Produced by Charles Klingman




  A
  Letter
  To the
  Reverend Mr. Channing
  Relative to
  His Two Sermons
  On
  Infidelity

  By George Bethune English, A.M.
  Boston
  Printed for the Author
  1813

LETTER, &c.

Rev. Sir,

Your eloquent and interesting Sermons on Infidelity, I have read with
the interest arising from the nature of the subject you have discussed,
and the impressive manner in which you have treated it.

As it is understood that the appearance of those Sermons was owing to a
Book lately published by me, I request your pardon for a liberty I am
about to take, which in any other circumstances I should blush to
presume upon-it is sir, with deference, and great respect, to express
my sentiments with regard to some of the arguments contained in them,
where the reasoning does not appear to me so unexceptionable as the
language in which it is enveloped, is eloquent and affecting.  There
are also some opinions of yours relative to matters of fact, in those
discourses, to which I would respectfully solicit your attention.

It afforded me much pleasure, though it caused me no surprise, to
perceive you to say in your introductory remarks, that these Sermons
were designed to procure for the arguments for Christianity "a serious,
and respectful attention" and, that if you should "be so happy as to
awaken candid and patient enquiry," your "principal object will be
accomplished" you wish, "that Christianity should be thoroughly
examined," you do "not wish to screen it from enquiry." It would cease,
you observe to be your support were you not "persuaded that it is able
to sustain the most deliberate investigation."

In considering Christianity as a fair subject for discussion, you do
justice to the cause you so eloquently defend for Christianity itself
honestly, and openly professes to offer itself, to the belief of all
mankind solely on account of the reasons which support it; and since
its learned, and liberal advocates always announce, and recommend it
from the Pulpit as reasonable in itself and confirmed by unanswerable
arguments; no one who believes them sincere can doubt, that they are
perfectly willing to have its claims openly discussed and think
themselves amply able to give valid reasons, "for the faith that is in
them," and which they so earnestly invite all men to receive.

You observe, p. 13, that the writings of Infidels, "have been injurious
not so much by the strength of their arguments, as by the positive, and
contemptuous manner In which they speak of Revelation, they abound in
sarcasm, abuse, and sneer, and supply the place of reasoning, by wit
and satire." If so sir, it is all in favor of the cause you defend; for
the tiny weapons of wit, and ridicule, will assuredly fly to shivers
under a few blows from the solid, and massy club of sound logic.  The
man who attacks any system of Religion merely with wit, and ridicule,
can never, I conceive, be a very formidable antagonist.

The mental imbecility of the man who could touch such a subject as
religion in any shape with no other arms, would render him a harmless
adversary, and the intrinsic weakness of such shining but slender
weapons, when encountered with something more solid, would eventually
render him a contemptible one, I therefore cannot help doubting, that
wit and ridicule alone, and unsupported by reasoning, and good
reasoning too, could ever have been very successfully wielded against
such a thing as the Christian Religion, by its opposers.

No man it appears to me of common understanding will ever resign his
religion on account of a few jokes, and bon mots. The adherence of such
men as are weak enough to be subverted by such trifles can do as little
honor to Christianity, as their abandoning it for such reasons, can
affect it with disgrace. The belief of such men could never have been
more than habit, and their Infidelity nothing else than a freak of
folly, which is reproachful only to themselves.  But after all, this
vehement objection to wit and ridicule, appears to me a little
imprudent; for a sarcastic opponent might reply, that sceptics, have
been not unfrequently attacked with irony most severe, and sometimes
sorely wounded by vollies of wit shot from the pulpit, a place too
where it can be done without fear of reprisals.  You know sir, that the
famous Warburton, for instance, used to amuse himself with not only
cutting down every unlucky sceptic that came in his way, but he
absolutely cut them to pieces with the edge of ridicule, most bitterly
envenomed too with something else. It seems therefore a little
unreasonable, that what is fair for one party, should not be so for the
other too.  Besides, the advocates of a cause, which is said not only
not to fear examination, but to challenge it, should not, it appears to
me, when taken at their words shrink, and draw back, on account of such
trifles as wit, and ridicule; because the style of an investigation
cannot certainly conceal the immutable distinction between a good
argument and a bad one, from such learned and penetrating adversaries
as the Clergy; and moreover does it appear clear that an advocate after
asserting a proposition, and defying refutation, has any right to
insist, that his opponent should put his arguments in just such a form
as would be most convenient to him? What would a penetrating Lawyer
think of the cause of his opponent, on finding him to insist upon his
arranging his objections, and expressing his arguments just so that it
might be most easy to him to reply to them?

For my own part, I have no claims to wit, and if I have been sometimes
sarcastic it was more than I meant to be, it was the premeditated
consequence of bitter feelings arising from considering myself as
having been betrayed by my credulity into taking a situation in
society, which I had discovered I must quit at no less a hazard than
that the destruction of all my plans and prospects for life. At any
rate I am satisfied, that no ridicule of mine has been intentionally
adduced by me in order to corroborate a false position, or a weak
argument; I believe that it seldom appears except in the rear of
something more respectable and efficient.

You observe, that Christianity "deserves at least respectful, and
serious attention, must be evident to every man who has honesty of
mind." Nothing can be more true than this, it is a subject which does
deserve a respectful, and serious attention: because every thing
claiming to be from God ought to be carefully, coolly, and respectfully
examined on these accounts.

1. If it be from God it is of the highest importance to the welfare of
mankind that its truth should be investigated thoroughly, and settled
firmly.

2. Because if it is not from God it must be the fruit of either of
error or fraud, if of the first it ought to be rejected as a delusion;
if of the second it ought to be cast off as a deception practiced in
the name of the God of truth, and therefore disrespectful to him.

It also merits, you most truly say, a respectful examination on account
of the character of its founder, for the character of Jesus you justly
consider as too excellent and unexceptionable to be reproached.
Whatever may be said concerning the moral excellence of that person's
character I will cheerfully assent to, and I could not listen without
disgust to language impeaching his moral purity. This I can do without
ceasing to suppose him an enthusiast; for there appears to me to be too
many marks of it in the New Testament for the idea to be set aside by a
few eloquent exclamations, and notes of admiration; if I am wrong in
this idea or in others, I will not prove indocile to arguments that
shall sufficiently show the contrary.

