givieas one ul yl | | i aD Re ee a, TET) apnea irae a bai 4 t Here , | Nt iy SUT by ve My \ phe th MON Ah i i) mh y ‘ Oi 145 ’ j PPM In: AT st ae Ae ai LG Ay, , x en Nard } vy! r ph its Td BAe ot beh aren Se at % x ‘t ’ 7 UF ] ; Vive! i deh il aa Put be} 4 Vy Weal Wh! Ty i? hes) ys Ny Wer een Dh My (ee HR : ies ait oe Saas it 14 a Aer NS 1 Snare Pi pity a i bes? it WN Shh MANLY Md A Ae Ne ME Vat ei hh XY N ’ } f eAr\ 1) WALA : wy Lit ry ei yey e oh eee 4 ee vo rere eee ee ee one SS - ~ hn tnt te eit retell EEE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY BY / GEORGE C.’ LORIMER, D. D. MINISTER AT TREMONT TEMPLE ‘*The only real theme, the deepest theme, of the world’s history and of man’s history, the one to which all other subjects are subordinate, is the conflict between faith and unbelief.’’—GorTHE PHILADELPHIA AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY 1420 CHESTNUT STREET 1894 Copyright 1894 by the AMERICAN Baptist PUBLICATION SOCIETY In this book I have referred to many scholars and thinkers, and I have gladly acknowledged my indebtedness to them. But there zs one whom I have not named, and who ts not known as yet in the realm of authorship, towhom I owe more than to all the others, however famed or learned—my honored and beloved wife. She has offered me the benefit of her extensive reading, and she has continually inspired me by her wise counsel and generous enthust- asm. Her invaluable assistance I not only recognize, but affec- tionately tender to her and dedicate to her what ts already in no meagre degree her own. Os ROS Vibe The Temple, Boston, 1894. < Cate _ . : es. ache Ye Leg = - i 2 oa p oy _ 7 a hoary AA oe Pee af | i i CONTENTS E CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT, THE ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT THE ARGUMENT III. FROM HISTORY, ee Ill. FROM CHRIST, Ly. FROM TESTIMONY, V. FROM MIRACLES, V1. FROM PROPHECY, VII. FROM HUMANITY, . VIII. FROM ACHIEVEMENT, LSS FROM CONCESSION, X. FROM COMPARISON, . 115 eLO7 PAK z “ae : 305 - 375 Als THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY. CHAPTER I. CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT. Who learns to swim, Unschooled in wavy water? Who to think, Except by use of thinking? What aman, With shaping thought and hand may for himself, No God will for him. Human wit is slow, Stumbling nine times for one firm footing gained, But still made strong by striving, and sharp-eyed To find the light through darkness and distress By time and toil and reason’s happy guess. —fkobert Browning. N the charming villa of Count Fabbricotti, at Florence, recently occupied by Her Majesty of England, there is a remarkable picture, representing Michael Angelo selecting material from which to shape his immortal conception of Moses. The scene is laid at Carrara; the mountains, whose white quarries show like snow in a garden of verdure, forming a striking background to an interesting group of admirably executed figures. Near the front of the painting a youth bends over an open portfolio, and among the sketches one is disclosed of the Hebrew lawgiver; to the right appears the form of the master workman, directing attention to an 7 8 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY enormous block of spotless marble, while in the center stands, and most conspicuous of all, the famous artist himself. Both the pose and the countenance of Michael Angelo are indescribably impressive and suggestive. He seems to be intent on searching the flawless stone for the outlines, proportions, and features of the won- drous hero who had dared supplicate the Almighty for the vision of his glory, and who had been exalted to be the mouthpiece of the ten commandments, before whose moral grandeur four thousand years have trembled. But there is a touch of pathetic indecision in the noble face of the sculptor, otherwise strong and resolute, as though he feared his hand might lose its cunning before the lofty ideal born of his genius could be imparted to the virgin marble. One greater than Michael Angelo trod the obscure ways of Palestine two thousand years ago. A sublime purpose ruled in his mind and heart. The Christ had come to inaugurate a kingdom unlike any empire that had reigned in ages gone, and which was to be shaped out of discordant and anarchical humanity. It requires but a slight effort of the imagination to picture him with thoughtful brow, contemplating the rude and poor material not yet hewn from the quarries of worldliness and heathenism, in which and through which he should achieve most marvelously, and which, alas! would sometimes splinter bereath the stroke of his fashioning chisel. But, unlike the Italian artist, there is never, in his manner or expression, the least sign of doubt as to his ultimate success. And history since has proven that while the sculptor left his statue of Moses in an unfinished state,—evidence that he had conceived be- CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT 9 yond his skill to execute,—Jesus has really neither failed nor been discouraged ; and never shall he cease to per- severe until “the isles wait for his law,” and until the stone which Daniel saw “cut out of the mountain without hand,’ “the kingdom set up by the God of heaven,” “shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms,” and it itself, and none other, stand forever. The birth of a new religion, like the creation of a new orb, is at once the source of amazement and de- light. When a star, unseen before, comes out of the depths and passes into the telescope’s field of vision, the astronomer, not unnaturally, is startled and moved to joy. And when a faith suddenly breaks on the darkness of the world, and reveals truths hitherto hidden from. mankind, it is not unreasonable that sur- prise and gladness should assert themselves. Thus, when Christianity, which had existed in the Divine thought from the eternities, passed into the field of history some twenty centuries gone, the angels, with jubilant voices, caroled “ good-will” ; the shepherds were astonished ; and wherever the news was heard a thrill of blissful expectation exalted lowly people. But in astronomy, the star once welcomed is never repudiated. Its rank and orbit once determined, it is never treated as an illusion or a fancy. In this science has the ad- vantage over religion. Greeted with acclamation at the beginning, in a little while the new cult is exposed to cavil and criticism. Soon delight gives way to doubt, satisfaction to skepticism, confidence to controversy, and the very light which emanates from the celestial body is obscured, if not swallowed up, in the black night of persistent unbelief. 10 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY Thus Christianity, from the moment that it came into the glare of publicity, has been made the subject of interrogation, investigation, and of irrational in- credulity. Hence, while it has sought to be continually aggressive, and has been, it has been obliged, almost from the beginning of its existence, on account of this unfriendly scrutiny and unwarranted suspicion, to act unceasingly on the defensive. The assaults on its in- tegrity and authority have been numerous and various, apparently every age inventing a new one. It is not necessary that the history of “ Apologetics” be re- written, especially in these pages, where we are more anxious to study their general features as they are in the present than as they were in the past. The slight- est possible allusion to their earlier forms will suffice for the purposes of this discussion. During the second century Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Minucius Felix defended Christianity from the charges brought against it by Jews and Pagans, which in the main were accusations against its moral conceptions and practices. The two following centuries produced the arguments of Origen, Arnobius, Lactantius, Euse- bius, Cyril, and Augustine, which in turn and respect- ively vindicated the truth from wide-sweeping misap- prehensions and misrepresentations, proving it to be philosophical and reasonable, self-evidencing and su- perior to all former theologies, and wondrously adapted to promote the temporal well-being of the common- wealth. After the times of Porphyry, Celsus, and Julian, opposition to the church diminished in virulence and intellectual vigor. Little was produced in the way of infidel literature worthy of notice during the Middle CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT ik Ages, and nothing that was not fully answered by Abelard and Thomas Aquinas. With the end of that period, and with the revival of learning toward the close of the fifteenth century, came the revival of un- belief. Classical students, charmed and even bewildered by the treasures of knowledge derived from pagan sources, took the name of Humanists and opposed the doctrinal interpretation of the Bible, and prepared the way for the pantheism of Spinoza in the seventeenth century, the deism of Herbert in the eighteenth, and the “Literature and Dogma” of Arnold in the nineteenth. A hundred and fifty years ago the deistical school was at its height, but it could not withstand the force of Bishop Berkeley’s “ Alciphron,” Locke’s “ Reasonable- ness of Christianity,’ and Bishop Butler’s unanswered and unanswerable “ Analogy”; and hence it was sup- planted by the modern school of rationalism, introduced by Lessing’s “ Wolfenbiittel Fragments,” and developed into critical rationalism by Eichhorn and Paulus. It is this last movement, though with specific differ- ences, that is dominant in our times; or, perhaps, it would be more accurate to say that the spirit of ration- alism has survived in a chameleon-like body, and is to- day active, arrogant, and aggressive. The “Tractatus”’ of Spinoza has been revived in the “Literature and Dogma” of Matthew Arnold, in which the Bible is treated as a book divine, or almost divine, but without any definite message. Renan’s “Life of Jesus” has been evolved from the “Emile” of Rousseau, with its tribute to the moral greatness of Christ; and this gen- eration is being taught to sympathize in the confession of the “Vicar of Savoy”’: “I, for one, have never been 12 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY able to believe that God ordained me to be learned. I have, therefore, shut all the books. There is one only open to the eyes of all—the Book of Nature.” Fer- dinand Christian Baur has reappeared in Otto Pfleiderer ; and Semler, Lessing, and Wilhelm Vatke have been more than resuscitated in the persons of Weizsacker, Keim, Robertson Smith, and some others known among us as the higher critics. The so-called scientific school of infidelity is not so potent now as it was some twenty- five yearsago. We hear but little of Professor Tyndall and of the celebrated “ prayer-gauge” in these latter days. Indeed, the entire opposition to Christianity, from the physicist’s point of view, has practically come toanend. Speculative and literary rationalism occupies almost the whole field, and the aim of present polemics is to disprove the possibility of revealed religion by dis- crediting the supernatural; and to invalidate the alleged fact of a revealed religion by impairing the trustworthi- ness of the sacred documents in which the history of its origin is recorded. This particular mode of warfare is being carried on within the church as well as without. In this respect it differs from all previous tactics, and if Christianity succumbs and loses her authority, it will be due to the rationalistic critics within her own borders. Liberality is the keynote of the campaign. Time was when all religions were dealt with on the assumption that they were equally false and fraudulent; but now the disposition is to regard them as equally true, though of varying degrees of merit. We have reached the drawing-room stage in the history of Apologetics. Evening dress and gloves are now in order. Polite- ness and compliments are more in demand than facts CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT 13 or arguments. We are assured by Comte that the only religion is the religion of humanity, which, so far as we can understand him, means a religion without a revela- tion, and even without a God, as he would make man at once the worshiper and the object worshiped. The evolutionists, with Herbert Spencer as their prophet, declare that the Author of all things is unknowable ; that supernaturalism is merely superstition; and that Christianity has been evolved by a natural process from earlier cults, and is leading to a faith higher than itself. But these opponents, and others with them, critics, scientists, antiquarians, and the rest, are exceedingly gracious, and would not for the world be supposed to entertain feelings really hostile to Christianity. Not at all. They are eloquent in encomiums on the moral majesty of Christ, and on the many advantages that have come to society through his precepts; but, then there are Buddha, and Zoroaster, and “The Sacred Books of the East”; and to insist that Christ’s religion is exclusively and ideally the true religion, alone satis- fying the needs of man, and alone endowed with su- preme authority, is regarded as altogether too narrow and too shallow for it to be tolerable to the modern spirit. Like the executioner, to adopt a comparison suggested by an Englishman, who bowed before Charles I., kissed his hand and begged pardon for undertaking the unpleasant business in which he was engaged, but nevertheless beheaded him just the same, so now, on the close of the nineteenth century, infidelity, wearing a mask and uttering courtly words, is sharpening the axe, and will not be slow to cut off the head of Chris- tianity when the auspicious moment arrives, B I4 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY Dr. Dollinger spoke of the advancing pressure of unbelief “as the festering wounds which are causing every community to languish.” I am not quite sure but that he overestimates the strength of the present endeavor to impeach the cause of Christ. But whether he does or not, the position is serious enough for the lovers of God’s truth to speak out. The danger of the hour is that indifference, or rather apathy, may betray the most sacred interests of humanity. Some one has said, “England has so fed upon the pap of compromise as to be unable any longer to conceive a muscular reso- lution”; and it may so fall out that the disciples of our Lord, in their desire to avoid contention, and in their good-natured tolerance of deadly heresies, may become traffickers and bargainers in holy things, and soon cease to have sufficient iron in their conscience to vigorously resist the encroachments of even undisguised enemies. The policy of non-resistance I condemn and deplore. Occasionally some well-meaning soul arises in the midst of the battle and sententiously utters the misleading platitude: “Truth is mighty and will prevail.” And at times religious journals, presumably having nothing better to write on, take ministers to task for introduc- ing apologetics into the pulpit, advising them “to preach the gospel,” when the minister knows, and the editor knows, that the question of the hour is whether that same gospel is still credible to the enlightened un- derstanding. Thousands do not believe it, because pains are not taken to show that it is believable. Then, as to “truth being mighty,” it is rarely considered that it can never come off victorious unless it takes the field. Whoever heard of apathetic, silent truth suc- CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT 15 ceeding against active and eloquent error? Our Lord himself was not slow to answer his adversaries. The early Christians had their elaborate defenses; and I question whether any assault has been checked by allowing it to continue unopposed. Truth is mighty ; but it is not mighty when it skulks—seeks a hiding- place; and never has it prevailed, and never can pre- vail, until it bravely meets the enemy face to face. Thus far Christianity has been shielded from its foes. As yet it has evinced no real signs of decadence. Never in the ages gone has it manifested more power or progressiveness than in this, the latest, and in many respects the most brilliant of the centuries. During the last eighty years it has grown more marvelously and multiplied its converts more rapidly than during the eighteen hundred years preceding. It is still professed by the nations of Europe, the most distinguished por- tion of the race in art and learning, and through its supporters in England and America, its precepts have been widely diffused to the most distant shores of Asia and Africa, and by means of colonies have been pro- claimed from Canada to Chili in a land unknown to the ancients. There is, perhaps, no immediate peril; but there should be no remote peril either. But though the religion of our Lord is still unscathed, it is not to be forgotten that unnumbered individuals are being unsettled in their convictions by the confident and audacious declarations of recent skepticism. More- over, there are many well-intentioned people who are but raw recruits in the field of discussion, and who are bewildered by the noise of “North American Review”’ artillery duels, not realizing that the engagements pro- 16 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY duced there between eminent colonels, judges, and statesmen are but affairs of outposts; and some indeed there are who lose heart and run away when an amiable lady fires her lightly charged ordinance, dreading her fiction a good deal more than there is any reason to apprehend the sharpest and best-aimed facts. These timid souls should not be abandoned to their fears. It is no more than right that they should be shown that the ship of Zion is thoroughly armored, and quite capable of resisting shot and shell from infidel arsenals. There are also other classes that need to be warned against undue reliance on the airy pretensions of modern unbelief. Not a few persons, who desire to live god- lessly in the present world, pretend to find in its un- qualified assurance, especially when unrebuked, a con- venient extenuation for misconduct; while others, who are sincerely conscientious, prefer to remain neutral in religion, lest in the apparent uncertainties they should commit themselves to the support of a venerable false- hood. For their sakes, therefore, and for the sakes of thousands who are halting and doubting, far more than for the sake of Christianity itself, ought the founda- tions of the faith to be protected from the insidious undermining of visionary speculations, and from the dynamiting recklessness of anarchical atheism. A large number of intelligent persons are in the position of one who inquired of Mr. Coleridge: “Can you prove the truth of Christianity?’’ And they need to follow the advice of that remarkable man, “Try it.” And that they may be induced to “try it,” the one method that finally removes all doubts, I have planned this fresh statement of CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT Z7 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY. In carrying out my design it is imperative that we consider at the outset First, What Christianity is; and SrconpLy, Why, and in what sense tt ts dependent on argument. Christianity does not claim to be a mere moral revo- lution, nor a natural stage in the march of spiritual progress, nor an evolution from sources within human- ity, nor a necessary development from social condi- tions; but a definite type of religion divinely ordained and bestowed, the generic essence of which is distinct from any form it may temporarily assume, and consists of the self-revelation of God in Christ for the purpose of man’s renewal and redemption. It is not, as Kant intimates, merely “reverence for the moral law” ; nor as Schelling teaches, “the union of the finite with the infinite” ; nor as Fichte affirms, “ faith in the moral government of the world”; nor as Hegel asserts, “ morality becoming conscious of the free universality of its concrete essence” ; and neither is it as Matthew Arnold represented, “morality touched by emotion.” While it comprehends something of what is intended by these several definitions, it is more specifically and pre-eminently a salvation. It is also more than an organization,—though it contemplates organization,—it is a fraternity ; it is more than a creed or an ordinance it is a force; and it is more than a gleaming symbol or gorgeous ceremonial—it is a life. The church is not Christianity, but is only its organ; the Bible is not Christianity, but is only its rule and intellectual impulse ; and rites and observances are not Christian- 18 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY ity, and in fact are only its vestments and ornaments. In the New Testament it is termed a “kingdom,” a “kingdom of God,” “a kingdom that is not meat nor drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost,” and which is not “in word but in power.” As a distinctive historical movement it appears to be the manifestation of the mysterious dominating influ- ence over the race of one sublime Personality. Hence Schliermacher defines it to be a religious consciousness derived from its author, Jesus, and which has been maintained by him through all the generations succeed- ing his brief earthly ministry. This likewise seems to have been the impression of Renan, who recalls the fact that our Lord preached ever and only from one text : set WIS iL ” «T am the. way, the truth, and the life.’ And in the same direction runs the striking testimony of Lecky: | It was reserved for Christianity to present to the world an ideal character, which through all the changes of eighteen cen- turies has inspired the hearts of men with an impassioned love ; has shown itself capable of acting on all nations, ages, tempera- ments, and conditions; has been not only the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice ; 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 soften mankind than all the disquisitions of philosophers and all the exhortations of moralists.—//zstory of European Morals, vol. Ih, p. 9. THIS SO-CALLED IDEAL CHARACTER, WITH ITS TEACHINGS AND RENEWING GRACE, IS THE VERY SOUL OF CHRISTIANITY } AND CHRISTIANITY IS SIMPLY THIS SOUL INCARNATED IN THE BODY OF THE FAITHFUL, CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT 19 COMBINED WITH SUCH METHODS, INSTITUTIONS, AND ORDINANCES, AS ARE NECESSARY TO GIVE IT VISIBIL- ITY AND THE MEANS OF COMMUNICATION AND CON- QUEST. It is no more than fitting that at this point we should hear the voice of Jesus of Nazareth regarding the religion that bears his name, and of which he is the founder. In his memorable interview with Pilate he testified: “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, then would my ser- vants fight.” It is neither carnal in spirit nor in source. Unlike the empires of earth it proceeded not from ambition or lust of power, and unlike them, it does not depend for its existence on armies, violence, and bloodshed. On other occasions he calls it “the kingdom of God,” “kingdom of heaven,” denoting by the phrases its essential character and its superhuman origin. When the Pharisees accused him of casting out devils by Beelzebub, their prince, he forcefully replied: “If I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.” These words suggest that he was conscious of a divine vocation, and these with other declarations indicate that he believed himself to be the representative of God on earth to inaugurate a reign of truth and right- eousness. His language on this point is full of impas- sioned confidence. When sending out his disciples for the first time, he says tothem: “He that receiveth you, receiveth me, and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.’ To Nicodemus he is even more explicit : “We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen, and ye receive not our witness. If I 20 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY have told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things? And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.” Farther on in his ministry he emphatically declares: “I have greater witness than that of John ; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me;” likewise, “I have many things to say and to judge of you, but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.” Thus our Lord in unmistakable terms attributes his own mission, messages and marvels to the immediate inspiration and interposition of the Almighty ; that is, he ascribes to his purpose and power all that is distinctive, vital, and indestructible in Chris- tianity. But while his thoughts constantly recur to the supernatural, he is not oblivious to the employment of earthly instrumentalities in accomplishing the merci- ful designs of the Infinite. He never intimates that Christianity descended, as the Holy City, the New Jerusalem, shall descend at last out from the unseen, completely fashioned and adorned, and in every way perfected by the Divine hand; but rather, that it has been built by his servants on the everlasting foundations laid by God in Christ. In other words, there is a human as well as a divine element in Christianity, dis- cernible from the beginning, and apparent at every stage of its development. Jesus himself was born of a woman, though the eternal Son of the Everlasting Father. His approach was announced by the Baptist, who came in advance to prepare the way before him, CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT 21 even as on a wider stage heathen civilization and tle Hebrew cult had in a sense prepared the world for his advent. So likewise his discourses and deeds, and the incidents of his career are recorded in a purely natural way, and every movement in his ministry leading to the final inauguration of his spiritual empire is closely and necessarily allied to human means and _instru- mentalities. This significant relationship is never obscured by the Saviour, and we should never lose sight of it; for it not only explains difficulties, recon- ciles seeming contradictions, and accounts for unhappy corruptions, but it teaches unmistakably that the natural as well as the supernatural entered into the origin, and has imparted form, tone, and color to the Religion of Redemption, as Christianity with manifest propriety may be named. I say it may thus be named, as this definition very accurately describes the purpose it contemplates ; and a distinct apprehension of this purpose is really neces- sary to a complete understanding of its character. Jesus himself said that he had come to give his life a ransom for many, and on the institution of the Me- morial Supper he solemnly declared that the wine was symbolic of his “blood shed for the remission of sins.” “ Forthe Son of Man” (meaning himself) he exclaimed, “came to seek and to save that which was lost.” But how save? By schools, academies, and culture; by evo- lution, science, or the increase of intelligence? Nota few modern writers have answered that education and the march of progress are the instruments to be em- ployed by Christianity, and that the intellectual develop- ment of mankind is the supreme object of its existence. 22 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY But nothing of all this appears in any of the teachings of the Master. He never once mentions science, or the ethical power of art, or the soul-renewing grace of music ; nor, indeed, colleges or universities, or anything lying purely in the domain of the natural. I do not mean to intimate that he was opposed to any of these agencies, or that Christianity ought to be indifferent to them, only that they were not so much as recognized by him as. being indispensable to his peculiar mission. They are all important in their place, and ought not to be neglected by the church, just as wholesome diet, warm clothing, wise sanitation, and sound principles of government should receive her attention, although they are neither her primary nor chief concern. It need hardly be said that there is a wide-spread movement in our day looking toward the secularization of the church. As far as this means a greater and larger interest on her part in everything that concerns the temporal well- being of humanity, it is to be commended as the legiti- mate outcome of her vocation ; but, if it is to be carried to the extreme of restricting her endeavors and her preaching to earthly things, and if, in other words, she is to cease being a religion and become a reform, and if she shall suspend all relations with eternity for the sake of restricting herself to the necessities of time, it will soon be apparent that she has fallen into error, and has sacrificed her special mission and surrendered her real power over mankind. The nobler temporalities, as they may be called, are undoubtedly the fruits of her ministry in the world; but her principal work lies in the direction of man’s regeneration and redemption through the effectual renewal of the Holy Ghost, and CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT 23 the vicarious sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ; and apart from that, her force as a philanthrophy would not in any sense be superior to that exercised by any one of the ethical clubs now appealing to public sympathy for support. Reduce Christianity to the level of other merely human institutions, deprive it of the super- natural, narrow its horizon to the boundaries of this life, and eliminate from its programme the salvation of the soul, and it would at once be disqualified to ac- complish anything different from or anything higher in the cause of social progress than the institutions with which, by this process, it would be ranked. The fatal folly of utterly secularizing the church has never been more clearly seen nor more ably discussed than by M. Edmond Scherer, of France, who, though a rationalist himself, is not blind to the disastrous consequences of rationalism. In his “Crisis of Protestantism” the fol- lowing passages occur: That which is really imperiled is not so much Protestanism— it is Christianity, it is very religion. As for natural religion, that exists only in books. Religions that have vital force and influence are positive religions ; that is, religions which have a church, and particular rites and dogmas. What are these dog- mas? ‘Taken in their intimate meaning, they are the solutions of the great problems which have ever disquieted the mind of man—the origin of the world and of evil; the expiation; the future of humanity. . . It is impossible for a positive re- ligion to have any other origin than a revelation ; it is neces- sarily a history of the intervention of God in the destinies of man, the account of acts by which God created and saved the world—it is that or it is nothing. Then, having dwelt on the endeavor to destroy these elements, he continues: 24 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY I demand nothing better, as far as I am concerned; but I cannot refrain from asking, not without anxiety, whether Chris- tian rationalism is really a religion. What remains in the cru- cible after the operation just detailed? Is the residue really the essence of the positive dogmas, or is it but a caput mortuum ? When Christianity is rendered translucent to man’s mind, con- formable to man’s reason and man’s moral appreciation of things, does it still possess any great virtue? Does it not very much resemble deism, and is it not equally lean and sterile ? From these reflections it is evident that we are war- ranted in rejecting every definition of the “faith once delivered to the saints,” that does not regard it as supernatural in its origin, and as revealing a super- natural redemption of which Jesus Christ is the soul and the source. And just here we touch the vital point in this expo- sition, and the one with which the argument of this book is mainly, though not exclusively, concerned. If Christianity is what we have thus far represented it as being, and if as Jesus taught and I am constrained to maintain, it came down from heaven, is the gift of God, then it is not the product of evolution. This I have already affirmed; but the distinction is of sufficient importance to call forth a more extended statement. With evolution as a theory of the Divine method in ordering and processioning the universe, there need be no controversy; but as a philosophy of causation, affirming that the primary atom contained not only the “promise,” but the actual “potency” of every form of life, it can never be accepted by believers in the Bible. That there has been from the beginning an ascending movement, a movement from the simple to the com- plex, from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, and CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT 25 even from the material to the spiritual, and that each lower stage has contributed to the higher, may be ad- mitted without debate; for such a conception does not preclude the possibility of God’s supervision and direct intervention. But to exclude the Almighty from his works; to assume that after summoning the star-stuff or world-stuff into existence he abandoned it, and that it has unfolded and shaped itself through the operation of inherent forces, is certainly unscriptural; and, what is equally clear, has never been proven. There are, however, not a few individuals to whom the term “ evo- lution” is a solvent of all difficulties and all mysteries, and they employ it in the same way as the devout in all ages have used the name of God. When they have spoken it they have seemed to imagine that nothing further need be said or can be said, and that they have supplied an adequate explanation of every phenomenon. Our position is that their theory explains nothing, and that it does not advance the human mind one step to- ward the comprehension of the real springs of what has been, what is, and what is coming to be. What Lowell humorously sings on this point may be seriously pondered : Our dear and admirable Huxley Cannot explain to me why ducks lay, Or rather, how into their eggs Blunder potential wings and legs. Who gets a hair’s-breadth on by showing That something else sets all a-going ? Farther and farther back we push From Moses and his burning bush ; Cry, ‘‘Art thou there’’? Above, below, All nature mutters yes and ao / C 26 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY ’Tis the old answer: we’re agreed, Being from being must proceed, Life be life’s source. And if the poet is correct, if the cause must be com- mensurate with the effect, if life can only account for life, mind for mind, and spirit for spirit, not merely at the beginning of the series, but throughout the succes- sion, then it cannot be reasonable to conclude that the Supreme Being, who called everything into existence at the first, has no direct agency in the maintenance and development of what he originally created. To this likewise it may be added, that no one has ever shown an actual case of evolution apart from a designing in- telligence shaping and determining the process. Some of our scientists adduce innumerable imaginary in- stances, instances supposed to have occurred before the historic period, and which are of course incapable of demonstration; but no one, I repeat it, has ever ex- hibited a flower or an animal lifting itself into a higher order unaided by the action of mind. What was before history we do not know, and science does not know; but if we see now that there is no evolution unless guided by thought, no wild rose changed into the cultivated rose, no pigeons or animals domesticated, and no improve- ment made in human character and social conditions where intelligence does not interpose and play the lead- ing part, we have no warrant for teaching that there ever was a time when it could be otherwise, a time when intelligence, either that of the Creator or of the creature made in his image, was not indispensable to development of every kind. Of late much has been said, and much that is mis- CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT 27 leading, on the evolution of Christianity. If by the phraseology is meant simply that Christianity is the child of prophecy, that it was inspired at its formation by Hebrew teachings, and that social conditions and the agency of man had something to do with its origin, and not that it was independent of Divine and super- natural influences, it may be permitted to pass unchal- lenged. The employment of such language, however, ought to be carefully guarded. When it is used with- out reserve, the public is liable to infer that the writer, or speaker, has adopted Hzeckel’s interpretation of the word ‘evolution,’ and in applying it to Christianity would be understood as holding that religion was the outgrowth of purely natural causes. That this is the ordinary impression conveyed by the word is evident from the fact that when a lecturer or preacher employs it, the press and the people usually set him down as an advanced thinker, and as one who has broken with the past. In several instances which I might name, as in that of the venerable Dr. McCosh, I am sure the inference is far from being justified. I see no objection to the term when judiciously defined, and when applied to the human side of our religion,—which ought always to be recognized,—and in such connection I do not question its reievancy. My antagonism is only aroused when it is introduced equivocally, or when it is purposely designed to obscure the supernatural. With this intent it is now not unfrequently invoked. Outside the church there are some prominent essayists who insist that Christianity has been evolved by nat- ural means exclusively from inferior religions, and that from it in the future will be evolved a higher type of 28 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY religion than itself. The ground for this daring hy- pothesis is the broad and general belief that every- thing, religion included, by an inherent necessity is forever tending toward improvement. It is said, “ Be- hold the upward trend of all things; mark how the inanimate presses on the animate, the animal on the human, the physical on the mental!” Well, admitting that in the main this rule is operative, may it not be that, like other rules, there exists a notable exception ? A little examination will satisfy us that religion furnishes just such an exception, for there is reason to believe that, left to itself, it inclines downward and not upward. Professor Max Miiller discusses this subject with much ability in “ Chips from a German Workshop,” (Intro., p. xxiii), from which we quote the following: If there is one thing which a comparative study of religions places in the clearest light, it is the inevitable decay to which every religion is exposed. It may seem almost like a truism that no religion can continue to be what it was during the life- time of its founder and its first apostles. Yet it is but seldom borne in mind that without constant reformation—~z. ¢., without a constant return to its fountain-head—every religion, even the most perfect, nay, the most perfect on account of its very per- fection, more than others suffers from its contact with the world, as the purest air suffers from the mere fact of its being breathed. In the same direction testifies Mr. Collins, of Eng- land : . The only natural law which the science of religion has forced upon my own conviction is, that man has exhibited a constant tendency to drop the spiritual out of religion while he may retain the material. Deterioration from the original truth seems to have been the natural order of growth in religions. It was cer- CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT 29 tainly so in the religion of Israel. It has been certainly so in the history of Christianity. In proof of this drift toward deterioration it may be mentioned that the Chinese were monotheists from a re- mote antiquity, and continued so until Persian dualism was introduced about two thousand eight hundred years before Christ. The polytheism that followed abundantly illustrates the facility with which faith degenerates. Hinduism furnishes a similar illustration. It has been argued by competent scholars that the most ancient hymns of the Rig Veda disclose a primeval monothe- ism, and Professor Monier Williams claims that Dyans, God of the Bright Sky, was originally worshiped as the Supreme (“Indian Thought,” p. 11). The fall from that high pedestal has been tremendous. Objects of worship have multiplied, and they themselves and the modes employed to show them reverence are alike debasing. I do not overlook the fact that idolatry is not the only abyss into which the Hindu mind has precipitated itself; for, as represented by its philoso- phers, it has turned toward pantheism, the ideal, by the way, and the goal held up before the Christians of to- day, toward which their faith is supposed to be veering, And yet it must be something of a shock to hear a grave Brahmin say: “Yes; God is everywhere and everything is God. You are God, I am God; the cow, the leopard, and the elephant—all are God.” When we reflect on these sentiments, and on the condition of the people where they prevail, we perceive that in proportion as the sacred name gains in extent it loses in power. When it is applied to the creatures lower than man it ceases to have power to lift man up higher 30 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY than man. In making everything God, the real idea of God suffers eclipse. He that allies a cow with the Infinite Spirit, and equalizes one with the other, as he sees the cow and cannot see the Spirit, will be more potently affected by the former than the latter. It is easier to level a mountain than to elevate a plain. When the great and glorious Jehovah is identified with four-footed beasts, and crawling reptiles, and the very dust of the field, the worship of such a being is precisely synonymous with idolatry and fetichism; and, as has been over and over again proven by history, the ascent from such a degradation is well-nigh impossible. And if Christianity were abandoned, in this downward direc- tion would misguided humanity gravitate. Certainly, whether toward this gulf or another equally forbidding, Judaism had deteriorated, long before the birth of Jesus, from its original character. It had gone back- ward and was still going backward, when our Lord appeared. Judging from analogy, it had not in itself the power of self-recuperation, much less the power to evolve from its own decay and putrefaction a new and a grander faith. It was impossible for it to develop out of itself the Christian system. Neither had it the means or instruments within itself for the achievement of such a work. Such an “evolution,” if that term must be employed, could only be effected by an adequate agency acting upon it from without; and it is the aim and scope of this volume to prove that that agency must have been Divine. But why should an argument be required to prove that Christianity is not the natural and inevitable pro- duct of some worn-out and by-gone creed, or of man’s CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT 31 devout aspirations and social progress? Why should it be necessary to confirm anew to reason and con- science the supernatural credentials of this stupendous faith? Why have not former generations settled the controversy for this and all succeeding generations? Must the world be continually discussing, never at rest, never entirely convinced? It is not easy to see why the Almighty should not have put an end to the possi- bility of doubt, and have rendered superfluous rules of evidence and processes of disputation. At first it does seem as though everything relating to doctrine and discipline, and to the very foundations of religion should have been so infallibly determined as to render cavil or question utterly inexcusable and unimaginable. Bishop Butler (“ Analogy,” part 2, 106), a hundred and fifty years ago met this very inquiry. He contended that God having placed us here in a state of probation, the demonstration on behalf of spiritual and moral issues is not so overwhelming as to preclude the danger of mistake. It has been shown in more than one case that where there has been fancied certainty there has been engendered a very large amount of indifference. In the Roman Catholic Church, where it is claimed that intellectual rest is enjoyed, and where the people are taught that there is no occasion for debate, no particu- lar interest is felt in the Bible, and no special effort made to ascertain its meaning. In that community stagnation of thought among the laity is encouraged. Apathy ensues; and doubtless similar results would follow were Christianity in such a position as never to excite misgiving or mistrust. This very element of un- certainty ministers to the appreciation of truth. 32 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY James Martineau, writing on a topic kindred to this, says : You might set up the electric telegraph among the New Zea- landers and train them to its use; and the Indians and the Chinese are said to have command of many mechanical rules and astronomical methods, the grounds of which they have for ages ceased to understand. A people thus the depository of a transmitted skill may continue, amid stagnation and decline, to send their messages and to construct their almanacs with curious precision, and may profit by the science of the past. But the higher truths of morals and religion have another abode than in posts and wires, and cannot be laid down in cables through the sea ; no equation can contain or usage work them. ‘They sub- sist only for him who discerns them freshly out of himself; they are realized in so far as they are apprehended ; and their very use and application, being at the heart instead of the surface of our nature their function is extinct when they cease to be redis- covered and rebelieved, are only remembered and preserved. In other words, it is the thirst for fresh truths which can alone retain the old; and the intellect not less than the character will not even hold its own when it ceases to pray and to aspire.— Essays, Philosophical and Theological, p. goo. Never were sounder sentiments expressed. Profes- sors of religion may be merely like telegraph poles con- nected with each other and the distant past by sacred opinions, along which some gleam of light and truth may flash to troubled souls, while they themselves are inert and unconscious of the real significance of what they stand for ; but they ought to be trees of righteous- ness, full of life and fruitful, with their very leaves for the healing of the nations. If they are ever this then they must have an intelligent apprehension and a gen- uine conviction of the truth of what they avow. To have this the demands of reason must be met, and the CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT ai means to this end are simply adequate argument. As Mr. Martineau says: “Truth only subsists for him who has discovered it freshly for himself, and it is realized only so far as it is apprehended.” It may be professed without thought, but it cannot be possessed, and the thoughtful inquiry necessary to personal ownership is only a process of argumentation. At times we hear it said, let us have more appeal and less argument, as argument is of secondary moment. And yet all true appeal is largely argumen- tative, and may be defined as argument on fire with emotion. In the Christian system conviction goes be- fore conversion and conduct ; and when it is assumed, as it frequently is, that conviction is exclusively a state of the moral feelings and not at all of the judgment, a most palpable error is countenanced. Dr. John Caird has written clearly and conclusively on the function of intelligence in spiritual concerns, and his words are weighty enough to be reproduced here: The basis of religion lies in the very essence of man’s nature as a thinking, self-conscious being. . . Religion must, indeed, be a thing of the heart ; but in order to elevate it from the region of conjecture, caprice, and waywardness, and to distinguish be- tween that which is true and false in religion ; between the lowest and most corrupt, and the highest and purest forms of religion, we must appeal to an objective standard. That which enters the heart must first be discerned by the intelligence to be true. It must be seen as having in its own nature a right to dominate feeling, and as constituting the principle by which feeling must be judged and regulated. —/ntroduction to the Philosophy of Re- figion, pp. 100, 174. Therefore, if genuine disciples are to be multi- 34 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY plied, the entire being of the man must be moved according to its nature—mind, feelings, and volition— and the beginning must always be made with the mind. If it is asked why the individual cannot be reached by some other method, my answer simply is that he is so constituted as to be swayed by argument. And if it is further asked why he is thus constituted? I may as well reply, I do not know, unless it is that this very char- acteristic is indispensable to manhood. Suffice it, man is an intelligent creature, and religion holds its place in his life and in that of the community through intelligent confidence in its extraordinary claims, and intelligent con- fidence is the result of convincing argument. It should be remembered also that he never can believe ethical or spiritual propositions on mere authority, whether of so- called sacred books or persons ; for only will conscience submit to that which carries with it conviction, and the convicting quality not the commanding tone is after all the practical and determining measure of true authority. Then, finally, the argument is important, and indeed vitally necessary to the perpetuity and power of Chris- tianity as proving that it was not at the outset estab- lished without various “infallible proofs”; that it has not maintained itself without enduring constant un- friendly criticism ; and that it could not now be rejected without grievous loss to the world, a loss that cannot be made up by unbelief in any of its many forms. A French deist, of a particular type, complained to a friend, that he had invented a brand-new religion, but that he could not get it accepted. It was suggested by Talleyrand that there was a way to success: “Get yourself crucified, die, be buried, and rise again the CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT 35 third day, and you will have numerous followers.” Nothing short of this tremendous tragedy and miracle established Christianity in the faith of its primitive dis- ciples. Its credentials were to its earliest friends and supporters extraordinary and unimpeachable. They at least would not admit its claims unsupported by what they regarded as the most indubitable approval—super- naturally expressed—of Heaven. Their insistency at this point, their demand for the rarest and most diffi- cult of all evidences should at least create a presump- tion in our mind favorable to Christianity, and satisfy us, whether the original line of argument is adapted to this century or not, that Christianity did not obtain its footing in the world without the most scrupulous and searching investigation. Neither has it continued without being interrogated, catechised, and scrutinized at every step of its history. Each age has produced some school of thought hostile to its existence, and yet it has survived them all, and in spite of antagonisms is quietly pursuing its way. What the “Jewish Messenger” says of the Bible is equally true of the religion with which it is inextricably interwoven : If the permanency of Scripture itself is a marvel, no less marvelous is the romance of criticism with which it is insepara- bly associated. We call it romance, because there has been no theory too wild to be fastened on the Bible, no view too absurd to be connected with its stories and chronicles. The rise and decline of such schools of criticism has been constant. Each believes that it has discovered a secret. Each prides itself on superior scholarship. Each claims to be based on the latest dis- coveries, and lo! each passes away with all its positiveness and erudition, and the Bible remains : 36 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY Last eve I paused beside a blacksmith’s door, And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime ; Then, looking in, I saw upon the floor Old hammers worn with beating years of time. ‘¢How many anvils have you had?’’ said I, «©To wear and batter all these hammers so?”’ ‘‘ Just one,’’ said he; then said, with twinkling eye, ‘‘The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.’ ’ And so, I thought, the anvil of God’s word For ages sceptic blows have beat upon ; Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard, The anvil is unharmed—the hammers gone. So, likewise, Christianity has been subject to the scoffs, sneers, and revilings of many men of many theo- ries. She has been pronounced unsuited to various ages, and she has blessed all. Her speedy demise has frequently been proclaimed, and yet somehow she con- tinues to live. She has been abused as an oppressor, and still the poor and helpless seek her altars for refuge and shelter; and she has been ostracized as a fraud and superstition, and yet her supporters are among the most honest and intelligent citizens everywhere. This striking persistence, this survival in the struggle for existence, is sufficiently noteworthy to create the impression that she survives because she is “the fittest,’ and to deepen the predisposition in her favor as the special gift of Heaven. Some few bewildered people speak of the surrender- ing of their faith in our Lord’s religion asa gain. They imagine they have thereby gotten rid of their con- science, of their apprehensions, of dark problems of sin and sorrow, and for a while they are comparatively CHRISTIANITY AND ITS ARGUMENT 47 happy. But they forget what they have lost: the im- pulse to righteousness; the high ideal of sainthood ; the inspiration to beneficence, fraternity with the noblest of manhood; the possibility of moral renewal and of life everlasting. The argument for Christianity will make all this clear, and the very vastness of the poverty entailed on infidelity will go far toward clinch- ing the evidence on which its divine origin rests. And it will show unanswerably that the actual loss is not met by any tangible gain at all. When religion is laid aside all of the old perplexities and difficulties remain, and the melancholy and strain of existence increase. There is no compensation. Thousands have experi- enced this. They have played and trifled with unbe- lief for a season, have talked loudly of emancipation and the triumph of reason, and then, after a while, when the novelty has worn away and the solitudes of the universe and of their own being have become un- endurable, they have sought once more at the Cross peace and hope. Surely a religion that means as much as this to the human soul ought not to be lightly dealt with. And the value of the argument we are to weigh turns in no small degree on the fact that it will show how wonderfully adapted is Christianity to the best interests of the soul. That one great fact ought to ex- plode a hundred quibbles and objections. It ought to predispose the mind to candor in judging, and ought to lead to conviction. For if infidelity brings no comfort, satisfies no longings, allays no fears, and leaves us still in unrest, may it not be well to try the old faith once more, to turn again to Him who is the “Light of Life,’ in hopes of a sufficient answer to the “ob- D 38 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY stinate questionings” and “blank misgivings of the Creatureas Where’s The gain? How can we guard our unbelief, Make it bear fruit to us ?—the problem here : Just when we're safest there’s a sunset touch, A fancy from a flower-bell, some one’s death, A chorus-ending from Euripides : And that’s enough for fifty hopes and fears, As old and new at once as Nature’s self, To rap, and knock, and enter in our soul, Take hands and dance there a fantastic ring, Round the ancient idol, on his base again, The grand Perhaps! We look on helplessly. There the old misgivings, crooked questions are— This good God, what he could do if he would, Would, if he could—then, must have done long since; If so, when, where, and how? Some way must be! Once feel about, and soon or late you hit Some sense in which it might be after all. Why not ‘‘ The Way, the Truth, the Life’’ ? (Ole Vee ei aai ih THE ARGUMENT FROM. HISTORY. Niggrttecesey is represented as saying: “What is history, but a fable agreed upon?” And Tacitus, one of its most earnest students and most graphic writers, has deepened this distrust by his melancholy comment: “I can come to no certain conclusion as to whether the affairs of men are guided by the immuta- ble law of destiny, or by the whirling wheel of chance.” A far nobler and truer conception is that which regards it as “the conscience of the human race,” and describes it as the “prophetical interpreter of that most sacred epic of which God is the poet, and humanity the theme.” Juster, also, in my opinion the estimates of Polybius and Froude, as to its clearness, significance, and value. The former of these authors declares that, “History offers the highest of educations, and that it alone, without in- jury, teaches us from every season and circumstance to be true judges of what is best’ ; while the latter assures us that there is only one lesson it repeats with solemn distinctness: ‘That the world is built somehow on moral foundations ; that in the long run, it is well with the good; in the long run, it is ill with the wicked.” Thomas Carlyle, after his manner of contemplating mountain peaks and ignoring meadows and seques- tred nooks, has somewhat obscured this high ethical purport of all events and all movements by defining 39 40 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY history to be “the record of remarkable actions.” Surely this is altogether too narrow a view, for fre- quently common-place words and trivial deeds have led to most stupendous and startling results. The cackling of a goose, a vain woman’s infatuation with the golden ornaments of barbarian invaders, a mis- directed or misinterpreted dispatch, the stumbling of a horse, the passage of some benighted bird through a brilliantly lighted banquet hall, a casual interview at a convent’s gate, or the inheritance of a dead man’s appar- ently useless charts, and a vast city is saved from its foes, or is surrendered to their overwhelming fury which also engulfs the silly traitress, or a regiment of gallant soldiers rides into “the jaws of death, into the mouth of hell,” or an aspiring, ambitious ruler comes suddenly to grief, or a Saxon tribe is converted to the gospel, or a continent is discovered and a new civiliza- tion begun. Small things sometimes lead to more tremendous consequences -than great things, and may ultimately mean more in the annals of mankind, even as the sore throat of the Emperor Frederick had a pro- founder significance to the German Empire than the cannon of France before which its prince rode un- harmed. I cannot, therefore, agree with Carlyle, and am con- vinced that Herodotus comes nearer to a fitting idea of the scope of history, when at the beginning of his immortal work he says: “To rescue from oblivion the memory of former incidents, and to render a just tribute of renown to the many great and wonderful actions, both of Greeks and barbarians, Herodotus of Halicarnassus produces this historical essay.” Here THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY 4I we have no discrimination between what is remarkable and ordinary, but the promise of a faithful and accur- ate portrayal or reproduction of the past. From these combined conceptions we are surely warranted in con- cluding, if God is in history, if it is in a sense the con- science of man, if its final bearing is mainly ethical and spiritual, and if it comprehends the acts and changes of the least conspicuous character, then it must com- prehend in its annals the beginnings of religion, how- ever obscure or lowly they may have been, and must bear witness to the truth or falseness of the alleged facts on which its high pretentions rest. The nature of history and the solemn import of religion alike for- bid a contrary supposition ; especially as so profound a thinker and inquirer as Max Miiller has declared, as the result of his scholarly researches, that religion is the principal theme of history, and that without religion there is in reality no history at all deserving of the name. . Christianity is a historical religion; by which is - meant not only that its origin is assignable to a defi- nite period of time, but that it is interwoven with a series of events, which events involve the substance of its doctrines. A mythical religion is one that creates facts, which are not facts, out of ideas; a historical religion is one that evolves ideas out of facts. Prof. Powell writes : A myth is a doctrine expressed in a narrative form; an ab- stract moral or spiritual truth dramatized in action and personi- fication, where the object is to enforce faith, not in the parable, but in the moral.—Zssays, L//., p. 340. The Hegelian principle is that history is the objec- 42 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY tive development of the idea, and as it is unfolded necessarily and inevitably it must be entitled to confi- dence; but when the idea comes first, and is not pri- marily an occurrence, it cannot have the advantage of the same kind of evidence. Mr. Edward Bellamy some few years since published a remarkable and interesting book, entitled “ Looking Backward.” It is the story of an age yet to come, in which various characters move and act as though they were real beings. But the author’s design was not to inspire belief in the narrative. He rather sought, through the narrative, to inculcate a doctrine and convince of its soundness ; and his design is so effectively carried out that the reader remembers on the close of the volume very little about the hero, or his bride, or the doctor, or any one else, but carries with him a vivid impression of the ideal society that has been so eloquently elabo- rated. This composition illustrates what we mean by the mythical in literature, and enables us to discern the drift of what Strauss taught when he applied this term to the Gospels. His treatment of the four evan- gels is very adequately and succinctly explained by Rev. J. Henry Thayer, from whom I quote the following passage: According to him, not only has orthodoxy been wrong in claiming that they contain miraculous history, but rationalism has made a mistake in denying the miracles, yet affirming the history ; for correctly understood, they contain neither miracles nor history, but the unconscious substitution of opinion for facts. Just as, in the fabulous accounts given us of the origin of the various pagan faiths, we have religious ideas presented in a concrete or historical form, which form we rend that we may get at the kernel of truth it envelops; so is it with the Gospels. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY 43 Jesus of Nazareth, an extraordinary man, is mistaken by his countrymen for the expected Messiah. Their admiring venera- tion attaches to him all the characteristics composing the preva- lent idea of that exalted personage. . This is evident from the correspondence existing between the traits of their portrait of him and the ideal prefigured in the Old Testament. . . These records are not histories ; they are not fictions ; they are, rather, a dramatic presentation of truths. Call them historic, if you will: they exhibit a true history of thought, not a pretended history of fact.—Critéczsm Confirmatory of the Gospels, p. 327. Christianity in the interest of its own veracity and authority repudiates this theory as unreasonable and untenable, and, in the words of Dean Stanley, “alone of all religions, claims to be founded not on fancy or feeling, but on fact and truth.” (“Sinai and Pales- tine, chdap.2.) 1 ‘“Werfind,” says Rawlinson, “in the Christian dispensation a scheme of doctrine which is bound up with the facts, which depends absolutely upon them, and which may be regarded as for all practical purposes established if they are shown to deserve acceptance.” (‘ Historical Evidences,” p. 26.) The doctrine falls if the facts are discredited. They are the foundation on which the superstructure is built ; they are the plant which embosoms and vitalizes the flower; they are the body that incarnates and sus- tains the soul; and they are the sun, indeed the entire solar system, generating, emitting, and reflecting the light. Let them be swept away, let them be set aside by arbitrary criticism, and structure, flower, soul, and light must share in the deplorable and irreparable ruin. If Jesus of Nazareth wrought miracles, especially the miracles recorded in the New Testament, and if he was raised from the dead, then is the doctrine of the super- A4 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY natural established; and more than that, then is it proven that spirit is supreme over matter, and that the Christ is all that he claims to be as God’s glorious revelation, and as man’s gracious Redeemer. But once let these alleged marvels lose their reality, and doubt immediately enshrouds the truths which they demon- strate in darkness. Hence it is that Niebuhr, who I admit is not always consistent with himself, but who is one of the chief lights in the realm of historical criti- cism, writes: In my opinion he is not a Protestant Christian who does not receive the historical facts of Christ’s early life in their literal acceptation, with all their miracles, as equally authentic with any event recorded in history, and whose belief in them is not as firm and tranquil as his belief in the latter; . . . who does not consider every doctrine and every precept of the New Testa- ment as undoubted divine revelation in the sense of the Chris- tians of the first century, who knew nothing of a Theopneustia. Moreover, a Christianity after the fashion of the modern philoso- phers and pantheists, without a personal God, without immor- tality, without human responsibility, without historical faith, is no Christianity at all to me.—Azcient History, vol. L., pp. 20, Speech ere | He is correct. Either the kingdom of Christ rests on these tremendous external facts, and is itself com- prehended in them, or they must be invalidated by some kind of explanation that does away with them entirely. And when they are swept away, somehow the kingdom ceases not only to be substantial, but to be other than nonsensical. Thus Herr Paulus and his school assure the world without the least hesitation that the magi with their gifts were only Jewish peddlers; that the star which shone in the East was a comet or passing THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY A5 meteor ; that the salutation of the angel was only a thought of gladness; that the dumbness of Zacharias was a stroke of paralysis; that the glory of the Lord shining on the shepherds was just the light of a lantern carried by a man who unexpectedly came over the hill ; and that all the other startling and supernatural occur- rences are equally as trivial, and even foolish, when adequately interpreted by this so-called rationalistic method. As Hermann aptly characterizes their endeavors, they really invent exegetical miracles for the sake of getting rid of evangelical miracles. In choosing between them, as perforce we must, we ought surely to select the latter as being on the whole not only more dignified, but more intelligible and more credible to common sense. Moreover, I am sure it will strengthen this conclu- sion by observing how myths come to be formed, and how next to impossible it must have been to have invented them and given them currency in connection with the dawning of Christianity. An illustration of the usual process is furnished in what is now published about St. Patrick. This saint, when a youth of fifteen or sixteen, was carried from Scotland to Ireland (about 376 A. D.), and was there doomed for a time to slavery. But he became an apostle of the true faith in the land of his captivity. There is no evidence that he himself claimed any miraculous power, but after his death stories multiplied with each succeeding generation, until he came in the twelfth century to be the hero of so many wonderful legends that the facts of his life were hopelessly lost in the heap of absurd fictions. Mr. Gibbon testifies that at this period there were 46 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY sixty-six biographies extant of this remarkable man, and that they must have contained at least as many thousand les. What he may have said regarding his good angel watching over him, speaking figuratively or confidently of an invisible presence, was construed a hundred years later to mean that he had been accom- panied by a manifest heavenly intelligence, and in the sixth century a rock in the county Down was pointed out as the one from which the seraph Victor sprang when he returned to glory. The imprint of the angelic foot remained there. Years roll on, and the wonders accumulate until we are told that St. Patrick lighted a fire with icicles, floated to Ireland on an altar of stone, swam across the Shannon with his head in his mouth, caused a goat to cry out in the stomach of a thief who had stolen it, and raised a score or more of men to life. What is especially to be noted in these accounts is the time element. ‘The fictions do not fol- low immediately on the career of the original. They have to grow. Deeds are exaggerated, and then they are invested with a supernatural character, and then they are connected with extravagant prodigies ; but the process needed—even in an ecclesiastical age—centu- ries for its completion. But a period of this magni- tude did not elapse before the facts of early Christian- ity, including the resurrection of Christ, were very generally accepted. The story shows no growth. «The idea of men writing mythic histories between the time of Livy and Tacitus, and St. Paul mistaking such for realities!’’ (Arnold, “ Life,” p. 58. Froude’s «Short Studies on Great Subjects.”) Imagination or de- votion had no opportunity to devise fables of our Lord’s THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY 47 birth, superhuman achievements, and victory over death. What the latest disciples believe on these subjects was believed by the first. With the very beginning of our religion everything of a marvelous character was affirmed that has subsequently been proclaimed. The mythical hypothesis, therefore, collapses, falls to the ground, as all the extraordinary circumstances and miracles which it seeks to explain away were credited at the very outset, and were announced even before the doctrines they involve were distinctly developed and defined ; and they must consequently be regarded as veritably historical, or as a deliberately and wickedly planned tissue of monstrous fabrications and false- hoods. But that they are the former and not the latter is sufficiently substantiated— I. Ly Historical Documents. Il. By Historical Monuments. Il. By Htstorical Developments. Chief among such documents as I have named stand the Gospels and other apostolic writings. To these I shall refer in another connection, when the date of their origin and their authenticity may properly come under consideration. For the present, however, it will be well to recall what eminent unbelievers in the super- natural have to say concerning their fidelity and trust- worthiness. Goethe testifies that he believes “the Gospels to be thoroughly genuine; for in them there is the effective reflection of a sublimity which emanated from the person of Christ. . . If ever the Divine appeared on earth it was in the person of Jesus.”! So, also, John Stuart Mill: “The tradition of followers 1 Goethe’s “‘ Conversations with Eckermann.” 48 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY may have inserted all the miracles which he is reputed to have wrought”; only, as I have shown, sufficient time had not elapsed between his death and the com- position of the narratives of his life for traditions to have been formed— But who among his disciples, or among their proselytes, was capable of inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or imagining the life and character revealed in the Gospels? Certainly not the fishermen of Galilee; as certainly not Saint Paul, whose char- acter and idiosyncrasies were of a totally different sort ; and still less the early Christian writers.! And Rousseau, with even greater distinctness, says: Shall we suppose the evangelical history a mere fiction? Indeed, my friend, it bears no mark of fiction. On the contrary, the history of Socrates, which no one presumes to doubt, is not so well attested as that of Jesus Christ. Such a supposition in fact only shifts the difficulty without obviating it. It is more in- conceivable that a number of persons should agree to write such a history, than that one should furnish the subject of it. The Jewish authors were incapable of the diction, and strangers to the morality contained in the Gospels. The marks of its truth are so striking and inimitable that the inventor would be a more astonishing character than the hero.? Renan commits himself in a similar manner;’? and Froude even confesses “ the overwhelming proofs of the authenticity’ of John’s Gospel, the one most open to at- tack. —These eminent men being judges, the earliest of Christ’s biographers are entitled to credit. They are not romancers, but the plain chroniclers of what they saw and heard, and consequently the documents that "1 Mill’s “ Three Essays.” 2 Rousseau’s * Emile.” 8 Renan’s ‘‘ Life of Jesus.” 