ページの画像
PDF
ePub

traced, it is sufficiently interesting, as it exhibits the first dawn of one of the essential principles of international traffic, and shows us what mercantile agency is in its infancy, or at its birth.' p. 555.

We infer from the close of the sixteenth chapter, that Mr. Burchell intends to close the narrative of his travels with this volume the addition of a general index seems to confirm this intimation. We regret this. The work rises in interest as it proceeds, and we should hope that Mr. B. will, in some way or other, put the public in possession of the remainder of his journal, or at least of a selection from its more important details.

Art. III. The Evidence of Christianity, derived from its Nature and Reception. By J. B. Sumner, M.A. Prebendary of Durham, &c. 8vo. pp. 430. Price 10s. 6d. London. 1824.

[ocr errors]

IN Mr. Sumner's Treatise on the Divine Attributes, to which was awarded Mr. Burnett's premium of £400, the evidence of the existence and perfections of the Creator is built chiefly on the credibility of the Mosaic records of the Creation. The Christian Revelation is there excluded from being the groundwork of the argument, because, that being granted, any treatise on the Divine attributes would be superfluous.' In the present work, though not professedly a sequel to the former,* the higher degree of evidence is illustrated, which is deducible from the Christian records. The design of the volume is to shew, that a religion like the Christian, could never have ⚫ existed, unless it had been introduced by Divine authority. It • could not have been invented: it would not have been re'ceived.'

• The line of argument has at least one advantage: at the same time that it proves, if well founded, that the religion is true, it shews also what the religion is.'

This advantage gives a great superiority, in our judgement, to the argument from internal evidence. For, after all, the real controversy with the infidel turns on the Divine character of

* Mr. Sumner does not refer, either in the title-page or the preface, to his former work. Possibly, he is not quite satisfied with it as a performance. It certainly displays extensive and multifarious reading, and may be read with advantage; but, in originality, in closeness of reasoning, and in strictly theological knowledge, it is somewhat deficient, and is superseded by better works.

that which professes to be a Revelation from Heaven; and we should be found to have gained little, when we had brought him to acknowledge, that the external evidence is complete,that both the Mosaic records and the Christian Scriptures are credible, that they are both authentic and genuine,—if, when we proceeded to speak of their sacred contents, he should, with the Papist, refer us to an authorized interpreter for their meaning, or, with the Socinian, contend that St Paul was a bad reasoner. A man may be firmly convinced of the historical truth of Christianity, and yet remain under a mistake, or in almost utter and wilful ignorance as to what Christianity is. He may believe that the religion is true, and yet, not have taken a step towards becoming a religious man. The exhibition of the evidence of Christianity, apart from its nature and doctrines, has no direct tendency to make him such. It is adapted to yield the highest satisfaction to a believer, and to confirm his faith in the Gospel which he has received; and this is perhaps the chief use of all works which treat of the evidences of Revelation. But no fact is more clearly established by experience, than that the highest degree of evidence is insufficient to overcome a repugnance to the truth. The sceptic will not believe. Why? Because he sees no beauty in religion, that he should desire it. And so long as this is the case, neither would he believe although one should rise from the dead. What then is to be done? Shall we argue over again with him the external proofs, or shall we revile him for his perverse incredulity, and forget the spirit of Christ in zeal for his cause? It seems to us, that the only method likely to succeed with a man not committed to obstinate infidelity by his vices, is to hold up, not the evidences of religion, which can at most convince him only that he ought to believe, but the portrait of religion, which may peradventure disarm opposition, if not subdue his heart. The affections are moved by those qualities only which render the object venerable, or lovely, or desirable. Pascal has finely said: 'A man who discovers evidences of the Chris⚫tian religion, is like an heir who finds the title-deeds of his family. Will he say that they are forged, and will he neglect to examine them?" No man ever examined the Scriptures, with a wish to find them true, and remained a sceptic.

Mr. Sumner will be thought to have stated the sceptical question with exemplary candour and fairness in the opening paragraph of his volume.

A book is put into my hands, professing to give an account of a revelation from God. I find this revelation established as the religion of my country, under the name of Christianity. I find the

laws acknowledging it, and taking cognizance of any very gross insults against its divine authority. I find a maintenance for ministers who teach, explain, and enforce it, making part of the constitution of the State. I see a great variety of persons, who do not receive or claim any participation in that public maintenance, also endeavouring to extend a belief in its truth, and an observance of its precepts.

A slight acquaintance with the nature of Christianity, assures me also, that such a religion is expedient for the public good. It teaches men to consider themselves as placed under the eye of their Creator. It declares the importance of human conduct and character to be such, as to have occasioned the interference of a Divine Person, called the Son of God. It demands a very pure morality. It regulates the lives and habits of men by sanctions so awful, as must affect and influence all that are capable of extending their view to things future and invisible.

