"THE CHRISTIAN'S DEFENCE" The debate out of which this volume grew was held at Columbus, Mississippi, in the spring of 1841, between Rev. James Smith and Mr. C. G. Olmsted. Mr. Olmsted, the author of a work entitled, "The Bible Its Own Refutation," was a resident of Columbus. Dr. Smith visited this city during the winter of 1839-1840, and finding the young men of the place to be very largely under the influence of Mr. Olmsted, he delivered a series of lectures, especially addressed to the young men of the place, on "The Natures and Tendencies of Infidelity," and another upon, "The Evidences of Christianity." While these lectures were in progress, Dr. Smith was approached by a committee, who sympathized with Mr. Olmsted's views, and who, with the sanction of Mr. Olmsted, brought a written challenge to Dr. Smith to meet Mr. Olmsted in a public discussion of the whole ground at issue between them. Dr. Smith accepted on condition that he have time for adequate preparation. He communicated with friends in Great Britain, who procured and sent to him the latest and best material bearing on the subject. His book contains reproductions of the supposed Zodiac at Denderah, and a colored reproduction from the monuments of Egypt of brickmakers, believed to be Israelites. The researches of Rawlinson were made available to him, and a considerable body of additional literature. Because Dr. Smith's book has been spoken of slightingly by men who never saw it and who had the vaguest possible notion of its content, and because the book itself is so excessively rare that in the nature of the case few readers of this volume can have access to it, I have copied the Title Page, a portion of the advertisement, and the whole of the very full Table of Contents. We need not concern ourselves with the question whether Dr. Smith's line of argument is that which probably would be found most cogent if a similar debate were to be held at the present day. Sources of information are now available, of which neither Dr. Smith nor his opponent could possibly have had any knowledge. But any reader of this chapter analysis will be compelled to testify that a book which covered the ground of this outline and did it with logical acumen and force of reasoning, is not to be spoken of now in terms other than those of admiration for the industry and earnestness of the author, and the cogency of the conclusions which he deduced from his premises. One is prepared to believe from the testimony included in a number of letters that are reprinted in the advertisement and in the preface that these lectures produced a profound impression upon those who heard this discussion. The more carefully these lectures are examined, the more probable does it appear that in form and method they would have been likely to make, what they appear to have made, a very strong impression upon Abraham Lincoln. It must have been evident to him that Dr. Smith was familiar with both sides of the question, and Lincoln can but have admired the courage and ardor with which he went into a discussion so fully in keeping with methods which Abraham Lincoln himself enjoyed and which later he employed in his great debate with Douglas. We can well believe that he spoke with the utmost sincerity when he told Dr. Smith that he counted the argument unanswerable, and stated to his brother-in-law, Hon. Ninian W. Edwards, and his associate at the bar, Mr. Thomas Lewis, that these lectures had modified his own opinion. NOTICES OF THE DEBATE WHICH LED TO THE
PUBLISHING OF THE CHRISTIAN'S DEFENCE From the Southwestern Christian Advocate, Columbus,
Miss., 1841 Mr. Editor—I have thought that a concise account of this debate might not be unacceptable to your readers. It is a mortifying fact, that this city has become FAMOUS—or rather INFAMOUS for the prevalence of deism and atheism among her citizens. This has been produced in a good degree by the efforts of an old gentleman by the name Olmsted. Since his residence here, which has been for about four years, he has been untiring in his exertions to sow the seeds of moral death in this community. He has organized his converts into a band, that operates systematically. He has written a book, which is not exceeded by Tom Paine's Age of Reason, for scurrility and ridicule. The old gentleman is as artful as the old DESTROYER himself; by which means he has obtained an immense influence over the minds of the young men of this place. The circumstances which gave rise to the debate were as follows: The Rev. James Smith, during a visit in this city, delivered a few discourses on the dangerous tendencies of infidelity, addressing himself