Part 71 (1/2)
By living witnesses, who were actually on the spot, both events are confirmed at this hour, when deceit and flattery can hope for no reward.”[268:6]
The striking resemblance between the account of these miracles, and those attributed to Jesus in the Gospels ”_according to_” Matthew and Mark, would lead us to think that one had been copied from the other, but when we find that Tacitus wrote his history A. D. 98,[269:1] and that the ”_Matthew_” and Mark narrators' works were not known until _after_ that time,[269:2] the evidence certainly is that Tacitus was _not_ the plagiarist, but that this charge must fall on the shoulders of the Christian writers, whoever they may have been.
To come down to earlier times, even the religion of the Mahometans is a religion of miracles and wonders. Mahomet, like Jesus of Nazareth, did not claim to perform miracles, but the votaries of Mahomet are more a.s.sured than himself of his miraculous gifts; and their confidence and credulity increase as they are farther removed from the time and place of his spiritual exploits. They believe or affirm that trees went forth to meet him; that he was saluted by stones; that water gushed from his fingers; that he fed the hungry, cured the sick, and raised the dead; that a beam groaned to him; that a camel complained to him; that a shoulder of mutton informed him of its being poisoned; and that both animate and inanimate nature were equally subject to the apostle of G.o.d.
His dream of a nocturnal journey is seriously described as a real and corporeal transaction. A mysterious animal, the Borak, conveyed him from the temple of Mecca to that of Jerusalem; with his companion Gabriel he successively ascended the seven heavens, and received and repaid the salutations of the patriarchs, the prophets, and the angels in their respective mansions. Beyond the seventh heaven, Mahomet alone was permitted to proceed; he pa.s.sed the veil of unity, approached within two bow-shots of the throne, and felt a cold that pierced him to the heart, when his shoulder was touched by the hand of G.o.d. After a familiar, though important conversation, he descended to Jerusalem, remounted the Borak, returned to Mecca, and performed in the tenth part of a night the journey of many thousand years. His resistless word split asunder the orb of the moon, and the obedient planet stooped from her station in the sky.[269:3]
These and many other wonders, similar in character to the story of Jesus sending the demons into the swine, are related of Mahomet by his followers.
It is very certain that the same circ.u.mstances which are claimed to have taken place with respect to the Christian religion, are also claimed to have taken place in the religions of Crishna, Buddha, Zoroaster, aesculapius, Bacchus, Apollonius, Simon Magus, &c. Histories of these persons, with miracles, relics, circ.u.mstances of locality, suitable to them, were as common, as well authenticated (if not better), and as much believed by the devotees as were those relating to Jesus.
All the Christian theologians which the world has yet produced have not been able to procure any evidence of the miracles recorded in the _Gospels_, half so strong as can be procured in evidence of miracles performed by heathens and heathen G.o.ds, both before and after the time of Jesus; and, as they cannot do this, let them give us a reason why we should reject the one and receive the other. And if they cannot do this, let them candidly confess that we must either admit them all, or reject them all, for they all stand on the same footing.
In the early times of the Roman republic, in the war with the Latins, the G.o.ds Castor and Pollux are said to have appeared on white horses in the Roman army, which by their a.s.sistance gained a complete victory: in memory of which, the General Posthumius vowed and built a temple to these deities; and for a proof of the fact, there was shown, we find, in Cicero's time (106 to 43 B. C.), the marks of the horses' hoofs on a rock at Regillum, where they first appeared.[270:1]
Now this miracle, with those which have already been mentioned, and many others of the same kind which could be mentioned, has as authentic an attestation, if not more so, as any of the Gospel miracles. It has, for instance: The decree of a senate to confirm it; visible marks on the spot where it was transacted; and all this supported by the best authors of antiquity, amongst whom Dionysius, of Halicarna.s.sus, who says that there was subsisting in his time at Rome many evident proofs of its reality, besides a yearly festival, with a solemn sacrifice and procession, in memory of it.[270:2]
With all these evidences in favor of this miracle having really happened, it seems to us so ridiculous, that we wonder how there could ever have been any so simple as to believe it, yet we should believe that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, after he had been in the tomb four days, our only authority being that _anonymous_ book known as the ”Gospel according to St. John,” which was not known until after A. D.
173. Albert Barnes, in his ”Lectures on the Evidences of Christianity,”
speaking of the authenticity of the Gospel miracles, makes the following damaging confession:
”An important question is, whether there is any stronger evidence in favor of miracles, than there is in favor of witchcraft, or sorcery, or the re-appearance of the dead, of ghosts, of apparitions? Is not the evidence in favor of these as strong as any that can be adduced in favor of miracles?
