Conversations on Religion, with Lord Byron
Kennedy on Scripture
This conversation excited an intense interest in Argostoli, and called forth
many criticisms and remarks. By some I was blamed, both on account of the plan I had
adopted, and on account of my presumption in undertaking a task to which I was unequal.
Lord Byron was the theme of general admiration on
account of his acuteness, extensive reading, and great knowledge of the Scriptures. A
gentleman, who was present at the meeting, said to me one day, “Did you not see
that his lordship had not only read all the books on the subject which you had, but
many more, which you confessed you had not read?” It was in vain for me to
state the simple truth, that when I enumerated the various books which I had read or
examined, his lordship said nothing of his having read or not having read these books, but
merely asked me if I had read
Barrow and Stillingfleet’s works, and that, during the conversation when he
asked me about Warburton and Sir William Hamilton’s opinions, he did not assert
that he had ever read their writings. “His lordship,” I said,
“may have read all these books, and many more, but that I would certainly not
believe it until I heard him say so. Every scholar” I added, “knew
the names and peculiar theories and opinions of celebrated writers, and could easily
obtain this information from various sources, without having read the works of those
authors.” Another gentleman, who was present at the meeting, told me that his
lordship appeared to him, not only to have read more books on the subject, but that he also
had the better of the argument. Though I differed from my friend in opinion, I could not
but commend his frankness. The report spread generally that Lord Byron
was profoundly acquainted with the Scriptures, and at length it was added, that I myself
was astonished at the extent of his knowledge; and this, with many other things, equally
unfounded, has been stated in various publications. What my opinion of his lordship’s
acquaintance with the Scriptures was, could be testified, if it were a point of any
consequence, by Major B., who asked 70 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
me what I thought of Lord Byron’s knowledge
of the Scriptures, and by M., S., and M. One Sunday, when I was
reproving them for allowing their judgment to be so influenced by the glare of his rank and
fame, as to believe every thing he said original and profound, and attach an importance to
it, as if it were inspired, I gave my opinion of his knowledge, which, owing to some
peculiar circumstances, will not easily escape their memory.
After this, there were seven or eight meetings held on the Sunday forenoons,
at which S., M., M., and M. attended. His
lordship, about this time, went to reside at the village of Metaxata, and was not present
on these occasions. I did not take the liberty of asking him to come, conceiving that he
was well aware that he had only to express his wishes, to have them gratified; and he, on
the other hand, either declined, without an invitation, or had no desire to come. That he
at one time expected to be present, was evident, from his saying to H., an officer with whom he was intimate, that he must now
begin to study and prepare himself for our religious discussions. I rather wished to
converse with his lordship alone, than in mixed society, as from what I had
observed, his presence would have had no good effect upon my military
friends, nor would he himself have been benefited, as he would have been incited to speak
for the sake of impression and effect, and what he said would, by some at least, have been
listened to with equal avidity and credulity.
At these meetings*, I went over very fully the whole of the topics
comprehended under the head of the external evidence in favour of Christianity; and some of
my hearers occasionally expressed their pleasure at the information which they received,
and the new views on the subject which had been opened to their minds. At last they
appeared to have tired, as twice all, except S.,
failed to attend at the time appointed; and as I did not conceive myself called upon to
solicit their attendance, the discussion was considered as abandoned. Though I am not
enabled to record any good effect which has resulted from these meetings, except simply an
increase of knowledge on various points on which they were ignorant; yet I trust that my
friends who were present at them, will some time or other recall to mind, with pleasure and
satisfaction, the efforts which I made to do
* See Appendix. Note on page 71. |
72 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
them good. After the first meeting at which Lord Byron was present, I would willingly have permitted the matter to
drop; but I was deterred from proposing it, lest it should be ascribed to a consciousness
of my inability to execute the task which I had undertaken, arising from a conviction of my
own ignorance, and the weakness of the cause.
Shortly after the first meeting, Lord
Byron was invited by the officers to dine with them. At table Colonel D. sat between his lordship and myself; he soon
drew me into conversation. As usual, he was polite, lively, and facetious; and what he said
was, from time to time, eagerly listened to by the officers. We talked of St.
Gerasimo, the patron saint of Cephalonia, whose anniversary had just been
celebrated, and of the miracle which his bones are believed to perform when carried in
procession, followed by the principal civil and military officers in the island, both Greek
and English, from the convent to a neighbouring well; the water in which, upon his
presence, is caused to rise. “Do the people believe in this miracle?”
asked his lordship. “They seem to do so with full sincerity,” I replied.
He observed “that it was easy to persuade people of the truth of any thing if it
came in a religious
shape, as they then willingly gave up both
their senses and their reason.” He then asked me, if I believed a miracle
could be proved by human testimony. “Certainly,” I said, “if
the effect of the miracle remained, and was permanent in its nature and cognizable by
the senses.” He talked about the Apocalypse being a strange book, and that it
had perplexed the early Christians to decide whether it was divine or not. I said,
“the best people are puzzled on many subjects often without any sufficient
reason; but that we now can have no difficulty, from the circumstance of some of the
prophecies in it being literally fulfilled.” “What prophecies in
it have been fulfilled?” asked his lordship. “Those,” I
said, “with regard to the seven churches, which appear to have struck Gibbon himself in some degree, and those which relate
to the low, oppressed, and corrupted state of the church at large, and the wars and
persecutions, and bloodshed, which should arise in it. Did people,” I said,
“attend to these prophecies, instead of drawing an argument against
Christianity from its slow progress and many corruptions, they would have seen, in the
fulfilment of them, a fresh confirmation of its truth.” We again reverted to
the subject of St. Gerasimo, and 74 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
I expressed my
hope that when education was more extended, the gross superstitions of the Greek and Roman
churches would cease, and we should hear no more of the miracles performed by the saints. I
said that there were already signs of this improvement beginning to appear, as the
Pope, who seemed to be rather a liberal kind of man, had, at the
request of the governor of Malta, lately abolished fifteen
festas of the minor saints. “I like his holiness very
much,” said his lordship, “particularly since an order, which I
understand he has lately given, that no more miracles shall be performed.” In
allusion to the character of the Pope, I was mentioning
his kindness to a friend of mine, the celebrated missionary Wolff, and
in giving some anecdotes of the latter, I mentioned the names of Mr. Henry Drummond and Lord
Calthorpe. “Do you know those gentlemen?” said his
lordship. “No,” I replied, “except by report, which points them
out as eminent for their piety.” “I know them both
well,” he said, “they were not always so; but they are excellent men.
Lord Calthorpe was the first who called me an atheist when we
were at school at Harrow, for which I gave him as good a drubbing as ever he got in his
life.” Among the many anecdotes which his lordship told
with humour and vivacity, was one which he said happened when he was in Italy. A church
having taken fire, one of the saints held out his toe, and the conflagration immediately
ceased, to the great delight and edification of the multitude. His lordship’s manner
was cheerful, affable, and lively.
Next Sunday, M.,
M., M., and myself, met in S.’s house. On this occasion I wished to engage them
a little more in the subject. I pointed out to them the propriety of remembering that each
of the books of the New Testament was distinct and separate in itself, and that different
individuals had composed them. Therefore they ought to be considered as distinct relations
and testimonies, each confirming the other, and not as one testimony, as many imagine, from
the circumstance of their being now always published together. The character of these
authors I would leave till I had shewn the opinion of many men of great reputation on the
subject of the Christian religion.
Beginning with Polycarp, the disciple
of John, and Clemens of Rome, the
fellow-labourer, as it is believed, of Saint Paul, I read
a long train of positive evidence and testimony of the earliest
76 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
Christian writers and fathers down to the time of the Emperor
Constantine, after which period there could be no doubt of the full tide of
testimony in favour of this religion. I pressed upon them the rank, the talents, and the
integrity of many of these writers, whose abilities and testimony could be deemed inferior
to the negative testimony of the most celebrated infidel writers, only by those who
rejected or undervalued them. I marshalled the conflicting testimonies together, and shewed
that if the question was to be decided by authority alone, that it must be in favour of the
Christians, as every circumstance which could constitute evidence, or give weight to it,
was unequivocally in their favour.
