A view of the evidences of Christianity ...

Part I

OF THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY, AND WHEREIN IT IS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE EVIDENCE ALLEGED FOR OTHER MIRACLES.

Part III. A Brief Consideration Of Some Popular Objections

BY WILLIAM PALEY, D D

SUBDEAN OF LINCOLN.

.4 ISEW EDITION.

lonison :

6. .too, Priuter.Greville Street. Lo..»io,..

TO

THE HONOURABLE AND RIGHT REVERENO

JAMES YORK, D.D.

LORD BISHOP OF ELY.

My Lord,

When , five years ago, an important Station in the University of Cambridge awaited your Lordship's Disposal, you were pleased to ofFer it to me. The Circumstances under which this Offer was made demand a Public Acknowledgement. I had never seen your Lordship : I possessed no Connection which could possibly recommend me to your Favour , — I was known to you only by my Endeavours, in common with many others, to discharge my Duty as a Tutor in the University ; and by some very imperfect, but certainly well-intended, and, as you thought, useful Publications since. In an Age by no means wanting in Examples of honourable Patronage, although this deserves not to be mentioned in respect of the Object of your Lordship's Choice, it is inferior to none in the Purity and Disinterestedness of the Motives which suggested it.

iv DEDICATION.

How the following Work may be received, I pretend not to foretell. My first Prayer concerning it is. That it may do good to any ; my second, Hope that it may assist, what it hath always been my earnest Wish to promote, the Religious Part of an Academical Education. If in this latter view it might seem, in any degree, to excuse your Lordship's Judgment of its Author, I shall be gratified by the Reflection, That, to a Kindness flowing from Public Principles, I have made the best Public Return in mv Power.

in the mean Time, and in every Event, I rejoice in the Opportunity here afforded me, of testifying the Sense I entertain of your Lordship's Conduct, and of a Notice which I regard as the most flattering Distinction of my Life.

I am, my Lord, with Sentiments of Gratitude and Respect, your Lordship's faithful and most obliged Servant,

W. Paley.

Contents

PAGE

Preparatory Considerations. — Of the Antecedent Credibility of Miracles — — I

Part 1

Of the direct Historical Evidence of Christianity, and zoherein it is distinguished from the Evidence alleged for other Miracles.

Propositions stated — — 10

PBOPOSmON L That there is satisfactory Evidence, that many, professing to be original Witnesses of the Christian Miracles, passed their Lives in Labours, Dangers, and Sufferings, voluntarily undergone in Attestation of the Accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their Belief of those Accounts ; and that they also submitted, from the same Motives, to new Rules of Conduct — ibid.

CHAPTER L

Evidences of the Sufferings of the First Propagators of Christianity, from the Nature of the Case — 11

CHAPTER IL

Evidence of the Sufferings of the First Propagators of Christianity, from Profane Testimony — 24?

CHAPTER in.

Indirect Evidence of the Sufferings of the First Propagators of Christianity, from the Scriptures, and other Ancient Christian Writings — — 31

CHAPTER IV.

Direct Evidence of the same — — 37

CHAPTER V.

Observations upon the preceding Evidence vi

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER VI.

That the Story, for which the First Propagdtors of Christianity suffered, was miraculous — 6 1

CHAPTER VH.

That it was in the main the Story which we have now proved by indirect Considerations — 66

CHAPTER Vni.

The same proved, from the Authority of our Historical Scriptures — — 83

CHAPTER IX.