You observe, p. 16. "another consideration which entitles Christianity
to respectful attention is this. That Jesus Christ appeared at a time
when there prevailed in the east a universal expectation of a
distinguished personage who was to produce a great and happy change in
the world. This expectation was built on writings which claimed to be
prophetic, which existed long before Jesus was born."

I cannot help thinking the very great stress which has been laid upon
this "rumour spread all over the east" a little unreasonable.

For 1. "A rumour" is not as I apprehend an adequate foundation on which
to build such a thing as the Christian religion, which claims to be
derived from heaven.

2. Those who have brought forward with so much earnestness this popular
rumour, have not, I conceive, paid due attention to the causes that
might naturally have produced it, which were possibly these. There is
in the Jewish prophets frequent mention of a great deliverer, and it is
represented that he should appear in the time when the Jewish nation
should be suffering under most grievous afflictions, and who should
deliver them therefrom, Now was it not perfectly natural for the Jews,
dispersed over Asia, to expect, and to circulate the notion of this
deliverer when their own sufferings, inflicted by their enemies, were
intolerable? If you will open Josephus, you will there read that about
and after the time of the crucifixion of Jesus the Jews were dreadfully
oppressed by the Romans, and were designedly driven to desperation, by
Florus with the express purpose of exciting a rebellion, and thus
prevent their accusing him of his crimes before the tribunal of Caesar.
Was it at all unnatural therefore for the Jews thus oppressed, and
reading in their sacred books, that they should be delivered from their
oppressors by the appearance of their great deliverer when their
sufferings were at the heighth; was it extraordinary that the Jews,
writhing under the lash of tyrannical conquerors, and considering their
then circumstances, to expect this deliverer at that time?  And to
conclude, does it, after all, appear that this rumour prevailed in the
life time of Jesus, or not till about thirty years after his
crucifixion?

You add, "now this is a remarkable circumstance which distinguishes
Jesus from the founders of all other religions." This was no doubt a
slip of the memory, as so learned a man as Mr. Channing, no doubt knows
that the Mahometans, who are the most numerous sect of religionists now
in the world, affirm, that there was a very general expectation of
their victorious prophet Mahomet, about the time of his birth grounded
on tradition, and, as they say, originally on very many texts of the
Old Testament, which texts, with divers more from the New Testament,
are urged by the Mahometan Divines as to the same purpose: these texts,
and their irrelevancy are collected and shown by Father Maracci in his
first Dissertation prefixed to his edition of the Koran, printed at
Padua 1698. Collins, in his answer to the Bishop of Litchfield, and
Coventry, states this fact, and refers to "Addison's first state of
Mahometanism" p. 35. "Life of Mahomet" before four treatises concerning
the doctrine of the Mahometans, p. 9.  Maracci's Appendix ad Prodromum
primum.p. 36-46.

In p. 18, you say, that the prophecies with regard to the Messiah,
"describe a deliverer of the human race very similar to say the least
to the character in which Jesus appeared."  I must confess that after
reading again the prophecies collected in the third chapter of "The
Grounds of Christianity examined" this similarity still remains
invisible to me. I hope you will not be offended at my avowing that you
appear to me to be sensible of the difficulty of this affair of the
Messiahship, for you content yourself with adducing that characteristic
of the Christ recorded in the Old Testament, his teaching and
enlightening the Gentiles with the knowledge of God, and true religion,
as applicable to Jesus, and sufficient to prove him the Messiah. Yet
supposing that this characteristic would apply to Jesus, it would not,
I think, be sufficient to prove him to be the Messiah or Christ: since
this characteristic is merely one among twenty other marks given, and
required to be found.

2. It would, it appears to me, prove Mahomet the Messiah sooner than
Jesus; since Mahomet in person converted more Gentiles to the knowledge
and worship of one God during his life time, than Christianity did in
one hundred years.

3. But what is still more to the purpose, it cannot, I conceive, apply
to Jesus at all, since he did not fulfill even this solitary
characteristic; for he did not preach to the Gentiles, but confined his
mission and teaching to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel."  It
was Paul who established Christianity among the Gentiles.

In p. 18, you appear to admit that all the characteristic marks of the
Messiah were not manifested in Jesus, but will be manifested at some
future period. To which a Jew might answer, by politely asking you,
whether then you do not require too much of him for the present, in
demanding faith upon credit?

But that when Jesus of Nazareth in this future time shall fulfill the
prophecies; will it not be time enough to believe him to be the Messiah?

You ask, p. 19, "was ever character more pacific than that of Jesus?
Can any religion breathe a milder temper than his? Into how many
ferocious breasts has it already infused the kindest and gentlest
spirit? And after all these considerations is Jesus to be rejected
because some prophecies which relate to his future triumphs are not yet
accomplished?"  This argument I can easily conceive must have had great
weight with such a man as Mr. Channing, whose heart accords with every
thing that is mild and amiable. But after all my dear sir, what are
"all these considerations" to the purpose? Show that Jesus was as
amiable and as good as the most vivid imagination can paint; nay, prove
him to have been an angel from heaven, and it will not, it seems to me,
at all tend towards demonstrating him to be the Messiah of the Old
Testament, and if his religion was as mild as doves, and as beneficent
as the blessed sun of heaven, still I might respectfully insist, that
unless he answers to the description of the Messiah given in the Old
Testament, it is all irrelevant, and "some prophecies" (or even one)
unaccomplished, which it is expressly said should be accomplished at
the appearance of the Messiah, are quite sufficient I conceive to
nullify his claims.

In the 29th page you say that "the Gospels are something more than
loose and idle rumours of events which happened in a distant age, and a
distant nation. We have the testimony of men who were the associates of
Jesus Christ; who received his instructions from his own lips and saw
his works with their own eyes."