The Christians were men who gave a proof of the sincerity of their
principles by exposing themselves to persecution, to the loss of their estates and effects,
and even to death itself. Their lives were unblemished and innocent, and they were occupied
in acts of forgiveness and benevolence. Their abilities were of an order as high, or even
higher, than their pagan opponents,—though the latter are better known to scholars,
as writing on
subjects connected with philosophy, history, or poetry,
than those of the Christians, whose works were all on the subject of religion.
If a strict review, indeed, is made of the talents of each party, no honest
mind could long be at a loss to give a preference to the great erudition, the sound
judgment, and manly eloquence of some of these writers. The amount of the whole is, that
Tacitus, though acknowledged as an able historian
and fine writer, did not know whether the Jews came from Mount Ida, and derived from it
their name,—whether they were of Ethiopic descent, and driven out from Egypt for a
contagious disease,—or whether Jerusalem is not mentioned by Homer under the name of Solymar. He states, apparently
without doubt, that Moses, an exile, brought them from Egypt; that the
people thirsting in the wilderness, and being likely to rebel, Moses
had the cunning to follow some asses, who would, he knew, search
out the first grass and water; and that in this way he pretended to get water by heavenly
aid; that in order to retain his power and confirm his authority, he gave out that the laws
which he imposed on them were given by heaven,—that they sacrificed the effigy of the
ass, the animal to which they had been indebted
78 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
for their lives when thirsting in the desert,—in the most sacred
places of the Temple. And with respect to the Christians—“that they were
haters of mankind, and their religion a detestable superstition.”
Pliny only learned something of the sect when they were
accused as criminals before the tribunals, and, not finding them guilty of any moral crime,
he yet thought it right to punish them for their obstinacy in refusing to worship the gods,
and in persisting to call themselves Christians.
Except Porphyry, and Celsus, and Julian, who
wrote against them, and who do not deny the accuracy of many of the accounts of the facts
and miracles recorded in the Scriptures, most of the other writers either allude to them by
the way of illustration, of ridicule, or contempt; and all the philosophers of the latter
Platonic school appear to have considered Christianity as a philosophical system deserving
of some attention, and accordingly, many of them blended its doctrines with the reveries of
Plato and of the old Greek philosophers. In
opposition to this, the Christian writers, by their numerous quotations from Scripture, by
their arguments and explications of its doctrines, shew that they had deeply studied them,
and un-
derstood them exactly in the same sense as the Christians of
every age, down to the present day, have invariably done.
After having thus given an historical view of the writers who either
opposed or alluded to Christianity, and those who embraced, accepted, and defended it, or
died for it, I read to them that chapter of Paley in
which he shews the character of Christ as a moral preacher, and those points in which,
simply considered in this light, he was not only original, but differed from, and excelled
all other teachers whatever. Part of this was heard with attention; but some observations
and criticisms having been occasionally made, a good deal of time was lost in discussing
points which had no immediate connexion with the subject.
In order to come, therefore, to what was really useful, I proposed to them
that we should meet every Wednesday night, as well as Sunday, by which means our course of
discussion would be the sooner ended. This was readily agreed to, and the meeting was
appointed to be held in my house. The chapter in Horne’s excellent work, entitled, “Testimonies from natural and civil History to the credibility of the Old
Testament,” was my text
80 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
book. I read passages and
commented on them. My object was to shew, that among the various, strange, and
contradictory mythologies of the ancient nations, there was a mixture of truth blended with
them respecting the creation of the world, an universal deluge, and various other
particulars of the early history of man,—such as the primeval chaos, the division of
time into weeks, the fall of man and the introduction of sin and misery, the worship of the
serpent, and the necessity of sacrifice as an expiation for sin. A good deal of
conversation took place on the pretensions of various nations to antiquity, and the claim
of such inventions and astronomical observations as implied a contradiction of Scripture
chronology.
At our next assembling I read the testimonies of Manetho, Eupetinos, Artapanes, Tacitus, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo,
Justin, Juvenal,
Porphyry, Julian, and Mahommed, to shew that
Moses was a real character, and not a mythological person, as some
have impudently asserted, and that he lived long before Sanconiathon,
who, according to them, lived before the Trojan war.
The history of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is attested by
Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Solinus, Tacitus, Pliny, and
Josephus. Barnes,
Alexander Polytresh, Nicolaus
Damascenus, Artapanes, and other
historians cited by Josephus and Eusebius, make honourable mention of
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
and Joseph. The departure of the Israelites from Egypt, and their
miraculous passage of the Red Sea, are mentioned by Berosus,
Artapanes, Strabo, Diodorus
Siculus, &c. These, and many other circumstances of minor importance,
which I pointed out, proved the real existence of Moses, and called
upon us to examine his history, and those parts of his character which would mark his
credibility or incredibility. I then referred to the external proof of the genuineness of
the Old Testament; the historical testimony and character of the Jews; the internal
evidence, the language, style and manner of writing, circumstantiality of the narration;
and the proofs of the genuineness and authority of the Pentateuch in particular; from the
nature of the Mosaic law, and the united historical testimony of Jews and Gentiles.
As they seemed pleased with the subject, at our next meeting I endeavoured
to put them in fuller possession of the whole facts and opinions of ancient nations
respecting their early history and worship, or mythology. The specimen I
82 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
read, I said, would give them an idea of the extent, the obscurity, and difficulty of
tracing the religious opinions of the earliest nations; since for a long period after the
commencement of mankind, nothing, as far as we know, had been committed to writing, and the
accounts we have of them, have been given by authors who lived long after the period of
which they write. The same uncertainty exists in the history of all early nations, examples
of which might be cited in the histories of Scotland, Ireland, China, Greece and Rome,
where much of what is related is nothing else but fiction and fable. Hesiod, the earliest of the Greek writers, in his Theogony, may be referred to as an instance
of the impossibility of arriving at truth on these subjects. It is not necessary, I said,
to adopt Bryant’s theory in its full extent,
as it was evident that he had advanced many opinions, which, though ingenious, could not be
received as sound, for they were founded on data, which were obscure, fabulous, and
contradictory. No man of sober sense, judging of these things, could form any decided
opinion, as he had no means by which to correct the discrepancies; nor was it of the least
importance, whether one nation borrowed from another, —whether
the Greeks from the Egyptians,—or the Egyptians from the Hindoos, since, if this was
settled, the whole would still rest upon the same uncertain foundation. There was one
thing, however, amidst this mass of fable which was clear and discernible, namely, the
reference to the creation of the world, and to a deluge which overspread the earth. These
two events stand prominent amidst the darkness. All the eastern nations, of whose mythology
we have any account, appear to have had among them traditions and a belief of these two
events, which are recorded to have happened in various ways, under various circumstances,
and by various agents,—the whole attended with circumstances so absurd, so
ridiculous, so inconsistent and unnatural, that they require only to be mentioned to be
laughed at.
The history of Moses, on the contrary, gives a
succinct, but clear account of the creation of the world, the introduction of sin and
misery, the character and age of the antediluvians, the universal deluge, the re-peopling
of the earth, and the dispersion of its inhabitants. The sober inquirer has to choose
between Moses’s account, and the innumerable absurdities of the
ancients. With a man who should prefer their accounts be-
84 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
fore
Moses’, and say, that these are true, and his are false, I
would never attempt to reason, but would leave him to the enjoyment of his own opinions.
For we must either adopt Moses’ account, or those of the
ancients, (and except in two principal events, the Creation and Deluge, they are
contradictory,) or we must reject them both. We cannot say that Moses,
a man of superior ability, extracted, from the mass of contradiction which the ancients
have given, a clear and consistent statement; for Moses lived anterior
to the earliest of the ancient writers: and though some of them must have either read or
heard of his account, they nevertheless give their strange cosmogonies and theogonies,
which is the subject in question. If we reject them altogether, we must confess our utter
ignorance of every event in the history of the earth, and of nations prior to the 600th
year before the Christian era. It will be vain to expect further light to be thrown on the
history of these early times, by future researches or investigations into the histories and
archives of the barbarous tribes, which inhabit the few distant isles of the earth not yet
sufficiently explored, or of those who roam in the midst of the vast continent of Africa.
The Deist, to be consistent, must con-fess his ignorance whether the
world was created or not, or by whom, whether by Vishnu or
Budha; he must find its archives, and the history of its early
inhabitants, in the wild dreams of some geographers and world-makers; that is, he must
substitute his conjectures for facts, and call his imagination, reason.