Of the Authenticity of the Historical Scriptures, in Eleven Sections — 9S

Section VI. — Commentaries, &c. were anciently written upon the Scriptures — — 151

Section VII. — They were received by ancient Christians of different Sects and Persuasions — I5&

Section VIII. — The Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul, the First Epistle of John, and the First of Peter, were received without doubt by those who doubted concerning the other Books of our present Canon — l6j

Section IX. — Our present Gospels were considered by the Adversaries of Christianity, as containing the Accounts upon which the religion was founded — 17^

Section X. — Formal Catalogues of authentic Scriptures were published, in all which our present Gospels were included — — 179

Section XL — The above Propositions cannot be predicated of those Books which are commonly called 3A.poeryphal Books of tlie New Testament — IS^

CONTENTS.

vii

CHAPTER X. PAGE Eecapitulation — 188

Of the direct Historical Evidence of Christianity/^ and wherein it is distinguished from the Evidence alleged for other Miracles — 193

PROPOSITION IL

Chapter I

That there is not satisfactory Evidence that Persons, pretending to be original Witnesses of any other similar Miracles, have acted in the same Manner, in Attestation of the Accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their Belief m the Trutif of these Accounts — — 19s

CHAPTER n.

Considerations ci some specific Instances — 216

Part III

A brief Consideration of some Popular Objections. CHAPTER I,

The Discrepancies between the several Gospels - — 3SS

CHAPTER II.

Erroneous Opinions imputed to the Apostles — 388

CHAPTER III.

The Connection of Christianity with the Jewish History 393

CHAPTER IV.

Kejection of Christianity — — ^ 396

CHAPTER V.

That the Christian Miracles are not recited^ or appealed to, by early Christian Writers themselves, so fully or frequently as might have been expected — 412

CHAPTER VI.

Want of universality in the Knowledge and Reception of Christianity, and of greater clearness in the Evidence 422

CHAPTER VII.

The supposed Effects of Christianity — — 431

CHAPTER VIII.

Conclusion — * — — 449

PREPARATORY CONSIDERATIONS.

I DEEM it unnecessary to prove that mankind stood in need of a revelation, because I have met with no serious person who thinks that, even un* der the Christian revelation, we have too much light, or any degree of assurance which is superfluous. I desire, moreover, that in judging of Christianity, it may be remembered, that the question lies between this religion and none ; for if the Christian religion be not credible, no one with whom we have to do will support the pretensions of any other.

Suppose then the world we live in to have had a Creator; — suppose it to appear, from the predominant aim and tendency of the provisions and contrivances observable in the universe, that the Deity, when he formed it, consulted for the happiness of his sensitive creation ; — suppose the disposition which dictated this counsel to continue ; — suppose a part of the creation to have received faculties from their Maker, by which they are capable of rendering a moral obedience to his will, and of voluntarily pursuing any end for which he has designed them ; — suppose the Creator to intend for these;, his rational and accountable agents, a second state of existence, in which their situation will be regulated by their behaviour in the first state, by which supposition (and by no other) the objection to the divine government in not putting a difference between the good and the bad, and the inconsistency of this confusion with the care and benevolence discoverable in the works of the Deity is done away ; — suppose it to be of the utmost importance to the subjects of this dispensation to know what is intended for them ; that is, suppose the knowledge of it to be highly conducive to the happiness of the species, a purpose which so many provisions of Nature are calculated to promote ; — suppose, nevertheless, almost the whole race, either by the imperfection of their faculties, the misfortune of their situation, or by the loss of some prior revelation, to want this knowledge, and not to be likely, without the aid of a new revelation, to attain it: — under these circumstances, is it improbable that a revelation should be made? Is it incredible that God should interpose for such a purpose ? Suppose him to design for mankind a future state, is it unlikely that he should acquaint them with it ?

Now, in what way can a revelation be made but by miracles ? In none which we are able to conceive. Consequently, in whatever degree it is probable, or not very improbable, that a revelation should be communicated to mankind at all, in the same degree is it probable, or not very improbable, that miracles should be wrought ; — therefore, when miracles are related to have been wrought in the promulgating of a revelation manifestly wanted, and, if true, of inestimable value,, the improbability which arises from the miracul-

OF CHRISTIANITY.

ous nature of the thincps related, is not .s;reater than the original improbability that such a revelation should be imparted by God.

