"All Christianity asks of men on this subject, is that they would be consistent with themselves; that they would treat the evidence of other things; and that they would try and judge its actors and witnesses, as they deal with their fellow men, when testifying to human affairs and actions, in human tribunals. Let the witnesses be compared with themselves, with each other, and with surrounding facts and circumstances; and let their testimony be sifted, as if were given in a court of justice, on the side of the adverse party, the witness being subjected to a rigorous cross-examination."
So wrote Professor Simon Greenleaf of Harvard Law School, in The Testimony of the Evangelists: The Gospels Examined by the Rules of Evidence. New York: J. C. & Co., 1874.
Classic Apologetics presents works from the greatest legal minds in history, in applying the rules of legal evidence to the testimonies of those who wrote the books of the Bible.
Math professor and college president. Read more about Adams here.
Lawyer. Member of the Oregon bar.
Jurist. Read more about Andrews here.
Influential early church writer. Read more about Aquinas here.
Biblical scholar. Read more about Bauckham here.
Legal scholar. Learn more about Berman here. Our thanks to Dr. Berman for his permission to offer the items below.
English Jurist. Knighted in 1770. Read more about Blackstone here and here and here.
"The Commentaries of Blackstone continue to be the text book of the student and of the man of genereal reading, notwithstanding the alterations in the law since the time of their author. The great principles which they unfold remain the same, and are explained in so simple and clear a style, that, however much the details of the law may be changed, they will always be read with interest. It is no small commendation of Blackstone, that many of the modern improvements adopted in England and in the United States were suggested by him: and that the arrangement which he used in treating the different subjects, has been followed in a great degree by the Revisers of the Statutes of New-York.
Classics scholar.
Clergyman. Learn more about Boardman here.
Educator. Learn more about Bowen here.
Hume's celebrated argument against the credibility of miracles is a fallacy which results from losing sight of the distinction between Testimony and Authority, between Veracity and Competency. He argues, that it is contrary to all experience that a Law of Nature should be broken, but it is not contrary to experience that human testimony should be false; and therefore we ought to believe that any amount of Testimony is false, in preference to admitting the occurrence of a miracle, as this would be a violation of Law. We answer, that the miraculous character of an event is not a matter of Intuition, but of Inference; hence, it is not to be decided by Testimony, but by Reasoning from the probabilities of the case, the only question being whether, in view of all the circumstances, the Conclusion is competent that the occurrence was supernatural. The Testimony relates only to the happening of the event considered merely as an external phenomenon; the question respecting the nature of this event, whether it is, or is not, a violation of Physical Law, whether it is an effect of this or that Efficient Cause, cannot be determined by Intuition and Testimony, but is a matter for Judgment founded on Reasoning, in view of all the circumstances of the case. If doubtful of our own Competency to form a correct opinion on this point, we may defer to the Authority of another, who is familiar with the kind of Reasoning by which such questions are settled. Now we have abundant evidence from experience, that no event whatever, regarded simply as an external phenomenon, can be so strange and marvellous that sufficient Testimony will not convince us of the reality of its occurrence. To the contemporaries of our Saviour, not even bringing a dead man to life would have appeared so incredible as the transmission of a written message five thousand miles, without error, within a minute of time. Yet this feat has been accomplished by the Magnetic Telegraph. Why do we decide, then, that the raising of Lazarus was, and the transmission of intelligence by telegraph is not, a miracle? Evidently not by Intuition, but by reasoning from the very different circumstances of the two cases. The fact, that the eyes of the blind were opened, or a storm was reduced to a calm, or the dead were raised, is established by Intuition and Testimony, which have established many other facts quite as wonderful; the character of this fact, whether miraculous or not, is to be settled in a very different manner. We say, then, that Hume's argument, which is based exclusively upon an appeal to experience and Testimony, is totally inapplicable to the question respecting the credibility of a miracle. Testimony has nothing to do with the correct inference of a Conclusion from its Premises.