4 Froude’s “‘ Short Studies.” THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY 19 came from their pens are historical, and entitled to re- spectful attention. It is unnecessary to repeat the substance of the account they give, as it is familiar to all my readers, and is known full well to include the most positive recognition of the supernatural in the ministry of Jesus and in the religion he founded. Other ancient authors confirm their representations. Lucian and Porphyry, the earliest assailants of Chris- tianity, do not in reality question the facts of the Gos- pels, and they concede the moral grandeur of Christ’s character. Julian, called the Apostate, never asserted that our Lord was merely a figment of the imagination, but admitted the truth of the essentials of his biography, and when dying is reported to have cried out, “O Galilean, thou hast conquered!” Celsus seems to have considered him an impostor; but he in nowise recog- nizes the mythical theory. Tacitus in his “ Annals” records, as he would any other events, the death of Jesus in the reign of Tiberius, mentioning Pontius Pilate, the procurator, as the judge, and adding that his religion, which he terms “a deadly superstition,” “though crushed for a time, burst forth again, not only throughout Judea, in which it sprang up, but even in Rome, the common reservoir for all the streams of wickedness and infamy.’ When describing the burn- ing of Rome he relates how Nero, to shield himself from the imputation of the crime, charged it on the Christians; and then Tacitus defends them from the accusation of incendiarism, though he intimates that they deserved what they received on account of their misanthropy.’ It is clear that this writer had no suspicion IVDacitus, Geristory, 455 35.40 Aunals, x5, 44; E 50 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY that the origin of this “deadly superstition’ was simi- lar to or identical with the inception of pagan myths, or that its great teacher was a mirage-like figure born of a frenzied fancy. He treats the entire subject seriously, as consisting of indubitable facts, though with the prej- udice and partiality to be expected from his education and social surroundings. ‘The references of Suetonius and Pliny are equally emphatic against the mythical hypothesis, the latter expressly testifying that nothing could shake the allegiance of Christians to Christ, whose divinity they celebrated each morning with hymns of praise.’ Some persons have expressed surprise that the allu- sions to our Saviour are not more abundant than they are in secular literature up to the date of Pliny’s report to Trajan, 112 A.D. They insist that the theme is one of such transcendent importance that it ought to have commanded more attention. But it ought to be re- membered by critics that in the days referred to there were comparatively few authors, that these few had been reared under the shadow of heathenism and had imbibed its spirit. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that absolute independence of thought was hardly practicable under the Czesars, when literary men stood in need of patronage, and offenses against existing insti- tutions were cruelly punished. Christianity was not calculated to please such tyrants as the emperors, nor to find favor in the brilliant but corrupt circles which composed the highest society at the capital: An English scholar thus describes the weaknesses and de- ficiencies of writers during this period : — 1 Pliny, Ep. 10, 97, 98. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY 51 The historians are so occupied with the great events of his- tory, the satirists so busy with the vices of upper-class society, the moralists with abstract theorizing, the poets with Greek mythology and with the maintenance of their footing in the atria of the rich and the favor of the emperor and his freedmen, that they have neither time to write about the aims of imperial policy nor eyes to see them ; and we gather only indirectly from them some information which we can interpret by other author- ities.—Ramsay, ‘ Church in the Roman Empire,’ p. 184. Well, if they were so exceedingly careful and non- commital on questions of State, it can readily be under- stood that they would hardly venture to be very ex- plicit on the subject of a religion whose genius was so entirely foreign to the idolatries and oppressions of the government. In the circumstances in which they were placed, literary men would naturally abstain as far as possible from everything like a detailed account of so unpopular a topic, and would only take it up when unavoidable, and then mostly for the purpose of depre- ciation. But the world is to be congratulated that their allusions, scanty though they are, occur so inci- dentally and unartificially as to furnish the strongest confirmation of the Gospel narrative and of the claims put forth by the Christian faith. I have no doubt but that a parallel to this compara- tive reticence is to be met with to-day in every heathen nation where Christianity is striving to obtain a foot- hold. It is not very likely that the national historians of China, of India, and Japan have chronicled at length the doings of missionaries, or have felt called on to give a circumstantial account of the religion they seek to propagate. They may record conflicts that occur between the missionaries and the authorities, or out- 52 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY breaks of a fanatical native population against the in- truders, or endeavors of the government to suppress the new ideas; but beyond this it is not probable they will go, and as far as this went Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny. Nor is it reasonable to expect much more than this from Jewish authorities, who had everything to lose by the success of Christianity. Certainly no particular testimony ought to be looked for from Philo, as he died about the year A. D. 40, and before sufficient time had passed for the new faith to have acquired prominence sufficient to arouse public interest in any extraor- dinary degree. The hesitancy of Josephus, likewise, is not difficult to explain. As he had apostatized far enough from the faith of his fathers to acknowledge Vespasian to be the promised Messiah, he could not be expected to see in Jesus of Nazareth the signs and cre- dentials of that long-expected personage. There are, however, in his works two undisputed passages which corroborate events intimately related to our Lord’s life. The first describes the preaching of John the Baptist and his execution ; and thereafter he mentions the judi- cial murder of James the Just, whom he terms “the brother of Jesus, called the Christ.” In this way he discloses his knowledge of the movement in Judea, which had its beginnings in the ministry of this Jesus, and indicates that he could not honestly treat either it or him as fictions and fabrications. It is to be regretted that some cunning hand has clumsily interpolated a paragraph, in which Josephus is practically made to own his belief in the Messiahship of our Lord and in the reality of his resurrection.’ The spurious character of the 1 “* Antiquities,” 18: 5,2; 20:9,1; aiso 18; 3, 3. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY 53 text has been fully established, especially those portions that concede the vital doctrines in dispute, and the church has been foremost in exposing the fraud. It is unrea- sonable to suppose that a man like Josephus would record as facts events that logically swept from Judaism its right to exist as a creed without himself going farther and submitting to the new religion. He may have known more of the gospel story than he intimates, and his reluctance to commit himself may have arisen from perplexity or prejudice ; but on either supposition he would naturally refrain from saying anything on the subject not actually indispensable to the purpose he had immediately in view, and that assuredly was never to prove the divine origin of Christianity. It is also to be borne in mind that the unexpurgated editions of the Talmud contain some twenty references to Jesus and his followers, and that, while they betray intense malevolence, they do not challenge the reality of his historic personality nor the chief incidents of his public career. Nor should the evidential value of docu- ments penned by Christians themselves be overlooked. The writings of such confessors as Justin Martyr, Clem- ent of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Quadratus, and Irenzeus distinctly mention the various events of Christ’s life; and we may in brief gain an idea of how they were regarded by a single passage from Quadratus, which is quoted from Eusebius : The works of our Saviour were always conspicuous, for they were real; both they which were healed and they which were raised from the dead; who were seen not only when they were healed or raised, but for a long time afterward ; not only while he dwelt on this earth, but also after his departure, and for a 54 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY good while after it; insomuch that some of them have reached to our tines!—‘! Aecles. fiistovy, | Zin 5 00, Ly D290: It can scarcely be imagined that these early wit- nesses doubted the historical reality of all they described so vividly. They had searched and inquired, and they had been convinced that the mission of Christ, with its attendant marvels, was no cunningly devised fable. And their confidence is deservedly entitled to weight on the part of those who are skeptically inclined. They had opportunities such as we have not for investigation, and their temporal interests, even their life, were more directly involved in the result than ours. If a man like Quadratus had examined the origins of Christianity when he did; that is, in the times of Adrian, A. D. 122, and had pronounced against their alleged supernatural and’ historical character, and had suffered death on account of the conclusions he had reached, he must have been certain that he had made no mistakes nor overlooked any relevant evidence; and we would attach to his tes- timony the very highest importance. But should not the testimony of even such a witness be accepted when under these identical conditions it is favorable, and not averse to the historical claims of Christianity? There is no,such instance as we have imagined in the opposition; but there were multitudes who during the first two centuries of our era surrendered life in attestation, not merely of their sincerity in believing, but of their certain knowledge that the religion of the Cross was grounded in “the infallible proofs” recited and recorded in the Gospels. The documents that con- tain these confirmations of what apostles wrote ought to be cherished highly, and when taken in connection THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY isis with the other documents referred to, are eminently convincing. There is a cumulative force in these va- rious writings when brought together that can scarcely be measured by words, and that has never been suc- cessfully resisted or broken by the arguments of un- belief. And this force is very much increased by the sig- nificance and meaning of historical monuments. Let me explain myself: Memorials of former events are not confined to pillars of stone reared by public sub- scription and voted by public suffrage. These of course have a clearly defined value. The shaft on Bunker Hill, the lion hewn out of the rock at Lucerne, the group in bronze representing Lincoln freeing the slave, the Trafalgar monument in London, and the Bastile column in Paris, are formal and unanswerable proofs of the American Revolution, the slaughter of the Swiss Guards, the emancipation of the Southern Negroes, the victory of Nelson, and the end of the French mon- archy. But the observance of the Fourth of July, and the commemoration of Washington’s birthday, and the patriotic celebration in France each year of the down- fall of feudalism, are as conclusive in their way as evi- dence of the happenings they honor as sculptured marble or heroic statue. In the Tower of London there is an ancient dungeon on whose walls the prisoners in their long leisure inscribed their names, with the date of their captivity, and occasionally with some melan- choly comment on their sufferings. This silent witness is eloquent of a civilization different from our own, and is as much a witness to the horrible past as any arch or memorial tablet reared by the people. In the same 56 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY way, Christianity has its monuments in institutions, celebrations, and inscriptions that have existed and been preserved from apostolic times to the present hour. Among these are to be numbered the Lord’s Day, Baptism, and the Lord’s Supper; the first solemnly affirming the resurrection of Christ; the second adum- brating the spiritual quickening of believing souls ; the third commemorating the sacrifice made by love for a world’s redemption ; and all of them plainly suggesting the supernatural in religion. These signs tell their own story as unfailingly as though it were legibly written in brass on the sugface of a rock; and the fact of their un- broken continuity from the beginning of Christianity certifies as indisputably to the historical truth of what they teach as the arch of Titus in Rome does to the success of the imperial arms. But there are also in- scriptions as well. An illustration of this phase of my subject is fur- nished in the desert of Mount Sinai, and is itself sufficiently extraordinary to excite our wonder. About thirteen and a half centuries ago an Egyptian merchant named Cosmas followed the route of the Hebrews as they journeyed toward the land of promise, and was sur- prised to see at all the halting places inscriptions sculp- tured in the rocks. Since his day these characters have been observed and studied by Lord Lindsay,’ not to mention other scholars equally famous with those noted below, and only oneconclusion seems to be possible. These inscriptions may be traced from the base of Sinai along the way to the eastern shore of the gulf. They are 1“ Letters on Egypt’’; Dr. Robinson, “ Biblical Researches ’’; Prof. Beer, “ Studia Asiatica,’’ and Dr. Richard Lepsius, “‘ Letters from Egypt,’’ p. 359. THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY EY) cut in the hard rock about twelve to fourteen feet above ground, and the work required patience and leisure. Their execution demanded skill.and appropriate imple- ments. What body of artisans could have come to this desert to perform this task, and how could they have been supported in so barren a region? No theory ex- plains their origin except that which attributes them to the Hebrews during their forty years of wandering. This supposition is supported by much that has been deciphered. In one place there is a rough picture of a serpent, with the words “fiery serpents, hissing, inject- ing venom, heralds of death.” Another gives the pas- sage of the Red Sea; another declares that he who prayed on the hard stone was supported by Aaron and Hur; and yet others still further corroborate the narrative of Moses. Are not these Sinaitic inscrip- tions in reality monuments of what transpired in those solitudes, and of the acts that led the called of God to abandon Egypt? For all these centuries they have borne silent witness to the venerable past, and when mocking infidels have paraded the alleged “ Mistakes of Moses,’ these incorruptible, impassible granite and red sandstone peaks have refuted the traducers. Carved on the everlasting hills is the story of the Exode, and it is impossible to suppose that it would have been written there were the story not historical. But there is another wilderness, shut out however from the light of day, not fashioned by nature’s agony, but by human skill, extending under ground along some six hundred miles of streets, and supposed to contain about seven million graves. I have myself trodden these lonely and deserted paths, and have pictured the 58 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY times before the reign of Constantine, when the Roman Christians found in these catacombs a refuge from persecution and a sanctuary for worship. Here also there are inscriptions, signs, symbols which set forth the historic belief of the early church. The adoration of the wise men, the baptism of Jesus, the Lamb of God, the Good Shepherd, the raising ot Lazarus, the walking of Peter on the sea, the anchor, the cross, the resurrection, are the constantly recurring themes of saintly artists. Expressions of hope are recorded on the many tombs, though now and then we read words of bitter lamentation, as when a victim of the cruelty of Aurelius exclaims: “‘O unhappy times, in which amid our sacred rites and prayers—in the very caverns—we are not safe!’ 4 Often the word “martyr’’ occurs on the stones that have hidden the dead for centuries. Andthese martyrs have left behind them in memorial words and drawings a confession of the faith for which they died, and it is found to agree with the narrative contained in the Gospels and with what the facts of that narrative inculcate. These precious remains of the primitive church like- wise furnish a clue to the cause of persecution, which converts persecution itself into a monument to the truth. Thoughtful students have been puzzled over the singular anomaly of a tolerant empire seeking by violence to extirpate a’ harmless creed. Why should the rulers make an exception of one religion and vent its dreadful displeasure on its defenseless professors ? Various unsatisfactory answers have been suggested. It is certainly not sufficient to say that the holiness or 1 Maitland’s ‘* Catacombs.” THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 59 the moral conduct of the early Christians aroused the antagonism of the emperors. ‘The question at issue was not primarily an ethical one. There were in the various centers of life, especially in Rome, a numerous company of stoics, whose sentiments were of an elevating charac- ter, even if they were not so spiritual in every respect as those inculcated by the followers of the Galilean. But the stoics were not cast to the lions, or wrapt in shirts of tar and ignited to illumine the gardens of a despicable tyrant. And yet if the church of the first two or three centuries was merely as represented by some modern unbelievers and rationalists an ethical sodalitas, no good reason can be given why its children should have been punished, and other moralists have been permitted to enjoy their opinions undisturbed. There must have been a difference, radical and wide- reaching, to account for this discrimination. Pliny, in his report to Trajan regarding the Christians of Bi- thynia or Pontus, says that he found their faith to be nothing more than a “szuperstitio prava immodica” ; but that term “sauperstztio’’ doubtless comprehends more than is usually supposed. While it may refer to the worship of non-Roman deities, as all deities repre- sent some distinctive thought, it must have been what he understood to be the thought that disposed Pliny’s mind unfavorably, and led him to describe it as degrad- ing and destructive to the philosophic and obedient life of the citizen. He cannot, therefore, have objected to the system on the ground of its being ethical, but because it was doctrinal, the doctrine in his opinion leading to conduct incompatible with Roman citizen- ship. What then could this “ saperstztzo”’ have been if 60 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY not the ideas involved in the marvelous birth, the sac- rificial death, and the glorious resurrection of our Lord ? Admit this, and to me the conclusion seems inevitable, and persecution is adequately explained ‘These ideas were strange and uncouth to the Roman mind, as they are still to some types of culture, and would provoke apprehension and then deadly antagonism. This un- questionably was their primary effect on the jealous rulers of the land; but the heartless cruelty of em- perors and governors is not without advantage to the cause of truth in these days of skepticism. It remains a pathetic monument to the historical verities of Chris- tianity, recording in ineffaceable blood-marks the things “most surely believed” by its “noble army of mar- tyrs.” Often has it been said that the “blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church” ; and yet, as usually interpreted, it is only a half truth : for not only does this kind of seed multiply itself indefinitely, but it continues to reproduce the original flower. The confessors of our Lord died on behalf of the evangelical thought embodied in the evangelical annals, and they not only in this way drew others to Christ, but constrained them to profess the very thought and support the annals for which they suffered. It remains for us to consider the import of historical developments. In France there is:a magnificent cartoon, by Paul Chenavard, representing what may be termed the pal- ingenesis of human society. The great picture is divided into two horizontal zones. In the upper one we have a flaring, noisy, triumphant procession of the imperial Czesar. There are lictors, generals, banners, THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 61 spoils, prisoners, elephants, eagles, and indeed every- thing to suggest insolent and unchallenged power. But the lower zone is pervaded by the feeling of silence, obscurity, patience, and suffering. It discloses the primitive Christians at prayer in the catacombs, which they have dug to serve them both as chapel and grave beneath the throne of the emperor. The contrast is complete, and like all masterpieces of art, tells its own story. It teaches that the pagan civilization of Rome, when at the height of its strength and splendor, and when entirely oblivious to danger, was being steadily, though slowly undermined, and was inevitably doomed to give place to a new order born of a new and despised creed. It is well known. that the patricians, the phi- losophers, and even the plebs of the eternal city, held in contempt a religion that had a cross for its altar and an alleged malefactor for its hero. But notwithstand- ing this supercilious self-confidence, Christianity, weak, unattractive, and unostentatious was destined to tri- umph and to give to history a new channel and new course of development. John Von Miiller, the famous Swiss historian, writing on this subject, has left this weighty testimony : Christ is the key to the history of the world. Not only does all harmonize with the mission of Christ ; all is subordinated to it. When I saw this it was to me as wonderful and surprising as the light which Paul saw on his way to Damascus ; the fulfill- ment of all hopes, the completion of philosophy, the key to all the apparent contradictions in the physical and moral world ; here is life and immortality. I marvel not at miracles ; a far greater miracle has been reserved for our times, the spectacle of the connection of all human events in the establishment and preservation of the doctrine of Christ. F 62 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY And Fichte, the great German philosopher, corrobo- rates this statement when he says : We and our whole age are so rooted in the soil of Christianity, and have sprung from it ; it has exercised its influence in the most manifold ways on the whole of our culture, and we should be absolutely nothing of all that we are if this mighty principle had not preceded us. To-day bears on it the imprint of yesterday, and the soil of to-morrow will show the footprints of to-day. Present time is not independent of time that has past, and remains its record and its witness. I can read what has been in what is, though I may be unable to decipher in what now exists the certain prophecy of what shall be in the future. If any doubt existed as to the fact of the American Revolution, it could easily be removed by showing that the evidences of this great occurrence are inwrought in our literature, in our songs and music, in our institutions, and the entire character of our civilization. We would not be as we areas a nation had it not been for that glorious assertion of independence; and the entire trend of things among us, but for that mighty movement, would be involved in inexplicable obscurity. The Renatssance in Europe is demonstrated historically by the art galleries, by the art schools, by the art theories, by our zsthetical phi- losophy, and our peculiar type of culture, which can easily be traced to the influence of the Medici and to the period of 1453. Were some skeptically minded individual to assert that Lorenzo De’ Medici was not born in 1448, did not restore the academy of Pisa, did not found a new one at Florence, and did not collect vast treasures of literature and art, and that the story THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY. 63 of his career and his magnificence was only a myth, a fable of the Middle Ages, there would confront him the unanswerable logic of this princely merchant's gorgeous tomb, the biographies of this enlightened man in circulation, and more than all, the art-world of to-day, which is but a development of his wise fore- sight and generous appreciation of the beautiful. Seri- ous people would not waste a moment on so absurd a supposition as this myth-hypothesis, and would be apt to think its author a fit subject for examination in our lunacy courts. And there is just as little reason for supposing that the gospel narrative is romance or fable. Phantom founders of illusive schools and the phantasm of a trader establishing imaginary galleries of shadowy pictures can never satisfactorily account for substantial works in bronze, marble, or in colors; and neither can visions, dreams, idle fancies, or base- less hallucinations, grown phrenetical, even though as an afterthought of some century later, be invested with the appearance of history, or adequately ex- plain the changes wrought in the ideals, aims, morals, and conceptions of mankind by the Christianity of the first hundred years of its existence, and still pre- served and manifested in the civilization of to-day. Modern society may be likened to a palimpsest on which may be discovered beneath the superficial writ- ing of recent inventions and discoveries and the latest novelties in fashion and literature, an older and more enduring writing of the facts and verities that make up the sum of gospel history. When our Lord entered on his ministry, Roman so- ciety throughout the empire was aiming at unification and 64 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY solidification. It had been rent by the civil wars, and the extent of its conquests over distant lands had pre- vented anything like complete fusion and obliteration of race distinctions and animosities. The State was recognized, as it had been formerly in Greece, as being practically omnipotent, and individual citizens had not a clear sense of God-given rights to uphold. No single citizen was for a moment to be considered, or his per- son to be regarded as sacred, in opposition to the supreme will of the community. Tiberius Gracchus had indeed contended that each Roman was entitled to a position of decent comfort and to benefit in some measure by the wealth and prosperity of the entire commonwealth. Likewise there had been vague hopes expressed of universal citizenship and universal equality, perhaps centering in a universal religion. But up to the beginning of the Christian era the plea of Tiberius had only led to material relief, mainly in the form of imperial donations, while the ideas of universal citizen- ship and universal equality had never gone beyond certain privileges and exemptions limited to a compara- tively meagre, though constantly enlarging, class. And alas, for the religion! The Roman cult consisted in tolerating the gods of subject nations and in exalting over them the head of the government. The emperor represented the majesty, the wisdom, and the beneficent power of Rome; he was in many cases actually represented in different parts of the empire as an incarnation of the God worshiped in that district: the Zeus Larasios of Tralles, Min of Juliopolis, the Zeus Olympios of the Greeks in general. Even when this final step was not taken, the imperial cultus was, in the Asian provinces generally, organized as the highest and most authoritative religion, and the emperor was THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY 65 named along with and before the special deity of the district, — Ramsay, Church in the Roman Limpire, p. ror. Thus the whole movement of the times, with all the force of a mighty impetuous river, set in the direc- tion of absolutism, and of absolutism the most awful, consisting of human frailty and passion arrogating the tremendous prerogatives of the Deity. As the natural outgrowth of such a system, deified emperors grew worse and worse and the abject people became increas- ingly subservient and superstitious. In what social pandemonium this overwhelming tide of oppression and degradation would have ended we do not know, though we may guess. Its sweep and rush were ar- rested by Christianity, which though itself nearly over- whelmed by the desolating flood, succeeded in turning the stream of history into a very different channel. Mommsen has shown that it was only through the influence of the new faith that the downward trend of the empire was stayed, and only by the emperors sub- mitting in person to its authority that their throne was preserved to them as long as it was from the assaults of barbarian enemies. Christianity exalted the majesty of the spiritual over the temporal, Christ over Cassar, and the sanctity, dignity, and independence of the indi. vidual conscience over the mandates of society. It likewise brought with it ideals of the most striking originality, such as the fatherhood of God, by which was guaranteed to the lowliest and poorest the Divine sympathy and care; and the brotherhood of man, which carried with it the doom of chattel slavery and the final emancipation and complete equality of woman. Sub- sequent history has been in all essentials the working 66 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY out in social forms, institutions, and human relations of these great thoughts. Inthe formation of the Cath- olic church there were manifest efforts to realize them through ecclesiastical organizations ; and even to-day that church stands for the right of the spiritual prince to rule over temporal and earthly authorities. Protestants did not separate from Catholics on the ground that this principle is in itself erroneous, but be- cause in its application the Romanists had delegated this right to a human potentate, called a pope, and had pre- sumed to take it from the only being who can exercise it—the Lord Jesus Christ. But whatever mistakes have been committed, the course of the Christian cen- turies has run in the direction of the new ideals pro- claimed by the Prophet of Nazareth and his immediate followers. These explain the conflict between bishops and emperors during the fourth and fifth centuries ; the assumptions of the papacy in the sixth; the spirit of the crusades in the eleventh and twelfth ; the rise and progress of the Reformation in the sixteenth; the par- liamentary conflicts and Commonwealth of the seven- teenth; the American and French revolutions of the eighteenth, with the reforms, emancipations, and noble benefactions of the nineteenth. All these great events, and others that need not be enumerated, have made for the recognition of the spiritual as the supreme author- ity in life, and of the Lord Christ as its brightest ex- pression and chief embodiment, and have contributed to the final realization of universal citizenship, universal equality, and universal religion. Thus to-day we find the imprint of yesterday in social conditions and social ambitions, and as we journey back through all the in- THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY 67 tervening ages, we continue to find the same imprint, the sacred footmarks of him “who went about doing good.” I'am not arguing the divine origin of Christianity from the character of this development. It may or it may not be the best conceivable. On that point for the sake of clearness I do not in this connection express myself. My contention simply is that this development is undeniably vea/, not that it is necessarily the dest, and that, being real, it can only be accounted for by the facts of gospel history. To suppose that so re- markable and radical a deviation from ancient pagan civilization was brought about by legends, myths, and poetic idyls is to assume that the people of those times were incomprehensibly different from ourselves; for how few among us would abandon the dominant faith and the institutions of our age, because of charming rumors regarding a harmless youth of beautiful moral character. Nor can we imagine that it was either the theism or the ethics of our Lord that wrought so sur- prisingly ; for in the fourth century, as Mommsen has shown, the endeavor to make Christianity merely an abstract monotheism signally failed, proving that it had always been something more than that, and that its convincing power lay in something else. What then was the secret of its success if not the conviction that Christ had lived, suffered, died, and risen again as de- scribed by the evangelists? There is no other intelli- gible answer that I know of; and this being accepted, it follows that Christianity rests on history, and is an expression itself of the history, which in the last analysis amounts to a supernatural attestation of its divine origin. 68 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY This line of argument recalls some fine passages from the writings of Chrysostom, which being uttered during the latter half of the fourth century and assum- ing as undeniable facts the representations of the Gos- pels, may well be quoted in confirmation of the conclu- sion we have reached. When the Emperor Julian, animated by devotion to heathenism, endeavored in the year A. D. 362 to re- establish the worship of the Daphnean Apollo, he had the bones of the martyr Babylas removed, since to their vicinage the priests attributed the ruin into which the shrine of their God had fallen. But all in vain was his superstitious zeal. The restored temple of Apollo was shortly after burned to the ground, and the calamity was considered by many Christians as a Divine visita- tion. These events which interested the Antiochians yet more than ever in their famous martyr, led Chrysos- tom to make him the subject of a treatise. In this work we have the following striking sentences : Should even thousands seek to extinguish it (a cause good and true), not only will it not be extinguished, but dividing the vain strife and rage of its foes, it will rise more glorious and sublime through the very efforts of those who attempt its destruction ; for our religion, which ye call a fable, kings and emperors, unvan- quished orators, philosophers, and evil spirits have sought to destroy, and their attacks have been as the darts of children. The writings of ingenious philosophers and eloquent rhetoricians against Christianity have for the most part perished in their birth, or if any of them yet remain, they have been preserved by the Christians themselves.—Zzd. de Sanct. Babyl., Tom. I1., f. 546. And in another place, dwelling on the divine origin of Christianity, he says: THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY 69 For nothing is more powerful among men than the tyranny of ancient custom. . . Naught so greatly disturbeth the soul as the introduction of that which is new and strange, were it even for the advancement of good, and especially when it relateth to the worship and glory of God. It might have been supposed that the various catechumens would have said: What meaneth this? Have the inhabitants of the whole earth been deceived ? Sophists and rhetoricians, philosophers and historians of times both past and present; Pythagoras and Plato, leaders, consuls, and em- perors? And are twelve men—fishermen, tentmakers, and pub- licans wiser than all these? He replies to these interrogatories by reciting the facts of the gospel, and then anticipating the objection that neither Jesus nor his followers wrought miracles, he continues : But should our adversary deny miracles, still more will he enhance their (the apostles’) power and the efficacy of divine grace, if indeed without miracles they converted so great a por- tion of the earth to godliness. Do ye desire, yourselves, even in your own days, to behold miracles? I will show you a mira- cle greater than any wrought before—not merely one dead man raised to life, not merely one blind man restored to sight; but so many nations scraping off the leprosy of sin, and cleansed by the washing of regeneration.—//om. in 1 Cor. 7, and Hom. in Princip. Actor 4. Thus then the great preacher of Antioch, standing within three hundred years of the apostolic era, and at a time when erroneous statements could easily be ex- posed, confidently assumes the historical credibility of Christianity. Already had the myth or fable theory been put in circulation, and he overwhelms it with the floods of his logical eloquence. He shows how next to impossible the conquest of preconceptions and prejudices, and how the rapid spread of Christianity in 7O THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY the face of such antagonisms was unanswerable evidence of its celestial origin. Quite unmindful is he of the wrath of philosophers, sophists, and rhetoricians, assured that clearly authenticated fact has nothing to fear from base- less though beautiful theory. If we may believe him, our religion is not a speculation, nor a poem of sweet sentiments cast in the form of a parable. It is actual history; and to efface it the history of now nearly twenty centuries would likewise have to be obliterated. It is like the sub-soil of a mighty forest; the ground cannot be turned up and ploughed without destroying the forest; and it may be compared to the cement and the keystone that hold together the solid masonry of a bridge over which unnumbered generations have safely traveled, and which cannot be removed without involv- ing the whole structure in disastrous ruin. God, in thus providing for the perpetual security of the faith against the repeated assaults of frenzied adversaries, has also assured mankind that by the same method shall its in- terests in the future be promoted. As it is grounded in past history, so shall contemporary and future history make for its establishment in the earth. How large and inviting a field does this belief open before us! But we must not venture to explore it now. The argu- ment of this chapter stands complete in what has been, and needs not what is to be as an addition to its strength and conclusiveness. But we who are follow- ers of the blessed Christ may comfort our hearts with this confidence, though we may not be warranted in converting it into a formal argument for the conviction of others. We may rejoice, that as in the ages gone hu- man affairs, through an over-ruling Providence, have been THE ARGUMENT FROM HISTORY 71 tributary to the proof, protection, and propagation of Christianity, so shall they be in the generations to come. Superficially viewed, the movements and transactions of men and nations have not always been favorable to religion, and were we to judge entirely by sight we might be tempted to doubt the Divine presence in hu- man history. But as we look backward and compre- hensively grasp all that has fallen out, both of good and bad, and observe their bearing and results, we are con- strained to recognize a guiding intelligence that is not of earth and a benevolence that has never failed to bring light out of darkness. Why then should we, who have been thus taught, falter in our faith or yield to the dis- may of doubt? Though we see him not, we have suf- ficient reason for trust ; and though error may for the time being seem to prevail against truth, and the hearts of his children fail them for fear, unless the centuries have lied to us he will yet remember the kingdom of his dear Son, will enlarge its borders, establish its authority, and bring forth its righteousness as the noon- day. Careless seems the Great Avenger: History’s pages but record One death-struggle in the darkness ’twixt false systems and the Word ; Truth forever on the scaffold, wrong forever on the throne ; But that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own. CHAPTER SLE THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST. [Began miracles were to be a constant factor in human history, instead of an exceptional inter- position in necessary connection with the creation of the race, with its redemption and judgment, destroying all confidence in orderly sequences, and in the ordinary reign of law throughout the universe; and unless only very wise and learned people were to be capable of verifying Christianity, there must have been provision made for a method of proof available to persons of common intelligence. I am sure, while there are some lines of argument of perhaps an abstruse character, there are others that can readily be compassed by the comparatively illiterate. To this class pre-eminently belongs the one I venture to call “The Argument from Christ.” This undertakes to present a moral dergonstration requiring no high degree of mental dis- cipline to comprehend, no extensive acquaintance with ancient lore to understand, and no familiarity with the tortuous labyrinths of logic to weigh or measure. It affirms that Jesus was in himself the very incarnation of the faith he proclaimed, that he grounded it in the authority of his own immaculate character, and testified to the divinity of its origin; and it concludes, these things being true and he being what the Gospels declare and the world generally admits, then it must iz THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST 73 follow that Christianity proceeded from God, and is worthy of all acceptation. It is well known that the New Testament represents the disciples of our Lord as “living epistles seen and read of all men,” and that apparently more importance is attached to their exemplification of religion than to the parchment documents wherein its teachings are recorded. Unquestionably the conduct of primitive believers had as much to do, if not more, with the early and decisive triumphs of the cross than all the apostolic literature in circulation. The world could read them, even when it could not decipher manu- scripts. They professed to have been supernaturally begotten to spiritual life, to have been saved by a vicarious sacrifice, and to have been delivered from bondage to sense and sin. How easy then to judge their claims by what they were themselves! The can- did seeker after truth had only to study their character to see whether they could be really accounted for by purely naturalistic causes, whether they also were in vicarious sacrifice, and whether they were emancipated from the flesh. If not, then they had falsified their pretensions, and had brought grave doubt and discredit on the religion they proclaimed. The principle holds good to-day. Were Christians in our times the exact counterpart of the gospel ideal, were they the living reproduction of the sermon on the mount, and were they imbued with something of our Lord’s passion for souls, further evidence would be superfluous. One consecrated consistent church has more convincing power in it than a library of apologetics. ‘‘ Whose preaching was it that led to your conversion?” was G 74 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY asked of one who had just come into the kingdom. The answer was significant: «My conversion was not due to the preaching of any one, but to the practicing of my old mother.” By a process similar to this, only more comprehen- sive and complete, our Saviour has become the clearest and perhaps the most conclusive proof of the Chris- tian religion. Mr. Froude, referring to Nero, who was Pontifex Maximus, and who was considered by his sycophants as a presens divus, says: ‘“ But Nero was his own God and maker of gods, and belief in God became impossible when Nero was regarded as a per- sonation of him. In medals and in public instruments he solemnly assumed the name of Jupiter. He too had his temples and his priests.” All this seems inconceivable, and yet beyond cavil the infamous repre- sentation stands authenticated. As the wretched emperor embodied in his character and conduct the worst features of paganism, and effectually undermined what remained in his time of its authority by his unbridled passions ; so, on the other hand, and in glori- ous contrast, our blessed Master revealed in himself all the higher excellencies, with all the gracious mysteries and moralities of the Christian faith, and substantiated its truth by his unparalleled spiritual exaltation, and his unapproachable rectitude. This close and undeniable connection between Jesus and the religion he founded was perceived by Dr. Baur, chief of the Tiibingen school, and constrained him to acknowledge that the whole world-historical significance of Christianity hangs on the person of Jesus ; and Strauss, realizing the same thing, has penned the following suggestive sentences : THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST 75 It may perhaps surprise us that the debate as to the truth of Christianity has at last narrowed itself into one as to the person- ality of its founder, that the decisive battle of Christian theology should take place on the field of Christ's life ; but in reality this is but what might have been expected. The value of a scientific or artistic production in no way depends on our acquaintance with the private life of him who produced it. . . In the domain of religious history it is indeed of importance to assure ourselves that Moses and Mohammed were no impostors; but in other respects the religions established by them must be judged accord- ing to their own deserts, irrespective of the greater or less accu- racy of our acquaintance with their founders’ lives. The reason is obvious. They are only the founders, not at the same time the objects of the religions they instituted. . . Thisis notoriously otherwise with Christianity. Here the founder is at the same time the most prominent object of worship; the system based upon him loses its support as soon as he is shown to be lacking in qualities appropriate to an object of religious worship.— 7%e Oid Faith and The New, pp. 53, 54. According to this statement, if it can be shown that our Lord is deserving credence and implicit confidence, and if it can be proven that he isa being worthy of worship, and, I will add, entitled to be worshiped, then it follows that “the system based on him” has not “lost its support,” but is as firmly established as the everlasting throne of God. This in brief is what is meant by THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST; but that it may be the better understood, and that it may make an adequate impression on mind and heart, it will be advisable to contemplate Christ— First, As a Religious Founder. SECONDLY, As a Religious Figure. THIRDLY, As a Religious Force, He whom we revere as the “ Author of our Faith” 76 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY is called “The True Witness”; he likewise solemnly assured Pilate that he was born to bear witness to the truth; and he even goes so far as majestically to assume himself to be the very truth itself. No one questions his right to be regarded as the real source of the religion that bears his name; and it would be a very hard task indeed for any one to cast the shadow of a doubt on the meaning of his language when he ascribes its beginnings to our Heavenly Father’s inspi- ration. If he did not intend to affirm the supernatural origin of the kingdom he came to establish, and over which he was to reign forever, then his speech was thoroughly ambiguous and misleading, and not a soul, even to this day, can be sure of correctly interpreting any of his utterances. As it is inconceivable that he should have employed words to conceal thought, he must be accepted as teaching that he himself was divinely sent, and that that which came with him, that permanent spiritual ministry that grew out of and was projected from his own saving mission, was likewise divinely given and endued with divine authority ever- more. é Verily, verily, I say unto thee, we speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen ; and ye receive not our witness. If I have told you earthly things and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly things. And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. . . For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world ; but that the world through him might be saved.—/ohn 3} - 11-17. Can we trust him? Is heentitledto credence? He stands before the ages as a witness in the most THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST 77 momentous controversy that ever agitated and exalted the human mind. Were he in an ordinary court sup- porting an ordinary case at law his mental soundness and moral worth would be subject to careful scrutiny ; how much more then ought his ability and trustworthi- ness to be vindicated beyond suspicion when testifying on a subject involving the immortal interests and destiny of mankind! Again therefore, I ask, and every person is warranted in asking: Is he deserving of implicit confidence ? In answering this question, it is to be remembered that as the cause on whose behalf he is called to appear is exceptionally important and extraordinary, we have a right to demand something more than the word of a commonplace man of commonplace integrity. He must himself be in every respect as remarkable as that for which he speaks. Such a one was Jesus of Naza- reth. Make the conditions of reliability as severe as possible, the criteria of qualifications as exacting and rigid as can be devised, and it will be found that he more than meets all requirements. According to the portraits drawn in the Gospels, eliminating even all that is there related of his miraculous power, he was wonderfully gifted and pure. Considered merely as a creature, he was the most exalted creature that ever trod the earth, endowed with a comprehensive and penetrating mind, a sympathetic and loving heart, and an unclouded and sensitive conscience. Ever calm and unimpassioned, he was not one to be self-deceived ; ever disinterested and thoughtful of others, he was incapable of imposture; and ever reverent and prayer- ful, he was not likely to pretend to be the voice of God 78 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY unless God did indeed articulate his gracious thought through him. Moreover, he himself realized the con- nection between personal worth and the credibility of testimony. He is reported to have asked: ‘ Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?” Inthese words, claiming sinlessness, he lays down the principle that personal righteousness is pledge and guarantee for the trust- worthiness of personal statements. Pilate confessed that he discovered no fault in him, and his bitterest enemies could not successfully impugn his blameless- ness. Why then should we hesitate to accept what he affirms? If the suspicion is entertained that his dis- ciples have over-colored the pictures they have painted, let an appeal be taken to the tribunal of philosophers, scholars, skeptics, who cannot be suspected of any particular bias in his favor, and who are conversant with the facts on which a candid opinion must be founded. Such an appeal will convince the most incredulous that his merits have not been exaggerated by the enthusiasm of love, and that every sentence falling from his sacred lips is entitled to the homage of assent. Schleiermacher describes Jesus as being so wonder- fully fashioned that religious life is and must remain dependent on him; and adds that we ought always to keep him present in our minds and should recall him when we meet for worship. Strauss, the rationalist, declares “that he is the highest object we can possibly imagine with respect to religion, the Being without whose presence in the mind perfect piety is impossible.” He likewise admits that in his all but perfect life, THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST 79 Christ stood alone and unapproached in history. But if history has not produced his parallel, it is surely not too much to claim that his testimony is also unparal- leled in dignity and value. This conviction becomes well-nigh irresistible as we observe the amazing effects his personality has produced on those eminent men who have no sympathy with the idea of his deityship. Kant professed to see in him ideal perfection, and re- buked Vorowski for daring to associate the name of a poor bungler like himself, trying his best to interpret Christ, with that of Christ (“Life of Kant,” p. 86). Spinoza regarded him as the truest symbol of heavenly wisdom ; Hegel recognized in him the union of the hu- man and divine; and even Voltaire, while snarling his unseemly sneers, acknowledged his moral grandeur and beauty. Omitting the more familiar portions of Rous- seau’s tribute, we cannot fail to be arrested by the pas- sage: “ When Plato describes his imaginary righteous man, loaded with all the punishments of guilt yet merit- ing the highest rewards of virtue, he exactly describes the character of Jesus Christ.” Thomas Chubb, a cel- ebrated English deist, speaks of him in these clear terms of eulogy: “In him we have an example of a quiet and peaceable spirit, of a becoming modesty and sobriety, just, honest, upright, sincere, and, above all, of a most gracious and benevolent temper and behavior ; one who did no wrong, no injury to any man; in whose mouth was no guile, who went about doing good.” Napoleon was sufficiently clear-sighted to perceive all this, and hence is reported to have said in his own de- cisive way: “Between him and whoever else in the world there is no possible term of comparison.” “In 8O THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY every existence but that of Christ, how many imperfec- tions!”’ Mr. Gregg, an English writer of note, and one who has practically nothing in common with ortho- doxy, makes this avowal: ‘(In reading his sayings we feel that we are holding converse with the wisest, purest, noblest being that ever clothed thought in the poor language of humanity. In studying his life, we feel that we are following the footsteps of the highest ideal yet presented to us on earth.”’ Theodore Parker admits that Jesus “unites in himself the sublimest pre- cepts and divinest practices, thus more than realizing the dream of prophet and sage, rises free from all pre- judices of his age, nation, or sect, gives free range to the Spirit of God in his breast, puts away the doctors of the law, subtle, learned, irrefragable, and pours out a doctrine beautiful as the light, sublime as heaven, and as true as God.” John Stuart Mill, whom no one will suspect of sentimental partiality, confirms these strik- ing testimonies: “ About the life and sayings of Jesus there is a stamp of personal originality combined with profundity of insight, which, if we abandon the idle ex- pectation of finding scientific precision when something very different was aimed at, must place the prophet of Nazareth, even in the estimation of those who have no belief in his inspiration, in the very first rank of the men of sublime genius of whom our species can boast.” He affirms that he was the greatest moral reformer and martyr of history. Even Thomas Paine concedes that the morality he “preached and practised was of the most benevolent kind ”’ ; and Charles Sumner, in a letter to a friend, thus expresses his appreciation of his won- drous excellence: “I believe that Christ lived when and THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST SI as the gospel says ; that he was more than man, namely, above all men who had as yet lived, and yet less than God; I pray you not to believe that I am insensible to the goodness and greatness of his character. My idea of human nature is exalted when I think that such a being lived and went as man among us.” * Such tributes as these could be indefinitely multi- plied ; for the consensus of the world’s deepest and most brilliant thinkers is altogether favorable to the loftiest conception that can be formed of his manhood. But to employ a passage originally used in very differ- ent circumstances: ‘What need we of further wit- nesses?” They to whom we have listened on this new trial of our gracious Master, have surely spoken with sufficient distinctness and emphasis to convince us of his moral right to compel belief. If, as Fichte predicts, “till the end of time, all the sensible will bow be- fore this Jesus of Nazareth, and all will humbly acknowl- edge the exceeding glory of this great phenomenon,” how can “we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven”’ without outraging our own intelligence? It is this being who affirms the divine origin of Christian- ity. Solemnly before the world, and in the presence of an eternity whose awful mysteries seemed ever to in- spire him, he deliberately and as impressively as though on oath, announced that the kingdom of God had come to the people on earth. How can we with any degree of reason question the credibility of his testimony? It would be pronounced flawless and adequate by the 1On this entire section, consult ‘‘ The Person of Christ,’? by Dr. Phili> Schaff; ‘* What Noted Men Think of Christ,’’ by Prof. Townsend; and Luthardt’s ‘‘ Notes on Jesus Christ.” 82 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY highest legal authorities and by the most competent judges of evidence, were it offered on behalf of any other cause than that of religion. Have we any right to set it aside simply because the interest it is invoked to serve is spiritual and not secular? The assumed freedom to discriminate according to the waywardness of prejudice or fancy, the mind determining the truth or falsity of an issue in debate by the nature of the subject and not by the nature of the proof, encourages a skepticism more widespread and destructive than ever yet has prevailed, and a skepticism that would sweep away the foundations of all knowledge as well as the foundations of the church. What is there so attrac- tive and fascinating in doubt that it must be cherished at the expense of reason and logic? In some quarters it seems to have acquired the significance of a religious cult on whose altar common sense is daily sacrificed. At times it appears to arrogate a kind of papal infalli- bility, and imagines that intelligence should bow to its mere negation ;* and that, failing in this, it deserves to be ridiculed out of the circle of “advanced thought” as an incorrigible heretic. These absurd pretensions, this haughty disdain of legitimate evidence, this cruel, super- cilious scorn of what has carried conviction to multi- tudes of minds and comfort to numberless hearts, can never succeed in breaking down our Lord’s trustworthi- ness, , Napoleon said “that the distance between Christian- ity and other religions is the distance of infinity’; and it is also true that the distance between the first wit- ness to its supernatural origin and the witnesses against it is the distance of infinity. Who among its adver- THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST 83 saries as veracious, unprejudiced, impartial, and disin- terested as he, and who among them as gifted with genius and discernment? What are your professed logicians, deceiving themselves with a play on words; your rationalists, measuring the universal possible by local experience and observation ; and your romancers, confusing and stupefying the judgment by a dexterous appeal to the sensibilities; in comparison with Him “‘who spake as never man spake,” whose every state- ment was an argument, and whose life was a demonstra- tion? The woman at the well of Samaria heard the voice of Jesus, and hastened to communicate the mes- sage she had received to the citizens of her town. But after they had conversed with him they exclaimed: “Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world.” And equally potent is his testimony to-day and equally convincing. It has even become stronger with the course of time as it has been sifted, tested, tried alike by friend and foe, and to the candid inquirer he must ever remain “The Amen, the faithful and true Witness,” whose word is as unanswerable as it is imperishable. I say, the acknowledgment of God in Christ Accepted by thy reason, solves for thee All questions in the earth and out of it, And has so far advanced thee to be wise. Wouldst thou unprove this to reprove the proved ? In life’s mere minute, with power to use that proof, Leave knowledge and revert to how it sprung? Thou hast it; use it and forthwith, or die! For I say, this is death and the sole death, When a man’s loss comes to him from his gain— 84 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY Darkness from light, from knowledge ignorance, And lack of love from love made manifest ; A lamp’s death when, replete with oil, it chokes ; A stomach’s when, surcharged with food, it starves, An impression has prevailed throughout all ages that a supernatural faith should be verified, not exclusively by verbal testimony, but by a supernatural deed.. And in our day, while many affect to scorn the evidence of miracles, they are still reluctant to yield to the force of what may be termed commonplace proof. Even they crave some token beyond the power of unaided-human agency to produce. On this topic I shall have more to say in a subsequent chapter; but in this connection it assumes a significance demanding serious thought, and its postponement entirely to future consideration would be inexpedient if not absolutely inexcusable. Thus far we have contemplated Christ only as a Religious Founder uttering his testimony, and not as a Religious Figure, excepting of course the incidental tributes to his character for the purpose of showing his competency to speak authoritatively on the subject of his mission. But it is of the first moment that we try to gain some idea of his proportions as the most sacred and heroic personage in history. By this process we shall _ be brought face to face with the miraculous in Chris tianity. Without passing judgment on other miracles alleged to have been wrought, it will be seen from the impossibility of accounting for Jesus, for his disclosures and designs, for his pretensions and perfection, on merely naturalistic principles, that he himself is a mira- cle, a miracle sufficiently stupendous to permanently discredit the sagacity of unbelief. As such it is to be THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST 85 observed that he comprehends in himself every distinct supernatural aspect of the religion he established. His wonderful existence is not an arbitrary proof, intro- duced in support of what he taught but having no nec- essary relation to it, and as suitable to the needs of any other faith as to his own. For instance, could he have ' preached Mohammedanism, his life would have failed to demonstrate its certainty ; indeed, would have demon- strated its impossibility. Christianity claims to be the disclosure of God, the habitation and dwelling of God, and the’ sphere of his perpetual Operations. Its cre- dentials ought to correspond to its character, ought to bear some discernible and appreciable relationship to its content. And this is manifestly true in the case of Jesus. He is the embodiment and complete fulfillment of what he proclaimed and of what has been transmitted down the centuries. When we see him, we see Chris- tianity. From him we could not reason up to any other kind of religion; from him we are compelled to expect just what his religion is represented as being ; and hence it follows, with all the concise conclusiveness of an enthymeme, that if he in his person is essentially a miracle the religion he founded is miraculous as well. Mr. Froude has more than one reference to Julius Czesar and Jesus Christ, placing them in strange juxta- position and suggesting very salutary reflections. He says that the great Imperator “came into the world at a special time and for a special object.” A new life, he explains, was about to dawn for mankind. Poetry and faith and devotion were to spring again out of the seeds which were sleeping in the heart of humanity. But the life which is to endure grows slowly ; and the soil must be pre-. H 86 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY pared before the wheat can be sown; so, before the kingdom of God could throw up its shoots, there was needed a kingdom of this world, where the nations were neither torn in pieces by violence, nor were rushing after false ideals and spurious ambitions. Such a kingdom was the empire of the Casars.— Julius Cesar. And then, in another work, having traced the failure of this very civilization and having exposed the mon- strous endeavors to deify the poor and often contempt- ible ruler, he concludes: In the most despised of the Roman provinces, among groups of peasants and fishermen, on the shores of a Galilean lake, . in that remote and humble region, a new life had begun for mankind. They had looked for a union of God with man. They thought they had found it in Cesar. Divided from Cesar by the whole diameter of society, they found it at last in the Carpenter of Nazareth. The kingdom of Cesar was a kingdom over the world; the kingdom of Christ was a kingdom in the heart of man.—/ulius Cesar. But how came a mechanic, in an out-of-the-way town and in uncouth surroundings, to originate such a thought, and how came he with the poor earthly means at his disposal to actualize it in the thought and lives of others? The latest political science has conceived of nothing higher, and of nothing more fundamental to any government, than the principle on which his empire rests. ,It has been said, and said truly : “ A State which can endure must be composed of members who all in their way understand what duty means and endeavor to do it. Duty implies genuine belief in some sovereign spiritual power. Spiritual regeneration comes first, moral after it, political and social last. To reverse the THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST 87 order is to plant a flower which has been cut from its natural stem, which can bloom but for a day and die.” Such a flower was the system of the Czesars, and even some modern governments have no adequate apprecia- tion of roots ; but the humble carpenter of Galilee real- ized, that while a house can be built from without, a tree can only develop from within. Who taught him this wisdom? The mighty rulers, crowned chiefs, like Augustus, knew nothing of it, and it is difficult to fancy his conception to be the fortuitous guess of a mere man. Here is one born in an obscure nook of the world, be- holding on every hand the signs of force, and learning from every available indication that the science of pub- lic order is the science of repression, thrusting from him the political wisdom of antiquity, upturning its most cherished maxims, and then creating an empire whose splendor and stability have put to shame the grandeur and endurance of earthly monarchies. If the career of Julius Cesar has excited the amazement of centuries, what shall we say of the career of Jesus Christ? If the former was “the foremost man of all the world,” how shall we measure the superior greatness of the latter? Napoleon was impressed by this contrast and exclaimed : Alexander, Czsar, Charlemagne, and myself all founded empires. But on what did we rest the creation of our genius? Upon sheer force. Jesus Christ alone founded his empire upon love; and at this hour millions of men will die for him. In every other existence but that of Christ, how many imperfections ? From the first day to the last he is the same, always the same: majestic and simple, infinitely firm and infinitely gentle. He proposes to our faith a series of mysteries, and commands with authority that we should believe them, giving no other reason 88 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY than those tremendous words, ‘‘I am God.’’ What audacity, what sacrilege, what blasphemy in that declaration, if it were not true. This is a very solemn alternative suggested by the French emperor. If we must decide between them, the benevolence of our Lord’s character compels us to reject the supposition of presumption and arrogance, and to accept the miracle. But I am not quite sure that his idea of a kingdom is as extraordinary as the central thought of his the- ology. While his lips were not the first to call the ultimate mystery of the universe “ Father,” they pro- nounced that name more frequently than any teacher who had preceded him, and imparted to it the fullness of its gracious meaning. Mankind prior to his day had uniformly pictured God as harsh, illiberal, stern, unyielding ; as a being hard to be propitiated ; as an inexorable judge who shows no mercy; as a creditor | who exacts the uttermost farthing ; and as an implacable perfection impatient at the mistakes of his creatures. Even now, outside the influence of Christianity, and sometimes within, it is not easy to think generous things of God, to credit him with noble purposes toward his children, and to acquit him of everything like littleness and meanness. Humanity is naturally suspicious of its Creator, and the fact that its latest philosophy is pessimism proves how difficult it is to educate it up to confidence. How wonderful then the disclosure made by Jesus! He declares that God loves the world, that he would have no soul perish, and that he gave himself in his Son for its redemption. He THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST 89 represents him as seeking the lost, as forgiving tres- passes, as yearning for the recovery of the prodigal, and as going out gladly to meet and welcome him. As portrayed by his filial genius, the Father is no longer remote from his creatures, no longer alienated from them ; but is near to them, weeping over them, and seeking continually their everlasting happiness. This conception is not natural to man’s heart. It is foreign to it, as is the kindred one of the Almighty being in sacrifice for the extinction of the very sins committed against him. Alien also to the human mind the sup- position of angelic interposition; of the chorus of celestial hosts; and of all those exquisite touches of heaven's sympathy with earth which make the Gospels so extremely beautiful. In all this we have not only the highest originality, but an originality that was en- tirely independent of quickening influences from en- vironment. ‘“ Nazareth was no Athens, where phi- losophy breathed in the circumambient air; it had neither Porch nor Lyceum, not even a school of the prophets. There is God in the heart of this youth. That mightiest heart that ever beat, stirred by ‘the Spirit of God, how it wrought in his bosom!” Theo- dore Parker, who uttered these words, does not over- state his greatness, which may be described as the superlative of the morally sublime; but neither does he show us how to escape the inference that only the miraculous can explain such a being. We have become so accustomed to hear our Saviour extolled as good that we assume that we know all that this distinction means, and thus are in danger of quite losing sight of its tribute to his supernatural man- go THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY hood. Readily we admit that there was no fault in him ; that he was blameless and righteous, and was in everything worthy of admiration. But we do not usually pause to consider the significance of our admis- sions. We ought, first of all, to note the import of the type of goodness which he illustrated in his life. There was a pagan ideal of goodness which lay in the direc- tion of courage, patriotism, and undisguised enjoyment ; there was a philosophical ideal in utilitarian calcula- tion, superiority to fate, and idle speculation; there was also a pharisaical ideal, which consisted in a strange admixture of pride, hypocrisy, formalism, and inhu- manity. Here and there during our Lord’s time there were men who regarded goodness as being essentially rectitude, and who were so just that mercy seemed to them a crime; others who identified it with religious professions and practices, but who, outside the sanctu- ary, felt at liberty to rob widows’ houses, and to perse- cute those who worshiped not with them. In our age also there are many types of goodness, especially among those who are not disciples of Jesus; or, who if disciples, have not very carefully learned of him. There is the mercantile conception, that it is fulfilled in pay- ing debts and keeping obligations; the sentimental theory of pity, compassion, particularly toward those who are persistently unworthy. And then there is that which expresses the thought of animalism; that to be good is to be sincere, generous to drunkenness, and kind-hearted to wastefulness; and that which is so blended with religious rites and observances as to supersede in the opinion of its devotee the necessity for personal purity and sweet gentleness. In sharp THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST gi contrast with these crude and faulty ideals stands the goodness of Christ. In it there was no affectation, pretension, or insufferable arregance; but modesty, meekness, and humility. It revealed justice without vindictiveness, love without weakness, liberality with- out unfaithfulness, philanthropy without scornfulness, independence without dogmatism, devoutness without superstition, and faith in God without unseemly pre- sumption. He was pure in heart, unaffected in man- ners, simple in tastes, uncorruptible in speech, sincere in action, considerate in judgment, charitable in feel- ing, compassionate in spirit, and loving in all his thoughts, plans, and deeds—loving reverently his Father God, and passionately his brother man. All this is really very extraordinary; and the more one ponders it the more striking and wonderful must it appear. But perhaps the best way to measure its meaning is to attempt to reproduce it all in our own character and conduct. ‘This, in the second place, I commend to my readers, if they would perceive the logical bearing of our Lord’s moral perfection. I am quite certain with the very best intentions and with the most ardent enterprise, they will find it all but impossible to be good with his goodness. They will, in spite of innumer- able precautions, stumble every few steps of their way. Comparative failure is the lamentable confession that has fallen from the lips of the noblest saints; for the model before them, as before us, is at once a cause of delight and despair. If we try to be humble as he was, we shall probably seem self-conscious; if solemnly dignified, very likely we will border on stiffness and pre- 92 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY tentiousness ; if pious in speech, we shall find it hard to escape cant; and in every other virtue and grace that attained completeness of excellence in him we shall find undreamed-of difficulties, which if they do not discourage us, will at least go far to convince us that the being who was good with the Christ-goodness must have been the mightiest miracle of the ages. What other conclusion is open to reason if the sum- mary of our Master’s personal characteristics, charms, and convictions as penned by Kenan is to be accepted as even approximately correct ? Ponder these expressive and eloquent excerpts : ‘«The highest consciousness of God which has existed in the bosom of humanity was that of Jesus.’’ ‘‘ From the first, Jesus regarded his relationship with God as that of a son with his father. This was his greatest act of originality ; in this he had nothing in common with the race!’’ ‘‘ He cleared at one bound the abyss (between the natural and supernatural) impossible to most, which the weakness of the human faculties has created between God and man.’’ ‘‘Let us place, then, the person of Jesus at the highest summit of human greatness. . . So far from Jesus having been created by his disciples, he appeared in everything as superior.’’ ‘‘In Jesus was condensed all that is good and elevated in our nature.’’ ‘‘To conceive the good is not sufficient; it must be made to succeed among men. In morals, as in art, precept is nothing; practice is everything. The palm is his who has been mighty both in words and in works. . . Jesus, from this double point of view, is with- out equal; his glory remains entire, and will ever be renewed.”’ ‘‘Jesus . . has made his race take the greatest step toward the divine.’’ ‘Jesus had . . a fixed personal resolution, which exceeding in intensity every other created will, directs to this hour the destinies of humanity.’’ ‘‘ They (beliefs about God and man) gave him (Jesus) a power over his own age of which no individual had been possessed before . . . or since.’’ THE ARGUMENT: FROM CHRIST 93 ‘‘Jesus . . proclaimed the principle upon which society has reposed for eighteen hundred years.’’ ‘‘His character threw around him a fascination from which no one . . could escape.’’ ‘‘ The day on which Jesus uttered his saying (John 4: 24) he was truly the Son of God. He pronounced for the first time the sentence upon which will repose the edifice of eternal religion. He founded the pure worship of allages, of all lands, that which all elevated souls will practise until the end of time.’’—Lzfe of Jesus. All this is very beautiful, but what does it mean? Does it mean anything? If he was as spiritual as these words denote, if he was as near to God, if there was condensed in him all possible goodness, and if he has founded the pure worship of all ages, are we justified in thinking of him as other than a miracle? Understand, I am not saying that these most remarkable phases of his character and ministry prove his divinity. He may be that, in the real sense of the word employed. But Iam not discussing that theological question. I am simply asking you to put together what I have said regarding this Religious Figure and determine whether he is explained or explainable on naturalistic principles. This is the problem of Jesus. How do you account for him? What circumstances molded him, what influences inspired him, and what happy conditions favored him ? After years of careful investigation, and after diligent comparisons of estimates of his dignity put forth by friends and foes, I have concluded that no such Figure as this was ever fashioned by natural causes ; and I am sanguine that those who candidly weigh the evidence I have adduced, will agree with me that Christ is the standing miracle of our holy religion. Some feeble and almost languid endeavors have been * 94 THE ARGUMENT ‘FOR CHRISTIANITY put forth for the purpose of discrediting this argument. It has been suggested that our Lord was “evolved,” that talismanic term being supposed to contain “the promise and potency ”’ of a complete elucidation, as the primal monad has been described as comprehending in itself the prophecy and power of the universe. But it is pertinent to inquire, From what could he have been evolved ? If we adopt this hypothesis, the possibility of the supernatural is denied, and Jesus must be regarded as the product of purely natural causes such as may be supposed to have wrought in the line of his descent, or in the peculiarities of his surroundings. But is it rationally conceivable that the race from which he sprang or the community in which he dwelt for thirty years couid have borne this perfect and glorious flower of the ages? There does not seem to be much encouragement to this theory in the moral quality of his ancestry ; for easily discernible on his genealogical tree are the apples of Sodom as well as the fruit of Eschol; and in the very substance of its stock and roots, the foulness of iniquity as well as the purity of virtue. Viewed merely as an earthly creature, there flowed in his blood the excellencies of Abraham, Enoch, David, Solomon, and Ruth, with the defects of Rahab and the alien, and somctimes idolatrous, contaminations of Pharez, the child of Tamar, Athaliah, daughter of the Baal-worshiping Jezebel, and even beautiful Bathsheba, grandchild of the crafty Ahithophel, wife of a Hittite, and probably of Hittite origin herself. The law of heredity can therefore throw no light on the mystery of his character. For, I suppose there has never been THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST 95 another instance where offspring has had so little in common with ancestry, and has only reproduced the good, and nothing, not even the slightest trace, of the bad. It is well known that nature is inscrutable, and that she has put to shame every effort in the direction of human stirpiculture, and that it has been impossible to produce one human being entirely unaffected by the evils practised by his forefathers. As the flora and fauna of the entire earth are never found in one zone, nor the desirable qualities of one zone found to the ex- clusion of the undesirable, so it is unparalleled and in- explicable on a naturalistic hypothesis, that the noblest and highest virtues, not of one race, but of all races, should meet in one human: being and never one of their ignoble vices revive or survive in him. No wonder then that Rev. Hugh MacMillan, who speaks with the authority of knowledge on such a subject, says: ‘ Man- kind, by the law of natural development, could never have given birth to a character so exceptional as that of Christ.” And the same line of reasoning precludes the suppo- sition that his social surroundings were capable of fash- ioning and molding so extraordinary a being. We cannot surely for a moment suppose that he derived his purity from their filthiness, his enlightenment from their ignorance, his liberality from their intolerance, his breadth from their narrowness, his tenderness from their harshness, his progressiveness from their stagna- tion, his magnanimity from their meanness, his gracious- ness from their churlishness, and his immeasurable love from their unmeasured hate? The environments, the moral and intellectual atmospheres, the national tradi- 96 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY tions and ambitions, and the social exclusiveness and antipathies Christ encountered were thoroughly alien to what he was, what he taught, and to what he purposed and achieved. All such solutions are trivial and futile. Even a writer as favorable to evolution as Professor Le Conte, realizes the difficulty of applying this theory to the enigma of Jesus, and is constrained to admit the necessity for a miraculous element in his appearance and development. He describes him as a goal in evolution, that is, “not only a completion of one stage, but also the beginning of another and higher stage—on a higher plane of life, with new and higher capacities and powers unimaginable from any lower plane”; and hence he teaches that with him came “new powers and properties unimaginable from the human point of view, and therefore to us seemingly supernatural, z, e., above our nature.”! But if he could not have been evolved could he have been invented? This is the only remaining alternative. In a slight degree the answer has already been antici- pated, and the striking declaration of Rousseau has been quoted: “The inventor would be a more astonishing character than the hero,” to which I may now add the conviction of Theodore Parker: “It would take a Jesus to forge a Jesus.” This I believe, and whoever thinks seriously will hardly fail to agree with the great Unita- rian. It is not an easy matter to create a character for fiction, to shape it, to preserve its consistency with itself, and to make it live, move, and act ina thoroughly congruous manner. To succeed in this kind of art requires genius of a high order. Particularly hard 1“ Fvolution in its Relation to Religious Thought,” pp. 360-364. THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST 97 must it be to draw a saintly personality, when it becomes necessary to combine virtues and graces which by slight perversion may render the whole conception disagreeable and ludicrous. But when to the “beauty of holiness” an author tries to adda touch of the supernatural, especially when he attempts to make the supernatural the strongest and most noticeable feature in his creation, he undertakes a task destined to inevitable failure. His unearthly impersonation will either lack dignity or mys- teriousness, will either be too human to be heavenly or too heavenly to be human ; and will in proportion as it embodies goodness be grotesque, or in proportion as it represents wickedness be ridiculously nonsensical. Such performances betray themselves. No one can possibly be deceived by them or suppose the “painted things” to be actual existences. They are evidently artificial. The actor behind the mask of ghost, devil, or god is unable to conceal the trick. Every effort of this kind in literature has a very apparent resemblance to the gruesome shams that have been palmed off by skillful frauds on modern Spiritualism. Even Shakespeare is not equal to this sort of invention. His ghosts and witches are painfully below his other works, and are neither impressive nor tragical. Hamlet's father and the phantoms of the murdered princes are somewhat formal, stiff, and fantastic. They do not seem to belong to earth, to heaven, or hell, but rather to the realm of a poet’s distempered fancy, where indeed they were born and where alone they are fitted to dwell. Other writers have succeeded no better than Shakespeare. Even Milton’s portraiture of Satan, horribly sublime as it is in some aspects, as a whole is painfully overdone. I 98 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY And Dante’s picture of the monarch of perdition is more open to criticism than that of Milton. In his “ Inferno” we read: That emperor who sways The realm of sorrow, at mid-breast from the ice Stood forth ; and I in stature, am more like A giant than the giants are to his arms... . If he were beautiful As he is hideous now, and yet did dare To scowl upon his Maker, well from him May all our misery flow. .. . At six eyes wept ; the tears Adown three faces rolled in bloody foam. Evidently the poet thought that enormous size and the multiplication of distinctively human features, as the increase of eyes and faces, would create the impres- sion of supernaturalness, whereas they only suggest an exaggerated and hideous deformity of earthly origin. Goethe, Bulwer, and less celebrated writers are in the same condemnation with the master-poets of England and Italy ; and even the biographers of religious saints and of the founders of religions, such as Confucius, Mohammed, and Buddha, are woefully unsuccessful when they attempt to invest their heroes with celestial graces and superterrestrial powers. They can describe signs, portents, and miraculous convulsions fluently enough, but where their failure is conspicuous is just whereit is apparent also inthe Apocryphal Gospels, where they attempt to impart the miraculous to the character, and where they invent miraculous deeds to be its appro- priate expression and reflection. The deeds are usually of the cheap thaumaturgic kind that never seem serious enough to invite investigation or discussion. THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST — 99 But how different all this is in the New Testament ! There Jesus lives and moves before our eyes’ in a most realistic manner. No one of the writers appears to be straining after effect, nor to be laboring to make out a superhuman personality; and yet, as we follow their accounts, we feel that we are in the presence of a be- ing who, however emphatically he is called the Son of Man, can be nothing less than the Son of God. This unique figure cannot have been the product of unlearned fishermen and peasants, even though of vigorous brains. Where the greatest poets of eighteen centuries have failed, these ill educated and very matter-of-fact men could never have succeeded. They must have photo- graphed an original ; and, if so, the original was a mira- cle among men. Nor can this inference be evaded by all the contemporaneous sweet talk about myths, fables, and allegories. On this point, Thomas Carlyle happily expresses himself : The ‘‘Pilgrim’s Progress’’ is an allegory, and a beautiful, just, and serious one; but consider whether Bunyan’s allegory could have preceded the faith it symbolizes. The faith had to be already there, standing, believed by everybody, of which the allegory could have become a shadow ; and with all its serious- ness, we may say a sportful shadow, a mere play of fancy, in comparison with that awful fact and scientific certainty, which it poetically strives to emblem. He further adds, dryly and sig- nificantly, ‘‘ men did never risk their lives for allegory.”’ If the gospel story is myth, fable, allegory, what was the fact back of it that inspired it, and that was be- lieved before it? The fact, according to Carlyle, must have been more than the equivalent of the fable ; and, if so, then it must have been even more astounding I0o THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY than the biographical narrative recorded by the evan- gelists. And as men do not die for allegories, we have the witness in the martyr sufferings and death of the writers that they were not the authors of fiction. All was real to them—the birth, the ministry, the resurrec- tion of Him whom they preached ; and through them, all is real to us, from the manger, with its burden of glorified infancy to | Those holy fields, Over whose acres walk’d those blessed feet, Which fourteen hundred years ago, were nail’d For our advantage on the bitter cross. The third, and final stage of this argument centers in Christ as a Religious Force; indeed, as The Religious Force of all ages. Frances Power Cobbe has in some measure anticipated my meaning; and, though an ad- mirer of Theodore Parker and his school, has not hesi- tated to ascribe to Jesus the most tremendous potency in the progress of mankind. His coming was to the life of humanity what regeneration is to the life of the individual. This is not a conclusion doubtfully deduced from questionable biographies, but a broad, plain inference from the universal history of our race. We may dispute all details, but the grand result is beyond criti- cism. The world has changed, and that change is historically traceable to Christ. Christ, the elder brother of the human family, was the helper and, in the highest philosophic sense, the Saviour of humanity. But what is the evidential value and significance of this fact ? 3 Much has been written of late years by men of THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST IOI science on the subject of force—on its conservation, correlation, and persistence; and the trend of their discussions goes to make clearer what has never really been denied, that every effect, or series of effects, has its equivalent in the force expended on its production. Hence the quality and quantity of the result attained measures and determines the quantity and quality of the force employed. The seeds of roses, tulips, violets, and of other flowers that beautify the garden are not sufficient of themselves to the end purposed and desired when they are planted. These seeds plus the elements of earth and sky, the oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, hydro- gen, which they appropriate, combine, and organize, are the equivalent of the specific plant-tissues which are brought forth. Not the one without the other. The atmosphere and the soil may be regarded as a garden themselves holding in solution all the flowers that can possibly be produced, and waiting only for the germs to be safely housed in the ground, through which they precipitate their treasures into the form, tint, and fra- grance of those charming beauties which glorify the feet of our pilgrimage. Brush, canvas, and colors are necessary to the execution of a rhasterpiece in paint- ing ; but these alone are totally inadequate to the re- sult. Great pictures are held in solution in the culture, ideals, and ambitions of an age as well as in pigments and pencils, and they are precipitated into actual cre- ations through the activity of that germinal center called the brain. Hence too it has often been said, and the thought is fundamental in the teachings of Cousin and Carlyle, that representative men are those who in a special manner embody, express, and repro- I02 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY duce the very genius and soul of the period in which they live. The force equivalent to a flower is some- thing more than a seed; the equivalent of a great ‘picture is indeed a brain, but it is a brain plus some- thing else ; and a religion also may be such a product as to require for its equivalent a force surpassing all that is possibly conserved in any mere human being, and all that is conceivably conserved in the devout aspirations, traditions, and tendencies of any particular age. Such a religion is Christianity. Jesus Christ is its seed, its brain, its genius, and all that it is and all that it has wrought are primarily and efficiently due to him. We have already seen some- thing of its moral grandeur, and we have seen it chang- ing and shaping the course of history. What it has achieved, in the conquest of darkness and in the eman- cipation of light, will appeal to our thoughtful attention in a succeeding argument; but what it has been, of peace to millions of troubled consciences, of satisfaction to troubled minds, and of joy to sorrowful hearts, must at least be mentioned in this connection. At its altars untold multitudes have found the way of access to the Unseen; in its one supereminent sacrifice they have discovered the secret of cleansing from moral guilt ; and in its holy temples they have touched the sacred fires which kindle genius and intelligence. The world is full of the trophies of itspresence and power. If weturn to literature we discern them in the “ De Czvztate Dez,” the “Divina Comedia,’ the “ lmztatio Christi,” the Shakespearean dramas, the “ Paradise Lost,” the “ Pil- grim’s Progress,” the Browning poems, the lyrics and sonnets of MacDonald, and the pathetic sublimity of THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST 103 the «In Memoriam.” As Prof. B, B. Edwards has said: “The Red Cross Knight in the ‘ Faerie Queene’ of Spenser is the Christian of the last chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians. The ‘Messiah’ of Pope is only a paraphrase of some passages in Isaiah. The highest strains of Cowper in the ‘Task’ are an expan- sion of a chapter of the same prophet. The ‘Thana- topsis’ of Bryant is indebted to a passage from the book of Job. And Lord Byron’s celebrated poem on ‘Darkness’ was founded on a passage in Jeremiah,”’! If all the books written about Christianity, about its Hero and its Bible, and the volumes that refer to it or that derive from it their sentiments or meaning were destroyed, there would be. left in literature very little worth preserving. This power is seen also in music and art as well as in letters. It is necessary to account for the triumphs of Tintoretto and Raphael, of Leon- ardo da Vinci and Murillo; and the architecture of Brunelleschi, Giotto, and Wren, “the worship in stone,” as Heine terms it ; and the marvelous sculp- ture of Michael Angelo and Ghiberti, to say nothing of modern masters like Hiram Powers, are inexplicable apart from its influence. And the same is true of the compositions of a Mozart, of a Handel, and of all those written from the days of the Gregorian chants to those of the gospel hymns, whose simple melodies have moved the common people to devout enthusiasm. Whether it be a glorious symphony or oratorio, or a picture like the transfiguration, or a statue like the Moses, at Rome, or a group like the Apostles, at Copenhagen, or a cam- panile like that at Florence, or a noble cathedral like CAE A Se a ER saat Se ea 2 a 1 Quoted in Phelps’ ‘‘ Men and Books,’”’ 1892, p. 240. 104 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY those of England and Normandy, there the hand of Christianity is manifest, molding all after its own ideals, and informing all with its own mysterious and exalted spirit. The problem that presents itself is to find a force equivalent to this stupendous effect. We agree that its symbol is Jesus of Nazareth. But what does that name stand for? Remember, you are to sum up the benefits conferred, the works achieved, and the in- fluence exerted by Christianity, and estimate by the total the character and greatness of the momentum from which all have proceeded. Thus measured, is it not evident that no mere manhood, however blameless, can rationally account for this phenomenon of religion taken as a whole? Shall we affirm that Christ’s humanity, plus the pure aspirations, liberal culture, Messianic predictions, and social discontents, was its sufficient source, and has been its adequate inspiration through nineteen centuries? We may of course assert such a proposition, but no one has ever been able to substantiate it by satisfactory proof. Over and over again it has been shown that the times in which Christ lived do not explain him; that he was not the repre- sentative of his age; and that neither the idea of his kingdom, nor the central doctrine of his theology can be traced to any schools of thought or to any spiritual sentiments influential, in his brief day. If he was Deity incarnate the problem is immediately solved ; for God manifest in the flesh is more than equivalent as a force to all that Christianity is and to all that Chris- tianity has done. But I do not desire to obtrude a conception which belongs rather to theology than to THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST I05 apologetics. A simpler and less debatable course is open before us. scribing to Jesus no higher rank in the universe than that of man, if to that we shall add the supernatural we shall have found not only the perfect equivalent, but necessarily the conclusive evidence that Christianity is of divine origin. For if the supernatural held in solution the true religion, as the atmosphere practically holds in solution forest, flowers, and golden harvests, and if with the advent and brief ministry of Jesus all that it contained was precipitated with his per- sonality and in his life to be combined, organized, and wrought out in the precious Faith, even as the carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen of the air when precipitated are reproduced through the vitality of seeds in various forms of usefulness and beauty, then it follows that Christianity proceeded from the “Father of Lights,” ana has gleamed through the long centuries with a radiance not of earth. But the evidential significance of Jesus asa Religious Force does not terminate here. His power of resist- ance and persistence must be calculated as well as the degree of his creative potentiality. Since his reputed resurrection, the mightiest of human combinations have been formed against him, and even friends and admirers have oftentimes so spoken and acted as to jeopardize his authority and influence. During nine- teen centuries, while his praises have been sung by many tongues, endeavors have constantly been made to pervert his doctrine, arrest the progress of his cause, and empty his name of its high, spiritual import. There is no parallel to this in the posthumous histories of Zoroaster, Buddha, Confucius, or Mohammed. In 106 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY this respect at least, our Lord occupies a position of solitary, and in a sense, glorious pre-eminence. If as a force he is the equivalent of all malignant hostilities that have warred upon him, and is more than the equivalent of all obstacles and impediments that have been placed in the way of his feet, it requires very little arithmetical skill to compute the necessary meas- ure of his energy and might. The strength of a piece of artillery may be determined, not only by the size and weight of a projectile and the distance it is thrown, but by the amount of gunpowder the cannon itself withstands when the explosion occurs. In a similar way we can fix with proximate certainty who and what our Saviour must be, and what energies must be back of him, by his dynamical resources. We have already seen what he has produced, it re- mains for us to glance at what he has resisted. It would almost seem that his post-resurrection history was to be in many respects a counterpart of his earthly life, espe- cially in the perils to which he was exposed and in the enmities which he provoked. As the child Jesus was assailed by Herod, so priests and rulers set themselves together to destroy the infancy of his church. His name was blackened, his pretensions caricatured, and his dis- ciples murdered. And as his neighbors at Nazareth would have cast him down from the hill near their town, so his own countrymen finally rejected him as an im- postor, guilty of impiety. Gautama Buddha was never rejected by his own kindred. They gladly accepted him and his deliverance from Brahmanism. Mohammed was not finally thrust out by his own nation. At the very beginning of his mission his family owned him and be- THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST 107 came his supporters ; and though for a time the Kore- ishites were moved to hostility, soon after his death all Arabia acknowledged his prophetical vocation. But Jesus was thrust aside by his own race with maledic- tions as fierce and bitter as were pronounced by the synagogue against Spinoza. Christianity won its earliest decisive victories among the Gentiles, differing in blood and traditions from its author. But even they did not submit to his authority without a prolonged and stubborn resistance. At first it almost seemed that the memory of his ministry must perish from sheer neglect. As Mary's child was lost in the crowd at Jerusalem, it is a wonder that all knowledge of the faith he founded was not irrecoverably lost in the mire, rush, and enjoy- ments of the Roman world. He is only alluded to in a fragmentary and supercilious manner by secular writers of the first century. The obscurity of the sect that represented him was likewise pathetic and distress- ing. Without fortune, without allies at court, without armies, without social standing, it was highly probable that his name would speedily sink into oblivion. The demands of trade and war, the movements of the legions, and the growing worship of the emperors were like wide, deep billows deluging all other interests. Nor is this surprising. Neither London nor New York would pause in its buying and selling, in its struggle for commercial supremacy, and its mad whirl of social delights, to consider the claims of a religious nobody who had been hung on a tree and had left behind him a handful of humble followers. That the Roman Empire therefore should be indifferent and apathetic is not singular. But it is startling, that 108 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY as the boy Jesus passed unnoticed and unharmed through the surging throngs, and was found at last calmly disputing with the doctors, so the influence of Christ, though ignored and unrecognized, should ulti- mately be found to have penetrated pagan society, and even to have touched with its grace the highest philos- ophy of the age. Yes, long before the alleged miracle at the Milvian bridge, Tertullian wrote: “We are but of yesterday, and we have filled all that belongs to you _the cities, the fortresses, the free towns, the very camps, the palace, the senate, the forum; we leave to you the temples only.” The Empire, however, did not submit to this final triumph without a bloody protest. What contempt failed to accomplish, cruelty joyfully undertook. Brute force was invoked to crush the in- offensive worshipers who, without one carnal weapon, confronted Czesar’s legions. Nero lighted the gardens of his golden home with the flames that tortured and destroyed the saints of God, while Decius, Diocletian, and other rulers black with infamy, robbed the earth of men as great as Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenzeus, and of souls as humble as Blandina and Felicitas, and filled the homes of innocent thousands with anguish and apprehension. And yet the Christ whom these martyrs loved was sufficient to sustain them; and suc- cessfully to resist for his church the axes of the lictors, the talons of the imperial eagles, the merciless fangs of the lions, the devouring voracity of fires, and the corrosive malignity of crowned incarnate furies. Con- cerning these deadly trials, Tertullian testifies in the most exalted terms: “Call us sarmentici and Semaxtt, names derived from the wood wherewith we are THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST 109 burned and the stakes to which we are bound; this is the garment of our victory, our embroidered robe, our triumphal chariot.” In a sense, and a very real sense, one being, the Christ of history, endured the shock and weight of that Roman empire whose armies had shaken to their foundations the strongest kingdoms of earth and, after withstanding the onset, with his bleed- ing hands lifted high above the stricken eagles his vic- torious labarum with its glorious monogram. Calcu- late the magnitude of the force that thus hurled itself against our Lord, and you will be able to form some idea of the equivalent force by which it was success- fully resisted. It is a melancholy fact that this tragic struggle for existence was enacted in other ways but, none the less truly, within the ever-widening circle of his professed adherents and avowed admirers. At one time it ap- peared that controversy would prove more fatal to the continuity of his power in the earth than persecution. Patripassians (Sabellians) and Arians distracted mankind by their attacks on what had been accepted heretofore as sound doctrine, and which Athanasius was provi- dentially raised up to defend; and if there was ever an hour when Christianity was imperilled by the dagger thrusts of its friends it was during the Homoousion struggle, which the orthodox Socrates likens to a night conflict in which the contestants could neither discern the form nor understand the speech of each other. From the shame of the Councils, from the degradation of imperial interference, and from the disgraceful feuds of religious factions Christianity at last emerged, but only to meet new movements that threatened, while K IIO THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY professedly honoring the Lord’s name, to overthrow his supremacy and nullify his power. Pontiffs and so- called saints practically pushed him aside and demanded the homage due to him alone. Mary the virgin eclipsed him, and art confirmed the revolt by painting him con- tinually in all the weakness of childhood or in the immo- bility of death, And even after the Reformation, the very party that professed to have rescued him from the deadly clutch of medizeval Romanism came sadly near to imitating their rivals. They disfigured the Christ, disguised him by wearisome treatises of a theological kind, burdened him with their own crude conceptions of predestination, preterition, reprobation, limited atone- ment, and the damnation of infants, so that it was almost impossible to recognize the original in what they undoubtedly desired to be a fair and honest portrait. In a word, so many harsh and cruel doctrines have been ascribed to him, and so many narrowing and hardening restrictions have been imputed to him, it is wonder- ful that he has retained a place in the heart of the race. He has been represented as opposed to the innocent amusements of life; as favoring asceticism and bigotry ; and as only anxious to beautify the world to come with the redeemed however the present world might be neg- lected. But he has survived all of these attempts to diminish his spiritual greatness, to narrow him, to brand him by a mere creed-torm, to dethrone him from love, to mar his moral beauty, and to hide the real majesty of his character in some new-made tomb, fragrant with spices and garlanded with flowers of naturalistic the- ology. He cannot be holden of death; and as he rose from the dead three days after the crucifixion, so has THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST LIT he repeatedly arisen from magnificent sepulchres into which learned ecclesiastics and wonderful system- makers of cold dogmatics have sought effectually to bury him out of sight forever. But he survives; and to-day in communities large and small there moves a Presence of whom millions are conscious, mild and in- effable, tender and loving, scattering everywhere the gracious blessings of life, light, and liberty. It is the Christ, escaped out of all hands that have hindered him or tried to suppress him, and who, though he is con- cealed from sight, is the ever-abiding force by which -religion is shielded from the assaults of its enemies and the mistakes of its friends. How it ever could have. been deemed possible to ac- count for this unique phenomenon as men of genius have been explained, I cannot understand! There is nothing like it in the entire range of moral dynamics. It stands alone without parallel. In what terms the equivalent to this tremendous and unequalled pressure can be stated, apart from the supernatural, I do not know; nor has there thus far been suggested any other adequate hypothesis. The problem is, how could a mere man resist all these combined and concentrated antago- nisms, how endure such a weight and not be crushed, and how check such an inundation and not be overwhelmed? When it can be shown that fortifica- tions of snow built by infant hands can withstand the guns of modern iron-clad navies; or when reeds and rushes can remain erect and firm before the pounding of the ocean’s angered billows ; or awoman’s grasp can arrest the onward rush of the fiery locomotive ; then it may be possible to show that a human being could con- II2 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY front these accumulated anti-Christian aggressions and not succumb to the ponderous weight. But until then, serious minds will continue to see back of the man Jesus something more than nature, some- thing more than the favorable combinations of the finite, and will hardly fail to discern the far-reaching perspective of God himself filling all and in all. Let us recapitulate and sum up the argument of this chapter. 1. Christ as a Religious Founder bears unimpeachable testimony to the divine origin of Christianity. 2. Christ as a Religious Figure serves as the highest miraculous credential to the divine origin of Christianity. 3. Christ as a Religious Force verifies tn himself the reality of the supernatural involved in the divine origin and in the historical permanence of Christianity. At this point I rest the argument from Christ, con- vinced that there is in it the true note of an unanswer- able apologetic. We all must remember, and with grateful appreciation, the tribute of Tennyson to our Lord? Strong Son of God, immortal love, Whom we, that have not seen thy face, By faith, and faith alone, embrace, Believing where we cannot prove ; Thine are these orbs of light and shade ; Thou madest life in man and brute; Thou madest death ; and lo! thy foot Is on the skull which thou hast made. Thou seemest human and divine, The highest, holiest manhood thou ; Our wills are ours, we know not how; Our wills are ours to make them thine. THE ARGUMENT FROM CHRIST 13 But what is this but an acknowledgment of the logic that dwells in the incarnation and ministry of our Lord ? While the poet is not altogether just to the evidence within reach when he writes, “ Believing where we cannot prove,’ the sweep of his thought more than compensates for this infelicity. He beholds in this “strong Son of God” a depth of love, a power over life and death, and a grandeur of manhood that dispel doubt and compel conviction. However “the will that is ours” may revolt from religion, he makes it his by the moral majesty of his being, and brings it into sub- jection to the authority of the unseen. The poet rec- ognizes the “sweet reasonableness ”’ of faith grounding itself and building up itself in this one exclusive and pre-eminent character. In other words, he subscribes to the argument I have tried to frame; he pronounces it sound, cogent, and conclusive. So likewise apparently does Robert Browning, who sees in Christ the chief antidote to the wayward and _ stubborn fancies of unbelief : The very God,—think, Abib !—dost thou think ? So the All-Great was the All-Loving too ; So through the thunder comes a human voice, Saying, ‘‘O heart I made, a heart beats here. Face my hands fashioned, see it in myself ; Thou hast no strength, nor mayst conceive of mine; But love I gave thee, with myself to love, And thou must love me who have died for thee.’ What can skepticism offer in reply to such a demon- stration? How can it resist such an appeal to the in- tellect and affections ?. The manifestation of God in the human is to the poet the end of all controversy, satisfy- ing inquiry, and convincing head and heart alike. For II4 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY it is not to be overlooked that the argument from Christ is full of warmth and persuasive grace as well as of cold, stern, syllogistic processes. It carries with it at each step such wonderful disclosures of heaven's com- passion, and such uplifting views of the relations exist- ing between the Creator and the creature, thateacive judgment is charmed and captivated even before the evidence itself has been duly sifted and scrutinized. And it may perhaps add to our appreciation of its worth to remember that the New Testament ascribes to it the conquering force of Christianity. The religion Jesus founded is represented as ever triumphing through his name. At the preaching of his name “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess.” He is himself at once the gospel and the proof of the gospel ; and that it should have fallen out as predicted only serves to corroborate and confirm the argument by sealing it with the stamp of prophecy fulfilled. When in public worship Christ is exalted and the universality of the homage tendered him is commemorated, testimony is borne to the fact that the predictions concerning his supremacy over thought are being accomplished, and that therefore the faith he proclaimed must be divinely true. Let the reader realize this, and whenever the Te Deum falls upon his ear, or he recalls its stately meas- ures, let him never forget that the combination of praises and the climax reached are evidences irrefragable that Christianity is neither a delusion nor a fraud. Thou art the King of glory, O Christ ; Thou art the everlasting Son of the Father. GHAR LE Ral THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY > might have been expected from the distinctive character of Christianity, its earliest adherents, the men and women who were contemporaneous with its gracious Founder, especially the apostles, were from the first set apart to be witnesses. This function of course involved to some extent the necessity of expo- sition ; but the principal business at the beginning was to certify to facts rather than to explain them. Our Lord himself commanded the disciples to testify of his earthly ministry to the uttermost parts of the world, a commission they gladly accepted and sought faithfully to discharge. For some time after Pentecost this obligation was met orally; the living voice, not the written page, almost exclusively, if not entirely, proclaiming the his- torical verities of redemption. This method is admir- ably and graphically portrayed in the Acts of the Apostles, which may be taken as an accurate description of the propagation of the gospel in lands other than those referred to by the author, and through a longer period than is embraced in his treatise. A vivid picture has also descended to us from the pen of Irenzeus (died 202 A. D.), who reproduces the days of Polycarp, whose martyrdom occurred 169 a. D.; and shows how the venerable friend of the “one whom Jesus loved,’ won 115 116 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY the attention of the people by spoken discourse and not by sacred manuscripts, though these were not lack- ing in his century. He writes: I can recall the very place where Polycarp used to sit and teach, his manner of speech, his mode of life, his appearance, the style of his address, his frequent references to St. John and to others who had seen our Lord; how he used to repeat from memory the discourses which he had heard from them concern- ing our Lord, his miracles, and his mode of teaching ; and how, being instructed himself by those who were eye-witnesses of the Life of the world, there was in all that he said a strict agreement with the Scriptures.—Lusebius, Hist. Eccl., V. 20. One can readily imagine how much of charm must have attached to such a speaker, and how conviction must have attended his words. It is not surprising that such witnessing as this should have been cherished as long as it was possible. Some who are living can remember with what absorbing interest they listened to a surviving acquaintance of General Washington, who in his old age, when they were young, delighted to relate anecdotes of the honored father of his country. Even now, when that generation has passed away, the children of those who knew Washington, themselves in extreme old age, as they relate what was told them by their sires, his associates, are heard with more than ordinary attention. They are links that seem to connect us with the olden times more directly and more sensibly than books. We seem to see the images of the noble dead in their faces; and to hear in their voices the echoes of other voices that have long since been hushed in death. In the same way, the testimony of men who had been personally intimate THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY II7 with Jesus, and who had seen what they affirmed, must have been peculiarly fascinating and convincing. It must have suggested the very presence of the Master himself. Most difficult must it have been not to feel that he had left a touch, an imprint of himself, and that he had imparted something of the virtue which constantly streamed from him to those persons who had become his mouthpiece. In a less degree, this interest must have centered in the utterances of indi- viduals who had been privileged to converse with the highly favored ones who had lived in sweet companion- ship with Jesus. To listen to John, who had rested his head on the Saviour’s bosom, must have been a vivid delight; to hear Polycarp, who had been taught by John, must have been an elevating experience; and then to receive the word from Irenzus, who had welcomed it from the lips of Polycarp, must have been an honor and a pleasure, only the impression must have declined in intensity as the distance increased between the speaker and the close of our Lord’s ministry on earth. Here it is that we lay bare the weak spot in the practical working and value of oral testimony. The more remote it is from the time when the events occurred to which it bears witness, the less vivid and less attractive does it become and, what is of more moment, the less reliable and trustworthy. Indeed, the imperfections and dangers of this method are such that it could only have been contem- plated as a temporary measure, to be depended on for a season, and until other and less variable means could be prepared. Of the highest value at the commence- ment of Christianity, it must in the course of com- 118 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY paratively a few years have demonstrated its weakness. Unpremeditated errors would probably arise, unwar- ranted additions be made to the sacred narrative, and exaggerated views of men and things be born of excited imaginations, and these would have gained currency if there had been no fixed standard of appeal by which the accuracy of all statements could be tested. Noth- ing being recorded, settled, and expressed in permanent form, only a vague, unsatisfactory legend or tradition would have survived, and after a hundred or two years, no one would have been certain what to believe. To avert this peril, and the confusion that might arise from the vagrant fancies of uninstructed enthusiasts, it clearly became the duty of favored individuals who had per- sonal knowledge of the facts to reduce them to writ- ing, and to furnish posterity a clear, compact, and thoroughly authentic account of the events on which rest the spiritual and everlasting hopes of mankind. This has been done, done directly in the Gospels, and indirectly in the Acts and the Epistles ; and, as we have no reason to doubt, was done comprehensively and con- scientiously. Of this indeed we have evidence in the scrupulous care taken by Luke and John to record only what was certainly believed, and what was in perfect accord with their own experience and observation. In Luke’s prologue we have this statement : Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY T1I9Q excellent Theophilus, that thou mightest know the certainty of those things wherein thou hast been instructed (Luke 1 : 1-4). Thus, likewise, with equal circumspection, John opens one of his letters: That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life . . . declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us. Nor should we suppose that these authors were excep- tional in their solicitude that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth should be preserved ; for the entire New Testament is pervaded by the spirit of sin- cerity and of painstaking exactness. M. Guizot, in “ Revue des deux Mondes’’ for September 1, 1860, wrote that his study of Gibbon’s “ Roman Empire” had impressed him, “not only with the moral and social grandeur of Christianity, but with the difficulty of ex- plaining it by purely human forces and causes.” And so manifestly straightforward and honest are the evan- gelists in their written testimony that the difficulty re- ferred to by the brilliant Frenchman is increased a hundred-fold, and apparently leaves us no other alterna- tive than to acknowledge the supernatural origin of our historical religion. TO DEVELOP THIS PRESUMPTION TO POSITIVE CONVICTION IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PRESENT ARGUMENT. } Regarding the composition of the Gospels, various theories are in circulation ; and though the correctness or erroneousness of any of them cannot seriously affect the results of this discussion, for the sake of coherence and clearness they ought at least to be recognized. IZ20 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY It is maintained by certain eminent critics that a considerable portion of the material entering into the contents of three of these documents must have been derived from acommon source. There are agreements, exact parallels in form of statement and expression, which seem explicable only on the hypothesis that the authors drew from some general fund and superadded their own individual experiences and observations. Holtzmann contends that “at bottom. all Gospels rest on the oral tradition,” and claims that “ it is nowadays an accepted position that the oral tradition must be considered the ultimate basis of the entire gospel litera- ture.” He explains that this tradition being continually repeated, at last assumed a stereotyped character, and was then recorded from memory, modified and enriched by the personal knowledge and idiosyncrasies of each evangelist.! Westcott, likewise, holds to this hypoth- esis, and has done much to popularize it among scholars.2- But’ grave objections lie against it. No one questions the representation that oral preaching and teaching preceded any manuscript account of our Lord’s life; but it is still doubted whether the Gospels derived what is common to them from that source exclusively, or from some previous document accessible alike to their authors. It is difficult to conceive that the agreement so verbally exact could have been preserved by the mere repetition of spoken discourse. Hence Eichhorn (1794) taught that at least three of the evangelical histories were not based on floating reports, but on a primary version 1Holtzmann’s “‘ Einleitung und die Synoptischen Evangelien.”’ 2See Introduction. THRE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY I21 supposed to have been written by Matthew in Hebrew, and referred to by the Fathers. Sympathizers with this view have either held that this primary Gospel has per- ished or has expanded into the book now extant and bearing the name of this eminent disciple. That there was some common stock on which the apostles en- grafted their individual reminiscences seems indispu- table. To a great extent they not only relate the same incidents, but at times employ the same language, sentences, paragraphs, presenting examples of absolute verbal identity. This is explicable on the supposition that they copied from some one existing authentic nar- rative to which they could readily appeal. It has been more than hinted that they borrowed from each other, probably Matthew and Luke transcribing from Mark ; for there are critics who deny the priority of Matthew, to which I have alluded, and who hold to the opinion, in which I share, that Mark’s Gospel is the oldest of the three which are usually classified together as “ synoptical.” Dr. Marcus Dods on this point has said : The approximation of Mark to the original written Gospel is one of the most generally accepted findings of modern criti- cism. It has been shown almost to demonstration by Holtz- mann, and scholars like Sanday and Salmon agree in this par- ticular with him. Salmon concludes his very instructive discus- sion with affirming his belief that all drew from a common source ; which, however, is represented with most verbal exact- ness in St. Mark’s version.—/ntroduction to the New Testament. But whether Mark, with his colleagues, made extracts from a previously compiled biography of Jesus, or was himself drawn on by the others, or whether Matthew is entitled to the primacy in this respect, or all of them L 122 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY derived a portion of their material from oral traditions being repeated in similar phraseology, it is clear that having been eye-witnesses of what they relate, and having had personal knowledge of what they report, and having verified the common data by their own in- dividual experiences and observations, they were per- fectly competent to furnish a satisfactory account of the beginnings of Christianity. No such problem as this is presented by the epistolary literature of the New Testament. These famous communications, to the number of twenty-one, were called forth by the special needs of churches and individuals ; and those penned by Paul are the most venerable documents of the Christian epoch. They were all composed at a very early date, probably the Pauline correspondence commencing about the year 53 A. D., and the others following rapidly. Renan says, “ The First of Peter is one of the writings of the New Testament, which are the most anciently and the most unanimously cited as authentic.” 1 These epistles are not biographies. They were not designed to furnish a life of Christ. But they confirm every essential feature of gospel history. They dwell on the incarnation, the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, and proceed on the assumption that these great facts were undisputed. They witness only indirectly to the real source of our faith, but none the less conclusively; for they are the unpremedi- tated corroboration of all that is set forth in the four evangels. No one will question but that the books of the New Testament contain the testimony of the primitive lL’ Antichrist, p. 7. THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 123 church to Christianity; and probably none will have the temerity to deny that if they can be proven genu- ine, that is, written by the authors to whom they are ascribed, it will be a comparatively easy matter to show that they are authentic, or in other words, are entirely credible and trustworthy. The determination of these two mooted points is necessary to the validity of my present argument, and is, in a sense, the very essence and substance of the argument itself. And we ought to be grateful that there has been developed of late years so admirable an instrument for the intelligent investigation of such issues as historical criticism, to which we can appeal for assistance in pursuing these inquiries. 3 This science is one of the youngest and noblest, and included among its founders Pouilly and Beaufort in France, and Niebuhr and Miiller in Germany, of whom the one best known in America is probably Niebuhr, who died in 1830. At the first it excited the warmest expectations, and in a measure it has fulfilled them, Its original principles were in the main so reasonable, and its method so logical, and its temper so modest, that it was esteemed capable of conferring priceless benefits on the Republic of Letters. On the threshold of its career it more than justified these hopes. It gave to the world a new antiquity—an antiquity stripped of manifold absurdities, mistakes, and positive fabrications which had accumulated in the course of ignorant cen- turies. The criteria it formulated served to correct wrong ideas of former civilizations, and in addition helped to free the Gospels themselves from interpola- tions and unwarranted readings which had affected I24 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY their integrity ; and more than all went far toward estab- lishing their true date and authorship. Moreover, his- torical criticism has rescued the New Testament from the hands of rationalists, symbolists, and semi-infidel theologians. It has shown, if the volume is to rank as an authority and not as a tissue of mystical speculations, that it must be interpreted grammatically, according to the manifest meaning of language, and not accord- ing to some recondite sense read gratuitously into the text. The time has past when it is possible for a man, if he is reasonably honest and intelligent, to juggle himself into the belief that he can reject and accept the Gospels with the same breath; can accept what pleases him as literal, and reject what is. offensive to him, é. g., the miracles or the atonement, by the easy process of making them stand for something he has arbitrarily invented or sentimentally imagined. Strauss never wrote more worthily or more soundly than when he said: “The only genuine and honest meaning of the term ‘Redeemer’ is that in which it designates the God-Man sacrificing himself for the sins of the world. The expression is derived from the notion of expiatory sacrifice; to use it in any other sense is a deceptive game of words,—a game of which I myself was once guilty, but which on clearer insight, I long ago aban- doned.”! And the same rebuke is equally deserved by those who are anxious to get rid of miracles, and who in the interest of their preconception twist and torture the stories of such events into the most extravagant shapes. The endeavor of Paulus to prove that the wonder at the marriage in 1** Die Halben,” etc., p 47. THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 125 Cana was only a wedding illusion and jest; that our Lord never walked on the sea, but only on its shores ; that the transfiguration was only the play of refracted light from the snowy sides of Mount Hermon; and that the angels of the resurrection were merely two white-robed Essenes who had wandered early in the day to Jesus’ tomb, historical criticism condemns, with the euhemerising principles of Eichhorn, the eclectic Christologies of Schleiermacher, and the ideal fictions of Baur to the lumber closet of worn-out and dilapidated schemes and hypotheses. It will have nothing to do with pious evasions, prevarications, and downright fabrications. The Gospels cannot be historical and unhistorical at the same time. If they are unhistorical then they are quite independent of historical criticism, and are incapable of historical proof, which is the same as to say that their meaning must always be indefinite and their trustworthiness uncertain. But if they are historical, then alleged miracles must be dealt with as other recorded events, and as a whole they must be tried and tested in such a way as to establish their authentic character or expose their fraudulent preten- sions. We ought to be thankful that the issue has been thus narrowed. No longer is it apparently inevita- ble that a man must choose between idiocy or infidelity —the idiocy of rationalism ; for now there is in reality only one question open to discussion, and that purely concerns the authorship and authority of the New Testament canon. While this science has wrought nobly in the interests of truth, and has much more to accomplish in the same direction, it has not been altogether faithful to 126 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY the promises of its youth. When legitimately applied it is still worthy of encouragement ; but when its prin- ciples are perverted and its capabilities are exaggerated it then becomes a means of immeasurable mischief. It has of late been thus abused. What may be termed a spurious historical criticism has come to the front in recent years which has dealt largely in assertions, has created arbitrary canons of judgment, and has failed in loyalty to philosophy and common sense. Though in some respects resembling the original, this pseudodox in criticism betrays its true character by its dogmatism and reckless radicalism. Of this it has given evidence in its treatment of the New Testament. Professing only admiration for its teachings, the pretended friend has employed splvents so powerful that the elimination of alleged impurities has involved the destruction of the entire body in which they dwelt. Its despotic in- quisitorial surveillance has been so remorselessly ex- ercised, and its rack and thumbscrew have been so cru- elly and blindly applied as to give rise to the suspicion that but little of an authentic nature, and that little only of doubtful value, remains of past ages, and that our own achievements, however faithfully the annalist may record them, must in the course of years be veiled in hopeless obscurity. The personality of Homer long ago suffered from this destructive spirit, and, as Glad- stone has shown, without sufficient reason; and as to Shakespeare, if Ignatius Donnelly and his sympathizers are to be trusted, it is very questionable whether .he ever had any personality to lose. A guide in Switzer- land who had caught the contagion of this incredulity, while leading me through the scenes immortalized by THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY eee William Tell, had the effrontery to assure me that there never had been such a hero, and that his name merely stood for the aspirations of freemen, which ultimately emancipated the cantons. I am expecting to hear next that learned Scotchmen have dealt with the story of Wallace after the same fashion, and have shown that he never really lived, and was never more than a mythical figure symbolizing the antipathy of Scotland to English supremacy. Ah, me! Such, then, is fame! Such the motive to high endeavor! Inevitable oblivion, in the darkness of which coming savants will discuss whether the benefactor after all was anything more than a name, representing an idea, which benighted superstition clothed with the form of individuality. Thus Abraham Lincoln two thousand years hence may become to that enlightened era a myth denoting the great mind-force, the sovereignty of the intellectual over the material, by which the deliverance of the humbler orders of society was accomplished in the nineteenth century. In the presence of this intolerance toward men and events that were conspicuous in ancient times, it is not surprising that historical criticism of this corrosive type should have pursued the same exter- minating policy when dealing with the records of primi- tive Christianity. It has shown them no special favor, and in some ex- treme instances has treated them with a devastating rancor that has its parallel only in the fire and sword of Timourand Zingis, or in the reckless destructiveness of Attila, who boasted that grass never grew where his horse’s feet had trodden. And certainly very little verdure and fruitage of grace can survive in a soul that 128 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY has abandoned itself to the merciless tramping of iron- hoofed criticism. The primary assault of this perverted science is against miracles. Among its cherished dicta we have the following: “History ends where miracles begin”; “no supernatural account can be admitted, for either credulity or deception is at the bottom of it”; “and the task of history is to resolve what is miraculous into what is natural.” These are sayings culled from the works of Baur, Strauss, and Zeller, and they find ready acceptance with many who have not reflected on their inconsistency. They prejudge the very question in debate and decide it, not according to evidence, but according to preconception and arrogant fancy. For if these assertions are to be received as a basis of judgment, then the sacred writings, claiming to have been influenced by the supernatural and to chroni- cle deeds of the supernatural are self-condemned. But instead of submitting, believers in the Gospels must retaliate in the words of M. Littré, who will not be suspected of prejudice, “that the man is unfitted for historic investigation who would have any fact other than it is”; and to this may be added, that “the im- possibility of miracles,” so far from being axiomatic is challenged as peremptorily to-day as ever in the past. The issue is not settled, and to proceed coolly on the supposition that it is, and that it has been decided in favor of naturalism, is merely one of those high-handed methods for which the foes of Christianity are unhap- pily distinguished. And that there is even something of a presumption on the side of the supernatural may, I think, be inferred from the altogether unworthy expe- dients adopted to explain it away, especially when it THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 129 appears in the New Testament. For instance, what shall be said to the following from Renan: Thoroughly persuaded that Jesus was a worker of miracles, Lazarus and his two sisters may have aided the performance of one; aS so many pious men, convinced of the truth of their religion, have sought to triumph over human obstinacy by means of the weakness of which they were well aware. . . As to Jesus, he had no more power than St. Bernard or St. Francis d’Assisi to moderate the avidity of the multitude and of his own disciples for the marvelous. Death, moreover, was in a few days to re- store to him his divine liberty, and to snatch him from the fatal necessities of a character which became every day more exacting, more difficult to sustain. —Lzfe of Jesus, Pp. 903, 3704. That is, for the sake of escaping from belief in the miraculous we are to discredit Christ and make him out to be a being with as little moral fibre as honesty. We are asked to believe one miracle, namely, that the Author of Christianity and the source of truth and purity to millions was a vulgar charlatan and cheat ; and this outrage is perpetrated that another and a lesser miracle may be invalidated. Surely such desperate shifts must go far toward convincing the thoughtful that however loudly criticism of the infidel kind may declare “the recognition of the impossibility of a miracle to be the first condition for every historical discussion of the evangelical history,” this momentous issue cannot be settled in any such doctrinaire fashion. And I sometimes imagine that its representatives are themselves half minded against their own confident assertions on this subject. The critics betray uneasi- ness, and are not quite certain themselves. Hence, they assail the Gospels at other points, a proceeding absolutely unnecessary if supernaturalism is impossible. 130 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY Why trouble to expose incidental errors if the founda- tion isa lie? The lie is not quite clear to this science, and consequently the Gospels are arraigned, and this would-be procurator-general of history cross-examines them, rather browbeats them as culprits instead of honoring them as witnesses; and having already pro- nounced sentence against them, it cites every sign of non-agreement, every variation of detail, and every inci- dent not fully explained by the story itself in vindica- tion of the harsh measures already taken. It then, having as it thinks undermined the citadel, dwells on the uncertainty, at the best, of historical evidence, which, as it compassionately points out, is affected by time; for in the course of transmission it may be corrupted by passion, prejudice, and self-interest, and cannot be verified by direct experiment as mathematical and scientific evidence can; and must therefore always leave the issue in a state of more or less doubt. From all of which the logical inference is that there is no sure basis for Christianity, and that if men will insist on believing in it they must be content to do so on theauthority cof al ‘perhaps a) Dher “perhans aamig sneeringly conceded in amiable consideration of the weakness of human nature. Any thoughtful man can readily perceive how ineffectual and barren a religion that must be which rests on no better foundation. A summer cloud drifting against the Rocky Mountains would have brighter prospect of leveling them to the ground than such an insubstantial and phantom Faith of prevailing against the godlessness of self-satisfied and self-glorifying ages. No sane man ought to be contented with this polite “perhaps,” but ought to THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 131 take steps to assure himself whether in truth there is aught sufficiently reliable on which the soul may safely build immortal hopes. It is not to be denied that the bitterness and per- sistence of these attacks have brought historical criticism into ill repute with many Christian people. They do not want to hear it so much as once named in their presence; and when it is, can hardly refrain from querying whether any good thing ever came out of such a Nazareth. But they on their part must not be un- reasonable. They may also be guilty of injustice and prejudice. Significant in this connection is Dean Stan- ley’s report of a visit to Ewald: “It is impossible to forget the noble enthusiasm with which this dangerous heretic, as he was regarded in England, grasped the small Greek Testament which he had in his hand as we entered, and said: ‘In this little book is contained all the wisdom of the world’; and to that grand confes- sion of the great German biblical scholar all spiritual history says ‘Amen.’”’ Good things do come out of Nazareth; and as textual criticism, as represented by Ewald, may venerate the word of God and faithfully labor to render its meaning clearer, so historical criti- cism may lay a surer and broader foundation on which to rest its stupendous claims than can well be laid without its aid. That it has thus advanced the cause of truth, notwithstanding its frequent desertions to the other side, will, I am persuaded, be apparent from its contributions toward an intelligent and convincing argument in support of the genuineness and authen- ticity of the New Testament writings. Occasionally we hear it said that the authorship 132 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY of the evangelical documents cannot be ascertained. Strauss and Baur fixed as the date of their appearance in religious literature from a century to a century and a quarter after the crucifixion of Jesus. The favorite position of modern skeptics is that the Gospels did not come into existence until about the second half of the second century. If such is the fact, then their author- ship remains an unsolved problem ; and only one thing is certain, that as they assume to have been written by eye-witnesses of the scenes recorded, to whom the churches from the outset imputed them, they are so mixed up with fraud as to be absolutely untrustworthy. To rescue them from so grave a suspicion it becomes necessary to prove that they were penned by the men to whom they are now ascribed, and at a time compati- ble with their claim to have been themselves contem- poraneous with our Lord and the events of his min- istry ; for only in this way can the first and simplest condition of historical credibility be fulfilled. Says Sir G. C. Lewis, an authority on this subject : Historical evidence, like judicial evidence, is founded on the testimony of credible witness. Unless these witnesses had per- sonal and immediate perception of the facts which they report, unless they saw and heard what they undertook to relate as having happened, their evidence is not entitled to credit. As all original witnesses must be contemporary with the events which they attest, it is a necessary condition for the credibility of a witness that he be a contemporary ; though a contemporary is not necessarily a credible witness. Unless therefore an his- torical account can be traced by probable proof to the testimony of contemporaries, the first condition of historical credibility fails. —ZIntro. to Early Roman History, Vol. L., p. 10. Consequently, it is absolutely imperative, if we are THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 133 to have any measure of confidence in the narrative recorded in the Gospels, that we should be able to prove that they were written by men who had personal knowledge of the events and incidents chronicled therein. It is a great point gained in favor of the apostolic authorship of these books that this view has the sup- port of what may be termed the voice of universal tra- dition. When a volume uninterruptedly through a long succession of years is attributed to a particular individual, the presumption is so strongly in his favor that criticism decides against any other hypothesis unless it can be substantiated by direct and positive evidence. Thus, when the literary world was startled by the daring theory of Wolf that the poet Homer did not write the works popularly ascribed to him, it was deemed sufficient to show, as Rawlinson has explained, however weighty the reasons for his singular opinion, they were not “on the whole strong enough to over- come the force of a unanimous tradition.” And on what is practically a similar unanimous belief trans- mitted from the venerable past, in no age of which has any other general belief prevailed, rests primarily the authorship of the men whose names are given to the several parts of the New Testament. There may be serious and perplexing difficulties in the way of this conclusion, and by over-coloring them they may easily come to be regarded as insuperable; but it is to be remembered that in reality they are not so formidable as those which shook the confidence of Wolf in the Homeric authorship. Neither are they of such weight, any more than his elaborate special pleadings were, to M 134 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY overbalance the presumption of unanimous tradition. Nor should it be forgotten that the character of the testimony on which reliance is placed is the same in kind, and is fully as satisfactory as that which compels us to attribute “The Retreat of the Ten Thousand”’ to Xenophon ; “ The Annals” to Tacitus ; “The Plays”’ to Shakespeare, and the “ Paradise Lost” to Milton. The essential features of such testimony are admirably summed up by Prof. George Park Fisher in this brief extract from his “ Manual of Evidences,” chap. 7. The early reception of writings as genuine by those who had the means of knowing; . . the reference to them, or quo- tations from them, at a time when, if they were spurious, this fact could not have been concealed ; internal marks in the works themselves indicative of their authorship or date of composition— these are among the proofs on which we rely in determining the question of the origin of literary works. Accepting these criteria, it is for us to determine at what time the sacred documents, whose genuineness we are investigating, were in circulation; how soon and in what measure they were appealed to and cited in discourse and discussion ; and how far their alleged authors were credited with their production by those whose opinions are most entitled to respect. A fitting introduction to this inquiry is found in the following words from the pen of Andrews Norton, whose volume on “ The Genuineness of the Gospels” is deserving of much praise : About the end of the second century the Gospels were rev- erenced as sacred books by a community dispersed over the world, composed of men of different nations and languages. There were, to say the least, sixty thousand copies of them in Oe es Gee ee THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 135 existence ; they were read in the churches of Christians ; they were continually quoted and appealed to as of the highest au- thority ; their reputation was as well established among believ- ers from one end of the Christian community to the other as it is at the present day among Christians in any country. But it is asserted that before that period we find no trace of their exist- ence ; and it is therefore inferred that they were not in common use, and but little known, even if extant in their present form. This reasoning is of the same kind as if one were to say that the first mention of the Egyptian Thebes is in the time of Homer. He indeed describes it as a city which poured a hun- dred armies from its hundred gates ; but his is the first mention of it, and therefore we have no reason to suppose that before his time it was a place of any considerable note.