IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 /. 
 
 {•/ 
 
 
 
 <;. % 
 
 ^#.^^ 
 
 y. 
 
 m 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 *-ilM !||!!M 
 
 :: ■- iiiiM 
 
 2.0 
 
 1^ 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 ■* 6" — 
 
 
 ► 
 
 Wa 
 
 <? 
 
 //, 
 
 w 
 
 -el 
 
 ^ 
 
 <^M ->. 
 
 rf 
 
 /a 
 
 /A 
 
 o 
 
 ''W 
 
 7 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 #> 
 
 ^^ 
 
 V 
 
 ^v 
 
 <v 
 
 N> 
 
 
 O^ 
 
<t. 
 
 Ua 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a iti possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-6tre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage 
 sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Couverture endommag^e 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pelliculie 
 
 □ Cover title missing/ 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I I Coloured maps/ 
 
 D 
 
 Cartes g^ographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Reli6 avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serr6e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge int6rieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 film^es. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl6mentaires: 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagies 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restauries et/ou pellicul6es 
 
 Page'5 discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es, tachetdes ou piqudes 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages ddtachdes 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality indgale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du materiel suppldmentaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errats, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 filmdes d nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la meillaure image possible. 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqud ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 J 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
tails 
 
 du 
 odifier 
 
 une 
 mage 
 
 The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 D, B. Weldon Library 
 University of Western Ontario 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 L'exemplaire filmi fut reproduit grAce A la 
 ginArositi de: 
 
 D. B. Weldon Library 
 University of Western Ontario 
 
 Les images suivantes ont dti reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire filmi, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenqant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 derniire page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film^s en commenpant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — ^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED "), or the symbol V (meaning "END "), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbole —•- signifie "A SUIVRE", lu 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seui clich6, 11 est film6 d partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la mithcde. 
 
 rrata 
 to 
 
 pelure, 
 nd 
 
 D 
 
 32X 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 |. 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
Rev. T. J. STILES. 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST 
 
 ' » - 
 
Ci)e 93alD\JDtn iLrcturesi. 
 
 INSTITUTGS OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY. 
 
 An Introuu( tion to Historic Keauinc; anu 
 Study. Hy A. CLtVELANU Coxt, Bishop uf West- 
 ern New Vork. 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 A CONTRinUTION TO CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS. By 
 
 William Clark, M.A., Professor of rhilosophy, 
 Trinity College, Toronto, 
 
 Price ^l.bO per Volume 
 
 A. C. McCLURQ AND COMPANY, 
 PubUnliers. 
 
■d^t x&moin lecturer, 1887 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST 
 
 A CONTRIBUTION 
 
 TO 
 
 CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM CLARK, M.A. 
 
 PROI-ESSOK Ol- I-IIILOSOPIIY IN UUNITV COLtEGB, TORONTO 
 
 CHICAGO 
 
 A. C McCLURG AND COMPANY 
 
 1888 
 
r 
 
 Copyright, 
 Hv A. C. McClurg and Co. 
 
 A.D. 1888. 
 
 
EXTRACT FROM THE DEED OF TRUST, 
 
 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF WHICH 
 THE BALDWIN LECTURES WERE INSTITUTED. 
 
 " OTfjts instrument, made and executed between 
 Samuel Smith Harris, Bishop of the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church in the Diocese of Michigan, of the city 
 of Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan, as party of the 
 first part, and Henry P. Baldwin, Alonzo B. Palmer, 
 Henry A. Hayden, Sidney D. Miller, and Henry P. 
 Baldwin, 2d, of the State of Michigan, Trustees under 
 the trust created by this instrument, as parties of the 
 second part, witnesseth as follows : — 
 
 " In the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and eighty-five, the said party of the first part, 
 moved by the importance of bringing all practicable 
 Christian influences to bear upon the great body of 
 students annually assembled at the University of Mich- 
 igan, undertook to promote and set in operation a plan 
 of Christian work at said University, and collected con- 
 tributions for that purpose, of which plan the following 
 outline is here given, that is to say : — 
 
 " I. To erect a building or hall near the Universily, 
 
EXTRACT FROM THE DEED OF TRUST. 
 
 W 
 
 1^' 
 
 ill which there should be cheerful par'ors, a well- 
 equipped reading-room, and a lecture-room where the 
 lectures hereinafter mentioned might be given ; 
 
 " 2. To endow a lectureship similar to the I5amptor> 
 Lectureship in I'higland, for the establishment and de- 
 fence of CMiristian truth : the lectures on such founda- 
 tion to be delivered annually at Ann Arbor by a learned 
 clergyman or other connnunicant of the Protestant 
 episcopal (Jhurch, to be chosen as hereinafter i)ro- 
 vided : such lectures to be not less than six nor more 
 than eight in number, and to be published in book 
 form before the income of the fund shall be paid to the 
 lecturer ; 
 
 " 3. To endow two other lcctureshii)s, one on bib- 
 lical Literature and Learning, and the other on Chris- 
 tian Kvitlences : the object of such lectureships to be 
 to provide for all the students who may be willing to 
 avail themselves of them a comj)lete course of instruc- 
 tion in sacred learning, and in the ])hilosophy of right 
 thinking and right living, without which no education 
 can justly be considered complete ; '■ 
 
 " 4. To organize a society, to be composed of the 
 students in all classes and departments of the Univer- 
 sity who may be members of or attached to the Prot- 
 estant Lpiscopal Church, of which society the Bishop 
 of the Diocese, the Rector, Wardens, and Vestrymen 
 of St. Andrew's Parish, and all the Professors of the 
 University who are communicants of the I'rotestant 
 r^piscopal Church should be members ex cfficio, which 
 society should have the care and management of the 
 reading-room and lecture-room of the hall, and of all 
 exercises or employments carried on therein, and 
 should moreover annually elect each of the lecturers 
 
EXTRACT FROM THE DEED OF TRUST 
 
 hereinbefore mentioned, upon the nomination of the 
 Bishop of the 1 )iocese. 
 
 " In pursuance of the said plan, the said society of 
 students and otliers has been (hily orj^anized under the 
 name cf the ' Ilobart (luild of the University of Mich- 
 igan ; ' the hall above mentioned has been buildcd and 
 called ' Hobart Hall ; ' and Mr. Henry P. Baldwin of 
 Detroit, Michigan, and Sibyl A. Baldwin, his wife, have 
 given to the said party of the first part the sum of ten 
 thousand dollars for the endowment and support of the 
 lectureship first hereinbefore mentioned. 
 
 " Now, therefore, I, the said Samuel Smith Harris, 
 Bishop as aforcsaiil, do hereby give, grant, and transfer 
 to the said Henry I'. Baldwin, Alonzo B. Balmer, 
 Henry .'\. Hayden, Sidney D. Miller, and Henry 1'. 
 Baldwin, 2d, Trustees as aforesaid, the said sum of ten 
 thousand dollars to be invested in good and safe inter- 
 est-bearing securities, the net income thereof to be paid 
 and ajjplied from time to time as hereinafter provided, 
 the said simi and the income thereof to be held in 
 trust for the following uses : — 
 
 " I. The said fund sliall be know^n as the Endow- 
 ment Fund of the I'aldwin Lectures. 
 
 " 2. There shall be chosen annually by the Hobart 
 (luild of the University of Michigan, upon the nomina- 
 tion of the Bishop of ^^ichigan, a learned clergyman or 
 other conmiunicant of the Protestant I-piscojial Church, 
 to deliver at .Ann Arbor and under the ausi)ices of the 
 said Hobart (luild, between the Feast of St. Michael 
 and All .Vngels and the Feast of St. Thomas, in each 
 year, not less than six nor more than eight lectures, for 
 the Establishment and Defence of (Christian Truth ; the 
 said lectures to be published in book form by Easter of 
 
8 
 
 EXTRACT I'liOM THE DEED OE TKC\S7\ 
 
 the following year, and to be entitled ' The Baldwin 
 Lectures; ' and there shall be paid to the said lecturer 
 the income of the said endowment fun«l, u])on the de- 
 livery of fifty copies of said lectures to the said Trustees 
 or their succjssors ; the said printed volumes to con- 
 tain, as an extra( t from this instrument, or in condensed 
 form, a statement of the object and conditions of this 
 trust." 
 
 III! 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 IT is needless to say that the lectures pub- 
 lished in this volume were undertaken and 
 delivered under a very deep sense of responsi- 
 bility, and even with a measure of anxiety. If 
 this anxiety was excessive, I may plead that it 
 is a serious matter to deal with the phases of 
 contemporaneous thought in their relation to 
 the truth of the Gospel, and to endeavor to ex- 
 tort testimonies to the power of the Cross from 
 foes as well as from friends. It is a serious 
 undertaking " to contend earnestly for the faith 
 which was once for all delivered unto the P?Jpts." 
 Whether this work has been accomplished 
 with any kind of success, it does not become 
 me to say. I may, however, be permitted to 
 remark that I have not addressed myself to the 
 subjects of these lectures without having taken 
 considerable pains to become acquainted with 
 the'positions of our opponents; and further, that 
 I shall have reason to be amply satisfied if tiie 
 
10 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 public shall receive the volume with only a fair 
 measure of the kind acceptance granted to the 
 lectures when they were delivered. 
 
 " We owe these foundations," ^ — the " Ilobart 
 Guild " and the " l^aldwin Lectures," — says my 
 distinguished and accomplished predecessor, 
 Bishop Cleveland Coxe, " to the enlightened 
 wisdom and foresight of the Right Reverend 
 Prelate, who, with such great advantage to the 
 Church at large, now presides over the Diocese 
 of Michigan. But he would hardly forgive me 
 should I neglect to add, that in the munificence 
 of Governor Baldwin and his accomplished wife 
 he has found that sort of encouragement and 
 help without which the ablest and most zealous 
 bishop is impotent to effect what his heart and 
 head may prompt him to propose as due alike 
 to the Republic and to the Church of Christ." 
 
 It was of unspeakable advantage to the sec- 
 ond lecturer ♦^hat the importance of the work 
 of the Guild should have been commended by 
 Bishop Cleveland Coxe, although in other re- 
 spects it made his own work more difficult. It 
 is impossible for me to say how grcatl\- my task 
 was lightened by the generous support of the 
 Bi::hop of Michigan, by whom I was appointed 
 to the lectureship with the hearty concurrence 
 
 * The reader is referred more particularly to the extract 
 from tlic " Deed of Trust " on page 5. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 I I 
 
 ly a fair 
 J to the 
 
 Ifobart 
 iays my 
 cccssor, 
 ,^htcncd 
 :vcrcnd 
 
 to the 
 !)iocc.sc 
 jivc mc 
 ficcncc 
 cd wife 
 nt and 
 jealous 
 rt and 
 
 alike 
 1st." 
 e sec- 
 work 
 cd by 
 
 r re- 
 It 
 
 task 
 the 
 
 ntcd 
 
 cnce 
 
 of Governor Baldwin. The people of Detroit 
 and of the Diocese of Michigan know these il- 
 lustrious men too well to need that a compara- 
 tive stranger should do more than express his 
 personal gratitude and respect for them. 
 
 It is seldom, perhaps, in the preface to lec- 
 tures of this kind, that remarks of a character so 
 personal should be introduced. 15ut it is hardly 
 possible to do otherwise at the beginning of 
 such an undertaking; and I shelter m\-self under 
 th.e great example of my predecessor when I 
 acknowledge the personal kindness and sym- 
 pathy which I received from the inhabitants 
 of the beautiful university town in which the 
 lectures were delivered. 
 
 To several of the Professors, to private mem- 
 bers of the I'^.piscopal Church, and to prominent 
 representatives of other communions, I am un- 
 der deep and lasting obligations. To the Rev. 
 Dr. ICarp, Rector of St. Andrew's Church, who 
 has done such admirable and successfid work 
 for the Episcopal Church and for the Hobart 
 Guild, not only my thanks but the thanks of the 
 whole community are due, and are here offered 
 by me in my own name, and in the name of 
 many besides myself 
 
 In a course of lectures, the material {c>x which 
 has been accumulating through a number of 
 years, it is not easy to indicate all the sources 
 
m 
 
 12 
 
 PREI'ACE. 
 
 from which ideas or trains of thought have 
 been derived. Wherever I have known of anv 
 obhgations of this kind I have acknowledged 
 them in the notes, although doubtless many 
 have escaped my memory. With reference 
 to the two lectures on the Resurrection, it 
 ma/ seem a matter of surprise that no refer- 
 ence is made to Dr. Milligan's excellent work 
 on this subject. The fact is, that these lec- 
 tures were drawn up immediately after the 
 .publication of the third volume of " Supernat- 
 ural Religion," and before I had seen Dr. Milli- 
 gan's work. Whatever coincidences may be 
 found, are attributable simply to our having 
 dealt with the same subject and the same 
 material. 
 
 May our gracious and loving Lord accept 
 this humble tribute to the truth and glory of 
 His woik, and pardon its defects! 
 
 W. C. 
 
 Trinity College, Toronto, 
 , Epiphany, iS88. 
 
 Hi' 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LFXTURE I. 
 
 PHASES AND FAILURES OF UNBELIEF. 
 
 Page 
 
 Reasons for Unbelief. — Conflict to be expected. — The 
 Work of the Chiircli in the Past. — I'resent Duty. — 
 The Spirit of our Woriv. — The present Position of the 
 Conflict. — Fears and Hopes. — The last Hundred 
 Years. — Three Phases of Thought in Unbelief: the 
 Theological, the Metaiihysical, anti the Positive. — 
 Ai)parent Discouragements. — The Three Forms of 
 Unbeh'cf : I. Rationalism, — Rcimarus ; Paulus ; 
 Exami)lcs of Treatment ; Uses; Failure. II. Mytii- 
 iciSM, — Strauss, Value of his Work, gave a Death- 
 blow to Rationalism; Measure of Truth in Pantheism ; 
 F'ailure of Mythicism. ; Kenan's " Vie de Jesus ; " 
 Strauss's new " Leben Jesu." III. Matkrialism, — 
 Strauss's "The OU'. Faith and the New" . . . 19-49 
 
 LECTURE II. 
 
 CIVILIZATION AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 The Gospel in the World. — Christian Ideal and Christian 
 Life contrasted. — Has Christianity failed.? — Modern 
 Civilization and Christianity. — Clpposing Views. — 
 I. The World before Christ : Claims of the Ancient 
 World real; Serious Defects; vitiated by Egoism. — 
 Plato and Aristotle. — Citizens, Slaves, liarbarians, 
 luicniics. — Creeks and Romans alike. — Cicero. — 
 Condition of various Classes : i. Women, — Status, 
 Marriage, Dependence ; 2. Working Classes, — Manual 
 
J4 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Paub 
 
 Labor thought degrading ; 3. Slaves, — Slavery ac- 
 cepted by the Philosophers, the Laws relating to Slav- 
 ery, Slavery in Practice, Exceptions, Doctrine of Stoics. 
 — II. The Jsetd supplied: the Gospel of Human 
 Brotherhood ; its Foundation in Christ. — The Kingdom 
 of (jod ; its Subjects; its Laws. — Changes effected: 
 I. Condition of Women ; 2. Laboring Classes ; 3. The 
 Poor, — provided for by Christianity; the Lmperor 
 Julian; 4. Slaves, — Objection that there is no Chris- 
 tian Command for Emancipation; Answer, — what the 
 Gosjjel has done, what it has to do ; 5. War; 6. Legis- 
 lation. — Conclusion 50-78 
 
 LECTURE III. 
 
 "m 
 
 PERSONAL CULTURE AND RELIGION. 
 
 Man, Individual and Social. — Transition from Civiliza- 
 tion to personal Culture. — Man's Nature and Cul- 
 ture. — Points of Agreement. — I. Theories of Culture 
 various, but reducible to two, Religious and Non-Reli- 
 gious: I. The Non-Religious, — (i) .Social, (2) Scien- 
 tific, (3) Literary, (4) Positivist ; 2. The Christian. — 
 IL Means of Attainment : Human Culture not under- 
 valued, but insutificient, as not taking account of Man's 
 whole Nature; illustrated: i. Idea of Immortality; 2. 
 Responsibility, — (i) Conscience, (2) the Idea of God, 
 (3) Consciousness rif Sin, (4) how met by the Gos- 
 pel, (5) Effects produced. — Mill. — Goethe and Saint 
 Francois de .Sales. — Luther and Rousseau. — General 
 Effects. — The Christian Ideal. — Lecky. — Mill on 
 Belief in Immortality; on the Life and Teaching of 
 Jesus 79"' ^3 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 THE UNITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 
 
 Does the Bible teach definite Religious Truth ? — Denied. 
 — What may be meant by the Denial } — Divine Reve- 
 lation in Christ. — Gradually unfolded. — True De- 
 
 ■ .rif 
 
CONTEXTS. 
 
 15 
 
 velopmcnt. — Illustrated in the Writings of Snint Paul. 
 
 — Later Kxampks of Development in the History of 
 the Church. — Schools of Thought. — IJeveiopmcnt 
 and Accretion distinguished. — Illustrations of Unity 
 in Christian Teaching : 1. The Nature of (Jod. — Repre- 
 sented as possessing Human Attributes and as being 
 far removed from Humanity. — Dcistic and I'antheistic 
 Conceptions. — 2. 'I'he Character of (jod. — Divine 
 Decrees and Human Liberty. — 3. The Nature of Man. 
 
 — ( )riginal Sin. — Concupiscence. — 4. Kschatology. — 
 Future Retribution. — Three current Theories. — Not 
 absolutely Irreconcilable. — Analogy of the Book of 
 Nature and Science with the liook of Grace and 
 Theology 114-141 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM. 
 
 Universality of Iklief in God. — Materialism and Atheism 
 inseparably connected. — Materialism, what it is. — Ma- 
 terialistic Accounts of the Origin of Life. — Evolution 
 not necessarily materialistic. — The Atomic Theory no 
 Explanation of Life. — Materialism, pure and sim])le, 
 generally abandoned. — Opinions of eminent Scientific 
 Men. — The Principle of Energy or Force. — Mr. Spen- 
 cer's E.xposition. — Must we n(jt go further .-' Mr. 
 Spencer, to some E.xtent, in Agreement with the Gospel, 
 
 — but in his " Force " we recognize Mind. — We are 
 compelled to go beyond the Facts and Laws of the 
 Material Universe. — We know Mind directly, Matter 
 indirectly. — What do we learn from the I'",xternal 
 World "i — Kant's Categories. — Laws of Nature im- 
 ply Mind. — The Argument from Design, — Objec- 
 tions considered. — What we believe and assert. — 
 Our Conclusions called in Question. — Spirit personal. 
 
 — The Ego and Non-Ego. — The Analogy of the Finite 
 inapplicable to the Infinite. — Conclusions. . . 142-179 
 
i6 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 THE PESSIMISM OF THE AGE. 
 
 II 
 
 Pace 
 
 Connection between Faith and Action. — Different Ten- 
 dencies in Human Nature explain the Origin of Pessi- 
 mism and Optimism. — Meaning of these Terms. — Views 
 of Jews, Greeks, and Romans. — Christian View. — .Sen- 
 timent of Deism. — Buddhism. — I. Modern Pessimism, 
 — I.copardi, Schopenhauer, liartmann; Leopardi's three 
 possible Ways of Happiness; .Schopenhauer's Theory. — 
 II. What we are to thini< of Pessimism. — i. Effort not 
 necessarily productive of Unhappiness ; 2. Pleasure not 
 merely Negative ; 3. The Development and Elevation 
 of Life not a mere Increase of Misery. — Increased 
 Sensibility and Intelligence also a Source of Happi- 
 ness. — Testimonies of Instinct and Reason. — The 
 Reply of Pessimism : Men deceive themselves. — The 
 Rejoinder of Consciousness. — A Future Life. — III. 
 How can we account for Pessimism ? — Partly the Re- 
 sult of Temperament and Constitutio ', partly of the 
 Circumstances of Individuals and Comi. unities. — Chief 
 Cause found in the State of Religious Belief. — Con- 
 dition of Germany. — Pessimism can flourish only on 
 the Ruins of Faith. — Examples of Faith and Unbe- 
 lief. — The Gospel and Agnosticism. — Deism. — Athe- 
 ism. — Pessimism the last Word of Positivism. — 
 Conclusion 180- 
 
 !I5 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 PART I. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION. 
 
 I. Introductory. — Importance of the Event. — The Gos- 
 pel founded on Facts. — Necessity of Revelation for 
 the Support of Religious Truth. — 2. The Fact of the 
 Resurrection. — Its Meaning. — 3. The Nature of the 
 Evidence. — No Evidence sufficient for those who dis- 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 17 
 
 Pack 
 
 believe in the Supernatural. — The Existence of a 
 Personal God i)ostulatccl. — The Church exists and 
 professes to have the Knowledge of God by Revela- 
 tion. — The Harden of Proof not entirely with the Chris- 
 tian. — Points on which there is general Agreement. — 
 The Documentary Proof. — Two Questions : (i) What 
 did the Disciples of Christ believe .> (2) Are we justi- 
 fied in bcUcvinj^ the Same.' — 4. The Evidence of the 
 Gospel Histories; their Agreement; their Statements. 
 
 — Objections: Not seen to rise; Disagreement as to 
 the Time, as to the Circumstances; Legendary Details. 
 
 — Answers. — Final Verdict on Evidence. — 5 The Evi- 
 dence of Saint Paul. — Documents admitted. — Points 
 of Agreement. — What the admitted Documents assert. 
 
 — An independent Testimony. — Its Value affected by 
 the Character of the Witness. — Objections to his 
 Testimony. — Answers. — The Value of Saint Paul's 
 Testimony. — Disingenuous and inconsistent Objection. 
 
 — Answer 216-254 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 THE RESURKECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 SECTION. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THEORIES INVENTED TO SET ASIDE 
 THE EVIDENCE tOK THE RESURRECTION. 
 
 No Evidence will convince those who are resolved not to 
 believe. — Theory of In-.posture abandoned. — How, 
 then, escape from the Force of the Testimony .' — Two 
 Theories: i. The Theory of Apparent Death, — partly 
 abandoned, partly kept in Reserve. — The one Element 
 of Probability in the Theory. — But consider what the 
 Theory requires us to believe. — Difficulties. — Does 
 not account for the Change in the Apostles. — Involves 
 Imposture. — 2. The Vision Hypothesis. — The last 
 Word of the Assailants. — Asserts Illusion, not Im- 
 posture. — The Theory explained. — Nut entirely new. 
 — Different Views of Strauss. — What the Illusion 
 Theory involves. — Requires the inadmissible Assump- 
 
! ' 
 
 lll'i!! 
 
 s'- 
 
 i8 
 
 CONTEXTS. 
 
 Pack 
 
 tion that the Disciples expected the Resurrection. — 
 The 'I'hcaiy docs not account for the Change in the 
 iJisciplcs. — Inconsistent Treatment of the (iospcls. 
 — Mary Magdalene. — The Apo.stlcs. — Thcii Doubts 
 and Disbelief. — The Vision fails to account for un- 
 doubted Facts. — Why did the Appearances cease so 
 abruptly? — What became of the Sacred Body.' — 
 The Truth of the Resurrection alone accounts for the 
 new Faith of the Disciples. — The End of this Con- 
 troversy 255-2S5 
 
 Notes 287-300 
 
Pace 
 
 ction. — 
 e in the 
 (iospcls. 
 r Doubts 
 for un- 
 ccase so 
 3ocly ? — 
 > for the 
 lis Con- 
 . 255-285 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 . 287-300 
 
 LECTURE I. 
 
 PHASES AND FAILURES OF UNBELIEF. 
 
 Reasons for Unbelief. — Conflict to be expected. — The Work 
 of tlie Church in the Past. — Present Duty. — The Spirit of 
 our Worlv. — The present Position of the Conflict. — Fears 
 and Hopes. — The last Hundred Years. — Three Phases of 
 Thought in Unbelief : the Theological, the Metaphysi- 
 cal, and the Positive. — Apparent Discouragements. — The 
 Three F<>rnis of Unbelief : I. Rationalis.m, — Rcima- 
 rus ; Paulas ; E.xamples of Treatment ; Uses ; Failure. 
 II. Mytiiicis.m, — Strauss, Value of his Work, gave a 
 Death-blow to Rationalism; Measure of Truth in Panthe- 
 ism ; Failure of Mythicism ; Renan's " Vic de Jesns ; " 
 Strauss's new " I.eben Jesu." III. M.VIERIALISM, — 
 Strauss's " The Old Faith and the New." 
 
 IF the Gospjl is true, why is it not generally, 
 or even universally, believed and accepted? 
 If it is really a message of salvation sent from 
 God to His sinful creatures who have sore need 
 of it, how is it that it is not welcomed by the 
 sinful, — how is it that it is disbelieved, rejected, 
 opposed? Such questions are often asked by 
 Christians and by unbelievers alike, — by the 
 latter scornfully, triumphantly; by the former 
 
20 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 11 
 
 ! 
 
 m 
 
 \ 
 
 sorrowfully, despondently. By the one and the 
 other it seems to be assumed that a message 
 that was true and beneficent must find a ready 
 acceptance. 
 
 And yet those who know and remember the 
 words of the Lord Jesus are aware that He did 
 not expect the world to yield at once to His 
 authority and His claims. Although at His 
 birth the heavenly hosts proclaimed peace on 
 earth; although he left with His disciples the 
 blessing of peace which the world could not 
 give, and which no man could take away from 
 them; although His very name was the Prince 
 of Peace, yet He told them that He came not 
 to send peace upon earth, but a sword; and He 
 who takes the sword must smite with the sword, 
 and either perish by the sword, or by it gain a 
 lasting victory and triumph. This conflict has 
 gone on ever since the Lord of life was lifted up 
 into His throne of glory; and all His faithful 
 followers must be like Him, their Lord, who is 
 "a man of war," and must fight the good fight 
 of faith even unto death. 
 
 It is a \^xQ.dX and a terrible warfare to which 
 we are called, — to take part in that great battle 
 of Armageddon which has been raging ever since 
 moral evil appeared in the universe, and with 
 respect to which no neutrality is allowed, since 
 a curse is spoken against those who stand by 
 and come not " to the help of the Lord against 
 the mighty." And it is a fight which must be 
 
PHASES AD FAILURES OF UNBELIEF. 21 
 
 
 fought with no weapons of earthly fashioning 
 or of earthly temper, but with those which are 
 taken from the armory of heaven and are sanc- 
 tioned by the Leader of the hosts of heaven. 
 
 " Yc shall bear witness," said Christ to His 
 Apostles; and this is one chief duty, wc might 
 say the first of all the duties which are laid upon 
 the Church of Christ in the world, and upon 
 every member of it, that they should be wit- 
 nesses for God, — witnesses against sin and er- 
 ror, witnesses for goodness and truth, letting 
 their light so shine before men that they may 
 see their good works, and glorify their Father 
 which is in heaven. 
 
 In many different ways and in many different 
 circumstances must this testimony be borne; 
 and although in one sense it is ever the same, 
 yet there is need of constant vigilance, wisdom, 
 readiness, that it may be a word spoken in 
 season as it is needed, doing for men that spe- 
 cial work which their necessities require and de- 
 mand, and which God thus indicates as the work 
 which He expects His people to perform. Thus 
 I le wills that wherever our lot is cast, we shall 
 " earnestly contend for the faith once delivered 
 to the saints." 
 
 It can hardly be charged against the Church 
 that she has ever wholly forgotten this duty. 
 Sometimes her enemies have come in the form 
 of that brutal violence which sought to crush 
 and destroy her life ; sometimes under the subtle 
 

 ! > I 
 
 m 
 
 22 
 
 IV/TNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 garb oi sophistry, which really aimed at the de- 
 struction of her testimony to the truth as it is in 
 Jesus, while it seemed to be endeavoring to help 
 its [jroj^rcss; sometimes in the form of unbe- 
 lief, — at one time calm, rational, and philosoph- 
 ical in tone; or again, biting, sarcastic, and 
 contemptuous. But against all of these adver- 
 saries the Church has, with varying faith and 
 power, with varying courage and hopefulness, 
 and so with varying success, carried on the con- 
 flict on behalf of her Lord and His truth. It 
 could never be lawful for her to desist; for that 
 which she conserved was not her own, but the 
 bequest of Another, and she had no choice but 
 to defend and preserve it. And the same duty 
 is handed on to ourselves, to contend not for 
 anvthiiig which we can claim as our own, but 
 for the honor of our God and the blessedness 
 of His creatures. 
 
 And surely we must feel, if there is any con- 
 flict, if there is any duty, which requires of us 
 that we should be wise as serpents and harmless 
 as doves, it is this fighting for and defending the 
 ark of God. For our antagonists are not our 
 enemies. They are men who are loved by God ; 
 they arc men for whom Christ died. They are 
 men not to be treated with scorn and contumely, 
 even though they may scorn us and blaspheme 
 the holy name by which we are called ; they 
 are to be loved, pitied, prayed for, persuaded, 
 reasoned with. In this spirit, and in no other, 
 
 iii 
 
r//AS/:S AND FAILURES OF UNliELIEF. 23 
 
 t the dc- 
 as it is in 
 Gj to help 
 Df unbe- 
 lilosoph- 
 >tic, and 
 e advcr- 
 aith and 
 cfulncss, 
 the con- 
 ruth. It 
 for that 
 but the 
 oice but 
 mc duty 
 not for 
 )wn, but 
 isedness 
 
 ny con- 
 is of us 
 armless 
 ing the 
 lot our 
 y God ; 
 icy are 
 iimely, 
 pheme 
 
 ; they 
 uaded, 
 
 other, 
 
 is it lawful for the servants of Jesus Christ to 
 go forth against the enemies t)f the Cross. 
 
 It is one of the great glories of Christ, that, 
 while lie never lowers his own pretensions or 
 His claims, lie will not C^cwy or (luestion the 
 rights of His creatures. He will have us rev- 
 ercncc mankind, even when it is in error, be- 
 cause He will win men by truth and by love. 
 Who are they that come forth to do battle 
 against the Incarnate Word of Goil? Some 
 there are, moved by the Spirit of Christ Him- 
 self, eager for a knowledge of truth, yet for a 
 season blintled by prejudice, by ignc-ancc, by 
 influences the power of which they have not 
 learned to overcome. Must we not pity such, 
 and love them and be patient with them? And 
 if there are others who have no real love of 
 truth, who are held by the power of darkness 
 and of Satan, alas! are not they even more to 
 be pitied, if they are also to be blamed and 
 rebuked? And if it is our duty at times to re- 
 buke then sharply, surely it should be done in 
 a spirit of meekness and lowliness, remembering 
 who it is that hath made us to differ. God help 
 us thus to meet the enemies of the Cross as 
 those who hope that one day we may clasp 
 their hands as friends! May we not also re- 
 mind ourselves of that truth which will again 
 and again force itself upon our attention in the 
 course of our inquiry, — that we have much 
 to learn, and that we have actually learned 
 
WP 
 
 24 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 
 much from the attacks and criticisms of our 
 adversaries? 
 
 Every age has its own peculiar difficulties in 
 dealing with unbelief; and it is not wonderful 
 that each age should sec the special arduous- 
 ness of its own appointed work. Doubtless 
 there are in our own days peculiar dangers and 
 discouragements in connection with the work 
 of maintaining the faith ; but there arc also pe- 
 culiar helps and elements of hopefulness lying 
 side by side with these very difficulties. Let us 
 try to understand the position of the armies of 
 faith and unbelief, and we shall see that these 
 words are not spoken without reason. 
 
 One of the most subtle as well as offensive 
 modes of assailing the faith is the method 
 adopted by those who talk in a patronizing 
 manner of the benefits which religion has con- 
 ferred upon mankind in earlier and ruder ages, 
 while they deny that it is any longer a necessity 
 for the human race. Religion, in their view, 
 has had its day. It was useful, they think, in 
 the early stages of human civilization, when the 
 laws of Nature were comparatively unknown, 
 and men could not be intlucnced by intelligent 
 self-interest. Then, the thought of a Being 
 whose commands men were bound to obey, 
 who could reward them for their obedience 
 and punish them for their disobedience, was 
 useful and helpful ; but now it would be a dis- 
 tinct hindrance to a clear discernment of the 
 
3 of our 
 
 :ulties in 
 wonderful 
 arduous- 
 )oubtlcss 
 gcrs and 
 :he work 
 also pe- 
 2SS lying 
 Let us 
 irmies of 
 lat these 
 
 offensive 
 method 
 Tonizing 
 las con- 
 icr ages, 
 iccessity 
 :ir view, 
 think, in 
 /hen the 
 ;iknown, 
 tclligent 
 Being 
 obey, 
 icdience 
 ce, was 
 le a dis- 
 of the 
 
 PHASES AND FAILURES OF UNBELIEF. 25 
 
 laws and true conditions of human Hfe. And 
 these are the conckisions of perhaps no incon- 
 siderable number of educated and reflecting 
 men in our own days. We cannot wonder that 
 many believers in Divine Revelation should be 
 seriously disquieted, and that some should even 
 be greatly alarmed, at the progress of such 
 opinions. 
 
 It would be unreasonable for the Christian 
 apologist to ignore this somewhat altered state 
 of things. It would be foolish to infer, that, 
 because religion seems to make great progress 
 in these later days, therefore all opposition to it 
 must speedily cease, or may be safely ignored. 
 The warfare between faith and unbelief will 
 never cease until the end shall come. It cannot 
 be said with truth that the fight is hotter than 
 in former days. On the contrary, it is cooler, 
 calmer, carried on with less of noise and of pas- 
 sion ; but it is as deep and as earnest as ever. It 
 is perhaps natural that this superficial change 
 should have come over the spirit of the com- 
 batants. The exact nature of the conflict is 
 much better known. Men are no longer fight- 
 ing in the dark or in the twilight, but in clear 
 day. They are no longer in such danger of 
 confounding friends and foe.s, of striking out 
 wildly because they are in partial ignorance 
 of their position and circumstances. The field 
 of battle is more clearly marked out; the posi- 
 tion of the enemy is more accurately deter- 
 
•liil! 
 
 26 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 mined. Both sides know much better the 
 exact nature of the work to be done. 
 
 Most persons will agree that such a state of 
 things is more satisfactory in every way; and 
 those who believe in the truth of Divine Reve- 
 lation will consider it as hopeful for the cause of 
 truth. But it is not so much in this circumstance 
 that we discern the brighter prospects which 
 the present offers us, but rather in the fact that 
 unbelief has now run its course and exhausted 
 all its armory in its assaults upon the faith. To 
 the statement that religion has had its day, and 
 must now pass away and give place to natural 
 knowledge, we oppose the assertion that un- 
 belief has had its day; that it has tried one 
 weapon after another against the walls of the 
 City of God, and that not one of them has pros- 
 pered ; that they have so visibly failed that one 
 after another has been cast away, and that there 
 remains nothing for those who would continue 
 the assault, but the use of arms which have 
 already been found ineffectual, and which have 
 been already rejected as useless by the soldiers 
 of the army of unbelief. 
 
 We go further. When we review the past 
 history of the criticism that has sought to un- 
 dermine the foundations of Divine Revelation, 
 we not only behold the evidences of victory to 
 the cause of truth, but we see that the Church 
 has learned much and gained much in the con- 
 flict. We find out, what we might have antici- 
 
PHASES AND FAILURES OF UNBELIEF. 27 
 
 Jettcr the 
 
 a state of 
 way; and 
 inc Revc- 
 c cause of 
 :umstancc 
 :ts which 
 i fact that 
 exhausted 
 Liith. To 
 day, and 
 o natural 
 that un- 
 tried one 
 Is of the 
 las pros- 
 that one 
 lat there 
 continue 
 ch have 
 ch have 
 soldiers 
 
 he past 
 : to un- 
 'clation, 
 ctory to 
 Church 
 he con- 
 antici- 
 
 pated if we had been wiser, that every form 
 of error which has opposed itself to the faith 
 of Christ has cither contained some precious 
 germ of truth, or has over against it some 
 partial error which has attached itself to certain 
 representations of the faith. 
 
 It was a wise remark of a French Bishop, 
 that we must not hurl anathemas at the natural 
 order, and that we must respect human reason 
 at the same time that we make it feel its weak- 
 ness and its impotence. \Vc believe that this 
 is one of the most valuable lessons that are 
 impressed upon us by the past history of un- 
 belief If it has shown us its weakness and 
 the weakness of its origin, it has also taught 
 us to discover some of our own weaknesses 
 and errors. If it has shattered itself against 
 the fortifications which it sought in vain to 
 destroy, it has left among the heaps of rubbish 
 which are strewn around the City of God some 
 precious jewels which may be set in the walls 
 of the heavenly Jerusalem. 
 
 During the past hundred years the history 
 of unbelief has passed through three distinct 
 phases, corresponding with Comte's three stages 
 of human thought, — the theological, the meta- 
 physical, and the positive. In adopting this 
 period as the nearest to our own times, it is 
 by no means intended to be implied that the 
 same lessons are not deducible from other 
 periods of Christian history. The whole his- 
 
j$ 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 111! 
 
 ih \ 
 
 tory of unbelief in all ages partakes of the same 
 changing and uncertain chr.racter. But there 
 is a special advantage in selecting a period 
 which can be surveyed without any consider- 
 able difficulty, — a period in which the modes 
 of thought correspond more nearly with our own 
 than those by which earlier ages were character- 
 ized, and the changes of which can be grasped 
 and exhibited with comparative ease. 
 
 These three stages,^ then, — the theological, 
 the metaphysical, and the positive, — represent 
 the different phases of unbelief, from the publi- 
 cation of the '* Wolfcnbiittel Fragments "^ (a con- 
 venient starting-point), in 1778, to the present 
 day. Let us remember that these fragments 
 appeared in their complete form forty years 
 after the publication o*' Butler's " Analogy " 
 (1736); that they were being issued at the time 
 of the death of David Hume, when the English 
 unbeliever Thomas Paine (i 737-1 809) was about 
 forty years of age, and about twenty years before 
 the publication of Paley's " Evidences of Chris- 
 tianity" (1794). It might seem, at first sight, 
 that a review of this period, extending over the 
 last century, would be far from encouraging, 
 when we remember that each stage in the pro- 
 gress of unbelief has manifested a more deadly 
 hostility to the basis of the faith of Christ — that 
 
 ^ For some of these remarks I think I am indebted to a 
 pamphlet by Dr. A. Schweizer which I no longer possess, 
 a See Note A. 
 
 J 
 
 4 
 
f the same 
 But there 
 a period 
 consider- 
 :he modes 
 :h our own 
 character- 
 'e grasped 
 
 leological, 
 
 represent 
 
 the publi- 
 
 ^ (a con- 
 e present 
 fragments 
 rty years 
 Analogy " 
 
 the time 
 : English 
 'as about 
 rs before 
 of Chris- 
 st sight, 
 over the 
 u raging, 
 the pro- 
 ) deadly 
 t — that 
 
 ;bted to a 
 sess. 
 
 PHASES AND FAILURES OF UNBELIEF, 29 
 
 is to say, to a belief in the supernatural — than 
 the period by which it was preceded. But we 
 shall certainly find, on a deeper consideration of 
 the subject, that this progress in antagonism 
 has, on the one hand, been a confession of weak- 
 ness, and, on the other hand, has necessitated 
 the taking up of positions which are less and 
 less capable of being maintained. 
 
 If deism and rationalism gave place to pan- 
 theism and the mythical hypothesis ; if these in 
 their turn gave way to positivism, materialism, 
 sheer atheism, — it has been because the earlier 
 positions could not be defended. But we be- 
 lieve that the last battle-field chosen by unbelief 
 offers it the least favorable vantage-ground of 
 all; and it is in this circumstance that we ven- 
 ture to discover a ground of hope in looking 
 forward to the future conflicts of the faith with 
 unbelief 
 
 I. Let us now try to understand the three 
 forms of unbelief which have, during the last 
 century, assailed the truth of the Gospel. The 
 first was the rationalistic ; and it was, for the most 
 part, employed by those who were called deists. 
 This form of error, in any wide sense, had its 
 birthplace in England and in France, not in 
 Germany. We are so accustomed to speak of 
 German rationalism (and there have been many 
 German rationalists in the past and in the pres- 
 ent), that we are apt to forget that the Germans, 
 as a nation, are not natively or distinctively 
 
|0 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 ii 
 
 ll'il! 
 
 |,i 
 
 rationalistic. Still, they worked out the theorief? 
 which were transplanted from other countries, 
 more particularly by Reimarus in the " VVolfen- 
 buttcl Fragments " already mentioned. 
 
 The most powerful German exponent of this 
 theory was Paulus, who applied it first to the 
 exposition of the Gospels, and afterwards more 
 particularly to the explanation of the life of our 
 Lord.^ The distinctive character of the ration- 
 alistic theory was this, — that the Gospel stories 
 were regarded as substantially historical, but in 
 no case as having a supernatural character. The 
 last is, of course, the one point of agreement 
 between these various schools, — that they all 
 exclude a belief in supernatural agency. This 
 assumption lies at the foundation of each new 
 theory, and is the explanation of its origin. 
 
 It was quite natural that the rationalistic the- 
 ory should be the first in modern times as in 
 ancient. It is difficult, as one reads the Gos- 
 pel story, to believe that the events which are 
 there described never took place. Even at a 
 later period than that to which we are now 
 referring, the sense of their historical reality 
 has been forced upon unwilling minds. When 
 M. Renan went to visit the Holy Land before 
 writing his " Vie de Jesus," he was under the 
 influence of the mythical theory. But the testi- 
 mony of the soil of Palestine was too strong for 
 
 ^ His " Commentary on the Gospels " appeared in 1800 ; his 
 " Life of Jesus " {Lcknjesti), in 1828. 
 
lie theories 
 countries, 
 " VVolfen- 
 
 Jnt of this 
 rst to the 
 irds more 
 life of our 
 lie ration- 
 )el stories 
 :al, but in 
 :ter. The 
 greement 
 : they all 
 y. This 
 -ach new 
 origin, 
 istic the- 
 les as in 
 the Gos- 
 hich are 
 ^cn at a 
 are now 
 reahty 
 When 
 ' before 
 ider the 
 he testi- 
 rong for 
 
 1800; his 
 
 
 PI/ASES AND FAILURES OF UNBELIEF. 3 1 
 
 him. lie felt, as he looked on the Galilean hills 
 and stood by the Lake of Gennesareth, that in 
 the Gospels he had to do with history. And 
 so Paulas and his school say the events of the 
 Gospel did take place, but they were purely 
 natural, because there is no such thing, and 
 there can be no such thing, as a miracle. This, 
 we must repeat, is the one assumption (we had 
 almost said the necessary assumption; of every 
 school of unbelief; and the problem which each 
 professes to solve is to account for the form of 
 the stories which are found in the New Testa- 
 ment without admitting the notion of the super- 
 natural as an explanation of their contents. 
 
 Let us take some examples of the rationalistic 
 treatment of the Gospel history, and we shall 
 better understand its methods and its difficul- 
 ties. Take the first miracle, the provision of 
 wine at the marriage of Cana in Galilee. Some- 
 thing of the kind, the rationalist would say, 
 actually did take place ; but there was no mira- 
 cle wrought. According to Paulus,' the mar- 
 riage took place in a poor family. It was 
 probably foreseen that their provision would be 
 insufficient, and it was a kindly jest on the part 
 of Jesus and His friends to assist this poor 
 family without hurting their feelings, and so 
 they brought wine with them and introduced it 
 
 ^ It is with regret that we mention that I'unscn does not 
 greatly differ from him. See his " Bibelwcrlv," Saint John, 
 chap. ii. 
 
32 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 ':!!!' 
 
 \\m 
 
 in some such way as is described in the Gospel. 
 So, with respect to the miglitiest miracle of all, 
 the resurrection of Jesus Christ, something of 
 the kind actually took place, probably two or 
 three days after the burial. He came out of the 
 grave in which His body had been laid. But 
 then He had not really been dead; He was only 
 in a trance and had revived. 
 
 In the good providence of God — and here 
 we are helped to understand how these assaults 
 upon the faith are permitted — it came to pass 
 that rationalism, with all its shallowness and 
 insufficiency, contributed something to Christian 
 thought. It compelled men to think of God as 
 a Being who governed by law. It raised a 
 serious protest against the notion that man's life 
 and the affairs of the world were ordered by an 
 arbitrary or a capricious will. We do not mean 
 that these notions found the slightest justifi- 
 cation in Holy Scripture, or in any of the au- 
 thoritative teachings of the Church. But there 
 had been, in the ordinary Christian teaching of 
 the period, a too copious use of language which 
 might seem to sanction theories so baseless; 
 and it was a benefit to religion that men should 
 be compelled to see in the laws of Nature, work- 
 ing regularly and harmoniously, rules of the 
 eternal Divine intelligence. 
 
 As a positive system, or as a criticism of 
 Divine revelation, however, rationalism broke 
 down at all points. It was arbitrary and incon- 
 
 li 
 
PHASES AND FAILURES OF UNBELIEF. 33 
 
 Gospel. 
 
 I of all, 
 
 hing of 
 
 two or 
 
 It of the 
 d. But 
 ('as only 
 
 lid here 
 assaults 
 
 to pass 
 2ss and 
 hristian 
 
 God as 
 aiscd a 
 an's life 
 d by an 
 )t mean 
 
 justifi- 
 the au- 
 
 t there 
 
 ling of 
 which 
 
 seless ; 
 
 should 
 work- 
 
 of the 
 
 ism of 
 broke 
 incon- 
 
 sistent in its method, and it furnished no real 
 explanation of the facts for which it professed 
 to account. When it is said that it accepted in 
 substance \\\q. facts of the Gospels, but discarded 
 the opinions of the writers, it overlooked the 
 consideration that no writers liave ever stated 
 facts more simply, have ever introduced less of 
 their own reflections into the narrative of the 
 facts. When rationalism professed to believe 
 that such things happened as are recorded in the 
 Gospels, but that they were susceptible of a 
 natural explanation, it abandoned the very prin- 
 ciple vhich made the facts intelligible, and which 
 explained the influence which they exerted on 
 those who witnessed them. 
 
 The most striking illustration of the utter 
 failure of the rationalistic hypothesis to explain 
 the sacred narrative is found in its criticism of 
 the resunection of Christ; and this topic will 
 receive careful consideration when it comes un- 
 der special survey in the last of these lectures. 
 But it began to be felt that it failed entirely to 
 explain the power and influence of the life and 
 work of Jesus Christ upon the men of his own 
 age. If the rationalistic explanation were the 
 true one, it was impossible to acquit the central 
 Person in those transactions of the charge of 
 imposture; and the day had gone by when such 
 a suspicion could be entertained. 
 
 The difficulty of rationalism, and of the 
 deism with which it has generally been asso- 
 
^^-i — —^ 
 
 34 
 
 IV/TXESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 iii'pi"! 
 
 I ! 
 
 ciatcd, has been that it has ^onc too far or 
 not far enough. The rationahsts were mostly 
 deists; and after all, a personal God is a super- 
 natural fact, and unless we decide to expel Ilim 
 from the government of the universe. He will be 
 as great a difficulty in the world as lie is in the 
 Bible. It was this conviction, Mr. J. S. Mill tells 
 us, that made him abandon deism and become 
 an atheist. Butler, he says,^ convinced him 
 that every objection that could be urged against 
 the difficulties of Christianity was equally appli- 
 cable to the Divine government of the world. 
 
 II. Two causes prepared the way for the 
 viyiJiical theory of Strauss, — the failure of the 
 rationalistic, explanation, and the growth of a 
 pantheistic habit of thought which had for long 
 been at work undermining the prevalent deism. 
 Neither Taulus nor Strauss originated either of 
 the theories which are generally connected with 
 their names. The principles which Paulus ap- 
 plied with more completeness than had hitherto 
 been attempted to the life of our Lord had, as 
 we have seen, been set forth in substance in the 
 " Wolfenbiittel Fragments " many years before, 
 and at a still earlier period by the English Deists. 
 So the germ of the mythical theory of Strauss 
 had been contained in the teachings of more 
 than one of the disciples of Kant; and it had 
 been employed by Eichhorn and De VVette to 
 
 1 Three Essays on Religion, and Autobiography. 
 
PJfASES AXD FAILURES OF UNBELIEF. 35 
 
 far or 
 
 •c mostly 
 ; a siipcr- 
 s:pel Mim 
 Te will be 
 
 1 is in the 
 IMill tells 
 
 1 become 
 iced him 
 :d against 
 illy appli- 
 world. 
 T for the 
 ire of the 
 wth of a 
 J for long 
 nt deism, 
 either of 
 jctcd with 
 aulus ap- 
 hitherto 
 d had, as 
 nee in the 
 rs before, 
 h Deists, 
 f Strauss 
 of more 
 nd it had 
 Wette to 
 
 aphy. 
 
 explain the contents of the Old Testament. It 
 was reserved for Strauss to apply it untlinchingly 
 to the Gospel narrative of the life of our Lord. 
 
 We must not withhold a certain degree of 
 sympathy from the spirit which gave rise to the 
 m>thical theory. Its revulsion from the ration- 
 alistic method was wholesome, but it was not 
 new. Fichte, who was only a year younger than 
 Paulus,^ had long before expressed a feeling 
 which had become general as to the free- 
 thinking which is identical with rationalism. 
 " The empty and unedifying chatter of the 
 freethinkers," he said, " has had time enough to 
 explain itself completely. It has explained it- 
 self, and we have heard it; and it has nothing 
 new and nothing better to say than what it has 
 already said. Wc are weary of it; we feel its 
 emptiness and complete nullity when it comes 
 in relation to our sense of the I'^ternal, — a sense 
 which is inextinguishable, and which compels us 
 to seek an object for it to rest upon."'-^ Many 
 such protests had been uttered against the ra- 
 tionalistic theory, but it was Strauss who gave 
 it its death-blow. 
 
 Nor can we altogether withhold our sympa- 
 thy from that pantheistic movement of which 
 the theory of Strauss was the most remarkable 
 
 ^ J, G. Fichte was born in 1762. 
 
 2 See Pfleiderei's " Rcligionsphilosophie " (Berlin, 1S78), 
 p. 72; Eng'.isii translation of later edition (London, 1886), 
 vol. i. p. 2S6. 
 
I 
 
 III 
 
 .Mill 
 
 'Pi! I 
 
 i III! 
 
 36 
 
 ir/nvi:ss/-:s ro ciikist. 
 
 outcome. It is quite true that, critically and in- 
 tellectually, pantiieisni is simple atheism; it is 
 equally true that it commonly ends in formal 
 atheism. But it is not always, or indeed often, 
 at first atheistic in its temper or in its purpose. 
 Nay, on the contrary, it contained and asserted 
 a \vei,<j[hty truth concerning Almighty God which 
 was ignored by the ordinary deism, and even 
 sometimes by the popular orthodox theism, 
 that "in Him we live, and move, and have our 
 being." God had been regarded too much as a 
 Being not merely distinct from the material 
 creation, but external to it and apart from it, — 
 to use philosophical language, as merely tran- 
 scendent, and not also immanent. Pantheism 
 bore witness to His immanence, if it ignored 
 His transcendence. It declared the truth that 
 He is the Life of all life, — not only the Beginner, 
 but the living and life-giving and life-sustaining 
 Preserver of all existence. 
 
 This wa.:, cf course, no new doctrine. It had 
 been taught plainly in the liible ; it had been 
 taught, to (go back no further, in its pantheistic 
 form, — that is, with the ignoring and denial 
 of the Divine Personality, — by Spinoza. It was 
 put forth by Herder (i 744-1 803) as a protest 
 against the religious philosophy of Kant and 
 his first followers. "The first error (TrpcoTov 
 ylrevSo'i) in your system," wrote Herder to Jacobi, 
 " and in that of ail th.^ opponents of Spinoza, i.s 
 this: that God, as the great Substance of all 
 
r//As/:s AXD F.irrrREs of uxheijef. 37 
 
 y and in- 
 
 uii ; it is 
 in loriiial 
 :ccl often, 
 
 purpose, 
 I asserted 
 tod which 
 and even 
 : theism, 
 
 have our 
 luich as a 
 material 
 rem it, — 
 rely tran- 
 L\antheisni 
 ,t ignored 
 truth that 
 
 Becrinner, 
 sustaining 
 
 It had 
 had been 
 anthcistic 
 nd denial 
 a. It was 
 a protest 
 Kant and 
 ■ {irpoiiov 
 to Jacobi, 
 jpinoza, is 
 ICC of all 
 
 substances, is a nonentity, a mere abstract idea. 
 Me is not tliis, according to Spinoza, but the 
 ever-working One, who alone cm say to Him- 
 self, ' I am who am, and shall be in all the 
 variations of My manifestations what I shall 
 l)e.' What >'ou, dear people, mean by your 
 ' Existence external to the world,' I do not 
 understand." ' 
 
 When we are proving the unsatisfactoriness 
 of pantheism and rejecting its conclusions as 
 destructive, 'et us acknowledge the service which 
 it has thus rendered, and the truth which it has 
 helped to keep alive in the world. In its atti- 
 tude to revelation, however, it was far more hos- 
 tile to the supernatural princi[)le than deism 
 had been. Deism, indeed, by its recognition of 
 a personal God, could never hold unwaveringly 
 the incredibility of a miracle, and could with no 
 consistency maintain that one was impossible. 
 Pantheism was embarrassed by no such difficul- 
 ties, (jranting its assumption, a miracle was 
 inconceivable. If there were no personal God, 
 there could be no supernatural worker. 
 