I presume that after what I have represented to Mr. Cary upon the
subject of the Gospels according to Matthew and John, who know are the
only Evangelists supposed to have heard with their ears, and seen with
their eyes the doctrines and facts recorded in those books, you will be
willing to allow, that this is very strong language. You observe in
your note to p. 19, that the other writings of the New Testament,
(except Luke, Acts, and Paul's Epistles) "may be all resigned, and our
religion and its evidences will be unimpaired." This language too
appears to me to be too strong, since if you give up all but the
writings you mention we shall by no means have "the testimony of men
who were the associates of Jesus Christ, who received his instructions
from his own lips, and saw his works with their own eyes," for in
giving up so much do you not resign the gospels according to Matthew
and John?

2. It requires some softening I think on these accounts; since 1. Luke
was not an eyewitness of the facts he records in his gospel, it is only
a hearsay story. 2. It contradicts the other gospels.

3. It has been grossly interpolated.

4. The learned Professor Marsh in his dissertation upon the three first
gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, (in his notes to Michaelis'
Introduction to the N. T.) represents, and gives ingenious reasons to
prove, that those gospels are Compilations from pre-existing documents,
written by nobody knows who.  So that the pieces from which the three
first gospels were composed were, according to this Hypothesis,
anonymous, and the gospels themselves written by we do not know what
authors; and yet, you know sir, that these patch-work narratives of
miracles have passed not only for credible, bat for inspired!

5. The Book of Acts was rejected by the Jewish Christians, as
containing accounts untrue, and contradictory to their Acts of the
Apostles.  It was rejected also by the Encratites, and the Severians,
and I believe by the Marcionites.  The Jewish Christians were the
oldest Christian Church, and they pronounced that the Book of Acts in
our Canon was written by a partizan of Paul's; and it will be
recollected that our Book of Acts is in fact, principally taken up in
recording the travels and preaching of Paul, and contains little
comparatively of the other Apostles. The Jewish Christians had a Book
of Acts different from ours. And besides the fact, that the oldest
Christian church, the mother church of Judea, with whom we should
expect to find the truth if any where, rejected the Acts, Chrysostom
Bishop of Constantinople, at the end of the 4th century, in a homily
upon this Book says, that "not only the author and collector of the
Book, but the Book itself was unknown to many." This mother church had
not only a book of Acts of the apostles different from ours, but also a
gospel of their own, called the gospel of the twelve apostles, which is
supposed by the learned in important particulars to differ from ours.
According to Augustine however, this gospel was publickly read in the
churches as authentick for 300 years. This gospel in the opinion of
Grabe, Mills, and other learned men, was written before the gospels now
received as canonical. See Toland's Nazarenus.

6. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, those to the Ephesians, and
Colossians, are nearly proved to be apocryphal by Evanson, and about
the rest there are some suspicious circumstances. You refer the reader
of your Sermons in that note to Paley's Evidences, 9th chapter, for
evidence for the authenticity of the rest of the gospels; but if the
reader goes there he will find, that all the testimony Paley quotes for
the first 200 years after Christ except that of Papias, Irenaeus, and
Tertullian, (the value of whose testimony to the authenticity of the
gospels, has been considered in the 16th ch. of my work; and which may
further appear from these circumstances, that Irenaeus considered the
Book of Hermas an inspired Scripture as much as he did the four
gospels, and that Tertullian contended stoutly for the inspiration of
the ridiculous book of Enoch, one of the most stupid forgeries that
ever was seen,) the quotations and supposed allusions in the earlier
fathers are uncertain, since it is acknowledged by Dodwell, and also by
others, that it cannot be shown with any certainty, whether these
quotations and allusions belong to ours or to apocryphal gospels.  And
to conclude, would you not require as much evidence for the
authenticity of the gospels, which relate supernatural events, as we
have for most of the classics, and yet if you examine the subject
closely, you will be satisfied to your astonishment that we have not so
much as we have for the works of Virgil or Cicero; and that we have not
by a great deal so much testimony for the miracles of Jesus, which were
supernatural events which require at least as great proof as natural
ones as we have for the deaths of Pompey and of Julius Caesar, though
you seem from your note to think otherwise. As to Celsus, Porphyry, and
Julian, if they allowed the gospels to be genuine, they might have done
so, and taken advantage of such an allowance to show that they could
net, from their contradictions, have been written by men having a
mission from the God of Truth. But Sir, is it certain that they did
acknowledge it? Since the only fragments of their works upon
Christianity we have remaining, are just such parts as their Christian
answerers have picked out, and selected; the works themselves were
carefully burned. And that these answerers have not acted fairly may be
more than suspected, I think from a hint given us by Jerom, (which you
will find in Dr. Middleton's Free Enquiry) that Origen in his answer to
Celsus, sometimes fought the devil at his own weapons, i.e. lied for
the sake of the truth; and it is notorious, that the Fathers of the
church allowed this to be lawful, and practiced it abundantly. See the
note at the end.

You allow in the 20th page that the sincerity of the propagators of
opinions is no proof of their truth; and yet you seem to think, that
the twelve apostles must have been correct, because the opinions they
propagated were, you think, contrary to their prejudices as Jews. This
argument cannot, I conceive, support the consequences you lay upon it,
were it true that the apostles had abandoned their opinions as Jews
about the nature of the Messiah's Kingdom.  But I believe you will not
be a little surprized, when I shall show you, that in preaching Jesus
as the Messiah they did by no means adopt the very spiritual ideas you
ascribe to them, but in fact believed that Jesus would soon return and
"restore the Kingdom to Israel" in good earnest, and in a sense by no
means spiritual. This argument, if I can establish it, you observe,
sir, no doubt, must consequently subvert a very considerable part of
your system, by which you endeavour to account for the discrepancies
which you do allow as yet to subsist between the prophecies of the
Messiah, and Jesus of Nazareth. I beseech you therefore to heed me
carefully.