particularly to the youth. This induced a committee of infidel gentlemen to address a written challenge to Mr. S., to meet their champion, Mr. O., in a public debate. Mr. S. by the advice of many intelligent friends of truth, accepted the challenge. The time arrived, and the discussion commenced. All was anxiety and interest. The house was crowded, even the aisles and windows, with attentive hearers. They arranged to speak alternately, one, two hours each night, and the other a half hour; so the debate continued two hours and a half each night. From the representation of Mr. O's talents, learning, and preparation, we were made to tremble for the results; but we were not a little disappointed to find the old gentleman fall far below his fame.... He asserted that the Jews did not believe in a future state of existence, until after the Babylonish captivity; that they borrowed their doctrines of the immortality of the soul from the nations among whom they were dispersed—that the Jews believed in a plurality of gods—that St. Paul was the author of Christianity—that Christianity encourages polygamy. To prove this last position, he quoted Paul's directions to Timothy: "Let a bishop be the husband of one wife." And to crown the mass of absurdities, he endeavored to prove that the blessed Jesus was a base impostor. We found Mr. Smith well prepared for the contest. He had his arguments systematically arranged—had written them all, and read them well. He proved to a demonstration, the GENUINENESS, AUTHENTICITY and INSPIRATION of the Old Testament Scriptures. His arguments were interesting and convincing. His arguments on the New Testament were equally happy, and if possible, more convincing. The conclusion of every inquirer after truth, must have been, that the champion of deism was signally defeated, and his cause left bleeding on the field. I doubt not but the defeat would have been more complete, had Mr. S. omitted some of his personal allusions, and had he suppressed his natural inclination to sarcasm. Indeed his blasts of sarcasm were truly WITHERING. His opponent, finding that he could not cope with him in this respect, retreated, and took shelter under the sympathies of his audience. Yours, &c.,
One of the Hearers.
THE CHRISTIAN'S DEFENCE CONTAINING
A FAIR STATEMENT AND IMPARTIAL EXAMINATION
OF THE
LEADING OBJECTIONS URGED BY INFIDELS
AGAINST THE
ANTIQUITY, GENUINENESS, CREDIBILITY AND
INSPIRATION
OF THE
HOLY SCRIPTURES;
ENRICHED WITH COPIOUS EXTRACTS FROM
LEARNED AUTHORS. By JAMES SMITH. "The Christian Faith,
Unlike the tim'rous creeds of pagan priests,
Is frank, stands forth to view, inviting all
To prove, examine, search, investigate;
And gave herself a light to see her by."
—Pollock's Course of Time, B. iv. "If I have done well, and as is fitting the story, it is
that which I desired; but if slenderly and meanly, it
is that which I could attain unto."—2 Maccabees xv, 38. TWO VOLUMES IN ONE CINCINNATI: STEREOTYPED AND PUBLISHED BY J. A. JAMES 1843
CONTENTS VOLUME I On the Credibility, Antiquity, and Genuineness of
the Old Testament Scriptures | CHAPTER I | | The nations of the earth are indebted to the Jews for the Bible.—Taylor's assertion, that no such nation as the Jewish ever existed. Its confutation. The Jews and Christians hold the Old Testament to be a revelation from God. Infidels hold this to be untrue. How the question at issue is to be settled. The frame of mind necessary to an impartial examination of the subject.—Objections of the Atheistical Infidel against the claims of the Bible as a divine revelation. Mr. Olmsted's misrepresentation of the position of the advocates of Revelation. The questions at issue between the Christian and Atheist. That between the Christian and the Deist | 1 | | Section I.—Confutation of the theory of the materialist. Confutations of the positions of the two classes of Atheists | 6 | | Section II.—Hume's argument to prove that Polytheism was the first religion of mankind. Its confutation | 23 | | Section III.—Of the style of the Old Testament Scriptures. Example from Mr. Olmsted, showing the necessity of understanding its nature. The Scriptures speak the language of appearances, but strictly philosophical | 40 | | CHAPTER II | | Mr. Olmsted's assertion concerning the requisitions of the advocate of Revelation in examining the credibility of the Mosaic writings. Its falsehood. His allegation that the first sentence in the Bible contains a falsehood. The confutation of his argument. His objection to the credibility of the Mosaic narrative of the creation founded on the statement that the world was made in six days. Vindication of the Mosaic narrative.