 But how, then, are the facts of the Christian 
 religion to be explained? How can we account 
 for the early history of the Church, the influence 
 which it has exerted, the form which it has as- 
 sumed? The rationalistic theory, which ad- 
 mitted the general historical character of the 
 
 ^ Pflcideicr, p. 45. 
 
38 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 mm 
 
 facts, while denying the existence of any mirac- 
 ulous element in them, when applied to the 
 whole life of Christ continuously, was speedily 
 found wanting. And the clearest demonstration 
 of its insufficiency came from the most pow- 
 erful writer on the side of unbelief. Strauss's 
 first "Life of Jesus" was published in 1835, 
 only seven years later than that of Paulus,^ and 
 it was constructed on principles widely different 
 from those of his predecessor. Strauss no 
 longer acknowledged any certain historical ele- 
 ment in the alleged facts of early Christian his- 
 tory. According to him, these " facts " were 
 legends, fables, myths, embodying ideas which 
 were then current in men's minds and which 
 took bodily shape in these stories. How far 
 any of the incidents recorded actually took 
 place, the mythical school did not nrcfcss to 
 know, — could not tell. There maybe some nu- 
 cleus of history within the record as it stands, 
 but we cannot be sure how much of it is histor- 
 ical. We are, of course, quite sure that all the 
 miraculous portion is fabulous, because a mir- 
 acle is inconceivable and probably impossible. 
 
 But how, then, did these stories originate? 
 They were, we are told, the product of the 
 dreams and imaginations of the people among 
 whom they arose, the embodiment of their 
 
 ^ But Paiilus had published his " Commentary on the Gos- 
 pels " twenty years before. He was much older than Strauss, 
 having been born in 1761, while the latter was born in 1S08. 
 
t*^^ 
 
 PHASES AND FAILURES OF UNBELIEF. 39 
 
 \\y mirac- 
 d to the 
 
 speedily 
 )nstration 
 lost pow- 
 
 Strauss's 
 
 in 1835, 
 iliis,^ and 
 ■ different 
 rauss no 
 )rical ele- 
 stian his- 
 ts " were 
 as which 
 id which 
 
 How far 
 
 liy took 
 rcfcss to 
 5ome nu- 
 t stands, 
 
 s histor- 
 all the 
 a mir- 
 
 ssible. 
 
 iginate? 
 of the 
 among 
 
 )f their 
 
 tlie Gos- 
 11 Strauss, 
 1 1S08. 
 
 Messianic expectations, the incarnation of their 
 religious ideas. 
 
 When the first followers of Jesus had passed 
 away, — this is the notion of Strauss, — then the 
 popular imagination surrounded His memory 
 with these miraculous incidents, which never 
 indeed had any actual reality, but which they 
 thought fitting to be associated with One who 
 was the promised Messiah. The Jews expected 
 Him to be of supernatural origin, hence the 
 story of His miraculous conception. He must 
 be greater than all the prophets who had pre- 
 ceded Him, and therefore greater wonders must 
 be attributed to His ministry. Moses had fed 
 the people with manna brought down from 
 heaven; so He must make miraculous provision 
 for the bodily wants of the multitude. Moses 
 had turned the waters of the Nile into blood; 
 a prophet greater than Moses must turn water 
 into vine, l-^lijah had ascended to heaven in a 
 chariot of lire ; so Jesus must be received up in- 
 a cloud. 
 
 The theory was worked out with great elab- 
 oration and with unflinching consistency; and 
 for a time it obtained an influence both exten- 
 sive and profound. It dazzled men by its bold- 
 ness ; it fascinated them by the appearance of 
 spirituality. Once grant its fundamental prin- 
 ciple, and all difficulties were cleared up. But 
 a delusion so gross could retain no permanent 
 hold upon the minds of men. The inherent 
 
40 
 
 WITNESSES rO CHRIST. 
 
 ill 
 
 ■1 . : 
 
 rm 
 
 111 
 
 ill 
 
 i !;i!i 
 
 iilli 
 
 liiiiiijiii 
 
 improbability of the theory became apparent al- 
 most before the shouts of triumph which greeted 
 its promulgation had passed away. 
 
 It is enough here merely to glance ^ at the 
 considerations which proved fatal to the myth- 
 ical hypothesis. In the first place, the for- 
 mation of a myth may be said to be a thing 
 absolutely unknown in circumstances like those 
 in which the Gospel stories are supposed to have 
 arisen. There was not time for their origination 
 in the manner asserted. Even if we bring down 
 the dates of the four Gospels to the time as- 
 signed to them by Baur, — dates which are now 
 generally abandoned and declared to be much 
 too late by his followers, — even then we have 
 the four universally accepted epistles of Saint 
 Paul, written within a quarter of a century of 
 the death of Jesus ; and the notion of a series 
 of myths like those of the Gospel story arising 
 within a quarter of a century, or half a century, 
 or even a much longer period, is too absurd to 
 be entertained. 
 
 Besides, it is not true to say that the ideas 
 prevalent among the Jews clothed themselves in 
 the legendary forms of ihe Gospel narratives. 
 The Jewish Messianic hopes ^ were, in many 
 
 ^ An examination of the application of tlic theory to the 
 resurrection of Christ will be found in the eighth Lecture. 
 
 - These points have recently been brought out with great 
 fulness by the Rev. V. 11. Stanton, in his work on the Jewish 
 Messiah. 
 
 ■^ 
 
 i- 
 
PHASES AND FAILURES OF UNBELIEF. 4 1 
 
 respects, widely different from those which arc 
 embodied in the teaching of Jesus. It was the 
 facts, the words and deeds of Jesus, which p;ave 
 rise to the ideas ; not the ideas which created 
 the histor}'. In addition to these defects, the 
 mythical the( r)', in common with every attempt 
 to destroy the supernatural character of the 
 Gospel history, entirely failed to account for 
 the unique and original personality of Jesus. 
 None of these theories could account e\'cn for 
 the idea of such a life; and how much less for 
 its actual realization, and for the impression 
 which it produced ! 
 
 It is sufficient, for the present, thus to have 
 indicated the causes of the weakness and of the 
 ultimate and speedy failure of the mv'thical 
 h}'pothesis. This, too, has had its day; and un- 
 belief has had to seek out other weapons where- 
 with to assail the faith. Such, at least, is the 
 lesson taught by the next kind of attack made 
 upon the sacred Life. It was in 1863 that Rcnan 
 published his "Vie de Jesus," which was fol- 
 lowed almost immediately afterwards hy the 
 sketch {Character bild) of Schenkel, and, in the 
 following year, by Strauss's new " Life of Jesus 
 for the German People. " 
 
 Th 
 
 e characteristics 
 
 of tl 
 
 lese writincfs are 
 
 full 
 
 of instruction. As already mentioned, Rcnan 
 had at first accepted, almost without question, 
 the mythical hypothesis; but the influence of 
 the soil of Palestine was too stron'j; for him. 
 
42 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 II iii 
 
 He tells us that he saw around him a fifth 
 Gospel,^ which made him feel that the events 
 recorded in the other four were real occurrences. 
 His book is of no great scientific importance, as 
 it is founded upon no clear principle which re- 
 ceives consistent application throughout. It is 
 merely a brilliant, sentimental romance, and 
 therefore it has enjoyed an immense popularity ; 
 but it has hardly been taken seriously, and it 
 has had little perceptible influence on theologi- 
 cal opinion, unless we are to say that it induced 
 Strauss to modify his theory, or at least to waver 
 in his application of it, as is most certainly the 
 case in his new attempt to write the sacred 
 Life. And we think this honor, wnatever its 
 worth, cannot be denied to the brilliant French 
 writer. 
 
 But it hardly needed the work of Renan to 
 produce a dificrent attitude towards the Scrip- 
 ture record. Among the proofs that the myth- 
 ical theory was wearing out, and in the eyes of 
 unbelievers becoming untenable, is the fact that 
 Schcnkcl adopted almost simultaneously a line 
 of thought very similar to that of Renan ; for 
 he, too, wavers between the rationalistic and 
 the mythical positions, and his book, he tells 
 us, was written before that of Renan was pub- 
 lished. It was, in fact, clear that the mythical 
 hypothesis could not be applied universally; 
 but it was equally clear that the rationalistic 
 1 Vie de Jesus (4th cd., Paris), Introd., p. liii. 
 
PHASES AND FAILURES OF UNBELIEF. 43 
 
 theory had broken down. It only remained to 
 adopt the one or the other, as either seemed 
 best to suit the purpose for which it was em- 
 ployed. And this is precisely what Renan at- 
 tempted. Thus, when he is accounting for the 
 belief in the resurrection of Jesus, he advocates 
 a theory somewhat similar to that of Strauss. 
 It was, indeed, a modification of Strauss's earlier 
 view, which was substantially adopted by the 
 latter in his new "Life of Jesus," ^ It partakes 
 both of the rationalistic and of the mythical 
 character, without being wholly referable to 
 either theory. 
 
 It was different with other miracles, — with the 
 raising of Lazarus, for example. Mere Renan 
 was not embarrassed by the difficulties which 
 forbid the application of the rationalistic hy- 
 pothesis, pure and simple, to the resurrection 
 of Jesus, as had been done by Paulus. At the 
 grave of Lazarus he is a simple rationalist. Ac- 
 cording to his view, something like the raising 
 of a dead man did take place at Bethanv. 13ut 
 it was a scene got up by Jesus and Lazarus, in 
 order to impress His enemies, and perhaps put 
 a stop to their machinations, as they were now 
 beginning to plot against His life. 
 
 Strauss himself takes very nearly the same 
 ground in his new"" Life " (1864}. In this work, 
 he says, he makes more use of conscious im- 
 posture. In his earlier book the myths were 
 
 ^ This theory will be considered in the eighth Lecture. 
 
ut il a 
 III I jl 
 
 ii 
 
 44 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 represented as having grown up spontaneously, 
 and clustered around the slender thread of true 
 history, which was quite hidden by them. But 
 the world had begun to deride and to discard 
 this explanation, tl:e theologians of all schools 
 had gradually come to pronounce it untenable, 
 and Strauss himself, while preferring to retain it 
 as a general working theory, found himself 
 under the necessity of stopping some of the 
 rents in his <:i>-ment with the old patches of 
 rational!.- 'i .v'as tolerably clear that certain 
 
 parts of the u-^s u.i story could not have grown 
 up spontaneously. Still it was impossible for 
 him to admii. ai./ su;^. na^-'iral explanation of 
 their origin; and therelore it became necessary 
 to fall back upon the clumsy devices of ration- 
 alism and its theories of deception which he had, 
 at a former period, helped to explode. And 
 this JLj science ! This is the work of men who 
 tell us that we must have no presuppositions, 
 no assumptions, — that we must come to the ex- 
 amination of facts without prejudice, and with 
 the simple desire to discover the truth ! 
 
 III. It was eight years after the publication 
 of his new " Life " that Strauss put forth his last 
 work, "The Old Faith and the New." ^ He was 
 now sixty-four years of age, and his course was 
 nearly run. He died in the following year 
 (1873). He tells us that he hears a voice within 
 him, bidding him give an account of his stew- 
 
 1 Dcr altc und der ncue Glaubc (1872). 
 
PHASES AXD FAILURES OF UNBELIEF. 45 
 
 ardship, and this is his response. His belief is 
 materialistic atheism; his religion is the worship 
 of the universe; his hope is the grave. In a 
 pamphlet written near the time at which he 
 published his new " Life of Jesus," he says that 
 he has never yielded to the temptation of de- 
 ceiving himself by borrowing from another 
 world. It could hardly be otherwise; those 
 who do not believe in a personal God can have 
 no ground for belief in a future life. 
 
 It has been said that the last utterances of 
 Strauss show a considerably widened interval^ 
 between his point of view and that of Christian 
 faith ; but it must be admitted that such a criti- 
 cism is true only of the form of his belief, and 
 not of its substance. In his earlier works he 
 certainly retained the name of Christian, and 
 this he entirely abandoned at last. lUit there 
 was little left to surrender. This will be evident 
 if we compare his earlier with his later utter- 
 ances. In his treatise on " The Transient and 
 Permanent in Christianity," - published soon 
 after his first " Life of Jesus," he remarks that 
 " Christ must remain for us the highest that we 
 know in relation to religion, as that one with- 
 out whose presence in the mind no perfect piety 
 is possible." In one of his books on Ulrich 
 
 I 
 
 1 Even Zcllcr indicates this difference in liis "Sketch of 
 Strauss," § 51 (Uonn, 1874). 
 
 - Vergangliclics und lileibendcs in Christenthum (1S36 or 
 1837). 
 
 V^ 
 
i 
 
 46 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 Huttcn^ he says : "Why should it not be ac- 
 knowledged on both sides that we now find in 
 the Biblical history only poetry and truth [^Dic/it- 
 Mig unci WaJirJuit, referring to the title of 
 Goethe's autobiography], and in the ecclesi- 
 astical dogmas only significant symbols ; but 
 that we must yield unaltered respect to the 
 moral contents of Christianity, and to the char- 
 acter of its Founder, so far as His human form 
 is yet to be recognized under the incrustation 
 of miracles in which the first historians of his 
 life have enclosed him ? " 
 
 His tone in "The Old Faith and the New" is 
 quiie different. It can hardly be said, however, 
 that his principles are radically changed, al- 
 though, in his " Confession," to the question, 
 "Are we still Christians?" he answers flatly, 
 " No." For the Christianity which he formerly 
 professed was a religion which ignored all the 
 fundamental doctrines of the Gospel, and the 
 supernatural origin, character, and w'ork of our 
 Lord, and which resolved all the facts which we 
 regard as historical into mere ideas or notions ; 
 and he believed then, no more than in his later 
 period, in a God whom he could worship, who 
 could hear and answer his prayer, and with 
 whom he could hold living communion. In 
 short, his tea'ching was, in all its phases, essen- 
 tially, if not always formally, atheistic. For if 
 that which we call God and the world are iden- 
 
 1 Translation of the Gesprache (1S60). 
 
PHASES AND FAILURES OF UNBELIEF. 47 
 
 tical, or if God is a mere Anima niiindi, without 
 self consciousness, without intelligence, without 
 will, then in the proper sense of the word there 
 is no God, and so no soul and no immortality. 
 At first Dr. Strauss was implicitly atheistical ; 
 at the last he is so explicitly. 
 
 And this may be said to be the last word of 
 unbelief, its final testimony or confession.^ It 
 has run its course, it has passed through its 
 varying phases, — theological, metaphysical, pos- 
 itive; deistic, pantheistic, atheistic, — and this is 
 its last word, its only remaining word. Ration- 
 alistic deism has said its say, and is dead ; the 
 mythical theory with its hazy pantheism has 
 gone the same way ; and now we are confronted 
 by a dull and dogged atheism which does not 
 profess^ to account for the origin of the Gospel 
 and the Church, but is only sure that they do 
 not come from God, simply because there is no 
 God for them to come from. 
 
 To some it may appear that this is, for the 
 Christian faith, far from being a hopeful state of 
 matters. If we hold a different opinion, it is 
 from no wish to adopt the point of view of a 
 thoughtless optimism, but from a calm review of 
 history and a dispassionate consideration of the 
 nature and needs of man. 
 
 1 Strauss calls " Der alte und der neue Glaube," cin Bckciint- 
 tiiss, a confession. 
 
 2 This is denied. We shall see, however, in subsequent 
 lectures, what, value can be attached to the explanations 
 offered. 
 
 
 
 SI 
 
 I': 
 
T- 
 
 48 
 
 IVITjYESSES to C//AVST. 
 
 
 II t: I 
 
 The Church of Christ exists, and her existence 
 and her history and her influence must be ac- 
 counted for. Christian civilization exists, and 
 must be explained as to its sources and its prog- 
 ress in the world. Humanity exists, witli all its 
 wants to be supplied, with all its many questions 
 to h(^ answered, with a heart which cries out for 
 the livini^ God, and which will need many pow- 
 erful ariTumcnts before it can be brought to 
 believe that there is no God. Man does not 
 willingly despair ; at Icas^- he cannot easily ac- 
 quiesce in a philosophy of despair. " Hope 
 springs eternal in the human breast; " but this 
 is because there is in the human breast an in- 
 eradicable sense of God. And therefore we do 
 not believe that man will ever abandon the 
 desire to know God, and to know the nature 
 and meaning of that Gospel which professes 
 supremely to be a message from Ilim.^ 
 
 Here is our hope for the future. Men will 
 not and cannot abstain from questions con- 
 cerning God, duty, immortality. We are con- 
 tented if they will go on asking and if they will 
 hear the answers which are given to their ques- 
 tions. No wise advocate of Christian Revelation 
 expects or desires a blind and unreflecting ac- 
 quiescence in his teaching. What we w^ant is 
 the most searching examination into the truth 
 of our testimony, in order to the attainment of a 
 reasonable and well-grounded faith. We have 
 
 1 See Note B. 
 
PHASES AXD FAILURES OF UNBELIEF. 49 
 
 not followed fables, either cunningly clcviscd or 
 spontaneously developed ; and even if we be- 
 lieved the prospects of the Church to be darker 
 than ever they were, as we believe them to be 
 brighter than they have been for many a day, 
 wc should remember the words which comforted 
 the most heroic of Germans, and one of the 
 greatest of men : " God is in the midst of her, 
 therefore she shall not be removed : God shall 
 help her, and that right early." 
 
 '■nil!' 
 
 ■■■iv. 
 
 W 
 
 
 -?:*- 
 
LECTURE II. 
 
 CIVILIZATION AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 The Gospel in the World, — Christian Ideal and Christian Life 
 contrasted. — Has Christianity failed .' — Modern Civiliza- 
 tion and Christianity, — Opposing Views. — L The World 
 before Ciirist : Claims of the Ancient World real ; .Seri- 
 ous Defects ; vitiated by I-lgoism. — Plato and Aristotle. 
 — Citizens, Slaves, llarharians, Lncmies. — (Irecks and 
 Romans alike. — Cicero. — Condition of various Classes: 
 I. Women, — .Status, Marriai^e, Dependence; 2. Working 
 Classes, — Manual Labor thought degrading ; 3. Slaves, — 
 Slavery accepted by the Philoso])hers, the Laws relating to 
 Slavery, Slavery in Practice, Exceptions, Doctrine of Stoics. 
 
 • — II. The Need sujiplied : the Gospel of Human P)rother- 
 hood; its Toundation in Christ. — The Kingdom of God; 
 its .Subjects ; its Lav.'s. — Changes effected: i. Condition 
 of Women ; 2. Laboring Classes ; 3. The Poor, — provided 
 for by Christianity ; the Fhnperor Julian; 4. Slaves, — Ob- 
 jection that there is no Christian Command for Emancipa- 
 tion ; Answer, — what the Gospel has done, what it has to 
 do; 5. War; 6. I-cgislation. — Conclusion. 
 
 illiii 
 
 WHAT has the Go.spel of Jesus Christ ac- 
 complished for the world ? It is a 
 fair question. Even if we were warned that 
 the truth would certainly meet with opposition, 
 even if the very nature of the message carried 
 within itself the prophecy of conflict, we are 
 still bound to believe, we have been taught 
 to believe, that the propagation of the Gospel 
 throughout the world could not be without 
 
CIVILIZATIOX AXD CIIRISTIAyiTW 
 
 51 
 
 ^rcat and lasting and far-reaching effects. Jesus 
 Christ is tlic true King of men. lie, when He 
 is lifted up, is appointed to draw all men unto 
 H' "' The heathen have been given to Mini 
 as . heritage, and the utmost ends of the 
 earth for a possession. 
 
 No one can maintain that the Gospel has 
 been without effect. Throughout the whole of 
 what we call the civilized world, it has sup- 
 planted the ancient faiths of heathendom and 
 has become the dominant religion. Nearly all 
 civilized nations call themselves Christian. Un- 
 der the shadow of the Cross no other faith can 
 be said to flourish. In nearly all the places 
 where prayer is wont to be made, it is in the 
 N.' of Jesus that all men bow, and that Name is 
 ac - itcd to be above all other names. So much 
 may be confidently alleged by the disciple of 
 Christ, and the unbeliever cannot gainsay it- 
 It is evident, however, that the mere profes- 
 sion of Christianity, important as it is, cannot be 
 regarded as a complete answer to the question : 
 What has the Gospel, what has Christ, done for 
 mankind ? Not every one that calls Him Lord 
 will have a right to a place in His Kingdom. 
 It is not enough to be hearers of His word. 
 This is nothing, perhaps worse than nothing, 
 unless we are also doers of it. In short, it is 
 the participation in the spirit of Christ which 
 constitutes and evinces a true and living re- 
 lation between Himself and His professed fol- 
 
 H 
 
 'M 
 
 
ill 
 
 52 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 ^li.i'il 
 
 fill! 
 
 .il.;SI!i. 
 
 lowcrs. And it is this conformity of men to 
 the mind and character of Christ which alone 
 can be accepted as satisfactory evidence that 
 the Gospel has worked in the world those bene- 
 ficial results which it claims to have the power 
 to produce. 
 
 Every one can see that we are here entering 
 upon an inquiry more difficult than we were at 
 first prepared for. Not only is it almost impos- 
 sible to determine the true quality of human 
 actions, conduct, character ; but we must be 
 prepared for the attempt which will be made 
 by our adversaries to establish a violent contrast 
 between the ideal of the Gospel and the real 
 of actual Christian life. It is easy enough to 
 show that such a contrast exists.^ Whether we 
 take the character and life of Jesus Christ 
 Himself, or the ideal which He prescribes, or 
 the commands and precepts by which He re- 
 quires that we shall be guided, we cannot deny 
 that the ordinary life of professing Christians 
 falls far short of His example and His rule. 
 Men as a whole, — the men who are living 
 around us, — could not be accurately described 
 as Christlike. Nay, further, such a description 
 would not apply with any amount of exactness to 
 the inner circle of those who seem to be making 
 
 ^ Since these lines were written, the writer has seen Mr. 
 Cotter Morison's " Service of Man " (sf-e Notes B, E, and G). 
 Mr, Morison gives many proofs of the prevalence of moral evil 
 during the Christian period ; but he takes litilc notice of what 
 Christianitv has actuallv effected. 
 
CIVILIZATION AXD CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 53 
 
 ,1 more strenuous endeavor than most other 
 men, to follow in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. 
 
 What inference shall we deduce from these 
 admitted facts ? Shall we allow that the ene- 
 mies of the Cross have a right to say that the 
 Gospel has been a failure ? Supposing that 
 we had no interest in the decision of the ques- 
 tion, is this the answer which we should judge 
 to be a true one ? Certainly not ; and this 
 for various reasons. In the first place, we 
 never expect, and we have no right to expect, 
 the real to correspond exactly with the ideal. 
 It is a great matter if men really do hold fast 
 the ideal, if in any measure they keep it be- 
 fore their eyes and strive towards its realization. 
 And this, at least, may be said for Christian 
 society, — it has before it a higher ideal of 
 character, aim, duty, than has ever been known 
 outside the boundaries of Christendom.^ 
 
 And then there are other questions that would 
 have to be answered. For example, this ques- 
 tion : Not merely are men now made perfect 
 by the doctrines and influences of Christianity; 
 but arc they better or worse than they were 
 without the Gospel ? Are Christian countries 
 better than countries which are not Christian ? 
 Are those Christian countries better or worse 
 
 ' The objection that Christians are worse than their creed 
 is surely a strong argument in behalf of the Gospel. What 
 a poor system would that be which lowered its ideal and rule 
 of life to the level of the life of its adherents I 
 
 i "1 
 
 
54 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 in which the Christianity is most hkc the Chris- 
 tianity of the ]3ible, and in whicli the sacred 
 vohime has freest course? Arc the Christian 
 portions of the world better since they became 
 Christian than they were when they were hea- 
 then, or are they worse ? Do the best men 
 among us attribute the good in themselves to 
 the word and the power of Christ, or not ? 
 
 Now, some of these questions may be an- 
 swered with at least an approximation to cer- 
 tainty ; and if they can be answered in the 
 affirmative, then the verdict must be givxn in 
 favor of Christianity, It is something of this 
 kind that we are now to attempt. We propose 
 to show that what we call modern civilization, in 
 its prevailing ideas and sentiments, in its benefi- 
 cent legislation, in its general spirit of mercy 
 and compassion, is the creation of Christianity ; 
 that it is infinitely superior to the civilization 
 of pre-Christian times, differing from that not 
 merely in degree but in kind, and that we have 
 therefore in this very civilization a standing evi- 
 dence of the beneficial effects of the Gospel. 
 
 Before advancing to the particular proofs of 
 these assertions, we must not ignore the theories 
 which have been advanced in opposition to 
 that which we maintain. For instance, it has 
 been held by one school,^ that religion, and more 
 particularly Christianity, has been so far from 
 
 1 Dr. Draper may be mentioned as a leading representative 
 of this class. 
 
CIVILIZATION AND CIIKISriANITY, 
 
 55 
 
 if 
 
 favoring the progress of the higher civilization 
 that it has been a positive hindrance to it ; 
 and a contrast has, in this respect, been drawn 
 between* the narrowing and depressing influen- 
 ces of the Reformation as compared with the 
 genial and hberahzing tendencies of the classical 
 Renaissance. On the other hand, it has been 
 admitted that religion and civilization have gone 
 hand in hand ; but it has been represented ^ 
 that the religious beliefs of an age have been 
 the outcome of the civilization of the age rather 
 than the principal influence by which it was 
 moulded. 
 
 To those who possess an intimate acquaintance 
 with the movement known as the Renaissance, 
 little need be said as to its power to put new life 
 into human society. But the best answer to this 
 and other theories, the best evidence that the 
 higher principles and the nobler elements of mod- 
 ern civilization arc the outcome of Christian- 
 ity, will be found in a simple consideration of 
 historical facts. When we recall the true char- 
 acter of the heathen civilization of Greece and 
 Rome, when we consider the principles of the 
 Gospel of Christ, and when we further contem- 
 plate the actual civilization of the world in the 
 midst of which we arc living, we shall then be 
 able to say how far mankind has been raised 
 and ennobled by the Gospel, and whether that 
 
 1 This is the general view o£ Mr. Buckle in his " History of 
 Civilization." 
 
 •If « 
 w. 
 
 ^^ 
 
 'A 
 
 ■,>ii " 
 
50 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 I! .Ill: 
 
 Gcspel was the mere development of principles 
 already working in the world, or was a new life 
 and a new spirit brought into the bosom of 
 humanity by the revelation of God. 
 
 I. It is hardly needful to say that such an 
 attempt involves no disrespect to the earlier 
 ages of the world, no effort to misrepresent any- 
 thing that was good or true or beautiful in their 
 achievements, no failure to render homage to the 
 great minds which they produced. Rather, from 
 our own point of view, shall wc often wonder 
 that they did so much, and that, in their grop- 
 ings after truth, they did not go astray more 
 widely from the absolute rule of truth and 
 righteousness. 
 
 The true, the beautiful, and the good, — these 
 were the three watchwords of the thinkers of 
 ancient Greece; and upon these all true human 
 development, culture, and civilization must ulti- 
 mately depend. The intellectual or speculative, 
 the aesthetic, and the moral principles are all of 
 importance ; but the last is the greatest of the 
 three. Perhaps the sentiment of the beautiful 
 has never been more exquisitely embodied than 
 in the literature and art of Greece. And if we 
 cannot place their attainment of the truth on the 
 same level with their realization of the beautiful, 
 there has, perhaps, seldom been manifested a 
 more ardent devotion to its pursuit than was 
 found among the nobler intellects of this great 
 people. It is when we contemplate their notions 
 
CIVILIZATION AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 57 
 
 of the good that we see how far they fell short of 
 the Christian idea. What is the notion which 
 now, by universal consent, we place in the fore- 
 most rank of human qualities? What is the 
 principle out of which we develop all other vir- 
 tues and graces and excellences? It is the prin- 
 ciple of love, benevolence, unselfishness, — call 
 it by what name you please, — the principle by 
 which we recognize that all other men have 
 the same rights and privileges as ourselves, — the 
 principle which bids each man do unto another 
 as he would have that other do unto himself 
 That principle was utterly unknown, as a funda- 
 mental virtue, by heathen antiquity.^ 
 
 When Plato ^ laid down the four cardinal vir- 
 tues of Wisdom, Courage, Temperance, Justice, 
 he found no place in his scheme for love, or for 
 the humility and self-sacrifice which are its nec- 
 essary attendants. And although it might seem 
 that in Plato and in Ari^:totle, and more partic- 
 ularly in the former, the individual was subordi- 
 nated to the community by the idea of the State, 
 a deeper consideration of the subject will show 
 that the selfish principle was strengthened rather 
 than weakened by this idea. It is true, indeed, 
 that, in Plato's view, the moral life in a well- 
 ordered State was the highest conceivable moral- 
 
 ^ I am under obligations, in this lecture, to some sermons of 
 Adolplie Monod, published after his death, and still more to a 
 lecture by Dr. Mangold, of Bonn. 
 
 - Republic, book iv. (cd. Baiter, vol. xiii. pp. 113 ss.). 
 
 ■ \'n 11 
 
 m 
 
 *i< 
 
 n 1 
 
 
 ;ir 
 
 ■ ;|| 
 
 1 f'" 'h 
 
 ' /! p 
 
 ■ ;V.. ■■ ; 4 .ft 
 
 
 ii&ti-A 
 
 
58 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 liliS 
 
 ity, and that in the ancient State every citizen 
 was bound to sacrifice himself, if necessary, to 
 lay down his life, for the g^ood of the community, 
 and thus it might seem that individualism and 
 selfishness were condemned; yet it must be re- 
 membered, on the other side, that everything 
 which the citizen expended for the State he re- 
 ceived back again with interest. The Grecian 
 State, and it was the same with the Roman, 
 recognized the citizen alone as having any civil 
 rights or privileges. All other members of the 
 human race were regarded, if foreigners, as 
 barbarians or enemies; if dwelling within the 
 borders of the State, as in a state of pupillage, 
 dependence, or servitude, as having no claim to 
 any civil privileges which belonged to the citi- 
 zens alone. Thus a system which seemed likely 
 to destroy selfishness and build up a religion 
 of humanity, turns out to be merely constitutive 
 of a privileged and limited aristocracy ; all who 
 are outside this privileged class are regarded as 
 hardly belonging to the same order in creation. 
 In this respect Greeks and Romans were alike. 
 In their view a foreigner was a barbarian and 
 an enemy, to whom no participation in human 
 rights was to be allowed. Even Plato ^ and 
 Aristotle — the noblest representatives of Greek 
 thought, and the pioneers of the philosophy of the 
 world — had no other judgment to pronounce 
 
 1 Republic, book v. (cd. Baiter, vol. xiii. pp. 156 ss.). Aris- 
 totle, Politics, i. 2. 
 
CIVILIZATION AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 59 
 
 on the position of foreigners ; and Cicero,^ the 
 mouthpiece of Roman society, echoes their sen- 
 timent, dcchiring that barbarians might, Avithout 
 scruple, be i<iiied, and sold as slaves. And in 
 this matter they were not mere promulgators of 
 a theory which, like many parts of the " Repub- 
 lic " of Plato, was hardly regarded as capable of 
 realization ; as a matter of fact, barbarians taken 
 in war were sold as slaves, and compelled to 
 engage in the gladiatorial conflicts, in which 
 multitudes were slain for the amusement of the 
 people in Rome. 
 
 But it was not merely towards foreign barba- 
 rians that this cynical disregard for all men who 
 were outside the sacred boundaries of citizen- 
 ship was manifested. Whole classes of their 
 own people, among Greeks and Romans alike, 
 were refused the recognition of any privileges 
 save those which their masters might concede 
 to them, not as rights, but as acts of charity. 
 
 I. Among these we might mention, first, as 
 being in our own view the most grievous, the 
 condition of luovicn among the ancients. Aris- > 
 totlc,^ indeed, commends the Greeks for not 
 placing their women on a level with slaves, as is 
 done by the Eastern nations ; but the rank as- 
 signed to them was of the lowest. Thus we find 
 Socrates^ asking his disciple Critobulus with 
 
 .f^i.ii 
 
 1 De Officiis, i. 12; iii. ii. 
 
 2 Politics, i. 2. 
 
 3 Xenophon, Economics, c. 3, § J2. 
 
|;»''''PT 
 
 60 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 f i ' ' 
 
 whom he would rather not converse than with 
 his wife, and the disciple immediately answering, 
 " No one." Any intellectual or moral fellowship 
 between man and wife was made impossible by 
 the subordinate position assigned to the latter. 
 The wife, in this system of things, was merely 
 regarded as the mother of future citizens and 
 the manager of the household, — in short, as a 
 kind of servant to her husband. So long as the 
 chief virtues of the married woman were com- 
 prised in the words of the Roman epitaph, " She 
 sat in her house and span wool," ^ her place of 
 subjection was inevitable. And this was fully 
 recognized in the laws and traditions of the 
 country. 
 
 The oldest form of Roman marriage was the 
 purchase of a wife. The daughter passed, like 
 a household chattel, from the hands of her father 
 to those of her husband. She never had any 
 idea of independence ; and after the death of 
 her husband she came under the protection of 
 his relatives. Indeed, so completely was a wife 
 regarded as the mere property of her husband, 
 that he might transfer her to another man ; and 
 we find Cato the elder leaving his wife to his 
 friend Hortensius. In the later period of the 
 Emperors, while the condition of wives seemed 
 to be improved, it was in fact much worse. 
 • They were then regarded, indeed, as possessing 
 a measure of independence; but, unaccustomed 
 
 1 Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, vol. i. no. 1,007. 
 
CIVILIZATION AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 6l 
 
 as they were to a sense of their own dignity, 
 they turned this new-found Hberty to licentious- 
 ness, abandoning themselves to senseless luxury, 
 to shameless libertinagc, — making amends, as 
 it were, for the long oppression of their sex. 
 Doubtless there were brilliant exceptions in 
 every age ; but the brightness with which they 
 shine out on the page of Roman history reveals 
 the darkness by which they were surrounded. 
 
 2. What, again, was the condition of the 
 artisan and the trading classes in this state of 
 things? One of the fundamental ideas of modern 
 civilization, that every honorable kind of labor 
 ennobles a man, was unknown to the heathen 
 world. To those v hovv^ere employed in any kind 
 of manual labor the highest rights of humanity 
 could not be conceded, because they were en- 
 gaged In the daily struggle for the necessaries 
 of life, and so were unable to give their whole 
 powers to the service of the State. They were 
 regarded as in a sense the slaves of the public, 
 and as slaves they were held incapable of any 
 real elevation of mind. It is in the most matter- 
 of-course manner that Plato and Aristotle de- 
 clare that true virtue is not to be expected of 
 those who have to work, — at the most only the 
 servile virtue of obedience ; and Plato adds that 
 it is, after all, a matter of indifference whether 
 a manual laborer live a virtuous or a vicious 
 life, as it is only the virtue of the ruling and law- 
 giving classes that is a matter of importance. 
 
m 
 
 6a 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 % 
 
 1 
 
 m 
 
 |H| 
 
 i lila 
 
 
 Can the workman, then, be regarded as a man, 
 as a human being? ^ But how did it fare with 
 him when he was sick and miserable and de- 
 pendent upon foreign aid? It was well for him 
 when he coukl find a pkice of shelter and pro- 
 tection ; he had no claim upon the State ; and 
 whether he lived or died, society would acknowl- 
 edge no duty to hold out to him a helping 
 hand.'-^ 
 
 3. But there was a class with whom it fared 
 worse than with the laborer, — the slaves. The 
 institution of slavery, with all its attendant evils, 
 had been so familiar to the people that even the 
 philosophers had come to look upon it as an 
 ordinance of Nature. It appeared to them that 
 two quite different classes of mer were brought 
 into the world, — the one qualified for the enjoy- 
 ment of liberty; the other actually disqualified 
 for this privilege, and thereby condemned to 
 bondage. These men had no claim to be recog- 
 nized as among the privileged classes.*^ Hence 
 it is that Varro,^ in his work on agriculture, 
 expressly classes the slaves along with beasts of 
 burden, but only, from their having the gift of 
 speech, as capable of a higher kind of service; 
 and even Cicero,^ in writing to his friend Atticus, 
 
 1 Aristotle, Politics, iii. 4; viii. 2; vii. 9. Plato, Republic, 
 book iv, (ed. Baiter, vol. xiii. p. 104). 
 
 2 Plautus, Trinummus, Act ii. Sc. 2, vv. 58, 59. 
 
 8 Plato, Laws, vi. (ed. Baiter, vol. xiv. p. 186). Aristotle, 
 Politics, i. 3-6. 
 
 < Dc re rustica, i. 17. ^ Ad Atticum, i. 12. 
 
 i 
 
 11 
 
 iHliiiJ./!! 
 
CIVILIZATION AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 63 
 
 thinks he is bound to offer some excuse because 
 of his excessive grief at the death of his slave 
 Sositheus. 
 
 And this theory of the philosophers was em- 
 bodied in the laws of the country. Roman law 
 declared the slave to be the entire property of 
 his master, a thing which could be dealt with in 
 the same manner as any other piece of property ; 
 and it offered to the slave no protection of any 
 kind. Husband and wife might be separated, 
 children sold away from their parents, the slave 
 Hiight be maimed or put to death by his master, 
 without the restraint of any penalty to follow. 
 And the legal condition of the slave was in no de- 
 grce ameliorated in practice. In the early days 
 of Greece and Rome it seems to have been dif- 
 ferent. To the simple tiller of the ground the 
 slave was a kind of companion or partner in 
 work. But in the later days of Roman greatness 
 the state of things was altered. The number 
 of slaves had increased immensely throughout 
 the Empire ; and the sternest measures became 
 necessary in order to keep them in a state of 
 subjection. Consequently they were treated with 
 the greatest severity. The owners were not all 
 equally harsh. Few, probably, rose to the height 
 of inhumanity mentioned by Juvenal as having 
 been shown by a Roman master when he was 
 entreated to spare an innocent slave whom he 
 had condemned to death. " What I " was the 
 reply, " do you consider a slave to be a human 
 
64 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 being? Be he innocent or not, this is my will 
 and my command. My will is law." ^ Probably, 
 also, there were not many women so inhuman as 
 those who, accustomed to the bloody sights of 
 the circus, made their female slaves wait upon 
 them naked to the waist, and punished them for 
 any misconduct or mistake by pricking them 
 with a bodkin or a needle until the blood came; 
 and yet there were cases in which old and worn- 
 out slaves were driven from their home and left 
 to die of hunger and nakedness by the wayside.^ 
 
 It is quite true that some men, here and there 
 in this ancient society, gained glimpses of higher 
 truths which contained within them prophecies 
 of emancipation and liberty. But what was the 
 real effect of these guesses and gropings after 
 the knowledge of God and man? Some there 
 were who found their way to a perception of 
 the unity of God, and taught that all men, as 
 His creatures, were alike manifestations of the 
 Divine, and were bound to recognize each other 
 as such. But there was no foundation for the 
 doctrine but the speculations of philosophers, 
 and it seemed to men in general as a dream, 
 and it passed away like a cloud which hardly 
 let fall a drop of dew upon the earth to slake 
 its thirst. 
 
 The stoics ^ might protest against the current 
 
 1 Satire, vi. vv. 222 ss. 
 
 2 Plut.ircli, Lives, vol. ii. Cicero, Cato Major, c. 4, 5. 
 
 3 Seneca, De Beneficiis, ill. i8-:C. 
 
CIVILIZA TIOX AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 notions of liberty and bondafifc; mit^lit declare 
 that the man who was in bondat^e to his passions 
 was the real slave, while he who was kept in 
 bondage by his fellow-man and }-et was pos- 
 sessed of wisdom, was indeed the free man. 
 Hut such doctrines, however they mi<;ht raise 
 and comfort the individual, made no difference 
 in the general condition of slaves. 
 
 Seneca, one of the noblest representatives 
 of the great stoic school, could declare that 
 " Man should be a sacred thing to man ; " ^ 
 but the words passed unheeded, or if they 
 extorted a momentary tribute of admiration 
 or of acquiescence, they had no practical sig- 
 nificance and led to no results. Somethinir 
 more was needed than such occasional testimo- 
 nies, — something that rested on deeper founda- 
 tions and was commended by more powerful 
 sanctions. 
 
 II. That Something; which the heathen phi- 
 losopher longed for, which should bring home to 
 men a sense of their brotherhood, was even then 
 in the midst of that degraded Roman society, 
 although for the most part they knew it not. 
 A contemporary of Seneca, the converted Jew, 
 Sau Tarsus, Paul the apostle of Jesus Christ, 
 was declaring to all who would hear him the 
 Gospc' )f human brotherhood, not for Greek or 
 or Roman or for Jew only, but for the whole 
 human race, — a doctrine which was destined to 
 
 1 " Homo sacra ^ h homini." — Seneca, Ep. 93. t^t,. 
 
 zrvJt*^ 
 
 ''r-<<^v<4*v 
 
66 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 J- 
 
 throw down the barriers which separated man 
 from man and class from class, and to declare 
 that there were no real privileges and blessings 
 known upon earth which were not open to the 
 whole family of man. 
 
 But upon what foundation could this new 
 truth be made to rest? And how could it be 
 hoped that it would find free course among a 
 race so little prepared for its reception? The 
 answer to the question is found in the manifes- 
 tation and in the work of Jesus Christ here 
 upon earth. 
 
 What was He in His own person? He was 
 God manifest in the flesh. The I'>ternal Word, 
 one with the Father, had taken into indissoluble 
 imion with Himself the nature of man, — not of 
 this man or of that man, not the nature of any 
 privileged nation or family, but the nature of 
 our common humanity. Here was the greatest 
 privilege, the privilege of union with God ac- 
 corded to mankind. There is nothing higher to 
 which men can attain, and there is no one who 
 cannot attain to it. Here at one blow is shat- 
 tered the Old World selfishness which doomed 
 the larger portion of m.ankind to a state of de- 
 pendence and bondage. Men are brethren, and 
 as such cannot be regarded as essentiallv differ- 
 ent in their nature and capacities. 
 
 As a consequence of this first manifestation, 
 which received its full meaning in the life and 
 work and sacrifice and death and resurrection 
 
CIVILIZATION AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 67 
 
 of the God-man, there was proclaimed a King- 
 dom of God upon the earth, over which the 
 DeHvererwas appointed to reign, and into which 
 all men were to be admitted as subjects. And 
 the idea of the Kingdom was in a large measure 
 realized on the very day of its inauguration. 
 On that first Christian Pentecost, men from all 
 parts of the world heard the glad message, and 
 pressed into the Kingdom of light and liberty, 
 and became brethren in the family of God. No 
 question was there of wealth or poverty, of free- 
 dom or bondage ; whosoever believed and was 
 baptized, entered into the sacred fellowship of 
 the Church. 
 
 Let it be granted that there was a moment's 
 doubt as to the method in which those privi- 
 leges were to be extended to all the nations of 
 the earth. God does not ever seem to lead men 
 into complete and perfect truth all at once. 
 y\nd yet there was no doubt among the Apos- 
 tles, as to whether others than the children of 
 Abraham should participate in the blessings of 
 the Covenant. The only question was as to the ' 
 necessity of their first becoming Jewish prose- 
 lytes. And this question was soon set at rest, 
 practically, under Divine guidance, by Saint 
 Peter, and in a more systematic and reasoned 
 manner by Saint Paul, appointed to be specially 
 the Apostle of the Gentiles. Then did the 
 whole truth which was involved in the Incarna- 
 tion shine forth upon the Church. Then did it 
 
 i- 
 
68 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST 
 
 become self-evident that in Clirist Jesus there 
 is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, 
 neither male nor female. 
 
 And if this were the constitution of the King- 
 dom, the nature of the principles of the King- 
 dom followed as a necessary consequence. The 
 law of the Kingdom of God was love, — love to 
 the Father, love to the Great Elder Brother, and 
 in Him love to all the Brethren. And herein is 
 the greatness of the Law of the Gospel demon- 
 strated, as compared with all the feeble and 
 powerless human systems of ethics which had 
 attempted to regulate the life and conduct of 
 men in the past. It carried its principle, its 
 argument, its proof within itself. It sprang out 
 of the relations established by the manifestation 
 of God in Christ, and by the grafting of the 
 members into His mystical Body. Nor was this 
 all. It was enforced and made an actual inner 
 power by the gift of the Holy Spirit of Love. 
 God could now dwell upon the earth with men, 
 since man was now ascended into heaven and 
 seated at the ri^ht hand of Gel. The law of love 
 is no longer a mere theor\' however beautiful, a 
 mere precept however binding ; it is a power, the 
 very power of Cjod working in the heart of man. 
 Such is, at least, the claim of the Gospel and 
 of the Church of Jesus Christ. And to this ex- 
 tent, at least, its pretensions must be conceded ; 
 this is its message to the children of men, how- 
 ever it may be received, or whatever may be its 
 
CIVILIZA TION AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 69 
 
 effects, Man is the child of God. The lost 
 child he is when he is livinc^ in icjnorance and 
 in sin ; but in Jesus Christ the lost child found 
 and brought back to his Father's house. Nor 
 need we fear the test of facts, when we declare 
 that this new doctrine did not remain a mere 
 theory, — that it became a power, a fact in human 
 society; so that men were "no longer strangers 
 and sojourners, but fellow-citizens with the 
 saints, and of the household of God ; " ^ and this 
 changed relation worked a revolution among all 
 the down-trodden classes of human society. 
 Let us note the change which passed more par- 
 ticularly upon those classes of whose condition 
 under heathenism we have already spoken. 
 
 I. Wouia)i was placed on a level with man in 
 the Kingdom of God. There was no longer a 
 distinction of male and female. It was, there- 
 fore, no longer possible to assign to her a ser- 
 vile position in the family and in the social 
 system. And hence the Christian Apostle says 
 to Christian husbands, " Love your wives," and 
 finds in marriage a type of the union of Christ 
 with the Church. And from that time marriage 
 assumed a new significance, and the wife be- 
 came the partner and companion of the hus- 
 band, and the gentle ruler of the household. 
 As a consequence, the character of the Chris- 
 tian woman became ennobled, and invested with 
 a dignity which even the heathen could not 
 
 1 Eph. ii. 19. 
 
 
 
70 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 If- 
 
 ignore ; so that an opponent of Christianity, 
 like the heathen rhetorician Libanius, was con- 
 strained to exclaim, " What wives those Chris- 
 tians have ! " 
 
 2. How, again, could the laboring classes fail 
 to receive a regenerating influence from the 
 Gospel, when Jesus Himself had been a work- 
 ing-man, a carpenter; when His first followers 
 and the propagators of His Gospel had been 
 fishermen. His greatest Apostle a tent-maker 
 who made it his boast that he preached the 
 Gospel without charge to his hearers because 
 he could maintain himself, working with his 
 own hands? Thus were labor and the condi- 
 tion of the laboror made honorable in the 
 Church, since the laborer was a child of God, 
 and, whether capable of earthly citizenship or 
 not, a citizen in the Kingdom of God, having 
 full right to the brotherly love of the Divine 
 Family. And so it came to pass that the mind 
 of the IMiddle Ages, which counted prayer the 
 highest service of man, could say, "To labor is 
 to pray ; " and so it is that we can now regard 
 work in the truest sense as worship. 
 
 3. To none, perhaps, was the change pro- 
 duced by the message of Christ more signifi- 
 cant and more profound than to the poor. It 
 was one of the notes of the Kingdom of Heaven, 
 indicated specially by our Lord Himself, that 
 " the poor have the Gospel preached to them." ^ 
 
 1 Matt. xi. 5. 
 
 
 iiiirail 
 
 Wm 
 
CIVILIZA TION AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 71 
 
 In the Church of Christ the poor man found 
 a community which recognized in him a child 
 of God, and accorded to him, without reserve, 
 all the privileges of citizens in the Kingdom of 
 God. He found brethren who nut only greeted 
 him with a loving welcome, but also helped to 
 supply his needs out of the weekly offerings 
 presented every Lord's Day at their gathering 
 together for h^ucharist and for worship. Now, 
 for the first time in the history of the world, 
 arose houses of refuge and shelter for the poor, 
 the needy, the infirm. The Romans had hos- 
 pitals for their soldiers; they had no public 
 provision for the sick and needy among the 
 poor. Even the heathen could not help being 
 struck by this new and strange development of 
 humanity in the Church. Julian the Apostate, 
 — one of the bitterest, if also one of the noblest, 
 of the enemies of the Nazarene, — who professed 
 an ardent belief in the glory of the old pagan- 
 ism, which he labored so eagerly to restore, and 
 for that purpose waged a war of anr "hilation 
 against the Church in the fourth century, yet 
 could not withhold his admiration from the 
 Christians in their care for the poor of the 
 flock. It was in vain that he endeavored to 
 awaken the same spirit in the adherents of the 
 Id relifjion. He writes, in his disappointment. 
 
 o 
 
 ppc 
 
 to Arsacius, the Archpriest of Galatia : " Hel- 
 lenism does not prosper as we could wish, and 
 this throufih the fault of its adherents. For 
 
 *«.(l:l 
 
72 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 they arc destitute of the virtues of the despised 
 Galileans ; and whilst among the despicable 
 people of the Jews there is none who is allowed 
 to beg, the Christians not only support their 
 own poor, but contribute to the relief of some 
 of ours also, whom we leave, without assistance, 
 to their tender care." ^ What this has grown to, 
 no one living in these lands needs to be told. 
 For every species and form of luiman suffering 
 merciful provision is made in our almshouses, 
 our infirmaries, our hospitals; because the Spirit 
 of Jesus Christ, the spirit of human brotherhood, 
 has penetrated our society, and leavened many 
 hearts which know not even whence that new 
 spirit has come, some even which yield no con- 
 scious homage to that Great Elder Brother who 
 has brought us this new grace from our Father 
 in heaven. 
 
 4. We have spoken of the condition of slaves 
 in the heathen world ; and it has been made a 
 reproach to the Gospel of Christ that it contains 
 no command for the emancipation of the slaves, 
 and that every Christian nation lias exercised 
 the same tyranny over bondsmen which was 
 common in the ancient world. Nay, more, it 
 is argued that Christianity has actually been a 
 support of slavery, iincc Saint Paul sent back 
 to I'hilemon his runaway slave Onesimus, as 
 though he had a right to claim him as his 
 property. 
 
 ^ Julian, Epistle 49. 
 
CIVILIZATION AND CHRISTIANITY. 73 
 
 There is really no considerable difficulty in 
 meeting these objections, if men are only willing 
 to receive the answer. 
 
 Let it be remarked, in the first place, that 
 Christianity was not a code of laws and precei)ts, 
 but a principle. To have reduced the principle 
 of love to God and love to man to a series of 
 special commands would have been to narrow 
 and cramp its sphere and influence throughout 
 all ages. No set of precepts, however large and 
 varied, can include every case and every variety 
 of circumstances which may arise in the devel- 
 opment of human society; while the principles 
 of the Gospel are so living, so expansive, so 
 flexible, that no conceivable condition or cir- 
 cumstances of man or of society can escape 
 their application and their force. Christ refused 
 to be a divider or to interfere in- particular 
 cases between man and man which the indi- 
 vidual conscience could decide ; and we can 
 see that this was the way in which alone a 
 noble and a spiritual morality could be made 
 possible. 
 
 With regard to the particular institution of 
 slavery, it was, humanly speaking, impossible 
 for the Church to command its abolition. It 
 would have been to embarrass itself with un- 
 dertakings which would have hindered, perhaps 
 rendered utterly ineffectual, its own proper work. 
 Are we, moreover, certain that the immediate 
 emancipation of the servile classes would have 
 
 
74 
 
 W/TA'ESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 I'll 
 
 been a gain, we say not to the owners but to the 
 bondsmen themselves? There are some men, 
 by no means irrational, inhumane, or unchris- 
 tian, who wish that, in more places than one, 
 the Hberation of the slave might have been 
 more radual. 
 
 But, however all this may be, — and it is un- 
 necessary to olTcr here any opinion on these 
 subjects, — it is tolerably clear to all who give 
 unprejudiced consideration to the subject, that 
 the truth and the power which have emanci- 
 pated the slave in every land, had their origin 
 in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That was the 
 first teacher of our common origin, common 
 powers and capacities, common rights and privi- 
 leges. It is in Jesus Christ, not in I'lato or in 
 Seneca or in Moses, that there is neither Jew 
 nor Gentile, neither Greek nor Barbarian, neither 
 bond nor free. When we learn that God hath 
 made of one blood all nations of men for to 
 dwell upon the face of the earth, — when we 
 know that Jesus Christ tasted death for every 
 man, died for the sins of the whole world, — 
 then we know that slavery and every kind of 
 oppression is doomed. Not all at once do we 
 perceive the full meaning which is contained in 
 our brotherhood in Jesus Christ. Light breaks 
 slowly through the darkness of earth, dispelling 
 gradually our ignorance, our prejudices, our 
 selfishness; but when the darkness is gone and 
 the true light shineth upon us, then do we see 
 
CIVILIZATION AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 7S 
 
 that its full glory is derived from that Sun of 
 righteousness which has risen with healing in its 
 beams, — that it comes from Him who is the 
 Light of the World, whom following we shall 
 never walk in darkness. 
 