We can touch only very briefly on the Criticism of recorded Testimony, and of writings in general. As we must avail ourselves, in the construction of Science, of the experience of former generations, in respect to which the Testimony of eye- and ear-witnesses is no longer directly accessible, we are obliged to consider the credibility of this, Testimony as affected by the channels of transmission through which it has been passed. There are but two such channels, Tradition and Ancient Writings. The former of these may be left out of account; for if the lapse of time has been considerable, the probability that the Testimony, if transmitted merely by word of mouth, has been materially altered or falsified, is so great, that the report can be received only with extreme caution. But it has already been mentioned; that the invention of the art of writing has rendered it possible for the experience of a former generation to be handed down, through an indefinite lapse of centuries, in as perfect a state as that in which it was first communicated to those who were the contemporaries of the events narrated. This is possible, we say; the question whether it has been actually so transmitted is what we have to consider in the Criticism of Ancient Writings.
When a document purporting to be the recorded Testimony of certain individuals of a former generation is presented to us, we have first to inquire whether it is actually the handwriting, or the composition as taken down by dictation, or a faithful report, made at the time, of the substance of the evidence of the individuals whose names it bears, or to whom it is attributed. The establishment of either of these three points is the proof of what is called the Genuineness of the writing. It is comparatively unimportant which of the three is proved, as either of them gives us assurance that the document is a faithful record of the Testimony of the persons whose evidence is to be weighed. Thus, even if we were sure that the Testimony of the Evangelists was originally written out by their own hands, we certainly do not possess their autograph copies; still, the Gospels are Genuine, if we have sufficient evidence that they are faithful records, made at the time, (or correct transcripts of such records,) of what the Evangelists said.
But a second question must be answered before we can accept the evidence furnished by the document. We must be satisfied, not only that the Testimony is Genuine,-that it was actually given by those from whom it purports to come, but that it is Authentic, -that this Testimony is a true and faithful narrative of what actually happened. Proofs of the Genuineness of the writing amount, at the utmost, only to bringing the witnesses into court and establishing their identity; proofs of the Authenticity must be found by sifting their evidence, and applying to it all the tests and means of verification which we possess, in order to ascertain whether they are telling the truth. If not Genuine, the document is said to be Spurious; if not Authentic, it is false.
As most of the tests and proofs of the Genuineness and Authenticity of a writing are such as readily suggest themselves to the inquirer, it is unnecessary to consider them here at any length. Generally, they may be divided into two classes, called respectively the External and the Internal Evidences of the point to be proved. The External Evidences of Genuineness are to be found either in other and admitted writings of the supposed author, or in the works of writers who were either his contemporaries, or nearly of the same antiquity; and the evidence is either direct, if the disputed writing is therein explicitly attributed to him, or indirect, if these works quote as his production passages which are found in the document. This indirect testimony has the greater force, for on account of its casual or incidental character there is less reason to suspect that it has been forged. The External Evidences of the Authenticity of the writing, considered as a narrative of facts, are too numerous to mention. They are found in allusions to the same facts, or to incidents obviously connected with them, by contemporary authors; in customs, traditions, and institutions, which have come down to later times, and the origin of which cannot be accounted for, except on the supposition that the reported events actually took place; in coins, medals, and inscriptions, belonging to the same age, or one immediately subsequent, and connected by equally close relations with the alleged facts; in the notoriety which such incidents must have obtained, the interest which must have been felt in them, and the consequent probability that falsifications and forgeries respecting them would never have been attempted, or would have been detected and disproved at the time.
Of the Internal Evidence, it has been justly remarked, that it is weak to establish either Genuineness or Authenticity, but powerful to disprove both. As Hamilton remarks, "We can easily conceive that an able and learned forger may accommodate his fabrications both to all the general circumstances of time, place, people, and language under which it is supposed to have been written, and even to all the particular circumstances of the style, habit of thought, personal relations, &c. of the supposed author." On the -other hand, a single anachronism, well made out, in respect either to events, institutions, customs, or even the use of language, is as fatal to the document's claim to antiquity, as a well-established alibi is to the success of a criminal prosecution. Bentley's Dissertation upon the Epistles of Phalaris might have been limited to pointing out two or three of the numerous anachronisms which he detected in them, if his only object in writing it had been to prove that these alleged Epistles were an impudent forgery. In respect to the Authenticity of a narrative, it is to be observed, that the credibility of certain facts is one thing, and the proof of their actual occurrence is another. For establishing the former, Internal Evidence is sufficient; for the latter, it is powerless, being entirely inapplicable. By saying that a narrative of certain events bears with it Internal Evidence of its truth, we mean only that the events are possible, that they are consistent with each other, - that they harmonize with what we know from other sources concerning the men of that country and that age, - that they are conformable to the ordinary course of things.
