CHRISTIANITY. 



373 



Cltristiani- dom of Polycarp, it is stated, that the Gentiles and 

 '7- Jews inhabiting Smyrna, in a furious rage, and with a 



*""T"^ P ' loud voice, cried out, " This is the teacher of Asia, the 

 fattier of the Christians, the destroyer of our gods, who 

 teacheth all men not to sacrifice, nor to worship them !" 

 They collected wood, and the dried branches of trees, for 

 his pile ; and it is added, " the Jews also, according to 

 custom, assisting with the greatest forwardness." It 

 is needless to multiply testimonies to a point so generally 

 understood. That it was not conviction alone which 

 lay at the bottom of their opposition to the Christians ; 

 that a great deal of passion entered into it ; and that 

 their numerous acts of hostility against the worshippers 

 of Jesus, carry in them all the marks of fury and resent- 

 ment. 



90. Now we know that the power of passion will often 

 earry it very far over the power of conviction. We know 

 that the strength of conviction is not in rit-oportion to 

 the quantity of evidence presented, but to the quantity 

 of evidence attended to, and perceived, in consequence of 

 that attention. We also know, that attention is, in a 

 great measure, a voluntary act, and that it is often in 

 the power of the mind, both to turn away its attention 

 from what would land it in any painful or humiliating 

 conclusion, and to deliver itself up exclusively to those 

 arguments which flatter its taste and its prejudices. All 

 this lies within the range of familiar and every day ex- 

 perience. We all know how much it ensures the success 

 of an argument, when it gets a favourable hearing. In 

 by far the greater number of instances, the parties in a 

 litigation are not merely each attached to their own side 

 of the question ; but each confident and believing that 

 theirs is the side on which the justice lies. In these 

 contests of opinion, which take place every day betwixt 

 man and man, and particularly if passion and interest 

 have any share in the controversy, it is evident to the 

 slightest observation, that though it might have been 

 selfishness, in the first instance, which gave a peculiar 

 direction to the understanding, yet each of the parties 

 often comes, at last, to entertain a sincere conviction in 

 the truth of his own argument. It is not that truth is 

 not one and immutable. The whole difference lies in 

 the observers, each of them viewing the object through 

 the medium of his own prejudices, or cherishing those 

 peculiar habits of attention and understanding to which 

 taste or inclination had disposed him. 



91. In addition to all this, we know, that though the 

 evidence for a particular truth be so glaring, that it for- 

 ces itself upon the understanding, and all the sophistry 

 of passion and interest cannot withstand it ; yet if this 

 truth be of a very painful and humiliating kind, the ob- 

 stinacy of man will often dispose him to resist its influ- 

 ence, and, in the bitterness of his malignant feelings, to 

 carry a hostility against it, and that too in proportion 

 to the weight of the argument which may be brought 

 forward in its favour. 



92. Now, if we take into account the inveteracy of the 

 Jewish prejudices, and reflect how unpalatable and how 

 mortifying to their pride must have been the doctrine 

 of a crucified Saviour; we believe that their conduct, 

 in reference to Christianity and its miraculous evidences, 

 presents us with nothing anomalous or inexplicable, 

 and that it will appear a possible and a likely thing to 

 every understanding, that has been much cultivated in 

 the experience of human affairs, in the nature of man, 

 and the science of its character and phenomena. 



93. There is a difficulty, however, in the way of this in- 

 vestigation. From the nature of the case, it bears no re- 

 tcmblance to any thing else, that has either been record- 



ed in history, or has come within the range of our own Christian;- 

 personal observation. There is no other example of a tv - 

 people called upon to renounce the darling faith and "" """""" 

 principles of their country, and that upon the authority 

 of miracles exhibited before them. All the experience we 

 have about the operation of prejudice, and the perver- 

 sion of the human temper and understanding, cannot af- 

 ford a complete solution of the question. In many re- 

 spects, it is a case sui generis, and the only creditable in- 

 formation which we can obtain, to enlighten us in this 

 enquiry, is through the medium of that very testimony 

 upon which the difficulty in question has thrown the sus- 

 picion that we want to get rid of. 



94. Let us give all theweight to this argumentof which 

 it is susceptible, and the following is the precise degree 

 in which it affects the merits of the controversy. When 

 the religion of Jesus was promulgated in Judea, its first 

 teachers appealed to miracles wrought by themselves in 

 the face of day, as the evidence of their being commis- 

 sioned by God. Many adopted the new religion upon 

 this appeal, and many rejected it. An argument in fa- 

 vour of Christianity is derived from the conduct of 

 the first. An objection against Christianity is derived 

 from the conduct of the second. Now, allowing that 

 we are not in possession of experience enough for esti- 

 mating, in absolute terms, the strength of the objection, 

 we propose the following as a solid and" unexceptionable 

 principle, upon which to estimate a comparison betwixt 

 the strength of the objection and the strength of the 

 argument. We are sure that the first would not have 

 embraced Christianity had its miracles been false ; but 

 we are not sure beforehand, whether the second would 

 have rejected this religion on the supposition of the 

 miracles being true. It experience does not enlighten 

 us as to how far the exhibition of a real miracle would 

 be effectual in inducing men to renounce their old and 

 favourite opinions, we can. infer nothing decisive from 

 the conduct of those who still kept by the Jewish re- 

 ligion. This conduct was a matter of uncertainty, and 

 any argument which may be extracted from it can- 

 not be depended upon. But the case is widely diffe- 

 rent with that party of their nation who were convert- 

 ed from Judaism to Christianity. We know that the 

 alleged miracles of Christianity were perfectly open to 

 examination. We are sure, from our experience of hu- 

 man nature, that in a question so interesting, this ex- 

 amination would be given. We know, from the very 

 nature of the miraculous facts, so remote like every 

 thing from what would be attempted by jugglery, or 

 pretended to by enthusiasm, that, if this examination 

 were given, it would fix the truth or falsehood of the 

 miracles. The truth of these miracles, then, for any 

 thing we know, may be consistent with the conduct of 

 the Jewish party ; but the falsehood of these miracles, 

 from all that we do know of human nature, is not con- 

 sistent with the conduct of the Christian party. Grant- 

 ing that we are not sure whether a miracle would force 

 the Jewish nation to renounce their opinions, all that 

 we can say of the conduct of the Jewish party is, that 

 we are not able to explain it. But there is one thing 

 that we are sure of. We are sure, that if the preten- 

 sions of Christianity be false, it never could have forced 

 any part of the Jewish nation to renounce their opi- 

 nions, with its alleged miracles, so open to detection, 

 and its doctrines so offensive to every individual. The 

 conduct of the Christian party then is nut only what 

 we are able to explain, but we can say with certainty, 

 that it admits of no other explanation, than the truth 

 of that hypothesis which we contend for. We may 