I wish it, however, to be correctly understood, in what manner, and to what extent, this ari^ument is alleged. We do not assume the attributes of the Deity, or the existence of a future state, in order to prove the reality of miracles. That reality always must be pioved by evidence. We assert only, that in miracles adduced in support of revelation, there is not any such antecedent improbability as no testimony can surmount ; and for the purpose of maintaining this assertion, we contend, that the incredibility of mn'acles related to have been wrought in attestation of a message from God, conveying intelligence of a future state of rewards and punishments, and teaching mankind how to prepare themselves for that state, is not in itself greater than the event, call it either probable or iynprobable, of the two following Propositions being true ; namely, first, That a future state of existence should be destined by God for his human creation ; and, secondly, That, being so destined, he should acquaint them with it. It is not necessary for our purpose that these Propositions be capable of proof, or even that, by arguments drawn from the lighl of Nature, they can be made out to be probable ; it is enough that w^e are able to say concerning them, That they are not so violently improbable, so contradictory to what we already believe of the divine power and character, that either the Propositions themselves, or facts strictly connected with the Propositions (and, therefore, no farther improbable than they are improbable) ought to be rejected at first sight, and to be rejected by whatever

B 2

Strength or complication of evidence they be attested.

This is the prejudication we would resist; — for to this length does a modem objection to miracles go, viz. That no human testimony can, in any case, render them credible. I think the reflection above stated, That if there be a revelation there must be miracles ; and that, under the circumstances in which the human species are placed, a revelation is not improbable, or not improbable in any great degree, — to be a fair answer to the whole objection.

But since it is an objection which stands in the very threshold of our argument, and, if admitted, is a bar to every proof, and to all future reasoning upon the subject, it may be necessary, before we proceed farther, to examine the principle upon W'hich it professes to be founded ; which principle is concisely this: — That it is contrary to experience that a miracle should be true ; but not contrary to experience that testimony should be false.

Now there appears a small ambiguity in the term e.vperience, and in the phrases contrary to experience^ or contradicting experience, which it may be necessary to remove in the fir^t place. — Strictly speaking, the narrative of a fact is then only contrary to experience when the fact is related to have existed at a time and place; at which time and place we, being present, did not perceive it to exist ; — as if it should be asserted thai, in a particular room, and at a particular hour of a certain day, a man was raised from the dead ; in which room, and at the time specified, w^e, being present and looking on, perceived no such event to have taken place. Here the assertion is contrary to experience, properly so called i

6F CHRISTIANITY.

md this is a contrariety which no evidence can isurmount. It matters nothing, whether the fact be of a miraculous nature or not ; but, although this be the experience and the contrariety which Archbishop Tillotson alleged in his quotation with which Mr. Hume opens his Essay, it Is certainly not that experience, nor that contrariety, to which Mr. Hume himself intended to object ; and, short of this, I know no intelligible signification which can be affixed to the term contrary/ to €.vpe?icnce, but one, viz. That of not having ourselves experienced any thing similar to the thing related ; or, Such things not being generally experienced by others. I say not generally ; for to state, concerning the fact in question, that no such thing was ever experienced, or that universal experience is against it, is to assume the subject of the controversy.

Now the improbability which arises from the want (for this properly is a want, not a contradiction) of experience, is only equal to the probability there is, that if the thing were true, we should experience things similar to it ; or that such things would be generally experienced. Suppose it then to be true that miracles were wrought upon the first promulgation of Christianity, when nothing but miracles could decide its authority, is it ^certain that such miracles would be repeated so often, and in so many places, as to become objects of general experience ? Is it a probability approaching to certainty ? Is it a probability of any great strength or force ? Is it such as no evidence can encounter ? And yet this probability is the exact converse, and therefore the exact measure of the improbability which arises from the want of experience, and which Mr. Hume represents as invincible by human testimony.

It is not like allegitig a new law of Nature, or a new experiment in Natural Philosophy; because, when these are related, it is expected that, under the same circumstances, the same effect will follow universally ; and, in proportion as this expectation is justly entertained, the want of a corresponding experience negatives the history ; but to expect concerning a miracle, that it should succeed upon a repetition, is to expect that which -would make it cease to be a miracle, which is. contrary to its nature as such, and would totally destroy the use and purpose for ^vhich it was wrought.

