BT 1101 .K46 1880 
 Kennedy, John, 1813-1900 
 A popular handbook of 
 Christian evidences 
 
\f 
 
 
 r\ 
 
A POPULAR HANDBOOK 
 
 CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES, 
 
Digitized by tine Internet Archive 
 
 in 2010 witii funding from 
 
 Princeton Tiieological Seminary Library 
 
 littp://www.arcliive.org/details/popularliandbool<oOOkenn 
 
.^.'i OF mt'in: 
 A \A,^ .^: 
 
 POPULAR HANDBOOK 
 
 OF 
 
 CHRISTIAN FA/IDENCES 
 
 Bv JOHN KENNEDY, M.A., D.D, 
 
 HONORARY PROFESSOR, NEW COLLEGE, LONDON ; 
 
 AUTHOR OF "THE GOSPELS: THEIR AGE AND AUTHORSHIP, 
 
 "THE PENTATEUCH: ITS AGE AND AUTHORSHIP," 
 
 ETC., ETC. 
 
 LONDON 
 SUNDAY SCHOOL UNION, 
 
 56, OLD BAILEY. 
 
 (/?// i-ight% reseri'eci.) 
 
LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, 
 
 STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS. 
 
PREFACE, 
 
 That the Divine origin and authority of Christianity may 
 be estabhshed without any foregoing discussion of the 
 principles of Natural Religion, I fully believe. On grounds 
 independent of the previous determination of the great 
 question, God or no God, and by processes that are per- 
 fectly legitimate and logical, we may reach the conclusion 
 that the character and life of Jesus Christ cannot be 
 adequately explained on purely naturalistic principles. We 
 may thus find ourselves shut up to the conviction that here 
 there is a moral demonstration of the existence and action 
 of the supernatural ; in other words, that Jesus was and is 
 all that His words respecting Himself imply. And then 
 the fact of His divine personality, thus established, will 
 throw light on questions which, in the order of nature, 
 should go before. The existence and personality of God, 
 and the spirituality of man, can no longer be questioned. 
 We may still concern ourselves, as I have said elsewhere, 
 with arguments more or leas satisfactory, against Atheism, 
 Pantheism, and Materialism. But being once assured that 
 in Jesus Christ we have an Incarnation of the God of truth 
 and love, we may feel that practically we are independent oi 
 these arguments. 
 
 In some respects this is the best mode of setting forth 
 the evidences of our faith. But unhappily, many stumble on 
 
vi PREFACE. 
 
 the very threshold of inquiry through popularly and speciously 
 urged doubts respecting the very existence of a God and 
 of a divine government. And they will not apply them- 
 selves to the honest study of properly Christian evidences 
 till these doubts are removed or at least considered. They 
 demand of us that we shall meet them first on ground 
 anterior to the question who and what Jesus Christ was. 
 Hence the plan which I have thought it well to adopt in this 
 Handbook, — -devoting the first part to the Theistic argument 
 and to subjects related to it and preparatory to the evidence, 
 which the second part will endeavour to set forth, on which 
 we rest our faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the 
 Saviour of the world. 
 
 A Handbook, as it seems to me, should steer a middle 
 course, between the baldness of a mere skeleton and the 
 fulness of a course of lectures in which popular illustration 
 may be freely used. How far I have succeeded to realize 
 my idea I do not know. But I have kept it steadily in 
 view. 
 
 As to the importance of the subject, no sane man can 
 question it. Nor can any one who has understanding of 
 the times doubt the obligation which is laid on " believers " 
 to vindicate, in every available form, the grounds of their 
 faith. The burden of proof lies on them, and they must 
 bear it. But unbelievers should remember at the same time 
 that their position is not rational or defensible, unless they 
 can furnish a better explanation of the universe than is to 
 be found in the doctrine of an Intelligent Creator, and a 
 better explanation of the wonderful story of the Gospels than 
 is to be found in the admission of their truth. Whatever be 
 the difficulties of faith, the difficulties of unbelief are greater. 
 
 Stepney, 
 
 September, iSSa 
 
PART FIRST. 
 
 THEISM AND RELATED SUBJECTS. 
 
CONTENTS OF PART FIRST. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 FU.NTDAMENTAL AND GUIDIXG PRINCIPLES. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I. Moral or Probable Evidence alone available ... .. 3 
 
 Professor Jevons on Probability ... ... ... 4 
 
 Sir Edmund Beckett on same ... ... ... ... 4 
 
 The Hypothesis of a God verifiable ... ... ... 5 
 
 II. No right to predetermine the Amount or Kind of Evidence ... 6 
 
 We have to deal with Facts as they are ... ... 7 
 
 III. May be shut up to Conclusions that are not demonstiable ... 8 
 
 1. By the Difficulties of a Denial ... ... ... 8 
 
 2. By the Exhaustion of other Hypotheses ... ... 9 
 
 The Proper Use of Hypothesis ... ... 9 
 
 Illustrated in the Case of God and Christ ... ... 10 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Modern Forms of Unbelief and their Essential Unity. 
 
 Natural Religion presupposed in Judaism and in Christianity ... 12 
 Revelation charges Men with neglecting the Teachings of Nature 13 
 
 Difference between the Nineteentli and Eighteenth Centuries ... 14 
 
 Bald Atheism — ^John Foster quoted ... ... ... 15 
 
 Pantheism — (a.) Materialistic, (3.) Idealistic, {c.) other shades 16 
 
 Agnosticism — God unknowable ... ... ... 17 
 
 1. The Intellect cannot rest in it ... ... ... 17 
 
 Tyndall and WUrst quoted ... ... ... 17 
 
 2. Morally wrong to rest in it ... ... ... ... iS 
 
 Chalmers on the Duty of seeking after God ... 18 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 PACE 
 
 Secularism ... ... ... ... ,.. „, is 
 
 Untrue Assumptions of ... ... ... ,„ ig 
 
 Materialism ... ... ... ... .,. iq 
 
 A Quasi-Philosophical Theoiy ... ... ... ig 
 
 In its Wider Meaning Atheistic ... ... ... ... 19 
 
 Sir Edmund Beckett on the only possible Alternatives ... 20 
 
 Positivism — Its Fundamental Principles ... ... ... 20 
 
 Phenomenalism denies Matter as well as Spirit ... 21 
 
 Comte in the end invented a New Religion ... ... 21 
 
 Unity of these Forms of Unbelief .. ... ... 22 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Man's Religious Nature and the Universality of Religion. 
 
 We are in the Presence of 1 wo Facts ... ... ... 2 
 
 I. The General, if not Universal, Prevalence of Religious 
 
 Beliefs 
 
 23 
 
 Plutarch and Cicero quoted . . ... ... 24 
 
 Alleged Exceptions ... ... ... ... 24 
 
 Was Confucius Atheistic? 
 
 25 
 
 Was Gautama Atheistic ? .. ... ... 26 
 
 II. The Existence of a Religious Faculty in Man ... 2b 
 
 Maximus Tyrius, Philo, Lord Herbert, Huxley, and 
 
 Tyndall quoted ... . . ... ... 26, 27 
 
 III. The Connection between these Two Facts ? ... ... 27 
 
 " Religiousness " proved by General Prevalence of 
 
 Religion ... ... ... ... 27 
 
 " Religions " would have vanished without a Root in 
 
 "Religiousness" ... ... ... ... 28 
 
 " Religiousness " the Power by which Savage Tribes are 
 
 reclaimed ... ... ... ... 28 
 
 Inference from the Development of Comtism ... 29 
 
 Agnosticism no Proof against our Original Religiousness 29 
 
 IV. The Argument summed up ... ... ... 30 
 
 1. The Fact of a Religious Faculty implies an Objective 
 
 Counterpart ... ... ... ... 30 
 
 2. The Proper Counterpart is a Person ... ... 31 
 
 This excludes Thing.s, Abstractions, and Inferior 
 
 Persons ... ... ... .. 31, 32 
 
CONTENTS. XI 
 
 PAGE 
 
 V. The so-called Science of Comparative Religion ... 32 
 
 Vain Attempt to extract an Absolute Religion ... 32 
 
 The only Positive Inference ... ... ... 32 
 
 The Confucian, Taoist, and Christian Religions compared 
 
 by Dr. Legge ... ... ... ... y-, 
 
 Three Points in which they agree ... ... ... t^t. 
 
 Another Result of Deep Interest ... ... 34 
 
 Monotheism the Oldest and Karliest Faith ... ... 34 
 
 Renouf on Egyptian Monotheism ... .. 35 
 
 Max Miiller and Dr. Dawson quoted ... ... 36, 37 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 God Manifested in the Material World and in our Morai 
 
 Nature. 
 
 I. In the Outer World ... ... ... ... 39 
 
 1. In the E.xisience or Origination of the Macerial 
 
 Universe ... ... ... ... 39 
 
 The Argument stated by John Howe ... 39, 40 
 
 The Argument put in Another Way ... ... 40 
 
 Admission by John Stuart Mill ... ... ... 40 
 
 Supposed Original Condition of Matter ... ... 41 
 
 W' ere the Atoms Blind ? Intelligent? ... ... 41 
 
 Did the Atoms make Laws for themselves ? ... 42 
 
 Sir Edmund Beckett quoted ... ... 42, 43 
 
 2. God manifested in the Order o{\\\q. Universe ... 43 
 
 The Solar System — McCosh and Hodge ... ... 44 
 
 Other Systems beside the Solar . ... 45 
 
 3. The Argument from ZJtfw^ ... ... ... 46 
 
 Socrates, Cicero, Philo ... ... ... 46, 47 
 
 Admission by Kant ... ... ... ... 47 
 
 Syllogistic Form of Argument ... ... ... 47 
 
 Any Intentional Connection between Means and Ends ? 4S 
 
 The Eye, Matter, and Light ... ... ... 48 
 
 Whence their Mutual Adaptations ? ... ... 48 
 
 If "developed," the Evidence of Design only tlie more 
 
 Striking ... ... ... ... 49, 50 
 
 " Every Effect must have a Cause" ... ... 50 
 
 True Meaning of the Aphorism ... ... 51 
 
 Design not immanent in Nature ... ... ... 52 
 
 Difference between the Works of God and of Man 57 
 
XII 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 II. In our Moral Nature. 
 Cicero on Moral Law and Conscience ... 
 What the Ai-gument from Conscience involves 
 Two Schools of Moralists 
 The Intuitional and Utilitarian 
 Wallace and Kant on .Sense of Duty 
 Conscience the Regal Power — Chalmers 
 The Nemesis of the Greeks — Blackie 
 
 III. SUMjMARY 
 
 Outline of Argument by Principal Shairp 
 By what other Conceivable Methods could "God" be 
 proved? — John Howe ... ... ... ... 59, 60 
 
 • 53 
 53 
 
 • 53 
 54 
 
 54, 55 
 55 
 
 . 56 
 56 
 
 57, 5« 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 What of God is made Known in and by Nature. 
 
 The Teacher not to be measured by the Scholar 
 Intellectual or Moral Defect possible 
 
 I. God Intelligent and Personal 
 
 What proves an " Underlying Reality " proves it to be an 
 
 Intelligent Person 
 Incomprehensible, but not Unknowable ... 
 The God of the Bible not Pantheistic 
 An Impersonal God cannot say " I " 
 Metaphysical Questions as to Personality 
 The Idea of Personality Anthropomorphic 
 True Anthropomorphism — Dr. Carpenter 
 
 II. The Divine Infinitude 
 
 A Limited Effect cannot prove an Unlimited Cause 
 But does not prove the Cause to be Limited 
 Fallacy of Hume 
 
 III. The Divine Unity 
 
 Paley's Argument — Unity of Design 
 This proves only Unity of Counsel 
 Is the Creator and Designer One ? ... 
 May there be more than One Infinite ? ... 
 
 IV. The Divine Goodness 
 Heathen Ideas 
 
 Is there Positive Evidence of Divine Goodness ? 
 General Concurrence of Writers on Design 
 
 61 
 61 
 62 
 
 63 
 64 
 64 
 65 
 65 
 6j 
 
 67 
 68 
 OS 
 60 
 69 
 
 71 
 
 72 
 73 
 
 73 
 74 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xin 
 
 FAGB 
 
 But how reconcile Suffering with Divine Goodness ? ... 74 
 
 Various Questions involved ... ... ... .. 74 
 
 1. The Righteousness of God involves His Goodness 75 
 
 2. Positive Evidence not to be set aside by Contrary 
 
 Appearances ... ... ... ... 75 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Transition from Nature to the Supernatural. 
 
 The Natural and Supernatural not to be confounded ... ... 77 
 
 Illustrated by an Example ... .. ... ... 77 
 
 A Perfect Definition not attempted ... ... ... ... 79 
 
 Two Alleged Presumptions against the Supernatural ... 79 
 
 I. Improbability argued from the Constancy of Nature ... 80 
 
 Though Improbable, not Incredible ... ... 81 
 
 Four Reasons assigned for this ... ... 81-83 
 
 How the Supernatural may become Probable .. . 83 
 
 The Supernatural not corrective of Nature ... ... 83 
 
 II. The Notorious Fact that Early History is full of Super- 
 
 natural tales .. ... ... ... 84 
 
 How distinguish the True from the False ... ... 85 
 
 The Short Method of Rationalism ... ... 85 
 
 A more " Rational " Explanation ... ... ... 80 
 
 Coleridge, Mozley, and Channing ... ... 86 
 
 Presumption in Favour of Miracles ... ... ,„ 87 
 
 Biblical and other Miracles compared ... ... 87 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The Necessity and Probability of a Supernatural 
 Revelation. 
 
 The Conclusions reached in the Preceding Chapters ... ... 89 
 
 Our Need of a Special Revelation ... ... ... 90 
 
 I. The State of Heathendom ... ... ... ... 90 
 
 Whether Monotheism or Polytheism earlier ... 90 
 
 II. The most Modern Experience ... ... ... 91 
 
 Story of the Northumbrians ... ... ... 92 
 
 What an Agnostic would say, and Reply ... ,.. 93 
 
 Modems not wiser than their Fathers ... ... 94 
 
XIV 
 
 CONTEXTS. 
 
 III. Questions whicli Nature cannot answer 
 Schism in the Soul of Man — Pascal 
 Schism between God and Man 
 The Question of Ages ... 
 Natural Religion cannot solve it 
 An Opiate by Renan ... 
 Revelation probable if God be our Father 
 Christ the Revealer and Redeemer 
 
 95 
 95 
 96 
 
 97 
 97 
 97 
 98 
 99 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 A. Demonstrative Evidence 
 
 B. Necessary Truths ... 
 
 C. On Pantheism 
 
 D. On Materialism 
 
 E. Positivism Anti- Scientific 
 
 F. Max Miiller and Mr. Conder on Buddhism 
 
 G. '* Comparative Religion" 
 
 II. From Lower to Higher or from Higher to Lower? 
 I. Classification of Thcistic Arguments 
 K. The Argument from Order ... 
 L. Books on Design 
 
 M. Incomprehensible, not Unknowable ... 
 N. Theories on the Origin of Evil ... 
 O. On Providence — Anecdote of Mr. Thomas Carlyle 
 P. Has Modern Science undermined the Foundations of Religion 
 Q. A Catechism of Scientific Beliefs 
 
 ... 100 
 
 lOI 
 
 ... 102 
 
 104 
 
 ... 106 
 
 106 
 
 ... 107 
 
 loS 
 
 ... 109 
 
 112 
 
 ... 114 
 
 114 
 
 ... 115 
 
 \ii 
 
 eligion ? i ib 
 
 ... 119 
 
PART SECOND. 
 
 CHRIST AND CHRISTIANITY. 
 
CONTENTS OF PART SECOND. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 The Historic Beginnings of Christianity. 
 
 The Christian Account of the Beginnings 
 
 Non-Christian Accounts 
 
 Tacitus on the Christians in Rome 
 
 Summary of Facts attested by Tacitus ... 
 
 Pliny, Governor of Bithynia 
 
 Facts attested by him 
 
 The Gospels contain the Authentic Story 
 
 1. No Rival Histories 
 
 2. Written in the Age of the Events 
 
 Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Early Translations 
 
 3. (a) Agreement with Oral Gospel ; (b) Apostolic 
 
 primatur 
 
 4. Agreement with other Sources of Information ... 
 
 5. Consistent with one another 
 
 6. Consistent with Non-historical Documents 
 
 7. Consistent with History of Contemporary Events 
 Why should they be impugned ? 
 
 TAGB 
 
 126 
 126 
 
 127 
 
 128 
 130 
 133 
 133 
 133 
 3-135 
 
 136 
 136 
 137 
 137 
 138 
 138 
 
 CHAPTER H. 
 
 The Founder of Christianity : What He was according to 
 Himself and His First Followers. 
 
 The Self- Assertion of Jesus Christ ... 
 Passages in Illustration 
 
 1. Was He a Conscious Deceiver? 
 
 2. Was He Deceived ? 
 
 3. His Claims the accretions of a Later Age ? 
 
 ... 140 
 141, 142 
 ... 143 
 
 143 
 ... 144 
 
XVI 11 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGS 
 
 Proofs that they were not ... ... ... ... 144-151 
 
 Paul's Letters and the Apocalypse ... ... ... 145-150 
 
 The only Legitimate Conclusion ... ... ... 151 
 
 CHAPTER in. 
 
 The Gospel Portraiture of Jesus Christ— Lnternal 
 Evidence of its Reality. 
 
 In this Argument the Truth of the Gospels not assumed ... 152 
 
 The Gospel Portraiture — a Reality or an Invention ? ... 152 
 
 Its Beauty and Grandeur universally admitted ... I53> ^54 
 
 No Exaggeration in the Admissions ... ... ... 154, 155 
 
 According to the Gospels, Sinless ... ... ... 156,157 
 
 According to the Gospels, Superhuman ... ... ... 158 
 
 Claimed Universal Empire ... ... ... 158, 160 
 
 The Features in tills Portraiture to be Accounted for ... 160 
 According to Rousseau, the Inventor of such a Character more 
 
 astonishing than the Hero ... ... ... 160 
 
 1. Unique — alone in the History of the World ... ... 160 
 
 Impossible to act the Part of a Man, Sinless and Super- 
 human ... ... ... ... ... 160, 161 
 
 2. Nothing in the Age to account for this Portraiture ... 162 
 
 Jewish Influences of the Age ... ... ... 162, 163 
 
 Gentile Influences of the Age ... ... ... 164 
 
 Kingship and Godhead unaccounted for ... 165 
 
 3. Argument from the Unity of the Fourfold Biography ... 166 
 
 4. Who could embody the Idea in Action? ... ... 169 
 
 Who could invent the History of such Ideas in Action ? \']<^, 172 
 
 Only a Jesus could forge a Jesus ... ... ... 172 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Jesus Christ of the Gospels foretold in the Old 
 Testament — The Testimony of Prophecy. 
 
 Strictly Historic Facts ... ... ... ... ... 173 
 
 1. Expectations of a Messiah ... ... ... 173 
 
 Keim and Renan quoted ... ... ... 173, 174 
 
 2. Jesus regarded as the Messiah by His Followers ... 174 
 
 3. For this Claim He was condemned to die ... ... 175 
 
CONTENTS. XIX 
 
 PACK 
 
 Our Argument. 
 First — The Expectation was founded on Prophecy ... 176 
 
 Keim on its Persistency ... ... ... ... 170 
 
 Secondly— '}j&vi\'^ conceptions of the Coming One not in Harmony 
 
 wiih Prophecy ... ... ... ... jgi 
 
 These Conceptions illustrated ... ... ... 182-184 
 
 Thirdly— T\^& Prophetic Conception was realized in Christ ... 1S4 
 (a) Godhead and Humanity ; {b) Suffering ; (c) King and 
 
 Conqueror; (d) a Priest ; {c) a Great Prophet 1S4-1S7 
 
 The Result. 
 
 1. Jesus did not derive His Ideas of the Messiahship from His 
 
 Times ... ... ... ... ... ... 188 
 
 Earchochebas the Fruit of his Times ... ... jg^ 
 
 2. The Messiahship of Jesus not assumed and acted by One not 
 
 the Messiah ... ... ... ... ... jgo 
 
 3. It follows that Jesus was indeed the Mes.siah ... ... 193 
 
 Summary by Prebendary Row ... ... ... 194, ige 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Jesus Christ of the Gospels certified by His 
 Miracles. 
 
 Miracles not a hindrance but a help... ... ... ... ig6 
 
 1. Definitions of a Miracle ... ... ... 797 
 
 2. Miracles impossible, an Arbitrary Dictum ... ... 198 
 
 3. Miraculous Narratives not necessarily Unhistorical ... 199 
 The Sum of the Matter ... ... ... ... ... 199 
 
 General Character of Christ's Miracles ... ... ... 200 
 
 Miracles of Healing ... ... ... ... 201,202 
 
 Are the Narratives Trustworthy? ... ... ... 202 
 
 1. They were published at the Time ... ... ... 203 
 
 2. The Apocryphal Gospels show what Manner of Miracles 
 
 Superstition would have imagined ... ... 204 
 
 3. The Style in which they are recorded ... ... 206 
 
 4. Connection of Sayings with Miracles ... ... 207 
 
 How Christ regarded His Aliracles. 
 
 1. He appealed to them as Evidence ... ... ... 210 
 
 2. He would not work Miracles at the bidding of others ... 211 
 
 3. He complained that other Signs were not duly appreciated ... 213 
 
^'^ CONTENTS. 
 
 Tlie Relation of Christ to His Miracles. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 1. His Works of Might and Love were Signs of His Messianic 
 
 Authority ... ... ... ,„ _^ 2i6 
 
 Moses and Christ ... ... ... ... 216-21Q 
 
 2. His Works accredited His Personal Dignity ... ... 219-221 
 
 Note on Dr. Abbott's " Through Nature to Christ " 221-223 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The Jesus Christ of the Gospels certified by His 
 Resurrection from the Dead. 
 
 The Facts to be proved ... ... ... ... ... 224 
 
 According to Paul, the Sentence of the Sanhediim was reversed 
 
 by God ... ... ... ... ... 224 
 
 That Paul i5^/?,?z/i?i^ in Christ's Resurrection, admitted ... ... 225 
 
 Paul ja7«/ the Risen Jesus ... ... ... ... 226 
 
 Not to be confounded with " Visions " ... ... ... 227 
 
 Summary of Testimonies ... ... ... ... 229 
 
 Cephas and James ... ... ... ... 231,232 
 
 Five Hundred Witnesses ... ... ... ... 232, 233 
 
 Why did not Jesus show Himself to His Enemies ? ... ... 234 
 
 Why not a more Detailed and Systematic History ? ... 235 
 
 Tn Conclusion. 
 
 1. The Belief dates from the Time of its alleged occurrence ... 236 
 
 2. The Witnesses attached Importance to the Fact ... 237 
 
 3. The Disciples were not expectant ... ... ... 237 
 
 4. The Means of a Great Revolution in their Spirit and Beliefs 238 
 
 A mere Belief, without Fact, not sufficient to account for the 
 
 Change ... ... ... ... ... 239 
 
 5. The Foundation of the Church ... ... ... ... 240 
 
 Admission by Dr. Carpenter ... ... ... 241 
 
 6. Incorporated with the Doctrinal Teaching of the Apostles ... 242 
 
 Naturalistic Hypothesis. 
 
 1. Not really Dead ... ... ... ... ... 243 
 
 2. The Visionai-y Hypothesis ... ... ... ... 244 
 
 3. The Apparitional Hypothesis ... ... ... 245 
 
 Collapse of all these ... ... ... ... ... 246 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XXI 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 CORROSORATIVE EVIDENCES. 
 
 I. The Moral Teaching oj Christ 
 
 Dr. Hopkins and Strauss quoted 
 
 1. Christ's Moral Teaching the reflection of His Character 
 
 2. Worthy of the very highest Claims asserted by Him 
 
 3. Two special Characteristics of Christ's teaching 
 
 II. The Character formed by the hnitatioii of Christ 
 What would Mankind be ? 
 Christ neither an Ascetic nor an Iconoclast 
 The Mind that was in Christ 
 Contrast with Mohammed and Buddha 
 
 HI. The Early Successes of Christianity 
 
 What the Argument amounts to 
 
 The Difficulties encountered 
 
 The Means by which overcome 
 
 The World prepared and not prepared ... 
 
 Anecdote of Talleyrand 
 IV. The Effects of Christianity 
 
 Testimony of Mr. Lecky ... ... 
 
 Legitimate deductions 
 
 Christianity in the Nineteenth Century 
 
 Fruits worthy of a Divine Origin 
 
 Conchcsion 
 
 More Corroborative Evidences than these 
 
 Obligations of the Unbeliever ... 
 
 
 247 
 
 247 
 
 248 
 
 tr ... 
 
 248 
 
 
 250 
 
 
 251 
 
 
 251 
 
 
 252 
 
 
 
 252 
 
 
 252 
 
 
 254 
 
 
 254 
 
 
 255 
 
 255 
 
 256 
 
 
 257 
 
 ... 
 
 259 
 
 
 259 
 
 ... 
 
 260 
 
 
 260 
 
 261 
 
 262 
 
 
 262 
 
 
 263 
 
 
 263 
 
 
 263 
 
 263 
 
 264 
 
PART TH IRD. 
 
 THE DIVINE BOOK; 
 
 OR, 
 
 THE SUPERNATURAL IN THE BIBLE ITS OWN 
 
 WITNESS, WITH ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT. 
 
CONTENTS OF PART THIRD. 
 
 a Re- 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Specialities of the Bible : Preliminary Objections and 
 Preliminary Presumptions. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 267 
 268 
 268 
 268 
 
 269 
 270 
 270 
 270 
 271 
 271 
 272 
 272 
 
 273 
 274 
 
 275 
 276 
 278 
 278 
 
 The Ground already travelled 
 The " Book " now to be considered 
 Do not propose an " Introduction " 
 
 1. Professed Histories of Supernatural Communications 
 
 2. One Great Characteristic of these — Redemption and 
 
 deemer 
 Preliminary Objections ... 
 
 1. A priori — to the Supernatural ... 
 
 2. To a .5(?(3/&-revelation 
 Tradition not sufficient 
 Antiquity of the Art of Writing 
 General Truthfulness must be assumed 
 Impartiality of Bible Historians 
 Partiality of Monumental Histories ... 
 Revelation — what it is 
 Revelation and Inspiration distinguished 
 The Bible — its Diversity and Unity 
 No other Literature like it 
 The Natural and Supernatural inseparable 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Signs of the Superhuman in the Teachings of the 
 Bible. 
 
 Nature not Agnostic — what it teaches 
 
 The Bible to be true must be consistent with it 
 
 280 
 280 
 
XXVI 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The Teaching of the Bible respecting God ?V coincident with 
 that of Nature ... 
 
 God Personal — One — The Creator 
 
 Infinitude— Moral Attributes 
 
 The Teaching of the Bible is clearer, more conclusive, and 
 impressive 
 
 Objection — "Anthropomorphic" 
 
 Even Natural and Moral Truths capable of more Light and 
 Force by Revelation 
 
 Bible Writers conscious of Perplexity, but had Faith in God 
 
 Bible Teaching supplements that of Nature, and answers Ques- 
 tions which Nature cannot answer ... 
 
 How shall I come before God ? ... 
 
 Repentance not enough 
 
 The Possibility of Forgiveness ... 
 
 The Significance of Sacrifice 
 
 The Bible leads up to Christ 
 
 Isaac Taylor on " Atonement " 
 
 Shall we live again ? 
 
 Egyptian Belief ... 
 
 Greek and Hindoo Mythology ... 
 
 "What the Books of Moses taught 
 
 The Translation of Enoch 
 
 A Test suggested by Taylor Lewis ... 
 
 Involved in the Idea of Religion ... ... ' 
 
 Reticence of the Bible 
 
 The True Explanation ... 
 
 281 
 281 
 283 
 
 284 
 285 
 
 285 
 287 
 
 288 
 288 
 289 
 289 
 290 
 291 
 291 
 292 
 292 
 293 
 293 
 294 
 294 
 
 295 
 295 
 295 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Further Signs of the Superhuman in the Teachings 
 OF THE Bible. 
 
 The Teaching of a Succession of Men, often separated 
 
 Long Intervals 
 Distance between the Earliest and Latest 
 A fact without Parallel 
 
 This Teaching not attained by Mental Effort ... 
 No Prophet or Apostle claimed Originality 
 The Teachings themselves without Parallel 
 The Older Faith Monotheistic ... 
 Confucius — Buddha 
 
 by 
 
 297 
 297 
 298 
 298 
 299 
 
 299 
 299 
 
 300 
 
CONTENTS. XXVll 
 
 rAGE 
 
 The God of Mohammed not the God of the Bible ... ... 300 
 
 A Moral Phenomenon ... ... ... ... 301 
 
 Proof that the Difterence between the Jews and others 
 
 originated in a Cause without and above them ... 301 
 
 The Semitic Race not superior to others ... ... ... 302 
 
 Only one Branch of the Semitic Race preserved True Know- 
 ledge of God ... ... ... ... ... 302 
 
 Every Offshoot from Abraham's Branch, but one, became 
 
 Idolaters ... ... ... .. ... ... 303 
 
 Even this one constantly declining from God ... ... 303 
 
 The only Rational E>;planation ... ... ... ... 305 
 
 The Progressive Development of the Bible Religion ... 306 
 
 The Peculiar Nature of the Progress ... ... ... 306 
 
 Entrance of Sin, and the First Promise ... ... 307 
 
 Promise to and through Abraham ... ... ... 307 
 
 The Prophet like unto Moses ... ... ... 308 
 
 The Days of David and Solomon ... ... ... 309 
 
 The Later Prophets ... ... ... ... 309 
 
 Christianity the Consummation of Historic Progress ... 310 
 
 Not a Natural Development ... ... ... 310 
 
 What Nature teaches respecting Man ... ... ... 312 
 
 Pascal's Paradox ... ... ... ... ... 313 
 
 John Howe on the Temple in Ruins ... ... ... 313 
 
 Dr. McCosh on signs of Reconstruction ... ... 314 
 
 All this at kast in Light of Bible ... ... ... 314 
 
 The Argument drawn from this by Dr. McCosh ... 314 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 Signs of the Superhuman in the Progressive Development 
 OF THE Teachings of the Bible. 
 
 The Chief Instance of Development has been traced ... ... 316 
 
 The Childhood of Man in Relation to God ... .. 316 
 
 I. The Adaptation of the Earlier Revelations to this Condition 317 
 
 1. The Primeval Institution of Sacrifice .. ... 317 
 The Biblical Interpretation of it ... ... ... 317 
 
 2. The Laws and Prescriptions of the Levitical Code 
 
 adapted to a Condition of Childhood ... ... 318 
 
 In the Light of Egypt and Canaan ... ... 318 
 
 Spiritual Things in Visible Signs ... ... ... 319 
 
xxvni 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 3. The Modes of Revelation adapted to the Childhood of 
 
 the World 
 
 "God spoke," but for the most Part Mode not indicated 
 Sometimes a " Voice " 
 Sometimes a Visible Form 
 Abraham at Mamre 
 
 Joshua and the Captain of the Lord's Host 
 Anything improbable in these Theophanies ? ... 
 Even now these Old- World Theophanies instruct and 
 
 interest 
 II. Certain Truths and Principles underlying all ... 
 
 1. The Great Doctrine of One Living God 
 
 2. No Attempt to describe or give Form to the Deity ... 
 
 3. In all of them the Loftiest Conceptions of the Divine 
 
 Character ... 
 
 4. Notwithstanding Levitical Outwardness, the Spiritual and 
 
 Moral supreme 
 
 5. Old Testament Revelations prophetic of other and higher 
 Such Special Revelations given no longer 
 
 Reply to John Stuart Mill ... 
 
 319 
 319 
 320 
 320 
 320 
 320 
 321 
 
 323 
 322 
 
 322 
 323 
 
 325 
 326 
 326 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Internal Evidence of the Superxatur.a.l in the Miracles 
 OF THE Bible. 
 
 Two Classes — without and with Human Agency 
 
 1. First of the former — the Material Creation 
 Atoms — their Cause, God 
 
 One, Uncaused, Intelligent, Almighty 
 Whence did Moses get this Conception? ... 
 Not in Egypt — Where? 
 Sign of the Superhuman in the Record 
 Dr. Taylor Lewis quoted 
 
 2. The Creation of Man ... 
 
 The Essential Point in the Record 
 
 Special Evolution according to Wallace ... 
 
 Professor Virchow on Evolution 
 
 No Pro-anthropos yet discovered 
 
 "Let Us make man in Our Image" ... 
 
 The " Beginning " of Woman — significant 
 
 ... ^Wlt. 
 
 328 
 
 ... 329 
 
 329 
 
 329 
 
 329 
 
 330 
 
 330 
 
 331 
 
 331 
 
 331 
 
 332 
 
 333 
 
 333 
 
 334 
 
CONTENTS. XXIX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Lessons involved in the Record ... ... ... 334 
 
 Contrast with Brahmanism and Mohammedanism ... 335 
 
 \Vhence the wisdom of Moses ? ... ... •■ -.• 33^ 
 
 Fichte quoted ... ... ... ■■ ■•• 33° 
 
 3. The Miracles of the Deluge and of the Destruction /)f the 
 
 Cities of the Plain ... ... ... ••• 33^ 
 
 Traditions of the Deluge ... ... ■•. ••• 337 
 
 The Creator as Ruler and Judge ... .. ... 33^ 
 
 4. Two Miracles separated by a Thousand Years ... ... 338 
 
 (a) The Burning Bush ... ... ... ... 339 
 
 The Divine Name—" I am that I am '' ... •••339 
 
 The Highest Conceptions of God... ... ... 340 
 
 (b) The Burning Fiery Furnace ... ... ... ... 341 
 
 The same Conceptions of God ... ... ... 342 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Internal Evidence of the Supern.\tural in the Miracles 
 OF THE BiiiLE — {continued). 
 
 Second class— Miracles associated with Human Agency ... 343 
 
 I. The Commission of Moses, how certified ... ... 343 
 
 Dean Stanley on the " Rod " of Moses . . ... .. 343 
 
 The Significance of the Rod and of the Plagues ... 344 
 
 Not Idle Prodigies ... ... ... ... ... 346 
 
 The Moral History of the King of Eg>'pt .. ... 346 
 
 The Miracles all such as were necessary ... ... 347 
 
 Moses not a Mere Patriot ... ... ... ... 347 
 
 II. Midway between Abraham and Christ ... ... ... 348 
 
 The Peculiarity of the Apostasy through Ahab and Jezebel 348 
 
 Canon Rawlinson on Phoenician Religion ... ... 349 
 
 The Attempt to convert Israel into Canaan ... ... 350 
 
 The Conflict of Egypt renewed ... ... ... 35 1 
 
 III. The Occasion of the Miracles of Christ ... ... 351 
 
 What Jesus Christ professed to be ... ... ... SS^ 
 
 Dr. T. Arnold on His Miracles ... ... ... 352 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 The Grand Mir.\cle of Prophecy. 
 
 From Samuel to Malachi, 800 years ... ... ... 353 
 
 Prediction only a Part of " Prophecy " ... ... ... 353 
 
XXX CONTENTS. 
 
 PACE 
 
 A Moral Test of the True Prophet ... ... ... ... 354 
 
 Confessedly a Remarkable Phenomenon ... ... ... 355 
 
 Things to be taken into the Account ... ... ... 355 
 
 1. The Prophets confessedly of High Character ... ... 355 
 
 Kuenen quoted ... ... ... ... ... 355 
 
 2. Their Aim the loftiest ... ... ... ... 355 
 
 3. Their Work prosecuted in the Face of Opposition ... ... 355 
 
 4. They professed to foretell Future Events ... ... 356 
 
 5. They ascribed their Predictions to God ... ... ... 356 
 
 6. Certain that some of their Predictions were fulfilled ... 356 
 The Chief, the Prediction of the World's Saviour ... ... 356 
 
 Babylon, Tyre, and other Places ... ... ... 356 
 
 7. The Prophetic Office peculiar to the Jevv's ... ... 357 
 
 Not to be confounded with Diviners and Soothsayers ... 357 
 
 8. The Bible Religion prophetic from the Beginning ... ... 357 
 
 What Induction from all these Things ? ... ... 357 
 
 The Idea of Imposture scouted ... ... ... ... 357 
 
 Human Foresight no Explanation ... ... ... 358 
 
 Predictions respecting the Jews ... ... ... ... 35S 
 
 Divine Inspiration and Forethought ... .. ... 359 
 
 Professor Green quoted ... ... ... ... 360 
 
 The So-called Organic Theory ... ... "... 360 
 
 What a True Historic Interpretation includes ... ... 361 
 
 The Question of Origin remains ... ... ... 362 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 General Consideration's on Biblical Miracles. 
 
 The Truth of the Narratives not assumed ... ... ... 363 
 
 Confirmatory Considerations ... ... ... ... 363 
 
 I. Miracles not found where if legendary they must ... 363 
 
 Not sown Broadcast — Doctor Trench ... ... 363 
 
 The Unlikeness of Legendary to Historical Miracles ... 364 
 
 Legends about Abraham and Moses ... ... 364 
 
 The only Miracles distantly resembling the Legendary ... 367 
 
 The Floating Axe ... ... ... ... 367 
 
 The Dead Man restored by the Body of Elisha ... 368 
 
 II. The General Fitness of Old Testament Miracles ... 369 
 
 Illustrated by Doctor Trench ... ... ... ... 369 
 
 III. The Cessation of Miracles ... ... ... 370 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 Objection by J. S. Mill ... ... ... ... 370 
 
 Two Characteristics of Bible Miracles ... ... 371 
 
 No longer Occasion for Miracles ... ... ... 37' 
 
 One Grand Material Miracle to come ... ... 371 
 
 Continuance as well as Origin by Will-Force ... ... 372 
 
 IV. The Line between the Miraculous and Non-Miraculous Age 
 
 not defined ... ... .... ... ... 373 
 
 Professed Miracles still ... ... ... ... 373 
 
 Medijeval and Bible Miracles compared ... ... 373 
 
 1. A Different Idea of Saintliness ... ... ... 373 
 
 2. Fraud and Falsehood sanctioned by Rome ... 374 
 The False Decretals ... ... ... ... 374 
 
 Contrast with Christ and His Apostles ... ... 374 
 
 3. Christ's Miracles traced from the Time of their Occurrence 
 
 — not so Medieval ... ... ... ... 375 
 
 Examples — Loyola and Xavier ... ... ... 375 
 
 4. Contrast between their avowed End ... ... 376 
 
 The Honour of Christ and the Honour of Saints ... 376 
 
 5. Contrast between the Miracles themselves ... 377 
 The Mediaeval Miracles like the " Apocryphal " ... 377 
 A Specimen — Xavier's Crucifi.x ... ... ... 377 
 
 6. Some Alleged Miracles traceable to Natural Causes 378 
 Mind and Body ... .. ... ... ... 378 
 
 No Abortive Experiments in Gospel Miracles ... 378 
 
 Summary ... ... ... ... ... 378 
 
 The Credibility of Biblical Miracles confirmed ... 379 
 
 Their Purpose accomplished ... ... ... 379 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The Biblical Books Inspired — and in what Sense. 
 
 Revelation and Inspiration ... ... ... ... 381 
 
 Inspiration applies to Writers and Writings ... ... ... 381 
 
 What has been proved in Preceding Chapters ... ... 381 
 
 Inspiration claimed by Apostles .^ ... ... ... 382 
 
 Not concerned about Theories ... ... ... ... 382 
 
 What is meant by " Verbal " and " Plenary " ...- ... 383 
 
 Our Contention — all Human and all Divine ... ... 384 
 
 How all Human illustrated in Various Particulars ... ... 384 
 
 Analogy of the Books with the Prophets and Apostles (2 Cor. v. 7) 386 
 
 How all Divine ... ... ... ... ... 386 
 
xxxn 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 The Authority of Christ and His Apostles ... ... ... 387 
 
 The Record regarded from another Standpoint ... ... 387 
 
 Divine Revelations could not be left to Man's Wisdom ... 387 
 
 A Divine as well as a Human Authorship ... ... 388 
 
 This Divine Authorship covers the Whole Book ... ... 388 
 
 " Time marks " and " God marks," quotation ... ... 388 
 
 More in the Bible than " Revelations " ... ... ... 389 
 
 1. God's Revelations connected with History of Men and the 
 
 Jewish Nation ... ... ... ... ... 389 
 
 Hence, to be complete and intelligible, must be embedded 
 
 in Individual and National Histories ... ... .•• 3^9 
 
 2. Various Portions of Scripture had Temporary Objects in view 390 
 The Levitical Ritual and some National Institutions ... 391 
 But a Permanent Record important ... ... ... 39 1 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Leslie's Short Method with the Deists 
 The Conversion of Paul 
 The Demand for more Evidence 
 An Instance of .such Demand ... 
 Judgment of Bishop Butler 
 
 • 392 
 393 
 
 394-7 
 395 
 
 • 397 
 
HANDBOOK 
 
 CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 FUNDAMENTAL AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES. 
 I. 
 
 We must begin our inquiry into the claims of Chris- 
 tianity with a clear apprehension of the nature and 
 value of the only kind of evidence that is available in such 
 problems as we have to consider. It is what is known 
 as " Moral," or " Probable," not " Demonstrative." m^j.^,^ ^^ 
 "Probable evidence," says Bishop Butler, "is probable, 
 
 ' ■' ^ ' evidence 
 
 essentially distinguished from demonstrative by this, alone avail- 
 that it admits of degrees ; and of all variety of them, 7,^ t;^g 
 from the highest moral certainty to the very lowest "f,"iff£^^[ 
 presumption." This is not the only distinction ^^''"• 
 between them. They differ in kind ; but the dif- 
 ference is understood by description better than by 
 definition. It is not arbitrary but real; as real in 
 questions that are purely secular as in those that are 
 
4 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 religious. It is founded on the nature of the case ; 
 
 and in the ordinary business of life it is unchallenged. 
 
 The words of Bishop Butler — "Probability is the 
 
 guide of life " — have now passed into an axiom ; 
 
 ''The and Professor Jevons, in quoting them, says, "We 
 
 o/sdeice," can hardly take a step or make a decision of 
 
 vol. t.p. 248. ^j^y j^jj^^ without correctly or incorrectly making an 
 estimation of probabilities." Even in matters which 
 are popularly supposed to admit of demonstrative 
 evidence, this able expounder of " the princi^Dles of 
 science " shows that we are dependent on probability. 
 
 "Idem," pp. " The whole cogency of inductive reasoning, as 
 
 248. 249. g^ppij^g(j (-Q science, rests " (he says) " upon probability. 
 
 The truth or untruth of a natural law, when carefully 
 
 investigated, resolves itself into a high or low degree 
 
 of probability." 
 
 "Origin of To the same effect Sir Edmund Beckett says, some 
 
 ^Nauire^' men " are, on the one hand, constantly proclaiming 
 
 ^^' ^"^' that nothing ought to be believed which cannot be 
 
 proved ' positively,' as they call it, or by the evidence 
 
 of our senses ; while on the other, the very thing they 
 
 ■'.venscienti- worship, viz. scicuce, or theories about natural causes 
 based°on^ and cffects, are never proved positively, but only by 
 
 probabilities. jj^fgj.gj^^gg and probabilities. ... All that can be 
 said [even] of the well-known law of gravity is that it 
 is shown to be immeasurably more probable than any 
 other explanation of the motions of the universe. The 
 undulatory theory of light is at present the most 
 probable one, because it explains all the known 
 phenomena better than any other; but there is not 
 the smallest direct proof of the luminiferous aether 
 which it assumes. That may be proved or disproved 
 any day. Hardly any theory of the nature of electrical 
 force can be said to have such a preponderating 
 probability that it may not be superseded to-morrow. 
 
FUNDAMENTAL AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES. 5 
 
 And the same is true of other scientific theories in 
 various degrees." 
 
 Demonstration is possible only in the science of appendixa. 
 mathematics, or of numbers, or in argument based 
 immediately on intuitions, or necessary truths. In all 
 else we are dependent on probability. Probability Provinces of 
 does not imply deficiency of evidence or uncertainty '^tSn"an'd 
 of conviction. But it admits of degrees, as Butler has probability. 
 said, from the lowest presumption to the highest moral 
 certainty — a certainty on which men are prepared to 
 stake both this life and the next. When it is de- Truths that 
 
 do not 
 
 manded of us, then, that we demonstrate that there admit of 
 is a God, or that we demonstrate that the Bible con- tion. 
 tains a divine revelation, it is a demand for that 
 which, in the nature of the case, is impossible. These 
 and similar propositions do not come within the 
 circle of truths to which demonstration is, not arbi- 
 trarily, but of necessity, confined. 
 
 When it is said that the hypothesis of a God, or of 
 a soul, or of a future life, cannot be verified, the force what ;■ veri. 
 of the assertion depends entirely on the ambiguity mean"' 
 of the word " verified." That which is capable of 
 demonstration needs no verifying. To verify a thing 
 is to prove that the thing alleged to be true is true. 
 A demonstration contains the evidence of its truth in 
 itself And of matters which are not capable of demon- 
 stration, the verification is variously effected. An Various 
 historical fact is not verifiable in the way in which a oTthe wwd! 
 physical fact is. An abstract, or an ethical, or a 
 spiritual, statement, is not verifiable in the way in 
 which an historical fact is. Things are verifiable or 
 provable only by evidence suited to their nature. An 
 hypothesis in chemistry is verified when chemical 
 experiments prove it to be true. An assertion in 
 regard to a matter which admits of ocular proof, is 
 
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 verified when such ocular proof has been obtained. 
 A prophecy is verified when it is fulfilled. An 
 historical fact is verified when sufficient evidence of 
 its truth has been obtained. An ethical judgment 
 is verified when the evidence in support of it is 
 conclusive to the satisfaction of the understanding 
 and the moral sense. An abstract opinion is verified 
 when the arguments in support of it greatly pre- 
 ponderate. We do not commonly use the term 
 " verify " in all these cases ; but when it is used, it 
 can only be as thus explained. And, thus explained, 
 we entirely deny the assertion that the fundamental 
 truths of Natural Religion, and the supernatural claims 
 of Christianity, are not verifiable. We believe they 
 are. 
 
 Let the student of this book, then, begin with a 
 clear apprehension of the only evidence that is avail- 
 able in the great concern of religion. It is in kind 
 such as he has to depend on in all the affairs of 
 life. 
 
 No right to 
 prescribe 
 
 what 
 evidence 
 shall be 
 accepted. 
 
 Matt, 
 xviii. 3. 
 
 II. 
 
 We have no right to detcr?iiine for ourselves before- 
 hand, or A PRIORI, what shall be the amount or the 
 character of the evidence which we shall accept in any 
 case as sufficie7it. The words of Christ, "Except ye 
 .... become as little children, ye shall not enter into 
 the kingdom of heaven," have very far-reaching and 
 important bearings. The childlike spirit — the spirit 
 that is docile and free from perverting or distorting 
 prepossessions, is the true spirit of study and inquiry 
 in things secular as well as in things sacred. Those 
 who followed Christ — I refer to them at present only 
 to illustrate a general principle — must, their Master 
 taught them, disabuse themselves of their precon- 
 
FUNDAMENTAL AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES. II 
 
 which is of first importance in the study of all questions 
 which lie outside the domain of demonstration — 
 
 namely, that we may be shut up to the acceptance May then be 
 
 of conclusions that are based on moral evidence, toconciu- 
 
 practically as completely as if they were based on ^morai^ 
 
 demonstration. "'''''^"''- 
 
12 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 MODERN FORMS OF UNBELIEF AND THEIR ESSENTIAL 
 UNITY. 
 
 Whence and Is Christianity a human product, with or without an 
 
 Christfanlty? admixtute of dishonesty, evolved out of other and 
 
 earher religions by the natural laws of progress? or 
 
 is it distinctively divine and supernatural .? We accept 
 
 the second of these alternatives as the truth. The 
 
 thesis we are prepared to maintain is that the 
 
 Christianity of the Four Gospels, and of the Letters 
 
 of its first preachers, is not of man but of God ; that 
 
 Jesus Christ held a divine commission, and was Him- 
 
 To be self divine ; and that the great end of His ministry, 
 
 Pann!"^ human and divine, was the recovery of mankind from 
 
 sin and its consequences. 
 Natural Christianity does not in any formal manner under- 
 presupposed take to prove that t.:ere is a God, Creator, Ruler, and 
 '"a^n"d'^fn'"' Judgc, of mankind. Among the teachings of Christ 
 Christianity. ^^^ j^jg Apostlcs we find no arguments on this great 
 and fundamental subject. The existence of God, 
 Maker and Moral Governor of the world, is assumed. 
 And so it is in the Old Testament. The first words 
 of the Book of Genesis assume the existence of God, 
 and, assuming it, declare that " in the beginning God 
 created the heaven and the earth." These Books, 
 both of the Old and of the New, were given to a people, 
 
''THEISM" ASSUMED IN THE BIBLE. 1 3 
 
 and in an age, which did not need that proof should 
 be given of another world than the visible, and of a 
 higher Being or Beings than man. The only question 
 then was whether there was one God or many, and 
 what might be the character of the one or many. A 
 " fool " might say " in his heart " — " There is no God." 
 But men were not found who professed atheism on 
 intellectual or rational grounds. 
 
 This is not the only reason which may be assigned 
 for the abstinence of our Scriptures from any formal 
 proof of the divine existence. These books — for 
 which we claim no authority at this stage of our 
 argument — ^recognize and refer to the testimony which 
 the visible universe bears to God. Professing to Revelation 
 
 , . charges meu 
 
 contam the records of a supernatural revelation, they with neglect 
 do not make light of the revelation which is made teachings 
 by or given in nature, but, on the contrary, appeal °^°^'"''^- 
 to it, and charge it against mankind that they make 
 light of it and do not discern in it the voice of God 
 Himself " The heavens declare the glory of God ; psaim xix. 
 and the firmament sheweth His handywork. Day '' ^' 
 unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night showeth 
 knowledge." " That which can be known of God 
 is manifested in their [the heathen's] hearts, God 
 Himself having shown it unto them; for His eternal Rom. 
 power and Godhead, though they be invisible, yet are (col^ybe^re 
 seen ever since the world was made, being understood HoZson). 
 by His works, that they who despised Him might 
 have no excuse." Between Natural Religion and Re- 
 vealed Religion, then, there is no antagonism. The 
 doctrines of the former are fundamental to the latter, 
 and the professed records of revelation recognize 
 the fact, and do not attempt to do what might be 
 regarded as already done. 
 
 It does not follow that in no sense is revelation Howreve- 
 
nineteenth 
 century. 
 
 14 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 \3X\aa proves z. proof of the cxistence of God and of His govern- 
 govciamcnt. meiit. If the alleged facts of the Bible, in both 
 Testaments, are real facts, and can be proved to be 
 such, they leave no room for doubt upon the subject. 
 And, practically, the faith of man in God may be 
 found far more dependent on revelation than on 
 nature. But it is still true that our Bible abstains 
 from any attempt, by argumentative or rational pro- 
 cess, to prove that God is and is the Supreme Ruler of 
 the world. 
 
 The The nineteenth century, however, will not allow us 
 
 to advance to the defence of Christianity without 
 
 proving first of all that there is a God, and that He 
 
 The may be known. The eighteenth century admitted all 
 
 ^clntury'. this. The Deists of that age, who waged resolute war 
 
 The Deists against Christianity, magnified the light of nature. 
 
 They worshipped, or professed to worship, nature's 
 
 God. They needed, they said, no Revealer of God 
 
 and of our relations to Him, but what they had in the 
 
 heavens above and in the earth beneath, and in the 
 
 vicegerent of God whom they found in their own 
 
 consciences. Christianity was altogether unnecessary. 
 
 The basis of Butler's great work, the " Analogy" accordingly, was 
 
 "^«a%j'." addressed not to Atheists but to Theists, to men who 
 
 believed in God, but did not believe in revelation. 
 
 He and his opponents occupied common ground thus 
 
 far — that there is an almighty, all-wise, and all-good 
 
 God, who made and who sustains the universe, both 
 
 of matter and of mind. But now nature, instead of 
 
 teaching us all that need be known respecting God, 
 
 is held to teach us nothing, and the defenders of 
 
 Revealed Religion are required first of all to defend 
 
 Natural Religion. 
 
 changed. This change in the position taken by unbelief 
 
ABSOLUTE ATHEISM RARE. 15 
 
 renders it necessary, not that we should discuss all p^^'^°r °f 
 the questions per- se which stand between us and 
 Christianity — that would require volumes — but that we 
 should indicate what these questions are, and give 
 some idea of their true solution. Christianity will be 
 found to be sustained by evidence of its own, which 
 will justify our faith in the face of all difficulties. 
 
 The terms in which modem unbelief expresses its Many forms 
 many phases, present a very formidable array — such °uXiieT 
 as Atheism, Pantheism, Agnosticism, Secularism, 
 Materialism, Positivism, and Deism or Theism. The 
 last of these differs essentially from the others, and 
 these others may be reduced to a very few heads, 
 if not ultimately to one. 
 
 Bald and absolute Atheism is very rare. The Ba^ld^ 
 proposition, " There is no God," could be maintained 
 only by one who is prepared to arrogate to himself 
 omniscience. It is conceivable that the proof that incapaWe of 
 " There is a God " should be pronounced insufficient. 
 But it is not conceivable that proof should be found to 
 justify the dogma, " There is no God." " The wonder "^^fyf- 
 turns," says John Foster, "on the great process by '^ a magi's 
 
 1 • IT J.1 J. -writing 
 
 which a man could grow to the mtelligence tliat can memoirs of 
 know there is no God. This intelligence involves the '''"'''^■^• 
 very attributes of divinity, while a God is denied. If a 
 man is not in absolute possession of all the propositions 
 which constitute universal truth, the one which he 
 wants may be that there is a God. If he cannot with 
 certainty assign the cause of all that he preceives to 
 exist, that cause may be a God. If he does not know 
 everything that has been done in the immeasurable 
 ages that are past, some things may have been done 
 by a God. Thus, unless he knows all things, that is, 
 
1 6 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 See also— prccludcs another Deity by being one himself, he 
 "Neural cannot know that the Being whose existence he 
 '^Ltofii'. rejects does not exist." 
 
 Pantheism. Pantheism is, in one aspect of it, the opposite of 
 
 appkndixC. Atheism, but, in another and profounder, not to be 
 
 distinguished from it. While Atheism says, " No 
 
 Proteus-like. God," Pantheism says, " All is God," or " God is All." 
 
 "The universe is God" or, "God is the universe." 
 
 Pantheism is Proteus-like in its forms, and no definition 
 
 could probably be given of it that would satisfy its 
 
 Materialistic tcachcrs. There is {a.) a Materialistic Pantheism, 
 
 which ascribes to the Universal Being the attributes 
 
 Idealistic of matter only. There is (b.) an Idealistic Pan- 
 
 eism. jj^gjgj-^^ which ascribes to the Universal Being the 
 
 The two attributes of spirit only. And there is (c.) a Pantheism, 
 
 combined. , • i • i -i i 
 
 which, to a certain extent at least, ascribes to the 
 Universal Being the attributes of both mind and 
 
 Indefinable matter, thought and extension. And {d.) there are 
 shades of Pantheism, both poetical and practical, 
 which can scarcely be placed in any of these classes. 
 But there is a negation common to them all — and in 
 
 Personality this negation we find their essence — the negation of 
 
 dcniedinall. ,. . , . ... . . ,,. _,, 
 
 personality with conscious will and intelligence. The 
 God of the Pantheist is not a God that knows Him- 
 self, that thinks, that wills, that loves. We cannot 
 speak of this God as Him — but can only say // and 
 what this It is, no one can tell us. So that while 
 Atheism and Pantheism seem to be opposites, the latter 
 denies as effectually as the former all that belongs to 
 the very essence of the idea of God. Neither of them 
 leaves to us an object of trust, or love, or worship. 
 