If, however, a man exercise his reason soberly; if he consider
Moses’ account clear and consistent, the circumstances
worthy of the events and narration; and if he believe, from other evidence, abundance of
which still remains, that Moses’ account is true, he can form an
opinion which will at least amount to probability. Taking for granted that the world has
been created, and that a deluge overspread the earth, events which are found in all
histories, he will easily conceive how, in progress of time, these two great events would
be disguised among barbarous tribes, being handed down by tradition, and how every
different nation, according to its circumstances of improvement or deterioration, would
vary the narrations of these great events. So that, while we discern them standing
prominent, as we really do in all the accounts, we should find a disagreement in all the
collateral circumstances. Nor is it
86 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
necessary to suppose that the
obscure knowledge of these events was derived from the Jews or their early history, because
the people who lived soon after the deluge, could not but have some knowledge of such an
event before the nation of the Jews had an existence. On the whole of these facts, I told
them that I wished them to form no other opinion for the present, than that
Moses’ account was entitled, considering him merely as an
historian, to as much credit as that of any, or all the most ancient writers; that their
account is not contradictory to that of Moses, nor by any means
disproves its genuineness and authenticity; that the earliest writers refer to him as a
real personage: thus, Moses did write an account of those times, which
must stand or fall on its own peculiar evidence, since no external evidence from ancient hi
story can disprove its antiquity and its priority to all publications. Admitting
Moses’ narration as true, we have a key to account for all
the absurdities of ancient mythology; it is not proved to be untrue by that mythology
itself, which cannot be true, unless contradiction be truth, and tradition certainty.
“These arguments,” I said, “do not prove that
Moses has spoken the truth, nor are they
sufficient to induce us to believe that he has spoken it. His book may have been written at
the early period which is claimed for it, and he may have been its real author; yet we were
not bound to believe it, if there be any thing in the book which is contradicted by fact or
testimony more certain and more indisputable than his.” I said, “that I had
read enough at least to justify me to give a glance at the character of
Moses and the facts which he relates, to see if anything could be
inferred for or against his credibility. I then mentioned those particulars in
Moses’ life and conduct which shew that he was no impostor;
that his statements were corroborated by the Jews in every age, which would have been
impossible if the belief of them had not been universal; since no one in any age had ever
dared, and perhaps had never thought of affirming, that the statements of
Moses were untrue. The origin of every belief; of right of
inheritance, of worship, was derived from the works of Moses; every
writer whose works we find in the Bible, refers to Moses, or implies
that his history was well known and true; and the writings of the Old Testament were
connected with the New, by the direct reference and quotations not only of Christ, but of
his apostles. 88 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
I referred to the 11th chapter of the Hebrews, where
St. Paul takes a review of the principal pious men
who lived in the earliest ages. As far as external evidence goes, the writings of
Moses were proved beyond a doubt, and the accuracy and perfect
preservation of them are proved by the fact, that the Samaritan copy, made in the time when
Israel was separated from Judah, agrees with the copies preserved by the Jews; while the
translation of the Scriptures made into the Greek language, called the Septuagint, in the
time of Ptolemy Philadelphus of Egypt, two hundred and
fifty years before the Christian era, affords another source of ascertaining the accuracy
of the writings of the Old Testament, since all these copies, when compared, agree
perfectly in every respect, making only an exception for verbal discrepancies, on points of
inferior moment, and that too without often affecting the sense.
I informed them that, at our next meeting, the subject of our conversation
would be miracles, a subject to which I requested their earnest attention; for, unless they
gave me this, all I could read or say would be useless. After some observations, I found my
hearers were more disposed to talk than be attentive. I read a passage from Dr.
Priestley: some discussion arose at first about its
meaning, which branched out into other topics. Some of them got very warm, and one of them,
forgetting all his former information, and acknowledgments of it, exclaimed that the whole
was a mystery, and that the more he read and heard of the subject, the more mysterious and
incomprehensible it became. Observing this frame of mind, I did not wish to press the
subject further that night, and contented myself with stating, that the incomprehensibility
did not arise from the subject, but from want of attention and study in themselves; that
they judged from their own ignorance, and the time I hoped would come, when they would be
astonished at their obstinacy and blindness. We then joined the ladies, and the
conversation turned on other topics.
Although I did not finish the subject with my hearers, I may be permitted
to offer a few observations for my reader’s satisfaction*.
Next Sunday, M.,
M., M., S., and myself met at S.’s house. I proposed the
consideration of the Prophecies, and I added. “I hoped it would interest them more
than the Miracles, a subject which I was not disposed to continue at present, because of
their
* See Appendix. Note on page 98. |
90 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
former inattention.” I remarked, “that surely they could
not deny, that if events were predicted hundreds and thousands of years before they had
really taken place, those who had predicted them must have been inspired. And whatever
difficulty might have occurred, if one prophecy only had been made,—as to the
conclusion respecting this inspiration,—there could be none where there were many
prophecies, and where these had been literally fulfilled. Great sagacity, or great genius,
or even some fortunate conjectures, might seem, as it were, to predict changes and events
which were afterwards realized; as in the case of Lord
Chesterfield, who, forty years before the French revolution, expressed in a
private letter his opinion, that he saw, in the then state of France, all the signs of a
general revolution. These happy conjectures have taken place, and may hereafter take place;
but,” I added, “they were totally different from prophecies, at least from the
prophecies of the Scriptures, where things most unlikely to happen were predicted, and
that, with a minuteness of circumstance as to time, and place, and name, that the greatest
sagacity or the most profound genius in the most fortunate conjectures could never pre-tend to equal. If the power of prophecy in this manner was within the
compass of the abilities of man, and if any one had ever possessed it, I should like to
know where his name is recorded. The prediction of certain events, to take place in
futurity, belongs certainly to Omniscience. Neither angels nor devils can possess it,
unless so far as it may be revealed, since everything that concerns created beings is to
them contingent as to futurity, and no contingency can afford certain knowledge. To the
Creator, however, this peculiarly belongs, because every thing in existence now, or that
will exist in time to come, depends on His will, and that will is omnipotent, independent,
and uncontrollable by any agent, act, or volition of every created being or thing. This
certainty, therefore, of what will occur, belongs to Him alone and to no other. That it can
belong to man is clearly impossible, from the imperfection of his nature. He may conjecture
that such an event may or may not happen, but he has no certain knowledge of this till the
event take place, since it depends on circumstances over which he has no control.”
After some other observations, pointing out the important and irresistible
evidence arising from
92 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
prophecy, I said I would entreat their patience
while I read to them. I began with the first prophecy in the Scripture, and read it with
Scott’s comment. At the fall, the Lord
himself predicted the following events. The Lord said unto the serpent, “Because
thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the
field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust thou shalt eat all the days of thy life.
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it
shall bruise thy head and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Unto the woman he
said, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow shalt thou
bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over
thee.” And unto Adam he said, “Because thou
hast hearkened unto the voice of the woman, and hast eaten of the fruit of which I
commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat; cursed be the ground for thy sake, in
sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns and thistles shall it
bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face
shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground.”
This includes a prophecy and a promise which
has ever
since been fulfilling, but has not yet received its entire accomplishment. It comprises the
whole Gospel, and is a prophetical history of the opposition with which it should meet, and
the success with which it should be crowned in all ages and countries to the end of time.