Supreme Court Justice. Read more about Bradley here.
"Whatever may be our own views, and however well settled and grounded, we cannot, without danger to society and its dearest interests, turn our backs upon the religious institutions which play so important a part in humanizing and refining mankind. No other religious belief, or disbelief, could have done so much for the elevation and refinement of the human race as Christianity has done during the last eighteen hundred years."
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from 1890 to 1910. Read about Brewer here and here and here. See also The Supreme Court Historical Society.
Attorney and politician. Read more about Callahan here.
Attorney General of Pennsylvania. Read about Carson here.
English divine. Read more about Chandler here.
Congressional representative. Read more about Chandler here.
English clergyman.
SECTION I. — RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.
The Constitution. — The Constitution as originally adopted declared that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."[1] By amendment it was farther provided that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."[2] Both these provisions, it will be seen, are limitations upon the powers of Congress only. Neither the original Constitution nor any of the early amendments undertook to protect the religious liberty of the people of the States against the action of their respective state governments. The fourteenth amendment is perhaps broad enough to give some securities if they should be needful.
Establishment of Religion. — By establishment of religion is meant the setting up or recognition of a state church, or at least the conferring upon one church of special favors and advantages which are denied to others.[3] It was never intended by the Constitution that the government should be prohibited from recognizing religion, or that religious worship should never be provided for in cases where a proper recognition of Divine Providence in the working of government might seem to require it, and where it might be done without drawing any invidious distinctions between different religious beliefs, organizations,
[1] Const., Art. VI. cl. 3. [2] Const., Amendment 1. [3] 1 Tuck Bl Com., App. 296; 2 Ibid., App., Note G.
or sects. The Christian religion was always recognized in the administration of the common law; and so far as that law continues to be the law of the land, the fundamental principles of that religion must continue to be recognized in the same cases and to the same extent as formerly. The propriety of making provisions for the appointment of chaplains for the two houses of Congress, and for the army and navy, has been sometimes questioned; but the general sentiment of the country has approved it, and the States make corresponding provision for legislative bodies and state institutions. The federal legislation has never gone farther; it has never undertaken to prescribe a religious test for any purpose. Neither has it ever assumed the authority to prohibit the free exercise of religion anywhere. But the freedom of religion cannot be extended to prevent the punishment of crimes. Polygamy and bigamy are crimes none the less because encouraged by the teachings of a religious sect. "To call their advocacy a tenet of religion is to offend the common-sense of mankind."[1]
State Guaranties. — With the exception of the provisions above made, the preservation of religious liberty is left to the States, and these without exception have constitutional guaranties on the subject. In the main these are alike, and they may be summed up as follows: —
1. They establish a system, not of toleration merely, but of religious equality. All religions are equally respected by the law; one is not to be favored at the expense of others, or to be discriminated against, nor is any distinction to be made between them, either in the laws, in positions under the law, or in the administration of the government.
[1] "Whilst legislation for the establishment of a religion is forbidden and its free exercise permitted, it does not follow that everything which may be so called can be tolerated. Crime is not the less odious because sanctioned by what any particular sect may designate as religion." Field, J., Davis v. Season. 133 U. S. 333.
2. They exempt all persons from compulsory support of religious worship, and from compulsory attendance upon the same.
3. They forbid restraints upon the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience, or upon the free expression of religious opinions.[1]
These are adopted as fundamental principles. No man in religious matters is to be discriminated against by the law, or subjected to the censorship of the State or of any public authority; and the State is not to inquire into or take notice of religious belief or expression so long as the citizen performs his duty to the State and to his fellows, and is guilty of no breach of public morals or public decorum.[2]
Blasphemy, &c. — But the courts of the Union and of the States, in administering the common law, find it necessary to take notice that the prevailing religion of the country is Christian,[3] and that because of that fact certain conduct may constitute a breach of public decorum, and therefore be illegal, though it might not be where a different religion prevailed. The law of blasphemy depends largely for its definition and application upon the generally accepted religious belief of the people; and in the law of contracts many provisions might be found to be illegal in a Christian country which would be enforced where the Mohammedan or some other form of religion prevailed. Questions of public policy, as they arise in the common law, must always be largely dependent upon the prevailing system of public morals, and the public morals upon the
[1] In State v. District Board, 76 Wis. 177, the mere reading of the King James version of the Bible in the public schools was held to violate provisions like the above. For a discussion of kindred cases, see note to this case in 29 Am. Law Register, 321, and compare Moore v. Monroe, 64 Iowa, 367, where it was held that such reading did not make the school a place of worship.