 Agnosti- Agnosticism is more modest than Atheism. Trans- 
 ^^'^^' lated into unscientific English, it means "Ignorance." 
 
AGNOSTICISM. 1 7 
 
 Agnostics are the " Know-nothings " of reh'gion. They The Know- 
 do not say, There is no God. They only say, We do "V/igfon? 
 not know that there is a God. And they add to this 
 the dogma. If there is a God, He is unknowable. 
 Agnosticism, with its seeming humility, thus practically 
 reduces itself to Atheism ; for, although it does not 
 deny God, it places Him, if He exists at all, beyond 
 the sphere of knowledge, or faith, or trust, or love, or Practically 
 worship. The Agnostic is, to all practical intents, as 
 much " without God," as the Atheist. 
 
 Of Agnosticism it is enough to say — 
 
 I. That the intellect of man cannot rest in it, "An inteiiectu- 
 impulse inherent in primeval man," says Dr. Tyndall, poJsi'we. i 
 " turned his thoughts and questionings betimes towards J>^ his 
 
 1 r , , ^1 • , "Belfast 
 
 the sources of natural phenomena. 1 he same impulse. Address," 
 inherited and intensified, is the spur of scientific action ''*■ '' 
 to-day." And of more than scientific action. It impels 
 to " questionings " beyond the domain of science. 
 "In vain," says another discourser on science, "does Dr. wurst, 
 science reveal to man the physical structure of the chemUl 
 universe and the order of all its phenomena. Hlx- the'prefick 
 celsior ! He will strive onward and upward, in hjg ^•^•^'^^g';^^'''^". 
 innate instinctive conviction that things have not 
 within themselves their raison d'etre, their foundation 
 and origin ; he is gradually led to subordinate them to 
 a primary cause, an unique and universal God," 
 
 Let men traverse matter to the outer circumference 
 of the universe, and to the earliest imaginable period 
 of its existence, they will ask, Whence ? Is this Men win 
 Kosmos self-existent ? If not, is it self-originated ? what or by 
 If not self-originated, by What or by Whom ? 
 
 The idea of God once presented to the mind, 
 the mind will ask whether the idea is a dream or a dream or 
 a reality. And it will not allow the way to be barred ^ "^^"^ "^ ' 
 by such words as "unknowable" and "unthinkable." It 
 
 c 
 
1 8 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 soon becomes conscious, or rather it begins the quest 
 with the consciousness, that God, if He is, is incompre- 
 hensible. But then all infinitude is incomprehensible 
 — and yet, as we have seen, the mind is " shut up " to 
 faith in infinite space and time. 
 
 2. If it were possible for the mind to rest in a blank 
 Agnosticism Agnosticism, it would be morally wrong to do so. In 
 
 ™To^ng! the most ordinary conscience there is at least enough 
 to suggest the idea of a Moral Ruler, to whom we are 
 responsible ; and in our sense of dependence there 
 is enough to suggest the idea that the good we enjoy 
 
 Duty of comes from some unseen Benefactor. Now, we are 
 ''qut'oTthe^ morally bound to follow up these suggestions, and 
 
 ^G^od. * prove either that they are misguiding fancies, or that 
 the Ruler and Benefactor they point to does really 
 exist, and is none other than God over all. There is 
 
 See Dr.^ " a duty laid upon men by the probability, or even 
 
 "NatZrai the imagination of a God," to seek after Him if haply 
 ^t7!l^[g. they may find Him, or, on the contrary, if haply they 
 may find that He is not. Neither the intellect nor the 
 heart nor the conscience of man can rest in Agnos- 
 ticism, 
 
 Secular- Secularism is nearly allied to Agnosticism. It does 
 
 '^"' not necessarily imply Atheism, nor does it even say 
 
 that God and an unseen world and a future state 
 
 cannot be known. But it says that all these are, in 
 
 The alleged fact, SO little known that the path of wisdom is to 
 
 prac"t?cai conccntrate our attention on the life that now is. 
 
 wisdom, n p^|-^-j]-^g |-]-(g j-^yQ ^vorlds into two scales of value, the 
 Secularist finds (or thinks he finds) that the one weighs 
 much, the other either nothing or nothing that can 
 be appreciated." He deprecates what he calls " the 
 old policy of sacrificing the certain welfare of humanity 
 on earth, to the merely possible and altogether un- 
 
SECULARISM AND MATERIALISM. 1 9 
 
 known requirements of a life beyond the grave." 
 Secularism thus assumes that God and a future life Untme 
 are unknown, and further, that faith in and care about ^?o"nT.^ 
 these is inimical to " the welfare of humanity on 
 earth" — both of which propositions the believer, of 
 course, denies. 
 
 Materialism, in its more restricted sense, is the material- 
 theory which denies the existence of spirit as a sub- 
 stance, or entity, distinct from matter, and which Restricted 
 maintains that what is called the soul is but the result 'term. 
 of a particular organization of matter ; only, some 
 would add, there may be in matter forces and pro- 
 perties which have not yet been discovered, and for 
 which, consequently, we have no names. This theory, a quasi- 
 which is often spoken of as a theory in philosophy sophlcai 
 rather than in religion, carries us far beyond the mere theory. 
 question of the human mind — the question whether 
 our mental capacities, our thoughts, and even our 
 moral intuitions are traceable to the constituent 
 elements and the organization of the brain. Exclud- Excluding 
 ing the soul from man, it excludes God from the Sdudes 
 universe. Definitions may be given of it as various . ° ' 
 
 . ApphndixD. 
 
 and uncertain as the definitions of Pantheism. But 
 they have this in common, that they leave no room for 
 God. We need no Supreme Intelligent Will to explain 
 the beginnings of the universe, or any of the changes 
 which the universe has undergone, or any of those 
 innumerable adaptations in which the popular mind 
 sees God. In matter and force we have the key to 
 the mystery. 
 
 Materialism, in its wider meaning, is thus really the in its wider 
 most positively atheistic form of unbelief. In the Athei"stil 
 words of Sir Edmund Beckett, it "simply means '''^"^'« "-^^ 
 
 *■ •' the Laws oj 
 
 the doctrine that the laws of nature, or matter, and Nature," 
 
 p. 7. 
 
20 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAX EVIDENCES. 
 
 its properties are self-existent, without any external 
 prime cause or agent ; which, of course, is the exact 
 contrary to the Theistic doctrine that they are all due 
 to a cause or agent which is not material or physical, 
 and is therefore external to matter, or supernatural. 
 Nor is any other alternative conceivable, or pro- 
 The only poundcd by any one, so far as I know. . . . And if 
 
 aiter°nltives. Only thesc tvvo alternatives are possible, it is evident that 
 every denial of the one is an affirmation of the other, 
 and that no one can rationally say that he denies a 
 Creator but does not profess to know what theory to 
 substitute, and that he is not bound to find one. He 
 has found one, because there are and can be only 
 those two." 
 
 Our answer Our Only answer to the doctrine of Materialism will 
 ev'idence be fouud in the general argument by which it will be 
 
 '""^a God! '^ shown, that in God we have the only true and sufficient 
 solution of the existence and character of the visible 
 universe, of which man himself is the noblest and most 
 m)'Sterious part. 
 
 PosiTivibM. Positivism, in its modern form and under that 
 name, is the conception of Auguste Comte, who died 
 
 itsfunda- iu 1857. Its fundamental principles are (i.) that all 
 
 "^cipfes— "" our knowledge is confined to physical phenomena; 
 
 ^and°the"r^ (2.) that all wc cau kuow of such phenomena is that 
 they are, and the relations in which we stand to each, 
 able. which relations are all included under the head of 
 sequence and resemblance. " The senses are the 
 sources of all true thinking, and we can know nothing 
 except the phenomena which they apprehend, and the 
 relations of sequence and resemblance in which these 
 phenomena stand to each other. ]\Iental phenomena 
 can all be resolved into material phenomena, and 
 there is no such thing discoverable as either efficient 
 
 relations 
 alone know 
 
POSITIVISM. - 1 
 
 or final causation, as either an origin or purpose in Cau?r.t!on 
 the world, as, consequently, either a creative or pro- rrom'^ 
 vidential intelligence." knowledge. 
 
 This, it will be seen, is fundamentally a philo- 
 sophical and scientific theory, and both philosophers a scientific 
 and men of science have written to show that as such , ' ^°'^^\, 
 
 AppendixL. 
 
 it is essentially defective. We have to do with its 
 bearing on religion, only remarking that mere pheno- 
 menalism, if logically consistent, denies matter as Phenomenai- 
 well as spirit. Positivism in relation to religion is 'mltteras" 
 what may be called a systematized Agnosticism. It spi'ir 
 condemns both Theism and Atheism, both the affir- 
 mation and the denial of the existence of God. 
 " The mind should absolutely refuse to believe or dis- 
 believe on such a subject," because, on the principles 
 of Positivism, it has nothing to do with causes. The Logically 
 result, however, practically, is Atheism. God and ^"fcr/iy'^" 
 religion are as entirely excluded as if they were ^''^^'^'"• 
 argumentatively excluded. 
 
 Comte saw this issue clearly, and maintained it till 
 a comparatively late period of his life. " Religiosity," 
 as he called it, he considered " a mere weakness, and 
 avowal of want of power." In the later part of his 
 life, however, he felt and recognized that men must 
 have a religion. And he invented one for them. Comtecom- 
 He set up a great idol which he called " Humanity " — ■ invent a new 
 not human nature, nor the human race, but some mys- ""^ '^'°"" 
 terious ideal organism, or Supreme Being, into which 
 those who have been dead seven years, if found worthy 
 of "subjective immortality," may be incorporated 
 by the vote of the Positivist community ! Of the 
 follies of the elaborate ritual which has been founded 
 on Auguste Comte's invention, and in which we have 
 Polytheism, all but the name, we say nothing. The 
 point of observation for us is this— that in this boastful 
 
22 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 system, popular with a certain class of literary men, 
 we have only another phase of that Atheism which 
 is as variable as the chamelion's hues, but whose 
 identity is discoverable under very dissimilar names. 
 
 Conclusion. It will now be seen that if it only be made evident 
 that there is a God, that He is knowable and known 
 — not by " demonstration," a mode of proof entirely 
 inapplicable to the subject, but by such processes 
 of thought and argument as really shut us up to this 
 conclusion — these various forms of unbelief do, iJ)so 
 facto, lose all validity and force. 
 
( 23 ) 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 man's religious nature and the UNIVERSALITV 
 OF RELIGION. 
 
 Formidable as is the array of words and forms in The central 
 
 . idea of the 
 
 which modern unbehef confronts us, they are, we various 
 have shown, but embodiments of one idea — There unbelief. 
 is no God ; or, if there is, we cannot know that there 
 is, and therefore we cannot worship Him ; life, opinion, 
 and practice must be as if He were not. A full 
 presentment of the grounds on which, irrespective of 
 revelation, we hold ourselves shut up to faith in God, 
 the Maker and Ruler of all, would require a much 
 larger volume than this. All we can hope to do is 
 to indicate some of them, those especially which 
 appeal to the common understanding and heart. 
 
 At the very outset we find ourselves in the presence 
 of two facts — the one subjective and the other ob- Two Facts. 
 jective ; or, in plainer language, the one inner, a fact 
 of consciousness ; the other outer, a fact of observation. 
 
 I. 
 
 Of the latter, first — the general, if not tmiversal, First— 
 
 prevalence of religious beliefs or ohsei'vanccs, beliefs or General 
 
 observances having reference to unseen beings or an lence'of 
 
24 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Religious unscen State of existence. This fact is acknowledged 
 by all classes of believers and unbelievers, and has 
 been remarked by observers in all ages. " We may 
 Plutarch travel the world," said Plutarch, " and find cities 
 *^"° ^ ■ without walls, without letters, without kings, without 
 wealth, without coin, without schools and theatres; 
 but a city without a temple, without worship, without 
 prayers, no one ever saw." " This may further be 
 brought as an irrefragable argument for us to believe 
 
 " Tjiscuian that there are gods," says Cicero, " that there never 
 
 Questions," . • , , , . , 
 
 p. 298 was any nation so barbarous, nor any people m the 
 Edition), world so savage, as to be without some notion of 
 gods : many have wrong notions of the gods, for that 
 is the nature or ordinary consequence of bad customs, 
 yet all allow that there is a certain divine nature or 
 energy. Nor does this proceed from the conversation 
 of men or the agreement of philosophers ; it is not an 
 opinion established by institutions or by laws ; but no 
 doubt in every case the consent of all nations is to 
 be looked on as a law of nature." 
 
 Alleged ex- If there are exceptions to the alleged universal 
 thefr'b°ead^g prevalence of religious beliefs, or beliefs in the unseen, 
 "" ment."^^"' '^^7 ^^^ ^o bc fouud Only in a condition of barbarism 
 so degraded that almost every attribute of manhood 
 has been lost. The tribes which are supposed — for 
 the fact is doubtful — to be without any apprehension 
 of aught beyond the visible and natural, are as low 
 intellectually and rationally as they are religiously. 
 You can see in them scarcely any trace of intellect or 
 reason, — what little there is being only sufficient to dis- 
 cover and dig up roots that shall save animal life from 
 extinction. And we may fairly pass them by, as not 
 entitled to consideration as exceptions to the alleged 
 universal prevalence of religion, or religious ideas, 
 
CONFUCIANISM AND BUDDHISM. 
 
 25 
 
 among mankind. " If the religious feelings are sus- 
 ceptible of decay," says Dr. Fisher, of Yale College, 
 " the same is true of the moral feelings, the sense of 
 ethical justice and ethical truth. If the feebleness and 
 corruption of conscience does not militate against the 
 doctrine of a native and universal principle of recti- 
 tude, the same is true of a similar low state of religious 
 conviction. In both cases the seeming exception 
 establishes the rule." 
 
 " The 
 Super- 
 natural 
 Origin of 
 Christi- 
 anitv," 
 p. 566. 
 
 It is sometimes alleged that two of the greatest, at 
 least the most influential, of the world's teachers, Con- 
 fucius and Gautama, or Sakya-Mouni, were Atheists, 
 or at least Agnostics, and that the systems which they 
 originated excluded all recognition of a God. If this 
 were true, it would not affect our argument, any more 
 than the existence of Agnostics in our own times 
 affects it, — for it would still be true (i.) that they 
 found the idea existent and prevalent; and (2.) that 
 their influence, great as it was, failed to extinguish or 
 even to repress the idea. But the general impression 
 respecting these ancients, especially the former, is 
 incorrect. Dr. Legge maintains that five thousand 
 years ago, the Chinese were Monotheists, and that in 
 the time of Confucius (b.c. 551 to B.C. 478 — a period 
 corresponding with that of the Babylonish exile), their 
 Monotheism was in danger of being corrupted by a 
 nature-worship on the one hand, and by a system of 
 superstitious divination on the other. He holds it 
 altogether wrong to say that Confucius was a sceptic, 
 and that Confucianism is no religion. On the con- 
 trary, Confucius accepted and helped to preserve the 
 ancient religion of his country. What he claimed for 
 himself was to be a " transmitter, and not a maker, 
 believing in and loving the ancients," 
 
 Confucius 
 
 and 
 Gautama. 
 
 The ancient 
 
 Chinese 
 Monotheists. 
 
 "The 
 
 Religions <J 
 China," 
 p. it. 
 
 Confucius 
 
 accepted 
 
 Monotheism. 
 
 as he found 
 
 it. 
 
 " The Re- 
 ligions 0/ 
 China," p. 4. 
 
an idolatrj-. 
 
 26 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 AppendixF. As to the founder of Buddhism, whatever may be 
 the truth respecting his relation to Theism, if it be 
 certain that, recoihng from the superstitions and in- 
 human distinctions of Brahmanism, he said nothing 
 of God in his teaching, the argument deduced from 
 the general prevalence of religion becomes only the 
 stronger. For despite his Atheism, if he was an 
 Atheist, and despite the absence of any avowed 
 recognition of God in the ethics and the practices 
 Buddhism which he inculcated, Buddhism speedily became a 
 religion with " gods many." The Buddhism of to- 
 day, with whatever consistency or inconsistency with 
 some of its principles, is a huge system of idolatry, 
 proving that no system without god or gods could 
 long resist the yearning of the heart for an object of 
 worship. 
 
 II. 
 
 Second The inner fact, the fact of consciousness, to which 
 Religious- wc refer is — the existence of a religious jaculfy or sus- 
 
 ^ wjr"' ceptibility i?i otir nature. We need not entangle our- 
 
 Natl're. ggiygg jj^ g^j^y controvcrsy respecting innate ideas. We 
 need not maintain that the mind is born with ideas, 
 or furnished by nature v/ith a set of abstract principles 
 or general truths. But it cannot be denied that the 
 mind is born with capacities and susceptibilities. And 
 our position is that " Religiousness " is one of these— 
 that the religious faculty or susceptibility is innate and 
 essential to us, in the sense in which reason or any 
 
 Maximus Other faculty is. An ancient writer, of the age of 
 
 Tyrius. ^j^toninus, speaks of Atheists as being " as monstrous 
 
 as a lion Avithout courage, an ox without horns, 01 
 
 a bird without wings." Philo spoke of the invocation 
 
 of God, with hope towards Him, as the only genuine 
 
THE RELIGIOUS FACULTY. 2/ 
 
 property of man, preferring this to the common defini- 
 tion that man is a reasonable creature. Lord Herbert, 
 a prominent Deist of the last century, says, " That, 
 upon accurate search, religion and faith appear the 
 only ultimate differences of man, whereof neither 
 divine perfection is capable, nor brutal imperfection ; " 
 reason, according to him, descending low among the 
 inferior creatures, but religion and faith being the 
 peculiar property of man. These writers, to use the 
 words of John Howe, " accounted it a less absurdity Wprks, vol. 
 to admit such a thing as a rational beast than an "'' ' ''^' 
 irreligious man." 
 
 Professor Huxley speaks of the religious sentiments "Lay 
 as " the noblest and most human of man's emotions." /. i. 
 Professor Tyndall recognizes "an immovable basis 
 of religious sentiment in the nature of man." And an 
 American unbeliever says, " The religion of the heart Higginson, 
 can never perish, because it is a human instinct." Sacra," 
 
 We have thus a singularly varied and general con- ^^''*' ^' ^'*'' 
 sent to our assertion that religiousness is an essential 
 faculty or property of our nature, — and that, in fact, it 
 is, much more than reason, the true differentia be- 
 tween man and beast. 
 
 in. 
 
 TION 
 BETWEEN 
 THE TWO 
 
 Facts. 
 
 What, now, is the true connection heliueen these tiuo Connec 
 facts — the inner and the outer ? 
 
 That they are co-related, the one being the counter- 
 part of the other, cannot be questioned. It may be 
 argued that the existence of religiousness in our nature 
 is an inference from the prevalence of religion in all 
 ages and among all peoples. And this is true — to this " Reiigwus- 
 extent at least, that the universal prevalence of "by gineral 
 religion proves the fact that our nature is religious, ofreitilon! 
 
28 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 "Re- 
 ligions " 
 would have 
 vanished 
 without a 
 
 root in 
 " religious- 
 ness." 
 
 The one fact cannot be accounted for or explained 
 without admitting the other. How comes it to pass 
 that peoples in the highest state of civilization and 
 in the lowest condition of barbarism, have this in 
 common — that they believe in, or have impressions 
 of, unseen beings and an unseen world? In many 
 cases, these beliefs or impressions may be, or 
 certainly are, most superstitious, practically absurd, 
 and expressed in cruel and immoral rites. But could 
 they have thus prevailed so widely and variously if 
 they had no root in our natute ? We do not argue 
 that man's first ideas of God sprang out of his own 
 soul. They may have been communicated by God 
 Himself — this being at least a permissible hypothesis., 
 even at this stage of our argument. But if they 
 were, they would soon have vanished if they had not 
 had a permanent groundwork in our nature. The 
 hypothesis that man's first knowledge of God was 
 imparted by God Himself, requires us to suppose that 
 it was a true knowledge — the knowledge of an 
 Infinitely Great, Good, and Holy Being. But while 
 this knowledge has been lost, and men have degenerated 
 into innumerable forms of Polytheism, nature-worship, 
 and even fetichism, the root idea of the invisible 
 and supernatural has survived with a tenacity and 
 universality which show at least that it found a 
 response in the very heart of humanit}'. 
 
 " Religious- 
 ness" the 
 power by 
 which 
 savage 
 tribes are 
 reclaimed. 
 
 While the existence of religiousness in our nature 
 is thus proved by the prevalence of religion in the 
 world, it is proved in other ways likewise. Those 
 very tribes with reference to whom the doubt has 
 arisen whether they had any conception of the super- 
 natural, have been proved capable of religious thought 
 and sentiment, and have actually been raised into a 
 
THE RELIGIOUS FACULTY VERIFIED. 29 
 
 religious condition. More than this, it is through this 
 side of their nature — the religious — that they have 
 been most easily and powerfully moved to seek general 
 improvement and progress. All manner of instruction 
 and example has failed to raise them, or even to 
 awaken a desire after better things, till their hearts 
 have been moved religiously. In these cases the 
 Christian teacher has evidently quickened a faculty 
 already existing, has awakened it out of a deep slumber, 
 and restored it to self-consciousness. And this 
 awakening has not been consequent on the awakening 
 of the general intellect or reason, but anterior to such 
 awakening, and apparently the cause of it. 
 
 History repeats itself. We have seen how Positivism, " Re'igious- 
 
 ... ... ness proved 
 
 whose first prmciple is more purely atheistic than by the 
 Agnosticism or Secularism, has become itself a religion, of Comtism. 
 Comte began by declaring religion to be a delusion of 
 the childhood of the race, now for ever superseded by 
 the new and true philosophy. But he ended by 
 supplementing positive science by an elaborate system 
 of Religion, with a " Catechism of Positive Religion," 
 and a " Positivist Calendar." This new faith demands 
 for each day two hours of religious service. Its 
 calendar of worthies or saints is the highway to a new 
 Polytheism. And even the light of this age can 
 scarcely prevent its development in that direction. 
 
 The fact that some men are Agnostics or Secularists Agnosticism 
 does not prove that their nature is destitute of the agaii?s't°our 
 religious faculty. They do not deny that there may '-TiifSolis- 
 be a God, and a spiritual, invisible world. And 
 it is difficult to say how far their heart of hearts 
 accords with their theories. And this we know, that 
 after a time their theories often fail to satisfy them. 
 
 ness. 
 
30 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 And then they find themselves in possession of a 
 higher reason than the reason which sees nothing but 
 matter with laws and powers of matter, all the universe 
 over ; a higher reason, which will not content itself 
 with a blank ignorance of what that is which lies 
 beyond and underneath these. Circumstances break 
 open a fountain in their nature which had been sealed 
 or unknown ; and the consciousness of Augustine 
 repeats itself in them : " Thou hast made us for Thy- 
 self, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest 
 in Thee." 
 
 See ap- Taking the two facts together — the religiousness of 
 on'neces- our nature, and the universal prevalence of religious 
 
 Truths beliefs or impressions — we come to one or other of 
 ^'tions."' these conclusions : First, that the religious beliefs or 
 impressions of men have been generated by his religious 
 nature, through the observation of and reflection upon 
 that outward nature which, our Scriptures say, declare 
 the glory of God; or secondly, that religious ideas 
 were originally communicated to men from without, 
 that is, by God Himself, and have found in man's 
 religious nature a sympathy and response which have 
 rendered it impossible for man, even in his lowest 
 estate, altogether to lose them and to become 
 absolutely un-religious. 
 
 IV. 
 
 Having reached this point, our argument may be 
 
 summed up thus ; — 
 
 "Religious- I. The fact of a religious element in our consti- 
 
 imp?fe\an tution implies and requires an objective counterpart 
 
 counteT)art. — somc thing OX somc person, towards which or whom 
 
 this religious element shall be exercised. " Indeed, 
 
UIFOR TANT DED UCTIONS. 3 I 
 
 religion is, strictly, a recognized relation toward God, 
 and dependence upon Him. Without this the term 
 itself is deprived of significance. The alternative is 
 unavoidable : religious worship and dependence have 
 a correlative object, or this ' strongest element in the 
 human soul,' this ' noblest and most human of man's 
 emotions,' is most false and deceptive — a conclusion 
 which would not only endanger religion, but with it 
 also endanger all philosophy." If there be no ob- 
 jective counterpart to the religious element in our 
 nature, we must suppose this part of our nature to be 
 an abortion, a meaningless and useless power, as much 
 so as if we had eyes, marvellously made, but no light 3 
 and ears, equally marvellously made, but no sound. 
 
 2. The proper object or objective counterpart of The proper 
 the religious element in our constitution is a Person. of"o"ur'^re- 
 It is admitted by all that Monotheism — faith in one \y°PeTson" 
 ever-living God — is the highest religious conception to 
 which man has attained, whether it was his primitive 
 faith, as we believe, or whether he has advanced to it 
 from and through lower conceptions, as is held by 
 some. Now, this highest conception, an ever-living 
 God, is the proper object of the religiousness in our 
 nature, the only object worthy of it and that satisfies it. 
 
 This excludes («.) all things as objects of religion. This 
 It excludes {b.) all mere ideals and abstractions, such '^Jhings" 
 as we have in Pantheism and in Positivism. Pan- str"aaioM/' 
 theism may be held as poetry, or as a mere specu- 
 lation, by some, but practically it becomes Polytheism. 
 The three hundred millions of gods which Hinduism 
 confesses are the legitimate development of its Pan- 
 theism. So with Positivism. Its abstract Humanity 
 must find expression in the persons of its calendar. 
 The position that one ever-living God, a Person, is the 
 proper object of our natural religiousness further 
 
32 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 TIVE 
 
 Religion. 
 
 It excludes excludcs {c.) all inferior persons, such as are imagined 
 persons, in the innumerable idolatries of the world. These 
 inferior persons, symbolized in images made by man's 
 hands, or supposed to preside over different depart- 
 ments or forces of the universe, are signs to us that 
 the heart cannot be satisfied with things that are with- 
 out consciousriess and will. But they fail themselves 
 to satisfy either the highest intelligence of man or 
 his highest aspirations. Such satisfaction is found 
 only in one supreme and ever-living God. 
 
 V. 
 
 In what relation do the facts we have been studying 
 CoMPARA- stand to what is called " the science of Comparative 
 Religion " ? Is there such a science ? And if there 
 be, what is it? The term is pretentious, but am- 
 biguous. The comparison of the religions of man- 
 kind is an instructive study, and may be a very 
 fruitful one if conducted with right aims. Some 
 engage in it with the a priori assumption that all 
 religions are of human origin, and none, in any 
 special sense. Divine. And, beginning with this as- 
 sumption, they hope to extract or deduce from the 
 comparison a science of absolute religion, which, we 
 suppose, must consist of the elements that are com- 
 mon to all. The attempt cannot fail to be abortive. 
 The truth cannot thus be attained. The only positive 
 inference that can be drawn from the most extended 
 comparison of religions is that on which we have 
 already insisted — the fact that in our nature there is a 
 religious element or faculty which no ignorance and 
 no barbarism can utterly repress, however much they 
 may distort its exercise. 
 
 The 
 
 Christian The Christian advocate is really the freest of 
 fr-ie-thinTer. thinkcrs. He is prepared to study the religions of 
 
 The only 
 
 positii'e 
 
 inference. 
 
COMPARATIVE RELIGION. 
 
 11 
 
 the world without any presupposition. Before liis 
 study is completed, he finds one religion with pecu- appendixg. 
 liarities and excellences which he cannot account for, 
 except on the hypothesis that it comes from a higher 
 source. And he is interested in finding certain things 
 common, if not to all, yet to the chief, religions of 
 the world, which contribute not a little to the removal 
 of i priori difficulties or objections which are urged 
 against his own faith. 
 
 " The Re- 
 ligions of 
 China" 
 /'■ 244-248- 
 
 The 
 
 existence 
 of God. 
 
 Dr. Legge, comparing the Confucian, Taoist, and 
 Christian religions, says there are three things in 
 which they agree, and which are very important — 
 
 1. There is the existence of God. Neither in our 
 Bible nor in the books of Confucianism is any attempt 
 made to prove the Divine existence. But in the 
 earliest of Chinese historical documents, the Divine 
 name may be traced in familiar use ; and the Mono- 
 theism of prehistoric time in China has always 
 striven, and not without success, to assert itself against 
 attempts to corrupt it. In Taoism, which is Poly- 
 theistic, the name of God is of course common. The 
 existence of God is assumed in the three religions. 
 
 2. The idea of the possibility and the fact of Reve- The possi 
 lation is also common to them all. Among the 
 primitive written characters of the Chinese there was 
 one which was the symbol of manifestation or reve- 
 lation coming from above. That God should speak 
 or make known His will to men did not seem strange 
 to the Chinese fathers ; and in the ^^Shih" we read that 
 " God spake to King Wan," just as we read in the 
 Old Testament that " God spake to Moses." Hun- 
 dreds of Taoist tracts also are circulated in China, 
 each one purporting to be the teaching of this God 
 or that, to "warn," or "to advise mankind." The 
 
 D 
 
 bihty and 
 fact of Re- 
 velation. 
 
34 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 idea of revelation, therefore, is held in the three 
 
 religions. 
 
 The Super- 3- -^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ '\^f3i. of the Supernatural. In the 
 
 natural, evcr-changing phenomena of the universe, Confucius 
 
 saw something unfathomable, and in that unfathom- 
 
 ableness he recognized the working of a spiritual 
 
 power. Many of the things regarded and related as 
 
 supernatural in Polytheistic systems, like Taoism, are 
 
 the impostures or the delusions of superstition. But 
 
 they are not the less witnesses to the existence of the 
 
 idea of the supernatural. 
 
 These three The comparisou of Christianity, Confucianism, and 
 
 c°onfbcfan° Taoism, thus shows that they all allow the element of 
 
 'ind^'hrfsT' the supematural, all assert the fact of revelation, all 
 
 tianity. acknowledge the existence of God. "On each of 
 
 these points," as Dr. Legge remarks, "there are 
 
 great differences in the three religions when we go into 
 
 detail ; but the things themselves are admitted by 
 
 them all." 
 
 The comparison and generalization of the world's 
 religions might be extended with the same results. 
 The very idea of religion, except in the case of Pan- 
 theism, which, strictly, is no religion, involves the 
 supernatural. And in false or inferior religions, it is 
 the natural rather than the supernatural that is denied 
 or obscured — what we know to be natural occurrences 
 being very commonly ascribed to supernatural agencies. 
 
 Comparative Another result of deep interest follows from the 
 
 ^shows" comparison of the religions of mankind — namely, that 
 
 to have'^beln Mouothcism, the belief in one God, instead of being 
 
 primitive, of later growth, a development from Polytheism, is the 
 
 older and earlier faith. We have seen it to be so in 
 
 the history of the Chinese religions. The same may 
 
EGYPTIAN MONOTHEISM. 35 
 
 now be affirmed confidently of the religions of Egypt. 
 From the days of Herodotus men have been familiar 
 with the grosser and even ludicrous aspects of Egyptian 
 worship. But the hieroglyphics of Egypt, now ren- The religion 
 dered intelligible, reveal to us beliefs which are ° ^'''" 
 scarcely recognizable in the animal symbols, if symbols 
 they were, of the times best known to history. " Texts ''The Origin 
 are known," says Le Page Renouf, "wherein Ra, o/Reiigioi. 
 Osiris, Amon, and all the other gods, disappear, except ^ateTby 
 as simple names, and the unity of God is asserted in ^'ofAncfe,7t 
 the noblest language of Monotheistic religion. There ^f'ili' 
 are many very eminent scholars who, with full know- 
 ledge of all that can be said to the contrary, maintain 
 that the Egyptian religion is essentially Monotheistic, 
 and that the multiplicity of gods is only due to the 
 personification of ' the attributes, characters, and offices 
 of the supreme God.' " 
 
 " No scholar," Renouf continues, " is better entitled 
 to be heard on this subject than the late M. Emmanuel 
 Rouge, whose matured judgment is as follows : — ' No 
 one has called in question the fundamental meaning 
 of the principal passages, by the help of which we are 
 able to establish what ancient Egypt has taught con- 
 cerning God, the world, and man. I said God, not 
 the gods. The first characteristic of the religion is the 
 unity [of God], most energetically expressed ; God, 
 One, Sole, and Only ; no others with Him. He is 
 the Only Being — living in truth — Thou art one, and Egyptian 
 millions of beings proceed from Thee ; — He has made is"m! ^" 
 everything, and He alone has not been made. The 
 clearest, the simplest, the most precise conception. . . . 
 Are these noble doctrines, then, the result of centuries?' 
 says M. de Rouge. ' Certainly not ; for they were in 
 existence more than two thousand years before the 
 
 _, .. ^^1 i-i~>ii- -1 Polytheism 
 
 Christian era. On the other hand, Polytheism develops subsequent. 
 
36 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 itself, and progresses without interruption until the 
 time of the Ptolemies. . . . Thebelief in the unity of the 
 supreme God, and in His attributes as Creator and 
 Lawgiver of man, whom He has endowed with an 
 immortal soul — these are the primitive notions, en- 
 chased, like indestructible diamonds, in the midst of 
 the mythological superfetations accumulated in the 
 centuries which have passed over that ancient civiliza- 
 tion.'" 
 
 False Many writers assume that original man must have 
 
 "by many" ^e^n " without God," in fact, an Atheist; that from 
 writers. Athcism he advanced to Fetichism, or the worship of 
 material objects ; that from Fetichism he rose by 
 degrees to Polytheism, the proper idea of which is 
 that there are unseen deities, of which material objects, 
 whether natural or the work of art, are only symbols ; 
 that from Polytheism man advanced to Pantheism 
 and Monotheism, or to Monotheism and Pantheism. 
 The But this order of progression has no foundation in 
 
 '"^ hislorj. °^ known facts. History is altogether against it. Not 
 one instance can be found in which a tribe or race 
 has advanced, as by " spontaneous generation," from 
 Atheism or from Fetichism to the worship of one 
 
 '^introduc- living God. Professor Max Miiller says, "Nature- 
 ]v'yattGiii worship, tree-worship, serpent-worship, ancestor-wor- 
 M"'tmo'r ship> God-worship, hero-worship, fetichism, are all 
 
 ojtheStntth parts of rcligion, but none of these by itself can explain 
 the origin and growth of religion, which comprehends 
 all these and many more elements in the various 
 phases of its growth. . . . Let any one who thinks that 
 all religion begins with fetichism, all worship with 
 ancestor-worship, or that the whole of mythology 
 everywhere can be explained in a disease of language, 
 try his hand on this short account of the beliefs and 
 
THE PRIMITIVE CONDITION OF MAN. 37 
 
 tradition of Mangaia." "While there is much that is The 
 puerile and absurd," says Mr. Gill, writing of the religion. 
 Mangaian religion, " in this heathen philosophy, there 
 are evident glimmerings of primeval light. The 
 Polynesian name for God expresses a great truth." 
 
 "The more we go back," says Professor Max "Lectures 
 Miiller, " the more we examine the earliest germs of scLmto/ 
 every religion, the purer, I believe, we shall find the znd^sT^i-s, 
 germs of every religion." ^- ''''-• 
 
 " Recent facts, with reference to primitive man," 
 says Dr. Dawson, of Montreal, "show that his Author of 
 religious beliefs were similar to those referred to in Geoiogy,etc., 
 Scripture. The whole of the long-isolated tribes of "n^cwYoII 
 America held to a primitive Monotheism or belief in ^ff^'^fj'^ 
 a Great Spirit, who was not only the Creator and Ruler Jiiianle 
 of the heaven and the earth, but had the control of 
 countless inferior spirits — manitous or ministering 
 angels. They also believed in an immortality and a 
 judgment of all men beyond the grave. . . . No one who 
 studies these beliefs of the American tribes can fail to 
 recognize in them the remnants of the same primitive 
 theology which we have in the patriarchal age of the 
 Bible, and more or less in the religions of all ancient 
 peoples of whom we have any historical records." 
 
 These historic conclusions, which have important AppendixH. 
 bearings which it does not concern my present argu- 
 ment to develop, confirm all that has been said of the 
 existence of a religious element in our nature, the 
 logical necessity that this religious element should 
 have an objective counterpart, and that this counter- 
 part is found only in a Person. They further support 
 us in saying that the only Person worthy to be the 
 counterpart of our religiousness is the living and true 
 God. He was the first object of man's worship. 
 
T,8 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Account for it as we may, man, in the earliest state 
 in which he is known to us in history, possessed the 
 highest conception of God. And to this conception 
 he did not work his way upward from meaner ideas. 
 A fact which can be explained only on one of the 
 two hypotheses already indicated : either that the 
 intuitions of his childhood apprehended the truth at 
 once on his first consciousness of himself and his first 
 observation of the material world around him ; or 
 that, in his veiy childhood, the truth was communi- 
 cated to him by Him whom we believe to be his 
 Father and his God. 
 
( 39 ) 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 GOD MANIFESTED IN THE MATERIAL WORLD AND IN 
 OUR MORAL NATURE. 
 
 The reader will find in the Appendix a classification Appendix i. 
 of the various arguments on which dependence is 
 commonly placed either in proof of the existence of a 
 Personal, Intelligent God, or in corroboration of the 
 more direct proofs. In the present chapter we confine 
 ourselves to certain evidences that are furnished, first 
 by the outer world, and secondly by our moral nature. 
 
 The Outer World. 
 
 I. The Being of one almighty God alone accounts for The Origi- 
 the existence or origination of the material universe. As '^'^ t'he ^^ 
 to the possible eternity, and therefore self-existence, unlv^erse'. 
 of matter, we need not speculate, nor as to whether 
 the idea is conceivable or not. But that something 
 existed from eternity is certain, something eternal, 
 uncaused, independent — in short, self-existent. And 
 this self-existent something must have been the cause 
 of all other existences. The argument may be put 
 thus — 
 
 (i.) Since ''something" exists noiv, something must iiowe's 
 
40 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 argument, alwavs havc cxistcd, unless we admit that, at some 
 
 summarized . i ,, i • n /- ,, i • n 
 
 , by Henry period oi othcr, " somcthmg sprang out of " nothmg. 
 See°Yifeof (2.) Something or other must have existed from 
 aT7^2'. eternity of itself, uncaused, unless we are prepared to 
 embrace the absurdity above mentioned. 
 
 (3.) This something which has eternally existed 
 of itself, exists necessarily ; in other words, it is of such 
 a nature that it could not but exist. 
 
 (4.) Whatever partakes not of this necessary, self- 
 existent nature, must obviously owe its existence to 
 that which does ; unless we come back to the former 
 absurdity, that something may spring, spontaneousl}', 
 or uncaused, out of nothing. 
 
 The only question that remains, then, is what was 
 this mysterious something — this eternal, uncaused 
 The cause— existence, the cause of all other existences ? Matter, 
 "Ipirltr blind and unintelligent? or spirit, with the intellectual 
 and moral attributes of spirit .? Most persons would 
 answer this question promptly, and say, — Whether the 
 eternity of matter, as such, be conceivable or not, the 
 universe, as it is, cannot be the product of matter — in 
 other words, cannot have been its own author. Matter, 
 as such, has no properties that can account tor the 
 production of such a universe as that with which we 
 are conversant. 
 
 We may approach and develop the argument in 
 another way. Either the material universe existed 
 from eternity — that is, it is self-existent ; or it was 
 brought into existence by a Great Cause adequate to its 
 production. It will not be maintained — it cannot for 
 a moment — that the universe sprang, spontaneously, 
 or uncaused, out of nothing. Mr. John Stuart Mill 
 ifabe;in- says what is self-evidcut, "If the universe had a 
 "'"naturX"^ beginning, its beginning, by the very conditions of the 
 
THE ORIGINATION OF THE UNIVERSE. 4 1 
 
 case, was supernatural ; the laws of nature cannot 
 account for their own origin." Now, the present state 
 of the universe at least, or the universe as it now is, 
 had a beginning ! Geology traces back the history of 
 our own globe through innumerable changes which, 
 it is believed, required almost countless ages for their 
 effectuation or development. The first condition in Onginai 
 which the matter existed which has become through *^°matter.° 
 these ages what we see it now, can only be conjectured 
 or imagined. But the opinion is entertained by many 
 that it was atomic. And certainly no analysis could 
 resolve it into a simpler form of existence. 
 
 Having reached this primitive condition of material 
 existence, can we, then, dispense with the idea of a 
 God, the Creator of the atoms and their Moulder 
 into material worlds and all other material things — to 
 say nothing of beings, or persons, that have other than 
 material attributes ? Two suppositions may be made : 
 — (i.) The atoms, inconceivably small and probably Were the 
 gaseous, were lifeless, and unendowed with any pro- *'°™^ 
 perties other than those with which we are familiar 
 as pertaining to material atoms now. In this case, 
 it can scarcely be contended that such atoms should 
 develop themselves or be developed into the Kosmos 
 which our eyes now behold, without being operated 
 upon by an external agency endowed both with 
 power and intelligence. (2.) Let another supposition werethe 
 be made. That atoms possess inherently all the Teiii^ent? 
 qualities necessary for their self-development into a 
 Kosmos of innumerable worlds. Now, these qualities 
 are not mere blind forces ; they are a power so great 
 that our minds can imagine no limits to it, and with 
 Intelligence directing this power. In this case the 
 atoms themselves become gods. We thus substitute 
 many creators for one ! 
 
42 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 sirEdmund Take an illustration from a competent man of 
 '''' TiJ"^ science. " A very large proportion of the atoms of 
 
 /Af'^ra/^the universe have never been within millions and 
 
 ^'i"^^'" billions of miles of each other ; and according to the 
 
 most received theory of the growth of the universe, 
 
 The atoms their Original distances were much greater, for those 
 separated, which are now gathered into the lumps of matter 
 called stars and planets were originally spread over 
 enormous distances in nebulae." Sir Edmund Beckett, 
 discussing the theory that inherent properties or 
 powers or forces in these atoms furnish a final ex- 
 planation of the origin and formation of the universe, 
 " The says, " Let us see, further, what follows from that 
 
 i/^^La'us''{f theory : and first, take only a single law of nature 
 ^'2'^^'" ^'^^ the most universal of them all, that is, gravity, or 
 the tendency of every atom to approach every other 
 with a fixed intensity at some given distance, and 
 then increasing or decreasing as the square of the 
 distance decreases or increases, which is called vary- 
 Didthe ing inversely as the square of the distance. The 
 
 '"I'aws'fOT ^ idea of all the atoms having spontaneously adopted 
 
 themselves? ^|-jjg jg^^ ^^^ Standard of attraction by chance, before 
 there were any laws of nature which put an end to 
 chance, I suppose will be universally dismissed as 
 nonsense not worth spending another word on. The 
 only alternative is that every atom, being self-existent, 
 had the power to adopt what laws of motion it pleased, 
 and that they all, by some mysterious universal 
 suffrage, conveyed through the infinity of space, or 
 through the immeasurable sphere of the primeval 
 nebulae, agreed on the law and intensity of gravity, 
 and have steadily kept to their agreement ever since. 
 If such a proposition looks absurd, it is not my fault. 
 I defy anybody to translate the doctrine of inherent 
 forces into any other plain and simple meaning, 
 
THE ORDER OF THE UNIVERSE. 43 
 
 though it is easy enough for clever men to translate 
 it into other forms of unintelligible, or evasive, or 
 rhetorical language ; which is not philosophy, but 
 mere verbal conjuring." 
 
 This is but a single illustration, but it is enough 
 for our purpose. " If matter was self-existent, ab sir 
 
 , . Edtnund 
 
 lEterno, it cannot have been such matter as exists now, Bccken, 
 for we have just seen that the forces which make it ^°' 
 
 so, by giving the proper motions and attractions to 
 the different kinds of atoms, must have begun at some 
 epoch. Consequently, on the automatic [self-acting] 
 theory, dead atoms with no properties must at some 
 definite time have spontaneously divided themselves 
 into sixty-three groups, [the elementary kinds of 
 matter], or whatever the number may be, and adopted 
 for themselves, first the universal force of gravity, 
 and then each group adopted all its own peculiar 
 attractions and motions with respect to its own kind 
 and every other besides. If this is perceived to be 
 absurd and inconceivable, the only alternative is — 
 a power existing from all eternity, which made all 
 the different kinds of matter what they are, at some 
 definite time." 
 
 2. The origination of such a universe as this, we Thk Order 
 see, can be accounted for only by the presupposition material 
 of an almighty living God ; the same presupposition is u^'^^''^'^- 
 necessary to account for the Order which distinguishes 
 it — the Order which is indicated in the word Kosmos. 
 This order pervades the globe which we call the earth, 
 the relations of this globe to the solar system of The solar 
 which it is a part, the relations of all the parts of the ^^^^'"• 
 system to one another, and, so far as we have the 
 means of knowledge or can conjecture, to worlds and 
 systems beyond. Throughout our own globe there 
 
44 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 is a reign of law — no caprice or variableness in the 
 relations of things to each other, but everything 
 Regularity performing its part after a uniform and regulated 
 "'^kw""' manner. A most beneficent provision this, whence- 
 soever it comes. " It is the regularity of the laws of 
 nature which leads us to put confidence in them, and 
 McCosh's enables us to make profitable use of them. If, instead 
 'tkl^Divine. of returning in a regular manner, the seasons were 
 »wf7"' to follow each other capriciously, so that spring might 
 /. 143. i^g immediately succeeded by winter, and summer 
 preceded by autumn, then the labour of the husband- 
 man would be at an end, and the human race would 
 perish from the earth." The reign of law is indi- 
 Geii. via. 22. cated in such words as these : " While the earth 
 remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, 
 and summer and winter, and day and night shall not 
 cease ; " and in the expression repeated three times in 
 ch. 1. 21, 24, the first of Genesis, " everything after its kind." It 
 
 25- 
 
 Itt 
 
 '6- men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles ? " 
 
 .. is assumed in such popular SDeech as this : " Do 
 
 Matt. vti. * ^ 
 
 Hodge's The order which pervades the earth itself pervades 
 
 '/fuoiogyr equally its external relations. " Our globe is one of 
 
 '■ ^^'*' eight primary planets which revolve round the sun. 
 
 The most distant of these planets is some three 
 
 thousand millions of miles from the central luminary. 
 
 These planets all move in the same direction, in 
 
 nearly circular orbits, in nearly the same plane, and 
 
 with so equable a motion that each performs its 
 
 Laws neces- rcvolution in the proper time. The stability of the 
 
 stlbiHtVof system depends on these circumstances. To secure 
 
 'lystem."^ thesc rcsults matter must attract matter according to 
 
 its quantity and the square of its distance. The 
 
 central body must be of such a, mass as to hold the 
 
 planets in their course. The centripetal and centri- 
 
WHENCE THIS ORDERS 45 
 
 fugal forces must be exactly balanced, to prevent the 
 planets flying off into space or falling into the sun. 
 Each planet must have been projected with a precise 
 definite velocity, to secure its orbit being nearly a 
 circle rather than any other curve. The central 
 body alone, in accordance with the evident plan, is 
 luminous and heat-producing. All the others are 
 opaque and cold. These are the facts which Sir Isaac 
 Newton says he is ' forced to ascribe to the counsel and 
 contrivance of a Voluntary Agent.' Since the time of Supposed 
 Newton, indeed, it has been the commonly received °"°of'the^'^ 
 theory that the planets were at one time fluid, highly "^ '^"^'^' 
 heated, and luminous ; and that they became opaque 
 in the process of cooling. But this only puts the 
 argument one step back. The fact is that a most 
 wonderful and beneficent result has been accom- 
 plished. The question, How? is of minor importance. 
 It is the result which indicates mind, and this indica- 
 tion of mind implies a ' Voluntary Agent.' " 
 
 More than this — Our system is only one of many. 
 Astronomers assert their knowledge of a hundred 
 millions of suns, some of which are incalculably larger 
 than ours. Besides these systems, in which planets other 
 are assumed to revolve around suns, there are others be^iicTeTthe 
 in which suns revolve around suns, at distances pro- ^°'''^'"" 
 portioned to their magnitude. Then more distant 
 in space float the unresolved nebulse. Whether these 
 nebulae are vast continents of stars too distant to be 
 distinguishable, or cosmical matter in a formative 
 state, is still an open question with astronomers. 
 " Throughout this vast universe order reigns. In the Hodge, i. 
 midst of endless variety there is unity. The same ''^^' 
 laws of gravitation, of light and of heat, everywhere 
 prevail. Confusion and disorder are the uniform 
 result of chance or blindly operating forces. Order is Appenptxk 
 
46 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 the sure indication of mind. What mind — wkjit 
 wisdom — what beneficence — does this all but infinite 
 universe display ! " 
 
 The Design 3. Intimately Connected with the evidence which the 
 existence of law and order throughout the universe 
 furnishes in proof of the being of God, is the common 
 and popular argument from design. This is what is 
 technically called the teleological argument, that which 
 asserts the existence oiends to be accomplished and of 
 means adapted to the accomplishment of these ends. 
 Its force and true value do not depend on our meta- 
 physical apprehension of the reasoning which it involves, 
 but on what we may call either our common sense or 
 our intuitive perception of its truth. It is as true in 
 the popular form in which Socrates and Cicero have 
 bequeathed it to us, as in the most logical form into 
 which it may be cast. 
 
 Used by In discussion with Aristodemus, Socrates appealed 
 to the striking evidences of consummate wisdom 
 displayed in the eye, the eyelid, the eyebrow, the ear, 
 the teeth, the mouth of man, and asked whether a 
 disposition of parts like this should be regarded as a 
 
 By Cicero, work of chancc or of wisdom and contrivance. Cicero, 
 
 Deorum," after describing the " multitude of vast fires " in the 
 "■ ^^" heavens above us, and their relation to the earth, says, 
 " Is it possible for any man to behold these things 
 and yet imagine that certain solid and individual 
 bodies move by their natural force and gravitation, 
 and that a world so beautifully adorned was made by 
 their fortuitous concourse ? He who believes this 
 may as well believe that if a great quantity of the one 
 and t^venty letters, composed either of gold or any 
 other matter, were thrown upon the ground, they 
 would fall into such order as legibly to form the 
 
THE ANCIENTS ON THE DESIGN ARGUMENT. 4/ 
 
 annals of Ennius. I doubt whetlier fortune could 
 make a single verse of them. How, therefore, can 
 these people assert that the world was made by a 
 fortuitous concourse of atoms, which have no colour, 
 no quality, which the Greeks call Trotori^s, no sense ? 
 But if a concourse of atoms made a world, why not a 
 porch, a temple, a house, a city, which are works of 
 less labour and difficulty ? " 
 
 To Cicero's illustration a German author adds : " It Tredeien- 
 
 T rr 1 1 1 1 1 T 1 burg, quoted 
 
 IS perhaps more difficult to assume, that by the blmd by i/mf^e, i. 
 combination of chemical and physical elements and 
 forces, any one even of the organs of the body should 
 be formed — the eye for example — much less the 
 harmonious union of organs which make up the body, 
 than that a book should be formed by chance by 
 throwing types about." 
 
 Philo, a Jew, but more a philosopher than a Jew, Phiio. 
 presents the argument in a simple syllogistic form, 
 " No work of art is self-made ; The world is the most 
 perfect work of art; Therefore the world was made 
 by a good and most perfect Author. Thus," he adds, 
 " we have the knowledge of the existence of God." 
 
 Even Kant, although denying its conclusiveness, Acknow- 
 
 . ledged by 
 
 says that the teleological argument should always be Kant 
 treated with respect. It is, he says, the oldest, the 
 clearest, and the best adapted to the human mind. 
 
 The books that have been written in modern times Appendix L. 
 in support and illustration of this argument can 
 scarcely be numbered. And the student must be 
 referred to these for details. 
 
 The argument is often put in the form of a syl- fyiiogism. 
 logism: Design supposes a designer; The world every- 
 where exhibits marks of design ; Therefore the world 
 owes its existence to a Designer, aja Intelligent 
 
48 HANDBOOK OP CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Its defect. Author. The objection to this syllogism is that the 
 word "design" involves a begging of the question. 
 For design implies the choice or selection of an end 
 to be attained, and the choice or selection of means 
 for its attainment; whereas the question is whether 
 the adaptations which are admitted are the result 
 of such choice or selection. But the argument is 
 independent of any form which can be charged with 
 ambiguity or fallacy. The facts to be explained are 
 these : Ends are actually accomplished, — seeing, for 
 example ; and they are accomplished by means per- 
 Any connec- fcctly adapted to their accomplishment, — the eye, for 
 
 end and cxamplc. And the question to be determined is, 
 
 '"^^"^- whether between the end and the means there is any 
 but a casual connection, or whether the connection is 
 one of design and intention. 
 
 When this question is addressed to what I have 
 called our common sense, the answer is immediate. 
 It seems little short of mockery to ask us whether the 
 eye was made for seeing, and the ear made for hear- 
 
 The eye, ing ? The cyc sees : the ear hears. That the eye 
 
 matter, and . . ,.,.,,, 
 
 light, neces- might sce, it must be constructed more skilfully than 
 ^sight"*^ any telescope, there must be an external world to be 
 seen, and there must be light (what Hght is does not 
 matter at present) by which to see it. These three must 
 co-exist in order to vision. But they are independent 
 of each other. The eye makes neither the matter 
 that is to be seen, nor light wherewith to see ; and 
 neither matter nor light makes the eye. And yet 
 the three independent existences combine to one 
 Whence great result as if designed to effect it, and could not 
 junction? cffcct it morc skilfully or perfectly if designed to 
 effect it. Who then can doubt that they were de- 
 signed to effect it ? 
 
DESIGN IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION. 49 
 
 This putting of the question will hold equally good The 
 even if we admitted, with evolutionists, that the eye, hypo"he°s?s 
 the ear, the hand, and every other human organ, of '^e eye. 
 have been developed into what they are by slow 
 degrees and many changes, through periods in the 
 past indefinitely long. If this be true, we have these Suggested 
 alternatives : First, it means that some power or force Edml^td 
 was for ages secretly building up an eye, or any other ^^^kett, 
 organ, without contemplating any kind of use for it First 
 when completed. But when completed, it is found ^''^'■"^"ve. 
 that other things, without which it would be useless, 
 are completed likewise. And a conjunction is now 
 effected, unanticipated not only by themselves, but 
 by the force which has produced them — a conjunction 
 most singularly wise and beneficent. It is to the 
 operation of this blind force, acting persistently and 
 progressively through a millenium of milleniums, that 
 we owe the eye, the world, and light ! This is one 
 alternative. " Blind force " may be translated into 
 " chance." And it is to chance, not acting suddenly 
 and once for all, as chance is supposed to do, but 
 perseveringly through ages, as if inspired with the 
 noblest purpose, that we owe our vision and all the 
 good of which our vision is the minister ! 
 
 The other alternative is this : Admitting the evo- Second 
 lution theory, which is still but an hypothesis, — 
 admitting that the eye, say the human eye, is not the 
 work of an immediate creation, but has become what 
 it is by a process of gradual and prolonged develop- 
 ment, the result was contemplated from the beginning 
 by an Intelligent Power, and by that Intelligent 
 Power the process has been carried forward from age 
 to age to its consummation. In the origination of 
 the process and in its persistent progress, till the eye 
 opens on a glorious world prepared for it, flooded 
 
 E 
 
50 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 with light prepared for it hkewise, we have evidence 
 
 of a foresight which indicates the highest, even a 
 
 Divine, Intehigence. The theory of the evohition of 
 
 Evidence of the eye does not, then, destroy the evidence of design 
 
 ' thf mor'e^ of which that organ is an illustrious proof and example. 
 
 striing. j^ some respects it enhances it, especially by adding 
 
 to it the conception of an age-long pre.vision both 
 
 of the end to be accomplished, and of the means by 
 
 which it was to be accomplished. 
 