Christ himself is the seed of the woman. He is called the seed of the woman, and not the
seed of Adam, though descended from both, not only because
Satan had prevailed first against the woman, but likewise with an
evident prophetical intimation of his miraculous conception and birth of a pure virgin. The
devil, his angels, and wicked men, are the serpent and his seed. “Ye are of your
father the devil, and the works of your father ye will do.” God himself has
put enmity between these two contending parties. The effect of his grace in the hearts of
true Christians is enmity,—not against the persons of sinners,—but against
their character, the image of Satan which they bear, and the cause of
Satan which they favour; for that mind is in believers which was
in Christ, “who was manifested to destroy the works of the devil.” Their
character and conduct also, the testimony which they bear against the wickedness of the
world, and the opposition which they make 94 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
to it, as well as the
success which the Lord vouchsafes them, excite the rage, envy and malice of
Satan and his servants; whose pride they offend, whose consciences
they disturb, whose real characters they detect, and whose iniquity they oppose. Hence
Satan and his seed, by open violence and cruel persecution, by
secret machinations, and base slanders, by artful temptations and pernicious heresies,
fight against the seed of the woman. In doing this, they bruise his heel. They once
crucified the Lord of glory himself; they have massacred, perhaps, millions of his
disciples, have caused inward and outward tribulations; yet this is no mortal wound, for it
does not prevent the final glorification of the whole multitude who thus in succession have
Satan bruised under their feet. The seed of the woman fighting
under the Redeemer’s standard, by the doctrine of truth and the armour of
righteousness, which are united with prayer and patience, hatred of sin and compassion for
sinners, carry on their benevolent war; and they gain most illustrious victories when the
power of Satan is broken, and his deluded servants are brought to
Christ. But these victories are the fruit of his severe conflict and glorious triumph over
the tempter, especially upon the cross, where in human nature giving a
ransom for sinners, he broke the whole force of Satan’s usurped
empire, and now, risen from the dead, and having all power in earth and heaven vested in
him, he is continually employed in crushing the serpent’s head,—yet in measure,
and order, according to the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of his
own will. (Ephes. i. 11.) Already by his apostles and ministers
he has shaken the very foundation of Satan’s kingdom, and
rescued millions of his wretched captives: but ere long he will, even on earth, gain a more
decisive victory, and at last, setting his foot on the serpent’s head, he will
entirely crush his interests, deprive him of all power to do further mischief, and execute
condign punishment on all his seed. (Rev. xix. 17; xx. 1, 3, 11,
15.)—From this short explication, we perceive that the person, sufferings, glory, and
triumphs of the Redeemer; the character, tribulations, and felicity of the redeemed; the
temporary success and final ruin of all the enemies of Christ and his people,—and
indeed almost the whole history of the church and of the world throughout time and to
eternity, are compendiously delineated in the singular clause which stands, and 96 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
will stand, to the end of time, an internal demonstration that the
Scriptures were given by inspiration from God. It is remarkable that this gracious promise
of a Saviour was given unsolicited, and previous to any humiliation on the part of man.
Thus the Gospel, or the declaration of salvation to sinners by means of the
seed of the woman, was proclaimed the moment that sin entered the world. The prediction is
still fulfilling with respect to man, who toils in sorrow, sweat, and care for his
subsistence; and also with respect to woman, in the sorrows and dangers of conception, of
birth, and in the prediction that man would rule over her; and how cruelly he has ruled,
thousands of instances attest. If the soul of woman is upon an equality with that of man, I
know not on what grounds, except on the supposition that the Scriptures are true, and the
punishment of the woman is heaviest because she was first in fault, we can explain the
inequality in sorrow and care which exists between the man and the woman; and why, all
other things being equal, there is a load of weakness, and sorrow, and infirmity in her
very frame from which the man is free.
I then read the three first verses of the 12th chapter of Genesis, in which the Lord, speaking to
Abraham, predicted that he would make of him a great nation, and
make his name great, and bless him, and make him a blessing, and that in him all the
families of the earth should be blessed. This has been fulfilled in some respects, and is
fulfilling in others. Abraham was not renowned as a king, a conqueror,
nor as a man of science or literature. He was a plain man, dwelling in tents, and feeding
cattle all his days. The Arabians and Jews are his descendants, yet no general or man of
genius has a name so great, or is more distinguished in the world even now, or will be,
than Abraham has been and will ever be. In what other way will he be a
blessing, or has he been so, than that among his descendants the light of the Gospel was
preserved and proclaimed in all its fulness, and that from one of his descendants after the
flesh,—Jesus Christ, not only temporal but eternal blessings
have spread, and will more extensively spread to every nation and family under heaven? This
was predicted four thousand years ago.
I then read the 16th chapter of Genesis and 12th
verse, in which the character of Ishmael
98 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
is described, and that of his descendants. He is a wild man, and his
hand shall be against every man, and every man’s hand against him, and he shall dwell
in the presence of all his brethren. The Arabs have been a race of plunderers in every age.
They have never been conquered, and at this very day they still retain the character given
them; their hand is against every man, and every man’s hand is against them.
I then referred to the blessings pronounced by Jacob
upon his children, and showed, by reference to history, the character of each tribe about
to be formed and blessed in future times. That respecting Judah is particularly remarkable.
The sceptre should not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from under his feet, till Shiloh
come, and to him shall the gathering of the people be. Shiloh—The sent, the seed, the
peaceable, the prosperous one. Judah was the fourth son, and had no apparent likelihood of
gaining the pre-eminence over his brothers, much less the kingly power. Yet all the
successors of his brethren are called after him, and the sceptre did not depart till
Shiloh, or Jesus, came, after which it departed, and has never returned again.
I then read the 26th chapter of Leviticus,
which contains a prediction of what has befallen and still befalls the
Jews, and particularly the 32nd, 33rd, 34th, 35th, and 44th verses, where they are
warned—that if they neglected the command of the Lord, the land should be a
desolation, and they themselves should be scattered among the heathen, and the land should
be desolate as long as they shall be in their enemies’ land.
I pointed out the prophecy in Numbers*, in which
the Messiah is predicted; that† in which the affliction of the Jews by the Assyrians
and Romans is foretold, together with the utter desolation of Assyria and Rome.
I read the 4th of Deuteronomy, from the 27th to
the 32nd verses, in which the scattering of the Jews among the nations, and their
preservation among them, is predicted. A prophet like unto Moses is
predicted in the 18th chapter, 15th to the 20th verse. In the 31st chapter, 20th to 30th
verse, the rebellion and idolatry of the Jews is predicted; and the evil which would befall
them in the latter days. Also the 28th chapter, from the 15th verse to the end, where all
that has happened to the Jews is denounced. I pointed out that prediction in the 37th
verse, about which, I said,
* Chap. xxiv. 17.
† Ver. 22, 23, 24. |
100 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
there could be no dispute—“And thou shalt become an
astonishment, a proverb, and a bye-word among all nations whither the Lord shall lead
thee.” That this has been fulfilled, no one will deny:—the name of Jew
has every where been proverbial for every thing that was vile and base among Christians,
Mahomedans, and Pagans, who have all joined in promoting the fulfilment of the prophecy and
accomplishing the will of the Lord, although, in doing so, they have committed iniquity
themselves.
Proceeding onward, I referred to the sublime song of
Hannah in the beginning of the 2nd chapter of Samuel, where for the first time we meet with the name of the Messiah, or
anointed. The 7th chapter of the 2nd Samuel, 16th verse, where
God declares to David that his house and his kingdom shall be
established for ever before him, and his throne also shall be established for
ever—predicting not only the temporal power of his posterity, but the spiritual power
which Christ, a descendant of David, inherited, now exercises, and
will for ever possess. In the 1st Kings, chapter xiii. ver. 2, Josiah,
king of Judah, is predicted, by name, three hundred years before his birth. I then read the
remarkable verse in Job, chapter
xix., v.
25, 26, which is a confession of faith in Christ. “For I know that my Redeemer
liveth, and that he shall stand at the last day upon the earth; and though after my
skin worms shall destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I sea God.”
I quoted that prophecy where it is declared the Lord himself shall give a
sign. “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name
Emmanuel, i. e. God with
us*.” (See Matthew, chap, i.) Here it is not said that
a woman, now a virgin, shall be married and conceive, but that a virgin shall conceive and
bear a son. The 11th chapter of Isaiah is another prediction of
the Messiah. In the 13th chapter it is declared that Babylon shall never be inhabited,
neither shall the Arabian pitch his tent there, neither shall the shepherds make their fold
there. In the 45th† chapter there is a prediction of Cyrus, king of
Persia, by name, nearly two hundred years before his birth; in the 49th is
another prediction of the Messiah; the 53rd chapter contains the plainest and most
circumstantial prediction of the coming, character, death, and resurrection of our Saviour.
In the 51st chapter of Jeremiah are recorded the particulars
* Isaiah vii. 14. † See Appendix. |
102 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
of the siege of Babylon, and the final and utter destruction of that
city. After the siege, Babylon ceased to be a royal city, the kings of Persia preferring
Susa, Ecbatana, and Persepolis. The Macedonians built Seleucia in its neighbourhood,
according to Strabo and Pliny, for the purpose of withdrawing its inhabitants. The new kings of
Persia, who afterwards became masters of Babylon, completed its ruin by building Ctesiphon,
which carried away the remainder of the inhabitants. When Pausanias wrote in A. D. 96, the walls only remained. The kings of Persia,
finding it deserted, made a park of it, which they kept for the hunting of wild beasts; at
length the walls fell down, and were never repaired. The animals kept for the chase
deserted it, and scorpions and serpents took possession. The Euphrates took its course
another way, and Babylon has become an utter desert; and at this day, the most able
geographers cannot determine with certainty the place where it stood.
