar who was at the time Tiberius.” Is it possible that Tertullian would have made this statement in regard to Pilate’s report, if no document of the kind had ever been sent by the procurator to the Emperor? It cannot be. ‘Search your own public docu- ments,” said he. “At the moment of Christ’s death the light departed from the sun, and the land was darkened at noon; which wonder is re- lated in your own annals, and is preserved in your archives to this day.” Would Tertullian have ventured upon such a declaration if it had not been true? The thing was impossible. About thirty-five years after Justin wrote, the great work of Celsus appeared against Christi- anity, called “The True Word.” Origen, some sixty years after, wrote a reply in eight books, in which, serdatim, he answered all the objections urged against the Scriptures and against Christi- anity ; but Celsus had not denied the above facts about this matter of Pilate’s report. If he had, Origen certainly would have answered him; but Celsus’ experience taught him that it was not safe to deny a fact which must have been true by the law of the empire. About A.D. 270 another champion appeared on the side of Paganism, namely, Porphyry. He was esteemed a more powerful opponent than Celsus. In attempting to write down Christianity, how came it that the mighty Porphyry did not deny the statement of Justin, nor meet the challenge of Tertullian in regard to Pilate’s report? If no such document existed, how easily might the 152 VEDDER LECTURES. writings of these apologists have been over- thrown? Can it be believed that such a man as Porphyry would have failed to expose the “pious fraud,” if these Christians had dared to fabricate a fact that could have been shown notoriously false ? 7 Eusebius, A.D. 325, wrote as follows: ‘The fame of our Lord’s remarkable resurrection and ascen- sion being now spread abroad, according to an ancient Eastern custom prevalent among the rulers of the nations, to communi- cate novel occurrences to the Emperor, that nothing might escape him, Pontius Pilate transmits to Tiberius an account of the circumstances concerning the resurrection of our Lord from the dead, the report of which had already been spread throughout all Palestine. In this account he also intimated that he ascer- tained other miracles respecting him, and that now having risen from the dead, he was believed to be a god by the great mass of the people.”—Z. ., 7. 2, ch. 2, Cruse’s translation, Eusebius here states the fact of a well-known custom with which every governor of a Roman province had to comply, and this makes it certain that Pilate did send the report spoken of, and that he embodied in it the specifications to which the early apologists so confidently and so often re- ferred. This is a matter which has not received the attention it deserves. Clearly it deals a stun- ning blow to the advocates of infidelity. We have fortunately a fine example of such reports in a long official document sent by Pliny the younger to Trajan, the Emperor who had appointed him governor of the distant provinces on the Black Sea, A.D. 105, together with the Emperor’s letter of approbation and instructions, They are as follows: REVEALED TRUTH. 153 PLINY TO TRAJAN. ‘Health. It is my usual custom, sir, to refer all things of which I harbor any doubts to you. For who can better direct my judgment in its hesitation, or instruct my understanding in its ignorance? I never had the fortune to be present at any exam- ination of Christians before I came into this province. I am, there- fore, at a loss to determine what is the usual object of inquiry or of punishment, and to what length either of them is to be carried. It has also been with me a question very problematical whether any distinction should be made between the young and the old, the tender and the robust; whether any room should be given for repentance, or whether the guilt of Christianity, once incurred, is incapable of being expiated by the most unequivocal retrac- tion ; whether the name itself, abstracted from any flagitiousness of conduct, or the crimes connected with the name, be the object of punishment, Inthe meantime this has been my method with respect to those who were brought before me as Christians. I asked them whether they were Christians ; if they pleaded guilty, I interrogated them twice afresh, with a menace of capital pun- ishment. In case of obstinate perseverance, I ordered them to be executed. For of this I had no doubt, whatever was the nature of their religion, that a sullen and obstinate inflexibility called for the vengeance of the magistrate. Some were infected with the same madness, whom on account of their privilege of citizenship, I reserved to be sent to Rome to be referred to your tribunal. In the course of this business, informations pouring in as is usual when they are encouraged, more cases occurred. An anonymous libel was exhibited with a catalogue of names of persons who yet declared they were not Christians then, or ever had been; and they repeated after me an invocation of the gods and of your image, which for this purpose I had ordered to be brought with the images of the deities. They performed sacred rites with wine and frankincense and execrated Christ, none of which things, I am told, a real Christian can ever be compelled to do. On this account I dismissed them. Others, named by an informer, first affirmed and then denied the charge of Christianity, declaring that they had been Christians, but had ceased to be so, some three years ago, others still longer, some even twenty years ago. All of them worshipped your image, and the statues of the gods, and also execrated Christ, and this was the account which 154 VEDDER LECTURES. they gave of the nature of the religion they once had professed, whether it deserves the name of crime or error; namely, that they were accustomed on a stated day to meet before daylight, and to repeat among themselves a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by an oath with an obligation of not committing any wickedness, but on the contrary, of abstaining from thefts, robberies, and adulteries ; also of not violating their promise, or denying a pledge ; after which it was their custom to separate and meet again at a promiscuous, harmless meal ; from which last practice they however desisted after the publication of my edict, in which, agreeably to your orders, I forbade any societies of that sort. On which account I judged it the more necessary to inquire BY TORTURE from two females, who were said to be deaconesses, what is the real truth, but nothing could I collect, except a depraved and excessive superstition. Defer- ring, therefore, any further investigation, I determined to con- sult you. For the number of culprits is so great as to call for seri- ous consultation. Many persons are informed against, of every age and of both sexes, and more still will be in the same situa- tion, The contagion of the superstition has spread, not only through cities, but even villages and the country. Not that I think it impossible to check and tocorrect it. ‘The success of my endeavors hitherto forbids such desponding thoughts; for the temples, once almost desolate, begin to be frequented, and the sacred solemnities that had long been intermitted are now at- tended afresh ; and the sacrificial victims are now sold every- where, which could once scarce find a purchaser. Whence I conclude that many might be reclaimed were the hope of im- punity on repentance absolutely confirmed.” TRAJAN TO PLINY. ‘“You have done perfectly right, my dear Pliny, in the inquiry which you have made concerning Christians. For truly no one general rule can be laid down, which will apply itself to all cases. Those people must not be sought after. If they are brought before you and convicted, let them be capitally punished ; yet with this restriction, that if any renounce Christianity and evi- dence his sincerity by supplicating our gods, however suspected he may be for the past, he shall obtain pardon for the future on his repentance. But anonymous libels in no case ought to be REVEALED TRUTH. 