 The appeal to common sense in this case is really 
 an appeal to a deep-seated intuitive principle in the 
 soul, namely, this, that every effect must have a 
 Hodge's cause. " There are certain truths which the mind 
 ^^^92!'*' perceives to be true immediately without proof or 
 testimony. Such are the axioms of geometry; and 
 Every such is the principle that every effect must have a 
 haveacause. cause. This conviction is not founded on expe- 
 rience, because experience is of necessity limited. 
 And the conviction is not merely that every effect 
 which we or other men have observed has had a 
 cause ; but that in the nature of things there can be 
 no effect without an adequate cause. This conviction 
 is said to be an innate truth, not because the child 
 is born with it so that it is included in its infant 
 consciousness, nor because the abstract principle is 
 laid up in the mind, but simply because such is the 
 nature of the mind that it cannot but see these things 
 to be true." 
 
 The aphorism, "every effect has a cause," under- 
 stood in one sense, is a mere truism, an identical 
 proposition — " every thing caused has a cause." But 
 what is the proper meaning of an effect ? " If we 
 analyze it, it will always be found to imply a change. 
 
REST IN A SUPREME CA USE. 5 I 
 
 or something new. An unformed mass could not of ^McCoMs 
 itself have suggested the idea of a cause, and that thfoivhu 
 there must be something uncaused. But let this mass ment}' 
 be seen springing into being, or let it be seen as- ^- ^^s- 
 suming a new form, and the idea of a cause is at 
 once sugsrested. When we say that every effect must True mean- 
 
 °° , . . ^ . ingofthe 
 
 have a cause, we do not say that every existmg thmg aphorism. 
 has an antecedent, invariable or necessary. There is 
 something new implied in the very conception of effect 
 — it is something effected, something which did not 
 exist before or which is put in a new state. When- 
 ever such phenomenon is brought under cognizance, 
 the mind rises intuitively into the belief in a cause." 
 
 Now, adaptations of nature come very obviously 
 under the designation of "effects" properly so 
 called — things effected. We feel or perceive them 
 irresistibly to be such, and, instinctively, we look for a 
 cause. And no adequate cause can be imagined but 
 the action of a Mighty and Intelligent Being. 
 
 And having reached this point, both the intellect 
 and the heart are at rest. " The intuition which McCosh on 
 demands a cause for every effect is satisfied when it tions 'o/tke 
 reaches a Being with power adequate to the whole /f"!^. 
 effect ; and if, on the contemplation of the nature of 
 that Being, we find no marks of His being an effect, 
 the intuition makes no call on us to go further. It 
 feels restless, indeed, till it attains this point ; as long 
 as it is mounting the chain, it is compelled to go on ; 
 it feels that it cannot stop, and yet is confidently 
 looking for a termination ; but when it reaches the 
 AU-Powerful Being, it stays in comfort, as feeling that 
 it has reached an immovable resting-place." 
 
 The idea that the design which pervades nature is Design not 
 immanent in nature, inherent, or indwelHng, in it, in fact 
 
 immanent 
 in nature. 
 
52 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Hodge, i. 
 216, 217. 
 
 Design not 
 
 in the 
 
 machine, but 
 
 in its malcer. 
 
 The argu- 
 ment not 
 art'ected by 
 the differ- 
 ence be- 
 tween the 
 works of 
 God and the 
 works of 
 
 a property of nature, should deceive no one. Uncon- 
 scious intelligence and an unconscious will, are not 
 only meaningless terms, but self-contradictory. " The 
 intelligence indicated by design is not in the thing 
 designed. It must be in an external agent. The mind 
 indicated in a book is not in the book itself, but in 
 the author and printer. The intelligence revealed by 
 a calculating machine, or any similar work of art, is 
 not in the material employed but in the inventor and 
 artist. Neither is the mind indicated in the structure 
 and bodies of animals, in them, but in Him who made 
 them. And in like manner, the mind indicated in the 
 world at large must be in an extra-mundane Being. 
 
 " There is indeed this obvious difference between 
 the works of God and the works of man. In every 
 product of human art dead materials are fashioned 
 and united to accomplish a given end ; but the 
 organized works of nature are animated by a living 
 principle. They are fashioned, as it were, from 
 within outward. In other words, they grow ; they are 
 not constructed. In this respect there is a great 
 difference between a house and a tree or the human 
 body. But nevertheless, in both cases the mind is 
 external to the thing produced ; because the end, the 
 thought, is prior to the product. As the thought or 
 idea of a machine must be in the mind of the 
 machinist before a machine is made ; so the idea or 
 thought of the eye must be anterior to its formation." 
 
 II. 
 
 Our Moral Nature. 
 
 See on the - , . 
 
 "Anthropo- The moral argument for the bemg of a God who 
 
 .argument, rulcs over US, and to whom we are responsible, is that 
 
 Appendix I. which, probably more than any other, determines the 
 
ARGUMENT FROM OUR MORAL NATURE. 53 
 
 question practically for most men. While the 
 intellect discerns an Intelligence which is super- 
 natural, the conscience discerns a moral law and 
 Lawgiver that are supernatural. " The conscience 
 is the great root of Theism," says a profound thinker. Dr. Duncan. 
 "It is something supernatural within the natural, and ^^ p. e/. 
 there is no separating these two spheres if you are 
 true to psychology. The webs of the natural and 
 supernatural are so interwoven together in the soul, 
 that they cannot be untied." This is no mere 
 modern doctrine. It was as familiar and obvious to 
 Cicero as to us. " There is indeed a true law, a right cicero on 
 reason, in harmony with nature, diffused among all, "^nd^con-^ 
 constant, everlasting; which calls to duty by com- ^'^'^°'=^- 
 manding, and deters from deceit by forbidding. . . . 
 There will not be one law at Rome, another at 
 Athens, — one now, another hereafter ; but one law both 
 everlasting and immortal will curb all nations and at 
 every time ; and there will be but one common Master, 
 as it were, and ruler of all things, God. He is the God the 
 author, the propounder, the bearer of this law : he who mora^ ° 
 
 aw. 
 
 will not obey it, himself will flee from himself and 
 shall do despite to the nature of man." 
 
 The argument from conscience to God involves What the 
 these two things : First, that there is an inherent and from™on- 
 essential distinction between right and wrong; and, involves. 
 secondly, that conscience itself is a distinctive moral 
 power in our nature, not a growth or product of 
 education or of circumstances. These two doctrines 
 are not separable ; they stand or fall together. 
 
 "Moralists have always been divided into two Two schools 
 schools : The school which has regarded moral dis- " 
 tinctions as mysterious and immutable, bearing their 
 own authority on their face — an authority which cannot 
 be disregarded without enduring the special and 
 
54 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 unique suffering of remorse ; and the school which 
 lias regarded the distinction between moraHty and 
 immoraUty as identical with the distinction between 
 the balance of happiness or unhappiness to be 
 ultimately produced by any given action, — this last 
 school being itself divided as to whether the hap- 
 
 R. iiuiton j-jiness of other persons than the agent is to count of 
 Rev.^7%, equal weight with his own, or not to count at all 
 
 iSyi.A 464. (^j-cept as it affects his own." 
 
 The theory of the first of these schools is called the 
 Intuitional ; that of the second, Utilitarian. 
 The The second involves the denial of conscience as an 
 
 ^t'heLTyT" original faculty, and ascribes it to development in 
 some form or by some means, by education or by 
 inherited impressions, or by some other process. But 
 it fails to account for the moral phenomena of our 
 experience and of life. This is confessed by an 
 
 Wallace in eminent apostle of evolution, who, after arguing that 
 
 "Coniribu- j-j^gj-g natural evolution is not sufficient to account for 
 
 tions to tile 
 
 Theory of tiie viental faculties of man, says, " Exactly the same 
 
 Natural •' i. r 4.1. 
 
 Selection;' difficulty arises when we attempt to account tor the 
 
 /"352-354- development of the moral sense, or conscience, in 
 
 Natural gavage man ; for although the practice of benevolence, 
 
 evolution D ^ •— ' •* ^ 
 
 does not honesty, or truth, may have been useful to the tribe 
 moraHntuf- possessing these virtues, that does not at all account for 
 "°°'' the peculiar sanctity attached to actions which each tribe 
 considers right and moral, as contrasted wdth the very 
 different feelings with which they regard what is merely 
 useful. . . . The intuitional theory explains this by the 
 supposition that there is a feeling — a sense of right 
 and wrong — in our nature antecedent to and inde- 
 pendent of experiences of utility." 
 
 Admit this, which is both the popular and the truly 
 philosophical theory, and we have no difficulty in 
 rising from this part of nature to nature's God. If we 
 
GENERAL TESTIMONY TO CONSCIENCE. 55 
 
 are under a moral law we are under a Moral Law- 
 giver. "Duty! Thou great, thou exalted name!" ''Meta- 
 says Kant. " Wondrous thought ! that workest . . . kmcs}' 
 merely by holding up thy naked law in the soul, and so /;^'. 'caider. 
 extorting for thyself always reverence, if not obedience ''■'°°'^'I'- "?• 
 — whence thy original ? and where find we the root 
 of thy august descent ? " The philosopher's answer 
 is — in God. The sense of a moral law above us, 
 overshadowing and encompassing all moral agents, 
 leads our thoughts, with resistless force, to a Great 
 Moral Lawgiver, " in whom the law abides as the 
 uncreated light of perfect essential goodness." This is 
 in substance the argument on which Kant, and those 
 who follow him more or less, who deny or seem to 
 deny the validity of other arguments for the existence 
 of a God, rely. They hold that our moral nature 
 compels us to believe that He is, and that He is a 
 Person. 
 
 Conscience has well been called the regal power Conscience 
 in our nature. Even when " dethroned from her place 'powSr 
 of mastery and control, she is still felt to be the ^''- o^'^- 
 superior or rather supreme faculty of our nature not- "Naf7irai 
 withstanding. She may have fallen from her dominion, votlp^'is. 
 yet still wears the badges of a fallen sovereign, having 
 the acknowledged right of authority, though the power 
 of enforcement has been wrested from her. She may 
 be outraged in all her prerogatives by the lawless 
 appetites of our nature — but not without the accom- 
 panying sense within of an outrage and wrong having 
 been inflicted, and a reclaiming voice from thence 
 which causes itself to be heard, and which remonstrates 
 against it." 
 
 The mythology and literature of all ages show how 
 
56 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 universally and how deeply the idea of conscience, 
 and with it retribution, possesses the hearts of men. 
 The The " Nemesis " of the Greeks is " a personification 
 the Greek! of moral revercncc for law, of the natural fear of 
 committing a culpable action, and hence of con- 
 science, and for this reason she is mentioned along 
 with ' Shame.' " Nemesis was " a check upon 
 extravagant favours conferred upon man by Tyche, 
 or Fortune, and an avenging and punishing power of 
 Fate which sooner or later overtakes the reckless 
 sinner." 
 
 In the ancient Greek religion, says Professor 
 Translation Blackie, " the wild and wanton ebullitions of human 
 voLLp.^^n. passion, over which a Bacchus, a Venus, and a Mars 
 The Greek preside, are not free from the constant control 
 
 religion. _ . , _ , , , ^ 
 
 of a righteous Jove, and the sacred terror of a 
 retributive Erinnys. The great lesson of a moral 
 government, and a secret order of justice pervading 
 the apparent confusion of the system of things of 
 which we are a part, is sufficiently obvious in the 
 whole structure of the two great Homeric poems ; but, 
 if it exists in that sunny luxuriance of popular fancy 
 as a felt atmosphere, it is planted by -^schylus, the 
 thoughtful lyrist of a later age, on a visible elevation, 
 whence, as from a natural pulpit, enveloped with dark 
 clouds, or from a heathen Sinai, involved in fearful 
 thunders and lightnings, it trumpets forth its warnings 
 and hurls its bolts of flaming denunciation against 
 
 III. 
 
 Summary. 
 
 Rrsumf. If the arguments which we have sketched are true 
 substantially, although they do not amount to a 
 demonstration — which from the very nature of the 
 
MANY PATHS LEADING TO GOD. 57 
 
 subject they could not possibly do — yet they shut us 
 up to faith in God, the Creator and Ruler. ^^ On " studies in 
 reflection," says Principal Shairp, " we find that there p°diosophf:' 
 are many facts of human nature and of the world, ^' ^^^' 
 many separate lines of thought, all leading upward 
 and converging on one spiritual centre. These are 
 like so many mountain paths, striking upward in 
 diverse directions, but leading all at last to one great 
 summit. Of these the moral law is the loftiest, the 
 directest, the most inward, the most awe-inspiring. 
 
 " But to begin with the outward world, there is, I Evidence of 
 shall not say so much the mark of design on all '''°mfnd f" "^ 
 outward things, as an experience forced in upon the adrptadoL 
 mind of the thoughtful naturalist, that, penetrate into 
 nature wherever he may, thought has been there 
 before him ; that, to quote the words of one of the 
 most distinguished, 'There is really a plan, which 
 may be read in the relations which you and I, and 
 all living beings scattered over the surface of our earth, 
 hold to one another.' The work of the naturalist, as 
 he goes on to say, ' consists only in an attempt to read 
 more and more accurately a work in which he has had 
 no part, — a work which displays the thought of a mind 
 more comprehensive than his own.' , . . 
 
 '■'■ Again, when we look within, there is ' the causal intuitional 
 instinct of the intellect,' as it has been called,— the ^T^^^^t' 
 mental demand for a cause of every event, or rather 
 the ineradically craving for a power behind all 
 phenomena, of which they are but the manifestations 
 — a craving which no form of Comtian philosophy will 
 ever exorcise. 
 
 "Again, there is the passionate longing of the Aspiration 
 imagination, aspiring after an ideal perfection for our- idelfperfec- 
 selves and others, apprehending a beauty more than ''""• 
 eye has seen or ear heard. 
 
58 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Insufficiency " Again, there is ' the unsufficingness of self for 
 ""^seif/"' self — the dependency of the affections, feeling the 
 need of an object like themselves ; yet higher, more 
 enduring, all-perfect, on which they can lean, in which 
 they may find refuge. 
 Conscious- " Again, another avenue upward is the feeling of 
 "^derived!"" the derivative nature, not of our affections merely, but 
 of our whole being. We are here a little while, — 
 each a small rill of life, — containing many qualities. 
 We feel, think, fear, love ; no facts are more certain to 
 me than these. Yet it is just as certain that I am 
 here not by my own will. I did not place myself 
 here; cannot keep myself here. My life is in the 
 grasp of powers which I cannot, except in the smallest 
 measure, and for only a little while, control. There 
 must be a source whence this life, and all the other 
 similar lives around me, come. And that source 
 cannot be anything lower, or possessed of lower 
 qualities, than myself, but rather something contain- 
 ing, in infinite abundance, all the qualities which I and 
 all other beings like me, in finite measure have. . . . 
 The law of "Lastly, and chief of all, there is the law of duty, 
 •^"'y- coming home to the morally awakened man more 
 intimately, affecting him more profoundly, than any- 
 thing else he knows. What is it — whence comes it 
 — this law, which lies close to all his thoughts, an 
 ever-present, though often latent, consciousness, 
 haunting him like his very being ? . . . Here, if any- 
 where, we find the golden link which connects the 
 human nature with the divine. 
 The conciu- "Putting, then, all these converging lines of thought 
 by"au these together, we see that they meet in the conviction that 
 thought, there is behind ourselves, and all things that we see 
 and know, a Mind, a Reason, a Will, like to our own, 
 only incomprehensibly greater, of which Will and 
 
WHAT OTHER PROOF CAN BE HAD ? 
 
 59 
 
 Tempic_ 
 Part 1. 
 chaj>. V. 
 
 Reason the moral law is the truest and most adequate 
 exponent we have." 
 
 Thus are we shut up to faith in God. These are 
 facts, without and within, of which no other explana- 
 tion can be given. 
 
 The author of a great treatise on the subject of joJmHo'zve 
 
 . , ^ in flic 
 
 the Being and character of God, written two hundred L'-^'"s. 
 years ago, demanded of the Atheist, whether — if he 
 will reject all the evidence that is now available for 
 the existence of God — there are any conceivable 
 methods by which the fact (supposing it to be true) 
 could be certified to us? On this question being 
 answered in the affirmative, Howe proceeds to "Life of 
 examine all the other methods of certifying the great ho-I";' ly 
 fact, at all conceivable to human reason — such as Rogers, 
 strong impressions, glorious apparitions, terrible voices, ^- 3^^- 
 surprising transformations— and then proves that they 
 would every one be open to stronger objections, and 
 would on the great scale be less convincing, than the 
 evidence which the Atheist has already rejected as 
 insufficient. Thus he compels him to adopt the 
 strange conclusion, that if there be a God, it is, so 
 far as we can conceive, impossible that His existence 
 should ever be adequately ascertained to us. 
 
 We repeat John Howe's demand. If God has not 
 sufficiently revealed Himself in His works — at present 
 we say nothing of what we believe to be His Word — 
 in what other ways, altogether different, shall He so 
 reveal Himself as to make Himself irresistibly known 
 and confessed ? How — quoting from myself — shall 
 the Invisible make Himself visible, and yet, in making 
 Himself visible, not make it less certain that He is 
 indeed God ? If He veil His glory, lest our eyes be 
 dazzled ; if He subdue the thunder of His voice. 
 
6o HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 lest our ears be deafened ; if He hide His majesty, 
 lest we be confounded ; the probability is that we 
 shall not believe that He is very God. In vain I 
 try to imagine how God is to meet the demand for 
 other proofs, or other kinds of proof, than those 
 which He has given. But it must be in some way 
 that is unearthly and supernatural ; some way as 
 startling and confounding as the coming down of 
 God on Mount Sinai is represented to have been, 
 when the multitude said, " Let not God speak with 
 us, lest we die." And if one man has a right to 
 demand all this for his satisfaction, so has every man. 
 God must reveal Himself in every age, and in every 
 land, and to every individual. No man may say to 
 another — God has revealed Himself to me. Every 
 man must see Him for himself, and without such 
 seeing no one will believe ! 
 
 The demand supposed is nothing less than this — 
 that the boundary line between the material and the 
 spiritual world, which now hides the latter from our 
 view, shall be swept away, and that the two worlds 
 shall be merged into one. It is a demand which, 
 perhaps, no sane man would make in this literal 
 form, but it is involved in the spirit which seeks other 
 and more palpable "signs" of God's Being, and 
 which would prescribe to God what evidence He 
 ought to give us to prove His own existence or our 
 immortality. And the impossibility of meeting it 
 leaves us more than ever — not reluctantly, but thank- 
 fully — " shut up " to the conclusion that God is, and 
 that He is our moral Ruler and Judge. 
 
( 6i ) 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 WHAT OF GOD IS MADE KNOWN IN AND BY NATURE. 
 
 The remark has already been made that the teacher Ti.e teacher 
 is not to be measured or judged by the scholar. measu°e/by 
 Sound is not to be measured by the ear, because the ^^^ scholar. 
 ear may be deaf, wholly or partially. Neither the 
 magnitude nor the beauty of objects is to be judged 
 by our actual perception of them, because the eye 
 may be imperfect, or even diseased. The teacher 
 with whom we have to do at present we call Nature, 
 under which designation we include both the material 
 universe and man himself. The learner is man. 
 Now, it may be that this learner is intellectually slow intellectual 
 to learn, or is morally disinclined to learn all that '^de?e°c? 
 the teacher teaches him. In the writings of a man p°^^'^'^- 
 whose profound wisdom and insight cannot be ques- 
 tioned, whether we credit him with divine inspiration 
 and authority or not, the Christian Apostle, Paul, we icof. i. 20- 
 find it strongly asserted that such is the case. Ac- ^^' ^ ' 
 cording to this writer — we speak of him now as we 
 should of any other ancient writer of acknowledged 
 worth — mankind did originally know God, and his 
 descent from the worship of God to the worship of . 
 
 . . ^ A moral 
 
 " the creature " was occasioned mainly by moral d<'fect ac- 
 causes. And it would be difficult to find any other Paui. 
 
62 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN' EVIDENCES. 
 
 rational explanation of the loss of the knowledge of 
 God. It is not as if the idea of God was foreign to 
 the human mind, an altogether outside idea, which 
 it required a constant intellectual effort to understand 
 and retain. This idea is, in a sense, indigenous to 
 the human mind. That is, as already set forth, there 
 is in the human mind a faculty or susceptibility for 
 religion, and there is in nature, external to man, every- 
 thing to foster and cultivate the belief in " the Eternal 
 Power and Godhead." But in spite of all this, ac- 
 cording to Paul, men lost the knowledge of the true 
 God. The holiness of God, as we understand it, 
 was the " offence " on which they stumbled. And 
 yet they must have a God; and thus, "at sundiy 
 times and in divers manners," in different lands, losing 
 the true God, they came to worship gods many and 
 lords many. 
 
 Even if this be only an hypothesis — we believe it 
 is more — it illustrates our position that we are not to 
 judge of the teacher by the learner, not to judge of 
 what the actual lessons of nature are by what men 
 The teacher havc learned from nature. It may be that the heavens 
 good.^ do declare the glory of God, although in heathen 
 lands men worship thfe-V creature rather than the 
 Creator; and although,.in lands like our own, and 
 in our own times, ther^'^'are some who learn from the 
 heavens not the glory of an Infinite Intelligence and 
 Power and Goodness, but only an " underlying sub- 
 stance" to which they attach no meaning and to 
 which they give no name. 
 
 TELUG^E^NT Thc first truth whish may assuredly be gathered 
 Pergonal, ffom nature is that God is Intelligent and Personal. 
 
GOD INTELLIGENT AND PERSONAL. 6^ 
 
 We say assuredly, although there are students of 
 nature who come short of this truth. The apostles 
 of Agnosticism admit that there is — to use the ex- Agnostics 
 pression so often quoted — an "underlying substance," "underlying 
 a " reality," an " absolute " something, which is no 
 part of nature as nature is seen and known by us ; 
 only they say that "the power which the universe 
 manifests to us is utterly inscrutable." We accept 
 the admission, but hold that the considerations which 
 lead to faith in a " substance underlying " nature, . The 
 teach us not a little respecting this substance. For an"under- 
 what are these considerations ? They are all included ItTncI" " 
 in our intuitive sentiments — the intuitive sentiment ^thats^b-' 
 which will not be satisfied with a knowledge of mere ^''''"'^^ '*• 
 phenomena, but demands to know their cause ; the 
 intuitive sentiment which sees in the complex and 
 innumerable adaptations of nature evidences of an 
 Intelligent Mind; and the intuitive sentiment which 
 discerns in our moral nature the sign of a Higher 
 Moral Authority, to whom we are responsible. If by 
 these intuitions we are constrained to look beyond 
 nature, and see beyond it or underneath it an Abso- 
 lute Reality, we are equally constrained to see in 
 this Absolute Reality not a blind, unintelligent power, 
 but a Being possessed of the highest conceivable in- 
 telligence, and at the same time possessed of moral 
 attributes. Thus we are led far beyond an undefined 
 and undefinable Something, even to a Living 
 God, in whose will and intelligence and power we 
 have the secret of the world's existence and of our own. 
 
 The ancient question — " Canst thou find out the God not 
 
 Almighty unto perfection ? " — may still be asked. But perfe'^t'ioa, 
 
 the patriarchs who, in such questions, confessed the k"iown'. 
 limits of human knowledge respecting God, did not 
 
64 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 incompre- regard the "Power" which filled them with awe as 
 ^'"notukl""' " utterly inscrutable." They believed in Him as 
 knowabie. ^^n.-^yise and all-mighty, as reigning over mankind 
 ■ with perfect justice and goodness, and as holding men 
 responsible for the life they live on earth. And these 
 conclusions, whether they were reached by the obser- 
 vation and study of nature or not, are justified by a 
 correct interpretation of nature. 
 By Dr. The attempt has been made to interpret the God 
 ^ Arnold, of the Bible Pantheistically, We are told that the 
 God of our holy books is an impersonal God, with- 
 out volition, who " neither thinks nor loves" but 
 only " a Power that makes for righteousness." The 
 most ordinary reader of the Bible can determine 
 this question for himself, and most readers will only 
 wonder how such a notion could come into existence. 
 To the common understanding, indeed to any under- 
 standing, it is difficult to explain wherein such a God 
 differs from " no God." Most certain it is that this 
 abstraction can never say "I," and can never be 
 addressed as " Thou." Our point now is this — that 
 The "Power the cvidcttce which proves that there is a "Power 
 * for ri^h-^^ which makes for righteousness," proves that it is a 
 ifa pTrtonai Personal power. The sense of responsibility of which 
 ^°"'^''- we are conscious, is not an abstraction, a thought 
 which we project from our own minds, a thought-pro- 
 cess, a spiritual nonentity ; it looks to a Person, the 
 Author of the law whose authority we feel, the Judge 
 to whom account shall be rendered. The faith, 
 variously begotten in us, that there is an enduring 
 " Power that makes for righteousness," is not faith in a 
 blind, unthinking, unknowing, unknown, unknowable 
 something; it is faith in very God Himself, who 
 hath implanted the sense of righteousness within us, 
 who watches over righteousness when it is most op- 
 
AN IMPERSONAL GOD. 65 
 
 pressed ; and who will finally adjudicate between good 
 and evil. 
 
 According to nature, then. God is a Person ; that 
 is, a Self-conscious Agent, an Intelligent Being, who 
 can say " I." An " Impersonal " God has no self- An im- 
 
 . . personal 
 
 consciousness, can exercise no volition, possesses God is not 
 no intelligence, is capable neither of approving nor scfousTand 
 of disapproving, never consciously does anything, '^'^^H'^'^p^'^ 
 and never can. In short, we do not know of any 
 attribute that can possibly be ascribed to — we were 
 going to say, Him ; but we cannot think of such a 
 God as an existence at all, and can almost as little use 
 the pronoun // as the pronoun Him. If for con- 
 venience' sake we speak of an Impersonal God, the 
 God of Pantheism, as a being, it is a being whom 
 we cannot love or worship ; for he or it has no attri- 
 butes that can be the object of either — no attributes 
 that can possibly be the objects of a rational affection. 
 Strauss, indeed, demanded for his " Universum " " the ^ The 
 same piety which the devotee of the old style de- sum"'can- 
 manded for his God." But it cannot be rendered. uorXipp'ed. 
 You cannot worship the universe ; you cannot pray 
 to the universe. Prayer to such a Being — but Being 
 it is not — would be no better than "an apostrophe 
 to woods and wilds and waters ; a moan cast forth 
 into the viewless winds, or a bootless behest ex- 
 pended on a passing cloud ; a plaintive cry directed 
 to an empty echo that can send back nothing but 
 another cry." 
 
 With metaphysical questions as to what constitutes Meta- 
 " Personality," it is not necessary that we should deal, qu'^esffonsas 
 Enough for all practical ends to say that where there '°aiity!°"" 
 is Will and Intelligence there is Personality. " Con- 
 
 F 
 
66 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 scious volitional agency," Dr. Carpenter says, " is the 
 
 See "Half- csscntial attribute of personality." The idea of 
 
 ih^'rrutit" personality is not dependent on the littleness or great- 
 
 M^i>dnzof risss, finitude or infinitude, of the Being to whom 
 
 ^u^s"' ^^ ^^ ascribed. In all cases it involves freedom and 
 
 pp. 172, 173. the power of choice. There can be no personality 
 
 in matter, for matter has no self-determining powers. 
 
 imperson- To affirm, then, that God is impersonal is not to 
 
 degradadon cxalt our conccptions of Him, but to degrade Him 
 
 of God. below man; it is to teach that He can never have 
 
 the sublime sense of liberty which man has ; it is to 
 
 affirm that He must come down to man's estate, in 
 
 order to feel that He has the power of doing as He 
 
 wills. " It is not the personality of God, but of man, 
 
 that is imperfect," as Dr. J. IM. Manning says. 
 
 "God's being is not limited. Hence He is im-. 
 
 measurably above us, in all that goes to constitute 
 
 Him a Person. He is infinite in His Being, and 
 
 therefore as a Person He is absolutely perfect." 
 
 The idea of But to this idea it is objected that it is Anthropo- 
 
 personalily ... 
 
 Anthrupo- morpliic — that IS, that it transfers to the nature of God 
 morp ic. ^yj^^j. belongs to the nature of man — and the objection 
 is supposed to be fatal. The objection, however, 
 is really an argument in its favour. Anthropo- 
 morphism, within certain limits, and rightly understood, 
 is truth. We cannot speak of the hand and the eye 
 of God otherwise than metaphorically. And if we 
 ascribe to Him, as the mythologies of most nations 
 do, the evil passions of our own nature, we expose 
 p.f<z/;«/. 21. ourselves to the rebuke — "Thou thoughtest that I 
 was altogether such an one as thyself" But this 
 is a perversion of the idea. Three hundred years 
 before Paul stood on Mars Hill, a Greek poet had 
 Aiatus. said, " For we are also His offspring." And some- 
 
TRUE ANTHROPOMORPHISM. 6/ 
 
 what earlier another, in a hymn to Jupiter, said, " For cieanthes. ■ 
 from Thee we are the offspring." The Apostle adopted 
 the saying, and confirmed the sentiment. If we are The off- 
 God's children, we are like God and God is like us. the'pfrent. 
 This is that dreaded thing, Anthropomorphism — the 
 Anthropomorphism of nature as well as of the Bible. 
 The foundation of the Anthropomorphism of Scripture 
 is the historical statement that God made man in 
 His own image. And this too, as a fact of nature, is 
 the foundation of the rational Anthropomorphism 
 without which all ideas of God become shadowy and 
 unreal. 
 
 Dr. Carpenter, while he speaks of Pantheism and An- Dy. 
 
 , , . , , , Carfienter 
 
 thropomorphism as the two extremes towards one or in the Con- 
 other of which most of the current notions regarding '^"i^v^^-'' 
 God may be said to tend, says of Anthropomorphism ^<2^^''p^^l^_ 
 that " even the lowest form of any such conception xme 
 embodies a great truth — this, namely, that it repre- morpWsm. 
 sents the Deity as a Person ; that is, possessed of 
 that intelligent volition, which we recognize in our- 
 selves as the source of the power we determinately 
 exert through our bodily organism upon the world 
 around ; and it invests Him with those moral attri- 
 butes which place Him in sympathetic relation with 
 His sentient creatures." 
 
 Thus understood, the Personality of God of which 
 we have the image in our own, and which in this 
 sense is an Anthropomorphic conception, does not, 
 as alleged by some, *' dwarf the Supreme Being." 
 It is the idea of Impersonality that dwarfs Him ; yea, 
 rather, that kills Him. 
 
 We must have a God. Absolute Atheism is re- 
 pudiated. But to ascribe creation to a conscious 
 will and intelligence, is, it is objected, Anthropo- 
 morphism. Whereunto, then, shall we liken God ? 
 
sequence. 
 
 68 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 If mind is If we in the domain of consciousness and will and 
 
 "Go'd,\s° intelligence, that is, of personality, find no likeness 
 
 matter? ^f Qo^, wc must cxplore the domain of matter and 
 
 force, if peradventure we find it there. But if we 
 
 do find it there, it will partake in some way of the 
 
 The con- nature of matter and force. And the end is that, 
 
 instead of rising to a higher conception of God, we 
 
 sink to a lower. Forbidden to find any notion 
 
 of God in the spiritual nature of man, we must 
 
 be content to find it in unspiritual and unintelligent 
 
 matter. 
 
 11. 
 
 The Divine Having thus found nature itself teaching us that God, 
 
 ' the First Cause of all things, is a Person endowed with 
 
 intelligence and moral attributes, may we further 
 
 ascribe to Him infinitude — an infinitude of power and 
 
 of intelligence ? 
 
 We have admitted that the existence of infinitude 
 in space and in time does not directly prove a third 
 
 On the In- infinitude — an Infinite Mind. Still, as Dr. McCosh 
 theTiLd, says, " Infinite extension and duration, and our belief 
 A 436. regarding them, are felt to be void and empty till we 
 are able to place in them infinite substance Avith in- 
 finite attributes ; but when it has done so, the mind 
 feels that it has found the wanting truth, and is satis- 
 fied supremely and to the full." 
 A limited We come to the same practical conclusion in an 
 
 not prove an Other Way. Let us admit that logically we cannot 
 prove from a limited effect an unlimited cause, — the 
 cause is not necessarily greater than the effect. The 
 world is not infinite ; even the material universe, vast 
 as it is now known to be, is not infinite. But then it 
 is inconceivably great, and therefore its Cause must be 
 
 unlimited 
 cause. 
 
THE DIVINE INFINITUDE. 69 
 
 inconceivably great. And for all practical ends this 
 is enough. In its impression on our minds it is But there 
 equivalent to infinitude. If we could directly and hlTp^restion 
 logically prove the First Cause of the universe to be ^ili"fin?tudl."' 
 infinite, we should not feel ourselves more profoundly 
 moved to reverence and worship than we do now. 
 Nor should we have a deeper sense of our own insig- 
 nificance. The astronomer of to-day, with all the 
 knowledge which the telescope has brought him of suns 
 and systems without number, cannot exclaim with a 
 devouter feeling than did those who knew only what 
 their own eyes told them, " What is man, that Thou Psaim 
 art mindful of him ? or the son of man, that Thou dost 
 visit him ? " 
 
 Vlll. 4. 
 
 But if a limited effect cannot logically prove an un- 
 limited cause, much less does it prove that its cause 
 is necessarily limited. And yet this fallacy was gravely Fallacy of 
 argued by Hume. " When we infer any particular 
 cause from an effect," he says, " we must proportion 
 the one to the other, and can never be alloztied to ascribe 
 to the cause any qualities but what are exactly sufficient to 
 produce the effect. Allowing, therefore, the gods to be 
 the authors of the existence or order of the universe, 
 it follows that they possess that precise degree of 
 power, intelligence, and benevolence, which appears 
 in their workmanship ; but nothing further can be 
 proved. The supposition of further attributes is mere 
 hypothesis." We have here truth and error blended. 
 The actual physical force put forth in any given act 
 may be measured by the effect which it produces. 
 But if this physical force dwells in and is put forth by ^" '"V'^!''- 
 
 ... ■' gent being 
 
 a Being havmg mtelhgence and will, we cannot "o' 'o be 
 
 1 iiri 11. • measured by 
 
 measure the whole of the power that dwells m Him the force of 
 by the power which He chooses to exert in any given ^^aas! " 
 
70 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 act. A man breaks a piece of glass : the power put 
 forth is very small. But it would be absurd to say 
 that " we cannot be allowed to ascribe to him any 
 qualities but what are exactly sufficient to produce this 
 effect." He may be able to break a piece of granite, 
 and may likewise have other " qualities " of another 
 kind than physical power. The creation of one globe 
 like ours does not prove in the Creator more power 
 than is necessary to produce this particular effect. But 
 it does not follow that in Him who is the Cause of this 
 effect, there is no more power than was needful to 
 produce it, and no other '' qualities" than this power. 
 And it is no mere hypothesis to say that in Him who 
 can produce a thousand such effects there is power 
 equal to the production of ten thousand. If the infer- 
 ence be not a logical necessity, it is at least so natural 
 and probable as to commend itself to our reason. 
 
 HI. 
 
 The Divine It IS a question of no Small interest whether nature 
 Unity, pj-gves the Unity of God or affords a sufficient basis 
 Paiey's fo^^ ^^.itli in it. "Of the unity of the Deity," says 
 argument, p^ley, "the proof is the uniformity of plan observable 
 Unity of in the universe. The universe itself is a system ; each 
 ^syrte'm'^ part either depending on other parts, or being con- 
 nected with other parts by some common law of 
 motion, or by the presence of some common substance. 
 One principle of gravitation causes a stone to drop 
 towards the earth, and the moon to wheel round it ; 
 one law of attraction carries all the different planets 
 about the sun." As to our own globe, he says, " We 
 never" get among such original, or totally different 
 modes of existences, as to indicate that we are come 
 into the province of a different Creator, or under the 
 
THE DIVINE UNITY. 7 1 
 
 direction of a different will. In truth, the same order 
 
 of things attends us wherever we go." All the dis- Seen in all 
 
 ... , .... , modern dis- 
 
 coveries which have been made m distant space, and coveries. 
 
 on the surface of our own globe, since Paley's time, 
 
 confirm this line of argument. But Paley concludes — 
 
 and the additions which modern discovery have made 
 
 to the facts on which his argument is founded, do not 
 
 affect its essence — that "the whole argument for the But this 
 
 _,. .._-.. r ^ ^ ■, r proves Only 
 
 Divme Unity goes no farther than to an unity of unity of 
 counsel." And the possibihty is obvious that unity of '^''""^^ • 
 counsel may subsist amongst a plurality of counsellors. 
 "Admitting," says Dr. Wardlaw, "the competence of 
 One omnipotent and infinite Designer to produce 
 every effect which is discernible througliout the uni- 
 verse, the inference does not seem to be an absolutely 
 certain one., fjvm this considei'atiou alone, that only One 
 such Being exists." 
 
 The probabilities of the Divine Unity are so great But unity of 
 that practically the fact can scarcely be doubted. And scarcely to 
 they are increased and strengthened when the question 
 is asked, whether the Creator or First Cause of things is the 
 
 . . . . , Creator and 
 
 and the Designer whose intelligence we see m the Designer 
 
 . One' 
 
 adaptations of things, is One ? " Does the adapting ^^^^^^.^ 
 agent," as the question has been put, — "simply take "Elements 
 the efficient forces and laws of the universe as it finds lectuai^^ 
 them, and, arranging them as best it may, bring out of /. 523.' 
 them the wisest results to which its capacity may adapt 
 them ; or does it (likewise) originate the forces which 
 it arranges and combines? The one view gives the 
 eternity of matter, making the Deity a Demiurgos or 
 Plastic energy. The other makes the Originator and 
 the Arranger to be the same power and the same mind. 
 The one view is the cruder Theism of ancient philo- 
 sophy, the other the purer Theism of the Jewish and 
 Christian Scriptures. . . . Psychology suggests that 
 
J 2 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 the analogy of the human soul, which combines in 
 itself — under limits — a creating force and an adapting 
 or designing force, furnishes a decisive argument 
 in favour of the conclusion that the Creator and 
 Thinker is One Being." 
 
 Is it powibie Some have endeavoured to make up for the logical 
 
 that there ,-. ^, r i t ■ r 
 
 should be deficiency or the argument from the uniformity of 
 one°infinUe? nature to the unity of its author by a process of meta- 
 physical reasoning ; or, more correctly, they have used 
 metaphysical reasoning as an independent and addi- 
 tional argument. They have argued that there can be 
 but one necessarily existent Being, one Omnipotent 
 and Infinite Being, — one Infinite, rendering a second 
 impossible. But it may be doubted whether any 
 philosophical argument on this subject is wholly 
 satisfactory, and whether the facts of nature and the 
 subtlety of logic can carry us farther than to the very 
 highest presumption in favour of the Divine Unity. 
 Robert Hall We may certainly accept the words of Robert Hall, 
 qjtoted. ^^^ ^^ notion of more than one Author of nature 
 " solves no appearance, is supported by no evidence, 
 and subserves no purpose but to embarrass and per- 
 plex our conceptions." When we turn from nature to 
 revelation, we attain absolute certainty. 
 
 IV. 
 
 The Divine The next question is, whether the evidences which 
 GooDNfcbb. ^,Qj^(j^(.j. yg ^Q ^]-ig conclusion that God is, conduct us 
 likewise to the conclusion that God is good? Do 
 those adaptations which evince the existence of Divine 
 Intelligence evince at the same time the goodness of 
 this intelligence? We do not now refer to moral 
 goodness, that is, rectitude or purity or holiness, — but 
 
THE DIVINE GOODNESS. 73 
 
 to goodness in the sense of benevolence, the opposite 
 of malignity. Does nature prove its Author to be good 
 in this sense ? A question which we must carefully 
 distinguish from the question, " Have men universally 
 or generally understood the testimony of nature to be 
 that God is good ? " In heathendom, ancient and Heathen 
 modern, the more common belief has been that the 
 gods are not good ; at least, that they partake of the 
 mixed character of men themselves, — some gods par- 
 tially good, some partially evil ; some of them abso- 
 lutely malignant, and all of them capable of acts of 
 malignity — being fitful and capricious. The sublime 
 conception expressed in the words — " God is Love " 
 — can scarcely be found in unrefracted light, except in 
 our Holy Scriptures. But it does not follow from the 
 failure of man to attain this conception, that nature 
 fails to teach it. 
 
 There are two questions that present themselves Two Ques- 
 here — First, whether there is positive evidence to '^^°^^' 
 sustain the conclusion that God is Good ; and secondly, 
 how we may reconcile with this conclusion certain 
 phenomena which seem opposed to it. 
 
 The first question is easily answered. Let the is there 
 following suffice : — " The phenomena which prove the evidence^of 
 existence of God, also demonstrate that He delights goodnelsT 
 in the happiness of His creatures ; for it is conceivable McCosh on 
 that the world might have been filled with adapta- Method of 
 tions such as any of the existing ones, but all of them Govern-^ 
 of a diametrically opposite character. The exquisitely ^"'^'^•''°- 
 formed joints of the animal frame might, in the very 
 delicacy of their organism, have communicated the 
 more exquisite pain. The plants of the earth might 
 have grown to nourish the bodies of animals, only 
 as food spread through the organs to torture every 
 
74 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 member. The sunbeams, instead of gladdening all 
 nature, might have struck every being as with a 
 succession of spear-points, to harass and annoy. How 
 dehghtful to find that every adaptation indicating 
 design, also indicates benevolence, and that we have 
 as clear evidence of the goodness of God, as of the 
 very existence of God ! " 
 General con- Writers on the evidence of design dwell largely on 
 writrrs°on '^hc bencvolcnce of the Great Designer. They urge that 
 design, a j.|^g goodncss of God in the form of benevolence 
 is revealed in the whole constitution of nature. As 
 the universe teems with life, it teems also with enjoy- 
 ment. There are no devices in nature for the pro- 
 motion of pain for its own sake ; whereas, the mani- 
 festations of design for the production of happiness 
 are beyond computation." 
 
 The cogency of such argumentation can scarcely 
 be denied. Its conclusion is substantially that ot 
 Holy Writ, that " the earth is full of the goodness of 
 the Lord." 
 
 How But it is certain that there are phenomena which 
 
 pheJfomena ^6611'^ to jar with this couclusion, and hence the second 
 
 "surt^Hn^c^''^ question,— How these phenomena, which may be 
 
 summed up in the one word, pain or suffering, may 
 
 be reconciled with the Divine goodness ? This 
 
 Various qucstion is intimately connected with another, apart 
 
 involved! ^^'^^ which it canuot be satisfactorily discussed, 
 
 namely, the origin of moral evil and the consistency 
 
 of its existence with the moral perfection of God ? 
 
 and still another question, the connection between 
 
 moral evil and suffering ? 
 
 appendixN. These questions involve problems on which the 
 
 profoundest thinkers have expended their strength in 
 
 \'ain. Any attempt to deal with them in this chapter, 
 
HELFS TO FAITH. 75 
 
 or even to explain the attempts which have been 
 made, would be unsatisfactory. I must content my- 
 self with two remarks. 
 
 1. The righteousness, or holiness, of God, involves The 
 
 in it, or carries along with it, the goodness of God. iioiiness and 
 Righteousness and goodness are very distinct attri- inleparabL. 
 butes, it is true ; but we cannot imagine a pure or 
 righteous God to be other than good. Now, to a Positive 
 
 ,,.-._-..., , , evidence of 
 
 belief m His righteousness we are shut up by our holiness. 
 own moral nature. Even in the outside world, not- 
 withstanding all its impurities and crimes, there is 
 abundant evidence of a righteous moral government And of a 
 over men. The fact of such a government, and of govem- 
 the holy God whose government it is, does not, ™'^"'' 
 indeed, explain the mystery of evil, — it only deepens 
 it. But if held fast, it will relieve our minds of many 
 saddening and painful misgivings, and enable us to 
 rest in the conviction, that, if ever the solution 
 shall be found, it will be found in a quarter that shall 
 not dim the brightness or tarnish the honour of the 
 Divine Name. And this conclusion embraces the 
 goodness as well as the righteousness of God. 
 
 2. The positive evidences of the Divine righteous- Positive 
 
 , , , , ^ • J 1, evidence not 
 
 ness and goodness cannot be set aside by appearances to be set 
 or facts which it is beyond our power to explain. In appearlnJes. 
 explanation of this position I quote from myself a 
 simple illustration : " If I have had lifelong evidence " Work a,id 
 that my father is a man of integrity and a man oi pp""6j--^-ii. 
 love, an integrity and a love which have been tested a a child's 
 thousand times, and have always come forth from the father.''^ 
 trial with greater brightness, it does not become me 
 to tremble for his honour when circumstances occur 
 which I do not understand and cannot explain. My 
 faith in him will be unshaken. I will accept the 
 known as a key to the meaning of the unknown. I 
 
16 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 will hold fast my confidence that, when the time of 
 revelation comes, his character will be found still 
 radiant with light and love. Much more let me 
 feel and act thus with reference to my Heavenly 
 Father, I am but as a very little child, who, at the 
 dawn of his infant reason, tries to penetrate the 
 thoughts and understand the doings of his Father. 
 I can think now only as a child, and speak only as 
 a child. Let me, then, cultivate a child's humility 
 and a child's teachableness, and be content to trust 
 my Father till I enter on the manhood of my nature 
 in a higher state, where that which is perfect is come, 
 and that which is in part shall be done away." 
 
 Object of The object of this chapter has not been to set 
 
 'not'toTe'r forth a scheme of the doctrines of Natural Religion, 
 
 s^heme^f ^"^^ ^° show that the evidence which proves the ex- 
 
 Naturai Jstcncc of God, provcs or reveals much concerning 
 
 the nature and character of God. The altar which 
 
 it would set up is not to an " Unknown God," but to 
 
 a God of whom much is known or may be known. 
 
 The Teacher reveals much, however inapt the learner 
 
 may be. 
 
( n ) 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 TRANSITION FROM NATURE TO THE SUPERNATURAL. 
 
 The natural and the supernatural should never be Natural and 
 confounded. There is a clearly marked line between not to be 
 them. In some quarters there is a tendency or '^°" °"" ^ ' 
 disposition to obliterate this line, and to confound 
 the two under the one designation of Mystery. In 
 others the tendency is to create an impassable gulf 
 between them, or to regard the one as absolutely 
 excluding the other. We affirm a real difference, 
 but not a difference inconsistent with the actuality of 
 both. The natural we hold to be one mode of 
 Divine action, the supernatural another. But to us, 
 looking from our side of things, the one mode is very 
 different from another. 
 
 Take, for example, the production of food. The Distinction 
 ground is tilled ; the seed is sow^n ; the harvest is 'b" alTex- 
 reaped ; the wheat is ground ; the bread is baked. We ^""p'*"- 
 are familiar with the whole process, and our familiarity 
 with it blunts our sense of wonder. Some parts of 
 the process, indeed, are very wonderful. What or 
 whence the strange power which so acts on the seed 
 sown as to make it germinate and produce thirty or Food 
 sixty seeds after its kind ? How explain the action nat°uraUy. 
 of moisture and heat and light on the seed or the 
 plant, and the absorption by the plant of certain 
 
78 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 elements from these and from the soil in which it 
 grows ? It is all filled with and hidden in mystery. 
 But, then, it is all natural ; that is, there are laws — 
 themselves, we believe, of Divine ordaining, but 
 whether of Divine ordaining or not, — there are laws 
 in nature by which or in accordance with which in 
 the same circumstances the same results are always 
 produced. And these laws are our ministers ; we 
 can use them to accomplish our ends, and they never 
 fail. Seed never fails to produce seed, if all the 
 natural laws which conduce to the production are 
 in operation — including the action of rain and sun- 
 shine, the needful moisture and the needful heat. 
 Food pro- But food may be produced in other ways. At 
 naturally. Icast, Bible story represents it as having been actually 
 produced in other ways, and we may use the story 
 as an illustration of what we mean by the super- 
 natural. There are five thousand men to be fed, 
 and there are only a few loaves to feed them, not 
 sufficient to feed fifty. The loaves are distributed, 
 and, in the act of distribution, they are found so to 
 increase as to be more than sufficient to feed the 
 five thousand. This is not the result of any natural 
 law, — there is no sowing, no growing, no reaping, here. 
 There is no process known to nature, no process 
 within the observation of man, by which this instan- 
 taneous production of the food of thousands can 
 be explained. The difference between the manner 
 in which the harvest-field, by means of spring and 
 summer and autumn, produces food for thousands, 
 and the manner in which it is said to have been 
 Reported produced on a memorable occasion on the eastern 
 Christ, shore of the Sea of Galilee, is not in any sense a 
 mere difference of degree or a mere difference of 
 time, the one being gradual and the other instan- 
 
NATURAL AND SUPERNATURAL. 79 
 
 taneous. No amount of time, with tillage and rain 
 and sun, could make the baked loaves germinate and 
 grow into a larger quantity. The difference must 
 be held to be an essential difference in the mode of 
 action — so that if we call the one Natural, we must 
 call the other Supernatural. Even if we suppose 
 that there may be means employed in the second 
 case as well as in the first, we cannot call them natural 
 means, means discoverable among the physical powers 
 or ordinary laws of nature. They must be of a kind 
 known to God only. And the supposition of the 
 possible existence of such means, occult and un- 
 discoverable, forms no bridge between the natural 
 and the supernatural — the fact being, rather, that in 
 such a case the means are as supernatural as the end 
 produced. 
 
 We are not required to attempt a definition of the a perfect 
 miraculous or the supernatural — a definition that shall not at°" 
 contain the whole truth and nothing but the truth. '^™p''^'^- 
 Important as definition is, substance is sometimes 
 sacrificed to form in endeavouring to effect it. Only 
 we must insist that in our idea of a miracle there 
 is nothing "opposed to the laws of nature," and 
 nothing that can be called a " violation of the laws 
 of nature." The term " Supernatural " indicates not 
 that which is contrary to nature, or violates nature, 
 but that which is above nature, or beyond nature. It 
 is something altogether out of the range of the action 
 of natural law. The natural and supernatural are 
 not contrary the one to the other — they are only 
 different modes of Divine action. 
 
 With the natural we are familiar. But the uni- Two alleged 
 formity of the ^action of natural laws is regarded as tionrag^m-^f 
 
8o 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 I he occur- 
 rence of the 
 super- 
 natural. 
 
 a strong presumption against the occurrence of aught 
 that is supernatural ; and the creduHty of mankind 
 in regard to alleged supernatural occurrences is held 
 to be a strong presumption against the credibility of 
 any such occurrences. Let us look at both. 
 
 First 
 Alleged 
 
 Presump- 
 tion 
 
 AGAINST 
 
 Miracles. 
 
 Improba- 
 bility sup- 
 posed to 
 arise from 
 the con- 
 stancy of 
 nature. 
 
 The 
 
 argument 
 :air.y jut. 
 
 Of the impossibility of the supernatural sometimes 
 asserted, we need take no account. It can be main- 
 tained only on the ground of Atheism or Pantheism. 
 Admit the existence of a Personal God, and the 
 possibility of the supernatural cannot be denied. 
 But then its improbability is said to be so great as 
 practically to place it beyond the limits of reasonable 
 belief And this improbability is grounded on the 
 uniformity of the action of natural laws. "All 
 things continue as they have been from the be- 
 ginning." Day and night, summer and winter, seed- 
 time and harvest, cold and heat — the laws of light 
 and of gravitation, of life and of death, — all these 
 were known before men learned their science, and 
 they are now what our remote ancestors knew them 
 to be. They are constant and regular. The same 
 antecedents are always followed by the same conse- 
 quents. Than this law there is not a more unfailing 
 characteristic of nature. Whether our faith in it is 
 a deduction of reason from the general experience of 
 mankind, or is, as Dr. Chalmers argues, "an im- 
 mediate and resistless belief in the human con- 
 stitution," matters nothing at present. The fact is 
 admitted, and in our daily life we act on the faith of 
 it. Now, the argument against miracles, fairly put, 
 :s this, that any departure from this commonly ob- 
 
THE SUPERNATURAL NOT IMPROBABLE. 8 1 
 
 served and trusted-in constancy of nature is so impro- 
 bable as to be incredible. 
 
 When it is further said, as by Hume, that miracles Unfair 
 
 ,, . , . , , . addition by 
 
 are contrary to all experience, we object that this iiuiae. 
 begs the question. We do not admit that miracles 
 have never been matters of human experience or 
 observation. But we do admit all that can be said 
 of the constancy and regularity of the action of 
 natural laws. We only deny the inference that super- 
 natural action is rendered thereby so improbable as 
 to be incredible. 
 For these reasons — 
 
 1. Natural laws themselves, in their most constant See 
 and regular action, lead us to the conclusion that "'^' 
 there is a Great Supernatural Being. It is in the 
 products of these natural laws we see the evidence 
 
 of a Designing Mind and Will, 
 
 2. Natural laws are themselves the ordinances of a See 
 (ireat Supernatural Being. They are not self-ordamed and sir ' 
 or self-made. Their origin is inexplicable except as BecTe'tt n>i 
 traced to a Being of supernatural wisdom and power. iy^Nainrai 
 
 3. Even the common action of natural laws, the ^<^'"'^- 
 regularity of which is alleged as an argument against 
 
 the probability of supernatural action, is scarcely ex- 
 plicable without the supposition of a continuous a continuous 
 supernatural agency. This at least is the most agency. 
 rational explanation that can be given of it. Let a 
 man of science be the witness. " When we have 
 once arrived at that conception of Force as an expres- 
 sion of Will" says Dr. Carpenter, " which we derive Con- 
 from our own experience of its production, the ^rJvUw^ 
 universal and constantly sustaining agency of the ^z^2°p!''^(i■2. 
 Deity is recognized in every phenomenon of the ex- 
 ternal universe ; and we are thus led to feel that in 
 the Material Creation itself we have the same distinct 
 
S2 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 AiTHNDixO. evidence of His Personal Existence and ceaseless 
 activity, as we have of the agency of intelhgent minds 
 in the creations of artistic genius, or in the elaborate 
 contrivances of mechanical skill, or in those written 
 records of thought which arouse our physical nature 
 into kindred activity." 
 Analogy be- 4. If, as Dr. Carpenter holds, all force is ultimately 
 human will rcsolvablc into, or traceable to, Will force ; and if, as 
 nfauTr^ and ^6 says, there are " most satisfactory grounds " for the 
 wfiucti"! " belief that the phenomena of the Material Universe 
 on matter, ^.g ^^^ expressions of a Mind and Will, of which man's 
 is the finite prototype," — we are supplied with an 
 analogy which aids our conception of the action of 
 a Supernatural, that is, of the Divine, Will, on Nature. 
 Our will, the human will, acts on matter immediately. 
 It acts on our material bodies. Between the will 
 and the lifting of the hand there may be several 
 hidden links or processes, but if there are they are all 
 material or in our material framework. Between the 
 first of these and the will there is no medium. When 
 will acts upon it, it is spirit acting on matter im- 
 mediately. Need we be startled, then, if told that the 
 Great Creator-Spirit has acted at certain times im- 
 mediately on the material world, without the inter- 
 A difference mediation of natural laws ? True that the material 
 * '"""^ • world is not the body of God, as our material frame 
 is our body, and not joined to God as our frame is 
 But God not joined to us. But shall we make ourselves the 
 measured by mcasure of God, and limit His action on matter to 
 '"''"■ the mode in which we act on matter? The action 
 of our will on matter, though it be immediately only 
 on the matter of our own bodies, is a profound 
 mystery ; and it supplies us with an analogy which 
 at least removes all difficulty from our believing that 
 the Creator-Spirit may act on the material universe 
 
THE SUPERNATURAL NOT ARBITRARY. 83 
 
 by His Will, otherwise than through the natural laws 
 which He has Himself ordained,— such action being 
 that which we call Supernatural or Miraculous. 
 