I then read the prediction against Tyre*, where the Lord declares he will
make it like the top of a rock, that it should be a place to spread nets upon.
“Thou shalt be built no more, for I
the Lord have spoken it.” Tyre is at present inhabited
by a few wretched fishermen, who dry their nets on the top of the rock.
The prediction against Egypt came next*. It is declared that it shall be
the basest of kingdoms, neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations. Egypt was
once renowned, but was subdued by the Persians, next by the Macedonians, then by the
Saracens, and finally by the Turks, to whom it remains in the most abject servitude. For
2000 years it has been a base and tributary kingdom, and unable to exalt itself above the
nations†.
I then read the prediction of the four kingdoms which were to arise; that
in the days of these kingdoms shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be
destroyed, and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces,
and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever‡. “Thou sawest
till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that
were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces; .... and the stone that smote the
image became a great mountain, and filled the earth§.”
* Ezek. xxix. 15. †
See Appendix. ‡ Dan. ii. 44,
§ Dan. ii. 34, 35.
|
104 |
CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION |
|
I then introduced the Prophet’s delineation of the Babylonian empire,
which is represented under the character of a lion,—the Medes and Persians under that
of a bear,—the Macedonian under that of a leopard,—the Roman empire under the
emblem of a beast, terrible and dreadful, with great iron teeth, and with ten horns; and a
little horn which rose up among these horns. This little horn which had eyes, and a mouth
which spake great things, and whose look was made stouter than his fellows, was to make war
with the saints, and to prevail against them till the Ancient of Days came, and judgment
was given to the Saints of the Most High, and the time came that the Saints should possess
the kingdom*.
In the 8th chapter, the empire of the Medes and Persians is introduced,
under the emblem of a ram with two horns. It was usual for the kings of Persia to wear a
diadem of gold, made like a ram’s head. The Macedonian empire, under the character of
a goat, is represented as destroying the ram. The Macedonians were originally called
Ægeadæ, or the goat’s people. The division of the empire into four
principal monarchies is also predicted, when, it is said,
“the great horn was broken, and for it came up four notable
ones, towards the four winds of heaven.” These were the kingdoms of Egypt to
the south, of Syria to the east, Thrace and Bythinia to the north, and Macedonia to the
west. The Mahomedan heresy is predicted, in the 9th and three following verses, under the
character of a little horn, who should come forth out of one of the four horns. That there
might be no mistake as to the meaning of this emblematical language, it is expressly
stated, “The ram which thou sawest, having two horns, are the kings of Media and
Persia, and the rough goat is the king of Grecia; and the great horn that is between
his eyes, is the first king. Now that being broken, whereas four stood up for it, four
kingdoms shall stand up out of the nation*.”
The little horn, which rose up among the ten horns, from the beast
representing the Roman empire, is predicted as plucking up three of the horns, or the ten
kingdoms in which the Roman empire was to be divided. Now it appears from history, that the
kingdom of the Heruli, that of the Ostrogoths, and that of the Lombards, were successively
eradicated by the little horn represent-
106 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
ing the papal power, which in this way became a temporal as well as a
spiritual power. The horn which was to have a month speaking great things, aptly represents
the Roman papal power; the title of His Holiness, another God on earth, his claim to
infallibility,—his dispensing with God’s laws to forgive sins,—to give
admission to heaven,—and to relieve from purgatory, are specimens of the great things
which this mouth has spoken. In A. D. 606, by a decree of Phocas, emperor of Constantinople, the bishop of Rome was constituted
universal bishop, and supreme head of the church. In the very same year, the Mahomedan
delusion commenced, which was predicted in the 22nd and following verses of the 8th
chapter. Daniel states, “that this opposition to the Prince
of princes will commence when the transgressors are come to the full.”
St. Paul says that the delusion of the man of sin
shall be sent as a punishment because men believed not the truth, but had pleasure in
unrighteousness. By the Prophet and the Apostle, the same period is assigned for the rise
of the two powers. St. John also assigns to each of them the same
duration, and speaks of the time of their end as the same.
The little horn, and the two-horned beast, represent the same
ecclesiastical power—the one at its rise, the other at its height. Hence
Daniel, who describes fully the little horn, makes no mention of
the two-horned beast; while John*, who describes the two-horned beast,
styling him a false prophet, makes no mention of the little horn.
It is predicted† that the little horn which rose out of the four
horns of the Grecian monarchy was to magnify himself, to take away the daily sacrifice, and
cast down the place of his sanctuary, and cast the truth to the ground. It is declared that
the sanctuary shall be trodden under foot 2300 days; that is, the duration of the vision
from the time the prophet saw it till the end of this Antichristian or Mahomedan power. It
is 2373 years since Daniel wrote. The Septuagint read 2400 days. In
Revelations it is stated that the holy city was to be trodden
under foot forty-two months, or 1260 days. Daniel says, from the time
that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set
lip, shall be 1290 days. The 1260 days of John and the 1290 of
Daniel form a part of the 2300 days; and these were all to
terminate at one time,
* Rev. xili. 11-17.
† Dan. viii. 11. |
108 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
when the desolation which affected the church would be removed.
I then read the following most remarkable prophecy of
Daniel. “Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and
upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to
make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to
seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and
understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build
Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and in threescore and two
weeks the streets shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times, and
after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself; and the
people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary, and the
end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are
determined. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week; and in the midst
of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease; and for the
overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation,
and that determined shall be poured upon
the desolate.”
Here from the edict for rebuilding Jerusalem shall be sixty-nine weeks, after which, in the
seventieth week, the Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself—the people of the
prince shall destroy the city.
Each day is in these prophecies a year: seventy weeks are four hundred and
ninety days. The most eminent chronologists compute it to have been nearly four hundred and
ninety years from the commission granted to Nehemiah* to the death of
Christ, and some contend that it was so with the greatest exactness. This was divided into
three subordinate periods. During seven weeks, or forty-nine years, the street and wall
were to be built in troublous times; from the expiration of this term to the beginning of
the ministry of John the Baptist, or to that of our Lord, was (as some
compute) four hundred and thirty-four years, or sixty-two weeks, and the last week or seven
years is allotted to the ministry of John, and of Christ himself until
his crucifixion; for he was to be cut off after the seven and the sixty-two weeks, or in
the seventieth week.
It therefore appears undeniable, that Daniel foretold
that the Messiah would come within less
110 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
than five hundred years from a decree granted for rebuilding
Jerusalem; he showed that he would be put to death by a legal sentence (for so the word
implies), and he expressly predicted that, in consequence, Jerusalem and the temple would
be desolated, and the nation of the Jews exposed to tremendous punishment. Within that time
Jesus of Nazareth appeared; he answered in every respect the
description given of him by all the prophets: he was put to death as a deceiver, yet vast
multitudes became his disciples, and Christianity gained a permanent establishment. After a
short time Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed, and the state of the Jews to this day
is a striking comment on this prediction. How then can it be denied that
Daniel spake by Divine inspiration? Or that
Jesus is the promised Messiah?—Both these important points
might be demonstrated by this one prophecy, even if it stood alone; how much more when it
is only one star in a resplendent constellation—one among a great number of
predictions, all of which combine with united evidence to confirm the same grand truths?
Since Daniel mentions expressly that Greece and Persia
were represented by the two beasts—the one a ram, the
other a he-goat, we have a certain key to the interpretation of the others;
and when the fact is certain, that from the time of the edict to
build Jerusalem to the death of the Messiah, would be seventy weeks or four hundred and
ninety years, and, that by every system of chronology it appears that the distance between
the two events was four hundred and ninety years, what further evidence can be required?
I alluded to the prediction of the destruction of Nineveh in the book of
Nahum. Nineveh was one of the most flourishing and populous
cities in the world, and at the head of a powerful empire. Yet within two hundred years
after the coming of Christ nothing remained of this proud capital of the Assyrian empire;
and at this day it is not agreed, either among learned men or travellers, where Nineveh
stood.