In Luke i. verse 32. The angel tells Mary that her son Jesus should be
great, and be called: the son of the Highest and the Lord God shall
give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over
the house of Israel forever and to his kingdom there shall be no end,
and in verse 67, &c. Zachariah, by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost
too, thus praises God concerning Jesus "Blessed be the Lord God of
Israel, because he hath visited and redeemed his people, and he hath
raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant
David; as he spake by the month of his holy prophets which have been
since the world began, that we should be saved from our enemies and
from the hand of all that hate us, &c. that we being delivered from the
hand of our enemies should serve him with holiness and righteousness
before him all the days of our lives."  [See the Original.] You see,
sir the notion that these words allude to, they certainly appear to me
to mean something else than deliverance from spiritual foes.  See also
in the 2d ch. 25 verse, where Simeon a man who was "looking for the
consolation of Israel" and was full of the Holy Ghost, expresses
similar sentiments. And Anna the prophetess also spake concerning Jesus
to all who "were expecting deliverance in Jerusalem," i.e. undoubtedly
deliverance from the Romans. The carnal ideas of the Apostles with
regard to the nature of their Master's Kingdom, and their consequent
expectations with regard to Jesus, before his crucifixion, are
acknowledged; and in the 24th chapt. of Luke 21st v. they say in
despair, "But we trusted that it had been he who should have redeemed
Israel." And after the resurrection, and just before the ascension of
Jesus, after they had been for forty days "instructed in the things
pertaining to the kingdom of God," which was the same as that of the
Messiah, by Jesus himself, they do not seem to have had the least idea
of the metaphysical kingdom of modern Christians, for they ask him,
"Lord wilt thou now (or at this time) restore the kingdom to Israel?"
And his answer is, not that it should never be restored, but that "it
was not for them to know the times, and the seasons," see Acts 1. And
even after the day of Pentecost, ch. iii. verse 19, Peter tells the
Jews to repent, that their sins may be blotted out "when the times of
refreshing [i.e. of deliverance] shall come from the face of the Lord,
and he shall send Jesus Christ [i.e.  the Messiah] before preached, (or
promised) unto you, whom the heavens must receive until the times of
the restoration of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all
his holy prophets since the world began." From this we see, that the
Apostles thought that Jesus was gone to heaven for a time, and was to
return again [there is no mention whatever in the Prophets of a double
coming of the Messiah] and fulfill the prophecies with regard to "the
restoration of all things" to a paradisiacal state, and the temporal
kingdom of the Messiah sitting upon the throne of David in Jerusalem,
all which is contained in the words of "the holy prophets" which have
been since the world began. And what sort of a kingdom it was to be
will appear from the not very spiritual description of the reign of
Jesus upon earth during the Millennium, described in the 20th chapter
of Revelations, and not only so, but the author of that book represents
the final, and permanent state of the blessed as fixed, not in heaven,
as modern Christians suppose, but on a new earth, or the earth renewed,
and in a superb city, called "the new Jerusalem."

In fact, the ideas of the twelve Apostles upon the subject of the
kingdom of the Messiah were precisely as carnal as those of their
unbelieving brethren of the Jewish nation.  They believed, as has been
shown abundantly in the 15th chapter of "The Grounds of Christianity
Examined," that their Master Jesus would come again, as he had told
them he would, in that generation, and perform for Israel all the
glorious things promised; that he would come in a cloud with power and
great glory, and all the holy angels with him; that many from the east,
and from the west should sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in
that kingdom; and that the disciples were to eat and drink at Jesus'
table in his kingdom, and were to sit on twelve thrones judging the
twelve tribes of Israel. The author of the book of Revelations, after
describing the magnificence and felicity of Jesus' kingdom upon earth,
represents him as saying that he should come quickly: and in the first
chapters, that they who had pierced him should see him coming in the
clouds. The Apostles, as appears from the epistles, were on tiptoe with
expectation, and frequently assured their converts that "the Lord is at
hand, the judge stood before the door, &c."  And to conclude, Can you
not now, sir, conceive, and guess the cause of the gradual
disappearance of the Jewish Christians after "that generation had
passed away?" The fact was, that the Jewish Christians never dreamed of
that figment a spiritual Messiah. They expected that Jesus would come
again in "that generation" as he had told them he would; he did not
come; in consequence the Jewish Church, after waiting, and waiting a
great while, dwindled into annihilation.

You conclude your most eloquent sermons by an appeal to the feelings in
behalf of opinions which ought I think to be defended by reason and
proof rather than by sentiment. You complain of ridicule in an
examination of this kind. I hope you will excuse my expressing some
doubts whether eloquent sentiment, and appeals to the feelings are less
exceptionable in a discussion of the causes why we ought to give
Christianity a respectful and dispassionate examination. If I were so
happy as to be so eloquent as you, and in a manner which such power of
persuasion as you possess would give me ability to do, had described
the burnings, the tortures, the murders, and the plundering of the
Jew's during the last thousand years, in order to cause my readers to
wish to find reason to hate Christianity; would you not have said it
was unfair? It cannot be necessary to inform so finished a scholar as
Mr. Channing, that in a discussion about the truth of a system the
consideration of the consequences of the system's being proved to be
false, is irrelevant and contrary to rule. You will say that you were
not discussing the truth of a system, but the reasons why we should
give it a respectful examination. This is true-The question you advised
your auditors to examine was, whether the Christian religion was true
or otherwise. Be it so. I appeal then to your candour, whether it was
the way to send them to the important enquiry unprejudiced and
unbiased, to impress them by authority, and by arguments which are good
only when used as subsidiary to proof or demonstration and by
terrifying them with what you imagine would be the consequences of
finding that Christianity is unfounded? Ah sir, does the advocate of a
cause "founded on adamant" wish to dazzle the judges and fascinate the
jury before he ventures to bring the merits of his cause to trial? Must
they be made to shed tears, must their hearts be made to feel that you
are right, in order that their understandings may be able to perceive
it? Should the learned and able champion of a system, who offers it as
true, and to be received only because it is true, when its claims are
threatened with a scrutiny, lay so much stress upon its supposed
utility when the question is its truth? Is it an argument that
Christianity is true, because if false, you think we should have no
religion left? This argument no doubt looks ludicrous to you, and yet I
am told that it has been gravely offered by some well meaning men after
reading your sermons, who thought it of no small weight. You may see
from this, my dear sir, how easily simplicity is satisfied.