 This analogy is strengthened by the consideration 
 that the originatmi of matter, with all the forces and 
 laws of matter, must have resulted from an immediate 
 act of the Divine Will. There was no medium existing 
 through which it could then act. 
 
 With these considerations before us, we cannot say 
 that the constancy of nature excludes, or renders 
 incredible, the idea of supernatural events. The 
 probability or improbability of such events depends 
 entirely on whether there is any great moral reason 
 for their occurrence. Nothing but a great reason and 
 a moral reason can render them probable. 
 
 In saying this we exclude, and that purposely, a No flaw in 
 current sceptical objection that miracles imply a flaw "repaired.*^ 
 in the constitution of material nature, which needs to 
 be repaired through a special intervention — that 
 miracles are in fact " arbitrary suspensions of law " to 
 remedy original defects or imperfections. No believer 
 in the supernatural imagines that God works miracles 
 "arbitrarily," or to repair the defects of nature. It is 
 not by any such supposition that we overcome the 
 difficulty which the constancy of nature interposes to 
 our faith in their occurrence. 
 
 But there may be great moral reasons why God But there 
 should manifest Himself supernaturally, and should "J^Jraf 
 work works which no natural laws are capable of 
 effecting. That such reasons exist will be shown in 
 our concluding chapter. Enough to say at this point 
 that the miracles in which we believe are not casual 
 and isolated facts, or alleged facts, occurring arbitrarily 
 here and there in the world, prodigies to excite idle 
 
 reasoDs 
 
84 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 The connec- wonder. They are all connected with great moral 
 reason of the purposes. They all belong to what clahns to be a 
 miracles" continuous purposc of redemption, incarnated, so to 
 speak, in human history; revealed in progressive 
 stages; and consummated in the life, death, and 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ. Unbelievers may dis- 
 allow this claim. But if they would judge of Bible 
 miracles aright, they must judge of them in connec- 
 tion with it. Connecting them, as we do, with the 
 spiritual history to which they belong, all d, priori 
 prejudice against them melts away, all improbability 
 disappears ; and we feel, with Dr. Thomas Arnold, 
 that their absence would be far more wonderful than 
 "TkeSufier- their presence. " If God should mercifully approach 
 otigfnif '^s with new light and new help," says Dr. G. P. Fisher, 
 tflnlty" " ^^^y should He not verify to man the fact of His 
 /. S02. presence by supernatural manifestations of His power 
 and goodness? In this case nature is used as an 
 instrument for an ulterior moral end. . . . Material 
 nature, be it remembered, does not include the end 
 of its existence in itself. It is a subordinate member 
 of a vaster system, and has only an instrumental 
 value." 
 
 II. 
 
 Second I^ut if there be no such improbability as would 
 
 PREsim". justify our refusing to listen to the evidence adduced 
 
 ■^■°'' in support of miracles, yet the fact is notorious that 
 
 AGAINST -l i ' ■' 
 
 Miracles, history, SO called, especially the earlier history of 
 nations, is full of supernatural narratives which no 
 man now believes, the belief in which would at once 
 
 Human ... 
 
 supersmion distuiguisli a man as superstitious and credulous. Is 
 there not in this presumptive evidence that all super- 
 
 and 
 credulity. 
 
miracles. 
 
 OBJECTIONS SUMMARY BUT NOT TRUE. 8$ 
 
 natural relations are the fruits of ignorance and super- 
 stition? How is it possible to distinguish the true 
 from the false ? 
 
 This is the summary method by which some would Summary- 
 
 ■' ■' method ot 
 
 discredit all miracles. They gather together from rejectingai! 
 all ages, and all states of society, tales of prodigies 
 and wonders, and write over them all — " Myths and 
 Legends." The trouble of sifting and distinguishing 
 and separating, and classifying them as true, or false, 
 or doubtful, according to the evidence, is thus 
 avoided. All genuine or all false ! This is the 
 principle adopted. Many, very many, are false, they 
 convict themselves ; therefore they are all false ! 
 
 This is a short method of dealing with a great Applied to 
 
 . natural 
 
 question, but it is not more rational or satisfactory events, 
 than it would be if applied to other alleged facts. 
 History is a gathering together, and setting in order, 
 a multitude of alleged facts or alleged events; but 
 many of these alleged facts and events rest on no 
 sufficient evidence — they are fables ; therefore all the 
 alleged facts and events which fill innumerable pages 
 in what is called history are fables ! Men of science 
 collect together what are called natural facts, report 
 them to scientific societies, and record them in 
 scientific reports ; but many of these so-called natural 
 facts are found to be imaginary or illusory ; therefore 
 all the natural facts which are so laboriously compiled 
 are but fruits of the imagination ! 
 
 I am quite prepared to admit that supernatural Admit that 
 events need stronger evidence to justify their admis- ^"Jln'ts'^need 
 sion into history than do natural events. I would evidence. 
 even submit to the dictum of Hume, that "no 
 testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless 
 the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood 
 would be more miraculous [that is, as I understand it, 
 
86 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 more difficult to account for] than the fact which it 
 endeavours to establish." I believe it would be more 
 difficult to account for the testimony of the Apostles 
 respecting the resurrection of Christ, and the found- 
 ing of the Christian Church on that testimony, on the 
 supposition of its being false, than it is to account for 
 the fact of the Resurrection itself I believe it would 
 be more difficult to account for the character of Christ 
 as we have it in the Gospels, on the supposition of the 
 story being false, than it is to account for that which 
 is alleged to be supernatural in that character, includ- 
 ing His supernatural person and His supernatural 
 works. 
 
 A more ^^'c ^rc not, then, prepared to surrender miracles 
 rational ex- j^ j|-,g yag-ue chargc that they are to be ascribed in 
 
 planation. o o j 
 
 the lump to imposture or superstition, or to a 
 
 credulous misreading of natural events. The general 
 
 faith in the supernatural and marvellous is capable of 
 
 a more rational and philosophical explanation than 
 
 .. The this. " I am firmly persuaded," says Coleridge, " that 
 
 ^Bohn'i' "° doctrine was ever widely diffused among various 
 
 Edit.p. 286. nations, through successive ages, and under different 
 
 religions, which is not founded either in the nature of 
 
 things, or in the necessities of human nature." " The 
 
 Bamfiton love and belief of the supernatural," says Dr. Mozley, 
 
 ^Mh-ZleT "^^'is flourished successively upon heathen, upon 
 
 Christian, and upon scientific material; because in 
 
 truth it is neither heathen, nor Christian, nor scientific. 
 
 Root in but human. Springing out of the common stock of 
 
 namre. humanity, which is the same in all ages, it adapts itself 
 
 to the belief, the speculations, and the knowledge of 
 
 "Discourse its own day." "The propensity of men to believe in 
 
 E2'idewesqf'^\\2X is Strange and marvellous," says a writer of 
 
 KeJiHo'nr another school, Dr. Channing, " though a presumption 
 
THE ROOT OF FAITH IN LEGENDS. 8/ 
 
 against particular miracles, is not a presumption 
 against miracles universally, but rather the reverse; 
 for great principles of human nature have generally a 
 foundation in truth." The great beliefs of mankind 
 certainly have such foundation. And the only 
 sufficient explanation of the common faith of men in 
 the supernatural or miraculous, is that it springs from, 
 or at least is nourished by, a deep and ineradicable 
 instinct of our nature. 
 
 The argument against the credibility of miracles is rre-^umption 
 thus turned into an argument in favour of it. "It is '"mfracils" 
 very unphilosophical," says Dr. Channing, "to assume "Discourse 
 this prmciple (of credulity and superstition) as ^Xi Evidetices of 
 explanation of all miracles whatever. I grant that the K^fJioL" 
 fact, that accounts of supernatural agency so generally 
 prove false, is a reason for looking upon them with 
 peculiar distrust. Miracles ought on this account to 
 be sifted more than common facts. But if we find 
 that a belief in a series of supernatural works has 
 occurred under circumstances very different from 
 those under which false prodigies have been received, 
 under circumstances most unfavourable to the opera- 
 tion of credulity, then this belief cannot be resolved 
 into the common causes which have blinded men in 
 regard to supernatural agency. We must look for 
 other causes, and if none can be found but the actual 
 existence oi the miracles, then true philosophy binds 
 us to believe them." 
 
 This is not the place to show that a comparison of what a 
 the Biblical miracles with the prodigies of mythology o°f'BibHcai' 
 and of confessedly legendary history, and even of mfracie" 
 medieval and Romish story, instead of leading us ^""J^ '^^^d 
 to dismiss both as fictions or follies, would lead 
 to the conviction of an essential difference. Our 
 
SS HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 present concern is only to dispute the dictum that 
 all miracles are to be rejected as the fruit of super- 
 stition or imposture. And our conclusion is that 
 the world-wide disposition to believe in the miracu- 
 lous is a presumption not against, but in favour of, 
 miracles. 
 
( 89 ) 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE NECESSITY AND PROBABILITY OF A SUPER- 
 NATURAL REVELATION. 
 
 We have now reached the conclusion that there is a The 
 
 conclusions 
 
 Supernatural Existence, a Supernatural Being, in reached in 
 whom we find the First Cause of all things, and to preceding 
 whose intelligence and power we ascribe all the order "^ ap'er^ 
 and manifold adaptations of nature. We have en- 
 deavoured to ascertain some at least of the attributes 
 of this Great Being, as manifested in the material 
 creation and in our own moral constitution. We 
 have insisted especially on His Personality, and His 
 moral attributes of Righteousness and Benevolence. 
 Admitting the constancy of the action of Natural Law, 
 we cannot find, as we have seen, in such constancy, 
 any presumption against supernatural action, if only 
 there exist strong moral reasons for a special divine 
 interposition ; and in the common beliefs of mankind 
 that such interposition does take place, or has taken 
 place, how much soever of superstition and credulity 
 there may be found in them, we see the fruit of a 
 deep-seated instinct of our nature. 
 
 Before we proceed to inquire whether there be any 
 evidence, and sufficient evidence, that God has 
 
90 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Man's 
 
 Need of a 
 Special 
 Revela- 
 tion. 
 
 revealed Himself and His Will to mankind otherwise 
 than by His visible works and by the human con- 
 science, it will be of service to consider man's need 
 of such further and special revelation, and the pro- 
 bability of its being given. 
 
 Man's need 
 seen in the 
 stale of 
 Heathen- 
 dom. 
 
 Rom. i. 
 
 Whether 
 
 primitive 
 
 or a 
 
 degeneracy. 
 
 If Mono- 
 theism the 
 primitive 
 faith. 
 
 The state of Heathendom, ancient and modern, 
 affords the broadest and most palpable evidence that 
 man needs to be taught by God, who and what He is, 
 in other ways than by what we call Nature. Whether 
 that state is a condition of degeneracy, as the Apostle 
 Paul taught, from one in which primitive men " knew 
 God ; " or whether it is itself the primitive condition 
 of men, as some would say ; — in view of it the need 
 of man is painfully proved. In the former case the 
 proof is the stronger. Men knew God, the first men 
 did, the first race of men did, — whether the knowledge 
 came to them by a direct revelation from God or was 
 acquired mtuitively from their first conscious observa- 
 tion of His works, — they knew God. The race, on 
 this hypothesis, began its existence in a most favour- 
 able condition. And even without supposing any 
 subsequent or successive revelations, it had the means 
 of preserving and perpetuating its knowledge in those 
 glorious teachers of the eternal power and Godhead, 
 with which it was in habitual communion — the 
 heavens above, the earth beneath, and the soul within. 
 But notwithstanding all, men lost the knowledge of 
 the One Living and True God, and degenerated into 
 idol-worship, often of the most grotesque and loath- 
 some kind. This the Apostle Paul ascribes to moral 
 causes, and no other sufficient explanation has ever 
 been found. P.ut be the explanation what it may, 
 
th 
 
 eism. 
 
 OUR NEED OF A REVELATION. QT 
 
 the fact remains, and, in view of it, man's need of a 
 supernatural revelation can scarcely be regarded as 
 doubtful. 
 
 On the other supposition, namely, that primitive irPoiy 
 men were Polytheists, and that Monotheism, or tlie 
 worship of One God, the Creator of all, is a later 
 attainment, the argument, ahhough weaker, is suffi- 
 ciently strong. Men, when they first opened their 
 eyes on this beautiful world, failed, we are to suppose, 
 to rise from nature up to nature's God. They did not 
 discern His eternal power and Godhead. They were 
 mysteriously impelled to worship, by something within 
 themselves, they knew not what ; but they worshipped 
 things created, not the Creator. And there is no 
 instance known to history in which a people, once 
 idolatrous, have risen spontaneously, or without ex- 
 ternal teaching and aid, into a Monotheistic faith. 
 Sufficiently conclusive this, that men do very greatly 
 need a supernatural revelation to teach them the 
 Divine. 
 
 11. 
 
 But to us the most conclusive evidence is that Man's need 
 which is furnished by the most modern experience in most"modei^ 
 the most enlightened classes. There are those who ^•^pe"'^"". 
 reject that which we regard as a revelation. " There is 
 no revelation," they say; "there never has been; there 
 cannot be." In saying which they arrogate something 
 like a divine knowledge. But, rejecting revelation, 
 what do they know of God ? By their own confes- 
 sion, nothing. Not only is He unknown, but He is 
 unknowable. In their feeling after Him, if haply 
 they might find Him, they have come to this most 
 sad conclusion, that He is not to be found. They do 
 
92 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Agnosticism 
 proud of its 
 
 failure to 
 find out God. 
 
 Wise con- 
 duct of the 
 Northum- 
 brian 
 heathens. 
 
 Story told 
 by the 
 
 Venerable 
 Bede. 
 
 The 
 Northum- 
 brian high- 
 priest. 
 
 not venture to say that He is not, but they have not 
 found Him; and the very crown of the philosophy 
 they have reared for themselves is, that He is not to 
 be found. 
 
 The failure not merely to find out God unto per- 
 fection, but to find Him at all, should prepare men 
 to welcome light from any quarter. But Agnosticism 
 is proud, not humble — proud to have attained to this 
 high philosophic principle that God is unknowable ! — 
 proud of its ignorance, or at least that it knows its 
 ignorance to be incapable of enlightenment ! Far 
 otherwise was it with the heathens of Northumbria in 
 the sixth century, when the question was discussed 
 by the king and his nobles, whether they should accept 
 the teaching of the Culdee missionaries. "Perhaps 
 thou recollectest, O king," said a noble, " what some- 
 times happens in the wintry days, when thou art 
 seated at table with thy captains and thy warriors, 
 while a good fire is burning, and the hall is pleasant 
 and warm, but it rains, snows, and there is a high 
 wind outside. There comes a little bird, which flies 
 across the hall with fluttering wings, coming in by 
 one window and going out by another. The moment 
 of crossing is for it full of sweetness, it no longer feels 
 either rain or storm ; but that moment flies, the bird 
 passes on in the twinkling of an eye, and from winter 
 it goes back to winter again. Such," said the noble, 
 " seems to me to be man's life on the earth, and its 
 momentary flight, as compared with the length of time 
 which precedes and that which follows it. This time 
 is dark and irksome for us ; it torments by the im- 
 possibility of knowing what it is. If, then, the new 
 teaching can shed but the least light upon it for us, 
 it behoves us to follow it." The high priest of the 
 Northumbrian gods expressed a desire to hear the 
 
THE OLD NORTHUMBRIANS. 93 
 
 Christian missionary discourse more fully concerning 
 the God whom he preached. And when the sermon 
 was ended, he exclaimed, " I have long perceived that 
 what we worship is nothing; for the more earnestly 
 I have sought the truth in that system, the less I have 
 found it. But now I openly profess that in this 
 doctrine to which we have listened is contained the 
 truth which can confer on us the gifts of life and ever- 
 lasting blessedness." 
 
 So decided the high priest of Heathenism ; but a wiiat an 
 modern high priest of Naturalism would have said, %v^uid say. 
 " Not so. These missionaries profess to bring us a 
 revelation from God. There is no such revelation. 
 There can be none. The thing is impossible." To 
 which the heathen might have replied, "We have Reply to the 
 long walked in the light of our own fire, and in the '^^"°'"''- 
 sparks which we have ourselves kindled. We have 
 laboured to find out all about our lot and our end 
 in vain. We have cherished the traditions of our 
 fathers, but they give us no satisfliction. What shall 
 we do ? " And if he had known the writings of Plato, 
 and the sayings of Socrates and of other ancient 
 teachers, he might have fortified his question by 
 their longings after a higher knowledge than they had 
 attained to. But the only answer of an Agnostic to 
 his "What shall we do?" would have been, "Do 
 nothing. Be content to pass, like the bird, from 
 darkness into darkness, without knowing whence or 
 whither." But the human heart within the heathen 
 breast would have shouted, "That I cannot do. I 
 must, I will, seek, if haply I may find." 
 
 The Apostle Paul's statement— " The world by jCar.i. 
 wisdom knew not God ; " and his challenge—" Where ''"'' "' 
 is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the dis- 
 
94 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 than the 
 men of the 
 first ages. 
 
 puter of this world ? " were meant to be, and have 
 commonly been understood to be, reproachful. But 
 now they may be regarded as a eulogy on the world's 
 wisdom. Only they do not go far enough. "The world 
 by wisdom knew not God," says Paul. The world's 
 wisdom now understands that God is not to be 
 known ! 
 
 A more complete demonstration of the impotence 
 of the unaided human intellect in the department of 
 Modern im- the Spiritual and divine cannot be imagined. Moderns 
 knowTe^s who rcjcct rcvclation know no more of God and 
 His relations to men, than did our Aryan forefathers 
 three thousand years ago — yea, not so much; and 
 far less than did that despised Semitic nation, the 
 Hebrew, at a period still more remote. There has 
 been no growth, no progress. On the contrary, if 
 we accept the speculations of those who consider 
 themselves the most advanced thinkers of the nine- 
 teenth century, the Aryans, from whom Hindoo, 
 Teuton, and Celt, are alike descended, were wrong ; 
 the Hebrews, from the days of Abraham nearly four 
 thousand years ago, have all been wrong; the 
 Egyptians, of whom Le Page Renouf tells us, that 
 their most ancient faith was Monotheistic, were 
 wrong ; — they were all the victims of an illusion — they 
 only thought they knew God — God is not to be 
 known ! And thus modern wisdom, or rather this 
 form of modern wisdom, instead of adding to our 
 knowledge of God, takes a sponge and blots out all 
 the knowledge possessed by the sages of Egypt and 
 India and Greece, as well as by the prophets ot 
 Palestine, as unreal and illusory. 
 
 In his 
 Hibbert 
 Lectures. 
 
MAN DIVIDED AGAINST HIMSELF. 95 
 
 III. 
 
 There is another ground on which we maintain our Man's need 
 need of a divine revelation. There are questions quSuons 
 which have been urgently asked in every age, which Natu'Je 
 Nature cannot answer, and which, if answered at ^^^^ 
 all, must be answered supernaturally. Even if men 
 had not failed, as they have, to learn ail respecting 
 God which may be learned from His works ; if they 
 had understood His eternal power and Godhead as 
 these are manifested in the visible creation, their 
 moral nature, their conscience, would awaken solici- 
 tudes on which their highest conceptions of " eternal 
 power and Godhead " could throw no light. 
 
 Ma7i is morally divided against Jiiinself. There is Schism in 
 a schism in his soul. This has been felt by thought- ™^"^^°"- 
 ful men in all ages. Long before Paul said, '■^T\\q. Kojn.vU.xq. 
 good that I would I do not : but the evil which I would 
 not, that I do ; " and " The flesh lusteth against the Gai. v. 17. 
 Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh ; " a Greek had 
 said, '' I certainly have two souls, for if there were Xenophons 
 only one, it surely could not be at the same time ^'^'' ' 
 good and bad, nor could it at the same time love 
 good and base actions, and also at the same time 
 wish some thing, and not desire to put the wish into 
 action ; but evidently there are two souls, and if the 
 good soul gets the upper hand, then good will be 
 done ; and if the evil, then shameful actions will be 
 perpetrated." 
 
 Pascal saw more clearly than most, and felt more . Pascal's 
 profoundly, the greatness of man on the one hand, thettate'of 
 and his misery on the other, to which this schism in 
 his soul points. Philosophers, he says, "inculcated 
 a notion either of absolute grandeur or of hopeless 
 degradation, neither of which is the true condition of 
 
 liumsn 
 nature. 
 
g6. HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 man. From the principles which I develop," he says, 
 "you may discover the cause of these various con- 
 trarieties which have astonished and divided mankind. 
 Now, then, consider all the great and glorious aspira- 
 tions which the sense of so many miseries is not able 
 to extinguish, and explain whether they can proceed 
 from any other cause save a higher nature. Had 
 man never fallen, he would have enjoyed eternal 
 truth and happiness ; and had man never been other- 
 wise than corrupt, he would have retained no idea of 
 truth or happiness." 
 The Biblical Pascal accepted the historical explanation which 
 
 explanation. . . . 
 
 the Bible gives of our present divided and mixed 
 moral experiences, and found in it the clue to our 
 condition, " insomuch that man is more incompre- 
 hensible without this mystery than this mystery is 
 incomprehensible to man." But reject the history 
 and mystery of inherited original sin, if you will, there 
 remains the fact of a radical evil in our nature, 
 universal and unquestionable, before which thoughtful 
 men have paused, and by which they have been 
 appalled. In its presence they have felt themselves 
 The elder bewildcrcd and helpless. And the elder Pliny, having 
 '°^" said that " Man's nature is a lie," only gave expression 
 to an extreme consciousness of man's impotence to 
 Neander's restore his nature to harmony, when he said, "The 
 "vJl'.fjt.'" best thing God has bestowed on man is the power to 
 take his own life." 
 
 Schism With this conscious schism in his own soul, man is 
 ^aild man.""^ conscious likewisc of a schism between himself and 
 God. He is not at peace with God any more than 
 with himself And the question which he has every- 
 where asked himself, and toiled in vain to answer, 
 ^"^^,j!"' is in substance — " Wherewith shall I come before the 
 
WHAT MUST I DOf 
 
 97 
 
 Urgent 
 question. 
 
 God. 
 
 Lord, and bow myself before the High God ? shall 
 
 I come before Him with burnt offerings, with calves 
 
 of a year old? will the Lord be pleased with 
 
 thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of 
 
 oil ? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, 
 
 the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul ? " There 
 
 is not a darker page in the moral or religious history 
 
 of mankind, than that which records men's efforts to 
 
 answer such questions as these, the gross conceptions Underlying 
 
 of God which they indicate, not as the Just God options of 
 
 but the Malignant — and the insane and unutterable 
 
 cruelties to which these conceptions have led. But 
 
 underneath them all, there is the deep-seated feeling of 
 
 alienation from God, of guilt and condemnation, and 
 
 the necessity of atonement. 
 
 And this feeling is not to be removed by any 
 knowledge which reason or nature can give us of the 
 eternal power and Godhead. On the contrary, as 
 Christlieb says, " The more profoundly the knowledge 
 of the Holy One penetrates the conscience, the purer 
 is the heart's desire after atonement ; but the more 
 a man seeks to find comfort in false means of ex- 
 piation, the more confused and darkened does his 
 conscience become." 
 
 That Natural Religion, even when most enlightened. Natural 
 fails to meet this, the greatest moral difficulty of cannVt^soive 
 human experience, is confessed. And the last resort ' ^ '^ '"^ 
 
 " Alodern 
 Doubt," 
 p. 92. 
 
 of those who will not be taught by God Himself, is 
 to crush down the difficulty and quench the question 
 which causes it. " Happy he," says one of this 
 class, " who can sleep amid the empty noise of the 
 threats which sometimes trouble the human con- 
 science — noise which ought no longer to be aught 
 but the rocking of the cradle." This is the language 
 of Pantheism, which recognizes no Personal Living 
 
 H 
 
 difficulty. 
 
 Renan, iti 
 Fourth 
 Hihbert 
 Lecture. 
 
98 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Judge and no future retribution — a system in which 
 conscience is a delusion, the voice of conscience a 
 delusion, the moral law a delusion, judgment a de- 
 lusion ! Happy is the man who has attained to this 
 knowledge, and can sleep on this pillow ! But it 
 is the happiness of moral death or of moral stupe- 
 The threats faction. The noisy threats of conscience are loud 
 "'^genuine"''' and terrible ; they disturb the quietude of savage and 
 Will not be civilized, of Oriental and Occidental, alike. And no 
 siienceci soporific Strong enough has yet been discovered that 
 can produce a sound sleep amidst their uproar. Men 
 will not sleep with the noise of the threats of con- 
 science in their ears. They will not be persuaded 
 that it is an empty noise, but will ask — " Whither shall 
 we flee ? What shall we do ? " 
 
 Is reveia- Shall we in these circumstances say that a super- 
 
 improbabie'? natural revelation is improbable? Improbable that 
 
 the Father of our spirits should compassionate our 
 
 ignorance and our impotence ? Teachers who deny 
 
 Renans rcvelation yet confess that " there is a touching 
 
 ■words. "^ . ... . 
 
 struggle of this poor dismherited being man, to make 
 his lot bearable," and take comfort from the thought 
 that "there is an eye looking at us, and a heart 
 which follows us." If it be so — if there be a Father 
 whose eye sees us, and whose heart loves us, why 
 should it be thought a thing incredible or improbable 
 that He should reveal Himself to His children, and 
 do for them what they cannot do for themselves? 
 If He sees us, He sees our " touching struggles," 
 our writhings to free ourselves from our bondage, and 
 If God really ]-jQ^y j^y(,}^ wc nccd His help. If He loves us as a 
 
 be our ^ 
 
 father. Father, what so likely as that He should Himself 
 render us that help without which the burdens of 
 life, and its sins, are insupportable? Regarded in 
 
ANSWER IN CHRIST. 99 
 
 tlus light, a supernatural revelation is no longer 
 improbable. In view of our condition on earth, and 
 of the divine relation to us as a Father, there can 
 be nothing more probable than that He should reveal 
 Himself, and that He should, by means above nature 
 and independent of nature, effect for us a great 
 spiritual redemption. 
 
 And, looking at the history and character of Jesus 
 Christ, there can be nothing more probable than that 
 He is the Revealer of God and the Redeemer of Christ the 
 men. If one-half of the beautiful things which even Tnd^' 
 unbelievers have written concerning Jesus Christ be ^^'^^^™^''- 
 true, and if these beautiful things are to be under- 
 stood in the plain obvious sense of the words in which 
 they are described, there is no adequate explanation 
 of the Jesus of the Evangelists but that He was all 
 that He professed to be, and all that His first dis- 
 ciples believed Him to be — the very Christ, the Son 
 of the Living God. 
 
 But in saying this I am running before my argu- appendix p. 
 ment. It remains for the Second Part of this work to ^^^ ^' 
 establish the claims of Jesus Christ 
 
APPENDIX OF NOTES TO PART FIRST. 
 
 A. Page 5. 
 
 DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE. 
 
 Demonstrative evidence is more easily understood than 
 defined in its essential character. Opening our dictionaries, 
 we find Johnsoti defining, or at least explaining, it, as "such 
 proof as not only evinces the position proved to be true, but 
 shows the contrary position to be absurd and impossible." 
 Webster says, "To demonstrate = to prove by deduction; to 
 establish so as to exclude possibility of doubt or denial." Turn- 
 ing to writers on metaphysics and logic, Locke says, " Those 
 intervening ideas which show the agreement of any two others 
 are called proofs ; and where the agreement or disagreement is 
 by this means plainly and clearly perceived, it is called demon- 
 stration." Playfair : "Direct or positive demonstration, that 
 which concludes with the direct or certain proof of the pro- 
 position in question. — Indirect or negative demonstration, that 
 which proves a proposition to be true by showing that the 
 supposition of its falsity involves an absurdity ; called also 
 reductio ad absurdutu?'' 
 
 I do not know that the difference between demonstrative 
 and moral evidence, can be better explained than it is by an 
 author now seldom consulted, Dr. George Campbell, in his 
 '■^Philosophy of Rhetoric" {Book I. ch. v.): "All rational or 
 deductive evidence is derived from one or other of these two 
 sources : from the invariable properties or relations of general 
 ideas ; or from the actual, though perhaps variable, connexions 
 subsisting among things. The former we call demonstrative, 
 the latter moral. Demonstration is built on pure intellection, 
 and consisteth in an uninterrupted series of axioms. . . . It 
 
AIPENDIX OF NOTES TO PART I. 1 01 
 
 is solely coin>ersant about number and extension, and about 
 those other qjialities tuhich are meastirable by them. Sitch 
 are dicration, velocity, and weight. With regard to such 
 quahties as pleasure and pain, virtue and vice, beauty and 
 deformity, though they admit degrees, yet, as there is no 
 standard or common measure by which their dififerences and 
 proportions can be ascertained and expressed in numbers, they 
 can never become the subject of demonstrative reasotting." As 
 to the most important diiTerences between moral and demon- 
 strative reasoning. Dr. Campbell enumerates : (i.) A difference 
 in their subjects. (2.) Moral evidence admits degrees, demon- 
 stration does not. (3.) In the one (demonstration) there can 
 never be any contrariety of proofs ; in the other, there not only 
 may, but almost always is. (4.) Demonstrative evidence is 
 simple, consisting of only one coherent series, every part of 
 which depends on the preceding, and, as it were, suspends the 
 following ; moral evidence is generally complicated, being in 
 reality a bundle of independent proofs. 
 
 The subject is discussed in other ways by modern writers on 
 logic and metaphysics, such as J. Stuart Mill {Book II. ch. v. 
 and vi.) and Dr. Noah Porter (" Elements of Intellectual 
 Science" Part III.), but not with results practically different. 
 
 The term " Demonstration," it need scarcely be added, is 
 often used in a less rigid and more popular sense, as when 
 Tillotson says, " Which way soever we turn ourselves, we are 
 encountered with clear evidences and sensible demonstrations 
 of a Deity ; " and as in the title of a tractate, which forms part 
 of Jeremy Taylor's " Ductor Dubita7ttium" — "An Instance of 
 Moral Demonstration ; or, A Conjugation of Probabilities, 
 proving that the Religion of Jesus Christ is from God." 
 
 B. Page 8. 
 
 NECESSARY TRUTHS. 
 
 The truths which are called " Necessary," are variously 
 designated Intuitions, Intuitive truths. First principles. Ele- 
 mental laws of thought, Fundamental laws of human belief, 
 etc. They are divided into Formal, Mathematical, and Real. 
 Their characteristics or philosophical criteria are — Their 
 universahty, their necessity, and their logical independence 
 
102 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 and originality. (See Porter's " Elements of Intellectual Science," 
 Fart IV.) 
 
 Dr. McCosh (" Intuitions of the Mind," Book III.) describes 
 " the relations intuitively observed by the mind," as — The Rela- 
 tions of Identity ; of Whole and Parts ; the Relations of Space ; 
 of Time ; of Quantity ; of Resemblance ; of Active Property ; 
 and the relation of Cause and Effect. 
 
 The intuitions with which our argument has to do are : (i.) 
 That which perceives in the adaptations of means to ends the 
 presence of a Designing Mind. At least, it is difficult to account 
 for the immediateness, and at least almost universality, of this 
 perception, except by ascribing it to an intuition. " A son of 
 the desert, being asked how he came to beheve that a God 
 existed, replied that he knew it as he knew from traces on the 
 sand that a beast or a man had passed." (2.) The principle of 
 causation, or that which demands a cause for every effect. 
 Whether any phenomenon before us is an effect may be the 
 subject of question. But there are many phenomena about 
 which no question can be asked ; and for these an adequate 
 cause must be found. The characteristics of an effect have 
 already been stated. (3.) The intuitive conviction of right and 
 wrong — the universal conscience. " Surely the God who im- 
 planted this conscience must Himself love the good which it 
 would lead us to love, and hate the evil which it would impel 
 us to hate. This moral power in man manifests itseh" in leading 
 us to cherish a conviction of obligation to a law above itseh, 
 independent of itself and of the mind which looks to it, and 
 having authority or right to enjoin and forbid." 
 
 For a defence of the truths which are called Necessary, as 
 being really necessary and intuitional, in reply to what is 
 called the " associational school," and to those who would 
 ascribe them to experience, the reader may consult the work of 
 Dr. Porter, already named. 
 
 C. Fage 16. 
 
 ON PANTHEISM. 
 
 For discussions on Pantheism, the reader may be referred to 
 Hodge's ''Systematic Theology," vol. t.j McCosh's ''Method oj 
 the Divine Government^' and his " Intuitijns oj the Mind; " 
 
APPENDIX OF NOTES TO PART I. 1 03 
 
 Calderwood's '■'■Handbook of Moral Philosophy^'' chap. Hi.; and 
 "■Half Truths and the Trtith," by J. M. Manning, D.D., 
 Boston, U.S. 
 
 Pantheism is " the doctrine that God includes all reality, and 
 is identical with it, nothing besides Him really existing. To use 
 the Greek phrase. He is rh tu kuI to -nuv — the One and the All. 
 Spinoza's way of stating it is, ' Besides God, no substance can 
 exist, or be conceived to exist.' The doctrine thus enunciated 
 will be made clearer, perhaps, by comparing it with Theism and 
 Atheism. The Theist separates nature from God, in his system, 
 and recognizes the existence of both ; the Atheist starts from 
 nature, and denies the existence of God ; the Pantheist starts 
 from God, and denies the existence of nature. Atheism and 
 Pantheism seem to be in direct and necessary antagonism to 
 each other. One of them does not believe in any God, the other 
 beheves in nothing but God. This hostility is apparent rather 
 than real, however, at least in its religious aspect ; it is not so 
 much in ideas as in language. When the Atheist has explained 
 what he means by the word nalure, and the Pantheist defines 
 that which he chooses to call God, it is often clear that they both 
 mean the same thing ; that they occupy common ground in 
 their attitude towards Christianity, although their methods of 
 philosophizing may be opposite. One denying nature, and the 
 other everything but nature, it is clear that they must alike 
 reject the supernatural.^' — Ma}ining,pp. 74, 75. 
 
 Apart from all rational and philosophic arguments against 
 Pantheism, the moral argument is conclusive. We are intui- 
 tively conscious of our individuality or personality and free 
 agency, and of the essential distinction between moral good and 
 evil. But on Pantheistic principles all this is a delusion. There 
 is no such thing as sin or as responsibility. The sinful acts and 
 passions of men are as much the states and acts of God as the 
 holiest acts and feelings. Such conclusions are boldly avowed 
 by many expounders of Pantheism. "All things that exist" — I 
 quote from myself — " including man and all his doings, are but 
 manifestations of the activity of that 'All' which is God. 
 Freedom of the will is a phantom. All things and all persons 
 are ruled by the iron sceptre of Fate. Nero is as much a phe- 
 nomenal manifestation of God as St. John. The wicked are 
 only a form of His self-manifestation ; sin is only a form of His 
 
104 HA.VDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 activity, God is everything ; and if there be a Satan, God is 
 Satan ; and evil is as properly deified as good." — " Brief Defence 
 of Stipernatiiral CJiJistianity. " 
 
 It is one who had escaped from Pantheism, both as a specu'- 
 lation and as a practical principle, that wrote these strong words : 
 — " The doctrine which would subvert the indestructible barrier 
 raised in every human breast between light and darkness, the 
 doctrine which declares the eternal difference between good and 
 evil to be a lie, is itself a lie from the bottomless pit. . . . Let the 
 doctrine of one substance suffice to explain nature and the world ; 
 let it banish spirits, and annihilate space and time with their 
 perceptions ; still the httle heart of man, with its infinitude of 
 wants and longings, is ani enigma which that doctrine cannot 
 solve ; it has maladies which that doctrine cannot cure." — Tho- 
 luck, 171 " Giiido and Julius^' pp. 28, 29. 
 
 D. Page 19. 
 ON MATERIALISM, 
 
 " The fundamental affirmation of Materialism is, that all the 
 phenomena of the universe, physical, vital, and mental, are to be 
 referred to unintelligent physical forces ; and its fundamental 
 negation is that there is no such objective entity as mind or 
 spirit. If, therefore, it can be shown that unintelligent force 
 cannot account for all the phenomena of the universe, and that 
 there is such an objective entity or substance as mind, the theory 
 is refuted." — Hodge., i. p. 275. 
 
 We have shown, or endeavoured to show, that " unintelligent 
 force cannot account for all the phenomena of the universe." 
 " Materialism not only fails to reach a primary source of finite 
 existence, but, at -the opposite extreme, it fails to harmonize the 
 complex facts oi knotuti existence. Intelligence may be taken as 
 the highest of these facts, with which to test the adequacy of the 
 Materialistic doctrine. Intellect starts the problem, and the 
 solution must at least carry an explanation of such powers as 
 belong to the investigator. Let us say that matter and force 
 conjointly produce intelligence, or that one of the two is com- 
 petent to originate this high type of being. How can thought 
 interpret and accept the possibility .-' Either the cause need not 
 be adequate to produce the effect, and we are reduced to Hume's 
 
APPENDIX OF NOTES TO PART I. I05 
 
 maxim, 'Anything may produce anything,' which is a mere 
 utterance of scepticism, or avowal of absolute ignorance, 
 amounting to an abandonment of the problem, in face of the 
 natural demands of intelligence ; or, there is that in the cause 
 which is competent to produce the effect, in which case force is 
 more than material ; or Personal Intelligence is the fountain of 
 dependent personality, and the Materialistic position is aban- 
 doned." — Calderwood's " Handbook of Moral Philosophy,^'' 
 p. 236. 
 
 As to the Materialistic denial of " such an objective entity or 
 Gubstance as mind," and the identification of mind with the 
 brain. Professor Tyndall, while asserting that " thought, as exer- 
 cised by us, has its correlative in the physics of the brain," 
 maintains, at the same time, that thought and the action of the 
 brain cannot be identified : — " The passage," he says, " from the 
 physics of the brain to the corresponding facts of consciousness 
 is unthinkable. Granted that a definite thought and a definite 
 molecular action in the brain occur simultaneously ; we do not 
 possess the intellectual organ, nor apparently any rudiment of 
 the organ, which would enable us to pass, by a process of reason- 
 ing, from the one phenomenon to the other. They appear 
 together, but we do not know why. Were our minds and senses 
 so expanded, strengthened, and illuminated, as to enable us to 
 see and feel the very molecules of the brain ; were we capable 
 of following all their motions, all their grouping, all their electric 
 discharges, if such there be ; and were we intimately acquainted 
 with the corresponding states of thought and feeling, — weshguld 
 probably be as far as ever from the solution of the problem, 
 How are these physical processes connected with the facts oi 
 consciousness ? The chasm between the two classes of pheno- 
 mena would still remain intellectually impassable. Let the 
 consciousness of love, for example, be associated with a right- 
 handed spiral motion of the molecules of the brain, and the 
 consciousness of hate with a left-handed spiral motion. We 
 should then know when we love that the motion is in one direc- 
 tion, and when we hate that the motion is in the other, but the 
 Why.?' would still remain unanswered." — '■'■The Athe7iautn^' 
 Aitgust 29, 1868. 
 
 We are entitled to go farther, and to say that mental attributes 
 and states are so dififerent from the attributes and states of 
 
I06 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 matter, that they cannot be accounted for except on the hypo- 
 thesis that they belong to an essentially different entity or 
 substance. 
 
 E. Page 21. 
 
 POSITIVISM ANTI-SCIENTIFIC 
 
 " In so far as my study of what specially characterizes the 
 Positive philosophy has led me, I find therein little or nothing 
 of any scientific value, and a great deal which is as thoroughly 
 antagonistic to the very essence of science as anything in 
 ultra-montane Cathohcism. In fact, M. Comte's philosophy in 
 practice might be compendiously described as Catholicism inmus 
 Christianity." — Professor Huxley, in " Lay Sermons" 6ih Edit., 
 p. 140. 
 
 F. Page 26. 
 
 MAX MULLER AND MR. CONDER ON BUDDHISM. 
 
 " As to Atheism," says Professor Max Miiller, "it cannot be 
 denied that, if we call the old gods of the Veda — Indra and 
 Agni and Yama — gods, Buddha was an Atheist. He does not 
 believe in the divinity of these deities. What is noteworthy is 
 that he does not by any means deny their bare existence, just 
 as little as St. Augustine and other Fathers of the Church en- 
 deavoured to sublimize, or entirely explain away, the existence of 
 the Olympian deities. The founder of Buddhism treats the 
 old gods as superhuman beings, and promises the believers that 
 they shall, after death, be reborn into the world of the gods, and 
 shall enjoy divine bliss with the gods. Similarly he threatens 
 the wicked that, after death, they shall meet with their punish- 
 ment in the subterranean abodes and hells, where the Asuras, 
 Sarpas, Nagas, and other evil spirits dwell — beings whose 
 existence was more firmly rooted in the popular belief and 
 language, than that even the founder of a new religion could 
 have dared to reason them away." — ^^ Lecture on Nihi/ism," p. 6. 
 
 It is still difficult to ascertain, with any certainty, the true rela- 
 tion of Gautama (Buddha) to rehgion and religious thought. It 
 may be accepted that he did not believe in One Supreme God, 
 
APPENDIX OF NOTES TO PART I. 107 
 
 Creator and Ruler of all. But it must likewise be accepted that 
 he was far from being a mere Naturalist, as Professor Max 
 Miiller's statement, just quoted, shows. Buddhism was a revolt 
 against the religious and social tyranny of Brahmanism. " But," 
 as the Rev. E. Conder says, "Just as Positivism, by its fantastic 
 apparatus of church, priesthood, sacraments, and ritual, and 
 the peevish resentfulness manifested when its right is questioned 
 to wear the dress and use the language of religion, bears witness 
 to the necessity and difficulty of filling up the immense void 
 it has made ; so the history of Buddhism, in its assumption 
 of religious forms, in its alliance with various systems of 
 heathenism, in the tendency to deify Gautama himself, and in 
 those modifications of his doctrine which have even transformed 
 Nirvana into Paradise, bears witness to the strength of those 
 very instincts and yearnings of human nature, which, as a system, 
 it ignores." — " The Basis of Faith ^ p. 438. 
 
 G. Page z^. 
 " COMPARATIVE RELIGION." 
 
 " The study of them (other religions) continues to be a duty, 
 full of interest and importance. The results of it will throw 
 light on the religious nature and wants of man, and show how 
 adapted Christianity is to supply those wants and satisfy that 
 nature. They will even help to give us, I believe, a better 
 understanding of Christianity itself, and a more vivid appre- 
 hension of its doctrines. 
 
 " The divine stamp, however, rebukes the view of some 
 that, by the study of the Chinese and other religions, we shall find 
 one truth of importance here and another there, and that, 
 bringing these together, we may, by an eclectic process, frame 
 a universal religion that will supersede Christianity itself I 
 must think that the comparative study of religions will dissipate 
 this imagination, and prove it to be an unsubstantial hope." — 
 " The Religions of China," by Dr. Legge, p. 287. 
 
I08 HA AW BOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 H. Page ^7. 
 
 FROM LOWER TO HIGHER OR FROM HIGHER TO 
 LOWER? 
 
 It is no small trial to the patience of honest thinkers to 
 observe how certain writers assume it to be confessed that men 
 have risen either from Atheism or from Fetichism, by degrees, 
 to Monotheism. Philosophers, like John Stuart Mill, who write 
 for men, and popular discounters of all current forms of scep- 
 ticism, like Edward Clodd, who write for children and for all 
 who are easily imposed on by confident assertion, write in this 
 fashion. They seem quite superior to the necessity of proving 
 their hypothesis, or of disproving the arguments, philosophical 
 and historical, which go to establish the contrary hypothesis. 
 
 " As far as the lamp of history can shed its ray, its witness 
 points to the belief that man began his pilgrimage on earth in 
 the morning light of his Father's smile, knowing and worshipping 
 the One Living God, Father of the spirits of all flesh, and IVIaker 
 of heaven and earth. "^ — Co7tdcr''s '■^ Basis 0/ Faith,'" pp. 28-34. 
 
 The question of man's primitive religion is part of a wider 
 question — the question, namely, of man's primitive condition, 
 savage or civilized? On this subject see the Duke of Argyle's 
 " Primeval Alajt." " Sir John Lubbock speaks of primeval 
 man as having been in a state of utter barbarism. But no one 
 speaking philosophically has a right to use such terms as 
 ' barbarism ' and ' civilization ' without some definition of their 
 meaning. What were those faculties which made the first 
 creature who possessed them ' worthy to be called man ' ? A 
 mind capable of reason, disposed to reason, and able to acquire, 
 to accumulate, and to transmit knowledge ; — this is the distinctive 
 attribute of man. The first being ' worthy to be called man ' 
 must have had such a mind. But it cannot be said of such a 
 being, on the ground merely of his ignorance of the mechani- 
 cal arts, that he was in a condition of ' utter barbarism,' if he 
 were at the same time conscious of moral obligations and 
 obedient to them. . . . This is a fundamental objection to the 
 whole scope of Sir John Lubbock's argument. It imposes an 
 impassable gulf between his premises and his conclusions." — 
 " Primeval Man," pp. 1 30-1 33. 
 
APPENDIX OF NOTES TO PART 1. IO9 
 
 Nearly thirty years ago, I wrote to the same effect in a book 
 which has been long out of print, " The Natural History of 
 Man" published by Mr. Cassell. Sir John Lubbock himself 
 says, incidentally, " The whole mental condition of a savage is 
 so different from ours, that it is often difficult to follow what 
 is passing in his mind, or to understand the motives by which 
 he is actuated." Now this " mental condition," not the know- 
 ledge of science or the possession of the mechanical arts, is the 
 true differentia between savage and civilized. 
 
 In the book which I have named, it was maintained, as 
 conclusive of the historical certainty of a primitive civilization, 
 that we have no authentic instance of a barbarous tribe emerg- 
 ing out of barbarism spontaneously, or by its own internal 
 energy, without external help and impulse. This is still true. 
 The Australians and Polynesians, as found by European dis- 
 coverers and missionaries, showed no symptoms of a tendency 
 to rise out of their low estate. And if their present condition 
 is but the continuance of the primitive condition of man, they 
 must have been in the same low estate for many thousands of 
 years. How tribes like them — and on this hypothesis all were 
 originally like them — could have risen so soon, and spon- 
 taneously, into the state of high civilization in which we find 
 Egypt and Assyria at the remotest times of which history has 
 preserved any record, is an inexplicable mystery. 
 
 I. Page 39. 
 CLASSIFICATION OF THEISTIC ARGUMENTS. 
 
 The arguments in support of the existence of an Almighty 
 God have been variously classified, but the variety is more in 
 form than in substance. Some of the arguments relate only to 
 the existence of an Almighty First Cause, some to the in- 
 telligence of this First Cause, and some to His moral character 
 and government. 
 
 Kant classified the ordinary Theistic arguments thus : Firstly, 
 the Ontological, or that derived from the very idea of the 
 Infinite, the Perfect, in the mind ; secondly, the Cosmological, 
 or that which infers from the world, as a bare existence, the 
 existence of an Absolute Being ; thirdly, the Physico-theological, 
 
I lO HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 or that from traces of Design. Discarding all these, Kant him- 
 self maintained that " the only vahd argument for the existence of 
 God, or the immortality of the soul, rests on the ground of man's 
 moral nature." 
 
 Dr. Hodge classifies the arguments as Ontological, Cosmo- 
 logical, Teleological, and Anthropological. 
 
 1. The Ontological argument is that which is commonly 
 known as the ct, priori, and has been used with slight modifica- 
 tions from the days of Anselm. It is an argument from cause 
 to effect — that from effect to cause being d, posteriori. The 
 form in which it is commonly discussed is that of Dr. Samuel 
 Clarke in his " Demonstration of the Being atid Attributes oj 
 God," published in 1705. Dr. Clarke attached much impor- 
 tance to this argument. But it is very difficult to make it 
 intelligible, and from this it may be inferred that it cannot 
 possess much practical force. 
 
 2. The Cosmological argument, when separated from the 
 Teleological, is the argument from the world considered simply 
 as an effect, to a great First Cause, of which, or of whom, it is 
 the effect. Syllogistically stated, the argument stands thus : 
 Every effect must have a cause ; The world is an effect ; There- 
 fore the world must have had a cause, — a cause outside of itself, 
 and adequate to account for the effect. In sustaining this argu- 
 ment, the proper meaning of the terms "cause" and "effect" 
 must be determined. Dr. Hodge adduces three arguments to 
 prove that the world is an effect ; that is, that it is not self- 
 existent and eternal : {a) That all its parts are dependent and 
 mutable, {b) The Historical argument. " We have historical 
 evidence, for example, that the race of man has existed only 
 a few thousand years. That mankind has existed from eternity 
 is absolutely incredible. Even if we adopt the development 
 theory, it affords no relief. It only substitutes millions for 
 thousands of years." Man must have had a beginning. And 
 this beginning must have been an effect, (c.) The Geological 
 argument. Geology shows us that all the external plants and 
 animals on the earth began to be. And if they began to be, 
 they must be regarded as effects, and as such they must have 
 had a cause. These arguments, Historical and Geological, are 
 really illustrations of the first argument, that all the parts of 
 this world are dependent and mutable. We cannot conceive 
 of an infinite succession of contingent events. Such events 
 
APPENDIX OF NOTES TO PART I. Ill 
 
 must have had a foregoing cause, external to themselves, and 
 adequate to the production or origination of them. Even Mr. 
 John Stuart Mill says, " If the universe had a beginning, its 
 beginning, by the very conditions of the case, was supernatural ; 
 the laws of nature cannot account for their own origin." — " On 
 Positivism" p. 14. 
 
 3 The Teleological argument is the common argument from 
 design to a Designer — the main argument of Paley in his 
 " Natural Theology" and of the series of works known as the 
 " Bridgeivater Treatises." 
 
 4. 'Y\\Q Atithropological 2Jcg\xm.Qn\.. An Anthropological argu- 
 ment for the existence of an Intelligent God might include all 
 the arguments drawn from the evidences of design in the human 
 body, and in the many adaptations of the human body to the 
 external world, and in the external world to the human body. 
 But these are included in the Teleological argument. Tlie 
 Anthropological argument proper divides itself into three parts : 
 (a.) The argument from the existence of mind. Socrates used 
 it in his discussion with Aristodemus. Underlying it, is the 
 doctrine of the immateriality of mind, {p.) The argument from 
 the capacities and aspirations of the human soul. And (c.) the 
 argument from conscience, or our moral nature. Of this last I 
 have spoken in the text. 
 
 Dr. McCosh describes " the different classes of objects from 
 which we derive our idea of God," under four heads. "First, 
 There are the order and adaptation exhibited in the separate 
 material works of God." " Secondly, There are the relations 
 which the physical world bears to man, which we call the Provi- 
 dential arrangements of the Divine Government." " Thirdly, 
 There is the human soul, with its consciousness, its intelligence, 
 and Its benign feehngs." And " Fourthly, There are the mora! 
 qualities of man." In this last, the reference is particularly to 
 the conscience. 
 
 The principal arguments in Dr. McCosh's classification, it 
 will be seen, are those which we have considered in our text — 
 that from design and from the order of the universe, and that 
 from our moral nature. 
 
112 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 K. Page 45. 
 THE ARGUMENT FROM ORDER. 
 
 The argument from the order which exists on earth, and 
 throughout the universe, is accepted by men who stand in doubt 
 of the more common argument from design. Thus Dr. Car- 
 penter says, " From the time when I first began to think on the 
 subject, I had entertained a distrust of all arguments based on 
 those individual instances of adaptation of means to ends on 
 which Paley and his school built up their proofs of design." 
 " But," he says, " when, on the other hand, a distinct uniformity 
 of Plan can be shown to exist among the structures whicli 
 exhibit avast diversity of such adaptations, and still more when 
 constant uniformities of sequence exhibit themselves in the 
 developmental processes by which these diversified forms are 
 evolved, it has always appeared to me, that if, on other grounds, 
 we recognize the action of Intelligent Power in the universe, 
 our highest notions of its character are based on such evidence 
 of continuity and uniformity of action." But uniformity of Plan 
 and uniformities of sequence are proofs neither of the character 
 nor of the existence of an Intelligent Power, except so far as 
 they are proofs of intention or design. 
 
 Professor Jowett, after objecting to Paley's argument for 
 design, says, " That which seems to underlie our conception 
 l)oth of First and Final Causes, is the idea of law which we see, 
 not broken or intercepted or appearing only in particular spots 
 of nature, but everywhere and in all things. All things do not 
 equally exhibit marks of design, but all things are equally sub- 
 ject to the operation of law. . . . He who has ever thought in 
 the most imperfect manner of the universe which modern science 
 unveils, needs no evidence that the details of it are incapable of 
 being framed by anything short of a Divine Power. Art and 
 nature and science, these three, — the first giving us the concep- 
 tion of the relations of parts to a whole ; the second, of endless 
 variety and intricacy, such as no art has ever attained ; the 
 third, of uniform laws which, amid all the changes of created 
 things, remain fixed as at the first, reaching even to the 
 heavens,— are the witnesses of the Creator in the external 
 world." All this, instead of being substantially opposed to 
 
APPENDIX OF NOTES TO PART I. I13 
 
 Paley's argument, is a good re-statement of the evidences of 
 intelligent intention or design of which the external world is full. 
 
 Even Kant, who discarded the argument from traces of design, 
 and maintained that " the only valid argument for the existence 
 of God or the immortality of the soul, rests on the grounds of 
 man's moral nature," said, in a passage which has been often 
 quoted — 
 
 " There are two things of which it may be said that the more 
 we think of them, the more they fill the soul with awe and 
 wonder : the starry heavens above, and the moral law within." 
 In a later strain of reflection he says, " There are two witnesses 
 of the Being of God : the order of nature in the world, and the 
 progress of the mind of man. He is not the order of nature, nor 
 the progress of mind, nor both together ; but that which is above 
 and beyond them ; of which they, even if conceived in a single 
 instant, are but the external sign, the highest evidences of God 
 which we can conceive, but not God Himself" Now " the order 
 of nature in the world " is a " witness for God " only in so far as 
 it is a " sign " or evidence of Intelligent Design. 
 
 Again, in a " Fragment of a Moral Catechistn," we find Kant 
 proposing the following question, and giving the following answer : 
 — Question : " Has reason any grounds for believing in, as real, 
 any such Supreme Power, dealing out happiness and misery 
 according to desert and guilt, having sway over the whole phy- 
 sical system, and governing the world with the extremes! wis- 
 dom ; i.e. to hold that God IS } " Answer : " Yes ; for we 
 discern in those works of nature we can judge of, manifested, the 
 traces of a wisdom so vast and profound, that we can account for 
 it only by ascribing it to the unsearchable skill of a Creator, 
 from whom we deem ourselves entitled to expect a no less 
 admirable adjustment of the world's moral order, which latter is 
 indeed its highest harmony ; that is to say, we may one dav 
 hope to be partakers of happiness, if we do not, by our forgetful- 
 ness of duty, make ourselves unworthy of it." Now, " the traces 
 of wisdom," which Kant says can be accounted for only by 
 ascribing them to the unsearchable skill of a Creator, are 
 simply those innumerable adaptations which are comprehended 
 under the term " Design." — See " The Metaphysics of Ethics,^' 
 Edited by Dr. Calderwood, p. 301. 
 
114 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 L. Page 47. 
 BOOKS ON DESIGN. 
 
