LECTURE III.

THE POPULAR OBJECTIONS OF INFIDELITY.

"THE WORLD BY WISDOM KNEW NOT GOD."--1 Cor. i. 21.

Introduction.-Objection I. That the Bible is full of contradictions, e. g. the genealogies of our Savior as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke-the resurrection of Christ.-Obj. II. That Moses could not have been the author of the Pentateuch, because the last chapter of Deuteronomy contains an account of his death.-Obj. III. That the doctrines of the Bible are contrary to human reason,-e. g. the scripture doctrine of redemption alleged to be inconsistent with the magnitude of the creation.-Obj. IV. That the Bible is an immoral book.-The laws of Moses.--The Levitical ceremonies.--The historical facts recorded.-Obj. V. That the Bible represents the Deity as guilty of injustice, or at least as sanctioning it in others.--The destruction of the Canaanites, even "the little smiling infants."-The temp ting of Abraham.-The hardening of Pharaoh's heart.-David, a man after God's own heart, and yet of a cruel and sanguinary disposition, and guilty of the most atrocious crimes.--The imprecations in the Psalms.-The crimes of David.-General character of the Bible as a true and impartial history.-Conclusion.

*

In our lecture last Sunday evening, we called your attention to the evidence in favor of the divine origin of Christianity.

We come now, as was before proposed, to examine some of the most common and popular objections of infidelity.

In entering on this topic of discourse, we remark at the outset, that although infidelity has long boasted herself to be the goddess of reason-although she has stigmatized the votaries of Christianity, especially those who minister

* November 13, 1842. See the preceding lecture.

at the altar, as fanatics, enthusiasts and imposters-and although we claim no peculiar skill in this kind of warfare, and profess to be shielded by no panoply save that of truth itself, yet, my friends, if you will only give us a favorable hearing, we hope to show you, before we have done with this subject, that, when placed in the rays of candor and impartiality, the objections of scepticism vanish, "as a cloud.'

It would obviously be impossible, within the limits of a single discourse, to notice all the cavils of infidelity. We must therefore select a few of the most prominent. But these will be abundantly sufficient to exemplify the fact, that as it was in the days of the apostle, so also is it now; the world by wisdom knows not God.

OBJ. I. It is alleged, in the first place, that the Bible is full of contradictions.

But these discrepancies are only apparent, and not real; and when thoroughly examined, so far from impeaching, they serve only to corroborate the evidence for the truth of the sacred record.

Take, for example, the genealogies of our Savior, as given by St. Matthew and St. Luke. Much has been said. by infidel writers respecting these different accounts. But can the objector prove that there is any real contradiction? How does he know but that one of the evangelists gives the genealogy of our Savior according to his mother Mary, and the other, to cut off all ground of cavil and dispute among the Jews, gives it according to his reputed father Joseph, so that in whatever way they reckoned, Jesus Christ would be shewn of the house and lineage of

* Hosper nepos--" as a cloud."--Demosthenes de corona.

† See Horne's Introduction, vol. i, p. 734, (Philadelphia ǝd. 1831,) where it is shown, that Heli was the father of Mary, and that Luke gives the pedigree of Mary. See also ib. pp. 583, 584.

David, from whom it was universally acknowledged the Messiah must come.

Besides, if there was any real discrepancy in the case, this fact must have been known to the early adversaries of Christianity. Had they not access to the public registers that were kept among the Jews? and as the Messiah was expected to come from the family of David, would not the register of that family be kept with peculiar care? and if there had been any real contradiction, could they not with the greatest ease have established the fact? If this formidable weapon had been placed within the reach of these. eagle-eyed adversaries, would they not have been the very first to grasp it, and wield it against the religion of Christ? Most assuredly. The fact, therefore, that these ingenious writers are silent on this point, shews conclusively, that there is no real contradiction in the case before us, and that they regarded the Christian religion as being in that quarter perfectly unassailable.

We are told also, that the different evangelists have given us different accounts respecting the resurrection of Christ. But these accounts may all be satisfactorily harmonized, if we only attend to the different circumstances of time and place alluded to by the different evangelists.

Suppose now, that four men should come into a court of justice, to testify to a fact that was to be tried by twelve honest jurors. Suppose that they should each tell the same story exactly in the same words, and in the same order of circumstances. Would not, in the mind of any man accustomed to weigh and sift evidence-would not a suspicion arise that there had been some sort of collusion? Would he not almost unavoidably be forced to believe, that these men had contrived and fabricated the tale, and had agreed to come into court and swear to its truth?

But suppose that, instead of this, these witnesses had each told the story in his own way, and in his own style→

some in one order, and some in another—each relating the circumstances as they had most prominently and forcibly struck his own mind-although there might, in these different accounts, be apparent discrepancies, would not the evidence in this case be much more worthy of credit, than in the one before supposed? Most undoubtedly.

Such is precisely the case with the sacred writers. No matter what be the fact which is related, each tells his story in his own style and in his own words—one narrating the circumstances in one order, and one in another-sometimes relating the same, and sometimes different particulars sometimes re-asserting and sometimes omitting, but never denying what had been already asserted by other sacred writers-and never attempting, like an artful impostor, to avoid all apparent discrepancies, but always giving his testimony with that air of candor and frankness. and sincerity, which marks the conduct of an honest witness, when he lays his evidence before the world.

1

Thus, while the Bible abounds with such apparent discrepancies as we have already noticed, the principles of enlightened criticism and fair interpretation when correctly applied, will always shew, that they are only apparent and not real; and, as was before remarked, so far from impeaching, they serve to corroborate the evidence for the truth of the sacred record. Surely, my brethren, the world by wisdom knows not God.

Овл. II. We proceed now to examine another famous allegation, and that is, that Moses could not have been the author of the Pentateuch, inasmuch as the last chapter of Deuteronomy contains an account of his death.

But if Moses had composed the previous part of these books, what is more natural than that some one of the inspired writers should put a finish to the whole, by adding a few verses to give an account of the author's death? Surely, such a fact would not be regarded for a moment,

as discrediting the autobiography of any modern writer whatever, and therefore ought not to be considered as impeaching the authority of the books of Moses. Besides, we need not ask which is the most worthy of credit on the point before us, the testimony of the whole Jewish nation, or the unfounded speculations of modern objectors.

As to the alleged immoralities of this part of the sacred volume, we shall consider that point in a few moments, after noticing

OBJ. III. A third objection, viz. that the doctrines of the Bible are contrary to human reason.*

But

We deny that such is the case, although we readily admit, that some of these doctrines are above reason. surely, when we remember, that the nature and purposes of the infinite Jehovah are in some respects far beyond the ken of humanity, we ought not to be surprised that a book, which professes to be inspired, should harmonize with this undeniable fact.

We have not time to take up the doctrines of Scripture one by one, and vindicate them from the charge of unintelligibility, self-contradiction and absurdity: although it were easy to shew in all these cases, that the statement of the doctrine, considered simply as the statement of a fact, is just as intelligible as any other statement; and that the only thing which we cannot understand, is the mode or theory, or philosophy of the fact, which is quite a different thing from the fact itself, and where Scripture is silent on this point, it ought never to be required as an article of faith.

* A brief notice of the objections derived from the Mosaic account of the creation, as compared with geological and astronomical facts, will be found in a note in Part I, Lecture I. On the subject of the deluge, see Horne's Introduction, vol. i, pp. 167-183 and p. 217: also Rev. Dr. John Pye Smith on "Scripture and Geology," and Bush's "Notes on Genesis," vol. i, pp. 126138, ed. 1839,