Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

with the comparison between miracles and prophecy, but holds only that Christ does not rest his claims on his own testimony, but on that of the prophets.

But Huet himself seems to have thought his argument would stand better by a selection from Lactantius, than by giving the authority, as it stands in that father's divine institutes. In justice therefore to the great Grotius, whom the bishop is overwhelming with a torrent of quotations, not less than to set Mr. English right, I give the whole passage. Lactantius is arguing against a heathen philosopher, who had written, as it should seem, a defence of the impostor Apollonius, against our Saviour. "Appollonius," says Lactantius, "could not be thought a god after his death, both because he was a man and a magician. But Christ was believed a God because he was not a magician, and because he was truly God. But we do not," says our philosopher, withhold from Appollonius the character of a god because he declined that character, but to show ourselves wiser than you, in not immediately attaching the idea of divinity to the working of miracles as you do,who for some small prodigies make Christ a God. It is not wonderful that you should mistake what you read, when the Jews, the original repositories of the Scriptures, are ignorant of the meaning of the prophets, which they have read from the first. Understand therefore, if you have any ingenuousness, that Christ is believed

by us to be God, not merely because he wrought miracles, but because we see in him the fulfilment of all things foretold by the prophets. He wrought miracles; we might have thought him a magician, as you now call him, and the Jews then thought him, if the prophets had not with one breath foretold that he would work them. Therefore we believe him to be God, not more for his miracles and his mighty works, than for his death and the cross, (which you so much reproach,) since that too was foretold." And then follows the second passage of Huet. From this quotation it appears first, that the Christians predicated the divinity of Christ on his miracles, as they are reproached for so doing by the Appollonian; and second, That they did not consider miracles as the only proof, but as a proof corroborated by prophecy.

Next we have the testimony of Celsus quoted, as I must say with signal unfairness. Celsus, says Mr. English, observing upon the words of Christ that false prophets and false christs shall arise, and show great signs and wonders, sneeringly observes, "a fine thing truly, that miracles done by him should prove him to be a God, and when done by others should demonstrate them to be false prophets and impostors." I will just give the context from which this is abstracted. It is in the form of a dialogue between Celsus and some Chris. tians. "By what reasoning," says Celsus to his Christian antagonists, "by what reasoning

* Lactanti Div. Inst. 1. v, §3.

[ocr errors]

were ye induced to esteem him the Son of God. Ch. We were induced by this, that we know his suffering was for the destruction of the father of wickedness. C. What then, have not many others suffered punishment, and that as ignominious? Ch. We esteem him to be Son of God, seeing he cured the lame and the blind, and [C. as ye say] raised the dead. C. O light and truth! With his own voice he hath expressly warned you, as ye also have recorded, that others shall come using the like powers, knaves and impostors, and he names one Satan, the worker of these things. Which is confessing that these things are indeed nothing divine, but the works of the wicked. And being forced by the power of truth he hath not only detected the imposture of others, but betrayed his own. How, is it not then miserable, from the same works to reckon one a God, and others impostors ?"* This passage is inestimable, for it proves in the face of Mr. English's argument, at least if any credit is to be given to his own voucher Celsus, the notorious enemy of the gospel, that the common believers, those whom he introduces as the representatives of the Christians, believed Jesus Christ to be the Son of God upon the ground of his miracles, "because he cured the lame and blind, and raised the dead." Celsus in another place makes his Jew tell the Christians, that Jesus, "being obliged through poverty to serve for hire in Egypt, had experience Origen contr. Cels. lib. ii. § 47, 48, 49.

there of certain powers whereof the Egyptians boast, and returning highly conceited with these powers, proclaims himself on account of them the Son of God."*

Mr.English next gives an authority from Tertullian against Marcion. This is the passage: "Christ foretelling that many impostors should come, and perform many wonders, shews that our faith cannot,without great temerity, be founded on miracles, since they were so easily wrought by false christs, [not, so early wrought by false Christians,' as Mr. English translates it. It

But had Mr. English examined the context, he would have seen that Tertullian was reasoning against a peculiar notion of Marcion's, viz. that there were two supreme Deities, a benevolent and a malevolent, and that Jesus Christ was sent by the latter, while the Messiah, foretold by the prophets of the former, in the Old Testament, had not yet come. And against this notion Tertullian reasons by showing, a priori, that such a character as the Messiah's

Origen contr. Cels. lib. i. § 28.

Tertull. adv. Marc. iii. 3. Mr. English in a postcript to his letter to Mr. Cary adduces the authority of Tertullian under the same reference a second time, assuring us however that there is no want of testimony to the point in dispute. He adduces it under the same reference, but in different words, viz. Tertullian reprehends the Marcionites for asserting, "that the mission of Jesus Christ was only to be proved by miracles," and maintains against them that prophecy proves his mission more than miracles, and that miracles without prophecy ought to pass for delusions. I do not find this in Tertullian, but I do find in the very section referred to, the much less positive expressions; "A predicted Messiah ought to come, that the predictions might establish his claims, as well as miracles." Contr. Marc. iii. 3.

must be a subject of prophecy: and therefore that if Jesus Christ was not the Christ foretold in the Old Testament, he could not be sent from God. But allowing the passage quoted to have all its force, and we are by no means disposed to deny that Tertullian shared the popular sentiments upon the power of demons, and their application to miraculous testimony; yet he does all we require, in bearing express testimony to the truth of the Christian miracles, and in speaking of them as divine attestations. “ Him,” says he, "whom the Jews had considered a man, from the humility of his appearance, they afterwards regarded as a magician for his power, when he cast out demons with a word, restored the blind, cleansed the lepers, raised the dead, reduced the elements, showing himself the word of God, that is, the original, first begotten word attended with intelligence and power, and supported by the Spirit."* Again, "I told you," says he, "and ye believed not, the works that I do in my Father's name bear witness of me! What witness? Why, that he was that personage of whom they inquired, the Christ of God."† Again, "the words that I speak to you I speak not of myself, but my Father which dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. By the miraculous works and the words of doctrine, the Father dwelling in the Son is discovered, by means of the things he doeth, and the person in whom he dwelleth."+

*Tertull.Apol. § xxi. †Advers. Prax. xxii. Advers. Prax. xxiv

« PoprzedniaDalej »