You lay great stress upon the comforts derived from believing
Christianity true. But ought men to be encouraged to lean and build
their hopes on what may perhaps when examined turn out to be a broken
reed? The expiring Indian dies in peace-holding a cow's tail in his
hand. If he was in his full health, and vigour of understanding, would
you think It charitable to let that man remain uninformed of his
delusion in trusting to such a staff of comfort? Would you not
endeavour to enlighten him, and make him ashamed of his superstition? I
know you would, and you would do him a kindness deserving his
gratitude. To conclude, the Christian religion is either a divine and
solid foundation of morals, hope, and consolation, or it is not. If it
is, there is no reason in the world to fear, that it can be undermined,
or hurt in the least. To believe so would be I conceive to doubt the
Providence of God. For it cannot be supposed, that a religion really
given by the Almighty and All wise can be undermined by a wretched
mortal, a child of dust and infirmity; the supposition is monstrous,
and therefore no examination of its claims ought to be deprecated, or
frowned at by those who think it "founded on adamant," for no man
shrinks at having that examined which he is positively confident of
being able to prove.

2.  If this foundation be not divine and solid it ought I conceive to
be undermined, and abandoned. For willfully, and knowingly to suffer
confiding men to be duped, or allured into building their hopes and
consolation upon a delusion, is in my opinion to maltreat, and to
despise them. And to suffer them to be imposed upon is both unbrotherly
and dishonest. And to advocate, or to insinuate a defense of an unsound
foundation upon the principle of pious frauds, viz. because it is
supposed by its defenders to be useful, you will no doubt agree with me
is both absurd, and immoral. For in the long run truth is more useful
than error, "nothing (says Lord Bacon) is so pernicious as deified
error." And it must not be supposed, or insinuated, that the good God
has made it necessary, that the morals, comfort, and consolation of his
rational creatures should be founded on, or be supported by a mistake
and a delusion; for it would be virtually to deny his Providence.  In
fine, Christianity come to us as from God, and says to us, "He that
believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not, shall be damned."
Therefore, he that receives such extraordinary claims without
examination, is "in my opinion, a wittol; and he who suffers himself to
be compelled to swallow such pretensions without the severest scrutiny,
according to my notions of things, has no claims to be considered as a
man of common sense.

Before I close my letter, it occurs to me to observe, that you appear
to me to have misconceived the state of the case, in representing in
your sermons, that if you give up Christianity you will have no
religion left. Christianity, if I understand it, is properly contained
and taught in the New Testament alone. I am not aware, my dear sir,
that if you were to give up the New Testament you would be without a
religion, or even what you acknowledge as divine revelation. It appears
to me, that a Christian might, if he chose, give up the New Testament
and place himself on the footing of the devout Gentiles mentioned in
the Acts, who worshipped the one God, and kept the moral law of the Old
Testament. You will recollect, that I have not attempted to affect the
authority of the Old Testament which you acknowledge to contain a
Divine revelation. I never shall because, I would never quarrel with
any thing merely for the sake of disputing.  Whether the Old Testament
contains a revelation from God, or not, its moral precepts are, as far
as I know unexceptionable; there is not, I believe, any thing
extravagant or impracticable in them, they are such as promote the good
order of society. Its religion in fact is merely Theism garnished, and
guarded by a splendid ritual, and gorgeous ceremonies; the belief of it
can produce no oppression and wretchedness to any portion of mankind,
and for these reasons I for one will never attempt to weaken its
credit, whatever may be my own opinion with regard to its supernatural
claims.

In fact, to speak correctly, the Old Testament is at this moment the
sole true canon of Scripture, acknowledged as such by genuine
Christianity; it was the only canon which was acknowledged by Christ,
and his immediate Apostles. The books of the New Testament are all
occasional books, and not a code or system of religion; nor were they
all collected into one body, nor declared by any even human authority
to be all canonical till several hundred years after Jesus Christ. They
are books written by Christians, and contain proofs of Christianity
alleged from the Old Testament, but contain Christianity itself no
otherwise, it appears to me, than as explaining, illustrating, and
confirming Christianity supposed to be taught in the Old Testament.
They are mostly, where they inculcate doctrines, Commentaries on the
Old Testament deriving from thence, and giving what the writers
imagined to be contained in and hidden under the letter of it.  And
upon the same principle that the books of the New Testament were
received as canonical, so was the Pastor of Hermas, the Book of Enoch,
and others, just as highly venerated by the early Christians. But they
did not at first, as I apprehend their expressions, rank them with the
Old Testament, which was called "the Scriptures," by way of excellence.
The Old Testament was in fact supposed by the writers of the New, to
contain Christianity under the bark of the letter; and they represent
Christianity as having been preached to the ancient Jews under the
figure of types, and allegories. See Gal. iii. 8. Heb. xi. and the
first Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, ch. x. In a word, the
Apostles professed to "say none ether things than those which the
prophets and Moses did say." Acts xxvi. 22,

Jesus and his Apostles do frequently, and emphatically style the books
of the Old Testament "The Scriptures," and refer men to them as their
rule, and canon. And Paul says, Acts xxiv. 14, "After the [Christian]
way, which ye call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers;
believing all things that are written in the law, and the prophets."
But it does not appear, that any new books were declared by them to
have that character. Nor was there any new canon of Scripture, or any
collection of books as Scripture made whether of Gospels or Epistles
during the lives of the Apostles; as is well known to you.--And if
neither Jesus nor his apostles declared any other books to be canonical
besides those of the Old Testament, I would ask the Christian who did?
Or who had a right and authority to declare or make any books
canonical? If Christianity required a new canon, or new digest of laws,
it should seem that it ought to have been done by Jesus and his
apostles, and not left to be executed by any after them: especially not
left to be settled long after their deaths by weak, enthusiastic,
ignorant, silly and factious men, such as the fathers, who were so
badly informed of the genuine writings of the founders of their
religion, that they were, when they came to collect and make a new
canon, greatly divided: about the genuineness of all books bearing the
names of the apostles, and contended with one another bitterly about
their authority; and after all decree to be genuine some which are
palpably forgeries.