—Infidel objection to the Mosaic narrative founded on the zodiacs in the temples of Latapolis and Tantyra. Its fallacy.—Dr. Keith's proofs of the truthfulness of the Mosaic narrative of the creation | 48 | | Section I.—Mosaic account of the creation confirmed by tradition. The Hindoo account; that of Ovid; the Phenician; the Egyptian; that of Plato.—The heathen tradition concerning the first man. Division of time into weeks, a confirmation of the Mosaic narrative | 75 | | Section II.—Paine's and Olmsted's objection on account of the narrative of the fall of man. Their confutation. The Mosaic narrative of the fall of man confirmed by heathen traditions; by the universality of serpent worship; by the condition of mankind; by the opinions of the heathen philosophers concerning the corruption of human nature; by the belief of the Brahmins; by the opinions of the classical mythologists, and by the universal practice of animal sacrifice.—The account of the translation of Enoch confirmed by the Grecian fables.—The longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs confirmed by heathen traditions.—Mosaic account of man of gigantic stature confirmed by the Greek and Latin poets | 85 | | CHAPTER III | | Objection to the Mosaic narrative of the deluge, because contrary to the philosophy of Nature. Its fallacy.—The truth of the narrative confirmed by the fossil remains of animals. —Objection founded on the size of the ark. Shown to be fallacious.—Objection founded on certain marks of antiquity said to exist in the lava of Mt. Etna. Mr. Horne's confutation of the argument.—Objection on account of the differences in color, existing among mankind. Its fallacy. Dr. Good's argument, confirmatory of the Mosaic narrative.—Objections founded upon the supposed antiquity of the eastern nations. Confutation of the objection. —Objections founded on the condition of America when discovered by Columbus. Proofs that two distinct races of men immigrated into America from Asia. The present Indians, of the same race with the tribes of northern Asia. The ancient Mexicans and Peruvians, originally proceeded from the same stock with the nations of southern Asia | 100 | | Section I.—Mosaic account of the deluge confirmed by Pagan history. Its memory incorporated with almost every part of the heathen mythology. Noah claimed by all the heathen nations as their founder, and worshiped by them as a god. Saturn, of the Greeks and Latins, Menu of the Hindoos, and Noah identical. The Hindoo account of the deluge. The Chinese and Grecian accounts. The ark mentioned by heathen historians. Plutarch's notice of the dove which was sent out of the ark. The heathens carried their deities in an ark. Ancient medals commemorative of the deluge. American traditions of that calamity. Summing up of the argument | 125 | | Section II.—Confirmation of the Mosaic representation of the origin of families and nations. Testimony of Sir W. Jones.—Confirmation of the Mosaic accounts of the tower of Babel.—Of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, known to the ancient heathens. Mr. Olmsted's attempt to invalidate the Mosaic account of the condition of the Israelites in Egypt. The confutation of his argument.—His argument to invalidate the truth of the Mosaic narrative of the exode of the Israelites from Egypt and the circumstances attending it. Vindication of the Mosaic narrative.—Explanation of the design of the miraculous interposition in behalf of the Israelites. The fitness and tendency of each of the plagues inflicted upon the Egyptians. Confutation of Mr. Olmsted's allegation that Moses extorted permission for the Israelites to leave Egypt, by false pretentions. Vindication of the Mosaic account of the hardening of Pharaoh's heart. Mr. Olmsted's supposition that the Israelites were a horde of rude barbarians, in behalf of whom there was no divine interposition. The fallacy and absurdity of his supposition | 135 | | Section III.—Collateral testimony confirmative of the Mosaic account of the exode of the Israelites from Egypt, their sojourn in the wilderness, and settlement in Canaan. Curious discovery confirmatory of the Mosaic narrative. Trogus' account of the origin of the Jews. The account of their origin by Apion, an Egyptian writer. Manetho's account of the shepherds who retreated from Egypt to Judea. Tacitus' account of the origin of the Jews. Artapanus' relation concerning Moses. Janes and Jambres, the Egyptian magicians, well known to heathen writers. Strabo's account of Moses. The account of the Heliopolitans concerning the passage of the Red Sea. A similar tradition by Diodorus. The inhabitants of Corondel to this day preserve the remembrance of the passing of the Red Sea by the Israelites. The names of different places passed by the Israelites during their sojourn in the wilderness confirm the Mosaic narrative. The writer of the Orphic verses speaks of Moses and the tables of the Laws. Didorus Siculus notices Moses. Dionysius Longius makes honorable mention of Moses. Accuracy of the Mosaic narrative of the sojourn in the wilderness confirmed by Laborde. The tomb of Aaron on Mount Hor, confirms the truth of the Mosaic narrative. Summing up of the argument from collateral testimony. A very conclusive evidence of the truth of the Mosaic history quoted from Dr. Keith.