[2] Cooley, Const. Lim., ch. 13.
[3] Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 How. 127.
prevailing religious belief.[1] Legislation may also recognize the general religious sentiments of the people in the police regulations it establishes and in the statutory offences it demies. Thus, it may prohibit secular employments on the first day of the week, that day being observed as a day of rest and worship by religious people generally;[2] and it may condemn and provide for the punishment of any conduct which is condemned by the common voice of Christian nations, though admitted elsewhere, such as cruel sacrifices, the practice of polygamy, &c.[3] And it may require that, all religious worship and observances shall be conducted in accordance with the ordinary rules of order, and punish whatever extravagances tend to a breach of the public peace. But even the law of blasphemy must be so administered as to preserve liberty of discussion and argument upon the most vital points.[4]
Exemptions. — Whether or not it be wise or politic to exempt the property used for religious purposes from taxation, as is commonly done, it cannot be said to be in a legal sense unconstitutional to do so. As has before been said, the selection of subjects for taxation is always a matter of policy, and the legislation will exempt from the burden such as a general regard to the interests of the political community may seem to render advisable.[5] If it be unwise or unjust, legislation must correct the evil. But exemptions, to be valid, must be impartial as between sects.
[1] People v. Ruggles. 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 290; Commonwealth v. Kneeland, 20 Pick. (Mass.) 206; State v. Chandler, 2 Harr. (Del.) 553.
[2] Commonwealth v. Wolf, 3 S. & R. (Penn.) 48; Frolickstein v. Mobile, 40 Ala. 725.
[3] Spear, Religion and the State, 315-318.
[4] People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 290, 293
[5] But such exemptions are mere favors; they are to be strictly construed. Matter of Mayor, &c. of New York, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 77 , Broadway Baptist Church v. McAtee, 8 Bush (Ky.), 508. And they may be repealed. Christ Church v. Philadelphia, 24 How 300
Read more about Dike here.
English judge.
Apologist.
Bible expositor. Read more about Gill here.
Legal apologist. Learn more about Greenleaf here.
"Christianity founds its claim to our belief upon the weight of the evidence by which it is supported. This evidence is not peculiar to the department of theology; its rules are precisely those by which the law scans the conduct and language of men on all other subjects, even in their daily transactions. This branch of the law is one of our particular study. It is our constant employment to explore the mazes of falsehood, to detect its doublings, to pierce its thickest veils; to follow and expose its sophistries; to compare, with scrupulous exactness, the testimony of different witnesses to examine their motives and their interests; to discover truth and separate it from error. Our fellow-men know this to be our province; and perhaps this knowledge may have its influence to a greater extent than we or even they imagine. We are therefore required by the strongest motives,—by personal interest, by the ties of kindred and friendship, by the claims of patriotism and philanthropy, to examine, and that not lightly, the evidences on which Christianity challenges our belief; and the degree of credit to which they are entitled.
"The Christian religion is part of our common law, with the very texture of which it is interwoven. Its authority is frequently admitted in our statute-books; and its holy things are there expressly guarded from blasphemy and desecration. If it be found, as indeed it is, a message of peace on earth and good will to men; exhibiting the most perfect code of morals for our government, the purest patterns of exalted virtue for our imitation, and the brightest hopes, which can cheer the heart of man; let it receive the just tribute of our admiring approval, our reverential obedience, and our cordial support. I would implore the American lawyer unhesitatingly to follow in this, as in the other elements of the law, the great roasters and sages of his profession; and while with swelling bosom he surveys the countless benefits rendered to his country by this his favorite science, let him not withhold from the Fountain and Source of all Law the free service of undissembled homage."
A publication of the Simon Greenleaf School of Law. Orange, California. Vol. 1 (academic year 1981-82)- v. 7 (academic year 1987-88).; 7 volumes; 21 cm. Succeeding Title: Simon Greenleaf review of law and religion, Anaheim, Calif.: Simon Greenleaf University, Vol. 8 (academic year 1988-1989); 1 volume ; 21 cm.