Have not these things been matters of universal belief? In what respect is the evidence in favor of the miracles of the Bible stronger than that which can be adduced in favor of witchcraft and sorcery? Does it differ in nature and degrees; and if it differs, is it not in favor of witchcraft and sorcery? Has not the evidence in favor of the latter been derived from as competent and reliable witnesses? Has it not been brought to us from those who saw the facts alleged? Has it not been subjected to a close scrutiny in the courts of justice, to cross-examination, to tortures? Has it not convinced those of highest legal attainments; those accustomed to sift testimony; those who understood the true principles of evidence? Has not the evidence in favor of witchcraft and sorcery had, what the evidence in favor of miracles has not had, the advantage of strict judicial investigation? and been subjected to trial, where evidence should be, before courts of law? Have not the most eminent judges in the most civilized and enlightened courts of Europe and America admitted the force of such evidence, and on the ground of it committed great numbers of innocent persons to the gallows and to the stake? _I confess that of all the questions ever asked on the subject of miracles, this is the most perplexing and the most difficult to answer._ It is rather to be wondered at that it has not been pressed with more zeal by those who deny the reality of miracles, and that they have placed their objections so extensively on other grounds.”
It was a common adage among the Greeks, ”_Miracles for fools_,” and the same proverb obtained among the shrewder Romans, in the saying: ”_The common people like to be deceived--deceived let them be._”
St. Chrysostom declares that ”miracles are proper only to excite sluggish and vulgar minds, _men of sense have no occasion for them_;”
and that ”they frequently carry some untoward suspicion along with them;” and Saint Chrysostom, Jerome, Euthemius, and Theophylact, prove by several instances, that _real miracles_ had been performed by those who were not Catholic, but heretic, Christians.[271:1]
Celsus (an Epicurean philosopher, towards the close of the second century), the first writer who entered the lists against the claims of the Christians, in speaking of the miracles which were claimed to have been performed by Jesus, says:
”His miracles, _granted to be true_, were nothing more than the common works of those _enchanters_, who, for a few _oboli_, will perform greater deeds in the midst of the Forum, calling up the souls of heroes, exhibiting sumptuous banquets, and tables covered with food, which have no reality. Such things do not prove these jugglers to be sons of G.o.d; nor do Christ's miracles.”[271:2]
Celsus, in common with most of the Grecians, looked upon Christianity as a _blind faith_, that shunned the light of reason. In speaking of the Christians, he says:
”They are forever repeating: 'Do not examine. _Only believe_, and thy _faith_ will make thee blessed. _Wisdom_ is a bad thing in life; _foolishness_ is to be preferred.'”[272:1]
He jeers at the fact that _ignorant men_ were allowed to preach, and says that ”weavers, tailors, fullers, and the most illiterate and rustic fellows,” set up to teach strange paradoxes. ”They openly declared that none but the ignorant (were) fit disciples for the G.o.d they wors.h.i.+ped,”
and that one of their rules was, ”let no man that is learned come among us.”[272:2]
The _miracles_ claimed to have been performed by the Christians, he attributed to _magic_,[272:3] and considered--as we have seen above--their miracle performers to be on the same level with all Gentile magicians. He says that the ”wonder-workers” among the Christians ”rambled about to play tricks at fairs and markets,” that they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured.[272:4]
”The magicians in Egypt (says he), cast out evil spirits, cure diseases by a breath, call up the spirits of the dead, make inanimate things move as if they were alive, and so influence some uncultured men, that they produce in them whatever sights and sounds they please. But because they do such things shall we consider them the sons of G.o.d? Or shall we call such things the tricks of pitiable and wicked men?”[272:5]
He believed that Jesus was like all these other wonder-workers, that is, simply a _necromancer_, and that he learned his magical arts in Egypt.[272:6] All philosophers, during the time of the Early Fathers, answered the claims that Jesus performed miracles, in the same manner.
”They even ventured to call him a _magician_ and a deceiver of the people,” says Justin Martyr,[272:7] and St. Augustine a.s.serted that it was generally believed that Jesus had been initiated in _magical art_ in Egypt, and that he had written books concerning magic, one of which was called ”_Magia Jesu Christi_.”[272:8] In the Clementine Recognitions, the charge is brought against Jesus that he did not perform his miracles as a Jewish prophet, but as a magician, an initiate of the heathen temples.[272:9]
The casting out of devils was the most frequent and among the most striking and the oftenest appealed to of the miracles of Jesus; yet, in the conversation between himself and the Pharisees (Matt. xii. 24-27), he speaks of it as one that was constantly and habitually performed by their own _exorcists_; and, so far from insinuating any difference between the two cases, _expressly puts them on a level_.