DEISTIC OBJECTIONS, WITH ANSWERS.

1. The gospel was first published among an ignorant, obscure, and superstitious people, and therefore obtained credit among them; and at the same time, was neglected by other nations, because they despised the Jews, and knew their superstition.

Answer. The Jews were the least superstitious, the most knowing, and best informed in religion, of all the nations then in the world. No nation had so just and rational ideas of God and religion. Therefore, a false and absurd scheme of religion was not so likely to obtain credit among them, as among any other nation. And if the Jews and their religion were neglected and despised by other nations, this surely could be no reason why they received and practised that religion. Besides, if christianity spread among other nations, because they despised and neglected the Jews and their superstition, why, for the same reason, did not Judaism spread equally as christianity? The Jews compassed sea and land to make one proselyte. In proportion as the Jews and their religion were despised by other nations, the probability was the less, that christianity would be received from them by those nations.

2. The learned and benevolent Pliny, and other learned and good men, would have received the gospel, if it had been credible, and the facts true.

Answer. It is exactly according to the gospel, that many learned men should neglect it. "Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called." Some great and learned men, in all ages, have accordingly rejected the gospel. If it had been otherwise, it would have been a good argument against the gospel. And it might have been just as forcibly argued, that Hume did not believe the gospel, therefore it is not true, as that Pliny did not believe it, therefore it is not true. If they both had believed it, it would have been no demonstration of its truth.

3. Christianity was soon persecuted, and persecution always spreads the religion which is persecuted. No wonder then christianity soon obtained an extensive footing.

Answer. It is not true, that persecution always makes the religion persecuted prevail, as christianity prevailed. Paganism was persecuted by the christian Roman emperors; Mohammedanism was greviously persecuted in Spain; heathenism, in South America, by the Spaniards; and Judaism has generally, in all ages, suffered persecution. Yet none of these religions flourished and

Therefore,

increased under persecution, as christianity did. there was something peculiar to christianity; and what could this be, but the manifest truth of the facts; on which it was founded, and of the doctrines which it taught?

4. It was at first tolerated at Rome, till it obtained a footing; and after that it was impossible to root it out.

Answer. It is curious to observe, the inconsistence of the objections, which the enemies of christianity bring against it. In the last objection, the prevalence of christianity was attempted to be accounted for by the persecution which it suffered. Now the same thing is accounted for by the toleration afforded to it. Besides, though it was at first tolerated, this no more rendered the extirpation of it impossible, than the toleration, and even establishment of paganism in the Roman empire rendered the extirpation of that impossible, or than the toleration of Mohammedanism in Spain precluded the possibility of the extirpation of that.

5. The doctrine of the Trinity is absurd and incredible. Answer. That God should in one respect be one, and in another respect three, is nothing absurd or inconsistent, though indeed we cannot comprehend it. That we cannot clearly conceive of the tri-unity of Deity, no more disproves it, than our inability to conceive clearly of the divine nature or existence, disproves that nature or existence.

6. The institutions of Moses are irrational and absurd.

Answer. This is not granted, and must be proved before it can be admitted. We contend, that they are by no means absurd, but that they subserve various important uses. Indeed, it is to be supposed, that the opinions of depraved men would be very different concerning the most rational modes of divine worship; and some make this objection to the institutions of the gospel, and doubtless would, to all institutions, which can possibly be made. 7. The mysteries of scripture render it incredible. A revelation of mysteries is no revelation.

Answer. The mysteries of scripture, so long as God is infinite and mysterious, are so far from a ground of objection to its truth, that they are an argument in favor of it; and if there were no mysteries in scripture, that circumstance would be a full demonstration, that it is no revelation of the nature, attributes, mode of subsistence, will, works and designs of God. So long as God is infinite and mysterious, a revelation concerning God, must contain mysteries. Nor is it true, that a revelation of mysteries is no revelation. The incarnation of Christ is a mystery, yet the revelation of it is a revelation of an important truth.

8. The believers in christianity differ so widely in opinion con

cerning the contents of scripture, that it seems nothing is to be known by it, and therefore it is no revelation.

Answer. The different opinions of christians concerning the truths of revelation, no more prove that it is no revelation, than the different opinions of deists concerning the various duties of the law of nature prove, that there is no such law; or than the different opinions of lawyers concerning the civil law prove, that there is no civil law. The truth is, that the minds, capacities, passions, educations, and prepossessions of men are so different, that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to give any revelation as large as the scripture, and relating to such a variety of doctrines and facts; concerning many parts of which men would not form different opinions.

9. The prophecies of scripture were either written after the events, or are so vague as to answer to various events, according to the various imaginations of men.

Answer. There are many prophecies, concerning which this cannot be pretended; as those of the antichristian apostacy, of the decline of the antichristian power, of the fall of the heathen Roman empire, and of the continance of the Jews as a distinct people. Nor are these promises so vague as to admit of various applications.

10. The apostles and first founders of christianity, were actuated by the motives of ambition, as Mohammed, Manco Capac, and the founders of other religions. They expected to be the heads of a large body of followers, and thereby became famous.

