ページの画像
PDF
ePub

234

THE BIRLE

count of Peter's raising Tabitha or

Dorcas, also that of Paul's restoring the

young man who fell out of the window of a three story house. Should the Doctor be applied to, he could prescribe similar doses daily, for a month, but he is no more interrupted his two prescriptions have run his patients stark

mad.

1

Matthias or Robert Matthews, makes the next call. He is fully impress-
ed, that all diseases are evil spirits, or devils, which can be driven from the
patient, by the prayer of faith.
counts of Christ's casting out devils, and particularly enjoins upon him to
read the 17th and 18th verses of the last chapter of Mark, and to take them
The doctor refers him to the different ac-
in their most obvious sense. "And these signs shall follow them that believe,
In my name shall they cast out devils, they shall speak with new tongues:
they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not
hurt them, they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." Ma-
thias never returns. And we next hear of him as a confirmed maniac.

It will not do for the Col. to say, that these supernatural, or miraculous,
or spiritual gifts, were to continue but for a season, for this would not be
taking the simple unqualified declarations of his evangelists in their most
obvious sense.
leaving them: "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every
Jesus, occording to Mark, did not say to his disciples on
creature: he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved: but he that be-
lieveth not shall be damned, and these signs, for two or three hundred years
shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they, for two or three hun
dred years, cast out devils." If this be the obvious sense, then on the
same principle of construction, we must read the 16th verse thus: "For two
or three hundred years to come, he that believeth and is baptised, shall be
saved: but, for two or three hundred years to come, and no longer, he that

believeth not shall be damned.

sense,

,

We should not be construing James' epistle according to its most obvious should we say it had relation only to the age in which he lived, and was applicable to those dieciples only, to whom it was addressed. Col. would not allow me to read it thus: "Should any among you, during

The

"Confess your faults, one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

“Elias was a man subject to like passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six

months.

“And he prayed again, and the heavens gave rain, and the earth brought forth her

fruit.

"Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him:

"Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way, shall

save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

this generation, be sick, let him send, &c. and the prayer of faith, during this generation, shall save the sick, &c." For then he would be obliged to read the preceding verse thus: Shall any man among you, during this generation, be afflicted, let him pray. This principle of construction, properly carried out, would make the verse read: "Should any man among you, during this generation, be afflicted, let him pray, but afterwards, let him sing songs.'

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

No, no, Col. do not tell us, that because these miraculous, or spiritual gifts, are not possessed by the believers in these days, that Jesus and his apostles intended them only for the first converts; for you have not the least intimation in your scriptures, to warrant this conclusion, besides it would be directly in opposition to the plain and obvious sense or import of your sacred writings.

Do liberate your fine intellect from the fetters with which a long association with fanatics, has hampered it, and march straight up to the proper conclusion. Thus:

"We denounce him as an impostor, or a lunatic, who pretends to these miraculous gifts-no man is endowed with them at this day, or has been for centuries. The writers who alleged, that believers were once thus endned, also asserted, if we take their declarations in their most obvious sense, that they ever would be; therefore, these evangelists were impostors."

Are you afraid, Col.? Why do you fear, and what do you fear? The loss of subscribers? The refusal of certain famalies to associate with yours? You cannot convince me that you believe. Frankly confess your infidelity to those whose virtues and talents you most admire. And my word for it, such numbers will respond to you, that a society can be formed, into which, those whose proscription you now fear, will be proud to enter.

CHAPTER XIX.

A miracle is defined to be something done in violation of a law of nature, or simply, a violation of a law of nature. Law is defined to be a rule of action. A law of nature then is a rule by which nature acts. A mutable rule is a contradiction in terms. Deity is said to be the law maker--and unchangeable; besides; a law maker as such, cannot violate his own laws. Let it be admitted, that he can repeal or modify them; such repeal or modification would continue nntil the law be re-enacted, or re-modified. For example. It is a law of nature, and so admitted by both parties, that a stone thrown into the air, a few feet will return to the earth. Should this law be repealed, a stone thus thrown would not return. It is also a law of nature, that a man once dead, shall not be restored to life. Were this law to be modified, so that a man, after being dead three or four days, shall come to life, then all men forever after, until the law be remodified, would be restored to life three or four days after death. I believe there is no pretence that such repeal or modification has ever been made. Nature, by which, in this discussion is meant, the beings of this world, cannot violate these laws. A miracle, therefore, is an impossibility, it being a violation of an immutable rule or law.

cess.

But you may say, that there were provisoes to these laws, co-existent with them. For example. It is a law of nature, that the particles of matter composing a fried fish, shall not unite together, in such proportions as to form a fried fish, and assume its shape and appearance, but by a certain proThe proviso to this law must be, according to the creed of the christian, somewhat in this form: "Provided that these particles of matter, shall not be prohibited from thus combining, when my son shall desire such combination, in order to prove his mission from me, when I shall send him into the world to redeem man from the curse I shall pronounce upon him, in consequence of Adam's transgression."