Jurist. Read more about Grotius here and here.
Justice Joseph Story. A Discourse pronounced upon the inauguration of the author as Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University: on the twenty-fifth day of August, 1829. Boston; (Cambridge), 1829:
"... Upon the general theory of the law of nations much has been written by authors of great ability and celebrity. At the head of the list stands that most extraordinary man, Grotius, whose treatise de Jure Belli et Pacis was the first great effort in modern times to reduce into any order the principles belonging to this branch of jurisprudence, by deducing them from the history and practice of nations, and the incidental opinions of philosophers, orators, and poets. His eulogy has been already pronounced in terms of high commendation, but so just and so true, that it were vain to follow, or add to his praise.*
*Sir James MacKintosh, in his Introductory Discourse. "
British politician. Read more about Lord Hailsham here.
English jurist. Read about Hale here.
Modern attorney.
Read more about President Hayes here, here and here.
After having studied law for ten months under friend Sparrow in Columbus, it was deemed best that I should enter the Law School of Harvard University, where I could receive the instructions of those eminent jurists and teachers, Story and Greenleaf. In accordance with this opinion of myself and friends, I came here and entered the Law School last week. The term commences today. Whatever reso-lution and ability I have shall now be brought out. I have much lost time to regain and my mind to discipline. The institution, teachers, and students I like.
Cambridge, August 29, 1843.--Read Blackstone again and again--incomparable for the beauty and chasteness of its style, the amount and profundity of its learning.
I have now finished my first week in the Law School. I have studied hard and am confident that my real gain is as great as I should have had in two weeks in an office. Our lectures have all the advantages of recitations and lectures combined, without their disadvantages. We have no formal lectures. Professors Story and Greenleaf illustrate and explain as they proceed. Mr. Greenleaf is very searching and logical in examination. It is impossible for one who has not faithfully studied the text to escape exposing his ignorance; he keeps the subject constantly in view, never stepping out of his way for the purpose of introducing his own experience.
Judge Story, on the other hand, is very general in his questions so that a person well skilled in words affirmative and negative shakings of the head need never more than glance at the text to be able to answer his interrogatories. He is very fond of digressions to introduce amusing anecdotes, high-wrought eulogies of the sages of the law, and fragments of his own experience. He is generally very interesting, often quite eloquent. His manner of speaking is almost precisely like that of Corwin. In short, as a lecturer he is a very different man from what you would expect of an old and eminent judge; not but that he is great, but he is so interesting and fond of good stories. His amount of knowledge is prodigious.
The summer session of the Law School commenced today. One hundred and six students made their appearance. Professor Greenleaf made the opening address. The only thing in it worthy of remark was his idea of a lawyer. "A lawyer is engaged in the highest of all human, pursuits, the application of the soundest reason and purest morality to the ordinary affairs of life. He should have a clear head and a true heart always acting at his fingers' ends."
Heard Mr. Greenleaf's introductory lecture in Kent and Cruise. In addition to the writers on the laws of nations mentioned by Mr. Kent, he spoke of Wheaton as one of the best compilers of the true doctrines who has yet treated of the subject. The great English writer he said was a mere case lawyer who seldom ventured into the water, but hugged the shore, sailing from headland to headland. The style of Kent, I have heard, was vague and general; such as to leave no clear and distinct ideas upon the mind. I do not find it so. From one day's acquaintance, I have ventured to form a favorable opinion of the "Commentaries."
I heard Dr. Walker preach this morning from the text, "Faith without works is dead." Luther found so much in the Epistle of James which conflicted with his own favorite doctrines, that he pronounced it "strange." And others have thought it of little worth because Christ is mentioned but once or twice and then coldly; because the doctrines of the resurrection and regeneration are scarcely noticed; and because it treats so much of the principles of mere morality. But these are not good reasons for putting up one inspired writer above another--Paul above James. It would rather seem to be wise to adopt views by which passages apparently conflicting may be harmonized and discrepancies explained and reconciled.