But the truth is, that the present New Testament Canon, was collected
and established by the Gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians
received none of them, but acknowledged nothing for Scripture but the
books of the Old Testament which was the sole Canon left them by the
twelve apostles.  Their Gospel and Acts, if my memory does not deceive
me, they regarded as histories only. They were merely a small body of
Jews who thought that Jesus was the Messiah of the Old Testament. This
article was the only one which made them Heretical: In all other
respects they were as other Jews after the way which their countrymen
called heresy, so worshipped they the God of their Fathers at the
National Temple; believing and preaching "no other things than what
[they imagined] Moses and the Prophets did say."

I have made this statement and representation, sir, on two accounts.

1. In order to repel the shocking and groundless imputation which I
understand that some pains have been taken to fix upon me, I do not
mean by you, sir, for you know the contrary that the object of my late
publication was to aim at destroying all religion, and the annihilation
of the publick worship of God, a charge which I reject with horror, and
also with bitter indignation, that it should ever have been attributed
to me. God forbid! that the publick worship and stated reverence which
all ought to pay to the Great and Tremendous Being from whom we receive
life and its every blessing; and to whose Providence we are subject;
and by whose goodness we are sustained, should ever be caused to be
neglected, or forgotten, by any man, or by the subvertion of any
opinions whatever. The propriety of the publick worship of God stands
independent and without need of support from the peculiar doctrines of
any sect. And the idea that this great duty would be superceded by the
dismission of the New Testament is so utterly groundless and absurd:
that to make it appear so, any man has only to recollect that the
public worship of the Supreme existed before the New Testament was
written or thought of; and to look round the world and see millions of
men worshipping God in houses of prayer, who know nothing about the New
Testament except by report. I regard, sir, the imputation I have spoken
of, as either a gross mistake of the simple, or a cunning and
deliberate calumny of the crafty. I have made this statement and
representation to show, that it does not follow, that in giving up the
New Testament Christians will be deprived of all religion. For in
retaining the Old Testament they would adopt nothing new, and would
retain nothing but what they now acknowledge as containing a divine
revelation; and in giving up the New Testament they would not, as I
think has been shown, give up a jot of what had ever any right to the
name of Scripture.

Whether however, people give up both, or retain one, or both, is their
concern. I have stated what I have merely to show, that in giving up
the New Testament they would not necessarily give up more than a part
of their bibles, or any part of their bible, except that whose
authenticity cannot be proved; nor any more of their faith, than that
part of it which for almost eighteen hundred years has produced
interminable disputes among themselves and misfortunes, and causeless
reproach to others.

"With great regard, and the most respectful esteem, I subscribe myself,
Reverend Sir, Your obliged and humble servant

GEO. BETHUNE  ENGLISH.



NOTE

Jerom speaking of the different manner which writers found themselves
obliged to use, in their controversial, and dogmatical writings,
intimates, that in controversy whose end was victory, rather than
truth, it was allowable to employ every artifice which would best serve
to conquer an adversary; in proof of which "Origen, says he, Methodius,
Eusebius, Apollinaris, have written many thousands of lines against
Celsus, and Porphyry: consider with what arguments and what slippery
problems they baffle what was contrived against them by the spirit of
the devil: and because they are sometimes forced to speak, they speak
not what they think, but what is necessary against those who are called
Gentiles. I do not mention the Latin writers, Tertullian, Cyprian,
Minutius, Victorinus, Lactantius, Hilarius, lest I be thought not so
much defending myself, as accusing others, &c."  Op. Tom. 4. p. 2.
p.:256.  Middleton's Free Enquiry, p. 158. It is remarkable that the
names mentioned by Jerom are the names of the early apologists for
Christianity. When the Church got the upper hand however, they found a
better way to confute those wicked men, Celsus and Porphyry, than by
"slippery problems" and by speaking "not what they thought (to be true)
but what was necessary against those who are called Gentiles," viz. by
seeking after, and burning carefully their troublesome works. Of the
fathers of the Church who were its pillars, leaders, and great men. Dr.
Middleton observes in his Preface to his Enquiry, &c, p. 31, as
follows: "I have shown by many indisputable facts, that the ancient
Fathers were extremely credulous and superstitious, possessed with
strong prejudices, and an enthusiastic zeal in favor not only of
Christianity in general, but of every particular doctrine, which a wild
imagination could engraft upon it, and scrupling no art or means by
which they might propagate the same principles. In short they were of a
character front which nothing could be expected that was candid and
impartial; nothing but what a weak or crafty understanding could supply
towards confirming those prejudices with which they happened to be
possessed, especially where religion was the subject, which above all
other motives strengthens every bias, and inflames every passion of the
human mind.  And that this was actually the case, I have shown also, by
many instances in which we find them roundly affirming as true things
evidently false and fictitious; in order to strengthen as they fancied
the evidences of the Gospel or to serve a present turn of confuting an
adversary: or of enforcing a particular point which they were labouring
to establish."

In p. 81 of the Introductory Discourse, he says, "Let us consider then
in the next place what light these same forgeries [those of the Fathers
of the fourth century] will afford us in looking backwards also into
the earlier ages up to the times of the Apostles. And first, when we
reflect on that surprising confidence and security with which the
principal fathers of this fourth age have affirmed as true what they
themselves had either forged, or what they knew at least to be forged;
it is natural to suspect, that so bold a defiance of sacred truth could
not be acquired, or become general at once, but must have been carried
gradually to that heighth, by custom and the example of former times,
and a long experience of what the credulity and superstition, of the
multitude (i.e. of Christians) would bear."