I then read from Horne the principal
prophecies respecting our Saviour, which I shall put down briefly for the benefit of my
readers. I referred also to the prophecies which predicted that he was to be a prophet and
a legislator like unto Moses,—that he was to be a teacher, to
instruct and enlighten man; that he was to be Messiah, Christ, anointed of God, a priest;
that by offering himself for sin he was to make reconciliation for iniquity; make men holy,
and destroy the power of
112 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
the devil; that he was to be a Saviour, a
Mediator, an Intercessor, a Shepherd, a King; the head and ruler of the church, and exalted
after his sufferings and resurrection.
I then referred to Christ’s prediction, “that he was to be
betrayed by one of his own disciples—that the others would forsake him—that
Peter would deny him.” He mentions the circumstance,
place, and manner of his sufferings, his resurrection, his appearance again, and his
ascension. He foretold the destruction of Jerusalem—that it would be preceded by the
appearance of false Messiahs, by wars, and commotions, famines, pestilence, and
earthquakes, fearful sights in the heavens, and persecution of the Christians; by the
preaching of the Gospel through the then known world; and that Jerusalem should be besieged
by the Roman armies. He describes the miseries of the Jews during the siege; predicts that
false priests and prophets should arise, and that the temple and city of Jerusalem should
be totally destroyed.
To S., I afterwards showed the
prophecies which completed the course I wished to lay before them.
When reading the prophecies of Daniel, a long
discussion took place about the interpretation of a year for a day, and the reason for it;
and they
produced instances where years were mentioned; and demanded
to know whether the same mode of prophetical interpretation, with respect to the
prophetical days, was to be adopted. I said that the prophecies themselves furnished a key
for this mode of calculation.
Some of my hearers exclaimed very much against the obscurity of the
prophecies, and expressed their regret that plain language was not used, and the usual mode
of computation adopted, but as I was desirous of finishing the course of prophecies
necessary to be laid before them, I requested them to be content to listen to me for the
present, and I would afterwards attend to any objection or difficulty which occurred to
them. I then continued to read the prophecies which respected our Saviour.
During the reading of the prophecies one of the gentlemen held a Bible in
his hand, and turned to every passage which I read. He expressed his surprise at such
wonderful predictions and coincidences, especially at those which referred to Christ. The
impression was, however, quickly removed, for while we were standing conversing a little
previous to separation, the same gentleman, as well as the others, forgetting all that had
been
114 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
advanced, and the surprise and interest they had exhibited,
expressed their belief that the whole subject was involved in the most inexplicable
mystery, and that the more they heard, with less clearness did they discern the truth of
anything like a system, which they could think probable to have been revealed by the
Creator.
Although I saw no immediate fruit from the lecture on the prophecies, I was
pleased to have been able to bring them in an extended view before them. I was less anxious
about the miracles, knowing the prejudices against them. But the prophecies I consider not
only the strongest evidences in an argument with a deist, but an evidence in fact, which,
when properly displayed, no deist can set aside; for, if he reasons fairly he must either
be compelled to acknowledge the Divine inspiration of the Scriptures, or show himself
incapable of using that reason of which he makes so great a boast.
The evidence from miracles, though excellent and useful in its kind, is
inferior to that from prophecy. The belief that we have in miracles arises partly from the
testimony of witnesses who saw them, a testimony believed in every succeeding age; and
partly from all the other evidence which
supports the truth of these
Divine books. It is strengthened not merely by direct evidence, corroborated by the belief
of every age, but by the want of all indirect or opposing evidence—for no one has
ever testified that he was present at these alleged miracles and that they were false; and
by the fact, that among so many, so strange, and striking miracles performed in the
presence of thousands, no enemy of the Christian name has ever appeared to deny them. I am
not speaking here of the evidence which the real Christian has, for, as I shall afterwards
point out, he has an evidence greater than that which results from miracles or prophecies.
I refer to the evidence most calculated to produce conviction in the minds of those who
exercise well their natural reason.
I would request the deist to explain by what power the minute circumstances
of our Saviour’s birth, life, death, and resurrection, even to the mention of the
thirty pieces of silver, for which he was betrayed, and the casting of lots for his
garments, were foretold. Can he prove that Jesus of Nazareth never
existed? Profane history would belie him. Was it human sagacity that predicted these
events, or was it chance?
This might be a plausible supposition if amidst
116 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
a
thousand conjectures one might have proved true; but what will he say when he sees that
every prophecy in the Scriptures was fulfilled, even on those minute points which no
sagacity could foresee? Will the say that the prophecies were written after the event? even
this conjecture will not avail him. For he cannot but confess that the Septuagint
translation was made from the Hebrew Scriptures two hundred and fifty years before Christ
was born, and he can satisfy himself of their accuracy and agreement, by comparing them
with the Hebrew or the Samaritan copy.
If then these prophecies existed two hundred and fifty years (at least)
before Christ, he is reduced to the alternative, either that they were human conjectures,
or predicted by inspiration from heaven. If the former, by what process of reasoning can he
shew that future events, various and minute, can with certainty be predicted at so long a
period before they occurred. If a man can shew parallel instances in history, or at the
present day, that minute particulars were fulfilled, three centuries after their
prediction, by the mere force and strength of human reason, I will willingly give up all
the evidence for the Scriptures arising from prophecy; but if he cannot, as I am sure
he cannot, I am entitled to pronounce his rejection irrational and
illogical.
I have already observed, that no created being can predict events, since no
one has power over futurity but the Deity; it is his prerogative alone, and created beings
can only do it in as far as he makes them the instruments or agents of his will.
The destruction of Babylon and Nineveh might have been conjectured, but no
impostor could have ventured his reputation on their utter ruin, since it was possible,
that, however various might be the vicissitudes of these immense capitals, they would
always continue to have inhabitants. But the prophets hesitated not to pronounce their
complete destruction; and history attests the fact. The same observation applies to Tyre.
It is equally strong with respect to the Jews. Nearly four thousand years ago,
Moses declared that they would be scattered among the nations;
would be driven from the land of Canaan; their cities destroyed, and that themselves would
become a proverb, a laughing-stock, and a scorning among all nations. An attentive
consideration of this prophecy alone, ought to produce a conviction of the truth of
Christianity. The prophecy is fulfilling under our own eyes, and surely it is the most
118 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
extraordinary one that was ever uttered. No art, no political scheme,
no persecution has succeeded either in destroying this nation, or in amalgamating them with
others. They are still a separate, distinct, and peculiar people; preserved by the power of
God, in defiance and opposition to all ordinary nations, for 1800 years; and though
persecuted and despised, they consider themselves superior to those who oppress them, and
look forward to a restoration to their own land.
By means of the prophecies, we have a distinct view and knowledge of the
great outlines of future events to the end of time. There is no other book but the Bible
which explains to man the object and end of his creation, and the object and end of the
creation of this world which we inhabit. Without this revelation man would be left in total
darkness. No science, no learning, no sagacity, could explain when this world is to
terminate, and what is to be the result of all things. In the Bible we have an epitome, or
a general view of the history of mankind, of the world, and a distinct knowledge of the
object and end of their creation. We know that Christianity shall spread in spite of all
opposition, till it covers the globe,—till every spot in this world knows
and acknowledges the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ. We know that the Jews shall submit themselves to be disciples of
that Jesus whom their ancestors crucified as an impostor, and that
they will be greatly blessed. We know, that for a thousand years there will be peace and
happiness, and true religion; and that Christ will then be truly said to reign in the
earth. We know that, after this, there will be a falling off from true religion,—that
wars, and rumours of wars will take place, and then, after an unmentioned period, when men
are busy buying and selling, marrying and giving in marriage, the history of all sublunary
things will be wound up; the heavens and the earth will flee away from the face of their
Creator: Death shall cease; Time shall have an end, and an eternity of happiness shall be
given to true believers, while the misery of the Devil, his angels, and of the unrighteous,
will be completed, and endure for ever.
At our next meeting, on Wednesday night, perceiving that they were not
disposed to enter into subjects which might be esteemed by them dry and serious, I took the
opportunity of giving them some information relative to the appearance of misery in the
moral and physical world,—the
120 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
origin of evil,—and on the
question of free-will and necessity. They, however, objected to every proposition, and
entered into many extraneous arguments.