—The history of the Israelites subsequent to the settlement in Canaan corroborated by profane writers. Curious discovery, illustrative of the Scriptural account of the war carried on by Pharaoh-Necho against the Jews and Babylonians.—Confutation of the objection founded by Infidels upon the supposed sterility of the soil of Palestine. Forcible testimony to the credibility of the Old Testament Scriptures afforded by the present condition of the Jews | 159 | | CHAPTER IV | | Efforts of Infidels to show that the books of the Old Testament are forgeries of comparative modern date. Their objections considered. Curious discovery illustrative of the antiquity and exactness of the Mosaic writings. The utter impossibility of the books being forgeries proven.—Mr. Olmsted's argument to prove that the book of the law was forged by Ezra. Confutation of his argument. Proofs that the law could not have been forged by Daniel nor by any of the captives in Babylon; that it could not have been forged by Isaiah. A forgery could not have been effected after the revolt of the ten tribes. It could not have been forged by David; nor by Saul: nor by any of the Judges who preceded Samuel. The law existed in Joshua's time. Joshua could not have forged the law. The impossibility of practicing a fraud upon the Israelites during a sojourn in the wilderness.—The books of the Pentateuch have internal marks, which demonstrate that they were written by Moses. The book of Genesis included by the Jews in the book of the law. Evidences of its antiquity and genuineness. —Profane testimony to the genuineness of the Mosaic writings. Objection on the ground that although Moses wrote a book called the book of the law, we have no evidence that it was the book now current in his name. The objection considered and answered | 193 | | Section I.—Objection of Infidels against the books of Judges, Kings, and Chronicles, because they are anonymous. The objection answered.—The objections against the genuineness of the other books of the Old Testament. In effect answered in the foregoing arguments.—Mr. Paine's argument to prove that the Mosaic writings are spurious, founded upon the style. Confutation of his argument. His argument founded on the passage "Now the man Moses was very meek," etc. Its confutation.—His argument founded on the statement that Abraham pursued the four kings unto Dan. Its fallacy.—His argument founded on what is said of the descendants of Esau. The argument considered, confuted.—His argument founded on the passage "The children of Israel did eat manna until they came to a land inhabited," etc. Its fallacy. His argument founded on what is said concerning Og's bedstead. The argument confuted.—The argument founded on the record of the death of Moses being contained in the books attributed to him. The argument confuted.—The evidence adduced establishes the genuineness and credibility of the books.—Objection that Moses must have borrowed the history of the creation from the traditions which obtained in his time. Reply to the objection.—The question, Whence did Moses derive the materials of his history? Answered by Mr. Horne.—Objections on the ground that no dependence is to be placed in the present text of the Old Testament Scriptures. Its fallacy | 227 | | CHAPTER V | | A number of objections necessarily omitted, stated and answered.—Mr. Olmsted's argument to prove that the author of the book of Genesis was a polytheist. Its confutation.—His argument to prove that the author of the book of Genesis believed God to be a corporeal being. Its confutation. Objections founded on the statements concerning Cain. Their fallacy.—Cavil of Infidels at the curse pronounced by Noah upon Canaan. Its unreasonableness. Objections founded on the cause assigned for the diversity of languages. Vindication of the Scriptural account.—Objection founded on the conduct of Lot. Its fallacy.—Objection founded on the misconduct of Abraham. Consideration of the objection as applied not merely to Abraham, but also to Jacob and David.