—Vol. 7, Pu l2}. That is, the widespread recognition of the sacred Gos- pels during the second half of the second century ne- cessitates the belief that they had existed for some time previously, and long enough to have acquired their remarkable influence. This point, so well taken by Mr. Norton, hardly needs strengthening ; and yet it may not be in vain to notice how fully it is con- firmed by Irenzeus, who was made bishop of Lyons about 177 A. D., in a remonstrance addressed to Flori- nus, a former pupil, and a wanderer from the truth. Bishop Lightfoot sums up in succinct form what this venerable father has to say on the preparation and preservation of the biographical books : He points out that the writings of the evangelists arose directly from the oral gospel of the apostles. He shows that the traditional teaching of the apostles has been preserved by a direct succession of elders, which in the principal churches can be traced man by man, and he asserts that this teaching accords entirely with the evangelical and apostolic writings. He main- 136 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY tains on the other hand, that the doctrine of the heretics was of comparatively recent growth. He assumes throughout, not only that our four canonical Gospels alone were acknowledged in the church in his own time, but that this had been so from the begin- ning. His antagonists indeed accepted these same Gospels, paying especial deference to the fourth evangelist ; accordingly he argues with them on this basis. But they also superadded other writings to which they appealed, while heretics of a differ- ent type, as Marcion, for instance, adopted some one Gospel to the exclusion of all others. He urges therefore not only that tour Gospels alone have been handed down from the beginning, but that in the nature of things there could not be more or less than four.—Contemporary Review, August, 1876. In this latter part of his discussion we have no interest ; and it is not necessary that we follow it in its strange conceits. His testimony is explicit and direct on the one question that now engages our atten- tion. He himself not only subscribes to the apostolic origin of the Gospels, but declares that there never was a time since their appearance when the churches of Christ failed to do the same. Further evidence in confirmation of Irenzus we have in the works of yet earlier witnesses. Tertullian, within a hundred and fifty years of the last of the apostles, writes: “The authority of the apostolic churches supports the Gospels which we have re- ceived from them, and which we esteem just as they esteem them; I mean those of John and Matthew; that also which Mark published we may be allowed to call Peter’s; for Mark was his interpreter. In- deed . . . what the disciples published is regarded as coming from the Master.” A generation earlier 1 Adv. Marcion, IV. S. THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 137 we discover Justin Martyr ardently defending the Christian religion. He seems to have been born near the close of the first century, and to have written about 148 A.D. In his “ Apologies,” addressed to Antoninus Pius, and in his “ Dialogue” with Trypho the Jew, he derives materials for his object froma collection termed by him “ Memoirs of the Apostles,” ascribed by him to the apostles and their companions. In one place he designates them expressly as the Gospels, and _ his humerous quotations from them correspond exactly to passages contained in the latter. If, however, the identity of these documents is doubted, it can be sub- stantiated by reference to Tatian, a disciple of Justin, who combined the narratives of the four canonical books in a harmony, entitled “ Diatessaron.” This har- mony begins with the representations concerning the incarnation of the Word with which John opens his Gospel, and its whole course indicates beyond the possibility of cavil that the “ Memoirs” and the Gospels are one and the same. But we can go nearer even than this to the times of our Lord and find traces of the evangelical writings. Rawlinson («Historical Evi- dences ”’) makes very plain the fact that Barnabas, Cle- ment, and Hermas, who are mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, with Polycarp the dis- ciple of John, frequently quote from these documents and refer to almost every part of them. He adds that while only excerpts from their works have survived, yet these contain upward of two hundred and twenty allusions more or less exact to the sacred volume. _In- deed, so abundant are these citations and references in early Christian literature, that it has been declared by 138 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY more than one competent scholar, that were the origi- nals destroyed they could be substantially restored by collecting and collating these scattered texts and para- phrases. On the general subject of quotations, Mr. Isaac Taylor has brought to light a curious fact in a volume of his on “The Transmission of Ancient Books,”’ and it has been repeated and re-affirmed both by Paley and. Rawlinson. The statement is made by Mr. Taylor that classical productions are rarely cited or their authors distinctly named in literature within a hundred years of their appearance. Heroditus is only quoted once during the century following the publication of his history. There is a solitary allusion to him in Aristotle, and then he is forgotten apparently for half a millennium. Two hundred years elapse before Thucy- dides is mentioned, and even Tacitus is not directly referred to for a hundred years after his death, and then by Tertullian. This striking indifference to works of unquestioned value is in marked contrast with the treatment the books of the New Testament received. They were from their first appearance appealed to as authorities. Scarcely had they been put into circulation when Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Polycarp, and others, who had been in personal touch with some one at least among their authors, enriched their own productions with precious gems from these treasures. And this was done so promptly and so rever- ently as to leave the impression not only that these priceless documents existed and were well known in the last quarter of the first century, but were assigned a rank by which they were distinguished from the other literature of the early church. THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 139 Endeavors have been made to break the force of this proof by suggesting the possibility that the books of the New Testament may have been prepared by un- known writers, and may then have been attributed to the apostles for the purpose of enhancing their authority. Of course, a great many things are possible that can hardly be accounted probable. And the supposition before us is unlikely and untenable unless we resort to that most incredible of all elucidations, namely, that Christianity portrayed in records and declarations is a deliberate and mischievous fraud. Before titles could have been affixed to Gospels and Epistles, the opinion must have prevailed that they represented the truth. The titles were evidently given because of this belief, and no adequate reason has ever been advanced for asserting that the belief was the result of the titles. Some of them are literal translations of the oldest Greek inscriptions, and nearly all of them were sanctioned by the most ancient of the councils. “The Muratorian Fragment,” recovered about one hundred and fifty years ago, bearing the name of its discoverer, the keeper of the Ambrosian Library at Milan, fur- nishes a list of manuscripts with the names of their reputed authors as they were received at the beginning of the Christian dispensation. It is claimed that St. Columbanus, an Irish missionary, about the year 600 established a monastery in Northern Italy, and collected there many literary treasures. Among these was a venerable parchment prepared, as Tregelles has shown, “about A. D. 160, or earlier,” giving an interesting account of the Acts of the Apostles, and recognizing the genuineness of the four Gospels, and thirteen of I40 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY Paul's Epistles. This is perhaps the first extant cata- logue of the component parts of the New Testament, and it was translated some hundred years after Colum- banus by another Irishman, and finally was brought to light by Muratori. There are no indications that this catalogue was prepared with any purpose of imposition. It is, so to speak, one of those fortuitous writings which are penned incidentally, as one might draw up a list of the world’s battles, or of Shakespeare’s dramas, simply chronicling interesting items currently received at the time. But lest it should still be argued that Christians, on account of their presumed theological bias, are not qualified to judge the probabilities of for- gery in such cases, and are disposed to accept the most dubitable testimony, we may be permitted to carry the question at issue to another court, and to one where manifestly the bias is against all that is most dear to the church and her members. I have already in this chapter, and in a preceding one, cited concessions to the genuineness of the Gospels from the pens of men who try to break the force of their admissions by denying the supernatural. Something more ought to be added in the same direction. The reader, however, ought to realize that he has no concern with the incon- sistencies of the eminent writers who may be appealed to, nor ought he to allow himself to be diverted from the real subject under discussion, which is not the credibility of miracles, but the genuineness of certain religious literature. Professor Keim, of Ziirich, in his critical “ Life of Jesus,” while he rejects the fourth Gospel on grounds psychological rather than historical, does not deny that THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY IAI Matthew’s Gospel “assumed substantially the form in which we now have it,” between 70 and 80 a. p.. The successor of Baur, as Keim has been termed, starts out with a preconception that vitiates much of his reasoning, but at the same time he is very far from sanctioning the vulgar theory of forgery. But per- haps Renan is the best representative, and the most popularly influential of adverse critics, and his views on the question we are considering are consequently proportionately significant. He says: We know that each of the four Gospels bears at its head the name of a personage known either in the apostolic history or in the gospel history itself. It is clear that if these titles are correct, these Gospels, without ceasing to be partly legendary, assume a high value, since they enable us to go back to the half century which followed the life of Jesus, and even in two cases to eye-witnesses of his actions. .. As to Luke, doubt is scarcely possible. The Gospel of St. Luke is a regular compo- sition founded upon earlier documents. . . the author is cer- tainly the same as the author of the Acts of the Apostles. . . The twenty-first chapter of St. Luke, which is inseparable from the rest of the work, was certainly written after the siege of Jerusalem, but not long after. (More likely, according to Marcus Dods, about the year 64 A.D.) Renan continues : We are therefore here on solid ground, for we are dealing with a work proceeding entirely from the same hand and pos- sessing the most complete unity. . . To sum up, I admit the four canonical Gospels asserious documents. All go back to the age which followed the death of Jesus. But their historical value is very diverse. St. Matthew evidently deserves peculiar confidence for the discourses. Here are ‘‘the oracles,’’ the very notes taken while the memory of the instruction of Jesus was living and definite. I42 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY Furthermore: The Gospel of St. Mark is the one of the first three which has remained the most ancient, the most original, and to which the least of later additions have been made . . . There is nothing to conflict with the supposition that he was an eye-witness, who had evidently followed Jesus, who had loved him and watched him in close intimacy.—Life of Jesus, p. 48, ete. This testimony is certainly entitled to weight. M. Renan manifestly has no sympathy with the crude criticism that assumes a mischievous trick to have been perpetrated for the sake of foisting off as apostolic the so-called sacred documents. He believes the men to have written these documents to whom unanimous and unbroken tradition has imputed them. What Holtz- mann has said of the Gospel by Matthew, with little variation must hold good of the other evangels: “The early Church must have had some ground in facts for referring the first Gospel to this name .. . for with this exception, the person of Matthew is entirely in the background in the history of the apostolic Acca She must have had equally valid ground for ascribing the other books of the New Testament to the men who are respectively credited with them; for in no case were the authors glorified in or by their produc- tions, but rather and exclusively glorified the Christ. Suspicion, therefore, of their genuineness is absolutely gratuitous and unfair, and it ought never to be counte- nanced. It is unreasonable, unwarranted, and ungener- ous, and can only be entertained by minds unfamiliar on eeeereeeerememncnemme ene 1“ Die Synoptischen Evangelein,” p. 350. THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 143 with the facts, or by minds not amenable to the evi- dence.! It is well known that many a genuine volume is not entirely trustworthy; and that, in some cases, the better acquainted we are with a writer and his method, the less confidence we have in his statements. Next, therefore, to the important line of inquiry we have fol- lowed arises another, and one of equal moment: Can we rely on the contents of the Gospels and Epistles as authentic? Are these veritable annals, as far as they are annals at all? “The History of the English People” we believe to have been written by Mr. Green, and con- sequently it is genuine; but is it authentic? does it relate the truth of the personages and movements it describes ? and does it on the whole give a correct im- pression of the country and times it professes. to re- produce? These are the questions we have a right to ask concerning the books of the New Testament. If the answer can be given in the affirmative, then the Argument from Testimony is conclusive, and the super- natural origin of Christianity is logically substantiated. In determining this issue, assistance may be obtained from the canons of historical criticism. And it will be remembered that on page 132 I quoted Sir G. C. Lewis as saying “that historical evidence, like judicial evidence, is founded on the testimony of credible witnesses.” _ What then constitutes credibility in witnesses? In a court of justice it would be meas- 1See Dean Alford on ‘Gospels’; Westcott’s “Introduction ”’ 3; Marcus Dods’ “Introduction ”’ ; Bruce, ‘‘ The Kingdom of God” and “ Apologetics ’’ ; Weiss’ ‘‘ Ia- troduction to New Testament”; Fisher’s “Manual” ; Rawlinson’s ‘ Historica Evidence”; Dr. Sanday’s ‘‘ Bampton Lectures”; Salmon’s “ Introduction ” ; Wat- kins’ ‘‘ Modern Criticism and the Fourth Gospel.” 144 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY ured by their natural ability, by their disinterestedness and sincerity, by their opportunities for obtaining infor- mation, and by their corroboration of each other, These criteria may be expressed in the five words: Contemporaneousness, Concurrence, Capability, Conscien- tiousness, and Confirmation—these or their synonyms. If the men who bear witness and reduce what they declare to writing were living at the time the events occurred which they record, and if they shared in them, and were sufficiently intelligent to observe clearly, and were indisputably honest enough to report accurately, and if their representations have been ratified by results over which they had no control, all judges of evidence, whether of judicial or historical evidence, declare that they are worthy of confidence and that their word must be accepted as true. Christians are perfectly willing that the apostles should be tried by these common-sense principles, confident that the issue will be entirely favorable to their trustworthiness, The argument for the genuineness of the productions ascribed to them proves that they were in personal touch with our Saviour, and were themselves partici- pants in what they relate. No one would take the pains to challenge the authorship of these documents were it not apparent that these men were intimate with Christ and familiar with the circumstances of his ministry ; for if they did not \live then, and if they did not see what they portray, assaults on their writings are idle in the extreme. That persons should have risen after the close of the first century, and claiming to have been eye-witnesses of what they penned, should have com- mitted their alleged experiences to paper, and should THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 145 have succeeded in deceiving the community, not only as to their own age but as to the truth of their narra- tive, is simply inconceivable. If it were possible that they were not so young but that they might have some knowledge of the things they reported, neither could all the people have been so old but that they could easily have verified or exposed their statements ; and on either supposition, succeeding generations have sufficient reason to assume that they have not been vic- timized by impositions. This confidence is strengthened by comparing the Gospels with the swarm of pseudo histories of Christ which appeared during the second century. In the latter period, zeal exhausts its inven- tiveness in absurdly extravagant stories, in ostentatious and wild supernaturalism, and with instances of conduct supposed to be divine, but which evince lack of moral purpose, and often display infirmity of temper. The difference between these books and the New Testament is discernible at a glance; it is the difference between fiction and fact. That the evangelists did not set an example to the later authors, and that no resemblance can be traced between them, suggests that the former drew on what they had personally seen and heard for the material they employ, and that the others, the Apocryphalists, drew on their imagination; and this difference goes far to prove that had the evangelists drawn on their imagination also the result would have been as turgid, romantic, fanciful, and bombastic. The sober and sturdy simplicity of the Gospels, and the manifest restraint and curb in all their delineations, are internal marks of an origin utterly irreconcilable with theories of fabrication perpetrated by individuals living N 146 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY remote from the times and incidents they depict. These internal marks are such as to prove that they were composed by men who were contemporaries with Jesus and his immediate disciples. And I think the same may be legitimately inferred from the exactness of detail preserved in their various works. In narrating the wonderful incidents of our Lord’s life they unhesitatingly give the name of the town, village, or district where they are said to have occurred. Sometimes the effect wrought on the people of the locality specified by the marvel reported is very minutely described. No exposure or denial seems to have been apprehended; and yet what more likely if the accounts so circumstantially related failed to be corroborated by the recollections or the accepted tra- - ditions of the neighborhood? ‘The inhabitants of secluded, monotonous, and almost stagnant commu- nities of the East would not easily forget any disclosure of supernatural power, and the story of the unusual sensation would pass on to the next generation and would become a permanent memory. If the extra- ordinary events published so positively in the name of the apostles had never taken place, and if they had never been reported until some thirty or sixty years after the date of their alleged occurrence, they must surely have been repudiated by these communities. But if they were denied, how are we to account for the rapid spread of Christianity, and how did the indi- viduals who gave currency to these stories escape the charge of trickery? But, on the other hand, if these astounding tales did obtain credence, and that they did is absolutely sure, even in the localities with which they THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 147 were originally associated, it must have been because they were verified by the reminiscences of people living there. Everything is simple and comprehensible on the supposition that their authors were personally con- versant with what they recorded, and that the com- munities named had knowledge, not only of the things performed, but of the men who preserved them in the histories they wrote. We think then from these con- siderations, we are safe in concluding that the Gospels were penned by those who were contemporaneous with our Lord. Dr. Albert Barnes (“Ely Lectures’) thus defines a recognized principle in the science of criticism: “The historic statement of an event is what it is reported to be by all who witnessed it, and who have made a record in regard to it; not the statement of an individual.” On the same subject, Bishop Butler writes: “ Probable proofs by being added, not only increase the evidence, but multiply it”; or as Rawlinson explains it : “ When two independent writers witness the same event, the probability of that event is increased, not in an arith- metical, but in a geometrical ratio; not by mere addi- tion, but by multiplication.” The conviction, therefore, produced by the apostles should deepen proportionately to their number. Their evidence is cumulative, and it reaches, as near as such evidence can, to demonstration, because they are independent of each other and yet substantially agree in their testimony. ‘In the mouth of two witnesses shall every word be established,” is an old law sanctioned alike by religion and the world’s jurisprudence, But here we have four, and even more if we include the weighty words of Paul, Peter, James, 148 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY and Jude in the epistles; and their concurrence is of the highest value in removing every suspicion of mis- representation. It has, however, been objected that, as at least three of the evangelists correspond so ex- actly in some parts of their narrative that verbally and grammatically they are identical, their independence must always be open to debate. This identity of phraseology and of treatment we have already fully recognized ; but we may with safety hold that, however these writers may have availed themselves of a common source of information, there is no sufficient reason to regard them as mere servile copyists, or as really ex- posing themselves to the charge of unjustifiable collu- sion. After an exhaustive review of the whole subject, Dean Alford testifies to their freedom from anything like literary conspiracy. His conclusion is: That the synoptic Gospels contain the substance of the apos- tles’ testimony, collected principally from their oral teaching current in the church; partly also from written documents em- bodying portions of that teaching; that there is, however, no reason from their internal structure to believe, but every reason to disbelieve, that any one of the three evangelists had access to either of the other two Gospels in its present form.—/Prolegomena, LEER That is, their freedom of thought and expression is not diminished by a supposed previous appeal to exist- ing records. While they doubtless consulted whatever documents bore on the history they were about to pre- pare, when they came to commit the results of their inquiries to writing they were unhampered by one an- other and uninfluenced by mutual agreement. That they were independent and preserved their independ- THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 149 ence in the composition of their books is evident from the reflections of Irenzeus : Now Matthew published his treatise on the gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preach- ing in Rome and founding the church there. But after their death, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also wrote down what Peter had preached, and delivered it unto us. And Luke also, the follower of Paul, wrote out in a book the gospel which was preached by that apostle. Afterward John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned upon his breast, he too published a Gospel, while he was living at Ephesus, in Asia. —Advers. Heres, Vol. I1l., p. Tf. Thus then at different times, in different places, and in various circumstances, these men wrote, giving no occasion for the impeachment of their independence or integrity. Ought we not likewise to consider whether the critics are not altogether too exacting in their de- mands, when they expect the evangelists to decline assistance from all sources of information lest they should be suspected of bondage to others. May we not remember and apply in this connection what Dr. Clifford has so wisely and beautifully said: Little, vain-glorious souls are afraid of citing the works of others, lest somebody should presume to think they themselves are not absolutely original. Really capable minds instead of shrinking from quotation, delight in it. One who is rarely, if ever, surpassed in the beauty and finish of his style, or the fine- ness of his thought, says: ‘‘The greatest is he who has been oftenest aided,’’ and Ruskins’ own words are sown with allu- sions and quotations like the sky with stars. Another (Emer- son), who in my judgment is the freshest and most suggestive thinker this century has seen, has, according to his biographer, nearly four thousand allusions to or quotations from eight hundred and sixty-eight different individuals; and he says: I50 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY ‘All minds quote. Old and new make the warp and woof of every moment. There is no thread that is not a twist of these two strands. By necessity, by proclivity, and by delight, we all quote.’’—Juspiration and Authority of the Bible, p. VER If the human mind is constituted in this manner, what more natural than that men, anxious rather to tell the truth than to be counted original, should seek out what- ever had been authentically said on the great theme they were desirous of treating faithfully and well, and reproducing it, give to the world the benefit of the testimony borne by others, ratified and confirmed by their own. Their freedom from servility and collusion is again proven, indirectly but at the same time convincingly, by their occasional deviation from each other and variance of representation, If they had planned together, and copied each other with the intent of practising decep- tion, they surely would have taken pains to guard against the appearance of discrepancies. This, how- ever, they have not succeeded in doing; and hence they have created the impression that they were not anxious to do any such thing, but wrote freely as truth- loving, honest men. But if they differ from each other in some of their statements, it is intimated by the hypercritical, who are bound if possible to break down their trustworthiness, that their testimony is hardly to be relied on. In this way the ground of objection is changed. At first the evangelists are censured because they do agree too closely in the narratives they give, and then they are condemned because they fail to agree in every particular. Such criticisms are paltry, trivial, and futile. Paley very happily rebukes this dis- THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY ISI position to exaggerate the significance of what is at most only a slight departure from perfect accord: I know not a more rash or unphilosophical conduct of the understanding than to reject the substance of a story by reason of some diversity in the circumstances with which it is related. The usual character of human testimony is substantial truth under circumstantial variety. This is what the daily experiences of courts of justice teach. When accounts of a transaction come from the mouth of different witnesses, it is seldom that it is not possible to pick out apparent or real inconsistencies between them. These inconsistencies are studiously displayed by an adverse pleader, but often with little impression on the minds of the judges. For instance, if several individuals professing to write an authentic history of Mohammed, should prefix to their separate volumes a different genealogy of their hero, their productions on that ground would not be rejected as unreliable. As their main and principal purpose was to describe the prophet himself as he was seen and known by themselves, a catalogue of his ancestors, while an important adjunct, would not be regarded as indispensable to success. Were they to err in their report of the latter it would not invalidate what they deposed concerning the former; for in the one case they had to depend on information furnished by others, which in the nature of things they could not verify, while in the other they gave the results of their own experience and observation. Moreover, they might simply have adhered to accounts supplied by the family of the great Arabian, pronouncing no opinion on their accuracy, and different branches of the family may have chosen to trace his ancestry along distinct chains of 152 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY succession. But their evidence as to the leading features and substance of the story would not in any wise be invalidated by the seeming discrepancies in the preface. It is well known that Matthew and Luke are not at one in the genealogical tree they draw when giving the Saviour’s ancestry. The fact need not be concealed, and indeed cannot be. Were we fully conversant with the principle on which each of these tables was con- structed, we would doubtless find them reconcilable with each other. There doubtless were reasons of immediate and local weight for their insertion just as they are in the Gospels; but really to us the precision of these lists is of no particular import- ance. An absolutely correct summary of our Lord's forefathers according to the flesh, is after all, no part of the life which Christ lived. Defects in the genealogy may reveal the finiteness and limitations of the writers, but they do not bring into doubt the solid worth or the truth of the histories they prepare. And certainly their aversion to stereotyped narratives, their faithfulness to their own impressions, and their habit of describing what they saw from their own point of view and with no solicitude for the preservation of harmony ought to rescue them from the imputations of collusion. At least they were independent men, and to every mind not hopelessly warped by prejudice, they must seem to be only anxious to tell a straight story, without circumlocution or artifice, and without any nice regard for its complete conformity to what some other individual might possibly testify. Their variations, and at times the quality of the Greek they employ, with THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 153 their Jewish notions of geography, ethnology, and theology, only prove that they were men of their age imbued with its tastes, traditions, and tendencies, and not that they were careless or indifferent to the solemnity of the task they had undertaken to perform. As we read their testimony we perceive at a glance the marks of their individuality ; and we ought to be grate- ful that they are there, as they are guarantees that they have not combined to impose on us. And as we read, we must further discern the fact that they relate the very same story; that their hero is one; and one the description of his ministry with its tragical climax ; for which also we should be thankful, as we have in this the warrant that, if in the mouth of two witnesses every word shall be established, then their word has been established beyond a peradventure. The capability and the conscientiousness of the apostles are rarely called in question, and when they are it is done rather in the way of timid insinuation than of bold and positive assertion. Their common sense and sagacity are so conspicuous, and _ their honesty so palpable, that critics are somewhat over- awed ; and we need not therefore undertake to defend what is not seriously attacked. Yet it should be re- membered that these witnesses for the sake of their testimony endured manifold trials and afflictions and the loss of all things. They were hunted, persecuted, and treated as the scum of the earth, and by their patience and steadfast loyalty afforded every needed proof of guileless sincerity. On any other supposition than that they were blameless in thought and purpose, it is incredible that they should have given to literature 154 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY such a character as that of Jesus, or such a morality as that which gleams on their pages and beautifies them. “ Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?’’ Would time-servers and plotters, insincere and superstitious individuals, be likely to extol such a being as Jesus, yea, even devise and invent him,— for they must have invented him if he did not really exist,—that in this manner they might perpetrate a fraud which in a little while would give the church control of humanity? But how could they have foreseen that such an invention as this, so foreign to all the ideals of their age, would ever become potent to govern man- kind? If they did imagine that it would, then we have the greatest paradox in history: men of no particular integrity and of no high chivalric sense of devotion to truth, and with no instances of success to recall and encourage them, bringing into existence a conception of spiritual perfection, in which they could not believe and with which they had no sympathy, and sending it forth with the expectation that it would master and rule the nations. Incompetent persons could not have done this, and dishonest persons, whose natures loved deceit and fraud, would not. But the conception sur- vives and it reigns over a large part of modern society ; and we are compelled to regard it as the picture of a marvelous original, and itself in its turn, a witness to the uprightness and incorruptibility of the men who transferred its living features to their immortal pages. Occasionally it is whispered that the intelligence of the apostles must have been misled by excessive cre- dulity ; for not unlikely, as in the case of other gifted minds, they were not impregnable to the inroads of THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY E55 Superstition. This charge, however, has never been substantiated. Credulous men do not question, halt, sift, doubt, and argue as they did. Our Lord complains of their slowness to believe and of their reluctance to trust even the evidences of their senses. Their entire course is marked by a kind of obstinacy, as though they were eternally on their guard against illusion, and as though they were thoroughly minded not to accept anything unsupported by indubitable proof. If in reply it shall be said again, as it has been said before, that the age and country in which they lived were non- critical and easily duped by thaumaturgical pretensions, and that it could hardly have been possible for the dis- ciples, however intelligent for their day, to have risen superior to the prevailing spirit, we may be permitted to make answer that the underlying assumption is un- tenable, as it can be shown that while multitudes were simple and superstitious, the era itself was peculiarly suspicious and skeptical. Dr. Edersheim gives a pic- ture of Jerusalem in the times of Jesus, which discloses a state of society more like what may be found at present in London, Paris, and New York than is usu- ally imagined. He writes graphically, giving an author- ity for every statement he makes: These Jerusalemites—townspeople as they called themselves —were so polished, so witty, so pleasant. . . And how much there was to be seen and heard in those luxuriously furnished houses and at those sumptuous entertainments! Inthe women’s apartments friends from the country would see every novelty in dress, adornments, and jewelry, and have the benefit of examin- ing themselves in looking glasses. . . Lady visitors might get anything in Jerusalem, from a false tooth to an Arabian veil, a 156 ‘THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY Persian shawl or an Indian dress.—Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Vol. I., p. 130. This is not the description of a community ignorant, pietistical, fanatical, and open to religious quackery ; but rather that of a people bright, keen, witty, incred- ulous, and given to free thinking, on whom it would be as difficult to make an impression as it is to fix the mind of our gilded social circles on serious things. Moreover, the teachers of this period were themselves cynically indisposed to believe in divine interpositions, or to tolerate interferences with the existing order of worship, which, though its heavenly origin might be quietly ridiculed, was an integral element of Jewish national life and hence to be preserved at all hazards. The Sadducees had gone so far in the direction of doubt as to reject alike the doctrines of immortality and supernaturalism, while the Pharisees were censori- ously bigoted and intrepidly opposed to changes in creed or rite. These were not the kind of persons to foster credulity. The spiritual atmosphere they would create, would naturally be permeated with distrust, misgiving, hesitation, and extreme caution. On this subject, Rawlinson has written: The age was an historical age, being that of Dionysius, Dio- dorus, Livy, Velleius Paterculus, Plutarch, Valerius Maxiinus, and Tacitus. The country was one where written records were kept and historical literature had long flourished ; it produced at the very time when the New Testament documents were being written, a historian of good repute, Josephus, whose narrative of the events of his own time is universally accepted as authentic and trustworthy. THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 157 He Farther adds: We do not find that Simon Magus or Apollonius of Tyana had many followers. When the slave Clemens gave himself out to be Posthumus Agrippa, though the wishes of most men must have been in favor of his claims, very few appear to have really believed in them.—Aist¢. Evid., pp. 175, 221. No; the Gospels did not emanate from a stupid marvel-loving community in a credulous era. Far from it. The scientific spirit had made considerable progress through the labors of the Alexandrian School, and the acuteness of Grecian metaphysics and logic had so dis- ciplined and sharpened the intellect that impositions were not effected with facility. We have no right to disparage the acumen of the period. But if the age was as dull and superstitious as some of our rationalists affirm, and the apostles as uncritical as they assert, is it not exceeding strange that they should have written books, which when placed side by side with the pseudo Gospels, are distinguished for their freedom from trivial wonders and absurd miracles, and which the skeptics themselves allow, are entitled to most serious and re- spectful attention? Does it not seem as though the apostles were about as critical as their critics? And how can we account for the church, when compiling the canon, selecting out of the multiplied documents in cir- culation those which the keenest judge admits she ought to have chosen, and rejecting what every one concedes ought to have been set aside, if the times were undiscriminating and greedy for accounts of the mar- velous? The weight of evidence lies against this monstrous imputation ; and in the absence of proof to fo) 158 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY the contrary, we are warranted in concluding that, as the writers of the Gospels were men of pronounced sincerity and integrity, and were gifted with a calm, judicial, and cautious mind, their testimony is thor- oughly worthy of confidence. A final mark of authenticity remains to be noticed. It is one that lies beyond the power of interested parties to invent. Neither jugglery nor trickery can create it, and it is quite independent of the action of time upon its value. Indeed, the multiplication of years rather adds to its force than diminishes it in any sense. It partakes somewhat of the nature of circum- stantial evidence, and consists in incidents, events, movements, uncontrollable by human chicanery, and which fall out in such a way as to develop a presump- tion, stronger even than direct proof, that the testimony given in favor of the subject in debate is no longer open to challenge or suspicion. This is the potent corroboration and confirmation of what men have deposed, which, in its operation, is so convincing that very few minds can resist its action. It is in effect the reply of fact to theory, as though one arguing beauti- fully that the earth is a vast plain hung around with curtains should suddenly be confronted by a ship dis- appearing below the horizon, its top-spars being the last of it in view. If the reader will turn once more to chapters two and three of this volume, he will hardly fail to realize that the apostles could not have provided and arranged for history in its monuments and developments to confirm their word as it has done, and neither could they by any amount of scheming have made Christ the tremendous Religious Force that he THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 159 has actually been in the world’s progress. These things, which they could by no means within reach have brought to pass, reflect back on their testimony and substantiate its representations. But in addition to what may be gathered from the historicity of Chris- tianity, and from the place and power of Jesus confirm- atory of the Gospels, there is one special and, on the whole, extraordinary instance of this kind of evidence, which has profoundly impressed mankind and which may here be cited on account of its cogency and decisiveness. I refer to the conversion of St. Paul. When a Hindu lad was placed for the first time beneath the dome of the great cathedral in London which bears the name of the apostle to the Gentiles, impressed by its majesty and magnitude, he inquired, wonderingly: “And did man make all this?” And when the significance of Paul’s spiritual transformation and of his heroic career is measured, it is more than difficult to believe that God was absent from his exalted experiences and devoted life. To me, I must confess, there is something suggestive and symbolic of his character and consecration in the magnificent structure reared by the genius of Sir Christopher Wren in the heart of the world’s metropolis. That sacred edifice, built on the site of a church destroyed in the fire of 1666, with its foundations sinking eighty feet into the ground, with its massive proportions, its tower- ing dome, its altars and its tombs, is no unfit nor un- worthy sign and emblem in stone of one who, having passed through a remarkable religious transition, rested all that he was and traced all that he became to a strength hidden deep in the unseen, and displayed a 160 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY moral grandeur that lifted him up high above his con- temporaries. Renan has well said: “We cannot esti- mate the influence that his conversion must have had on the early church. Over the vast extent of the Roman Empire, Paul everywhere projects his shadow ”’ ; and Monod has declared that, “it has convinced men ‘of the truth of Christianity with convincing power only equaled by the resurrection.” Born in Tarsus, “no mean city,’ of a well-to-do Jewish family whose ser- vices had been honored with the dignity of Roman citizenship, he was carefully educated in the religion of his fathers. Of himself he could justly say: “Touch- ing the righteousness that is of the law, blameless.” So irreproachable was he in conduct, and so_ highly esteemed, that in comparative youth he was entrusted with some official position by the Supreme Council of the nation. His intense honesty aroused his hostility against the sect of the Nazarenes, which he judged to be iconoclastically intent on destroying what he deemed most venerable. He himself says that in persecuting the church he verily thought he was doing God’s ser- vice, and he evidently thought that he was helping to rid the earth of a baleful superstition. For such a man to turn completely around and espouse what he had opposed, to embrace what he had violently rejected and become its foremost defender, is an event of the utmost significance. Suppose Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, the English infidel, who has been eulogized because of his personal worth by Mr. Frothingham and Mrs. Annie Besant, had become a Christian before his death; or to come nearer home, suppose that Colonel Robert Ingersoll, who is THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 161 well reported of, were to retract his stalwart champion- ship of unbelief and were to employ his acute and brilliant eloquence on behalf of the cause he has here- tofore assailed, such conversions would unquestionably go very far toward confirming the apostolic testimony regarding the exceptional claims of Christianity. Nor could: the conversion of Paul mean less. He was in Jerusalem when Stephen was stoned, and probably was there when our Lord was crucified. _ Undoubtedly his position as a student made him perfectly familiar with all the alleged facts connected with Jesus, his death and resurrection. Being contemporaneous with what the evangelists were saying had occurred, he was situ- ated advantageously to know whether the representa- tions made were true.or false. His rejection of the light at first is easily explicable, as he was conscien- tiously a “Hebrew of the Hebrews”; but that he should accept it, he with his intelligence and his high moral sense of responsibility, is evidence complete that no sufficient reason existed in his day for its repudiation. He certainly would not have yielded submission to that which had for its support mere idle rumors and foolish surmises. Not verisimilitudes only, but “infallible proofs”’ were surely necessary to convince such a mind and satisfy such a conscience as he possessed. So re- markable was this metamorphosis, this seizure of soul by truth, that Christians have frequently appealed to it in defending the reality of the supernatural. Of course, if Paul’s conversion was a miracle, then Christianity is divine, and the narrative in the Gospels is authentic. But waiving this very tenable assumption, and looking at the change as the result of investigation or, at least, 162 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY of intimacy with all that was said and done by Jesus and his immediate followers, it still remains a most potent confirmation of the original story as set forth by the evangelists, and on which rests the superstructure of Christianity. The substance of what he had been brought to believe is set forth in his Epistle to the Corinthians: ‘Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; and that he was buried, and that he rose the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Cor. 15 : 1, 4). Dean Stanley, com- menting on this passage, offers the following reflec- tions on its import: “It contains the earliest known specimen of what may be called the creed of the early church. In one sense, indeed, it differs from what is properly called a creed, which was the name applied, not to what new converts were taught, but to what they professed on their conversion. . . The present passage gives us a sample of the exact form of the oral teaching of the apostle.” And any one can see at a glance that it corresponds exactly to what the original witnesses declared. The three facts—death, burial, resurrection—embody the very essence of the evan- gelical story. Paul, as it were, affixes his autograph to this account, and certifies that it is in every respect authentic. Nor can the force of this corroboration be called in question by aspersing the genuineness of the THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 163 documents wherein he has recorded his convictions. The four most important epistles which bear his name —RKomans, Corinthians (both letters), and Galatians— the most vigorous of critics admit were written by him, and could not have been composed at a later date than twenty-eight years after the crucifixion. Renan con- cedes the genuineness of four more—two to the Thes- salonians, Philemon, and Philippians, and entertains but slight doubt concerning Ephesians and Colossians. These conclusions have not been seriously controverted by Strauss, Baur, and the Tiibingen school; and what they do not challenge may safely be considered as settled. The Pauline epistolary literature, the authorship of which is practically undisputed, is therefore in evidence as ratifying in an exceptionally independent, spon- taneous, and straightforward manner the authenticity of the Gospels. While the Argument from Testimony is finished with this review of the way in which the accounts given by the evangelists have been confirmed, it is permissible to strengthen what has been said by a brief reference to the signs of Divine oversight and assistance in their preparation and preservation. I am not about to argue that we ought to believe what these men say because they are inspired, and that we ought to believe that they are inspired because it is affirmed in what they say. I have before my eyes a wholesome fear of the Jallacta petitionts principii ; and I have no desire in this instance either to beg the question or to reason in a circle. But it is certainly legitimate to point out the lofty character and the indestructible influence of the Gospels, and even of the entire New Testament, as 164 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY indicating the presence of an element not wholly human. What shall we term that indescribable quality which, as Coleridge has it, “ finds us,” and which is as manifestly higher than nature as nature is higher than art? Dr. Adolph Saphir, in a posthumous volume, called attention to the fact that the Bible from the beginning had been a persecuted book, but that no weapon had prevailed against it. Men have attempted to destroy it, but it would not remain destroyed. Dio- cletian tried his hand at exterminating the sacred record during the tenth persecution. The third century experiment did not deter Torquemada from its repeti- tion over a thousand years afterward. But all in vain. It will not burn. It is a fireproof structure, a phoenix that is never content to remain in ashes. Still is it tortured, racked, and twisted, and if it survives, as survive it will, none of the credit will be due to our modern literary inquisitors. A recent writer has likened it to a fountain reared and opened by a benefactor of mankind. Its donor, however, is told that an esthetic critic had seen it and pronounced it defective in form, and poor in design and ornament. He listened sadly, and then inquired whether many persons came to drink of its waters; and he was assured that thousands of men, women, and children slaked their thirst at its cooling stream. “ Very well,” he said; “I am satisfied, and I can only hope when the censor is dry and parched that he also will taste and be refreshed.” The Bible is that fountain, and its munificent Designer is not dis- turbed by the experts if the world will only drink of its life-giving contents. It is this very power of satis- fying feverish soul and mind that preserves the Book THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY 165 in the face of all antagonisms and endears it to man- kind, Not very long ago, in 1887,.a translation of the Gospels into French by M. Henri Lasserre, bearing the imprimatur of the Archbishop of Paris, was published and widely circulated. In the introduction the trans- lator draws a mournful picture of Romanist ignorance of the sacred writings and violently assails the pious literature substituted in their stead. It is just here that we are interested in what he says. He denounces the substitutes as “enervating by their intellectual in- anity, by their narrowness of conception, by their false ideas or their absence of ideas, by their absolute ignor- ance—ignorance of the real world, ignorance of the hu- man heart, ignorance of the true ways of God. But, . . the faithful must be led back to the gospel, whose apostolic mission they have noiselessly usurped, to that great fountain of living water which flows from the inspired Book. . . We must put the earth again face to face with Jesus Christ.” It need hardly be said that as “Les Saints Evangiles’”’ was a great success, passing through twenty-five editions, the papacy was disturbed and finally condemned it with other dangerous pro- ductions. But the contrast implied in the preface is worthy of serious thought, as it explains why France greedily devoured M. Lasserre’s work, and why the Gospels in any tongue are mighty in governing the | world. It is because they possess the very qualities which are conspicuous by their absence in the “ pious literature.” They are stimulating by their intellectual vigor, by their breadth of conception, by their true ideas and the multiplicity of ideas, and by their abso- 166 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY lute knowledge—knowledge of the real world, of the human heart, and of the ways of God. But how came they to be so comprehensive and exhaustive? It is difficult to believe that a few Jews, not much above the peasant class, could have written books of this extra- ordinary character unless they had received aid from God. The features I have noted are assuredly sugges- tive of inspiration. How else explain wnat is so striking and exceptional? It is as though the Almighty had placed his zwprimatur on the biographies of his Son, and on the letters full of grace and truth that are con- cerned with his service and his glory. This at least is the impression one receives as he reads, and the more closely he reads the deeper the impression becomes. Is it incredible that human testimony should have been supplemented by the informing and quickening Spirit of the Highest? If he is the Father of mankind, and if thought has more to do with his creatures’ happiness than blind instinct, and if truth as the guide of thought is of priceless importance, then it can hardly be irra- tional to suppose that he imparted through the evan- gelists to the Gospels certain unique characteristics which should distinguish them from other literatures, and which should always create a presumption in favor of their unfailing trustworthiness. That this gracious purpose was accomplished, the books themselves are witness ; AND THUS IT IS THAT THE ALTOGETHER UN- IMPEACHABLE HUMAN TESTIMONY BECOMES IN A VALID SENSE DIVINE, AND THE ARGUMENT FROM TESTIMONY GROWS INTO AN INVINCIBLE DEFENSE OF THE CHRIS- TIAN RELIGION. Cr NE LE Ra THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES Nias was sent by cable a few months since an- nouncing the destruction of the celebrated paint- ing by Burne-Jones, named “Love Among Ruins.” The picture was a masterpiece from the brush of an English artist who ranks with the greatest of the cen- tury. It was entrusted to a well-known firm of art publishers for reproduction. Not only did the heads of the establishment know that their charge was a precious water color, but the author had taken the precaution of affixing a label; and yet the thoughtless- ness of inexperienced workmen, using fluids of a per- nicious character, led to its complete effacement. A sublimer painter than Burne-Jones has treated in a grander picture the subject of Christ, incarnate love, toiling, suffering, and dwelling among the ruins sin has wrought, designed for reproduction likewise, not in other books particularly, but rather in the lives of men. The divine and ever-gracious Artist has pronounced a curse on those who would add to or take from it, or who would in any wise dim its colors or obliterate its essential features. Notwithstanding this solemn ob- jurgation, every age has brought to the front busy in- dividuals, who, though not always meaning to be ene- mies, have apparently done their utmost to effect its destruction. They have tried to reduce its glorious 167 168 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY hues to neutral tints, to foreshorten the infinite per- spective, to sponge out or render illegible the total im- port of the work, and so leave hardly anything of the original, except the dull, cold canvas. But the gospel is no aguarelle. The brush used in its execution was guided by the hand of God, and the colors employed were ground from the agony of Christ, and were made steadfast and immortal by being dyed in his blood. The picture is imperishable. As well expect with chemicals to blot out, or with captious knives to scratch out the roseate hues that flush the Eastern dawn, or to extinguish the glory of amber and impurpled clouds that cradle in their splendor the sleepy day, as to can- cel and leave no trace of what has been portrayed in the inspired word for the salvation and comfort of the race. No, no; that painting is indestructible. The fires of searching exegesis in the end shall brighten the composition and burnish it as with orient resplendency ; the floods of skepticism and absolute atheism shall only leave its surface cleaner and fairer for the inundation ; even as the acids of criticism, once apprehended as fatal in their action, have tested their combinations in vain on its images and rich expressiveness. Goethe said truly years ago that there is nothing grander than this Bible picture, and by this same token we may believe that there is nothing more lasting and encaustic. Sir Joshua Reynolds tells his readers that the unedu- cated eye is always disappointed in the masterpieces of Raphael and other great artists, and that students must devote long years to meditation and to copying before they can touch even the hem of their transcendent genius. But in religion the trouble is that amateur THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 169 eyes are only too ready to pronounce on the work of God, and people spiritually untaught are prompt to judge it by poor earthly standards, and to mar it with daubs which they, in their vast conceit, count improve- ments. Were they more deeply versed in eternal veri- ties, they would pause. Could they but realize that they are among the ruins, and are themselves in a pathetic sense part of the ruins, they would perceive their eminent unfitness to decide on the merits, and much less to revise and change the magnificent repre- sentation given in the Scriptures, of infinite love seek- ing to repair the broken walls and waste places. Eu- ripides is reported to have proudly said: “I have written to instruct you, O Athenians; not to be criti- cized by you.” And with equal indignation our Heav- enly Father might exclaim, “that the gospel was con- ferred on men—not for them to amend, but to obey.” At no point has this disposition to tamper with the sacred documents, and to damage them in the interest of a pre-conceived theory, been more painfully apparent than in the persistent efforts to eliminate from them every trace of the miraculous. Rationalists like Strauss display the utmost virulence of intolerance toward those, however learned, who subscribe to belief in the supernatural. The author of the “ New Life of Jesus,” says: “It certainly requires no small amount of assur- ance for any one to stand forth in the face of the pres- ent age with an ostensibly sincere profession of im- plicit belief in miracle” ; and further on, referring to Meyer's acceptance of that feature of the gospel nar- rative, he adds: “It becomes in this instance an ad- mission of his own imbecility” (1 : 38, 39). Other P 170 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY vitriolic and corrosive critics have proceeded in the same vein to evince their contempt of religious people who humbly insist that there must be something more in this vast universe than matter and mechanics. It has likewise grown fashionable among certain men of letters and among half-educated individuals who imitate their superiors, to smile incredulously and shrug their shoulders with a movement of polite impatience when any such view of the cosmos is advanced. They quietly assume that the world has outgrown the faith of Milton, Leibnitz, Pascal, Copernicus, Kepler, Bacon, Newton, Ray, Faraday, and Whewell, and that further argument is entirely superfluous. With something like lofty disdain they allude to the mysteries of Christianity as though they were identical with superstitions, and as though it were possible to divest spiritual and eternal realities of mystery, which Amiel, in his “ Journal,” regards as inseparable from religion as light is from a star or beauty from a flower. They likewise forget the deep truth Wordsworth has tried to teach them: The universe is infinitely wide ; And conquering reason, if self-glorified, Can nowhere move uncrossed by some new wall Or gulf of mystery ; which thou alone, Imaginative faith, canst overleap In progress toward the fount of love,—the throne Of power, whose ministers the records keep Of periods fixed and laws established, less Flesh to exalt than prove its nothingness. Even reason has to deal with the incomprehensible and cannot go far in any direction without invoking the aid of faith. And strange to say, this fact may be THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES I71 acknowledged, and yet every instance of it suggested by the marvels recorded in the New Testament be chal- lenged and even ridiculed. Not a few persons demand a religion of common sense, with no achievements inexplicable by nature’s laws, and one that does not proclaim the actual resurrection of Jesus Christ; and yet they put up with a universe that is somewhat per- plexing to common sense, and that is charged through and through with wonders that are as unanswering as the Sphinx to human investigation. This singular in- consistency or prejudice might be passed by in silence, or be treated as a harmless aberration of the mind, were it not that it is used to undermine the kingdom of Christ and to overturn the most sacred hopes of the race. Miracles are declared to be an impediment to Christianity, burdening it, hampering it, and rendering it incredible to intelligence; and it is further asserted that belief in them must be abandoned if that which is divine and true in the system is to be reverenced and preserved. But so far is this from being the case, that in the judgment of the most reliable thinkers, were they to be permanently discredited, Christianity as a religion of redemption, as a religion of spiritual life, and — as a religion which is itself a revelation from God, would cease to command the respectful homage of man- kind. No one as yet has been so illogical as to deny that if the alleged supernatural deeds and events re- corded in the Gospels can be successfully vindicated, everything else chronicled therein, including the super- natural origin of Christianity, follows necessarily in strict order of sequence and as a matter of course. If they are unworthy of confidence, the result of their 172 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY final disparagement may be open to question ; but it is admitted by foes and friends alike, that if they are sus- ceptible of proof and can be proven, then all we are contending for in this volume is inevitably and irrefut- ably proven likewise. Hence the importance of the “argument” that is concerned with this grave issue, which must now engage our attention : THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES, First. We will try to determine the value of the miracle. Of this we already have had some token, but we must realize more clearly its worth if we are to do justice to the discussion. It will doubtless be remembered that our Lord in his farewell discourse, when he represents himself as the Revelation and Impersonation of the Father, rests the truth of his startling claims on the words he had spoken and on the works he had per- formed. “ Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself; but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.” These then are his cre- . dentials: divine wisdom and divine power, mighty thought and thoughtful might, unparalleled simplicity of eloquence on the one side, matched by unapproach- able triumphs of benevolence on the other. These “deeds” which are relied on as evidence and trusted as logic, sometimes termed “signs” because they disclose the presence of God, and again, “wonders” because they are manifestations of the supernatural, are very conspicuous in gospel history. When the disciples of John sought Jesus that they might inquire regarding THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 173 his Messiahship, he answered them: “The blind receive their sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up and the poor have the gospel preached to them.” On another occasion he uses the impressive language: « But I have greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me.” And that the people might have proof of his authority to pardon transgressors, it is written: “ But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, then saith he to the sick of the palsy, Arise, take up thy bed and go unto thine house” (Matt. 9 : 4, 5, 6; MMarkezento;. Jolnes:. 30). From these passages it is evident that Jesus attached great value to the testimony of miracles. They seem to have been to him not only the seals to his ministry, but to some extent an exposition of its spirit. While they were attestations, they were also proclamations. They were at once the autographs of the Almighty and the essence of the communication to which they were attached. In a word, they were the unveiling of the supernatural in the midst of the natural. The imme- diate followers of our Lord entered into his views on this subject sympathetically and unhesitatingly. After his ascension they not only wrought marvels in his name, but constantly dwelt on the extraordinary features of his career, even going so far as to exclaim: “If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain; yea and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that he raised DpeC irish "(te Gor this 40615): LA. THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY These men discerned a close connection between doc- trine and deed. They believed that a teacher sent from God would necessarily do the mighty works that Jesus wrought. If heaven spake amazing things by his lips, why should it not accomplish astounding things by his hands? And if his claims to be both “the light and life of the world” were to be allowed, how could they be more vividly and surely established than by his deliverance from the night of the tomb and his resur- rection from the dead? Whether Jesus and his dis- ciples ranked the testimony of miracles higher than other kinds of evidence, or as high, we have no adequate means of determining; nor is it necessary to our pur- pose that we should do so. This much we know, they did prize this class of proofs, and we can hardly afford to ignore that which was so highly esteemed by the founders of our faith. It is now said, however, that our relation to them is very different from that which was sustained by the contemporaries of our Lord and his disciples. They saw for themselves the mighty marvels wrought, and thus had the witness of their senses, while we have to accept the report of their performance on human testi- mony. Therefore the nature of the proof is different, and cannot be so conclusive. In the last analysis our belief in miracles rests on the competent witnessing of both Christ and his apostles; and I think we can show that this witnessing is all that is necessary to complete conviction. While the evidence of the senses had its advantages, the other method of conviction had to be at a very early day relied on, and somehow has always been adequate to the end designed. The aim, THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 175 scope, and sweep of the argument from miracles is to make this plain, and beyond this to show that the very character of Christianity is involved in the discussion. When Spinoza, Paulus, Woolston, Strauss, and Renan deny the possibility of supernatural manifestations, whether in healing the sick or raising the dead, they mean, whether they explicitly state it or not, that Christianity as a supernatural system is equally im- possible. The value of our present argument consists, not so much in the reasons it assigns for crediting the specific wonders attributed to Christ, as in demonstrat- ing beyond a peradventure that the Almighty has not built himself out of the universe by his own laws, and rendered it impossible for him to interpose even to confer on mankind a religion of righteousness and redemption. If Christianity is not an evolution in the strict scientific sense of that word, then it is a creation, and a creation demanding the same divine energy as at the beginning fashioned cosmos out of chaos. If God cannot, without deranging a universe and pouring con- tempt on his own established order, turn water into wine, or raise a little maid to life, neither can he be conceived as intermeddling with the settled constitu- tion of things to introduce a new faith. The two stand or fall together. Most justly does Theodor Christlieb of Bonn sum up the relation between them: _ If the miraculous be once denied, it is far more logical and honest no longer to regard the Gospels as historical; but, as Strauss does, to consider them a chain of legends and fictions, and then to abjure Christianity openly. For the elimination of the miraculous element from the Gospels’ history can never take place without a deep injury, or even a total and destructive alteration 176 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY of the entire substance of the Christian religion. What good is it to know all about the linen of the swaddling clothes, which the rationalist exegete will describe so learnedly and vividly, if it is no longer a divine child that was wrapped in them? What is the use of depicting the cross, if it is merely an apparently dead man who is being lifted down from it? The whole foundation of our Christian religion is shattered. This is clearly perceived by infidels. They have no controversy with the honored gentlemen who smile as they avow themselves believers in Christianity minus the miracles. That pleases them vastly. It leaves them nothing to desire. If miracles are incredible, a miraculously given religion must be incredible also, and any other kind of religion is merely a sweet bit of sentimentality without vigor and without worth. When the superior motive power, the inflexibility of principle, the hope of salvation, and the assurance of immortality, which are the distinctive features of a supernatural creed are surrendered, the little that remains is too colorless and nerveless to invite debate. All this has been very finely though somewhat caustically put by Mr. Robert Buchanan, who has no leaning in the direc- tion of orthodoxy: Now Jesus of Nazareth clearly claimed to be the Incarnation of the living God, not in the sense in which all good men are incarnations, but in the special sense that he, more than any other human being, represented the Godhead. To establish his _ claim he did one thing—if Christian evidence is to be credited. He performed miracles, even to the extent of raising the dead. If he did not perform miracles he was either self-deluded or an impostor ; and in any case he failed, if he did not perform them, in establishing his theory of immortality. Now the man who can believe that miracles are possible under any circumstances what- THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES Ley ever can take Christianity at one bite, without a single grain of salt. The man who rejects the theory of miracles can never save his soul alive (as so many men seek to do) by simply believing that Jesus was the best of men, and that his moral teachings were supremely beautiful’; for he must acknowledge in the same breath that Jesus was ignorant of the laws of nature, and that the teachings of Jesus, however beautiful, were based upon a thaumaturgist’s delusion. We may refine all this away. We may follow Mr. Matthew Arnold in his pitiful feats of literary Jesuitry, put all the miraculous business aside, in order to throw one last straw of hope to the sinking Church of England. We may potter and quibble about ‘‘ poetry ’’ and ‘‘essential’’ relig- ion just as much or as little as we please ; but with the loss of the supernatural pretension perishes the whole fabric of organ- ized Christianity. Therein lies the crux of the whole discussion. To regard Jesus Christ as merely a fine social reformer, or as the spirit of perfect humanity ‘‘ which is to be,”’ is to shut one’s eyes altogether to his divine pretensions. We want to know something more. Exactly. If the miraculous element is to be thrust out, consistency requires that the incarnation, the resurrec- tion of Christ, regeneration, providence, and everything really distinctive be repudiated. As it is, the miracle rightly understood is the sign and badge of the essential character of the faith. Moreover it reveals and affirms the sacredness of the physical. The Almighty is not alienated from the material works of his hands, but continues in fellowship with them, walks on their waters, and effects the tender purposes of grace through their agencies. From all of which we are to learn that the permanent background of the universe is the supernatural; that the entire framework of things is absolutely subordinate to the manifestations and operations of Infinite Spirit ; and 178 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY that when we are in touch with nature we are nearer to its glorious Author than we may suppose. Thus miracles have illuminated creation, and have also sanc- tified it. And are they not prophecies as well? God in the beginning exalted man over all things, “crowned him with glory and honor,” and made him a little lower than himself (see Psalm 8, in the Hebrew), and has commissioned him to subdue and replenish the earth. But though “we see not now all things in subjection under his feet . . . we see Jesus”; we see him in his ministry healing the sick, feeding the hun- gry, opening blind eyes, and raising the dead; and we see him now risen and “crowned with glory and honor,” and in all this we read the promise of a coming day when God's primal purpose shall be fulfilled; when winds and seas shall yield obedience to the power of man ; when disease shall flee before his touch, and even death be conquered by his mighty faith. Then shall his dominion be established and the fair dreams of poets and of prophets be more than accomplished. As we may see the essential radiance of the sun in a dew- drop, and the outline of a tree in the leaf, and the con- figuration of a Matterhorn in a piece of mica-schist broken from its mass, so in the miracle we have much in little. It is an epitome of the universe; it is an arc that determines the circumference of redemption; and it is a pledge and a pattern of the future time when the mountains shall be gorgeous with light, and earth be filled with the happiness of man and the glory of God. Surely then its value is inestimable. Its worth to the cause of true religion is simply incalculable. This every friend of our Lord should fully realize and should THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 179 steadfastly maintain. He may have other material for stronger arguments than it on the whole may furnish; but let him be careful, for if he first surrender this, he may soon discover that nothing has been left worth contending for. Like a man who violently shuts the window against a robber after having politely opened the door, or like one who industriously builds dikes to keep out the sea, having previously unloosed sub- merged floodgates to let it in, so is he who imagines he can hold the fortress of Christian doctrine when he has betrayed into an enemy’s hands the postern on which its very safety depends. SECONDLY. We must attempt to determine the nature of the miracle. Much has been written on this part of our subject, and much I am afraid that has rather dark- ened than enlightened the understanding. If I hesi- tate, it is because I fear to fall into the same condemn- ation. One thing at least I shall aim at, and that is simplicity ; and one thing I shall seek to avoid, and that is abstruse definition. What Edward Gilpin Johnson says in his Introduction to “ Reynold’s Dis- courses” regarding beauty is worthy of being taken as a ‘guide in studying the marvels of the gospel: “Beauty analyzed is beauty slain; and it is, after all, wiser to rest satisfied with inhaling the fragrance of the flower of art and enjoying its perfections, than to pull it to pieces, count the petals and stamens, and re. solve the perfume into an essence scientifically procur- able from wayside seeds.’ So also it is better to grasp the miracle as a whole, to ascertain its fundamental characteristic, and then leave it without too nice scru- tiny of its various parts ; otherwise what we might gain 180 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY in seeming exactness, we shall lose in religious feel- ing. The process and the method by which it is ac- complished has not been revealed, and consequently they cannot be formulated. To assert with Hume that “it is a violation of a law of nature,’ or with others to affirm sententiously that it is “the suspension of nature’s laws,’ or their “counteraction,” or ‘“ subordi- nation’ is altogether too precise for it to be entirely assuring. It has not been fully decided yet as to what a law of nature really is, and as to nature itself we are too much in the dark to declare dogmatically in what manner and to what extent changes may occur within its vast domains. All that is essential to a clear idea of the act we are seeking to define may be gathered from two or three Scripture texts. It is written in John’s Gospel: “Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind”; also, ““No man can do these miracles that thou doest except God be with him.” These pas- sages indicate surprise that the uniform course of na- ture should be interrupted, with a profound conviction that the phenomenon proceeded from the direct action of divine power through the human personality of Christ. From these and similar representations, we are warranted in inferring that A MIRACLE IS AN EVENT WITH A SUPERNATURAL CAUSE OCCURRING IN THE SPHERE OF THE NATURAL. There is really no need to say more. Everything beyond this must be more or less speculative, and in the form of hypothesis incap- able of verification. With this simple definition, the Kev. Principal Cairns agrees, saying that the miracle “may be spoken of as an act of God which visibly THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 181 deviates from the ordinary working of his power, de- signed while serving other uses to authenticate a divine message.” * John Stuart Mill, viewing the whole sub- ject abstractly as a metaphysician and not asa believer, gives the sanction of his great name to this conception : A miracle (as was justly remarked by Brown,) is no contra- diction to the law of cause and effect. It is a new effect sup- posed to be produced by the introduction of a new cause. Of the adequacy of that cause, if present, there can be no doubt ; and the only antecedent improbability which can be ascribed to the miracle, is the improbability that any such cause existed. — Logic, Vol. Il., p. 150. He does not challenge the philosophical soundness of the definition I have formulated; he only questions the assumption that supernatural agency—a personal God—exists to serve as the cause of such extraordinary effect. Mr. Lecky, author of various notable works, among them “ A History of Rationalism,” confirms my statement of the case, and with his usual lucidity sug- gests a point of comparison which renders it more transparent and clear to the ordinary mind. He writes: There is no contradiction involved in the belief that spiritual beings of power and wisdom immeasurably transcending our own exist, or that existing, they might, by the normal exercise of their powers perform feats as far surpassing the understanding of the most gifted of mankind as the electric telegraph and the prediction of an eclipse surpass the faculties of a savage. And Mr. Richard Holt Hutton, a writer of estab- lished repute on current theology, said in the “Con- temporary Review” (April, 1887) : nS han AIS I (anni A Sale OC a 4 “Central Evidences,” p. 220, Q 182 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY Theoretically, as all the best scientific minds are agreed, there is no contradiction at all between the principle of the uni- formity of the law of causation and a very marvelous interrup- tion of the ordinary course of nature. All that is proved by such an interruption is the intervention of some new and unex- pected cause. How inexhaustible is the number of unexplored causes, no man knows better than the true man of science. The analogy suggested by Mr. Lecky is worthy of some consideration as illustrating the nature of the miracle and as tending greatly to diminish its alleged incredibiiity. When a definition is sustained by something similar, al- though not quite identical, it gains, not only in clearness but in reasonableness ; and a presumption is created, not alone in favor of its accuracy, but in favor of the thing defined being more than probable. Dr. Horace Bush- nell (“ Natural and Supernatural’), represents man as acting on nature, producing effects which nature left to herself never would have produced, as for instance, in making gunpowder, a pistol, a steam engine. This bringing to bear on nature a human force, the power of will, the operation of a higher law, call it what you please, occasions no confusion or derangement, nor brings into contempt ordinary uniformities ; and sub- stituting the divine for the human and enlarging the effect beyond the ability of the human mind to pro- duce, in this we have the counterpart of everything necessary to the miracle. God also acts on nature dis- tinctly and immediately and effects results which na- ture left to itself never would have produced, and which even the creature left to himself never could have accomplished. The bishop of Exeter thus en- larges on this topic : THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES © 183 In each individual the uniformity of nature is broken to leave room for the moral force of the will to assert its independent existence. This breach of uniformity is within very narrow limits, and occurs much more rarely than appears at first sight. But the demand to admit not only the possibility but the fact of this breach is imperative, and to deny it is to turn the command of the moral law as revealed in the conscience into a delusion. So too, revelation asserts its right to set aside the uniformity of nature to leave room for a direct communication from God to man.—Bampiton Lectures, 1884. His grace in these words concedes the legitimacy of the comparison which in itself goes far toward confirm- ing the definition; but I do not think he does justice to the number or variety of the instances by which it is sustained. In the case of disease, nature left to her- self would land the patient in the grave, but man inter- poses and arrests the process and thus restores to health. Nor should the wonderful power of mind, of mind pure and simple unaided by material media, unless the subtle magnetic currents which flow involuntarily from body to body be counted such, over physical, bodily de- rangements and morbid tendencies be overlooked. Though more may be claimed for this than is war- ranted, and though it may blind to other important laws, and may only be temporary in the blessings it achieves, nevertheless it discloses an undeniable reality. Man can in certain conditions and within prescribed limits rebuke sicknesses as our Saviour did, the differ- ence being that as he is divine his healing grace could not be restrained by any limitations or conditions whatever, unless unbelief in the subject be regarded as such. Add to this the phenomena of electro-biology and hypnotism. Think how readily one human being becomes passive 184 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY in the hands, or rather submissive to the will of another, so that he will smile when he is pierced with needles, will gravely fish with a pin for a hook in a lecture room before an amused audience, and will lie, steal, or murder without hesitation as he is directed. No one has as yet satisfactorily explained these startling things, but they clearly indicate the possibility of an outside mind be- coming operative in and on another person. Something of this power, though apparently exer- cised in a manner less direct, is manifested in man’s dealings with what is usually termed inanimate nature. Take, as an example, that mighty force which is coming to fill the place of steam and gas in civilization. One of the latest feats being accomplished through its agency is the utilization of Niagara Falls. That tremendous rush and sweep of water, the very energy of the inland seas of America, heretofore exhausting itself in a useless plunge, is being clutched by the hand of electricity and distributed and applied to do the work of five hundred thousand horses ; and Engineer Humbert promises that when necessary it will double this capacity. Left to itself, Niagara would have gone on moaning, swirling, and thundering to the end, and left to itself, electricity would have continued in idleness, unproductive and wasteful. To bring the two together required the interposition of what is distinct from either and superior to both—minp! This mysterious entity by the projection of itself into nature, probably through some machine, a zerus it has itself invented, produces these extraordinary effects and does so without vio- lating any law of nature and without subverting or annulling any. While this most remarkable action of THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 185 the spiritual on the material is not a miracle, it is anal- agous to one. It introduces a cause not necessarily inherent in the substance influenced, which leads to a result that would never have been produced if the substance had been left to itself. But at this point the resemblance fades. The miracle, while practically identical in principle, is distinguished by divine energy effecting that which human power by direct exercise of volition has never been able to accomplish. Says Canon Heartley : The human will is the element, the action of whose disturbing force upon the material system around us comes most frequently or most strikingly under our notice. Man, in the exercise of his ordinary faculties, is perpetually interfering with, or mold- ing or controlling the operation of those ordinary laws of matter, which are in exercise around him. He does so if he does but disturb one pebble in its state of rest, or stay the fall of another before it reaches the ground. He does so to a vastly greater ex- tent when, by means of the appliances with which art instructed by science has furnished him, he projects a ball to the distance of four or five miles, or constrains steam, or light, or electricity to do his bidding. —Repliies to Essays and Reviews, p. 149. Were we to exclude man from our conception of nature, were he not by our thinking included in it, these and similar actions would be miraculous. God, the Almighty, is not by our conceptions included in nature as a part of it, and hence his direct interposition in its courses we count miraculous; that is, supernatural, and it testifies to its being such by its transcendent and unparalleled character. And if man, as with some show of reason may be expected, shall ever work the works of God, shall ever perform the precise mira- cles he wrought in the person of Christ, it will be 186 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY - because God dwells in him with extraordinary fullness ; and when this is the case, if ever it shall come to pass, miracles will not cease, as some suppose, to be miracles, for they will still be the result of divine energy and will ever serve the purpose of their prototypes—will endlessly witness to the reality and the permanence of. the supernatural. THIRDLY. We should seek to appreciate the dignity of the miracle, It is of importance that we do so, as this trait or quality creates a strong antecedent proba- bility in its favor. God has never been prodigal of wonders. He is not perpetually obtruding himself on the attention of mankind by unnecessary multiplication of startling signs. Dr. Allon says, truly >< The mira cles came at great epochs. Even God’s prophets are not represented as working miracles whenever it pleased them. . . Scripture miracles are never wantonly performed, and they are always the creden- tials of the messenger.” We find them specially mark- ing the beginning of religious institutions under Moses, the reform of religious institutions under Elijah and Elisha, and the perfecting of religious institutions under Christ and his apostles. This reserve, this moderation is noteworthy, Origen, in reply to Celsus, remarks: “How few the cases of persons raised from the dead in the Gospels are, and if these cases had been spurious there would have been more of them” ; a thought to be pondered. If these resurrec- tions were frauds it is strange that the number of them reported is not larger. Renan admits that Jesus “ per- sistently shunned the performance of wonders.” “This,” he adds, “gave him a power over his own age THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 137 of which no individual has been possessed before or since. A mere sorcerer would not have brought about a moral revolution.” And Irenzus also declared that our Lord in performing cures ‘used no fantastic cere- monies, but acted in a simple, majestic manner as be- came a representative of the Infinite God. In the “Clementine Homilies,” Peter is described as contrast- ing the wonderful works of Christ with those alleged to have been performed by Simon Magus. He asks: “ What profit, what significance was there in his dogs of brass or stone that barked, his talking statues, his flights through the air, his transformations of himself, now into a serpent, now into a goat, his putting on of two faces, his rolling of himself unhurt upon burning coals and the like? Which, even if he had done, the works possessed no meaning; they stood in relation to nothing.” So likewise, Origen, referring to reputed heathen marvels, writes: “What came of these? In what did they issue? Where is the society that has been founded by their help? What is there in the world’s history which they have helped forward to show that they lay deep in the mind and counsel of God? The miracles of Moses issued in a Jewish polity ; those of the Lord in a Christian church ; whole nations were knit together through their help.” ! These authors are right in their criticisms. Whether there ever were brass or stone dogs that barked is a matter of supreme indifference to us, and whether fruitless marvels and barren prodigies were accomplished by Apollonius of Tyana and Esculapius is of no particular concern to any one. But when Reale sk aie or ny ea W S 1 Trench, ‘ Miracles,”’ pp. 30, 31. 188 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY deeds are ascribed to Christ which not only trans- cended human power, but which when taken together exceeded all preceding efforts of human goodness, and became in a very potent sense the source of a new religion whose sovereignty has survived the Cesars, they are at once invested with an air of dignity that entitles them to respectful consideration. Of what value to the race were the thaumaturgical won- ders attributed to him of Tyana? Did they ever provoke any man to love him? MHas any man ever cried out, “The love of Apollonius constraineth me?” I presume it is unnecessary to say that from the beginning and in ever-increasing numbers to the present, millions have been willing to rest the hopes of time and eternity on the word of Jesus. Hewas no magician. Given such an individuality as Christ possessed, and miracles seem to be the most natural and fitting of occurrences. Even were he no more remarkable than Strauss and Renan allow, it would have been surprising to the point of incredibility for him never to have wrought extraor- dinary things. Superhuman to all intents and pur- poses, he would have contradicted himself had he not performed superhuman works. But on the other hand, if his endeavors had been noisy, ostentatious, garish, and apparently gotten up for effect, they would have been unbelievable. Silently and modestly dawns the day, unpreten- tiously and quietly glides one year into the other, and the dew falls unannounced by showman’s fife and drum ; and the stars peep out of the vaulted skies, the sun emerges from the darkness, and flowers and harvest fields grow beautiful without the pomp and THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 189 parade of talismanic, incantatory ceremonies. If mira- cles are to make good their claim to an origin identical with that of the universe, if they are to be taken as proceeding from the same Divine Author, they surely must evince similar characteristics of style! This is only reasonable. And I think comparison may be safely challenged. The same simplicity, unobtrusive- ness, solemnity, unaccompanied by anything spectacular or pompous, that marks the handwriting of God in na- ture is equally apparent in the stupendous works of Jesus Christ. It is this similarity, this unique and dominant dignity, which prepossesses so many minds in their favor and strengthens their hold on succeeding generations. But it is asked, is not the whole conception undigni- fied? Does it not derogate from the majesty of Jeho- vah to conceive of him, even in his Son, as interfering with the ordinary course of things, as tampering with his own laws and concerning himself with temporary ills that are to be swallowed up, if not transmuted, in ‘death? What more irreconcilable with the august greatness of him who dwelleth in the Holy of Holies than this pottering with and patching of human woes by means of processes akin to conjuration, exorcism, and cabalism? Is it not to lower the Creator, Lord of heaven and earth, to the level cf a Theurgist, an Obeah-man, and Katterfelto! These and similar rep- resentations are printed with wearisome repetition in magazines and essays, and are accepted by not a few as the quintessence of cultured wisdom. And yet, they are irrational and indefensible. Are we not taught in the Bible that He cares for the sparrows, and 190 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY that he condescends to call each particular star by name, and to number the very hairs of our head? We receive the impression from the Book that it is as dig- nified to watch over the infinitely small as the infinitely great ; and our own feelings, and apart from this dis- cussion I am sure the better feelings of our opponents, respond approvingly. I know it is not uncommon for a certain type of mind to assume that it is qualified by some kind of infallible instinct to decide in advance what is becoming or unbecoming in Jehovah. But I submit whether this is not sheer intellectual arrogance, without a particle of justification? There is no evi- dence that any man is qualified to determine dogmati- cally what the Almighty ought to do or can do. To teach otherwise is to intimate that he himself is God in at least the attribute of omniscience, for if he does not know all things he cannot know all that is possible in the Infinite One, and if he does know he is himself a greater marvel than any he is striving to invalidate. And neither can we leave unchallenged the narrow, meagre, materialistic, and mechanical conception of the universe, which is professedly put forth in vindication of the Divine majesty, but which in reality is mainly designed to discredit the supernatural. We must admit, if the universe is simply a piece of mechanism, arranged to run an indefinite period like a clock, but not like some clocks, as at Strasburg or Berne, with a nice device incorporated at the beginning for various figures to come out on the striking of high noon, but only a dull, monotonous tick-tick clock that cannot even chime the hour, that miracles are necessarily impossible, and the very idea of them ludicrous in the extreme. But is THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES IgI this view of the heavens and the earth, of their magni- tudes and movements, the highest and the most rational ? The majority of the wisest and the most enlightened of the race have never subscribed to it. Asa theory it renders the inspiration of the Scriptures, particular and even general providences, and the answer to prayer, as well as miracles, merely idle dreams and glittering hal- lucinations. Everything of this character, though it has comforted untold millions and yet sustains them, must be abandoned as superstitious and fanciful in the interest of an unprovable hypothesis, whose singular demerit is seen in the fact that, having re- jected at pleasure all phenomena apparently subversive of its credibility, it is unable to account for or intelli- gently explain the few: phenomena that remain. I for one have never been able to understand the charm that this scheme of creation has for some per- sons, and I certainly fail to see in it anything very honoring to its alleged Supreme Author. That a factory with its noisy wheels and its manifold contriv- ances of shafts, belting, and engines, which cannot be disturbed unless everything stops or life be imperilled, should be regarded as a more impressive and sublime analogue of the cosmos than that of a body that is pliable and yielding to mind, responding in various changes to its emotions and volitions, and doing so without violating a single law governing the body’s functions, is to me one of those singular infatuations which arise periodically in the course of human history, and which go far toward bringing into contempt man’s much-praised reason. We may rest assured that God has not built himself I92 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY out of his own universe, that he has not fenced the labyrinthine ways of the worlds he fashioned, and writ- ten over them “No Thoroughfare.” No, he has not hampered himself by becoming subject to a uniformity, deviation from which would expose him to the charge of blundering or of fickleness. He is sovereign over all his manifold works, and without discord and without any changeableness on his part regarding their place and purpose, he can produce effects through them which confirm the message of his glory they were orginally designed to proclaim; and which can authenticate the claims of an extraordinary teacher, even as the fingers of a player can evoke music from a harp whose strings were at the first arranged to be responsive to the touch, and which, without in any wise deranging or violating the laws of their existence, can as easily discourse a symphony as a ballad, an old melody or one entirely new. And as the harp, with anthems and oratorios sleeping in its silent chords, and waiting but the touch of genius to awaken their elo- quent tones, is immeasurably superior to the poor hand-organ, whose mechanical strains were determined from the beginning, and to which none can be added and from which none can be taken away without changing the instrument, so is the universe, whose every domain yields responsive harmonies to the will of the Infinite One, in comparison with a world or procession of worlds that can only grind out what was originally incorporated, and to which nothing can be imparted without thwarting the primal design and entailing derangement and disaster. FourtHLy. We will now examine the proof of THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 193 the miracle. Already, I trust, a strong presumption has been created in its favor by what has been said in this chapter; but it is important that the evidence on which it rests should be scrutinized. Especially is this imperative, as it is boldly asserted that, whether true or false, it is not susceptible of proof. That honest men, impartial, self-sacrificing, competent men bore witness to its reality is not denied; neither is it denied that their testimony on any other subject would be accepted before the highest courts of law. All that they have affirmed is simply brushed aside as inadmissible. It would do no good therefore to re- peat what we have elsewhere at length advanced in support of their trustworthiness. Repetition of that argument would not serve our purpose now. The seeker after truth ought to bear it in mind; but at this point it must be shown that the reasons given for invalidating the evidence are irrelevant and illogical. The grounds for rejecting miracles as unprovable have never been more clearly or more forcibly formu- lated than by David Hume; and we shall be doing full justice to the usual criticisms if we follow them as given in his famous “Essay.” Therein he argues at length, That experience is our only guide in reasoning concerning matters of fact. Variable experience gives rise to probability only—unifornt experience to proof. Our belief of any fact from the testimony of eye-witnesses is derived from no other princi- ple than our experience of the veracity of human testimony. If the fact attested be miraculous there arises a contest of two opposite experiences, or proof against proof. Now a miracle is a violation of the laws of nature [an unwarranted definition, as has been shown already]; and asa firm and unalterable experi- R 194 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY ence has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as complete as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined ; andif so, it is an undeni- able consequence that cannot be surmounted by any proof whatever derived from human testimony.—See Lucyclopedia Britannica, article on Hume. Without implying that Mr. Hume in any wise bor- rowed from Dr. South, nevertheless the famous Scotch skeptic’s position was anticipated by the English divine, who exposed its weakness in his great sermon on “The Certainty of our Saviour’s Resurrection.” Other writers have successfully refuted its several fal- lacies, and little remains to be done at this late day save to meet the ever-recurring restatements of his argument, with a restatement of the answer. And if there is little that is positively new in this fresh de- fense, it is because there is nothing that is not abso- lutely old in the most modern of assaults. The implication fundamental to Mr. Hume’s concep- tion is that there is no God, no Supreme Being with power or motive adequate to modify or vary the opera- tions of nature. Of course, if atheism is true, every miracle is a lie, and every professed miracle-worker is self-deceived or a deceiver. It were foolish to talk of proof when the possibility of the thing to be proven is an utter impossibility. The mind that will not or cannot believe in the existence of God must necessa- rily regard all extraordinary effects, usually attributed to his agency, as the fictions of hallucination, or as the tricks of imposture. This is logical enough. Such a mind cannot believe in them, because it does not believe in him who alone could bring these wonders THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 195 to pass. The issue is perfectly clear and specific. If there is no God there can be no miracles; but, on the other hand, if there is a God, then the inherent improbability of their occurrence ceases. Mr. Mill discerns this close connection between what he terms natural and revealed religion, and insists that the former is the necessary basis of the latter; and he adds: “The proofs of Christianity presuppose the being and moral attributes of God; that is, the con- formity of a religion to those attributes which deter- mine whether credence ought to be given to its ex- _ ternal evidences.” 1 Then, the primary question to be decided in this controversy is, whether there is a Creator, and whether he is a fatherly Provi- dence to his creatures; for if he is this, then there is no antecedent improbability against miracles, but rather a strong probability in their favor, as they are in accord with his benevolent interest in the welfare of mankind. Mr. Hume seems to have been so constituted that it was next to impossible for him to sympathize with those who have confidence in the reality of an unseen universe. Lord Charlemont, his friend, wrote of him: An unfortunate disposition to doubt everything seemed inter- woven with his nature; and never was there, I am convinced, a more thorough and sincere skeptic. He seemed not to be certain even of his own present existence, and he could not there- fore be expected to entertain any settled opinion respecting his future state. Beyond the question of his own existence he doubted also whether there could be any external world, or 1‘ Logic,” Vol. II., p. 136. 196 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY indeed anything but ideas; and consequently he could not find a place in his purely subjective domain for objective achievements of the supernatural sort, and, had he been logically consistent, for achievements of any kind. So inveterate was this melancholy pyrrhon- ism that he even doubted his own doubts, and almost in despair thus writes of his own speculations : They have so wrought upon me and heated my brain that I am ready to reject all belief and reasoning, and can look upon no opinion even as more probable or likely than another. Where am I, or what? ... 1 am confounded with all these questions, and begin to fancy myself in the most deplorable condition imaginable, environed with the deepest darkness, and utterly deprived of the use of every member and faculty. In his confusion he at one time says: A miracle supported by any human testimony is more properly a subject of derision than of argument. And yet on another occasion he makes the astounding acknowledgment : I own there may possibly be miracles of such a kind as to admit of proof from human testimony. A mind thus beclouded, thus self-contradictory, and reduced to such straits of helplessness, could not very well be convinced by any array of proof; but surely it must be unwise to accept the inability of such a mind as a fair criterion of the normal limitations of the sane intellect. | , There are agnostics in our day who follow pretty closely Mr. Hume’s method of reasoning. They reject the supernatural altogether; at least they assert that they do not know and cannot know that there is any such thing, and hence conclude that evidence in such a case THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 197 can never be of any value. That is, they prejudge the whole question. The supernatural cannot be ascer- tained, consequently it cannot be proven. Their con- clusion is sound enough if their premise is trustworthy. No testimony can ever be satisfactory to persons who are committed to atheous theories. But if they are willing to admit that there is a real external world and a Deity who rules over it, then I contend they are bound to concede, on Hume’s own principles, that the Chris- tian position is defensible. As alleged miracles belong to the external world, and are in their essential char- acter facts, they can as readily be witnessed to as any other facts of history. I will not argue from the deplor- able effects of the contrary assumption on the mind of its chief advocate that it must be untenable, though such an argument would not be unjustifiable, but content my- self with the reflection that the sacrifice it demands is irrationally out of all proportion to the end sought to be attained. When we are compelled to surrender faith in God, to repudiate the reality of all outward things, to question everything most palpable and sure, for the sake of showing that no testimony can verify an alleged miracle, we are warranted in holding that were such wholesale skepticism abandoned the possible authen- tication of miracles would no longer be inconceivable. While the real ground of Mr. Hume's contention disappears before an adequate theistic hypothesis, the positions that depend on its solidity are likewise in themselves fanciful and fallacious. For instance, if it is fair to say that belief in matters of fact is based exclusively on experience, and that experience of the » constancy of natural law gives rise to certainty, whereas 198 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY experience of the trustworthiness of human testimony gives rise to probability only, it is remarkable that men in all ages have been so ready to accept the probable against the certain. They have accepted miracles notwithstanding the uniformity of nature’s operations, and they have received the account of them on human testimony notwithstanding the rea- sons they have had for questioning its reliability. Not merely savages, but educated men and women, in the present as well as in the past, while admitting the regularity and order of the physical world, and while knowing that mendacity and illusion are not uncommon, yet constantly exhibit confidence in the occurrence of marvels, and listen to the evidence adduced in their support with respectful seriousness. Our own age is eminently scientific in spirit and method; but there is as much readiness now to credit narratives of supernatural visitations and of super- natural bodily cures as in the past. The phenomena of modern Spiritism and the facility with which strong- minded and cultivated people are convinced of their preternatural character, and with them the faith- healings and the mind-healings, which ignore the operations of acknowledged laws and which even pre- tend to counteract them, go to show clearly and posi- tively that all the experience of immutability has not prevented the most enlightened of communities from believing that in some sense it is not inconsistent with variation, or that in some sense there may be manifes- tations which ordinary causes cannot explain. That a group of philosophers hold for themselves that nature’s constancy gives rise to the idea of inviolable THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 199 fixedness is not disputed; but the question to be decided is not what a few gentlemen have come to regard as true on the subject in debate. For when they appeal to experience, it js not of course their individual experience that is invoked, but that of humanity as a whole and in all ages. And the verdict of humanity would set aside their personal dictum ; for it never has claimed to have such experience of nature’s rigid and inexorable uniformity as is ascribed to it. At best then we have thus far in Mr. Hume’s argument only a speculation as to what ought to be, and in no sense a demonstration of what really is. It is singular that the famous argument against miracles overlooks our. dependence on what others have testified regarding the invariable and stereotyped uniformity which is the very gist of the controversy. Are we warranted in affirming from what we ourselves have seen and felt that there never could have been anything different in the past? Bishop Butler thinks that we are not, else would we be obliged to deny the creation, for we did not witness it; and _in- deed would be obliged by the same logic to ques- tion the reality of everything that has not come within the range of our own observation in the present. Then our belief in this alleged iron-clad changelessness that will not permit the interposition of a Divine Cause, though as has been explained no law need be broken or dishonored, must for the larger part rest on what others tell us; but it hardly seems consistent to credit their report so implicitly in this instance, and treat it as worthless when 200 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY it is advanced in support of exceptional deviations from this same uniformity. It should, however, be remembered that the witness of the centuries is totally against Hume’s assumption; and more- over that it cannot be reconciled with the doctrine of evolution by variation of species. Professor Wallace has maintained that such variation can only rationally be accounted for on the hypothesis of interposition of a Higher Being, especially in the development of mind: We must admit the possibility that, if we are not the highest intelligences in the universe, some higher intelligence may have directed the process by which the human race was developed by means of more subtle agencies than we are acquainted with. —WNatural Selection, p. 360. Let us follow the hint given in this sentence, and it may convince us that judged in the light of reason and science the kind of immutability demanded by the exigencies of Mr. Hume’s line of attack cannot be maintained. It will, I suppose, be admitted that there was a time when man was not on the earth, whether seven thou- sand years ago or two hundred thousand makes no difference to the import of the admission. But whence came he? How came he to exist? It will be allowed without discussion that he was created by the immediate exercise of supernatural power, or he was evolved from some previous living organism. But if he was created directly by supernatural power then a miracle was performed; and if he was evolved the uniformity of nature is not a fact; and if deviated from in one instance why not in another, especially in THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 201 the redemption of that being for whose origin nature had in some way departed from its usual opera- tions? But supposing we prefer to think of man’s appear- ance in the world as a birth, and himself at the first as the child of the anthropoid ape, his alleged immediate ancestor. What a transition! We do not usually consider its significance, how on one side of that birth stand brute parents—chattering animals—and on the other a rational being endued with conscience. This evolution is certainly astounding. Is it still going on? Do we find the process repeated in our times? If we do, then we have a most instructive example of nature’s uniform action, from at least the point of her one glorious departure; but if we do not, and that we do not needs no evidence, then in the presence of this one supreme exception we are compelled to acknowl- edge a miracle as stupendous as the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As we have seen, Mr. Hume’s thesis proceeds on three assumptions : 1. That there is no God, and consequently no one capable of working a miracle. 2. That we must believe our own experience of nature’s uniformity rather than any amount of human testimony to the contrary. 3. That the constitution of nature is so inviolable as effectually to prevent the accomplishment of any act entitled to be regarded as miraculous. But these positions cannot be maintained. Our brief review of their merits has shown them to be untenable ; and with their fallaciousness the entire 202 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY contention of the celebrated skeptic falls to the ground. It will doubtless go far toward confirming the conclu- sions we have reached in this discussion to take account of the fact that the extraordinary progress of primitive Christianity witnesses distinctly to the provableness of the miracle. Mr. Gibbon, and more recently Mr, Lecky, have tried to explain the speedy triumph of the Cross in the ancient world by purely naturalistic principles. Of these elaborate performances I shall have more to say in a subsequent chapter. But one thing is noticeable, neither of these authors denies that the success of the new faith was in a marked degree determined by popular belief in supernatural deeds wrought in attestation of its Divine authority. A reader of the Acts of the Apostles cannot fail to perceive that these wonders were constantly appealed to by the early preachers, and that in particular the resurrection of Christ was referred to in support of the doctrine they proclaimed. The Christian Fathers never hesitated to allude to these superhuman achievements, especially to the resurrection, as the real source of the remarkable influence exercised by the church of the first centuries. They argued that their reality could not be set aside, nor the testimony which supported them be invalidated, and that therefore multitudes had been constrained to acknowledge the supremacy of Jesus. We are all aware that wealth, learning, and coercion had nothing to do with the original successes of our religion, and that it never has presented attrac- tions to the worldly minded; and the conclusion there- fore seems inevitable that they sprang from the confi- dence inspired by the evidence addressed on behalf of THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES £03 the supernatural. Unquestionably, miracles could be proved in those early days of conflict and of conquest ; and there is no sufficient reason for rejecting them as unprovable now. That we have grown incredulous, and cannot easily be persuaded, reflects on ourselves, not on the trustworthiness of the evidence advanced, and shows a change in us and in the habit of our thought, but not a change in the essential character of testimony. What convinced the people of the Roman empire ought to be adequate to convince the citizens of the old world and the new. It may be suggested that no merely rationalistic system could have prevailed in the times of the apos- tles ; but this supposition gives rise to another, whether it would be practicable for such a religion to perpetuate itself and accomplish much worth accomplishing even in this age of ours? Deprived of the supernatural, how much of sanctity and authority would survive? Robbed of that distinction religion could pretend to no revelations and could impart no assurance. JRepudi- ating it, men and women have still tried to worship and do good to their fellows ; but they have found no basis on which to rest duty or to make it anything other than mere preference, and they have been unable to comfort the afflicted with anything but a vague fancy relative to a future life. They have eulogized the gos- pel of soup and bread, clothes and shelter, have so idealized humanity as to substitute it for God himself, and have awakened a temporary interest in their experi- ments ; but the outcome has uniformly discouraged them. They have found that charity apart from spiritual com- munion with the Almighty increases its objects; that 204 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY the soup of to-day will not satisfy the poor of to-mor- row ; that pauperism actually grows under the touch of relief that is prompted simply by secularism ; and that the crowd soon turns up its nose at the worship of humanity. The Christianity that succeeds in bringing succor to the forlorn and destitute is unquestionably the Christianity that is grounded in the supernatural, and whose very doctrines are permeated through and through with the supernatural. The demand for this element was no more imperative in the apostolic age than in our own; and this fact at once exonerates the primitive disciples from the imputation of undue credulity, and deepens the conviction that there is nothing in the nature of our Lord’s victories over disease, death, and devils to prevent them from being adequately proven. FIrFTHLY. We may very fittingly, as we close this argument, consider the survival of the miracle. The objection is not unfrequently brought in our times that if this special kind of demonstration was necessary to the beginning of Christian progress, it surely cannot be dispensed with now; and yet it is asserted by many scholarly Christians that it is now incapable of repeti- tion. If the ancient miracle was in a sense the voice of God, why should we be restricted to a report of its speech, and not be permitted to hear it and judge it for ourselves? Why should not we be allowed to verify these alleged superhuman works, instead of being compelled to accept them on testimony? If it was important for the first converts to see them, why not equally as important for the last? There is much force in this criticism, and I have at times felt it THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 205 very keenly myself. But it may be asked in reply, whether we are warranted in concluding that the mira- cle has entirely ceased, and has not anywhere or in any form survived? It is related cf Innocent IV. that he said to Thomas Aquinas, who stood amazed at the vast treasure he saw carried into the Vatican: «The day has now gone forever when the Church was compelled to say ‘silver and gold have I none’”’; and that Aquinas sadly replied: “Yes; and the time has also ceased when she could say, ‘ Arise, take up thy bed and walk.’ ” But has it ceased? Probably in religious communities where money is exalted, and where fashion and wealth are idolized, there may be no trace of the supernatural. Are we however justified on this account in affirming the cessation of its operations everywhere? I think not. There are not a few Christians who are very positive in declaring that marvelous works are as fre- quently performed now as in the apostolic period; and that now as then they are not subject to the whims and arbitrary demands of the creature, but are determined wholly by the will and wisdom of the Creator. Jesus did not perform them at the dictation of a mob, neither did he so multiply them as to unfit the people for self-reliant, thoughtful action. He employed them economically and sovereignly. So, it is claimed by some modern teachers, within the same limitations, they occur in his kingdom at present. Many books have been written to sustain this conten- tion, and many extraordinary circumstances favor its acceptance. On this point, however, I am not as decided as these esteemed brethren. But if I differ with them it is rather in regard to the mode of recent S 206 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY supernatural manifestations, not as to the fact. After all, they may be right. But whether they are or not, their view may fairly be set in opposition to the objec- tion we are considering. It is argued if miracles were ever true they ought not to have ceased ; and a goodly company of intelligent and honest men and women step forward and assure us that this criticism proceeds entirely on a misapprehension, for to their certain knowledge the miracle has survived. And their testi- mony is surely entitled to as much weight as the over- confident asseverations of their opponents. While I personally doubt whether it can be shown that the form of apostolic miracles has been perpetu- ated, and doubt the wisdom in theological discussions of employing the word itself without careful discrimina- tion, I am satisfied that in every essential respect, and as far as substance is concerned, the thing for which the word stands has not ceased and never can. In my opinion one class of miracles was introduced into history to prepare the way for another, and to establish that other in the faith and love of the people. The first class was designed to be evanescent, while that which it confirmed was destined to be permanent ; and when the first had wrought its allotted task and was no longer needed it was definitely superseded by that which came to abide forever and ever. Christianity—in- cluding in that great term Jesus Christ, its light and its life—is this perpetual miracle, a stupendous event hav- ing a supernatural cause: It is itself a wonder and the source of wonders. The evidence that it is the product of such a cause is supplied by its own extra- ordinary influence and achievements. Though, accord- THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 207 ing to Buckle, food, climate, and scenery govern and determine the religious beliefs of nations, Christian- ity has succeeded in every land and has rescued multi- tudes from the power of external pernicious conditions. It has, in a word, occasioned constant deviations from the law of nature so far as such law has appeared to rule supreme in mind and conduct. Though philoso- phers assure us that character tends to inexorable permanency, Christianity has interrupted this regular order of sequence, and has delivered confirmed misers, drunkards, and libertines from its thrall. And though the heart shrinks and the feet falter at the approach of death, this gracious servant of the living God on the deepening of the inevitable and awful darkness has stepped in and taught the trembling soul to cry, “Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.” Wisely, as well as eloquently, does Coleridge write: , Is not a true, efficient conviction of a moral truth, is not the creating of a new heart, which collects the energies of a man’s whole being in the focus of the conscience, the one essential miracle, the same and of the same evidence to the ignorant and to the learned, which no superior skill can counterfeit, human or demoniacal ? is it not emphatically that leading of the Father, without which no man can come to Christ? is it not that impli- cation of doctrine in the miracle and of miracle in the doctrine, which is the bridge of communication between the senses and the soul; that predisposing warmth which renders the under- standing susceptible of the specific impressions from the his- toric, and from all other outward seals of testimony?— The Friend, Volpi l.. LSsaycz, Yes ; and every time a man is born again, is begotten of God unto a living hope, there is for him, and not 208 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY only for him, but for all who observe the startling and transforming change indubitable proof that the same power is at work in the world as that which called forth Lazarus from the dead. What need for the continuance of minor miracles in the presence of the majestic one ever disclosing itself before our eyes, and as beneficent as it is stupendous? Surely it furnishes its own proof; for it can be examined and can be tested at first hand by any one. The Christian system is its own witness; and the foun- dation on which it rests can be judged by the gran- deur of the superstructure without perpetually digging it up for inspection. Indeed the character of the spiritual edifice indicates the character of that which constitutes its basis; and if any person is so skepti- cally minded that he cannot trust the honest report of apostles and evangelists concerning what underlies the whole, there is nothing to hinder him from appealing to the building itself. The objection then, that the occurrence of miracles in the first century is improbable because there is nothing comparable to them in the nineteenth, is an- swered simply by the fact I have tried to make plain, that though differing in form they are as abundant to-day as formerly. It is not true, as is sometimes intimated, that Christians hold to one view of the world as they suppose it was in apostolic times, and to another as they picture it in their own; and that in the former the operations of the supernatural are con- ceivable, but according to the latter are impossible. This is not a fair representation of the case. The followers of Christ cherish the belief that as in the THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 209 past, so now God rules in the habitations of men, often interposing, both in the spiritual and the physical do- mains, for the accomplishment of his gracious purposes in the redemption of mankind. . They know nothing of any world or of any age that is not centered in the super- natural, and through which the supernatural does not manifest itself. If there were nothing corresponding to the miracle in modern life they would hesitate long before appealing to its evidence. Its entire absence from contemporary experience and observation would naturally intensify the doubt as to whether it was ever a possibility. As it is, the phenomenon in some fashion being perpetual, there is no insurmountable difficulty in believing that it was displayed at the beginning on behalf of Christianity;.and as the testimony to its occurrence at that period, tried by the severest tests both critical and philosophical, has never been invali- dated, its consequences ought to be candidly accepted. Doubtless there are some persons who will turn away from this argument with the flippant remark that such beliefs have forever ceased. Intelligent so- ciety has outgrown them. The most cultivated minds evince no kind of respect for them, and hardly even pa- tience when they are mentioned. No longer is humanity under the dominion of ghosts. Such is the talk in certain circles, and many individuals, who have never investigated for themselves, are influenced by it to their own undoing. Happily has Guizot replied to such gratuitous dogmatism : Incredible conceit of man! What, because in a corner of the world in one day among ages brilliant progress may have 210 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY been made in natural and historical science ; because in the name of the sciences and in brilliant books the supernatural has been combated, they proclaim it vanquished, abolished, and we hear the judgment pronounced, not merely in the name of the learned, but of the people! . . . True there are in our days among the people, many fathers, mothers, children, who believe themselves incredulous, and mock scornfully at miracles ; but follow them in the intimacy of their homes, among the trials of their lives, how do these parents act when their child is ill, those farmers when their crops are threatened, those sailors when they float upon the waters a prey to the tempest? They elevate their eyes to heaven, they burst forth in prayer, they invoke that supernatural power said by you to be abolished in their very thought. By their spontaneous and irresistible acts they give to your words and to their own a striking disavowal.—Meditations, First series, p. 115. He is right; mankind has no more emancipated itself from belief in what the modern naturalist de- rides than it has freed itself from bondage to the atmosphere. And it is well that it has not; for were so impossible a feat accomplished disaster would be sure to follow. In the case of individuals this has frequently been verified; but wretched indeed would the race be were the eclipse of faith to be- come general. Dr. Hickson has recently furnished the public a very readable account of deep sea fauna, and he has given a view of life at the depth of some miles that is quite novel and instructive. He tells us that “At a depth of two thousand five hundred fathoms the pressure per square inch on the body of every animal is twenty-five times greater than the power required to drive a railway train; a pressure which completely pulverized a thick glass tube filled with air and sealed.” It will readily be understood that crea- THE ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES 211 tures adjusted to this peculiar environment would find it difficult to exist under other conditions. Hence we are told by another writer, when an animal accustomed to these peculiar surroundings wanders upward, probably in search of food, and goes too far, the pressure diminishes, the swim bladder of the creature enlarges, and really, before he knows it, he whirls with ever-increasing velocity to the surface as a man might descend from a steeple or a precipice, and with exactly the same result. The fate of such an adventurous creature discloses not only a law, but is in itself a parable. With even greater force than prevails in the abysses of the ocean, does the supernatural bear on us, and that too on every side. We were made to exist in its depths and to inhale its very breath. When it is recognized, and we are content with its restraining limitations, we are prospered; but when we are dissatisfied with our position in the universe and are anxious, as we term it, to rise, inflation becomes our ruin, and our “tumble upward” carries with it conscious separation from God and the extinction of everything like faith in a life to come. JDeplorable as this calamity is in a single in- stance, it would be well-nigh overwhelming in tragical horribleness were it to overtake society at large. Asa general emptying of the inhabitants from the lower deeps of the sea would cover its surface with putrefying death and convert it into an intolerable curse, so were men and women everywhere and without exception to reject the supernatural, the world would speedily present a woeful spectacle of spiritual decay and moral corrup- tion. But as so dismal a fate has not as yet in any perceptible degree settled on the race, we may safely 212 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY conclude, however a few cultivated gentlemen may indulge in feathery speech to the contrary, that this belief still survives, and is likely to survive forever. And I am persuaded when thoughtful people come to realize that every movement away from the super- human leads to a movement in the direction of the anti-human, the idle talk against miracles will be shamed into everlasting silence. Cye Wades ate WA THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY HE announcement of things coming on the earth was made in the hearing of the entire world, and at any time all the world can judge of its significance, and determine whether or not it has been accomplished. Dr. Albert Barnes has suggested that the student of to-day can visit the site of ruined Petra, or the deso- late scenes where once the merchant city of Tyre spread out its bazaar-crowded thoroughfares, can con- template the waste places of Jerusalem and hear the Jews at the “weeping stone” bewailing the destruc- tion of their magnificent temple, can wander through the exhumed palaces of Nineveh, and catch a glimpse of “the wild beasts of the deserts,” “the doleful crea- tures,” and of the “owls” that dwell in Babylon; and can decide for himself whether the prophets spake “as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”’ when they fore- told the destiny of these great centers of life and activity. Nor need he limit the range of his examina- tion to such specific and sharply defined instances of vaticination ; but may enlarge its scope so as to em- brace the complete prophetic delineation of the future, with its promises of the Messiah and of the Messiah’s kingdom, with its sad prognostics regarding “ Israel according to the flesh,” and with its fair optimistic visions of man’s final redemption from the curse. 213 214 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY He may go back to the distant past when the develop- ments of history were foreshadowed, and he may Slowly descend to the present and note for himself how closely the building being erected corresponds to the plans of the Architect. No question as to the rele- vancy of evidence need perplex him, and no suspicions of illusion or deception need depress him. His way is clear. No northwest passage impedes his entrance into the open sea of truth. The task before him is simply one of comparison. He is merely called on to compare what was said with what has been done. Such an undertaking is as easy as for it to be deter- mined whether the Cologne Cathedral, finished in our day, corresponds to the drawings and specifications of the sacred edifice prepared centuries ago, and carefully preserved in the master workman’s office. It is as feasible and practicable as to compare a face with the portrait, or a landscape with a picture in which it is reproduced. And if it could be shown, as it can in the case of prophecy, that the portrait was painted before the face was born, and that the representation of the landscape came from the brush before the origi- nal had been created, it would hardly be doubted that the gift which could execute so accurately in anticipa- tion of what was to be, received its inspiration from the supernatural. If the inquirer shall permit the force of this demon- stration to be weakened,by the not altogether unnatural misgiving as to the possibility of marvelous fore- knowledge, let him consider that as God is spirit and man is spirit, there is nothing inherently incredible, especially as like is on terms of correspondence with THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 215 like everywhere, in the supposition that the one influ- ences the other, and can transmit to the other some rays of its omniscience. Recently the phonograph has startled and charmed society with its wonders. Words spoken into the ear of the instrument are retained, and at the will of the operator can be reproduced in sense and in sound by its mouth. That the creature can do this much is at least presumptive proof that the Creator can do more. Edison fashions a machine that can receive a thought from Browning, can treasure it in the very language, and can communicate it exactly and in the very voice of the poet to future ages. This no one questions. It is a fact patent to eyes and ears. But is the mind less susceptible to impressions from its Divine Author than the delicate material sur- face ready to record each note and intonation in the extraordinary contrivance of the Menlo Park wizard? Manifestly not. How solemnly sublime is memory. It retains whole libraries of knowledge, entire galleries of art, carries the burdens of the British Museum and of the Vatican without exhaustion, and in addition imprints upon its tablets all the events of personal his- tory, and fixes on its immeasurable canvas the faces and figures of cherished friends and hated foes. Strange indeed would it be were it thus hospitable to myriads of guests and yet be incapable of opening the doors of the soul to the Being in whose image the soul was fashioned at the first ; and stranger still, if he who shaped it should have barred its doors against himself. All doubts on this point may reasonably be abandoned. God assuredly can communicate himself to mind; and “he who sees the end from the begin- 216 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY ning,’ through mind can foreshadow the vast historic movements that are to usher in the ultimate destiny of mankind. Left to himself, man’s knowledge of the future is exceedingly limited. He is sufficiently curious to leave nothing undiscovered. The past yields its treasures, and the present surrenders much to conquering inquis- itiveness, but to-morrow is mockingly silent. Man may knock loudly at its door; he may try to thrust it open ; but it resists his anxious endeavors. Hope may imagine what is on the other side; despair may fore- dread it ; and sagacity may determine what ought to be there. But the mind left to its unaided resources can never be certain of what lies beyond the horizon of to- day. The very great surprise expressed when guesses are realized, and expectations or fears are fulfilled, proves how little reliance we feel is to be placed on our own anticipations of coming events. Memory is granted us that we may be guided by what has been, and that experience may arm us against approaching contingencies. Prevision is not ours. That is a super- natural gift, only conferred and in such manner as to furnish indubitable evidence of God's gracious purposes toward mankind. When it proceeds from him it neither supersedes man’s freedom, nor qualifies him to defeat its predictions. There is a very general im- pression among thoughtful men that this impenetrable obscurity, save when ‘broken here and there by the Divine will, is a most wise and benevolent provision. “Fortunately for us mortals,’ says Mr. Froude, “necessary as any future may be, and inevitable as by our own actions we may have made it, it is kindly kept THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY alt), from us wrapt up in clouds, and we not made wretched about it by anticipation.” DeQuincey, referring to Lord and Lady Castlereagh writes: ‘They were both young at this time, and both wore an impressive appearance of youthful happiness ; neither, happily for their peace of mind, able to pierce that cloud of years, not much more than twenty, which divided them from the day destined in one hour to wreck the happiness of both.” You may recall the scene described by M. Dumas, where Cagliostro professes to see the fate of La Perouse. He was asked why not have warned the doomed man before his departure. In his reply he says: “If he had believed me, it would only have been the more horrible; for he would have seen him- self approaching the isles destined to be fatal to him, without the power to escape from them. Therefore he would have died, not one, but a hundred deaths, for he would have gone through it all by anticipation. Hope, of which I should have deprived him, is what best sustains a man under all trials.” Better doubtless is it that our vision is thus restricted; and better for us if we crave not to “see the distant scene,” but, content with one step at a time, can sing with Newman: ‘‘Lead, kindly Light! amid the encircling gloom, Lead thou me on.”’ It is sometimes intimated by those who would neu- tralize the testimony of prophecy, that some few per- sons are so highly endowed that they can foresee what is coming to pass, or are so thoroughly versed in the motives and conditions of human activity as to foretell the course of unacted history. This it is granted may not always be a desirable power ; but it is claimed there T 218 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY is no question as to its naturalness ; and the difference between this and prophecy, it is argued, is imper- ceptible. : My answer is, that one part of this implied compari- son is marked by exaggeration and the other part by depreciation. Undoubtedly there are men, merchants, soldiers, statesmen, of remarkable foresight; and its exercise is manifestly necessary to the greatest success. But after all that can be said on its behalf, how limited and circumscribed it is. At the best its most confident auguration only amounts to probability, never to cer- tainty. Markets do not always correspond to expec- tation, and war and statecraft do not always move along pre-determined lines. Dr. Barnes quotes Ma- caulay’s startling supposition in regard to the time when London may be a scene of wide desolation, and an inhabitant of New Zealand on the ruins of London Bridge may sketch the fallen towers and walls of St. Paul’s, and adds: “This is sublime in the description of what might—of what may occur. But it is not prophecy. If he had said that this z2// de, it would be prophecy.” But neither Macaulay nor any other author could write thus positively of this or any other contingency with the absolute certainty of its fulfill- ment, without supernatural aid. An attempt has been made of late years, especially by Mr. Buckle, to formulate a science of history, the spirit of which is indicated by the following passages : «Everything which occurs is regulated by law, and con- fusion and disorder are impossible”; and “the actions of men, being determined solely by their antecedents, must have a character of uniformity, that is to say, THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 219 must, under precisely the same circumstances, always issue in precisely the same results.” It is apparent that this is simply a species of unadulterated fatalism ; and if it is true that human actions are governed by necessity, by “skyey influences,” and by food, soil, and climate, let all the circumstances be known and the result can be told beforehand with as much confi- dence as we predict the occurrence of an eclipse, the transit of a star, or the return of a comet after it has wandered for centuries through the boundless fields of space. In answer to this singular theory we may be permitted to observe that even if such calculations are possible, there are no authenticated instances of their ever having been successfully made; and from all that we know of history had they been accomplished they would have been as surprising as the gift of proph- ecy which the theory aims to discredit. The unexpected continually confronts us as we re- view the annals of the race. Who from any number of pre-existent antecedents could have announced the invention of gunpowder, printing, the telegraph, or the application of steam? Who could have so nicely calculated as to herald, even fifty years before his ap- pearance, the phenomenal career of a Napoleon, of a Kos- suth, or of a Bismarck? And who from the conditions prevailing when Jesus was born, from the bigotry, nar- rowness, prejudice, could have described in advance, his spiritual character and his sublime ministry? This fatalistic doctrine overlooks or denies the one mighty factor of variableness in human affairs—the w7l/, with all the unexplored resources that lie in the restless, thinking soul. A single man may rise, like Luther, 220 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY and change the whole current of events; or like Watt, revolutionize the civilization of ages. And a marvel- ous discoverer may, though unlooked for, arise on the morrow, and as by the wave of a magic wand, trans- form the face of society. Evidently, therefore, how- ever we may infer various general results from the uni- form operation of particular laws, no such process can ever approach to the definiteness and precision of proph- ecy. Prophecy is not hope, for that is at best but a waking dream; neither is it foresight, for that after all extends only to the probable; and neither is it a species of mechanical arithmetic, for in the sum of hu- man possibilities two and two, when souls are counted, do not always make four—they may make a dozen in power and achievements. Where all these methods of exploring the future fail, true prophecy succeeds. It affirms what z2// be, not what may be, in the com- ing time; and it is so specific and clear that to prevent misconception it localizes the place, determines the period, and even in some instances furnishes the names and portraits of the chief actors in the events foretold. It is history antedating history; and he who writes it gives proof of more than natural endowment, however remarkable such endowment may be. The Scriptures utter no dubious sound on this point. They assume, affirm, and announce that the prophets are directly inspired and qualified for their sublime vocation by the Almighty; and that, while they are called to instruct, warn, and rebuke, they are also commissioned to make known the future. The name they bear is supposed to signify “one inspired,” or one who “bubbles over” as from an inward spring THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 221 or living fountain. At times they are described as “seers,” indicating the mode of receiving divine com- munications, as it is written, “I, the Lord, will make myself known to them in a vision.” Hosea employs the phrase, ‘Man of the Spirit” (9: 7), to denote the agency by which they were taught and illuminated. Hence also we read, ‘“ Prophecy came not at any time by the will of man ; but holy men of God spake as they were moved,” or as they were carried away, “by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1: 21). An instance of this we have in the passage when, referring to Moses and the elders, it is recorded, ‘“‘ The Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him’’—Moses —“and took of the Spirit that was upon him, and gave it to the seventy elders; and it came to pass that when the Spirit rested upon them, they prophesied and did not cease” (Num. 11:25). It was never deemed a suff- cient preparation for this office that its holder should have been educated. There was indeed a school of the prophets; but in every case the instruction received had to be supplemented by a clear and unmistakable call from God himself. Moses was audibly addressed by Jehovah; Samuel thought at first that Eli sum- moned him, before he realized that it was the Lord’s voice that called him; Isaiah saw the Lord on his throne and heard the words, ‘‘ Whom shall I send ? and who will go for us?” Ezekiel felt that the Divine hand was upon him; and Amos, a herdsman and a gatherer of sycamore fruit, was taken as “he followed the flock,” and was told to “go prophesy unto Israel.” From these examples, and from many express declara- tions in the Old Testament, we learn that the Jewish 222 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY people believed that God revealed himself through his chosen servants; and that in doing so he disclosed his providential care by unfolding to them the great move- ments of coming ages. Whether they erred in this view or not facts alone can decide, but that they ad- hered to it tenaciously must be conceded. They held that he spoke to men, and that only as he communi- cated with them were they qualified to speak or the people bound to hear. Nor do they hesitate to judge their claim to this distinction by the simplest of all methods, namely, by the correspondence of the event with the prediction. “When a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken.” ‘The prophet which prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to pass then shall the prophet be known, that the Lord hath truly Sentishimm (Deut 15% 22 se /ere2oroO) amen y aati same rule must he be tried to-day. Claiming to be sent by the Almighty, to represent his purpose regard- ing the future, we can only determine whether he was deceived or deceiving by determining whether his word has been fulfilled or not. The Bible itself sug- gests the criterion, and it is our duty to apply it. Perhaps it ought to be said before we proceed to examine any of their predictions, that the prophets as a class were singularly in advance of their age in char- acter and sentiment, and that in themselves they illustrated some of the more spiritual features of their own predictions. What they declared religion would be in coming years, it was seen to be in no small measure in themselves. Ponder a few of their THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 223 utterances. They denounce those “who draw near to God with their lips, but remove their heart far from him.” Reformation of life they affirm is worth more than external forms: “To what. purpose is the multi- tude of your sacrifices? ... Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed ; judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.” While they manifest no disre- spect for Levitical institutions, and appreciate their im- portance for the time being, they are not in servile bondage to them, and are free to point out their limita- tions and abuses. In this respect they are more like Christians than Jews. They only mention Moses thrice in all their writings, and never mention Sinai or the high priest. Their antagonism to dead legalism is clearly pronounced. “Behold to obey,” said Samuel, “is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” “What doth the Lord require of thee,” asks Micah, “but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” And Ezekiel utters the strange words, “I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live” ;. doubtless meaning that the ceremonial law, while serving a pictorial purpose, was not designed as the standard of the truest and noblest life (Isa. 1: 11-17; Micahs6173'; bzekh20) 122550 PS: 51 sal 6,.e0tc jeetc., ‘etc.). In these passages and in multitudes of others they evince the highest and deepest spiritual discernment. Christianity has not as yet, with all of its avowed endea- vors in this direction, been able to reach the height of this conception. Many churches are still in bondage to 224 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY the letter, though they have the example of Christ and the precepts of apostles to teach them better. How comes it that these men, at a period when religion was essentially a matter of form in all lands, when it was burdened by rites and circumscribed by temples, attained an ideal of its real nature and grandeur, which has not been surpassed by even the broadest of modern thinkers, and has really only been transcended by Christ? It could not have been earth- born; for there was nothing on earth to suggest it. Whence then came it? And whence came the power to illustrate and exhibit its beauty in character and deed? Aye, to exhibit; for this the teachers did by whom it was proclaimed. No nation of antiquity pro- duced moral heroes, instructors, and reformers like to the prophets. These exalted leaders were generally upright, disinterested, self-sacrificing, and devoted. They fearlessly reproved vice and upheld virtue, mani- fested the loftiest enthusiasm for righteousness, and they still sway the race by their fervor and consecra- tion. Indeed, what Victor Hugo says of Isaiah may with but slight modification be applied to nearly all of them : Isaiah engages in battle, hand to hand, with the evil, which in civilization makes its appearance before the good. He cries, ‘Silence !’’at the noise of chariots, of festivals, of triumphs. The doom of his prophecy falls even on nature: he gives Baby- lon over to the moles and the bats ; Nineveh to the briers, Tyre to ashes, Jerusalem to night; he fixes a night for oppressors, warns the powers of the approaching end, assigns a day against idols, against high citadels, against the fleets of Tarsus, against all the cedars of Lebanon, against all the oaks of Bashan. He stands upon the threshold of civilization, and he refuses to enter. THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 225) It would seem that these men of God not only antici- pated the spirit and genius of Christianity, when they spake, but foreshadowed in their acts what Christians would be or ought to be in the favored ages. In thought and life, they not only outstripped their own era, but in some respects went beyond our own. Can mere naturalism explain this phenomenon? How ac- count for this glorious outburst of spiritual grace and strength, if not on the supposition that God was its ineffable source? Evolution does not suffice for the solution of the problem. By what process of natural selection could such characters, with their magnificent visions and lofty sentiments have been unfolded from the social corruption, narrow legalism, superstitious in- tolerance, and deadly antagonisms of their times? That they were the inspired messengers of the Almighty is a sufficient explanation, and one that really means something, while the evolutionary hypothesis is at the best as vague and indefinite as it is unsatisfactory. It is merely a term that may signify much or little as circumstances determine; and in this case it is alto- gether too loose and uncertain for it to be of any ser- vice in accounting for the prophets and their work. Their personality is of the highest and profoundest im- port. When I read that in the Mont Blanc range, on a triangular rock, rising from the midst of the Glacier de Taléfre some nine thousand feet above the sea, blooms the Jardin, an oasis abundant and beautiful in Alpine flowers, I know that this speck of summer in the heart of winter is not due to evolution from ice and cold but to peculiar and exceptional conditions. And when I recall the prophetic period of history, a very 226 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY garden of the Lord, surrounded on all sides by bleak- ness, barrenness, and glacial frigidity, the very time- circle of past, present, and future which surrounded it, being a veritable arctic circle, I conclude that it was no outgrowth of environments, but was planted in the midst of the ages by the hand of the Almighty and was watered and sunned by his ever-gracious Spirit. And in thus concluding, I am justified in regarding this era as a self-evident disclosure of the supernatural, and though I may not live to see this foregleam of the com- ing glory completely realized, the fact that we cannot reasonably question its heavenly origin, ought to con- vince us that the Christian religion with whose exist- ence it is inextricably blended, must also be the direct gift of God.! Victor Hugo propounds the question: “What is genius?” and straightway proceeds to answer in his own epigrammatic and enigmatical way : Is it not perchance a cosmic soul—a soul penetrated by a ray from the unknown. . . These lofty souls, momentarily belong- ing to earth, have they not seen something else? Some of them full of the dreams of a previous world. Is it thence that comes to them the terror that they sometimes feel? Is it this which inspires them with perplexing words? Is it this which fills them with strange agitations? I have quoted these questions as they represent to some extent the state of mind which credulous skeptics impute to the prophets when they try to deal with the mystery of their appearance and vocation. It is boldly 1 See Robertson Smith, ‘ Lectures on Old Testament”; Talbot, in “ Lux Mundi” ; Duff, ‘‘Old Test. ‘Uheology”; Renan, “ Histoire du Peufple a’ Israel”: Fairbairn, “‘ Prophecy” ; Ewald, ‘‘ Die Propheten des Alten Bundes”; Reuss, “ La Bible"; and Bruce, ‘‘ Apologetics.’’ THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 227 alleged that they exhibit the “fine phrensy,”’ the sub- lime incoherence, and the ecstatic tremblings of genius, for which likewise the diviners, soothsayers, and ora- cles of other faiths were celebrated. The purpose of this association is evidently to discredit their vaticina- tions, and by a stroke remove them entirely from the domain of serious investigation. But in fact there is no reason for these comparisons, and they are due either to inexcusable misconceptions or culpable mis- representations. There is nothing in the conduct and manner of the true seer, as he is portrayed in Holy Writ, suggestive of the Pythian oracle as pictured by Lucan : She madly raves through the cavern, impelled by another’s mind, with the fillets of the god and the garland of Phoebus shaken from her erected hair; she whirls around the void space of the temple, turning her face in every direction ; she scatters the tripods which come in her way, and is agitated with violent commotion because she is under thy angry influence, O Apollo. —FPharsalia, 5. That God’s servants were free from such extravagant emotions and excessive excitement may be inferred from Professor Huxley’s tribute to their important achievements. In the “Nineteenth Century,” 1886, he says that they “created the first consistent, re- morseless, naked Monotheism which, so far as history records, appeared in the world . . . and they insepar- ably united therewith an ethical code, which for its purity and efficiency as a bond of social life, was and is unsurpassed.” Such men as these cannot fairly be classified with wild fanatics and muttering and shriek- ing diviners. 228 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY But a more serious misapprehension has of late appeared in the writing of various scholars, who are either identified with the church or claim to be its sin- cere friends and supporters, and whose opinions are con- fessedly entitled to respectful consideration. I have no doubt that it is the result of the powerful trend of thought from the supernatural which is characteristic of our times. Theologians and exegetes feel its influ- ence; and though they may not always acknowledge its effect on their theories and interpretations, onlookers can hardly fail to see that they, though perhaps not always knowingly, are infatuated with the modern craze for naturalism, pure and simple. If they can eliminate the miraculous element from the events and the revela- tions recorded in the Bible they are happy. They regard this process as synonymous with advanced thought and advanced criticism; and if the drift con- tinues much farther we shall come to the anomalous condition when advancement of thought will be mea- sured by its distance from God, and when the progress of criticism will be decided by its having left nothing worth contending for, or living for, in revealed religion. The misapprehension to which I refer is that which represents the prophets as never in reality pretend- ing to foretell the future. Defending them from the im- putations against their sanity, insisting that they ought not to be classed with tempestuous and bewildered sooth- sayers and dervishes, it is maintained that they were only optimistic poets who did not predict things coming on the earth, but merely indulged in indefinite visions, such as a sentimental nature deeply imbued with morality might inspire. It has been said that the Old Testa- THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 229 ment “does not merely contain prophecies: it is from first to last a prophecy.’’ No objection can reason- ably be brought against the last statement if the first clause of the sentence is understood to mean what it actually says. But when Dr. Bruce more than implies that only in a very general sense is it true that there is prophecy in the Bible, and only in such a sense as to render it practically unfit for apologetic purposes, I must dissent. He writes: The apologetic value of Hebrew prophecy does not lie in pre- dictions of future events capable of being used as miraculous buttresses to the Christian faith. Prediction is a feature of prophecy, could not fail to be; for what could men, who with their whole soul believed in a moral order of the world, do but declare that if sin was persisted in punishment would certainly follow? as To do merely this hardly required the inspiration which Dr. Bruce ascribes to these men of God.! Other sages and poets, claiming no Divine assistance, have been con- vinced of the triumph of right and have foreseen the downfall of evil, and have sung of the final supremacy of good. Did Isaiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel differ from Virgil, Wordsworth, and Tennyson in degree only. But even Dr. Bruce seems to stagger before the legitimate extension and application of the principle he has laid down when he confronts it in the hands of Matthew Arnold. That famous Hellenist wrote in “ Literature and Dogma” : Is not the correspondence between the prophetic ideals and the history of Jesus only an accidental coincidence ; very re- markable certainly, yet possessing no religious significance such as that assertion implies? When you say that Jesus is Christ, 1“ Apologetics,” p. 242. U 230 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY you mean that it was God’s pre-announced purpose that sucha personage should come, and that in Jesus that purpose found its fulfillment. Might not the prophetic ideals be poetic dreams, and the correspondence between them and the life of Jesus, so far as real, only a curious historical phenomenon ? Against this inference Dr. Bruce protests in the fol- lowing vigorous phraseology : Such skepticism is possible only to those who have no faith in a living God who works out purposes in history. It is an atti- tude toward history analogous to that of the materialist toward the physical constitution of the universe. As the materialist re- gards the world as the product of a fortuitous concourse of atoms, so the man who, on the grounds indicated, doubts the Messianic claims of Jesus, regards history as a succession of events in which no trace of a Providence can be discovered. Why is not this criticism as pertinent in his own case as inthat of Matthew Arnold? If there are specific predictions in the Old Testament regarding the Christ, why may there not be others equally definite relating to the movements of men and nations? Contending as he does for the reality of the former, he cannot con- sistently deny the more than possibility of the latter. The pre-announcements of the Messiah are certainly of “apologetic value”; and if there are others they are of too much worth to be overlooked or ignored. And that there are others and many others, Knobel testifies, and his judgment in the premises is entitled to the utmost weight. He says: “ By far the greatest portion of the prophetic discourses consists in delinea- tions of the future, or predictions referring partly to the Jehovah people, and therefore to the kingdom of Israel and Judah; partly to foreign nations who came in contact with the Hebrews.” This view is confirmed THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 231 by Hitzig, who writes: “The prophet predicts the coming evil, which is always an ordinance of Jehovah ; for Jehovah makes him acquainted beforehand with that which he had decreed.”” We have no right then, to lose sight of the particular in the general, or to resolve all the distinct landmarks of the coming times into a monotonous plain bounded by the sunrise and sunset of history, revealing nothing but what is patent to the dullest senses, and affording no guide to the perplexed feet of the pilgrim. And though it may in a measure be true as Kirkpatrick' has graphically expressed it, that “the fulfillment of prophecy could not have been conjectured from the prophecy any more than the oak tree could, apart from experience, be conjec- tured from the acorn,” still the generations that have lived since the fulfillment see clearly the relation of the acorn to the oak, of the seed to the flower; and see- ing this can hardly doubt that back of plant and proph- ecy alike predominate a Divine purpose and the Divine energy. It is impossible within the limits of a single chapter to do more than furnish illustrations of the miraculous previsions which enter so largely into the old inspired literature. These, however, must be presented, at least as suggestive helps to a fuller examination of the whole subject by the student himself, to whom is recommended the works indicated below.? 1 “* Divine Library of the Old Testament ”’ 2 Keith, on ‘‘ Prophecy ’’; Driver, ‘‘ Literature of the Old Testament”; Heinrich Ewald, ‘‘Gesch, des Volkes Israel,” and Dean Stanley’s ‘* Jewish Church,” founded on the former ; Rawlinson’s ‘‘ Ancient Monarchies ” ; Robertson Smith, ‘‘ The Prophets of Israel”; Knobel, ‘‘ Der Proph. Jes.” ; Aug. Tholuck, ‘‘ Die Propheten,” etc. : ,’ C. A. Brigzs, ‘‘ Messianic Prophecy ”; and F. W, Farrar, ‘‘ Minor Prophets.” 232 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY The examples that may with profit, on account of their simplicity and directness, be adduced in this re- statement of the Argument from Prophecy, are those that relate to certain secular and spiritual communities, to the most extraordinary people of history, and to the most marvelous personality of the ages. We begin, therefore, with Nahum and his “ burden of Nineveh.” This servant of God recorded his dark visions of the doom awaiting that city, according to Knobel, whom rationalistic critics admire and trust, sometime between 713 and 711 B.c. Canon Driver however suggests a later date, saying: “The terminus a guo is the cap- ture of Thebes in Egypt . .. by Assurbanipal, shortly after 664; the zerminus ad quem, the destruc- tion of Nineveh by the Babylonians and Medes in 607% That is, if we follow Knobel, upward of a hundred years elapse between the writing and the tragedy ; if we fol- low Driver, even then more than fifty years divide them. But these conquerors were also to array them- selves against God’s people, and Isaiah proclaimed the inevitable calamity (chap. 39) long before the Baby- lonian power regarded itself as strong enough to cope with Nineveh. Micah is equally explicit on this theme. He relates how the Hebrews should be led into their second bondage, and, according to some authorities, fully two hundred years before the accomplishment of their deliverance, described their return to Jerusalem. (Mican MigtgsOs acu 24 gehen One 13.) The passages which chronicle these momentous movements are admitted to be genuine, and their fulfillment is a matter of history. Tyre likewise was a subject of prophecy. Isaiah (chap. 23) a long while before the THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 233 mighty agent in working out the desolations recorded had acquired national prominence or importance, gave a detailed account of what should occur. Gesenius in his “Commentary,” thus explains the language of a part of the prediction: Behold, this people of the Chaldeans, a little while ago inhabitants of the deserts, to whom the Assyrians first assigned settled habitations and made it a people : this hitherto insignifi- cant people, scarcely deserving mention, shall be the instrument of the destruction of the ancient world-wide famous city of Tyre. It is historically certain that Tyre was besieged by the Chaldeans and commercially ruined, and that new Tyre, situated on the island and subsequently devastated by Alexander, submitted to the conqueror. (‘ Jose- phus Antiq.” B. 10, C. 11.) Jeremiah and Ezekiel (Jer. 1; Ezek. 26: 4, 5) trace her vicissitudes to her final doom ; and the latter in the name of the Lord writes : I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock. It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea. . Concerning the fulfillment of such a minute state- ment, Volney gives this testimony : The whole village of Tyre contains only fifty or sixty poor families, who live obscurely on the produce of their little ground and a trifling fishery. The barbarisms of the Greeks of the lower empire have.accomplished their predictions. Instead of that ancient commerce so active and extensive, Tyre, reduced to a miserable village, has no other trade than the exportation of a few sacks of corn and raw cotton; nor any merchant but a single Greek factor, who scarcely makes sufficient profit to maintain his family.— Zravels, p. 272. 234 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY The only way by which the force of this testimony has been met on the part of critics has been by chal- lenging the date of the various prophecies. Their efforts however have not won the confidence of con- servative students, and have only revealed the futility of all endeavors to assign them to the post-exilian era. And the same may be said of the shifts resorted to for the purpose of evading the startling declarations re- garding the overthrow of Babylon, through whose agency these previous calamities were to be brought about. Read Isaiah, chap. 13, 14, and observe how the conqueror was ultimately to become the conquered. Of this vast and wonderful city it is said: It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation. Neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there, neither shall the shepherds make their folds there. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there, and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures ; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there, and the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces. Ah me, “how hath the golden city ceased! how her pomp hath been brought down to the grave!” _ All of these melancholy anticipations have been completely accomplished. In the course of time the power of Babylon was not only broken, but her very territory abandoned as a spot accursed. Even the wandering Arab, fearing evil spirits, will not pitch his tent there, and the once fertile plain of Shinar is now a desert strewn with ruins of Grecian and Roman towns. If it is likely that conditions existing in the day of Isaiah pointed unmistakably to such a catastrophe, yet it remains unexplained how he could THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 235 have foreseen the permanence and extent of the desola- tions which have prevailed. Their continuance is doubt- less due to the discovery of the Cape of Good Hope— the new route to India—which diverted the world’s com- merce from Petra, Tyre, and Babylon, “as the ocean ships from Asia to California and the Pacific Railroad may yet turn it away from Liverpool and London.’ But by no kind of calculation known to us could the prophet have discerned such a revolutionizing discovery as this. When he wrote, human probabilities were against the perpetuity of the evils he disclosed. The exigencies of trade would surely rescue Babylon from its deplora- ble state. This was a reasonable view to take when it had succumbed to the invader. But this expectation was finally cut off when commerce itself providentially conspired to exclude the once prosperous territory from its benefits. Only inspiration can rationally account for this effectual confirmation of the prophetic word. Volney ( Ruins,’ chap. 2, p. 8), overwhelmed and almost terrorized by what he saw of the fate of the nations we have named, pathetically inquires : Good God! from whence proceed such melancholy revolu- tions? For what cause are the fortunes of these countries so strikingly changed? Why are so many cities destroyed? Why is not that ancient population reproduced and perpetuated ? Profitable to him, an unbeliever, were he alive to hear it, and profitable to all who are wavering in their faith, the devout reply of Stephens. He would have the skeptic stand on such a spot as the site of Babylon, - and 1 Barnes, ‘‘ Ely Lectures,” p. 222 236 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY There open the sacred Book, and read the words of the inspired penman, written when this desolate place was one of the greatest cities in the world. And he concludes with this impressive view of what ought to be the outcome: I see the scoff arrested, his cheek pale, his lip quivering, and his heart quaking with fear, as the ancient city cries out to him, in a voice loud and powerful as one risen from the dead ; though he would not believe Moses and the prophets, he believes the handwriting of God himself in the desolation and eternal ruin around him.—Stephens’ Incidents of Travel, Vol. II, p. 76. _ There are two classes of prophecies, closely allied to each other, in my judgment more wonderful in what they declare and in the manner of their fulfillment than any of those which have up to this point passed under review. I refer to those which describe the dis- persion and preservation of the Jews, and the character of the kingdom destined to supersede their lost empire. Over three thousand years ago Moses wrote concerning Israel: “The Lord shall scatter thee among all people from the one end of the earth even unto the other. . . . And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest; ... and thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a by- word among all the nations whither the Lord shall lead thee; . . . and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore; and the Lord will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance” (Deut?- 28 - scone pare Jer. 46; Lev. 26; Hosea 3 ; Amos 9; and Terese and 31). To these impressive words add the assur- ance : THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 23/7 Yet for all that when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away neither will I abhor them, to de- stroy them utterly. I will make a full end to all the nations whither I have driven thee; but I will not make a full end of thee. To recount the history of the Jews for the last two thousand years would be to demonstrate that in no essential particular has this foreshadowing failed. They have been scattered, harassed, persecuted. On natural principles we would suppose that mingling with so many diverse populations, their numbers in any one locality being relatively few, they would by this time have been amalgamated with the more populous races. Such however is not the case. They are as distinct as when they came out of Egypt, or returned from Baby- lon. Roman, Goth, Spaniard, Italian, Englishman, all in turn, and Church and State separate or combined, have in vain exerted their cruelest ingenuity to extir- pate them, or blend them beyond the possibility of recovery with the Gentiles. Even to-day, if report is to be credited, a prominent Hebrew in Paris, looked on by some as the Messiah, is urging his co-religionists to marry and intermarry with the various people among whom their lot is cast. Such devices are no more likely to succeed than the old-time proscriptions. The Jew will remain mingling with the members of different communities, and yet distinctively apart ; increasing in friendliness and yet preserving his identity ; born in all lands and yet feeling a stranger in all; governing no nation, and yet through his wealth largely governing all; and will continue thus until it shall come to pass as it is written: 238 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim ; after- ward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God and David their king; and shall fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter day. The Jews as a people are a perpetual miracle. Ac- cording to Luthardt, a certain prince asked his chap- lain to furnish him with evidence of the truth of Christianity, and to do so briefly, as he had no time to spare. The answer given was concise enough and conclusive enough: “ The Jews, your majesty.” “If the simple fact of their dispersion,” says Dr. Keith, “is one of the most astounding events in his- tory, the extent and remoteness of the countries which have been the scene of it are more remarkable still. We know how numerous their synagogues are in Chris- tian lands; but it may not be equally well known that they have their places of worship in the cities of China, in the heart of Africa, and even in regions more re- mote. Gobat, the missionary, found them in large numbers in Abyssinia, six hundred leagues south of Cairo, and their feet tread the snows of Siberia as well as the hot sands of the desert.” It has been said that the “wandering Jew” precedes the explorer. Professor Gaussen, of Geneva, who is our authority for these statements, is reported as saying, That when the Portuguese settled in India they found there three distinct classes of Jews, and when the English took pos- session of Aden, they found there more Jews than Gentiles. In Russia they number more than two million two hundred thou- sand. The State of Morocco contains three hundred thousand, THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 239 that of Tunis, one hundred and fifty thousand. There are two hundred thousand in Yemen ; eight hundred thousand in Tur- key ; and they make a total population of about seven millions in all the world. In Sana, the capital of Arabia-Felix they have eighteen synagogues ; and in Brody, where Christians ten thou- sand strong have only three churches, the Jews have one hun- dred and fifty synagogues ; and New York has in it I suppose the largest Jewish community on earth. An unknown writer in a recent periodical thus com- ments on these wonderful facts : There now exists a nation on the earth which for forty cen- turies alone of all the peoples of the world forms one family, and has descended from one father—the only one which has kept its nationality in the midst of upheavals, of massacres, and of expulsions, through all ages of barbarism and civilization, under Nebuchadnezzar or under Alexander the Great, under Charlemagne and Bonaparte. Empires have passed away as a shadow, leaving behind them only their names ; they have per- ished and their places know them no more; but the Jews are still there, standing apart from all other races, as in the days of Jesus Christ, one distinct and unique family in the midst of the confusion of all others—rich, though a thousand times despoiled ; increasing in numbers and more united than ever, though scat- tered by a tempest of eighteen centuries to the extremities of the globe. What an extraordinary enigma then is the Jew! Wherever he is met, under whatever conditions, how- ever commonplace or mercenary he may seem, and however obnoxious he may be to our silly prejudices, a mystery envelops him, and he stands before the ages as God’s unimpeachable witness to the reality of the supernatural. Its solemn light falls upon him, and as we contemplate him footsore and restless, and study his pathetic face deeply marked by the sufferings and 240 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY passions of twenty centuries, it is impossible not to believe that he has been preserved by the Almighty as ‘an ever-living and an ever-apparent proof of the Divine Spirit moving in the thoughts and words of all the holy prophets since the world began. Many have been the optimistic dreams of humanity ; but with hardly an exception they have been grounded in some scheme of social re-organization, in some com- munistic or some socialistic science of earthly govern- ment. The reformers of our own times, like those of the past, have given more attention to the relation of economics to the State than to ethics. Still the idea largely obtains, outside of Christian teachings, that society needs a more equal distribution of wealth than of righteousness; or, to phrase the matter differently, that its highest interests are to be promoted rather by craft, policy, industrial re-arrangements and, perhaps, by the abrogation of private property, than by a new and complete sovereignty of justice and right in human affairs. ‘The prophets were the first to proclaim a truer and nobler conception to be actualized under the reign of the Messiah. It is well known that they expected the old dispensation to be superseded by the new; that is, by historic Christianity. There is a genetic relation between the two systems, and the prophecies uttered under the one regarding the charac- ter of the other indicate the working of a supernatural Power in them both. ' The future empire, in contradis- tinction to every preceding government, was to be essentially moral and spiritual. We read: I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring ; and they shall spring up as among the grass, as THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 241 willows by the water courses ; so shall they fear the name of the Lord from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun: when the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall set up a standard against him. Referring to the origin and resources of this king- dom, it is written: Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet ; not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit saith the Lord of hosts; my word that goeth forth out of my mouth shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it; out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And again: For Zion’s sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth ; and with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth. Likewise the extension of this wonderful dominion is described. Many people shall go and say, come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths; I will say to the north, give up; and to the south keep not back ; bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth ; even every one that is called by my Name; for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him ; yea, I have made Dit isae 4 5e8 OC pet 2 love 2 Or This Am OSs: Ts = O45 536: boar Diet 2eECh Aero Dann2a34tu-isan59 : 19): Vv 242 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY And these are but a tithe of the texts that could be quoted in the same direction. The conception of such a kingdom in the age when it was born is truly remark- able ; and that it should have begun to be a fact dur- ing the ministry of Jesus, especially as it never seems to have been understood or appreciated by the nation previous to his time, and indeed required from his lips an enlarged and amended reading and an organizing principle which he alone could impart, is even more extraordinary. Yet this is now a commonplace of his- tory. ‘The Jews metaphorically as well as literally had stoned the prophets. They had rejected their example and their thoughts together. Or if they had retained the latter it was only to carnalize them, and make them stand as promises of temporal blessings under an earthly monarchy that should cater to their national pride. Nor was it until Christ, unaided by the ruling ideas and hopes of his period, laid the foundations of his empire, and the borders of that empire began to extend, that men came to perceive that it was fulfilling and working out the fair visions of God’s ancient ser- vants. But now as we look back, we can hardly fail to see that Christianity, notwithstanding its weaknesses, inconsistencies, futilities, and failures, corresponds in every essential respect to the prophetic ideal. It embodies more than that, but it does embody that. T’o some persons it may seem that it has come short of what was so glowingly pictured. But they must remember two things: The kingdom of righteousness, like the king himself, was to be made perfect through sufferings. Job is a perpetual parable of the Church in the world. All the anomalies, perplexities, and THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 243 enigmas in his life are reproduced in hers, and for the purpose that the outcome may be as striking and as glorious. This accounts for much in her career that at the first seems irreconcilable with her dignity and vocation. It is also not to be forgotten that some por- tions of the prophecies concerning her remain to be honored. She is not all that she is to be, nor has she done all that she is to do. What remains to be accom- plished we may not be able to describe confidently, as the facts may transcend the promise and be as unex- pected as have been the transformations already effected. This crystallization of the ideal into reality, and of beautiful sentiments, and of gorgeous visions into glorious and permanent actualities, is a slow pro- cess; but from the progress already made we have reason to believe that all of the ancient predictions regarding ‘the kingdom and the greatness of the king- dom under the whole heaven” shall be completely consummated in time now fast approaching. Another theme occupies the thought of Old Testa- ment writers—the Messiah—and their descriptions of him and allusions to him shine on the darkness of their times like stars from the vault of night. Israel has been called “the nation of hope, and its religion the religion of hope,’ and its hope centered in the coming of a God-anointed Redeemer. But as the day was about to dawn the sky was filled with clouds and mists that obscured the light. Strange misconceptions had arisen, and had changed the true meaning of what had been desired through long and weary centuries. Among the rabbis, the school of Hillel believed that Hezekiah was the Messiah; and others taught that 244 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY there were two Messiahs—Ben Joseph the Sufferer, and Ben David the Victor. Philo’s Messiah seems to have been an abstraction; the Messiah of Josephus appears to have been Vespasian ; and several learned Hebrews were so far blinded or deluded that they even ascribed this title to Herod. Thus misapprehensions and manifold absurdities were in circulation as “the old order was about to give place to the new,” and were in some sort perpetuated after the “new” had been established. But no sufficient reason for their continuance in any form can be assigned, unless it be that of intolerant antipathy toward him who exposed their utter baselessness, and who himself claimed to be the One “who should come.” That Jesus maintained and called forth this view of himself is evident from his answer to Peter’s confession, from his approval of the people’s acclamations, from his assuming the names Son of God and Son of Man, special Messianic desig- nations, from his searching and radical reformations, and from his asserted authority to forgive sins. (Matt. 1031775 Lukeli6:34;/40 5) Dan.7i2113,'143;4) obneomeleae 20 ;- Matt.9 2\14.;) Johni4 2125) 26 -8n7"3 -sMattaeom 63, 64.) In support of this claim he and his disciples fre- quently appeal to prophecy; and their citations from the old Testament are so numerous as to create the impression that they regarded this subject as the spe- cial burden of its teachings. Indeed, the quotations are so varied and almost numberless that their relevancy is not always at the first glance discernible, and they have given rise to questions not easily answered. Some of them do not appear to have been originally THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 245 intended as predictions, and others look as though they were meant to apply to personages who lived prior to the birth of Jesus and to events very different from those of his life. Though these difficulties are ad- mittedly serious, they are not insuperable. I think we should be willing to concede that the men who lived nearest to the prophets in point of time must have been better qualified than ourselves to pronounce on the traditional import of their language. They must have known as we cannot what was the fairest inter- pretation of their words. It is exceedingly unlikely that they would have gone about in public applying passages of Scripture as they did, if the meaning put upon them was entirely new and unwarranted. On the supposition that they acted in this manner, they would not only have damaged their repute for honesty, but would have frustrated their object ; for how could they have proven what they desired to prove if the people knew that the proof they adduced was no proof at all? It is hardly likely that they would have acted so un- wisely. But, in addition, the fact ought not to be overlooked that many of the texts quoted from the Old Testament were not quoted as prophecies at all, but as illustrations, coincidents, or confirmations of the par- ticular thought or theme then being presented. The expression, “as it was written by the prophets,” does not invariably mean that the words referred to were necessarily prophetical; for these men uttered truths that were historical or devotional as well as prophetical ; and these were often alluded to for the purpose of strengthening or beautifying the argument. Thus, for example, when Paul says, “The foundation of God 246 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord knoweth them that are his,” he quotes from Numbers in connection with the rebellion of Korah; or when he uses the lan- guage, “If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die” ; or again, “Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children, but in Isaac shall thy seed be called” ; he does not profess to be repeating predictions, but to be confirming import- ant doctrines by the wisdom of the fathers. Moreover, it is to be remembered that in the days of our Lord an extensive system of typology prevailed, and events which had occurred in the past were regarded as pictorial anticipations of what was to come. Strictly speaking they were not prophecies, and were only re- ferred to as vividly suggestive of men and movements more important than themselves. Instances of this principle we have when Matthew, touching on the early sojourn of Jesus in Egypt, quotes Hosea as saying : “Out of Egypt I have called my Son,” and when com- menting on the decree of Herod dooming the babes of Bethlehem to death, he cites Jeremiah describing the sorrow of Rachel for her children. He sees in the exodus of the Jews, and in the grief caused by the dis- persion of the ten tribes typical representations of our Lord's exile and of the slaughter of the innocents. It is incredible that either Matthew or his associates in- tended to be understood as literally regarding such texts as these as predictions. They must have known that such an interpretation of them would carry no weight to the mind of their contemporaries. They were not madmen to hazard the cause they had near at heart by so manifest a perversion. All this should be THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 247 duly considered by those critics, who in our time imagine that they can impugn the reliability of the evangelists by accusations of inexactness. But whether we can satisfactorily explain the principle on which these controverted quotations are introduced or not, enough remains and of less ambiguity and uncertainty, to make out a clear case of undisputed prophetic testi- mony to the Christ. And only some of these need be consulted for the purpose of our argument. Daniel, B. c. 556, declared that the Messiah should appear four hundred and ninety years after the going forth of the decree for the restoration and rebuilding of Jerusalem ; Jacob, one thousand years before this had fixed the date in connection with the permanent decline of Judah’s sovereignty ; Haggai and Isaiah announced that it would occur before the final destruction of the temple; Micah designated the birthplace as Bethlehem Ephratah ; Malachi described the messenger who should precede him; and these prophets and others said that he should be born of a virgin; that he should enter Jerusalem on the foal of an ass ; that he would be wise, gentle, compassionate; that he would preach good tid- ings to the poor and cause the lame to walk, the deaf to hear, the blind to see, the dumb to speak, and the dead to live again; and that he would be rejected and despised, offered for sin, cruelly slain, raised from the dead; would triumph over his enemies, and intro- duce in the world a new era, an era of spiritual su- premacy in which would be involved the happiness of mankind. Particular stress is laid upon his sufferings and death ; on their cause, their attendant circumstances and their consequences. The prophets caught glimpses 248 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY of the horrible tragedy, and it fascinates and fills them with awe. They behold it as though it were being en- acted before their eyes. Combining their various rep- resentations, we have the picture of One betrayed and sold for thirty pieces of silver, whose back was given to the smiter and his face to shame and spitting, whose hands and feet should be pierced, and whose body should be wounded, bruised, and scourged; who should be numbered with the transgressors and have gall and vinegar given him to drink, who should make his grave with the wicked and the rich in his death; and who should be cut off but not for himself, bearing our iniquity, carrying our griefs, and healing us with his stripes (Gen. 49: 10; Isa. 11:13 40: 3-9; 41: 27°35 TE UA AZ 19 HORA SME Sg 55 oO Ones 60 : 10—12°;Mal.s3*: 115° 4,/5 ;*Macahz§292;; »ZechoQ%. 9% Jer. 312363 -bHosed:3) 384) §47:Ps:22 22166" 34%srzor 69 : 21; Dan. 9 : 23-27). The books on whose testimony Jesus and his apostles seem mostly to rely, are those usually ascribed to Daniel and Isaiah. The former is quoted by our Lord in an unmistakable way. He calls Daniel by name, and from his writings adopts the title: “Son of Man,” and his designation of the new economy as “the King- dom of Heaven” (Dan. 7). The former expression to Jewish ears meant “the Messiah’; and the temerity of any mere mortal assuming to be the central figure of such a vision as is described by the prophet when he writes— Isaw .. . and behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him near before him ; and there was given to him THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 249 dominion and glory and a kingdom that all people, nations, and languages should serve him ; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away— proves that he must have been conscious of the most exalted personal rank and power, or must have been endowed with the most extravagant of imaginations. Nevertheless, Jesus calmly and deliberately appropri- ates this sublime imagery to himself. In almost as many words, he says: “I am the Son of man as fore- told in Daniel’s vision, and hereafter shall be seen sit- ting on the right hand of God and coming in the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 13:41; 24: 27--30, 44; 25: 31; 26:24). Was he then this marvelous and majestic being, or was he the most stupendous egoist and most transcendent charlatan that ever lived? If he was not the former, he was the latter, and if the latter, ah, poor world! where shalt thou look for truth? The critics of gospel history, anxious to avoid so extreme and damaging an inference,—for, as is well-known, they have sentimental theories of Jesus, and it would not suit their purpose to depreciate his morality,—have called in question the genuineness of the book of Daniel. They assume that if it existed at all, it did not in its present form, and that our Lord’s alleged quotations from it must have been insertions of a later period designed to prop up the dubious structure of Christianity. The original assault on Daniel was made by Porphyry in the third century. The book as we have it had an existence then, and his own statements, though wildly violent, prove that it was certainly acknowledged in times not remote from the apostolic period. Is it not probable from the source and spirit 250 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY of the first attack, that the belief in its genuineness was far more wide-spread and ancient than modern hostile criticism seems to suspect? Hengstenberg, Schulze, Delitzsch, Zundel, Auberlen, Kurtz, and Keil have investigated this subject with a diligence and thoroughness that cannot be surpassed, if they can ever be equalled; and they have shown conclusively that the authorship of Daniel cannot be disproved. In the name of honest scholarship they proclaim that the work bearing his name is entitled to confidence as gen- uine and authentic. It is not necessary, therefore, to re-open or prolong the controversy. If persons are willfully minded to repeat stale and oft-answered objec- tions, we may regret it, but we cannot help it; if they hear not Hengstenberg and Kurtz, neither would they be persuaded if one arose from the dead. It is, however, worthy of remark in this connection, as being significant of the temper with which attacks on the Bible are made, that those portions are generally denounced as ungenuine or untrustworthy which have palpable reference to Messiah. Thus the entire book of Daniel, the iatter portion of Zechariah, and the clos- ing chapters of Isaiah, are characterized as spurious, be- cause they only too evidently confirm evangelical views. I shall not undertake to expose the unfairness of this method. Perhaps I ought not, as I do not claim to be an “expert” in higher criticism. But it is fitting that I should say that these very condemned sections of the Old Testament are those which Jesus and his apostles most frequently appeal to. This is especially true of Isaiah. John begins his ministry with a passage from that prophet: “I am the voice of one crying in the THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 251 wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord.” The parallel of Isaiah 42 : 1-3 is found in Matthew 12: 17— 21; andthe fifty-third chapter is expressly appropriated by the Lord himself (Luke 22 : 37), and is subsequently interpreted in the same manner by Philip (Acts 8). There is no sufficient reason for doubting the genuine- ness of these passages. They have, until of late years, received the all but unanimous support of Jews and Chris- tians. Nor was it until learned professors sought to dis- parage the marvelous in the career of Jesus that some among them ventured to question the authorship of these texts. ' But while we may evince sincere respect for the attainments of these gentlemen, is not the express tes- timony of our Lord likewise entitled to consideration ? Is there not thorough-going common sense in what Rev. G. Ensor has written in the “Guardian” on this subject? He asks: Which must I believe—critic or Christ? Christ was a Hebrew scholar. As man he would have nothing to learn from any Hebrew chair of this or other lands. He was an Aramaic scholar. He lived two thousand years nearer to the prophets than the critics of to-day. Christ asa critic was sinless. No critic of this or any Christian age has had opportunity to personal converse with Moses. But Christ spoke to him on the Trans- figuration Mount. If I knew on indisputable testimony of any teacher who had seen and spoken with Moses, living or dead, I should attach enormous value to his opinion of Moses and his words—more, I think, than to the dictum of any Hebrew chair. I take it that it cannot be said of or by any critic that he him- self was the subject-matter of, or even referred to, by any pro- phetic writer. Of no living or dead critic can it be said that he inspired any portion of the Prophets. But this is affirmed em- phatically of Christ. Of no modern critic, sound or unsound, will it be affirmed that the Holy Spirit, the author of the Old 252 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY Testament, has descended in bodily form upon him. No critic has risen and come to us again to stand by the same words he taught respecting Holy Writ. Christ did. These considerations absolutely outweigh an infinite mass of hypothesis, of possibility, probability, plausibility, of affirmation against the truth of Holy Writ. I find that Christ, after his resurrection, with tenderest reproach reproved as fools his disciples for not believing every- thing that Moses had said. I find that some modern critics stigmatize in harshest terms the credulity of those who believe anything that Moses has said in disagreement to their dc/a. For all this I find I hold with Christ against the critic. So do I. Ewald, whose opinion is of the very highest value, insists that the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, the one most obnoxious to rationalism, is as old as the times of that prophet ; and that in it are to be found the belief of after-ages regarding the personal historical Messiah. Of course many of the modern Jews place a different interpretation on this Scripture. But their forefathers did not agree with them. Aben Ezra, in the twelfth century, writes: “Many have interpreted this chapter of Messiah because our ancients of blessed memory have said that Messiah was born the same day that the temple was destroyed, and that he is bound in chains.” Also the Rabbi Alsbrech, in the middle of the sixteenth century, declared that “the rabbis have with one mouth confirmed and received by tradition that King Messiah is here spoken of. . . He beareth the iniquity of the children of Israel, and behold, his reward is with him.” | But we confess that these questions which belong to the domain of biblical criticism cannot be thoroughly discussed in an argument of the kind we are framing. All that can be said on these vexed issues would oc- THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 253 cupy more space than the compass of this entire book affords. No one realizes this more completely than myself. Yet one thing may be done to inspire confi- dence in the positions taken thus far in the course of our argument, though difference of opinion may re- main on the exegesis of particular texts. It may be shown that men who are counted authorities in such fields of inquiry have given the sanction of their names to the general conclusions arrived at in this chapter on the subject of Messianic prophecies. Rev. E. -S. Talbot, one of the eminent authors of “Zur Mundi,” in the views he expresses on this theme, has the unqualified support of many brilliant and advanced students in theology : Unquestionably, as St. Paul himself affirms, and as the Acts and the early apologetic writers show us, it—the work of conver- sion—was done by asserting, and making good the assertion with careful proof and reasoning, that in the historical appear- ance and character of Jesus Christ, in his treatment while on earth, in his resurrection and heavenly exaltation, was to be found the true, natural, and legitimate fulfillment of that to which the Scriptures in various ways, direct and indirect, pointed, and of that which the hope of Israel, slowly fashioned by the Script- ures under the discipline of experience, had learned to expect: We may confidently assert that in the case of such passages as the twenty-second and one hundred and tenth Psalms, or the ninth and fifty-third of Isaiah, the harder task is for him who will deny than for him who will assert a direct correspondence between prediction and fulfillment. If they stood alone, gen- eral scientific considerations might make it necessary to under- take the harder task. Standing out as they do from such a context and background, . . . the interpretation which sees in them the work of a Divine providence shaping out a ‘‘sign’’ for the purpose which, in each Christian age, and especially in the WwW 254 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY first, it has actually subserved, is the interpretation which is truest to all the facts. Nor can a more decisive, or a more glowing testimony be added than is found in Professor Charles A. Briggs’ erudite volume on “ Messianic Prophecy.” While I cannot agree with all that he says on this subject, and while I know he could not subscribe to some of our evangelical expositions, the following extracts are so confirmatory of the main point at issue that they may well serve as a fitting climax to this argument. These are his words : Messianic prophecy is the most important of all themes ; for it is the ideal of redemption given by the Creator of our race at the beginning of its history, and it ever abides as the goal of humanity until the Divine plan has’ been accomplished. . . Hebrew prophecy presents us a system of instruction which cannot be explained from the reflections of the human mind. It gives us a view of redemption as the final goal of the world’s history which is heaven-born, and not a human invention. Demanding the most searching criticism from the start, it has endured that criticism in all ages—such a criticism as no other prophecy has been able to endure, such as has in fact beaten into ruins all other prophecy. Hebrew prophecy vindicates its reality, its accuracy, its com- prehensive ideality as a conception of the Divine mind, as a deliverance of the Divine energy, as a system constructed by holy men who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. The Messiah of prophecy and the Messiah of history, the re- demption of Hebrew prediction and the redemption of Christian possession, are not diverse, but entirely harmonious in the Lamb, who was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times of its history, who accom- plished it in time and eternity. Hebrew prophecy springs from divinity as its source and ever-flowing inspiration, and it points THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 255 to divinity as its fruition and complete realization. None but God could give such prophecy ; none but God can fulfill such prophecy. The ideal of prophecy and the real of history corres- pond in him who is above the limits of time and space and circumstance, who is the Creator, Ruler, and Saviour of the world, and who alone has the wisdom, the grace, and the power to conceive the idea of redemption, and then accomplish it in reality through the incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, ascen- sion, and second advent of his only begotten and well-beloved Son, very God of very God, the Light and Life and Saviour of the world. Reflection will, I am sure, convince the thoughtful inquirer that by no known theory of chances can the agreements between what was to be and what came to pass be accounted for. Jesus, if only a creature, could not have planned for his own birth to have occurred at the time and in the circumstances related by the prophets ; and neither could he have provided that all of the events of his wonderful career should have come to pass so as to tally exactly with what they had written of the “ Desire of all nations.” Either all these things were accidental—which is impossible—or they were premeditated and carried out bya power higher than any mere human agency. Back of all gleams the super- natural; and if not that, an abyss of mystery. But beyond this, by what human foresight and craft could he have provided in his brief career for his post- humous influence in the world to correspond with what the prophets had affirmed of the Messiah’s authority and power over the generations of mankind? Supposing that everything prior to his death can be accounted for on the hypothesis of happy coincidences, it is too great a strain on credulity to suppose that what has taken place 256 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY since is likewise only the continuation of such coinci- dences. The mind breaks down beneath such a mass of happily confirmatory fortuitous occurrences. It is evi- dent from the Old Testament that the Messiah’s reign over the nations was to be as remarkable as his suffering ministry ; and Jesus, in some respects, has been more wonderful since his departure from heaven than he was before. His spirit has prevailed with millions, has re- newed the face of society, has penetrated literature, and come more and more to be apprehended as the essence of Christianity. He has succeeded in attain- ing a position in the world unattained by any other historic character; and he has called forth avowals, which however explained, prove that he has more than realized the prophetic expectations. Some of these avowals we have had presented in a former chapter, but two or three others may here be added in sup- port of this astonishing exaltation. Ullman wrote In 1845: Christianity is the religion which, in the person of its founder, actually realizes the union of man with God which every other religion has striven after, but none attained; and which from this creative center, by doctrine and moral influence, by redemption and reconciliation, restores the individual and the human race to their true destiny, to that true communion, to that union with God in which all that is human is sanctified and glorified. Martensen also declares: “The nature of Christian- ity does not differ from that of Christ himself. The founder of the religion is himself the matter of the religion.” * If these representations are warranted, if 1“ Dogmatics,”’ p. 17. THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 257 Jesus is the soul, substance, and significance of the Christian faith, a faith that commands the allegiance of the most cultivated intellects in the world, we have a phenomenon not explainable on ‘naturalistic principles ; but when it is considered that this phenomenon was portrayed hundreds of years prior to its appearance in history, and is associated with a life so humble and obscure that it could give no promise of such a consum- mation, there can be no retreat from the logical conclu- sion that it was all of God—all of him, alike in its inception and realization. Here we rest our ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY. But a word or two with propriety may be added. It is important to be realized that the varied acquisitions of man have not appeased his ionging. He still thirsts for more light. That God-given “distillery of thought,” the brain, is ever reaching out, reaching down, reaching up. It is unwilling to be cloistered and walled up in the enigmatical. The thousands of inquirers who have tried to scale the heights, sound the depths, and look into the interminable vista and have mournfully cried out “failure,” have not deterred others from en- gaging in the apparently hopeless task. Man has sought out many devices by which to conquer the in- scrutable: hence the hermetic philosophers, the alche- mists and the astrologers. Optical delusion has chased optical delusion, and aberration of mind has been heaped on aberration; but with no gain, for the real can never establish itself on the chimerical. The futility of these endeavors forces us back again to the sad realization that the veil which shuts out the deeper aspects of the spiritual and that hides the future is 258 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY non-transparent, and cannot be penetrated by unaided human vision. It is impossible with all of our modern inventions to dissolve the opaque body that rolls before us ; nor have we yet discovered power by which to pass the line on which is written “no trespassing”’; and scientific certainties have as yet afforded no aid in elu- cidating those great mysteries which encloud the origin of all things and their destiny. No wonder then that man unaided cannot prophesy ; and no wonder either if he often fails to grasp the full import and meaning of prophecy. When the Son of God in sublime majesty rises be- fore us as he appeared among the people when on earth, saying, “This day is the Scripture fulfilled in your hear- ing,” we may gaze in blank incredulity, discerning not the meeting of the shadow with the substance, and give new reason for him to exclaim with Isaiah, “ Who hath believed our report?” We are told that there is a sunken forest of white cedar on the coast of New Jersey. This mine of buried timber has been worked for more than eighty years, and has proved to bea source of wealth. Over this buried forest large trees are growing and flourishing, and these have often to be hewn away to reach the more precious logs hidden some four to five feet beneath the surface of the soil. So it is with truth, and often wandering through its groves and glades, and gazing along its leafy avenues, we may overlook the fact that out of sight, embedded in the unseen, its more profound and glorious teachings lie waiting the inspiration of the Spirit to disclose them. Man’s persistent searching, knocking, and ask- ing are not to be undervalued or discouraged. Only he THE ARGUMENT FROM PROPHECY 259 should be reasonable. He should recognize his limita- tions, and should be willing that God should teach him. Shut out from him—around, above, and before him—are secrets of the greatest moment, but which can only be revealed to him through an agency higher than his own. It is in such a spirit as this he should approach the study of prophecy. If he concludes in advance that he is of himself sufficient to draw aside the veil, and that no answer can come to him from the other side, he will never seriously ask for aid from on high, nor believe it possible. But if he recognizes the bounda- ries of his own intellectual domain, and is hospitable to an invasion of light, then shall he see, not only the mighty cedars of truth that grow around him, but the treasures of knowledge that have been slowly worked out of the mine of prophecy by God in history for the enlightenment of mankind and for the estab- lishment of the Christian religion. CHAPTER VII THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY Vera Coleridge in “Christabel” describes the rupture between Roland and Sir Leoline, he graphically adds: They stood aloof, the scars remaining, Like cliffs which had been rent asunder ; A dreary sea now flows between ;— But neither heat, nor frost, nor thunder, Shall wholly do away—I ween, The marks of that which once hath been. Visitors to the cafions of Colorado, if they have ever taken the pains to examine, must have observed how true to nature this poetic conception is. They have seen the section of a mountain that has been cleft by earthquake, or some other violent cataclysm, disclosing the proof of its former unity in the corresponding con- figurations on both walls of the chasm. Were a Titan to come that way it seems as though he could press the sides together, and that the parts would meet and fit in and with each other so exactly that it would be impossible to determine precisely where the line of the old division should be drawn. And thus, though humanity stands apart from God and though a gulf of darkness in which sluggishly rolls the flood of sin sep- arates the creature from the Creator, there survive traits of character, sublime aspirations, and mysterious 260 THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 261 questionings which indicate that they were once one and that, though rent, they are still designed for each Otherw ee tien actantius. 1s, to) bem credited, :the) “word “ Religion’ comes from ve-ligare, “to bind back,” and recalling Coleridge’s suggestive figure, we may repre- sent its function as being “to bind back” the heart alienated from God ; to restore the broken harmonies, and thus cause the cliffs, long since torn asunder to be forever unified. And the religion that is fitted to do this, that is itself so complete an equivalent in its sup- plies to man’s necessities that the human and divine meet and entwine, interlace, and are spiritually sutured is self-evidently from Heaven. An interesting story was related to me several years ago, which may further illustrate this thought and the scope of the proposed argument. Among the booty brought to Paris from Spain by Marshal Soult was an exquisite painting of the virgin and her child by Murillo ; but curiously enough, only the center of the picture appeared to be by the master, as the border was infe- rior in design and coloring and was not by his hand. Examination showed that the portrait had been cut out by some vandal’s knife from the original canvas, and had been surrounded by meretricious work. The two did not agree. There was manifest schism between the face and the tawdry frame from some vulgar brush. But the other portion of the story is even more singu- lar. Lord Overstone, the English financier, when trav- eling in Spain found in a curiosity shop a picture of a very common sort, with the exception of the border, which was composed of clouds and child angels, in the portrayal of which Murillo excelled. The practiced 262 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY eye of the Englishman realized the value of the treas- ure, and purchased it tor the sake of the Murillo border. Subsequently in Paris he attended the sale of Marshal Soult’s effects, and bought the head of a Madonna. Judge of his surprise when on removing it to his gal- lery he observed some signs which indicated that he had in his possession the center of the beautiful border he had secured in Spain. Using his knife carefully, he replaced the head in its proper setting and demon- strated that the one originally belonged to the other, and that he was the owner of a restored work of art by Murillo. This rejoined picture is known now by the name, La Vierge Coupée. This to me is a parable of the adaptation of Christianity to mankind. If the Author of the soul supplies it with a gracious border, what we know of his work on the former will enable us to judge whether the latter is from his hand. They will not only exactly fit each other; but they will also correspond in spirit, tone, and depth, and when placed in true juxtaposition it will be apparent that they are alike his creation. Such a border is the Christian Faith, and it fits so perfectly to the soul of man and agrees so fully with its nature, that as the painting of the virgin bore eloquent testi- mony to the fact that the cherubs and clouds where- with it had been inclosed were from the pencil of the great Spanish master, the soul bears witness in a similar way to the divine origin of Christianity. Luthardt formulates this argument when he says in “Fundamental Truths ”’; Man is a question ; the word of Christ is its answer. _Man is an enigma, the word of Christ is its solution. . . In an algebra- THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 263 ical equation of three known quantities and one unknown, viz., X, the value of X being found, the correctness of the solution is proved by its perfect accordance with the other quantities. And the case here is exactly parallel. The word of Christ satisfies the equation of our nature ; it is the solution of the X of the un- known quantity within us. In the same direction testified Napoleon. Bertrand in his “‘ Memoirs,” represents the emperor as saying : If once the divine character of Christ is admitted, Christian doctrine exhibits the precision and clearness of algebra, so that we are struck with admiration at its scientific connection and unity. The nature of Christ is, I grant you, from one end to another a web of mysteries; but this mysteriousness does but correspond to the difficulties which all existence contains ; let it be rejected and the whole world is an enigma ; let it be accepted and we possess a wonderful explanation of the history of man. The eye is adapted to the light, needs it, is sus- tained by it, and when permanently excluded from it slowly perishes altogether, of which we have an instance in the sightless fish which inhabit the waters of the sunless Mammoth Cave in Kentucky. Specimens from the underground river I have seen, and where the eye ought to have been there was apparently only the socket covered over with a film like a curtain drawn down over a window. The night had quenched the day and the need was for a day to expel the night. Probably such a day will never come to the blind fish ; but has it come to man? He too cries forlight. It is the burden of nearly all prayers, whether breathed by an Ajax, a Goethe, a Burns, or a Heine. But has there been an adequate answer from out of the eternities ? There has been; and it is embodied and expressed in 264 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY Christianity, whichis but the effulgence of God's glory. And we know that it is this, because the spiritual na- ture of man, indeed his entire being, expands, develops, prospers in its radiance. With passion and eloquence Vergniaud harangued his fellow-Girondists before their execution: “Death is but a passage to a higher state of being. Were it not so, man would be greater than God; for he would have conceived what his Creator could not execute. No! Vergniaud is not greater than God; but God is more just than Verg- niaud.” Can it be that man, oppressed by his own burdens and inspired by his own longings, invented the Christian religion and imposed it on himself? If so, then is he greater than God; for he has conceived what of all things was most necessary to human hap- piness, and what God, who ought to have provided it, failed to execute. No! God is more just—and more loving and compassionate—than man; and being all this, we are warranted in concluding that he has con- ferred the religion which is in such complete accord with the profoundest aspirations of man’s nature. And it is to this remarkable agreement that Mr. Lecky' attributes its earlier triumphs in the Roman Empire: «The chief cause of its success was the congruity of its teaching with the spiritual nature of mankind. It was because it was true to the moral sentiments of the age, because it represented faithfully the supreme type of excellence to which men were then tending; because it corresponded with their religious wants, aims, and emotions, because the whole spiritual being could ex- pand and expatiate under its influence, that it planted 1 «« Kuropean Morals,” I, p. 413. THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 265 its roots so deeply in the hearts of men.” As this ex- plains its successful beginnings, it must surely account for its continuance; but what shall account for the ex- traordinary “congruity” short of the wisdom and benevolence of the Almighty? | Thus in various ways, in close touch however and sympathetic with each other, we reach the common conclusion that man in himself verifies the divinity of Christianity. This I call THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY, and it is my purpose in the present chapter to examine as far as may be necessary its validity and cogency. And in doing so, if my treatment may seem to deviate from the true logical order and method of psychology, it must be remembered that I desire to avoid repetition, and that the aim of this discussion is not a philosophy but a proof. First. Zhe testimony of man’s moral nature is en- titled to most serious consideration. The Scriptures at times are very foolishly denounced for representing sin as reigning unto death in the history of the race. But the critics rarely pause to explain how writings con- taining such wide-sweeping and humiliating allegations have been tolerated for so many centuries unless they are grounded in facts equally humiliating. Were we unstained by wrong-doing, with what just indignation would these foul charges be repelled. But they are not. With the exception of a few individuals who rise _and protest, all the world cries “ guilty.”” How can we contemplate the blaspheming Herod arrayed in silver splendor, or gloomy Tiberius at Capri, or Rome-destroy- = 266 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY ing Nero at Puteoli, or Socrates entertaining Theodota and banqueting with Agathon at Athens; and how can we recall the tragedies of the Sicilian Vespers, the spoliations and massacres in Poland, the St. Bartholo- mew slaughters, with all the oppressions, outrages, rob- beries perpetrated against the weak and helpless, and not with shame confess the woeful wickedness of man- kind? The barbarities under Zingis, Timour, and Attila devastating entire empires from China to the Rhine, from the Black sea to the Loire, and from the Danube to the Baltic, immolating over five millions of human beings, are but examples on a large scale of the unspeakable wretchedness and the perpetual sav- agery constantly recurring through the centuries. With a cry of pain, as from a startled and wounded heart, Carlyle exclaims: “Cruel is the panther of the wood, the she-bear bereaved of her whelps; but there is in man a hatred crueler than that”; and he might have added, there are in him also lusts, appe- tites, and passions more ferocious, insatiable, and deadly than are elsewhere to be encountered in the animal world. How he came to so deplorable a state, and on what sunken reef humanity was wrecked, are comparatively unimportant issues. But that he is in this plight of unutterable evil requires no array of ex- ceptional instances of moral aberration; for I am sure, if we will follow Lowell’s example we shall reach the poet’s bitter conviction : Looking within myself, I note how thin A plank of station, chance, or prosperous fate, Doth fence me from the clutching waves of sin ; In my own heart, I find the worst man’s mate. THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 267 This consciousness leads to a sense of alienation from the Divine being against whom transgression has been committed, just as any offender divorces himself from the person offended, instead of the offended being primarily divorced from the offender; and then this enmity is imputed by the guilty to God, as though he were the one who indulged in hatred, and hence recon- ciliation is treated as illusive, or impracticable. In this strait man usually tries to extenuate his sin by laying the blame on heredity or environment, so as to satisfy himself that he ought to go unpunished; or he mag- nifies the benevolence of the Almighty, and minimizes the force of his righteousness, and identifies his com- passionate tenderness with something like indifference to iniquity. But these evasions of the issue have never been effective in satisfying any very large portion of the race. Individuals experiment along these lines, and some of them afterward lapse into infidelity or despair, while others seek and find the true antidote tothe soul’s wound—Jesus Christ. An English writer, in a biographical note on Brown- ing, informs his readers that, while the poet may not have been a Christian of the ultra-orthodox type, he was “none the less convinced that the life and death of Christ, as Christians apprehend them, supply some- thing which humanity requires.’”’ We are told why: «The evidence of divine power is everywhere about us; not so the evidence of divine love. That love could only reveal itself to the human heart by some supreme act of human tenderness and devotion... Christ’s cross and passion could alone supply such a revelation.” Mrs. Orr assures us that “the need to 268 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY which Christ responds was more real, even for him,” than she knew, and she adds, “he never ceased to be- lieve in Christ as mystically, or by actual miracle, a manifestation of divine love. In his own way, there- fore, he was and remained a Christian.” In this man- ner undoubtedly humanity interprets the gift of God’s beloved Son. It is tantamount to a declaration of good-will to men, of reconciliation on the part of him who “might th’ advantage best have took”’; and it is the opening of a “door of hope” in “the valley of Achor.” It is just such a provision as a guilty and despairing race demands, as it reveals the possibility of forgiveness and consequently encourages every way- ward soul to abandon its iniquity. No impassible bar- rier impedes return to God and rectitude. Whatever may have been in the way of harmony he has himself re- moved, and he himself is entreating the wrong-doer to be reconciled to right-doing and to himself, the Right- Doer. To some minds all this seems very childish, very unphilosophical, and they extol a culture where all this is omitted as the true remedy of moral departures and infelicities, forgetting that this remedy proved a calam- itous failure in the classical era of letters in England, when Goldsmith charmed, Johnson instructed, Addison delighted, Burke startled, and Swift moved his genera- tion alternately to laughter and indignation, and con- cerning the evil conditions of which we have the fol- lowing reliable description from the pen of Lecky: The clergy were branded as the most lifeless in Europe, the most remiss of their labors in private, and the least severe in their lives. In both extremes of English society there was a THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 269 revolt against religion and the churches. ‘‘In the higher cir- cles,’’ says Montesquieu, ‘‘every one laughs if one talks of religion.’’ Drunkenness and foul language were thought no discredit to Walpole. Purity and fidelity to the marriage vow were sneered out of fashion. At the other end of the social scale lay the masses of poor. They were ignorant and brutal to a degree which it is hard to conceive. They were left without moral or religious training of any sort. Hannah More wrote: ‘We saw but one Bible in the whole parish of Cheddar, and that was used to prop a flower pot.’’ In the streets of London gin-shops invited every passer-by to get drunk for a penny and dead drunk for twopence. But what saved England from this abyss? The Wes- leys and Whitefields; that is, the unveiling again of the Christ. He had been hidden by ecclesiasticism ; and the interblending of religion with politics and with the wars of factions and of dynasties in the State had quite obscured his image and his grace. Christianity had lost its power, and culture ignominiously had failed as a substitute, and irretrievable demoralization was only averted by the potent Methodist revival. The Augustan Age of English literature is in evidence, that however for its own sake and for its advantages in many respects culture is to be prized, as an instrument of practical morality it is not adequate to the needs of a race that has gone astray from God and righteousness. Facts concern us here, not theories ; what has been and is, not what a few refined individuals suppose ought to be. And we find from the experiences of centuries that the preaching of Christ and him crucified, which at first influenced the Roman world—slowly and gradu- ally we admit, but truly—to forsake its most dissolute courses as symbolized in the unclean imagery of the 270 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY Gyneczeum, and the equally unclean practices of the grove of Daphne, and of the worship of Laverna and Cybele, has since continued to furnish the most power- ful incentives to purity of thought and uprightness of conduct : Talk we of morals? O thou bleeding Lamb ! The grand morality is love of thee. Supreme among these incentives unquestionably stands our Lord's immeasurable love, expressing itself in vicarious sacrifice. There is an undoubted ethical fascination in his person, a sweet spell charming to goodness in his holy precepts, but all the ages have confessed to a mysterious subduing force impelling toward righteousness in his sacred passion. The doc- trine of atonement has been ridiculed, caricatured, and the most opprobrious terms applied to it, such as “the butcher theory of redemption”; and a poet has gone so far as to write in an excess of madness: Upon my grave place ye no cross Of stone, of iron, or of wood ; My soul has ever loathed that tree Of martyrdom, of pain, and blood. It ever pained me that a world, Filled by a God with light and joy, Should choose, as symbol of its faith, The rack on which a slave must die. Nevertheless, the sufferings of our Saviour have moved more men to repentance and reformation than all other moral forces combined, and more than all others have deepened throughout the world the sense of the infinite preciousness of personal goodness. And the explanation of this power must be sought in the THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 271 constitution of the universe and in the nature of man himself. AAs Horace Bushnell has masterfuliy depicted, the very universe itself is in vicarious sacrifice. Life evermore is fed by death, In earth and sea and sky ; And that a rose may breathe its breath Something must die. I cull the following anecdote from “Christian Thought ”’: A person writes from Constantinople that one of a flock of sea-gulls that were on shore was wounded. The next day the flock started over the Sea of Marmora, leaving behind their wounded companion and two to minister to his wants. These brought him food and nursed him. In a few days the three rose from the ground and started in their flight. Soon the wings of the wounded bird failed. Then his companions went under him and carried him until he was rested. They substituted their pinions for his poor and feeble wings. We are strangely moved by this and similar in- stances in the kingdom of birds and animals of vicari- ous service. And when in a higher realm, Codrus of Athens rushes into the fury of the battle that the gods may be propitiated by his death; and when Curtius of Rome to rescue his beloved city, leaps full-armed into the yawning gulf; and when Iphigenia is willing to surrender up her life on the altar that the wind-bound fleet may be released from Aulis, however we may doubt the stories and deplore the superstition, we are so far from being offended that we feel that we too could also suffer, and in some circumstances ought to immolate ourselves for the safety and happiness of others. When Winkelried gathers the Austrian spears in his arms which pierce his side that a path may be 272 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY cleared for liberty; when the soldier covers the body of his commander with his own and falls beneath the stroke designed for his chief ; when a Livingston goes down into Africa and takes on himself all the evils of malaria, of exposure and solitude that light may come to the Dark Continent; and when Damien, the leper- priest, forsakes the delights of civilization and denies himself the pleasures and profits of refined society that in sharing the woes of the afflicted the repulsive loath- someness of disease may be mitigated by kindness, we cannot but praise such heroes of humanity and possibly deplore our inability to rise to such sublime heights of self-sacrifice. - Stanley, in one of his books, relates the falling away of Uledi, cockswain of the Lady Alice, from his integ- rity and what came of it. The man was much admired for his devotion and intelligent bravery. But having robbed his master, a jury of his native pagans con- demned him to endure “a terrible flogging.’”” Where- upon, his brother, Shumari, arose and said: “ Uledi has done very wrong; but no one can accuse me of wrong-doing. Now, mates, let me take half the whip- ping. I will cheerfully endure it for the sake of my brother.” But scarcely had he finished when another came forward and spoke as follows: ‘ Uledi has been the father of the boat boys. He has many times risked his life to save others; and he is my cousin; and yet he ought to be punished. Shumari says he will take half the punishment; and now let me take the other half, and let Uledi go free.’”’ We are not shocked at these proposals. Rather we admire the spirit of the men; and wecan hardly fail to feel that their voluntary THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 273 assumption of chastisement due to another, and which they acknowledge to be due, must powerfully have affected the camp for good, must have touched the heart of the guilty man, and must have restrained wrong-doers as the strict infliction of the original penalty never could. The Rev. J. K. Dixon related to me an incident of a kindred character bearing on this subject. He. said that a teacher had in his class a refractory boy who appeared insensible alike to threats and promises. At last, believing that nothing was left for him to do but to inflict condign punishment, he or- dered the stubborn pupil to take off his coat. The lad sullenly refused to comply, and being persistent in his disobedience, the master roughly tore off the garment, when he and the entire school were surprised to find that the little fellow had on no shirt, and that his body gave evidence of insufficient nourishment. Down came the whip however just the same, only it fell not on the poor famished shoulders, but on a scholar who had pushed the real offender aside and was submitting to punishment undeserved by himself. The teacher continued the beating; but the victim in hts clutch was none other than his own son. When we think of this brave, compassionate sufferer we do not for a moment suppose that he, in any reasonable sense, became guilty when he took the place of the culprit. He was not in fact paying a penalty, he was in his simple way offer- ing a sacrifice. Our natures do not revolt from the transaction, as we would if the teacher had compelled one boy to endure the chastisement due another. We behold in this act of devotion an illustration of the vicarious principle that enters so largely into life, and 274 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY which in the mother, the father, the patriot, the philan- thropist goes very far toward lightening its burdens and overcoming its evils, and without which society and the famiiy would be rendered impossible. Jesus our Lord likewise, and pre-eminently in his ministry and in his death, was in vicarious sacrifice. He bore our griefs, carried our sorrows, “and he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.” “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Unless will- fully perverted, these texts have only one conceivable reading and that goes straight to the heart. They teach that Christ has entered our evil plight, has taken on himself the load of affliction that presses us sore, has voluntarily placed himself within the operation of the retributive consequences following transgression, and has in sublimest love freely given his life to effect our redemption from the curse. It is not necessary that I define with anything like exactness what is com- prehended in an atonement; but it must be evident that such an offering as this must profoundly affect the moral nature of God even as it touches, moves, and trans- forms the moral nature of man. We are drawn to it; and we are only repelled by the caricatures given: of it by those skeptical teachers and downright infidels who stop short at no extreme of profane ridicule. When the broken heart of a mother becomes a suitable theme for ribald jest, or the painful endeavors of a father for the reclamation of a son are considered a fitting subject for buffoonery, then may the theologian pause to frame an adequate reply to uncandid and irreverent character- THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 275 izations of the atonement. In the meanwhile, in the face of silly mockings, the sufferings of Christ have been transmuted into triumphs and the wreath of shame into a crown of honor; and the cross has come to mean the defeat of sin, the defiance of pain, the death of death, the dispensation of love, and the moral grandeur of self-sacrifice. . Humanity testifies to the right and fitness of his stupendous passion to govern in conscience and in conduct. It speaks out of its own essential na- ture, and from the common interpretation of the laws sovereign in its own constitution and in that of the uni- verse, and declares that when the Almighty articulates his thought of grace in the anguish of Gethsemane and Calvary he employs the language of all worlds, a tongue the humblest and most ignorant mortal can understand, and without which all other speech would have sounded as a mongrel fafozs unworthy the lips of heaven’s King. Moreover, it is to be taken into account also that man’s ethical being approves, with hardly a demurrer, the moral precepts of Christ, to the enthronement of which in heart and life his vicarious sacrifice is conse- crated. This is so generally admitted, even by unbeliev- ers, as hardly to call for any remark or comment. Conscience extols the Sermon on the Mount, though conduct usually deals with it somewhat unceremoni- ously androughly. The poet Ovid confessed to what we know is true of multitudes: “I see and approve the better things, while I follow those which are worse.” Explain it as we may, while men yield to passion and impulse, there is a witness within that gives the force of its authority to the excellency and reasonableness of 276 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY our Lord’s commandments. ‘Men approve the right and yet the wrong pursue.’”’ Schopenhauer admits that the purely ethical portion of Christianity is unassailable. And Kant writes in his “ Letters to Montaigne”: “I do not know why men will insist on ascribing the ex- cellent morality of our books to the progress of philos- ophy. This morality, which is derived from the gospel, was Christian before it was philosophical.” And it remains in every essential respect what it was at the beginning. Men have invented many things since Jesus taught and suffered, but they have added no new principle of human conduct to those laid down by the Nazarene. They have adopted his sentiments and have embodied them in poems, they have incorporated them into lectures and addresses, and they have at times given them fresh force by the novelty of their application to passing movements, and the world has mo- mentarily been bewildered by the supposed originality of their utterance. But when these brilliant productions have been sifted, it has been proven that the gentle hu- manness of Emerson, the reverberant righteousness of Carlyle, the sustained ethical elevation of Tennyson and Browning, and the magnanimity, self-forgetfulness, and devotion to duty characteristic of many other writers, are only variations of that grand moral anthem whose inspiring strains first filled the vales and lowly places of old Palestine, and since have echoed in colleges and churches, in councils and congresses, in fraternities and families, in pulpits and parliaments, sanctioned with equal conviction by an Abelard or Renan, by a Luther or Spinoza, by a Calvin or Pascal, by a Fénélon or Rousseau, by a Spurgeon or Victor Hugo: that is, by THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY jr], the voice of humanity. Strange is it that this Peasant Preacher of Galilee has never been surpassed by any of the world’s subsequent teachers of eminence. Quite marvelous this in its way and evidence, as we have already pointed out, of a dignity and rank in the universe impossible to measure by earthly standards. However men may cavil, and however gifted souls, like Comte, may attempt to substitute a new system that shall be both decalogue and altar, Jesus Christ stands supreme in morals, from whose divine philosophy of life nothing can be subtracted without injury and to which nothing can be added with advantage ; and in which all revisions, such for instance as is suggested by Comte’s “Vivre pour autrere,” for “ Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,” sound trivial and almost puerile. Herbert Spencer’ even regards the ethical principles of our Lord as destined to be the crowning glory of humanity in the future, evolution itself being unable to conceive of anything nobler or truer than the laws of conduct he divulged and the precepts he enjoined. The judg- ment of the race, therefore, the convictions of “all classes and conditions of men,” approve intensely, as indispensable to the real well-being of individuals and communities, these sacred injunctions. These need no outside proof to substantiate them. They are self- proved, self-proved by their vital relation to right motive and right action, and if they had no other foundation to rest on, they would still command our homage, sus- tained as they are by the authority of conscience. SECONDLY. The testimony of man’s spiritual nature we now proceed to introduce into court. In weighing 1 ** Data of Ethics,” Y 278 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY it we should realize that religion is a capacity before it is an activity. It is first a potentiality and then an actuality. Nor could it exist outwardly as a system if it did not previously exist inwardly as a possibility. The earth has a capacity for trees, or there would be no trees so long as the world stands; and the atmos- phere must be constituted to receive and transmit light or the globe would continue a dayless orb to the end of time. All imaginable revelations from the eternities would be utterly vain were there only material beings without intelligence, and all commands to worship would be absolutely pointless were there not already an altar in the soul. Religious graces, like trees and flowers, are impossibilities unless there is kindred soil wherein they may find rootage. Hence it is that man has been described as a religious animal, as everywhere he discloses affinities for commerce with invisible powers, and nearly everywhere has tried to give ade- quate objective form to his aspirations in fetich, idol, sacrifice, temple, and sacred priesthood. What is intended, however, by this definition—“ re- ligious animal’—can, in my opinion, be better ex- pressed by the term “ spiritualness,’ meaning thereby, not merely a mood or state of the soul, but its actual essence and fundamental character. God is a spirit ; man is a spirit; and being alike in nature they can commune with each other, and can enter into and dwell in each other. Unless this correspondence is real, every alleged supernatural faith proclaimed in the earth is an illusion and sham. What we claim is that the ultimate reality, that which is back of all things, that interro- gates all things, that explains all things and imparts its THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 279 glory to all things, is spirit. Human nature pro- tests, and protests in the speech of science as well as in that of piety, against the assumption of a few erratic theorists that there is nothing great in the uni- verse but man, and nothing great in man but matter. Yes; back of physical creation, God; back of the physical body, spirit ; and out of the union of the two grows the phenomenon we call religion, with its sacred persons, places, and times. Interesting forever the question propounded by M. de Chateaubriand and the eloquent answer he himself supplies : Why does not the ox as I do? It can lie down upon the grass, raise its head toward heaven, and in its lowing call upon that Unknown Being who fills the immensity of space. But, no; content with the turf on which it tramples, it interrogates not those suns in the firmanent above, which are the grand evi- dences of God. Animals are not troubled with those hopes which fill the heart of man; the spot on which they tread yields them all the happiness of which they are susceptible; a little grass satisfies the sheep, a little blood gluts the tiger. The only creature that looks beyond himself, and is not all in all to himself, is man. There is consequently in him something different, something higher than can be found throughout the entire domain of the mere animal kingdom. What? A spiritual nature, a nature that cannot be satisfied apart from God, and that has been endlessly projecting itself into cults, ceremonies, temples, and theologies. It has asserted itself in cosmogonic dreams, creating countless worlds by thought, and in tranquil intoxication has anticipated the losing of self in the unimagined joys and blessedness of the unseen universe. With the 280 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY Chaldeans it appeared and offered sacrifice at the shrine of Belus; with the Sabians and Assyrians it adored the host of heaven ; with the Egyptians it served in the temples of Osiris and Isis, and with the Greeks in the entheastic mysteries of Bacchus. In the ancient times it demanded the consultation of omens before the open- ing of senates, before the march of armies to the fron- tier, or the departure of fleets to contest the dominion of the seas. It taught the soldier to invoke the favor of Mars when he buckled on his sword; the sailor to seek the blessing of Neptune; the agriculturist to invite the smiles of Ceres to prosper vineyards and fields; the artist and poet to wreathe a chaplet for the altar of Apollo; and ardent lovers to breathe their vows at the feet of Venus. In the far East it clothed itself in mysticism, celebrated its God in gigantic tem- ples, and articulated its awful creed in the monstrosities of the Ganges and of Juggernath. But these expres- sions, rites, and observances, and others we shall study in a subsequent portion of this volume, have never been able to meet the sublime aspirations of the soul, or to develop and enlarge its capacity, and neither have they succeeded in purifying its ideals, in exalting its aims, in purging its motives, and in transforming its worship. This was reserved to the potent grace of Christianity. Christianity glorifies the spiritual, satisfies it, honors it, unfolds it, and enables it to fulfill itself in many ways. And in doing this, man’s nature bears testimony to the divine origin of Christianity— for that which provides for his deepest needs and directs his highest functions to their true end, and that makes real and precious the entire spiritual realm must be of God. THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 281 1. Christianity renews and elevates man’s spiritual nature. The Holy Ghost abides in the church, and in connection with her sacred offices carries forward this work. “Ye must be born again,” is the imperative prerequisite of admission to the kingdom on earth or in heaven. Christ himself revealed this requirement ; and the Comforter enters human hearts that it may, through the experience of his operations, be complied with. No better word can be given to this change than that by which it is called—*“ regeneration ”’ ; for it is in reality a reproducing or making over of the soul. As the soil may be re-fertilized by proper chemicals so that it will bear a fairer quality of plants, and as the body may be re- juvenated by wise remedies, so even in a more radical sense, the seat of all religious thought, emotion, and volition is renovated and quickened. In this new con- dition love of a loving God becomes the ruling passion, and next to it love of an unloving and unlovely hu- manity. It brings with it a consciousness of holy de- sires, of divine grace and of Christ’s saving power, and of immortality ; or in other words, a consciousness that is to him who feels it the highest kind of proof that Christianity is an eternal verity and no lie. How this transformation opens the eyes, refines the taste, and leads to acts of worship that are instinct with devout- ness and blessed fellowship I need not undertake to describe. These are the sublime commonplaces of faith. But there are other and perhaps more excep- tional experiences which may not be passed unnoticed ; for they add to the richness and variety of the Chris- tian’s inner life, and in some degree explain the charm and fascination of the religion he professes. 282 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY As Paul the apostle says, “I now come to visions ” ; and yet by the term I do not mean exactly what he meant when he describes his own translation to the third heaven, whether in the body or out of it he could not tell ; but rather such disclosures of the grandeur and bewildering magnitude of the verities he believed as tend to thrill with delight while they moderate and sub- due our intellectual pride. There are moments when the child of God seems to be with his Master on the Mount of Transfiguration and to have escaped from the well-worn ruts and beaten highways of ordinary and trivial thoughts and actions. From that height he looks into the abyss of his own soul, and draws back alarmed and yet exultant. The depth of mystery in himself is terrible ; the shadows of love and pity are impenetrable ; and the cleft that divides his being into a ravine whére good and evil confront each other and through which flow the gentle sounds of prayer, praise, and of immor- tal aspiration, amazes and affrights. Never until he is in Christ by faith does man begin to take the true measure of his own significance. He then finds him- self as wonderful as day and night, as enigmatical as music and poetry, and as resourceful in high thought, glorious fancy, and persistent energy as is the uni- verse in gold, silver, grasses and flowers, in precious stones and subtle forces. He then realizes that “time and eternity meet in him, like tides that embrace each other having swept the circumference of the globe” ; and that he is the “ product of predestination and lib- erty,” and is still “becoming what he is and is only what he has become.” If he looks downward in that marvel called “self,” he sees the earth ; if upward, the THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY Pheye. heavens ; if around him, the power of great and all-com- pelling potencies ; and if he searches within, he beholds in the inner sanctuary freedom, freedom apparently strong enough to conquer destiny, and yet, alas, at times weak enough to succumb to the enticing smiles dancing in a mocking wanton’s eyes. Then there is the ocean of Divinity, fathomless, shoreless—at one moment stretching out before us calm, serene, irrides- cent with love, and then stormful, tumultuous, sweep- ing on in all the might of indignant justice as though to swallow up the guilty earth. Before the Infinite and Uni- versal, what are we ? What can we say to this labyrinth of mysteries, called God? How find our way through the mazes of the absolute and the relative, the personal and impersonal, the unity and the trinity, the unchange- ably just and unalterably merciful? There is no outlet from these deep defiles. To modify the figure, these stupendous conceptions stand apart as mountain peaks, which cannot be joined together, but which are bathed in a celestial light. From the one all the others can be seen, and the entire range is so transcendently glori- ous, so radiant with assurances of divine compassion and grace, and so luminous with visions of what shall be in the world eternal, that he who gazes long is thrilled with holy gratitude, that he, like Kepler, can “think the thoughts of God,’ while over him comes the insufferable splendor of an ecstacy comparable only to the brightness on the face of Moses when he de- scended from the sacred mount. Out of these contemplations and precious reveries, these uplifting feelings and transports, have proceeded much that has been beautiful in the lives of many saints. 284 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY Recalling what they have been in their day, we cannot but regard spiritual raptures as evidence conclusive that the religion through which they come is congru- ous with the spiritual nature of man. Thus are we impressed by the teachers and leaders of the church, who are usually styled mystics, but wno only pretended to a clearer insight into the deep and dark things of faith than was sought or considered possible by many in their generation. From an army of such saints I need only select Origen, Augustine, Nicholas of Basle, Tauler, Ekart, Francis of Assisi, Thomas 4 Kempis, Behman, Bernard of Clairvaux, Madam Guyon, Zinzendorf, Fox, Heber, and Frederick Denison Maurice. The influence of these personages and of their class has tended con- tinually in the direction of closer and more abiding intercourse with the Supreme Being, and of freedom from the things of time and sense. Olympiodorus, commenting on the “Gorgias” of Plato explains in this manner the fable of “The Fortunate Islands,” cele- brated in antiquity: “They are said to be raised above the sea, and hence they represent a condition of being which transcends this corporeal life and they are the same as the Elysian fields. He who in the present state vanquishes the dark and earthly life through the prac- tice of the purifying virtues, passes in reality into the Fortunate Islands of the soul, and lives surrounded with the bright splendor of truth and wisdom proceed- ing from good.”* A dream this of the pagan Greeks ; a blessed possibility now and for twenty centuries gone to all men through Christianity. They who in obedi- ence to their Lord shall deny themselves, shall mortify 1 Taylor, ‘“‘ Eleusinian Mysteries,”’ p. 53. ik THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 285 the flesh, and shall lead that self-crucifying career of patience, gentleness, renunciation, and love, shall attain also to the higher moods and beatifying visions of the life in God; and the conditions of this blessedness, as well as the blessedness itself, goes to prove that as in the religion of Jesus there has been found a portion satisfying to the divinest thing in humanity, it must be the special gift of him who cannot be indifferent to the well-being of the creatures he has made. ( 2. Christianity intensifies and inspires man's spiritual nature. That there began with the ministry of Jesus Christ an unparalleled quickening of the religious con- sciousness cannot seriously be disputed. Not only is this proven by various scenes given in the Acés, wherein is shown how suddenly responsive men had become to the claims of God, but also by the increase of Stoicism among certain classes of pagans to which, in very large degree, Lecky attributes the ultimate triumph of Christianity throughout the empire. While there is no good reason for supposing that sentiments as mild and as coldly beautiful as those contained in the “Enchiridion” of Epictetus and the “J/edztations”’ of Aurelius wrought the wonderful change that came over the ancient world, they are at least in evidence that a new and potent spirit had taken possession of mankind. Certainly there was little, if anything, in common between the profound realization of eternal verities, the moral enthusiasm of the primitive church, and the simple worship of her exalted Redeemer, and the sensuous joys of Olympian Festivals, the painful rites and mocking splendors of Mithrian ceremonies, the infamies and deliriums of Cybele’s service, and 286 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY the dissolute and seductive charms of Bacchic orgies. They were radically different. The religion of beautt- ful mythologies, of youthful Dionysus, As he burst upon the East A jocund and a welcome conqueror, And Aphrodite, sweet as from the sea She rose, and floated in her pearly shell A laughing girl— touched the zsthetic nature and thrilled with pleasure, but they left unmoved the nobler part of man. It is not to: be denied that some of the old rites of paganism were appropriated, with modifications, by Christianity, and that some of its corruptions have been perpetuated under the new economy ; but the basis in consciousness on which rests belief in unseen realities underwent a change. Henceforth the spiritual reigns supreme. It reveals itself even in the rivalries of theologians, the ambitions of ecclesiastics, and the fanaticisms of turbu- lent laities. Back of all the struggles, contentions,— outrages that disgraced the Christians of the first four centuries,—cannot but be seen ideals, thoughts, precepts inculcated by our Lord striving to be understood, rec- ognized, and formulated ; and back even of these there is disclosed an aroused and excited feeling, strange to that age of the world, that impels the leading minds of the times to consider as never before questions con- cerning the nature of God and the condition, duty, sal- vation, and destiny of man. We may blame bishops and presbyters for their acrimony and bitterness and for many mistakes into which they fell; but we cannot deny the intense religiousness that impelled and sus- tained them. This is apparent at every stage of the THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 287 formative period of Christianity ; and it has descended, with an occasional decline and returning revivication, through all the centuries to the present hour. It gave rise at the beginning to a new style of literature, to epistles, addresses, homilies, apologies; that is, to religious literature, which continues still with unabated prolificness to be produced and with unabated power to fascinate the thought. But this quickened conscious- ness gave rise also to a new type of activity, a type that distinguishes modern from ancient times, and which is in itself as brilliant and as wonderful as any poem or any theology penned by genius under the influence of strong emotion. The inspiration of thought has occupied so large a place in the discussions of all times that sufficient at- tention has not been given to the inspiration of deeds. Yet we cannot surely doubt but that God is as much in the latter as in the former. Is the doing of good of less importance than the defining of good? Or shall we conclude that the translation of gospels into actions has as much claim on divine assistance as their trans- lation into speech? Whatever others may believe, I am persuaded that he who moved on holy men of old to speak, has likewise moved on holy men to do, and is still moving. While the inspiration that led formerly to special revelations seems to be suspended, and ap- parently has been since the completion of the Apoc- alypse, the inspiration that impels to moral heroism, a heroism that embodies the very essence of all that our Saviour taught and endured, has never ceased from the first hour when it dazzled with its grandeur the eyes of a self-seeking and selfish world. Previous to its 288 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY achievements in the person of a Paul or of a Telem- achus, there were notable instances of devotion to the gods or to the State; for men have always been capable of some measure of self-immolation. But antiquity knew no enthusiasm for humanity. It knew how to die for a country in the wild delirium of patriotism, or how even to suffer in the phrensy of superstition, “ while all the world wondered,” for the honor of an altar; but it never grasped the dignity of man as man or thrilled with a love that counted it an honor to lie down and die for the security and happi- ness of a suffering fellow-being. ‘ Such a scene as Victor Hugo describes in the closing part of “Ninety-Three,”’ the ante-Christian ages could not have understood. The spirit it reveals would have transcended their comprehension, and they would have regarded its hero as a lunatic. And yet the case im- agined by the great novelist is not exceptional, it is only illustrative of the quickening which has come to man through Jesus Christ; and indeed as the chief actor in it can hardly be regarded as a Chris- tian at all, goes to show that it has proven itself sufficiently powerful to move ungodly men to most godlike acts of devotion. All this will perhaps be more fully appreciated if I try to reproduce in con- densed form, though as far as possible in the graphic phraseology of the writer, the dramatic scene to which I have referred. Victor Hugo represents the Marquis de Lantenac, an old royalist rebel, as having escaped from the feudal stronghold of La Tourgue. This man surrounded, doomed, outlawed, bound in on every side by iron and THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 289 fire, had escaped. He had reached the forest ; that is, safety, and in the shadow of night he would disappear in its depths. But he was arrested in his flight by a cry. Victor Hugo tells us that the cry of indescribable agony is only given to mothers, When a woman utters it one seems to hear the yell of a she-wolf. The cry of this woman was a howl. Homer says: Hecuba howled. Lantenac heard. He looked and saw appall- ing agony in the face of an unknown villager. What had turned this poor, vulgar, unreasoning creature into one of the Eumenides? She had suddenly reached the epic grandeur of despair by seeing her three little children in the burning tower, She was no longer a simple mother. Maternity’s voice cried out in hers, and in sobs rather than in words she ejaculated: «O, my God, my children! Those are my children burning up! Help, help! are they all deaf that nobody comes ? Horror, horror!” Voluntarily, spontaneously, by his own free act, Lantenac, left the forest, shadow, secur- ity, liberty, to return to that terrible peril—the guillo- tine. He plunged into the conflagration, with the risk of being engulfed therein. He brought the children safely down the ladder, which while it proved a means of escape to others, was to be perdition to himself. This noble, this: prince, this old man, free and trium- phant, had risked all, compromised all, had lost all, to save the lives of three babes whose preservation was of no particular interest to him or to the cause that lay so near to his heart. He had had choice between his own life and that of others; and in this superb option he had chosen death. Here was the fanatic of royalty and feudalism, the slaughterer of prisoners and women, Z 290 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY the man of blood—transfigured into a hero. Warring against the people, he had betrayed his own life to save the offspring of the poorest of the people. Were these children his own? No. Of his family? No. Of his rank? No. They were three little beggar babes, ragged, unknown, foundlings. What then was the force that moved him? It was innocence rising above the enormous legion of crime, and conquering. It was innocence asserting its right to the homage of strength, its right to the protection of all beings in whom once it dwelt. But how came men to recognize the sovereignty of its claims? Jesus Christ explains all. He said, with indescribable tenderness and pathos, “Suffer little children to come unto me,” and “except ye become as little children” there can be no true greatness ; and from that momeft innocence became a sacred thing—a thing to be honored and died for. All men ave been innocent, hence there is something sacred in all men ; and as Jesus took their nature, he has himself sanctified it, and so there has come to be the thought that hu- manity as a whole should be succored and should be rescued from every loss even at the cost of life itself. As we would respectfully uncover were we in a ruined church or cathedral and tread reverently the broken pavements long since forsaken by worshipers, so even humanity, now marred by sin, and the altar of innocence broken down, commands the tribute of our veneration and our tears. The thought of what has been, and indeed of what may be and ought to be, inspired by the example of our Lord, has led thousands of heroic souls to plunge into flood and flame, into contagious THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 2Q0r disease, into poisonous miasmatic regions, and into the vortex of fiery battle that the imperilled and perishing might be saved. And this great tenderness, this abne- gation so majestic, this self-renunciation so complete, this sympathy so august can only have proceeded from him, who “when there was no eye to pity and no arm to save, laid help on One who is mighty to save,” and from whose heart of love proceeded the gift of his Son to be for all a ransom and a sacrifice: and the religion disclosing this and inspiring to such sublime devotion has manifestly in it the water-mark of heaven. THIRDLY. The testimony of man’s intellectual nature remains to be examined. “Reason,” writes Bishop Butler, “is a verifying faculty.”’ Certainly, even if this statement of the case is a trifle too absolute, reason has tests of its own which in their way are quite infallible. While religion is largely an affair of the emotions, it is so intimately related to mind that it must in some good degree satisfy the latter if it is to influence the former. These two are like husband and wife ; no longer twain but one. They are like the two poles in electric science, mutually dependent; or they are like the alternations of light and darkness, divisions and portions of one day. Religious feeling separated from intelligent conviction, and not governed by it, resembles an unchanneled river which is unnavigable and disastrous in its freedom, and is only another name for fanaticism and delirium, while conviction which fails to enlist the feelings may be compared to the bed of a river through whose banks no waters flow, and is synonymous with dry speculations and sterile formulas. The first recalls a country traveled without 292 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY guide, chart, or food; the second, a map of the same country which is never used as the journey is never undertaken. (a.) Thought demands that its laws shall be honored. Christianity more than respects the demand. Presi- dent Porter maintains that the principle of design 1s necessarily postulated in all of our interpretations of nature. “That the universe must have had a beginning,” Principal Dawson declares, “no one needs to be told.” “As the power and skill of a workman are seen in his works, so the works of God express the wisdom and omnipotence of the Crea- tor,’ writes Lord Bacon. Some persons pretend that there is no foundation for what is called the “argument from design,” and that evolution has quite done away with theological speculations. This however is merely a gratuitous conjecture. I cannot understand why design should be questioned in the arrangement by which the fly is entrapped by the orchid “ coryanthes” and deluged in the reservoir of its gigantic flowers; or why it cannot be seen in the light carried by the glow-worm ; or in the galvanic battery carried by the torpedo; or even in the flaunting and gorgeous fan borne by the peacock, simply because these results may not have been attained immediately by creative fiat, but through a long process of modifications and variations. The human mind re- volts from the assumption that chance, accident, and happy coincident are the supreme trinity that rules the universe and accounts, without accounting, for all things. Whether ages were required for the final painting of a butterfly’s wing, or for the delicate fashioning of a THE ARGUMENT HROM HUMANITY 293 rose, or for the ultimate distillation of a perfume, devo- tion cares not to discuss ; but that they proceeded from no intelligence at all, and have fallen out, or rather fallen into their present form and functions fortuitously and without thoughtful design, reason at once and decisively rejects as inconceivable and as contrary to common sense, The construction of a mouse trap, the molding of an image in clay, the painting of a trans- figuration, or the building of a St. Peter’s, may be ac- complished in a year or require half a century—for time is not of itself a producing cause; but the least as well as the greatest of these achievements, disclosing as they all do intelligent contrivance, is inexplicable apart from the direct action of intelligence. This is the ordinary decision of mind. I do not say that it is without exception, for there are individuals who ques- tion whether there is any such thing as mind at all in contradistinction to matter, and who therefore do not recognize its presence in nature or in man himself. These, however, are comparatively isolated cases. When I speak of the common verdict given by the race, I mean to be understood as affirming that there is something in man, which by the very law of its being, compels him with practical unanimity to attri- bute effects revealing intelligence to an intelligent cause. It is not—I speak of mind as mind and not of some peculiar type of mind—satisfied with Hzeckel’s explanation of a universe self-evolved from protoplasm, especially when Professor Tyndall assures inquirers that there was a definite period in the earth’s history when it was in a condition unendurable to protoplasm. Nor is its misgiving removed by Sir William Thomp- 294 THE ARGUMENTFOR CHRISTIANITY son’s romantic attempt at escape from the dilemma by supposing that protoplasm was introduced into the world by being carried on a meteoric stone as pollen is borne by bees to sterile plants. Neither can it sub- scribe to the spontaneous generation theory of [etour- neau; and could not, even though Mr. Huxley had failed to declare it scientifically groundless. Indeed, every kind of evasion and every species of device for ruling the idea of a Creator out from the existing order of things, from its genesis and stability, are so antag- onistic to sound and necessary processes of reasoning as to be regarded almost as insulting to the under- standing. Christianity reveals the high honor in which it holds man’s intellect by assigning all things to the creative wisdom and power of God. To thought, weary with its explorations into origins and terrified by enigmas which threaten to engulf it, Jesus comes in the relig- ion which bears his sacred name and gently whispers, Gop. The mystery may not be rendered less dense, but thought is soothed and reconciled by the word. The answer is a tribute to the greatness of mind, a recognition of the fact that it cannot be satisfied with a solution less significant and sublime, and carries with it an intimation of absolute sufficiency. Whatever may be said of the theistic hypothesis, it certainly chimes in most wonderfully with man’s mental constitution ; and though it undoubtedly leaves many difficulties untouched, it removes far more and brings with it more compensations in the glorious reflections and hopes to which it gives rise than any hypothesis that has been invented by unbelief. Whittier, in his poem ¥ a +5 - THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 295 entitled “ Trust,” has impressively confirmed this view, and has beautified it with the charm of his devout genius: | The same old baffling questions! O my friend, I cannot answer them. In vain I send My soul into the dark, where never burn The lamps of science, nor the natural light Of reason’s sun and stars! I cannot learn Their great and solemn meanings, nor discern The awful secrets of the eyes which turn Evermore on us through the day and night With silent challenge and a dumb demand, Proffering the riddles of the dread unknown, Like the calm sphinxes with their eyes of stone Questioning the centuries from their veils of sand! I have no answer for myself or thee, Save that I learned beside my mother’s knee: ‘« All is of God that is, and is to be ; And God is good.’’ Let this suffice us still, Resting in child-like trust upon his will, Who moves to his great ends unthwarted by the ill. But if the argument of this chapter is just, it must lead us farther than to necessary belief in the exist- ence of God and the disclosure of a Divine purpose in nature. We have already seen that the race is in sin, and that it is endowed with a spiritual nature ; and reason declares that it is no more than reasonable that he who devised a “peaceful concord of composition,’ and a “true harmony” between the various works of his hands, should provide for the needs of man both as a sinner to be saved and as a worshiper to be enlightened. And it is that such a correspondence exists between the gospel of Jesus Christ and our deepest necessities that accounts in no small degree 296 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY for the permanence of its power; and I am bold to say that as long as the gospel remains the gospel, and is not reduced to a mere system of ethics, and poor humanity continues humanity, so long will it have in the mind a witness to its truth. It is incredible that the Almighty should have cared abundantly for man’s physical organs, appetites, and senses, and should have failed to consider the exigencies of the soul. Intelli- gence, when uninfluenced by blinding infidelity, rejects the supposition as monstrous in the extreme, and appeals to the prevalence of design everywhere in sup- port of its confidence. It also resents the imputation of Agnosticism, that it is incapable of knowing spiritual things, whether they relate to the being and attributes of God, or to the mission of Christ and the immortality of the soul. While it cannot question but that some minds “ will- fully are ignorant,” and others make alleged incompe- tence a reason for not inquiring at all, it cannot, and will not, admit that mind as mind is so limited and beggarly that certain knowledge on subjects most vital to its interests is permanently beyond the range of its powers. It admits that it cannot find out God to per- fection; but that is a very different thing from saying that he cannot be found out at all, and that he cannot disclose himself to thought in part. Limitation it humbly acknowledges, but nescience it indignantly dis- claims. When Agnosticism argues that we know nothing of the reality of anything but only of the appearance, and even then only what the appearance is to each individual ; that we are shut up to the interpre- tation of phenomena, and that phenomena will be THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 297 viewed differently by each mind, there seems to be no stopping place short of universal pyrrhonism., The- ology is not only undermined, but the deductions of science are also rendered uncertain and unreliable as well. If I cannot know anything that may be back of phenomena, and consequently should neither affirm nor deny the Divine existence, neither should I venture to assume that there is any human personal conscious- ness back of the human bodies which I see and with which I have todo. The only thing I can be sure of is myself; and yet, if we are surrounded by phantas- magoria and illusions, how can I be certain that I am not the saddest illusion of all, a phantom chasing shadows ? Some persons may be so abnormally constituted as to take pleasure in discrediting the sources and the value of their own knowledge; but such depreciation is not natural to mind as mind. ‘The voice in man that pro- claims his own existence also proclaims the existence of God, and he does not find it easy to suppress its testimony in either case. And if the witness within cannot be invalidated, then in perfect congruity with these elementary disclosures of consciousness are the facts of the ever-blessed gospel; for if God can be known there is no insuperable difficulty in holding that he could reveal himself in the incarnation and ministry of his Son. (0.) Thought demands that its dignity shall be re- spected. It protests against being compelled to give its attention to trivialities, or to theories that are childish and shallow. Why should it occupy itself with infidel schemes of the universe which undertake to explain 298 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY all mysteries merely by deftly evading them? Such schemes shed not a ray of light on the grave questions which have engaged the interest of the deepest think- ers, and which have tended to elevate and strengthen the characters of those who have given them entertain- ment. I defy any one to ponder the mystery of his own origin, his relation to the present and to the inevitable future as revealed in Christianity, without a conscious exaltation of mind and heart. Such inquir- ies have given to us our grandest men: poets like Wordsworth and Lowell; statesmen like Gladstone and Bright; leaders like Cromwell and Washington, and have had no small part to play in shaping our worthiest and noblest citizens. Modern unbelief pro- poses to banish such high matters from thought, and to confine inquiry to secular themes, its favorite maxim being that one world is enough at atime. Undoubt- edly it is our duty to live uprightly here and now, and to this duty religion exhorts us; but we claim that the earnest consideration of our possible and probable con- nection with other worlds, and of the grand teachings which grow therefrom, deepens, broadens, and perfects character, and thus qualifies us the better to fill with blamelessness our station in the earth. On the other hand, exile permanently such themes from thought, and their place must necessarily be filled by topics of inferior worth—as eating, drinking, dressing, and the gratification of carnal desire, or at the best with politi- cal discussions and industrial agitations. The effect of such unadulterated earthiness cannot adequately be described, for as yet it has never been experienced to its full extent ; but from what has been THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 299 seen of it, and from its very nature, we have the right to conclude that it would debase man and unfit him for the discharge of obligations pertaining to the life that now is. In other words, it will be found that to exalt the present world unduly so as to rule out of de- bate all questions concerning another, will defeat its avowed purpose ; for instead of helping to prepare men to improve it wisely and enjoy it rationally, it will only tend to render them frothy, superficial, and selfish. But this extreme secularism has not yet been adopted by mankind, and never can be. Man is so constituted that you might as well forbid him to think altogether, as to prevent him from thinking on religious sub- jects. There are periods when he will and must feel after God; periods when, though the dust of earth cleaves to his wings, he will spread them for flight toward the Invisible ; and periods when he will turn in disgust from the viands of earth to clamor for the spir- itual clusters of heaven. The springtime excites the throat of the singing bird; evening calls forth the ves- per hymn of the nightingale, and morning evokes the matin song of the lark; and so when the natal hour is contemplated, and young life comes from the unseen into the seen, and when the shadows of trial deepen around its pathway, and when the soft light of a com- ing morning is felt with approaching death, the mind is moved to ask, “Whence came I? Why this suffer- ing existence, and whither go I through the gloom with the strange prevision of a new day about to dawn?” Skeptics and agnostics, call them what you will, may deride such questionings ; may even imagine that they have been laughed into silence ; and yet, as Auerbach 300 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY has well said: “ Man sees the eternal, looks into eternal things. Free above all distortions and self-distinctions the undying mind soars aloft.” Thought also protests against the trivial and against the superficial in those theories of morals which under- mine the sense of personal responsibility. All over the world homage is rendered to moral greatness; and sin- cerity, truthfulness, honesty, and self-sacrifice are ad- mired and commended, even if they are not always practised. But why are these virtues and graces so praiseworthy ? Is it not because their archetype exists in the ethical nature of God, and that we being his creatures ought to strive to be like him? “Ought” suggests the word “duty,” and duty reminds us of One to whom something is “due,” and thus Christianity leads us to ground the eternal life of man in his su- preme obligation to the ethical life of God. Such con- ceptions impart depth, breadth, strength, and authority to the idea of right and to the principles set forth for the governing of conduct. But when they are swept aside, it seems impossible to find adequate reasons for the practice of morality. Why, for instance, should I obey conscience if it is merely a faculty or power in- herited from my ancestors, and the total result of their fears, scruples, and superstitions? Why am I to walk by a rule that was not enacted intelligently, and which is merely the result of innumerable acts and experi- ences, which might have been other than they were, and thus might have developed in me a very different conscience from the one I have, and one probably more like to my neighbors’, who may have been less fortunate in their forefathers? Certainly there can be no real THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 301 authority in such a conscience. And if I am a for- tuitous concourse of atoms and my brother is the same, out of the accident which called us both into being, what fixed rule of action can possibly come to demand our mutual submission? If we try to conform to the Utilitarian standard, the question arises, if a man steals, is found out and sent to the penitentiary, are we to say that he has been wrong, or only unfortunate ; and if he steals and is not found out, and goes to Con- gress, dying at last in the odor of politics, are we to condemn or praise him? On the basis of Utilitarian- ism, we must judge by success or failure ; for it is not the act that has worth or demerit, but the result of the act. Thieving that leads to the State’s prison is very bad ; but when it brings to the Capitol, why, then,—it need not be characterized. Thought may sometimes be so deluded as to side in with these misleading notions ; but when it retains its native vigor and clear- ness it spurns them. What thought demands, what it regards as worthy of its attention and subscription, are the ethics, already described in this chapter, and which distinguish the Christian religion. These are grand enough in their scope, glorious enough in their influence and sublimity, deep enough in their founda- tions to exalt the mind, to fill it with majestic images of law, of justice, and of right, and to save it from all the mean, calculating vices of sordid secularism; and the religion that recognizes this noble craving of the intellect and meets it as fully and as magnificently as Christianity does, must have proceeded from “the giver of every good and perfect gift—the [Father of Lights.” 2A 302 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY This argument probably might have been strength- ened by pointing out the adaptation of Christianity to humanity from its beneficent influence on society at large. But had I entered on this phase of the subject I should have been obliged to anticipate some things which may be said with more force in the succeeding chapter. And yet before I close the present discus- sion, it may not be amiss to recognize the action of our religion on civilization and social life to the extent at least of quoting from two of our American leaders, both eminent in their way, and both eminently qualified to speak. At a meeting of the Nineteenth Century Club, Mr. Chauncey M. Depew replied to some remarks made by Mr. Julian Hawthorne, and a portion of this reply I give my readers: Mr. Hawthorne reaches conclusions which all history and experience refute. The one society which presented the ideal of science and free thought was the Athenian at its best. But while the highest intellectual activity, speculation, and research existed among the few, woman, until she unsexed herself like Aspasia, had no part or recognition, and the masses were neg- lected brutes or slaves. Inthe decay of the Roman Empire the old heathen faiths had broken down, Christianity was not yet under- stood, and there was emancipation from both faith and super- stition, and the result was, that for ages the world was peopled with wild beasts, and the only existence of right was the suffer- ance it received from might. Liberty, learning, and proper living thrived and spread only where the church best and most vigorously believed and disseminated the teachings of the New Testament. Look at England one hundred and fifty years ago. Death was the punishment for nearly every offense. To attend public executions was one of the recreations of the fashionable. To torture men and women in the stocks was popular amuse- ment. The prisons were hells of frightful crimes and hopeless THE ARGUMENT FROM HUMANITY 303 sufferings. For a gentleman to beat his wife was regarded as a very proper thing to do. Now the prisons are reformed, and reformation the object of confinement. The wounded, the sick, the helpless, the insane, the aged, and the orphans are nursed, tenderly cared for, cured and befriended in numberless hospitals, homes, and asylums. Every one of these grand charities has sprung directly from the church as it is, both here and in England. The disciples of science and free thought, in the absorbing effort to find what they term their liberty, have never had time or thought for the relief or elevation of their fellow-men. ... I confess I do not understand the evangels of free thought. Here and elsewhere I have listened with the most earnest attention, but when they have tumbled down my church and buried my Bible and destroyed all the foundations of faith, they offer in return only phrases, collocations of words, and termi- nologies as mixed as chaos and as vague as space. This was a noble testimony to bear, and its logical value lies in the fact that no system could bear such fruits as these unless it were rooted in a soil congenial to its nature. Or, in other words, if it is fitted to ad- vance society in the manner described, it must be be- cause it is in substantial accord with humanity. In the same direction James Russell Lowell, when minister to the Court of St. James, spoke on a certain festive occasion : The worst kind of religion is no religion at all, and these men living in ease and luxury, indulging themselves in ‘‘ the amuse- ment of going without religion,’’ may be thankful that they live in lands where the gospel they neglect has tamed the beastliness and ferocity of the men who, but for Christianity, might long ago have eaten their carcasses like the South Sea Islanders, or cut off their heads and tanned their hides like the monsters of the French Revolution. When the microscopic search of skep- 304 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY ticism, which had hunted the heavens and sounded the seas to disprove the existence of a Creator, has turned its attention to human society, and has found a place on this planet ten miles square where a decent man can live in decency, comfort, and security, supporting and educating his children, unspoiled and unpolluted ; a place where age is reverenced, infancy respected, manhood respected, womanhood honored, and human life held in due regard: when skeptics can find such a place ten miles square on this globe, where the gospel of Christ has not gone and cleared the way and laid the foundation and made decency and security possible, it will then be in order for the skeptical Ziterati to move thither and there ventilate their views. Good Jean Paul Richter wrote of his own age: “Itis a criticising and a critical one—a chaos of times strug- gling against one another; but even a chaotic world must have a center, revolution round that point, and an atmosphere.’ Even so our age also is chaotic; but thanks be to God it has a center—Christianity—around which morals, thought, and social order revolve, and an atmosphere of divine love permeating all things and prophetic of a nobler future. And judging from the futility of all attempts to destroy this center in the past, it will abide in the future as permanent and as fair as the mighty orb around which move harmoni- ously the dazzling worlds of the solar system. As the sun shines in its beauty, blessing the earth with light and heat, though fogs rise from marsh and moor and fen to obscure its lustre, so the Faith of Christ is too indispensable to the world for it not to gleam and beam on forever, penetrating all mists of unbelief, irradiating the human mind with the light of truth divine, and warming the desponding heart with glad experiences of heavenly grace. CHAPTER VIII THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT iliac battle which Miltiades waged on the plain of Marathon, on behalf of Hellenic freedom, was one of the most salient and far-reaching events in the cycle of human history. It not only decided the des- tiny of Athens, but it. preserved Europe from the heavy chains of Asiatic slavery. Little did Callimachus realize when he gave his casting vote, which decided the Greek generals to meet the foe, what stupendous issues were to be determined by his action. Nor could any of the other noble hearts that thrilled with patriotism on that heroic day have foreseen the marvelous conse- quences of a fight in which neither the numbers en- gaged, nor the blood shed, nor the treasures lost entitle it to rank with the greatest engagements of ancient or of modern warfare. And yet, had it not been for Marathon, freedom would have expired; and as no nation can accomplish in thralldom what it can achieve in independency and liberty, Athens would have failed to be what she was to her own citizens; and though the Roman power might have spread over the world, had Athenian civilization been different the Em- pire, untutored by Greek genius, would not have been the purveyor of arts as well as arms, of letters as well as laws to mankind. But still far easier would it have been for a sagacious statesman standing in the famous 395 306 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY region of the Tetrapolis, or surveying the field from Mount Pentelicus and reflecting on the defeat of the Persians, to anticipate and describe the results, com- prehensive and wide-sweeping as they were fated to prove, of that glorious disaster than it would have been for the most gifted and foreseeing of the race to imagine, much less to predict, the ultimate effect on society, government, and humanity of that stern, sharp conflict between the Son of God and the hosts of dark- ness which gave to history the Christian religion. What could be more wretched and pitiable and what less promising of success in deeds of bold and high emprise than the condition of the first disciples of our Lord after the crucifixion, and indeed immediately following the resurrection. Without distinction or standing among their own countrymen, without re- sources of affluence or learning, without even perfect unity among themselves, and without inducements of a tangible kind to blind the eyes and win the allegiance of the mercenary, how hopeless apparently the task of conquering the nations. Confronted also by the bitter, deadly hostility of a venerable creed, and rendered obnoxious in the eyes of the population by its unrelent- ing maledictions, and antagonized by the combined force of all the mythologies and temples and worships on earth, and by the consolidated energy of all the vices, passions, oppressions, and hellish malignancy in man’s heart, how vague and visionary the thought that the religion of the despised Nazarene might make its way through the earth accepted as the deliverer of men and of races! Unless the means to be employed in this gigantic undertaking were backed by, or were THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT 307 charged through and through with the supernatural, only the most excessive and invincible credulity could suppose them commensurate with the end proposed. There is something sublime and overwhelming in the calm assurance wherewith Christ announces the impregnability of his kingdom and sends forth his humble followers—friendless, homeless, defenseless— to disciple, or in other words, to Christianize all na- tions. His commission is the very superlative of fanati- cism, or it is the commonplace of conscious Divinity. He speaks either as a frenzied enthusiast or as an in- spired representative of. that mysterious Power whose potencies are as equal to the conversion of a world as toits creation. Singularly impressive and pathetic also the unfaltering confidence of the little band of Chris- tian heroes which, though the presence of the beloved Master had been withdrawn, impelled them onward in apparent indifference to the impassable barriers in their way. Whence came their unreasoning intrepidity? Or was it, after all, unreasoning ? What if they were profoundly and unalterably convinced that they were the special ambassadors of God, and that the cause they were sent to champion, not only had his approval, but had emanated directly from his grace and must continue to have the support of his providence? What then? Why then in these circumstances we not only have the explanation of their serene trust, but we have also, if they were not deceived, the rational explanation of all the mighty things Christianity has wrought through the centuries. And this supposition gives rise to the inquiry with which we have to do in this chapter. Were they mistaken and could mere human ingenu- 308 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY ity, skill, and energy have brought to pass the many notable deeds and changes which have been effected in the name of Jesus? Man plus deity we know is more than the equivalent of all the triumphs of our Faith; but man plus xothing, or plus some purely natural facilities, is he equal to the results attained? This question can only be determined by a candid examina- tion of the extent and character, the quantity and quality, of those products and outgrowths which are recognized as distinctively Christian. The fruit en- ables us not only to know the tree, but to know some- thing of the soil and latitude in which it lives and thrives. -Olive, palm, and banyan do not flourish in these northern climes, and when we see and taste their fruitage we are reminded of the zone to which they are indigenous as well as of the botanic class to which they respectively belong. What kind of fruit has the relig- ion of our Lord borne, and is it of such flavor and rich- ness as to warrant the belief that it could only have ripened on the boughs of a tree whose roots are in heaven? Can we determine the zone where this tree originally saw life and to which it permanently belongs ? Is it indigenous to paradise or to some one among the multiplied and sickening gardens of earth? This is the real point at issue in THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT, and its discussion ought to bring to light many honor- able excellencies of Christianity, and at the same time confirm our faith in the divinity of its origin. The line of defense on which we now enter is very liable to abuse, as there is nothing so easy as exaggera- THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT 309 tion when espousing the interests of a momentous cause. Some writers in their eager desire to prove the wonderful beneficence of our religion, have been be- trayed into assertions they would find it difficult to sub- stantiate. The world had accomplished much in the direction of art and literature long before Christianity appeared, and had even learned some imperishable les- sons on the subjects of law and liberty. Greek cul- ture and Roman jurisprudence are too manifest in the civilization of our times for their influence to be underrated or decried by intelligent minds. Christian- ity may have refined, purified, and imparted a new ethi- cal and spiritual tone to literature; but it did not originate the principles of style or the highest forms of expression. In architecture it may have realized, - as in the Hagia Sophia, at Constantinople, the ascend- ency of spirit over matter, and in Gothic cathedrals “the worship of God in stone”’; but it is impossible to separate these triumphs from marble column and architrave that beautified the temples of Athens and Ephesus, though the structures they adorned were des- titute of the more mystical qualities. While the Moses of Michael Angelo, the reliefs on the Sebaldus Monu- ment of Vischer, at Nuremberg, the colossal statue of Christ by Dannecker, and the Twelve Apostles of Thorwaldsen, reveal in plastic art the fullness and majesty of the human soul pervaded by the divine presence, they were preceded by the groups of Niobe and Laocoon, and the statues of Apollo Belvidere, and the Medicean Venus. Although these ancient master- pieces suggest either the despotic and crushing power of fate, or the supremacy of the beautiful in life, they 310 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY furnished immortal zesthetical ideals which have influ- enced the productions of the modern school. These relations ought to be recognized, and nothing is to be gained by ignoring our indebtedness to the past. Neither is it fair to overlook what has been done by other agencies contemporaneous with Christianity and sometimes antagonistic to it, in promoting the progress of society and the elevation of mankind. Rational- ism, as Lecky has shown, is entitled to credit for not a few reforms that have been wrought in recent years, and science unquestionably has accomplished much for the welfare of mankind. Let us render to every force, as well as to every man, its due; and rejoice that some- how in God’s wise providence “all things work to- gether for good.” But on the other hand, is not Christianity deserving of like magnanimity on the part of its judges? When it is described as the greatest curse that ever afflicted the race, leading to more abominations and cruelties than any other; and when it is denounced for having obliterated the joyousness of former ages; and when its ministers, a class having given the community some of its chief educators and thinkers, are set down as “leavings, ravelings, and selvage,” the writers of such scurrilous billingsgate only prove that they have not read Tacitus and Livy, and do not appreciate the dif- ference between sound argument and scandalous abuse. And such vituperative vaporings may well be treated with amused and contemptuous silence. But there are many instances of failure to recognize all that is really traceable to the influence of the Christian spirit on modern society, which ought not to pass without re- THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT 311 monstrance. I am satisfied that while many benefits may have been conceived and conferred by persons not professedly followers of Jesus, they were not entirely exempt from the subtle inspiration of his precepts and example. The atmosphere has much to do with aman’s endeavors as well as his own natural capacity. If it is poisonous and debilitating, his efforts will be vague and languid ; if pure and exhilarating, they ought to be vigor- ous and sustained. Religion is an atmosphere as wellasa doctrine, and multitudes unconsciously inhale it, and then do many excellent and philanthropic things which they insist on attributing to the unaided power of their own right arm. We could smile at their oblivion to what has in fact moved them to deeds of goodness, were it not that their blindness, to use no harsher term, is a palpable wrong committed against Christ and his cause. Let us be just on all sides in this discus- sion. Let us not attribute to Christianity more than can be legitimately claimed, but at the same time let us not fail to discriminate between its direct action and in- direct influence on the world’s history for twenty cen- turies, for both are necessary to a clear understanding of its achievements. First. Christianity has vanquished Pagan creeds. 1 use the plural form “creeds,” for while the religion of the Roman Empire was one in its fundamental prin- ciple, it was manifold in expression. It was essentially practical and utilitarian in aim, and avowedly polythe- istical in belief, which led to the adoption of the deities of conquered nations, both as a measure of piety and of wisdom. This policy gave diversity to its worship, as the rites attending the gloomy faith of the Etruscans, 312 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY or the more genial services connected with the mythol- ogies of Greece, or the ceremonies marking the fanati- cism of Asian mysteries, or, in the days of decline and degradation, the ecstatic orgies of the Phrygian god- dess with her wretched mutilated priests. The altars of these deities were maintained with singular impar- tiality, and the foreigners who came in and who at last supplanted the original stock, found at hand the means of devoutly honoring the gods of their native land. Such a system was only possible in a community where men regarded all religions as equally false, or where they had not reached a higher stage of intellectual de- velopment than to suppose that each locality, each nation, and possibly each distinct interest of humanity had its own peculiar god. Christianity from its very nature had to antagon- ize this mighty Pantheon. From the very start it was war to the death and to absolute extermina- tion. Primitive disciples would accept neither truce nor compromise; and their unrelenting temper, while inspired by their Monotheism, I am _ persuaded was intensified by what they knew to be the polluting, enslaving, and debasing effect of idolatries on in- dividual and communal life. They evidently assailed the evil as the one gigantic curse that carried with. it every other curse, from oppression in the government of the imperial Jupiter and all his Olympian satellites, in the form of procurators, lictors, tax-gatherers, and spies, to immorality in the houses of the rich and the hovels of the poor, and in the vices of the baths and the cruelties of the amphitheater. Some among the ami- able and elegant d/ettante of our times lift up their THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT 313 hands in horror at the virile intolerance of the early church that chose death rather than burn a pinch of incense on an altar in honor of a deified emperor, and that declined to wear a garland of flowers or offer a libation for the sake of conciliating an outraged public sentiment. And yet had it not been for these self- sacrificing protests, the unmitigated beastliness of the ancient world might have been the crowning infamy of our own age. The murdered bodies of the martyrs rose as a barrier, arresting the foul, feculent stream that would otherwise have inundated everything fair, and true, and good in the possible future of humanity. Their lack of appreciation of the beauties involved in old mythologies, which has roused the ire of some recent pagans, may well be excused in view of the ser- vice they rendered society in saving it from the in- decencies fostered by these fictions. Better obliterate all the idle stories, however charming and conducive to art, that have been penned by the fertile imagination of man, than permit them to sap the foundations of virtue. So judged the primitive saints and, at the cost of their lives, they succeeded at least in stripping idolatrous fables of authority and power, reducing them to the rank of mere fairy tales ; and the gentlemen who can sneer at their iconoclasm would presumably utter no protest against Boccaccio and Rabelais being per- mitted to tutor the infant mind in morals. In the year 398 A. D., Porphyry, Bishop of Gaza, addressed a communication to Chrysostom urging him to obtain a decree from the emperor for the destruc- tion of the pagan temples in that city. Through the influence of Eutropius the edict was procured, and in 2B 314 THE ARGUMENT HOR CHRISTIANITY the year following another was issued, committed to Eutychianus, prefect of the East, for the demolition of temples and idols throughout the country. Previous to this date, 380 a. D., the Emperor Theodosius com- manded the people to believe in “the sole deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, under an equal majesty and pious Trinity,” and further directed that “the followers of this doctrine assume the title of Catholic Christians.” ! At a period yet earlier, namely, October 28, 312 A. D., occurred the so-called conver- sion of Constantine, an account of which he gave to Eusebius, and which is usually regarded as determining the victory of Christianity. During the night before the battle of Saxa Rubra he claimed to have had a vision in which he was commanded to inscribe the sign of the cross on the banners of the legions. He, like Paul, was not disobedient to the heavenly vision, and after the defeat of his rival, Maxentius, he marched to Rome and there published the ever memorable edict of toleration in favor of the Christians. But this was neither the beginning nor the cause of the religious supremacy achieved by the new Faith. Before the days of Arcadius, or of Theodosius, or of Constantine, and before the fight of Adrianople and the conflict at the Milvian Bridge, and before the sacred monogram on the labarum had been invented, and even prior to the cruel reigns of Diocletian and Galerius, who strove to exterminate the Galileans, and who represented the cause they cheerfully suffered for on State coins asa strangled hydra, Christianity had conquered. It did not succeed because the court countenanced it and 1 Tillemont, XI., p. 155; Cod. Theod., XVI., pp. 1, 2. THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT 315 honored it; but it was smiled on by the court and patronized because it had succeeded, had prevailed against the argument of enemies, and had _ estab- lished the divinity of its origin, and had prevailed against all idolatries and had carried conviction to the popular mind that they were unworthy of confidence and respect. It would, however, be misleading to say, aS some historians have done, that the Roman Empire was converted. These haughty Czsars, these warrior princes, living in Oriental seclusion and splendor in their “sacred apartments,’ whose piety was of the sort that attached superstitious importance to a nail from the true cross as the proper adornment for the bridle of a war horse, and whose spiritual discernment and consistency are illustrated by the care they took to maintain Sunday observance and the consultation of the haruspices, had very little in common with Jesus and his apostles. They could hardly be compared with the meek and lowly followers of the Lamb whose earn- est zeal and simple worship arrested the attention of Pliny. From such as these they were separated by a diameter that gives to us the exact distance between the extremes of virtue and vice, spirituality and worldliness. The empire was never converted. It was startled, ter- rified. Visited by strange calamities, imperiled by en- emies from without and afflicted sorely with civil strife within, it seemed to be hastening to decay, and its apprehensions at last inclined it to a show of submis- sion before that strange creed which had multiplied its adherents in the face of all opposition, and which had not hesitated to attribute all national ills to the slow- 316 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY ness of the people in acknowledging its wonderful claims. Christianity never converted the Roman Em- pire. It did, however, conquer for itself a supreme place in thought; did acquire a potent ascendency over the mind and imagination of the age, did infuse something of its spirit into the habits, pursuits, and customs of the population; did exercise a restraining influence on chiefs and rulers ; did increase its converts until they were conspicuous in all vocations and were prominent even in the army and civil service of the na- tion; and did break down the altars, close the temples, and forever discredit the gods of paganism and expel them from any serious part in the affairs of men. But while this achievement was stupendous, wonderful, and even marvelous, the empire as a whole was not renewed in heart. It was in the fourth and fifth centuries what other nominal Christian countries have been in the eighteenth and nineteenth, a field where flowers grew among briers, a pond where lilies lifted their heads above slime, a region of spiritual death, where a living church pursued its toilsome way seeking and saving the lost. It isan error to suppose that the advantage gained by Christianity over ancient creeds was due to their having already been rejected by the public. Remember that the struggle was obstinately maintained during the larger part of three centuries, and that the tenacious resist- ance of the old beliefs to the new religion was extra- ordinary, continuing even in rural districts long after the question at issue had been settled in communities like Rome and Antioch. The gods of the mythologies were very real to the masses of the people; indeed so THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT 317 real, that some among the Christians themselves re- garded Jupiter, Venus, and Apollo, not as fictions, but as actually existing evil spirits whose power was not by any means to be despised. But admitting that pagan- ism had to some extent lost its hold on the nation, as it undoubtedly had on certain classes of philosophers and poets, the signal of attack would naturally rekindle the old flame of devotion and rouse its sleeping votaries to the defense. This was indeed what followed the appearance of Christianity and the first indications of its hostility to the cults of the venerable past. As soon as they were assailed, almost every man, however insensible he had been to their charms, felt called on to champion their cause. Even men of literary preten- sions and of dialectical skill, who would at other times have mocked the old mythologies, resented interference with their supremacy by entering boldly the arena of controversy against their enemies. Celsus, the Epicu- rean, though masking as a Platonist, was one of the leaders in this forlorn hope, and essayed to triumph by using weapons that bore resemblance to the truths most commonly avowed by Christians themselves. Porphyry, the New-Platonist, moving along practically the same lines, stood by Celsus, and both of them were answered by Justin Martyr and Origen. These Fathers very wisely held their infidel antagonists to the crucial question—whether natural religion was sufficient to care for the eternal interests of mankind? And they did not discuss or impeach what was manifestly true in Platonism. Like Augustine at a later day, they for substance said as he did: “In Cicero and Plato, and other such writers, I meet with many things acutely 318 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY spoken, and things that awaken some fervor and desire, but in none of them do I find the words ‘Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.’’’ Hierocles answered all such sweet- tempered defenders with the dazzling and bewildering mysticism of theosophy, while Lucian, “cynically immoral,” attempted to sneer and ridicule them out of court. But they both alike failed in their tactics, as did Jamblichus and Philostratus, who sought to under- mine the authority of Jesus by striving to show that their heroes, Pythagoras and Apollonius, had also wrought miracles. But all of these writers, and others too, were more than matched by Hermias, Tatian, and Tertuliian, who at times knew, only, alas! too well, how to return scorn for scorn, sarcasm for sarcasm, and fierce denunciation for denunciation. Through all this terrible battle of acute intel- lects inflamed by zeal and animosity, there ap- pear signs of a change in public sentiment. Seneca occasionally reveals a strange gentleness, Epictetus an almost womanly submission, and Quintilian an unusual affection and resignation in domestic af- flictions that at once suggest the quiet and unob- trusive spread among the people of those sweet precepts which fell like showers of light from the lips of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. Unquestion- ably the truth advanced toward victory through these early controversies, or in despite of them, and when what may be termed the Apologetic period closed, Christianity was mistress of the situation. Her adver- saries had all been successfully answered even if they had not been finally silenced, and she had laid a foun- THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT 319 dation in argument for her claims which has withstood the searching tests of skepticism up to the present hour. But the pagan world relied not alone on the convinc- ing force of eloquent discussion. It had equal, if not more confidence in the persuasive power of the bloody amphitheatre, and the mercies of the famished lions. Beginning with Nero, it is usual to enumerate ten per- secutions directed against the church, though Pressensé takes account of only eight—the last one being that of the Diocletian reign, 303 A. D. But whether eight or ten, they were fierce enough, and there was little to choose on the score of cruelty between them, whether ordered by a Nero, a Trajan, a Marcus Aurelius, a Sev- erus, a Maximin, a Decius, a Valerian, or a Diocletian. They were all monstrous, horrible, devilish. I employ strong terms because a disposition has been shown of late to underrate the fury of the tempest that beat upon the early church, and that swallowed among other thousands, Paul, James, Peter, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Blandina, and Felicitas. Concerning one of these terrific and destructive outbreaks—the Decian persecution, 249 A. D.—Lecky writes as follows: It would be difficult to find language too strong to paint its horrors. The ferocious instincts of the populace, that were long repressed, burst out anew, and they were not only permitted, but encouraged by the rulers. Far worse than the deaths which menaced those who shrank from the idolatrous sacrifices, were the hideous and prolonged tortures by which the magistrates often sought to subdue the constancy of the martyr, the nameless outrages that were sometimes inflicted on the Christian virgin. — fist. of Morals, Vol. /., p. 478. Tearing the flesh with the sharp teeth of the iron 320 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY ungule, exposing helpless women to the brutalities of gaolers and soldiers, with other and indescribable tor- tures, formed modes of punishment, and prolonged the victim’s exquisite agonies. In view of these excessive measures it is surely unnecessary to bandy words with those who for the sake of bolstering their own unbelief seek to exonerate paganism from the charge of infamous and unpitying bloodthirstiness. Whatever skeptics may say and however they may sneer, the sufferings of the martyrs were such as to excite the admiration and sur- prise of the stoics; and were such as to lead Napoleon to declare that everywhere these poor people were de- stroyed “and everywhere they triumphed.” And this brings us again to the question: How came they to prevail against such tremendous odds? They withstood an empire and overcame. They were as- sailed by its culture, refinement, affluence, power, and prejudice, and came off victorious. Various authors of repute have attempted to explain this unique phenome- non on purely rationalistic principles. I for one believe that they leave much to be desired in their explanations. Gibbon’s “ Five Causes for the Spread of Christianity,”’ are perhaps of all attempted solutions of the problem the one best known. These are: (1) The intense and intolerant zeal of the disciples, derived from the Jews, but evinced on behalf of a religion more cosmopolitan than theirs; (2) the doctrine of the soul’s immortality coupled with the belief that the world was approaching the final catastrophe; (3) the miraculous powers of the primitive church; (4) the exceptional and exalted mo- rality of the early Christians; and (5) the government of the church, its strength, ambition, and wisdom. THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT 321 We cannot object to any of these causes, though we may to the manner in which they are treated by Mr. Gibbon. But accepting even his statement of them we are still obliged to inquire: How came this religion, born in a remote province of the Empire, to be endowed with so many qualities of commanding greatness? In other words, the causes undoubtedly explain the victory, but what is there to explain the causes? The same question arises on reading Mr. Lecky. I condense his summary of the distinct elements of power and attraction appearing in primitive Christianity : Unlike the Jewish religion, it was bound by no. local tie, and was equally adapted for every nation and for every class. Un- like Stoicism, it appealed in the strongest manner to the affec- tions and offered all the charm of a Sympathetic worship. . . It gave a noble system of ethics, capable of being realized in action. It proclaimed the universal brotherhood of mankind ; it taught the supreme sanctity of love. To the slave, it was the religion of the suffering and oppressed. To the philosopher, it was the expansion of the best teaching of Plato. To a world thirsting for prodigy, it gave wonders ; to a world deeply con- scious of political dissolution, it announced the immediate de- struction of the globe. To-a world that had grown weary gazing on the cold, passionless grandeur which Cato realized, and which Lucan sung, it presented an ideal of compassion and love—an ideal destined for centuries to draw around it all that was great- est as well as all that was noblest upon earth—a Teacher who could weep by the sepulchre of his friend, who was touched with the feeling of our infirmities. . . Above all, the doctrine of sal- vation by belief, which then for the first time flashed upon the world ; the persuasion, realized with al] the vividness of novelty, that Christianity opened out to its votaries eternal happiness, while all beyond its pale were doomed to an eternity of torture, supplied a motive of action as powerful as it is perhaps possible to conceive. B22 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY But what other features and characteristics would we expect in a religion sent from God and grounded in his good providence? It is not denied by the friends of Christianity that the secret of its success lies, as Mr. Lecky acknowledges, in its eminent fitness to meet the needs and to satisfy the spiritual nature of mankind ; but neither he nor other critics are prepared to tell us whence came this fitness. That is the unsolved prob- lem. Unbelief obscures it and tries to evade it by glit- tering descriptions of the sublime aspects of this wonder-working Faith. But it never seems to realize that in removing one difficulty it has created another. In providing a religion equal to the greatness of the victory won, it has only made plain the graver difficulty of accounting for the origin of such a religion apart from the Divine interposition. If*Christianity is not so remarkable as rationalistic writers represent, then its success against paganism must have been due to AI- mighty power and wisdom; and if it is as extraordi- nary, then it must have proceeded from his grace, and on either supposition it is entitled to our veneration and confidence. To this conclusion we are logically driven by its success against paganism.! SECONDLY, Christiqnity has civilized barbarian tribes. When Valens fell, and his army was annihilated by the Goths at Adrianople (378 A.D.) the partisans of the expiring cultus attributed the disaster to the spread of the new religion. And since those times, 1 See Augustine’s Confessions, VII., IX.; Neander, ‘‘Church,” I., 160; ‘‘ History of Doctrine,” Shedd, Vol. I, pp. 60-72; Froude, ‘‘ Short Studies,” III.; Farrar, ‘‘ Wit- ness of Hist. to Christ’’; Pressensé, ‘‘ Hist. Church in First Three Centuries” ; Cave, ‘‘ Primitive Church”; Gibbon’s ‘‘ Roman Empire,” Vol. I., ch. 15; Lecky’s ‘* History of Morals,’’ Vol. I., ch, 3; and Uhlhorn’s ‘ Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism.’”’ THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT 323 and indeed in our own, it has been maintained that Christianity precipitated the Roman Empire to its over- throw. This, however, is a misconception. Ramsay quotes Mommsen, whose qualifications to write authori- tatively on the subject will not be questioned, as holding: That Christianity was in reality not the enemy but the friend of the Empire, and that the Empire grew far stronger when the emperors became Christian.—Church in the Roman Empire, Pe Oe: Ambrose evidently was not conscious of any such antagonism ; for when delivering the funeral oration on the deceased ruler Theodosus, in the Basilica of Milan (395 A. D.), he ranks him with Constantine in the good work of cementing and unifying the mighty dominions over which they reigned. He even goes so far as to declare that one of the sacred nails taken from the rediscovered cross, and given by Helena to her son, held the Empire together. And it is worth remember- ing that the disciples of our Lord always professed loyalty to the head of the government, and only hesi- tated to obey when obedience involved treason against the greater King. To give merely a single instance of this allegiance from among thousands, we may take the following : ’ ‘« You ought to love our princes,’’ said the proconsul to the mar- tyr Achatius, ‘‘as behooves a man who lives under the laws of the Roman Empire.’’ Achatius answered, ‘‘ By whom is the emperor more loved than by the Christians ? We supplicate for him contin- ually a long life, a just government, a peaceful reign, prosperity for the army and the whole world.’’ ‘‘Good,’’ replied the pro- consul ; ‘‘but in order to prove your obedience, sacrifice with us to his honor.’’ Upon this Achatius explained: ‘‘I pray to God 324 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY for my emperor, but a sacrifice neither he should require nor we pay. Who may offer divine honor to a man?’’—Conftict of Christianity with Heathenism, Uhlhorn, p. 234. This dialogue illustrates very clearly the attitude of the Church toward the State under the Czesars. Her faithfulness to principle, her exaltation of conscience, and her reverence for God and righteousness tended rather to preserve the nation from ruin than to acceler- ate its decline; and there is every reason to believe had it not been for her wholesome influence the catas- trophe to government and civil order could not have been postponed so long as it was. She discerned the falling fortunes of the Empire and interposed to delay its final disruption. The fact is, it was already in a moribund condition when she appeared, though exter- nally it had the semblance of soundness, and had only recently assumed the crown and the purple. Already was the body politic fatally poisoned, and Dr. Lindsay gives a reliable account of the origin and progress of its incurable malady. He says: The corrupting influence of paganism entered into the very essence of the social life of the Roman at the time when Chris- tianity began its career. The thoughtful reader of contempo- rary literature cannot fail'to observe how day by day the poison instilled itself into every nook and cranny of the social life of the people.—Lucyclopedia Britannica, Vol. V., p. 605. Then quoting from the “North British Review,” Vol. XLVII., he continues : It met him in every incident of life, in business, in pleasure, in literature, in politics, in arms, in the theatres, in the streets, in the baths, at the games, in the decorations of his home, in THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT 325 the ornaments and service of his table, in the very conditions and the physical phenomena of nature. It is not easy to call up as a reality the intending sinner addressing to the dei- fied vice which he contemplates a prayer for the success of his design ; the adulteress imploring of Venus the favors of her paramour; the harlot praying for an increase of her sinful gains ; the pander begging the protection of the goddess on her shameful trade; the thief praying to Hermes Dolios for aid in his enterprises, or offering up to him the first-fruits of his plun- der ; young maidens dedicating their girdles to Athene Apaturia ; youths entreating Hercules to expedite the death of a rich uncle. And yet these things, and far worse than these, meet us over and Over again in every writer who has left a picture of Roman manners in the later republic and under the beginning of the Empire. , In perfect keeping with this sad portrayal of infa- mous dissoluteness is the portrait drawn by Matthew Arnold, of the typical Roman patrician : On that hard pagan world disgust And sated loathing fell ; Deep weariness and sated lust Made human life a hell. In his cool hall with haggard eyes The Roman noble lay, He drove abroad in furious guise Along the Appian Way. He made a feast, drank fierce and fast, And crowned his hair with flowers ; No easier, nor no quicker passed The impracticable hours. Here then we have the secret of that downfall which Mr. Gibbon has employed six volumes to describe and explain. But we have something more than a sufficient account of the cause that led to the calamities which 2A 326 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY overwhelmed the ancient world; we have also a dis- closure of the necessity that existed for races more vig- orous and less debauched than the Latins on whom the gospel could exercise its saving and civilizing power, and through whom its benefits could be transmitted to the remotest regions of earth. Hence the historical and spiritual significance of the barbarian. The Roman citizen was no longer plastic, but was fixed and hardened by his civilization. Multitudes among the lower classes, and many even from among the upper orders were re- deemed from its thrall, and the influence of Christianity came also to be widely felt and recognized; but for some reason the new religion was perpetually impeded by the culture, customs, and settled ways of the Empire. It could break down altars, close temples, overawe the pop- ulace and control the hand that ruled the State; but it could not mold the people as a whole according to its ideals, nor fashion out of them a higher civilization. Their vices, weaknesses, and degradations had rendered them altogether too brittle for the experiment to be suc- cessful; and hence, as Paul turned from the Jew to the Gentile, so the gospel turned from the Roman to the barbarian. In the latter, though the soil could hardly be regarded as virgin, and though undoubtedly it was burdened with manifold pernicious growths, it was cer- tainly receptive, and thoroughly tillable. Uhlhorn is therefore warranted in saying : “It was not the civilized nations of the Graeco-Roman world, but the Germans, who were to be the vehicles of Christianity. The old world was too much penetrated by heathen traditions for Christianity to take deep root in it.” ' 1“¢ Charity in Ancient Church,’ p 222, THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT 327 It is interesting to observe the providential ways by which the semi-savage tribes of the north were brought into touch with the Faith of the Cross. Constantine, purely for purposes of government, that a new and vigorous element might be made to blend with the feebler native stock, drew to his personal service many Germans, and permitted them to settle in cities and throughout the country. Valens also allowed the Goths to cross the Danube; Arcadius was equally favorable to alien hosts; though rude invaders, like Atilla, did not wait for imperial invitation nor expect a cordial re- ception. These rough tribes proved themselves suscep- tible to the influence of Christianity, and even the cruel king of the Huns when he was entreated by Leo III., now usually described as the pope, to evacuate Italy, yielded to the persuasive majesty of Christ’s representative, backed, according to tradition, by the shadowy forms of the Apostles Paul and Peter, as portrayed in a picture of the event by Raphael.’ In nearly all of the modern king- doms of Europe traditions are preserved, more or less legendary, of the providences which led to the conversion of their founders. Thus the Burgundians, suffering from the victorious power of the Huns, and believing that the Christ of the Romans could deliver them, for- mally professed his name. The happy issue of a battle in which Clovis had petitioned the God of his wife to interpose on his behalf, led to the conversion of the Franks. In England also, Northumbria and Mercia were moved to espouse the cause of the Redeemer be- cause of special blessings and extraordinary military successes vouchsafed to them. Everywhere are such 1“ Historical Sketches,’’ Newman, p. 30. 328. THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY stories met with, and they go to prove that in the origin of the modern world and in the course and char- acter of its development the spirit of Christianity is distinctly revealed. As this spirit arrested Genseric the Vandal at the very gates of Rome, and as it in- spired Alaric the Goth with reverence for the right of sanctuary in the church while in the flush of his vic- tory over that city, so in the persons of an Ulphilas, a Severinus, and a Boniface, it confronted and subdued barbarism and introduced into its career, always suffi- ciently stormful and violent, the high motives and con- secrated ideals, the refining arts and social amenities which distinguish our own enlightened age. Gibbon admits’ that “the progress of Christianity has been marked by two glorious and decisive vic- tories over the learned and luxurious civilization of the Roman Empire, and over the warlike barbarians of Scythia and Germany who subverted the Empire and embraced the religion of the Romans.” But to estimate the significance of the latter the literary, artistic, musical, social, and political results of the victory must be considered. Christianity has practi- cally given to Europe its varied and copious languages out of the Gothic, the old Prussian, the Celtic, the Saxon, the Latin—fashioning improved vehicles of thought and causing almost another Pentecost, whose tongues, if not of fire, speak with the fire and light of genius to all the generations. The mighty works, the Titanic births of literature, that are in themselves litera- ture and the mothers of literature; the “ Vzbelungen and Gudrun,’ with their heroines, Chrimhild and Gud- 1 Vol. III., p. 385. THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT 329 run ; the “ Perczval,” of Eschenbach, regarded as the real harbinger of the Reformation; the “ Comedia,” called by admiring generations “ Dzvinua,” of Dante Alighieri; the “Paradise Lost,’ of Milton, wherein the poet sings of sin, of death, of the shape, “if shape it can be called that shape has none”’ ; the plays of Shakespeare, which without being distinctly religious are marked by moral earnestness and by Christian conceptions of marriage, paternal duties, and redemp- tion ; even the dramas of Voltaire, which have vitality and are inspiring, the “ Zazre,” and the “ A/zzre,” are indebted to the spirit of the Gospels for their power over the emotions ; these with the more recent creations of the Brownings, Hugos, Tennysons, Longfellows, Whittiers, MacDonalds, and the rest, are all traceable to the quickening force of Christianity. The same is true of modern art, painting on glass, painting on canvas, or shaping figures of strength or of beauty in stone and bronze. These have derived their ideals and their motive, and that indescribable something termed soulfulness or expression, from that wonderful religion which has enabled mankind to feel the reality of invisible things. From its strange influence on the human mind came the bell and the organ ; and without it the Bachian and Handelian music would have been unthinkable; while without it neither Palestrina nor Beethoven would have charmed the thoughts of men from earthly thraldom to spiritual exaltation. Music even more than poetry owes its life to the Cross. The ancients knew but little of it. The fingers of God in Christ’s incarnation had to sweep the sacred emotions of the human soul, for music in its noblest, deep- 330 THE ARGUMEN’T FOR CHRISTIANITY est, divinest sense to fill the world with thrilling har- mony. But not only has Christianity taught barbarian tribes how to speak, how to write, how to think, how to build cathedrals, paint pictures and compose sweet songs; it has also taught them how to curb their wild animalism, how to restrain their violence, how to pre- serve their liberty by law, and how to organize society for the well-being of the people. This educational process is not yet completed; for it is not an easy thing to eliminate entirely coarse and gross taints from the blood. The most highly civilized nations occa- sionally break forth into savage acts, into saturnalias of blood, into communistic vandalism, into brutal Jew- baiting and expulsions; while individuals and secret cabals hurl explosive infernal machines among innocent people in a Paris café, or infuriated with strong drink, on a small scale repeat the murderous crimes of a Zingis anda Timour. But these excesses we have rea- son to hope will finally yield to the Spirit of our Lord. In 980 A. D. was proclaimed the “Truce of God.” The church had used her influence to secure this cessa- tion from the incessant fighting of those cruel times, and the warlike powers had consented to limit their trial at arms to three days out of seven. This was an enormous gain; but we have long since outgrown such thirst for strife and bloodshed. Compassion and ten- derness in our day even find a place on the battle-field ; and where armies are butchering each other, men and women wearing the Red Cross, and at the peril of their own life, are ministering with impartiality to the needs of the wounded and the dying. This intrusion of the THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT 331 Christian spirit into the very pandemonium of human passion is of the greatest significance. It is the Chris- tian way of putting an end to war altogether. Some day the soldiers will refuse to fire on the enemy when they see unarmed men and delicate women come to succor the maimed and suffering. The incongruity, not to say the brutal absurdity of the thing, cutting each other's throat, with the emblem of peace and brother- hood being carried through the torn and bleeding ranks, will inevitably produce a reaction, and the savagery of warfare will be revived, or what is more likely, warfare be ended for good and all. Mark, this approaching di- lemma of combatants is not occasioned by civilization or by culture, but by the Cross, and by the Cross ex- clusively ; and is in evidence as showing that the relig- ion of Christ now, as in the past, has power over men, and by interposing her form in the day of battle will surely end forever the fratricidal struggles of the race and usher in the blessed and unending “Truce of God.” This also is evidently the expectation of no less an author than the brilliant M. Dumas, who pro- phetically writes : These armaments of all nations, these continual menaces, this resumption of race oppression, are evil signs, but not signs of bad augury. They are the last convulsions of what is going to disappear. The social body resembles the human body, the malady being only a violent effort of the organism to throw off a morbid and noxious element. Those millions of armed men who are drilling every day in view of a war of general exter- mination, have no hatred toward those they may be called upon to fight, and none of their leaders dare declare war. An agree- ment is inevitable within a given time, which will be shorter than we suppose. I do not know whether it is because I am not 332 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY much longer for this life, and that the light from over the horizon already affects my vision, but I do believe that our world is about to witness the realization of the words, ‘‘ Love one another !’’ without inquiring whether it was a man or a god who uttered them. Nor are the friends of evangelical Christianity alone in attributing this remarkable potency to the Faith they champion, and the wonderful transformation of barbarian tribes to its influence. On the same subject Mr. W. E. H. Lecky writes: The great characteristic of Christianity, and the great moral proof of its divinity, is that it has been the main source of the material development of Europe, and that it has discharged this office, not so much by the inculcation of a system of ethics, however pure, as by the assimilating and attractive influence of a perfect ideal. The main progress of mankind can never cease to be distinctively and intensely Christian as long as it consists of a great approximation to the character of the Christian founder. There is indeed nothing more wonderful in the history of the human race than the way in which that ideal has traversed the lapse of ages, acquiring new strength and beauty with each ad- vance of civilization, and infusing its beneficent influence into every sphere of thought and action. And in the same direction testifies Lord Macaulay, whose words especially deserve to be cherished, -as they not only confirm all that has been set forth in this argument, but duly emphasize the iniquity of rejecting an agency so beneficent. He says: I altogether abstain from alluding to topics which belong to \ divines ; I speak merely as a politician, anxious for the morality and the temporal well-being of society ; and so speaking, I say that to discountenance that religion which has done so much to promote justice, and mercy, and freedom, and arts, and THE ARGUMENT FROM ACHIEVEMENT 333 sciences, and good government, and domestic happiness, which has struck off the chains of the slave, which has mitigated the horrors of war, which has raised women from servants, and playthings into companions and friends, is to commit high treason against humanity and civilization. THIRDLY, Christianity has vindicated human rights. De Tocqueville has very justly observed that, The equality of conditions is more complete in the Christian countries of the present day, than it has been at any time, or in any part of the world.— Democracy in America, Intro., p. 4. In agreeing with this statement there is no necessity for the eyes to close themselves to the unhappy in- equalities which disfigure modern society. The French- man’s representation is merely comparative ; and com- paratively speaking the present is far in advance of the past in the recognition of human rights. Christianity, finding men in serfage and degraded all over the earth, had arisen on the fall of the Roman Empire, like a mighty vengeance, though under the aspect of resignation. It had proclaimed the three words, which two thousand years after- ward, were reached by French philosophy—diberty, equality, Jraternity,—among mankind. But it had fora time hidden this idea in the recesses of the Christian heart. As yet too weak to attack civil laws, it had said to the powers: ‘‘I leave you still for a short space of time in possession of the political world, confining myself to the moral world. Continue if you can to enchain, class, keep in bondage, degrade the people. Iam engaged in the emancipation of souls. I shall occupy two thou- sand years, perchance, in renewing men’s minds, before I be- come apparent in human institutions. But the day will come when my doctrine will escape from the temple, and will enter into the councils of the people. On that day the social world will be renewed.’’—Lamartine, Hist. Girondists, Vol. Tent husa 334 THE ARGUMENT FOR CHRISTIANITY Whatever historical inaccuracies in matters of detail may be noted in this passage, taken as a whole it must be accepted as thoroughly reliable. The age that witnessed the beginnings of Christianity lavished no special honor on man as man. What we mean in our day by “humanitarianism” had no existence then. The individual was not considered as an end unto him- self, but only as a means subordinate to the welfare of the commonwealth. For this reason women, children, and slaves were held in slight esteem, and to all intents and purposes were destitute of rights, as they were regarded as contributing nothing toward the realization of an ideal State. It is not forgotten in making these general statements that Seneca declared “man to be sacred to man,” or that with singular felicity he wrote: “He errs who thinks that slavery takes possession of the whole man. His better part is excepted. Bodies are subject to masters, the soul remains free.” . be i i r = : 7 ~ 7 a ’ , 4 . . * a - = < ‘ i - ‘ ' a = ¢ . ‘ <_ . a ~ = é ‘ n « F . * — io : * - . . t . . = ‘ ‘ a. ~ . . . ‘ : ~ i é . » , a y — - . AUTHORS QUOTED. PAGE WA DOB uarsess tnocenareetsisesitcousecceteoieeds sens - 400 Abelard....... SShuavevueGacensesceassareeetecssere 10 CALLOTO Crsecaccccoces aerectes Ssoaunscacestecees 143, 148 ATION ce c.ce pecskednctness snecsee sacsosessesseseosse 186 MUSICS Eee aemw an Geaccheak Gancesacaeseivexesast steed - 170 Aquinas, Thomas............. persasctcneeens 5 all ATNIODIUS.. cocscccsecee apeesescsecaneen gisseradoed 10 Arnold, Sir Edwin.......... sesseveseeetes eed 434 Arnold, Matthew........ 11, 17, 229, 230, 325 Arnold, Thomas.....,.. pencvacaliscsscencecces 46 PRO TI POE AS Ue cocrcb och tt ssercnoaecésvaev lc: 10 Auerbach ....... casdsedesssscescaseccesasesreste 300 AUZUSINE.......00000..00ce0e00 10, 817, 318, 822 PANIEDIATIS oracsree isceceness Scopeescscess scccccvse LOD Barnes, Albertt........ sted ssecasssel 4/4 215, 20D Baur, Ferdinand Christian............ 12, 74, 125, 128 BIOCE c ntecsegvavcioe eisaensscricees cocstirataesecrs 56 Bellamy; Edward. ..cscsccoscsssccccosasoccees 42 BOrtrand 2. secerssccceste seutecnesctereests mecaese 263 Bonwick, James........ seccnessenerscedsecceses 437 BEI OS SARL A Tac recscastnes soe eennatt 231, 254, 255 BroWDing 0.00060006...c00ss0000-7, 118, 348, 408 PSEUICE: tocesses eaerebsesesietesses 143, 226, 229, 230 Buchanan, Robert.......... Hpacktoneenns 176, 177 GRE Oa recone hascrttens rence he ericare: 218, 219 Buddha......... Basene sas Dacecesee 13, 98, 105, 106 Bulwer....... rene sesesesscapessnassasscessonss 98 Burke, Edmund................ colceresvemere 401 Burns, Robert...... arrestor aaeenecaenees 410, 411 SSORUOLL casts ccccrscosess Cocccoccsessccccce. 182, 271 BOY sate risedesectstensiacssees aucceeseserere 147 Caird, John ............. eaeacerssaesdivadeaeses 33 CONE TiGiecn a nsw eccss fussesesticcticeen: 180, 181 Carlyle, Thomas.....39, 40, 99, 266, 378, 394 BOBVO crrcsevacteeo Ariss tiesnice Staklioey coccecsee SLL PAGE Celsus ......... scasovedscveccreee tecreveeseceseel, 49 Charlemont ....... eesecceastssaseseeees seseeses LOD Chateaubriand, a.tetie-tsce cae 279 Child, Lydia Maria....... Escsaevsuc ceed ecssce 437 Christheh sre vscsak ve ate ereecetenk 175, 176 Chrysostom............se0 saceecenesese 68, 69, 341 Chubb, Thomas............ eesdetace sovsesese) 149 Clemens Alexandrinus..........00000. 421, 422 Clement of Rome...........0.. cesses scestes ROG Clifford izcccicctcosen eer 365, 366, 384 Cobbe, Francis Power......... atdaratestere 100 Colerid 20...ci5.0ccscssctocecsees 16, 207, 260, 406 COLDS sccsctsvecestasenctsssscibiecece eangescasts 28 COMG.2.3schasercat seuevaaceacessesccstoe tes sects 13 Confucius.........0 Scbadaaeseaveduaess 98, 105, 455 COomuWSYuscsccaretenes untae agecseunseatcn cats 366, 367 COWDET......ccceeee cuastusssesrseecaessecoerectee 406 VTi Dictcccotecs sessoreasussect son eeseereccnce eco akl DANIEL rrcteeeccss-scceeeeenene monsestacceres 9 DANIUG sceccesetere aseceessence roceus eacusscccsarste 98 Darwilsescccraitccs aeoesrecseces Rseeecs seeeed1 8, 319 De sTocqueville,.c.-ccelestesctsc oe 333, 345 Diderot. sscsecsesteuee ecpeenesceessccscoesisisescs (OL Dods, Marcus....ccccsessssecseccces 121, 143, 447 DGllin ger, cen cesenentavecovee seesethecccanvesese 14 DY ivVeRicssscccsssccttrcascn eee ACE: 231, 232 DUET op ractpanacneeseceaaneetnss cee sesssoncceaecers 226 DUM AB cicncsscedeetescseess Sedlescusesetesree! 331, 332 Edersheim ........ covescececcsesozcceseeoes 155, 156 Ra Wards eB. bc. ccscsceses oes stacsesnseseas's 103 PSCROTI crossastascesucasesacesemetere 11, 120, 125 ENON rececscsess ee ssaecnsrensesonscanttaeerts 251, 252 SULCLONU Bis ssnevsnceestancestimvsrerckespeeatects 285 BiUSODIISRasccterseateses Wecl insta cesctss 10, 53, 116 BOW AI sis aScsctb ctr sansaus Sianeecsee 226, 231, 252 465 466 AUTHORS QUOTED PAGE Fairbairmn..........ceee .-226, 350, 417, 444, 445 Farrar, F’. W.......sccecescessess aebsasesseloL 1 OLe Felton, C. C........cccoces so rssssseceses 404, 405 Ferguson, Donald....... Morseascanstenseeses 442 Bich t@;.1.-deycsiesdh ees0d ..017, 62, 81, 390, 391 Fisher, George Park...........+ ...-. 184, 143 Pre Otteesccesceccscchsasccrececsi-saretcessieessas 365 Froude....... 39, 46, 48, 74, 85, 216, 217, 322 336, 396, 397 Galenus ....-....eeee seenteceseesse PHidBriccaakabe: 375 Gandhi, Virchand A........ Mpeeeneeaee 446, 447 GAUSSON ...00eccccccovsrecssses sus spooce ssases 200, 200 GRESONLUS seccacessscevecsasasseecyseccusduclesépess 233 Gibbon ........0 scestesees 45, 119, 322, 328, 413 Cipathie: ass verstatsncox shoes wee0e47, 98, 168, 402 GLEEE......ccccccccescesec sees seeeeresecesersccees 80 Gr CCH e case piocestpseece eres Peteesasaciesduon 143, 395 GUAZObIS. ccocssesace sBtees 119, 209, 210 386, 395 EIGOGK Clittesscaverccose tse sccsacasscasse Acer) OF Harrison, Frederic.........00scccsesseccre BIZ Heartley.........0« meptasiesautecsdcceecunceC pete 185 Hegard ...... meee cusess eecdraantcccsceksereatecete 387 WEL eg elitcescecceceaiisees eeaeeeseaanes eg aeoceseneaa 17, 79 Hei ..6000....csscces eevee spaecssaesaenaenad onske BOE ETOMDOLUE veseccaseccnsceseeccoucosesssasseassasnne 11 EEOVMANM Ss cccsectscusccssetecessaceresaasensnece 45 Herodotus........ Mecacscasesstnsaceacaneccesenne 40 HLLCK SOM cs acecesrereses Reeth ostndetecrauncaetsces 210 TUACZI pe eesccsscstensestsscce ascancceneqnesetestots 231 LOGE CIE cecccsscetassntecssccaaeracenses 368, 369 HL OLEZMANN Nirccccatesssestakecespcsetes s.-120, 142 LUPO eccccsneesrecescacctes 224, 226, 288, 289, 230 Hume....... BE mtevesstsccsureivetesecsss 193, 194, 196 Hutton, Richard Holt......... eregteaecese 181 TAX Yass ee nscests 380, 381, 382 EONAGMUS .ccscscececesessocersesvescoetercestzen «stat Os BVONGUS ess cscsadstsecsseccscessss 53,135, 149, 187 wPARCODL 5 acco seceauscedoases exten sasrinisnnsga 389, 390 el OUieeccccsleccasestec es wocescctenceece Caceusitecete 119 Johnson, Edward Gilpin..........,....008 179 OBC DU Stecsccceseccens ds tosaccerseerstacnteces 52, 53 Joshua ben Siras ben Eliezer............ 889 UAT ts seestecksaese sdadeassestt susetiacse 10, 49, 375 RIMSLLIPMATCYD scscoceccencssetecsstr OOo Lod CAN cesusaece cee Reoueavacdasreses sescecek Corl ona iG PAGE UKCALS laccccnascoessoestcccscsssuscccvccstessvectern 4 oi RoCin ecacerscversaccosscteesesre seceecceben 140, 141 ISCIGH cscs oscctecececscesens secchenectoneess 231, 238 (RAR PALLIC Ky ccccunacessavses-cceslestsessetareds 231 Knobel............ Peseckis cere rs essease200, 231, 232 IRSTIORAPE LOL cc pereccsstecscsrstatessssosetes coves 443 DUA CEANIELUS! scgsssceesascsaceesecsne aisecesesceseae 10 Lamartine...... Saeabecseccurssenecdees eseesd00, O49 TLASSCIT Ors cccrsesccsccsavccscceccesencecsecteracd 165 Lacky....:.00. 18, 181, 264, 265, 268, 269, 319 321, 322, 332, 340 Le COntGC,. 0.cadeceococeea aesncasarcecssetanas taser 96 LPO vnasects +42 secckessecseees oo-000-428, 451, 452 Lepsitiss: Richard sissies ic sconarenasosectuers 56 LASSIN Yes. iccco votes ore Syaasds cee Deebeveneeenees 12 Tewiseins GeO rvscssce scans ssseassesties 132, 143 Li chtlootcs Jecsestuxctersesoraotacaneteren . 185 LANASAY issceadsdsccceveccsoevers coe encanr: 56 Litt80% soicsi cokes ooe.se3ee eavcnscesscasesrewanene . 128 oekeysscssss.azs-5 Jossecadsses waseceeesonacearce . 391 Lowell siscssyess Sgsdsch soosebansdiceocssanastacnee 266 PAU CANNGS.2. Sac cestcccoecsee: sikess wyeescecsetecg . 227 LUCiansse.s0005 Seihcboe¥ieeest Cisseawsedlouces 49, 375 TAU KOi5 teas ss steesecberfoscs sas secuseesesecse LLG, 119 TAUCR AI GicrccesdcccuescessascenstescesearscCODto0G Macatlay...sdescesscorcstecss Re Se seeeedd2y BOD MacMillan, Hugh ......... cesses ape 95 Maitland 2 icccdecccsscacsedvess Boctiy capsceseneas 58 Martensen ........ necwcet apshasesceractasasnieene 256 Martineau, James......cscocesccesscseses 32, 33 Matheson ..cissicoqccnsaseccccqaasosmbbcy Shy 445 IM CONT is ticssconscesenan Pesatesceescassebaceaceeuiaaaa DEG CI OES) « ckisesseencaneas ion nstaeeokse 200003 9D, 429 Mill, John Stuart.........47, 48, 80, 181, 195 Minucius, Felix...... epee tan Ate tesarnccieen 10 Mohammed ler.csccscsscecsces oeeeess 98, 105, 106 MOM PAGED <5 fs 0ccese coseeressecces soctencnsdstO0, O7 MONO: occccerestasteus Seka essases cau assasstientan 160 Miller, Max. ...sssecssasccetis sus costs evsesee20, 41 Napoleon...39, 79, 82, 87, 263, 400, 441, 442 IN CAN GMERF Cc conccsesees secessacers weescancaceastee 322 NO WMAD 01.0056 eccecess savers cdsaeestecs(exeachene 327 Ni@DWhr iicsesccsteasercesccecedeys or rrent 44, 395 Norton, AndrewS..........0css006 peceuns 134, 1385 Origen....... seedanare co teaaeee “pores --10, 186, 187 Ovidiners Ragosegeacasscanasccscsrecetaceene cecons abOy i a AUTHORS QUOTED 467 ee PAGE Bain, THOM eis sacecersetess caer sites teres PIN OZRosecectsescascsossnvesceios: soveee-L1, 79, 175 Paley i.i.cscsrasstidoress Gesessesdantescst es cveas ie RILGNIOY\cccausesstsotencacctcereavsceses 48, 162, 231 A DLAB cavencseceVatkcreayek act ies cotoee eepii tac ens BS HSC DUGUS eetveth car cosctencdvaniecarncc tice 236 Parker, Theodore............ capa 80, 89, 96 | St. Hilaire.........0. sau veesneeaselioss sect eevee 443 PMU A ces cetuaterheressethekecs 11, 44, 175 | Strauss........ srveed, 74, 75, 78, 124, 128, 175 Pfleiderer, Ott0.........0000. sbteccsceediseest 12 | Sumner, Charles...... cormrcercetnes It BGLDG iecnsmnpue rececasvetcescol Rectan atevecoures 103 ENG aisascs Sere fen ee sahaeene eseesecccces 52 | TACitus....escescrsssseererscereceeseeeee39, 49, 52 Pierrot. Mo PAUL esccstonssseansease abe beseiese 437 | Talbot........ sseeseressovcsssadeevoas 226, 253, 254 PAatOsecesece ee caeaite sac iescesi eee eoecatay 284, 429 | Talleyrand ............... CGAL COREY BACH Ae 34 RUM Yiceivecprostsosneteseuseet. 50, 52, 59, 339, 340 | Taylor, Isaac........ aastcceseeeses eiccere 138, 284 POly DUGG seiere ccaness sour baeesecs secrete Ficapterse 89 LENNY SON. sccneessclenescet eee 112, 369, 407 BONY CORD tatisesesasseuacscatsetessesai vane sapseses 53 | Tertullian...... Seswaseansaceaeesies r---10, 108, 136 SOOT PAVE Wlthcs or entnuneeesstetidtee tn eieais oes 10,491) Chayer, J. cenr yess, pee ee 42 EIGW ELE ccltasteccetasaveucss sbosesarasesassecssnce 41 | Tholuck.......... asueecstsacuschuisceresciteeaayere 231 RAO OTIAIMtettereb seas revise deen’ fercseescesc ete O22 417 elo eccncasadscceeiees eeecesees 421, 423, 424, 454 IEYILCHATO merstertcssscs secce sareseatntesecs 383, 384 | Tillemont ........ Seasewercecss sauedecsrees voces. O14 ABE IG Mcccay Sseuesesectercacssnceatacnretbeserte 187 Quadratus ..........0000 steeeessensersssenes 53, 54 | Tyndall scessssessees Pages aha w+u.12, 383 IRGIISAY. ceccosisecce setessescss as tcehess sce 51, 65, 323 Rawlinson...43, 137, 143, 147, 156, 157, 231 Uhlhorn eeccee coves eecees 322, 323, 324, 326, 335 Renan........ 18, 48, 92, 93, bey 129, 141, 142 Ullmaneccesscesene Ooereeecccvearecercceccsesecees 256 159, 163, 175, 186, 226, 396, 397, 398 399, 419 Vatke, Wilhelinivecresesseeee Cee ccveccccccccee oe APs RO UIBES cose tée ser nce eodehausabe avetasaceiesseohes 226 | Vicar Of SAVOY....sscsssscseecsssseesee sere 11 RLOUUOR Rss eee cas ccct Vikan Mihi a 304 | VOIMCY...rssrerversssessseesessssssereneseees 238, 235 PAGSO cer ee ark Pr EL Be | BV OLLALLO cccdatcccers teeserees sovsseasrienescrecters 79 Rousseau ...... eee oe a 11, 48, 79, 96 Von Miiller, GOL caeccriselesatiseeee eet 61 FEIN Tics orca. tirey iene oe a nee 348 | Vorowski ........ steeeeneeeseeeseees sessseseees 79 PAOD Vanecane noscugarsscstets resets sti eaiveneee 143 | Wallace........ sccessecscnce seremnon sa sdeveseserrs 200 Ra MEO reeEs ss erce she anstses veseesvseee bot can ach 1AGURVY ASHINGtOMNssccceccescceeeeeettteerette noocces, 2D Schelling... ceevcceceecersscssccccrsscesee 17 | WaAatKiMs...cccsccsseccocsccescesesccees sesessuaans 143 Scherer, enna. Saananesusectt iedseeinel 23, 386 | Webster, Daniel .......... acseussercess wenctre 401 PE DTOM re tiscesssecaccrecssicsvicacacnesesessa 402 GW CiSS crescescceteaeterer erent ascensayeneceate 143 PCHIGT IN RCNOT,« siascqenssgrcdaresecces TOs, LO.) WW OBLOOLE co vasctccassvonsconvaterecececers «120, 143 SMOUIMLOL cea dtsuntpisescixsesckssncncts-covasatenacesoe U2 WW NGG cccectereessincteccesceieere: 295, 427, 428 Seneca........ onSnentreccrsdee seehnhescceer GILHGOO MEV LISOM sstenecedcrcressene ce sese misecesnscansentote 423 PUELCUITAIEA NCES cones eves s cacct ayecacenshees: 50, 52 | Williams, Monier...,.........29, 423, 445, 446 Shakespeare... peaeetssss eacse 409 450, 451 Shedd ..... possartmstsescteivectss eit enetsccesses 322 | Winchell .........0000 aitscarers peesaeaveces sense OLd PIE OTs etescscheTacinasidonsne davis canoes 378 | Woolston............+. Reateccseuessvcstecetectage 175 Smart, Christopher..........ceccccccssseess 408 | Wordsworth ........scccccssessooses 170, 403, 407 Smith, Robertson..............ssce0 ove. 220, 201 SEAT eR MP OOM tersinct ccoupatbonces a= 21s ABS. 1 GOLLOR corsne cecank civect eck sacenensencerass 128 Spencer, Herbert.............. seee 13, 277, 389 | ZOTOASLET vessoreseeeeserseeereeee13, 105, 430, 439 GENERAL INDEX. PAGE Abd-el-Latref: story told by ............ 413 Adrian: reference to ............0008 saeeses 54 Agassiz: discernment of............ casaey 385 POT ODREACTET OF 6.5. oceeschsncchcdccceeeess 198 Agnosticism: arguments of.............. 296 Agnostics: certain questions and..... 299 Alexandrian school: reference to..... 157 AlOn = quotation’ from.....ccccccc0ssceees 186 Amberly: statement Of.........cscccseeee 421 Analects: quotation from.............0.. . 455 Angelo, Michael: incident of........... 7 CRUG 0 Ply aad sae AIR NR el Fea 103 Apocalypse: completion of..........0... 287 Apologetics : history Of........ccccecccees 10 drawing-room stage Of .......s.sscceees 12 MM ONIEULE Dera versace ncvencccrsizesscsecctess 405, 406 Apostles: characteristics of.............. 153 SPRL LECT ON opr atesn iets vette naventevecccits 154 BAL een ee ret iev orice cate ccececétccvcteve 157 MPOSUGIOTICUD sar user esos veecahanvzcendvetesieacs 306 Arctic explorers: picture of........ 371, 372 Argument from Christ: statementof.. 75 Argument from comparison: state- PIII ISS pce sancrs cece tenses i cerens txctoeese 419 Argument from prophecy: examples of adduced ..........00 Dirscesteeresatsss 232 concluded...........00 sesessdvsesecstesccccs 257 Assumption of Hume...........cccccscesse 201 DAA AV A OTT) Beh One Sie et 127 Auerbach: quotation from.........-..... 300 Authors paucity, Of. ..6..c....cs0sesccees 50 infrequently mentioned................ 138 PiSCOM et AL OL ees sss opeens ten TEAL Baptist Association: determination HUMES Fe ne een Aaa th ie A 352 Barnes: suggestion Of............sseseceeee 213 BEALEMONWOl etree 218 Battle of Marathon .........660. arenes Alun PAGE Baur: fictions of.......... aeccrersirseeseeacesiel ool Oxtrachiromle--cssset cemeteries seegseeene 128 and date of documents..... seishencrees 132 Beaufort: referred to .....s.c000c00. Shans, oR: Bhagavat-Gita: parody on life of CHIIBU cvcecesanssstst tech eassten orton tate 422 Bible: rule of Christianity...... penatstes 17 quotations from......... eeeseecnsee cccscese 16 efforts to exterminate.......cccccccsccsss. 164 SIMMATIEV: Ol cen. mite .. 164 translation Of...........csceces eescerseceeess SOO Huxley’s estimate of...... sscocesscesices 382 textbook of Christianity .......... esetsa 382 testimony of Mitchell and others to 385 tribute of Heine t0.......00.....00000388, 389 homage Of Locke t0.......ccccccosesceeees 391 tribute of Diderot t0..........sssccssecee 391 disclosure Of.........000 aneteoony CRERROCOLER. 407 distinctive teaching of.................. 451 Bible of Humanity: quoted from..... 429 Bismarck: confession Of....... aeeasaecee 400 Blandina: martyred........ccccseccscsseee 108 Bonwick, James: reference to.......... 437 Book of Daniel: genuineness ques- CRONE scsseereseteacteaee eeneacteceee poeseeee 249 subject of investigated ............0006. 250 authorship of proved...... Resaeerene veoee 200 Books: of the East..........06 passecacessece 13 declining power Of.......c. sso» -cossssse 360 LOLOLT OC. Letts ss.tanctvensesveseressinnne: 415 Brahminism: purport Of.........s0.ss0. 439 Brain: desires of........ Syessssssesaed sere 257 Browning Fquoted s20- siscnecdetiets ces 7, 113 biography.Gfcn.. 4 ice 267, 268 OXCIANIAMGI OF,, sccvcacoseseassccerce cee: 348 Brunelleschi: referred to ............e006 103 Buchanan, Robert: extract from..176, 177 Buckle: his definition of history 218, 219 Buddha: references to...... 13, 98, 105, 106 469 470 INDEX PAGE Buddha: first historical mention of.. 421 IAIDISEV YP OL scccocenettestatert encsdeseeseces 422 DivthlOlfhccccsvsscsscescacssee Gonstevesnaruaepat nao excerpts from .......... mae ccgscerasess 435, 436 surpassed by CHrist.......ccocec.escccees 436 CONCESSION LO tecssecsstecsscccecoepcress sassesntOO WNISSLON Olicccassaccaccescsscusacatcccersessscs 439 BPClliOlireceatteccssecceacharteccessscocecccasre 448 AALLUYG ROL ae eticessceplesssenseceassesseteses 452 ascetic in tendencCy...crc..eue o000e- 402, 453 not’ morally perfect.............0-ecee: ove 456 Buddhism: influence of............ east cs 421 Converts tO in JAPAN .......ccccrseeees ove 425 contrasted with Christianity......... 482 TOACHIN GS Of ..cscii csc ccssasesevsaceovss 442, 443 ChALLCS ASAINSE:. ...cccsccsvece-eaceassacess 443 Burke, Edmund: saying of.............. 401 Burne-Jones: incident Of............+85 167 BarnseeDeletiOl ss.ccscccnsescaseccoeesnss 410, 411 Butler: extract frOms ccc .. sccssecessse nts 147 definition of reason from............... 291 Canons: reference tO ...........ccsereees one 260 Carey, William: mission Of.............. 353 WOPK Ol stsolecssocttccred secede oesascesesassns 355 DUifh’ SiViBit tO secsccstcccctdoccetaeesesse 855, 856 conversion by.......... ovetesteseCsessestens 361 Charlemont: opinion of Hume........ 195 Charles I.: incident of.........00.....0... 13 Chateaubriand: interesting question Oldsesesnedaseesrcventrcccetcrecessessh ect cesees 279 Chenavard, Paul: incident of........... 60 Child, Lydia Maria: quoted from..... 487 Childrenk Cares <<<. ccc.cccsssasa’ ssscencne 335 Chinese: monotheists............-cssc0e 00 29 Christ: moral majesty of ....... wseserevees 13 CAUSO Olcsesesscrcce se aecscteccecocensees socubs 14 self-revelation Of............sce-ceeee-eeeee 17 MAN'S REAECMEY weeevecscess ccoees ooseseese 44 RUN COUNT Olernesrecsesececccseoleaecs bacccrices 44 PTANCCUL Ol-cescccsessr cree eters tare: ovasaast 49 ATYUMECENt” TOM 25s o..ci 10: wocceecsseeces 72 BOUPCE' Of TELM PIGM v.05. ... Ah BICVOD IAN rvsetactesalresetishe orb casstassacceel 1D ONO STOSSO Lease tan cas dancssstanditstevestssnssok GUD XBR ALOU Ol cascks

poneslogy Ofs48i 20. scttcacesctnceeeeres 94 AGTAtINS F MATEYTOM jjs,0seccesoseressseoons 108 estimate of MacMillan concerning. 95 Incarnation: recognition of............. 408 the goal in evolution.............00 00 96 Incredulity : contagion Of,.............2. 127 PETSON Sit 7 Oligec.-c-ereeerens vee eceets secs 97 Individual: position of...............0000 334 TOAIGIL OL, civaccsettcnccest acest uatessteeqes 99 Infidelity: brings no comfort........... 37 high rank of....... posccsessersacerseonerere 105 Infinite Spirit: operations of........... 177 DOWN 0 ficccccesseseveaurecgs secacerescnceterss 105 Influence: of lower classes.............+. 338 assailed. by Herod siiccisrecectssevehasseree L0G OTE GAG rs iain cccscagcsrenceeoss snndesaxe 351 TOJCCEEG soe vice sca non ses ccnesceten ete teee en LOT, BISIMMOMUCE, Of ,.5: acess eiccsteyoccessosocces 405 the proof of the gospel .............000 114 Innocent IV.: incident of................ 205 character Ofc: scossscssscssvegecssesascser trl D4 Inscriptions: place of.............0s sess. 56, 57 power of... sesoseeek dQ, 186 Invasion: of heathen lands; heroic FOPli€s Of, -oe-cssecsescassescdteostevececsl 2) 17S character of........ Sondessedvecedtasstetes 349 mighty Works Offi. sesseucsvtoc srtsstaeseee id 14 476 INDEX PAGE PAGE Jesus: hope resting OMN....cerseceereeseres 188 | Justin Martyr: works of..... i137 attributes of... eee steer LOO : supremacy of ie mladecal Mar eae 202 Kant: letter of to Jacobi............. 389, a appropriates prophecies ... . 249 | Kapila: reference t0.........sseessereeees 452 career of Ttoatsged eyes 251 | Keats: death Of-......++-.ssesse -teeeenes 411, 412 basis of Christianity...........s0sces0 257 Keith: quotation TTOM seesetedestssyeces ex 238 sanctified human nature....... 29() Kepler: TALL Ole cscase wseseeseseecscnceseetey 170 PIESCICE Of cegrsccreres oe ooroereensfivee 94 HADBIOM : Prophecy, concerning aac 242 changes effected Dy ...sesceressesee sees 308 | Knobel: testimony Of............-sseeeeee 230 uplifted WOMAN......5 see 343 | Knowledge: libraries Of..............s0 215 healing grace Of..ssssecseseecsesseese see B04 Knox, Proiss) Quoted. cers. ceccsscoteeces 443 glory of veiled... 390 | Kobe: advertisement in paper of...... POrsOMAlity: Of:i.sscp.serveviscsncceonsedes 390 443, 444 Renan’s picture Of..........cccserccoreee 399 Tad!tate » compated with Contieltise 431 iene gs eek al hoa aden ae Lasserre, Henri: translation from..... 165 J esus Christ: contrasted..........00...00. 85 TApce- Tames? quoted st... eee 451, 452 exelug wander Teg h yh eS toe Pe WELDNItZ -Laltlh Olicccecaesteewoceccceeacsert 170 Dacis Ok CD sIsti An by atire tain pub Letters: classical era of.............ss.00« 268 works of........ neveccenter¢ecoucenstanaaces eo. 189 Libantus: story oes. 0 eae eae antidote 60) BOLLS WOUND daiysoroie 26% Light s*dasire ior’, 2cvcccssessustkecateaeas 263 SUPTFeME iN MOLAIS.......04-+2 veeseeceeees 277 Literature: mythigal faltlucss. 2 42 OX plains All ..ciss-coccecesseccsceserd sivetdye 290 Auugustian! 896 Ofcécnseeccssscssssvstion 269 satisfies all nee@ds........0..524-50602 295, 296 Titanic Hirth of ie ee 328, 329 potency of gospel Of vrevsrasieeioes op 859 influence of Bible on...............cesees 405 Jesus of Nazargeles sestadieehailiaten? OXIStENCE Of icc. csnsesceences cuasxetescestece 420 divine vocation Of. .vussrrsessseecess a9 Teittr6sse@xtracv £romice.cscorcsscccceecentees 128 sent by the Fatherws.se.asecuside. 2 Livingstone: work Of.............cccesesese B00 FORA TICN IE, DOM Mlieanez seen eta trrce out BPPCALOlvecsrsceccecescvacsegs ctasessccneneere 356 EU GtGls ST COM NEIL ON Axicmnzae aa 78 plans: thwarted sccntsesanvcccsetaters 329 MID GEEDOW OL Olistscsscecstscccsssesedesseces 1S4 eM urillO se reterred COs censsersnccerscevee ye 103 DET ClsOleasesnesscescs thas sce encebesorecacste 194 IN CIDENt Of se. cceccssssecassess Pepeesee 261, 262 ISS HISTICC EWALD acscentespesesccsecccscense 292 | Museum, British: illustrative rooms Miracles: get rid Of..............sccssees paso ii tecseceeses msde et esses scbacansrtiaeses .457, 458 478 INDEX PAGE PAGE Mystery: depth Of......scccccsmsssccesseeses 282 | Pouilly : referred £0....ccccccresssresseeecee 123 Polemics: present aim Of............ses0 12 Niebuhr: referred t0.cccsscocdsscessesesses 123 | Polycarp: martyred................ Boalt: Nero: shields himself. .....0..0..02.0-ss00 49 MOLETICC. LOL, sscicdecocvcassacseceVacsoupessecsul LO Pontifex Maximus............0 Oe Eas 74 RCATIN Sovdeccesesdisaterasuetealonyaed tit CIUCLLY Ofiveccaceess vcccee baicwnesecmeescawiect 108 | Polytheism: illustrates degeneration 29: PELSECUEION OF isccopseose sodecsntavpnatst ele |i Popes Clainy ‘Of...1.0tesclerseataeaae . 431 New faith: supremacy of................. 814 | Porphyry: assault of on Daniel....... 249 WOTENSE OF5.<5 sep rgecensetseancettenannacs 317, 318 | communication of to Chrysostom.. 313 DOWEL NOL... cascctics itt atreveknate nenteanes 827 | Powers, Hiram: referred t0........s0.00 103 Newman: quotation Of............c0seeces 217 | Prayer-gauge: reference tO.........ses«s 12 New religion: birth Of............cs00 eee 9 | Prophecy: illustration of............0..0 214 INVENLION: Oss... sessedeyeest 34 (MELMIGLOM OLS, cs. os sonsdavcetiesscdecceest es 220 New ectamens definition, of cae testimony of O. T. writers to....221, 222 EMANI EY. cosena cebu savesaede accents . 18} opinion of Bruce concerning......... 229 authorship and authority of.......... 125 | Knobel’s testimony t0........ccceeeeee 230 BULHENLIGICY ZOl « ...evecusecrsecenses 131 Kirk patrick’s roinene Peles, | 231 first catalogue Of.........0sesececse 140 POLAT Crib Oliscsvccc cepts cde ne apaceraaees 235 COMPATISON Ole... cadets eee aD LWO..C1ASSCS Ofiiic. seosecdcesanccehesse acoG power of... nate 360 disciples appeal t0........sc00e. saucskeeenhoee inenieitional, power ae asepee 1404 concerning Messiah............ese0 247, 248 Newton, John: faith Hite Soest LO OPpiNiONS CONCETNING..... +06... e0000 253-255 GONVETSION Of fic.5cc cecersssaeccdececervsces OOL | ErOphetSe Character: Of. seccctoncesieceneskes 222 labors of... 361 TEACHING Of. cscs ssscacecdacevocseesczesecesss 223 Nicodemus: coves pores tOe eee 19 limitations, of....0: sccercudebecseuandecuen 228 North American Review: referredto 15 first proclaimed Messiah............... 240 quoted by Lindsay..................324, 825 | Protoplasm: universe evolved from.. 293 Thompson’s opinion of............------ 294 Old Testament: predictions in of Providential guidance: examples CUTISE sooeppotesssdetencbeagcsensots et sneves 230 Of s200..sssesians ste oxcieeeonsensteranwaeeoon 361, 362 quoted by disciples....................... 245 | Psalms: superior to Vedas.............0 434 PY TAMICS, “ENC... -.ar seas carbo tee ecvenseere nL Paley ; extract: from..ccsscccossveesesssesss 151 | Pythagoras: mentioned .............s00 424 Paganism: hold of weakened ......... 317 | Pythian oracle: pictured by Lucan.. 227 Pantenus: discovery Of...........c000+. 422 Pantheisni:; of, SpinOZaisec.nccscathanccieeo td the ideal of.:...:...« 29 LYON, LOW ALCL. .c. ce hesseckestessdicsssuese 403 Pascal: faith’ of-%. si ..is:.. 170 Parliament of Religions: date of...... 4 Pauline Correspondence: date of...... Paulus: endeavors of ..... 124, 125 Persecutions: against the church..... 319 Pharisees: accused JeSus.......0....06. 19 characteristics of...... . 156 Philo: conception of of Messiah....... 244 Philosophers: iconoclasm of............ Pilate: interview of with Jesus...... 19 Plater Oven cc ses canasactessnarnsamacasennns Raphael : referred. .tO....-ass sysonacensensee 100 Rationalism : modern school of........ 11 SPCCULALLVC. -:c 38 t A 4 ed HR ERATE BOS 154 % or ; a he wr if pe hl # 4 am 3 a 3 be ann ¢ aif / fig OF ¥ ye ia Deere 4 ae f y Caan 3 YA Wee i, ie A de, NO A hl ee): ae iat ee y. % we ia A oa z és # f oe POE Se ke a F a wot? f nif 15 » ash g t ey RA re éf bey Fe a) dpernceeeee ee aye ge RF f om } # i 4A ig dt Lana 4 é ain He aati 1 1012 01252 5210 it ay ai) ih a yterr yt me eA F SATE ¢ ut A Chea ay ia 1 i rt nat oy PTL Ra CA ’ A eke Wh. oat 1 yi Hil « ne Pr i Mya y