The great controversy concerning faith and works depends, in a great measure, for its origin and continuance on the ambiguity of the two words, faith and works. If by works is meant the mere outward act, there may be salvation without works, as a man may have great generosity without the opportunity or means of exhibiting it. So, on the other hand, the acts of generosity may be performed without merit. If by faith is meant only the intellectual acts of belief and approval of what is true and good, this without works is dead. But if by faith is meant the internal disposition, which will manifest itself in outward acts whenever opportunity occurs, this faith is essential to salvation. So that while Paul and James use different language, their doctrines are the same; they view the subject from different positions, but their views are the same. Paul looks to the origin of the act, James to the consummation of the disposition. It is interesting in this connection to trace the differences between the Jewish and the Christian dispensation. That was a dispensation of works, this of faith. In that, the external rites and observance were the all important. In this, the feelings, the heart is regarded. In another aspect, the difference appears striking. The religion of the Bible is one of obedience and progress. The Old Testament contains a system of rules to be strictly followed in forms and ceremonies, suited to the childhood of our race in this respect. The New Testament looks to principles of action; if these are right all is right. But rules may be outgrown, while principles are eternal. So that while the Jewish dispensation, being temporary, has passed away, the Christian is eternal and must remain.
Now, in the use of the writings of the two apostles, we must consider the crying sin of the age in which we live and the people before whom we appear. If it is to speculation and mysticism, then the efficacy of works, as appears in the Epistle of James, should be preached; if to outward observances, pompous ceremony, rites, etc., then justification by faith as declared by Paul should be proclaimed.
[According to] D'Aubigne's "History of the Reformation," Christianity has two features which especially distinguish it from all human systems: (1) That the only mediator between God and man is Jesus Christ. (2) That salvation is a gift of God--a matter of grace. . . . D'Aubigne constantly affirms that, in his opinion, the Reformation was the immediate work of the Divine hand.
Now, it seems to me that Providence interferes no more in the greatest affairs of men than in the smallest, and that neither individuals nor nations are any more the objects of a special interposi- tion of the Divine Ruler than the inanimate things of the world. The Creator gave to every creature of his hand its laws at the time of its creation and whatever can happen in accordance with those laws He doubtless foresaw, and it cannot be supposed that his laws are so imperfect that special interpositions are necessary to render them capable of fulfilling their design, nor that it is possible for them to be violated. The Reformation like other revolutions was agreeable to principles which have existed since the world began.
I am now fairly settled. Let me see how I will arrange my plans for study and business. Read Greenleaf's "Evidence" and Story's "Agency" so as to finish them both in six weeks. Read a chapter in the Testament (German); one case a week in Smith's "Leading Cases" touching some topic of "Agency" or "Evidence." Read a little Bacon and Burke; study Livy an hour in the morning, and logic at night. Poetry and light literature Sunday. Attend church regularly, and do all my business promptly.
Finished Starkie on "Evidence" yesterday. Shall tomorrow begin Greenleaf, reading it in connection with the Ohio Reports. During the last week have read pretty diligently with friend Herron Story's "Promissory Notes," in connection with Ohio Reports. Shall continue it next week. Shall also add logic and to speak German to my list of studies. I have called on Dr. Schmidt, and from my conversation with him think a little brushing up of my German may be well "worth my while."
This forenoon heard Dr. Humphrey, of Louisville, son of old President Humphrey of Amherst, preach in the First Presbyterian Church. He is a graceful, animated, and entertaining speaker, without much depth or strength.
I have the Thanksgiving proclamations of twenty-seven States--all recognizing religion, nearly all the religion of the Bible, and several the Divinity of Christ. More are coming, doubtless. Our Legislature for many years has passed a joint resolution annually authorizing a thanksgiving and frequently in terms which recognized the religion of the Bible. The last Legislature omitted to do so by a mere accident this year, but in [the] Sixty-fifth volume Ohio Laws, page 306, passed one last year. If you wish to borrow my bundle of Thanksgiving proclamations I will send them to you. All state institutions have religious exercises, some of them chaplains paid under state laws. The meetings of the two houses of the General Assembly are always opened with prayer in accordance, sometimes, with resolutions (passed unanimously usually), and sometimes by common consent. The inaugurations of governors are prefaced by religious exercises.
I take the Bible side, largely because this war on the Good Book is in disguise a war on all free schools.
I rise at about 7 A. M.; write until breakfast, about 8:30 A. M. After breakfast, prayers - i. e., the reading of a chapter in the Bible, each one present reading a verse in turn, and all kneeling repeat the Lord's Prayer; then, usually, write and arrange business until 10 A. M. ... My health is now, and usually, excellent. I have gone to church at least once every Sunday since I became President.
