by this apostle or by that apostle; he could have no doubt as to the language which was employed. He must know, whether he heard his own tongue, or whether he did not hear it. However the faculty might have been attained, he could not but see that it was actually possessed. The fact, presented to the general attention of all Jerusalem, was this. Twelve illiterate Jews, most of them Galilean fishermen unacquainted with any language but their own, are suddenly enabled to address the various strangers then assembled at the feast of Pentecost, each in his own national dialect. That any trick should have been practised, is impossible; that any groundless pretence should have been made, is equally impossible. The strangers understand them; and declare, that they severally hear themselves addressed in their own languages: yet it is notorious, that these Galileans but yesterday knew no tongue, save the Hebrew-Syriac. How is the fact to be accounted for? Magic, we know, was the ordinary solution of such difficulties on the part of the Jews and the Pagans: for, as to miraculous facts, they denied not their occurrence. But it will be doubted in the present day, whether magic could enable an ignorant Galilean suddenly to speak Greek and Latin. Admit only the reality of the occurrence, and its proper miraculousness follows as a thing of course. The matter plainly cannot be accounted for without a miracle. Now, for the reality of the occurrence, both the Jews and the Pagans are our vouchers : nor is this all; in truth, the history cannot proceed without it. We find these ignorant Galiléans travelling to various parts of the world, both within and without the Roman Empire. Wherever they go, without the least difficulty or hesitation they address the natives in their own languages. The natives understand them and, through their preaching, Christianity spreads in every direction with astonishing rapidity.* How could this be, if the men knew no tongue save the Syriac? Or if they knew various other tongues, how did they acquire their knowledge? How came John and James and Peter and Jude to write in Greek, when we are quite sure that originally they could have been acquainted only with a dialect of Hebrew? To deny the miracle involves greater difficulties than to admit it: to believe, that ignorant Galilean fishermen could preach successfully to foreigners, evinces more credulity, than to believe, that they were miraculously enabled to do what we positively know they must have done. * According to the fathers and early ecclesiastical historians, Andrew preached the Gospel in Scythia, Greece, and Epirus; Bartholomew, in India, Arabia Felix, and Persia; Lebbeus or Jude, in Lybia and Edessa; and Thomas, in India and Asiatic Ethiopia. Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. iii. c. 1. Theodoret. in Psalm cxvi. Nazian. Orat. 25. Hieron. Epist. 148. Euseb. Eccles. Hist. lib. v. c. 10, 11. Hieron. de viris illust. c. 36. Paulin. carm. 26. Hieron. in Matt. x. 4. Nazian. Orat. 25. Hieron. Epist. 148. Ambros. in Psalm. xlv. Chrysost. vol. vi. Append. Homil. 31. For these references 1 am indebted to Calmet. John presided as a metropolitan in the lesser Asia and Peter, after governing the church of Antioch, is said to have been the first bishop of Rome. SECTION VII. THE DIFFICULTIES ATTENDANT UPON DEISTICAL INFIDELITY IN REGARD TO THE INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF CHRISTIANITY. DIFFICULTIES, however, attend upon deistical Infidelity, not only in regard to the external evidence of Christianity, but also in regard to its internal evidence. This part of the subject is not a little interesting because it distinctly shows, that truth is even constitutionally and essentially inherent in the Gospel; being interwoven into its very texture, and forming in the very nature of things an inseparably component part of it. Into a topic, thus copious, it is not my intention fully to enter: I rather purpose, agreeably to the plan which has been generally adopted throughout this discussion, to select and enlarge upon some of the principal and most striking particulars. As a specimen of such a mode of reasoning, I shall content myself with noticing two of these particulars: the character of Christ, and the spirit of his religion. . I. The pride and the ambition, inherent in man, lead him always to admire and affect the : grand, the magnificent, the brilliant, the powerful, the daring, the energetic, the successful. He loves that which strikes forcibly upon the senses and the imagination: he delights in that which vehemently arrests his attention, which produces a strong theatrical effect, which wears the semblance of something splendid and heroic. The milder virtues he is apt to slight and pass over with a certain sensation of contempt his favourite characters are the warrior, the legislator, the statesman. To these he looks up with complacent veneration: their actions are his most agreeable themes: and they themselves are his models of the sublime, the noble, the excellent, the illustrious. In paying homage to persons of such a description, he feels a sort of self-elevation: because his admiration of them is in effect an admiration of our common nature, as exhibited under what he deems its most perfect and most commanding aspect. 1. This humour we invariably find developed in works of imagination, whether they be poems or dramas or romances.* The hero both of the author and of the reader is marked by courage, by activity, by address, by eloquence, by splendid talents, by an easy generosity, by a lofty magnanimity. Difficulties he may encounter; but these he bravely surmounts: hardships he may endure; but these he gaily faces. Graceful and spirited, he concilitates love, and ensures admiration. -Honoratum si forte reponis Achillen; Jura neget sibi nata, nihil non arroget armis. Horat. de art. poet, ver. 120-122. 1 Such brilliant dreams are too fascinating to be lightly relinquished. From the transactions of common or fictitious life, they are readily transferred to religion and demi-gods and prophets are invested with the attributes, which have previously most gratified the imagination. Hence originated the characters of the Grecian Herculies and Perseus and Bacchus and Jason. Hence the Egyptian Osiris was a successful warrior and a beneficent legislator. Hence the Indian Parasu-Rama descended from heaven, tò vanquish and extirpate, in twenty pitched battles, the impious children of the Sun; to consecrate a due proportion of their wealth to the Deity; to distribute the remainder, with open hand, among the poor; to establish a new dynasty of just and beneficent sovereigns; and then, content with his successful labours, to withdraw into dignified retirement amidst the deep recesses of the Gaut mountains* Hence the Persian Rustam, mounted on his charger Rakesh, dared the shortest and most dangerous road to the haunted passes of Mazenderaun; surmounted all the multiplied perils of the seven stages; faught and slew the Deeve Sefeed; and restored the enthralled CaiCaus to light and liberty.+ The predominance of these notions produced the effect, which might naturally be anticipated. Maurice's Anc. Hist. of Hind. vol. ii. p. 91-103. Similar remarks may be applied also to the character of Ram-Chandra, Ibid. p. 231-253. + Orient. Collect. vol. i. p. 359–368. vol. ii. p. 45-55. The narrative characteristically ends, as follows. Then Rustars, the dispenser of kingdoms, the hero of the world, having received from Caus a splendid dress and other magnificent presents, returned to Zablestan. |