 5. It is true that the Gospel of Jesus Christ 
 has not yet had free course. We still sec, alas ! 
 the remains of the old selfish individualism in 
 the relations of peoples to peoples, and of men 
 to men; and yet how vast the change which has 
 already been elTectcd ! It is true that zvars have 
 not ceased to the ends of the earth. We have 
 not yet broken every bow and cut every spear 
 in sunder. But even here the spirit of the (ius- 
 pcl is manifested. Nations do not rush into v.ar 
 with the impetuosity of wild beasts, eager for the 
 fray and thirsting for blood. Even when there 
 is no reasonable pretext for hostilities, those 
 who begin the warfare must convince themselves 
 that there is a cause, must put forth some plausi- 
 ble plea to the civilized world as a reason for 
 their having recourse to the sword ; and when 
 wars do break out, and the weakest has to yield, 
 the conqueror no longer dares — may we not 
 say, no longer desires — to ravage the con- 
 quered soil with fire and sword. Among many 
 other proofs of the changed conditions uf war- 
 fare, may we not mention with gratitude to God, 
 that, after the close of the great civil war in this 
 country, not one person was put to death for 
 participation in the rebellion? 
 
 I 
 
 ?*, 11 
 
 m 
 
 
•w 
 
 7« 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 6. And what shall \vc say of the internal 
 affairs of nations, — t)f our government, our 
 legislation, the actual administration of justice? 
 Has it not come to this, that no nation in which 
 the Gospel of Christ has free course can now, for 
 any length of time, be governed otherwise than 
 for the good of the community at large? No 
 prestige, no lengthened possession of the place 
 of authority, however far back it may reach into 
 the past, no halo of glory and dignity which may 
 rest upon the brow of the ruler, will retain him 
 in his seat if his rule is tyrannical and injurious 
 to his subjects. Wisdom may now say with 
 fresh emphasis, " By me kings rule and princes 
 decree justice." 
 
 And what of our legislation? Is it not in- 
 spired by a pure spirit of benevolence, so that 
 no law could even be proposed or thought of 
 unless it could plead its tendency to ameliorate 
 the condition of the people? Mistakes enough 
 are doubtless made in legislation as in every- 
 thing else, for we are not infallible ; but here as 
 elsewhere breathes the spirit of Christ, — the 
 spirit of loving brotherhood which will not suf- 
 fer the poor and the weak to be trodden under- 
 foot, but cultivates mercy, kindness, generosity 
 to all who need. 
 
 It is always easy to point out faults and sins 
 and shortcomings ; and in our modern civiliza- 
 tion there are not wanting features and tenden- 
 cies which are at variance with the principles of 
 
CIVILIZATIOX AXD CHRISTIAXITV. 
 
 77 
 
 truth and justice and mercy. Yet tlicy are not 
 the characteristic marks of that order of tilings 
 to wliich it is our privilege to belong. They are 
 violations of its spirit, exceptions to its general 
 tendency, spots and blots upon its f.iir face. 
 And we are not cherishing unwarrantetl hopes 
 and expectations when we look forward to the 
 time when they shall have disappeared. That 
 
 tunc IS coming 
 
 '* When man tn man tlie world o'er 
 Shall lirothcrs Ik- for all that." 
 
 ,*■ 
 
 * * 
 
 And this hope we cherish not merely because 
 the thing itself is desirable, and is now univer- 
 salK' acknowledged to loe desirable, but because 
 we have seen a principle in operation in the 
 world which has already vindicated its claim to 
 humanize ^ mankind and diffuse the principle of 
 brotherly love among them ; because we now 
 behold this principle going forth throughout 
 the human race conquering and to conquer, 
 and we behold alike in the inner power and 
 vitality of the principle itself, and in the mighty 
 and enduring conquests which it has already 
 achieved, the sure pledge, the promise which 
 only awaits the appointed time of its fulfilment, 
 that as there is but one God and one Lord, one 
 Father of whom the whole Family in heaven 
 and earth is named, so there will be, in His good 
 
 1 See Note C. 
 
 h 
 is. 
 
 
w 
 
 78 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 time, but one Family, — one in truth, in love, 
 in sympathy, — gathered around Ili.s throne, 
 acknowledging themselves as brethren, knit to- 
 gether in one communion and fellowship in the 
 mystical Body of Christ. 
 
LECTURE III. 
 
 PERSONAL CULTURE AND RELIGION. 
 
 51' 
 
 ' ff ! 
 
 
 „r4^ 
 
 Man, Iiulividiial nnd Social. — Transition from Civilization to 
 personal Culture. — Man's Nature and Culture. — Puints 
 of Agreement. — L Theories of Culture various, but re- 
 ducible to two, Kcli,i;i()us and \on-Rcli,^ious : i. The Non- 
 Religious, — (i) .Social, (2) Scientitic, (3) Literary, (4) I'osi- 
 tivist ; 2. The Christian. — IL Mean.s of Attainment : 
 Human Culture not undervalued, l)ut insufficient, as not 
 taking account of Man's whole Nature; illustrated: i. Idea 
 of Immoitalitv; 2. Responsibility, — ( I ) C(jnscieiice, (2) the 
 Idea of Cod, (3) ('onsciousness of Sin, (4) how met l)y 
 the Gospel, (5) Effects jiroduccd. — Mill. — Goethe anil 
 Saint Francois cle .'^ales. — Luther and Rousseau. — General 
 Effects. — The Christian Ideal. — Lecky. — Mill on lielicf 
 in Immortality ; on the Life and Teaching of Jesus. 
 
 S.I 
 
 :,''! 
 
 "\T 71'^ may study the natufc of man in two 
 V V different ways. We may select tlic in- 
 dividual as a specimen of the race, and see in 
 him all the powers, capacities, tendencies which 
 arc manifested on a larger scale in the whole 
 human family. Or wc may 'oegin at the other 
 end of the scale. We r^-^ '■.Ludy the race of 
 man as a whole, in socici/, in nationalities, in 
 the wide extent and lengthened progress of hu- 
 man history, and learn from such an investiga- 
 tion all the wonderful possibilities which arc 
 contained within the individual man,. 
 
 it 
 
iref^ 
 
 80 
 
 IV/nVESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 Both of these methods of inquiry have been 
 pursued with more or less of success. But 
 neither of them, by itself, will conduct us to the 
 knowled<4e of tlie whole truth concerning our 
 own nature, A mere system of individualism 
 which ignores the corporate character of the 
 race is vsoi merel\- wrong in theory, will not 
 merely fail in explaining the relations of man 
 to his fellow-man and to the world, but will 
 never even rightlv understand the individual 
 \ upon which it professes to concentrate its whole 
 , attention. On the other hand, a mere system 
 of socialism, which ignores the indi\idual or re- 
 gards him only as an undistinguished part of 
 the whole, will miss some of the most funda- 
 mental and characteristic elements which con- 
 stitute the complete nature of man. 
 
 We have already given some attention to the 
 progress of humanit}' and human civilization as 
 a whole, and we have attempted to show that 
 the higherl elements in that civilization are 
 traceable directly to the influence of the Gospel. 
 If we are right in this conclusi< a, the reason 
 must be found in the fact that Christianity is 
 not merely adapted to teach true principles 
 of sociology, but that its message has also a 
 response to the needs of the individual man. 
 We cannot have a great and noble civilization 
 where individual men are left untaught and 
 uncultivated ; neither can the individual attain 
 to his highest and rightful development except 
 
PERSONAL CULTURE AXD RELIGION. 8 1 
 
 amid such circumstances — or, to use the mod- 
 ern phrase, in such an environment — as will 
 favor and foster that development. 
 
 We pass therefore, by a natural transition, 
 from the subject of civilization to that of per- 
 sonal culture, — a subject which is receiving at 
 the present moment a very large amount of 
 attention from thinkers, students, and teachers 
 of the most various schools and tendencies. It 
 would perhaps be difficult to mention a subject 
 in which the Church and the world, men of 
 science and men of literature, men who arc 
 concerned about education and men who are 
 concerned about government, are more deeply 
 interested. 
 
 Man is a living being. Like all living beings, 
 he has a complex nature; and as the highest of 
 them, he has the most complicated nature of 
 all ; and this nature is not only capable of cul- 
 tivation and development, but requires it, and 
 will attain to a complete and harmonious con- 
 dition just as its culture is legitimate and com- 
 plete A plant, a flower, a tree, a bird, a beast, 
 each has its own nature, which will receive its 
 complete harmony and maturity just as it is 
 placed in those circumstances which will pro- 
 vide a supply for all its needs ; and so it will be 
 with the crown of animated nature, the being 
 whom we call man. He, too, has powers which 
 must be developed and disciplined in a normal 
 manner, or they will lie dormant or be perverted, 
 
 6 
 
 
 " \ 
 
 .' H 
 
82 
 
 IV/TJV£SS£S TO CHRIST. 
 
 SO that cither partial death or discord and con- 
 fusion will take the place of life and harmony.^ 
 
 These principles are so universally recognized 
 that the mere statement of them will suffice for 
 our present purpose. As a consequence of the 
 <jeneral unanimity on the subject, it has come to 
 pass that each school or s)'SLcm of thought, 
 materialistic Oi- spiritualistic, atheistic or thc- 
 istic. Christian or unbelieving, lias felt bound to 
 work out its own scheme for the education of 
 mankind, for the cultix^ation of the human 
 powers, with results which are sometimes very 
 remarkably in agreement. Different as their 
 theories of culture arc in many respects, they do 
 not very widely disagree with respect to its 
 fruits and its evidences, or even its essential na- 
 ture. Up to a certain point, indeed, we shall 
 find a very remarkable agreement between the 
 various theories which are proposed for our 
 acceptance. 
 
 I. Let us first ask ivhat those tJicorics arc, and 
 ivJiat thry propose to effect. We have, first, the 
 ordinar}' worldly or social view of culture, which 
 is purely secular, and which, without condemn- 
 ing or rejecting religion, can hardly be said to 
 take account of it, unless as a mere social fact. 
 We have next the scientific theory, and then the 
 literary theory, respecting which similar remarks 
 may be made. Beyond these we have the con- 
 
 * Aristotle insisted that man, like all other beings, had his 
 own 7vork {fpyuv). '' Ethics," book i. 
 
PERSOXAL CULTURE AND RELTGIOiV, 
 
 83 
 
 fcsscdly materialistic or atheistic theory. And, 
 apart from these, and in diametrical opposi- 
 tion to some of them, \vc have the Christian 
 method. 
 
 \Vc thoroucjhly believe that the more care- 
 fully we examine the claims and the methods 
 of th "^p theories, the more clearly \vc shall see 
 ''a they arc reducible to two, — the religious 
 and the unreligious or non-religious, — and that 
 ultimatch' the various rclicrious theories will be 
 merged in the Christian, in that religion which 
 is based upon the revelation of God in Jesus 
 Christ our Lord. It is quite true that there are 
 system : which will refuse to be assigned to 
 either 01 these classes, whose advocates imagine 
 that they have made a compromise between 
 mere secularism on the one hand, and a doc- 
 trinal Christianity on the other, and so have se- 
 cured the advantages and avoided the evils of 
 both. But these systems have no inherent 
 vitality. The surrender of distinct Christian 
 doctrine has always led, as all history testifies, 
 to rationalism, to unbelief, to mere deism, and 
 finally to pantheism and atheism. 
 
 I. Let us, however, consider some of these 
 theories of human culture just as they present 
 thomselves. Let us see what they regard as the 
 essential characteristics of a cultivated human 
 being, and the methods by which they would 
 effect thjs culture. Now, probabl)- the first thing 
 that will strike us in these theories will be the 
 
 '^ ffi 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 ra 
 
 "* 
 
 1^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 »■ 1 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 U ' 
 
 ' ^^ \ 
 
 li i 
 
 K5 
 
 jl'v 
 
 
 
 '■' m 
 
 II 
 
 • i 
 
 i 
 
 1 W( 
 
 1 
 
 di 
 
 n 
 
 ; 1 
 
 'i 
 
 ' 3 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 • 
 
 I 
 
 '\\ 
 
 *' H 
 
 
 * 1 
 
 
 ( 1 
 
 i ^ 
 
 « 31 
 
 Ft" 
 
 i 
 
 "hi 
 
 (■V ,f^ '* 
 
mw 
 
 84 
 
 IV/TNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 large extent to which they are in accord with 
 the teachings of the Gospel and the Church. 
 For this agreement we ought, indeed, to be de- 
 voutly grateful, being ever ready to recognize 
 the amount of truth which is held by those who 
 differ from ourselves, while we are on our guard 
 against surrendering any portion of that truth 
 which has been delivered to us from above. 
 Let us then proceed to consider the different 
 views of culture which are current among us 
 at the present time. 
 
 (i) We take, first, the ordinary worldly, secu- 
 lar, or social view of culture. What do men in 
 general mean when they speak of a cultivated 
 person, and what are the qualities by which such 
 an one is generally recognized? The world re- 
 quires refinement, case, self-control, gentleness, 
 kindness, courtesy. We can hardly say that 
 the world requires truth, or a high srnse of 
 duty, or self-sacrifice. Still it admires these 
 qualities, and applauds them in certain circum- 
 stances, especially when they are found in union 
 with those other acquirements and characteristics 
 with which it cannot dispense. 
 
 (2) We take next the scientific view of culture, 
 and here we will listen to Professor Huxley.^ 
 " That man, I think, has a liberal education," 
 says Dr. Huxley (his expression is condensed, 
 but not altered), " whose body is the ready ser- 
 vant of his will, . . . whose intellect is a clear, 
 ' Lay Sermons, p. 34. 
 
PERSONAL CULTURE AND RELIGION. 85 
 
 cold logic engine, with all its parts of equal 
 strength and in smooth working order; . . . 
 whose mind is stored with a knowledge of the 
 great and fundamental truths of Nature; . . . 
 one who is full of life and fire, but whose pas- 
 sions are trained to come to heel by a vigorous 
 will, the servant of a tender conscience ; who 
 has learned to love all beauty, whether of Nature 
 or of art, to hate all vileness, and to respect 
 others as himself." So much for the scientific 
 view of culture. 
 
 (3) What is the literary viq^nI There is, per- 
 haps, no one whose right to speak on this point 
 would be considered higher than that of Mr. 
 Matthew Arnold. According to this distin- 
 guished writer, culture is " an inward and spirit- 
 ual activity, having for its characters increased 
 sweetness, increased light, increased life, increased 
 sympathy." Mr. Arnold does not exclude re- 
 ligion as an influence in culture. According tov 
 him, religion is " morality touched by emotion."*! 
 On some parts of these definitions we shall here- 
 after have to comment. At present we are sim- 
 ply stating the views of the different schools. 
 
 (4) It may suffice if we select one other type 
 of teaching on this subject ; namely, the posi- 
 tivist, materialistic, or atheistic. There are, of 
 course, positivists and a:^nostics who are not 
 ntheists, who are probably -.n their hearts theists, 
 
 1 See his "Literature aod Dogtna" (1873), "God and the 
 Bible" (1875). 
 
 '» 
 
 Ik 
 
 I't i f; 
 
 li 
 
 i-ji 
 
 If? 
 
 ill P 
 
 &5 
 
 ( ■ ' 
 
 m 
 
 'ij 
 
 
T7^ 
 
 86 
 
 WIT.VESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 although scientifically they will have nothing to 
 do with the region of faith. These, however, 
 are sufficiently represented by the literary and 
 scientific types already noticed. We will now 
 quote the words of one who is a very distin- 
 guished as well as a very frank representative 
 of atheism, Dr. Ludwig Buchner, a man of un- 
 doubted powers, although sadly lacking in taste. 
 According to this writer,^ culture {Bildung) is 
 "the increased insight of the individual into the 
 ends of civil and social life, increased regard for 
 the rights of others and for his own duties." 
 Elsewhere he includes sympathy among the 
 elements of culture. 
 
 2. Now, what is the Christian idea* of culture? 
 It is set forth in many different forms in various 
 parts of the Bible. We might specify particu- 
 larly and supremely the Beatitudes which form 
 the introduction of the Sermon on the Mount 
 as giving the characters of Christian culture in a 
 manner which could hardly be surpassed. The 
 fruits of the Spirit, as enumerated by Saint Paul,^ 
 run in parallel lines with the precepts of the 
 Divine Master ; and the stirring exhortation of 
 Saint Peter "^ in no wise differs from that teach- 
 ing: " Giving all diligence, add to your faith vir- 
 tue [manliness] ; and to virtue knowledge; and 
 to knowledge temperance ; and to temperance 
 patience ; and to patience godliness ; and to 
 
 1 Der Gottes-Begriff (1874), p. 59. 
 
 2 Gal. V. 22, 23. 8 2 Peter i. 5-7. 
 
PERSONAL CULTURE AND RELIGION. 87 
 
 (JCiiJ 
 
 godliness brotherly kindness ; and to brotherly- 
 kindness charity." 
 
 In all these representations there is a remark- 
 able and striking unity of sentiment such as we 
 should hardly have expected, considering the 
 difference of the points of view from which the 
 subject is regarded. We do not now stop to 
 show that in all of these theories we discern 
 very clearly the influence of the Gospel. At 
 present we will only notice the principal points 
 of agreement between the different theories. 
 Let us note them. All are agreed that in order 
 to a true and liberal human culture, there must 
 be a disciplined and instructed intelligence, a 
 pure and sympathetic heart, and a will strong, 
 benevolent, self-controlled ; and that all these 
 powers of man's nature shall be so propor- 
 tioned and balanced, and so harmonious in 
 their operation, that they shall constitute a 
 charac'.er powerful without violence, and gen- 
 tle without weakness. As to the desirableness 
 of such a character, all respectable men of all 
 schools 'are wholly agreed. But here a ques- 
 tion of the most serious importance meets us. 
 
 II. How is such a culture to be attained? It 
 would be wearisome and it is unnecessary even 
 to attempt an enumeration of the various an- 
 swers which arc given to this question. As has 
 been already remarked, there are essentially but 
 two modes of culture. It must be cither reli- 
 gious or irreligious ; or, if this latter word sounds 
 
 I 
 
 
 >» 
 
88 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 harsh, let us say non-rcligious or secular. It 
 must consist in a mere human discipline which 
 has regard only to the laws of Nature, man's 
 bodily and mental constitution and the circum- 
 stances in which he is placed ; or it must rest 
 upon the revelation of God in our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, the God-man, the Redeemer of the 
 world, and on His redeeming work as applied 
 by the Holy Spirit and by the Christian means 
 of grace. 
 
 A believer and teacher of the Gospel of Jesus 
 Christ can, of course, have no difficulty in de- 
 claring that, in his judgment at least, a mere 
 secular culture is altogether insufficient and in- 
 capable of producing a complete and harmoni- 
 ous development of our powers, such as is the 
 result of the operation of Christian truth in the 
 hearts and minds of those who receive it. 
 
 Let it be clearly understood, however, that in 
 pleading for a religious and a Christian disci- 
 pline, we are in no way attempting to underrate 
 the importance of that training of body and 
 mind which has special regard to the constitu- 
 tion and powers of our human nature, physical 
 and psychical. Those are doing not merely val- 
 uable scientific work, but truly divine work, who 
 arc engaged in the careful study of the human 
 frame, of the laws of health, and all such sub- 
 jects. No less are those doing good service to 
 man and to God who are investigating the laws 
 of mind, and treating psychology as an invalu- 
 
PRRSOXAL CULTURE AND RELIGION. 
 
 89 
 
 able aid in the work of education. It would be 
 the sheer fanaticism of ignorance which could 
 despise or ignore the importance of such use- 
 ful and necessary work. Nay, further, we may 
 freely admit that these subjects have been un- 
 duly neglected by many advocates of a religious 
 education. By such means they have greatly 
 hindered and marred their own proper work, 
 suffering that nature, which might have been 
 made an auxiliary to grace, to be so burdened 
 and perverted by the neglect of its manifest laws 
 that it has become a great hinderer c^f the work 
 of the Gospel in the individual life. 
 
 While, however, we can regard only with 
 satisfaction every attempt to develop and disci- 
 pline man's powers of body and mind, we main- 
 tain that this cannot be effectually done apart 
 from the influence of religion. For this opinion 
 we will attempt to offer some adequate reasons. 
 
 In making this very necessary and serious 
 attempt, — which may God help and prosper 
 and bless ! — we must keep clear before us a fun- 
 damental principle, already noted, upon which 
 there cannot be, and there is not, any difference 
 of opinion. In order to any true and complete 
 culture, the whole nature of the thing to be cul- 
 tivated, and not merely a part of it, must be 
 taken into consideration ; and provision must be 
 made for the whole of that nature and for all the 
 elements of which it is composed. This is true 
 of every object which is susceptible of cultiva- 
 
 
 :t'itt 
 
 I I 
 
7^ 
 
 QO 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 pliiMf:^|: 
 
 tion, of the smallest and simplest as well as of 
 the greatest and the most complicated. It is 
 true of the tree, of the plant, of the very grass 
 of the field. It cannot grow, it cannot become 
 what it is capable of becoming, unless it has a 
 suitable soil, a congenial climate, — unless all 
 the circumstances are suited to its nature and 
 requirements. The same principle is applicable 
 to man and to human education. Neglect any 
 part or element of his nature, and the result will 
 be a discipline which is imperfect, one-sided, 
 abnormal. 
 
 Now, we venture to assert, having regard to 
 these admitted principles, that a merely secular 
 culture, a culture which knows nothing of God, 
 does not meet the requirements of human nature, 
 and, as a matter of fact, does not produce the 
 rich and beautiful and harmonious results which 
 flow from Christian culture; and that it cannot 
 do so, because it fails to take account of elements 
 in the nature of man which are inseparable from 
 it, and ineradicable. 
 
 Such elements arc man's longing after God, 
 immortality, perfection, the sense of responsibil- 
 ity, involving the ideas of right and wrong and 
 the consciousness of sin. If these ideas are part 
 of human history and of human nature, can any 
 system which ignores them on principle ade- 
 quately promote the development and provide 
 for the culture of our human nature? Either it 
 must prove that these ideas are mere illusions, 
 
rtt 
 
 ::i 
 
 VERSONAL CULTURE AND RELIGIOX. 9 1 
 
 tliat they arc superstitious beliefs engendered by 
 man's fears and ignorance, or else it nuist con- 
 fess that it makes no sufficient provision for 
 human culture. 
 
 I. Take, first, the notion of immortality. Wc 
 take it first, because it lies nearest to the truths 
 concerning human nature which all confess, 
 because it does not necessarily involve those 
 higher truths of moral perception, responsibility, 
 dependence upon God, longing for His presence 
 and sustaining power. UntU)ubtedly it is a no- 
 tion which can hardly be ignored in considering 
 what is a fitting method of education for a crea- 
 ture like man. 
 
 Science tells us that it knows nothing of im- 
 mortality, and irreligious science declares that 
 the view of life which regards man as destined 
 to exist in a future state of being is quite apart 
 from its calculations and teachings. We know 
 nothing of such prospects, it declares, and we 
 have nothing to do with them. Wc deal only 
 with acknowledged, tangible facts, which no one 
 can disprove, even if he chooses to ignore them. 
 Yes, we reply; but what if man is an immortal 
 being? What if there is for us human creatures 
 a state of existence after death, into which we 
 must enter after we have done with time? Do 
 you make no provision in your system for such 
 a contingency? 
 
 The reply of the non-religious educator is 
 easily anticipated. If, he says, wc understand 
 
 4 
 
 i 
 

 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 V 
 
 A 
 
 
 <. ^' 
 
 y. 
 
 % 
 
 (/. 
 
 fA 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 
 2.2 
 
 li° lllllio 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 (6 
 
 
 „ 6" 
 
 ► 
 
 0% 
 
 
 y] 
 
 A 
 
 
 ^V:^ 
 j->. 
 
 // 
 
 o 
 
 / 
 
 s 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY 14580 
 
 (716) 873-4S03 
 
 fd 
 
 \ 
 
 W 
 
 o 
 
 ^v 
 
 « 
 * 
 
 
 6^ 
 
 %^ 
 

 
 (/. 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^^ 
 
 6^ 
 
 
92 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 I- II- 
 
 
 rightly the human constitution, and educate and 
 discipline the individual man in accordance with 
 the laws of his nature, then it does not matter 
 whether his life is limited to this visible sphere 
 or goes on to another existence beyond the 
 grave. If a man is a true man, trained, disci- 
 plined, harmoniously developed, then it does not 
 matter where he is or how he is employed. He 
 will be fit, or as fit as he can be, for any position 
 or work to which he may be called. 
 
 Undoubtedly there is a large measure of truth 
 in buch an answer properly understood. We 
 cannot, however, stop at this point to show the 
 points of our agreement and disagreement with 
 these statements. We will here only ask a ques- 
 tion. Does it, then, make no difiercnce to our 
 vie./ of whaL a man's education ought to be, 
 whether we think his whole life is spent on earth, 
 or he has another life beyond and above the 
 present? Let us put the question still more 
 plainly. If two men take in hand the work of 
 educating a child, and one believes that the 
 death of man on earth is the end of his exist- 
 ence, and the other that it is only the gate of 
 a nobler life, will both of those men conduct the 
 work of education in precisely the same manner? 
 It is impossible that this should be the case. 
 We might as well say that our work in the 
 schoolroom will be precisely the same whether 
 we are to live beyond the age of childhood or 
 not, whether we are ever to grow to manhood or 
 
 ~|ii 
 
PERSONAL CULTURE AND RELIGION. 93 
 
 not. For the relation of our future life to the 
 present may be regarded as very similar to the 
 relation of our adult life to the age of childhood. 
 Who does not see that the believer in immortal- 
 ity has many questions to ask which the mate- 
 rialist dismisses with unconcern, and that the 
 answers to these questions will profoundly affect 
 his views of the nature and extent of human ed- 
 ucation? Certainly a theory of culture which 
 entirely ignores the question of man's immor- 
 tality can hardly be regarded as sufficient; for 
 most men believe in immortality, and the num- 
 ber of those who do not believe in it or at least 
 regard the question as one worthy of serious 
 consideration must be quite insignificant. 
 
 2. But this question is comparatively super- 
 ficial and preliminary. We have the graver 
 questions of man's relation to the ideas of right 
 and wrong and responsibility and God to con- 
 sider, before we can determine the true nature 
 of human culture. Now, let the reality of these 
 ideas be once established, and the insufficiency 
 of any merely secular culture becomes at once 
 apparent. In other words, unless these ideas 
 be delusions, and can be proved to be such, 
 no culture short of that which is Christian can 
 be reckoned sufficient, or can actuallv suffice 
 for human needs. 
 
 There are various ways of accounting for the 
 existence of these ideas and for their universal 
 prevalence. The coarse method of denouncing 
 
 ;3' 
 
 ;14 
 
94 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 » 
 
 V 
 
 M: 
 
 them as the inventions of a priestly caste, which 
 sought power for itself by means of these beliefs 
 among the people, is now very generally aban- 
 doned. The mere denunciation of such opin- 
 ions as gross superstitions, growing up in the 
 midst of a race sunk in ignorance, is partially at 
 least put aside. Yet it is impossible for those 
 who ignore religion as a necessary part of hu- 
 man education to allow ideas of morality and 
 religion to hold their ground without question. 
 Accordingly men of the school of Bi'v;liner pro- 
 fess to be able to make short work with all the 
 transcendental, ethical, metaphysical ideas which 
 cannot be .'i«:counted for on the mere ground of 
 sensuous experience. There is no such thing 
 as wickedness, they say. Sin as involving guilt 
 or liability to punishment is a mere delusion.* 
 Sin is merely ignorance, and ignorance is the 
 fountain of all other evils. Sin is disease, 
 error, desperation. Any idea of a conscience is 
 mere " infant-school morality."'^ And the same 
 must be said of the idea of God. This position 
 has been taken with unusual confidence by 
 some of the most prominent opponents of the 
 existence of God. Thus, Mr. Atkinson and Miss 
 Martineau have declared, in their " Letters," 
 that they do not recognize the existence of 
 morality. Miss Martineau speaks of having 
 " finally dismissed all notion of subjection to a 
 
 * lUichi'T, Der Gottes-Bcgriff (1874), p. 60. 
 ' Ibid., p. 42. 
 
PERSON^IL CULTURE AND RELIGION. 95 
 
 superior lawless Will, all the perplexing notions 
 of sin and responsibility; " and her master de- 
 clares that knowledge " sees good in evil and 
 the working of general laws for the general 
 good, and sees no more sin in a crooked dis- 
 position than in a crooked stick in the water, 
 or in a humpback or a squint." ^ 
 
 Are we ready to accept these statements as 
 a settlement of the question? Apart from our 
 belief, based as we think on abundant evidence, 
 that the Gospel is true, can we, as human be- 
 ings, who know not only our own instincts, our 
 own needs, our own cravings, but who know 
 that these instincts and cravings belong, broadly 
 speaking, to the whole human race, — can we, 
 with this knowledge, accept undoubtingly the 
 assurance that these ineradicable convictions, not 
 of a few persons here and there, but of the whole 
 human race, have no real foundation to rest 
 upon, — nay, worse, that they are superstitious 
 delusions which stand in the way of a genuine, 
 broad, and liberal culture? Surely not. These 
 convictions c ^ ours are as much matter of fact 
 as any outward object which we have before our 
 eyes. They are as real to us as the craving for 
 food, as the sense of weariness and fatigue, as 
 the joyful consciousness of renewed strength 
 and vigor after repose. And if we are tempted 
 for a moment to doubt our individual conscious- 
 
 * letters on the Laws of Man's Nature and Development, 
 by II. G. Atkinson and II. Martineau, p. 141. 
 
 ■t t 
 
 
96 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 
 ,1 
 
 - i * 
 J' I > 
 
 f ? 
 
 
 Bl ■ ii' 
 
 4- 
 
 ncss, it is verified by hundreds, by thousands, 
 by millions of our fcUow-mcn. 
 
 (i) Take the case of comcicnce. A sense of 
 right and wrong is the universal possession of 
 humanity. In some persons and in some races 
 it is very feeble. In some persons it is totally 
 lacking. But this no more proves that man has 
 not a conscience, than the existence of idiots or 
 madmen proves that man has no intelligence, 
 is not a rational being. How do those who 
 deny that conscience is an element in the actual 
 constitution of man account for its existence? 
 It is, they say, the result of education, not 
 merely of the individual, but of the race. The 
 so-called moral ideas have been generated in the 
 long course of human history. In the struggle 
 for existence, in the endeavor to preserve what 
 they had acquired, men had to inflict suffering 
 upon those who sought to injure them. Out of| 
 , the need of protection arose governments which 
 had to punish those who infringed their rules; 
 and in this way there arose a sense of evil doing, 
 the hurting of others was known to be a thing 
 which entailed some kind of retribution upon 
 the author of the injury, and thus the ideas of 
 right and wrong and innocence and guilt were 
 , generated in the race.^ 
 
 It is impossible to deny the measure of truth 
 which is contained in this explanation of man's 
 moral being. Without education we should 
 
 1 Compare H. Spencer's "Data of Ethics." 
 
PEKSOXAL CULTURE AXD RELIGION. 97 
 
 probably not be moral beings at all. But the 
 same is true of our rational nature. If it were 
 possible to separate a child at its birth from all 
 human antl educational influences, that child 
 would r^rovv up hardly different from a brute. 
 If such a case were found, should we have a 
 right to say that this particular human being 
 was not rational? Should we have a right to 
 put it in the class of the brute creation? Cer- 
 tainly not. We should know that the nature 
 was there, although undeveloped, — that, if it 
 had been properly educated, it would have 
 come forth into activity, as in the case of men 
 who received a normal training. We know, 
 too, that no amount of training or educ:ition 
 or discipline would develop intelligence in the 
 mere brute. Here, therefore, there is an origi- 
 nal, essential difference between Jthe r^nn and 
 the mere animal. The one may, by neglect, 
 be allowed to fall back almost to the level of 
 the other, l^y no possibility can the brute be 
 developed into the man. 
 
 It is the same with the moral nature. Unless 
 it had in man a real existence, it could not be 
 educated. You cannot produce the sense of 
 right and wrong in the mere brute, although 
 in various ways that sense may be destroyed 
 in man. Let us grant that, as a matter of fact, 
 the state of our conscience, like the condition 
 of our reason, is the result of education. Our 
 moral life begins with the utterances of author- 
 
 
 Ri hi 
 
 ';i 
 
 '\ 
 
 '■■f 
 
 .:lU 
 
 I 
 
 'Mi 
 
 i ' j 
 1 'i 
 
 ;'! 
 
I 
 
 Ml! 
 
 ■j; 
 
 98 
 
 WITNESSES TO CrfK/ST. 
 
 ity. VVc believe what wc are told as to ri{^ht 
 and wronj;. But we do not believe unqiiestion- 
 ingly. We brinj; the judf^ments and teachings 
 of others before the bar of our own judgment 
 and conscience, and test them by our own 
 reason ;uul moral sense. And when wc have 
 once acquired the convictions which are partly 
 the result of education, partly the outcome of 
 our own thouj:jht, we no more can part with them, 
 unless some injury is inflicted n\)o\\ our moral 
 nature, than wc can part with the principles of ac- 
 curate thinking;, unless our intellect is destroyed. 
 Men do not know the rules of the syllogism 
 by intuition. As a matter of fact, many men 
 violate them without any consciousness of think- 
 ing inaccurately. Let them, however, get clearly 
 to understand those rules, and they can no more 
 deny them than they can deny their own exist- 
 ence. So with the moral perceptions by which 
 men are lighted in the hfe of duty. In one 
 sense they are intuitive ; they arc not the result 
 of any process of reasoning, they shine by their 
 own light. Yet there arc men who have pos- 
 sessed them in very slight measure, and we may 
 admit the possibility of men being found in 
 whom they have no place. When, however, the 
 conscience has once been educated to discern 
 between good and evil, it retains its moral vision; 
 it will not be driven from its new post of vantage 
 unless some great injury is inflicted upon the 
 constitution to which it belongs. 
 
PERSONAL CULTURE AND RELIGION. 99 
 
 Can we. then, believe that conscience is a 
 mere accident in human nature, generated by 
 circumstances and by experience ; or arc we 
 driven to the conchision that it is an elementary 
 part of the constitution of man? We cannot 
 hesitate as to which of these opinions we should 
 adopt. Our reason unites with our inward con- 
 sciousness in the testimony that we are moral 
 beings, lighted by the lamp of righteousness and 
 duty, constrained by an inner law to walk in 
 that light which shines upon us from a higher 
 world. 
 
 (2) It may be safely said that, ultimately, the 
 idea of conscience and the idea of God \\'\\\ stand 
 or fall together in the same mind and in the| 
 same society. If there is nothing in the universe' 
 but matter, if thought is a mere attribute of 
 matter and the result of its organization, then 
 the idea of God is forever banished from the 
 realm of thought, and conscience can be no 
 more than the description of a state which is 
 the result of a certain kind of culture. 
 
 This subject w^ill be considered, in its specu- 
 lative as[)cct, more particularly, in the lecture 
 on Materialism. At present we have to deal 
 with it more immediately as a practical question. 
 That the idea of God is almost universal among 
 men, no one thinks of denying. That it is al- 
 most inseparable from the idea of right and 
 wrong, is equally certain. Indeed, the great 
 German metaphysician, Kant, found in the cer- 
 
 III 
 
 il 
 
 
lOO 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 \\i 
 
 
 tainty and authority of conscience the one con- 
 clusive proof of the existence of God. The 
 " catc^'orical imperative " of the conscience 
 was tile supreme, undeniable truth in the con- 
 stitution of man, and drew after it, as a necessity, 
 a belief in the existence of a supreme Lawgiver 
 and Judge. Doubtless it is this inner wit- 
 ness to truth and goodness, this inner judge 
 which refuses to resolve all human action into 
 a mere calculation of consequences, into a mere 
 question of profit and loss, and demands that 
 men shall do right and shall not do wrong, 
 which makes men hesitate to believe that there 
 is no God. At any rate, few men will avow such 
 a belief, and even those who will not maintain 
 the affirmative on this question will generally 
 take refuge in the plea of ignorance. 
 
 Men like Dr. Biichner are bolder. The idea 
 of God, in their view, is as much a childish su- 
 perstition as the idea of sin. It is the offspring 
 of ignorance and fear.^ Petronius, according to 
 him, was right when he said that Fear was the 
 first maker of Gods in the world (" Primus in 
 orbe Deos fecit timor"). Mr. Mill,*'^ who seems 
 to have had Biichner as well as Petronius in his 
 mind, remarks: "The old saying, 'Primus in 
 orbe Deos fecit timor,' I hold to be untrue, 
 or to contain, at most, only a small amount 
 
 * lUichner, "Der Gottes-lkgriff " (i874),p. 14. Compare his 
 "Kraft und Stoff : " "Die Gottes-Idce." 
 
 '"* Three Essays on Religion, by J. S. Mill, p. 100. 
 
 i.j 
 
PEiiSONAL CULTrRR AXD RELIC lOy. 10 1 
 
 of truth. Belief in gods had, I conceive, 
 even in the rudest minds, a more honorable 
 origin." 
 
 It certainly docs seem strange that Dr. 
 Biichner should assign such a parentage to an 
 idea which, he tells us, here agreeing with all 
 trustworthy witnesses, is wanting among certain 
 barbarous nations, but is the common possession 
 of all civilized peoples. The idea of God and 
 of duty does not die out of men's minds as they 
 advance in knowledge and in civilization. It 
 grows deeper and stronger and more tenacious. 
 Man feels — and no amount of civilization can 
 educate him out of the feeling — that he needs 
 God. " If God did not exist," said Voltaire, " it 
 would be necessary to invent him." He little 
 thought how soon his saying would be verified. 
 The French people at the Revolution professed 
 to abolish the Deity along with the historical 
 institutions of their country, liut they found 
 they could live longer without the government 
 of kings than they could without the worship 
 of Almighty God. The restoration of religion, 
 in some shape, was effected long before the 
 restoration of monarchy. Robespierre sent the 
 revolutionary atheists to the guillotine, and cel- 
 ebrated the festival of the Supreme Being.^ It 
 is a striking comment on the boast tlut the 
 hypothesis of a Deity is as unnecessary in 
 human life as it is in physical science. 
 
 1 June 8, 1794. Thiers, " French Revolution," chap. xxxv. 
 
 V. 
 
 
102 
 
 IVITNESSES TO CI/R/ST. 
 
 i 
 
 
 
 
 i;;'^ 
 
 (3) VVc have just referred to the assertion 
 that the idea of God was the child of ignorance 
 and fear. Tliis is [glaringly untrue; but it has a 
 measure of truth lyinj; near to it. Man's fears 
 of God would rather lead him to cast doubts 
 upon the fact of the Divine existence. Jiut con- 
 science is too strong for his sophistry and cas- 
 uistry. Mis fears do constrain him to ask 
 whether God has revealed Himself, how lie is 
 disposed towards man, and in what way His 
 offending creatures may draw near to Him. 
 
 For men are conscious of sin, are troubled by 
 the thought of guilt, of a past wliich they can- 
 not efface, by the consciousness of a present 
 feebleness which they cannot cure, by the pros- 
 pect of a future which is all unknown. Look at 
 these facts of human consciousness, and consider 
 their bearing on this subject of culture. What 
 possibility is there of a free and broad culture in 
 a soil so choked with weeds? This sense of guilt, 
 this inner grief which darkens all the higher life, 
 is an effectual barrier against the entrance of the 
 influences which would foster and strengthen 
 and discipline the powers of the soul. There 
 can be no true freedom, and therefore no har- 
 monious development, expansion, until the soul 
 knows of a God who is a Father, pardoning, 
 helping, blessing. 
 
 It is for this reason that we believe no true 
 halting-place can be found between material- 
 ism and the Gospel, between the system which 
 
PERSONAL CULTURE AND RELIGIOX- I03 
 
 ignores God and the system whicli tells us aii- 
 tiioritativcly liow wc may be at peace with God. 
 iJcism has i)een tried over and over aj^ain. It 
 has been weighed in the balances and found 
 wanting. Deism cannot even deliver us from 
 any of the ditficultics sui)i)osed to i)e connected 
 with the Christian Revelation. The late Mr. 
 Mill has told us in his Autobiography,' that, as 
 acfainst the deist, liishop Hutler's argument is 
 irresistible. Grant the existence of a God, and 
 take the world as it is, and there is no difficulty 
 in the Christian Revelation which docs not meet 
 us when wc rcj^ard the world in which we live as 
 tile sphere of Divine <^ovcrnment. We shall not' 
 escape the difficulties of belief by surrenderintj 
 the Christian Revelation and falling back upon 
 the belief in a God who is revealed only in na- 
 ture, in history, and in conscience. 
 
 (4) But although we shall gain nothini^ by 
 adopting deism instead of Christianity, we shall 
 lose much by the exchange. There is no other 
 religion which even professes to do what the 
 Gospel promises to those who become followers 
 of the Christ. Suppose we undertake the edu- 
 cation of a human being, and begin by asking 
 where and how he may obtain a clear light to 
 guide liim through the intricacies of " this 
 troublesome world," how he may free his inner 
 man from the cloud of guilt whicli broods over 
 it, how he may obtain strength to fight the 
 
 1 He repeats it in his "Essays on Religion," p. 214. 
 
104 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 i 
 
 battle of life, — in short, how he may so free all 
 the powers of his nature from impediments 
 which check their exercise, how he may intro- 
 duce into them a principle which shall reduce 
 them to harmony and at the same time stimulate 
 them to work, — what system is there on earth 
 that professes to give answers to questions like 
 these? Is it enough to listen to the positivist, 
 and hear that we know only matter and its 
 qualities, while we are forced to believe in some 
 mysterious force pervading all matter, of which, 
 however, we can have no certain knowledge? 
 Will such an assurance strike the shackles off 
 the wrists of men who are in spiritual bondage, 
 or restore the spiritual paralytic to sound health 
 and vigor? Shall we obtain a more satisfactory 
 answer from the modern apostle of culture 
 without Christianity, who tells us that God is " a 
 power or stream of tendency not ourselves which 
 makes for righteousness," and that religion is 
 "morality touched with emotion"? Imagine 
 Saint Paul giving this answer to the agonized 
 conscience asking what must be done in order that 
 it might be saved ! Imagine this for an answer: 
 " Believe in a power not yourself which makes 
 for righteousness, and practise a morality which 
 is not a mere hard, dry conformity to law, but a 
 morality \vhich is lightened by sentiment and 
 emotion ! " This is certainly a strange way of 
 setting men free, and sending them on their 
 way rejoicing. 
 
PEI^SOXAL CULTURE AXD RELIGIOX. 105 
 
 (5) We know what the Gospel professes to 
 do for men, and we know also what it has done. 
 We know what it did for Saint Paul nearly two 
 thousand years a^o ; we know what it did for 
 Luther nearly four hundred ye.^rs ago, and what 
 it has done for manv more before and after the 
 days of the great Reformer. Certainly our Lord 
 has not left Himself without witnesses of the 
 truth of His promises, — of the reality of the 
 blessings which lie professed to prepare for 
 those who received 1 1 is message. We have a 
 double testimony to His fidelity. We have the 
 history of the Cln-istjiui society in its onward 
 progress from the day of Pentecost to this hour, 
 and we have the testimony of the manifested 
 lives and of the inward e.\perience of individ- 
 ual_Christians, We believe that th'Te is no 
 comparison between the Christian life, whether 
 seen in the individual or in society, and the life 
 of those who are " without Christ." 
 . We do not, of course, deny that there have 
 been many eminent and highly cultivated men 
 who have lived " without God in the world," 
 and have passed away without faith or hope in 
 His promises, or even in His existence. It may 
 be that instances can be found, in the history of 
 mankind, of high moral as well as intellectual 
 qualities in those who have had no religious 
 beliefs or principles. But we may safely assert 
 that such are to be found chiefly among those 
 who have indirectly come under religious, and 
 
 I 
 
 
 Mil 
 
 !' 
 
 Vu 
 
 

 r!<l' 
 
 
 io6 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST 
 
 especially under Christian, influences; further, 
 that such cases arc cxtcptional ; and finally, 
 that even the best of such examples are found 
 defective when compared with the noblest ex- 
 amples of Christian culture. 
 
 We have already referred to the Autobiography 
 of Mr. John Mill, one of the most eminent repre- 
 sentatives of the secular school, and a distin- 
 guished writer. Let any thoughtful person read 
 that book, and we are quite sure what his judg- 
 ment will be when he is asked whether he could 
 believe that a Christian would gain anything, 
 socially and morally, by abandoning his faith 
 in Christ and adopting the principles of that 
 eminent man's life. 
 
 It will, however, be better to draw our illus- 
 tration from another people. One of the most 
 splendid examples of a merely worldly culture 
 ^^' i was undoubtedly the great German, J. W. 
 [Goethe. He was a man who in certain re- 
 spects was inferior to none in the fascination 
 which he exercised over some of the most dis- 
 tinguished men of his age. It is not difficult to 
 account for this influence. He was one of the 
 wonders of his time. His physical beauty, his 
 capacious intellect, his harmonious culture, his 
 serene self-satisfaction and calm self-idolatry, 
 formed a combination which with most men 
 proved overpowering. Yet study his character 
 irr the admirable English biography of him,^ and 
 
 ' Lewes's Life of Goethe. 
 
PERSONAL CULTURE AND RELIGION lO'J 
 
 ask whether you would really desire to be such 
 an one as he. The cold selfishness which was ' 
 his strongest moving principle strikes upon the 
 heart which has been touched by the love of 
 Christ like a wind that comes from fields of ice 
 and snow. The whole life of the man revolved 
 round self. How could it be otherwise when 
 he was ignorant of the true centre of universal 
 being? One of the most eminent of his con- 
 temporaries, Friedrich Schiller, wrote thus of 
 him : " To be frequently with Goethe would make 
 me wretched. Even with his nearest friends 
 he has no sclf-forgetfulness, no effusion ; he is 
 in no ordinary degree an egotist" ^ 
 
 Even the author of" Natural Religion," while 
 extolling some of the " great and rare virtues " 
 of Goethe, is constrained to admit that " there 
 remains the fact that the idea of duty and self- 
 sacrifice appears not to be very sacred to his 
 mind, — rather, perhaps, to be irritating, embar- 
 rassing, odious to him." ^ 
 
 Compare this character for a moment with 
 that of a man belonging to a nation which, as 
 a whole, in a moral view compares unfavorably 
 with the German, — Saint Francois dc Sales, the 
 saintly Bishop of Geneva. Saint Francis was 
 also a man of the highest culture and of the 
 
 1 Quoted in IIaml)crgcr's "Christcnlluiin uiul niodernc Cul- 
 tiir," bd. i. s. 12. The view of Goeiiie's character given in 
 Mr. Ilutton's delightful essay (vol. ii. Essay i) does not differ 
 from this, and deserves careful study. 
 
 - Natural Religion, part i. chap. v. p. 98. 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 1 t| 
 
io8 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 x. \ 
 
 11 
 
 I" ' ' i 
 
 most remarkable powers of fascination, although 
 he had derived his power from a very different 
 source. Let these two men be compared, and 
 then let us say whetlier secularism or Chris- 
 tianity produces the finer and richer fruits. It 
 would be easy to mention bishops of our own 
 race no less remarkable than the Bishop of 
 Geneva. Let any one, however, compare the 
 Christian Savoyard with the mere man of cul- 
 ture, perhaps the most perfect specimen of the 
 kind which Germany or the world has produced, 
 and let him mark that the humility, the sweet- 
 ness, the tenderness, the burning love of the 
 Christian, have all been acquired in the school 
 of " Jesus Christ and Him crucified." 
 
 Shall we, for a moment, go to France for the 
 man of worldly culture and to Germany for the 
 Christian? There are few more eminent in his 
 own way than Jean Jacques Rousseau. And this 
 is what one of his countrymen says of him: 
 " Life without actions; life entirely resolved into 
 affections and half-sensual thoughts ; do-noth- 
 ingness setting up for a virtue; cowardliness 
 with voluptuousness ; fierce pride with nullity 
 underneath it . . . there is Rousseau ! " Such 
 is the judgment pronounced on Rousseau by 
 Michelet in his " Life of Luther." This is the 
 man who said of his own " Confessions : " " Let 
 the trumpet of judgment sound when it may, I 
 will come with this book in my hand and chal- 
 lenge any one present to say, if he dare, ' I was 
 
H' 
 
 . « 
 
 PERSONAL CULTURE AND RELIGION. IO9 ■^^ 
 
 better than that man.'" No wonder that Mi- '^k\ 
 
 chelct, when endeavoring to set forth the great- " ' 
 
 ness of the character of the Cliristian Luther, '^ 
 
 should think of this wretched unbehever as a s;; 
 
 contrast. Certainly we should hardly think of ^^ | 
 
 the robust Thuringian peasant and monk as an 
 
 example of the highest culture ; and yet who 
 
 does not feel that the words spoken by him, 
 
 in prospect of that dread day of trial, arc the 
 
 utterance of a finer spirit? "When I think of 
 
 it," he says, " I feel that I could pass a sponge 
 
 over all that I have written. To have to render 
 
 to God an account of every idle word, — it is 
 
 terrible ! " 
 
 But the influence of Christianity is seen not 
 merely in the choicest examples of its power, 
 but in every society into which it has entered. 
 The Gospel has created a new morality among 
 men, and the Church has been the source of 
 streams of mercy and blessing which have flowed 
 forth upon the poor and miserable with healing, 
 restoring, and regenerating power. Christianity j 
 has given to the world a type of character un- 
 known to heathenism, a type of such lofty and 
 ideal beauty as man had never before even 
 conceived. If the Christian ideal of life were 
 abolished, suppressed, forgotten, — if the life 
 and character of Christ were blotted out from 
 human consciousness, — what is there in the 
 world which could be counted worthy to take 
 its place? Whence but from Jesus could we i 
 
 i I 
 
 
 - !M 
 
'f* 
 
 ''■: 
 
 PP 
 
 -11 ■' 
 
 
 m 
 
 no 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 learn the lesson of profound humility, of loving 
 gentleness and patience, of glorious self-sacri- 
 fice, which constitute the most lovely elements 
 in the noblest of human characters? 
 
 " It was reserved for Christianity," says Mr. 
 Lecky,' and he is no over-partial witness, " to 
 present to the world an ideal character, which 
 through all the changes of eighteen centuries 
 has inspired the hearts of men with an impas- 
 sioned love ; has shown itself capable of acting 
 on all ages, nations, temperaments, and con- 
 ditions ; has been not only the highest pattern 
 of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its prac- 
 tice; and has exercised so deep an influence 
 that it may be truly said that the simple record 
 of three short years of active life has done more 
 to regenerate and to sofcen mankind than all 
 the disquisitions of philosophers, and all the 
 exhortations of moralists." 
 
 We have already spoken of the belief in a 
 future life as affecting our view of the nature 
 of that culture which is adapted for creatures 
 like ourselves. \\\\\. there is another considera- 
 tion connected with the expectation of immor- 
 tality ; we refer to its power as a motive of 
 action. I'^ven Mr. Mill allows that the " super- 
 natural religions must always possess " one ad- 
 vantage "over the religion of humanity, — the 
 prospect that they hold out to the individual 
 
 1 History of European Morals, vol. li. chap, iv, p. 8, Amer. 
 ed. ; p. 9, Kng. Svo ed. 
 
PERSONAL CULTURE AXD RELIGION. Ill 
 
 of a life after death ; " and he afterwards admits, 
 that, " if there is nothing to prove " the reahty 
 of this hope, " there is as Httle in our knowledt^e 
 and experience to contradict it."^ Ikit surely 
 it must be apparent that a merely secular cul- 
 ture provides only for the present life, and, in 
 carrying on its work, can derive no help from 
 a motive which has seldom altogether lost its 
 power among men. 
 
 But again wc must remind ourselves that 
 there is only One who professes to give us 
 certain knowledge concerning the life to come. 
 It is "our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abol- 
 ished death, and hath brought life and immor- 
 tality to light through the Gospel."^ He has 
 gone through the gates of death into the land 
 of everlasting life, and He has said what He 
 alone had the right to say, " Where I am, there 
 shall also My servant be." " I go to prepare 
 a place for you,"'^ It is not that we would base 
 the claims of Christ either on our hopes or on 
 our fears for the future alone. Jesus Christ 
 has claims upon us apart from His promise of 
 a future life of blessedness. Even if He were 
 not the Saviour of sinners, He would still be 
 the highest and the noblest of men. F.ven if 
 He were not the King of Angels, seated on 
 the throne of heaven. He would at least be 
 the Sovereign of Humanity, whose image is 
 
 1 Three Essays, pp. ii8, 120. 
 
 '■* 2 Tim. i. 10. 8 John xii. 26; xiv. 2. 
 
 ill 
 
 ^h 
 
 
 m '^ 
 
 
m 
 
 112 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 i 
 
 
 II 
 
 \i', 
 
 •f 1 
 
 
 
 i I 
 
 enshrined within the heart of every noblest, 
 truest, purest man and woman. And he who 
 seeks to follow the hii^hcst ideal of human cul- 
 ture, he who endeavors to realize that ideal in 
 his own life, will at least desire and strive to 
 know II im more perfectly. 
 