—Objection on the ground that God is represented as commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. Vindication of the Scriptural account of that affair. —Objection, on the ground that circumcision was first practiced by the Egyptians. Its fallacy.—Objection founded on the representation given by Moses of the works of the Egyptian magicians during the plagues in Egypt. Mr. Farmer's satisfactory reply | 250 | | Section I.—Infidels assert that the pillar of cloud and fire is a fiction. The assertion considered and answered.—The assertion that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea at Suez. Vindication of the Scriptural account. Assertion that the tremendous scene upon Sinai was a cheat. Its fallacy. Olmsted's objection founded on the length of time the Israelites were in the wilderness. Explanation of the design of the dealings of Jehovah with the Israelites. Vindication of the dresses, rites, and customs enjoyed by the ceremonial law. Objection founded on the repeated apostacies of the Israelites. The objection considered and answered. The objection founded on the treatment of the Moabites and the Midianites. Considered and answered.—Objection, on the ground that the Israelites were commanded to exterminate the Canaanites. Considered and answered.—Assertion that the Old Testament Scriptures sanction adultery and murder. Its falsehood.—Assertion that Jehovah kept false prophets, and violated his promises. Mr. Horne's answer.—Objection founded on the speaking of Balaam's ass. Considered and answered. Mr. Paine's objection on the ground that the sun is represented as standing still upon Mt. Gibeon. Vindication of the Scriptural account of that miraculous event. Dr. Clarke's very satisfactory reply to the objection. Objection founded on the passage, "Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord, and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward by which it had gone down on the dial of Ahaz."—Objection founded on what is said of the Witch of Endor. Considered and answered | 275 | VOLUME II The Genuineness of the New Testament Scriptures | CHAPTER I | | The books of the New Testament written by eight Jews.—Why called New Testament? Infidels deny the genuineness of the books.—Hold that the writers were impostors, and the religion taught in them a fraud practiced upon mankind. The difficulties attending the examination of the claims of the New Testament to genuineness and credibility.—How the subject should be approached.—The denial of the genuineness of the books of modern dates. Toland charged with having betrayed his suspicion that the writings were forgeries. The suspicion of an anonymous Italian.—Its absurdity.—Gibbon acknowledges the genuineness of the writings.—Volney lays it down as a clear case, that no such person as Jesus Christ ever existed. His theory adopted, defended, and extensively circulated by Taylor. His positions defined in his manifesto.—His unblushing falsehoods promptly met and refuted by English Divines. Hitherto unanswered in this country.—His first and second propositions taken up.—How the authorship which has no name prefixed to it is to be ascertained. The rule applied to the New Testament | 3 | | Section I.—Marks given by Michaelis by which the spuriousness of a book may be discovered.—How books anciently found their way to the public. The congregations before whom the original copies of the New Testament were read, vouchers of their genuineness.—The ancient adversaries of Christianity admitted the genuineness of the writings. The testimony of Trypho, the Jew. The testimony of Celsus. The writings of Celsus against Christianity of great value in enabling the advocate of Revelation, of the present day, to prove that Jesus Christ is the son of God. The testimony of Porphyry. Testimony of Hierocles, the philosopher.—Testimony of the emperor Julian. Testimony of Taylor himself. The quotations from the New Testament by the most virulent enemies of Christianity of ancient times. Demonstrate the genuineness of the writings.—The immediate disciples of the apostles acknowledge the genuineness of the books. The epistles of the Apostolic fathers. Their genuineness unquestionable. These writings prove the genuineness of the New Testament. The epistles of Barnabas written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem. Table illustrating that the New Testament writings were extant when Barnabas wrote, or, at least, that he was conversant with some of the writers of the book. The epistle of Clement, when and to whom written. Table exhibiting quotations from the New Testament in the epistle of Clement. Writings of Hermas; when written. Table exhibiting the quotations of Hermas from the New Testament. Ignatius, when he flourished. Table of his quotations from the New Testament. Polycarp, the friend of the apostle John. Table of his quotations from the New Testament. Summing up of the testimony of the apostolic fathers.