What reasons have you christians to suppose, that God added provisoes to his laws? You reply, that nature has not operated uniformly--that certain phenomena have happened, which will not happen again, under the same circumssances. For all this, you rely upon the testimony of witnesses, that you say lived and wrote some eighteen hundred years ago,

I wish it to be distinctly understood, that you christians admit that there are laws of nature. Your definition of a miracle, presumes their existence. It is not necessary, therefore in this discussion to resort to experience to prove their existence. If there are none, then there are no miracles-if no miracles, then what becomes of Christ's pretensions as a special legate from the skies. He becomes only, a greater natural philosopher, or juggler, than any since his day, on the supposition that all that is written of him be true.

Mr. Hume, if I recollect rightly, (I have not read his dissertation since I was a lad) unnecessarily undertook to prove from experience that there were laws of nature. His opponents contended, that they could not be proved from experience. I know not how else they could be proved, but it is immaterial how we came by the notion that there are such laws-both parties admit their existence. We must, therefore, agree that some of them are known, which knowledge is common to both parties. We both agree, that it is a law of nature, that water, at a certain temperature, will become solid, and at a certain other will go off in a vapor-that it will not become wine. If you contend that this last is not a law of nature, then you must admit, that the water at the wedding in Cana of Galilee, was not converted into wine by any divine agency of Jesus Christ. Let me ask you, how you came by the opinion, that nature is uniform in her operations, and that the foregoing are her laws. You must answer, from personal experience, and the testimony of others: If I ask you how you came by the belief, that there are provisos to these laws, you must answer, from the testimony of others, and from that alone. . Now we do not admit the existence of these provisos. You rely upon testimony to prove a few wonderful facts, and from these you infer the provisos, though in many instances, the witness who narrates the marvellous fact, gives the reason of its performance. For example: Moses says, he converted his staff into a snake. This we have always called a miracle, the object of which, this same Moses tells us, was to convince Pharoah, that he (Moses) was sent of God, and thus to induce him (Pharoah) to permit the Israelites to go into the wilderness to sacrifice. The law of nature is, that a living, crawling serpent shall not be made out of a stick, the proviso to which, must be, if you believe Moses, in this form: "Provided, nevertheless, when my servant Moses, shall wish to impose upon the King of Egypt, a serpent may be made out of a stick." Take the proviso to the law, that water shall not become wine. It is like all the other new testament provisos, bottomed on the fall of man, which was brought about by the instrumentality of a talking serpent. You must admit, that it is a law of nature, that a living, crawling serpent shall not talk the proviso to which must be thus: "Provided, that whenever a big copper

head wishes to entice my chef d'ouvre, man, to disobey my laws, and thus bring destruction upon himself, and cause me sore trouble and vexation, he may talk, and be the author of lies."

Enough of this. It is trifling. You have no right to your provisos. I have granted them to you for a moment only, to see into what aburdities you would run. The allegation of a miracle, is not aided by the further allegation of the reason of it, which, of itself, is, if possible, a still greater miracle. How can a miracle, which we have seen is an absurdity, be explained?

[ocr errors]

You resort here, to the assertion, that the same God who established the laws of nature, can change, modify, suspend, and even violate them at his pleasure. What do you know of the nature of Diety? Is it not the height of presumption to say, what he can, and will do? We know that he cannot work a natural impossibility-cannot make a circle without a centre, or change an unchangeable law. You say he is unchangeable, and that he established the laws of nature-grant it, though I know nothing about it. A law carries with it immutability. I again ask, how it can be changed, and again remind you, that the reasons given for your new testament miracles, are founded on other miracles, and these last asserted by an anonymous writer, the author of the book of Genesis.

All this I

Again you ask, if we are to believe nothing that we cannot explain and assert, that we cannot understand, or explain, why or how the grass grows, or blood circulates, &c.; yet, say you, we know, that the grass does grow, and that the blood does circulate, under certain circumstances.* freely admit, and I admit further, that we do and ought to believe many other inexplicable facts and principles, as reported by others. I once was fully of the opinion, that potash and soda, were simple substances. I now believe, from testimony alone, that Sir H. Davy, and other Chemists, have decomposed both, and that they are oxides of metals.

*This is one of those arguments, when carried to the extent the chrrstian wishes, that proves too much. It will prove any wild statement to be true. By the aid of it, any fanatic or impostor, can establish his pretensions and demand your faith in his vagaries, however peurile and preposterous. He can, for instance, assert, that men shall rise from the dead, of a pea green color, with seven heads and ten horns. You deny his assertion. He can reply, in the very language of the christian argument. "Can you give the reason why men were created in the first place? Why there were some black some red, and some white?-why they had one head, and horny substances at the ends of their fingers and toes? Canuot the same God, who created men as they are, raise them from the dead with a different color, and more heads, and give them horns, as he has to animals now on the earth: my assertion is no more wonderful than thousands of others that you believe." Nothing can resist this argument, in other words, there is nothing that cannot be established by it.

« 前へ次へ »