 On this subject one writer of eminence has 
 been quoted. Let us listen to another much 
 further removed from the faith of the Church; 
 let us listen once more to Mr. J. S. Mill. 
 '* About the life and sayini^s of Jesus," he re- 
 marks, " there is a stamp of personal orif^inality, 
 combined with profundity of insight, which . . . 
 must place the Prophet of Nazareth ... in the 
 very first rank of the men of sublime genius of 
 whom our species can boast. When this pre- 
 eminent genius is combined with the qualities 
 of probably the greatest moral reformer and 
 martyr to that mission, who ever existed upon 
 earth, religion cannot be said to have made a 
 bad choice in pitching on this man as the ideal 
 representative and guide of humanity ; nor, 
 even now, would it be easy, even for an un- 
 believer, to find a better translation of the rule 
 of virtue from the abstract into the concrete, 
 than to endeavor so to live that Christ would 
 approve our life." ^ 
 
 If among those who are listening to these 
 words there are, unhappily, any present who 
 own no allegiance to Him who has seldom failed 
 
 ^ Three Essays, pp. 254, 255. 
 
PERSOiYAL CULTURE AND RELIGION. II3 
 
 to extort homage, even from His adv^crsarics, 
 let them, for their own souls' sake, pause and 
 ask themselves whether, in the cultivation of 
 their minds and In the conduct of their lives, it 
 is wise to i^^nore such an influence as His. liut, 
 beyond all this, they may well inquire, further, 
 whether He may not have claims upon them 
 which are not only stronj^ and binding in time, 
 but which remain unexhausted throughout 
 eternity. 
 

 
 
 ,i]j 
 
 LECTURE IV. 
 
 THE UNITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 
 
 Does the Hible teach definite Religious Truth ? — Denied. — 
 What may Ijc meant by the Denial ? — Divine Revelation in 
 Christ. — Gradually unfolded. — True DeveIo]Mnent. — Il- 
 lustrated in the Writings of Saint Paul. — Later Examples of 
 Development in the History of the Church. — Schools of 
 Thought. — Development and Accretion distinguished. — 
 Illustrations of Unity in Christian Teaching : i. The Na- 
 ture of God. — Represented as possessing Human Attributes 
 and as being far removed from Humanity. — Deistic and 
 Pantiieistic Conceptions. — 2. The Character of God. — 
 Divine Decrees and Human Liberty. — 3. The Nature of 
 Man. — Original .Sin. — Concupiscence. — 4. Eschatology. 
 Future Retribution. — Three current Tiieories. — Not abso- 
 lutely Irreconcilable. — Analogy of the Hook of Nature and 
 Science with the Book of Grace and Theology. 
 
 WHAT is Truth? Is there such a thing 
 apart from the individual mind? Can 
 wc speak of objective truth, or is it only sub- 
 jective, — that which every individual mind 
 troweth ? And if there is such a thing as 
 definite scientific truth, is there also spiritual 
 truth? Is there such a thing as definite religious 
 doctrine, which must be accepted as the true 
 representation of supernatural facts and relations, 
 without alteration or modification? 
 
I 111 
 
 THE UNITY OF CIlRISTIAy DOCTRIXE. I I 5 
 
 Further, if tlicre is such a thinj; as objective 
 rclij^ious truth, docs the Bible ^ contain it and 
 dechire it? Has the Gospel message anything 
 definite, unchangeable, permanent; or does it 
 merely consist of a set of propositions, more or 
 less indefinite and vague, which each age mod- 
 ifies for itself according to its own point of view 
 and its own moral education? 
 
 These are important questions ; and they arc 
 of special importance at the present lime, when 
 it is stoutly maintained that the Bible does not 
 set forth or compel assent to any particular 
 truths or dogmas, but that it yields up to each 
 age, to each society, and almost to each indi- 
 vidual, very nearly what they please, — in short, 
 that men bring their opinions to the Bible, in- 
 stead of seeking guiilance from it; that they 
 simply search the Scriptures, not that they may 
 learn and humbly accept the truth which they 
 contain, but that they may find texts and pas- 
 sages which they will be able to quote in con- 
 firmation of conclusions at which they have 
 already arrived. 
 
 It is easy to exaggerate these accusations, 
 and they have been brought forward in very 
 exaggerated forms. But we must grant that 
 they rest upon a foundation of truth. And it 
 
 1 It will be observed that, in the present series of lectures, 
 no notice is taken of the scientific objections to the historical 
 character of the early books of the Old Testament. On this 
 point see Note D. 
 
 ; il;. 
 
 i^- : 
 
 'li 
 
 :.;r' 
 
 11 
 
m 
 
 I*; 
 
 fit'' 
 
 K 
 
 u6 
 
 wrrxEssEs to ciirist. 
 
 
 
 
 
 '♦s 
 
 ? ' P 
 
 J 
 
 
 ■^ 
 
 -■ 
 
 V. 
 
 i.-lH' 
 
 X; 
 
 
 fi 
 
 11-^: . 
 
 
 *^ 
 
 
 
 \>^ , ■ ' 
 
 « t- 
 
 1.1'ir ,' 
 
 ' >f 1 
 
 ) ■ ' ': ■ 1 ' 
 
 ^\ 
 
 i' ' '■ ' \ 
 
 
 *■ 1 
 
 i 
 
 y% 
 
 
 4 
 
 will be our business to show that the amount of 
 truth which they contain is not at variance with 
 our assertion of the Unity of Christian Doctrine. 
 It may, therefore, be as well that we should at 
 once declare what wc mean by conceding; that 
 there has been a threat variety of Christian teach- 
 ini;, sometimes even apparently contradictory 
 tcachin*;, and this not merely from those whom 
 the Church has branded as heretics, but pro- 
 ceeding from teachers regarded as Orthodox; 
 and further that we should explain in what sense 
 we assert the unity of Christian teachinjjj and 
 the authority of the IJible as the source from 
 which that teaching has been derived. 
 
 That Christian truth has presented itself in 
 the same form in all ages of the world, no rea- 
 sonable and instructed Christian will think of 
 maintaining. Different aspects of truth have 
 been prominent in different periods of the 
 I Church's history; and there has been a certain 
 ■ development or unfolding of doctrinal truth, in 
 the past ages of the Church, which may perhaps 
 be going on at this moment, and which may be 
 continued in the future history of religious 
 thought. In this supposition there is nothing 
 unreasonable, there is nothing disrespectful to 
 the original sacred deposit, and there is nothing 
 in the least degree inconsistent with the unity 
 of Christian doctrine. 
 
 It is of the nature of all deeper truths to 
 ' be many-sided, to reveal themselves by slow 
 
THE i'X/TV OF C//A'/Sr/AX DOCTRIXi:. 11/ 
 
 degrees, to be clearer to some niiiuls than to otli- 
 crs, to be lost and recovered by different men 
 and different aj^es. And this, which is true of 
 truth in general may well be predicated of that 
 truth antl those doctrines which are the vehicles 
 of a Divine Revelation, — which convey to us 
 the thoughts of God concerning I lis own nature, 
 character, will ; which tell us of our relations to 
 Him, and which lay down the duties which flow 
 from those relations. And all this is quite con- 
 sistent with a belief in the unity of Christian 
 doctrine. 
 
 I. Let us remember that, accorduig to the 
 Christian belief, God has revealed Himself to 
 man in the person of the Incarnate Word, in a 
 human life; that He has caused the story of that 
 life, its words, its deeds, and its sufferings, to 
 be recorded for our instruction; further, that He 
 has imparted to authorized ambassadors a super- 
 natural power, by which they have been enabled 
 to explain to us the meaning of that life and 
 work, and of the organization, the Christian 
 Church, in which its blessings were to be en-' 
 joyed, and by which its privileges were to be 
 conveyed to mankind ; and then we shall be 
 better prepared to understand the process by 
 which these truths have been diffused in the 
 world and received among men. 
 
 In the first place, it is a revelation of God 
 which is the 'subject of these testimonies, — a 
 revelation of the Eternal and Infinite, made in 
 
 m 
 
 '. • 
 
 A 
 
 } i 
 
ii8 
 
 IVIT.VESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 '<•* ; 
 
 -^ 
 
 such a form as to be intelligible to us, the tem- 
 poral and finite, and to all kinds of men among 
 us, the smiple and the most childlike as well as 
 the wisest and the most subtle. Let us remem- 
 ber this, and we shall have no difficulty in under- 
 standing in what various degrees these heavenly 
 truths will stand out and be grasped and per- 
 ceived by different classes of minds and iii dif- 
 ferent ages of the world. 
 
 The statement might be illustrated in a thou- 
 sand ways, from many different departments of 
 human life. Although we have not here to do 
 specially, or in any direct sense at all, with the 
 Old Testament, we might for a moment draw an 
 illustration from the writings which it contains. 
 The Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, show a re- 
 markable development of spiritual truth, com- 
 municated to those who lived under the earlier 
 ccononi}', from the time when sacrifices were 
 ordained as teachers of moral and spiritual truth, 
 and simple general duties were laid down in bare 
 precepts, to the time when it was shown that no 
 sacrifices were of any real value in the sight of 
 God but those which were spiritual in their 
 nature, and that those simple precepts of early 
 ages must be referred to eternal principles 
 from which they drew their authority and their 
 sanction. 
 
 Or again, if we turn to the New Testament, 
 wc shall find the same order of proceeding. It 
 is believed by those who have most deeply 
 
THE UXITY OF CHRISTIAiY DOCTRINE. II9 
 
 studied the writings of the New Covenant that the 
 germs of all spiritual truth arc to be found in the 
 teaching of our Lord. And yet it would have 
 been very difficult for us to obtain from I lis 
 words many of the truths which we have learned 
 from the teaching of the y\postles. And He 
 Himself indicated that such was the case, and 
 gave the reason for the method which lie 
 pursued. 
 
 He told His disciples in His valedictory ad- 
 dress:^ "I have yet many things to say unto 
 you, but \'e cannot bear them now. Howbeit, 
 when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He shall 
 
 guide you into all the truth. 
 
 He shall glo- 
 
 rify Me: for He shall take of Mine, and shall 
 
 decl 
 
 are it unto you. 
 
 And 
 
 we sec 
 
 low 
 
 th 
 
 IS 
 
 promise was fulfilled in the later Books of the 
 New Testament. In the Acts of the Apostles, , 
 for instance, the Apostles received guidance, as | 
 they needed it, concerning the reception of the \ 
 Gentiles into the Church and the rules to be 
 imposed upon them. But it is especially in the 
 Apostolic epistles that we see the glorious ful- 
 filment of this promise. 
 
 In the earlier revelation God had taught men 
 "by divers portions and in divers manners," - 
 but in the later He spoke to them "by His 
 
 Son. 
 
 Th 
 
 ere was a unity as well as a 
 
 ful 
 
 in the later revelation, distinguishing it as a 
 
 1 John xvi. 12, ff. (Revised Version). 
 « Ilcb. i. I, 2. 
 
 ness 
 full 
 
 •9 
 
 ■I* 
 
 I 
 
w 
 
 
 .'S ■ ^1 
 
 120 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 
 splendor of truth from the scattered rays which 
 had come before. But still there were needed 
 many different media of communication, and a 
 gradual and progressive teaching, before the 
 complete truth could shine into our minds. Even 
 those who maintain that Saint James, Saint Paul, 
 Saint Peter, and Saint John show different reli- 
 gious tendencies, arc still witnesses to the fact 
 that different aspects of truth were presented to 
 the Church from the beginning; and we who 
 believe that there is a most perfect harmony 
 between these early inspired teachers may be 
 encouraged to seek for a fundamental unity of 
 doctrine in the later teachings of Christendom. 
 
 There is, indeed, something very beautiful in 
 what we may call the progress of doctrine. io 
 the writings of Saint Paul. In his earlier epis- 
 tles, those to the Galatians and Romans, he 
 deals with the question of personal acceptance 
 with God, the first question that must be dealt 
 with in announcing a message of good news 
 from God ; in the later, those to the Ephesians 
 and Colossians, he teaches a more advanced 
 doctrine concerning the Church as the Body 
 of Christ, in which all believers are members; 
 while the Epistle to the Philippians forms a 
 kind of transition from the one to the other. 
 And yet there is absolutely no discord ; there 
 is a perfect harmony between this later teach- 
 ing and the earlier. For in the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians the doctrine of the early epistles is 
 
;f 
 
 THE UXITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRIXE. 121 
 
 \k !i 
 
 clearly asserted : " By grace are yc saved through 
 fiiith ; "^ and the distinctive teaching of the later 
 epistle concerning the 15ody^ of Christ is fore- 
 shadowed in the i-^pistlc to the Romans, where 
 Christians are declared to be " one body in 
 Christ, and severally members one of another," ^ 
 and even in the teaching of our Lord, as re- 
 corded by Saint John, where He says: "I am 
 the vine, ye are the branches." ^ So in the epis- 
 tles of Saint John, there is a wondcrfid depth 
 and fulness of teaching concerning our abiding 
 in Christ, and the life of which we arc partakers 
 by reason of that indwelling, and of the Love 
 which is the life of God and of man. 
 
 If we might, for a moment, bring forward a 
 parallel example of this progress of doctrine in 
 the Church, we should find it by comi)aring 
 the prevailing teaching at the time of the Ref- 
 ormation, or at the beginning of the evangeli- 
 cal revival in the eighteenth century, with that 
 type of doctrine which is most prominent in the 
 writings of the more thoughtful divines in Great 
 Britain and in America at the present time. 
 When the Reformation was under the guidance 
 of its greatest representative, Martin Luther, 
 nearly all the distinctive truths upon which he 
 insisted w^re supported mainly by quotations 
 from the Epistles to the Galatians and to the 
 
 1 Eph. ii. 8. 
 
 " Eph, i. 23; ii. 6; iv. 4, iG; v. 3c 
 
 3 Rom. xii. 5. 
 
 •» John .XV. i-S. 
 
 %. 
 
 
 
 
 if. 
 
 i| I 
 
 1! 
 
 s^ 
 
Il^':'l 
 
 122 
 
 WITNESSES TO C FIR 1ST. 
 
 
 Ifi; ■: ^..;« ■ «■ 
 
 Romans. It was quite natural that it should 
 be so. The urgent question of that time was: 
 How shall a man be just with God? How was 
 personal justification to be secured? And it 
 was very much the same in the cvancjelical 
 revival of the last century. Religion had been 
 merged in morality, and men were awakened 
 to ask whether this was all, whether there was 
 any question as to their being right with God. 
 The answers to these questionings were to be 
 found in the clear enunciation of the conditions 
 on which those who had sinned could be ac- 
 cepted with God; and for this men turned nat- 
 urally, almost necessarily, to the early epistles 
 of Saint Paul. 
 
 But a change has come over the type of our 
 ordinary teaching in these later '^ o'-'^, and other 
 aspects of Divine truth are brought into greater 
 prominence. We are now seeing that religion 
 is not a mere personal, individual matter, but 
 that it is also corporate and social ; moreover, 
 wc get beyond the point of view of justification, 
 and are led into the deeper truths so powerfully 
 brought out by Saint John, — the truths of life 
 in God and of communion with Him and with 
 His Son Jesus Christ. And yet there is no 
 want of harmony in these different aspects of 
 truth. The circle of Divine Revelation would be 
 incomplete if any portion of this teaching were 
 withdrawn from it; and we are coming, more 
 and more, to perceive that all these phases of 
 
THE UNITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 1 23 
 
 doctrine arc but rays from the central sun of 
 truth, which must be brought into a focus before 
 we can know all that God would reveal to us of 
 His own character and work. 
 
 There is, however, another way in which these 
 different phases of teaching present themselves 
 to us in the histoiy of the Church. They ap- 
 pear in Christian teaching, not merely as succes- 
 sive developments of truth, or as those aspects 
 of truth which satisfy different ages, but as dis- 
 tinguishing different schools of thought, which 
 are sometimes distinctive of different nationali- 
 ties, and are the result of different providential 
 and educational training, and sometimes appear 
 side by side in the same country and in the 
 same age, having, as it would appear, a special 
 correspondence with the peculiar intellectual 
 type or the special religious experience of those 
 by whom they are received or taught. 
 
 One of the most remarkable illustrations of 
 these diverse types of Christian truth, neither 
 of which presents any real deflection from the 
 general Christian tradition or the accepted doc- 
 trine of the Church, is to be found in the Alex- ) 
 andrian Scliool of Clement and Origen on the | 
 one hand, and the Augustinian School on the \ 
 other. The characteristics of these schools arc • 
 strongly and clearly marked. The one has its 
 origin in the sombre African theology of Ter- 
 tullian and Cyprian, and in the logical and rhe- 
 torical discipline of the great Augustine. The 
 
 :(•' 
 
 % 
 

 
 124 
 
 W/TATESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 Other derives its characteristic tendencies from 
 Philo and the followers of Plato in general. It 
 is beyond our present purpose to point out, in 
 detail, the distinctive differences of these schools, 
 which have recently been made the subject of care- 
 ful investigation.^ Generally speaking, the Alex- 
 andrian School represents that side of Christian 
 teaching which takes a favorable view of human 
 philosophy and even of non-Christian religions, 
 regarding the truth which they contain as part 
 of the light derived by mankind from the eter- 
 nal Word; while the Augustinians would draw 
 more attention to the errors of human systems, 
 as being the work of sin and the devil. So, too, 
 the Alexandrian School would seem to know 
 little of those darker views of human nature 
 apart from the grace of Christ, which were pro- 
 mulgated by Augustine, and which, from him, 
 became part of the accredited teaching of the 
 Western Church. To some of these points we 
 shall hereafter draw attention. At present it 
 may be sufficient to remark, that, while the 
 Alexandrians mainly preserv^ed the traditional 
 teaching of Saint John, the Augustinians were 
 profoundly Pauline in their conceptions. In 
 nearly every age these two tendencies may b*" 
 traced in the Christian Church; although, as we 
 
 1 The reader may be referred to the " Continuity of Chris- 
 ..> Thought," by the Rev. A. V. G. Allen ; and to the " Chris- 
 ■ .u Platonists of Alexandria" (Banipton Lectures for 1S86), 
 b- " r. Charles Bigg. 
 
'* 
 
 THE UNITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 1 25 
 
 have remarked, one may be more prominent at 
 one time and another at another. In our own 
 day the Johanncan tendency is conspicuous in 
 the disciples of Schieiermacher, Coleridge, and 
 Maurice; while the Augustinian School has two 
 conspicuous representatives in the Puritan Cah'i- 
 nistic School and in the Churchly School, — the 
 one embodied in the evangelical revival and its 
 legitimate descendants ; the other in the Oxford 
 movement and in the whole rising of the idea of 
 corpora'-e life, which is so potent an ingredient 
 in contemporary religious thought. As we have 
 said, these different tendencies come before us 
 sometimes as a process of development, some- 
 times as representative of different schools of 
 thought. But in either case they rest upon the 
 same basis of fundamental truth; and amid all 
 their superficial differences there is a marvellous 
 unity distinguishable in the inner kernel which 
 they contain. 
 
 But here it may be necessary to point out 
 somewhat more exactly what we mean by the 
 development of doctrine, since it may appear to 
 some that we are, by using such an expression, 
 disguising a fictitious unity by making it appear 
 real. And this has become the more necessary, 
 since new forms of Christian doctrines have, in 
 recent times, been brought forward as develop- 
 ments of the original deposit, when they have in 
 fact been accretions, — doctrines and opinions 
 superinduced upon the old, and not drawn from 
 
 ''4 ti 
 
 \f < '1 
 
 k 
 
126 
 
 IVITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 11 
 
 
 it by any legitimate process of deduction or de- 
 velopment. An illustration of the two methods 
 may be found in the Nicene doctrine of the Per- 
 son of Christ on the one hand, and in the Vat- 
 ican doctrine of papal infallibility on the other. 
 The one is lawful development, the explicit 
 enunciation of a doctrine which had been im- 
 plictly taught from the beginning. The other 
 is unlawful accretion, being a doctrine utterly 
 unknown in the first ages of the Church and 
 for many an age afterwards, having no faintest 
 germ of its life in the writings of the Apostles 
 or of the first Fathers and teachers and witnesses 
 of the Church and its doctrines. The Nicene 
 Fathers simply added new definitions, rendered 
 necessary by the attacks made upon the doc- 
 trine of the Church. They did not mean to 
 add, and they did not in fact add, one jot or one 
 tittle to the faith which they had received ; they 
 simply surrounded it with such safeguards that 
 no one could deny it without assailing the def- 
 inite decisions of the Church, It was widely 
 different with the Vatican decree. It was not 
 even a necessary development of the Roman 
 theory of papal supremacy; while that doctrine 
 in its turn was a pure invention, having no ger- 
 minal truth corresponding with it \vhich was 
 known in the Church in the Nicene period or 
 even a century later. In all the legitimate 
 developments of Christian doctrine, so far as 
 they have been embodied in the authorized 
 
I... 
 
 THE UmTY OF CURISTIAN DOCTRINE. 1 27 
 
 documents of the Cliurch, there is a conspicuous 
 unity; and the same may be said of much of 
 the teaching which has been commended by 
 the orcater minds of the Ciiristian Church, but 
 which has never received the final impress of 
 ecclesiastical authority. 
 
 II. It is, of course, impossible to draw out in 
 detail proofs or illustrations of these statements. 
 But there is no difficulty in giving specimens of 
 the unity in the midst of variety and diversity 
 by which Christian teaching has been distin- 
 guished ; and these samples shall be selected 
 from those teachings which have been adduced 
 by objectors who complained of the want of 
 defuiitcness and harmony in the utterances of 
 Christian teachers. Let us note some of these 
 allegations as they regard the nature and char- 
 acter of God, the nature and future destiny of 
 man. 
 
 I. With regard to the nature of God. It has 
 been alleged, and with no small appearance 
 of truth, that representations of the Almighty 
 have been given by Christian teachers and even 
 by Holy Scripture itself which cannot be recon- 
 ciled, which are indeed mutually contradictory. 
 For example, it has been represented, on the 
 one hand, that the Most High is invested wdth 
 attributes similar to those possessed by men, 
 or even identical with them, even to the very 
 emotions and passions which belong to the 
 weakest and most variable side of our human 
 
 :^ 
 
 Is 
 
 ^•1 
 
 '■ it 
 
 1. r« 
 
 %^ 
 
 \^: t 
 
Ililli '^ 
 
 
 ji 
 
 M m 
 
 u ' 
 
 
 M 
 
 128 
 
 IVITA' ESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 nature; while, on the other hand, He has been 
 represented as One who is hfted high above all 
 human emotions and passions, being pure Spirit, 
 and sometimes as mere Negation. Again, there 
 has been a teaeliing, either purely pantheistic or 
 partaking of a pantheistic tendency, which has 
 spoken of the Almighty God as immanent in 
 the universe, as pervading all existence and 
 forming its ground and support; and this teach- 
 ing has drawn its proofs from Holy Scripture. 
 On the other hand, another class of teachers, 
 with a deistic tendency, have represented the 
 Almighty as transcending the universe, being 
 distinct, if not separate, from the works of Mis 
 hands ; and these too have quoted Scripture 
 in support of their assertions. To the one 
 class belong Christian teachers of the school 
 of Schleiermacher and Coleridge ; to the other 
 belong the deists of the last century, the influ- 
 ence of whom is perceptible even in orthodox 
 writers like Butler and Pajcy. 
 
 It might seem presumptuous, and even in a 
 measure supercilious, for any one to assume a 
 position of mediation between schools so widely 
 separated as those which have been mentioned ; 
 and if the mediation were merely that of an in- 
 dividual, he could scarcely defend himself from 
 the charge of arrogance. When, however, we 
 assert our belief that Almighty God has, by 
 means of these diverse and conflicting eftbrts, 
 been leading His Church to higher and wider 
 
It 
 
 THE UNITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 1 29 
 
 and deeper views of His own nature, we may 
 hope not only to escape from such a charfjc, 
 but to gain credence from those wlio consider 
 that it is in this way that larger and fuller truth 
 has been gained on every subject of human in- 
 quiry. We cannot doubt that it is so, and that 
 it will increasingly be found to be so, in regard 
 to our knowledge of the Divine nature and 
 relations to the universe. 
 
 " Who by searching can find out God? " We 
 feel sure tliat God is: we cannot perfectly tell 
 ivhat He is. When we say lie is absolute, infi- 
 nite, eternal, wc are simply removing llim from 
 the sphere of human definition. To define is to 
 limit. In so far, we must all confess ourselves 
 to be, in a sense, Christian agnostics. Yet wc 
 do feel that those anthropomorphic expressions 
 concerning the Most High, which are found in 
 Holy Scripture and in our popular theology, 
 do contain such measure of truth as we are able, 
 in certain stages of our spiritual development, to 
 receive concerning the nature and will of God. 
 And further, that these phrases are not merely 
 statements upon which we can base our practi- 
 cal action, but that they do actually represent 
 truth concerning the nature of God, because we 
 believe that we are made in the Divine image. 
 There is nothing in our nature, apart from itsj>-^ 
 sinfulness, which has not its archetype in God;;/ 
 and although no language which we could 
 understand may be capable of telling us what 
 
 9 
 
 < 
 
 I: 
 
 ■A 
 
 ill 
 \ 
 
 f' 18 
 

 ,»A 
 
 
 
 130 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST, 
 
 God is in Ilirnsclf, yet such expressions may 
 bring to our minds such true knowledge as we 
 arc capable of receiving. 
 
 Take, again, the apparently conflicting repre- 
 sentations of the deistic and pantheistic teachers. 
 If these statements are considered as negations, 
 the one denying the immanence and the other 
 the transcendence, then, of course, they arc con- 
 tradictory and irreconcilable. If, however, the 
 ; theologian of deistic tendencies merely asserts 
 ■ that God is not contained in the universe, but 
 transcends it, then he is declaring a truth which 
 is established alike by Scripture and reason; 
 ! and if the theologian of pantheistic tendencies 
 'maintains that God is in all things and through 
 all things, that in Him we live and move and 
 have our being, then he, too, is declaring a 
 plain truth of Scripture which is acknowledged 
 by the most profound and the most spiritual 
 philosophy. So far are these two truths from 
 being contradictory that we seem now to be 
 agreed that their synthesis brings us as near as 
 we can come to a true view of the relation of 
 the Almighty to the universe which lie origi- 
 nated and which lie governs. 
 
 2. When we come to consider what may be 
 
 f^. more precisely described as the character of 
 " God, we arc confronted by a strange opposition 
 between different representations of His loving 
 purposes towards mankind. On the one side 
 we have the various Augustinian and Calvinistic 
 
nl 
 
 
 THE UNITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRFNE. 131 
 
 schools, with their doctrines of I'>lcction and 
 Reprobation or I'rctcrition ; and on the otlicr, 
 the school of Alexandria, the Pelagiin, scmi- 
 Pclac^ian, and Arniinian scho >ls, which cither 
 know nothing of such predestination or are 
 vehemently opposed to the Aii<;ustinian doc- 
 trine. Here surely is discord beyond all hope 
 of conciliation or harmony. Statements con- 
 frontin<4 each other as contraries or contradicto- 
 ries cannot logically be brought into agreement ; 
 and here it might seem hopeless to establish any 
 unity of teaching. 
 
 It must, indeed, be conceded that, if we 
 are to take the mere utterances, formal conclu- 
 sions, and arguments of these schools, we shall 
 fail to discover any harmony or unity in their 
 teaching. 13ut this will not be the case if we 
 penetrate beneath the surface, and la\' hoKl of 
 the fundamental principles for which these op- 
 posite schools were contending. On the one 
 hand, the sovereignty of God is a self-evident 
 fact. On the other hand, there can be no 
 hurran responsibility apart from rational, moral 
 liberty. In whatever degree you limit a man's m 
 liberty, in that degree you limit his responsi-J^' 
 bility. These two sets of truths are, in reality, 
 self-evident. If we cannot reconcile them we 
 must leave them where they are, for we can- 
 not blot them out. 
 
 Again, the Arminian and others of his way 
 of thinking may contend — and the human con- 
 
 
 ll 
 
 \: 
 
 ^il 
 
i?' 
 H ■ 
 
 .* 
 
 
 a 
 
 •VVS-^*" ' 
 
 >f 
 
 
 %. 
 
 A 
 
 132 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 V 
 
 1 
 
 •i 
 
 H 
 
 £< 
 
 4 
 
 J 
 
 •4 
 
 -,:) 
 
 V, 
 
 • 
 
 ^ 
 
 \* 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 .1 
 
 •-> 
 •1 
 
 ^■"'^ 
 
 ■Nt 
 
 t 
 
 ■*•. 
 
 
 
 ~ science will go with them in the contention — 
 i that no man can be responsible for doing what 
 ! God has decided and decreed that he shall not 
 j do, and what it was impossible for him to do 
 ' unless God had decreed otherwise ; yet, on the 
 other hand, the Calvinist may rightly urge, that, 
 when this constitution of Nature was framed by 
 the Most High, He must have had some plan 
 or purpose concerning it, and that this plan must 
 be worked out, this purpose must be fulfilled. 
 To deny this would be to attribute to the all- 
 wise Creator a degree of providence inferior to 
 that which we must ascribe to every serious and 
 thoughtful man. And yet, who can deny that 
 such a belief carries with it difficulties in regard 
 to the exercise of man's liberty ? We can as- 
 sert man's liberty as a fact and as the r>zds of 
 ^' his responsibility, and we shall have the hiii: -n 
 2 conscience on our side when we make the as- 
 sertion. On the other side, we are quite sure 
 that the Divine purpose cannot fail. How 
 these two sets of truths can be brought into 
 accord we cannot tell, and we have no need to 
 make any such attempt, in which it is beyond 
 our powers to succeed. But we may sec clearly 
 enough that the opposing schools of theology, 
 perhaps rather of philosophy, have been empha- 
 , sizing and exaggerating truths which seem to 
 ; us at variance simply because their reconcilia- 
 / tion is beyond our power. 
 
 3. When we pass from the study of the 
 
THE UNITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 1 33 
 
 nature and the cliaractcr of the Most High to 
 the constitution, nature, relations of His creature 
 man, we find that there is here the same want 
 of harmony between those two schools that was 
 shown in regard to the higher subject. When 
 we mention the doctrine of Original Sin, the 
 numerous differences of teaching in regard to 
 man's state and character by nature will occur 
 to us at once ; and perhaps we shall be ready 
 to conclude that here we have a chaos of doc- 
 trines in which it will be impossible to find any 
 principle of unity. For example, some hold 
 that the Divine image and likeness is entirely 
 lost in man ; others, that it is only partiallyTosT ; 
 others, that the likeness is lost, but not the image. \ 
 Some hold that man is totally depraved ; others, 
 that he is fallen, but not totally depraved. Some 
 hold that man, without the aid of divine grace, 
 cjn do the will of God ; others, that he is 
 totally unable to do any good thing without 
 help from above; while a great many shades of 
 opinion may be discerned among these leading 
 differences. 
 
 We are not concerned to defend the vagaries 
 of individual teachers, so long as we can show 
 that the Church at large has not committed her- 
 self to any extreme views on this subject. lUit 
 we believe that a careful examination even of the 
 extreme theories which have been enunciated 
 on the subject of human depravity will satisfy 
 us that some portion of the difference may be 
 
 X 
 

 I'. 
 » 
 
 v-n' 
 
 n 
 
 I 
 
 134 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 removed by a more careful definition of the 
 terms employed, and still more by taking into 
 .account the different points of view of the con - 
 I flicting theories. 
 
 For example, the very nature of original sin 
 is differently defined, — the Church of Rome re- 
 garding it as merely negative, the loss of the 
 supernatural gift, wherein, according to their 
 view, the original righteousness of our first 
 parents consisted ; while some other Christian 
 communions regard original sin as something 
 positiv^e. Similarly, there is a difference of defi- 
 nition respecting that natural affection which the 
 English Article^ calls the (^povqixa a-apKo^, or 
 » concupiscence ; the Article declaring that it has 
 j the nature of sin, while the Roman Church de- 
 i clares that it has not the nature of sin. Some, 
 again, declare that children come into the world 
 sinful, while others assert that they are pure 
 and clean. 
 
 There are very few subjects, indeed, on which 
 there seems to be a more hopeless diversity 
 of sentiment and judgment ; and yet there are 
 very few on which there is a more remarkable 
 fundamental agreement. Let us note some in- 
 dications of this unity. 
 
 In the first place, it will be agreed that the 
 state of nature is not normally a state of grace; 
 and that, although there is a sense in which we 
 may say that a man can do all that he is bound 
 
 1 Article IX., " Of Original or Birth Sin." 
 
»<■(. 
 
 THE UNITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 1 35 
 
 to do, as the Pelagians said, there is equally a 
 height to which he can aspire, and to which he 
 is bound to aspire when he knows of it, which 
 he can by no means attain without the aid of 
 Divine grace, as the Augustinians declared. 
 Again, it will be conceded by most Christians 
 that there can be no sin, in the proper sense 
 of the word, where there is no conscious trans- 
 gression of law ; yet the nature which we inherit 
 from our parents is not the pure nature which 
 came from the hand of God, and moreover we 
 are actually made subject to the penalties of 
 sins committed by our ancestors before we had 
 any being. The child which dies of a disease 
 resulting from the sin of another is, in no proper 
 sense of the words, guilty of that sin, or pun- 
 ished for that sin ; but yet it does bear the 
 penalty which is its consequence. It is very 
 curious to note how, in recent years, science 
 has come to the aid of theology against a shal- 
 low view of the nature of man. It is not many 
 years since an English statesman declared that 
 all children came into the world with a soul like 
 a sheet of clean paper. It may be conceded 
 that a certain school of theologians had used 
 unjustifiable language when they spoke of the 
 guilt of little children : there can be no personal 
 guilt where there is no personal offence. But it 
 is satisfactorily established by the research of the 
 scientific students of man's nature, that, instead 
 of coming into the world pure and clean, as some 
 

 -■l^ 
 
 136 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 i: 
 
 have asserted, we do indeed come with tendencies 
 to all kinds of conduct inherited from the char- 
 acter and constitution of our forefathers. There 
 are few things more remarkable than the way in 
 which thinkers of all schools are coming to an 
 agreement on this subject. Strip the utterances 
 of the contending theologians of their techni- 
 calities and their exaggerations, compel them to 
 agree on definitions, to use their terms in the 
 same sense, or at least to understand the sense 
 in which they are used by their antagonists, and 
 their differences will be seen to be so utterly 
 unimportant that we may safely say that there 
 is substantial unity in their teaching.^ 
 
 4. It may seem to some surprising that we 
 should seek for another illustration of this unity 
 of doctrine in the Christian teaching on the 
 subject of Eschatology, the doctrine of the " last 
 things," or of future retribution. This is cer- 
 tainly one of the burning questions of the pres- 
 ent day; and although it is now, in a great 
 degree, burnt out, most persons will perhaps 
 hesitate to say that the different opinions pre- 
 vailing in the Church can be harmonized or re- 
 duced to a unity. Let us endeavor to ascertain 
 whether this can be done, although our remarks 
 will necessarily be too much condensed. 
 
 On the subject of future retribution three 
 theories have been, more or less, prevalent 
 
 1 See Dr. Bigg's " Christian Platonists," pp.80, 81, 202, 286. 
 Compare also I'oujoulat, "Saint Augustin." 
 
THE UNITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 1 37 
 
 throughout the whole history of the Church: 
 first, that which may be called the Catholic 
 doctrine, although it has been held and taught in 
 various forms, — namely, the doctrine of everlast- 
 ing punishment ; secondly, the doctrine known 
 as Universalism, according to which all men 
 shall be finally saved, — a doctrine which has 
 been taught with a great many degrees of clear- 
 ness and obscurity; thirdly, the doctrine of 
 annihilation, according to which the finally im- 
 penitent will, at some future time, cease to exist, 
 — a doctrine which, in early teaching, so far as 
 we know, was sustained only by the somewhat 
 obscure name of Arnobius,^ but which, under 
 the name of Conditional Immortality, has ob- 
 tained considerable acceptance during the past 
 twenty or thirty years. 
 
 From the time of the Schoolmen down to the 
 present century, not only has the doctrine of 
 everlasting retribution been taught, but it has 
 been taught in its coarsest and most repulsive 
 form. The imagery employed by the great 
 Italian poet in his " Inferno," is hardly an exag- 
 geration of the popular teaching respecting the 
 sufferings of the lost. It is not too much to say 
 that the doctrine, in this form at least, has been 
 almost abandoned. Yet it can hardly be said 
 
 ^ Dr. Puscy ("Everlasting Punishment," p. 195) says tiie 
 opinion of Arnol)ius "is obscure, but of no moment." There 
 seems, however, to be no doubt that he taught annihilation. See 
 his worii "Advcrsus Gcntes," bouk ii. chap. 31, 61. 
 
 I;' 
 
 I' i| 
 
iky 
 
 
 
 
 I i'i 
 
 138 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 that cither of the other theories has taken its 
 place. UniversaHsin, although it may claim to 
 be in accordance with the spirit of much of the 
 teaching of the New Testament regarding the 
 future triumphs of Christ, and the subjection of 
 all things to him, does yet seem so greatly at 
 variance with some distinct teachings in the 
 Gospels and in the Epistles, that it is not held 
 by many who acknowledge cither the supreme 
 authority f ' -criptures or the consentient 
 testimony 01 C lUrch. The theory of con- 
 
 ditional immortality, according to which the 
 finally impcu ^.nt will bo utterly destroyed and 
 will cease to exist, has c. it:ii:ly no clear author- 
 ity in the Scriptures, the passages to which 
 appeal is made being, at least, equivocal and 
 uncertain in their meaning; besides which it 
 savors so strongly of materialism, that it is not 
 easily entertained by those who hold the spirit- 
 ual nature of the human soul. It has been 
 thought, however, — and the notion has a large 
 amount of probability on its side, — that the 
 common doctrine of the Church^ supplies the 
 elements of truth which are contained in these 
 various theories of future punishment. 
 
 In the first place, there can be no doubt that 
 the general teaching of the Church has been in 
 favor of the everlasting duration of the punish- 
 ment of the finally impenitent. But then the na- 
 ture of the punishment has never been closely 
 
 1 See Note E. 
 
THE UAVTY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 139 
 
 1^ 
 
 ''fe 
 
 defined. It might be either of the nature of 
 actual suffering {\.\\q poena soisiis), or it miglit be 
 niere privation or loss (the /av/f^ dcunni), without 
 denying that actual suffering might endure for a 
 season. If this last theory be received, as it is 
 now by many thoughtful Christians, wc have a 
 doctrine which in a great measure reconciles 
 the various theories. We have a species of 
 Universalism, for actual suffering will in time 
 come to an end; we have a kind of annihila- 
 tion, for those capacities will be destroyed by 
 which men might rise to the highest privileges 
 of the heavenly life ; and there is also a very 
 real kind of everlasting punishment in being 
 deprived of the best blessings of eternity, es- 
 pecially in being forever excluded from the 
 beatific vision. 
 
 It would appear — it is at least the judgment 
 of the latest writer on the subject — that some- 
 thing like this was the opinion of Origen.^ Dr. 
 Bigg, in his Bampton Lectures on the " Chris- 
 tian Platonists of Alexandria," thus interprets 
 the teaching of Origen : " To the Beatific Vision 
 none can be admitted save the pure in heart. 
 Though all other chastisements cease when 
 their object is fulfilled, the pana damni may 
 still endure. Star diftcreth from star in glory. 
 There are many mansions, many degrees. There 
 
 1 The writer has for several years held this view; but it 
 was only in Dr. Bigg's work that he saw it advanced as the 
 doctrine of Origen. 
 
140 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 arc those who bring forth thirty, sixty, a hun- 
 dredfold. * The rifjhteous shall shine as the 
 sun. And upon whom shall they shine but 
 *( on those beneath them?' If we do not mis- 
 \ interpret these expressions, they appear to 
 , mean that the soul by sin may lose capacities 
 ; which can never be wholly regained ; and in 
 this sense, at least, Origen teaches the eternity 
 of punishment." 
 
 We arc not concerned to prove that men have 
 made no mistakes in their interpretation of the 
 Word of God ; nor is any such theory needed 
 to be maintained in order to vindicate the truth 
 and certainty of Scripture doctrine, any more 
 than it is necessary to prove that no mistakes 
 have been made in science before we can be- 
 lieve in the uniformity of the laws of Nature. 
 In truth, the analogy between these two books 
 of God is very close and striking. The book of 
 Nature lies open before us, and we are learning, 
 from age to age, to know more of its secrets and 
 to bring its disclosures into a more perfect har- 
 mony. So it is with the book of grace, — the 
 supernatural revelation which God has afforded 
 to mankind, more especially in the person and 
 work of His Incarnate Son, and which He has 
 caused to be written for our learning in Holy 
 Scripture. 
 
 That sacred volume has lain open before us 
 for many ages, and men have come with differ- 
 ent capacities and with various degrees of pre- 
 
 M': 
 
THE UNITY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 141 
 
 paredness to draw truth from its pages. Many- 
 glorious rays of light have, through their labors, 
 been made to shine upon the darkness of our 
 humanity. Some of its rays have been dark- 
 ened, discolored, perverted by man's ignorance 
 or aversion to the truth. But the process of 
 enlightenment has gone on, although not always 
 without stay or interruption. Dark ages have 
 again and again interrupted the shining light, 
 yet again the darkness has passed away and the 
 true light has shone, and ever its beams have 
 grown brighter and brighter; and so by God's 
 mercy it shall be, until the day break and the 
 shadows flee away, when the night of ignorance 
 and error and partial truth shall have passed for- 
 ever, and in the beatific vision of Him who is 
 Eternal Truth we behold the perfect day. 
 
 
f^ 
 
 c«C 
 
 h^ 
 
 ,A- j5#-^^ /■<»*•. ft t/^. 
 
 LECTURE V. 
 
 THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM. 
 
 Universality of Belief in God. — Materialism and Atheism 
 inseparably connected. — Materialism, what it is. — Mate- 
 rialistic Accounts of the Origin of Life. — Evolution not 
 necessarily materialistic. — The Atomic Theory no E.xpla- 
 nation of Life. — Materialism, jnire and simple, gener- 
 ally abandoned. — Opinions of eminent Scientific Men. — 
 The Principle of Energy or Force. — Mr. Spencer's Expo- 
 sition. — Must we not go further.' Mr. Spencer, to some 
 E.\tent, in Agreement with the Gospel, — but in his " Force " 
 we recognize Mind. — We arc compelled to go beyond the 
 Facts and Laws of the Material Universe. — We know Mind 
 directly, Matter indirectly. — What do we learn from the 
 External World .' — Kant's Categories. — Laws of Nature 
 imply Mind. — The Argument from Design, — Objections 
 considered. — What we believe and assert. — Our Conclu- 
 sions called in Question. — Spirit personal. — The Ego and 
 Non-l'",go. — The Analogy of the Finite inapplicable to the 
 Infinite. — Conclusions. 
 
 1 \M 
 
 I HAD rather," says Lord Bacon,^ " believe 
 all the fables in the Legend and the Tal- 
 mud and the Alcoran, than that this universal 
 frame is without a mind." And it must be con- 
 fessed that these words represent a sentiment 
 which is well-nigh universal. " It appeareth in 
 nothing more," says the same great writer, " that 
 atheism is rather in the lip than in the heart of 
 
 1 Essay XVI. 
 
THE INSUFFICIEXCY OF MATERIALISM. 143 
 
 man, than by this, that atheists will ever be talk- 
 ing of that their opinion, as if they fainted in it 
 themselves, and would be glad to be strength- 
 ened by the consent of others." " What people 
 is there, or what race of men," asks Cicero,' 
 " which has not, even without traditional teach- 
 ing, some notion of the existence of Gods?" 
 The idea seems to be ineradicable. In hours of 
 danger men who have professed unbelief have 
 been heard to call upon the Mightiest for help. 
 
 It is well that it should at once be understood 
 that the subject which we have now in hand, 
 Materialism, is inseparably connected with an- 
 other which is often kept out of sight, Atheism. 
 If there is nothing but matter, then there is no 
 God ; if we can know nothing but matter, then 
 we can know nothing of God. We have al- 
 ready attempted to show the insufficiency of 
 atheism, and therefore of materialism, in the 
 life and training of the soul of man. We are 
 now prepared to go further, and maintain that 
 it is insufficient as a theory of the universe. 
 Whether we regard the subject practically or 
 theoretically, we are unable, and we believe 
 that mankind will ultimately be unable, to rest 
 in materialism. 
 
 It is not quite easy to say in a few words 
 what is precisely meant by materialism, because, 
 as we shall see, it has assumed different shapes 
 in different hands, — some considering that mat- 
 
 1 De Natura Deorum, i. 16. 
 
144 
 
 WITNESSES TO C/IK/ST. 
 
 
 j 
 
 ter by itself is sufTicicnt to account for all the 
 phcnoniciKi (;f life, and others postulating a prin- 
 ciple which is called Force, or luiergy, in addi- 
 tion to matter. We may say generally, however, 
 that materialism has this one characteristic. — 
 ithat it denies the existence of mind as distinct 
 jfrom matter. It asserts that thought is a pro- 
 duct of highly organized matter, and denies that 
 matter and its organization are the work of mind. 
 It maintains that consciousness and personality 
 are not primary facts of existence, but the out- 
 come of the interaction and composition of the 
 elementary particles of matter. 
 
 There are various theories with regard to the 
 original form of matter, — some holding what is 
 known as the atomic theory, in one of its vari- 
 ous forms ; others holding that the primary sub- 
 stance is a fluid which fills all space. Neither of 
 these theories pretends to be more than a mere 
 hypothesis, and therefore they may be safely 
 disregarded in our argument. It is of more im- 
 portance to consider what account is given of 
 the organization of matter; for it is agreed that 
 matter was once inorganic, and that at some 
 time and in some way organization took place, 
 and life began. 
 
 In this respect all purely materialistic sys- 
 tems involve the theories of spontaneous genera- 
 tion and evolution, although these theories are 
 not necessarily connected. To take one exam- 
 ple, Dr. Strauss, in his work, already quoted, on 
 
THE IXSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM. 1 45 
 
 ** The Old Faith and the New," considers tliat, 
 at a certain moment in the past, the cell was 
 spontaneously generated, and so the inorganic 
 became the organic, and in due time life ap- 
 peared. It is obvious that we are here coming 
 into contact with the scientific theory of evolu- 
 tion, and it is necessary that something should 
 be said on this subject, liriefly we may remark, 
 first, that there is a sense in which evolution 
 maybe accepted by a Christian theologian ; and, 
 secondly, that the great teacher of evolution, 
 the late Mr. Darwin, never pretended that the 
 theory accounted for life and all existence. lie' 
 did not deny a creative beginning, — in other 
 words, a God; in the later editions of his book 
 on Species, he refers to a Creator; and so far 
 Christians and theists have no argument with 
 him.^ As regards the principles of natural se- 
 lection and the survival of the fittest, many 
 Christians seem to find no difficulty in admitting 
 a large amount of truth in them. For our pres- 
 ent purpose, however, it is sufficient to remark 
 that a thorough-going materialist can find no 
 help from Mr. Darwin, and that the advocates 
 of mind and those who teach the existence of 
 a God need have no controversy with him. 
 Dr. Huxley, too, while pointing out that, if 
 evolution, in the whole meaning of the word,^ 
 be true, " living matter must have arisen from 
 non-living matter," yet admits that there is no 
 
 1 See Note F. 
 10 
 
 % 
 
 ■■ tj 
 
 i 
 
146 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 II 
 
 K li; 
 
 :| 
 
 proof of this. " There is not," he says,^ ** a 
 shadow of trustworthy, direct evidence that 
 abiogenesis docs take place within the period 
 during which the existence of Hfe on the globe 
 is recorded." Let us, then, endeavor to under- 
 stand the materialistic solution of the problem 
 of existence, and see whether it will satisfy, not 
 merely the heart and the conscience, but even 
 the demands of the intelligence. 
 
 One of the oldest expositions of materialism, 
 pure and simple, is that which is known as the 
 ancient atomic theory. There are many points 
 in this theory, as originally taught, which are 
 open to criticism. For example, the assertion 
 that the atoms differed in size, form, and weight, 
 was utterly irreconcilable with the notion of 
 their indivisibility and ultimate elementary char- 
 acter. As an eminent modern man of science 
 has said,^ such atoms were evidently " manufac- 
 tured articles." 
 
 But it is not here, principally, that this theory, 
 and every other theory which knows not of any- 
 thing apart from matter, breaks down hopelessly 
 as an explanation of the origin and formation 
 of the universe as we know it. Suppose we 
 grant or postulate these atoms as the primary 
 forms of matter, or the fluid basis which others 
 prefer, how far have we advanced on the road 
 of explaining the existence of living beings? 
 
 1 Art. " IJiolog\%" in Encyclopicdia Britannica. 
 
 2 Professor Clerk Maxwell. 
 
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM 147 
 
 Suppose we grant the Plenum of the atoms, 
 and the Vacuum, or Void of Space, in what way 
 are these atoms set to work so as to form tlie 
 combinations of inorganic matter, and then how 
 does this inorganic pass into the organic? 
 
 It is unnecessary to give here in detail the an- 
 swer of the atornists to this question, — the an- 
 swer, for example, of Democritus, that the atoms 
 fall downwards according to their gravity, and 
 unite according to their homogeneity, or like- 
 ness in form and weight, and are guided by 
 the principle of Necessity (dva-yKif). What is 
 the meaning of " up " and " down " in such cir- 
 cumstances? Such ideas can clearly have no 
 place until Cosmos has emerged from Chaos. 
 And what is the meaning of the Necessity which 
 guides them? The idea of necessity is insep- 
 arable from that of law; and law, as we shall 
 see, implies mind, which is utterly excluded by 
 this theory. In short, as has often been pointed 
 out, the Necessity of the atomists is mere Chance 
 (rv-^r)') ; and this explains nothing. Similar ob- 
 jections may fairly be urged against any other 
 system of materialism, pure and simple; and in 
 consequence, it now finds few, if any, supporters. 
 
 Th.'s point deserves to be dwelt upon and em- 
 phasized. It is lightly assumed by man\', who 
 have not taken the pains to acquaint themselves 
 with the state of these controversies, that mate- 
 rialism is a theory which has a good deal to say 
 for itself, which may be true or may be false, 
 
 % 
 
 
 i 
 
 if 
 r 
 
148 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 A W, . 
 
 Ifff 
 
 but which at any rate demands and deserves 
 consideration, which is opposed chiefly, if not 
 entirely, by theologians and by those who have 
 a prejudice in favor of religion on the one side, 
 or metaphysics on the other. 
 
 This assumption is, indeed, very wide of the 
 truth. Lotze is hardly guilty of exaggeration 
 when he says : ^ " The assumption that the com- 
 mon substance of the world is only matter, and 
 matter endowed with those properties which we 
 in physical science attribute to every portion of 
 the same, has probably never been made in ear- 
 nest by any one. Such an assumption would 
 take upon itself the difficult problem of showing 
 how, from these mere properties of space-filling, 
 inertia, divisibility, and mobility, all the rest of 
 the world, and therefore even its spiritual con- 
 stituents, could be developed as a matter of 
 course, — that is to say, as the mere conse- 
 quences of such properties, and without admix- 
 ture of any other principle whatever." 
 
 If it should be said that the old atomists had 
 the courage to make this incredible assertion, a 
 slight consideration will show that such a state- 
 ment would be incorrect. Even Democritus 
 needed the principle of Necessity to account for 
 the movements of the atoms ; and modern pos- 
 itivists find it necessary to postulate a very re- 
 markable principle, to the nature of which we 
 shall presently draw attention. In the mean 
 
 1 Philosophy of Religion, chap. ii. § 22. 
 
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM. 
 
 149 
 
 time let us remind our opponents that the most 
 eminent men in the ranks of science are very- 
 far from giving their sanction to the materiahs- 
 tic atheism which now boasts so loudly of its 
 progress.^ 
 
 On this point we will not quote the great 
 names of many who have been sincere Chris- 
 tians as well as ardent students of Nature, from 
 Newton downwards ; we can refer to men like 
 Dr. Huxley and Dr. Tyndall, even to Mr. Mill, 
 whose atheistic belief was very much shaken 
 in his later days. Thus, Dr. Huxley '^ remarks : 
 " The materialistic position that there is nothing 
 in the world but matter, force, and necessity, is 
 as utterly devoid of justification as the most 
 baseless of theological dogmas." When Dr. 
 Tyndall was president of the British Association, 
 he was charged with having taught atheism in 
 his inaugural address at Belfast. In the preface 
 to a later edition of his address he gave this an- 
 swer to the charge : " I have noticed, during 
 years of self-observation, that it is not in hours 
 of clearness and vigor that this doctrine [ma- 
 terial atheism] commends itself to my mind ; 
 that in the hours of stronger and healthier 
 thought it ever dissolves and disappears, as 
 offering no solution of the mystery in which 
 we dwell." "^ Still stronger are his words in a 
 
 1 See Mr, Cotter Morison's " Service of Man." 
 
 2 Lay Sermons, p. 144. 
 
 3 Belfast Address, Preface to the fifth thousand, p. 36. 
 
 

 150 
 
 ]V/T.VESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 subsequent lecture delivered at Manchester, 
 and published along with the Belfast Address : 
 " When standing in the spring-time and looking 
 upon the sprouting foliage, the lilies of the field, 
 and sharing the general joy of opening life, I 
 have often asked myself whether there is no 
 power, being, or thing in the universe, whose 
 knowledge of that of which I am so ignorant is 
 greater than mine. I have asked myself. Can 
 it be possible that man's knowledge is the 
 greatest knowledge, that man's life is the high- 
 est life? My friends, the profession of that 
 atheism with which I am sometimes so lightly 
 charged would, in my case, be an impossible 
 answer to the question ; only slightly preferable 
 to that fierce and distorted theism which I have 
 lately had reason to know still reigns rampant 
 in some minds, as the survival of a more fero- 
 
 cious age. 
 