"Secondly, this suspicion will be strengthened by considering, that
this age [the 4th century] in which Christianity was established by the
civil power, had no real occasion for any miracles. For which reason,
the learned among the Protestants have generally supposed it to have
been the very era of their cessation and for the same reason the
fathers also themselves when they were disposed to speak the truth,
have not scrupled to confess, that the miraculous shifts were then
actually withdrawn, because the church stood no longer in need of them.
So that it must have been a rash and dangerous experiment, to begin to
forge miracles, at a time when there was no particular temptation to
it; if the use of such fictions had not long been tried, and the
benefit of them approved; and recommended by their ancestors; who
wanted every help towards supporting themselves under the pressures and
persecutions with which the powers on earth were afflicting them.''

"Thirdly, if we compare the principal fathers of the fourth with those
of the earlier ages. We shall observe the same characters of zeal and
piety in them all, but more learning, more judgment, and less credulity
in the later fathers. If these then be found either to have forced
miracles themselves, or to have propagated what they knew to be forged,
or to have been deluded so far by other people's forgeries as to take
them for real miracles; (of the one or the other of which they were all
unquestionably guilty) it will naturally excite in us the same
suspicion of their predecessors, who in the same cause, and with the
same zeal were less learned and more credulous, and in greater need of
such arts for their defence and security.

"Fourthly. As the personal characters of the earlier fathers give them
no advantage over their successors, so neither does the character of
the earlier ages afford any real cause of preference as to the point of
integrity above the latter. The first indeed are generally called and
held to be the purest: but when they had once acquired that title from
the authority of a few leading men; it is not strange to find it
ascribed to them by every body else; without knowing or inquiring into
the grounds of it. But whatever advantage of purity those first ages
may claim in some particular respects, it is certain that they were
defective in some others, above all which have since succeeded them.
For there never was any period of time in all ecclesiastical history,
in which so many rank heresies were publicly professed, nor in which so
many spurious books were forged and published by the Christians, under
the name of Christ, and the apostles, and the apostolic writers, as in
those primitive ages; several of which forged hooks are frequently
cited and applied to the defence of Christianity by the most eminent
fathers of the same ages, as true and genuine pieces, and of equal
authority with the scriptures themselves. And no man surely can doubt
but that those who would either forge or make use of forged books,
would in the same cause and for the same ends, make use of forged
miracles." Let the reader remember that the Gospels according to
Matthew and John are forgeries, and then apply this reasoning of Dr.
Middleton's to the miracles contained in those Gospels. With regard to
all the miracles of the New Testament, we know them only by report, and
it is an acknowledged, because a demonstrable fact, that the age in
which the accounts of these miracles were published, was an age
overflowing with imposture and credulity. "Such," says Bishop Fell,
"was the license of fiction in the first ages, and so easy the
credulity, that testimony of the facts of that time is to be received
with great caution, as not only the pagan world, but the church of God,
has just reason to complain of its fabulous age." Stillingfleet says,
"that antiquity is defective most where it is most important, In the
awe immediately succeeding that of the apostles." Now be it
recollected, that the Gospels first appeared in this age of fraud and
credulity; and be it further remembered, that the authenticity of the
Gospels, according to Matthew and John can be subverted, if marks of
imposture, which would cause the rejection of any other books, are
sufficient to affect the authenticity of those received as sacred. It
is to be remarked farther, that the church in its first ages was full
of forged hooks, giving accounts of the same events, different from
those of the books of the New Testament. The different sects, and the
church itself, was torn by as many schisms then as it ever has been
since, who mutually accuse each other of corrupting the Christians
scriptures, and of lying, and cheating most abominably.

All reasoning therefore from books published at this time, and whose
authenticity is supported only by the testimony of acknowledged liars;
and which have been tampered with too as these certainly were, is
exceedingly unsatisfactory.  And yet such is the basis on which rests
the credibility of the miracles of the New Testament.  Dr. Middleton,
after having shown, beginning at the earliest of the fathers
immediately after the apostles, that they were all most amazingly
credulous and superstitious: and having demonstrated from their own
words, that from Justin Martyr downwards they were all liars, observes
as follows, p. 157, Free Inquiry: "Now it is agreed by all, that these
fathers, whose testimonies I have been just reciting were the most
eminent lights of the fourth century; all of them sainted by the
catholic church, and highly reverenced at this day in all churches, for
their piety, probity, and learning.  Yet from the specimens of them
above given, it is evident, that they would not scruple to propagate
any fiction, how gross so ever, which served to promote the interest
either of Christianity in general, or of any particular rite or
doctrine which they were desirous to recommend. St. Jerom in effect
confesses it, for after the mention of a silly story, concerning the
Christians of Jerusalem, who used to shew in the ruins of the temple,
certain stones of a reddish color, which they pretended to have been
stained by the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, who was slain
between the temple and the altar, he adds, but I do not find fault with
an error which flows from a hatred of the Jews, and a pious zeal for
the Christian faith. If the miracles then of the fourth century, so
solemnly attested by the most celebrated and revered fathers of the
church, are to be rejected after all as fabulous, it must needs give a
fatal blow to the credit of all the miracles even of the preceding
centuries; since there is not a single father whom I have mentioned in
this fourth age, who for zeal and piety may not be compared with the
best of the more ancient, and for knowledge, and for learning be
preferred to them all. For instance, there was not a person in all the
primitive church more highly respected in his own days than St.
Epiphanius, for the purity of his life as well as the extent of his
leaning. He was master of five languages, and has left behind him one
of the most useful works which remain to us from antiquity. St. Jerom,
who personally knew him, calls him the father of all bishops, and a
shining star among them; the man of God of blessed memory; to whom the
people used to flock in crowds, offering their little children to his
benediction, kissing his feet, and catching the hem of his garment.
This holy man and light of the church, the great man of his day,
asserts upon his own knowledge, "that in imitation of our Saviour's
miracle at Cana in Galilee several fountains and rivers in his days
were annually turned into wine. A fountain at Cibyra, a city of Caria,
and another at Gerasa in Arabia, prove the truth of this. I myself have
drunk out of the fountain at Cibyra, and my brethren out of the other
at Gerasa; and many testify the same thing of the river Nile in Egypt."
Advers. Haeres, 1. 2, c. 130. Middleton's Inquiry, p. 151, 152] "All
the rest (Dr. Middleton goes on to say) were men of the same character,
who spent their lives and studies in propagating the faith, and in
combating the vices and the heresies of their times. Yet none of them
have scrupled, we see, to pledge their faith for the truth, of facts
which no man of sense can believe, and which their warmest admirers are
forced to give up as fabulous. If such persons then could willfully
attempt to deceive; and if the sanctity of their characters cannot
assure us of their fidelity, what better security can we have from
those who lived before them? Or what cure for our scepticism with
regard, to any of the miracles above mentioned? Was the first asserter
of them, Justin Martyr more pious, cautious, learned, judicious, or
less credulous than Epiphanius? Or were those virtues more conspicuous
in Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, and Lactantius, than in
Athanasius, Gregory, Chrysostom, Jerom, Austin? Nobody, I dare say,
will venture to affirm it. If these later fathers, then, biased by a
false zeal or interest, could be tempted to propagate a known lie, or
with all their learning and knowledge could be so weakly credulous as
to believe the absurd stories which they themselves attest, there must
be always reason to suspect, that the same prejudices would operate
even more strongly in the earlier fathers, prompted by the same zeal
and the same interests, yet endued with less learning, less judgment,
and more credulity.

