THE CHRISTIAN BEACON. quent and visible interference shall not be required? Or, since we are but inadequate judges of infinite wisdom, which is most analogous to the usual course of his Providence? He does not people the world by perpetual creation, or support its inhabitants by an annual exercise of that power which first called into being whatever the universe contains. If, therefore, you give the subject a little more attention than you have hitherto thought it worth while to bestow, you will see that in making Revelation depend on testimony, and diffuse itself by testimony, God has acted in conformity with the general plans of his providence, and therefore, I doubt not, consistently with his wisdom. For, taking as they are this world and mankind, I perceive no way in which a Revelation could be made known, except by testimony, unless it were proposed personally and severally to each individual by a miracle similar to that which effected St. Paul's conversion. Were a fresh Revelation made every year, still it must be believed on testimony by all who are not actually eye-witnesses. Were a Revelation made in every country under the sun, it must be believed on testimony by all who do not live at the same period. So that it is not easily conceivable in what other way a Revelation can be propagated, except by testimony. To which I must add, that the peculiar nature of the Christian Revelation, made by the Son of God taking human nature upon him, and suffering the penalty of the sins of mankind, absolutely precludes any means of promulgation except historical evidence. Ale. Historical evidence resolves itself into the report of other men: can I credit the report of other men in a matter so extraordinary? How am I to know that they are worthy of belief? Above all, you put it entirely out of the power of by far the largest part of mankind to have any proof of their religion, except the assurance of their parents, or their priests. For how can the young, or the busy, or the illiterate, 15 search into the truth of history, in order to learn the origin of their religion? Euseb.-There is no hardship in obliging men to act on that evidence with respect to Religion, which they are accustomed to act on in all the other business of life. You have never been in America; but supposing you thought that you could mend your fortunes there, or turn your deism to better account, you would have no hesitation in taking ship and setting sail for the country. You would have no doubt of finding New Orleans or New York, after sailing a certain number of leagues, and reaching such and such a latitude. Alc.-Certainly not, any more than I should doubt of reaching Edinburgh after travelling four hundred miles from London. Euseb.-Yet you would find it difficult to give any better reason for your belief about America, than I could give for my belief in Christianity. Alc. Surely this is talking extravagantly. What better reason would any man wish, than that the country has been known, and that multitudes have been going to it and coming from it these three hundred years? If a convulsion of nature were to sink that continent in the ocean, the fact would be spread all through Europe in a month. Euseb.-Very true. You have not been in America, but others have, and therefore you are convinced of the existence of such a country. And though you have not searched into the evidences of Christianity, and though nine-tenths of your neighbours cannot search them, do you suppose that nobody has searched them,-I might say experienced them? You have as much reason to believe the report which they bring back from this inquiry, as you have to believe the report of one who has sailed from America. Were it possible, on substantial grounds, to convict Christianity of imposture, the news would be disseminated as rapidly as that of the 16 THE CHRISTIAN BEACON. sinking of America, because it would interest, in their dearest concerns, a far greater number. Alc.-It may be so; but I must have some better evidence of Christianity before I can believe it, than the faith of my ancestors, or your own faith, or that of the worthy curate whom you brought against me in our first conversation. It is of no use to tell me that I ought to believe the Gospel on the same grounds as I believe that there is such a country as America. There is nothing marvellous in the one, but the other is a collection of wonders. If I were told that such things had happened in New York as your Scriptures assert to have happened in Jerusalem, I should be as slow to credit them. If the Christian writers had merely spoken of Jesus as a wise and excellent moralist, who went about teaching his countrymen to fear God and love their neighbours, and was at length put to death through the jealousy of those countrymen, like the heathen philosopher, no one would doubt their story, or hesitate to take them at their word. But they do not say this alone. They are constantly relating miracles which he performed; curing the sick, healing the maimed and infirm, commanding the elements, subduing evil spirits, restoring the dead to life; and crowning these exertions of Divine power by raising himself from the tomb, after his crucifixion and burial. say that we believe these extravagant accounts, we contradict the testimony of our own senses; we abandon the instructive guide, our own experience, and affirm that the testimony of a few men has more weight than our own positive knowledge."* "If we Euseb. It will not be denied you, that in proportion as the fact is extraordinary, the evidence should be strong. But it would be very unreasonable to say, that nothing could induce you to give credit to a fact which was in itself improbable. That would be setting up your own Principles of Nature, p. 69. experience as an impassable limit— an infallible tribunal. Alc.-Not mine, but other men's experience. Euseb. The first preachers of Christianity are among those other men and they assert that the miracles which you reject as idle tales happened within their experience. Alc." Will any Christian believer say that he has as much evidence that Nature's laws have been vlolated, or that miracles have been wrought, as he has that the laws of nature have not been violated, and that no miracles have been wrought? Certainly the testimony of a few men bears no proportion to the universal experience and general observation of the human species."* Euseb. I think you acknowledged in our former conversation, that there is nothing incredible in the idea of a Revelation; and if you call to mind the state of the world before Christianity reformed it, you must certainly allow that a Revelation was not unnecessary or superfluous. But I own it does not appear how a Revelation could be proved to come from God, unless he who proposed it were evidently endued with more than human power. The question was natural, “ What sign showest thou?" We reject Mahomet, because he brought no such testimony of the commission to which he pretended. You reject Jesus because he did. And while you allow it to be credible that God might give the light of Revelation to those who even with that advantage are certainly prone enough to error, you are going on to make it impossible that he should. For if Revelation is to be set at nought, first, because it is banded down from age to age by human testimony, and next because it is proved by the exercise of divine power, I do not see what mode of revealing himself you leave open even to infinite wisdom. But to say the truth, I fear that there is something of an atheistical tendency in this objection to mira. * Ibid. THE CHRISTIAN BEACON. cles. You talk of the order of na- Euseb.