 These are almost without number. The '^ Bridgcwafer 
 Treatises " alone form a Hbrary. They are the following : — 
 
 " T/ie Adaptation of Extern il Nature to the Moral a7td Intel- 
 lectual Constitution of Alan" by Dr. Thomas Chalmers ; " On 
 the Adaptation of External Nature to the Physical Constitution 
 of Alan," by John Kidd ; " Astronomy attd General Physics 
 treated in refo-ence to Natural Theology^'' by William Whewell ; 
 ^^ Animal and Vegetable Physiology considered in reference to 
 Natural Theology" by Peter Mark Roget ; " The Hand, its 
 Mechanism attd Vital Etidozuments as evincing Design" by Dr. 
 Charles Bell ; " Geology and Mineralogy considered in reference 
 to Natural Theology" by William Buckland ; " The Power, 
 Wisdotn, and Goodness of God as manifested in the Creation of 
 Animals^'' by William Kirby ; " Chemistry, Meteorology, atid 
 the Ftmction of Digestion conside7'ed ift reference to Natural 
 Theology" by William Prout ; *' The Ninth Bridgewater 
 Treatise" by C. Babbage. 
 
 To these may be added Paley's well-known work on Natural 
 Theology ; " Footprints of the Creator" by Hugh Miller ; 
 " Typical Forms and Special Ends in Creation" by Dr. McCosh 
 and Mr. Balfour ; and " The Five Gateways of Knowledge" by 
 Dr. George Wilson. The last of these may be specially com- 
 mended to those who have little time for study. 
 
 M. Page 64. 
 INCOMPREHENSIBLE, NOT UNKNOWABLE. 
 
 " We must guard the reader against confounding the incom- 
 prehensible, that is, the unexplainable, with the unknowable. . . . 
 The that or what may be known, though we are in the profoundest 
 ignorance of the how or why. And so we can have a great deal 
 of certain knowledge of the incomprehensible. The fact of 
 gravity, the law of its variation, . . . these are abundantly 
 certain, but gravity itself is as incomprehensible as the Deity. 
 A recollection of this fact, that the incomprehensible is not the 
 
APPENDIX OF NOTES TO PART I. I I 5 
 
 unknowable, will break the force of many of Mr. Spencer's 
 weightiest arguments. . . . 
 
 " As in the case of matter, while insisting upon a real know- 
 ledge of God, we do not claim a complete one. We do not 
 pretend to say hozv He does this or that, but that He does this or 
 that. We do not claim to give a rationale of the Divine nature 
 any more than of our own. The mystery of existence is equally 
 insoluble in both ; and some facts, not some explanations, 
 are all that is known in either case. 'Who can search out 
 God unto perfection } ' has been the language of the best reli- 
 gious thinkers, from the time of Job until now. . . . All we 
 claim is that we have a real, though finite, knowledge of the 
 Deity ;.not an infinite thought, but a finite thought, about the 
 Infinite." — " The New Etiglander,^' Ja)iuary, i^j2,pp. 92, 107. 
 
 N. Pa,i;e 74. 
 
 THEORIES ON THE ORIGIN OF EVIL. 
 
 " The origin of evil, like every other beginning, shrouds itself 
 in darkness. The various theories on this subject, as well as on 
 the nature of sin, are discussed with great ability in Miiller's 
 ' Christian Doctrine of Sin.'' Leibnitz's doctrine of Optimism 
 is the most sublime attempt ever made to solve the mystery ; 
 but it cannot be so stated as not to involve this mystery, that 
 God should select a system in which evil is allowed that good 
 may come. Some would clear up this mystery and every other 
 by representing sin as mere privation ; but we never can be 
 made to believe that deceit, malignity, adultery, are mere 
 negations ; they are as positive acts as integrity, benevolence, 
 chastity. A similar objection lies against the doctrine which 
 places it in creature imperfection. All those theories which 
 proceed on the idea that evil is needful in order to call forth 
 and confirm the good, are founded on inadequate views of the 
 evil of sin, and overlook the fact that the evil quite as often 
 seduces the good, as the good overcomes the evil. The theory 
 of the sensational overcoming the moral and spiritual does not 
 embody a full statement of the facts, for there may be sin, 
 such as unbelief and pride, where there is no sensualism, and 
 it fails to show how man should have been so constituted as 
 that sensualism should prevail. The view that all sin originates 
 
Il6 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 in selfishness is not true to our nature, for there may be sin 
 where there is no formal or calculating selfishness ; and if by 
 selfishness is meant merely the rebellion of an inferior impulse, 
 we have merely the statement of the fact, but no explanation. 
 All that man can know — and this he does know — with certainty 
 is, that sin is as much a reality as moral good, and that the 
 one is made known to us by the same moral power as the other." 
 — McCoslCs '•'■ Method of the Divine Govei-nmeiit^'' p. 2,77 • 
 
 O. Page 82. 
 
 ON PROVIDENCE— ANECDOTE OF MR. THOMAS 
 CARLYLE. 
 
 " We remember as if it were yesterday a curious scene which 
 occurred in John Austin's drawing-room not long after Carlyle's 
 arrival in London (1832). The conversation turned, as was not 
 unusual among these philosophers, on the want of evidence 
 of a superintending Deity and providence in the affairs of the 
 world. Carlyle hstened in silence for some time, and at length 
 rolled forth in his broad Doric dialect : ' That would be to 
 reduce the infinite creative music of the universe to the mono- 
 tonous clatter of an enormous mill, swung by the stream of 
 chance and floating upon it — a mill without a builder or a 
 miller — grinding itself with a perpetual motion.' The tones 
 of the seer sounded like the voice of doom. And though it 
 was discovered the next day that the whole passage is not 
 original, but may be found in the works of Novalis, one admired 
 the spirit which hurled this defiance at the unbelievers." — 
 '■'■Edinburgh Review," January, 1^7^, p. 115. 
 
 P. Page 99. 
 
 HAS MODERN SCIENCE UNDERMINED THE 
 FOUNDATIONS OF RELIGION.? 
 
 There may be in some minds a lurking suspicion that the 
 discoveries of modern science have shaken, if not undermined, 
 the foundations of our faith. But that the suspicion is altogether 
 without warrant may be shown by an appeal to men of science 
 themselves, and by a challenge to name the discovery to which 
 any such eftect may be imputed. 
 
APPENDIX OF NOTES TO PART I. W] 
 
 Mr. Froude, in his usual recklessly sceptical style, said in a 
 recent paper that " the evidence of design in nature in proof 
 of a Designing Mind," is " a position now abandoned by advanced 
 scientific thinkers "—thinkers described by him variously as the 
 "best modem," and "the ablest." Professor Tait, of the 
 University of Edinburgh, replies in a strain of just severity in 
 the " International RevieiuT Appealing to facts, he says, " When 
 we ask of any competait authority, who were the ' advanced,' 
 the ' best,' and the ' ablest ' scientific thinkers of the immediate 
 past (in Britain), we cannot but receive for answer such names 
 as Brewster, Faraday, Forbes, Graham, Rowan Hamilton, 
 Herschell, Rankine, and Talbot. This must be the case, unless 
 we use the word ' science ' in a perverted sense. Which of these 
 great men gave up the idea that nature evidences a Desisnino- 
 Mind ? 
 
 "But perhaps Mr. Froude refers to the advanced thinkers 
 still happily alive among us. The names of the foremost among 
 them are not far to seek. But unfortunately for his assertion, 
 it is quite certain that Andrews, Joule, Clerk-Maxwell, Balfour 
 Stewart, Stokes, William Thomson, and such hke, have each 
 and all of them, when the opportunity presented itself, spoken 
 in a sense altogether different from that implied in Mr. Froude's 
 article. Surely there are no truly scientific thinkers in Britain 
 farther advanced than these." 
 
 " The assumed incompatibility of religion and science," says 
 Professor Tait, " has been so often and so confidently asserted 
 in recent times that it has come to be taken for granted by the 
 writers of leading articles, etc.," and it is, of course, perpetually 
 thrust by them broadcast before their too trusting readers. 
 But the whole thing is a mistake, and a mistake so grave that no 
 true scientific man (unless, indeed, he be literally a specialist 
 —such as a pure mathematician, or a mere mycologist oi 
 entomologist) runs, in Britain at least, the smallest risk of 
 making it." 
 
 Non-scientific persons may safely accept the autrwrity of the 
 foremost scientific men as conclusive that no discoveries have 
 been made which in any wise weaken the evidence for the 
 existence and continued government of a Supreme Intelligence. 
 The President of the Royal Astronomical Society (C. Pritchard, 
 M.A.) uttered the jud^me.^t sf many as well as his own, when 
 
Il8 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 he said, " For my own part — and I hope I say it with no affec- 
 tation — from the results of modern research, I have gathered 
 additional reasons for resting in the simplicity of the ancient 
 Christian faith ; and in modern discoveries I have found many 
 a new and unexpected trace of the Creator's majesty — of His 
 power, His wisdom, and His love." 
 
 But if mifhority be not accepted, we have a right to challenge 
 those who say that modern scientific discovery has brought 
 religion into doubt, to name the discovery which brings even 
 the shadow of danger on the fundamental doctrines of religion. 
 According to Professor Tyndall, in his " Beljast Address" the 
 two great scientific generalizations of the day are the evolution 
 theory propounded by Mr. Darwin and Mr. Wallace, and the 
 correlation of forces and the conservation of energy. Of the 
 first of these, which is still but an unproved hypothesis, and one 
 which brings with it more difficulties than it removes, it is 
 enough to say that a large number, probably the larger number, 
 of those who accept it repudiate all purely Naturalistic or 
 Atheistic inferences. They even think that the evolution theory 
 gives us loftier conceptions of Creative wisdom than the older 
 doctrine of creation. And of the second, " scientific generaliza- 
 tion" — the correlation of forces — it is enough to say that its 
 author and apostle, Mr. Justice Grove, instead of seeing in it 
 anything to account for the universe without God, concludes 
 his work with the sententious and memorable saying : "Causation 
 is the will, creation the act, of God." 
 
 There is nothing in regard to which more care is necessary 
 than the pretensions of so-called scientific theories and their 
 popular expounders. A writer in the " Edinburgh Review" dis- 
 cussing some of these some six or eight years ago, said well, 
 " During the last fifteen years, not only have special branches 
 of science been revolutionized, but science itself, the very con- 
 ception of what is scientific, appears to have undergone a serious 
 change. Instead of designating what is most vigorous, exact, 
 and assured, in human knowledge, natural science is fasl 
 becoming identified with what is most fluctuating, hypothetical, 
 and uncertain, in current opinion and belief." 
 
APPENDIX OF NOTES TO PART I. II9 
 
 Q. Page 99. 
 A CATECHISM OF SCIENTIFIC BELIEFS. 
 
 The impression is so industriously and boldly circulated, and 
 through so many channels, " grave and gay," that men of science 
 have reached definite and unquestionable conclusions, and that 
 these are irreconcilable with the first principles of religion, that 
 I venture to add to this note a brief catechism, which will show 
 how uncertain is the creed ot scientific men on subjects related 
 at once to science and to religion. I find this " catechism " 
 in the " Memorials " ot a young minister who died in Australia 
 in the end ot 1878, John Legge, M.A. ; and it might be very 
 much enlarged. " I have sometimes wondered," Mr. Legge 
 says, " at the assertion that the solid unity of opinion hes with 
 the investigators of Nature, whilst infinite division lies with the 
 theologians. I have im.agined that if a catechism of scientific 
 belief on the subjects common to both were compiled, it would 
 evince strange disunion where there is boasted unanimity. Let 
 me give a specimen of such a catechism, with the answers, 
 mostly in the ipsissima verba of our leading scientific men : — 
 
 " I. Question : Who created all things 1 
 
 '■'■ BucJmer : ' Matter and force are uncreated, and have given 
 rise to the -present order of things.' 
 
 ^^ Huxley : 'When the materialists begin to talk about there 
 being nothing else in the universe but matter and force, I decline 
 to follow them.' 
 
 " Speficer: 'The origin of things is unknowable.' 
 
 "II. Question : What is the nature of the Author of all things 
 judging from His works.? 
 
 ^'- Mill : ' It is impossible to believe that a world, so full of evil, 
 is the work of an Author combining infinite power with perfect 
 goodness and righteousness.' 
 
 ^' Lyell : ' The philosopher, without ignoring these difficulties, 
 does not allow them to disturb his conviction that whatever is is 
 right.' 
 
 " Huxley : ' We may liken life to a game of chess. The player 
 who stands behind Nature is hidden from sight, but his play is 
 always just, fair, and patient, like a calm, strong angel playing 
 for love.' 
 
120 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 "III. Question : What is the origin of life ? 
 
 " Darwin : ' Tlie Creator at first breathed life into a few fomis.' 
 
 " Sz'r IV. Thomson : ' Perhaps the first germs of life reached 
 our globe falling through the sky, on a moss-grown fragment, 
 from the ruins of another world.' 
 
 " Spencer : ' The origin of life is probably undiscoverable.' 
 
 " Dr. C. Bastian : ' Living things are being generated every 
 instant all the world over.' 
 
 " Huxley : * There is no experimental proof of spontaneous 
 generation. The doctrine that life now only springs from 
 already living creatures is triumphant.' 
 
 " IV. Question : Have men and the higher animals sprung 
 from lower ? 
 
 " Darwin : The conviction rises firm and strong ' that man was 
 descended from some lowly organized form.' 
 
 " Professor P/iii/ips : 'This hypothesis everywhere fails in the 
 first and most important step ' — want of proof. 
 
 "Ao-assiz : ' We find no indication that any animal has swerved 
 from its type.' 
 
 " Take another highly momentous question, and its scientific 
 replies : — 
 
 " V. Question : Is man a free agent, or is he fast bound in 
 fate? 
 
 "Spencer: ' Unless all that is contained in these pages (and 
 there are four hundred of them) is sheer nonsense, there can be 
 no such thing as freedom of the will.' 
 
 " Hnxley : 'In the struggle of hfe "a man's volition counts 
 for something." ' 
 
 '■''Dr. Cm-penter : ' I cannot regard myself, either intellectually 
 or morally, as a mere puppet pulled by suggesting strings.' 
 
 " We do not find the boasted unanimity on this high subject. 
 
 "As a closing question, we may ask, as the human soul has 
 from the dim and silent past always asked — 
 
 " VI. Question : Is man immortal? 
 
 " Lye/l : ' To man alone is given this belief in immortality, so 
 consonant with his reason, implanted by Nature in his soul, a 
 belief that tends to raise him morally and intellectually in the 
 scale of being.' 
 
 " Buc/tner : ' When we die we do not lose ourselves, but only 
 our personal consciousness ; we live on in Nature, in our race, in 
 our children, in our deeds, in our thoughts.' 
 
APPENDIX OF NOTES TO PART I. 121 
 
 " This, then," says Mr. Legge, " is the immortality which this 
 Goth among thinkers would give to man. The lonely wanderer, 
 who lays him down to die in the awful solitude of the bush, is 
 called to exult that he will live in the grass among his whitened 
 bones, and the flies that boom around his corpse. Let Science 
 be silent where she can only speak to shock the soul with such 
 harrowing humiliation. To surrender Christ for such a doctrine 
 as this ! It is to prefer midnight, with the crawling, slimy worm, 
 to the eternal splendours and the august societies of all that is 
 noblest in the universe." 
 
 The words of Sir John Herschell are as true as ever — " Force 
 and matter might make a chaos, but never a cosmos." And the 
 most timid student may, even on the authority of men of science, 
 " rest in the Lord." 
 
HANDBOOK 
 
 CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE HISTORIC BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 The Christian history of the beginnings of Chrlsti- i^^-i^ ". 1-7- 
 
 anity tells us that there went out a decree from Caesar vised 
 
 Augustus that all the world — a common designation 
 
 of the Roman Empire — should be enrolled ; and that 
 
 in consequence Joseph went from Nazareth, which 
 
 was his home, into the city of David, which was called 
 
 Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of 
 
 David, to enroll himself with Mary, who was betrothed 
 
 to him, — and that there in Bethlehem Jesus was born. 
 
 It tells us likewise that "in the fifteenth year of the Lukein. 
 
 reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor '' ^' 
 
 of Judaea," in the highpriesthood of Annas and Caia- 
 
 phas, " the word of God came unto John the son of 
 
 Zacharias," commonly known as "the Baptist;" and 
 
 that not long after John began his ministry of Repent- Luke m. 23. 
 
 ance, Jesus Himself, being then about thirty years of 
 
126 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 age,' began to teach. The personal ministry of Jesus, 
 thus begun, lasted about tlirce years. And from the 
 end of this brief ministry He was represented in the 
 world by men who had been His personal attendants, 
 whom He had instructed, and whom He commissioned 
 to preach His "word," and by one who was converted 
 to the faith of Him some years after His departure, 
 and who ultimately became the foremost preacher of 
 Christ among the non-Jewish nations. 
 
 Such is the story of the Christian books, and so far 
 it is plain unquestioned history. 
 
 But we shall first of all inquire what of this history, 
 or of the history of the beginnings of our faith, may be 
 gathered from non-Christian sources. 
 Tacitus. The historian Tacitus was born in the year of our 
 Lord 6 1 or 62, and died about a.d. 117. His 
 "Annals" begin with the death of Augustus, a.d. 
 14, and end with the death of Nero, a.d. 68. After 
 a description of the terrible fire at Rome in the 
 tenth of Nero, and sixty-fourth of our Lord, in which 
 a large part of the city was consumed, and after giving 
 an account of the orders for rebuilding and beautify- 
 ing it, and the methods used to appease the anger of 
 See the gods, Tacitus adds : " But neither all human help, 
 umriTXoi. ^°^ ^^ liberality of the Emperor, nor all the atone- 
 J^'; ^^.^.;/^^^ ments presented to the gods, availed to avert the 
 Latin, infamy the Emperor lay under of having ordered 
 the city to be set on fire. To suppress therefore this 
 common rumour, Nero procured others to be accused, 
 and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, 
 who were hated for their crimes, and were commonly 
 known by the name of Christians. They had their 
 name from Christus, who was put to death as a 
 criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate, in the reign 
 
HISTORIC BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. 12/ 
 
 of Tiberius. This pernicious superstition, though 
 checked for a while, broke out again, and spread, not 
 only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached 
 the city also ; whither flow from all quarters all things 
 vile and shameful, and where they find shelter and 
 encouragement. At first they only were apprehended 
 who confessed themselves of the sect; afterwards a 
 vast multitude, discovered by them : all were con- 
 demned, not so much for the crime of burning the 
 city, as for their enmity to mankind." And then 
 follows a description of the cruelties to which the 
 Christians were subjected — cruelties which led them 
 at last to be commiserated "as people who were 
 destroyed, not out of regard to the public welfare, 
 but only to gratify the savagery of one man." 
 
 Of the opinion of Tacitus that Christianity was The facts 
 a pernicious superstition, and of the only crime which \acitus. ^ 
 he specifies against them — enmity to mankind — we 
 need take no account. Our concern is with the facts 
 which he attests. And these, as well summarized by 
 Lardner, are, "That our Saviour was put to death 
 as a malefactor by Pontius Pilate, procurator under 
 Tiberius ; that from Christ the people called Chris- 
 tians had their name and sentiments ; that this super- 
 stition, or rehgion, had its rise in Judaea, where also 
 it spread notwithstanding the ignominious death of the 
 Founder of it, and the opposition which His followers 
 met with from the people of the country afterwards ; 
 that thence it was propagated into other parts of the 
 world, and as far as Rome, where in the tenth or 
 eleventh year of Nero, and before, Christians were 
 very numerous ; and that the professors of this re- 
 ligion were reproached, and hated, and underwent 
 many and grievous sufferings." Certainly, as Dr. 
 Lardner adds, the great number of Christians at 
 
I2S HA XD BOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDEXCES. 
 
 Rome at this time, and their sufferings, are very 
 observable. 
 
 Let it be noted that the statements of Tacitus in 
 regard to "Christus" and the spread of His rehgion, 
 are as absolutely and certainly historical as any state- 
 ments which the most conscientious English historian 
 could make respecting events in England at the be- 
 ginning of this century. We have the double security 
 of a love of truth and of competent knowledge. 
 DrAViiiiam "The moral dignity of Tacitus is impressed upon his 
 Dictionary works," says the \\Titer of a biographical sketch of 
 ^-^ ACwtr"^ him ; "the consciousness of a love of truth, of the 
 ^'''Y"/'^ integrity of his purpose." " The materials," says the 
 Myihoiosy, game writer, "which Tacitus had for his historical 
 "Tacitus." writings were abundant : public documents ; memoirs, 
 as those of Agrippina ; histories ; the Fasti, Orationes 
 Principum, and the Acts of the Senate ; the conversa- 
 tion of his friends, and his own experience." There 
 were not only " Acts of the Senate," but Acts of the 
 City or people of Rome, Acts of other cities, and 
 Acts of governors of provinces. These Acts were to 
 Roman authors what our Government archives are 
 to English historians. And to a man in the position 
 of Tacitus, who was the son-in-law of Julius Agricola, 
 famous for his consulship and government of Britain, 
 and who had himself held offices of honour and trust 
 under several Emperors, they were easily accessible. 
 The reign of Tiberius and the procuratorship of 
 Pontius Pilate were as well known to him as if he had 
 been an eye-witness of all that he records. 
 
 Pliny the The letters of Pliny, the Younger, contain important 
 
 ounger. jj-,fQrmation respecting the first Christians. He was the 
 
 contemporary and friend of Tacitus. In the year a.d. 
 
 io6 or 107, he was appointed by the Emperor Trajan 
 
HISTORIC BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. 1 29 
 
 to the government of Bithynia, and there he found 
 himself confronted with a difficulty owing to the pre- 
 valence of Christianity. He made his appeal con- 
 sequently to his master for instructions. And from 
 his letter we gather these facts : i. That before his See 
 arrival in Bithynia, so numerous were the Christians ttrk"'voL 
 that the temples were almost forsaken, and that there piZlydZter 
 were izw purchasers for victims to be offered in sacri- .""f^ '^''"■; 
 
 * _ _ jan s reply. 
 
 fice. The Christians were of all ages, of every rank. The 
 and of both sexes. 2. This, to Pliny, who has the '^bI'SL'" 
 reputation of having been a mild and benevolent man, 
 tvas an intolerable state of things, and he required, 
 even with torture, those who were brought before him, 
 to worship the Emperor's image and the statues of 
 the gods. 3. Those who denied that they were Chris- 
 tians, or who, having been Christians, were so no 
 longer, were set at liberty. Those who refused to 
 invoke the gods were sent away to die because of 
 their obstinacy. 4. Notwithstanding all the severity 
 with which he made inquisition, Pliny could discover 
 no proper crime or moral delinquency on the part 
 of the Christians. 5. What he ascertained shall be 
 stated in his own words : " They [those who were 
 charged before him] affirmed that the whole of their 
 fault or error lay in this, that they were wont to meet 
 together on a certain day before it was light, and sing 
 among themselves alternately a hymn to Christ as 
 God, and bind themselves by an oath [sacramentum] 
 — not to the commission of any wickedness, but — not 
 to be guilty of theft, or robbery, or adultery, never to 
 falsify their word, nor to deny a pledge committed 
 to them, when called upon to return it When these 
 things were performed it was their custom to separate, 
 and then to come together to a meal, which they ate 
 in common, without any disorder." On receiving 
 
points. 
 
 130 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 this account Pliny "judged it the more necessary to 
 examine, and that by torture, two maidservants [an- 
 cilla^], who were called ministers \7ninistrce, probably 
 deaconesses]." " But," he adds, " I have discovered 
 nothing beside a bad and excessive superstition." 
 Significint The points bearing on our present argument are 
 these : 1. By the end of the first century the Christians 
 were numerous in different parts of the Roman 
 empire, — in Rome according to Tacitus, in the 
 Asiatic province of Bithynia according to Pliny, 2. 
 AVho the Christians were was so well known that 
 Pliny does not consider it necessary, when writing 
 to his Emperor, to say one word by way of explanation. 
 Tacitus, in writing history, did explain. Pliny was 
 writing a letter to one who needed no explanation. 
 
 3. It follows that Christianity was not of yesterday. 
 It must have been in Bithynia for many years to have 
 produced the effects on the idolatry of the region 
 which Pliny attests. And this corroborates the state- 
 ment of Tacitus that it was some seventy years before 
 this, in the reign of Tiberius, that Christ was crucified. 
 
 4. Incidentally, in reporting what the Christians said 
 of themselves, Pliny gives us important information 
 as to how the Christians regarded Christ. "They 
 sang hymns to Him as to God." The words "Quasi 
 Deo," are translated by some, " as to a god," and by 
 others, " as to some god." The literal translation 
 is, " as to God." But, if we admitted any other, the 
 fact would remain, that these Bithynian Christians 
 worshipped Christ, or offered to Him Divine praise. 
 The fear of torture and death could not induce them 
 to worship the image of the Emperor or the statues 
 of the gods, or do aught that savoured of idolatry, but 
 they sang hymns to Christ as to God. 
 
 We now combine the testimony of Tacitus and 
 
HISTORIC BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. 131 
 
 Pliny. The one tells us of His death as a malefactor 
 in the days of Tiberius ; the other tells us that His 
 followers, according to their own statements, were 
 accustomed to worship Him. 
 
 We need not follow this inquiry farther. Even 
 if the Evangelist Luke had not told us, we should 
 have known from the Historian Tacitus, that the 
 Author of our faith lived in the reign of the Roman 
 Emperor Tiberius, and died a shameful death by the 
 sentence of the Roman procurator Pontius Pilate. 
 There is 710 obscurity, then, about the origin of Ciiris- origin of 
 tianity. Its fountain opens under the clear light of an hi'stonc"^ 
 iiistoric age. The fact is attested by men who were 
 altogether unconscious of the service which their pens 
 were rendering to after ages. 
 
 But where shall we find the history of the " Christus" 
 whose name appears in the Roman annals of Tacitus 
 — the history of His birth, His life, His teaching, His 
 actions ? And where shall we find the history of the To whom 
 spread of His name and faith, of which, as a notorious ^ ^^for\*he"'^ 
 fact, Tacitus and Pliny inform us? Christ must (jhrS?^ 
 have had a personal history ; the spread of His name 
 and faith must have had a history. Where shall we 
 find it "^ To whom shall we look as the fit historians ? 
 Not certainly to men who regarded Christianity as 
 a pernicious superstition, as did Tacitus and Pliny. 
 Nor to Seneca, illustrious as he was, who was probably, 
 if he thought of the matter at all, of the same mind. 
 His brother Gallio saw nothing in the conflict between 
 Jews and Christians but "a question of words and Acts-xviu. 
 names," and of the law of the Jews ; and not only did 
 he decUne to be judge of such matters, but, magistrate 
 as he was, he " cared for none " of the violence which 
 
13- HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 the Greeks inflicted on the Jews. Seneca and Paul 
 
 died about the same time, and both fell victims to 
 
 the same tyrant's rage. But the Stoic philosopher 
 
 could have no sympathy with the Christian Apostle. 
 
 See Bishop Hc was a Wealthy courtier and statesman in the 
 
 iviiiippiaZ metropolis, while Paul was only a poor and homeless 
 
 '^st%tl preacher wandering in distant provinces. And they 
 
 amiseneca. ^^^^^ more widcly Separated still by the spirit of their 
 
 several faiths. The proud and self-sufhcient Stoic 
 
 would scarcely "care" even to consider whether 
 
 Paul's doctrine was worthy of a thought. 
 
 To whom then shall we look for a history of the 
 " Christus " who, according to Tacitus, died as a 
 malefactor in the reign of Tiberius, and of the growth 
 of faith in Him, in spite of all opposition, until be- 
 lievers in Him were so numerous, seventy years after, 
 that governors of provinces, like Pliny, were perplexed 
 to know how to deal with them ? The answer is 
 To His obvious : To those who had personal knowledge of 
 toiiowTrs. Him and of the events which followed His death and 
 alleged resurrection, and who had sympathy with all 
 that bore His name. None but such were competent 
 to write the history. If by industry and painstaking 
 it was possible for non-believers to collect information 
 on the subject, they would still not only lack a motive 
 to undertake the necessary trouble, but would be 
 incapable of correctly representing matters so foreign 
 to their own habits of thought. Only the followers of 
 Christ, and those personally in sympathy with them, 
 could be expected to write the history. And it were 
 incredible that they should neglect to do so. They 
 risked life, and sacrificed all that is commonly valued 
 in this life, to maintain and spread what Ave now call 
 Christianity. It is not possible that they should have 
 failed to write, for the benefit of their own and after 
 
HISTORIC BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. I 33 
 
 ages, the story of what they beheved to be in the 
 truest sense Divine. 
 
 Have we then histories that purport to be original 
 records of the Christ, and that were accepted by His 
 earhest followers as written by those who had com- 
 petent knowledge and a personal faith in what they 
 wrote? We have — in what are known as the Four 
 Gospels, and in that which is a supplement to the 
 Gospels, the book known as the Acts of the Apostles. 
 And the following outline of argument should suffice 
 to establish confidence in these histories. 
 
 1. There are no rival hisfo?-ics. The Four Gospels No rival 
 are the only histories of Christ that exist or are known 
 
 to have been ever generally acknowledged as such. 
 Critics may please themselves by cutting out of them 
 what they don't like, and then calling the residuum 
 the true history. But this is a proceeding at once 
 unreasonable and arrogant, and in which those who 
 perpetrate it do not agree among themselves. You 
 may invent a thousand theories, but there is only one 
 history. The Apocryphal Gospels, so called, belong 
 to a later age, are utterly puerile, and are in no sense 
 the rivals of the Canonical Gospels. 
 
 2. The Four Gospels and the Acts are traceable to The Gospels 
 the very age hi which the events recorded in them were into^the first 
 transacted and p?'eached to the world. It can be proved "^^'""'^• 
 beyond reasonable question that these writings are 
 
 not the productions of a later age. But here the FnrafuU 
 proof must be confined to a few sentences. settingforth 
 
 ■I _ oj the frooj, 
 
 (a) Irenaeus describes the four Gospels which were •J''<'//«'. 
 
 , ' . . . -^ authors 
 
 universally received by the Christian Churches of his took—" riie 
 day as the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and their Age 
 John, in such a way that no one doubts but that they 'j^'>, "rJce'd 
 were the Gospels now in our hands. He likewise Fourth 
 describes "The Acts " as written by Luke, the author %%7,Jt"/" 
 
134 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 irena;us. of the third Gospcl. Now Irenceus was born about 
 A.D. 126 and died about a.d. 202. In a.d. 177, he 
 became Bishop in Lyons. But in youth he had sat at 
 the feet of Polycarp in Smyrna, Polycarp having been 
 a personal disciple of the Apostle John ; and on be- 
 coming Bishop in Lyons he succeeded Pothinus, who 
 was born about a.d. 87, a considerable period before 
 the death of the Apostle John. The Gospels which 
 Irenseus ascribes to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, 
 must have been in existence, and believed to have 
 been written by these authors, from the earliest period 
 of his recollection. They must likewise have been 
 so regarded by his master Polycarp, of whom and 
 of whose teaching he had a distinct recollection when 
 he wrote, and by his predecessor Pothinus. If they 
 had come into existence after the days of Polycarp 
 and Pothinus, or if they were not positively known to 
 have been in existence in their days, Irenseus could 
 not have written of them as being in his time, and 
 having ever been, acknowledged as the writings of 
 those whose names they bear. ^Ve thus trace them 
 into the first century — Polycarp having been born 
 about A.D. 69, and being at least thirty years of age 
 at the time of the death of his teacher, the Apostle 
 John. 
 Justin ip) Justin Martyr was born between a.d. 103 and 
 
 ^iartyr. ^^g^ ^^^ ^j^^ ^^^ ^gg ^^ ^g^^ ^^^ ^^^^ ^j^^^ ^^^ 
 
 contemporary of Polycarp, who died a.d. 155 or 156, 
 possibly for fifty years, certainly for thirty-eight. Justin 
 quotes largely from " Memoirs" which, he says, were 
 written by Apostles and their companions or followers. 
 He does not name the authors of the " Memoirs ; " 
 but the contents of the " Memoirs " which he quotes 
 correspond with the contents of our Gospels, so 
 that, even if they were different and had survived, we 
 
HISTORIC BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. I 35 
 
 should have substantially the same history of Christ 
 that we have now. But they could not have been 
 different. " Between the zvritiu^ of Justin and the '' The 
 
 ^ Gospels: 
 
 7i>riting oi Irenoeus there cannot have been more than tiu;ir Age 
 forty years, possibly not more than thu'ty. 1 hat our shi/>," etc., 
 Gospels and ?io others were in the hands of Irenceus ^'' 
 
 and universally accepted as Apostolic, we know. Now, 
 apart from the fact that the memory of Irenseus 
 covered the whole interval between him and Justin, 
 and looking only at the interval of thirty or forty 
 years, — can we imagine it possible that four Gospels 
 existing at the beginning of that period, and read in 
 the assemblies of the Churches, should have dropped 
 out of existence ; and that by the end of that period 
 other four Gospels should have taken their place in 
 universal estimation and usage, and that without any 
 protest from any Church or writer, without any record 
 of the change, or any hint that such a change had 
 taken place ? " 
 
 We have in the testimony of Irenceus and Justin These 
 
 . ^ .,..,, , testimonies 
 
 Martyr, not the isolated testimony of individuals, but not isolated, 
 the testimony of entire Christendom — that is, of the 
 then universal Christian Church — that our Four Gos- 
 pels had been received as original and authoritative 
 from a period clearly before the end of the first 
 century. 
 
 (c) This conclusion is further sustained by the fact Early 
 that by the middle of the second century, if not sooner, '""^"^ atiuns. 
 translations of the Four Gospels which are in our 
 liands existed in Syriac in the far East, and in Latin 
 among the Roman • colonists in Africa. They were 
 made independently of each other; that is, the one 
 was not made from the other. Nor were the two 
 made from the same copies of the great original. 
 This is demonstrable by the character of the trans- 
 
136 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 lations. And it follows that the copies from which 
 they were taken must have originated at a date long 
 anterior to themselves, and cannot be reasonably 
 supposed to have been later than the days of the 
 Apostle John. 
 
 Our argument might be strengthened by quotations 
 from Polycarp, Quadratus, Clement, and others, which 
 are scarcely explicable except on the supposition that 
 these authors were in possession of our Gospels, — but 
 it is complete without them, 
 
 3. Assianing now, as we are entitled to do, that our 
 Gospels were accepted in the first century as genuine 
 histories of Christ — a7id that no others were — we may 
 be sure of these tivo things : (a) that they could not 
 have been so accepted unless they were in general 
 agreement with what was already known of Christ by 
 the Churches through the preaching of His Apostles, 
 and (b) that they could not have been so accepted un- 
 less they had at least an Apostolic imprimatur. The 
 history of the opposition to Paul, which is known 
 from those letters of his own which are unquestioned, 
 shows the importance and authority that were attached 
 to the Apostleship in the primitive Church. And in 
 view of it we conclude that it was scarcely possible 
 for a history of Christ to gain the confidence of the 
 Churches without the sanction, direct or indirect, of 
 an Apostle. 
 Consistent 4. The historics contained in the Gospels are con- 
 ""ki.'^ta' '^ sistent ivith what is known of the origin of Christianity 
 otherwise, y^,^^^^ ^^j^^^ sources. The reader has only to recall our 
 quotations from Tacitus and Plirfy to see that it is so. 
 The wide diffusion of Christianity in the days of these 
 Roman authors is accounted for by the command of 
 the Master, " Go into all the world and preach the 
 gospel to every creature," and by the loyal zeal of 
 
 General 
 
 acceptance, 
 
 Apostolic 
 imprimatur. 
 
HISTORIC BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. I 37 
 
 the servants to obey the Master's command, as re- 
 corded in the "Acts." 
 
 5. These histories are consiste7it tvith one another. Consistent 
 They are not one but four. Much ingenuity has been another. 
 expended on the question whether Matthew or Mark 
 
 or Luke was the earliest, especially whether Matthew 
 was before Mark or Mark before Matthew. And the 
 most opposite conclusions have been learnedly main- 
 tained. The inference is that the three are indepen- 
 dent compositions. But diverse as they are in many 
 details they give us One and the same Christ, {a) 
 They all represent Jesus, not as a Rabbi of great 
 learning and spiritual insight, but as a Messenger from 
 God. {b) They all ascribe to Him a supernatural 
 life, a life full of works of supernatural power and 
 goodness, {c) They all indicate that His person was 
 superhuman as well as His works supernatural — that 
 this was claimed by Himself and believed by His 
 disciples. Of this more hereafter. 
 
 6. These histories are consistent with non-historical wi"h non- 
 documents which are confessedly contemporary with doJ-'^uments. 
 the beginnings of Christianity. Documents of this 
 
 order — such as letters, monuments, medals, inscrip- 
 tions — are confessedly of great importance. Renan 
 regards them as more trustworthy than professed 
 histories. Now, happily we have such documents with 
 which to compare our Gospel histories. There are 
 four letters by the Apostle Paul which all critics 
 confess to be genuine — one to the Romans, two to 
 the Corinthians, and one to the Galatians. Of these 
 even Renan says that " they possess absolute authen- 
 ticity, thorough sincerity, and freedom from legendary 
 corruption." Now these letters of Paul and the Four See, /or 
 Gospels are in perfect harmony. The letters do wot Rom. i. -^U; 
 repeat or recapitulate the facts contained in the ^ 3-8."'''' 
 
I3S HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Gospels — there was no reason why they should, — but 
 
 they refer incidentally to many of them, and these 
 
 the most important, as they relate to the persoi! and 
 
 work of Jesus Christ. The Gospels contain the basis 
 
 of the entire structure which is built up in the letters. 
 
 There is not only no discordance between the two 
 
 sets of documents, but there is the most absolute 
 
 concord. 
 
 Consistent 7- The Gospcl histoiics and the Acts are co7isistent 
 
 'Kcnerat ^^ ^'^^ ^^/«^ time With all that is known otherwise of 
 
 '"on°7m°'^ contempor'ary events and contemporary modes of life. 
 
 porary Rclatins;, as they do, what took place in a Roman 
 
 events. . =" "'.',., \ 
 
 provmce — a provmce which was the scene of many 
 administrative changes between the reign of Augustus, 
 in which Jesus was born, and the reign of Nero, in 
 which Paul suffered martyrdom — there are very many 
 references which can be tested by Roman history ; 
 and it is not too much to say that the more thoroughly 
 these references have been criticised in the light of 
 the acts and decrees of Roman authority, the more 
 literally correct they are found to be. This is a 
 severe test of genuineness. It has detected the 
 spuriousness of many forgeries. But when applied 
 to our Christian histories, it confirms our foith in their 
 genuineness. 
 
 With all these reasons for faith in our Christian 
 records as genuine contemporary histories of the be- 
 ginning of Christianity, we have a right to demand 
 on what ground they can be impugned or subjected 
 Arbitrary to suspiciou. AVc kuow of nouc. Certain critics, for 
 reasons that are purely speculative and arbitrary, may 
 say — this could not have been or that could not have 
 been. But their conceptions of possibilities and im- 
 possibilities cannot be the measure of the credibility 
 
 criticism. 
 
HISTORIC BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. 1 39 
 
 of occurrences for which we have abundant historic 
 evidence. Facts are too strong to be set aside by any 
 man's unbehef or non-behef in them. 
 
 At all events this is certain, that the Gospels and 
 the Acts contain the Christian account of the begin- 
 nings of our faith — that which Avas believed by the 
 first believers in Jesus Christ and by those who first 
 preached Him to the world. So that our next concern 
 is to ascertain what they believed concerning Him, 
 and how far their conceptions of Him and their faith 
 in Him are justified, not only by direct historic evi- 
 dence, but also by considerations arising from the 
 specialities of His character and the fruits of His 
 gospel. 
 
HO IIAXDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE AUTHOR OF CHRISTIANITY : WHO AND WHAT HE 
 WAS, ACCORDING TO HIMSELF AND HIS FIRST 
 FOLLOWERS. 
 
 Possessing genuine and trustworthy histories of the 
 beginnings of Christianity, we open them to ascertain 
 who and what Jesus Christ professed to be, and whom 
 and what His disciples beheved Him to be. 
 The self- The first thing that strikes a thoughtful reader of 
 
 assertion of . ° o 
 
 Jesus Christ, the Gospels is the marvellous self-assertion of Jesus 
 Christ — the claims which He made on behalf of, or 
 with regard to, Himself. Prophets in former ages 
 never ventured to claim anything for themselves, or 
 to claim any authority other than was involved in the 
 words, " Thus saith the Lord." But the " Prophet of 
 Nazareth " made Himself the centre of all His teach- 
 ing, and the source of all the blessing which should 
 flow to the world through His ministry. This is 
 attested by every one of the Four Gospels. The 
 Fourth Gospel is pre-eminent in its testimony to this 
 fact ; and for this very reason, not on historic grounds, 
 its genuineness is questioned by men who will not 
 Gos"ei.s^ accept its "Christ." But the other Gospels likewise 
 are explicit on the subject. "There are passages in 
 them where Christ pronounces Himself to be greater 
 than the Temple, greater than Solomon, the Lord of 
 
THE FOUNDER— WHO AND WHAT HE WAS. I41 
 
 the Sabbath, the Lord of the angels ; where He rnakcs 
 Himself the Dispenser of the forgiveness of sins : 
 where He strictly distinguishes between His own un- 
 defiled conscience and our consciousness of sin ; where 
 He attaches to His own work and person the highest 
 externally valid authority in all matters of morals and 
 religion; where He attributes to Himself, and His 
 return in heavenly glory, the last judgment, and the 
 consummation ot the world." 
 
 To quote all the passages which bear on this sub- 
 ject would be to quote a large portion of the Gospels. 
 Let a few suffice. The Sermon on the Mount, in 
 which some see only a code of morals, concludes with 
 the extraordinary assertion that Jesus would be the 
 fmal Judge of those who heard His sayings: "Not ^^f^---''- 
 every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter 
 into the Kingdom of Heaven ; but he that doeth the 
 will of My Father which is in Heaven. Many will say 
 to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophe- 
 sied in Thy name ? and in Thy name have cast out 
 devils ? and in Thy name done many wonderful works ? 
 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you : 
 depart from ]\Ie, ye that work iniquity." The same 
 Gospel contains another very solemn and remarkable 
 passage, in which Jesus not only claims to be the final 
 Judge but makes the action of man towards Himself 
 the test of character : " When the Son of Man shall ^^"ff- -r«'- 
 come m His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, 
 then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory : and 
 before Him shall be gathered all nations. . . . Then 
 shall the King say, . . . Inasmuch as ye have done it 
 unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have 
 done it unto Me. . . . Inasmuch as ye did it not to 
 one of the least of these, ye did it not to Me." 
 
 Such claims iit! these were re-asserted by Jesus in 
 
14? HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 llie most solemn manner before the High Priest, with 
 what we may call His dying breath. And it is worthy 
 of notice that it is not to John, but to Matthew, Mark, 
 Matt. xxvi. and Luke, that we owe the record of the fact. " I 
 Markxiy. adjure Thee by the Living God," the High Priest said, 
 Luicelxu. "that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the 
 ^■^'" Son of God." Jesus answered, " Thou hast said : 
 nevertheless I say unto you. Hereafter shall ye see 
 the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power, 
 and coming in the clouds of heaven." For so saying 
 He was immediately charged with blasphemy, and 
 jjhn xix. 7. condemned to die. And it was the charge that " He 
 made Himself the Son of God " that led Pilate at last 
 to consent to His death. However imperfectly the 
 Roman governor might understand the charge, he saw 
 plainly that it had reference to a superhuman claim or 
 origin, and asked, " Whence art Thou ?" " Ai't Thou 
 of earth or of heaven 1 of human or Divine origin ? " 
 Jesus had, however, already sufficiently indicated His 
 heavenly origin in answering the question, "Art Thou 
 the King of the Jews ? " And further answer would 
 have served no purpose. But if He had been con- 
 scious of the untruth of the claim of a special Divine 
 Sonship, honesty and piety would have dictated an 
 immediate disclaimer and explanation. But instead 
 of any such disclaimer, we find Him even on the cross 
 using words which impLcJ that He held the keys of 
 the invisible world. In reply to the malefactor's prayer, 
 He said, " This day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise," 
 — a claim of sovereignty this over both worlds. The 
 terms of the commission which He gave to those who 
 were to propagate His faith in the world, placed the 
 stamp of finality and unchangeableness on the myste- 
 rious personal dignity, in union and equality with God, 
 which He had ever asserted for Himself: "All power 
 
THE FOUNDER — WHO AND WHAT HE WAS. 1 43 
 
 is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Go ye there- Matt. 
 fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name is'-'io'' 
 of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : 
 teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have 
 commanded you ; and, lo, I am with you alwaj', even 
 unto the end of the world." 
 
 The question now arises, How shall we account for Forafuiur 
 Christ's assertion of these mysterious and superhuman '^llTmatter! 
 claims? ^ ^^;j;:,% 
 
 1. Sliallive suppose that He was a conscious deceiver 2 ''^''^'}i>-''s 
 
 ^ ^ ... (JnestwH— 
 
 No writer, worthy of any consideration, will now ^yiienceart 
 
 ■'.■'. . Thou ? ' " 
 
 venture to say that either Christ or the writers of the ^ conscious 
 Gospels were consciously guilty of falsehood. How 'Receiver-; 
 could Jesus of Nazareth, if conscious of deliberate 
 fraud and hypocrisy from the beginning to the end 
 of His Hfe, not only profess but sustain a character 
 extraordinary, apj^arently at least, for moral grandeur 
 and purity, without a word or act or look that should 
 betray its hollowness ? If there be such a thing as 
 a moral impossibility, we have it here. But it is 
 scarcely necessary to deal seriously with this most 
 clumsy method of accounting for the self-asserted 
 claims of Jesus Christ. 
 
 2. Shall tje suppose that Jesus Christ was Himself Seif- 
 deceived — self-deceived, by His moral enthusiasm, into 
 
 the notion that He was the long-expected Messiah? 
 The result is proof enough to the contrary. Renan 
 himself says, " It has not yet been given to insanity 
 to influence seriously the progress of humanity." We 
 may say the same of self-deception, if indeed such 
 self-deception as is supposed be not insanity. Christ's 
 relation to the Messianic ideas of his time on the one 
 hand, and His relation to the Messianic ideas of the 
 
144 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 prophets on the other, will be considered at a later 
 point, and it will then be seen that the idea of self- 
 deception supplies no explanation of the position 
 which he assumed and sustained throughout His 
 ministry. 
 
 Legendary 3. Shall wc supposc that the claiuis alleged to ha\-e 
 
 accictions? , , , _,, . . . 
 
 been asserted by Jesus Christ are the accretions of 
 a later age ; in fact, that Christ did not utter the words 
 that arc ascribed to Iliiii, and that the many tales 
 of strange words found in the Gospels sprang up at a 
 later period, no one knows how? This is the theory, 
 or rather the imagination, of those who regard all 
 that is supernatural in the Gospels as mythical or 
 legendary, and who are credulous enough to suppose 
 that what is called myth or legend produced, as by 
 magic, or by a superhuman instinct, with the aid 
 perhaps of some cunning and imposture, the wonder- 
 fully beautiful character which all recognize in the 
 grand Personage who is the subject of the Gospels. 
 As an outline of argument against this dream, for it is 
 nothing more substantial, take the following : — 
 
 {a) The natural and the supernatural are so inter- 
 woven in the narratives of the Gospels that they 
 cannot be separated. Let any one attempt to separate 
 them and he will find that in rejecting the super 
 natural he must reject the natural as well. And he 
 will land in the conclusion of that most irreconcilable 
 unbeliever, Strauss, that really we "know nothing' 
 about Jesus. "To pretend to know anything," he 
 says, "carries us back to the old orthodox position 
 which claims to know everything." In other words, 
 receive the moral teaching of Christ on the authority 
 of the Gospels, and you must receive all His teaching 
 as represented by that authority. It is not merely 
 
THE FOUNDER — WHO AND WHAT HE WAS. 14: 
 
 that the natural and the supernatural elements of 
 Christ's life are inextricably interwoven in the narra- 
 tives, but that even His moral teaching has Himself 
 for its centre. In the Sermon on the Mount He is as 
 supernatural as when He commands the winds and the 
 waves into a great calm. 
 
 ip) There is not the slightest historic ground for 
 the supposition that in the beginmng Jesus avowed 
 Himself as nothing more than a Rabbi, and that His 
 followers believed in Him only as in a wise " Rabbi," 
 — as Saul of Tarsus may have believed in the teacher 
 of his youth, Gamaliel. If such had been His original 
 character, some historic trace of it must have survived. 
 But neither in the Gospels nor out of them do we 
 lind it. 
 
 {c) Myths and legends need time to grow, as well 
 as favouring soil and circumstances ; but there is 
 positive evidence, apart from the Gospels, that from 
 the very first Jesus was recognized as superhuman. 
 This evidence is to be found chiefly in those Apostolic 
 letters whose genuineness, we have seen, is unques- 
 tioned, and which Renan declares to be absolutely 
 free from the legendary. 
 
 In the very beginning of that to the Romans we Rom. i. i-^ 
 find that Paul regarded Jesus Christ, not as his fellow- 
 servant, but as his Lord; that this Lord of the 
 Apostles was possessed of a twofold nature, being the 
 Son of David and the Son of God ; and that His 
 higher nature w^as placed beyond doubt or question 
 by His resurrection from the dead. In a later part 
 of the same letter the same Apostle says, "For Kow.xh. 
 whether we live, we live unto the Lord ; and whether 
 we die, we die unto the Lord : whether we live there- 
 fore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ 
 both died, and rose, and revived, that He might be 
 
146 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Lord both of the dead and Hving. But why dost thou 
 judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought 
 thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judg- 
 ment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith 
 the Lord, every knee shall bow to Me, and every 
 tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us 
 shall give account of himself to God." Here we 
 have Jesus Christ represented as the Lord of all and 
 the Judge of all; our standing before the judgment 
 seat of Christ is represented as giving an account oi 
 ourselves to God ; and an Old Testament passage in 
 isa. .riv. 22, which Jchovah says, " I am God, and there is none 
 ^^" else," is quoted in proof, or, if you will, in illustration, 
 of the statement that we shall all stand before the 
 judgment seat of Christ. What need we further 
 witness that the author of the letter to the Christian 
 Church in Rome, recognized the very highest claims 
 which the Gospels ascribe to the Prophet of Nazareth ? 
 His other letters are equally explicit. In the first 
 to the Church in Corintli we find that, according to 
 7 Coy. u. 8 ; Paul, Christ is " the Lord of glory," " the Lord from 
 t^A' heaven," "by whom are all things." In the same 
 letter Paul summarizes the gospel which he preached 
 jCar.^. throughout the world thus: "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 again the third 
 day according to the Scriptures." In his second letter 
 2 Cor. V. 10. to the same Church, Paul says, "We must all appear 
 before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one 
 may receive the things done in his body, according to 
 that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." And 
 there, too, we have words which associate Christ with 
 God, in a manner that is nothing less than blasphe- 
 mous, if Christ be only a man : " The grace of the 
 
THE FOUNDER — WHO AND WHAT HE WAS. 1 47 
 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the zCcr.xUi. 
 communion of the Holy Ghost be with you all." 
 
 Further quotation is unnecessary. To disprove the 
 allegation or suggestion that the narratives which 
 represent Christ as claiming a superhuman character 
 are the products of a later age, when legend ascribed 
 to Christ a character which He did not claim for 
 Himself, it is enough thus to show that a superhuman 
 character did not begin to be ascribed to Him in a 
 later age, but was ascribed to Him//w;z the beginning. From the 
 For Paul's testimony carries us back to the very ^'^sin'^ms' 
 beginning. The earliest of the letters we have quoted 
 was written about twenty-three years after the death of 
 Christ (a.d. 56). But " the faith of the Son of God" 
 which they represent was the faith which he preached 
 from the beginning of his ministry, and thus we are 
 carried back to within three or five years of the death of 
 Christ. He says he received it by revelation, and in SceCnLL 
 preaching it he conferred not with flesh and blood. 
 Moreover we have through him the testimony of 
 Peter, James, and John, whom he visited in Jerusalem 
 three years after his conversion, and whom he found 
 one with him in the faith which he preached. These 
 were the most attached and most intimate disciples of 
 the Master, and, in giving the right hand of fellowship cai. a. 9. 
 to Paul, they put their seal on his representations of 
 what the Master was. 
 
 In such letters as those of Paul we have no right to 
 expect, and we do not expect, to find minute quota- 
 lions of the words of Christ. Enough that we find in 
 them such representations of Christ Himself as cor- 
 respond with and justify the words ascribed to Him 
 in the Gospels. But we find one instance in which 
 the occasion of waiting led to an exact quotation of 
 the words of Christ. The abuses connected with the 
 
1 43 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 observance of the Lord's Supper in Corinth led Paul 
 
 I Cor. xi. to repeat in writing what he had already " delivered " 
 
 ^^ ^ ■ to them in his preaching. And in his recital of the 
 
 original institution of the Supper, he ascribes to Christ 
 
 " inremem- thesc words : "Take, eat [the bread]: this is My body, 
 Me." which is broken for you: this do in remembrance 
 of Me : " — " This cujd is the new Testament [or cove- 
 nant] in My blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in 
 remembrance of Me." Now, in all the Gospels we 
 have no sayings ascribed to Christ more significant 
 of mysterious superhuman claims than these. " In 
 remembrance of J/^." "Why remember Him ? If 
 only a devout Rabbi or holy prophet, He would have 
 hidden Himselt behind His mission and work. Moses 
 dared not to connect himself thus with the institution 
 
 Exmf xii. Qf "the Lord's Passover." Any such words as "In 
 remembrance of Me " are not found m the record. 
 We cannot conceive of one who, notwithstanding his 
 greatness and the great works which were wrought by 
 
 Hei. iii. 3, 6. him, was only a " servant," and a " faithful servant," 
 attempting to place himself thus in the foreground of 
 an ordinance which was designed to commemorate a 
 Redemption wrought by God. But what Moses could 
 
 Kom. in. 24 ; not do, Jcsus Christ did. According to the Apostle 
 
 1 C"y. ?. 30 ; . . . 1 
 
 Gal. iii. 13, Paul m those very epistles which are confessedly his, 
 
 '^' ^' the work of Jesus Christ was a Redemption, a spiritual 
 
 Redemption, a Redemption in which all mankind are 
 
 interested. And the commemoration of it in the 
 
 iCo>:v.T,z. Lord's Supper stood in the same relation to it as did 
 the Passover to the Redemption from Egypt. And yet 
 the same Apostle tells us that Jesus Christ said, " Do 
 this in remembrance of Me." The Apostle, then, must 
 have understood Jesus to claim that He was, not as 
 Moses, the mere servant, the mere human instrument 
 of the Redemption, but Himself the Redeemer. 
 
THE FOUNDER — WHO AND WHAT HE WAS. 1 49 
 
 Nor should we overlook the mysterious character Mysterious 
 which Jesus Christ, according to Paul, ascribed to His death. 
 His own death : "This is My body, which is broken for 
 you," "This cup is the new Testament in My blood." 
 It is impossible to overlook the correspondence 
 between these words and the words of Moses when he 
 had sprinkled the blood of sacrifice on the people, — 
 " Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord Exod. xxiv. 
 hath made with you." "As often as ye eat this bread," j (^^,. ^;_^(,, 
 the Apostle said, "and drink this cup, ye do shew [or, 
 as in the Revised Version, "ye proclaim "] the Lord's 
 death till He come." Jesus, then, chose a symbolic 
 representation of His dca/h as the most fitting com- 
 memoration of Himself, — a conclusive proof that 
 Jesus regarded His death not as His shame but as 
 His glory, and that, of all events and incidents con- 
 nected with His person, His dying was that which it 
 was of most consequence for the world to remember. 
 