The force of experience, as an objection to miracles, is founded in the presumption, either that the course of nature is invariable, or that, if it be ever vaiied, variations will be frequent and general. Has the necessity of this alternative been demonstrated ? Permit us to call the course of nature 2 he Agejicy of an Intelligent Being ; and is there any good reason for judging this state of the case to be probable? Ought we not rather to expect, ihat such a Being, upon occasions of peculiar importance, may interrupt the order which he had appomttd, yet that such occasions should return seldom, — xhdt these interruptions, consequently,, should be confined to the experience of a few, — that the want of it, therefore, in many, should be matter neither of surprize nor objection ?

Eur, as a continuation of the argument from experience, it is said, That, when we advance accounts of miracles, we assign effects without causes, or we attribute effects to causes inadequate to the purpose, or lo causes, of the operation of which v\e have no experience. Of what causes, wc may ask, and of w hat efriects, does the objection speak? If it be answered, That, when we ascribe the cure of the palsy to a touch, — of bUndness ta

OF CHRISTIANITY.

the anointing of eyes with clay, — or the raising of the dead to a word, we lay ourselves open to this imputation. We reply, That we ascribe no such effects to such causes. We perceive no virtue or energy in these things more than in other things of the same kind ; — they are merely signs to connect the miracle with its end. The effect we ascribe simply to the volition of the Deity, of whose existence and power, not to say of whose presence and agency, we have previous and independent proof We have, therefore, all' we seek for in the works of rational agents, a sufficient power and an adequate motive. In a word, once believe that there is a God, and miracles are not incredible.

Mr, Hume states the case of miracles to be a contest of opposite improbabilities ; that is to say, a question whether it be more improbable that the miracle should be true, or the testimony false ; and this I think a fair account of the controversy : but herein I remark a want of argumentative justice, that, in describing the improbability of miracles, he suppresses all those circumstances of extenuation which result from our knowledge of the existence, power, and disposition of the Deity ; his concern in the creation, the end answered by the miracle, the importance of that end, and its subserviency to the plan pursued in the works of Nature. As Mr. Hume has represented the question, miracles are alike incredible to him who is previously assured of the constant agency of a Divine Being, and to him who believes that no such Being exists in the universe. They are equally incredible, whether related to have been wa'ought upon ^occasions the most deserving, and for purposes the fpost beneficial, or for no assignable end whatever, or for an end confessedly trifling or pernicious- This, surely, cannot be a correct statement In adjusting also the other side of the balance, the strength and weight of testimony, this author has provided an answer to every possible accumulation of historical proof, by telling us that we are not obliged to explain how the story or the evidence arose. Now I think that we art obliged, — not, perhaps, to show by positive accounts how it did, but by a probable hypothesis how it might so happen. The existence of the testimony is a phenomenon ; — the truth of the fact solves the phenomenon. If we reject this solution, we. ought to have some other to rest in ; and none, even by our adversaries, can be admitted, which is not consistent with the principles that regulate human affairs and human conduct at present, or which makes men tkm to have been a different kind of beings fi om what they are now.

But the short consideration which, independently of every other, convinces me that there is no solid foundation in Mr. Hume's conclusion, is the toliowing : — When a theorem is proposed to a mathematician, the first thing he does with it is to try it upon a simple case ; and if it produce a false result, he is sure there must be some mistake in the demonstration. Now, to proceed in this way with what may be called Mr. Humes 'Iheorem. If twelve men, whose probity and good sense I had long known, should seriously and circumstantially relate to me an account of a miracle wrought before their eyes, and in which it was impossible that they should be deceived ; if the governor of the country, hearing a rumour of this account, should call these men into his presence, and ofier them a short proposal either to confess the imposture^ or submit to be

OF CHRISTIANITYi 0

tied lip to a gibbet if they should refuse with one voice to acknowledge that there existed any falsehood or imposture in the case ; if this threat were communicated to them separately, yet with no diffeietit effect ; if it was at last executed; if I myself saw them, one after another, consenting to be racked, burnt, or strangled rather than give up the truth of their account, — still, if Mr. Hume's rule be my guide, I am not to believe them. Now, I undertake to say, that there exists not a sceptic in the world who would not believe them, or who would defend such incredulity.

