"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 |