—Ignatius and Polycarp seal their testimony with their blood.—Martyrdom of Polycarp | 13 | | Section II.—Papias ascribes two gospels to Matthew and Mark. Testimony of Justin, of Irenaenus, of Tertullian, of Clemens Alexandrinus. Table of quotations by these witnesses. Testimony of Origen: His quotations from the New Testament. Testimony of Eusebius and Jerome.—Number and antiquity of the manuscripts of the New Testament. An argument for the genuineness of its books. Curious discovery which confirms the genuineness of the New Testament writings.—The council of Laodicea did not design to settle the Canon | 67 | | CHAPTER II | | On the Genuineness of the Books.—Mr. Taylor's arguments to prove that the writings of the New Testament are spurious. Exposure of his dishonesty in quoting from Dr. Lardner. Mr. P. Smith's refutation of his allegation that the Scriptures were altered by the Emperor Anastasius. Exposure of his dishonesty in quoting from Beausobre. Refutation of his allegation that the Scriptures were altered by Lanfranc. Refutation of his argument drawn from the various readings. The passage of the Unitarian New Version cited by Mr. Taylor in support of his allegation. Dr. Bentley on the various readings. Gaussen on the various readings. Tables illustrative of the various readings. Trouble of Bengel about the integrity of the original text. The success of his labors in sacred criticism | 84 | | Section I.—Taylor's dishonesty in referring to the works of Herbert Marsh, in support of his allegation that the manuscript from which the received text was taken was stolen from the librarian. Explanation of the story of the sale of the manuscript to a skyrocket maker. Taylor's falsehood in his pretended reference to Bishop Marsh, in support of his allegation that for the principal passage in the book of Revelation there was no original Greek. Notice of Mr. Taylor's charge that the tendency of the New Testament is immoral and wicked. J. J. Rousseau's testimony to the morality of the Gospel. Exposure of Mr. Taylor's dishonesty in quoting from Mosheim in support of his allegation that ecclesiastical historians admit their inability to show when or by whom the New Testament Scriptures were written. Refutation of his allegation. The Apocryphal books collected and published by Jeremiah Jones. Refutation of Mr. Taylor's assertion what he terms the true and genuine gospel. Refutation of Mr. Taylor's objection on the ground of modernisms contained in some passages of the New Testament, and the ignorance of the four evangelists of the geography and statistics of Judea. The summing up of the argument on the genuineness of the New Testament Scriptures | 107 | | CHAPTER III | | Credibility of the New Testament Scriptures.—The number of the witnesses who testify to the facts detailed in the New Testament. How the credibility of a historical book is to be ascertained. The rule as applied to Christian writings. Their genuineness proves their credibility. The writers of the New Testament could not have falsified the facts relative to Jesus Christ. The objection on the ground that the Jews rejected the claims of Jesus Christ. Its confutation. The conduct of the Jewish nation in rejecting Christ accounted for. The conversion of many of the Gentiles proves the credibility of the book. The character, circumstances, and conduct of the men who testify of Jesus prove their credibility. Difficulty to be surmounted by those who maintain that the apostles and evangelists were impostors. Summing up of the argument on the credibility of the witnesses | 125 | | Section I.—Collateral testimony of the truthfulness of the writers of the New Testament. Testimonies to the truthfulness of St. Matthew's statement concerning Herod and Archalaus. Testimony to the truthfulness of the statement of Luke concerning Herod, Tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Phillip, Tetrarch of Itruria. Testimony to the truthfulness of the evangelists relative to Herod marrying Herodias. Josephus corroborates Luke's account of the death of Herod Agrippa. Testimonies of the truthfulness of the statements in the Acts concerning Felix. A number of notices, by profane authors, of Pilate, confirmatory of the truthfulness of the evangelists. Testimonies to the truthfulness of the evangelists in their statements of the treatment of Jesus Christ upon trial and when crucified. Testimonies confirming statements of the evangelists concerning the burial of Jesus Christ. Notice taken of John the Baptist by Josephus. What he says concerning Jesus Christ. Notices of Jesus Christ from the ancient Jewish Talmudical writings. Testimony of the heathen adversary to the leading facts detailed by the evangelists. Summing up of the argument | 140 | | Section II.