Instances of spurious miracles, supported by strong apparent testimony, undoubtedly demand examination. Mr. Hume has endeavoured to fortify his argument by some examples of this kind. I hope, in a proper place, to show that none of them reach the strength or circumstances of the Christian evidence. In these, however, consists the weight of his objection ; — in the principle itself, I am persuaded there is none.

THE EVIEENCES

Part I

OF THE DIRECT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF CHRIS- TIANITY, AND WHEREIN IT IS DISTINGUISHED FROM THE EVIDENCE ALLEGED FOR OTHER MI- RACLES.

The two Propositions which I shall endeavour tp jestablish, are these : —

L That there is satisfactory evidence that many, professing to be original witnesses of the Christian miracles, passed their lives in labours, dangers, and sufferings, voluntarily undergone in attestation of the accounts which they delivered, and solely in consequence of their belief of those accounts; and that they also submitted, from the same motives, to new rules of conduct.

II. That there is not satisfactory evidence that persons professing to be original witnesses of other miracles, in their nature as certain as these are, have ever acted in the same manner, in attestation of the accounts which they deUvered, and properly in consequence of their belief of those accounts.

The first of these Propositions, as it forms the argument, will stand at the head of the following nine Chapters.

OF CHRISTIANITY.

Chapter I

There is satisfactory Evidence that many ^professing to he original Witnesses of the Christian Miracles^ passed their Lives in Labours^ Dangers, and Sufferings, voluntarily tinder gone in Attestation of the Accounts which thty delivered, and iolely in consequence of their Belief of those Accounts ; and that they also subviitted^jrom the same Motives, to new Rules of Conduct,

To support ihij Proposition, two points are necessary to be made out; — First, That the Founder of the institution, his associates, and immediate followers, acted tiie part which the proposition imputes to them; — Secondly, That they did so in attestation of the miraculous history recorded in our Scriptures, and solely in consequence of their belief of the truth of this history.

Before we produce any particular testimony to the activity and sufferings which compo&e the subject of our first assertion, it will be proper to consider the degree of probability which the as-sertion derives from the nature of the case ; that is, by inferences from those parts of the case which, in point of fact, are on all hands acknowiedi^ed.

First, tiien, — The Christian religion exists, and therefore, by some means or other, was established. Now, it either owes the principle of its establishment, i. e. its first publication, to the activity of the Person who was the founder of the institution, and of those vvho were joined with him in the undertaking; or we are driven upon the strange supposition, that although they might lie by, others would take it up ; although they were quiet ancf silent, other persons busied themselves in the success and propagation of their story. This is perfectly incredible. To me it appears little less than certain, that, if the first announcing of the religion by the Founder had not been followed up by the zedl and industry of his immediate disciples, the attempt must have expired in its birth. Then, as to the kind and degree of exertion which was employed, and the mode of life to which these persons submitted, we reasonably suppose it to be like that which we observe in all others who voluntarily become missionaries of a new faith. Frequeqt, earnest, and laborious preaching; constantly conversing with religious persons upon religion : a sequestration from the common pleasures, engagements, and varieties of life ; and an addiction to one serious object, compose the habits of such men. I do not say that this mpde of life is without enjoyment ; but I say that the enjoyment springs from sincerity. With a consciousness at the bottom of hollowness and falsehood, the fatigue and restraint would become insupportable. I am apt to believe that very few hypocrites engage iu these undertakings, or, however, persist in them long. Ordinarily speaking, nothing can overcome the indolence of mankind, the love which is natural to most tempers of cheerful society and cheerful scenes ; or the desire, which is common to ali^ of personal ease and freedom, but conviction.

