Five Pebbles from the Brook | Page 2

while it is in many respects opposed to
the characteristics ascribed to the Divinity by the metaphysicians, yet
bears witness in my opinion, that this world was made and is governed
by just such a Being as the Jehovah of the Old Testament; while the
palpable fulfillment of predictions contained in that book, and which is
so strikingly manifest in the Old World, leaves in my mind no doubt
whatever, of the ultimate fulfillment of all that it promises, and all that
it threatens.
I cannot do better than to conclude these observations with the manly
declaration of the celebrated Christian orator Dr. Chalmers, "We are
ready, (says he,) to admit that as the object of the inquiry is not the
character, but the Truth of Christianity, the philosopher should be
careful to protect his mind from the delusions of its charms. He should
separate the exercises of the understanding from the tendencies of the
fancy or of the heart. He should be prepared to follow the light of
evidence, though it should lead him to conclusions the most painful and
melancholy. He should train his mind to all the hardihood of abstract
and unfeeling intelligence. He should give up every thing to the
supremacy of argument and he able to renounce without a sigh all the
tenderest possessions[fn 2] of infancy, the moment that TRUTH
demands of him the sacrifice." (Dr. Chalmers on the Evidence and
Authority of the Christian Religion. Ch. I.)
Finally, let the Reader remember, that "there is one thing in the world
more contemptible than the slave of a tyrant--it is the dupe of a

SOPHIST."
G. B. E.
PEBBLE I
And David "chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put
them in a shepherd's bag which he had, even in a scrip: and his sling
was in his hand: and he drew near to the Philistine."
Mr. Everett commences his work with the following remarks. "Was
Jesus Christ the person foretold by the prophets, as the Messiah of the
Jews?; one method, and a very obvious one, of examining his claims to
this character, is to compare his person, life, actions, and doctrine, with
the supposed predictions of them. But if it also appear that this Jesus
wrought such works, as evinced that he enjoyed the supernatural
assistance and cooperation of God, this certainly is a fact of great
importance. For we cannot say, that in estimating the validity of our
Lord's claims to the character of Messiah, it is of no consequence
whether, while he advanced those claims, he wrought such works as
proved his intimacy with the God of truth. While he professed himself
the Messiah, is it indifferent whether he was showing himself to be as
being beyond delusion, and above imposture?--Let us make the case
our own. Suppose that we were witnesses of the miraculous works of a
personage of pretensions like our Lord's, should we think it necessary
or reasonable to resort to long courses of argument, or indeed to any
process of the understanding, except what was requisite to establish the
fact of the miracles? Should we, while he was opening the eyes of the
blind, and raising the dead from their graves, feel it necessary to be
deciphering prophecies, and weighing these[fn 3] difficulties? Now we
may transfer this case to that of Christianity. The miracles of our Lord
are either true or false. The infidel if he maintain the latter must prove it;
and if the former can be made to appear, they are beyond all
comparison the most direct and convincing testimony that can be
devised," p. 1, 2. of Mr. Everett's work.
To this statement I would reply--that I do not know what right Mr.
Everett has to call upon his opponent, to prove a negative. It was his

business to prove the affirmative of his question, and to show that these
miracles actually were performed, before he proceeded to argue upon
the strength of them. It is, I conceive, impossible to demonstrate that
miracles said to have been wrought 1800 years ago, were not
performed; but it is, I believe, quite possible to show that there is no
sufficient proof that they were. One of the reasons given, in the 2d, ch.
as I think, of the grounds of Christianity examined, for throwing out of
consideration the miracles recorded in the New Testament in examining
the question of the Messiahship of Jesus, was, that the New Testament
itself, was not a sufficient proof that these miracles were actually
wrought; and this, with the reader's indulgence, I think I can plainly
show.
Mr. Everett allows p. 450 of his work, what indeed he cannot deny, that
the four Gospels do sometimes contradict each other in their narratives;
and he refers with approbation, in