 There is another New Testament book which the The Book of 
 
 ,,.. .. ^ ,, .. _ Revelation. 
 
 most unbelieving critics confess to be the writing of an 
 Apostle — the Apocalypse. Denying (without reason) 
 that John wTote the Fourth Gospel, they confess that 
 he wrote the Book of Revelation ; and, in the words 
 of one of them, they confess that "it possesses the 
 greatest value as an indication of John's views," and 
 that "it is most interesting as an illustration of the 
 religious feeling of the period." To this book, then, 
 apart from all theories of its interpretation or re- 
 ligious authority, we may appeal on the question of 
 fact. Were those lofty conceptions of the person of 
 Christ which we find in the Gospels, and which, 
 according to these Gospels, Christ Himself asserted, 
 entertained by the immediate followers of Christ, or 
 were they post-apostolic, the growth of an after age ? 
 
150 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 The answer is to be found in the very first chapter — 
 Kev. i\ 5, 6, " Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our 
 ^' '•'' "^" sins in His own blood, and hath made us Kings and 
 Priests unto God and His Father; to Him be glory 
 and dominion for ever and ever." '' I am Alpha and 
 Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, saith the Lord, 
 which is, and which was, and which is to come, the 
 Almighty." " He laid His right hand upon me, 
 saying unto me, Fear not ; I am the First and the 
 Last, the Living One ; and I was dead, and behold 
 I live for evermore ; and have the keys of Hades 
 See./or and of death." The whole book rests upon, and is 
 Ch. V. 9-14 : pervaded with, these views of the personal glory and 
 ^'i.Ti-iV rulership of Christ. In the Fourth Gospel, there is 
 nothing higher said about Christ by its author, or 
 recorded as said by Christ about Himself, than we 
 have here. And even if we make that Gospel of 
 none effect, we have in the Apocalypse evidence 
 that the Apostle to whom the Gospel is ascribed, 
 was acquainted with and held those exalted views 
 of Christ which the Gospel contains. These views, 
 then, cannot be relegated to a post-Apostolic age. We 
 have not a scrap from the pen of " the disciple whom 
 Jesus loved " to indicate that he regarded his Master 
 as only a supremely wise Rabbi, but much, very 
 much, to show that he could adopt as his own the 
 words which he ascribes to Thomas, " My Lord and 
 my God." 
 
 In reply to those who ascribe the supernatural 
 claims of Christ as we find them in the Gospels to 
 a later age, and regard them as legendary, the pro- 
 ducts of the superstitious imaginations of those who 
 did not know Christ personally, we thus prove that 
 these claims date from the time of Christ Himself. 
 We prove this, we say, because for the sake of argu- 
 
THE FOUNDER — WHO AND WHAT HE WAS. 151 
 
 ment we are content to put the Gospels aside and to 
 appeal to documents whose genuineness is not chal- 
 lenged, four letters written by the Apostle Paul, and 
 one book written by the Apostle John. From these 
 we knoiu that the most intimate personal disciples of 
 Christ understood their Master to claim for Himself 
 all that the Gospels say that He claimed ; and in that 
 character, and in that alone, they preached Him to 
 the world. And we know that an Apostle whose con- 
 version took place only three or five years after the 
 death of Christ preached Him among all nations as 
 One whose Divine Sonship was attested by His resur- Rom. i. 3, \. 
 rection from the dead, and who, though rich in a 2 Cor. vUl > 
 pre-existent state, became poor for our sakes, that we 
 through His poverty might be made rich. The dream- 
 ings of a later age added nothing to the dignity and 
 supernatural claims, which the first age and the first 
 disciples ascribed to Jesus Christ. This must be taken 
 as an established historical fact. 
 
 And there are critics of the Rationalist school who 
 confess it. 
 
 The conclusion to which this chapter brings us is 
 this — that the Superhuman Christ of the Gospel re- 
 cords is an Historical reality — that He was, and that 
 He was all that He professed to be. By this con- 
 clusion we mean to exclude (1) the supposition that 
 the character ascribed to Him in the Gospels is a 
 fiction or myth, intentional or unintentional, of a 
 later age; and (2) the supposition that He was in any 
 sense, or in any degree, deceived or deceiving. 
 
152 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE GOSPEL PORTRAITURE OF JESUS CHRIST — 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF ITS REALITY. 
 
 The Gospel In the argument of this chapter we shall not assume 
 orrai^mea ^^^ \x\x'Ca. of the Gospels, or that the Personage whose 
 history they profess to tell ever existed. We shall 
 deal only with the fact that in these Gospels we find a 
 professed history; and that this history embodies a 
 certain portrait or character, which Ave shall endeavour 
 to study with a view to determine, from internal 
 evidence, whether it be fictitious or whether it has 
 been drawn from a life. " We take up the account of 
 Christ in the New Testament just as we would any 
 other ancient writing, or as if it were a manuscript just 
 brought to light in some ancient library. We open 
 the book, and discover in it four distinct biographies 
 of a certain remarkable character called Jesus Christ." 
 "Was it a real character, and a superhuman character, 
 or was it an invention ? 
 
 Two of the four Biographies ascribe the birth of 
 Jesus Christ to a miracle, and the others imply it. Of 
 His childhood and early manhood they say but little. 
 But that little gives us the impression of a child and 
 youth of the purest excellence. "The Child grew, 
 and waxed strong, filled with wisdom ; and the grace 
 of God was upon Him." He " advanced in wisdom 
 and stature, and in favour with God and men." There 
 
 Real or 
 fictitious 7 
 
 Christ's 
 childhood. 
 
 Luke it. 
 
 40> 52, 
 J\evised 
 Version. 
 
THE GOSPEL PORTRAITURE OF CHRIST. 1 53 
 
 is no attempt to throw an air of romance around the 
 beginning of the life of the Man Jesus — nothing but 
 this plain characterizing of what He was. 
 
 In the history of the three years of public ministry Hkton' 
 ascribed to Jesus Christ the biographers rarely, so comment. 
 rarely that we might say never, make any remark 
 about Him, or any comment on what He did or said, 
 or on what others said and did in relation to Him, 
 They tell or profess to tell what He taught, what works 
 He performed, what and how He suffered. Anything 
 more artless than the structure of their compositions, 
 or more calm and sober than the style in which they 
 write, cannot be imagined. And the impression which 
 their histories give us of the character of Jesus is due 
 wholly to the portrait itself, not to the painters. Now 
 what is that impression ? If there be one thing more 
 than another, outside the region of pure mathematical 
 demonstration, about which men are agreed, it is the 
 beauty, the grandeur, the nobility, of this character. 
 Some of the most eloquent eiilogia pronounced upon r.uiozia by 
 it, have been written by men who vrould not call "" '^ ^'^^"^' 
 themselves Christians. Its brightness has constrained 
 a homage which, on the supposition of a fictitious or 
 of a purely natural personality, is almost idolatrous. 
 Even when exception is taken to the worshipful spirit 
 in which it is regarded by others, it is Avith bated 
 breath, and with some trembling lest holy ground 
 should be profaned. 
 
 In Jesus, according to Rousseau, the greatest Rou?=eau, 
 wisdom was made known among the most bigoted 
 fanaticism, and the simplicity of the most heroic 
 virtues did honour to the vilest people on earth." 
 " Where," said Strauss, " shall we find, in such beauty Strauss. 
 as we find it in Jesus, that mirroring purity of soul, 
 which the fury of the storm may agitate but cannot 
 
154 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Author of 
 
 " Super- 
 
 nntnral 
 
 Religion." 
 
 cloud? " " The teaching of Jesus," says the author of 
 "Supernatural Religion," "carried morality to the 
 sublimest point attained or attainable by humanity. 
 The influence of His religion has been rendered 
 doubly great by the unparalleled purity and elevation 
 of His own character." " It is Christ, rather than 
 
 John Stuart God," says John Stuart Mill, "whom Christianity has 
 '^^'"" held up to believers as the pattern of perfection for 
 
 vv. R. Greg, humanity." " It is difficult," says W. R. Greg, " with- 
 out exhausting superlatives even to unexpressive and 
 wearisome satiety, to do justice to our intense love, 
 reverence, and admiration for the character and 
 teachings of Jesus ; we regard Him not as the per- 
 fection of the intellectual or philosophic mind, but as 
 the perfection of the spiritual character ; as surpassing 
 all men at all times in the closeness and depth of His 
 communion with the Father. In reading His sayings, 
 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." 
 
 No ex- 
 ggeration. 
 
 The student of the Gospels knows that there is no 
 exaggeration in these sayings. Jesus Christ stands 
 not merely above but apart from the most honoured 
 men, even of Bible story. With a faith that never 
 failed as did that of Abraham ; with a meekness that 
 never failed as did that of Moses; with a goodness that 
 never failed as did that of David ; with a wisdom that 
 never failed as did that of Solomon; with a courage 
 that never failed as did that of Elijah ; with a patience 
 that never failed as did that of Job; with a goodness 
 ness u„u that never failed as even Daniel was conscious that his 
 *S""'''ter°*^ did ; there was a harmony and completeness in His 
 
 Complete- 
 ness and 
 
THE GOSPEL PORTRAITURE OF CHRIST. 1 55 
 
 character which is found nowhere else. " Meekness 
 and majesty, firmness and gentleness, zeal and pru- 
 dence — composure and warmth, patience and sensi- 
 bility, submission and dignity, sublime sanctity and 
 tender sympathy, piety that rose to the loftiest de- 
 votion and benevolence that could stoop to the mean- 
 est sufferer, intense abhorrence of sin and profound 
 compassion for the sinner," — all these are rays of the 
 acknowledged glory of His character. He was "per- 
 fect and entire, wanting nothing." 
 
 This Jesus, it should not be overlooked, did not Not a 
 live the hfe of a recluse to protect and cultivate His 
 soul, but in daily conflict with the sins and sorrows of 
 an evil world. He was brought into relation with 
 every class and character, soldier and priest, lawyer 
 and rabbi, prince and peasant, Pharisee and Sadducee, 
 the devotee of the temple and the money-changer of 
 the market-place. And, studied and scanned in all 
 these relations, " the universal consent is," in the 
 words of Henry Rogers, "that there is One who is Acconiins; to 
 
 1 1 1 • • r^ 1 Henry 
 
 absolutely superior to circumstances — One on whose Refers, 
 serene and lofty spirit the changes that affect sub- 
 lunary interests can produce no permanent or injurious 
 impressions — One for whom His friends never had to 
 make an apology, for whom the impartial critic needs 
 not to demand any forbearance, iii whom the keenest- 
 sighted of His enemies can find no fault — One whom 
 no transient weakness from within, no cunning tempta- 
 tion from without, could divert for a single moment 
 from His own career of virtue, beneficence, and purity 
 — One, in short, who, tried by the loftiest standards of 
 spiritual excellence, must be pronounced, in the 
 language of a disciple who had seen as much of Him 
 as any man while He was on earth, 'without blemish rPetji.ig. 
 and without spot' " 
 
 M 
 
156 IIAXDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 By the words "without blemish and without spot," 
 the Apostle Peter meant a great deal more than that 
 Jesus attained what ordinary writers might call un- 
 2 C(7r. 7'. 21 ; paralleled excellence. He and his brother Apostles 
 I }oimi'ii.s \ believed Jesus to be absolutely sinless. And such is 
 I et. n. 22. j.|^g impression which we derive from His history in the 
 Sinless. Gospels. That He was sinless is not asserted by any 
 of the Gospel historians, but it is the inevitable infer- 
 ence from what they tell of Him. These things are 
 very observable, {a) He saw into the sinful condition 
 TTis of mankind most clearly. Looking beneath the surface, 
 "of iiu^°^ He pronounced the heart of man to be the fountain 
 of all the corruptions which appear in his life. Men, 
 all men, Pharisees as well as those whom they reputed 
 " sinners," were " lost," and He had come to save 
 them. {B) He insisted earnestly and constantly on 
 inward purity of heart as well as on outward purity of 
 life. This is one of the most marked features of His 
 teaching. Scribes and Pharisees, whose "righteous- 
 ness " was all outward, were but as "whited sepulchres" 
 7oh,ini.2,(>. in His judgment. And the best of them must be 
 " born again " in order to a true holiness, {c) But 
 Himself with all this He was Himself not only unconscious of 
 without, gj^^ i^^j conscious of a purity which w^as pleasing and 
 always pleasing to His Father. He taught others to 
 SeeahoiohnY>'^o.Y for forgivcuess, but He never asked forgiveness 
 '"9. 11-37,' ^or Himself. There is one long prayer of His on 
 44.^^^.46- record — in the seventeenth chapter of St. John, — but 
 there is not a breath of contrition in it from be- 
 No con- ginning to end, not a sigh of conscious shortcoming or 
 """rin" ° imperfection ; but, on the contrary, " I have glorified 
 Thee on the earth. I have finished the work which 
 Thou gfavest Me to do." Within a few hours after, we 
 find Him in Gethsemane, praying to the Father with 
 strong crying and tears, but all His agony fails to 
 
THE GOSPEL PORTRAITURE OF CHRIST. 1 5/ 
 
 wring from Him one word of confession of sin. Tlie in 
 mystery of the trouble of His soul in that terrible hour 
 is not relieved or explained by the slightest indication 
 of conscious demerit. " We feel that in this one life, 
 His religious character throughout has the remark- 
 able distinction that it proceeds from a point exactly 
 opposite to that which is the root or radical element Bushneirs 
 m the religious character oi men. Human piety begins thes,<f>cr- 
 with repentance. It is the effort of a being, implicated cta/.'x. 
 in wrong and writhing under the stings of guilt, to 
 come unto God. The most righteous, or even the 
 self-righteous, men blend expressions of sorrow and 
 vows of new obedience with their exercises. But 
 Christ, in the character given Him, never acknow- 
 ledges sin. It is the grand peculiarity of His piety, 
 that He never regrets anything He has done or been ; 
 expresses nowhere a single feeling of compunction, or 
 the least sense of unworthiness. On the contrary, He 
 boldly challenges His accusers in the question, 'Which 
 of you convinceth Me of sin ? ' and even declares, at 
 the clo.^e of His life, in a solemn appeal to God, that 
 He has given to men, unsullied, the glory divine that 
 was deposited in Him." 
 
 "We feel," says Godet, "that in this one life re- Ci>d,-i. 
 morse has no place. And this fact is so much the 
 more remarkable and decisive, in proportion as Jesus 
 was more humble than other men, and His conscience 
 more sensitive than theirs. The more advanced we 
 are in the life of hoHness, the more painfully do we 
 feel the stains of sin. If the slightest defilement had 
 existed in Him, He would have been more affected 
 by it than we are by the gravest faults into which 
 we fall." 
 
 We are not now assuming the historic truth of these 
 statements. We are only setting forth the portrait 
 
158 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 which the Gospels, as a fact, give us of the Jesus 
 Consciously Christ whosc life they profess to relate. And it is, we 
 see, the portrait of a consciously sinless man. 
 
 See Chap. It is likcwisc the portrait of a consciously super- 
 Conscioiisiy huuiau man. This is implied in all those prerogatives 
 superhuman, .^yi^i^h, wc havc secn. He claimed for Himself. There 
 is scarcely a conversation or a discourse of His re- 
 corded which it does not underlie. We find it in the 
 Matt. vii. Sermon on the Mount as distinctly as in the Fourth 
 ■'""''■ Gospel. In the beginning of His ministry He accepted 
 John i. 49. the title of " the Son of God " given Him by Nalhanael, 
 
 ^iatj. xxvi. while in the end of His ministry He asserted for Him- 
 63-00. . . . . , 
 
 self this grand distmctive title. In such sayings as 
 
 Matt.xi.'2.%. "Come unto Me, and I will give you rest," a super- 
 human personality is im.plied as certainly as in such 
 johnviu.^'s,. mysterious sayings as, "Before Abraham was, I am." 
 This is an essential part of the Gospel portrait of Jesus 
 Christ. You cannot cancel it without destroying the 
 portrait altogether. 
 
 Of His claims to the long predicted Messiahship 
 we shall speak more particularly in a later chapter. 
 John i. 41, Enough at present that the Gospel portraiture is pro- 
 49; izK 25, fgggg^iy |-|-,jjt Qf « Him who was to come." 
 ii/««.^ "■ There is one point with reference to the Kingship 
 ^lu^-^^zl ' ascribed to Him, and claimed by Him, to which we call 
 , . ^'u- attention now. May wc call it His marvellous ambi- 
 
 kmgsnip. ^ 
 
 Markxvi. tiou, or His Diviuc ambition? "Go ye into all the 
 
 world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.'' 
 
 Matt. Make disciples of " all nations, baptizing them in the 
 
 ^^" name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
 
 Ghost : teaching them to observe all things Avhatso- 
 
 ever I have commanded you : and, lo, I am with you 
 
 Divine alway, even unto the end of the world." " All the 
 
 world " — " all nations." The Nazarene carpenter, who 
 
 XXVIU. 
 
 ambition. 
 
THE GOSPEL PORTRAITURE OF CHRIST. 1 59 
 
 had never travelled beyond the borders of a land 
 which was utterly insignificant in extent, speaks of all 
 the world and all nations with all the calmness of a 
 conscious right to rule over them : " Teaching them to 
 observe all things whatsoever I com ?iiaiid you." Then 
 " all the world" — "all nations '"' are to be brought under 
 His rule by truth, by " teaching." Such was to be the Conquc-t by- 
 extent of His empire and such the means of its estab- 
 lishment ! " Art Thou a King ? " said Pilate. " Thou johi xvui. 
 sayest that I am a King," was the answer. " To this ''^' 
 end was I born, and for this cause came I into the 
 world, that I should bear witness unto the truth." 
 Never was such honour done to truth as in those 
 words of Christ To the disciples, however, the charge charge to 
 given to them imposed an apparently impossible task. '^H^ow'nor 
 Impossible — but that He who gave it said, " All power ""possible. 
 is given unto Me in heaven and in earth. Lo, I am 
 with you alway." May we not well call His ambition 
 Divine as well as marvellous? Ambition to bring all 
 nations into subjection to Himself, the Nazarene, 
 ambition which claimed " all power in heaven " as 
 well as on earth to effect it. But marvellous as it is, 
 it is as natural as it is supernatural, if we believe the 
 Gospel narrative, that He had now risen from the dead 
 and was about to ascend to the glory of Heaven. 
 
 It was not now, however, for the first time, that 
 Jesus indicated a consciousness that the wide world was 
 the sphere of His kingdom. When He had not where Mnu. xiH. 
 to lay His head, He spoke of the world as the field in '^T''\^^f -'''"• 
 which He, the Son of Man, sowed His seed, and of 
 Himself as the final Judge of all mankind. Even 
 when He stood in apparent helplessness before the 
 Sanhedrim, He spoke of Himself as sitting on the Matt. 
 right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of ^''' 
 heaven. 
 
 .rxzn. 
 
l60 IT A XD BOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 These representations belong essentially to the 
 Gospel portraiture of Jesus Christ. They involve 
 these two wonders specially : {a) That one, in the 
 position of a Galilean peasant, should contemplate the 
 moral subjugation ol the world to Himself; and {p), 
 that a Jew of that period should contemplate the 
 enlightenment of the world and its restoration to God 
 without conformity to Judaic laws. 
 
 In the Gospel portraiture of Jesus Christ, then, we 
 have these features definitely marked — i. Its marvel- 
 lous moral beauty ; 2. Its absolute sinlessness ; 3. Its 
 avowed Divinity; and 4. Its assumption of universal 
 sovereignty. 
 
 True or AVhat shall we now say to these things ? Have they 
 
 Imaginary? ..,_,, . . 
 
 the Witness m themselves that they are true, or is it 
 possible that they are imaginary? Rousseau, who can- 
 not be suspected of a bias in favour of Christianity, 
 KrM,s?eau answered this question long ago : " It is more incon- 
 '^""'^ ' ceivable that a number of individuals 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 Gospel. The marks of its truth are so striking 
 and inimitable, that tJie inventor ivoidd be a more 
 astonishing cha?-acter than the he?v." 
 Reality In support of this conclusion, the following remarks 
 
 proveJ. , . , 
 
 are submitted. 
 Altogether I. The character of Jesus Christ as it appears in the 
 unique. Qospels, and as we have sJzetcJied it, is altogether imique 
 — that is, it stands alone in the history of the woiid, 
 without any, either before or since, that may be classi- 
 fied with it as of the same order. This is true, even if 
 we take into account only its marvellous purity and 
 
THE GOSPEL PORTRAITURE OF CHRIST. l6l 
 
 elevation, its world-wide sympathies, and its combina- Even in its 
 tion of righteousness with profound compassion and p""^^- 
 loving well-doing. And its truth may be tested by 
 the simple process of imagining any other name, the 
 most honoured that can be found either in Bible or 
 other history, placed alongside the name of Jesus 
 Christ as His equal or His like, — let it be the greatest 
 of monarchs, the greatest of prophets, or the greatest 
 of moralists. It is felt at once that Jesus must stand 
 alone. And those nearest to Him, and most capable 
 of appreciating His superiority, will be first to adopt 
 the words of One who is described as " more than a 
 prophet," — " His shoes' latchet we are not worthy to 
 unloose." 
 
 But the uniqueness, the absolute aloneness, of the 
 character described in the Gospels, becomes more in its 
 obvious when we add to its general moral elevation Pr,?"?"", 
 its pronounced sinlessness. We may say boldly that 
 it never entered into the heart of man to conceive the 
 existence of a sinless man, far less to embody the idea 
 of such a man in the story of an actual life. History 
 and fiction will be searched in vain for a man who, 
 through hfe, carried with him the consciousness of a 
 perfect conformity to the will of God, as Jesus is 
 represented to have done. Men with low conceptions 
 of what the law of God requires, ignorant of themselves 
 as of duty, and self-satisfied as the proudest Pharisee, 
 may be found without number. But a man with any- impos?; 
 thing like Christ's conception of what sin and holiness 
 are, conscious of being without sin, and acting through 
 life a part against which no charge of sin could ever 
 be brought, has not yet been found. In this respect 
 Jesus still stands alone. It is admitted that sinless- 
 ness in man, if it be found, must be supernatural. 
 And it is likewise admitted that while history, apart 
 
 sinlessness. 
 
 to act the 
 
 part of a 
 
 sinless man. 
 
l62 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Crowning 
 evidence uf 
 uniqueness. 
 
 from the Gospels, contains no record of a sinless man, 
 fiction has never ventured to imagine and never ven- 
 tured to portray such a character. 
 
 A\nien we add to this the siiperlniman personality 
 ascribed to Christ "in the Gospels, and the mission 
 ascribed to Him and with which He regarded Him- 
 self as charged, we give the crowning evidence of the 
 uniqueness of the character which is embodied in 
 Gospel story. Such monstrosities as are to be found 
 in heathen mythologies — vile as well as monstrous — 
 do not admit of a moment's comparison with it 
 
 The " age " 
 
 cannot 
 account for 
 this portrait, 
 
 The age 
 corrupt. 
 
 Its various 
 influences. 
 
 Jewish 
 influences. 
 
 2. We can find nothing in the age iti which Jesus 
 lived to account for that which distinguishes Him from 
 all the woj'ld beside. " Great men," we are told, " are 
 the representative men ; they embody in a distinct, 
 \isible form, and proclaim in an audible, unmistak- 
 able tone, the instincts, the aspirations, which are 
 semi-dormant in the hearts of the noblest and best of 
 the people of their epoch, and which struggle in vain 
 for utterance." But Jesus Christ did not reflect the 
 humanity of His age, and did not echo its voice, not 
 even that of the " noblest and best " of its people. 
 The age was corrupt and superstitious to the core. 
 As in the days of Isaiah, " From the sole of the foot 
 even unto the head there was no soundness in it." 
 And of such an age Jesus could not have been the 
 natural product, nor could such an age even conceive 
 the character with which the Gospels invest Him. 
 
 If we look more closely at the various influences 
 which in that age might contribute to the formation 
 of character, we shall come to the same conclusion. 
 These may be regarded as Jewish, Greek, and Roman. 
 
 As to the Jewish influences of that age, the reader 
 of the New Testament can judge for himself. It will 
 
THE GOSPEL PORTRAITURE OF CHRIST. 
 
 163 
 
 Newman 
 Smith 
 quoted. 
 
 strike him at once that Jesus, instead of being in 
 accord with them, is in perpetual antagonism to them. 
 Whether we look at the common people, so far as we 
 know them, or at particular classes of them, religious 
 or political — Pharisee, Sadducee, and Essene — Hero- 
 dian and Zealot — we find Him distinguished from 
 them all, without one speciality that can be called 
 theirs. 
 
 Judaism, even at its best, could not produce and 
 cannot explain the character of Jesus Christ. " We 
 cannot by any known law of heredity explain its origin 
 as a possible Jewish face. There were elements in 
 the life of Jesus which were not of Jewish origin. 
 The laws of descent fail utterly to account for the 
 coming of Jesus as a mere Hebrew child. He was 
 unlike His mother and His brethren — so unlike that 
 His brethren did not understand Him, and His 
 mother wist not what He would do. Though He 
 grew to manhood in a quiet Israelitish home, no 
 man ever- thinks of calling Him a child of Abraham. 
 Though living all His life among His father's people, 
 He never became a Hebrew of the Hebrews. Though 
 inheriting the traditions of Israel, the Son of David 
 was known as the Son of Man. Though never walk- 
 ing beyond the mountains of His native country, He 
 lived a life which belongs to the whole world. The 
 contrast between Jesus' character and the fixed Jewish 
 type appears at once when we view beside it the 
 greatest of the prophets who came just before Him, '<=h^«"^''- 
 or the chief of the Apostles who followed after Him, Israelite 
 We cannot mistake the manner, the garb, the voice of 
 the Israelite in the Baptist. ... In freedom from dis- 
 tinctively Jewish characteristics, Jesus surpasses even 
 the Apostle, whose Hebrew habits had become most 
 thoroughly revolutionized. St. Paul, long after he 
 
 Contrast 
 
 between 
 
 Jesus and a 
 
164 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 had become accustomed to speak of himself as a new 
 man, to whom all things had become new, still shows 
 incidental signs of his Hebrew descent. The Israelite 
 appears, every now and then, in the Christian, . . . 
 But such inborn marks of nationality, which manifest 
 themselves unconsciously in St, Paul, never attract 
 our attention in the Son of man ; and that, too, 
 although the portraiture of Him was drawn by rude 
 Jewish hands." 
 
 Gentile Suppose wc loolc bcyond Judrea for an explanation 
 
 influences. ^^ ^^^ character ascribed to Jesus Christ, shall we 
 find Gentile influences more adequate than Jewish to 
 account for it, either as a reality or as an invention ? 
 " Does the portrait of Christ, as we now behold it, 
 present any real analogy to the aspirations of heathen- 
 dom? The heroes of all nations, as embodied in 
 their works of fiction, will be found to be simply the 
 expression of the national ideal. Is the portrait of 
 Christ the expression of the heathen ideal ? The first 
 point of inquiry is, What are the ideals of heathen- 
 dom? As they appear chronologically on the page 
 
 Four Gentile of history, they may be reduced to four— physical 
 ideau. strength, intellectual power, sesthetic culture, and 
 
 regal majesty." 
 George " Docs any one of these ideals," asks an able writer 
 
 B.D.'!'in"he OH "the Originality of the Character of Christ," "or 
 CoHtem- ^ ^ij qI" ti-ieni united, suffice to explain that Christian 
 
 ^f '■'='«'. conception which is the essence of the Gospel narra- 
 tive? If the character of Christ, as there dehneated, 
 can be referred to any of them singly, or accounted for 
 by a combination of them all, we shall then be forced 
 to admit that there is nothing in that character above 
 the powers of human creation. But if, on the other 
 hand, the Gospel conception of Christ refuses to 
 
THE GOSPEL PORTRAITURE OF CHRIST. 165 
 
 coalesce with these ideals ; if it shows on many points 
 not only an important difference from them but a 
 positive antagonism to them ; if the longer we com- Antagonism 
 pare them we are the more impressed with the belief iuelur 
 that they belong to separate orders of thought, we 
 shall be driven to the conclusion that nothing in 
 heathendom with which we are acquainted was ade- 
 quate to the Christian portraiture." 
 
 The only one of the four ideals named which has 
 the semblance of likeness to anything that is found 
 in Christ, is that of regal majesty. But the semblance 
 is only in name. " My kingdom is not of this world " joJui .wUi. 
 would have been as unintelligible to the representa- ^°' 
 tives of Assyria and Babylon as it was to that of 
 Rome "Alexander, Ceesar, Charlemagne, and my- 
 self," said Napoleon Bonaparte in St. Helena, "founded Napoleon 
 empires. But on what did we rest the creations of '^'"i''"'^- 
 our genius ? Upon force. Jesus Christ alone founded 
 His empire upon love ; and at this hour millions of 
 men would die for Him." It was not from the kings 
 of the earth that Jesus derived His conception of 
 " Regal Majesty," or that those who A\Tote of Him 
 derived the conception which they ascribed to Him. 
 
 Nor was it from the age that the idea of Godhead xhe "incar- 
 in Christ was derived. That the Roman Emperors d"eHved' f"°ni 
 did demand for themselves, and for some others, the spirit of 
 
 the age. 
 
 divine honours, is certain. Tacitus tells us of a city 
 
 which was deprived of its freedom for being unwilling 
 
 to worship Augustus. But there is no proper analogy 
 
 between a heathen apotheosis and the Incarnation of 
 
 the Son of God. It may be confidently affirmed that 
 
 the citizens of Rome who bowed down before their 
 
 Emperors as gods, did not believe that they were 
 
 gods. The homage was rendered not to the Divine Not from the 
 
 but to the Despotic. The Christians were content to of'emperois. 
 
1 66 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES, 
 
 die rather than burn one grain of incense on the altar 
 of the mightiest Caesar. And the reason why the 
 Roman Christians worshipped Christ while they re- 
 fused to worship Caesar, was, not that the character of 
 the one was beautifully pure while the character of the 
 other was vile and corrupt, but that they regarded 
 the One as very God Incarnate, while they regarded 
 the other as only a man. 
 Nor from Nor were they led to this by the Judaism of their age 
 Judaism, and cducation. It is well known that from the time 
 of the Babylonish captivity, the Jewish people were 
 thoroughly purged of those idolatrous proclivities 
 which had often betrayed them into apostasy from 
 Jehovah. And at no period of their history was their 
 spirit more intensely anti-idolatrous, more intolerant of 
 anything that bore the semblance of an encroachment 
 on the prerogative of the One Living God, than in the 
 age of Christ's appearance among men. The Nazarene 
 cannot say, "Thy sins be forgiven thee," without 
 exciting the angry cry, " Who can forgive sins but God 
 only ? " The utterance of words which seem to claim 
 equality with God is at once provocative of tumult, 
 and endangers His life ; and when other charges against 
 Him fail to interest or move the populace, the charge 
 of blasphemy, in that He has called Himself the Son 
 of God, awakens a fanaticism which will be satisfied 
 with nothing short of His death. 
 
 The hypothesis which would ascribe the " Deifica- 
 tion of Christ " to the spirit of the age is thus at fault 
 at every point. 
 
 Tiie Portrait 3. There is another cotisi'demtion which renders it 
 
 b'^/X'^u'mty certain that the portrait of Christ in the Gospels is not 
 
 of the four- ^^ invention or a fiction of any kind, but a reality — the 
 
 Biography, ^^.^g portrait of a true person — a?id that is, the unity 
 
THE GOSPEL PORTRAITURE OF CHRIST. \Gj 
 
 of the fourfold biography. That one mind could have 
 conceived, and produced by its own genius, the cha- 
 racter which we find in the Gospels, is not credible ; 
 that four minds should have conceived it simultane- 
 ously and separately, would be a miracle of a kind 
 which finds no parallel in either the Old or the New 
 Testament. Three of the Gospels, we are entitled inde- 
 to assume at present, were written independently of The" separate 
 each other and at periods very near to each other ; histones. 
 while the fourth is founded on them only in the 
 sense that it is supplementary to them. It omits 
 those considerable portions of the life of Christ with 
 which the others are mainly occupied ; and in the 
 portion in which it traverses the same ground with the 
 others, that which relates to the death and resurrection 
 of Christ — it is evidently not based on what the others 
 contain, but on information either possessed personally 
 by the writer or acquired independently. 
 
 Now, it is the same Christ, the same character, that illustrative 
 we find portrayed by these four writers. I^et each 
 of four men take one of the four Gospels and make 
 it his exclusive study ; and then let them hold con- 
 ference as to the answer they should give to the 
 question, " What think ye of Christ ? " And they would 
 be found of one mind. Each could tell the others 
 much that would be new to the others, both sayings 
 and doings. But each could say. The Christ of my 
 Gospel was full of grace and truth ; most loving and 
 most pure ; performing works which no other man 
 ever did; speaking with a wisdom which astonished 
 priests and people; professing to have come from 
 God and to be returning to God ; claiming attributes 
 and powers which, if not blasphemously claimed, must 
 be Divine ; seemingly humble and inculcating humility 
 as a grace pleasing to God, and yet speaking of 
 
 supposition. 
 
1 63 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN' EVIDENCES. 
 
 Himself as no prophet had ever done before, as if 
 all things in heaven and on earth had their centre 
 in Him ; calling Himself the Son of God, and allowing 
 others so to call Him; dying by the united verdict 
 of the Jewish Sanhedrim and the Roman governor ; 
 yet mysteriously intimating that His blood was shed 
 for the remission of the sins of men ; and then, on 
 the morning of the third day, rising from the dead 
 and appearing to His old disciples, who were to be 
 
 We find the His wituesscs to the world. In other words, the four 
 " students would declare with one accord that they had 
 found the same Christ in all the Gospels — the same 
 in His spotless purity and practical beneficence; the 
 same not only in His authority as divinely inspired 
 but in His superhuman personal dignity ; and the 
 same in His avowed mission on earth. A comparison 
 of the four books would throw light the one upon' the 
 other, and upon the character of their common object, 
 but only make it the more certain that the writers 
 were not inventors but recorders of one and the same 
 history. 
 
 Whence their If they wcrc rccordcrs, did they find their materials 
 n.ateuai. ^Q^^jj^g jj^ ^]^g g^jj. around them? If they did, these 
 materials must have had an origin in something. That 
 that something could not have been the thoughts and 
 imaginings of the people of that age, has, we think, 
 been proved. It must have been a real person. And 
 the information afloat respecting Him must have been 
 recent, and preserved from intermixture of myth and 
 idle tradition ; otherwise the four Gospels could not 
 have given us a consistent whole. 
 Conclusion In the unity of the Gospels we have thus conclusive 
 
 iinitTofthe evidence, that the character which is portrayed by 
 ^^speis- ^]^g Evangelists is not imaginary but real, and if real, 
 Divine. 
 
THE GOSPEL PORTRAirURE OF CHRIST. 1 69 
 
 4. Complete as is the evidence already furnished 
 that the character portrayed in the Gospels bears 
 witness to itself as real and not imaginary, // is 
 strengthened by another consideration. Supposing it 
 possible that the idea of a sinless man, and He at the 
 same time God-man, appearing on earth with the 
 aims ascribed to Jesus Christ, should originate in 
 some human imagination, who shall create the history How create 
 that shall embody the idea 1 who shall turn the idea into idc-ab ? 
 action ? who shall construct the life, with all its 
 bearings, that shall be worthy of the idea and con- 
 sistent with it ? 
 
 " Let us suppose for a moment that the four Gospels P- s. Tni. 
 have no existence ; and let us suppose the problem in Boston 
 given to construct, by the aid of imagination merely, a ChrhuZtUy 
 history that shall correspond in its minuteness with Sce^tidsw, 
 that given in the Gospels, and throughout consistently ^ ''"*' ''''^' 
 exhibit the daily life of one maintaining such exalted 
 claims, and acting in accordance with them. Who 
 would not pronounce the task to be impossible, as in- 
 volving conditions which, if not absolutely incompatible 
 with one another, were yet so far beyond the range of 
 human experience as to be reached and mastered by 
 no conceivable effort of human genius ? Yet such a 
 history exists ; and the mere fact of its existence is a 
 sufficient vindication of its truth. The picture of the 
 life and character of Jesus, exhibited in the Gospels 
 with the utmost minuteness and variety of detail 
 compatible with the briefness of the record, accords 
 most fully with the claims He is represented as 
 advancing. " 
 
 In illustration of the difficulty of the proposed Hew 
 problem, take the sinlessness which appears in the sbiessneis ? 
 life and the self-consciousness which is ascribed to 
 
i;0 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVILENCES. 
 
 Jesus Ghrist. It will be remembered that the piety of 
 Jesus Christ was radically distinguished from ordinary 
 human piety in that it was unconscious of any defect. 
 " No mere human creature, it is certain," says Bush- 
 nell, "could hold such a religious attitude, without 
 shortly displaying faults that would cover him with 
 derision, or excesses and delinquencies that would 
 even disgust his friends. Piety without one dash of 
 repentance, one ingenuous confession of wrong, one 
 tear, one look of contrition, one request to heaven 
 
 Let any one for pardou — let any one of mankind try this kind 
 ^^' of piety, and see how long it will be ere his righteous- 
 ness will prove itself to be the most impudent 
 conceit ! how long before his passions, sobered by no 
 contrition, his pride kept down by no repentance, will 
 tempt him into absurdities that will turn his pretences 
 
 The result, to mockery ! No sooner does any one of us begin 
 to be self-righteous, than he begins to fall into out- 
 ward sins that shame his conceit. But in the case 
 of Jesus no such disaster follows. Beginning with an 
 unrepentant piety. He holds it to the end and brings 
 no stain upon it." Rather, He pursues His cause to 
 the end of life in a way of such unfaltering grace 
 and beauty as to command the universal homage of 
 mankind. 
 
 For a consciously sinful man to profess himself to be 
 without sin, and so to act his part through life as never 
 to be found out or to betray himself, will be admitted 
 to be a moral impossibility. To imagine such a man, 
 to invent an imaginary life, in which the idea should 
 be embodied and acted out in sharp collision with the 
 world, and in the midst of the world's temptations, is 
 scarcely less impossible. And the attempt, if made, 
 would be pronounced unnatural, and the imagined 
 character incredible. 
 
THE GOSPEL PORTRAITURE OF CHRIST. 171 
 
 The problem with which we are dealing, namely, 
 how to construct an imaginary history that should How con- 
 embody in action the character of Jesus Christ as we "D^v'ine" 
 find it in the Gospels, has even greater difficulties to '''^^' 
 overcome than that of which we have just spoken. That 
 Jesus was understood to claim equality with God is 
 certain \ and that the claim became an article of faith 
 hath His disciples is equally certain. The personal 
 claims of Christ, howsoever to be accounted for, 
 Strauss admits, are of the very essence of Christianity. 
 How are they to be embodied, who can embody them, 
 in an imaginary life ? AVho can invent a life that shall 
 be a natural representation of so mysterious a person 
 as a God-man ? The task may well be pronounced . The ta^k 
 impossible. But we have such a life in fact in the ""^°^"' 
 Gospels. As we read it we feel that it is the life of a 
 true man, and yet we are in no wise shocked when He 
 claims to be more than a man. Even Renan, speak- 
 ing of "the exaltation of self" in Christ's preaching, But Christ— 
 says, " It is regarded as vain-glory by those who see admS'Ln. 
 in the new teaching only the personal phantasy of the 
 founder 3 but it is the finger of God to those who see 
 the result. It has not yet been given to insanity to 
 influence seriously the progress of humanity." With 
 a still truer appreciation Bushnell, after quoting some 
 of Christ's words, says, "Was there ever a man that " N'atnrc 
 dared put himself on the world in such pretensions i* — s,cper- _ 
 as if all light was in Him, as if to follow Him and be chap. x. 
 worthy of Him, was to be the conclusive or chief 
 excellence of mankind ! What but mockery and dis- 
 gust does He challenge as the certain reward of His 
 audacity? But no one is offended with Jesus on this No sense of 
 
 , , . ■- TT- • • presumption 
 
 account ; and what is a sure test ot His success, it is in Christ's 
 remarkable that, of all the readers of the Gospel, it "^^""s- 
 probably never occurs to one in a hundred thousand 
 
 N 
 
1/2 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 to blame His conceit, or the egregious vanity of His 
 pretensions." 
 Why? Why? because it is felt that there is no vanity in 
 
 the matter; that this life is neither pretence nor fiction, 
 but reality. The study of the Gospel portraiture of 
 Jesus Christ, apart from all accessory or corroborative 
 Conclusion, evidcnce, leads us to the conclusion that it has been 
 drawn from a true historic life. We can account for 
 it in no other way. We accept it joyfully as real and 
 supernatural. As one, not a Christian, has said, " It 
 would have taken a Jesus to forge a Jesus." 
 
( ITS ) 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE JESUS CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS FORETOLD IX THE 
 OLD TESTAMENT — THE TESTIMONY OF PROPHECY. 
 
 The Jesus Christ of our Gospels is the Messiah — 
 Prince, Priest, Prophet, Dehverer — foretold, at sundry 
 times and in divers manners, long before His birth in 
 Bethlehem and His ministry in Galilee and Judrea. 
 This is the proposition to be maintained in this The 
 chapter, — and if it can be established, both His ^tob"'"^' 
 Divine Authority and His Divine Personality are the "'^""•'""^'^■ 
 legitimate inferences. 
 
 At the outset we meet with certain facts which may 
 be regarded as strictly historic. 
 
 I. About the time of the ministry of fesus Christ, Expectatior. 
 there was a general expectation of the coming of some Me,>iah. 
 Great One — known among the Jeius as the Messiah. 
 It is scarcely necessary to prove this. Keim, a 
 Rationalist interpreter of the life of " Jesus of Nazara," 
 after describing the various elements at work in Judgea 
 when Jesus appeared, says — " In the midst of these icdm, vol. z. 
 enormous antagonisms of the ideal and the actual, of ^' ""'' 
 the claim to be the special people of God, together 
 with a glowing zeal for God's honour, and the actually 
 existing servitude and disruption, nay of physical and 
 moral wTetchedness, this marvellous nation ever busied 
 itself afresh with the sublime and holy picture of a 
 
1/4 H AX D BOOK OF ClIRlSriAN EVIDEXCES. 
 
 better and ideal future, a future usually expressed by 
 Av/w, vol. I. the phrase, the Messianic ag\" " The times of Jesus 
 //>• 320, 321. ^j.g £^n Q^ ^ restless expectation of the salvation that 
 was to come." "The unhappy nation wrestled 
 feverishly for its salvation in a hundred ways, seeking 
 Prophetic to create or to bring near the promised time. The 
 watciiwords. ^j^ prophetic watchwords— the Messiah, Christ, the 
 Kingdom of the great King, the Kingdom of Heaven, 
 the throne and seed of David — were, in the days of 
 John the Baptist and Jesus, on every man's lips in 
 Judaja and Galilee, and even in Samaria." 
 A-fw.:;/. To the same effect writes Renan, more Rationalistic 
 than Keim. " In Judaea expectation was at its height. 
 Holy persons — among whom may be named the aged 
 Simeon — passed their life about the temple, fasting, 
 and praying that it might please God not to take them 
 from the world without having seen the fulfilment of the 
 hopes of Israel. They felt a powerful presentiment ; 
 they were sensible of the approach of something un- 
 known." "Jesus, as soon as he began to think, 
 entered into the burning atmosphere which was 
 created in Palestine by the ideas we have just stated." 
 Continual Coutinual seditions were the fruit of these ideas, and 
 seditions. ,( Q^jiiee -vvas an immense furnace wherein the most 
 diverse elements were seething." 
 
 2. It is equally certain that /fs//s of Nazareth re- 
 
 Tesus re- ^ ^ ^ ^ 
 
 gardedas garded HiiHself, and ivus regarded by His folioiuers, as 
 ' Messiah! the p7-omised Messiah. John the Baptist preached "the 
 kingdom of heaven as at hand." He was, he said, 
 the " voice " of which Isaiah spoke as crying in the 
 wilderness, "Prepare ye the way of the Lord." And 
 the Lord, whose way he was preparing, was already in 
 the midst of them. Andrew said to his brother Simon, 
 "We have found the Messias, which is, being inter- 
 
 Matt. 
 
 Hi. 
 
 1-12 
 
 
 Mark i. 
 Luke 
 
 1-8 
 
 3. 4 
 
 
 yohn i 
 Joint i. 
 
 '. 20. 
 41. 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED EY PROPHECY. 175 
 
 preted, the Christ." Nathanael said to Jesus, "Rabbi, 7"^"' '■ 49- 
 Thou art the Son of God, Thou art the King of 
 Israel." 
 
 In reply to the woman of Samaria who had said, " I 7"^>" {■"■ 
 know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ ; 
 when He is come He will tell us all things," Jesus 
 said, " I that speak unto thee am He." When John 
 the Baptist sent to inquire, " Art thou He that should ^^^^f^- •"■• 
 come or do we look for another ? " Jesus said to his 
 messengers, " Tell John the things which ye do hear 
 and see," — these things being the signs that He teas 
 " He that should come." The Messiahship of Jesus 
 is implied throughout all His teaching and working. 
 And after His resurrection we find Him saying to 
 the two disciples at Emmaus, "O slow of heart to z«^,f .r.tvv. 
 believe all that the prophets have spoken : ought not ^^' 
 Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into 
 His glory?" — the Evangelist adding, "Beginning at 
 Moses and all the prophets. He expounded unto them 
 in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." 
 On the same evening, He said to the disciples 
 assembled in Jerusalem, "These are the words which i-nhe.xriv. 
 I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all 
 things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law 
 of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the Psalms, con- 
 cerning IMe." "Then opened He their under- 
 standing," it is added, " that they might understand 
 the Scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, 
 and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from 
 the dead the third day : and that repentance and 
 remission of sins should be preached in His name 
 among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." 
 
 3. It is certain that for this very claim to f/ie 
 Messiahship, sueh as it was, He 7vas condemned to die. "^"^lo dTt"^"^ 
 
1/5 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN- EVIDENCES. 
 
 johni. II. " He came unto His own," as the Apostle John puts 
 'version, it, "and they that were His own received Him not." 
 In the story of His trial before the Sanhedrim and 
 the Roman Governor, we find two principal charges 
 LukexxUi. alleged. "He had made Himself a King," was that 
 7<?/'/7i/.r. on which His accusers relied mainly in their appeal to 
 joimi'.A,'). Pil3.te. It was true. He had accepted the title at 
 the very beginning of His ministry; He maintained 
 it now at its close. The definition of His Kingship 
 satisfied Pilate that Caesar had nothing to fear from 
 Him ; but the very sound of the word, reported to 
 the jealous tyrant who sat on the Imperial throne by 
 Pilate's enemies, might be Pilate's ruin, and he would 
 rather crucify an innocent man than endanger him- 
 john xix. 7. self " He made Himself the Son of God," was the 
 other principal charge. And this too was true. He 
 avowed it in the most solemn circumstances. The 
 High 'Priest, adjuring Him by the living God, said, 
 i.vkexxii. "Art thou the Christ, tell us. And he said unto 
 Muzt.ll'xvi. them. If I tell you, ye will not believe : and if I 
 63-66. g^jgQ ^g]^ yQu^ yg ^yill not auswcr me nor let me go. 
 Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand 
 of the power of God. Then said they all, Art 
 thou then the Son of God? And He said unto them, 
 .Vaff. xxvt. Ye say that I am." " Then the High Priest rent his 
 ^^' clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy, what 
 further need have we of witnesses ? " And they con- 
 demned Him to die. Thus, for the Messiahship 
 which He avowed and claimed Jesus Christ suftered 
 death. 
 
 These facts prepare the way for our argument. 
 
 First : we have to prove that the expectation of a 
 
 The Messiah was really founded on a7icient prophecy, that it 
 
 ^urdream." ^vas no dream generated by the sufferings of the 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY PROPHECY. 
 
 ^77 
 
 The word 
 
 ' Messiah." 
 
 Dan. i.t. 
 
 25-27. 
 
 nation but rested on the solid basis of predictions 
 which had been given through successive ages. In 
 Bible history there is a progressive development of 
 the promise of conquest over evil contained in the 
 words — the seed of the woman shall bruise the head 
 of the serpent. And in the successive stages of this 
 development we have the true and only sufficient 
 explanation of the Messiahship which was so eagerly 
 and earnestly anticipated by the Jews. But we may 
 look at the matter from another point of view. 
 
 The word " Messiah " occurs for the first and only 
 time in the Old Testament in the Book of Daniel. 
 " Know therefore and understand, that from the going 
 forth of the commandment to restore and to build 
 Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven 
 weeks, and threescore and two weeks : the street 
 shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous 
 times. And after threescore and two weeks shall 
 ^Messiah be cut off, but not for himself . . . And He 
 shall confirm the covenant with many for one Aveek ; 
 and in the midst of the week he shall cause the 
 sacrifice and the oblation to cease." " Messiah," as 
 readers of the New Testament know, is the Hebrew John i. 41. 
 equivalent of the Greek " Christ," and both mean 
 "Anointed:" so that the words in the passage just 
 quoted might be translated in verse 25 "the Anointed 
 the Prince," and in verse 26 "the Anointed." The 
 significance of the passage is to be found not in its 
 retaining the Hebrew form " ]\Iessiah," and regarding 
 it as a proper noun, as "Christ" has been in the 
 New Testament, — but in its foretelling the coming at a 
 particular period of an " Anointed Prince," a Prince 
 anointed of God who should be cut off but not for 
 himself Certain critics regard the book of Daniel. Date of the 
 and especially some portions of it, as having been Daniel 
 
1/8 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 written in an age long after that of Daniel, but on no 
 better ground than their objection to its miraculous 
 narratives, and the supposition that its predictions 
 are too minute to have been ^Yritten before the events 
 to which they refer. But even if we accepted the 
 theory of these critics, which we do not, it would still 
 be true that the Book existed some two hundred 
 years before Christ. The prediction of " Messiah, the 
 Prince," in the ninth chapter, and the prediction of the 
 Kingdom, to be set up by the God of Heaven, which 
 should never be destroyed, in the second chapter, 
 were given, even on the most anti-Christian theory, 
 nearly two centuries before the period at which 
 Christians say they were fulfilled. The Jewish ex- 
 pectation of a Messiah, a Prince, a Kingdom of God 
 and of Heaven, which was rife and fervent when 
 Jesus Christ appeared, may thus be traced at least 
 to the days assigned by hostile criticism to the Book 
 of Daniel. 
 Other But these predictions in Daniel do not stand alone ; 
 
 ^'^'^eU as''^ they form but a small portion of Messianic prophecy. 
 
 Daniel, j^. j^ ^^^ qucstioncd that Malachi wrote some four 
 
 liundred years before Christ, and in his book we find 
 
 j)/<j/./7/. 1,2. these words: "Behold, I wall send my messenger, 
 and he shall prepare the way before me : and th(,' 
 Lord whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to Hi? 
 temple, e\'en the Messenger of the Covenant whonj 
 ye delight in : behold. He shall come, saith the Lord 
 of hosts." And, as if consciously closing the era of 
 
 Mai.h.^,^. inspired prophecy, the book ends thus : "Remember 
 ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded 
 unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes 
 and judgments. Behold, I will send you Elijah the 
 Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful 
 day of the Lord." 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY FROFI/ECV. 1/9 
 
 The prophecies which we find thus at the end of 
 the long ages which are represented in the Old Testa- 
 ment, are in succession to prophecies which were 
 given at the beginning of these ages, as ordinary readers 
 of the Bible can verify for themselves. And for my 
 present purpose it is enough to quote the words of 
 one who cannot be suspected of an " orthodox " bias. 
 " In the separation of the two kingdoms of Judah and Keim in his 
 Israel, (d.c. 965), in the decline of Israel, and in the yes'use/^ 
 decay of Judah under David's posterity, there sprang vol. i.j>. 315. 
 up (says Keim), and from the ninth century, from the 
 times of the prophets Amos and Hosea, and then in Persistency 
 
 1 -11 •! • r -r • 1 iTir-i of the hope. 
 
 the eighth century, in the times of Isaiah and Micah, 
 there grew continually stronger, the hope that God 
 would raise up once more ' the fallen tabernacle of 
 David;' that He would plant upon Zion a branch 
 from the stem of Jesse which had been cut down, 
 from the top of the high cedar which had been 
 broken off; that out of Bethlehem, out of the house 
 of David, the King of Israel, there should come 
 forth, adorned with the name of God and with the 
 mysterious title of the Eternal, a Gatherer together of 
 the people, a Conqueror of the Gentiles, the world's 
 Prince of Peace, the Planter of Knowledge and 
 righteousness. At the beginning of the Asiatic cap- 
 tivity, of the end of all hope (b.c. 5 88), Jeremiah and 
 Ezekiel persisted in the assertion that in the seed 
 of David, in the righteous branch, the redemption 
 of the nation was at hand. The long exile, the 
 weakness of the colony that returned to the land of 
 their fathers under the Persian king Cyrus {b.c. 536), 
 the decayed condition of the family of David, which 
 with difficulty asserted itself in Zerubbabel, weakened 
 faith in the old royal house, but not faith in the future 
 of Israel. . . . Faith in the house of David dis- 
 
l8o HAXDBOOK' OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 appears in Malachi, the last prophet : but the Lord 
 Hunself will come to execute judgment, to inhabit 
 His temple, to establish His covenant and kingdom, 
 and will have as His forerunner the heavenly Elijah, 
 the man of incomparable power, an establisher of 
 peace, a preparer of Israel for the coming of the 
 Great King." 
 See We have here a most singular phenomenon, one 
 
 " Pilate s . . . . 
 
 Question" which has no parallel in the history of the nations 
 
 autho^,fp. of the earth. At a period which, if we do not accept 
 "'^~ ■ the earlier books of the Bible as genuine, is so remote 
 as to be lost in primeval mist, the Jewish race set its 
 heart and hope on a great future which was to be 
 realized in the birth and life of one of its own sons. 
 The land might be desolate, the people might be 
 A most scattered among all nations, and despair might ask, 
 
 phenfmen'on Can thcsc dry boncs live again ? But nothing could 
 crush out of the heart of this race, the hope of a 
 mighty Potentate who should raise it to higher 
 honour, and a wider dominion, than it possessed in the 
 glorious reigns of David and Solomon. There was 
 it is true, a certain degree of mystery about the 
 personality of the Coming One, and prophets in 
 successive ages described Him in language that could 
 scarcely be understood, because it ascribed to Him 
 attributes and prerogatives that were more than 
 human. But His coming was to their minds not so 
 much a probability as a certainty. And never more 
 so than in the age in which Jesus of Nazareth was 
 born. 
 The This, we say, is a most singular phenomenon. We 
 
 ''''founr.io" search history and tradition in vain for anything to 
 
 where else, compare with it. Assyria perishes, Babylon perishes, 
 
 the republics of Greece perish, the empires of Macedon 
 
 and Persia and Rome perish. But they perish without 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY PROFIIECY. l8j 
 
 hope. They have no traditional prophecy of a resur- 
 rection. No seer arises in the hour of their destruction 
 to bid them be of good hope, for they shall live again. 
 The grave closes over them, and it needs no stone nor 
 seal to secure that its prey shall not be delivered. 
 
 Whence the difference ? The only rational explan- ^vhence the 
 
 X., -r • , difference? 
 
 ation is to be found ni the Book. The Jew received 
 the hope which was transmitted from age to age, and 
 to which he has clung amid the ruins of his State and 
 temple as confidently as he did in the hour of his 
 greatest power, from God Himself. It was not the 
 fruit of his own imagination. It came from heaven. 
 And not only so, but his nation was founded upon it. 
 The God who separated his father Abraham from his 
 kindred in the East, said to him, " In thee shall all the 
 lamilies of the earth be blessed." 
 