155 attended to; for the precedent would be of the worst sort, and perfectly incongruous to the maxims of my government.” Gibbon acknowledges these letters to be gen- uine, and from them it can be easily believed that Pilate’s report was equally explicit with regard to Christ, and contained just such an account as the aforesaid apologists and others constantly af- firmed. Pliny’s letter and Trajan’s answer prove that in the beginning of the second century, in the remote provinces of Bithynia and Pontus, Christi- anity had nearly destroyed Paganism, and the in- ference is natural that in the route of its progress thither it had made great havoc with the idols and temples about which Pliny speaks as “almost deserted.” His letter sets forth important facts which he had received from those who _ had, through fear, apostatized from Christianity, such as these: the Christian Church from the first re- garded Christ as God; its simple worship was addressed to him; it had its sabbaths, officers, regular assemblies, and the Lord’s Supper; its doctrines and precepts were the same as we have them; and real Christians were ready to endure death in any form rather than give up their faith in Christ. Moreover, it will be seen from this letter that Tertullian hazarded nothing when he thus testified to the great multitude of Christians ALD: 163": ‘‘We are but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you—cities, islands, fortresses, towns, market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum—we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods.” “If such multitudes of men were to break away from you, and betake 156 VEDDER LECTURES. themselves to some remote corner of the world, why, the very loss of so many citizens, whatever sort they were, would cover the empire with shame; nay, in the very forsaking, vengeance would be inflicted. Why, you would be horror-struck at the soli- tude in which you would find yourselves, at such an all-prevail- ing silence, and that stupor as of adead world. You would have to seek subjects to govern. You would have more enemies than citizens remaining. For now it is the immense number of Christians which make your enemies so few, almost all the in- habitants of your various cities being followers of Christ.”— Apology to the Rulers of the Roman Empire. Would the apologist have dared to use such language if his facts had been either false or mingled with fiction? Who can believe it? In the latter part of the fourth century, A.D. 360, another author undertook to write down the Christian religion. This was the Emperor Julian. To his voluminous work there were several re- plies by Cyril and others, which we have, and which contain many large quotations from it. Julian was a scholar as well as a statesman, and one of the most distinguished of the Roman em- perors. His early training had been in the Chris- tian religion, but for political reasons he re- nounced it and turned heathen. Hence he was called “the Apostate.” He very well knew that all governors of dependent provinces were obliged to make, statedly, reports of all the re- markable events signalizing their administrations. When he began his work, he had a good know- ledge of the New Testament. He granted that the history of Christ, as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, together with the Acts of the Apostles, is genuine. He grants their early REVEALED TRUTH. 157 date. He grants the miracles of Christ, and speci- fies many of them, only endeavoring to dimin- ish the importance of his works; and then enters into speculative argument to defeat the claims of Christianity. But his reasoning was very im- becile, and if it had been more respectable, could not have prevailed against his own admissions. His confession to the truthfulness of the Chris- tian history, by virtue of his varied means and qualifications, may well be taken as the united verdict of all previous adversaries along with himself, because he made use of the same weapons of ridicule, and pursued the same method of man- aging the argument. Besides, he had before him the works of Justin, Tertullian, Eusebius, and others, in each of which there was this appeal to the report of Pontius Pilate confirmatory of the foundation facts of the Gospel. This appeal had rung through the empire for more than three hundred years, and Julian must have felt the force of it. Now if there had been no such report, would this bitter enemy have failed to show it? Clearly not, because he had every facility of prov- ing the falsehood. Instead of adopting this easiest and shortest method of confounding the Chris- tians, he cautiously passed it over in silence, there- by admitting both its existence and the truth of all it contained. The testimony for the following facts is there- fore indubitably conclusive : 1. The historical books of the New Testament, the Gospels and the Acts, are quoted or referred to by a series of Christian writers beginning with 158 VEDDER LECTURES. those who were cotemporary with the apostles, or immediately succeeding them, and proceeding in close and regular succession from their time to the present. 2. That when thus quoted or referred to, they are recognized as inspired, as possessing divine authority, and as the judge in all questions of re- ligious duty or of controversy. 3. That they were in very early times collected into a distinct volume. : ; 4. That they were distinguished by the names by which we know them, and held in profound respect. 5. That commentaries were written upon them, different copies carefully collated, and versions of them made in different languages. | 6. That they were received by all orthodox Christians, and by many heretical sects, and ac- cepted by all as of final appeal in controverted matters. 7. That they were publicly read and expounded as authoritative scripture in the religious assem- blies of the early Christian Church. 8. That besides the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles, thirteen Epistles ot)