Having gone through as extensive a course of the external evidence as I
imagined the temper and patience of my hearers would permit, it was my intention to enter
on the internal evidence, which is by far the most useful part of the subject. I flattered
myself, that if I had failed to convince them by what I had already said, I had at least
removed their prejudice so far as to obtain a tolerably patient hearing for a display of
the fundamental principles of Christianity.
If I had succeeded in this, there was some reason to hope that those truths
which, taken separately, produce no effect, might, when combined, form a beautiful whole,
worthy of their divine origin; and cause, if not an immediate conviction, at least such an
impression as would induce them fully to study the subject. I repeatedly assured them that
I would be ready to enter into an examination of any particular difficulty or objection
which they might make.
On the following Sunday, I went to the house of S. at the usual hour. I waited a long time,
but
nobody came. I went the next Sunday, but, as before, no one came. As they had all
voluntarily absented themselves from coming, I did not think it was my duty to entreat
them; and I contented myself in the failure of my attempt, by reflecting that I had done my
duty, and with resolution. The charge of non-conviction I would attribute neither to
myself, nor to the cause; but to their own ignorance, prejudice, and want of patience. They
can all testify that I was not backward, on any proper occasion, in laying the blame almost
entirely on themselves. I was justified in using this tone; because, even allowing my small
abilities to be less than they are, the strength of evidence which religion possesses,
derivable from every source, is so great, that no deist can withstand it. He must do as my
opponents did,—stay away, and throw the blame on others, rather than on themselves.
As S. and I met daily on duty after
this for more than five months, we had frequent, and almost daily conversations on the
subject of religion. With the other gentlemen, I never regularly resumed the subject, and I
may dismiss them with an account of the effects which were produced on their minds.
122 |
CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION |
|
M. too often made a jest of all that was said, but once he observed,
“that after all these disputations and jestings, they might all find it
necessary in their old age to apply to the serious study of the Scriptures, to prepare
them for dying.” I hope that, by the mercy of God, he may do so in time. He
shortly after left the island for England. He always said that he believed in the
Scriptures, but his assent proceeded more from habit and education, than from that internal
conviction which produces a life and conversation inculcated by the Gospel.
M., another gentleman, so far from being better, is become worse;
and very lately, he assured me that he was a much better Christian before he knew me than
since. He said that our frequent discussions had led him to think often on the subject, and
the result was, that his unbelief, which was before doubtful, is now certain and confirmed.
Let it not be imagined that this gentleman studied the Scriptures, either before or since
he knew me. His ignorance of them, and of all subjects connected with them, is striking and
obvious to every one. If his eye ever glances over these pages, I wish him to remember that
he has been soberly warned of his danger; that his bitterness of expression against every
one who professes the
Christian name, and his evident delight at any
errors they may commit, and his ready belief of any false accusation which is brought
against them, will be injurious only to himself, and forms a striking contrast to the
incredulity he has so obstinately manifested against the evidence of Christianity and the
candid conduct of Christians towards him. I pray that God may in his mercy remove his
ignorance and blindness, and enlighten his understanding to see the truth and the necessity
of that Gospel which he now rejects, and make him as eminent an example of faith and piety,
as he is now distinguished for his bitterness of hatred and incredulity.
It deserves to be remarked, that though I had many books on the evidence of
Christianity, not one of them expressed the least wish to read them, and from this we may
judge of their candour, and of their eagerness to acquire that knowledge of which they were
ignorant. To this remark S. formed the only
exception. He had the curiosity to read the Religio Medici of Sir
Thomas Brown. He read with me the whole of the Epistles, and a part of Milner’s Church
History. This gentleman possessed a character distinguished for simplicity and
sincerity; but it was united with
124 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
a powerful and ill-regulated
imagination. Warm and sincere in all his impressions, he expressed himself with a
corresponding degree of animation; but as these impressions were produced by the impulse of
the moment, they were quickly effaced and soon forgotten. Of him, however, I have the
greatest hope. He confessed that the subject of religion made a strong impression on him,
and was constantly recurring to his mind; that our discussions had shewn it to him in a
very different point of view from that in which he had formerly contemplated it, and proved
that the subject was worthy of deep study and investigation, and he often expressed his
determination to prosecute his inquiries. He confessed also that the French writers
Rousseau and Voltaire, the latter of whom was, as it were, the god of his idolatry, no
longer gave him the pleasure they once did, and he sold the writings of these authors. The
conversations I had with him were long and numerous, and I trust they will not be effaced
from his mind; and though I was greatly disappointed one day, shortly before his departure,
to find him arguing against the sacrifices, as a cruel and tyrannical thing, and affirmed
that he saw no necessity for the sacrifice of our Sa-viour as an
atonement for sin, yet I hope, if he prosecutes, as he promised he would, the study of the
Holy Scriptures, that the Holy Spirit will enlighten his heart, and enable him to perceive
the beauty, excellency, and greatness of that sacrifice, and of all the truths and
consequences dependant upon or following from this corner-stone of Christianity.
Previously to narrating the remaining conversations with Lord Byron, it would be proper to notice those which I had
with S., because they were more numerous and more
interesting. There was hardly a topic or principle of Christianity which was not touched
upon and discussed. Many objections, sometimes original, sometimes commonplace, often
sophistical and absurd, were stated and attempted to be confuted. For the gratification of
the reader’s curiosity, I shall enumerate some of the topics which constituted the
subject of our conversations. The Deity of Christ—the personality of the Holy
Spirit—the characters of the Jewish writers, the Apostles, and Prophets—the
nature of prophetical language—the incredulity of the Roman and Greek classical
writers—the destroying of the writings of the Ancients by the Monks, and the
126 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
probability of some of their works containing a refutation of
Christianity—why our Saviour did not appear with superhuman splendour and power, and
strike down his enemies or force conviction on all—why Christianity has made so slow
a progress—why the heathen are still destitute of it—why the conduct of
Christians is so inconsistent with their principles—why there are so many divisions,
sects, and parties—the different forms of external discipline—the fury of
controversies—the persecutions by those who have secular power of their Christian
brethren of a different denomination—the pride and corruption of the Church of
England—the corruption of the Church of Scotland, and all the dissenting churches.
I now proceed directly to the task which I have undertaken, and as it is
necessary that the objects I have in view be distinctly understood, it will be expedient to
mention them again, though I should expose myself to the charge of repetition. This will be
attended with advantage to the reader, who can judge, at every step, whether I am keeping
on the proper ground, whether each part of the argument is satisfactory and conclusive, or
the reverse. I shall forbear to allude to many objections, because the most natural order
is, first
to survey the whole of the evidence, as it exists in
itself, and then the force of the objections will be better understood, and more easily
answered or admitted.
I shall comprehend them in the following propositions, which I consider and
establish one after another, without, however, referring to them, or repeating them; the
summing up of the proof with the general conclusion to be drawn from it will succeed, and
then the consideration of the most weighty, plausible, and forcible objections.
1st. The evidence that the books comprehended in the Old and New Testament
were written at the time, and by the authors to whom they are ascribed, is complete, full,
and satisfactory.
2nd. That they have been handed down to us in a state of perfect integrity.
3rd. That they contain internal evidence that they were written by
inspiration of God—and that every thing that is contained in them is true.
4th. That beside the mass of human testimony, of the highest character,
which establishes the foregoing facts, in as satisfactory a manner as any fact in past time
can be attested—that the following facts or propositions demonstrate in a manner
128 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
beyond that which human testimony can do, that they came from God.
1st. They contain revelations which could never have been invented by
mankind, and these revelations are suited to the character of God, the nature and situation
of man, and the state of the world.
2nd. That the numerous prophecies of future events, with the fulfilment of
them in different ages and nations, is susceptible of proof,—that by the wisdom of
God they were predicted; consequently they are divine, for the experience of every age has
proved that the power of prophecy is beyond the capacity of man.
3rd. That as God is truth, and the sign that they came from God thus
appearing in those who wrote these books,—it follows that the writers could not lie,
and were preserved from all error.
4th. That there are many other proofs, which, in addition to the foregoing,
add to the evidence of the Scriptures, and among others the dignity, majesty, and divinity
of the matter and style, which has never been equalled by any, of all the most
distinguished authors of every nation.
5th. That besides the above foregoing positive
evidence to prove the propositions, there is evidence that it is impossible for mere human
reason to have composed the Scriptures.
6th. That all objections made against them, to whatever point they may be
directed, arise from ignorance, and their fallacy is demonstrable.