-I was not wrong in suspecting that atheism lurked at the bottom of these jealous feelings for the honour of God. By the same process of reasoning it appears, that God could not have created or framed our world. For unless our world was eternal, and therefore uncreated, there must have been something where our system now is, before that system was formed. Either there was vacant space, or there was matter existing in a state of confusion. And as God was supreme before no less than after the creation of the world, whatever existed before, whether vacancy or chaos, was according to his will. But his will is immutable. Therefore we cannot believe, without discredit to his attributes, that he interposed either to bring a regular system into void space, or to arrange one out of unformed matter. To assert that he either introduced a visible world into vacancy, or life into inactivity, is virtually to assert, that all things were not in the best possible state before, which is to cast a reflection on the wisdom of the Supreme Being. Depend upon it, in these cavils of your party against miracles, there is more of a desire to keep God out of sight, than to maintain his honour. * Principles of Nature. 17 But these are not your principles. You acknowledge a Creator, the Preserver of the Universe; therefore you acknowledge that he interfered once at least to change the state of things before existing. The proof of this is everywhere about us. The meanest insect which has the power of spontaneous motion, and of supporting itself on its appointed food, and of reproducing its kind, contains a proof of divine interference; for how many thousand years, or thousand centuries soever you go back, the first parent of that insect was formed by the hand of God, and received its various faculties, its power of locomotion, &c. contrary to the state of things previously existing. Alc.-I cannot imagine that God, in arranging the system to which we belong, should establish laws which stand in need of revision or alteration. Euseb.-Nor can I, on the other hand, find any thing inconsistent with the wisdom of the Deity in supposing that God, for a great mcral purpose, should occasionally see fit to suspend the operation of his own laws. You lose sight of the moral Governor, and think only of the omnipotent Creator. But with this in view, I will go further, and will affirm, that to me it seems much easier to believe that he has thus interfered with the world which he had made, than that he has taken no notice of his creatures-much more probable that he should devise means for bestowing on a portion of mankind eternal happiness, than that he should allow them to ruin themselves by sin, and remain immersed for ever in that ignorance and idolatry which the Christian Religion was intended to dispel. Alc.-Here again, as it happened the other day, your argument is stopped by the partial diffusion and slow reception of the Religion which you like to represent as indispensable. Euseb.-Whatever may be the force of your objection, it surely is not lessening the difficulty to suppose that a Revelation has been C 18 THE CHRISTIAN BEACON, tures, the stronger still must become the improbability that he should overlook them all. Reflect too, before you give weight to this difficulty how far the very delay you complain of in the progress of Christian light may be set down to the indifference and criminal neglect of Christians themselves; who, if they had been as eager to diffuse the Gospel as to extend their commerce or enlarge their dominions, might long ere this have proved apostles to wanting altogether. It is more pro- J. B. S. A REFLECTION. How oft we hear some grief-worn child of earth Is there then no Physician for the soul? Almighty Love yet centres in His word; The Son of God, who died that we might live, Fly, fly to Him! His everlasting arms Shall safely shield you from all earthly harms; His word shall guide you, where Himself hath trod, Faith bids thee rise. Rise, new born son of earth, And learn to bless the day that gave thee birth, E. RICH AND POOR. (From the Friendly Visitor,) POOR men sometimes think what a fine thing it would be if all the property of the rich were equally divided amongst them, and that in future no one should be allowed to grow rich; but they little consider what would be the consequence of such a measure. In the first place, they must begin by robbery, as no one could expect that the rich would willingly part with their property; and in the next place they would find, after this iniquity had been committed, and an equal division of the whole property of the nation had been made, that each person's share would be a very small one. A man would still, as before, be obliged to work for his living, for food and clothes could not be had without somebody's labour; and he must work hard too, for every article must be produced by hand labour, as all the large manufactories would have been destroyed in consequence of the ruin of the masters of them, and what could be bought before for a shilling, would probably cost five times as much, or more, after the destruction of the machinery. In a few months time, those people who were stronger, and had better head-pieces, would have become richer, and a fresh robbery must now take place, that the riches might be again divided; in short, the whole nation would become a set of robbers, and neither life nor property would be secure for a moment; every man would have a right to thrust his hand into his neighbour's pocket, whenever he had earned sixpence more than himself. Consider too, that all those persons who had been reduced to distress, by sickness or bad crops, must inevitably die of starvation, as nobody would be able, however willing, to relieve them. Is it possible that such people could thrive, living in open defiance of the laws both of God and civilized man? It is impossible; for there never was an instance since the world began, of a nation's prospering, and of the poor enjoying the comforts and necessaries of life, where property was not respected. It should also be remembered, that except a rich man locks up his money, a very rare case indeed, he pays away his money to servants, labourers, and tradespeople, who again lay out the money in food and clothes for their families; so that, in fact, a division is at present made of the property amongst the poor, though not, indeed, an equal but all forced attempts at equalizing property have ever failed in producing the end designed, and must ever fail; for it is as much a law of nature that some should be rich and some should be poor, as that some should be tall and some should be short, or that some should be sickly and some should be healthy. |