Such Christian reader, were the fathers, the leaders, and the great men
of the church, and the apologists for your religion. And it is upon the
credibility of these convicted knaves that ultimately, and
substantially depends your belief. For it is upon their testimony and
tradition that you receive and believe in the authenticity of the N.T.,
its doctrines and miracles.

I hope that if you choose to build your faith upon the testimony of
such witnesses, that you will not think it unreasonable in me to
presume to doubt the truth of opinions and miracles supported by the
testimony of men like the fathers. I am willing, because I think it
reasonable, to let every man follow his own judgment, and do I ask too
much to be permitted without offence to enjoy the same liberty with
regard to these things; which I conceive no fair man will now say, (if
what has been brought forward be true) are positively provable as true,
and worthy of unhesitating assent.

For the case is thus. The gospels are accused of being written by
credulous and superstitious authors whose names are not certainly
known; as containing too inconsistent and contradictory accounts of
prodigies and miracles; and also palpable marks of forgery.  Now to
convince a thinking man, that histories of such suspected character,
containing relations of miracles, are divine or even really written, by
the persons to whom they are ascribed, and not either some of the many
spurious productions, with which it is notorious and acknowledged, the
age in which they appeared abounded, calculated to astonish the
credulous and superstitious! or else writings of authors who were
themselves infected with the grossest superstitious credulity, what is
the testimony?

For the first hundred years after the lives of the supposed authors,
none at all. And the earliest fathers who speak of them are all
convicted of gross credulity, and incapacity to distinguish genuine
from, fictitious writings, (for they admitted as genuine scripture many
books confessedly nonsensical forgeries,) but what is worse, are
manifestly guilty by the evidence of their own words of having been
palpable liars, cheats, and forgers. But, "it is an obvious rule in the
admission of evidence in any cause whatsoever, that the more important
the matter to be determined by it is, the more unsullied, and
unexceptionable ought to be the characters of the witnesses to be. And
when no court of justice among us in determining a question of fraud to
the value of sixpence will admit the testimony of witnesses who are
themselves notoriously convicted of the same offence of which the
defendant is accused;"  how can it be expected that any reasonable
unprejudiced person should reasonably be required to admit similar
evidence, i.e. the testimony of such men as the fathers in favor of the
divine authority of books which are accused of being the offspring of
fraud and credulity; and which relate too to a case of the greatest
importance possible, not to himself only, but to the whole human race?!

For my own part, I cannot; and I think I could not without renouncing
all those rules and principles of evidence, and of good sense, which in
all other cases are universally respected. And when we consider the
character of those by whom these histories were first received and
believed, the unreasonableness of insisting upon the belief of these
accounts will appear aggravated. What was the character of the early
Gentile Christians? This we can ascertain from only two sources--the
writings of their leaders, and those of their heathen contemporaries.
According to the latter they were very weak and credulous. The
primitive Christians were perpetually reproached for their gross
credulity by all their enemies. Celsus says that they cared neither to
receive nor to give any reason of their faith, and that it was an usual
saying with them, do not examine, but believe only, and thy faith will
save thee. Julian affirms, that the sum, of all their wisdom was
comprised in this single precept, believe. The Gentiles, says Arnobius,
make it their constant business to laugh at our faith, and to lash our
credulity with their facetious jokes.

"The fathers on the other hand, defend themselves by saying, that they
did nothing more: on this occasion than what the philosophers had
always done; that Pythagoras' precepts were inculcated by an ipse
dixit, and that they had found the same method useful with the vulgar,
who were not at leisure to examine things; whom they taught therefore
to believe, even without reasons: and that the heathens themselves,
though they did not confess it in words, yet practiced the same in
their acts." Middleton's Free Enquiry. Introduc. Disc. p. 92. Lucian
says, "that whenever any crafty juggler expert in his trade, and who
knew how to make a right use of things, went over to the Christians, he
was sure to grow rich immediately, by making a prey of their
simplicity." [De Morte Pereg.]

If we turn to the writings of the earliest fathers; from these writings
of the great men of the Church at that time we shall form but a very
mean idea of the understandings of the little ones, since their
writings are not one whit superior to the "godly Epistles" of the
lowest orders of fanatics in the last, and present century, they are
remarkable for nothing more than manifesting the extreme simplicity,
and credulity, together with the sincere piety of the writers. The
fathers who succeeded them were better informed, but not at all behind
them in credulity, and enthusiasm.  Tertullian, the most powerful mind
among them during the first two hundred years, reasons as follows.

"The Son of God was crucified: it is no shame to own it, because it is
a thing to be ashamed of. The Son of God died: it is wholly credible,
because it is absurd. When buried he rose again to life: it is certain,
because it is impossible." De Carne Christi, Section 5.