 In opposition to this disavowal of atheism 
 on the part of Professor Tyndall, it may be 
 pointed out that in the Belfast Address he quotes 
 with approval the words of Lucretius : " Nature 
 is seen to do all things spontaneously of herself 
 without the meddling of the Gods." But it is 
 quite clear that such approval, on his part, was 
 ;aot intended to teach atheism, although it is 
 very likely that Dr. Tyndall holds opinions on 
 the subject of the providence of God which are 
 not consistent with the teaching of Christianity. 
 On the other hand, he may mean no more than 
 
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM 151 
 
 a protest against that view of the Divine govern- 
 ment which represents the Deity as perpetually 
 interfering in an arbitrary manner with tiie nor- 
 mal action of cause and effect in Nature and in 
 history. It is not for such a God that we con- 
 tend. \Vc also beheve in a uniformity of Na- 
 ture. We beheve in a God who governs by 
 law and not by caprice, although we should 
 probably differ from some men of science as to 
 the precise sphere of law. With such differ- 
 ences, however, at present wc have nothing to 
 do. Our controversy is with materialism ; our 
 aim is to show its insufficiency; and so far 
 we have seen that mere materialism has no ad- 
 vocates among men of science. One other 
 quotation may be offered from a writer as dis- 
 tinguished in literature as arc those previously 
 named in science. Mr. J. A. Symonds, refer- 
 ring more particularly to the science of evolu- 
 tion, remarks : ^ " Science has not eliminated 
 the conception of a Deity, or effaced the noble 
 humanities secured for us by many centuries of 
 Christian faith. It cannot be too emi)haticallv 1 
 insisted on that much-dreaded Darwinism leaves '. 
 the theological belief in a divine spirit untouched. I 
 GbH" is not less God, nor is creative energy less 
 creative, because we are led to suppose that a 
 lengthy instead of a sudden method was em- 
 ployed in the production of the Kosmos." It 
 is hardly needful to say that these utterances 
 
 ^ Fortnightly Review, June, 1887. 
 
 ■1 
 
 m 
 
152 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 :\ m 
 
 \ . % 
 
 li MH if 
 
 ii"! II 
 
 arc not here adduced as being authoritative, but 
 only as reasons for hesitating to accept the 
 authoritative statements of a boastful science 
 which disdains to entertain the thought of 
 spirit or God. 
 
 Still, it may be said that men of science have 
 professed to explain the phenomena of existence, 
 and to account for the changes and modifica- 
 tions in matter, apart from the action of a per- 
 sonal intelligence ; and this they have done by 
 means of the principle which is known under 
 the name of Energy, or Force. These terms 
 have been distinguished; but for our present 
 purpose this is unnecessary. 
 
 Among those who seek for an explanation of 
 the universe in matter and force, a prominent 
 place, perhaps the foremost, is held by Mr. 
 Herbert Spencer ; and it is to his writings that 
 we must turn for an exposition of the theory. 
 Mr. Spencer says quite truly that " we cannot 
 think at all about the impressions which the 
 external world produces on us, without think- 
 ing of them as caused ; and we cannot carry 
 out an inquiry concerning their causation, with- 
 out inevitably committing ourselves to the hy- 
 pothesis of a First Cause." ^ This first cause, 
 he says, must be finite or infinite. It cannot be 
 finite ; but if it is infinite, '* we tacitly abandon 
 the hypothesis of causation altogether." This 
 statement we will presently consider. Finally, 
 
 ' First Principles, chap. ii. 
 
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM. 1 53 
 
 he decides, on grounds which we fully admit, 
 that the First Cause must be infinite and ab- 
 solute. ** These inferences," he says trul}-^, "are 
 forced upon us by arguments from which there 
 appears no escape." ^ 
 
 Mr. Spencer then proceeds to show that all 
 religious systems recognize more or less clearly 
 " the omnipresence of something which passes 
 comprehension ; " and so he concludes that the 
 " Power which the universe manifests to us is 
 utterly inscrutable." ^ Passing on to details, he 
 shows that " Matter, in its ultimate nature, is 
 as absolutely incomprehensible as Space and 
 Time.^ . . . Matter is known to us only through 
 its manifestations of Force;" and further, "it 
 is impossible to form any idea of Force in 
 itself," and " it is equally impossible to com- 
 prehend its mode of exercise." Repeating the 
 conclusions at which he has arrived, he re- 
 marks: ^ "Though the Absolute cannot in any 
 manner or degree be known, in the strict sense 
 of knowing, yet we find that its positive exist- 
 ence is a necessary datum of consciousness; 
 that so long as consciousness continues, we can- 
 not for an instant rid it of this datum; and that 
 thus the belief which this datum constitutes, has 
 a higher warrant than any other whatever." 
 
 To this extent Mr. Spencer recognizes the 
 value of religion, that " amidst its many errors 
 
 
 1 First Principles, chap. ii. 
 
 2 Ibid,, chap. iii. 
 
 * Ibid., chap. v. 
 
 
 

 i 
 
 ' s 
 
 
 
 ■ i 
 
 154 
 
 IVITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 and corruptions it has asserted and diffused a 
 supreme verity," — namely, the existence of a 
 " Reahty utterly inscrutable in nature." So far 
 we might argue that Mr. Spencer is entirely on 
 our side, at least so far as the negation of mere 
 materialism is concerned. But it is impossible 
 that we should be satisfied with mere negation, 
 and Mr. Spencer will not recognize mind in Na- 
 ture. Let us see, then, exactly how far he goes, 
 and whether we are not constrained by the ne- 
 cessity of thought to go farther, even to the pos- 
 itive recognition of a Mind in Nature as the only 
 •conceivable explanation of its phenomena. 
 
 In order to bring out his meaning we will 
 quote two passages, — the first from the sixth 
 chapter, and the second from the fifth chapter, 
 of his "First Principles." "The force," he says, 
 " of which we assert persistence is that Absolute 
 Force of which we are indefinitely conscious as 
 the necessary correlate of the force we know. 
 By the Persistence of Force, we really mean the 
 persistence of some Cause which transcends our 
 knowledge and conception. In asserting it we 
 assert an Unconditioned Reality, without begin- 
 ning or end." Again, " The consciousness of 
 an Inscrutable Power manifested to us through 
 all phenomena, has been growing ever clearer; 
 and must eventually be freed from its imperfec- 
 tions. The certainty that on the one hand such 
 a Power exists, while on the other hand its 
 nature transcends intuition and is beyond im- 
 
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MA TERIALISM. I 5 5 
 
 agination, is the certainty towards which intelli- 
 gence has from the first been progressing. To 
 this conclusion Science inevitably arrives as it 
 reaches its confines; while to this conclusion 
 Religion is irresistibly driv^en by criticism. And 
 satisfying as it does the demands of the most 
 rigorous logic, at the same time that it gives the 
 religious sentiment the widest possible sphere 
 of action, it is the conclusion we arc bound to 
 accept without reserve or qualification." 
 
 Every one can see how near Mr. Spencer's 
 utterances come to the teaching of the Gospel, 
 so near indeed that some have claimed him as 
 a supporter of Divine Revelation. We know, 
 however, that such was not his intention. He 
 meant to declare that the Power which lies be- 
 hind natural phenomena is both unknown and 
 unknowable. He meant to deny that we had 
 or could have any knowledge of God, if there 
 is a God, and therefore to deny that there is any 
 room for a Divine Revelation. And yet he 
 allows that this hidden power is " manifested," 
 while he says we can know no more of It than 
 is manifested. Now this is, after all, not very 
 different from Christian teaching. We hold that 
 God can be known only in so far as He mani- 
 fests Himself, and that there are depths in the 
 Divine nature which man cannot explore. 
 
 There is, however, one postulate in our state- 
 ments which Mr. Spencer would not concede. 
 In the Power, the Force which lies behind the 
 
 I i 
 
 
 '^m 
 
 a 
 
 m 
 
 vm 
 
 \ '' I 
 
mmmmmmmm 
 
 156 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 r\ 
 
 
 
 % 
 % 
 
 
 phenomena of Nature, we recognize Mind, we 
 discover a Person ; and this to Mr. Spencer 
 would be a contradiction. It is necessary, 
 therefore, that we should point out the insuffi- 
 ciency and unsatisfactoriness of the positivist 
 and agnostic position generally, and also indi- 
 cate the steps by which we arrive at the con- 
 clusion to which we hold fast. In doing so, we 
 set ourselves in opposition not to Mr. Spencer 
 or any other writer in particular, nor to any 
 particular form of materialism, but to that sys- 
 tem in general which refuses to consider any 
 truths as ascertained beyond the facts and laws 
 of the material universe, which denies that be- 
 hind the phenomena of nature we can recognize 
 an Infinite Mind, a Personal Gc i In other 
 words, we here break away from tfie agnostic 
 position generally. 
 
 Now, let us consider what statements like those 
 of the Positivist or Agnostic actually mean and 
 imply. Certainly, there is this involved in them, 
 — that vye may know matter, but that we cannot 
 know mind; or else that while matter exists and 
 may be known, there really is no mind for us to 
 know. As has already been said, according to 
 the system which we are opposing, thought is a 
 mere product of organized matter, generated as, 
 for example, electricity is generated, and needs 
 nothing else to account for it but the interaction 
 of material particles. 
 
 We do not at present ask if such a system can 
 
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM. 1 57 
 
 satisfy our conscience, our religious nature, our 
 longings for immortality, and the like. \Vc now 
 ask merely whether it will satisfy our intelli- 
 gence. Having regard to what we know of 
 ourselves, can we believe it? It would hardly . 
 be possible, we imagine, to give a better answer 
 to this theory which tells us that we can know 
 matter but that we cannot know mind, than that 
 which is given by Lotze in his " Mikrokosmus." ^ 
 "Among all the errors of the human mind," he 
 remarks, " it has always seemed to me the 
 strangest that it could come to doubt its own 
 existence, of which alone it has direct experi- 
 ence, or to take it at second hand as the product 
 of an external Nature which we know only indi- 
 rectly, — only by means of the knowledge of the 
 very mind to which we would deny existence." 
 
 Thoroughly to understand this statement is 
 unhesitatingly to receive it as true. We do not L 
 really know the external world. We know, di-.f^ 
 rectly and immediately, only our own states of'T 
 mind. " We are so used in Nature," says Lotze 
 again, " to find momentous differences in prop- 
 erties traced back to trifling alterations in the 
 amount and mode of combination of homogeneous 
 elements, that at last we lose all understanding of 
 anything immediate, and unconsciously become 
 possessed by a passion for construing every- 
 thing, assigning to everything a complicated 
 machinery as the means of its origination and 
 
 1 Book ii. chap. v. p. 263 (English translation). 
 
 If w 
 
 i; I 
 
 
158 
 
 IV/TXESSES TO CITRIST. 
 
 ¥ %\ 
 
 |;; 1 
 
 N^ll 
 
 i '■':■ :\ '^" ' ' 
 
 operation. Wc would then fain assert that even 
 within us there is nothinj^ but an exterior con- 
 catenation of events, rescmi^ling the communica- 
 tion of movement by which, in the outer world, 
 we see one element come into collision with 
 another ; and all else that we find within, — con- 
 sciousness, feeling, and effort, — we are almost 
 tempted to regard as only a kind of accidental 
 reflection in us of that real action, unless indeed 
 we see that there must be something for which 
 and in which this reflection arises. That some- 
 thing there is ; every several expression of our 
 consciousness, every stirring of our feelings, 
 every dawning resolution, calls aloud that pro- 
 cesses, not to be measured by the standard of 
 physical notions, do indeed take place with un- 
 conquerable and undeniable reality. So long 
 as we have this experience," the writer goes 
 on, " Materialism may prolong its existence 
 and celebrate its triumphs within the schools, 
 where so many ideas estranged from life take 
 shelter; but its own professors will belie their 
 false creed in their living action. For they will 
 all continue to love and hate, to hope and fear, 
 to dream and study ; and they will in vain seek 
 to persuade us that this varied exercise of men- 
 tal energies, which even deliberate denial of the 
 supersensual cannot destroy, is a product of 
 their bodily organization, or that the love of truth 
 exhibited by some, the sensitive vanity betrayed 
 by others, has its origin in *'ieir cerebral fibres." 
 
 U':\ 
 
THE lA'Sri-'FlClEXCY OF MArERLlLISM. ^ I 59 
 
 So far, then, wc maintain that mind is not a 
 tliinf; to us unl-cnown, or a thin^^ which wc know 
 through tiic medium of matter: we maintain, on 
 the contrary, tliat wc know mind directly and 
 immediately, and matter only through the me- 
 dium of mind. And this leads us to ask what 
 is the nature of the knowledge which wc have 
 of the external world, — whether the thoughtfid 
 study of its phenomena will guide us to an ac- 
 quiescence in the opinion that there is nothing 
 which can be known in Nature save matter and 
 an unknown and unknowable force which works 
 in it, or whether we shall not be constrained to 
 recognize behind the phenomena of Nature the 
 existence of a Personal Mind, which, although It 
 be infinite and absolute, and therefore such as 
 cannot be comprehended by the finite and the 
 relative, yet may be, and actually is, known in ' 
 so far as It reveals Itself and as that revelation 
 is received by man. It seems to us that this 
 latter conclusion may be " demonstrated " with 
 sufficient completeness, having regard to the 
 nature of the subject. 
 
 It was one chief aim of the philosopher Kant, 
 in his " Critique of Pure Reason," to point out 
 tliat there was a necessary a priori element in 
 the mind of man, without which no experience 
 would be possible. Kant did not for a moment 
 think of denying that all our knowledge came 
 to us through experience, through sensuous ex- 
 peric'^ 'e ; but he pointed out that before our 
 
 im\ 
 
 * ■ ? 
 
m 
 
 f^ 
 
 1 !• ''.. 
 
 1 60 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 |i ... 
 
 li 
 
 A- 
 
 i' 
 
 'i.'i 
 
 ,+ 
 
 sensations could be turned into thoughts there 
 must be an operation of elements not given from 
 without, but already existing in the mind itself. 
 This is, in brief, Kant's doctrine of the catego- 
 ries, or forms of thought in the understanding. 
 A simple illustration of this doctrine will lead us 
 on our way to the goal which we are endeavor- 
 ing to reach. 
 
 When we turn our eyes towards external ob- 
 jects, we first note certain resemblances or dif- 
 ferences by which they are distinguished. We 
 proceed to generalize and classify, and to note 
 the relations which subsist between one object 
 and another, between ourselves and those objects 
 of our perceptions. Our knowledge or observa- 
 tion of those relations is set forth in what we call 
 a law; and so by degrees we come to a knowl- 
 edge of the laws of Nature, — the law of gravita- 
 tion, for example, the laws under which nia'.L^i 
 expands and contracts, and the like. Whence 
 do we obtain the knowledge of those laws? Not 
 from mere sensation. Mere sensation has not 
 the character of thought. The element by which 
 that is constituted must be derived from the 
 mind itself. It is this which principally distiri- 
 guishes man from the lower species of animated 
 Nature. There is, then, a sense in which laws 
 are made by man. And at this point the argu- 
 ment is sometimes allowed to stop ; but surely 
 the same train of reasoning may be carried 
 further. 
 
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM. l6l 
 
 When we speak of laws of Nature which are 
 perceived by all men in common who are en- 
 dowed with the same nature as ourselves, we do 
 not mean that we have invented or created those 
 laws. It is true, they are not present in our 
 sensations. They do not present themselves 
 visibly or tangibly to our perception. We can- 
 not in any way make an image or picture of 
 them. They are inferences of the mind from 
 the phenomena of Nature. But, although infer- 
 ences of the mind, they are not creations of 
 the mind. They have a certain kind of exist- 
 ence, for they are actually operating. Where, 
 then, do they exist? There can be but one an- 
 swer to that question. They exist in a Mind 
 which bears a certain resemblance to our own. 
 And this, in fact, it is, which makes it possible 
 for ourselves to recognize them. The mind of 
 man perceives in Nature the working of a mind 
 to which it is itself akin. 
 
 This argument is quite distinct, as you will 
 readily perceive, from the so-called tcleological, 
 or argument from design. As, however, we be- 
 lieve that this latter argument is valid, although 
 we do not rest upon it, and as both arguments 
 have certain objections urged against them in 
 common, we will here briefly indicate the nature 
 of the argument from design, variously known 
 as the argument from final causes, the tcleo- 
 logical, or the physico-theological argument. 
 
 It is certainly one of our deepcs^: convictions, 
 
 II 
 
 iK>^ 
 
1 62 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 
 Si \ 
 
 I f 
 
 H 1 
 
 it., 
 
 ■«4 
 
 ^iii, 
 
 '•H' 
 
 <" 
 
 ,, ■■••»■ 
 
 ^^m 
 
 
 ii 
 
 VC- 
 
 ! ! 
 
 ■ r 
 
 wm 
 
 
 \ y that everytliing which exists has some use or 
 purpose ; and we can generally trace the appear- 
 ance of design in the objects of Nature. Even 
 Mr. Herbert Spencer declares that " there can 
 be no true conception of a. structure jvithout a 
 true conception of its function. To understand 
 how an organization originated and developed, it 
 is requisite to understand the need subserved." ^ 
 This sounds very much like teleology. Now, 
 it may be quite true that Kant's metaphysical 
 objections to this argument are unanswerable; 
 and yet it may not follovv that it has not a cer- 
 tain amount of validity. In fact, there are few 
 persons who can entirely divest themselves of a 
 feeling of its power. It is the most popular of 
 all the theories. Even Kant had a tenderness 
 for it. It came very near freeing J. S. Mill from 
 the bondage of atheism. We may even hope 
 that it succeeded. When a man can write, as 
 Mr. Mill wrote,2 " It must be allowed that, in the 
 present state of our knowledge, the adaptations 
 in Nature afford a large b;'lance of probability 
 in favor of creation by intelligence," he cannot 
 be far from the faith of the Unseen. A large 
 balance of probability? Surely, this is practi- 
 cal demonstration ; for, as Butler remarks, " to 
 us probability is the very guide of life." 
 
 It is objected, however, by Mill, Kant, and 
 others, that even if we accepted all that is 
 
 1 Ecclesiastical Institutions, chap. i. 
 '^ Three Essays, p. 174. 
 
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM. 1 63 
 
 fairly dcducible from the appearance of pur- 
 pose in the world, the result would be insuffi- 
 cient. We should have the revelation of a finite 
 and limited being, and not of One who was 
 infinite and absolute. Let us see how far such 
 an objection is valid. Kant states it in the 
 following manner: "The utmost," he says,^ 
 " that could be established by such a proof 
 would be an Architect of the world, always 
 very much hampered by the quality of the ma- 
 terial with which he has to work, not a Creator, 
 to whose idea everything is subject. This would 
 by no means suffice for the pu'-posed aim of 
 proving an all-sufficient origiiial Being." Some- 
 what to the same effect are the remarks of Mr. 
 Mill. He says the argument from design proves ' 
 aFornier^ and not a Creator, and that it does 
 not prove the Maker to be infinite or all- 
 powerful. 
 
 Now, what is the real value of these objec- 
 tions? Do they not simply tell us that the 
 Infinite cannot or does not reveal His infinity? 
 But how is it possible that He should do so? For 
 in that case He must first have created another 
 Infinite to whom He could be revealed. And 
 such a notion is a simple contradiction. There 
 cannot be two Infinites, two Absolutes, two uni- 
 verses. In creation the Creator of necessity 
 imposes limitations upon Himself in doing His 
 
 ^ Critique of Pure Reason, part IL, division ii., p. 538 
 (Max MuUer's translation). 
 
 »". ..,1 i»i .( e*«,'y 
 
 •"v , 
 
 ^\i /;(' 
 
 - as ' 
 
1 64 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 \ \ 
 
 V ' 
 
 
 
 work ; and in this there is nothing derogatory to 
 His glory and greatness. The limitation is from 
 witliin, and not from without. 
 
 A similar answer must be given to the objec- 
 tion that the Mind which we recognize behind 
 or under Nature in the laws by which it is gov- 
 erned is not an Infinite Mind, or at least is not 
 known as such. It will be necessary to state 
 very carefully what we actually maintain, before 
 we proceed to meet the various objections as 
 they arise. In the first place, then, we hold that 
 there is in Nature a revelation of Mind, and on 
 this point perhaps enough has been said. Fur- 
 ther, we are agreed with our opponents that an 
 Infinite Mind is not, and cannot, be revealed in 
 creation. But, again, we maintain that there is 
 an Infinite and Absolute, the Origin, Basis, Con- 
 dition of all existence. Further, that this Ab- 
 solute is Intelligence, Mind, Thought, Spirit. 
 Moreover, that this Spirit is personal ; and finally, 
 that the belief in the personality of the Infinite 
 and Absolute involves no contradiction what- 
 ever. If we can satisfactorily establish these 
 points, our work will be accomplished. 
 
 We have already pointed out that the cause or 
 ground, whichever you please,^ of those natural 
 phenomena in which we discern the operation 
 of law must be mental, spiritual; and v^^e have 
 admitted that we have no demonstration of the 
 
 1 Wc do not stand out for the word 
 " basis," " origin," will do quite as well. 
 
 cause ; " " ground," 
 
 \ 
 
I 
 
 THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIAirSM. 1 65 
 
 i 
 
 infinitude of that cause. But it is quite clear ^ 
 that the First Cause must be infinite ; for if it is 
 finite, limited, then we must think of something 
 beyond its limits, so that there is something 
 else which must be taken into account in esti- 
 mating the complete nature of the First Cause, 
 or else we must believe in something existing 
 which has not been caused ; and if this is ad- 
 mitted we must allow that there is no need to 
 assume a cause for anything, so that the princi- 
 ple of causation must be given up. It is, there- 
 fore, impossible that the First Cause should be 
 o*;her than infinite. 
 
 So, again, the First Cause must be indcpend-1^ 
 ent. " If it is dependent, it cannot be the First 
 Cause ; for that must be the First Cause on 
 which it depends. . . . Thus the First Cause 
 must be in every sense perfect, complete, total, 
 including within itself all power; or, to use the 
 established word, it must be absolute." It would 
 detain us too long to repeat hero the criticism 
 of these statements ofi"ercd by Mr. Spencer and 
 others, especially as we are not resting our argu- 
 ment upon them. The conclusion at which we 
 arrive is well stated, although it is not accepted, 
 by Mr. Spencer. " Merc, then," he says, " re- 
 specting the nature of the universe, we seem 
 committed to certain unavoidable conclusions. 
 The objects and actions surrounding us, not less 
 
 ^ Compare the statement in Spencer's " First Principles," 
 chap. ii. 
 
 r 
 
 V\i 
 
 i^ 
 
 
 I 5.„ .... 
 
 < u 
 
 3 
 
 
n 
 
 
 1 66 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 
 
 
 than the phenomena of our own consciousness, 
 compel us to ask a cause ; in our search for a 
 cause we discover no resting-phice until we 
 arrive at the hypothesis of a First Cause; and 
 we have no alternative but to regard this First 
 as infinite and absolute." 
 
 May we not, then, conclude, in view of the 
 decision already arrived at, that the existence of 
 Mind is required to explain the phenomena of 
 Nature, and that we must think of the First Cause 
 as Infinite Mind? So it would appear. For, if 
 not, we must at any rate say that the immediate 
 cause of phenomena is a mind, even if we can- 
 not deny that that mind itself may have been 
 caused. But if this is so, then the more remote 
 cause must also have been a mind, and so on 
 until we reach the First Cause, which itself must 
 also be a mind, and infinite and independent; so 
 that again we reach the idea of Absolute Mind 
 as the First Cause. 
 
 However just this reasoning may appear, it is 
 called in question from various quarters. In the 
 first place, we are reminded of Hegel's theory of 
 the absolute as Spirit, which comes to conscious- 
 ness in man ; and secondly, we are told that 
 Personality and the Absolute are incompatible 
 ideas, — that the Infinite is, of necessity, imper- 
 sonal, and personality is, of necessity, finite. 
 Let us examine these statements. In the pre- 
 vious remarks we were dealing with a scientific 
 objection. Flere we are met by a metaphysical. 
 
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM. 1 6/ 
 
 When Hegel declares that the Absolute is Spirit, 
 and that the Spirit attains to consciousness in 
 man, he certainly seems to teach the imperson- 
 ality of the Absolute, — in other words, sheer 
 pantheism. It is quite true that the most emi- 
 nent expounder of Hegelian doctrine in the Eng- 
 lish language, Dr. Stirling, asserts that Hegel 
 was no pantheist, and that he did not mean to 
 teach pantheistic doctrine. It is, perhaps, a bold 
 thing to say positively what Hegel must have 
 meant. Certainly, he has very commonly been 
 understood to teach pantheism, and it is difficult 
 to attach any other meaning to his words. ^ But 
 in any case we must consider the difficulty, and 
 see whether it involves any real objection to our 
 conclusion respecting the cause of the universe. 
 The views, then, to which we refer, " commonly 
 announce this clement [the Absolute] as a Rea- 
 son which is per sc unconscious ; which only in 
 individual points of its extreme altitude, in indi- 
 vidual spiritual beings, raises itself to conscious- 
 ness."^ This view is well answered by Lotze, 
 who says: " Such a form of conception as the 
 foregoing appears inadmissible. We have no 
 right to strip off from the Reason which we inva- 
 riably first learn by experience to know as con- 
 scious, this predicate of consciousness, and then 
 
 i J 
 
 1 Dr. Morris, the accomplished Professor of Philosophy in 
 the University of IMichigan, has drawn my attention to passages 
 in Hegel which support Dr. Stirling's view. 
 
 '^ Lotze, " Philosophy of Religion," chap. ii. § 24. 
 
r 
 
 •tin 
 
 a »; t ; 
 
 1'! '■! 
 
 i68 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 persuade ourselves that aught intelligible is left 
 still remaining. Rather is it true that only one 
 definite thought admits of being connected with 
 the expression, ' a reason acting unconsciously 
 in tb'.' world; ' namely, the thought that blifid 
 forces act in the world, which are not in any 
 respect reason, but which in fact act so that their 
 results are the same as those which a reason 
 acting in the world would have been compelled 
 to desire." 
 
 If we declare that such a conclusion is at 
 variance with all experience, we shall probably 
 be told that we have no right to infer anything 
 concerning the infinite from what we know of 
 the finite. But we must remind the objector 
 that wc are here keeping strictly within the lim- 
 its of that which we do know, — namely, mind 
 and its operations. We do know our own mind 
 directly and immediately, and by that mind we 
 are compelled to recognize the working of mind 
 in the phenomena of Nature. 
 
 It is only another way of stating the same 
 view which we have just mentioned, when we 
 are told that the Absolute is Spirit, but imper- 
 sonal Spirit. Here, again, we give in substance 
 the answer of Lotze. It is easy enough to em- 
 ploy phrases of this kind, but it is difficult, it is 
 impossible, to attach any intelligible meaning to 
 them. It is quite true that we are not always, 
 so to speak, conscious of personality. We ex- 
 perience many states of feeling in which all at- 
 
 
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM. 1 69 
 
 tcntion is withdrawn from our own self, and we 
 do not think of ourselves as distinct from the 
 non-self of the external world. The sensation, 
 the feeling, the notion, the effort, is for the time 
 everything, and we ourselves, as the subjects of 
 those states, are forgotten. 
 
 Granting all this, it is equally clear that these 
 states are all facts which take place in a personal 
 spirit. " They merely prove that it is not neces- 
 sary for the personal spirit at every moment 
 to think of itself as different from the content 
 which exactly fills out its consciousness. But 
 they cannot prove that anything similar is pos- 
 sible without the personality, which, in such a 
 case, does not indeed mentally represent itself, 
 but none the less remains in fact the condition 
 of the possibility of such a self-forgetfulness. 
 For all the aforesaid sensations, ideas, or feel- 
 ings, in which we thus lose ourselves, are, after 
 all, never thinkable except as states of a definite, 
 self-identical, and distinct spiritual subject, and 
 not the least consecutiveness, nor any coherency 
 according to law between these different spirit- 
 ual states, would be possible, unless the personal 
 unity of the Spirit, which is by no means appar- 
 ent in them, were, for all that, the real ground 
 which unites them with one another." 
 
 One other statement, drawn from the nature 
 of Personality, remains to be considered. It is 
 alleged that the idea of Personality is incompat- 
 ible with that of the Absolute. The Ego, it is 
 
 I' 
 
 
... I* ^ 
 
 ''I 
 
 'Ml 
 
 t', K 
 
 ' .1 ■ 
 
 .US ..I 
 
 !;;■ 
 1*!^ 
 
 170 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 said, cannot be thought without a Non-Ego. 
 The moment vvc say /, we imply a something 
 which is Not-I ; and such a contrast is impos- 
 sible to the Absolute, which is infinite and all- 
 comprehending. By attributing to the Absolute 
 such an attribute, it is said, we make Ilim finite. 
 It is important to examine this objection, since 
 we must probably regard it as the principal 
 argument now commonly employed to destroy 
 the proof of the Divine Personality. How far 
 is it valid, or the reverse? Let us grant, then, 
 that in thinking of our own personality, in call- 
 ing one's self/, we do mark out our own position 
 as distinct from that of the world around us, or 
 whatever it may bo, perhaps we should say 
 rather the whole of existence besides ourselves, 
 which wc call the Non-Ego. This is quite clear. 
 Yet this Non-Ego, this negative conception, is 
 not the idea in which the sense of our own per- 
 sonality originated. On the contrary, personal 
 existence is implied in all mental experience. 
 Every feeling and thought and effort supposes a 
 ground in which it has its origin, a ground in 
 which consciousness exists altogether apart from 
 any consideration of its external relations. It 
 is when the Ego looks upon itself as limited, 
 when it becomes conscious of its limitations, 
 that it recognizes outside of itself all that is not 
 contained within those limitations ; and this is 
 what it distinguishes from itself as the not-self, 
 or Non-Ego. 
 
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM. I/I 
 
 But surely these very considerations show how 
 inapplicable are these limitations to the Ab- 
 solute ; for He is the absolutely unconditioned. 
 It is because we arc forced to acknowledge our 
 own limitations that wc arc compelled to recog- 
 nize a Non-ego or Not-I. We can draw a cir- 
 cular line around ourselves, and outside of that 
 circle, limited as it is, there is the unlimited. 
 But the Absolute and the Infinite cannot be 
 thus enclosed, and there is no finite or infinite 
 external to Him. By whatever name we call 
 this Absolute, we can say, " Of Him, and through 
 Him, and to Him, and in Him are all things;" 
 yea, in the Absolute " we live and move and 
 have our being." ^ 
 
 From another point of view it is clear that the 
 analogy of the finite is inapplicable to the In- 
 finite. It is by means of the external world 
 that the finite is roused to feeling, thought, and 
 action ; and in this respect the Non-Ego plays a 
 part which can have nothing corresponding to 
 it in the nature of the Infinite, — for that is ab- 
 solutely self-sufficient, and is dependent upon 
 nothing besides itself. 
 
 Let us sec, then, to what our inquiry has con- 
 ducted us. We set out with the thesis of the 
 insufficiency of materialism, and we have done 
 our best to consider what has been, and can be, 
 
 * 
 
 ;!»: 
 
 ^ The Christian doctrine of the Trinity will suggest itself as 
 meeting some of the ditiliculties proposed. But it could not 
 properly be here used as an argument. 
 
172 
 
 WnWESSES TO CHRIST, 
 
 ■^♦fePi 
 
 urL^cd on the other side. It is true that our 
 treatment of the subject has been very partial 
 and incomplete. It could not be otherwise. 
 Apart from the limitations of time, it would not 
 be possible oi; expedient to enter upon a pro- 
 longed metaphysical discussion. Hut no diffi- 
 culty of importance has been ignored ; and it is 
 believed that the answers which have been sug- 
 gested in outline will bear the test of examina- 
 tion, and will acquire additional force the longer 
 they are considered. 
 
 What, then, are the conclusions at which we 
 have arrived? And are they such as to justify 
 us in pronouncing upon the insufficiency of 
 materialism? We have shown that materialism, 
 pure and simple, is now held by no school of 
 thought, — that the notion that all existence has 
 originated from certain elementary particles of 
 matter and their interaction, is abandoned by 
 all scientific thinkers as an impossible theory of 
 the world. We have seen that many, endeav- 
 oring to supply the defects of a merely mate- 
 rialistic theory, have supposed the existence 
 of another principle which is called Force or 
 Energy, — a power which certainly acts and is 
 manifested in the phenomena of the world, yet 
 which is unknown and unknowable. We have 
 recognized in this energy some of the attributes 
 which we are accustomed to apply to Almighty 
 God ; but while we acknowledge that He is in 
 a sense the unknowable, the unsearchable, yet 
 
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM. 173 
 
 wc declare that lie has manifested Himself to 
 man in various ways, and that by such mani- 
 festation I le has made Himself known. Furtlier, 
 we attempted to show that this Power or Force, 
 behind Nature or beneath it, — the World-cause, 
 the World-f^round, the World-order, as it has 
 been differently named, — must be Mind. For 
 in examininf; the phenomena of Nature, or the 
 World, we discern beneath the distinct effects 
 the operation of principles, which we call by the 
 name of laws, in which laws we recognize the 
 working of a Mind to which our own is akin.^ 
 ^ At this point we paused to consider some 
 theories of a different character, and some objec- 
 tions to the personality of the Absolute Mind 
 whom wc recognized as the ground of existence. 
 On the one hand, we saw that there was no 
 ground for holding that the undeveloped Spirit 
 was unconscious as an inference from similar 
 states in the case of finite beings; on the other, 
 that the expression Impersonal Spirit was a mere 
 phrase, to which no intelligible meaning could be 
 attached. Further, the argument that the asser- 
 tion of personality was the denial of the absolute 
 was shown to rest upon an imperfect examina- 
 tion of finite experience, and, even if it were 
 valid for the finite, could have no application to 
 the Infinite. 
 
 1 This conclusion, scientifically deduced, falls in with the 
 teaching of Divine Revelation, that man is made in the image 
 of God. 
 
 IK' 
 
 
 tl 
 
 'XI 
 
 « t 
 
 >>: i 
 
 ; I 
 
 m 
 
 J I 
 
1~T 
 
 SI 
 
 
 
 
 ?'•■: 
 
 
 Ill 
 
 'I! 
 
 'i' 
 
 174 
 
 WITXESSES TO CHRIST, 
 
 It is sometimes said that the arguments of 
 the Christian Apologist arc drawn from sources 
 with which the man of science cannot deal, — 
 from feeling, faith, authority, personal expe- 
 rience, and the like. He will not, perhaps, be 
 a wise guide of humanity who will ignore ele- 
 ments which constitute so large a portion of 
 human life and action. But, so far, we have 
 listened to no arguments but those which are 
 derived from reason. If they are not allowed 
 to be of a kind which v/e have a right to employ, 
 then we can only say that all knowledge, all cer- 
 tainty, becomes impossible, and we are involved 
 in a universal scepticism. 
 
 When Bishop Berkeley denied the independent 
 existence of the external w^orld, he was supposed 
 to destroy the grounds of belief and action, 
 and to lead to scepticism. As a matter of fact, 
 he intended to strengthen those grounds, and, 
 rightly understood, he certainly did not weaken 
 them. When our modern materialists tell us 
 that we know nothing excei't matter and its 
 laws, they do in fact destroy the very grounds of 
 knowledge and of certainty. They declare our 
 ignorance of that through which alone we can 
 know anything at all. If there is any knowledge, 
 there is the knowledge of mind ; and if we have 
 the knowledge of mind, then we cannot stop 
 short of recognizing the mind which works in 
 what we call the laws of Nature. 
 
 We are contented with this line of argument, 
 
li, 
 
 
 T//E INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM. 1 75 
 
 and wc believe it is conclusive; but we arc not 
 contented to ignore other elements in man's 
 constitution. When we spoke of the true nature 
 of a full and liberal human culture, wc at- 
 tempted to show how insufficient was every pro- 
 vision for that purpose which did not include 
 the knowledge of God. The thought might be 
 carried further. We might apply it to the facts 
 of human history and human experience in all 
 the extent of their significance. 
 
 Man is a worshipper. lie has always wor- 
 shipped. He cannot help worshipping. If he 
 cannot find God, he will fashion an idol and fall 
 down before the work of his hands. And what 
 does materialistic science offer him in place of 
 God? An absolute, unknown, and unknowable 
 Force. Can he worship thus : — 
 
 " We praise Thee, O Eternal Force : wc acknowledge Thee to 
 be unsearchable. 
 All the earth doth worship Thee, the Absolute, the Un- 
 knowable " .' 
 
 Ho\v, wc must ask again, will it help the con- 
 science and the will to be told to fall in with the 
 " stream of tendency that makes for righteous- 
 ness," or to cultivate " a morality touched with 
 emotion "? 
 
 But there is something darker and deadlier 
 still to remember as the outcome of this de- 
 grading theory which turns life into death, and 
 shuts the gates of immortality before the long- 
 ing eyes of us poor children of a day. It is not 
 
 ,1 
 
 4- 
 
 
 
 ill 
 
 i ' ■■;■ 
 
 I }\\ 
 

 '•J , 
 
 1^1 
 
 '^" I, 
 
 ^s 
 
 1 
 
 
 llli 
 
 
 i;6 
 
 WITNESS :S TO CHRIST. 
 
 merely, as has already been pointed out, that 
 it takes away ono great motive for moral effort, 
 and changes the whole character of man's life 
 and work on earth. There is something in- 
 volved in it even worse than this. It is the 
 destruction of the hope in which is rooted a 
 chief part of the joy of living. It is the brooding 
 of that hopelessness over the family of man which 
 results, and necessarily results, in the dark de- 
 spair of pessimism, the most blighting faith or 
 unfaith that the world has ever known, 
 
 God is the necessary cJkI universal postulate 
 of all human life and thought and action. He 
 is the ground of all our knowledge ; for all 
 thought becomes confused when lie is banished 
 or ignored. He is the root of the moral nature, 
 the conscience, the will; for right and wrong 
 have no real meaning if there is no God, and the 
 j conscience is left to struggle with the perplexity 
 caused by a voice speaking with authority from 
 within, which yet can give no account of any 
 lawful source from which it derives its sanctions. 
 No one pretends that the " hypothesis of God " 
 explains all the mysteries or removes all the 
 difficulties whicli are found in human history, 
 l^ut it does at least help to introduce something 
 like unity into the multiplicity of movements, 
 mental and physical, in which we have our ovvn 
 place and action ; even if it also brings us face 
 to face with other difficulties which do not 
 emerge in a system which knows no God. 
 
THE INSUFFICIENCY '■ MATERIALISM. I'JJ 
 
 Yes, it must be admitted that the existence of 
 a personal God does involve difficulties in view 
 of the actual condition of the world and man. 
 But here, again, we have a way of escape and a 
 door of hope opened to us. If we knew only of 
 the God who is revealed to us in Nature and in 
 history, we should indeed be perplexed and doubt- 
 ful and anxious in regard to our own destiny, 
 and that of our fellow-men. But the existence 
 of a p< rsonal God may well suggest to us the 
 possibility of some higher disclosure of His 
 mind than that which is found in the natural 
 order. 
 
 And what is there to hinder our belief in such 
 a revelation? A freethinking deistical writer 
 some years ago attempted to pour derision upon 
 what he called contemptuously a Book Rev- 
 elation, asserting that God did sufficientlv re- 
 veal Himself in the heart and life of man, 
 and that no other revelation was necessary or 
 credible. 
 
 Whether any further revelation is necessary is 
 a question which is sufficiently answered, one 
 might suppose, by the nations of the world who 
 make no claim to possess such revelation. No 
 one will pretend that in any place or time men 
 stand in no need of further illumination. Nor 
 is it strictly accurate to speak of the Christian 
 system as a Book Revelation. God was mani- 
 fest in the flesh. It was a revelation, in its 
 highest form and expression, in a human life. 
 
 12 
 
 
 AtvM-fi. . rti 
 
 r 
 
 
 \ :. 
 
 
 ( ■•■ '. '»l 
 
 m 
 
 
178 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 And if it be said that we are here entering 
 boldly into the region of what is called " super- 
 natural religion," we reply that there is no other 
 religion but the supernatural; for religion has 
 to do with God, and God is above Nature. 
 And he who believes in a personal God may 
 well believe that He will reveal Himself to His 
 creatures. 
 
 On this point, happily, there is now little dis- 
 pute. If there is no God, of course a miracle is 
 inconceivable. If wc are to accept the panthe- 
 istic theory, which is only materialism or atheism 
 in another form, then too a miracle is as little to 
 be thought of. But if the world is ruled and 
 governed by an intelligent, conscious, voluntary 
 Being, who knows His creatures and can hold 
 communion with them, then miracles — super- 
 natural testimonies to the presence, mind, work- 
 ing, of God among men — are neither impossible 
 nor improbable. 
 I Such a revelation, such a supernatural mani- 
 1 festation of Himself, we believe that God has 
 I given, communicating to mankind thereby a 
 knowledge of Himself so high, so pure, so full, 
 t that in comparison with it all other knowledge 
 is but ignorance. " No man knowcth the Father 
 but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal 
 Him." Blessed are our eyes, for they sec this 
 glorious manifestation of the Most High God, 
 ;Blesscd are our cans, for they hear the message 
 of love and mercy which comes to us from the 
 
THE INSUFFICIENCY OF MATERIALISM. 1 79 
 
 lips of the Crucified, the Raised, the Glorified. 
 May our hearts be opened to receive His grace ! 
 May we never turn a deaf ear to His offers! 
 " Lord, to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the 
 words of eternal life." 
 
 I- 
 
 m 
 
 » 
 
 n i 
 
 
 
H-" 
 
 III 
 
 
 I 
 
 IS. l».. ! ;'!') 
 
 r'n ' if 
 
 \ } i 
 
 l!|i 
 
 iiil 
 
 I :|li 
 
 
 LECTURE VI. 
 
 THE PESSIMISM OF THE AGE. 
 
 Connection between Faith and Action. — Different Tendencies 
 in Human Nature explain tiie Origin of Pessimism and 
 Optimism. — Meaning of these Terms. — Views of Jews, 
 Greelvs, and Romans. — Christian View. — Sentiment of 
 Deism. — lluddhism. — I. Modern Pessimism, — Leopardi, 
 Schopenhauer, Hartmann ; Leopardi's three jiossible Ways 
 of Happiness; Schopenhauer's Theory. — II. What we are to 
 think of Pessimism. — i. Effort not necessarily productive 
 of Unhappincss; 2. Pleasure not merely Negative ; 3. The 
 Development and Elevation of Life not a mere Increase 
 of Misery. — Increased Sensibility and Intelligence also a 
 Source of Happiness. — Testimonies of lnstin:;t and Rea- 
 son. — The Rei)ly of Pessimism: Men deceive themselves. 
 — The Rejoinder of Consciousness. — A Future Life. — 
 HI. How can we account for Pessimism.' — Partly the 
 Result of Temperament and Constitution, i)artly of the 
 Circumstances of Individuals and Communities. — Chief 
 Cause found in the State of Religious Pelief. — Condition 
 of Crcrmanv. — Pessimism can flourish only on the Ruins of 
 Faith. — E.xamples of Faith and Unbelief. — The Gospel 
 and Agnosticism. — Deism. — Atheism — Pessimism the 
 last Word of Positivism. — Conclusion. 
 
 A 
 
 WRITER, to some of whose theories atten- 
 tion will be given in the present lecture, 
 has declared that a man's faith cannot be wrong 
 if his life is right. 
 
 " For forms of faith let graceless bigots fight ; 
 His can't be wrong wh'>i;e life is in the right." 
 
THE PESSIMISM OF THE AGE. 
 
 I8l 
 
 And some have ^one still further, and have pro- 
 fessed to rej^ard all beliefs as unimportant, as 
 having no necessary effect upon conduct. A 
 man may be an atheist or a Christian, they 
 argue; but this need make no difference in the 
 principles by which he guides his life. Belief 
 in a Supreme ]3eing or in the Christian reli- 
 gion is not necessary in order to a well-ordered 
 manner of living. 
 
 Whatever allowance may have to be made for 
 the inconsistencies of professing Christians, we 
 arc confident that no one who really examines 
 with any care the consequences of faith and un- 
 belief in human history will consider these con- 
 clusions to be tenable. On the contrary, we 
 shall find the whole social system of particular 
 countries and localities colored by the dominant 
 religious belief; we shall find particular ages 
 and epochs of the world profoundly affected by 
 the theological and metaphysical opinions which 
 had chief influence in those periods. It is be- 
 cause we entertain this conviction, and particu- 
 larly because we believe the disease ot pessimism^ 
 to be a malady of the present day, produced 
 by the peculiar character of the prevalent 
 form of unbelief, that we have chosen it as a 
 
 ^ On this subject M. Caro published an interesting set of 
 papers in the " Rc;vue cics Deux Moiidcs," which were after- 
 wards collected and published in one volume. I am sor.-y that 
 I was unable to procure Mr. Sully's work on Pessimism, as it 
 was out of print. 
 
 \\\ 
 
 ! '!f!j 
 
 ^1 
 
 f I 
 
 it 
 
 f! 
 
 
 J. 
 
) 
 
 li 
 
 
 1 Ml 
 
 
 III 
 
 ill 
 
 lii 
 
 182 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 subject to be discussed in the present series of 
 lectures. 
 
 We shall find some explanation of the origin 
 of pessimism and of its opposite in the different 
 tendencies of human nature which are visible, 
 more or less, in every era of its history, — the 
 tendency, on the one hand, to make the best of 
 everything, and the opposite tendency to make 
 the worst of everything. These tendencies seem 
 to arise from various causes ; to be generated, 
 in fact, sometimes by natural constitution and 
 temperament, sometimes by the state of a man's 
 health, sometimes by the favorable or adverse 
 circumstances in which he is placed. They pro- 
 duce different theories of human life, — theories 
 which arc modified in various ways, but which 
 may be generally described as the theories of 
 Optimism and Pessimism. 
 
 When a man says he is an o£tiniist, he means 
 cither that everything is actually as good as it can 
 be, — and this is the extreme form of the theory ; 
 or else that everything is working out a result 
 which on the whole will be the best possible, — 
 and this is perhaps the more ordinary form. 
 When a man says he is a pessimist, he means 
 that everything is very bad, — not perhaps the 
 worst that can be, for then it could be no worse, 
 and he holds that things are growing worse and 
 worse ; but that mere existence ,is an evil, and 
 that any good which may be connected with it 
 docs not constitute its main character, but is 
 
THE PESSIMISM OF THE AGE. 
 
 183 
 
 \ 
 
 simply a slight alleviation of its general misery, 
 some feeble streaks of light breaking the monot- 
 ony of its gloom. 
 
 The general belief of the ancients — Jews, 
 Greeks, and Romans — was a species of opti- 
 mism. They believed that man was made for 
 happiness ; and further, they believed that 
 men might be happy and were happy unless 
 this natural result were hindered by some ad- 
 verse power. The Jew had for his possession 
 a land flowing with milk and honey. He had 
 the promise that he should eat the good of the 
 land, and sit in peace " under the vine and un- 
 der the fig-tree." If it were otherwise with him, 
 it was because he had fallen away from the God 
 of Israel. 
 
 The Greek and the Roman had the same con- 
 viction that his normal condition was one of en- 
 joyment. If he suffered in mind, body, or estate, 
 it was through the action of some offended deity 
 whom he must propitiate, or through the in- 
 fluence of some envious or malicious being whom 
 he must reconcile or appease. In the optimism 
 of the ancients, as perhaps we must say in all 
 unmitigated optimism,* there is a degree of 
 onesidcdncss and shallowness. Even if in its 
 main principle it is right, it excludes or ignores 
 a considerable portion of the facts of man's life; 
 it takes no account of its darker aspects, which, 
 nevertheless, are as real as its brighter. One 
 1 See Hartmann's remarks, c|uotcd in Note G. 
 
 ♦1 
 
 It* 
 
 »» 
 
 ■*«* 
 
 
 ! 
 
 n 
 
 ■St 
 
 K 
 
 W, 
 
 vm 
 
 11 
 
 ii 
 
t III 
 
 I'll 
 
 ! I 
 
 
 " ;. fell 
 
 I i.i 
 Mil 
 
 i 
 
 J 
 
 
 'i 
 
 
 
 i| 
 
 ; 111 
 
 i 
 
 t ■ !^ 
 
 1' 
 
 L 
 
 
 184 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 feels keenly the wide separation, in this respect, 
 between Paganism and Christianity. The pagan 
 ideal is the Apollo, radiant with health and 
 strength and beauty and hope. The Christian 
 ideal is the Man of sorrows, acquainted with 
 grief, His face marred more than any man's. 
 There can be no doubt that the Christian ideal 
 is the truer, the deeper, the more tender, and 
 that which exercises the most powerful in- 
 fluence over the heart and mind of man. 
 
 It would be a strange, an inexcusable mistake, 
 however, to suppose that the Gospel, even in its 
 saddest aspects, encourages the theory of pessi- 
 mism. The cross is but the way to the crown. 
 Christianity cannot, and will not, ignore the facts 
 of human life, — its sinfulness, guilt, and misery. 
 . Where sin is, there must be suffering. The 
 penalty lies upon the sinful individual, upon 
 the sinful race. All have sinned, and all must 
 suffer, — most of all, that One who answers for 
 all who partake of that nature which lie has 
 assumed ; but, with the Gospel, this suffering is 
 transitional. "Weeping may endure for a night, 
 but joy Cometh in the morning." Those who 
 come weeping to the grave find it empty ; those 
 who ask after the buried Master are seeking for 
 the living among the dead. He is not there ; 
 He is risen. 
 
 Consequently, all true Christian philosophy, 
 although it has never overlooked the terrible 
 character and effects of sin, has ever spoken of 
 
THE PESSIMISM OF THE AGE. 
 
 185 
 
 man's destiny in a hopeful tone. Even the more 
 pensive spirits, the AuL^iistines and the Pascals, 
 who sometimes seem almost to revel in their 
 melancholy, never re^jard evil as a necessity, 
 as a lazv, and therefore never ai)proximatc to 
 pessimism. Human sin and misery, in their 
 judgment, is the result of alienation from God, 
 and is to be healed by reconciliation to God. 
 Man is to be restored by grace. In the Gospel 
 the element of hope separates it off absolutely 
 and entirely from pessimism, which is simply 
 the doctrine of despair. 
 
 Christian philosoph}' must always, then, in its 
 prevailing tone be optimist; and the same may 
 be said of every philosophy which believes in 
 a personal God. Such was the prevailing tone 
 of thoucrht with all classes of thinkers in the 
 eighteenth century. l^elievcrs, sceptics, un- 
 believers alike, — most of the last were deists, 
 and not atheists, — were optimists, and gener- 
 ally of a very pronounced kind. Many of them 
 held not merely that a good time was coming, 
 that all things were working for good, but that 
 all things were good. " Whatever is, is right; " 
 and this aphorism they sometimes charged with 
 a meaning which was certainly not Christian. 
 
 To .this school, generally, belonged the poet'! /^.'u *^<^'' 
 Pope; the freethinkers Voltaire and Rousseau,^{%j :^►.^*<.^ 
 with slight differences of opinion in detail; and, 
 to a great extent, the illustrious Christian apolo- 
 gist Paley. The most eminent philosophical j( 
 
 ^J 
 
 'If 
 
 4*. 
 
 ill 
 
 k 
 
 .1. } 
 
 '■\\\ 
 
 - ; : - 
 
 • ]: 
 
 -: \ 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 // 
 
 
 £y A^4^. 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 '" ly 1122 
 2.0 
 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 6" - 
 
 
 ► 
 
 V] 
 
 <^ 
 
 /} 
 
 A 
 
 
 ffi 
 
 'V 
 
 f* 
 
 '/ 
 
 ■^ 
 
 I 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 33 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. )4S80 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 ^V 
 
 "% 
 
 V 
 
 4? 
 
 A'' 
 
 <^/«V<> 
 
 6^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 <h 
 
 X" 
 

 
 C/j 
 
 gr 
 ^b- 
 
 
1 86 
 
 WITNESSES TO C///^/ST. 
 
 iii.kii 
 
 Ji'h 
 
 ^1.4 
 
 I ! 
 
 expounder of optimism was Leibnitz, who in his 
 "Th^odiccc" declared that "the world, as it is, 
 is the best of all possible worlds." This is the 
 doctrine of Pope in his •' Essay on Man:" — 
 
 "All nature is but art, unknown to thee; 
 All chance, direction which thou canst not see; 
 All discord, harmony not understood ; 
 All partial evil, universal good ; 
 And spite of pride, in erring reason's spite, 
 One truth is clear, Whatever is, is right." 
 