In the afternoon Lucy and I attended the laying of the corner-stone of the large new Catholic church--the St. Joseph's Church. We were much interested in the ceremonies. Bishop Gilmore delivered a strong and interesting address on the topic, "The public has a right to know what doctrines will be taught in the building whose corner-stone we have just laid." It was liberal and fair. For the most part it would have been approved by Christians generally. He said among other things that our institutions were founded by earnest Christian people; especially was this the case in New England and Maryland. Although freedom of conscience as to forms and sects is secured in our Constitution, yet the Christian religion is at the foundation.
Our County Bible Society holds its yearly meeting soon. As one of the vice-presidents of the general society of the county, as a non-church member, a non-professor of religion, I may say why men of the world, friends of their country and of their race, should support the religion of the Bible--the Christian religion. To worship -- "the great Creator to adore" -- the wish to establish relations with the Omnipotent Power which made the universe, and which controls it, is a deeply seated principle of human nature. It is found among all races of men. It is well-nigh universal. All peoples have some religion. In our day men who cast off the Christian religion show the innate tendency by spending time and effort in Spiritualism. If the God of the Bible is dethroned the goddess of reason is set up. Religion al- ways has been, always will be. Now, the best religion the world has ever had is the religion of Christ. A man or a community adopting it is virtuous, prosperous, and happy.
Byron has said, "If our God was man -- or man, God-- Christ was both"; and continuing he said, "I never arraigned his creed, but the use--or abuse--made of it."
What a great mistake the man makes who goes about to oppose this religion! What a crime, if we may judge of men's acts by their results! Nay, what a great mistake is made by him who does not support the religion of the Bible!
I must sometime maintain my proposition that a non-professor of religion - "a mere man of the world"--who wishes well to his country and his fellow men ought actively to aid in the circulation of the Bible, and in adding to its influence. The general course of my argument is this: All peoples will have some religion. Death leads the mind to consider the future, to a contemplation of Deity. Hence religion, or this is religion. Now, the best religion the world has ever known is the religion of the Bible. It builds up all that is good. It suppresses or diminishes all that is bad. With it men are happy and nations are prosperous. Where it is not found vice and crime prevail.
Writing a few words for Mohonk Negro Conference, I find myself using the word Christian. I am not a subscriber to any creed. I belong to no church. But in a sense, satisfactory to myself and believed by me to be important, I try to be a Christian, or rather I want to be a Christian and to help do Christian work.
The religion of the Bible is the best in the world. I see the infinite value of religion. Let it be always encouraged. A world of superstition and folly have grown up around its forms and ceremonies. But the truth in it is one of the deep sentiments in human nature.
I am a Christian according to my conscience in belief, not of course in character and conduct, but in purpose and wish;-- not of course by the orthodox standard. But I am content, and have a feeling of trust and safety.
Rutherford Birchard Hayes was born in Delaware, Ohio, October 4, 1822. He began to prepare for college in the law office of Sherman Finch in Delaware in 1834. He continued his preparatory studies at Norwalk Seminary 1835-1836, and at the school of Isaac Webb in Middletown, Connecticut, 1837-1838 and entered Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio, in October or November 1838. He graduated August 3, 1842. He began the study of law at Columbus, Ohio, October 1842, and completed his preparation for the bar at the law school of Harvard College 1843-1845 under Justice Story and Professor Greenleaf. He was admitted to the [bar] at Marietta, Ohio, in 1845--March 10--and began the practice of his profession at Lower Sandusky, Ohio (now Fremont, Ohio). ...
Philosopher. Read more about Hobbes here and here and here.
Lawyer. Learn more about Hoffman here
Modern apologist.
Clergyman. Read more about Holyoke here.
Theologian. Read more about Horne here.
"To the library of every lover of the Holy Scriptures, who has the leisure to peruse it, this elaborate work will form a most valuable addition; but to the Biblical Student, and to young Ministers, it is at once indispensable and invaluable; no single work on any of the four main branches of Biblical Study which are here so copiously treated, having, we believe, ever issued from the press, which comprehends so much information in itself, or points out, by references so ample, where that information may be obtained without which the Scriptures can neither be fully understood, nor explained. Almost every author of note has been consulted by the industry of the Author, and the most important contributions of the learning, research, and observation of others, will be here found collected, and arranged with a sober and temperate judgment, and under the guidance of the light of evangelical truth. The last is an important circumstance, and renders the work safe as well as instructive." Wesleyan-Methodist Magazine, 1, June 1822, p.373.