—The same ground retraced, and the objections of Mr. Taylor considered and answered. Representation of Taylor's third and fourth propositions. The falsehood of Mr. Taylor's assertion that no such person as Jesus Christ ever existed, proven by the testimony of Tacitus, of Suetonius, of Martial, of Pliny the Younger. Mr. Taylor's assertion that some, many, or all, of the events related of Jesus Christ by the evangelists had formerly been related of the gods and goddesses of Greece and Rome. Its confutation to be found in any of the Pantheons or mythological dictionaries. Exposure of the malignity and falsehood of Mr. Taylor exhibited in his attempt to identify Jesus Christ with the heathen idol Crishna. Citations from Sir W. Jones concerning Crishna. The testimony of Sir W. Jones impartial. The unreasonableness and absurdity of Mr. Taylor's conclusions | 164 | | Section III.—The last refuge of the infidel is to maintain either that Jesus Christ was a mistaken enthusiast or a wicked impostor. Mr. English's argument to prove that Jesus was a mistaken enthusiast. Its confutation | 181 | | Section IV.—Argument by Mr. Olmsted to prove that Jesus Christ was a wicked impostor. Its confutation | 190 | | CHAPTER IV | | Objections Stated and Answered.—The objections urged by infidels of such a nature that, though numerous, to answer one or two of each class is to answer all. Quotation from Gaussen, explanatory of the nature and causes of the supposed contradictions in the writings of the evangelists. Examples by Gaussen. Explanation of the seeming contradictions between the genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Answer to the objection, that certain names occur in Luke's list of the apostles, which do not appear in that of Matthew. Answer to the objection on account of the seeming contradiction in the title which was written over Jesus Christ when on the cross. Answer to the objection founded on the seeming contradiction in the different accounts of the hour when Jesus Christ was suspended on the cross. Answer to the objection urged against St. Luke when he says, "It came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria." Answer to the objection founded upon Jesus cursing the fig-tree. Answer to Taylor's assertion that Romans 3:7 recommends telling lies for the glory of God. His assertion that Jesus Christ was not crucified. Its confutation. His assertion that "Paul and Barnabas did not preach the same story." Its falsehood demonstrated. His assertion that some preached a Christ who was not crucified. Its falsehood. His assertion that Paul called the other apostles false apostles and dogs. Vindication of the apostles from this calumny. His assertions that Paul curses the other apostles and recommends that they should be privately assassinated. The falsehood of these accusations. The last refuge of Mr. Taylor in asserting that Christianity had its origin among the Therapeutae. Other infidels pretend that the Essenes were the originators of Christianity. Watson's account of the Essenes and Therapeutae | 214 | | CHAPTER V | | Divine Authority and Inspiration of the Scriptures.—What is to be understood by inspiration? None but an atheist can deny its possibilities. The gift of inspiration proved by the performance of supernatural works, and by the foretelling of future events with preciseness. If these signs accompanied the authors of the dispensations contained in the Old and New Testaments, it must be admitted that the Bible is a revelation from God. The performance of miracles by the authors of these dispensations attests their divine mission. A miracle defined. Mr. Hume's argument against miracles. Lord Brougham's confutation of the argument. Keith's demonstration of its fallacy. The miracles of Moses, of Jesus Christ and his apostles accompanied by evidences which cannot be brought to substantiate any pretended fact whatever. Mr. Leslie's argument in favor of this position. Mr. Olmsted's attempt to destroy the force of Mr. Leslie's argument. Exposure of the misrepresentations and falsehoods contained in Mr. Olmsted's argument. Confutation of his argument | 232 | | Section I.