The external evidence is in itself satisfactory, as well as interesting and
useful; yet, as it is exclusive in its nature, and has been treated of by many authors, and
as it is, in my opinion, neither so interesting nor useful as the internal evidence, while
the latter carries a weight of proof with it which the other does not possess, I shall run
over the display of the former with as much brevity as possible, in order that I may
enlarge more upon the latter* . . . . . .
During the time that these discussions were going forward, Lord Byron resided at his country-house in the village of
Metaxata, about four miles and a half from the town. Several of the gentlemen who were
engaged in them, were in the habit of visiting him, and the conversation often turned on
the attempt which they said I was making to convert them to a pious and religious life. The
conversations were always repeated to
130 | CONVERSATIONS ON RELIGION | |
me. H., an officer, was in the
frequent practice of visiting his lordship, dining often and riding out with him. He asked
me why I did not come, for his lordship would be very glad to see me at Metaxata; this he
said several times; at length he told me that Lord Byron had requested
him to say so expressly.
Various causes prevented me from visiting his lordship. I was much engaged
at this time in public duties, from the approach of the sickly season, and the
indisposition of the other medical gentleman: besides this, I wished not to appear forward
in visiting Lord Byron, as I knew that my motives would
be misrepresented, and I was not previously assured that his lordship wished me to come. I
thought also that if he were in earnest to hear religion explained, he must have been aware
that the least hint from him would induce me willingly to comply with his desire. I was
besides deterred a little by the consciousness that there was often a secret, ambitious
desire of making such a convert, and though I immediately repressed such vain desires, yet
I knew that others would readily enough impute to me these motives: thus I had convinced
myself that it was more proper not to go near him, but to be ready, should he
at any time invite me. With this view I was diligently employed in
preparing myself for these possible interviews, and, like many others, who are equally wise
on such occasions, was studying and refreshing my memory on points which had very little
relation to the subject, and which were not in the least interesting to Lord
Byron.
Alexander Polyhistor (105 BC c.-35 BC c.)
Greek scholar and historian working in Rome; his writings exist in fragments.
Artapanus of Alexandria (150 fl.)
Egyptian historian of Jewish origin whose work is partly preserved in the writings of
other authors.
Isaac Barrow (1630-1677)
Professor of Greek (1660) and Lucasian Professor of Mathematics (1663) at Cambridge;
author of
Exposition of the Creed, Decalogue, and Sacraments (1669).
His sermons were much admired.
Berossus (d. 250 c.)
Of Babylon, the author of a history of Babylon that exists in fragments.
Robert Melville Brown (1832 fl.)
A Major in the eighth regiment of foot (1820-26) acquainted with Dr. James Kennedy in
Cephalonia. He began his career as ensign in the 40th foot in 1799 and retired as
lieutenant-colonel on half-pay in 1832.
Sir Thomas Browne (1605-1682)
English physician and essayist; he was the author of
Religio
medici (1642) and
Pseudodoxia epidemica (1646).
Jacob Bryant (1717-1804)
English antiquary and classical scholar; author of
A New System, or, an
Analysis of Ancient Mythology, 3 vols (1774-76) and
A
Dissertation Concerning the War of Troy (1796).
Celsus (180 fl.)
The author of the first important anti-Christian polemic, preserved in excerpts by
Origen.
Constantine I (272 c.-337)
Roman emperor who convened the Council of Nicea (325) and moved the imperial capital to
Constantinople.
Diodorus Siculus (30 BC fl.)
Sicilian author who wrote a history of the world in Greek that survives in an incomplete
state.
Henry Drummond (1786-1860)
MP and brother of Charles Drummond, one of Byron's Harrow classmates and correspondents.
He founded a professorship of political economy at Oxford in 1825.
Sir William Drummond (1770 c.-1828)
Scottish classical scholar and Tory MP; succeeded Lord Elgin as ambassador to the Ottoman
Porte (1803); his
Oedipus judaicus, in which he interpreted the Old
Testament as an astrological allegory, was privately printed in 1811.
John Duffie (d. 1854)
Lieutenant-Colonel of the 8th regiment, stationed at Cephalonia in 1823; he was Byron's
riding-companion and correspondent. He had served with distinction in the Peninsular War
and retired on half-pay in 1828.
Eusebius (263 c.-339 c.)
Greek historian, author of the
Ecclesiastical History in ten
books.
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
Author of
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
(1776-1788).
George Gough-Calthorpe, third baron Calthorpe (1787-1851)
The son of the first baron; he was educated at Harrow where he was a contemporary of
Byron, and St. John's College, Cambridge; he succeeded his brother in the title in
1807.
Hesiod (700 BC fl.)
Greek poet; author of
The Works and Days.
Henry Palmer Hill (1791 c.-1836)
An officer of the 8th Regiment of Foot; if this is the man, he associated with Byron on
Cephalonia in 1823. He was promoted to captain in December 1831 and died in Jamaica.
Homer (850 BC fl.)
Poet of the
Iliad and
Odyssey.
Thomas Hartwell Horne (1780-1862)
Biblical scholar; he was a contemporary of Coleridge at Christ's Hospital, worked in the
printed books department of the British Museum and published
An
Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 3 vols
(1818).
Flavius Josephus (37-100 c.)
Jewish historian, author of
Bellum Iudaicum and
Antiquitates Iudaicae.
Saint Justin Martyr (103 c.-165)
Early apologist for Christianity who was martyred in the reign of Marcus Aurelius.
Juvenal (110 AD fl.)
Roman satirist noted, in contrast to Horace, for his angry manner.
Mahomet (570 c.-632)
Founder of the Muslim religion.
Manetho (250 fl.)
Egyptian historian whose history of Egypt is partly preserved in the writings of other
authors.
Joseph Milner (1745-1797)
Evangelical divine and headmaster of the Hull Grammar School; he published
Gibbon's Account of Christianity Considered (1781).
Henry Muir (1790 c.-1826 fl.)
The Health Officer at Argostoli when Byron visited; some notes on Byron were published in
Notes and Queries by his son, H. Skey Muir, in 1884.
William Paley (1743-1805)
Educated at Christ's College, Cambridge, he was archdeacon of Carlisle (1782) and author
of
Moral and Political Philosophy (1785),
Evidences of Christianity (1794) and
Natural Theology
(1802).
St Paul (5 c.-67 c.)
Apostle to the Gentiles.
Pausanias (175 fl.)
Greek geographer, author of a
Description of Greece in ten
books.
Flavius Phocas (d. 610)
Emperor of Byzantium from 606 until his overthow in 610.
Pope Pius VII. (1740-1823)
The Pope during the Napoleonic era, 1800-1823.
Plato (427 BC-327 BC)
Athenian philosopher who recorded the teachings of his master Socrates in a series of
philosophical dialogues.
Pliny the elder (23-79)
Roman natural historian, author of
Naturalis Historia in
thirty-seven books.
Pliny the younger (61-112 c.)
Roman letter-writer, the adopted nephew of Pliny the elder; the eighteenth-century
translation by William Melmoth was frequently reprinted.
Porphyry (234 c.-305 c.)
Neoplatonic philosopher and disciple of Plotinus.
Joseph Priestley (1733-1804)
Dissenting theologian, schoolmaster, and scientist; he was author of
The History and Present State of Electricity, with Original Experiments
(1767).
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
Swiss-born man of letters; author of, among others,
Julie ou la
Nouvelle Heloïse (1761),
Émile (1762) and
Les Confessions (1782).
George Scott (1825 fl.)
Assistant-surgeon of the 8th Regiment of Foot (1822-25); he was stationed in Cephalonia
where he was a friend of James Kennedy.
Thomas Scott (1747-1821)
English divine, originally a surgeon; he was rector of Aston Sandford (1801-21). He
published commentary on the Bible (1788-92) in weekly numbers.
Julius Solinus (d. 250 c.)
The compiler of
Collectanea rerum memorabilium, taken chiefly from
Pliny's
Natural History.
Strabo (64 BC-24 AD fl.)
Roman author of
Geography in 17 books.
Voltaire (1694-1778)
French historian and man of letters; author of, among many other works,
The Age of Louis XIV (1751) and
Candide (1759).
William Warburton (1698-1779)
English Divine and man of letters; he was bishop of Gloucester (1759); he was the friend,
annotator, and executor of Alexander Pope.