 Secondly : we have before us the fact that eagerlv 
 as the Jews in the time of Christ expected and desired 
 the coming of the Messiah they were profoundly wrong 
 in their idea of what He was to be and to do — their The 
 conceptions of Him and of His work were not in harmony no't^undcr- 
 with the prophecies on which they were based. This will ^'°jews^o'f'' 
 appear more fully when we show how Jesus of Naza- 
 reth realized the Old Testament idea. And at present 
 it is not necessary to do much more than to remind 
 the reader of the Gospels, that the prevailing hope and 
 desire of the Jews in Christ's time was for the coming 
 of a great military leader, who should deliver them 
 from the heathen domination to which they were sub- 
 ject. How much of the supernatural they associated 
 with His work, if any, we do not know. But when 
 the Galileans witnessed the supernatural power which 
 Jesus possessed when He multiplied a few loaves into 
 the food of thousands, they would take Him by force 
 
 Christ's 
 time. 
 
1^2 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 to make Him their King. Some, in whose minds th? 
 idea of a temporal sovereignty was uppermost, may 
 have associated with it hopes of spiritual blessings. 
 But the popular hope was a temporal salvation and 
 temporal blessings. 
 
 Let Keim tell us the practical forms which this hope 
 "ij/eof took. "The times of Jesus are full of a restless ex- 
 
 Jt-sitsof 
 
 Nazara," pectation of the saivanon tnat was to come. A weak 
 
 vol. i. p. 320. _ ... _ , , . , . 
 
 party of non-religious Jews were wilhng to see their 
 
 ideal in Herod, who called himself the bringer of 
 
 happiness to Israel. Others clung Avith convulsiA-e 
 
 Gross .and hopc to the last remnants of the Asmonoean house, to 
 
 expectations. Hyrcanus, to the youthftd and handsome high-priest 
 Aristobulus, to the false Alexander, who pretended to 
 be the murdered yet still living son of Mariamne, and 
 whom, after the king's death, all foreign Jews even as 
 far as Rome acknowledged, until the Emperor Augustus 
 freed them from faith in an impostor ; and, finally, the 
 nation clung to Agrippa, the grandson, the new king 
 of the Jews under Caligula, and whom Alexandria and 
 Jerusalem, amid the envy of the foreigners, hailed with 
 joyful surprise as their star of hope. Others again, in 
 the frenzy of despair, found the saviours of Israel in the 
 military leaders who, immediately after the king's death, 
 sprung up like fungi, and overran Judcea and Galilee, 
 partly as disciples of the great adventurer, and partly 
 as speculators in the popular anticipation of the Mes 
 siah ; while others flocked to the banner of Judas the 
 Galilean, who, in the name of God, began the armed 
 vindication of the freedom of the people of God and 
 who was the forerunner of all the defenders of freedom, 
 the impostors, prophets, and Messiahs, which rose 
 against Rome from the reign of Tiberius to the reigns of 
 
 •yosej>hus. Nero and Hadrian. . . . We must not forget Josephus, 
 the rationalist, the deserter to the Roman party. He 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY FROPIIECY. iSj 
 
 admits, with more or less frankness, the IMessianic hopes 
 of his people as well as of many philosophers, at the 
 time of the destruction of Jerusalem ; only he refers 
 (in radical opposition to the text, and with a view to 
 his own life and welfare) the old ' Oracles ' of a uni- 
 versal ruler out of Israel, to Rome, and to Vespasian, 
 who rose over the ruins of Jerusalem to the Imperial 
 throne." 
 
 There are certain ideas respecting the Messiah to 
 be found in the Hebrew literature of the times imme- 
 diately preceding the time of Christ which we do not 
 find mirrored in popular sentiment. There is a book The Rook of 
 called the Book of Enoch, the date of which is not 
 certainly determined, — some ascribing it to the century 
 before Christ but seeing in it traces of additions and 
 interpolations of a later date. In this book we find 
 very glorious attributes ascribed to the Messiah. He Scc r>e- 
 is the Son of God and the Son of man. But the aspect ''Roif'I 
 
 of the Messiah as a sufferer is utterly wanting. That Leaurc\"f> 
 
 /'/'■ 
 
 He was to suffer, above all to die, the book does not ^^^ V'']-, 
 give the slightest intimation. Its Messiah is altogether 
 triumphant. And although He is repeatedly called 
 the Son of man, no one trait of character strictly 
 human is ascribed to Him. So far as His portraiture 
 goes it is altogether divine. 
 
 The great Alexandrian contemporary of Christ, the riuio. 
 Jewish Philo, scarcely hints at the Messiah, although 
 he says much concerning Jewish expectations of a 
 brighter future; he knows no means of reconciliation, 
 of redemption ; he sees no need of them. According 
 to Philo, " salvation is to be worked out by a perpetual i.idiionj 
 speculation upon the eternal order of things ; and i.7c'tti?rs. 
 asceticism is of value in assisting man to ascend into ^'^^' "' 
 an ecstatic philosophical reverie." 
 
 •* .' . . A Hebrew 
 
 In a Hebrew Sibylline poem which was composed Sibyi. 
 
1 84 JIAXDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 probably in Alexandria, a century before Christ, and 
 not in Philo, we find the echoes of the aspirations of 
 the Jews. *' From the land of the sun God will send 
 forth a King, who shall put an end to war in the whole 
 earth by destroying the wicked, and bringing the 
 righteous into His covenant." This king would evi- 
 dently be a warrior king, who should establish uni- 
 versal peace by his conquering sword. The happiness 
 of mankind, when thus -wTought by the Jews under 
 God's law, is represented in lively imagery. " The 
 people of the great God will roll in gold and silver, 
 will be clothed in purple, and earth and seas will pour 
 their treasures at their feet." 
 
 Such ideas were more worthy of the descendants 
 of the prophets than those of men who could see 
 Messiah in a Herod, or a Vespasian, but yet they 
 were far from realizing the prophetic conception. 
 
 Prophetic Thirdly. The pTophctic conception of the Messiah, 
 ^eaSedTn misundcrstood by the Jews of Christ's time, was yet 
 Jesus Christ, y}^/^ realized in Jesus Christ. In that conception, ii 
 will be remembered, there were such extraordinar) 
 and apparently irreconcileable opposites as these 
 the Messiah was to be " God and man ; exalted and 
 made low ; master and servant ; priest and victim ; 
 prince and subject ; involved in death and yet victor 
 over death; rich and poor; a king, a conqueror, 
 glorious, and a man of griefs, exposed to infirmities 
 unknown, in a state of abjection and humiliation." 
 The reader can verify this representation for himself. 
 Its chief elements are these — 
 God and {(t) The Godhead and the Humanity of the promised 
 luan. Redeemer. These are foretold most expressly in 
 jsa.ix.(>\ Isaiah; but they are to be found likewise in Micah, 
 i<.v7i"j:«/V. 7; Zechariah, and Malachi, where an eternal pre-exist- 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY PROPHECY. 185 
 
 ence is ascribed to Him, and wliere He is called Mai. m. 1 ; 
 the Fellow of Jehovah and even Jehovah Himself. "' ^' 
 His twofold nature is likewise implied in attributes 
 and works ascribed to Him. Turn from these pre- 
 dictions to history, and we find the Jesus Christ of the 
 Gospels represented and representing Himself as the 
 Son of God and the Son of Man. 
 
 (l>) The INIessiah was to be a great sufferer, even a great 
 unto death, and His sufferings were to be the means of umo death. 
 a spiritual salvation to mankind. The Messiah, the 
 Prince, was to die, but not for Himself Dying, He 
 tvas to make reconciliation for iniquity and to bring z><z«. /^. 24. 
 in an everlasting righteousness. His soul was to 
 be made an offering for sin ; He was to bear the isa. uu. 
 iniquities of men ; and men, in consequence, would 
 be justified, and their Redeemer satisfied. All this 
 was fulfilled in the avowed mission of Jesus of 
 Nazareth. He was announced at the beginning of 
 His ministry as the Lamb of God that taketh away John i- 29- 
 the sin of the world. And at the end of His ministry, 
 instituting the Lord's Supper, with the symbolic cup 
 in His hand. He said — " Drink ye all of it ; for this Matt. xxvi. 
 is my blood of the new covenant which is shed for ^''' ^'^' 
 many for the remission of sins." 
 
 {c) The ]Messiah was to be a great King and Con- a gieat 
 qneror, but very unlike other kings in the means and 
 ends of His reign. His glory and conquests were 
 often described in terms borrowed from earthly prince- 
 doms. But the indications were abundant that the 
 King, the Son of David, who was to arise " out of the See ha. xi. 
 stem of Jesse," was to be above all a spiritual King ciuiL^^-i,. 
 and a spiritual benefactor. And one of the last of 
 the prophets warned the nation, and called them to 
 rejoice in it, that the Coming King was not to \,^ SeeZech.ix. 
 martial but peaceful, not to head an army but Himself ^" 
 
1 86 
 
 HA XD BOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Matt. V. 
 3. 5- 
 
 Unlike other to bring salvatioii. This is a feature of the promised 
 Messiah which the popular Jewish expectation in the 
 time of Christ entirely overlooked. But we find it 
 realized from the first in the Mcssiahship of Jesus. 
 John the Baptist prepared His way not by calling the 
 nation to arms, but by summoning them to repentance. 
 And, in what may be called the formal proclamation 
 of His kingdom, Jesus said — ■" Blessed are the poor 
 in spirit : for thcu-'s is the Kingdom of Heaven. . . 
 Blessed are the meek : for they shall inherit the earth." 
 In the many parables which He spake concerning 
 the Kingdom of which He was King, we find only 
 spiritual blessings and spiritual responsibilities. And 
 before Pilate He declared, " My Kingdom is not of 
 this world." In all of which we see the true Messiah 
 of prophecy. 
 
 {d) The Messiah was to be a Priest as well as a 
 King. This is implied in the prophecies already 
 quoted from Isaiah and Daniel. It is asserted ex- 
 pressly in a Psalm of which no rational interpretation 
 can be invented if its Messianic reference is denied, 
 and in Zechariah where it is said that " the man whose 
 name is the Branch " shall build the temple of the 
 Lord, shall sit and rule upon His throne, and shall 
 be a Priest upon His throne. The New Testament 
 throughout ascribes Priesthood to Jesus Christ — a doc- 
 trine which could not, from the nature of the case, 
 be fully unveiled till His sacrifice was offered, but 
 which was implied in such words of His own as, 
 " The Son of Man came to give His life a ransom 
 for many " — the Son of Man being both the sacrifice 
 and the offerer of the sacrifice. 
 A great {^) The Mcssiah was to be a great Prophet and to 
 Prophet, introduce a dispensation in which the Gentiles were 
 
 See Rom. ' . . , ,. , . , , 
 
 XV. 9-12. to enjoy equal privileges and light with the Jews. 
 
 A Priest 
 upon His 
 
 throne. 
 Isa. liii. ; 
 D.tn. ix. 
 
 Psa. ex. 
 
 /^.e'-Ji. vi. 
 12, 13. 
 
 Malt. XX. 
 28. 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY PROPHECY. iZj 
 
 This we gather not only from the prediction of a 
 prophet nice unto Moses, a prophet with legislative 
 authority, but from many Scriptures. In the seed of 
 Abraham all the nations of the earth were to be 
 blessed. " It shall come to pass in the last days, that isa. a. 2, 3. 
 the mountain of the Lord's House shall be established 
 on the summit of the mountains, and shall be exalted 
 above the hills; and all nations shall flow to it. . , . For 
 out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of 
 Jehovah from Jerusalem." Even with the Jews there 
 was to be a new covenant — not one of ritual ordinances, 
 but of spiritual purifying: "Not according to the 7.-'-. ,--,-1. 
 covenant that I made with their fathers in the day ^' "'" 
 that I took them by the hand to bring them out of 
 Egypt. . , , But this is the covenant that I will make 
 with the House of Israel ; After those days, saith the 
 Eord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write 
 it in their hearts \ and will be their God and they shall 
 be my people." " I will say to them which are not my Hosca it i-=, 
 people, Thou art my people ; and they shall say. 
 Thou art my God." 
 
 It is notorious that the Judaism of the time of 
 Christ was narrow and intolerant. Gentiles might 
 become Jews by conforming to all the requirements 
 of the Mosaic law, but on no other condition ; and 
 }et it was evident that the Mosaic law from its very 
 nature was impracticable except within the boundaries 
 of the chosen land. But the birth of Jesus Christ 
 was declared to be an occasion of joy ''to all people." Luke a. 10. 
 The sphere of His Kingdom He described in His 
 parables as being the world. To the woman of 
 Samaria He said — " The hour cometh, when ye shall John h: 
 neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship ^'' ^^' 
 the Father. . . . The hour con"ieth, and now is, when 
 the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit Nota Jewish 
 
 o 
 
l88 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 but a and in truth ; for the Father seeketh such to worship 
 ciispensatton. Him." And before He left the world, He com- 
 manded His disciples to go and teach all nations — 
 Matt. <' teachincj them (He said) to observe all things what- 
 19. 2o- soever I have commanded you : and lo, I am with 
 you ahvay, even unto the end of the world." The 
 world was to be the scene of the Messiah's reign, and 
 Jesus as the Messiah claimed authority to legislate 
 for all nations, as well as power to bless them. 
 
 These particulars are far from exhausting tlie sub- 
 ject. They only set forth, in broad outline, the more 
 important features of the prophetic conception of the 
 Messiah and the Messianic future — features which 
 were either entirely overlooked or utterly misunder- 
 stood by the Jews of Christ's time, but which were 
 fully realized in the person, character, and avowed 
 mission of Jesus of Nazareth. And the result may be 
 stated as follows : — 
 Christ's ideas I. Jesiis did jiot dcrlvc Jiis ideas of the Alessiahship 
 "°'tim^. ^^ from the people of His times, and did not conform His 
 claims to their conceptions and hopes. This needs no 
 further proof. The very best that the spirit of the age 
 could produce would be another Judas Maccabseus, 
 a man after the image of the noble-hearted son of 
 Matthatias. And we know what it did produce a 
 Simon Bar- huudrcd ycars after Christ Simon Barchochebas 
 chochebas, ^j^^ounced himsclf as the long expected Messiah, 
 and called on all the descendants of Abraham to 
 assert the hope of Israel. He called himself "the 
 Son of the Star," because prophecy had said, " There 
 shall come a Star out of Jacob." He collected a 
 formidable army, and compelled the Romans to 
 evacuate Jerusalem, where he was proclaimed King 
 and caused coins to be struck with his name. For 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY FROPHECY. 189 
 
 two years this military Messiah resisted the power of 
 the Emperor Hadrian, but was at last overpowered 
 and perished with hundreds of thousands of those 
 who had hailed him as their king. And it is a 
 noticeable fact that, throughout his brief day of power, 
 he was especially hostile to the follov/ers of Jesus of 
 Nazareth, inflicting many penalties upon them to 
 compel them to deny and blaspheme their King, and 
 condemning to death those who would not. 
 
 In the character and acts of this man, whom his 
 followers, in their bitter disappointment, called the 
 " Son of a Lie," we see as in a mirror very clearly the 
 sentiments and hopes which filled the nation of Israel 
 when Jesus of Nazareth proclaimed Himself the 
 Messiah. And a more absolute contrast cannot be Contrast 
 
 between 
 
 imagined than Simon Barchochebas and Jesus. Simon and 
 Whatever Jesus was not, Simon was : whatever Simon 
 was not, Jesus was. The spirit which produced the 
 messiahship of Simon could not have produced the 
 Messiahship of Jesus. " Jesus Christ," says Mr. Mat- 
 thew Arnold, " was undoubtedly the very last sort of 
 Messiah whom the Jews expected." " Professing to 
 be the King they expected," says the author of Ecce 
 Homo, "He did none of the things which they expected " Ecce 
 the King to do. . . . They expected to see once more tiie'^expectld 
 a warrior-king, judging in the gate of Jerusalem, or ^'"°" 
 surrounded by his mighty men, or carrying his vic- 
 torious arms into the neighbouring countries, or 
 receiving submissive embassies from Rome and 
 Seleucia, and in the mean time holding awful com- 
 munication with Jehovah, administering His law and 
 singing His praise. It was as impossible for them to 
 conceive the true Christ, to imagine what He would 
 do, or how He would do it, as it was impossible for 
 them to fill His place." 
 
I(;0 " II A. \D BOOK OF CIIRISTIAX EVIDENCES. 
 
 How explain How Came it to jxiss that Jesus of Nazareth was 
 
 able to separate Himself so absolutely from His age 
 
 and nation ? His contemporaries spake of Him as 
 
 johnvii. 15. one who " had nsver learned," who had never been in 
 
 any school of learning. And modern sceptics confess 
 
 Matt.xiii. that "He was ignorant of the strange scholasticism 
 
 ^■'' •'^' which was tauglit at Jerusalem." While "neither 
 
 Kenan, directly nor indirectly did any element of Greek 
 
 culture reach Him. He knew 7iothing beyond Ji/daisiii." 
 
 And yet of that Judaism beyond which it is said that 
 
 He knew nothing else, He is absolutely free. The 
 
 elements which were most intense in the region in 
 
 f.uKeii. which He was brought up, produced no effect upon 
 
 }t'.tt.' Him. There must have been something in Himself 
 
 which repelled them, something with which they 
 
 would not coalesce and which was stronger than tltey. 
 
 2. While the IMessiahship avowed by and realized 
 in Jesus Christ cannot be traced to the popular ideas 
 of His age, neither cafi it have been assumed and acted 
 Jesus did not oiit by One who was not the Messiah. In other words, 
 act a part. ^^,g cannot accouut for the realization of the long-pre- 
 dicted Messiahship in Jesus Christ on the supposition 
 that He merely imagined Himself the Messiah, or 
 that, without so imagining. He took advantage of the 
 prevailing expectation to represent Himself as such. 
 This supposition requires us to regard Him as either 
 an enthusiast or an impostor. But neither alternative 
 can be reconciled with His character and history. 
 Nor is the theory improved by supposing a mixture of 
 enthusiasm, and imposture. 
 
 If we could conceive it possible that a man of 
 noble spiritual character honestly believed himself to 
 be the Messiah, and set himself to the study of pro- 
 j-jhef'v to know how he should act his part, he would 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY FROFIIECY. \C)l 
 
 find the part he had chosen an impossible one. Let An 
 hira collect and classify all the attributes prophetically "^ pan. ^ 
 ascribed to the Messiah, all the offices to be sustained 
 by Him, all the works to be performed by Him, and 
 all the sufferings to be endured, he has to turn all 
 these into the realities of an actual life. And how is 
 he to do this ? 
 
 "Supposing a body of ideologists to have arrived P>-rh-nda-y 
 at the conclusion that the Servant of Jehovah was BampioH 
 intended to be a delineation of the Messiah, they Jid'Edu. 
 might have learned from the fifty-second and fifty- ^' ^■**' 
 third chapters of Isaiah the following facts : — First, He 
 was to be one of the greatest of sufferers. Secondly, 
 He was to be despised and treated with contempt. 
 Thirdly, that His sufferings were to terminate in death. 
 Fourthly, that they were to be undergone voluntarily. The 
 Fifthly, that He was to exhibit in His sufferings the be combined. 
 patience of a lamb. Sixthly, that His sufferings 
 would terminate not only in a triumphant issue, but 
 in a result satisfactory to Himself. Such are the 
 materials which this prophetic delineation would have 
 afforded the ideologists, to enable them to portray the 
 suffering Christ of the Gospels. It will be at once 
 seen how imperfect a model they would have formed, 
 on which to construct the drama of the Passion. The 
 six points referred to, would have only served as 
 simple directions to construct a character in which 
 these particular aspects were to be perfectly embodied : 
 but they would have left the question unsolved as to 
 how this was to be effected." 
 
 If such a body of men as Prebendary Row supposes 
 could not construct, out of the " ideas " they found in 
 prophecy, a story that should embody them perfectly 
 as they are in our Gospels, how much less could a 
 living man construct out of them a life and actual 
 
192 IIAXDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 history for himself such as is the Hfe and history of 
 
 Jesus Christ. The difficulty is immensely increased 
 
 How when the Divine aspects of the Messiah's character 
 
 Divine with havc to bc delineated in combination with the human, 
 uman . ,, ^j^^ combinatioH of a Divine with a Human charac- 
 
 i!a;„pton ter," says Mr. Row, " is a rock on Avhich all poets 
 
 p.'-lll^' a.nd ideologists have suffered shipwreck : and it need 
 hardly be observed that the difficulty of effecting the 
 union is greatly increased when it is necessary to de- 
 lineate the human as a sufferer. But it is very unlikely 
 that a number of ideologists who used Isaiah as their 
 5^iodel, would have arrived at the unanimous conclusion 
 that the Divine and human aspects of the prophetic 
 delineation were to be combined in one person. It is 
 far more probable that at least some of them would 
 have considered that two Christs were intended by the 
 prophet, one of whom was to exhibit the Divine, and 
 
 Probable the Other the human attributes of the Messianic deli- 
 "^"lulmpt."^ neation. On such a point disagreement would be fatal. 
 If on the other hand they arrived at the conclusion 
 that both were to be combined in a single person, this 
 would have at once launched them, without rudder, com- 
 pass, or star, to direct their course, on the boundless 
 ocean of conjecture as to how the union was to be 
 effected. It is evident that the only possible result 
 must have been the creation of as many ideal Christs 
 as there were ideologists." 
 
 This argument is directed against the supposition 
 that it was possible for a man, or for any number of 
 men, to invent the Gospel history of Jesus out of the 
 materials found in prophecy. The larger the number 
 of these materials, the greater would have been the 
 embarrassment which they would have caused as to 
 how the various scattered rudimentary delineations 
 were to be combined into a harmonious whole, and 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY PROPHECY. 193 
 
 exhibited in the actions and teachings of the living 
 Christ. The argument is doubly conclusive against 
 the supposition that any man, even the loftiest and 
 most inventive, taking prophetic materials as his 
 model, could have so ordered his own life as to realize 
 these materials, in fact could have become by his own 
 voUtion the historic Jesus Christ of the Gospels, — 
 teaching, acting, suffering, dying, not to say rising 
 again, as He did. There is an extravagance about An 
 the supposition which should condemn it, and which supposmon! 
 would, but for the reluctance of certain persons to 
 acknowledge the grand supernatural fact of the Mes- 
 siahship of Jesus Christ. 
 
 3. Only one theory remains, — the Theory co- True theory. 
 incident with the fact — that Jesus %vas videed the jesus indeed 
 Christ, the Messiah, foretold and promised. With His '^'^ ^^^'''^''• 
 hand on the Jewish canon, He could look opponents 
 or disciples in the face, and bid them " Search the I"'"' '"■ 39- 
 Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal 
 life, and they are they which testify of Me." In the 
 synagogue of that Nazareth where he had spent His 
 youth, He read on one occasion these words out of 
 the Book of the prophet Isaiah, — "The Spirit of the Ua. ixi. i. 
 Lord is upon me, because He hath anointed me to 
 preach the Gospel to the poor ; He hath sent me to 
 heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the 
 captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at 
 liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable 
 year of the Lord." When the eyes of all that were in 
 the synagogue were fastened upon Him, He said, 
 "This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears" — Lukdv.ii. 
 I am the Anointed One, the Christ, of whom the 
 prophet wrote. And the part ascribed to the Anointed 
 One was acted out by Jesus — not as by an effort, a 
 
194 ITAXDBOOK or CHRISTIAN EVIDEiXCES. 
 
 Study, to act it, but with the simpHcity and naturalness 
 
 of reality. In the reality ot His Messiahship we have 
 
 the solution of the marvellous correspondence between 
 
 the story of Jesus in the Gospels and the prophecies 
 
 of the Old Testament. The apparent contradictions 
 
 of these prophecies found their reconcilement in Him, 
 
 Contradic- — their strange and violent contrasts found their 
 
 recouciied. Unity in Him. He ivas God and man, prince and 
 
 subject, rich and poor, dying and yet destroying death, 
 
 a man of sorrows and a glorious conqueror. 
 
 Two facts— "We are then in the presence of two facts, — " First, 
 
 prediction . ^. . 
 
 and cor- a sct of predictions Uttered by various persons, and at 
 ' widely different intervals of time, affirming that a 
 kingdom of God would be manifested in the future, 
 and a Messiah to be its King. Secondly, the realiza- 
 tion in history after an interval of several centuries. 
 Such a correspondence between prediction and fulfil- 
 ment can be found nowhere else in the entire history 
 of man." 
 
 Hampton Prebcudary Row sums up the prophetic argument 
 
 '2'i^l2or' for the superhuman claims of Jesus Christ, and ex- 
 hibits its conjoint force thus : " The Old Testament, 
 many centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ, an- 
 nounced the setting up of a future Kingdom of God, and 
 the advent of a Messiah, who was to be its King. It 
 affirms that a prophet should appear in the future like 
 
 Summary, uuto Moscs. A multitude of prophets have appeared ; 
 but the only one who bears this resemblance is Jesus 
 Christ. It has described a person of exalted holiness, 
 and possessing a superhuman character, as suffering 
 for others : the full conception of such a character is 
 fully realized in Him and in Him alone. It announces 
 a Messiah who was to be a Royal Priest: Jesus 
 Christ has assumed this office and nullified every other 
 sacrifice but His own. The Jewish dispensation con- 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY FROPIIECY. 195 
 
 sisted of a mass of rites, ceremonies, symbols, and 
 shadowy representations. Jesus Christ and His 
 Church are the embodiment of all the reality which 
 they contain; and have rendered them for the" future 
 as worthless and unmeaning as it would be to hold up 
 a candle to the noon-day sun. Its great kings and 
 prophets earnestly longed for better things to come : 
 those aspirations have received their satisfaction in 
 the person, actions, and teaching of the Divine man. 
 The teaching of the Old Testament, while founded on 
 eternal truths, bears evident marks of imperfection : 
 Jesus Christ is the embodiment of the ideal after 
 which the Law and the prophets were dimly groping. 
 The argument is spread over a large amount of space, 
 and consists of a multitude of minor details ; but such 
 are its salient points. Viow them not separately, but 
 as they converge in a common centre, in the One 
 Great Catholic Man, Jesus Christ our Lord. Is it 
 possible that this vast concurrence of circumstances in 
 a single person can have been the result of a number 
 of fortunate guesses ? But if it has been the result of 
 foresight, that foresight must have been superhuman." 
 
 The conclusion is twofold — a superhuman pre- Conclusion. 
 science in the prophets, and a superhuman fulfilment 
 in Jesus Christ. 
 
156 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE JESUS CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS CERTIFIED BY 
 HIS MIRACLES. 
 
 Alleged " The miracles of the Gospels are a hindrance rather 
 hindrances. ^^^^ ^ j^^jp ^.^ {^{^]^^» ^yg ^j-g sometiiTies told, and 
 
 told by men who consider themselves wise. But 
 underneath the aphorism, as it seems to be, there 
 lurks a great fallacy. If Jesus Christ was only a wise 
 and good man, a profound thinker, who, like other 
 reformers, awakened His age to a sense of God and 
 truth, and who by His teaching and example gave a 
 wondrous impulse to all the ages which have followed, 
 miracles such as are recorded in the Gospels would 
 be altogether out of place in His life. And the 
 record of them could only be a stumbling-block in 
 the way of men who might otherwise hail Him as 
 their Teacher and Guide. But if Jesus Christ was 
 Himself Supernatural, as He is represented in the 
 Gospels to have been — supernatural m authority and 
 in person — the miracles ascribed to Him are m keep- 
 ing with His claims ; and the absence of them, not 
 their presence, would be the stumbling-block. At 
 this point it is not assumed that He was in any sense 
 supernatural, although much evidence has already 
 been advanced to prove that He was, — and not 
 assumed that He wrought miracles. But it is insisted 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS MIRACLES 197 
 
 that on the hypothesis that He was supernatural, the 
 miracles ascribed to Him are aids, not hindrances, to 
 faith in Him. The Christ to whom we are forbidden 
 to go except "through Nature," can Himself have ^^e^^ 
 been only " Natural," and cannot have been the Christ on Dr. 
 
 . - , Abbotts 
 
 of the Gospels, the Son of God and Saviour ot the ■• rhroi^^h 
 
 ^ .\'nture to 
 
 world. Christ." 
 
 On the subject of miracles generally, much need 
 not be said here. A mere summary is all that space 
 allows. 
 
 I. As to the definition of a miracle, we do 7iot admit Miracle not 
 
 a violation ot 
 
 that a miracle is '•'■opposed to the laws of nature^'' <?/- natural law. 
 is in any sense a " violation of the laws of nature." 
 Those who so describe miracles in order to discredit 
 them, fail to give us any definition of "a law of 
 nature," that shall contain the truth, the whole truth, 
 and nothing but the truth. When they give us such /,'^f'^(y 
 a definition, we shall have no difficulty in defining the ^''/er- 
 
 ' ■' ^ natural 
 
 relation of a miracle to the laws of nature. For the Christianity 
 
 — in reply to 
 
 present we insist that the "Supernatural is, as the the book 
 word indicates, not that which is contrary to nature, ,iatnrai Re- 
 ox a violation of nature, but as Dean Trench puts it, '%!)he~ 
 tliat which is above nature, or beyond nature. It is ""g^'To.'*'^' 
 something out of the range of the action of natural ^'^aho^e 
 law, and cannot therefore be said to be opposed to it. nature. 
 Both the Natural and the Supernatural are modes of Two modes 
 Divine action. But to us, on our side of things, or °aaion?'' 
 from our point of view, they are different modes. 
 For example, the difference between the manner in 
 which the harvest field, by means of spring, summer, 
 and autumn, produces food for thousands, and the 
 manner in which the Christian story says it was pro- 
 duced on a memorable occasion on the eastern shore 
 of the Sea of Galilee, is not that the one is gradual 
 and that the other was instantaneous. No amount of illustration. 
 
IpS HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 time, with tillage and rain and sunshine, could make 
 loaves to germinate and grow into a larger quantity. 
 If we call the one process natural, we must call the 
 other supernatural. Even if we suppose that there 
 were means employed in the miracle, means un- 
 knoAvn to us, we cannot call them natural means — 
 means traceable by us among the ordinary laws of 
 nature. They must have been of a kind known to 
 God alone. And the supposition of the possible 
 existence of such means in the working of miracles, 
 means that are occult and undiscoverable, will not 
 justify us in confounding the natural and the super- 
 natural. The means themselves, under this sup- 
 position, are as supernatural as the end produced. 
 
 In a miracle, then, we say that the will and power 
 of God produce an effect, or result, or event, other- 
 wise than as effects, results, and events, are produced 
 in the course of nature. 
 
 Miracles 2. The diduiii that nnradcs are impossible or in- 
 impossibie Credible is titterly arbitrary atid untenable. Words are 
 incredible. ^Imost wastcd in replying to it. That they are not 
 incredible is certain, for they are actually credited, and 
 have been, by vast numbers of thoughtful and intel- 
 ligent men. That they are impossible can be main- 
 tained only by those who deny the existence of a 
 Personal God. If there be no God, no God who 
 can will and work, there can be no power outside 
 nature to act upon nature. But if there be such a 
 God, the possibility of a miracle cannot be denied. 
 As to those who, without denying the existence of 
 God, are always telling us that we can form no con- 
 ception of God, we might expect them to reflect that 
 possibly the working of miracles, the producing of 
 effects otherwise than through the laws of nature, may 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS MIRACLES. 199 
 
 be among the things unknown of God. Biit they 
 speak rather as if they had measured the whole length 
 and breadth of the Divine nature, had discovered all 
 about God, and were in a position to declare, with 
 prophetic certainty, that God cannot and will not. Arrogant 
 
 , • . 1 ii ■ ii • assumption 
 
 under any circumstances, work otherwise than in J 
 coimection ^vith and through natural law. To make As"o^"c3. 
 good their right to speak thus, they must produce 
 supernatural credentials ; they must work a miracle to 
 prove that no miracle can be wrought ! 
 
 \. It is scarcely necessary to add that we reject in J*iiracies not 
 
 ^ •' ■' , / unhistoncal. 
 
 ioto the assiiinption that iniraciilons nan-ativcs a7-e 
 necessarily nnJiistorical. There are writers who not 
 only assume this but think it quite unnecessary to 
 attempt any proof of it. Thus Renan says, " That 
 the Gospels are in part legendary, is evident, since Outhe 
 they are full of miracles and of the supernatural." prhuip'i'cs 0/ 
 But the dogma that the supernatural is ipso facto crWdsm," 
 unhistorical, is a sheer begging of the question. It ^lurrel- 
 has no basis in reason or pliilosopliy, and is altogether ''"^^^^^J^J"' 
 unscientific. i^'^'ir,' 
 
 Pact, I'r 
 the autlior, 
 ^ , , , , , ChaJ>. I. 
 
 The sum of the whole matter may be stated very 
 briefly, (i.) Science has no right to deny the existence ^"'"""■'y- 
 of a Personal God. It has as yet discovered no substi- 
 tute for His Power, and Intelligence, and Will. (2.) 
 Admitting a Personal God, we cannot logically deny 
 the possibility of miracles. Even Rousseau could say, 
 '" Seriously to raise this question would be inipious if 
 it were not absurd." (3.) Miracles being possible, see 
 circumstances may render them probable, so probable aL!p. I'j/. 
 that, instead of being "antecedently incredible," the 
 antecedence is strongly in their favour. Believing as 
 we do, in that terrible existence, sin, in man's im- 
 
2CO HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 potence to deliver himself from this terrible evil, and 
 in the infinite love of the Great Father, nothing seems 
 to us more probable than the Incarnation and the 
 miracles of the Incarnate One. " The possibility of 
 the miraculous," says Christlieb, " rests upon the 
 uninterrupted activity of a Living God in the world. 
 Its necessity arises, on the one hand, from the Divine 
 end and aim of the world ; and, on the other, from 
 the disturbance introduced into its development 
 through sin. Therefore although miracles are super- 
 natural, they are not unnatural. Far from violating 
 the conditions of life, of nature, or of humanity, they 
 re-establish the life of the world which had already 
 been deranged, and initiate the higher order of things 
 for which the universe was created." 
 
 The Gospel We now tum to the books which profess to give 
 
 ^^°^^' us the story of the life of Jesus Christ, and we find 
 
 them ascribing to Him many miracles. All the 
 
 Gospels tell of miracles which He wrought. Some 
 
 of these miracles are narrated by only one Evangelist, 
 
 some by two, some by three, and one, the feeding 
 
 ^rait.xiv.; of the live thousand at Bethsaida, is narrated by the 
 
 ^y^r^T''- ; four. The miracles thus narrated are all of one 
 
 JLii/ce IX. , 
 
 joimvi. character. No moral incongruity can be detected 
 
 Character of ^^^o^^S them. They are works of beneficence and 
 
 Christ's mercy, illustrative of the gracious purpose of the life 
 
 miracles. ■' . '- '■ ^ 
 
 ^Tatt.xxi. and death of Jesus Christ. The "cursing" of the 
 
 Ma'rlVi fig-tree, and the destruction of the swine of the Gada- 
 
 ii'anVir ^"G"^Sj ^'^^ ^""o exception. The human person was not 
 
 28-32. the subject of these miracles, and they were both 
 
 wrought in the spirit of all His miracles. As to the 
 
 fig-tree, the withering of it was a solemn parable — a 
 
 warning in act such as Fie had often spoken in words 
 
 — a warning to the Jewish nation. No farther oppor- 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS MIRACLES. 20L 
 
 tunity of fruit-bearing was to be vouchsafed; hence- see Luke 
 forward it would be " too late." As to the destruction ^",''57^' 
 of the swine, one reason for it "may ha^e been to "^^'"g^ljg'f"'' 
 rebuke the offensive practice of pasturing these un- '^''and'fhe ""* 
 clean beasts on the hills of Canaan. Another — per- Gadareue 
 
 i swine. 
 
 haps the most important reason — to give a practical 
 and visible proof of the real existence of evil spirits, 
 and at the same time to assure the man of the per- 
 manence of the cure." Dr. Doddridge has well re- 
 marked, " No miracles are more suspicious than 
 pretended dispossessions, as there is so much room for 
 collusion in them. But it is self-evident that a herd 
 of swine could not be confederate in any frauds." 
 
 The miracles of healing, some have imagined, may jMiracies of 
 be explained on natural principles. Appeal is made ^^''"s- 
 to what is known of the power of the mind over the 
 body. Certain diseases, we are told, are susceptible 
 of cure by a sudden emotional shock. And while 
 the miracles, properly so called, which are ascribed to 
 Christ, must be reckoned legendary, the miracles of 
 healing may have had a basis of actual fact, but a 
 purely natural basis ! 
 
 Let the reader study the phenomena as he finds Not wro..-hi 
 them in the Gospels, and then say whether they can " ' ' 
 
 be thus explained, on the theory of an " emotional 
 shock," or any other theory of "moral therapeutics." 
 The centurion put an entirely different construction 
 on Christ's power to heal, when he compared it to his 
 own military authority : " I am a man under autho- Mat;, via. 
 rity, having soldiers under me : and I say to this man, ^" 
 Go, and he goeth ; and to another, Come, and he 
 cometh ; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth 
 it." Christ Himself was evidently unconscious that 
 it was by any " moral therapeutics/' or any latent in- 
 
202 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 fluence, mesmeric, electric, magnetic, or any other, 
 
 that He cured disease. " I will, be thou clean," is 
 
 His own explanation of the restoration of health to a 
 
 leper ; and when He healed the centurion's servant, 
 
 Tjait. via. He was many miles apart from him, and yet the heal- 
 
 LuklVii.zo. ^"g '^^^5 simultaneous with the utterance of His word. 
 
 ^o/tniv '^^^^ Aposdes were equally unconscious of any natural 
 
 51-53- power or process by which a miracle of healing might 
 
 be wrought, " Why look ye so earnestly on us," said 
 
 Ads in. T2. Peter and John, " as though by our own power or 
 
 holiness we had made this man to walk ? " " In the 
 
 name of Jesus of Nazareth," they had said to the lame 
 
 man, " rise up and walk," 
 
 The attempt to find some natural explanation of 
 Christ's miracles of healing is but a revival of the old 
 rationalism which ascribed to Christ and other workers 
 of miracles a special magnetic power, and which re- 
 duced "the Son of Cod with power" to a benevolent 
 Rabbi, who executed innumerable works of charity 
 with the help of medical skill and good fortune, a 
 principle altogether illusory and fatal to the truthtul- 
 ness of the Gospel narratives. 
 
 Believing that no distinction can be drawn between 
 the miracles of healing and the other miracles ascribed 
 to Christ, and that they must all stand or fall together, 
 Are the otir fivst coucerfi is to ascertain wJiether the narratives 
 \^^ 5 are trustworthy — whether, in short, these miracles were 
 ever wrought. It is evident that the question of 
 the genuineness of the miracles depends mainly on 
 the prior question of the genuineness of the Gospels. 
 Now, we have already shown, as far as space allowed, 
 that the Gospels were published in the days of the 
 first generation of Christ's disciples; and that they 
 could not have obtained the acceptance they did if 
 
 narral ives 
 tiubtwor 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS MIRACLES. 203 
 
 they were not in general accord with what was popu- 
 larly known of the life and actions of Jesus Christ. 
 The attempt to date the Gospels or any of them in 
 the second century has utterly failed. " The writer," " Lecinrcsin 
 says Godet, " who in these last years has treated with tiu- 
 the greatest thoroughness the question of the origin of Paitli';''' 
 our three first Gospels, Professor Holtzmann, of Heidel- ^' '"'" 
 berg, who is not suspected of partiality, since he is at 
 the head of the freethinkers in the Grand Duchy of 
 Baden, concludes his study by declaring the results of 
 modern labours on this subject to be in perfect agree- Holtzmann 
 ment with the traditions of the most ancient ecclesi- ""JfThe^'^ 
 astical writers, namely, in affirming the writings which Gospels. 
 form the basis of our first three Gospels — and these 
 Gospels themselves — to have been drawn up between 
 the years 60 and 80 of our era ; that is to say, not 
 more than from thirty to fifty years after our Lord's 
 death." We put our argument, then, thus : 
 
 I. These miraculous narratives were published to the Tubiished to 
 
 contem- 
 
 contemporaries of the alleged events, the generation nihich poraries. 
 could have detected and exposed their falsity. In the 
 year of our Lord 58, only two years before the date 
 assigned by the Freethinking Holtzmann to the earliest 
 Gospel, the Apostle Paul speaks of five hundred 
 brethren to whom the risen Jesus appeared on a i Ci;^. xv. 5. 
 mountain in Galilee, and adds, " of whom the greater 
 part remain unto this present, but some are fallen 
 asleep." " Li the presence of a whole generation of GodeCs 
 contemporaries, and of eyewitnesses still living, it is De/Jnce'-"' 
 difficult to understand how accounts of miracles so ^^'^•'^122- 
 circumstantial as those contained in our Gospels, ac- 
 companied with the proper names of places and of 
 persons, could have got themselves accredited, if the 
 facts had not been recognized as real. It is even im- 
 possible to conceive to one's self how men could have 
 
 p 
 
204 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 The age un- 
 critical. 
 
 The age 
 sceptical. 
 
 dared to publish fictions of such a nature, so soon 
 after the supposed event. ' To have made it possible,' 
 says Holtzmann, ' for such narratives to have been 
 put into circulation and generally received, if they 
 were mere fictions, it would have been necessary for as 
 many decenniums to have passed away, as there did 
 in fact pass years, between the life of Jesus and the 
 composition of our Gospels.' " 
 
 If it be said that the age was uncritical and super- 
 stitious, and prepared to accept any miraculous tales 
 that might be told, we reply that it was sceptical as 
 well as superstitious, perhaps more sceptical than 
 superstitious. " It was the age in which, under the 
 attacks of philosophy, the ancient Pagan supersti- 
 tions crumbled to dust ; it was the age in which 
 Lucretius was WTiting his completely rationalistic 
 poem on nature, and identified its laws, as men are 
 doing now, with the Divine nature." 
 
 Judxa had its Sadduceeism as well as other parts 
 of the Roman Empire. And it was in the face of 
 the world's incredulity that the Resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ, and the many miracles ascribed to Him, were 
 proclaimed and believed in. 
 
 Even if we put this fact out of sight and take into 
 account only the elements of superstition which still 
 prevailed, we shall find no explanation of the Gospel 
 narratives except in their truth. 
 
 The 
 
 miracles 
 
 which the 
 
 age would 
 
 have 
 invented. 
 
 2. IV/iat manner of miracles the age or its siiperstitioji 
 ivould have ascribed to Christ may be seen by referejice to 
 t/ie stories whicJi we find in the Apocryphal Gospels 
 which sprung up in the second century. In these 
 Gospels we are told of the child Jesus manufacturing, 
 in company with other Nazareth children, birds made 
 of ordinary clay, and by breathing upon them con- 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS MIRACLES. 205 
 
 ferring upon those which He made the power of flight ; The 
 or, again, of the child Jesus, when He had accidentally ' oospe^s.^ 
 spilt upon the stairs the contents of a jug which He 
 had just filled at the well, gathering it up in a hand- 
 kerchief, and presenting it to His astonished mother. 
 The Apocryphal Gospels even ascribe to the child 
 Jesus the revengeful passions that are common to 
 children, and represent Him as using His divine power 
 to punish children who had displeased Him, Thus, 
 some children refuse to play with Him, hiding them- 
 selves from Him ; He pursues and turns them into kids. 
 Another child by accident runs against Him and throws 
 Him down ; whereupon He, being exasperated, ex- 
 claims, " As thou hast made Me to fall, so shalt thou fall 
 and not rise." At the same hour the child fell down and 
 expired. He has a dispute with the master who is 
 teaching Him letters, concerning the order in which He 
 shall go through the Hebrew alphabet, and His master 
 strikes Him ; whereupon Jesus curses him, and straight- 
 way his arm is withered, and he falls on his face and 
 dies. 
 
 " If in the second century, and in the Church itself, CodeCs 
 men were so unskilful at inventing fictitious history, jfi'^l!' 
 even with the Gospels before them as models, what 
 would the Gospel itself have been, if it had been 
 composed a century earlier and had been inspired by 
 the instincts of the natural man without being fashioned 
 after a Divine and living model ?" After enumerating 
 and describing the various gospels of post-apostolic 
 centuries, Keim says, "Altogether undeceived by such "yesusr/ 
 an endless, unproductive, misleading world of legends vol'^i'.'Ij. 
 . . . we escape from the lying magic, to seek a last 
 support and help in the sources afforded by the New Ad 
 Testament in our Gospels." In nothing is the contrast °' ^"'"' 
 between our Gospels and the productions of later ages 
 
 ions 
 
2o6 HAXDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN' EVIDEXCES. 
 
 greater than in the character of the miracles which they 
 Admissions ascrlbc to Jcsus Christ. Even Renan cannot help 
 saying, " The marvellous in the Gospels is but sober 
 good sense compared with tliat which we meet with in 
 the Jewish Apocryphal writings, or in the Hindoo- 
 European mythologies." And he might have added, 
 " and even in Christian books composed at a later date 
 than our Gospels." 
 
 Simplicity of 3. Not Only in the substance of the Gospel miracles 
 
 but in the style in which they are recorded, do tee find 
 
 evidence of the truth of the narratives. " In respect of 
 
 form," says Godet, " how great is their simplicity, their 
 
 " Defence candour ! An honest man bears upon his countenance 
 
 chriitia?i and manner of speaking the stamp of his sincerity. 
 
 r29,'i3o Do our Evangelists need a certificate of honesty or of 
 
 good faith ? Suppose in some evil hour you have seen, 
 
 heaped up before you, mountains of objections, of 
 
 difficulties, open one of our Gospels, read over one or 
 
 two lines in the book itself; these mountains will seem 
 
 to you mere clouds which go off in vapour ; you feci 
 
 yourself in contact with the Divine reality. When man 
 
 invents a marvel, the excessive emphasis of the tone 
 
 , of his writing betrays the unreality of his facts ; it is 
 
 the prerogative of the truth alone to be at once so 
 
 grand and so simple." 
 
 This simplicity and conscious honesty is seen in the 
 
 very differences which we observe in narratives of the 
 
 "Defence;' Same cvcnt. Again, quoting Godet, " One might 
 
 ^23,^' fancy oneself listening to three messengers arriving 
 
 from different directions, and recounting, each in his 
 
 own way, some event which they have all three just 
 
 An witnessed. Imagine a case : A shipwreck has just 
 
 '""else"^^ occurred, in the presence of a whole population. 
 
 Three eye-witnesses give an account of it. One heard 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS MIRACLES. 20/ 
 
 the sound of the breaking of the mast under the blows 
 of the tempest ; another saw the sail fall upon the deck 
 and envelope the ill-fated sailors in its folds ; the third 
 saw the waves force their way into breaches in the 
 ship's sides. Each tells of the particular fact which 
 happened to strike his own mind. The three accounts 
 do not coincide perfectly, except when they report 
 some energetic order of the captain, or some heart- 
 rending cry of one of the victims. In this case, do 
 not even the discrepancies [differences, rather] between 
 the three narratives demonstrate the reality of the facts 
 reported ? Now, just such is the testimony of our first 
 Gospels. Their harmony regards the substance of the 
 narrative, and their discrepancies [differences] prove 
 that this harmony is iiot of an artificial nature— not 
 the result of calculation. They are firsthand, original 
 narratives, which, complementing as they do one an- 
 other, are mutually corroborative." 
 
 4. The dependence of the sayings and teaching of xhe saying, 
 Christ on the miracles ascribed to Him is conclusive ''^on"he"' 
 evidence of the ?eality of the miracles. " The sayings miracles, 
 of Tesus," says Keim, "besides possessing- the charac- "Jesus of 
 teristics of their age, exhibit all the evidence of an vol. i. />. S7. 
 exalted and strongly-marked originality, of a powerful 
 nature, of a divine enthusiasm and energy. So com- 
 pletely is this the case, that every sentence is full of 
 an antique character soon lost in the Church, and bears 
 a peculiar mental stamp which no successor, no evan- 
 gelist, Jew or Gentile, not even Paul himself could 
 have invented." To the same effect WTites John 
 Stuart Mill, who did not take his place within the 
 Christian fold : " It is of no use to say that Christ, as 
 exhibited in the Gospels, is not historical, and that we 
 know not how much of what is admirable has been 
 
20v^ HA XD BOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 superadded by the tradition of His followers. The 
 tradition of followers suffices to insert any number of 
 marvels, and may have inserted all the miracles which 
 He is reputed to have wrought. But who among His 
 disciples, or among their proselytes, was capable of 
 inventing the sayings ascribed to Jesus, or of imagining 
 the life and character revealed in the Gospels ? Cer- 
 tainly not the fishermen of Galilee, as certainly not 
 St. Paul." 
 
 We have just seen that " the tradition of the fol- 
 lowers " of Jesus does not account for the miracles 
 which He is said to have wrought. And we now argue 
 further, that very many of the most memorable sayings 
 ascribed to Christ, and which, it is confessed, must 
 have been His, are so connected with, and dependent 
 on, the miracles ascribed to Him, that they cannot be 
 separated. The genuineness of the one involves the 
 Teaching gcnuincness of the other. The teaching and the 
 mirades Hiiracles are so interwoven in the narrative that we 
 inseparable. ^-^^ oursclves compcllcd to acccpt or to reject the two 
 together. 
 
 Even the Sermon on the Mount concludes with 
 words which imply the performance of miracles. 
 Matt. vii. " Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have 
 we not prophesied in Thy name ? and in Thy name 
 have cast out devils ? and in Thy name done many 
 wonderful works ? And then will I profess unto them, 
 I never knew you." " Had it not been an acknow- 
 ledged fact that Jesus Himself wrought miracles, that 
 He worked them daily, would it have been possible 
 for Him, without covering Himself with ridicule, to 
 have spoken to the multitude of the miracles which 
 the disciples would work in His name ? " 
 
 We may take particular instances. In three of the 
 Gospels we have the discourse which centres on the 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS MIRACLES 2C9 
 
 words, "A kingdom divided against itself is brought to Matt. xU. 
 desolation." The discourse connected with these Ma^^in. 
 words is one of the most striking delivered by Jesus, L^J^^^xi. 
 and even Strauss did not question its authenticity. But ''♦"-7- 
 this discourse, according to the narrative, arose out of ..^.^?™p'^~ 
 
 ' o ' A kingdom 
 
 one of His miracles. He had healed a demoniac who divided 
 
 against 
 
 was blmd and dumb, msomuch that the blind and dumb itself." 
 both spake and saw. The people were amazed, and 
 said, " Is not this the Son of David? " i.e. the Messiah. 
 The Pharisees sought to undo the impression which 
 had been produced, by saying, " He hath Beelzebub, 
 and by the prince of the devils casteth He out 
 devils." It was in reply to this charge, that Jesus 
 said, " If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against 
 himself." In this case it is evident that the discourse 
 was occasioned by the charge of the Pharisees, and 
 that their charge was occasioned by the miracle. 
 
 So is it in other cases ; as, for example, in the yoh>i v. 9, 
 miracle of healing at the pool of Bethesda. The 
 charge that He had broken the sabbath arose out of this 
 miracle, and the charge that He made Himself equal Exampie- 
 with God arose out of His defence of Himself. The ofBethe^sda. 
 whole discourse which follows rests on the work per- 
 formed at the pool of Bethesda. Suppress the miracle 
 performed on the sabbath day, and "the discourse 
 remains suspended in the air." Those who accept 
 the words of Jesus as original and inimitable are 
 logically bound to accept the miracles from which 
 many of them sprang. " It is a vain attempt to seek 
 to distinguish between the Master of Wisdom and Him 
 who is called the Thaumaturgus or under-worker. If 
 the miracles are false or fabulous, the sayings of Jesus 
 which rest upon them lose all authority." 
 
 5. To many minds the most conclusive proof of the 
 
2IO HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 'genuineness of the miraculous narratives Avill be found 
 
 Harmony of ill their perfect hartnony ivith the Christ of the Gospels 
 
 with'^he^^ Himself This will appear as we proceed. But some 
 
 Christ. j(^ie^s need to be repeated and insisted on. The miracles 
 
 ascribed to Christ would not have been in harmony 
 
 with His claim and character as a mere Rabbi. But 
 
 if He was the Son of God and Saviour of the world, 
 
 the miracles ascribed to Him were in harmony with 
 
 His claim and character, and the absence of them 
 
 would have been unaccountable. 
 
 Having now established, we trust conclusively, the 
 
 genuineness of the miraculous narratives in the Gospels, 
 
 let us see how Christ Himself regarded His miracles. 
 
 And 
 
 Evidence of I. He appealed to them in evidence of His claims. 
 
 aims, j^ answer to John's inquiry, " Art Thou He that should 
 
 Matt. xi. come, or do we look for another?" Jesus said, "Tell 
 
 ^ ■ John what things ye have seen and heard ; how that 
 
 the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, 
 
 the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the 
 
 gospel is preached." He upbraided the cities wherein 
 
 most of His mighty works were done, because they 
 
 Matt. xi. repented not, saying, " If the mighty works which were 
 
 '°"^'*' done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they 
 
 would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." 
 
 johnxk'.ii. "Believe me," he said to Philip, "that I am in the 
 
 Father, and the Father in Me : or else believe Me for 
 
 John XV. ■i^. the very works' sake." Again, He said, "If I had not 
 
 done among them the works which none other did, 
 
 they had not had sin." Even when refusing to give 
 
 such signs as were sometimes demanded, He told the 
 
 Ichn u. people of a sign that should be given hereafter. When 
 
 He drove the money-changers out of the temple, the 
 
 Jews said, " What sign showest Thou unto us, seeing 
 
 I ^-22. 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS MIRACLES. 211 
 
 Thou doest these things ? " " Destroy this temple, 
 and in three days I will raise it up," was His reply. 
 When He was raised from the dead the disciples 
 remembered and understood this saying. On two Matt. xH. 
 other occasions, Jesus foretold His resurrection, and ^"t-t"^^'' 
 called it the sign of the prophet Jonas. His disciples 
 quite understood that His miracles were wrought in 
 evidence of His claims. "Many other signs," we 
 read in the end of the fourth Gospel, " did Jesus in the 
 presence of His disciples, which are not written in 
 this book : but these are written that ye might believe 
 that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." 
 
 2. While appealing to His mighty works in support Keni^ses to 
 of His claims. He tuouldnot work miracles at the bidding 
 of those who chose to ask for them, especially such miracles 
 as they desired. On occasion of the cleansing of the 
 temple. He referred the people forward, as we have 
 just seen, to the event of His resurrection. When 
 certain of the Scribes and Pharisees said, " Master, we 
 would see a sign from Thee,'' and when certain Phari- 
 sees and Sadducees united to tempt Him, demanding 
 "a sign from heaven," He not only referred them 
 forward to the same event, but reproached those who 
 made the demand, saying, " An evil and adulterous Matt. xH. 
 generation seeketh after a sign ; and there shall no ^\\eaiso' 
 sign be given to it but the sign of the prophet Jonas." 1^/12'"' 
 
 His conduct on these occasions is more than con- Consistency 
 sistent with the fact that Pie wrought miracles to prove ° action." 
 His mission. It was because he wrought such miracles 
 in abundance, that He declined to work them, as it 
 were, to order. If those who desired them were 
 honestly seeking to know the truth, they had evidence 
 more than enough to satisfy them. 
 
 Besides, when these persons desired a sign from 
 
213 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 heaven, they desired a miracle of a different kind from 
 those which Jesus wrought. A sign from heaven 
 would have been some portent in the sky, some mere 
 prodigy. "If He were Himself, for example, to soar 
 up into the sky till He should be out of sight, and were 
 then to come down again in the clouds of heaven ; 
 if He were to exhibit some sign like that, then, 
 thought or pretended they. He might reasonably ex- 
 See Pai-t V^^^ ^^ to bclieve on Him." Not only, however, had 
 i-i>st,p. c. j.]^gy jjQ right to prescribe what evidence He should 
 give them, but the sort of sign which they desired was 
 one which it would have been unworthy of Him to per- 
 form, and which would have been no true sign of what 
 De He was. " A prodigy is only a manifestation of power, 
 '■'yl'sus^ an astonishing fact, which arrests the attention, and 
 LiTeand chcits admiration and amazement quite apart from its 
 xstE^Iit ^''"'oral character. Clearly it has no religious value ; it 
 /■ 309- appeals to the eye, and not to the heart and conscience, 
 prodigy of no it cauuot servc to establish either a Divine mission or a 
 new truth. Besides, if power belongs to God, it is but 
 one of His attributes ; it is not in // that we must seek 
 the essence of His Being, since that is pre-eminently 
 holiness and love. The greatest displays of power 
 would not truly reveal Him." 
 