 Statements so broad were susceptible of many 
 explanations, and might be true or false as they 
 were understood. To those who believe in 
 moral good or evil, in right and wrong, many 
 things are which are not right, — that is to say, 
 absolutely and in themselves right ; to those 
 whc. believe i . a personal God, who is Creator, 
 Preserver, Ruler, Benefactor, Lover of all, there 
 is a sense in which all is and must be relatively 
 right, — in such a sense, we mean, that, on the 
 whole, it is better that things should be as they 
 are than that they should not be ; that, on the 
 whole, creation and existence will prove not to 
 have been an evil, but a good, for the manifes- 
 tation of the glory of the Creator in the secur- 
 ing of good for the created. 
 
 Even Rousseau could see that some such 
 principles as these must constitute the belief 
 of theists. "The true principles of optimists," 
 he says, ** can be deduced neither from the 
 properties of matter nor from the mechanism 
 
THE PESSIMISM OF THE AGE. 
 
 187 
 
 of the universe, but only from the perfections 
 of God, who presides over all ; so that the ex- 
 istence of God is not proved by the system of 
 Pope, but the system of Pope by the existence 
 of God." 
 
 We have spoken of the ancient nations of the 
 West and of the Hebrews as being optimist. 
 Farther cast we come into contact with a dif- 
 ferent tendency, which finds its extreme expres- 
 sion m Buddhism. According to this religion, 
 if it can be called a religion, existence is the 
 great evil ; and everything which tends to in- 
 crease the sum of conscious being is to be 
 discouraged and resisted. It is desire which 
 produces existence. Desire is born of the per- 
 ception of the illusory forms of being; and 
 these arc so many effects of ignorance. It is 
 ignorance, therefore, which is the first cause of 
 all that seems to exist. To know this igno- 
 rance is, at the same time, to destroy its effects. 
 The supreme knowledge for man, then, is the 
 ceasing to deceive himself. It is, at the same 
 time, the supreme deliverance, which has four 
 degrees, successively passed through by the dy- 
 ing Buddha: (i) To know th'^: nature and the 
 vanity of all things; (2) To destroy in one's 
 self judgment and reason ; (3) To attain to 
 absolute indiftcrcnce; (4) Finally, to annihi- 
 late all pleasure, all memory, all consciousness. 
 This is the state known as Nirz^dua, in which 
 every light is extinguished, every idea is gone; 
 
11 
 
 
 J I I' 
 
 m 
 
 1 88 
 
 WITNESSES TO CNR/ST. 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 in which, as has been well said, there is neither 
 idea nor absence of ideas, there is nothing. 
 Modem pessimism bears the closest possible 
 resemblance to Buddhism. It starts from the 
 same ori<^in, — the absolute worthlessness of hu- 
 man life and of all existence ; it seeks the same 
 end, — the total extinction of. desire, of feeling, 
 of all conscious existence. It is an evil to be, — 
 the higher the degree of existence, the greater 
 the evil ; therefore the highest good is that 
 being should cease. It is contended by some 
 that Nin'dna does not involve annihilation. To 
 a Western mind, at least, the difference is un- 
 intelligible and inconceivable. 
 
 I. The first apostle of modern pessimism was 
 the Italian poet Leopardi. He was a man of 
 noble birth, apparently of spotless life, and en- 
 dowed with many estimable qualities. But his 
 bodily health was weak, — he was through life 
 a great sufferer, — he was disappointed of some 
 of his dearest hopes, and he fell under the 
 influence of a monk who had apostatized from 
 the Christian faith. Although Leopardi seems 
 to have died with some kind of belief, seeing 
 that he received the last offices of the Church, 
 it is evident that through life he was entirely 
 destitute of anything that could properly be 
 called faith in Christ or in God. Morbid, 
 suffering, disappointed, disbelieving, his only 
 refuge was a philosophy of despair. Although 
 his German fellow-laborer in the same cause, 
 
 ! 
 
 |i"! 
 
THE PESSIMISM OF THE AGE. 
 
 189 
 
 Schopenhauer, began his work about the same 
 time, seventy years ago (181 8), Leopardi was 
 the first to become widely known, and to dif- 
 fuse the theories which are now most closely 
 associated with the name of Schopenhauer. 
 
 Leopardi, like Sakya Mounij the founder of 
 Buddhism, held that the great evil was exist- 
 ence. But he and, in a greater degree, his 
 successors have given a scientific form to a 
 theory which, with the Oriental mystic, was 
 like an intuitive conviction, and not a reasoned 
 belief. "All," says Leopardi, "is a secret, ex- 
 cept our sorrow." ^ " Our life," he says again, — 
 "what is its worth, except to be despised?"^ 
 And this, which was his own deepest conviction, 
 he seeks to demonstrate by an examination of 
 the various possible sources of happiness. 
 
 There are, it is said, three conceivable ways 
 of happiness: it may be found in the world as 
 it is ; it may be looked for in the world to 
 come ; it may be labored for and prepared 
 on behalf of mture generations when the world 
 shall be better than it is now. These statements 
 are very general. A Christian would refuse to 
 have these sources of happiness separated ; he 
 would insist on blending them, instead of rely- 
 ing upon any one of them by itself. But the 
 pessimist is quite right in saying that, if there 
 
 ^ " Arcino c tutto 
 Fuor che i! nostro dolor." 
 2 " Nostra vita a che val! Sulo a sprcgiarla " , 
 
iiiii 
 
 III! 
 lilif 
 
 ■ t': 
 
 111:1 
 
 II 
 
 190 
 
 WITNESSES TO C/fRIST. 
 
 is no reality in the happiness promised by any 
 one of these ways, then the hope of happiness is 
 a delusion. 
 
 Lcopardi sets to work to show that none of 
 these ways of happiness has any reality. (O As 
 regards the present, he says he has tried it and 
 found it empty. The last illusion is gone, he 
 says. Hope has left him ; even desire is stilled. 
 " And now," he says to his heart, " be at rest 
 forever; thou hast palpitated long enough. 
 Nothing here is worthy of thy throbbings ; this 
 world deserves no sigh." It is the language of 
 utter failure, disappointment, despair. 
 
 But perhaps (2) the future of humanity on 
 earth may offer something better. There is a 
 present joy in toiling for a future good. The 
 noble heart bears its own pain and grief willingly 
 when it thinks of the glorious future which it is 
 helping to work out for the race to which it 
 belongs. But even this, he says, is an illusion. 
 If man's existence was ever tolerable, it was 
 when he was as the beast that perishes. What 
 we call progress is only increase of misery. He 
 that increascth what is called knowledge only 
 increaseth sorrow. Culture has only added to 
 our wretchedness by making us acquainted with 
 the hopelessness of our condition. The best 
 thing that could have happened would have 
 been that we should not exist at all ; the next 
 best thing is that we should cease to exist. 
 
 But (3) there is a third way. There may be 
 
 
 31 'I 
 
THE PESSIMISM OF THE AGE. 
 
 191 
 
 happiness in a future world, and men may bear 
 much here for the sake of the eternal glory into 
 which they shall enter hereafter. To this the 
 Pessimist can only reply that there is no here- 
 after. Yet he is not quite sure of this. But at 
 least he recognizes no duty to the future. Self- 1 
 destruction he holds to be perfectly lawful, i 
 Once or twice he was on the point of commit- 
 ting suicide, but his regard for others pre- 
 vented him from inflicting additional suffering 
 upon them. Besides, he was otherwise incon- 
 sistent in shrinking at the prospect of death. 
 He fled to escape the approach of cholera ; so 
 that existence did not then appear to him as 
 an unmitigated evil. 
 
 The moral of this terrible system is not far to 
 seek, and we shall have presently to indicate it 
 more distinctly. We must now, ^^owever, pass 
 from Leopardi to a name much better known 
 and of far wider and deeper influence, — that of 
 the German, Arthur Schopenhauer. 
 
 As far as regards their general view of human 
 life, the system of Schopenhauer and of his 
 greatest disciple and successor, Hartmann, is 
 substantially the same as that of Leopardi. In 
 their view also, existence is an evil ; life is not 
 worth living ; those who assist in propagating 
 the species are the greatest enemies of their 
 kind. The best thing that could be done for it, 
 the most merciful, the kindest thing, would be 
 to extinguish the whole race, not by a universal 
 
 1 
 
ill 
 
 il 
 
 Sill 
 
 :r HI! 
 
 II. t 
 
 ii.Ji 
 .1, iJ.i 
 
 I I-, 
 
 li );, 
 .1 I,'"' 
 
 it 
 
 liil 
 
 I m\ 
 
 0>h, 
 
 m 
 
 ,(1 t! 
 
 Sill' 
 
 
 
 f 
 
 i-*'! 
 
 
 
 
 "4j 
 
 
 _ ^ 
 
 
 192 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 suicide, which would seem to be the speediest 
 mode of escape, but by a voluntary asceticism, 
 deliberately chosen from the settled conviction 
 that there is nothing in the world that a man 
 ought to care for, and therefore the highest wis- 
 dom is pure indifference and absolute insensi- 
 bility. It is, as we have said, Buddhism over 
 again. The highest perfection is Nirvdna, — 
 the destruction of thought, desire, feeling, con- 
 scious being. 
 
 In this respect the Italian poet and the Ger- 
 man philosophers are in complete agreement. 
 The difference between them lies in this, that 
 Leopardi's opinions were the outcome of his 
 own temperament and circumstances, and his 
 illustration of them was drawn chiefly from the 
 obvious facts of experience, while Schopenhauer 
 and Hartmann have endeavored to elaborate a 
 philosophical system. With these systems we 
 shall here deal no further than our subject de- 
 mands. Most of us probably will be willing to 
 confess that we do not understand them and 
 never shall. But there is no special difficulty in 
 making out their theory of pessimism. 
 
 It has already been remarked that the great 
 Leibnitz was an optimist, perhaps an extreme 
 optimist; and optimism was the prevailing the- 
 ory in Germany during the last century and 
 at the beginning of the present. Before the 
 time of Schopenhauer there had, it is true, been 
 some scattered utterances showing some trees 
 
THE FESSIMISM OF THE ACE. 
 
 193 
 
 of a darker tendency. Fichtc, for example, bad 
 said that tlie actual world was the worst of all 
 possible worlds; but this did not represent, as 
 in the case of Schopenhauer, his deliberate 
 judgment- Schelling had declared that sorrow 
 and sufferini; were necessary elements in human 
 life; and expressions of a similar character may 
 be found in Kant and his successors. 
 
 liut the kind of pessimism, if it may be so 
 called, which was countenanced by these writers, 
 had very little affmity with the systems we are 
 now considcrinL^, and hardly went furtlier than 
 many Christians are inclined to '^o. There are 
 many believers in the Gospel of Jesus Christ 
 who regard this world as a mere vale of tears, 
 full of sorrow and suffering and weeping and 
 lamentation. There arc many who think it is 
 going from bad to worse day after da}', and that 
 all prospect of improving is so much worse than 
 uncertain that any effort in that direction is 
 wasted labor. But such persons, be they right 
 or wrong, are not pessimists in the present sense 
 of the word. They believe that there is a bet- 
 ter life in a perfect world beyond the present; 
 they believe tliat all things are working together 
 for good, and that, whatever the end may be, it 
 will result in the promotion of the glory of God, 
 in the manifestation of His infinite and eternal 
 perfections. Such a belief, whatever form it 
 may take, is obviously a species of optimism. 
 
 The pessimism of Schopenhauer is absolute 
 
 n 
 
'ri 
 
 194 
 
 ly/TNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 \\. I 
 
 ■A. 1,'" 
 
 
 irlt 
 
 and deadly, and it is carefully reasoned. Ac- 
 cording to him, all suffering and all evil is from 
 the Will. By the will he means something 
 widely different from that self-determining fac- 
 ulty in man which is generally recognized as the 
 basis of his responsibility. He means almost 
 exactly what scientific men mean by the word 
 Force ; for, according to him, the principle of 
 will h a blind and unconscious desire of life, — 
 a desire which arises in some inexplicable man- 
 ner, and determines the character of all kinds 
 of being, through all the various stages of 
 existence. 
 
 This blind force, or will, develops itself first in 
 inorganic Nature, then in the vegetable world, 
 next in the animal world, and finally it arrives 
 at consciousness in man. And thus it becomes 
 the principle of suffering and misery. Evil had 
 existed before, but it was felt rather than known. 
 It is in man that a full consciousness of suffering 
 is realized. To him, above all other creatures, 
 life involves effort, and effort is suffering. He 
 cannot help putting forth these efforts; neces- 
 sity constrains him to do it. But the need is 
 not perfectly satisfied ; and even when it seems 
 to be so, the satisfaction is an illusion, and leads 
 to new needs and new sorrows. " The life of 
 man," as he puts it, " is but a struggle for ex- 
 istence, with the certainty of being vanquished." 
 Hence he draws these two conclusions : (i) That 
 all pleasure is negative, and suffering alone is 
 
THE PESSIMISM OF THE AGE. 
 
 195 
 
 I IS 
 
 positive ; (2) That the more human intelligence 
 increases, the more is man sensible to suffering; 
 in other words, that what is called i)rogress is but 
 the sure means of increasing human misery. 
 
 From all this there can be but one inference ; 
 namely, that it is the duty of every man, if 
 any such thing as duty can any longer be as- 
 sumed, to devise means for the extinction of 
 that existence whose only positive possession 
 is suffering, and whose advancement in all that 
 constitutes what we call culture and civiliza- 
 tion can mean only an increase of hopeless 
 wretchedness. 
 
 What arc we to think of this system? Whence 
 docs it come? To what will it lead? How 
 arc we to deal with it? These are questions 
 which we cannot afford to neglect. Pessimism 
 has, up to the present time, obtained no solid 
 footing in ICngland or America; but it has be- \ 
 come a raging epidemic in Germany, and from 
 thence it is spreading to France and Italy, and 
 indeed there are not wanting signs that it has 
 infected many among ourselves. I 
 
 II. What are we to think of pessimism as 
 regards the truth of its main principles? Is it 
 true that effort produces misery only, or chiefly? 
 Is it true that our misery is something positive, 
 while our pleasure is merely negative? Does 
 the progress of the species mean essentially 
 the increase of misery? These are primary 
 questions. 
 
 : 
 
 
I 
 
 <"K 
 
 iiiiij 
 
 |. I:. 
 
 •Pitt: 
 
 |l!lf 
 
 '"■ ! 
 "i: 
 
 Ml:,, 
 '1*1 
 
 III 
 
 Mill 
 
 196 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 I. In the first place, wc admit that life involves 
 the putting forth of force, cncrj^y, will ; and that 
 life like ours involves conscious effort. This is 
 perfectly clear, But is it so clear that effort 
 brings in its train nothing but suffering, or that 
 the pleasure which accompanies it is merely 
 negative? This is a question which appeals to 
 human experience, and which can be answered 
 in no other way. Wc have no hesitation in 
 affirming that the testimony of experience is 
 precisely the reverse of what the pessimist 
 affirms. Experience tells us that effort is a 
 pleasure, a joy. 
 
 Make what deductions you please, in the ob- 
 stacles which we encounter while we seek to 
 reach our ends, in the difficulty of triumphing 
 over those obstacles, in the fatigue which results 
 from the efforts which are made; these deduc- 
 tions will never serve to neutralize the pleasure 
 of effort, the joy of the struggle, to the worker, 
 the combatant, the athlete. Nay, in those very 
 difficulties he finds a new source of joy and 
 delight. At the presence of obstacles his spirit 
 is stirred and braced for the encounter; in the 
 most strenuous endeavors to succeed there may 
 indeed be pain, but there mingles with it the 
 keenest pleasure ; and as regards the fatigue 
 resulting from efifoit, who is there that has really 
 known the sweetness of rest and repose without 
 having first experienced the pain of toil and the 
 sense of weariness and fatigue? 
 
 I 3 
 
 i 
 
THE PESSIMISM OF THE AGE. 
 
 197 
 
 Nor do these elements of pleasure complete 
 the circle. The laborer is urf^ed on by the 
 prospect of success. The joy which is set be- 
 fore him enables him to make light of the pain 
 which he cnclures; and he is even more nobly 
 sustained by the sense of duty, which adds 
 the approval of conscience as the best and 
 highest element in the satisfaction which he 
 experiences. 
 
 This is not a question which can be settled by 
 speculation ; it is a sitn[)le question of experi- 
 ence, and we may appeal not only to the litera- 
 ture of all ages, but to the life of all ages. 
 Effort is not always produced by sheer neces- 
 sity; it is itself an instinctive product of life; 
 it is put forth out of an inward necessity, and 
 it is the source of true enjoyment to man. 
 Here wc arc touching the very foundation of 
 the subject. If the system is wrong here, it is 
 radically wrong, and no correctness in details 
 can justify it as a system. Let us, however, 
 pass on to the subordinate principles of the 
 theory. 
 
 2. According to Schopenhauer, pleasure, where 
 it exists, is only negative ; pain alone is positive. 
 A state of pain is, in fact, man's normal condi- 
 tion ; and pleasure is but the momentary ces- 
 sation of pain, the suspension of the suffering 
 which is the habitual attendant of existence. 
 Effort, suffering, death, — this is the positive 
 history of mankind. 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 
iiiiy 
 
 1' 'Vtf 
 
 It 
 
 nil 
 
 III!"* 
 11 III 
 
 Ihiil: 
 
 11 
 
 i;l 
 
 i;l 
 
 198 
 
 WITNISSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 It ought to be noticed that Hartmann here 
 dissents from his master. He points out, in 
 fact, that Schopenhauer makes as great a mistake 
 on the one side as Leibnitz had done on the 
 other. According to Leibnitz, pain was a mere 
 negation of pleasure, which alone was positive. 
 This was an evident paradox. If human con- 
 sciousness is worth anything, — if it be worth 
 nothing, it is of no use discussing these or any 
 other questions. of the same kind, — if human 
 consciousness is vvor«-h anything, then pain is 
 often something very positive, and not a mere 
 negation of pleasure. 
 
 But, on the other hand, Schopenhauer equally 
 contradicted conscious experience when he re- 
 fused a positive character to pleasure. There 
 are undoubtedly pleasures which are, in a sense, 
 negative. There are pleasures of which we may 
 be said to be habitually unconscious, of the ex- 
 istence of which we are made aware only when 
 we are subjected to pain more or less acute. It 
 is when that pain obtains alleviation that the 
 negative pleasure becomes for a moment, as it 
 were, positive, and we are made fully conscious 
 of the privilege which in that respect we en- 
 joyed. But it is equally certain that there are 
 pleasures which are obviously and undoubtedly 
 positive, which are not mere intervals between 
 attacks of pain, — pleasures which may vanish 
 without any consciousness of evil or pain com- 
 ing in their place. If these are not positive, we 
 
 
 81 'lis 
 
 '*»-,. 
 
THE PESSIMISM OF THE AGE. 
 
 199 
 
 confess \vc do not know the meaning of the 
 word. The determination of this question, when 
 it is once clearly stated, may safely be left to 
 the common sense of mankind. 
 
 3. One other point of detail remains, — namely, 
 the assertion that life is a misery and an evil in 
 proportion to its development and elevation. 
 This notion is a natural inference from the the- 
 ory that life in itself is an evil. If so, then, 
 of course, the more abundant the life, the 
 greater the evil of existence. Pain begins with 
 sensation, — it may be difficult to say where, 
 because it is difficult to detect the first traces 
 of sensation ; but there is no doubt that, as 
 organization becomes more perfect and more 
 refined, the organized being becomes more in- 
 tensely conscious of pain, more keenly alive to 
 every cause by which pain may be produced. 
 
 Here at least, then, the pessimist is, super- 
 ficially at least, in the right. Man suffers far 
 more acutely than the mere animal. Shake- j 
 speare, if we may venture thus to speak of one • 
 so great, was clearly mistaken when he said that 
 the harmless beetle that we tread upon feels a 
 pang as great as when a giant dies. And it is 
 not merely that man's sensations are far keener 
 than those of the mere animal : he has sources of 
 suffering to which the brute creation are stran- 
 gers, lie feels at the moment more keenly than 
 the animal; but, as has been well said, " he eter- 
 nizes pain by memory, he anticipates it by his 
 
11 
 
 200 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 foresight, he multiplies it incalculably by his 
 imagination : he docs not, like the animal, suffer 
 only in the present; he torments himself by the 
 past and future, to say nothing of that vast con- 
 tingent of moral pains of which the animal has 
 no experience." ^ 
 
 To this extent, of course, the pessimist is 
 right. Man does suffer in many ways that do 
 not touch the mere animal. And if pessimism 
 had gone no further, we should here have had 
 no controversy with it. The differences even 
 between man and man, in respect of sensibility, 
 are astonishing. In the lower types of human- 
 ity men will bear injuries to the body which 
 would positively madden those who belong to 
 the higher types. It is clear, then, that there is 
 the closest connection between man's sensitive- 
 ness to pain and his intellectual development. 
 
 Must we then, in asserting these facts, admit 
 the inferences which are deduced from them by 
 pessimists? Are we bound to say, that, because 
 increased intelligence is associated with a finer 
 organization and therefore with increased lia- 
 bility to suffering, therefore intelligence is an 
 
 <i*ii. 
 
 1 This tliought is finely expressed by Burns in his "Address 
 to a Mouse : " — 
 
 " Still thou art hlest compared wi' mc I 
 The present only toucheth thcc : 
 But, oh I I backward cast my e'e 
 
 On prospects drear I 
 An' forward, tho' I canna see 
 
 I guess an' fear ! " 
 
THE PESSIMISM OF THE AGE. 
 
 :oi 
 
 evil and nothing else; that the lower a man is 
 in the scale of civilization, the happier, or rather 
 the less miserable, he is ; that the ordinary com- 
 monplace man is happier than the man of 
 genius, tlie animal than the man, the lowest 
 type of animal than the highest, — in short, that 
 the state of insensibility and unconsciousness is 
 the best of all? As Ilartmann puts it, " Let us 
 think of the happiness in which we see an ox or 
 pig living, or of the happiness of the proverbial 
 fish in the water! Still more enviable than the 
 life of the fish must be that of the oyster, and 
 better still the life of the plant. We go down, 
 in fact, below consciousness, and individual suf- 
 fering disappears with it." 
 
 Such is the logical conclusion of pessimism as 
 expressed by Hartmann ; but it is also the Re- 
 dnctio ad ahsiirduui of the system. There is, in 
 fact, no difficulty in fi.rnishing an answer to it 
 when it is presented to us in this form. It is 
 the answer that sptings instinctively to every 
 man's lips, which bids him protest that it is 
 better to bo a man than a brute. It is, indeed, 
 difficult for us to estimate the relative value of 
 different kinds of pleasure ; yet we know that 
 the higher pleasures have a value altogether in- 
 commensurable with the lower. We do not place 
 them side by side for the sake of comparison, 
 for there is no possibility of comparison betw^een 
 thetn. 
 
 " I suppose," says M. Caro, " that Newton, 
 
:5iKi 
 
 iiiii|„jj 
 
 202 
 
 iVITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 ill 
 
 when he found the exact formula of the law of 
 attraction, condensed into a single moment more 
 of joy than all the gourmands of London can 
 taste in the course of a "hole year in their tav- 
 erns, with their venison pasties and their pots of 
 ale. Pascal was a sufferer throughout the whole 
 of the thirty-nine years during which his life 
 lasted. Can it be imagined that the clear view 
 which he first obtained of the two infinites, which 
 no one until then had grasped so firmly, in their 
 mysterious analogy and in their contrast, — can it 
 be imagined that such a view did not fill this 
 great mind with a happiness proportioned to its 
 greatness, with a joy whose intoxication sur- 
 passed all vulgar joys, and which for a mo- 
 ment suspended all his sufferings? Who would 
 not rather be Shakespeare than Falstaff ? Who 
 would not rather be Molicre than the Bourgeois 
 Gcntilhom-.iie, — that combination of wealth and 
 stupidity?" 
 
 Nor does instinct deceive us in this preference. 
 Reason is unhesitatingly on the same side. It 
 tells us, with a force which leaves no doubt in our 
 minds, that it is better to be a man than to be a 
 hog, because man thinks ; and thought, which is 
 the source of much suffering, is also the source 
 of purer and higher joys than any which are 
 derived from sense. The supreme misery is not 
 to be a man, but, being a man, so to despise 
 one's nature as to regret that one is not a mere 
 animal. It is possible that such regrets may 
 
THE PESSIMISM OF THE ACE. 
 
 203 
 
 exist. There are many whose only ideas of 
 happiness are connected with the gratification 
 of the senses, who are never satisfied except 
 when indulging those appetites which they pos- 
 sess in common with the brutes. It is natural 
 that such men should think the life of the mere 
 animal the best. It is natural that they should 
 despise that higher nature of intelligence and 
 moral consciousness which, even in the most 
 degraded, will sometimes interrupt what they 
 call their enjoyments. But they will find it 
 difficult to convince the mass of their fellow- 
 men that they are right. Even those who 
 are not keenly alive to the highest exercises 
 of the intellect, the heart, the spirit which is 
 akin to the Divinity, will hesitate to sacrifice the 
 purer joys of friendship, affection, social inter- 
 course, for the sake of wallowing in the sty of 
 the sensualist. When this inevitable result of 
 pessimism is once clearly understood, humanity 
 will rise against it. The old assertion of innate 
 human dignity will be put forth : " Homo sum " 
 (I am a man) ; and man is higher and better 
 than the brute that perishes. 
 
 To this protest of man's instincts, reason, con- 
 science, what has pessimism to reply? It can 
 only say that men deceive themselves ; that this 
 notion of their superiority and of the happiness 
 resulting from it is a mere illusion. You are 
 not the happier, you are not the better, for these 
 imagined transports of the intellect, the imagi- 
 
204 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 8 I 
 
 nation, the heart; it is a mere self-deception. 
 You arc the slave of some blind force which is 
 leading you onward, only to leave you at last, 
 freed from your delusions, sunk in a deeper 
 misery. 
 
 There is, in fact, no other escape for pessi- 
 mism. And yet what is this but a pure beg- 
 ging of the question? To conduct an argument 
 proving the utter misery of mankind, and then 
 to deny the testimony of human consciousness, 
 is not to prove that the life of man upon earth is 
 a life of wretchedness, but only that it ought to 
 be. And here the system falls to the ground; 
 its proofs are utterly inadequate to support its 
 conclusions. For the question is not as to the 
 existence of pain, sorrow, and suffering on ( arth, 
 nor even as to the proportion which these bear 
 in the life of man, collective or individual, — 
 for these are questions not easily solved. The 
 question is as to the utter badness, misery, and 
 hopelessness of man's life as it is ; and we re- 
 peat that this is not in any way proved. Men 
 still believe that existence is better than annihi- 
 lation, that the existence of man is better than 
 that of the brute. 
 
 If the pessimist persists in disbelieving this, 
 we ask for the source of his convictions and he 
 gives us only human experience ; and there can be 
 no other court of appeal. A man can be called 
 unhappy only because he feels himself to be so. 
 A man cannot be said to be in pain unless he is 
 
THE PESSIMISM OF THE AGE. 
 
 205 
 
 conscious of it. The foundation, therefore, of 
 the pessimist argument is laid in that very 
 consciousness which he rejects when it is against 
 him. How easy it is to turn the rejection of this 
 testimony against the pessimist himself! You 
 say that man is miserable ; but we do not believe 
 it. We say, on the contrary, that man is happy. 
 Granting that there is much of suffering and of 
 pain, we yet find so much to counterbalance all 
 this, that we are inclined to say, with Paley, " It 
 is a happy world, after all ! " 
 
 But we may go further: wc also may deny 
 the testimony of consciousness to human misery. 
 You say you are unhappy, but wc do not believe 
 it. It is a mere illusion of your imagination. 
 These sorrows of yours are unreal ; these suffer- 
 ings are imaginary, the creation of a bewildered 
 fancy. Who shall say that this retort is invalid? 
 It is at least as good as the denial of the testi- 
 mony of consciousness to human worth and dig- 
 nity. Nay, it is better; for there arc few who 
 can look back upon their past experience, and 
 say that there was no good reason for their hap- 
 piness and their joy; but there are multitudes 
 who can recall troubles of their own making, 
 fears which had their origin simply in a morbid 
 state of mind, presentiments of whose origin no 
 reasonable account could be given, and which 
 had no fulfilment in the future. 
 
 We return, therefore, to our assertion that 
 man's consciousness must be accepted as a 
 
' "h.J 
 
 
 206 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 credible witness, and that we possess, as an 
 indestructible fact of consciousness, the convic- 
 tion that our life on earth is great, good, and 
 blessed, not in proportion as life fades and loses 
 its energy and sinks into unconsciousness and 
 annihilation, but, on the contrary, as it rises in 
 energy and power, as it becomes freer from the 
 influences from beneath and more open to those 
 which are from above, as it becomes less animal 
 and more spiritual, as it partakes less of earth 
 and more of heaven, as it grows less and less 
 like the life of the brute and more and more 
 like the life of God. 
 
 But there is another consideration which ought 
 not to be passed over. Whatever man's earthly 
 life may be, it is not final. We believe that we 
 are here in a state of discipline for a better life 
 beyond. This is not the end ; it is but the way. 
 This is not the goal ; it is but the course. To 
 judge of man's whole life, to estimate the whole 
 worth and importance of his existence by the 
 part which is now before us, is like judging of a 
 man's whole history on earth by his days at 
 school. If there be a future for man, if there 
 be a life of manhood beyond the present, for 
 which tlie present is only a childhood of prepa- 
 ration, then no estimate of man's life can pre- 
 tend to completeness which does not take 
 account of that future existence. 
 
 III. It is a matter of the greatest interest to 
 account for the origin and sources of this move- 
 
Tim PESSIMISM OF THE AGE. 
 
 207 
 
 mcnt ; and various attempts have been made to 
 explain its existence and its diffusion and influ- 
 ence, especially in Germany. 
 
 Looking at the individual aspect of the sub- 
 ject, we see clcarl/ that pessimism is often the 
 result of temperament and constitution. Some 
 men arc naturally cheerful, and others naturally 
 gloomy. Some anticipate evils ; others never 
 care to think of them until they are called upon 
 to face them. Some are easily satisfied ; others 
 are morbidly discontented. We can in this way 
 explain exceptional and individual cases of pes- 
 simism; but such solutions do not touch the 
 question in its wider aspects. 
 
 Some have attempted to explain the malady, 
 as it is truly called, by the manner of life preva- 
 lent among the people whom it has most deeply 
 infected. According to their explanation, the 
 reasons of pessimism are chiefly chemical. Peo- 
 ple who drink beer and other heavy liquors, they 
 say, are generally pessimists; those who drink 
 light wines arc optimists. This is the reason, 
 says an illustrious French chemist, why pessi- 
 mism has its home in Germany. " There is no 
 fear," he says, ** of its ever becoming acclima- 
 tized in the lands of the vine, nor, above all, in 
 France; the wine of Bordeaux clears men's 
 ideas, and the wine of Burgundy puts the night- 
 mare to flight." 
 
 Such an explanation, like the other, may con- 
 tain a measure of truth. But its scope is too lim- 
 
 1 
 I 
 
 III 
 
208 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST 
 
 
 E<)*'iJ 
 
 itcd : it docs not explain the facts with which we 
 have now to deal ; it does not set aside the diffi- 
 culty by which we are now confronted. There 
 have always been these differences of men and 
 manners. Germans have drunk beer and I'rench- 
 men have drunk light wines for centuries; but 
 this does not tell us why in this present century 
 the disease of pessimism has broken out in Ger- 
 many, and has spread among the thinkers of 
 that land, and is now invading every civilized 
 country, so that its influence may be extensively 
 traced in the contemporaneous literature of every 
 European people and in America. We have 
 mentioned England, France, and Italy. It is 
 said that it has also spread far and wide in 
 Russia: its presence is seen in Nihilism; and 
 it has appeared among the Slavonian races in 
 general. 
 
 For this new and striking phenomenon we 
 must seek out a specific cause ; and it is to be 
 '^., found partly in the history of the German na- 
 "n^ tion, and partly in the state of religious belief. 
 With respect to the former of these two 
 causes, that which is found in the history of 
 the German peopl'\ the subject is evidently too 
 great and too intricate to be disentangled here, 
 even if we were qualified to undertake such a 
 work. The history of Germany from the close 
 of the Thirty Years' War, when that great peo- 
 ple were left little better than a mutilated and 
 dying body, is one of the most remarkable that 
 
THE PESSIMrSM OF THE AGE. 
 
 209 
 
 the world has ever seen ; and the process by 
 which it has recovered life, strength, energy, is 
 full of instruction. By its own internal vitality, 
 by the wisdom of its rulers, and the ability of 
 its military chiefs, it has risen from a condition 
 in which it was tolerated, and alternately pat- 
 ronized and chastised by its powerful neij^hbors, 
 to a condition in which it can do more than hold 
 its own ; and in this history the thoughtful stu- 
 dent will find something to explain the strange 
 course taken by German thought. 
 
 If, again, the religions and philosophies and 
 philosophical tendencies and theories, which 
 have alternately emerged into prominence and 
 sunk into neglect, are considered, — the outbursts 
 of faith on the one side, and of unbelief on the 
 other, — the alternation of dogmatism, religious 
 and philosophical, with scepticism, — we shall 
 hardly wonder that men grew bewildered, dizzy, 
 and hardly knew whether they stood on earth 
 or on air. 
 
 But one thing at least comes out clearly, and 
 it is this, — that the system of pessimism could 
 rise and flourish only on the ruins of Christian 
 belief. Let life be never so unsatisfying, the 
 man who believes that there is an ideal life, 
 after which he may strive and which he may 
 hope to attain, will not be altogether intolerant 
 or impatient of the real. The present truly has 
 its pains, its sorrows, its disappointments. But 
 he who believes in a future in which all evil 
 
 H 
 
 ■' I 
 
210 
 
 WITNESSES TO CITRIST. 
 
 ii 
 
 VP4. 
 
 m 
 
 I'Hi'u:. 
 
 shall be put away, ail wrongs righted, all mis- 
 doings redressed, will find it easier to regard the 
 present, if not with perfect complacency, at least 
 with patience. If the end of the journey is rest, 
 peace, and joy, the roughest of the road will be 
 trodden, if sometimes with pain, yet also with 
 cheerfulness, by him who believes that, while 
 the pain is momentary, the joy is everlasting. 
 
 The other side of the alternative is equally 
 plain. The man who has lost all faith in God 
 and all hope of immortality, if he really thinks 
 and feels, will almost inevitably come to regard 
 life and existence as a very questionable good, 
 if not an unmixed evil. And here, we fully con- 
 cede, there is a certain measure of truth in the 
 pessimist's view of comparative happiness. No 
 doubt there are men who live a mere animal 
 life, destitute of the finer feelings of our nature, 
 little sensitive even to physical pain, utterly ig- 
 norant of any other form of suffering, who have 
 a low kind of enjoyment which leaves no place 
 for reflection. To them life is no evil, and the 
 loss of life nothing to shrink from, because they 
 live — if indeed we can say that they live — in 
 the present, and enjoy those lower pleasures of 
 which they are capable. Yet even these may 
 have their waking moments, or dreams of terror 
 to break their sleep. 
 
 If, on the other hand, we take, not the highest 
 examples of noble human cultivation, but the 
 average man or woman who lives in the midst 
 
 
 ^H^l 
 
THE PESSIMISM OF THE AGE, 
 
 211 
 
 of 
 
 ay 
 
 of our social system, \vc cannot wonder that 
 those among us who liavc lost their faith in 
 God and an unseen world should look upon 
 the life which they have as worthless and miser- 
 able. What earthly possession of man is sure? 
 What source of human happiness is there that 
 may not in a moment be dried up? 
 
 You are rich, and your wealth ministers to 
 refinement and every earthly good for yourself, 
 and it is generously expended for the good of 
 others ; but Fate waves her cruel rod and your 
 riches take to themselves wings. You are strong 
 and healthy, and glory in the rich abundance of 
 energy and vigor with which you arc endowed; 
 but sickness casts its baleful eye upon you, and 
 you wither and decay. You have friends who 
 are dear to you as life, and you find in their 
 fellowship joys as intense and ravishing as they 
 arc pure and elevating; but the angel of death 
 strikes at the best and dearest, and your life is 
 bruised by the blow which has shattered another. 
 No rank, no power, no goodness or gracious- 
 ness, will protect the old or the young in the 
 dread encounter. 
 
 If there be a God and a life to come, we can 
 bear these things. We can smile through our 
 tears as we see the guiding Hand which leads us 
 through the wilderness. Faith assures us that 
 all is well done, because it is done by One who 
 is wiser and more loving than we, and who will 
 never lay upon us more than He will give us 
 
 '• I 
 
 % 
 
 % 
 
W^f^ 
 
 
 212 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 strength to endure. If we believe in God, and 
 hope for His glory, then we cannot be pessi- 
 mists, we cannot believe that all is for the worst ; 
 we cannot help believing that all is for the best, 
 that all things work together for good, and that 
 our light affliction, which is for a moment, is 
 working for us more and more exceedingly an 
 eternal weight of glory. 
 
 But if none of these things be so, if there be 
 no God and no hereafter, then we cannot won- 
 der that men grow desperate about life. If all 
 is fate or chance, if our poor existence is tossed 
 about by blind unconscious forces, of which we 
 know not whence they come or whither they 
 go, then indeed life is an evil and a misery, a 
 distraction from which we may well seek to es- 
 cape. If we could raise our eyes to the blue 
 vault of heaven, and believe that those celes- 
 tial orbs that roll above us are guided by no 
 Divine will; if we could look down upon this 
 green earth, and think that it was the grave of 
 our kind, and that no blessed vernal season 
 could come and bring back from their winter 
 sleep the bright and beautiful flowers that had 
 sunk into the bosom of Nature, — then we should 
 take the pessimist by the hand, and welcome him 
 as a brother, as a friend and benefactor of his 
 race. You are right, we would say to him. 
 These joys and hopes are vain illusions, for they 
 rest upon the baseless dream of immortality; 
 let us tread them under foot. These flowers of 
 
THE PESSIMISM OF THE AGE. 
 
 213 
 
 love and duty arc but weeds on this existence- 
 cursed earth ; let us tear them up and cast them 
 into the fire. This education and self-discipline 
 at which we are laboring with unceasing toil is 
 but a ladder upon which men are climbing 
 higher and higher into the clouds and tempests 
 which overshadow and trouble their life. Down 
 with it, down with it, even to the ground ! 
 Down with knowledge and wisdom, with vir- 
 tue and goodness, with love and truth ! Down 
 with thought and feeling and consciousness and 
 existence; for they are evils and miseries! 
 Down with the life of man ; for the life of the 
 brutes is better ! " Let us eat and drink, for to- 
 morrow we die." Let us extinguish and anni- 
 hilate the race of man, for existence itself is an 
 evil. This is the pessimist gospel ; and if there 
 be no God, then there can be no other good 
 news for the children of men. 
 
 It is sometimes urged against the revelation 
 of God in Jesus Christ, that it leaves many diffi- 
 culties in the life of man unravelled, many knots 
 untied. VVe freely admit it ; and remembering 
 what human life is, we should be surprised if it 
 were otherwise. But this we can say fearlessly 
 and confidently, that there is no single fact in 
 the history of mankind which is not made easier 
 of understanding by the light of the Gospel. 
 We at least know who and what our God is, 
 what He means by this order of things in which 
 we live, what He has done for us, what He is 
 
f 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 214 
 
 WITNESSES TO ci/msr. 
 
 doing for us; and \vc also know — wc certainly 
 believe, and we think that we know — that He 
 will bring order out of confusion, and good out 
 of evil. And who, besides the Christian, has 
 any clear notion of the meaning and the issues 
 of human life? What can the deist say? To 
 him the Creator is but an unknown God, and he 
 can only guess as to His purposes in fear and 
 perplexity. He may hope and believe that all 
 will come right in the end, but he knows noth- 
 ing of the manner in which it is being accom- 
 plished. And what can the atheist say? He 
 can say nothing. He cannot even assure you 
 that there is not a God. At the very utmost he 
 is but an agnostic. He knows nothing, and he 
 can tell nothing, of any sphere which is beyond 
 the realm of sense. 
 
 Tell him that you are tortured by doubts and 
 fears, and he can only reply that he can neither 
 remove the one nor alleviate the other. Tell 
 him that you want to know something about the 
 future, and he will reply that he cannot help 
 you ; he cannot even assure you that there will 
 be no future. Tell him that^ou find this life 
 poor and aimless and worthless, unless it is the 
 way to a better, and he must answer that he 
 knows of nothing better, of nothing besides ; 
 and you must make the best or the worst of 
 this hfe as you like and as you can. 
 
 And this is the last word of positivism. It 
 ends in this dismal pessimism, whose philosophy 
 
THE PESSIMISM OF Till: AGE. 
 
 215 
 
 is despair, and whose solace is annihilation. Go 
 forth with this gospel to the toiling, suffering 
 children of men, and what will it do for them? 
 Will it make them braver, happier, better men? 
 No ! it will only tell them that happiness is a 
 delusion, and goodness an empty name. 
 
 It is in presence of theories like these that we 
 feel more deeply than ever that, through what- 
 ever trials the Church of Christ may pass, we 
 have no fear for the Gospel of our salvation. 
 We have no fear for it, because we know that 
 men, driven by the cravings of their hearts, will 
 still seek for the living God, will rejoice to hear 
 of the Word " made flesh," of the Godhead en- 
 shrined in truest, gentlest, most loving man- 
 hood, upon whose bosom the weary head may 
 lay itself down in perfect trust and find un- 
 broken repose, from whose cheering voice the 
 wearied heart will receive a new stimulus for the 
 battle of life. 
 
 We have no fear for it, because it is true, — 
 true to the instincts of the human heart, true as 
 meeting the demands of the severest criticism, 
 true as vindicating for itself an unquestionable 
 place in the history of the world as a revelation 
 from God. 
 
":;* 
 
 I *W|fli 
 
 LECTURE VII. 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 h I, 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE FOR THE 
 RESURRECTION. 
 
 I. Introductory. — Importance of the Event. — The Gospel 
 founded on Facts. — Necessity of Revelation for the Sup- 
 port of Religious Truth. — 2. The Fact of the Resurrec- 
 tion. — Its Meaning. — 3. The Nature of the Evidence. — No 
 F^vidence sufficient for those who disbelieve in the Super- 
 natural. — The E.xistence of a Personal God jiostulated. — 
 The Church exists and professes to have the Knowledge of 
 God by Revelation. — The 13urden of Proof not entirely with 
 the Christian. — Points on which there is general Agreement. 
 — The Documentary Proof. — Two •^- stions : (i)\Vhat 
 did the Disciples of Christ believe? (2) Are we justified in 
 believing the Same .-• — 4. The Evidence of the Gospel His- 
 tories ; their Agreement ; their Statements. — Objections: 
 Not seen to rise j Disagreement as to the Time, as to the 
 Circumstances ; Legendary Details. — Answers. — Final Ver- 
 dict on Evidence. — 5 The Evidence of Saint Paul. — Docu- 
 ments admitted. — Points of Agreement. — What the admit- 
 ted Documents assert. — An independent Testimony. — Its 
 Value affected by the Character of the Witness. — Ob- 
 jections to his T^estimony. — Answers. — The Value of 
 Saint Paul's Testimony. — Disingenuous and inconsistent 
 Objection. — Answer. 
 
 I. INTRODUCTORY. 
 
 IT is unnecessary to dwell at any length upon 
 the supreme importance of a belief in the 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 21 J 
 
 This is, indeed, one of those great facts which 
 form an essential part of the Gospel history 
 and testimony. An unbeliever could see that it 
 was represented by Saint Paul " as above all, 
 the culminating point of Christian doctrine,"^ 
 It is at once the top stone of the fabric of divine 
 revelation, and the greatest of the miraculous 
 evidences for the supernatural character of the 
 work of Christ. 
 
 The importance of this event has been clearly 
 perceived by both sides in the Christian con- 
 troversy, by believers and unbelievers alike; 
 and accordingly every effort has been made by 
 the adversaries of the Gospel to destroy the 
 grounds of our belief, while the defenders of 
 the Christian faith have made their confident 
 appeal to reason and to history in support of 
 the truth of their Lord's rising again, 
 
 " If the Resurrection really took place," says 
 a recent assailant^ of its reality, "then Chris- 
 tianity may [rather, must] be admitted to be 
 what it claims to be, a direct revelation from 
 God. Nay, the Resurrection is not merely a 
 voucher for revelation, it may truly be said to 
 be in itself a revelation." " If Christ be not 
 risen," says Saint Paul, "then is our preaching 
 vain, and y.ur faith is also vain." Both sides 
 are equally clear as to the result of a failure to 
 
 I 
 
 ^ Baur, quoted by Macan in his Hibbert Essay on " The 
 Resurrection of Jesus Christ," p. 4. 
 
 '^ Macan, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, p. 6. 
 
''3 
 
 
 218 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIS 7. 
 
 i\ " 
 
 ll •!» 
 
 j>' '";.« 
 
 
 make good their own contention. The unbe- 
 hcvcr freely admits that he must neutraHze tlie 
 proof adduced in support of the alleged fact or 
 become a believer. The Christian Apostle tells 
 us as plainly that, if the Resurrection cannot be 
 believed, then there is nothing left to believe. 
 
 In this respect there is really no difference 
 between our own position and that of believers 
 in the first age of the Church. The destruction 
 of this foundation would be as dangerous to a 
 rational faith now as ever it was. It has in- 
 deed been maintained, that, while a belief in the 
 Resurrection was necessary in order to the very 
 existence of the Christian Church, it may be 
 now dispensed with, and yet our faith will re- 
 main unaffected. The first of these allegations 
 may be accepted without hesitation, while the 
 second is most certainly false. 
 
 But for a belief in the resurrection of Jesus, 
 the Church would never have existed. This is 
 too obvious to be seriously called in question. 
 Even Strauss declares that the historical im- 
 portance of the Resurrection is such that, " with- 
 out a belief in it, a Christian community would 
 hardly have come together." ^ " But," it has 
 ' been urged, ^ " now that it has come together, 
 and existed for centuries, it might dispense with 
 that belief without forfeiting its existence. The 
 life and death of Christ, His person and His 
 
 1 Strauss, Leben Jesu fiir das deutsche Volk, § 97. 
 
 2 Macan, p. 6. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST 219 
 
 > 
 
 teaching, — these are what are of permanent 
 and essential importance to men, and not a 
 supposed event miraculously performed on 
 Him, and which is neither in itself essential to 
 His ' method and secret,' nor represented as 
 essentially connected with them in the New 
 Testament." 
 
 There are several statements here which we 
 should be unable to accept; but the main point 
 on which we differ from the writer is that which 
 is concerned with the comparative necessity or 
 usefulness of a belief in the resurrection of Christ 
 in the days of the Apostles and in our own times. 
 As a mere argument for the truth of the Gospel 
 story, the belief of the Resurrection is not less 
 necessary, but more necessary, now than it was 
 then. The truth of this assertion wc must en- 
 deavor to make good. 
 
 Let it be remembered, first of all, that, ac- 
 cording to the representations of the New Testa- 
 ment, the facts of the Gospel are the sources of 
 its power and the very foundation of its doc- 
 trines. One instance may suffice. When Saint 
 Paul was making known to the Corinthians, in a 
 formal manner, the Gospel which he preached 
 to them, that Gospel which they had received 
 and wherein they stood, he said: " I delivered 
 unto you first of all that which also I received, 
 how that Christ died for our sins according to 
 the scriptures ; and that he was buried, and 
 that He hath been raised on the third day 
 
 u 
 
mrr 
 
 220 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 II 'i 
 
 I ! 
 
 fi 
 
 according to the scriptures," and so forth. ^ Now, 
 the Apostle clearly puts forth the enunciation of 
 these facts as the preaching of the Gospel ; and 
 prominent among them — for it is that fact of 
 which he proceeds to offer copious proof — he 
 places the resurrection of Christ. 
 
 Nor is it difficult to understand the impor- 
 tance of historical facts as the vehicle of a 
 Divin»j Revelation. Consider only, without go- 
 ing further, the elementary truths of human re- 
 sponsibility, the existence and the character of 
 Almighty God, and you will see that we have 
 gained our clearest notions of these truths from 
 the life and words and works and death and 
 resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a 
 simple truth of history that " the world by wis- 
 dom knew not God." The statement of our 
 Lord that the Father is revealed by the only- 
 bcgottcn Son is verified in the experience of 
 the Christian and the Church. Take away this 
 revelation, and are you sure that you can keep 
 alive a belief in those principles of religion and 
 morality which are connected with it? 
 
 Even if we were satisfied of the sufificiency 
 of what are called the permanent principles of 
 religion which are retained by those who reject 
 the supernatural element in religion (although 
 how there can be a religion without a supernat- 
 ural clement it might puzzle us to determine), 
 are we quite sure that these beliefs can be main- 
 
 ^ I Cor. XV. 3, 4. 
 
 

 THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 221 
 
 taincd without the support of revelation? As 
 a matter of fact, they are denied by most of 
 those who reject revehition ; and the great mass 
 of mankind could retain no hold upon them 
 without this support. It is not enough to tell 
 men that certain truths are self-evident, or that 
 they may be demonstrated by sufficient argu- 
 ments ; they must be satisfied that they have 
 the authority of God. When we can commend 
 a truth to the human conscience by the unfalter- 
 ing declaration, " Thus saith the Lord," then we 
 have put forth a claim to attention which is 
 unique, and, if well grounded, irresistible. 
 
 Now, if there be any force in these considera- 
 tions, it is clear that the truth of the Resurrec- 
 tion is of far greater importance to us than to 
 the first disciples of Jesus Christ, for this simple 
 reason, — that it is to us the most powerful as- 
 surance of the truth of His teaching and work. 
 In the days of Saint Paul there were many per- 
 sons alive who had seen the Lord Jesus in life, 
 who had listened to His teaching, who had been 
 witnesses of His miraculous power, some at 
 least who had been the subjects of His gracious 
 power to bless. To such persons there was no 
 doubt of His Messiahship, none of His truth, 
 His wisdom, His power, or His love. I'A'en if 
 we could suppose them uncertain or ignorant 
 of the fact of His resurrection, they still would 
 have no doubt of His general character and 
 work. With ourselves the case is quite different. 
 
222 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 M'^ 
 
 To us the Resurrection is not only the greatest 
 of all the miracles connected with His mani- 
 festation, but the surest. In a certain sense it 
 is the support and guarantee of all the other 
 miracles. If we doubt, or abandon belief in, 
 the truth of the Resurrection, we shall hardly 
 retain faith in any of the signs shown by our 
 Lord, or even in the mere principle of the 
 supernatural. Let this, then, be clearly under- 
 
 . stood as our position. If we are forced to give 
 up the Resurrection, we must give up Chris- 
 tianity as a revelation from God. If the Resur- 
 rection can be conclusively maintained, then 
 
 { Christ was a Saviour sent from God. 
 
 li ^ 
 
 2. THE FACT OF THE RESURRECTION. 
 
 Before we inquire into the nature of the evi- 
 dence, we must ask what we mean by the fact 
 which we assert, the Resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ from the dead. The faith of the Church 
 is thus stated in our fourth Article : " Christ did 
 truly rise again from death, and took again His 
 body, with flesh, bones, and all things apper- 
 taining to the perfection of man's nature." It 
 has been truly said by one of the assailants ^ of 
 the doctrine : " We have nothing to do here with 
 the vague modern representation of these events, 
 by means of which the objective facts vanish, 
 
 ^ Supernatural Religion (complete English edition in three 
 volumes), vol. iii. p. 400. Compare Macan.p. 27. 
 
THE JiESUKKECT/OX OF JESUS CHRIST. 223 
 
 
 and arc replaced by subjective impressions and 
 tricks of consciousness, or symbols of spiritual 
 life. Those who adopt such views have, of 
 course, abandoned all that is real and super- 
 natural in the supposed events. The Resurrec- 
 tion and Ascension which we have to deal with 
 arc events precisely as objective and real as the 
 death and burial, — no ideal process figured 
 by the imagination or embodiments of Christian 
 hope, but tangible realities, historical occur- 
 rences in the sense of ordinary life. If Jesus, 
 after being crucified, dead, and buried, did not 
 physically [the word is ambiguous, but we let it 
 pass] rise again from the dead, and in the flesh 
 [again ambiguous], without again dying, 'as- 
 cend into heaven,' the whole case falls to the 
 ground." 
 
 \Vc accept, generally, this statement of the 
 question; and it is the more important to insist 
 upon the objective reality of the occurrence, 
 that writers and even preachers,^ who profess to 
 be Christians, continue to use language respect- 
 ing the great facts of our Lord's resurrection 
 and ascension which would seem to imply that 
 they have no more than an ideal value, or at 
 least that this is the only aspect of the matter 
 which it is important to preserve. Such a no- 
 tion is a pure delusion, and a subversion of what 
 
 ^ As an example, we may mention one of the most eloquent 
 of German preachers, Dr. Schwartz, the Court Chaplain at 
 Gotha. 
 