—Mr. Leslie's criteria applied to the miracles recorded in the Scriptures. Applied to those of Moses; they all meet in his miracles. Applied to those of Jesus Christ and his apostles. Their number, their variety, and the public manner in which they were performed, attest their veracity. Miracles of Christ contrasted with those of impostors. The pretended miracles wrought by Vespasian. The pretended miracles of the Roman Catholics. Many of them have been proved to be impostors. The object of the miracles of Jesus attests their veracity. The great miracle which lies at the foundation of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The miracle examined. Testimony of the evangelists, that Jesus during his life predicted his death and resurrection. The prediction well known to the Jewish rulers. The rulers took every necessary precaution to put his pretensions to the test. The crucifixion and death of Christ well attested. Precautions that the body should not be removed until life was extinct. The precautions of the rulers to prevent the body being stolen out of the sepulchre. The whole question at issue between Jesus and the Jewish rulers, suspended on the naked fact, whether He did or did not rise again on the third day. The Jewish rulers make their preparation on the Sabbath to produce the body on the third day. On the third day the body is missing. Different ways of accounting for the fact. The disciples alleged that Jesus had risen from the dead. Their testimony examined. The Jewish rulers asserted that the disciples stole the body. The allegation examined. Its falsehood demonstrated. Subsequent conduct of the Sanhedrin confirms the testimony of the apostles and evangelists. The adoption of the Jewish mode of accounting for the fact accompanied with many difficulties. An acknowledgment of the resurrection of Jesus involves an acknowledgment of His divine mission. Mr. Olmsted's objection on the ground that Jesus did not show Himself publicly and ascend to heaven in the presence of the whole nation. Its fallacious nature. The testimony we have of the resurrection of Jesus Christ much more satisfactory and convincing than that required by Mr. Olmsted. Insuperable difficulties attending the denial of the resurrection of Jesus Christ | 279 | | CHAPTER VI | | Divine authority of the Scriptures proved from prophecy and its fulfillment. A prophecy defined. Mr. Watson's argument in support of the possibility of prophecy. Criteria by which true may be distinguished from false prophecies. The prophecies of heathen oracles examined. Proved to have been impostures. Contrast between the pretended predictions of the heathen oracles and the prophecies contained in the Scriptures. Mr. Paine's remarks in relation to the manner in which future events would be communicated by a true prophet. Mr. Olmsted's requisition and pledge if it be met to acknowledge the truth of prophecy. Mr. Olmsted met upon his own ground. Prophecy relative to the destruction of Tyre. Its fulfillment proved by the infidel Volney, and other competent witnesses. Mr. Olmsted, from his own showing, is bound to believe that Ezekiel was a true prophet of God. Table of quotations from the prophecies of the Old Testament, and from Volney's writings, showing that in spite of himself this infidel proves the truthfulness of the seers of Israel. Mr. Olmsted's assertion that the history of Isaiah is made up of scraps, and destitute of order and meaning. The truth of the assertion tested. Prophecy of Isaiah concerning Edom. Volney's testimony of its fulfillment. Testimony of Mr. Stevens. Prophecy of Jeremiah concerning the capital of Edom. Burchkhardt's testimony of its fulfillment. Testimony of Captains Irby and Mangles. Testimony of Mr. Stevens. The infidel having been met on his own ground, and the fulfillment of many prophecies proved by competent witnesses, it follows that the seers of Israel were the true prophets of God | 302 | | Section I.—The great theme of the Old Testament prophets was the coming of the Messiah. The Christian maintains that these prophecies found an accomplishment in Christ. This denied by the Jew and the infidel. Mr. English's argument to show that Jesus was not the Messiah. First, on account of His genealogy, and, second, because the prophecies of the Old Testament found no accomplishment in Him. Mr. English's argument refuted in all its particulars. Jesus proved to be the true Messiah. The Messiahship of Jesus Christ being proved, it proves that the Bible is a revelation from God. Closing address | 324 | | APPENDIX | | Starkie's confutation of Hume's argument on evidence | 362 |
[Pg 376]
[Pg 377]
|
  |