Secondly, It is also highly probable, from the nature of the case, that the propagation of the new religion was attended with difficulty and danger. As addressed to the Jews, it was a system adverse not only to their habitual opinions, but to those opinions upon which their hopes, their par-

OF CHRISTIANITY.

tiaiities, their pride, their consolation was founded. This people, with or without reason, had worked themselves into a persuasion that some signal and greatly advantageous change was to be effected in the condition of their country, by the agency of a long promised Messenger from Heaven*. — - The rulers of the Jews, their leading sect, their priesthood, had been the authors of this persuasion to the common, people. So that it was not merely the conjecture of theoretical divines, or the secret expectation of a few recluse devotees, but it was become the popular hope and passion ; and, like all popular opinions, undoubting and impatient of contradiction. They clung to this hope under every misfortune of their country, and with liaore tenacity, as their dangers or calamities increased. To find, therefore, that expectations so gratifying were to be worse than disappointed; that they were to end in the diffusion of a mild, unambitious religion, which, instead of victories and triumphs, — instead of exalting their nation and institution above the rest of the world, ■■ — was to advance those whom they despised to an equality with themselves in those very points pf.comparison in which they most valued their own distinction, could be no very pleasing discovery to a Jewish mind ; nor could the messengers of such intelligence expect to be well received or easily credited. Tlie doctrine was equally harsh and novel. The extending the kingdom of God to those who did not conform to the law of Moses, was a notion

Sueton. Vespasiun, cap. 4 — 8.

THE EVIDENCtes that had never before entered into the thoughts of a Jew.

The character of the new institution was, in other respects, also ungrateful to Jewish habits and principles. Their own rehgion was in a high degree technical. Even the enhghtened Jew placed a great deal of stress upon the ceremonies of his law, saw in them a great deal of virtue and efficacy; — the gross and vulgar had scarcely any thing else ; — and the hypocritical and ostentatious magnified them above measure, as being the instruments of their own reputation and influence. The Christian scheme, without formally repealing the Levitical Code, lowered its estimation extremely. In the place of strictness and zeal in performing the observances which that Code prescribed, or which tradition had added to it, the new sect preached up faith, well regulated affections, inward purit}, and moral rectitude of disposition, as the true ground, on the part of the worshipper, of merit and acceptance with God. This, however rational it may appear, or recommending to us at present, did not by any means facilitate the plan then. On the contrary, to disparage those qualities which the highest characters in the country valued themselves most upon, was a sura w^ay of making powerful enemies. As if the frustration of the national hope was not enough, the long-esteemed merit of ritual zeal and punctuality was to be decried, and that by Jews preaching to Jews.

The ruling party at Jerusalem had just before crucified the Founder of the religion. That is a fact which will not be disputed. They, therefore, who stood forth to preach the religion, must necessarily reproach these rulers with an execution, which tliey could not but represent as an unjust and cruel murder. This would not render

OF CHRISTlANITr.

their office more easy, or their situation more safe.

With regard to the interference of the Roman government, which was then established in Judea, I should not expect that, despising as it did the religion of the country, it would, if left to itself, animadvert either with much vigilance or much severity upon the schisms and controversies which arose within it ; yet there was that in Christianity which mif^ht easilv afford a handle of accusation with a jealous government. The Christians avowed an unqualified obedience to a new Master. They avowed also, that he was the person who had been foietold to the Jews, under the suspected title of King. The spiritual nature of this kingdom, the consistency of this obedience with civil subjection, were distinctions too refined to be entertained by a Roman president, who viewed the business at a great distance, or through the medium of very hostile representations. Our histories accordingly inform us, that this was the turn which the enemies of Jesus gave to his character and pretensions, in their remonstrances with Pontius Pilate; — and Justin Martyr, about a hundred years afterwards^ complains that the same mistake prevailed in his time: — Ye, having heard that we are waiting for a kingdom, suppose, without distinguishing, that we mean a human kingdom, when, in truth, we speak of that which is with God^';" — and it wa& undoubtedly a natural source of calumny and misconstruction.

The preachers therefore of Christianity had to contend with prejudice, backed by power. They had to come forward to a disappointed people, to a priesthood possessing a considerable share of mu-