These circumstances, however, though they may justly be considered as presumptions in favour of the truth of Christianity, are not decisive. It is a presumption in its favour, that our ancestors should have made Christianity a part of the law of the land; because we are entitled to suppose that they had reason for what they did. It is in its favour, that they should have provided for its support and extension; and that so many persons should take an evident interest in its success. It is still more in its favour, that its doctrines should be beneficial to the morality and happiness of men. But then, I find some of these circumstances on the side of other religions also. The ancient inhabitants of Europe had a religion prior to Christianity, which they maintained at a considerable expence of statues, sacrifices, temples, and ministers. They defended this religion carefully. Their wisest men, though they perceived its absurdity, still supported it, on the express ground of its utility to the state. Again, the religion of Mohammed is established over an immense and populous region; and has its priests and temples, publicly acknowledged and maintained. The Hindoos and the Chinese have a religion and a priesthood, whose power over their people is not inferior to that of the ministers of Christ. In fact, no civilized country exists without some form of religion; the members of which, whatever it be, are no less vehement in its support, and often no less confirmed in its belief, than the professors of Christianity. The morality, indeed, of these religions, is very different from that of the Gospel, and their effect upon the mind and upon the happiness of their votaries, very different. But as the moral state of different nations, independent of religion, is also unequal, the purer morality and general superiority of the Gospel may, it is possible, have arisen from the exercise of a nobler intellect and a happier combination of circumstances, and are not alone a sufficient reason for my embracing it as divine. England has a better religion than Turkey or Hindostan. But then England has made a far greater advance in arts and sciences; has a wider field of literature; is in every respect a more enlightened country; and its superior religion may be no more a result of divine

interference, than its better constitution and more equal laws. Be sides which, the Gospel, in proportion as it is purer than the religions of Brahma or Mahommed, demands greater sacrifices; and requires, therefore, to be confirmed by a proportionate force of evidence. And I cannot but be aware, that although this religion is countenanced by the state, and defended by the laws, and cordially believed by many; yet, it is also disbelieved by many, neglected by more, and openly assaulted by some. So that it appears, on a cursory view, to be placed in much the same circumstances, as most other religions which have prevailed in different countries and different ages of the world.

For these reasons, I must have a stronger ground for believing Christianity, than that it is the established religion of my own ageand country. This fact, together with its obvious utility to the public morals, may secure my respect to its institutions, and my compliance with its forms. Socrates and Cicero offered sacrifice to the deities of their ancestors. But if I am required to go further, I must inquire deeper, and have a surer foundation of my faith. And the slightest consideration shews me that I am bound to make this inquiry, and that if I neglect Christianity unexamined, I neglect it at my peril.'

The first question, then, which arises, respects the origin of this Revelation. Are the historic records of the New Testament authentic? Did such a person as Jesus Christ exist, and was he the author of this religion? Mr. Sumner, passing over the imbecilities of Volney and Paine, assumes the affirmative as amply substantiated by unquestionable historical evidence.

The only ground, then, which a sceptic can take, who means his statements or opinions to be examined, is, that Jesus did exist, and that the main circumstances of his history are true; but that, with respect to his divinity or his divine mission, he probably deceived himself, but certainly deceived others, when he persuaded them to worship him, and to teach a religion under his authority and name. I will consider the question on this ground. I will take the life, ministry, and public execution of Jesus as an historical fact. It may be denied; as men may deny any thing which they do not actually see, or hear, or feel. But it has this advantage over every other historical fact; that it has been regularly attested by persons believing it, and staking all that was most valuable to them upon its truth, from the date assigned to its occurrence, to the present

hour.'

The twofold argument on which Mr. Sumner rests the proof that the Christian Religion is not of man, but of God, is de rived from its nature and its reception; but these are necessarily blended in the Author's reasonings, since it is its recep tion, notwithstanding its nature, that gives force to the argo ment. The subjects of the ensuing chapters may be reduced.

to these several propositions. I. That inasmuch as Christianity was directly opposed to the prevailing opinions, expectations, and national prejudices of the Jews, its leading doctrines are such as could not be expected to originate from Jews. II. That the Christian doctrines are in the strictest sense original, being underived from any known or accessible source in the belief of those times and countries. III. That, nevertheless, they receive a confirmation and collateral support from the Jewish Scriptures and institutions, which it is impossible to refer to simple coincidence or accommodation. IV. That the original phraseology of the Christian Scriptures is a further proof of the originality and Divine origin of the doctrines. V. That there are indications of more than human fore-knowledge in the Authors of the Christian Scriptures, taken in connexion with subsequent experience. VI. That the wisdom manifested in the New Testament writings, is a proof of their supernatural origin. VII. That the Christian character is strictly original; 'original even among the Jews, and altogether foreign from the 'habits and feelings of other nations.' VIII. That original and unexpected as are the doctrines of Christianity, they are perfectly reasonable. IX. That the account of the first promulgation of Christianity contained in the New Testament records, affords the only explanation of its establishment and progress. X. That the change of character produced by its reception in the first Christians, is an evidence of its truth. XI. That the effects of Christianity on human happiness are such as agree with its Divine origin. XII. That the evidence by which Christianity is attended, is the only conceivable evidence by which it could be confirmed to us, and such as agrees with the general character of the Divine government.

From this analysis, our readers will perceive that the evidence here appealed to, is partly external, partly internal: to a certain extent, the Gospel is shewn to be its own witness, while the history of Christianity is made to furnish an attestation of its credentials. The pre-eminent recommendation of the work is, that Mr. Sumner has succeeded in putting his argument into such a shape as gives, to use his own expression, a sub'stantive form both to belief and unbelief. After reading some apologies for Christianity, one is almost led to suppose, that the point at issue is only a literary question, and that what Watson believed more than Gibbon did, amounted to nothing more than a difference of opinion as to an historical fact.

[ocr errors]

In shewing the originality of the Christian doctrines, Mr. Sumner remarks, that the success of Mahommed's imposture may be ascribed, in a great degree, to the simplicity of what he taught, and its agreement with human reason, as well as with

[ocr errors]
« 前へ次へ »