 ^A 
 
fill 
 
 ■*1 
 
 " t 18 
 
 S:"' 
 
 Nv". 
 
 I >Im 
 
 II' O 
 
 
 224 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 vvc mean by tlic faith of the Church and the 
 rcaHty of the Christian Rcvchition. If Christ 
 be not actually and objectively risen, then our 
 faith is vain. We cannot retain tlie ideas, if \vc 
 abandon the facts. The Resurrection which wc 
 maintain is a real one. We entirely agree with 
 the writer just quoted, that " these incidents, 
 although stupendous miracles, must also have 
 been actual occurrences." If they did not really 
 take place, our task is at an end. If it is as- 
 serted that they really did take place, their oc- 
 currence must be attested by adequate evidence.^ 
 Wc acknowledge the reasonableness of this dc- 
 mand. We believe that these occurrences ac- 
 tually took place, and that they are proved by 
 sufficient evidence. 
 
 3. THE NATURE OF THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 Of what nature must the evidence be that will 
 satisfy us of the truth of the Resurrection ? This 
 is our next question. And what is the common 
 ground that we may assume as a starting-point, 
 conceded alike by our opponents and ourselves? 
 
 One thing is quite clear, that no evidences will 
 I suffice for those who take it for granted that all 
 miracles are impossible, or at least so improb- 
 able as to be incredible. And yet this is the 
 starting-point of many who assail the truth of 
 this and all the other miracles of the Gospel. 
 1 Supernatural Religion, vol. iii. p. 401. 
 
TlJIi RESL'RRECTIOX 01' JESL'^i C UK JUT. 22$ 
 
 
 They start with a perfect certainty tliat no 
 amount (»f evidence can ^ive assurance of the 
 truth of the facts which they profess to invcs 
 tigate, and then they ln-iid all their enerj^ics 
 to prove that the evidences adduced are in- 
 sufficient. 
 
 The difference between ourselves and our ad- 
 versaries is indeed finulaniental. We believe 
 in a personal God, and, for the most part, they 
 do not. Certainly, if there is a (iod who takes 
 an interest in His creatures, it cannot be thou^dit 
 surprising that He should adopt some method 
 of making His will more perfectly known to 
 them. If our argument were merely with deists, 
 such a suggestion might be a sufficient intro- 
 duction to a consideration of the evidence. 
 Most of our opponents will not, however, allow 
 us this starting-point. We must, therefore, meet 
 them in another way. At least we can say it is 
 not certain that there is no God. There may 
 be a God, and He may have made some super- 
 natural revelation of Himself to His creatures. 
 At any rate, there has been for ages in exist- 
 ence a society, the Chiistian Church, which 
 professes to have such a revelation, and to have 
 satisfactory evidence of its having come from 
 God. Is it too much to ask that men shall 
 give a careful and candid consideration to these 
 evidences? We do not ask the inquirer to be 
 satisfied with trifling proof's ; we do not ask him 
 to accept sentiments for arguments, or hopes 
 
 IS 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 lih 
 
226 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 t 
 
 i ! 
 
 for realities. VVc simply ask that he shall be 
 willing to look fairly at the evidences which are 
 adduced in support of an alleged fact of the 
 greatest moment in regard to human belief 
 
 Let us consider how the subject presents it- 
 self to us in the history of mankind. On the 
 most superficial view of the matter we sec be- 
 fore us a long and deeply interesting history, 
 the history of Christianity and of the Church, 
 •which, by the admissioL of all, has sprung out 
 of a belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ 
 from the dead. We discern in this Body, which 
 is called the Church of Christ, and in this sys- 
 tem of teaching, which is called the Gospel of 
 Christ, a mighty moral power which has pene- 
 trated, leavened, moulded the whole of human 
 society in the most civilized nations of the 
 world for many centuries. And w* as':. Hns 
 this history, has this power, taken its beginning 
 from a falsehood or a delusion? 
 
 Surely, in such a case the whole burden of 
 proof is not with ourselves ! Even if we were 
 unable to give a complete account of this vast 
 system in which we find ourselves, men might 
 yet hesitate to assail it and destroy it as an 
 imposture. In such a case we may say with 
 confidence, apart from all minute historical in- 
 vestigations into the origin of the Church, the 
 probability is not entirely on the side of un- 
 belief. We are not using this argument as a 
 reason for being satisfied with insufficient evi- 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 22/ 
 
 light 
 s an 
 with 
 il i li- 
 the 
 Un- 
 as a 
 evi- 
 
 dences on behalf of the facts of Christianity ; but 
 we do urge that such considerations may give 
 some confidence to the Christian apologist in 
 his work, and induce the doubter and the un- 
 believer to come to the inquiry with some 
 amount of sympathy, or at least with a senti- 
 ment of strict impartiality. 
 
 So much may be said for what may be called 
 the principles of our inquiry. We must now ap- 
 proach the facts, — first, those which are gener- 
 ally, if not universally, admitted, and afterwards 
 those which we are required to prove. 
 
 It is agreed on all hands that Jesus Christ 
 was the Founder of the Christian religion and 
 Church, and that He lived in the age of the 
 world to which His life and work are assigned 
 by the Christian creeds. It is agreed that the 
 Christian Church arose at a period close to the 
 time of his death, in the reign of Tiberius Cae- 
 sar, the Roman Emperor. It is agreed that a 
 belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from 
 the dead lay at the foundation of the Church 
 and its faith. ^ When we further ask what are 
 the grounds of that belief, — why, in short, the 
 resurrection of Christ should be accepted as an 
 objective fact rather than as a legend or a myth, 
 like the beliefs of many other religions, — we are 
 directed to a series of documents which profess 
 to be written by men who had themselves seen 
 
 ^ This is fully conceded by Strauss and his followers, and by 
 the Tubingen School generally. 
 
 1:1 
 
228 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 1 1 MMj 
 
 
 our Lord, or had received their information 
 from those who had been His companions. 
 
 Thus we have four sets of memoirs of the hfe 
 and teaching of Jesus on earth, — two of them 
 professing to be written by His own companions 
 and Apostles, one by a writer who is said to 
 have been the companion of Saint Peter, and 
 another by a writer who was the companion of 
 Saint Paul, and who says that he obtained his 
 information from those who had perfect knowl- 
 edge of the matters which he records. 
 
 Further, we have a set of epistles written by 
 the most eminent of all the Apostles of Christ, 
 who became a Christian after His Master's 
 death. Four of these epistles — those to the 
 Galatians and the Romans, and the two to the 
 Corinthians — are admitted by all reasonable 
 critics, believers and unbelievers, to be the gen- 
 uine productions of the man whose name they 
 bear; and these four bear abundant testimony 
 to all the main facts of the life and teaching of 
 our Lord, so that, if the whole early literature 
 of the Christian Church had perished, or were 
 } to be lost or discredited, we could reconstruct 
 from these admittedly genuine documents the 
 whole Christian system. 
 
 These are the documents which we have now 
 to examine with the view of discovering what 
 proofs they afford of the resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ from the dead. And in doing so we 
 naturally ask two questions: (i) What did the 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 229 
 
 by 
 
 disciples of Jesus Christ believe and assert? 
 and (2) Does their belief justify us in believing 
 in the resurrection of their Master? or is there 
 any other theory more consistent with the facts 
 of the case, viewed in the light of reason and 
 experience? This is really the whole question 
 which we have to consider ; and we now proceed 
 to examine, first, the testimony of the Gospels, 
 and secondly, the testimony of Saint Paul, es- 
 pecially as it is contained in the fifteenth chapter 
 of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. 
 
 4. THE EVIDENCE OF THE GOSPEL HISTORIES. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to say that we are here 
 concerned with the Gospel narratives merely 
 as credible history. For our present purpose 
 we have no concern with the question of their 
 inspiration, nor even of necessity with their 
 authorship, but only with their internal cohe- 
 rence and consistency. We have before us a 
 series of historical documents professing, among 
 other things, to give an account of the resur- 
 rection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and of 
 His appearance to His disciples after His res- 
 urrection; and we have to ask whether these 
 accounts are contradictory and incredible, or 
 whether they present such variations only as 
 might be expected in writers giving an inde- 
 pendent account of the same events, each one 
 relating those facts with which he was best ac- 
 quainted, in which he was most deeply intcr- 
 
 m 
 
 
230 
 
 W/TxVESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 \ 
 
 ested, and which he regarded as best adapted 
 for his purpose. 
 
 And here we naturally ask, What amount of 
 agreement between historians is necessary in 
 order to secure beUef in their veracity or accu- 
 racy? What amount of discrepancy, real or 
 apparent, is compatible with the truth of the 
 main facts attested? On this point we are will- 
 ing to take the judgment of an adversary. 
 
 " It may fairly be said," remarks Mr. Macan,^ 
 " if various persons report one event or series 
 of events, we do not expect entire harmony and 
 agreement in the details of their narratives ; 
 still less should we form such expectations in 
 the case of supernatural events, supposing the 
 latter to have really occurred. . . . One of the 
 grounds of belief or disbelief," he goes on, " is 
 the agreement or disagreement of various wit- 
 nesses with each other and with themselves ; 
 a certain amount of disagreement and inconsis- 
 tency may not invalidate their testimony, may 
 even allay the suspicion of possible fraud or 
 collusion: but there is some limit to be ob- 
 served in this matter; there is a point where 
 divergence becomes as suspicious as complete 
 harmony, and where inconsistency becomes in- 
 consistent with truth." With this general state- 
 ment of the case we have no fault to find ; and 
 we must now ask whether the testimonies of the 
 Gospels be credible, as presenting neither evi- 
 dence of collusion by a suspicious resemblance, 
 1 Essay, pp. 34, 35. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 23 I 
 
 nor proof of untrustworthincss by manifest con- 
 tradictions and inconsistencies. 
 
 What is quite clear is this, — that all the four 
 Evangelists assert unhesitatingly that Jeisus did 
 actually rise from the dead; or, in detail, that 
 He actually died on the cross and was laid in 
 the grave, that afterwards the grave was found 
 empty, and that subsequently He was seen alive 
 by the Apostles and others before He disap- 
 peared from the earth. What objections are 
 alleged against these accounts? We take the 
 weightiest of them as they appear in the latest 
 polemics of unbelief. 
 
 First of all, it is pointed out that no one actu- 
 ally saw Jesus come out of the grave ; then, that 
 the different Evangelists disagree as to the time 
 when the women came to the sepulchre, as to 
 the number of the women, as to the order of the 
 appearances, and the places in which our Lord| 
 appeared to His disciples. It is also said thatl 
 some of the details are legendary, and that the 
 acts attributed to the risen Saviour arc inconsist- 
 ent and contradictory. 
 
 Certainly, to go no further, we have here a 
 serious array of difficulties ; and when they are 
 thus stated nakedly, they seem almost insupera- 
 ble. When, however, we view them more closely, 
 their importance will be found to diminish ; some 
 of them will seem very trifling indeed, others will 
 give way to a little patient examination, and some 
 which are less easily brought into harmony may 
 
 
Hir' 
 
 Pi, 
 
 n 1 
 
 L'W^ 
 
 '\''/^*'i 
 
 !J.4 
 
 ill 
 
 232 
 
 IV/TA'ESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 yet be shown to offer no real difficulty in the way 
 of belief, since hypotheses of sufficient probabil- 
 ity may be suggested for their reconciliation. 
 
 Let us consider the apparent difficulties in 
 order, (i) There was no actual witness of the 
 Resurrection itself, we are told. The author 
 of " Supernatural Religion " thinks this fact so 
 important that he brings it forward more than 
 once.^ A very simple illustration will show the 
 exact va^l'^ of <his objection. You see a friend 
 in bed i\^/.: V^'^u leave his room and come 
 back after a ceitain interval, and you find the 
 bed empty, Short)v afterwards you meet him 
 in the street ana pea; o him. You did not see 
 him get out of bed ; but you are as sure of the 
 fact as though you had seen him rise. Even 
 Mr. Macan allows that " the evidence on which 
 the Apostles believed was almost as strong as it 
 could have been had they seen Jesus leave the 
 tomb, as they had a few days before seen Laza- 
 rus come forth." Perhaps this is enough ; but 
 we shall have to refer to the objection again 
 when we come to consider the theories invented 
 to neutralize the value of the evidence in behalf 
 of the Resurrection. 
 
 (2) As regards the time when the women 
 came to the sepulchre, Saint Matthew says it 
 was " late on the Sabbath day, as it began n 
 dawn toward the first day of the week." Saint 
 Mark says, " very early on the first day of the 
 
 ^ Supernatural Religion, vol. iii. pp. 484, 485 ; Macan, p. 28. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 233 
 
 week . . . when the sun was risen." Saint Luke 
 says, " on the first clay of the week at early dawn." 
 Saint John, " on the first day of the week, . . . 
 while it was yet dark" (Revised Version). Now 
 the presumed contradiction is this, that Saint 
 John says it was yet dark, and Saint Mark says 
 the sun had risen ; but Mr. Macan, who points 
 out this apparent discrepancy,^ does not note 
 the phrase employed by Saint Matthew, " as it 
 began to dawn," which exactly reconciles the 
 two other statements, and is the more remarkable 
 as it is connected with the expression in which 
 this Evangelist stands alone, " late on the Sab- 
 bath day," or, as in the Authorized Version, " in 
 the end of the Sabbath." Mr. Macan actually 
 bases on the language of Saint Matthew the 
 theory that this Evangelist regarded the Resur- 
 rection as having taken place on what we should 
 call the Saturday evening, although it is he and 
 he alone who tells us that it was beginning to 
 dawn. Two things we will venture to say re- 
 specting the various expressions employed by 
 the four Evangelists, — that a really thoughtful 
 reader would obtain very nearly the same idea 
 of the time of the visit to the sepulchre from 
 any one of the Gospels, and yet the phraseol- 
 ogy is so remarkably distinct as to give the 
 clearest evidence of independence. A greater 
 proof of accuracy as well as truthfulness we 
 should find it difficult to imagine. 
 
 l\\ 
 
 if 
 
 'I 
 
 f 
 % I 
 
 •II 
 
 
 If 
 
 Essay, p. 39. 
 
11% 
 
 III 
 HI 
 
 i>4^ 
 
 234 
 
 IV/TJVESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 (3) There is much greater difficulty about 
 the number of the women and the order of the 
 appearancci, of Jesus after His resurrection. 
 According to Saint John, Mary Magdalene 
 came to the sepulchre; according to Saint Mat- 
 thew, the two Marys ; according to Saint Mark, 
 the two Marys and Salome came ; according to 
 Saint Luke, several women, including the two 
 Marys and Joanna. Further, according to 
 Saint Mark and S:?int John, the first appearance 
 was to Mary Magdalene. According to Saint 
 Matthew, it was to the women that He appeared, 
 although he does not speak of it as the first 
 appearance. 
 
 Now, are these statements necessarily contra- 
 dictory? They certainly are not identical; and 
 this is the best proof of their independence, and 
 of the sincerity of the writers. But it is not im- 
 possible to weave a connected narrative out of 
 the statements of the different Evangelists, which 
 shall be perfectly coherent and harmonious, and 
 yet shall omit no point which they record. 
 
 Let us note then, first of all, that, although 
 Saint John uses language which seems to imply 
 that Mary Magdalene came alone to the sepul- 
 chre, he incidentally shows that she was not 
 alone, for he represents her as saying, ** Wp 
 know not where they have laid Him." If, then, 
 we suppose that several of the women came to- 
 gether to the sepulchre, and that Mary Magda- 
 len'e w^as separated from them for a short time, 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 235 
 
 — a thing which might quite easily happen in 
 the gray dawn of the morning, — we can quite 
 understand that our Lord showed Himself to 
 her first, and that He appeared directly after- 
 wards to the other women, as recorded by Saint 
 Matthew, who gives the fact generally without 
 reference to the circumstance (with which, per- 
 haps, he was not acquainted) that He had first 
 appeared to Mary Magdalene by herself. 
 
 It has been remarked that while Saint Luke 
 tells us of an appearance to Simon Peter, Saint 
 John, who was his companion, says nothing of 
 the matter. But here we have a remarkable 
 confirmation of the truth of his narrative ; for it 
 appears that the two disciples had separated (I 
 before the Lord appeared to Simon, and we | 
 know it is the custom of Saint John to record' 
 only those events in which he took part himself,/] 
 or else those which were necessary for the ex- 
 planation of events which he witnessed and re- 
 corded.^ In all probability, as we shall see 
 later on. Saint Luke obtained the information 
 respecting the appearance to Peter from Saint 
 \ Paul. 
 
 Again, it is said that Saint Matthew records 
 no appearances of our Lord to the disciples in 
 Jerusalem, Saint Mark and Saint Luke none in 
 Galilee. Yet Saint Luke says that the angels 
 
 ii 
 
 1 This characteristic of the fourth Gospel has been brought 
 out very clearly by recent commentators, as Luthardt, Godet, 
 and Westcott. 
 
fwr 
 
 
 236 
 
 WITNESSES TQ CHRIST. 
 
 reminded them of what the Saviour had said 
 while He was in GaHlce, without adding the 
 promise of His appearing there, inasmuch as he 
 did not mean to record that manifestation ; while 
 Saint Matthew, for the opposite reason, may 
 have preserved the words in which the angels 
 told the women that the Lord was going into 
 Galilee ; and Saint John records appearances 
 both in Jerusalem and in Galilee. 
 
 There are some other minor difficulties, on 
 which no great stres^ can be laid, such as the 
 account of the anointing, the number of the 
 angels, and some other points. But of what use 
 would it be to discuss the number of the angels 
 at the sepulchre, when the author of " Super- 
 natural Religion " regards the mere introduction 
 of an angel at all as a proof of the unhistorical 
 character of the narrative? "Can we believe," 
 he asks, " that an ' angel,' causing an earthquake, 
 [where is that asserted?] actually descended 
 and took such a part in this transaction? " And 
 then he adds, " If the introduction of the angel 
 be legendary, must not also his words be so? " * 
 
 Yes ; but why should the " introduction of 
 the angel be legendary"? If it were so, the 
 critic would still have to deal with the appear- 
 ances of Christ to His disciples; he would still 
 have to account for their belief in the resurrec- 
 tion of their Lord. But what necessity is there 
 for suggesting the theory of legend? If an 
 
 ^ Supernatural Religion, vol. ill. pp. 448, 449. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 237 
 
 event SO stupendous as the Resurrection took 
 place, it was by no means incredible that it 
 should be witnessed by angels. The opposition 
 to these details of the miracle really rests upon 
 the supposition that the Resurrection could not 
 have taken place, or did not take place. But 
 this is to beg the whole question ; and it will be 
 found that the main objections urged against 
 this portion of the Gospel narrative are, for the 
 most part, of a purely a priori character. 
 
 Difficulties and apparent contradictions, such 
 as are here met with, would present no real ob- 
 stacle to belief if they were found connected 
 with ordinary human history. It is the assump- 
 tion that the main narrative in this case cannot 
 be true, which leads to the exaggeration of the 
 difficulties in the details of the history. It is 
 impossible to resist the conviction that the ob- 
 jectors to the truth of the Resurrection find dis- 
 crepancies in the history because they have 
 made up their minds that they are not to be- 
 lieve it. 
 
 Besides the points already noticed, two or 
 three of minor importance should at least be 
 mentioned. Thus it is said that the beautiful 
 and touching narrative of our Lord's appearance 
 to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus is 
 essentially legendary.^ But this is the very 
 point in question, — the very thing which has to 
 be proved and not to be assumed. The writer 
 
 1 Supernatural Religion, vol. iii. p. 462. 
 
 . %i 
 
I n > 
 
 Ifi nil 
 
 ■ 4 
 
 i1 
 
 li 
 
 mil 
 
 238 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 might with as much propriety tell us at once 
 that the whole history is legendary, and have 
 done with it. We cannot accept his prejudice 
 or his impression as proof of the unhistorical 
 character of an incident which the Christian re- 
 gards with gratitude and delight, and which can 
 be set aside only on grounds that would be 
 fatal to all religion as well as revelation. 
 
 Then the same writer tells us, with the greatest 
 confidence, that, if the risen Jesus could cat a 
 piece of broiled fish, He could not enter a room 
 
 I when the door was closed, nor vanish suddenly 
 
 ^ out of the sight of His disciples;^ but this is 
 assuming a knowledge of the properties of mat- 
 
 I ter to which the most learned of scientific men 
 
 ! will make no pretensions. 
 
 Once more, it is alleged that the accounts of 
 the Ascension are contradictory and irreconcila- 
 ble. Saint John does not mention it. Saint 
 Mark records the fact without saying where it 
 happened. Saint Matthew seems to say it took 
 place in Galilee. Happily, however, for the 
 credit of the Evangelists, the principal objector 
 to the historical character of their work does not 
 merely accuse them of contradicting each other ; 
 he accuses Saint Luke of contradicting himself. 
 In the Gospel, he says, Saint Luke represents 
 the Ascension as taking place on the same day 
 as the Resurrection, and in the Acts of the 
 Apostles (for he allows that both books are 
 
 1 Supernatural Religion, vol. iii. p. 459. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. .?39 
 
 from the same hand) he says it was forty days 
 latcr.i 
 
 It is a very happy example of the unreason- 
 able and captious temper in which these docu- 
 ments have been examined. If these two books 
 were by different writers, we should certainly be 
 told triumphantly that there was a manifest dis- 
 crepancy between them. Seeing that they arc 
 by the same writer, the second book taking up 
 the narrative at the point at which the earlier 
 dropped it, there would certainly be needed a 
 great stretch of credulity to believe that the first 
 page of the second part flatly contradicted the last 
 page of the first. Surely, the natural explana- 
 tion is much simpler and more credible. In the 
 Gospel Saint Luke recorded the bare fact, and 
 in the Acts he gave it in its connection with 
 other events. It is a good illustration of the 
 difference between the more condensed and the 
 more extended narratives of the sacred books. 
 The writers are frequently careless of the indi- 
 cations of place or time, where these would have 
 no significance for the contents of their record. 
 When they seem essential, they arc mentioned. 
 In the Acts of the Apostles, Saint Luke was 
 about to record the descent of the Holy Spirit, 
 and therefore he speaks of the lengthened period 
 of preparation for that great event which our 
 Lord afforded to His disciples. In the Gospel 
 He was recording the history of parts of the life 
 
 ' Supernatural Religion, vol. iii. pp. 470, 474, 571. 
 
 '! 
 
240 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 I '1^**1 
 
 and work of Christ, and he simply added the 
 mention of His ascension to the account of His 
 resurrection. An explanation so simple of the 
 seeming contradictions between two works of 
 the same writer may serve to render us cautious 
 in believing that one of these writers contradicts 
 another. 
 
 What would be the verdict in a court of jus- 
 tice, if evidences such as we possess of the resur- 
 rection of Christ were brought forward on behalf 
 of any event to which the witnesses could bear 
 personal testimony? Even if the seeming dis- 
 crepancies in their witness were real discrepan- 
 cies, no reasonable man would doubt as to the 
 truth of the main fact. In certain details, they 
 would say, there may have been slight failures 
 of memory, but as regards the central fact there 
 can be no room for doubt. 
 
 And this is the conclusion arrived at even 
 by rationalistic writers who have examined the 
 evidences of the resurrection of Jesus. Even 
 although the particular facts in the history, says 
 Keim,^ be contradictory and legendary, " the 
 resurrection of Jesus in general " — the Resurrec- 
 tion itself, that is to say — " belongs to the most 
 certainly proved facts of the New Testament." 
 We see no reason to infer a legendary character 
 in any part of the record ; we certainly are not 
 sensible that any of the seeming discrepancies 
 must be understood to be contradictions; but 
 1 Geschichte Jesu von Nazara, vol. iii. p. 529. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JEUS CHRIST. 24 1 
 
 \vc gladly accept the testimony and assert the 
 truth, that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from 
 the dead is most surely proved and established 
 to the satisfaction of the most critical investi- 
 gator who is willing to give its true force to the 
 evidence adduced. 
 
 5. THE EVIDENCE OF SAINT PAUL. 
 
 In dealing with the evidence of Saint Paul for 
 the Resurrection we have this peculiar advan- 
 tage, that we are occupying ground which is 
 not seriously contested. Many of the recent 
 assailants of Divine Revelation deny the authen- 
 ticity of our Gospels on internal grounds, either 
 attributing to them an origin more recent than 
 is consistent with their reputed authorship, or 
 else asserting that the original documents have 
 been overlaid by later additions. 
 
 In regard to the history and the writings of 
 Saint Paul, the case is different. The broad 
 facts of his history are not denied ; the genuine- 
 ness of certain of his writings is not contested. 
 We arc, therefore, on ground which is allowed 
 by our adversaries ; and the only question be- 
 tween us has regard to the true significance of 
 Saint Paul's testimony, and its bearing upon the 
 reality of the resurrection of our Lord. Let us 
 begin, then, by stating the points on which there 
 is general agreement among all reasonable stu- 
 dents of this subject. 
 
 16 
 
242 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 ^\\\ 
 
 2- 
 
 It is agreed that a man whose original name 
 was Saul, a native of Tarsus, lived at the time 
 to which his history is assigned, about the mid- 
 dle of Lhc first century of our era ; that he was 
 originally an earnest or even a fanatical Jew; 
 that he was a persecutor of the disciples of 
 Jesus, — those who were called Christians or 
 named contemptuously Nazarcncs. It is agreed 
 that this persecutor was himself converted to a 
 belief in Jesus Christ, and that he became, in 
 consequence, the most zealous and devoted 
 preacher of the faith he had once sought to 
 destroy. Under his new name of Paul he trav- 
 ersed considerable portions of the Roman Em- 
 pire, preaching the Gospel, founding churches, 
 guiding the infant communities which his teach- 
 ing had called into existence ; and finally he died 
 a witness for the faith which he had proclaimed. 
 It is not denied that he made the greatest sacri- 
 fices for the faith which he preached, or that he 
 was induced to change the whole current and 
 purpose of his life by an undoubting belief that 
 Jesus Christ had risen from the dead. So much 
 is conceded by all who are worthy of considera- 
 tion in this controversy. 
 
 In order to ascertain the value of this testi- 
 mony for ourselves, we must find out what is the 
 nature of the documents in which it is handed 
 down to us; and then, by a careful examination 
 of those doc'iments, consider what convictions 
 must be wrought in our own minds by the testi- 
 
name 
 ; time 
 ; mid- 
 le was 
 
 Jew; 
 lies of 
 ms or 
 agreed 
 :d to a 
 me, in 
 evoted 
 ght to 
 e trav- 
 n Em- 
 urches, 
 
 teach- 
 le died 
 
 aimed, 
 t sacri- 
 
 hat he 
 nt and 
 f that 
 much 
 
 sidcra- 
 
 testi- 
 is the 
 landed 
 [nation 
 'ictions 
 e testi- 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 243 
 
 mony which tlicy afford. That we may avoid 
 all needless distraction from our main purpose, 
 we shall restrict ourselves to those documents 
 the genuineness of which is not disputed. We 
 shall, therefore, make no use, except incident- 
 ally, of the Acts of the Apostles, nor of the 
 disputed epistles of Saint Paul. 
 
 Now, there are at least four epistles which, as 
 M. Renan remarks,^ are " incontestable and un- 
 contested," — the Epistle to the Galatians, the 
 two Epistles to the Corinthians, and the Epistle 
 to the Romans. M. Renan himself believes that 
 several others are Saint Paul's; but these are 
 allowed by the whole critical school of 7\ibingen, 
 and they are sufficient for our purpose. Let us 
 see what we may learn from them concerning 
 the resurrection of Christ. 
 
 Now, at a glance we see two things : first, that 
 Saint Paul was converted by having received, 
 as he believed, in some way, a revelation ofj 
 Jesus Christ, — that he believed himself to have 
 actually beheld the risen Lord, and that he had 
 learned from many other Christians that they 
 also had seen Him after His resurrection ; and 
 further, that many of those who had seen Him | 
 were alive at the time when the Apostle wrote. 
 These general statements cannot possibly be 
 called in question; but it is necessary to ex- 
 amine them more carefully in order to ascer- 
 tain what basis they afford for our belief, and 
 
 1 Saint Paul, Introduction, part v. Sec Note II. 
 
fm 
 
 
 244 
 
 W/TA' ESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 \^ 1 
 
 t / 
 
 whether it is possible to suggest any hypothesis 
 different from that of the actual resurrection of 
 Christ, which will account for the undenied and 
 undeniable facts now recounted. 
 
 First, let us remark that we have here a per- 
 fectly independent testimony. It is not a mere 
 summary of the Gospel narrative made by a 
 compiler or condenser of older documents. It 
 is not pretended that any of the facts to which 
 Saint Paul bears testimony were derived from 
 the written books of the Iwangelists, or from 
 any similar records or histories. He gained 
 them either from the revelation of Jesus Christ, 
 or from the living men who were his own con- 
 temporaries, friends, fellow-workers. Even if it 
 could be proved that the accounts of the Resur- 
 rection contained in the Gospels are legendary 
 and contradictory, which we do not believe, the 
 independent testimony of Saint Paul, and of 
 those who were alive when he wrote, must be 
 dealt with on its own merits. 
 
 Let us begin with Saint Paul's assertion of the 
 appearance of the risen Lord to himself. In the 
 Epistle to the Galatians ^ he says, " It pleased 
 God to reveal His Son in me." We have no 
 doubt the reference here is to the manner of his 
 conversion as it is three times recorded in the 
 Acts of the Apostles. As, however, we are 
 using no authorities outside the limits of the 
 uncontested Epistles, we will concede that this 
 
 » Gal. i. 15, 16. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST 245 
 
 othesis 
 ;tion of 
 ed and 
 
 a per- 
 a mere 
 2 by a 
 Its. It 
 ) which 
 d from 
 X from 
 
 gained 
 
 Christ, 
 vn con- 
 en if it 
 
 Rcsur- 
 jendary 
 ive, the 
 and of 
 lust be 
 
 1 of the 
 In the 
 pleased 
 ave no 
 r of his 
 in the 
 we are 
 of the 
 lat this 
 
 statement might signify no more than a reve- 
 lation of Christ to the heart and spirit of the 
 Apostle. The same, however, cannot be said of 
 the passage in the fifteenth chapter of the First 
 Epistle to the Corinthians. Here, after enumer- 
 ating a series of appearances of the risen Jesus, 
 he adds, " Last of all He was seen of me also." ^ 
 And in another place ^ he asks: "Have I not 
 seen Jesus our Lord?" 
 
 Saint Paul then asserts that he had seen the 
 Lord Jesus after PI is resurrection, just as the 
 others had seen Him. It does not follow, as 
 some critics have insinuated, that all the pre- 
 vious appearances had been of precisely the 
 same character as that which was granted to 
 him, who was as one born out of due time ; but 
 simply that he also did sec the Lord, and had 
 no doubt of that fact. 
 
 Several points in connection with this appear- 
 ance will have to be considered when we come 
 to examine the theories by which it has been 
 attempted to set aside the evidences for the Res- 
 urrection as a whole. At present we are simply 
 considering the value of Saint Paul's testimony 
 as trustworthy evidence. Now, the value of this 
 particular testimony by itself will depend greatly 
 upon the character, circumstances, and conduct 
 of the man by whom it is borne. And, happily, 
 these are well known. We know what kind of 
 man Saint Paul was. We know whether he was 
 
 1 I Cor. XV. 
 
 2 2 Cor. ix. I. 
 
246 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 a man likely to take up a change of opinion 
 lightly, whether his was one of those illogical 
 minds, full of fancies and imaginations, which 
 would mistake its own internal sensations for ob- 
 jective facts. Saint Paul was a highly educated 
 Hebrew, thoroughly acquainted with the religion 
 of his fathers, and bitterly opposed to the Gos- 
 pel of Christ. It is quite conceivable that before 
 the time of his conversion doubts may have 
 passed through his mind, but they had not 
 lodged there. He ha 1 heard the testimony of 
 the Apostles. He had listened to the defence of 
 the first martyr. Saint Stephen, and had givien 
 his vote ^ for his death. He had witnessed his 
 martyrdom. Yet he was in no wise turned from 
 his purpose, and still went on " breathing out 
 threatenings and slaughter against the disciples 
 of the Lord." 2 
 
 Various theories^ have been invented to ac- 
 count for the undeniable fact of the conversion 
 of Saul of Tarsus. It has been suggested that 
 his conscience had become so troubled by the 
 thought of his cruelty towards the Christians, 
 ' that he was prepared to interpret almost any 
 startling event as a sign of a divine interpo- 
 sition ; that he was probably alarmed by a 
 thunderstorm while engaged in the work of 
 persecution, and then imagined that something 
 took place like that which is recorded in the 
 
 1 This seems to be the meaning of \|/^(^oi'. 
 
 2 Acts ix. I. " See Macan, p. 83. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST 247 
 
 Acts of the Apostles; and that then, under the 
 influence of this new sentiment thus enkindled, 
 he began to burn with an enthusiasm which left 
 him no time for reflection on the nature of the 
 evidence which had satisfied him of the resur- 
 rection of Christ. 
 
 And this is the theory which we are expected 
 to receive in place of the clear and consistent 
 account of the matter which is given three times 
 in the New Testament by one who was undoubt- 
 edly the companion of Saint Paul ! It is, of 
 course, easy enough to invent any number of 
 theories, and those who are determined to be- 
 lieve in no supernatural facts arc driven to 
 these straits; but those who are under no such 
 necessity may be permitted to judge of such 
 theories as infinitely more difficult of belief, 
 more unnatural, and more unreasonable than 
 the simple story of the New Testament. 
 
 In the writings of Saint Paul we certainly meet 
 with no trace of such influences as are here sup- 
 posed. He was perfectly sincere in his hatred 
 of the Gospel and of Jesus of Nazareth. What 
 he did against Ilim and His disciples he did 
 ignorantly, in unbelief On this point his own 
 Epistles and the Acts of the Apostles are in 
 entire agreement. Saint Paul evidently believed 
 that, until it pleased God to reveal His Son in 
 him, he was in darkness, in error, and in sin. 
 He evidently believed that it was this revelation 
 which produced the change in him, and not his 
 
 1 1 
 
 
 II 
 
h*;; 
 
 ■I 
 
 ■1 
 
 
 ! 'II >< 
 
 ' ail 
 
 \-m 
 
 I 
 li ' 
 
 \?" 
 
 j ! 
 
 !!!liii 
 
 KftJB' 
 
 1,1 
 
 ) ! 
 
 'I ! 
 
 It I 
 
 248 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST 
 
 own mental agitation which made him look 
 upon some natural phenomena as signs of the 
 presence of Christ. 
 
 Is there any reason, from what we know of 
 Saint Paul's subsequent conduct, to suppose that 
 he was seized by a sudden impulse which pre- 
 vented his rationally investigating the causes of 
 his conversion? Did he go forth on his work 
 heedless of other men's testimonies to the Mas- 
 ter, to whose service he now, once for all, con- 
 secrated his life? We have no doubt that Saint 
 Paul was thoroughly convinced,^ by the events 
 which accompanied his conversion, that he had 
 seen the Lord ; that Jesus, whom he was per- 
 (Secuting, had actually appeared to him. In the 
 Epistle to the Galatians he distinctly tells us 
 that he received his commission and the Gospel 
 which he preached immediately from Christ. 
 
 Now, we must confess that if Saint Paul had 
 simply acted upon this conviction, without any 
 communication with the other Apostles, as far 
 as we are concerned, his testimony would have 
 been of less value. But that was not the case. 
 In that great chapter of the Plrst Epistle to the 
 Corinthians, in which he teaches the resurrec- 
 tion of the dead, he brings forward a series of 
 testimonies to the resurrection of Christ which 
 
 1 We are here in complete agreement with the author of 
 " Supernatural Religion " (vol. iii. p. 494), who says that " Paul 
 was quite satisfied with his own convictions;" although we 
 deny his inference from that fact. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST 249 
 
 his readers m'ght verify for themselves. Surely, 
 this is not the work of a mere enthusiast, but of 
 a calm, thoughtful, reasonable man. We must 
 draw special attention to these testimonies, be- 
 cause they arc of the greatest possible value, 
 and the inipugncrs of the truth of the Resurrec- 
 tion have felt that here they must put forth the 
 whole strength of their attack if they would 
 hope to destroy the Christian faith. 
 
 The first objection alleged is the most extraor- 
 dinary. It is to the effect that " the testimony 
 upon which the Resurrection rests," is " com- 
 prised in a dozen lines " ! ^ But what is the tes- 
 timony the worse for its brevity? The real 
 question to be considered is its truth or its false- 
 hood, and the means which the witnesses had of 
 knowing whether it was true or not. 
 
 Then, it is said, there can be no doubt " that 
 Paul intended to give the appearances in chro- 
 nological order," and that it would " be a fair 
 inference that he intended to mention all the 
 appearances of which he was aware." '-^ We 
 know of no reason for allowing the truth of 
 either of these assertions ; but if they were true 
 they could not in the least degree affect the 
 value of the testimonies actually given. 
 
 Two things are quite obvious : first, that Saint 
 Paul obtained the testimony which he here re- 
 cords from the persons whom he mentions as 
 
 ^ Supernatural Religion, vol. iii. p. 483. 
 2 Ibid., p. 4SS. 
 
 
111! 
 
 250 
 
 WITNESSES TO C//RIST. 
 
 having seen the Lord after his resurrection ; and 
 secondly, that he put this testimony upon record 
 at a time when the witnesses were ahve, at a 
 time when they themselves were proclaiming 
 the same facts, and when it was possible and 
 easy to interrogate them on the subject of their 
 testimony. It is agreed that the Epistle was 
 written between twenty and thirty years after 
 the resurrection of Christ, when Saint Peter and 
 most of the Apostles were alive ; and the writer 
 distinctly states that the greater number of those 
 who had been witnesses remained " unto this 
 present." ^ 
 
 The very selection of the instances which he 
 places on record is significant; and it might 
 suggest to a candid reader that these instances 
 are not exhaustive. He mentions Peter and 
 James as having seen the Lord ; and it is note- 
 worthy that these are the " pillar" Apostles whom 
 alone he saw, as he tells us in the Epistle to the 
 Galatians,^ when three years after his conversion 
 he went up to Jerusalem. What more natural 
 than that these two Apostles should have told 
 this new convert, this new witness to the Resur- 
 rection, of their own interviews with their risen 
 Lord } 
 
 It has actually been attempted to throw doubt 
 upon this testimony : the event is mentioned in 
 the most "cursory" manner by Saint Paul and 
 by no one else. Saint John does not mention it, 
 
 1 I Cor. XV. 6. - Cal. ii. 9. 
 
 1 
 
he 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 2$ I 
 
 althoiigli he was Saint Peter's companion. But 
 the probable reason of Saint John's silence, to 
 which we have already referred, is passed over. 
 Yet we arc not without partial confirmations of 
 the testimony, if such were needed. Although 
 we are not at present using the contents of the 
 Gospels, we may yet note, in passing, that Saint 
 Mark, the companion of Saint Peter, records 
 the words of the angel at the sepulchre, " Go 
 tell the disciples and Peter," ^ indicating a spe- 
 cial reference to him ; and Saint Luke,^ the 
 companion of Saint Paul, represents the Apos- 
 tles as speaking of the Lord having " appeared 
 unto Simon." 
 
 But indeed, as we have already hinted, the 
 special mention of these two appearances by 
 Saint Paul is in no way unnatural, but the re- 
 verse. As we have remarked, they were the two 
 whom the Apostle first met after his conversion. 
 It was hardly possible that they should omit to 
 tell liim of their having seen the Lord when they 
 heard his testimony; and it was quite impos- 
 sible that he should ever forget it. Will any 
 one venture to suggest that Saint Paul put these 
 testimonies on record, and that, too, during the 
 life of the alleged witnesses, without having re- 
 ceived their authority for the testimony? 
 
 But, further, Saint Paul tells us that the Lord 
 appeared not to two only, but to the twelve, — 
 that is, to the whole company of the Apostles, — 
 
 1 Mark xvi. 7. 2 Luke xxiv. 34. 
 
 
 
 1.1 -'! 
 
 I 
 
m 
 
 m 
 
 252 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST 
 
 and then to five hundred of the brethren, and 
 lastly to himself. Even if these were all the ap- 
 pearances that the Apostle had heard of, the 
 value of his evidence would in no way be les- 
 sened ; but we cannot help being struck by the 
 notion of there being a selection, when we con- 
 sider the cases actually mentioned. And this 
 may explain the omission of the appearances to 
 Mary Magdalene and the other women. In 
 those days women were not heard as witnesses 
 in a court of justice ; and the Apostle may have 
 felt that their testimony would have added noth- 
 ing to the proofs which he adduced in evidence 
 of the Resurrection. • 
 
 With regard to the appearance to the five 
 hundred, it is objected that this occurrence is 
 not mentioned in the Gospels.^ Here is a speci- 
 men of the kind of criticism against which we 
 have a right to protest in the name of science 
 and consistency. First of all, the testimony of 
 the Gospels is declared to be untrustworthy, 
 and then it is brought in to cast doubt upon 
 evidence which could not otherwise be discred- 
 ited. If the defenders of the Gospel were as 
 arbitrary in their method of handling their 
 authorities, they would be loftily reminded that 
 no treatment of these subjects could ever re- 
 ceive attention which was not conducted in a 
 manner purely scientific ! There is, however, 
 nothing in the Gospels that would lead us to 
 
 * Supernatural Relipi'.n, vol. iii. p. 491. 
 
 In'i' 
 
IP 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 253 
 
 doubt the truth of Saint Paul's statement about 
 the appearance of the Lord to five hundred at 
 one time, probably in GaUlcc. The Apostle's 
 statement is precise, and seems to challenge 
 investigation. Of these five huntlred, he says, 
 "the greater j)art remain unto this present." 
 Nothing could be much easier than the verifi- 
 cation of such an assertion. It was made with 
 reference to events which did not concern 
 merely a small and obscure body of men, but 
 events which were openly proclaimed by a hun- 
 dred voices in the light of day, events with { 
 which Syria and Asia Minor and Greece were 
 ringing. If the Apostle could write words like 
 these to the inhabitants of a city so distin- 
 guished for its philosophical culture as Corinth, 
 without the distinct knowledge of their truth, 
 he must have been either an impostor or a 
 madman. Rather, he must have been both ; 
 and the worst enemies of the Gospel will 
 hardly assert that he was either the one or the 
 other. 
 
 What, then, is the inevitable conclusion at 
 which we arrive from an investigation of this 
 portion of Saint Paul's writings? Surely this, 
 as it has been stated by a writer who is not fa- 
 vorable to Christianity,^ " that within a few years 
 of Christ's resurrection, a large number of peo- 
 ple believed that he had risen from the dead," 
 
 1 Major Ijutler, author of "Erewhon," etc., in the "Fair 
 Have " p. 27. 
 
 i 
 
11 
 
 254 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 and " that they had seen Him alive after He had 
 been dead. This," he says, " has been well es- 
 tablished, and indeed has seldom been denied." 
 Such, then, was the undoubting belief of the 
 disciples of Jesus Christ. They were not, then, 
 deceivers ; they said what they believed to be 
 true. Were they, then, deceived, were they rnis- 
 taken in this belief? This is the only question 
 which remains for consideration ; and it shall 
 receive attention in the closing Lecture. 
 
'it ' 
 
 had 
 1 es- 
 :d." 
 
 the 
 hen, 
 ) be 
 mis- 
 tion 
 ihall 
 
 LECTURE VIII. 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 EXAMINATION OF THEORIES INVENTED TO SET ASIDE 
 THE EVIDENCE FOR THE RESURRECTION. 
 
 No Evidence will convince those who are resolved not to 
 believe. — Theory of Imposture abandoned. — How, then, 
 escape from the Force of the Testimony > — Two Theories : 
 I. The Theory of Apparent Death, — partly abandoned, 
 partly kept in Reserve. — The one Element of Probability 
 in the Theory. — But consider what the Theory requires us 
 to believe. — Difficulties. — Does not account for the Change 
 in the A|io.stlcs. — Involves Imposture, — 2. The Vision 
 Hypothesis. — The last Word of the Assailants. — Asserts 
 Illusion, not Imposture. — The Theory explained. — Not 
 entirely new. — Different Views of Strauss. — What the 11- 
 lusion Theory involves. — Requires the inadmissible As- 
 sumption that the Disciples expected the Resurrection. — 
 The Theory docs not account for the Chance in the Disci- 
 ples. — Inconsistent Treatment of the Cospcls. — Mary 
 Magdalene. — The Apostles. — Their Doubts and Disbe- 
 lief. — The Vision fails to account for undoubted Facts. — 
 Why did the Appearances cease so abruptly } — What be- 
 came of the Sacred Cody > — The Truth of the Resurrection 
 alone accounts for the new Faith of the Disciples. — The 
 End of this Controversy. 
 
 IF the examination of the question of the res- 
 urrection of Jesus Christ from the dead were 
 allowed to be a mere question of evidence, de- 
 termined as any other matter of doi:bt would be, 
 
 V u 
 
2s6 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 ■|1, 
 
 : ,'; ii 
 
 there certainly would appear to be no difficulty 
 in arriving at a final conclusion. The evidence 
 which satisfied the disciples of Christ might suf- 
 fice for the convincing of any unprejudiced in- 
 quirer. But the assailant of the Gospel is not 
 unprejudiced. He has resolved that he will be- 
 lieve in no supernatural occurrences ; and there- 
 fore, if proofs that seem adequate are brought 
 forward in support of such occurrences, it be- 
 comes necessary to invent some theory which 
 shall account for the testimony without allowing 
 the truth of the matter to which the testimony 
 is borne. 
 
 So it has been with the resurrection of Christ. 
 Its assailants arc quite candid. They tell us 
 that no evidence is conceivable that would prove 
 it; and then they try to show that the evidence 
 given is insufficient. We are now to consider 
 whether any of the theories which they offer can 
 be reasonably regarded as sufficient to set aside 
 the evidence which we have already brought 
 forward. There are only two or three of these 
 theories which even the opponents of the Gospel 
 would now think worthy of attention. 
 
 In the first place, there are few, if any, who 
 will in these days even suggest that the first 
 Christian teachers were impostors. This theory 
 was a very early one. As we learn from Origen, 
 it was advocated by Cclsus ; and it has been 
 from time to time revived in the coarser forms 
 of unbelief. Nay more, as we shall have to 
 
 Ifl 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST 2 $7 
 
 show, the assumption of imposture is more or \ 
 less involved in one of the theories, which still \ 
 possesses some adherents, although the advo- ^ 
 cates of the theory themselves do not con- 
 sciously hold this opinion. In fact, there is in 
 these days no assailant of the doctrine of the 
 Resurrection of any eminence or respectability 
 who thinks of charging the Apostles with impos- 
 ture. Whether we consider the men themselves, 
 or the doctrines which they promulgated, or the 
 circumstances in which they were placed, we feel 
 that, whatever they were, they were not deceiv- 
 ers ; they could not have been conscious liars. 
 Even if we knew nothing of their characters, even 
 if we ignored the contents of their teaching, we 
 must admit that they could have no motive for 
 undertaking the ministry of the Gospel of Christ, 
 except a strong faith in its truth, when they had 
 only poverty and suffering and death as their 
 earthly reward. 
 
 Unbelievers must, thcrefoie, find other ways 
 of escape from the force of their testimony than 
 the charge of dishonesty. Two theories have 
 accordingly been brought forward in recent 
 times with the purpose of neutralizing the evi- 
 dence for the Resurrection: the first, that Jesus 
 did not really die, but was taken from the cross 
 in a swoon, and afterwards revived ; the second, 
 that the disciples did not really see their risen 
 Lord, but only imagined that they did. These 
 
 theories we must now examine. 
 
 17 
 
 £ - 
 
258 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 I. THE THEORY OF APPARENT DEATH. 
 
 With regard to the first of these suppositions, 
 the theory that Jesus did not really die upon 
 the cross, although it was advanced by Paulus 
 and supported by some other writers of emi- 
 nence, it may be said that it has been given up 
 as untenable by the principal opponents of the 
 Gospel, — for instance, by Strauss, Renan, Ma- 
 can, the author of " Supernatural Religion," and 
 others. As, however, it still has supporters of 
 ability, and may yet be resuscitated if other 
 theories have to be abandoned, it will not be 
 safe to leave it unconsidered. The author of 
 " Supernatural Religion," indeed, seems to keep 
 it in reserve in case the " Illusion hypothesis " 
 should prove a failure. " Although," he says, 
 " we have no intention ourselves of adopting 
 this explanation of the Resurrection, it is, as an 
 alternative, certainly preferable to a bclic^ in the 
 miracle." ^ Not a very hopeful kind of contro- 
 versialist, — one who starts with the assumption 
 that, whatever may happen, the Resurrection 
 cannot be believed ! Any theory, however un- 
 reasonable, is to be accepted rather than this. 
 We must leave the spectator of the fray to form 
 a judgment respecting this attitude on the part 
 of one of the combatants. It is for us, at any 
 rate, to consider whether, " as an alternative," 
 
 1 Supernatural Religion, vol. iii. p. 485. Compare pp. 435, 
 446. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 259 
 
 this theory be at all " preferable to a belief in " 
 the Resurrection. 
 
 Now, the one clement of probability which is 
 contained in the theory of apparent death, is the 
 fact that there was no actual proof that our 
 Lord was really dead when He was taken from 
 the cross. Whether subsequent occurrences 
 did not afford proof ample and irresistible, 
 whether any other supposition than that of his 
 actual death can possibly be entertained, — these 
 are questions which cannot be left out of con- 
 sideration. It has, however, been urged with 
 some force by scientific men, that there was no 
 proof, at the time, that life had actually departed 
 from the Body which was taken down from the 
 cross. When, however, we consider what a 
 doubt on this subject, or a denial of the actual 
 death of the Lord Jesus, necessarily involves, 
 then we can feel little difficulty in rejecting the 
 theory. 
 
 For — let us mark it well — whnt this theory 
 requires us to believe is this, that the appear- 
 ances of the risen Saviour were those, not of one 
 who had come forth from the grave in the ful- 
 ness of a new life, but of a half-dead man who 
 had crept from the tomb, after awaking from a 
 deep and deathlike swoon ; and that these ap- 
 pearances wrought an entire revolution in the 
 faith and hope of the disciples of Jesus. Even 
 the most resolute unbelievers in the Resurrec- 
 tion have felt constrained to reject this theory ; 
 
h y 
 
 260 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 and before urging certain objections of our own, 
 we will allow the critics of unbelief to give their 
 judgment. 
 
 Mr. Macan ^ thus pronounces upon the theory 
 in question : " It was very obvious to say that 
 the glorious appearances of the risen Jesus were 
 as unlike as possible to the comings and goings 
 of a feeble convalescent, or of an invalid, who 
 shortly sank again under the hardships which 
 he had sustained ; it was very obvious that such 
 a mere convalescence could never have restored 
 and transfigured the faith of the disciples, as it 
 is generally admitted their faith was transfig- 
 ured after the crucifixion. This rationalism 
 is to us now-a-days but as a clumsy blunder." 
 These remarks of Mr. Macan arc little more 
 than a repetition of the criticism offered 
 by D. F. Strauss in his later work, to which 
 the English writer is in many ways greatly 
 indebted. " This view of the resuscitation of 
 Jesus," says Strauss,^ " apart from the difficul- 
 ties in which it is involved, does not for a 
 moment solve the problem with which it is con- 
 cerned, to explain the founding of the Christian 
 Church as the result of a belief in the miracu- 
 lous revivification of Jesus the Messiah. It is 
 impossible that a being who had crept half dead 
 out of the grave, and had crawled abcut in a 
 state of weakness, needing surgical treatment, 
 
 "^ Essay, pp. 61, 62. 
 
 ' Das Leben Jesu fiir das deutsche Volk, p. 298. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 26 1 
 
 bandaging, strengthening, nursing, and who at 
 last succumbed under his sufferings, should have 
 given to. his disciples the impression that he 
 was the Conqueror of death and the grave, and 
 the Prince of Life, — an impression which lay 
 at the foundation of all their future testimony. 
 Such a revivification could only have weakened 
 the impression which he had made upon them 
 in life and in death." 
 
 We submit that these difficulties are unanswer- 
 able. Such a theory does in no way account 
 for the acknowledged fact of a marvellous change 
 which was wrought in the mental condition of 
 the disciples, — a change which led to the foun-l 
 dation and expansion of the Church of Christj 
 upon earth. With such a criticism we might be 
 contented to leave this theory. As, however, it 
 has been revived in the book bearing the title of 
 the " Fair Haven," already mentioned, it may 
 be proper to point out that there are other and 
 even more serious objections to the hypothesis 
 in question. 
 
 Thus, the moment that we face the theory, 
 we are confronted with questions like the follow- 
 ing: "Did Jesus Himself profess to have risen 
 from the dead, when He had only recovered 
 from a swoon? And did His disciples, know- 
 ing the truth of the matter, represent His resus- 
 citation as a resurrection wrought by the power 
 of God?" 
 