Answer. The apostles either believed the wonderful facts which they relate, or they did not. They could not believe that they saw Jesus, and conversed with him for forty days, and finally saw him ascend to Heaven, or saw him in his transfiguration, unless they really did see these things. Therefore, if they believed these facts, they really existed; and then the gospel is true. If, on the other hand, they did not believe those facts on which the gospel is founded, however great their ambition might be, they took the most direct way to fail of its gratification, to be convicted of the most palpable falsehood, to be loaded with shame instead of honor, and to be forever prevented from establishing a party. All this might have been done by disproving the facts which they alleged, which might most easily have been done, if they were mere fictions, as they were reported to be done in the most public manner, and on the most public occasions; as turning water into wine at a public wedding; the raising of Lazarus before a collection of the Jews on the occasion; the raising of the son of the widow of Nain, in a like public manner; the first

gift of tongues at the Pentecost; and even the resurrection of Christ.

How easy to have proved that the story of the raising of Lazarus was a mere fiction. How easy to have proved that the apostles, at pentecost, were not heard to speak various languages publicly. How easy to have proved that there was no earthquake at the time of the asserted resurrection of Christ. And if the priests and rulers believed the story of the soldiers, and of the stealing of the body by the disciples, what is the reason that there was no search made for it? This circumstance disproves the story. Not to mention the absurdity of the soldiers undertaking to testify what was done, while they were asleep. The utmost that they could say, was, that they fell into a sleep; that until they fell into this sleep the body was safe in the sepulchre; but when they awoke, it was gone; and that they inferred, that the disciples had stolen it. If they had really stolen it, it might, doubtless, in the time of it, have been made to appear at least probable, if not certain, from various circumstances, as by the tracks of men, at the sepulchre, in coming to it, and in departing from it; by the marks of their exertion in rolling away the stone from the mouth of the sepulchre; and by their absconding immediately afterward, to escape conviction and punishment. "The wicked flee, when no man pursueth." It is, therefore, incredible, that if the disciples had stolen the body of Jesus, they should all remain at Jerusalem, and appear publicly on all occasions, as before. Equally incredible is it, that there should not be even the attempt to convict them of it. Surely the Scribes and Pharisees were not wanting in a disposition for it. If there were no earthquake at or about the time of the alleged resurrection, this, as observed before, might easily have been proved, and that would have overthrown the whole account of the apostles, or at least have gone very far toward it. If there were an earthquake, it was either before the alleged resurrection, after it, or at the very time of it. If it were before, is it probable that the soldiers would be so unaffected by it, as to fall into a deep sleep soon after it? Besides, the soldiers would have been able, directly, to contradict the account of the apostles, and might have united in testifying, that the body was secure in the sepulchre, until such time after the earthquake, that they were entirely over the surprise which they felt from the earthquake, and were fallen into a sound sleep. Or if the earthquake was after the alleged resurrection, still they would be able to contradict the apostle's account of its being, at the time, or immediately before the resurrection. Nor is this all; if the soldiers found that the body was missing before the earthquake, why did they not

immediately give notice, that pursuit and search might be immediately made, and the body recovered? If it be said, that the earthquake happened at the very instant of the alleged resurrection; on the supposition, that there was no resurrection, but that the body was stolen away by the disciples, the earthquake was at the very time at which the disciples were taking the body out of the sepulchre. Therefore, at this time the soldiers were either awake or asleep. If they were awake, they could, and doubtless would, have prevented the proceeding of the disciples. Besides, this supposition is contrary to their own account of the matter, that the body was stolen away while they slept. If the soldiers were asleep immediately before the earthquake, doubtless that did awaken them, and then being awake, they might have prevented the carrying away of the body, etc. There is but one other possible supposition, and that is, that the soldiers slept so long, that the disciples had time to come and carry off the body, and that when they were gone off with it, an earthquake happened, which, of course, must have awakened the soldiers. Still, in this case, the soldiers could have directly contradicted the account of the apostles, that the earthquake preceded the resurrection, and by it, and by the consequent appearance of an angel, the "keepers did shake, and become as dead men." They could have testified, that so far from this, by the earthquake they were awakened out of a sound sleep; and that, as to the angel, they saw nothing of him.

11. That the Jews remain a distinct nation to this day, may be accounted for from their peculiar customs of circumcision, not intermarrying with other nations, etc.

Answer. But how comes it to pass, that the Jews are thus peculiarly tenacious of their own customs? This is the very difficulty to be accounted for. Other nations have had their peculiar customs, and were, for a while, tenacious of them; yet have long since given them up, and conformed to the customs of other nations. The Greeks and Romans were wont to eat their meals, reclining upon a couch on one elbow; they had their gods, and believed, that their personal and national prosperity depended on their observance of their religious rites, their omens and libations, and that these rites were of divine authority. Yet they have long since lost all peculiarities, and lost all existence as distinct nations. Nor were the Jews or Israelites always tenacious of their peculiar customs. They neglected circumcision for forty years in the wilderness. And even after their return from the Babylonish captivity, they intermarried with the neighboring nations. Why do they not fall into the same practice now?