Modern legal apologist.
This book explores whether Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead. The author indicates at the outset that he was not favourably disposed to believe that the resurrection was a real event of history. The author explores the events found in the four gospels concerning the last week of Jesus' life. The author argues that the negative claims or skeptical arguments to explain the resurrection away fail. The author cites what he believes is positive evidence and arguments to accept that Jesus did rise from the dead and that the Christian faith is something to be believed in.
One point needs to be noted. Many popular Christian authors have asserted that Frank Morison was a lawyer. This is incorrect. Frank Morison is a pseudonym for Albert Henry Ross (1881-1950). He was a prolific writer and worked in a London advertising agency. However he never studied the law. Readers interested in this biographical background can refer to another book available from Amazon - Ross Clifford, Leading Lawyers Case for the Resurrection (Edmonton: Canadian Institute for Law, Theology & Public Policy, 1996).
Faith on Trial focusses on questions associated with the authenticity and integrity of the New Testament gospels, especially those concerning the death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The author, Pamela Ewen, is a practising lawyer in the field of commercial law and is a committed Christian. Her approach to these questions involves juridical methods of assessing documentary evidence, the testimony of witnesses, and collateral legal proofs as accepted in the American common law system.
The text fits into a genre of Christian apologetics known as juridical apologetics. Other apologists in this genre include Simon Greenleaf, Francis Lamb, Joseph Sagebeer Evans, Irwin Linton, Clarence Bartlett, John Warwick Montgomery and Ross Clifford.
The book is crisply written. There is a tight argument based on legal criteria of proof, which is employed to argue in favour of the gospel records. The author's presentation is pitched at a level that non-lawyers will find easy to follow.
The author relies not just on juridical canons, but also buttresses her case with reference to other apologetic writers. Although I concur with the author's position on the gospels, I am not convinced she has set forth "the best possible case". Ewen relies on some writings whose arguments are not mainstream in either New Testament scholarship or apologetics. I refer to her use of Ian Wilson's books supporting the Turin Shroud, and Carsten Thiede's Eyewitness to Jesus. The Shroud is an area where apologists are on shaky ground. Thiede argues very strongly, but not conclusively, that some gospel papyri fragments were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. This argument has not received much acceptance in New Testament scholarship ever since O'Callahan made the claims in the early 1970s. Also absent from her bibliographical citations are the works of some of the legal apologists listed above. She would have benefitted from reading more widely in this genre.
I wonder whether Ewen would have done better to cast her work in the form of a "legal brief" that advises a barrister or requires a judge's ruling in chamber, or opted for the genre of a moot trial (as did Thomas Sherlock in the 18th century). One difficulty for juridical apologists like Ewen is the tendency to overstate the conclusions reached when employing the canons of proof from the criminal code and the civil code. This problem does have a bearing for example on the conclusions drawn about the "ancient documents rule". Many apologists since Greenleaf first argued the point, have overstated their case with this rule. Ewen would have profitted from reading the appendix in Ross Clifford's Leading Lawyers Case for the Resurrection (1996) on this very matter.
Perhaps Ewen should have interacted with the critiques of atheists and sceptics, particularly since her apologia is directed to a "tough-minded" audience.
The book is worthwhile reading and reflecting on. Christian apologists however would be advised to read more widely in the genre of juridical apologetics. The untrained layperson may be too impressed with the cogency of Ewen's arguments simply because of her credentials as a lawyer. We have yet to see a careful and comprehensive evaluation of legal apologetic literature (a long neglected area of study where more than 70 apologists have contributed since Hugo Grotius' day). A layperson, unaware of the limitations of legal argument could end up in deep waters when dialoguing with a specialist. Those who are sceptical of Ewen's position should be willing to read more widely in apologetic literature. Partisanship on both sides can lead to the phenomenon of two ships passing each other without either side understanding the other's position.
American congressman and abolitionist. Read more about Kelley here.
Jurist
Jurist and commentator on law. Read more about Kent here
Disclaimer: Knapp is known to have been associated with Freemasonry. Learn more about Knapp here.
International apologetics lecturer. Read more about Kumar here.