 There are no consistent answers to such ques- 
 
262 
 
 • WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 tions, and there is no agreement among the ad- 
 vocates of the theory as to what became of Jesus. 
 According to one, He Hngcrcd on for a little 
 while and then died. Another thinks that, like 
 Moses, He withdrew Himself from the eyes of 
 His followers, and died, probably on the Mount 
 of Olives, hidden by a cloud from the eyes of 
 His disciples. According to another He lived 
 for a long time in an obscure quarter of Jerusa- 
 lem, and sometimes in out-of-the-way parts of 
 Galilee, showing Himself at rare intervals to His 
 disciples. One writer ^ supposes that He lived 
 for seven and twenty years after His crucifixion, 
 and labored for the good of man. Some of 
 these writers have suggested other theories 
 which we do not here mention, lest we should 
 be supposed to bring them forward for the mere 
 purpose of casting ridicule upon the school from 
 which they have proceeded. 
 
 It is quite unnecessary to criticise these theo- 
 ries in detail. There is one general considera- 
 tion which must certainly be regarded as fatal 
 to any form of the theory which holds that the 
 death of Jesus was not real, but only apparent. 
 Let us endeavor to make this consideration 
 quite plain. The nature of our Lord's return 
 to life — whether it was the resuscitation of one 
 who had been half dead, who had been buried 
 in a swoon, or a resurrection to life of one who 
 had been really dead — must have been made 
 
 1 Andreas Brennecke, quoted by Keim, vol. iii. p. 574. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 263 
 
 known to those who had intercourse with Ilim 
 after His resurrection. And even if, for a time, 
 there might exist a doubt as to the nature of the 
 change which had passed upon Him, that doubt 
 would be entirely removed by His subsequent 
 history. If He were merely a man brought 
 back from a swoon, then He must have lived 
 as other men lived. He must have eaten andf 
 drunk, and He must have taken rest in sleep; 
 and this must have been known to friends or to 
 foes. If it were known to foes, we are by this 
 theory asked to believe that the enemies of the 
 Christian Society allowed the Apostles to bear 
 testimony to the resurrection of their Lord with- 
 out making known the real facts of the case, 
 which would forever have put an end to any 
 belief in the assumed miracle. If it were known 
 to His friends, then they were nothing short of 
 impostors ; for they gave out that He was not 
 only risen from the dead, but that He had as- 
 cended to the right hand of God. This state- 
 ment, let it be remembered, is not in the Gospel 
 history only. It occurs repeatedly in the writ- 
 ings of Saint Paul: " It is Christ that died," he 
 says, " yea rather, that is risen again, who is 
 even at the right hand of God." ^ 
 
 We do not dwell upon the offensive sugges- 
 tion — which, however, is quite inevitable, if we 
 adopt this theory — that the Holy One Himself 
 participated in the fraud. 
 
 1 Rom. viii. 34. 
 
264 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 '\. 11 
 
 It has already been remarked that there are 
 few who will now put forward this explanation 
 of the appearances of our Lord to His disciples 
 after His death. We should not have regarded 
 it as worthy of serious refutation but for the 
 circumstance already noted, that it has still at 
 least one advocate of some ability, and that the 
 author of" Supernatural Religion " has indicated 
 a disposition to fiill back upon it, if his own hy- 
 pothesis should be found wanting. VVe repeat, 
 therefore, that in no respect docs this theory 
 account for the acknowledged facts or accord 
 with them. It explains nothing, and is burdened 
 with improbabilities and contradictions. 
 
 Some of the objections which may be urged 
 against this theory are equally applicable to 
 the one which has still to be examined. We 
 ./ refer in particular to the question of what be- 
 \ came of the sacred Body of the Lord. We 
 will, in conclusion, urge only one considera- 
 tion which has already been noticed, and one 
 which seems to be utterly fatal to its claims. 
 If this hypothesis be true, it is impossible to 
 acquit the first preachers of the Gospel of 
 the charge of imposture. Their testimony 
 was false, and they must have known it to be 
 false. And this is what we are asked to be- 
 lieve. These impostors were the men who 
 counted not their lives dear to them, but gave 
 up all that the world had to give to them, that 
 they might preach truth and righteousness and 
 
1 
 
 rilE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 26$ 
 
 love and mercy to their fcllovv-men. In the 
 propagation of these doctrines they endured tile 
 greatest sufferini^s willingly, joyfully. In tes- 
 timony of the truth which they proclaimed, 
 many of them died without a murmur, without a 
 reproach addressed to Ilim who had called them 
 to their work, without a doubt or a fear with 
 respect to the hope which He had set before 
 them. If there is a man on earth who can be- 
 lieve this, then certainly the belief of any mir- 
 acles, however astounding, can be a matter of 
 small difficulty. It is impossible for us to give 
 credit to this implied charge of imposture. It 
 is not believed by the adversaries of the Gospel 
 themselves. 
 
 2. THE VISION HYPOTHESIS. 
 
 The theory which remains for consideration 
 must be examined with the greatest attention, 
 inasmuch as it may be said to be the last word 
 of the assailants of the historical reality of the 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not a new 
 theory, and the fluctuations of unbelief on the 
 subject may well give rise to reflections in a 
 candid mind. It is quite clear that there is no 
 small difficulty in getting over the numerous and 
 weighty evidences which are alleged in support 
 of the truth of our Lord's resurrection from the 
 dead. Theories invented to account for the 
 acknowledged facts of early Christian history 
 have been put forward, tested, found wanting, 
 
266 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 li j.<) 
 
 and discarded. Wc do not say that they must 
 therefore all, of necessity, be false ; but it cer- 
 tainly raises a just suspicion that none of them 
 may be true. The theory now to be considered, 
 known as the Vision hypothesis, we hold to be 
 no more satisfactory than that which assumed 
 that our Lord was not dead, but only in a deep 
 swoon, when He was laid in the grave; but it is 
 more subtle, and the refutation of it requires a 
 greater amount of critical attention. 
 
 The theory is sometimes spoken of as the 
 Illusion hypothesis, — a term which more exactly 
 describes its nature, inasmuch as a vision either 
 may be subjective, or may involve the percep- 
 tion of an objective existence, of something 
 which has a being independent of the percipient. 
 We adopt the designation of "Vision hypothesis," 
 however, as that which is most commonly em- 
 ployed,^ and we proceed to say a few words on 
 its nature and history. 
 
 According to the Vision hypothesis, our Lord 
 did die, or probably did die, upon the cross ; 
 but He did not rise again, and He was not really 
 seen alive after His burial. The disciples, how- 
 ever, thought that they saw Him on different 
 occasions ; and the belief that He had appeared, 
 and therefore that He had risen from the dead, 
 took such hold of them, and so spread among 
 
 ^ It is the term used by Strauss, the author of " Supernatural 
 Religion," Mr. Macan, and others, and by Kcim, who rejects it. 
 Compare Note I. 
 
1 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 2C7 
 
 them, that they held it as an undoubted fact, 
 and proclaimed it as an essential part of the 
 Gospel which they believed themselves com- 
 missioned to preach for the salvation of men. 
 
 The theory, as we have said, is not a new one, 
 and its history is instructive. Somethinj^ of the 
 kind seems to have been held by Celsus, who is 
 represented by Origen^ as askings "Who saw| 
 this [the Resurrection] ? A half-frantic woman, 
 as you say, and perhaps some one else addicted 
 to the same kind of juggling, who had in some 
 state dreamt it, or, in accordance with his own 
 wish, by a wandering fancy, had imagined it." 
 This is, in fact, very much the same as the 
 modern Vision-hypothesis ; but Celsus docs not 
 seem to have laid much stress up(jn it, for he 
 adds, " or, which is more likely, one wished to 
 impress others with this marvel {-eparela), and 
 by such a fraud to give occasion to other 
 impostors." 
 
 It is noticeable that the theory did not gain 
 wide acceptance among the assailants of the his- 
 torical truth of the Gospel history. Paulus, the 
 greatest of the rationalistic school, as we have 
 seen, adopted the theory that Jesus had not 
 died. Even Strauss, in his first " Life of Jesus," 
 based purely upon the mythical theory, gave a 
 somewhat different explanation of the Resurrec- 
 tion. The change in his views is indeed so sig- 
 nificant in relation to the whole subject, that it 
 1 Contra Celsum, ii. 55. 
 
 f ' 
 
 i > 
 
 i 
 
 |. !'f 
 
 

 1 
 
 268 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 U " 
 
 deserves to be notcd.^ In the earlier "Life" 
 the explanation ordinarily given of the Gospel 
 miracles amounted very much to this, that a 
 large number of the contemporaries of Jesus 
 expected that the Messiah would work a certain 
 kind of miracles; and so, having attributed a 
 Messianic character to Jesus, they came to be- 
 lieve that lie actually did work such miracles. 
 The idea generated the supposed facts. So, 
 with regard to the Resurrection, the disciples, 
 by reflection upon the Messianic idea, came to 
 the conviction that the Soul of God must rise 
 from the dead, and so to the belief that He 
 actually had risen. 
 
 The success of this theory was, for a time, 
 prodigious. It got rid of all the difficulties, 
 many and great, of the rationalistic theory. 
 It hud an appearance of intellectual and spiritual 
 elevation, which to many minds was very at- 
 tractive and fascinating. It resolved the mirac- 
 ulous events of the Gospel history in a manner 
 which promised to be final. It is not too much, 
 however, to say that it has been, to a great ex- 
 tent, abandoned, and abandoned even by its 
 inventor, or adopter, and most able and suc- 
 cessful exponent, Dr. Strauss. Facts were at 
 last too strong for his followers. It became 
 clear that there were actual facts to be dealt 
 with, which had certainly taken place, and 
 
 1 This change has already been remarked in the first Lecture 
 of the present series. 
 
SBS 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 269 
 
 which could not be the mere product of ideas. 
 Consequently, a theory must be found which j 
 would give a natural explanation of those facts ; \ 
 and this necessity led to a partial return to 
 the rationalistic method. The events recorded 
 in the Gospel must in a certain degree be ac- 
 cepted, but their miraculous character must be 
 explained away. This new tendency found no-jj 
 table expression in Renan's " Vie de Jesus," pub- ' 
 lished in 1863, ^'^^ i'"^ Strauss's new " Life ofy 
 Jesus for the German People," put forth in the! 
 following year. 
 
 The promulgation of the Vision hypothesis i 
 was one of the results and evidences of this ' 
 change. Jesus was now recognized as a real ; 
 personage of a great and elevated character, 
 who had lived and taught, and exercised a pow- 
 erful influence over the minds of His disciples, 
 and who was put to death under Pontius Pilate. 
 Those who had known Ilim in life came to be- 
 lieve that they had seen Him alive after His 
 death. How could these supposed appearances 
 be accounted for? They could not, of course, 
 be regarded as real occurrences, as that would 
 involve a belief in miracles which must be dis- 
 carded. They must be regarded as imagina- 
 tions, visions, hallucinations. Such is, in effect, 
 the latest theory of Strauss, the theory of Re- 
 nan, Macan, and the author of " Supernatural 
 Religion." 
 
 Now, let us ask, fairly and candidly, what, on 
 
270 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 \ 4' 
 
 ,1 
 
 this hypothesis, we are expected to believe. 
 And first, what is its ground and starting-point? 
 It is evidently to be found in the notion that 
 the disciples expected their Master to rise again, 
 and so persuaded themselves and each other 
 that He had actually risen and that they had 
 seen Ilim. It is a large demand to make upon 
 our belief, — shall we say, upon our credulity? 
 To most of us a larger demand than the require- 
 ment to believe in a miracle wrought by the 
 power of God, and to accept the miraculous 
 explanation of the resurrection of Christ as the 
 best w^ay of accounting for the acknowledged 
 facts of history. We cannot pretend to ap- 
 proach the consideration of this theory with an 
 expectation of finding it to be in any way 
 credible. 
 
 In the first place, it is quite incredible that 
 such a revolution should have been worked in 
 the minds of the Apostles in the short space of 
 I three days. On this point there is no reason to 
 doubt the general Christian belief Saint Paul 
 mentions that Jesus rose on the third day; and 
 the institution of the first day of the week as the 
 Lord's Day, which dates back to the earliest 
 history of the Christian Society, is an abiding 
 witness to that belief We are asked, then, to 
 believe tha;, in the short space of two days or 
 less, the disciples had entirely changed their 
 views of the character of the Messiah and His 
 kingdom, and this without anything to account 
 
■nmi^nBKHUiiuiuuina^ 
 
 ->W 
 
 W 
 
 THE RESURRECTION 'F JESUS CHRIST. 2/1 
 
 way 
 
 that 
 
 iding 
 
 for it except what is called a natural reaction in 
 their own minds ! 
 
 Let us look at the facts. It is universally 
 known and acknowledged that the disciples of 
 Christ, like the mass of their countrymen, had 
 very low and materialistic conceptions of the 
 Mature of the Messiah's kingdom. Saint Paul, 
 may be taken as an example, probably a favor- 
 able example, of the orthodox Jew, and as illus- 
 trntinp the views of such respecting Jesus of 
 Nazareth. The death of Jesus naturally gave a 
 great shock to those who held such views ; and 
 the writers who advocate the Vision hypothesis 
 assf.'rt that, for a moment, their faith failed them. 
 But directly afterwards — such is their theory — 
 there was a reaction in their minds, and they 
 not only recovered from their momentary doubts 
 as to the Messiahship of Jesus, but conceived 
 the belief that He must have risen again. ^ 
 
 The Gospel account is certainly far more rea- 
 sonable, and much more in keeping with what 
 we know of human nature and its laws. We 
 know of no authority for the supposition that 
 the disciples lost faith in their Master, in the 
 sense of supposing that He had ever voluntarily 
 misled them. But it is quite possible that they 
 may have doubted whether they had rightly un- 
 derstood him when they thought He claimed to 
 be the Messiah. That He was "a Prophet 
 mighty in deed and word before God and all 
 
 • Macan, p. 85. 
 
 m 
 
n 
 
 272 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 'in 
 
 ■V 
 
 3'' '\ 
 
 Si 
 
 
 the people," they never had any reason to 
 doubt; but they may quite naturally have en- 
 tertained doubts of His being the promised 
 King. The words of the disciples on the way 
 to Emmaus contain a very natural expression 
 of their thoucrhts : " VVc trusted that it had been 
 He which should have redeemed Israel." ^ 
 
 How came it to pass that these men not only 
 recovered their faith in the Mcssiahship of 
 Jesus, but gained new and deeper and fuller 
 views of the nature of His work, and a faith so 
 strong that it never afterwards wavered ? This 
 is the real problem which we have to solve. 
 Which is the more reasonable answer to this 
 question, — that which is contained in the sim- 
 ple narrative of the New Testament, or these 
 theories which are invented to explain away the 
 meaning of that narrative? 
 
 The Gospel histories tell us, without any dis- 
 guise, that the disciples were cast into a state of 
 great doubt and fear by the death of their Mas- 
 ter; and they further relate that their doubts 
 and fears were dispelled by the sight of the 
 empty tomb, and by repeated appearances of 
 their risen Lord, which they had at first some 
 difficulty in believing, but of which they after- 
 wards became assured. The advocates of the 
 Vision hypothesis, on the contrary, declare that 
 the disciples spontaneously recovered from their 
 dismay, conceived the idea of their Master's 
 
 1 Luke x.xiv. 2\. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 273 
 
 r. 1 
 
 resurrection, and therefore came to believe in 
 it, and to tliink they had seen Him aHvc. 
 
 These writers dwell with peculiar emphasis on 
 the improbability of Saint John's account of the 
 fears of the priests and the doubts of the dis- 
 ciples. Is it likely, we arc asked, that the Jew- j 
 ish priests should have remembered a prophecy 
 which Jesus had delivered respectini^ His res- 
 urrection, which His disciples had forgotten? 
 Yes, we reply; both of these things arc quite- 
 probable. Both were taught by their fears. 
 When men's consciences are uneasy, they fear 
 the worst. When men's hopes are shattered, 
 they are slow to believe that they may yet be 
 revived. Herod, when he heard of the fame of 
 Jesus, thought that the murdered John must 
 have risen from the grave ; and the Jcv/s had 
 wickedly put to death a greater and a holier 
 than John. Martha, the sister of La::arus, was 
 slow to understand the implied promise of her 
 brother's restoration to life. " I know," she 
 said,^ " that he shall rise in the resurrection at 
 the last day." The loss of the disciples was 
 greater than hers, and their despondency deeper. 
 And yet wp are told — and the theory we are 
 cxaminin.g requires us to believe — that the 
 Body of the Lord Jesus was hardly deposited in 
 the tomb when tlicv became assured that He 
 would return, and then they immediately came 
 to believe that He had returned, and that they 
 
 1 John xi. 24. 
 18 
 
274 
 
 WIT.VESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 ■ffy. 
 
 ;^ 
 
 had seen Ilim. Docs not this look like an 
 effect witliout any antecedent cause? 
 
 But wc must not overlook the explanation 
 which some have given of the dawning of this 
 new hope within the hearts of the disciples. 
 According to M. Renan,^ it was "the powerful 
 imagination of Alary of Magdala," which played 
 the most important part in this transaction. 
 She found the grave empty, and immediately 
 her imagination took lire, and being raised up 
 into a high state of enthusiasm, she took the 
 first person that she met for the risen Master. 
 " Divine power of love," exclaims M. Renan, 
 " sacred moments in which the hallucination of 
 an impassioned woman gives a resuscitated God 
 to the world ! " 
 
 Now, the history of the appearance of our 
 Lord to Saint Mary Magdalene is a perfectly 
 coherent one, and perfectly reasonable and in- 
 telligible, just as it stands. The moment that 
 wc try to make it say anything different from 
 what it does say, we become involved in absurdi- 
 ties and contradictions. Say that it is fabulous, 
 
 i, and that you do not admit its authority, and 
 we will show that we are not dependent upon it. 
 Or use it to prove that it was " a half-frantic 
 woman " who produced a belief in the Resurrec- 
 tion among the disciples; but in that case take 
 the story just as it stands on the pages of Saint 
 
 ] John. Now, die history tells us that Mary 
 
 •I Vie de Jesus, c. xxvi. p. 434. 
 
THE RESURRECTION- OF JESUS CHRIST. 275 
 
 Magdalene had no expectation that Jesus would 
 rise. She came to the grav^c with spices to 
 anoint His sacred Body. But she found the 
 grave empty and the Body gone. Here at once 
 we are told of something which accounts for 
 her change of mind. Whether she remained to 
 hear what the angels told the women, or whether 
 she ran off at once to tell Saint Peter and Saint 
 John of the empty grave, she had seen enough 
 to prepare her for whatever might come,^ But 
 before we can believe that the reputed appear- 
 ance of her risen Master was a mere vision or 
 hallucination, we must have some account to 
 give of the empty grave, and we must also sat- 
 isfy ourselves that all the other appearances 
 were imaginary, and not real. To the subject 
 of the empty grave we will return presently. 
 Let us first consider the effect which Clary's tes- 
 timony had on the minds of the disciples.- 
 
 Did they at once accept the testimony that the 
 grave was empty, that Mary had actually beheld 
 its tenant restored to life again, and that there- 
 fore they might assure themselves that the Lord 
 was risen? On the contrary, the conviction U- 
 came to them gradually and slowly. These '' 
 men were not all enthusiasts. Granting that 
 there was among them a warm, impulsive Peter, 
 there was also a cold and doubting Thomas. 
 Were these the kind of men who, in a matter of 
 
 1 Supernatural Religion, vol. iii. p. 497, note. 
 
 2 Compare Macan, pp. 97, loi. 
 
 > II 
 
2/6 
 
 WITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 'is 
 
 such vital importance, would catch at a floating 
 rumor and immediately turn it into solid fact, 
 and make it a fulcrum by means of which they 
 would turn the whole course of their life into a 
 new path, and move the world of thought and 
 action? It is most improbable. 
 
 Saint Thomas was not the only one of whom 
 we arc told that he doubted. Saint Matthew ^ 
 relates that, at the appearance in Galilee which 
 he records, "when they saw Him they wor- 
 shipped Him, but some doubted;" and the 
 author of " Supernatural Religion " says the 
 Evangelist has omitted " to tell us whether, and 
 how, those doubts were set at rest."^ But sUi.'ily 
 this is a rash statement, for the answer is really 
 given in the very next verse: " And Jesus came 
 and spoke unto them, saying. All power is given 
 unto Me in heaven and in earth." Here was 
 the resolution of their doubts, that He actually 
 spoke to them, as He had been accustomed to 
 do before His death; took up, as it were, and 
 carried on the instructions which He had pre- 
 viously begun, enabling them to understand the 
 meaning of His life and death, of His sufferings 
 and His resurrection, as they could never before 
 have understood them. But, apart from the 
 narratives of the Evangelists, which are perfectly 
 consistent on the supposition that there was an 
 actual resurrection, followed by real appearances 
 
 1 Matthew xxviii. 17. 
 
 2 Supernatural Religion, vol. iii. p. 46S. 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 277 
 
 of the risen One, the Vision hypothesis fails to 
 explain certain undoubted facts in the apostolic 
 history. 
 
 How came it to pass, we may ask, that there \ 
 was such an entire agreement among the dis- y 
 ciples as to the nature of these appearances? ; 
 Let it be granted that a man in a high state of 
 enthusiastic excitement may believe that he sees 
 some object which is only the product of his 
 own imagination. Let it be granted that such 
 a man may communicate his own hallucination 
 to others, so that they may come to believe that 
 they have seen what he has seen, sometimes 
 apart and singly, at other times when large 
 numbers arc assembled togetliCr. Even if we 
 concede that this is possible, we cannot make 
 the same concession when v/c arc told that this 
 illusion presented itself under the same form to 
 all who had caught the enthusiasm, or that their 
 testimony on the subject was completely har- 
 monious and accordant. 
 
 There is another difficulty which lies in the 
 path of this theory. If these appearances had 
 no objective reality, how w^as it that they ceased 
 so soon and so abruptly?^ Why did they con-i 
 tinue at intervals f ^r a certain time to one after 
 another, and to assemblies of the disciples, and 
 then abruptly come to an end? If they were 
 mere illusions begotten of a heated imagina- 
 tion, there was no reason why they should not 
 
 1 This point is well urged by Kcim. 
 
278 
 
 IV/TNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 i^<^'. 
 
 l\ *-^ 
 
 ** .^ 
 
 ■I 
 i 
 
 
 continue. If wc take the account of the matter 
 which is given in the New Testament, all is clear 
 and consistent. I'^or forty days after His resur- 
 rection the Lord remained on earth, and mani- 
 fested Himself from time to time to His disciples, 
 speaking to them of the things pertaining to the 
 Kingdom of God, and preparing them for the 
 gift of the Holy Spirit. iVftcr His ascension He 
 appeared only to Saint Stephen and to Saint 
 Paul, and in a different manner afterwards to 
 Saint John ; but to all these " in glory." He 
 had then ascended to the l'\ithcr. Up to the 
 time of His ascension He was in a certain sense 
 personally present with His disciples on earth. 
 From that time, and especially from the Day 
 of Pentecost, He was still with them ; but not 
 in person. They had then another Comforter, 
 even the Spirit of truth, who was appointed 
 to abide with them, and lead them into all 
 truth. 
 
 This is the account of the matter which is 
 given in the New Testament, and it is quite 
 clear and consistent. We understand the ^xcdX 
 change which took place at the end of the forty 
 days. On the Vision hypothesis the change is 
 totally inexplicable. 
 
 lUit there is still another question v/hich re- 
 quires an answer, and to which an answer must 
 be given before either of these theories can 
 be accepted as even worthy of consideration. 
 *' What became of the sacred Body which had 
 
THE RESURRECTIOX OF JESUS CIIKIST. 2/9 
 
 all 
 
 been taken from the cross and laid in the 
 grave?" Here: at least there is ai;rcLnn;nt, — 
 in the belief that Jesus Christ was crucified, and 
 that lie was buried. Whether lie was only hall" 
 dead and came to life again, or whether lie was 
 dead and did not revive, in cither case He was 
 at least buried, and in either case the sacred 
 Body was ultimately deposited somewhere. On 
 any theory opposed to that which asserts an 
 actual resuscitation and resurrection, the ques- 
 tion must be answered, What became of the 
 Bod)' of the Lord? Renan ^ treats this subject 
 with his accustomed airy levity. " Had His 
 body been taken away," he asks, " or was it an 
 afterthou[.;ht of enthusiasm, always credulous, 
 which produced the stories, in order to estab- 
 lish faith in the Resurrection? ... It is a 
 matter," he adds, " in which, from the f:iult 
 of contradictory documents, we shall be forever 
 ignorant," 
 
 Others find " so many difficulties about the 
 empty grave that even the fact has become sus- 
 pect."- Perhaps, they urge, the body was still 
 in the tonilj. If so, it had probably become un- 
 recognizable, and therefore it would have been 
 of no avail to produce it. These considera- 
 tions are actually brought forward as of weight. 
 Let us be quite clear on one point. We are 
 dealing here with a question in one sense sub- 
 
 1 Vic dc Jesus, p. 433 (ist French edition). 
 
 2 Macan, p. io6. 
 
IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT.3) 
 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 1.25 
 
 %i& ill 
 
 li£ III 2.0 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 % 
 
 <^ 
 
 /a 
 
 
 /.^ 
 
 ■^^ 
 
 <$*• 
 
 c»- 
 
 '5^ 
 
 .> 
 
 ^ 
 
 >^ 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 ^^ 
 
 iV 
 
 :\ 
 
 \ 
 
 C 
 
 #> 
 
 ^^3. 
 
 o^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY 14S80 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
 .<^^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
^ <i, 
 
 w 
 
 
 :. <i 
 
 <if 
 
 W 
 
 p 
 
 L^ 
 
 C/j 
 
 y 
 
 ^ 
 
280 
 
 WITXESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 w 
 
 % 
 
 ordinate, yet in another sense of no secondary 
 importance. It is not fair or reasonable to treat 
 it as of no moment. The actual disposal and 
 destination of the sacred Body of the Lord 
 hav^c to be explained by any theory which pro- 
 fesses to deserve credence ; and the gravity of 
 the subject has been felt from the earliest 
 period. Tertullian tells us that many Jews in 
 his day said that the gardener had removed 
 it. Quite recently Reville suggests that Pilate 
 may have got the soldiers to take it away, or 
 that the members of the Sanhedrim may have 
 removed it, and left the grave-clothes behind to 
 prevent identification. One cannot help here 
 noting, in passing, the implied belief that, after 
 all, the stories in the Gospels are substantially 
 true, and must be accounted for. Surely, this 
 is the strangest way of explaining the empty 
 grave, the body gone, and the grave-clothes 
 left. 
 
 Let us, however, sec that we appreciate the 
 full importance of this question. Whatever the 
 Jews may have believed or disbelieved with re- 
 gard to the resurrection of Jesus, they were at 
 least concerned to disprove^ it. They had put 
 the Righteous One to death. There could be 
 no more terrible proof of their wrong doing 
 than the resurrection by divine power of Ilim 
 whom they had slain. And now there were men 
 speaking openly in Jerusalem, accusing them 
 of the murder of the Messiah, and declaring 
 
 
THE RF.SURRECTIO.\ OF JESUS CHRIST. 28 1 
 
 that the Crucified One had risen from the 
 
 grave. 
 
 What was the answer to tliis testimony? They 
 miglit find difficulty in dcalini; with it as a whole. 
 But on one point, at least, they could come to 
 a deciiiion. ICither the Body was still in the 
 gra\'e or it was not. There was no attempt to 
 produce it; so we may be quite sure it was not 
 in the grave. Most certainly, sufficient time had 
 not elapsed to prevent all possibility of identifi- 
 cation. At least the pierced hands and side 
 must have borne some trace of the wounds 
 inflicted. There can be but one inference on 
 this point. The liody was not produced because 
 it was no longer in the grave. 
 
 Where was it? In the keeping of friends or 
 in the hands of foes. Shall we say that the 
 disciples had borne it away? This seems to 
 have been one of the stories circulated by the 
 Jews. But we have seen, over and over again, 
 that such an account of the matter is incredible. 
 If that were true, then the disciples were impos- 
 tors, — a supposition which is now universally 
 abandoned. But even this impossible theory 
 will hardly support the notion. We have fur- 
 ther to believe that a secret Ahich must have 
 been known to a large number ci{ persons never 
 leaked out, and that there was not one of them so 
 honest, not one so indignant at the deception prac- 
 tised by his companions, as to expose their im- j 
 posture. The theory breaks down at every point. 
 
282 
 
 IVITN ESSES TO CIIRIST. 
 
 1 
 
 »■' 
 
 
 If, then, the VioCiy of tlie Lord was not in tlic 
 custody of His friends, can wc beUevc that Mis 
 enemies had stolen it from the tomb? How 
 easily in that case miL;ht the controversy have 
 been ended, antl the testimony of the discjiiles 
 refi;ted ! They had only to produce the Body. 
 Tliey did not, simply because they coidd not. 
 
 He is risen; He 
 
 IS n 
 
 ot 1 
 
 lere. 
 
 That sacred 
 
 form had, by the power of God, been raised 
 from the three days' sleep, never to see death 
 more. It is the only reasonable account of 
 
 tl 
 
 le matter 
 
 It 
 
 IS ine one on 
 
 ly tl 
 
 leory wnic 
 
 :h 
 
 fully accounts for the facts which are not 
 disputed by the adversaries of Christianity 
 themselves. 
 
 \ We do not dwell upon the mic^hty results of 
 the Resurrection as affording a proof of the 
 realit}' of the occurrence. It is aijjreed on all 
 hands that the Christian Church was founded 
 upon this belief I^ven if we were to admit that 
 the belief was sufficient to account for those 
 results quite apart from the objective reality of 
 the thiuL^s believed, we have yet to account for 
 the origin of that new, victorious faith that 
 sprang up within the hearts of the first preach- 
 ers of the (josi)el of Christ. Of this faith no 
 reasonable account is given, or, we venture to 
 tliink, can be given, apart from the reality of 
 the resurrection of Christ by the power of God. 
 The Vision hypothesis recognizes the existence 
 and the power of this faith, and offers an expla- 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESfrs CHRIST. 283 
 
 nation whicli really gives no help to the solution 
 of the problem. 
 
 Like other theories, this one, we may safely 
 predict, will have its day until its fallacy be- 
 comes so apparent that none will be found to 
 avow it, and then it will take its place in the 
 museum of the disused and useless arlillcr>'"of 
 unbelief. It has been already remarked that 
 one of the latest advocates of the Vision 
 hypothesis shows his doubts as to its suffi- 
 ciency, by leavinj^ it open for himself to take up 
 anew the other theory which he had discarded. 
 Rather, he says, than " fall back upon the hy- 
 pothesis of a miracle, it would be preferable to 
 adopt the theory of apparent death." ^ We arc, 
 therefore, doing no injustice to these controver- 
 sialists when we say that they start with the 
 determination not to believe in a miracle, and 
 therefore with the fixed resolve to disbelieve in 
 the resurrection of our Lord, whatever proofs 
 or arguments may be brought forward in its sup- 
 port. We do not urge that such a method is pro- 
 fuine an^i atheistical, because such charges would 
 hardly disturb the complacency of our antago- 
 nists. We say it is unscientific and unreasonable. ' 
 The existence of the Christian Church is a 
 problem which cannot properly be dismissed 
 in this manner ; and those who refuse to admit 
 the truth of that fact and doctrine upon which 
 the Church has always professed to rest the 
 
 , 1 Supernatural Religion, vol. iii. p. 524. 
 
 
284 
 
 ll'ITNESSES TO CHRIST. 
 
 very foundation of her power, should at least 
 be able to say that they had made a candid 
 examination of the arguments brought forward 
 in its support. 
 
 W^c have not followed cunningly devised 
 fables, and we have no fear that any weapons 
 formed against the city of God shall ever 
 prosper. If, then, we feel constrained to con- 
 tend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered 
 to the Saints, it is not because we have any fear 
 of its being overthrown. If we arc forced to 
 change the mode of our defence, it is not be- 
 cause we find any serious defects in the works 
 of the Apologists who have gone before us ; 
 it is because the failures of past attacks have 
 compelled the assailants of the Gospel to adopt 
 new methods of offence. We could afford to 
 ignore these feeble attempts, knowing that they 
 will soon be forgotten. But we must remember 
 that there are many uninstructed and unskilful 
 believers in Christ, whose peace may be dis- 
 turbed, even if their faith is not destroyed, by 
 hearing of objections to the faith to which no 
 reply has been attempted. For their sakes — 
 for the sake of the little ones who are dear to 
 the heart of Christ, and for the sake of those 
 who b.ave but little time to give to the study of 
 these difficulties, we must in the first place set 
 forth the acknowledged facts of history, and 
 in the second place vindicate their true meaning 
 and significance ; having no fears for the Church 
 
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 285 
 
 of Christ, which can be overthrown no more 
 than can the throne of the Eternal God, but 
 bclicvin- that every fresh attack on the truth 
 of the Gospel will, in the long run, conduce 
 only to the strengthening of our faith. 
 
NOTES. 
 
 Note A, pa^e 28. 
 
 It was about a century before this time that the 
 writings of the ICngHsh school of tlcists began to ap- 
 pear. Lord Herbert of C.'herbury (15S1-1648) is 
 generally reckoned the first of tiicm. WwX. the chief 
 men who gave distinct shape to their unbelief were 
 Toland (1669-1722); Collins (1676-1729) ; Wool- 
 ston (1669-T731); Tindal (1657-1733), author of 
 " Christianity as old as the C'realion," published in 
 1730, the work against whicii lUiller's "Analogy" was 
 prim ii)ally directed ; and C'hubb (1679-1747 ). It was 
 largely from the materials supplied by tliesc writers that 
 the Wolfenbiittel Fragments ( WoJfcnb'uttclschc Frag- 
 mcntc cities Ungenivinkn) were composed. They were 
 published by Lessing (i 774-1 778), who was then 
 librarian at Wolfenbiittel, and were represented as 
 being extracts from the library ; but there is now no 
 doubt that most of them were written by Hermann 
 Samuel Rcimarus (1694-1768), Professor of Hebrew 
 in the Gymnasium at Hamburg. See Art. Frag»ic>itg 
 Wolfcnbuttdschc, in Ilerzog, Real- Wortcrbuch, \ol. iv. 
 
 P- 597. 
 
288 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 rm 
 
 Note 1), pa^e 48. 
 
 Mr. Cotter Morison, in his recently published work 
 on the "Scrviceof Man" (London, 1887, pp. i^ct soj.), 
 attempts to turn the ed^i^e of this argument, maintaining 
 that the assailants of Christianity failed in former times 
 because they were not fmnished with the results of mod- 
 ern scientific inijuiry. " Nothing is more common," he 
 says, " than the assertion that any objections now made 
 to Christianity are worn-out sophisms, which have been 
 answered and disposed of over and over again." This 
 is not quite our position, although such a rejoinder is 
 not wholly unjustified. What we have here endeavored 
 to show is, that the assailants of the CJo>pel have been 
 beaten off in every successive attack, that they have 
 been forced perpetually to change their ground ami 
 their methods of assault, and that every fresh change 
 of method has resulted in discomfiture. Mr. Morison 
 says that the defeat of tlic early deists and others by 
 no means guarantees a victory over " the methods and 
 results of modern science." To imagine such a thing 
 '* implies a complete misconception of the true bear- 
 ings of the (juestion under discussion." "The deists," 
 he goes on, " were, to say the least, as unscientific 
 as the theologians. . . . No blame attaches to the 
 deists — able and worthy men most of them — for 
 not transcending .the knowledge of the age. 'I'hey 
 attempted prematurely to solve a problem before the 
 means of solution were at hand." 
 
 Mr. Morison cannot settle the question in this off- 
 hand way. It remains, indeed, to be seen whether 
 the present " scientific: " attacks on the Gospel will be 
 abandoned as the rationalistic and mythical methods 
 
KO'J'ES. 
 
 289 
 
 have l)ccn. But at least the Christian apologists have 
 given no signs of alarm in presence of this altered front. 
 Their ]irctlecessors have beaten back the attacks of 
 earlier assailants, and they do not doubt that they will 
 be able to do the same widi the present foes of the 
 faith. Mr. Morison makes excuses for the unbelievers 
 of the [)ast, and implies that the new school will be 
 more successful, because they will adojjt ineliiods more 
 scientific. It does not seem to occur to him that the 
 defenders of the Christian faith have also learnt some- 
 thing which may help them to be wiser and stronger in 
 the fight. Indeed, it seems to be perpetually forgotten f 
 by the enemies of Christianity, that believers and un- 
 believers alike held tlie same opinions on scientific sub- 
 jects in the past, and in this respect were cijually Iiai)le 
 to go astray. Christians, as su( h, had no opinions 
 whatever on such subjects, and they are not, as Chris- 
 tians, responsible for the errors into which they fell. 
 To make Christians in all ages resjionsible for old 
 theories of " Genesis and Geology," or for peculiar 
 theories of " Inspiration," not sanctioned by the Dible 
 itself or by the Church at large, would be about as 
 reasonable as to make scientific men in all ages respon- 
 sible for the corpuscular theory of light. 
 
 is off- 
 ther 
 
 lie 
 
 ill be 
 ithods 
 
 Note C, page 77. 
 
 Since this lecture was written, the Mnglish Church 
 Congress held at Wolverhaminon (October, 1S87) has 
 been startled by hearing from Canon Isaac Taylor that 
 Mahometanism is a belter instrument for the civiliza- 
 tion of Africa, at least, than Christianity. Such a state- 
 ment has naturally drawn forth a good deal of criticism. 
 
 19 
 
290 
 
 A'OTES. 
 
 Into the allegations made by Mr. Taylor as regards 
 the relative iiu-rits of African (.'hristians and Mahom- 
 etans it is not possible for us to enter. It is sufficient 
 merely to note that, in certain i)articulars, the facts 
 adduced by him are denied. It is more to our pur- 
 pose to note that even Canon Taylor does not regard 
 Mahonietanism as on a level with Christianity. In a 
 letter to the ** .Spectator " (Oct. 22, 18S7), replying to 
 some of his critics, he says ; " I think Christianity im- 
 measurably the higiier and the better faith ; " and he 
 adds : " The cause, or one cause, of our failure is, I 
 think, that our Christian standard is iuiprariically high 
 for degradeil races" It is obvioi's, therefore, that 
 whether Mr. 'i'aylor is right or wrong, his views in no 
 way come into conflict with the argiunent of this 
 lecture. 
 
 One or two brief remarks may be added. We (juite 
 admit that a low form of religion or su])erstition may 
 for a time be more easily diffused, and also, in a sense, 
 more efficacious than a high and spiritual faith, ahhough 
 we should not feel justified iti diffusing such a religion. 
 In regard to Mahometanism, whatever excellences it 
 possesses arc in a great measure derived from Chris- 
 tianity itself, although it has little of the spirituality of 
 the Oospel. With respect to the civilizing influences of 
 the two religions in races which have come into contact 
 with the Western nations, we may point to the Magyars 
 and the Ottoman Turks. Both are of Turanian origin. 
 The creed of Islam has stopped the progress of civili- 
 zation in Turkey, while the Hungarians, who have for 
 long been Christians, a.nalgamate freely with the Indo- 
 European races, and are now hardly distinguishable 
 \ from them. It will hardly be argued that the civiliza- 
 
 \\ ■ 
 
 w 
 
NOTES. 
 
 a»t 
 
 liza- 
 
 tion of Turkey is on a level with that of Germviny 
 or of ICnglaml. 
 
 NoTK I), page 115. 
 
 The reasons for omitling to notice the gcolofjical 
 and other objections to the historical character of the 
 IJook of Clencsis are various. In the first place, it 
 seemed to me that the subjects actually treated were 
 of greater present importance ; and, besiiles, without 
 entering upon other reasons, I must observe that the 
 main arguments adtluced in support of the truth of 
 the Gospel in these lectures are entirely independent 
 of any particular view of the Old Testament. On the 
 general subject of the relation between the ]5ible and 
 science, I am happy to express my concurrence with 
 the following remarks of the I'ishop of I'edford, con- 
 tained in a sermon at Manchester Cathctlral, Kngland, 
 preached in connection with the meeting of the British 
 Association, Sept. 4, 1887. 
 
 He took for his text 2 Timothy iii. 16 (Revised 
 Version), and said that while the Bible was profitable 
 for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for in- 
 struction in righteousness, he did not find that it 
 claimed to be profitable for scientific study. The 
 man of (lod was by it furnished completely unto 
 every good work, but he did not discover that he 
 was by it fiirnished even partially unto the conclusions 
 of philosophic intpiiry. He was quite sure that many 
 needless difficulties had arisen from the prevalence 
 of a narrow and mechanical view of ins[)iration, and 
 that such difficulties would often be removed l)y a 
 frank recognition of the truth that God allowed the 
 ^vrite^s of the Bible to write as men, each with his 
 
292 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 [j*: 
 
 :% 
 
 
 
 individuality distinctly impressed upon his work ; each, 
 while delivering God's message and guided by God's 
 Spirit, using the ordinary phenomenal language of his 
 day as to matters of science ; and in no other way 
 could such writer have been intelligible to his contem- 
 poraries. Me was not made supernaturally acquainted 
 wiUi the mysteries of the universe or with the annals 
 of universal history. I'eople, therefore, should never 
 go to the IJible for what it was never meant to teach. 
 He supposed many in that congregation had been 
 brought up in the old-fashioned belief, which seemed 
 to our forefathers to rest so clearly on the authority 
 of the Bible, that God created man upon the earth as 
 a totally new and hitherto unknown being, essentially 
 different from all other creatures, in full-grown stature 
 and complete moral and intellectual development. But 
 nobody was ignorant that modern speculations as to 
 the origin of man were of a very different character 
 from that old-fiishioncd belief. Of all those specula- 
 tions the most prominent, as well as the most starding, 
 was that propounded by the advocates of evolution. 
 He was not sure that our best scientific men would 
 hold that theory to be as yet established beyond ques- 
 tion, but undoubtedly there were facts and arguments 
 in its flivor which it would be silly to despise, and 
 which to a great number of persons, and to many of 
 our scientific men, appeared to possess all but con- 
 clusive weight. Now, what was the Christian who 
 believed in his Bible to say to all that ? There were 
 some devout men who would say that those and any 
 such-like speculations were straight against God's 
 Word, and were therefore untrue and absurd. But 
 that was not the spirit which was likely to arrive at 
 
NOTES. 
 
 203 
 
 the tnilh. Had we so utterly forgotten the injury 
 done to tlie cause of rchgion by the stolid resist 
 anr.e of the Chmch in former days to the cHscoveries 
 of astronomy as opposed to the IJible? Wc had 
 read the llil)le wrongly before; we might be read- 
 ing it wrongly now. Me had called the lanumaire 
 of the Dible upon i)hysical matters phenomenal, be- 
 cause that language was obviously not meant to teach 
 scientific truth or iielp scientific discovery, but was 
 the language of appearances, describing things, as all 
 popular language did, not as they are, but as they 
 seem. If the writers of God's Word had been in- 
 spired to sjjeak of things as they are in the truth of 
 God's own knowledge, that mode of s[)eaking would 
 have been wholly unintelligible to man. In abstaining 
 from scientific revelations, God's Word was simply 
 adapting itself to our understandings, in the same way 
 that it did when it spoke of God Himself, — in anthro- 
 pomorphic language ascribing to Him the members of 
 a human body, that we might see the shadow of His 
 acts on the wall. But there was another attitude 
 which some took up in regard to those speculations. 
 They said that religion and science occupied wholly 
 different spheres of Nature, and need in no way inter- 
 meddle with each other ; they revolved, as it were, in 
 different i)lanes and never met. It was said we might 
 pursue scientific studies with the utmost freedom and 
 at the same time maintain the most reverent recrard 
 to theology, having no fears of collision because there 
 were no points of contact. For his own part he had 
 never l)een able to understand that position. It 1 
 seemed to him there were, and must be, various i 
 points of contact between theology and science, and 
 
294 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 i 
 
 
 therefore frequent danger of collision, and he con- 
 sidered it was foolish to ignore or deny that. No 
 doubt science and religion did revolve in different 
 orbits, but those orbits cut one another at certain 
 points. God spoke to us by His Word and by His 
 works ; and while for the most part He spoke of 
 different matters in those two His great languages, it 
 was not always so. Sometimes He spoke about the 
 same things in the two languages, and then we were 
 bound to interpret the one by the other, and to be 
 very careful that we did not misinterpret either lan- 
 guage. Now, the origin of man was just one of those 
 matters on which God seemed to speak in both lan- 
 guages. But it seemed quite possible to reconcile the 
 theory of physical evolution in the case of man's out- 
 ward organism with the dignity which, by the fiat of 
 the Creator's will, had been bestowed upon the being 
 whom He made to be a new creature with a splendid 
 dowry of spiritual and intellectual powers. The bold- 
 est speculations with regard to man's origin were not 
 inconsistent with the firmest belief in his endowment 
 with a special gift of Godlike spiritual powers, and 
 with a new nature incapable of death. He founded 
 that statement upon the vast and profound distinction 
 between the material and the spiritual in man, repudi- 
 ating to the utmost those materialistic theories which 
 would confound the two, or make the spiritual nothing 
 else but phases and phenomena of the material. Such 
 views he held to be refuted by the very facts of human 
 nature, and to be opposed to all that was highest and 
 best in our nature. He believed there was a whole 
 region of facts which could not be rationally accounted 
 for by any one who saw in man's nature nothing but 
 
 1^ 
 
NOTES. 
 
 295 
 
 the material. He had spoken of the misreadings of 
 the Bible, because that was the side on wiiich he him- 
 self was bound to be mainly on his guard. The truest 
 votaries of science knew full well that they had to be 
 no less on their guard against misreadings on their 
 side. It was easy to mistake our own crude interpre- 
 tations for the very voice of God. After all, we were 
 very ignorant. The wisest were but feeling after real 
 knowledge, and he who had learned most and knew 
 most was generally the one who was best aware how 
 little he knew. There was a true sort of Christian ag- 
 nosticism which was nothing else but a bowing-down, 
 in our conscious ignorance, before mysteries too vast 
 and high for our feeble grasp. He had spoken of 
 points in the borderland where science and religion 
 approached each other. But was there nothing to 
 be said of the vast rjgions in which there was no 
 point of contact? Christians believed they had a 
 whole realm of precious truths and realities wholly 
 removed from the jjurview of physical research and 
 scientific classification. By means of them people 
 could be guiiled safely through a world of peril, 
 taught to conquer a rebellious will, and purify a cor- 
 rupt hea-t. Then they could go back to science, 
 rich with new treasures of wisdom, strong with new 
 life and power, worshipping not Nature but Nature's 
 God, 
 
 Note E, page 138. 
 
 It has been pointed out that the period during 
 which the Christian theology took shape was •' the 
 most calamitous which the human race has lived 
 through in historic times." (Morison, p. 35.) How 
 
296 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 wonderful, then, that Christian theologians were so 
 remarkably preserved from error ! I'^ven if we should 
 find notions i)revailing o'-'d expressions employed 
 which later times could not saiiction, it would be 
 unfair to charge the 15ible with theories which were 
 imported into it and not deduced from its teaching, 
 or to hold the Church at large responsible for doc- 
 trines which it has never formally adopted. Compare 
 also the same writer's remarks, on pages 42 et scq., on 
 the varying concci)tions of the idea of God, with the 
 argument of the lecture. 
 
 Note F, page 145. 
 
 It will be interesting to give here some account 
 of Darwin's views on this subject as stated by Pro- 
 fessor Max Miiller in his recently published " Science 
 of Thought," pp. 102 ct scq. Quoting Darwin's words, 
 " Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably 
 all the organic beings which have ever lived on this 
 earth have descended from some one primordial form, 
 into which life was first breathed," he remarks : "This 
 is all very carefully worded, yet Darwin was not satis- 
 fied, and in later editions he has considerably altered 
 this very paragraph. The later omission (sixth edition, 
 p. 423) of the words ' into which life was first breathed * 
 has been much remarked upon, as indicating on Dar- 
 win's part a surrender of a belief in some extra-natural 
 powers. IJut if Darwin had really meant to surrender 
 that belief, he would never have written the following 
 words (Origin of Species, sixth edition, p. 421) : 
 * I see no good reason why the views given in this 
 volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. 
 ... A celebrated author and divine has written to me 
 
NOTES. 
 
 207 
 
 that he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as 
 nobjo a conception of the Deity to believe that He 
 created a few original forms capable of self-develop- 
 ment into other and needful forms, as to believe that 
 He organized a fresh act of creation to supply the void 
 caused by the action of His laws.' 
 
 " If I interpret Darwin's words rightly," Professor 
 Miiller goes on, " he seems to me one of those who 
 admit, nay, who postulate, the existence of some extra- 
 natural cause, however much he may shrink from 
 asserting anything regarding the mode of operation. 
 Darwin's books require to be read carefully, and from 
 edition to edition. Let us look at the last words of 
 his great work on the * Origin of Species,' which no 
 one would suppose to have been written at random. 
 * There is a grandeur,' he writes, ' in this view of life 
 with its several powers having been originally breathed 
 [by the Creator] into a few forms, or into one ; and 
 that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according 
 to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning 
 endless forms, most beautiful and most wonderful, 
 have been and are being evolved.' 
 
 " In this passage the words ' by the Creator ' were 
 absent in the first edition, and were adtied in the later 
 editions. Surely they were added with a purpose. 
 And what could have been this purpose except to 
 define his position as one of those who, however far 
 their researches and speculations may lead them, feel 
 and recognize that there is always a Eeyond, whatever 
 name we call it, — a something that, even if we call it 
 by no name, is yet forever present and irresistible. . . . 
 
 " If Darwin, later in life, said, ' I think that generally, 
 — and more and more as I grow older, — but not 
 
298 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 always, an agnostic would be the most correct descrip- 
 tion of my state of mind,' who, as he grows older and 
 older, would not heartily join in these words? Surely, 
 the more we learn what knowledge really means, the 
 more we feel that agnosticism, in the true sense of the 
 word, is the only possible, the only reverent, and I may 
 add, the only Christian position, which the human mind 
 can occupy before the Unknown and the Unknowable. 
 And, at any rate, he had introduced those words, as we 
 learn from his Life just published, with the remark : 
 ' In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been 
 an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of 
 God; " 
 
 NoTF- G, page 183. 
 
 " There is nothing more opposed to religion, as it is 
 seen in human history, than the frivolous and 'iper- 
 ficial optimism that sees nothing in it but the worshi]) 
 of the ideal. Religion is everywhere begotten of the 
 astonishment with which the human mind is seized in 
 the presence of evil and sin, and of the desire which it 
 experiences to explain their existence, and, if possible, 
 to destroy it. He who is not conscious of suffering 
 any evil, who is chargeable with no fault, will care little 
 to raise his thoughts above the interests of this life. 
 But he who says to himself. Why should I endure 
 these evils, and how shall I succeed in pacifying a 
 conscience laden with sin? is already on the path of 
 religion." (Hartmann.) 
 
 Note H, page 243. 
 
 "Meanwhile," says Mr. Cotter Morison ("Ser\'ice of 
 Man," p. 33), " the historical character of the Gospels 
 
NOTES. 
 
 299 
 
 anil the Acts of the Apostles, and the genuineness 
 of several epistles ascribed to Saint Paul, have been 
 gravely impugned, and in the opinion of many seriously 
 damaged ; an opinion not shaken by the counter efforts 
 of the C'hristian apologists. Again the fortress of the- 
 ology has been surrounded and commanded by the 
 forces at the disposal of knowledge." 
 
 If we acciuit Mr. Morison of disingenuousness, we 
 can see here only the blinding influence of inveterate 
 prejudice. Why does the writer not state that there 
 are at least four epistles of Saint Paul to wiiich these 
 remarks have no application ? I le must know that Laur 
 and Hilgcnfeld (" Einleitung ") and Renan (" Origi- 
 nes ") all unhesitatingly accept Romans, First and Sec- 
 ond Corinthians, and Galatians as genuine, and for the 
 most part pure and uncorrupt as they were written ; 
 and he ought to know that the Christian theologian, 
 so far from feeling " surrounded " by the enemy, is 
 quite ready to reconstruct the edifice of the faith from 
 the materials furnished by these books. 
 
 Note I, page 266. 
 
 An attempt has been made to produce this theory 
 in a narrative form in a book entitled " Philochristus," ^ 
 which professes to be a fourth " synoptic (iosjiel," os- 
 tensibly proceeding from one who was an eyewitness 
 of the events in the history of our Lord upon earth. 
 Instead of this work being a support to the Vision or 
 Illusion hypothesis, it is hardly possible to imagine a 
 
 1 Published by Macmillan (Cambridge and London), and 
 attributed to a writer who contributed several articles in tlic 
 same spirit to the " Encyclopaedia Lritannica." 
 
300 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 better method of discrediting the whole theory. Let 
 any one compare the account given by Philochristus 
 of the appearances of Jesus after His resurrection with 
 th'-sc which are recorded in the canonical Gospels, 
 and he will see at once that the new " Gospd " gives 
 precisely that support to the theory which is entirely 
 absent from the authentic documents. The theory of 
 illusion is immediately suggested by the book of the 
 nineteenth century ; it would never occur to the mind 
 of any one reading the original Gospels. If the new 
 book was a disingenuous attempt to sustain the mod- 
 ern theory, it certainly is an abject failure ; but per- 
 haps it was written witli the design of showing the 
 absurdity of the hypothesis. If so, it has been un- 
 usually successful. 
 
 THE END. 
 
li