 "The ethical meaning of the miracle," as Dean 
 Trench says, " would be wholly lost, were blank as- 
 tonishment or gaping wonder all which they aroused, 
 since the same effect might be produced by a thousand 
 meaner causes. Indeed, it is not a little remarkable, 
 rather it is profoundly characteristic of the miracles of 
 the New Testament, as indeed Origen noted long ago, 
 that this name ' wonders ' is never applied to them but 
 in connection with some other name. They are con- 
 tinually, signs and wonders,' or * signs ' alone, or 
 ' powers ' alone, but never 'wonders' alone." That 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY II IS MIRACLES. 213 
 
 Jesus should have declined to work mere prodigies is 
 only a further proof that He was what He claimed 
 to be. 
 
 3. There is another point that should not be over- other signs 
 looked, namely, that while Jesus met the legitimate appredaled. 
 desire for evidence by working miracles, He complained 
 that the people, a?id even His disciples, did not appreciate, 
 as they ought, other signs. When asked by a nobleman, 
 or royal officer, of Capernaum to "come down and 
 heal his son," He exclaimed, "Except ye see signs 7^/„„v. 43. 
 and wonders, ye will not believe." He had just come 
 Irom Samaria, where many believed that He was 
 ''indeed the Saviour of the w^orld," without witnessing 
 any miracle, simply through the "word" which YLq joh,i iv. i,i, 
 had preached to them during His two days' stay ''" 
 among them. And He no sooner sets His feet on 
 Israelitish soil than He is soHcited to work a miracle ! 
 The request springs from a father's concern for the 
 life of his child, and it is granted. But the reflection 
 suggested by it was the result of Christ's former ex- 
 perience in Galilee, and shows how deeply He felt 
 the spiritual obtuseness of the people of that region. 
 
 On the occasion on which He said, " If I had not John xz: 
 done among them the works which none other did, ^^~''^' 
 they had not had sin," he said likewise, " If I had not 
 come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin." 
 The Divine wisdom of His teaching was evidence 
 whence He was, as well as the Divine power of His 
 working. And He had to complain that many re- 
 sisted the evidence of both. 
 
 Philip said to Jesus on one occasion, " Lord, show jphn .x-h. 
 us the Father, and it sufficeth us " And the Lord's ^""" 
 reply is very significant: "Have I been so long time 
 with you, and dost thou not know Me, Philip? he 
 
2 [4 IIAiVDBOOA' OF CIIK1S7IAX EVIDEXCES. 
 
 "Shew us that hath seen Me hath seen the Father; and huw 
 the I'-aiher." ^^^.g^j j]-,^^ ti^gj-,^ gj^g^^. ^g ^j^^ Father? . . . Believe Me 
 
 that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me : or else 
 
 believe Me for the very works' sake." Philip had 
 
 sufiicient evidence, without and apart from the works 
 
 wrought by Jesus, that there was a mysterious union 
 
 between Jesus and the Divine Father. How he 
 
 imagined that the Father could be manifested, we do 
 
 not know. He may have thought of something sucli 
 
 as they thought of who demanded a sign from Heaven 
 
 — a dazzling vision, it may be, a magnificent spectacle 
 
 Commcniarvm. the atmosphcre. "This request," says Godet, 
 
 "cospei.—iK "would have been well founded if the Divine nature 
 
 ^°'^''' consisted solely in power. But God is holiness and 
 
 A Person love, and hence the true Theophany could not be a 
 
 the true 
 
 Theophany. splcudid phenomenon, but must be a Person manifest- 
 ing in word and act those features of the Divine 
 character; a human, filial life, in which is displayed 
 that relation full of dignity and tenderness which God 
 maintains with the Being who calls Him His Father. 
 Now this unique spectacle, this only true Theophany, 
 this visible brightness of the Divine glory, had been 
 before the eyes of the disciples for three years, and 
 Jesus beheld with wonder and grief that they had not 
 better appreciated the privilege which had been 
 granted them." 
 
 The rektion ^'^ ^^^ "^^'^ ^"^ ^ position to Understand the relation 
 "' '^mt '° of the Christ to the miracles and of the miracles to 
 miracles, j^j-jg ChHst of the Gospcls. Thcse miracles formed a 
 liart of His credentials — by which we mean that they 
 were "signs" both of His authority and of His 
 Person; and, so far as we can judge, necessary signs. 
 Some modern writers, in their recoil from a method of 
 representing the evidence of miracles which took but 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS MIRACLES. 21 5 
 
 little note of the character of the miracles, go to the 
 opposite extreme and make too little of the direct 
 evidential power of the miracles. But the two ideas 
 should not be separated. The character of the miracles 
 is of the essence of the evidence ivhich they render to the 
 claims of Christ. In Christ's miracles we have not 
 only power but grace and goodness, never wrought 
 except to effect an immediately useful purpose. The 
 question raised by a sceptical writer as to whether the 
 miraculous change of a pen into a pen-wiper could 
 make what was written truer or surer, has no bearing 
 on the miracles of Christ. The difference between 
 Christ's miracles and useless prodigies, has been 
 marked by the defenders of the faith from the begin- 
 ning. When Celsus insinuated that the miracles of Origcn in 
 the Gospel were like tlie tricks of magicians, Origen ceiLL? 
 replied — " Show me the magician who calls upon the Quoted in 
 spectators of his prodigies to reform their life, or who ^^'Ifartyrs 
 teaches his admirers the fear of God, and seeks to jxp^o^sts ■• 
 persuade them to act as those v>ho must appear before ^/- ^'&' ^"^• 
 Him as their judge. The magicians do nothing of 
 the sort, either because they are incapable of it, or 
 because they have no such desire. Themselves 
 charged with crimes the most shameful and infamous, 
 how should they attempt the reformation of the morals 
 of others? The miracles of Christ, on the contrary, 
 all bear the impress of His own holiness, and He ever 
 uses them as the means of w'inning to the cause of 
 goodness and truth those who witnessed them. Thus 
 He presented His own life as the perfect model, not 
 only to His immediate disciples, but to all men. He 
 taught His disciples to make known to those that 
 heard them the perfect will of God ; and He revealed 
 to mankind far more by His life and words than by 
 His miracles, the secret of that holiness by which it is 
 
2l6 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 possible in all things to please God. If such was the 
 life of Jesus, how can He be compared to mere 
 charlatans ; and why may we not believe that He was 
 indeed God manifested in the flesh, for the salvation 
 of our race ? " Our conclusion then is twofold : 
 
 I. The miracles of Christ — His tuorks of might 
 si?nsof and love — were signs or evidences of His Alessianic 
 au"thority. authority. John the Baptist, we are expressly told, 
 yohnx.^i. did no miracle. His ministry, although supernatural 
 Authority in its Origin and authority, needed no miracle. It was 
 "uhout an appeal to the consciences of the people, founded 
 niiraces. ^^ (Jiyine laws, and threatenings, and promises, with 
 which they were already familiar. In the case of the 
 ancient prophets, the reality of the Divine communica- 
 tions was attested, for the most part, by their con- 
 formity to the law already given, by the consciences of 
 the people, and by the spirit in which the prophets 
 spoke; although sometimes peculiar circumstances 
 and specific threatenings rendered signs necessary. 
 Missions But there were missions which needed miraculous 
 ^miraci"s!'^ signs for their attestation. That of Moses, for ex- 
 ample, when he was commanded to go and bring 
 Israel out of Egypt. The feeling which He expressed 
 Exod. w. I. when He said, " They will say, the Lord hath not 
 appeared to thee," was natural and rational. Moses 
 knew human nature, and he knew the Israelitish 
 nature in particular — debased and depressed by long 
 years of cruel bondage. Let him go to them as a 
 patriot burning to deliver them from their bondage ; 
 let him, by his eloquence, light the fire of freedom in 
 their bosoms, and kindle a flame that shall melt their 
 Moses not a chaius. In such a character let him do what he can 
 mere Patriot. ^^^ ^^i^ emancipation of his brethren. It will be for 
 them to reckon the chances of success in an attemjtt 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS MIRACLES. 21/ 
 
 to throw off the yoke of Egypt, and say whether they 
 will risk all, life itself, in one great effort to be free. 
 Moses can only use argument and persuasion, like 
 other patriotic deliverers, and trust in the blessing of 
 the God of judgment for a successful issue. But it is 
 not in the character of a patriot, self-moved or even 
 God-moved, that he is about to return to his brethren. 
 He is going to tell them, in the name of the God of Moses sent 
 their fathers, that the hour of their deliverance is ^ " ' 
 come, that Jehovah has appeared to him in a most 
 mysterious way, has expressed His deep compassion 
 for His people, and has charged him to go and stand 
 before the tyrant who oppressed them and demand of 
 him, under pain of Divine judgment, to release his 
 bondsmen. And in these circumstances Israel must 
 arise and prepare, in the face of all difficulties, to 
 march forth to freedom. It is not an open question 
 which they may debate with one another and with 
 Moses, whether success is possible or probable, and 
 whether it will be wise of them to incur the hazard of 
 showing signs of restlessness and dissatisfaction. 
 They must arise and depart, that they may serve the 
 God of their fathers. But then they are entitled to 
 know by what authority Moses was acting. How By wimt 
 shall they be satisfied that his message and pretensions ^"^""'J • 
 are genuine? and that he is neither deceiving nor 
 deceived ? Moses anticipated the difficulty. He 
 needed no miracle to call the people to repentance. 
 But he did to justify him in demanding that they 
 should receive him as having come from the very 
 presence of God, to break their yoke, and to lead 
 them forth to the foot of Mount Horeb. And he 
 received the power which the circumstances rendered 
 necessary. 
 
 The power which Moses thus received to give 
 
2lS HA XD BOO A' OF CHRISTIAN EVIDEXCES. 
 
 supernatural evidence of his mission was " the be- 
 ginning of miracles," so far as the use of them to attest 
 a divine coimnission is concerned. And the after use of 
 miracles for this purpose was not lavish but most 
 sparing — a fact which has an important bearing on the 
 question, whether Bible miracles are legendary or 
 historical. 
 
 But when the fulness of the times arrived, when 
 
 One appeared who professed to be the long expected 
 
 "The Coming One, the King whose advent prophets had 
 
 Coming . . 
 
 One" foretold, who spoke of Hmiself m the language of an 
 nece'bl^y. apparent paradox as having come down from heaven 
 and as being in heaven, the necessity which existed in 
 the case of Moses returned with a greatly increased 
 urgency. Whence art Thou? What sign showest 
 Thou? were acknowledged by Himself to be legiti- 
 mate questions. And His " mighty works " was His 
 answer, not His only answer, but an answer which 
 the people were entitled to receive. 
 
 Let it be remembered that the position assumed by 
 
 Jesus Christ was not that of a mere teacher or preacher 
 
 of moral truths. Such truths do not need miraculous 
 
 Moral truth, evidcncc. The Bible uniformly appeals to the moral 
 
 as a rule, . . 
 
 does not need nature m man; and says m effect, "\\hy even of 
 ° ■ yourselves judge ye not what is right?" And yet we 
 can imagine circumstances in which God might be 
 pleased to teach moral truth, and enforce moral duty, 
 by a special revelation. The ethics taught by Jesus 
 Christ rested on "love to God and love to man." 
 And we can imagine man so sunk in ungodliness and 
 selfishness as to have lost all idea of either duty, and 
 needing a voice from heaven to recall them out ot 
 their low moral estate. 
 
 Christ more But Jcsus Christ was immensely more than a 
 
 than a ... 
 
 Teacher, tcachcr of morals. And it is in what He was beyond 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS MIRACLES. 219 
 
 this, that we see reason why His claims should be cer- 
 tified miraculously. Neither by His own generation 
 nor by generations following, can we conceive these 
 claims to be admitted and that, in the words of 
 Nicodemus, "God was with Him," without super- yo/mULz. 
 natural evidence. 
 
 In the works wrought by Christ we find the attesta- 
 tion not merely of a prophetic authority, but of His 
 Messianic authority. He professed to be the Messiah, Miracles and 
 and His works were all in harmony with that pro- 
 fession, not merely as being wrought by Divine Power, 
 but as being in keeping with the ends of jNIessiah's 
 reign. " Go and tell John what things ye have seen i:?/,:-.- otV. 22. 
 and heard ; how that the blind see, the lame walk, 
 the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are 
 raised ; and to the poor the gospel is preached.'' 
 Mere prodigies of power, we must repeat, would not what kind of 
 have been signs of Messiahship ; nor would works of ™"''^'^''^*- 
 judgment. Prophecy did not expressly declare that 
 Messiah would work miracles (Isaiah xxxv. verse 5 
 may refer only to spiritual blessings) ; but it ascribed 
 to Him a Divine power and a Divine graciousness, 
 and only by works embodying such power and 
 graciousness could the claims of an avowed Messiah 
 be certified to the world. And iui'h were the works 
 of Jesus Christ. 
 
 2. The miracles of Christ, we have further to say, signs of iiis 
 acc7rditcd His Messianic dignity as well as His j\Ies- ^^.^^^'-^^^'^ 
 sianic authority — they were signs of His Person as well 
 as of His office. He was careful, it is true, to ascribe 
 His works to "the Father who had sent Him," that joimv.ie. 
 those who saw them might be assured that they were 
 wrought by Divine and not human power, and were 
 designed of God to attest Plim as God's servant. 
 
 Q 
 
220 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 IMorcover, He never wrought miracles for Himself. 
 He who could multiply the loaves to feed hungn,' 
 thousands, would not turn stones into loaves to feed 
 Himself when an hungered. But yet there was some- 
 His manner thing qultc Unmistakable, in His manner of working 
 
 of working. . , . . . , . . 
 
 miracles, which indicated a claim higher than that of 
 Seethe service. " I will, be thou clean," are words which no 
 
 author's , 
 
 " Pilate s^ merely human servant could use. They are in strange 
 /!^i54?' contrast with the words of Peter and John at a later 
 
 Ads. Hi. 12. date — " Why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by 
 our own power or holiness v/e had made this man to 
 walk?" When Jesus quelled the storm, it was in a tone 
 of personal authority which led beholders to say, 
 
 M.irkiv. 41. "What manner of man is this that even the wands and 
 the sea obey Him ? " The effect of one of His mira- 
 cles on the mind of Peter was such that he fell down 
 
 Liikev. 8. at His knees and said, " Depart from me for I am a 
 sinful man, O Lord." Had this been the fruit of a 
 blind or superstitious impulse, He whose mission it 
 
 See Acts X. confessedly was to set ujd God's Kingdom in the 
 
 Rev. XIX. 10. world, could not fail to have rebuked him. But Jesus 
 accepted the prostrate homage of Peter, and replied in 
 reassuring words of Divine authority like those which 
 Jehovah addressed to the prophet — "Fear not, from 
 henceforth thou shalt be a fisher of men." 
 
 isn.ix.6\ The miracles of Christ, we see, are signs of more 
 than that He had a Divine commission. They are 
 signs of His personal dignity as the Messiah — that 
 
 Sent of God while He was "sent of God," He was likewise the 
 
 ^"goU." ° Son of God, in that high and unique sense in which 
 the Gospel represents Him to have appropriated the 
 title. Admit this and we have not only a reason 
 for miracles as such, but also an explanation of all that 
 was peculiar in the tones and words with which Christ's 
 miracles were wrout-ht. We now understand how He 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS MIRACLES. 221 
 
 should walk through the world as the very Master of 
 Nature. The calmness and quiet dignity which uni- 
 formly characterized Him only indicate His Divine 
 consciousness that with Him all things were possible. 
 He was Himself, as has often been remarked, the Himself the 
 Great IMiracle. " He represents, at its culminating Mimde. 
 point, the saving and special intervention of Divine DePres- 
 love for the redemption of the world. He breaks the .fj^',^^ 
 
 chain of natural causes and effects, to make a new Christ," 
 
 p. 310. 
 beginning. He is the Incarnation of redeeming love ; 
 
 and we recognize in Him the supreme manifestation of 
 the pity of the Father, remedying the ruin of the fall. 
 Particular miracles are only emanations from this 
 living and central miracle." 
 
 Thus understood, the miracles of Christ are no . Not 
 longer stumbling-blocks or hindrances to faith. They but .iids. 
 are the outward and visible signs of the presence of 
 Incarnate God on earth. With Dr. Thomas Arnold 
 we believe that they were " the natural accompani- 
 ments" of the Revelation of God in Christ," accom- 
 paniments the absence of which would have been far 
 more wonderful than their presence. 
 
222 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 •'THROUGH NATURE TO CHRIST." 
 
 Such is the title of a woik by Dr. Abbott, the Head Master of 
 the City of London School. The avowed object of the work is 
 to stem the progress of unbelief and to win unlaelievers back into 
 the Christian fold, and this most desirable object it proposes to 
 accomplish by eliminating all that is miraculous out of the Gospel 
 narratives ! A process which seems more like a capitulation 
 with unbelief than a conquest over it I Surrender all that is 
 miraculous to the unbeliever, and he is content ; he will admit 
 any amount of goodness and wisdom which you may claim for 
 Christ, and be an unbeliever still. 
 
 But how does Dr. Abbott hope to get rid of the miraculous 
 narratives of the Gospels? By these very short and easy 
 methods. First, — As to the miracles of healing ; these, it is 
 admitted, may have had a basis of actual fact, but a purely 
 natural basis. Secondly, — Some of the miraculous narratives 
 are to be regarded as the results of a mistaken interpretation of 
 metaphorical language. But, then, there are miraculous narratives 
 in the Gospels which cannot be got rid of, either as having a 
 natural historical basis, or as growing out of a misunderstanding 
 of metaphors, such as the raising of Lazarus, and the stilling of 
 the storm. What shall we do with these? The answer is. 
 Thirdly,— These must be later accretions around the original 
 narratives ! 
 
 All this has been answered, we trust sufficiently, in the earlier 
 pages of this volume. Only let it be remarked here, that by 
 such means as Dr. Abbott employs you can make anything out 
 of anything ! You can get rid of any amount of evidence, of any 
 imaginable kind, by a mere act of your own will ! You have only 
 to say, that's not true, that's an invention, and turn away from 
 it as an incredibility ! But anything more irrational than this 
 rationalistic method of treating evidence is not to be found in all 
 literature. 
 
 Dr. Abbott admits that " the miraculous part of the narrative 
 has arisen without the slighest falsification, or intention to 
 deceive." "The theory that the Gospel miracles are 'lies 'is 
 (he says), in my estimation, more incredible than the theory that 
 they are literally true and supernatural." But he must know full 
 well that all theories, hitherto, like Slrauss's, which have been 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS MIRACLES. 22; 
 
 invented, or imagined, to preserve the credit of Jesus Christ, 
 and to find a spiritual essence in His religion, which should be 
 independent of the supernatural envelope in which it has come 
 down to us, have ended in admitting some dishonesty on the 
 part of Christ Himself or His biographers. And his theory, if 
 theory it may be called, and which is the merest copy of the 
 latest Rationalism, requires to have its deficiencies eked out, 
 and its w^eakness supported in the same way. 
 
 Besides, the "Christ " to whom Dr. Abbott would lead us 
 " through nature," without any aid from the J«/^r-natural, can- 
 not be the Christ of the Gospels. He is Himself supernatural. 
 And the supernatural in His life, instead of being " unnatural " 
 is, in the highest sense, most natural. We repeat that for Him, 
 being what He was, not to have wrought miracles, not to have 
 ever visibly exercised His Divine power over nature, would have 
 been a greater wonder than any of the wonders recorded in His 
 life. In the absence of miracles from the story of His life, not 
 in their presence, should we find a hindrance to our faith. 
 
 These views were argued at considerable length by the author 
 in the Christian World for Oct. 5, Oct. 26, and Nov. 2, 1S77. 
 And in the close of one of these articles, on Dr. Abbott's theory 
 of the Resurrection of Christ, he ventured to say — "The author 
 of ' Supernatural Religion ' speaks of ' distinguished men who 
 endeavour to arrest for a moment the pursuing wolves of doubt 
 and unbelief by practically throwing to them, scrap by scrap, 
 the very doctrines which constitute the claims of Christianity to 
 be regarded as a Divine Revelation at all.' Whether Dr. 
 Abbott is one of these let the reader judge. In deference to the 
 demands of a most unscientific scepticism, he has given up the 
 substance of the great fact of our Lord's resurrection, and he 
 offers a shadow so unsubstantial that the 'pursuing wolf of 
 doubt ' will not be arrested by it even for a moment. N^07t tali 
 auxilio, nee defensoribus illis, iempus eget. " 
 
224 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 CHAPTER VL 
 
 THE JESUS CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS CERTIFIED BY 
 HIS RESURRECTION FROM THE DEAD. 
 
 In attestation of the claims of Jesus Christ, as 
 asserted first by Himself and then by Plis apostles, we 
 now appeal to an event which rests on the surest his- 
 toric evidence. That same Jesus who was crucified, 
 according to Tacitus and Luke, in the reign of the 
 Emperor Tiberius, by sentence of the Procurator 
 Ti,e fact to Pontius Pilate, and who, according to the Christian 
 e prove . j^^j.j.^).j^,g^ ^^^ j^-^ -j^ ^^ rock-hewn tomb of Joseph of 
 
 Arimathea, was restored to life, and remained on earth 
 for forty days after he left His grave. The bearing of 
 this event on the claims of Christ is explicitly stated 
 in one of those letters of the Apostle Paul which all 
 Horn. i. 1-4. admit to be genuine : — " Paul, a servant of Jesus 
 Vtrsion. Christ, called to be an Apostle, separated unto the 
 gospel of God, which He promised afore by His 
 prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, 
 who was born of the seed of David according to the 
 flesh, who was declared (Gr. determined) to be the Son 
 of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, 
 by the resurrection of the dead " or from the dead. 
 The judgment-seat of the Roman governor seemed to 
 be present to the Apostle's mind when he wrote these 
 words to the Roman Christians. The Governor's 
 
JCXVI. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS RESURRECTION. 22] 
 
 reluctance to give sentence against Jesus was met by a Final charge 
 new charge which the Jews had kept in reserve — " We sanLdrlm. 
 have a law, and by that law He ought to die, because ~^/j„ ^^-^^ 
 He made Himself the Son of God." But a few hours 
 before, Jesus had " made Himself the Son of God " in 
 circumstances of the deepest solemnity. "I adjure 7i/a«. 
 thee by the Living God," the High Priest said to Him, MarW 
 " that Thou tell us whether Thou be the Christ, the Lukexxu. 
 Son of God." Jesus had now an opportunity of cor- ^t- 
 reeling any exaggerated conceptions which His disciples 
 had formed of Him, and any errors into which His 
 own words had unintentionally led them, if there had 
 been either exaggeration or en-or. But His reply to 
 the High Priest, calmly spoken under all the solemnity 
 of the High Priest's adjuration, was as a seal de- 
 liberately put on all that He had said of Plimseif. 
 " Art Thou the Christ, the Son of God ? " "I am, and 
 ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand 
 of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." 
 This was enough, in the judgment of the Sanhedrim, 
 to justify a demand for His death as a blasphemer. 
 And the demand was granted. As a blasphemer He 
 died — "because He made Himself the Son of God." 
 But, according to Paul, the sentence of man was The decision 
 reversed by the act of God. By the "resurrection" Sanhedrim 
 of Christ from the dead. He was "determined " to be '■^^"'^'^• 
 what, in the immediate prospect of death, He had 
 avowed Himself to be — "the Son of God." So Paul Actsix. 20. 
 believed ; and so Paul preached, from the hour of his 
 conversion till he laid down his head on the block by 
 one of the gates of Rome. 
 
 That Paul believed that Jesus Christ rose from the See Ro7n. i. 
 dead is not questioned. There is scarcely an extant ^23^*457" 
 letter of his in which the fact is not asserted, or !!/,■/"'?• 
 referred to, as the universal belief of the Christian ^-^'y- 
 
226 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 I Cor. XV. people. Now Paul was not a man to believe so 
 
 2 0)V.^^y.' 14; stupendous a miracle, and one which mvolved con- 
 
 ^'epiI'} ' sequences so stupendous, on light grounds. This 
 
 „'?..=?; miracle was not one of many, any one of which might 
 
 PliH. III. 10 ; . . . . 
 
 Col. i. 18; be dropped out of sight, or out of faith, without injury 
 
 I fhes!i. to the Christian system. It lay at the basis of the 
 
 2 r/;«.' zv! 8. entire system. "If Christ be not risen," he said, 
 
 \ Cor. XV. "your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins." With 
 
 '■'■ such a conception of the relation of the Resurrection 
 
 of Christ to the grand Redemption which he preached, 
 
 he must have had very strong reasons for believing 
 
 in its reality. And so strong did they seem to himself 
 
 That Paul that lie would not admit the possibility of any error, 
 
 believed, . . . . 
 
 admitted, dclusiou, or lllusiou, m the matter. Let men believe 
 the testimony which he and others bore to the fact, 
 
 I Cor. XV. or, if they did not, let them call Paul and his fellow 
 ''^' apostles liars. " It was either true or it was a false- 
 hood. James, Cep.has, the twelve, the five hundred, 
 either had or had not seen the Lord Jesus ; Thomas 
 either had or had not put his finger into the print of 
 the nails ; either the resurrection was a fact, or else the 
 Apostles were false witnesses for God." This is the 
 position which Paul took, and he took it boldly. 
 And, the enemies of the faith themselves being judges, 
 he was a man of "thorough sincerity" and of a 
 "singularly independent" mind. What then do we 
 know of the grounds on which Paul believed so 
 thoroughly, and preached so constantly, that Jesus had 
 risen from the dead? 
 
 First in his own experience, and as the first means 
 \ Cor. XV. o^ ^^^s own faith, comes the event whicli occurred to 
 „^'9- him on the Avay to Damascus. Writing to the 
 
 Paul saui -' ° 
 
 Jesus on the Coriuthians, he says, "Last of all he was seen of me 
 
 w.iy to 1 J 1 
 
 Damascus, also as of onc born out of due time. For I am the 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS RESURRECTION. 
 
 --/ 
 
 least of the Apostles, that am not worthy to be called 
 
 an Apostle, t>ecause I persecuted the Church of God." 
 
 1l was essential to the Apostleship that he who held 
 
 the office should be a witness of the resurrection. ^(^^ '■ ='■'■ 
 
 So said Peter. And Paul acknowledges it Avhen, 
 
 defending his own Apostleship, he says, " Am I not 
 
 an Apostle ? am I not free ? have I not seen Jesus 
 
 Christ the Lord?" This seeing of Jesus must have 
 
 been at the beginning of his ministry, for without 
 
 it he could not have been an Apostle. It is not to be Cai.i.ij.t^. 
 
 confounded with spiritual " revelations," such as those 
 
 to which he owed his knowledge of the Gospel, or Not to be 
 
 ■ , 1 , • ■ , - , confounded 
 
 With such events, visions, or trances, as are referred with 
 to in 2 Cor. xii., when he was rapt up into the third ^'^'°"^ 
 heavens, and Acts xviii. ii, when the Lord stood 
 by him and said, " Be of good cheer, Paul," and Acts 
 xxvii. 23, 24, when the angel of God brought him 
 a Divine message on the eve of the shipwreck at 
 Melita. On none of these occasions is it said that he 
 ^'sa:c>" Jesus. T/a's was his privilege once andoniy once. 
 The occasion referred to is evidently that which is 
 related in the ninth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. 
 The same story is told in Paul's own words in the 
 twenty-second and twenty-sixth chapters of the Acts ; 
 on the first of these occasions to a tumultuous crowd 
 in Jerusalem, and on the second to King Agrippa 
 and the Roman Governor Festus at Cjesarea. Be- 
 tween these several accounts there are minute differ- ou these 
 ences, which, instead of militating against the truth- '^'■^IZ^'ue" 
 fulness of the narrative, serve as do the unimportant fp'-'^l'^^ 
 differences of independent witnesses, to confirm it. section of 
 
 Jesus Christ 
 
 It would have been easy for an author, or editor, who . «". 
 
 had the slightest consciousness of error, intentional or Fiit;'"^ 
 
 unintentional, to remove, by a touch of his pen, the ^^~^^' 
 slightest appearance of discrepancy. But the historian 
 
228 HAXDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDEXCES. 
 
 writes in the ninth chapter, and Paul speaks in the 
 twenty-second and twenty-sixth, with the freedom of 
 men who were conscious of truth. 
 
 The narrative in the ninth of Acts does not say 
 expressly that Paul scriO the person who spoke to 
 him. But Paul himself tells us that he "saw" 
 Jesus. The words which Luke reports, then, were 
 spoken, not by an unseen but by a seen person. And 
 when Paul said, " Lord, what wilt Thou have me to 
 do ? " he spoke to one whom he was seeing. The voice 
 to Saul did not come out of a cloud, but from the lips 
 of One who was visible at the time to the eye of Saul. 
 This is implied not only in the words of Paul in 
 1 Cor, XV. 8 ; but in the words addressed to him by 
 
 Adsix.xT. Ananias in Damascus — "The Lord, even Jesus, who 
 appeared unto thee (///., who was seen by thee) in the 
 way as thou earnest." 
 
 The glorified There was then a corporeal manifestation of Christ 
 
 body seen _ ^ 
 
 by Paul. tr> Paul ou his way to Damascus — as real, though 
 in circumstances very different, as those to the other 
 witnesses whom he names. Without this he could 
 have borne no personal testimony to the Resurrection 
 of his Lord. Of the form in which Christ appeared 
 to him we may gather something from Paul's own 
 words. In Phil. iii. 21, he speaks of Christ's "glorious 
 body," the " body of His glory," the body in which 
 He is now manifested in glory, as the body like unto 
 which ours shall be fashioned. It was Christ's 
 glorified body that Saul saiv on his way to Damascus, 
 the risen body perfectly and permanently "trans- 
 figured " when He ascended to Heaven. 
 
 This, and nothing less, is what Paul says, whether 
 truly or not. He gives himself forth to the world 
 as a personal witness of the resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ, and so confident is he in the reality of his own 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS RESURRECTION. 229 
 
 seeing of the risen Christ that he will listen to no Not possibly 
 explanation which implies that he might possibly be ™5'^''^"- 
 mistaken. If it was not true that Jesus was risen, 
 he and others were false witnesses ; in plain words they 
 were liars. 
 
 I\Iany attempts have been made to explain away the 
 testimony of Paul consistently with his personal 
 honesty. But they have utterly failed. Nothing but 
 such an event as the appearance of the glorified Christ, 
 as an objective actual fact, can explain the circum- 
 stances in which Saul of Tarsus became a disciple 
 of Jesus Christ. For be it remembered (1) that this 
 strong-minded and sober-minded man believed, most 
 unhesitatingly, and to the end of his life, that he had 
 seen Jesus, and that he had heard words from His 
 lips. So much is admitted by the most sceptical. 
 Be it remembered (2) further that with this beUef, 
 was connected as a consequence, an entire revolution 
 of conviction and life. 
 
 While Paul's own seeing of the Risen Christ stood 
 first as the means of his conversion, he did not place 
 it first but last, in his presentation of the evidence on p^^j.^ 
 which the world was called to believe that Tesus rose summary of 
 
 •^ _ evidence. 
 
 from the dead. Of that evidence we have a brief 
 
 summary from his pen. " Brethren, I declare unto i Cor. xv. 
 
 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 agam the third day according to the Scriptures ; 
 
 and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve ; 
 
230 JTAXDLOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 after that, He was seen of five hundred brethren at 
 once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, 
 but some are fallen asleep. After that He was seen of 
 James ; then of all the Apostles. And last of all He 
 was seen of me also as of one born out of due time." 
 
 We have here but a summary of testimonies which 
 Paul had " delivered " to the Corinthians when he 
 first preached the gospel to them. Nothing more was 
 necessary for the purpose which he had in view when 
 he wrote the letter. We find elsewhere, in the Gospels, 
 the particulars of several of the appearances of Christ 
 to which Paul refers. But we confine ourselves now 
 to what Paul tells us, because of tlie authority which 
 even non-Christians allow to his words. 
 Norefererce jj; jg ^yorthy of obscrvation that Paul makes no 
 
 to the ■' 
 
 women "by reference to the appearances of Christ to Mary and 
 the other women, who went at the dawn of the third 
 day to the sepulchre of their Lord. Some would 
 allege that the first Christians were deceived into a 
 belief that their Lord had risen, by the hallucinations* 
 and fancies of these women, and especially of the 
 devout and excitable Mary of Magdala. But so far 
 is this from being the case that Paul does not even 
 refer to the fact that He had appeared to the loving 
 ones who had gone to anoint His body. And he 
 mentions appearances to two apostles separately, one 
 of which is mentioned in the Gospels incidentally, and 
 one of which is not mentioned at all. 
 
 Cai i. i8, " IJ^e ^i'rt'.y see7i of Ci-p/ias." Three years after his 
 
 '^' conversion Paul spent fifteen days in Jerusalem in 
 
 Peter's the compauy of Cephas and James the Lord's brother. 
 
 personal ^^^j j-^g ^ould uot make the statement that Jesus was 
 
 testimony. •' 
 
 seen of Cephas, if he had not been told the fact, and, 
 Avith the fact, the circumstances, by Peter himself 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS RESURRECTION. 
 
 -7 1 T 
 
 -.riv. 
 
 To Peter who had so recently denied his Lord, the 
 appearance of Christ to him personally, must have 
 been an unspeakable privilege. And on the mind 
 of Paul the impression of Peter's tale must have been 
 deep and lasting. The appearance of Christ to Peter 
 is mentioned in the Gospels only in the most inci- 
 dental manner ; and yet it is in the very position 
 in which Paul places it, as occurring before His ap- 
 pearing to the Apostles collectively. When the two 
 disciples returned from Emmaus they found the eleven 
 gathered together, and were at once informed — "The LukexA 
 Lord is risen indeed and hath appeared unto Simon." ^*' 
 
 How absolutely certain Peter was that the Lord had 
 risen — his certainty not grounded on the one special 
 manifestation to himself, but on all his appearances, 
 we know. The one idea predominant in his mind, Acts i. 22 ; 
 in his subsequent addresses to the Jews and their 15;%' i" • 
 rulers, seems to be the resurrection of Jesus from the ^^' ^^' 
 dead. Every speech that he utters proves that o^'^^n''Ji!"a'f^ 
 
 this one great event his mind was full. The fact Lecttt>es,- 
 
 . p. 225. 
 
 seems to haunt lum ni every place, before every 
 
 audience, in every argument. And in a letter written 
 
 thirty years after the event we find the memory of it 
 
 as fresh as ever : " Blessed be the God and Lather „ , . 
 
 I Pet. I. 3 ; 
 
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, accordins: to His aison.i'). 
 
 . . ^ . 21 ; and iiu 
 
 abundant mercy, hath begotten us agani unto a lively 18, 21. 
 hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.''^ T!,e place of 
 Such was the hold which this great fact took of the rlction'^hi" 
 mind of Peter, and such his certainty of its literal thoughts, 
 reality. That he should have spoken of it to Paul 
 in their fifteen days' intercourse in a manner that left 
 an indelible impression on Paul's mind, is only what 
 we might have expected. And hence the prominence 
 which Paul gives to the fact : " Jesus was seen of 
 Cephas." 
 
232 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 lCor.xv.^. ^' He was seen of James ^' Paul says likewise. The 
 j^'mes^ appearing of Christ to James personally, after His 
 appearing to the five hundred, and before a later 
 appearing to the Apostles, is mentioned only by Paul. 
 But Paul cannot have been mistaken in the matter. 
 He must have received the information from James 
 himself during that visit of fifteen days to Jerusalem. 
 And if James himself had not told a fact of so much 
 interest and significance, we cannot believe that Paul 
 would afterwards have accepted the tale from any one 
 else. As there Avas a special reason why Jesus should 
 grant to Peter a personal and private manifestation of 
 Himself — namely, to assure him of forgi.veness and 
 to restore his faith, we can imagine a special reason 
 in the case of James likewise. The "brethren" or 
 " brothers " of Jesus, whether they were the sons of 
 Joseph and Mary, or only near relatives, w-ere slow 
 
 "jfohu vii. 5. to believe in Him as the Christ of God. And a 
 personal manifestation to James, called his " brother," 
 A special would be, as it was to Peter, a sign of forgiveness 
 and a means of increase of faith. Godet remarks 
 well, " If tradition had invented, would it not, above 
 all, have imagined an appearance to John?" 
 
 Seen ty the Thc second, third, and fifth, of the appearances 
 
 ^by five" specified by Paul are recorded in the Gospels : " then 
 
 breduen'! of the twelve : " " of above five hundred brethren at 
 
 once :" "of all the apostles." The occasion on which 
 
 He was seen of five hundred brethren at once can 
 
 Matt, oiily be that which is mentioned by Matthew: "Then 
 
 "TeTi?' ^^^ eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a 
 
 mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And 
 
 when they saw Him, they worshipped Him ; but some 
 
 doubted." These words suggest other appearances 
 
 which Matthew does not record, for his narrative 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS RESURRECTION. 233 
 
 contains no record of any appointment by Jesus to 
 meet him in a specified mountain in Galilee. As for 
 the omission of all reference to the five hundred who 
 were present, it seems to arise from the object which 
 ^Matthew had in view, namely, to record the commis- 
 sion which Tesus irave to "the eleven." It was with The 
 the eleven and their commission that ISIatthew was mountain. 
 concerned. But one does not see why Jesus should 
 appoint the eleven alone to meet Him on a mountain. 
 It is more natural to suppose that Jesus chose a 
 central place, one probably where the multitudes had 
 often heard Him among the mountains of Galilee, 
 for the convenience of " brethren," believers in Him, 
 scattered through the villages in which he had so 
 often preached the gospel of the Kingdom. This 
 most natural suggestion accounts both for ]\Iatthew's 
 description of the place, and for Paul's statement of 
 the number. 
 
 Here, then, v/e have an averment on which the 
 character of Paul justifies us in relying, that more than 
 five hundred brethren saw Jesus on one occasion after 
 He was risen, and that the greater part of the five 
 hundred were alive when he wrote. The statement 
 of ISIatthew that on that occasion "some doubted," "Some__ 
 instead of suggesting any reason why we should doubt 
 the reality of Christ's appearance to His disciples, 
 increases our confidence in the candour and truthful- 
 ness of the historian. There is here an entire absence 
 of any attempt to make out a case. Matthew could 
 afford, if the expression may be used, to tell the whole 
 truth. The fact of the Resurrection was so well at- 
 tested and so universally believed, that it was not 
 necessary to conceal the first uncertain impression of 
 some of the five hundred, or of the eleven, when they 
 saw Jesus approaching. And some uncertainty having 
 
234 IIAXDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 been felt, it was only after the manner of all the 
 Gospel writers to mention it, without troubling them- 
 selves as to how it might be interpreted. In our mind 
 it creates no difficulty at all. The doubt may have 
 arisen when Jesus was seen drawing near from a 
 distance, or before "some" had the opportunity of 
 distinctly recognizing Him. But it is not suggested 
 Doubts that the doubt continued, or survived that ir^terview 
 of Christ with His disciples on the Galilean moun- 
 tain. It is certain that all the eleven of whom Mat- 
 thew speaks, preached boldly, and in no hesitating 
 terms, that their Lord had risen to die no more ; and 
 equally certain that the five hundred of whom Paul 
 speaks believed, according to him, that they had really 
 seen the risen Christ. 
 
 Why not If it be asked. Why did not Jesus., if He really rose 
 
 show Him- 777 tj- 1 /■ tt • 77 
 
 self to His jroDi the dead, slu.izi Ilu/isa/ to Jdis enemies as well as 
 His friends ? the answer is not far to seek. His not 
 doing so was in keeping with the manner in which He 
 had dealt with them during His ministry. He would 
 not give a sign from heaven to men who did not find 
 sufficient evidence of His Messiahship in works ot 
 might and mercy which no other man had ever 
 wrought. Moreover, if He had shown Himself to 
 His enemies, or to the Jewish multitude, it would have 
 been but a few days' wonder, and, possibly enough, 
 would have produced tumult. The spirit which showed 
 itself before in Galilee, the spirit which would have 
 Good taken Him by force to make Him a King, would be 
 the most natural consequence, giving fresh trouble to 
 both the ecclesiastical and the civil rulers, without 
 spiritual good to any ; and not improbably enraging 
 the Sadducean authorities to fresh measures against 
 Jesus and His disciples. Besides, if Jesus had ap- 
 
 reasons. 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS RESURRECTION. 235 
 
 peared before them, nothing was easier for them than see the 
 to deny His identity, and to take measures against this •^Resumc- 
 new comer as an impostor. They were not in ^'^'^J jJus'ckrist 
 sense the men to be witnesses of His resurrection. ^,.f". , 
 
 Historical 
 
 They were not capable of conviction ; they were not fact." 
 morally qualified to appreciate the fact and its bear- 
 ings ; they would not have become new men by the 
 sight of the Risen One. Only those who had been Actsx.i,z. 
 chosen before of God, who had knowledge of Him 
 and love to Him, and were spiritually susceptible of 
 the lessons which His resurrection taught, were fit to 
 be witnesses to the world of an event in which were Disciples the 
 wrapt up the moral destinies of the world. To object witnessv;s. 
 to their evidence because they were Christians is 
 to object to it because they were sincere ! Of 
 course they were Christians. But in this we find the 
 strength, not the weakness of their evidence. They 
 were convinced, rather they knew, that it was true that 
 Jesus rose from the dead, and therefore they said it 
 was true. To doubt a man's word because he himself 
 believes it, and submits to every imaginable sacrifice 
 because of his faith, is a strange proceeding. 
 
 If it be objected that we' have not a full, complete, ^°' ^. 
 
 f . . consecutiv 
 
 and consecutive account of the Resurrection of Christ, account. 
 we admit the fact, but deny that the value of the 
 evidence is affected by it. Those who do not accept the 
 evidence as it is, zvoidd find a very plausible reason for 
 rejecting it if it were such as they demand. Let us 
 suppose that the four Evangelists report all the ap- 
 pearances of Jesus Christ, in their order, to indi- 
 viduals, the Marys, Cephas, James, the Emmaus 
 disciples, and to the Apostles collectiv^ely, in Jerusalem, 
 in Galilee, and on Mount Olivet. The story is exact 
 and complete. We see and hear all that took place 
 
 R 
 
■3^ 
 
 JIAXDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 The 
 
 narrative 
 
 as it is. 
 
 Objections during the forty days of His revived earthly life. AH 
 an'account. ^his wc shall suppose we have from rt'// the Evangelists. 
 Would this satisfy those who are not satisfied by the 
 story as it is ? Would they not, rather, argue that in 
 the perfectness of the story there is clear evidence of 
 concert, if not of conspiracy, on the part of the 
 writers ? They have agreed together, it would be 
 said, to tell the same tale, and how to tell it. 
 
 But take the narrative as it is, and, though in a 
 sense fragmentary, it will be found to possess a special 
 evidential value. We have four narratives, none of 
 them full and complete. On reading them our first 
 impression is that they are independent of each other, 
 written without mutual concert, no one borrowing 
 from any other. Our next impression is that though 
 thus mutually independent, and though each has its 
 own peculiarity, they all bear witness to the same 
 main facts of death, burial, and resurrection. They 
 report different circumstances, and when they report 
 the same, one does it with more fulness than another. 
 On comparing their statements certain diversities are 
 Sub<;tantiai discovercd, which it may not be easy to explain. But 
 agreement, jj^ggg diversities awakcn no doubt of their honesty 
 and truthfulness ; they only prove their independence. 
 Amidst diversity the main facts in question are 
 attested by all. And being thus attested by all the 
 witnesses, the evidence in support of them is entitled 
 to be accepted without suspicion. 
 
 Diversity. 
 
 TTie belief 
 dates from 
 
 the 
 occurrence. 
 
 In conclusion, the following facts and considerations 
 cannot be reasonably questioned : 
 
 I. The belief in the Resiirrectioft of Jesus Christ is 
 not of later growth, but dates from the very time at 
 which it is said to have occurred. Apart from the 
 narratives in the Gospels, it is confessed by the most 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS RESURRECTION. 2^ 
 
 hostile unbelievers that Paul received his information 
 from those who professed to be eye-witnesses. And 
 among these, it will be remembered that he names 
 Cephas and James, whom he visited in Jerusalem Cai. i. is, 
 three years after his conversion. At a later period he i clr.'x-i-. 
 names John along with these as acknowledged pillars ^' ''' 
 in the infant Church. And from the tliree he received c^i. a. 9. 
 the right hand of fellowsliip as a preacher of the true 
 Gospel. If these three asserted that they had them- Testimony of 
 selves seen the Risen Lord, they must have meant to Paul, 
 that they saw Him during the brief period of His risen 
 earthly life. And it is nothing short of an absurdity 
 to suppose that anything could have led them years 
 after to believe that they had seen the Risen Christ, 
 if they had not believed from the first that they had 
 seen Him. This is equally true of the other Apostles 
 and of the survivors of the five hundred. 
 
 2. Those who thus from the first declared that they 
 had seen the Risen Christ attached the utmost im- 
 portaiice to the fact of His resurrection. This appears importance 
 in all that they spoke and wrote afterwards. And the 
 inference from it is, that they could not have been in- 
 different or careless as to the grounds of their faith. 
 
 They staked their own souls' salvation upon it, and, in 
 their maintenance of it, they lived a life of martyrdom, 
 and not a few of them died a martyr's death. 
 
 3. Instead of being expectant of their LoriFs Resur- The 
 rection, and thus possibly credulous and easily satisfied 'noT "* 
 with evidence of the fact, their own testimo?iy is thai ^^p^"-'*"'- 
 they had no expectation of the event, and received the -^^a'* -r^-'- 
 first news of it with the utmost incredulity. When Lukex:civ. 
 He spoke to them before His death of His rising joiinlx. 
 again, they questioned among themselves what the ^'" '^^' 
 
238 HAXDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Mark !x. 10. rising from the dead should mean. Even the women, 
 with all the sanguine hopefulness of their nature, 
 never dreamed of finding the tomb empty on the 
 
 Lnke xxiv. moming of the third day. The object of their visit 
 was to anoint the precious body which they expected 
 to find in Joseph's tomb. The faith of the disciples 
 in the Resurrection of their Lord was in no wise aided 
 by a predisposition to believe in it, but was the fruit 
 of evidence which overcame their belief that they 
 should see Him no more. 
 
 Revolution 4- Tlic RcsurrecUon of Jcsits was the means of quite 
 Ap" sties. ^ revolution in the spirit and the beliefs of His disciples. 
 That they underwent an extraordinary change when 
 Jesus rose from the dead, or when they believed that 
 He rose, is universally admitted. The whole story of 
 the thoughts and sentiments of the Apostles, first 
 before, and then after, the Resurrection, is so natural 
 and so evidently truthful that it is seldom challenged. 
 ^^'hat their thoughts and sentiments were after the 
 Resurrection, or after what they alleged to be the 
 Resurrection, is known from their own writings. The 
 Resurrection, or what they believed to be such, forms 
 a historic dividing line in their mental and spiritual 
 condition. And the only question is whether the 
 change can be accounted for even if the belief was 
 mistaken, — accounted for, that is, by the belief itself, 
 even if it was the belief of a falsehood, or of a 
 delusion. 
 What That the belief itself, even if baseless, might produce 
 
 me^re'^^beiiel" ^ great cffcct, at Icast temporarily, need not be denied. 
 
 "wrought!^ Falsehoods taken into the soul by a firm conviction 
 may and do mould men's lives. But it is certain that 
 whatever change might be effected by believing that 
 He rose from the dead although He did not rise, the 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS RESURRECTION. 239 
 
 change which was actually wrought in them could not 
 have been thus effected. The utmost which a mere 
 belief that he was risen could do for them would be, 
 to confirm them in the faith which they had before 
 Kis death. And the development of this faith, if 
 they can be supposed to have courage to preach it, 
 could, at best and at most, result only in a modified 
 Judaism. The Christianity, which is not more Pauline 
 than it is Petrine and Johannine, could not have 
 grown by any natural process out of the Messianic 
 beliefs and expectations which were common to Peter 
 and John and the other Apostles, before they sank 
 into the grave in which they saw their Master laid. 
 There might be a revival of these beliefs and expect- 
 ations by a mistaken belief that their Lord was risen, 
 but nothing more. Every seed produces after its 
 kind. To understand the transition of the disciples 
 from the Messianic ideas which all the personal 
 teaching of Christ during His lifetime failed to correct, 
 to those views of the Christ and of His redeeming 
 work which they afterwards held and preached, we 
 must have, not only the fact of the Resurrection, but 
 that Divine illumination of which the Book of the 
 Acts makes mention, by which they understood the 
 great purpose of His dying and rising again. Even 
 the change from cowardice to heroism, which dates But a greater 
 from the moment when they believed their Lord had actuafiy 
 risen, is one which could not be effected by an illusion. ^°"g*^'- 
 A momentary impulse might result from an illusion, 
 but lifelong courage in the face of peril and death 
 could not. " If any one admits the change, but says, 
 ' There was no cause for it,' such a man appears to me 
 to admit a miracle, for I know scarcely any miracle in 
 the records of the miraculous that would be a greater 
 miracle than the production of a change so mar- 
 
240 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 vellous, and so world-wide in its effects, without any- 
 definite cause." 
 
 The ciuirch c. Thc Resurrection of Christ was the very founda 
 
 built on tl" -^ •' 
 
 rection. 
 
 Resur- (ion OH wJiicIi tlic Christian ChiircJi was built by the 
 Apostles. Christ Himself is, more properly speaking, 
 the Foundation of the Church, we know; but whether 
 the Christian Church be regarded as the work of God 
 or the work of man, the fact of the Resurrection was 
 essential to its foundation and progress. Those who 
 see in it the work of God do not need to be assured 
 of the fact of the Resurrection of Christ ; and what 
 we have to show is, that in as far as it is the work 
 of man, it was based on that fact. The Apostles were 
 its human founders and builders, and they preached 
 everywhere that the Jesus who was crucified by sen- 
 tence of Pilate, rose from the dead and ascended to 
 heaven. They gloried in the cross, but they could 
 not have gloried in it if He had not risen from the 
 dead. The cross was a stumbling-block wherever it 
 was preached, and nothing but the fact of His Resur- 
 rection could take the stumbling-block out of the way 
 and turn the shame into honour. The Resurrection 
 was to the Apostles themselves the evidence both 
 of the sufficiency of the sacrifice of the cross, and of 
 the life of power and glory which Christ lived in 
 heaven. They were not ashamed to say, "It is 
 Christ that died," but only because they could add, 
 "Jesus and " yca, rather that is risen again." "Jesus and the 
 Resurrection" was the companion theme of "Jesus 
 and Him crucified." The Christian Church had never 
 existed but for the belief of the Apostles that Jesus 
 had risen ; and if that belief was not the belief of a 
 real fact, the Christendom of these eighteen centuries 
 and a half has been built on— a lie ! — the generations 
 
 the Re 
 
 sunection. 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS RESURRECTION. 241 
 
 which have drawn holy inspu-ations from the Apostolic 
 assurances of the Resurrection of Christ, have drawn 
 these inspirations ultimately from a lie ! 
 
 Some who are predisposed to reject the evidence of Dr. 
 
 miracles in general, confess themselves shut up to =^''p^""='- 
 faith in this one great miracle. I'hus Dr. Carpenter 
 says, " I regrard the historical evidence of the Resur- See 
 
 . , r ■ ^-rr i Prebendary 
 
 rection of our Lord as of quite a different character Ro-w's 
 from that, e.g., of the raising of Lazarus or of the Le'c'tire'L 
 widow's son at Nain. . . . Looking at the unquestionable ^^^dTdlt. 
 fact — for such it appears to me — that the Resurrection 
 of our Lord was the foundation of the preaching of 
 Paul and, so far as we know, of the other Apostles, 
 and was universally accepted by the early Church as 
 the cardinal doctrine of Christianity ('if Christ be not 
 risen, then is our faith vain '), the Gospel narratives 
 derive from that foct a support that is given to none 
 other of the miracles of Christ or of His followers." 
 
 These other miracles we have already considered ; cka/. v. 
 but the principle of Dr. Carpenter's argument is 
 undeniable. We have no such evidence of the re- 
 storing to life of the widow's son at Nain, or of 
 Lazarus, as we have for the Resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ. Cancel any particular miracle ascribed to 
 Christ from the record, and the loss of it will not 
 affect the claims of Christ or of Christianity. Cancel 
 the fact of the Resurrection of Christ from the record, 
 and you undermine the very foundations of the faith. 
 The existence of the Church from the day of Pente- 
 cost when Peter said to the people of Jerusalem, 
 "This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are Acts a. ^i. 
 witnesses," until now, is an imperishable monument to 
 the fact that " it was not possible that Jesus should Acts a. 24. 
 be holden of the pains of death." 
 
242 HA XD BOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 The Re- 6. All this evidence is immensely strengthened by 
 inco'i^wi°"d t'lc consideration that ///^ fact of the Resurrection is so 
 doctrinal incorporated tuith the doctrinal, as well as the historic, 
 teaching, teaching of the Apostles, that it ca?inot be separated from 
 Rom. iv. either. To expound this statement fully would require 
 ^X^\x.g[' a volume. We should have to speak of the reflex 
 I ^^^f^'"- ijg].,^ -which it throws on Christ's person, character, 
 2 Tim. 1. 10. |j|-g^ ^j^^ work ; and of the prophetic light which, 
 according to the Apostles, it throws on the future 
 destiny of mankind. The Resurrection of Christ was 
 not, as one has well said, " a stray and solitary boulder 
 cast upon the earth, but the keystone of a mighty 
 arch." If you take it away, you not only take away 
 the foundation of the fabric, but you take away some- 
 thing that enters into the very essence of the system, 
 and without which the system loses both its symmetry 
 and its cohesion. 
 
 If it be asked how this bears on the evidence of 
 the fact that Christ rose from the dead, the answer 
 is obvious, {a) The Apostles, in whose faith the Re- 
 surrection held so supreme and all-engrossing a place, 
 could not but take the utmost pains to be assured 
 of its reality, {b) We cannot understand how a mis- 
 taken belief in the Resurrection of Christ could by 
 any process be worked up into the system of which 
 Paul, Peter, and John, are the exponents and represen- 
 tatives. On the supposition of a belief without reality, 
 there could have been no such Divine illumination as 
 that to which these Apostles ascribed the gospel which 
 was based on the Resurrection which they preached to 
 the world, {c) The place which the Resurrection of 
 Christ holds in the Christianity of its witnesses reminds 
 us that what we have to prove is not merely that a 
 ^, „ dead man came to life again. We have to do not 
 
 The Re- . . 
 
 surrection with Ordinary circumstances, or with an ordinary man. 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS RESURRECTION. 243 
 
 We have to do with one particular Man; and when not of any 
 we look at the circumstances and character of this "^t;Z^^il.n. 
 ]\fan, while the wonderfulness of His Resurrection 
 remains, its unlikelihood vanishes. The real wonder 
 is, not that He rose again, but that He died. 
 
 Those who doubt or question the fact of Christ's Naturalistic 
 
 • hvpothcscs 
 
 Resurrection are bound to find some explanation of Seea/iui 
 the unquestioned fact that His disciples believed that tkc'stVi'lke 
 He rose. Strauss, the most thorough unbeliever, ''^'j^eZr- 
 acknowledges the obligation, and blames those who yesilTchrht 
 evade it. _ _ ^X.w 
 
 1. The favourite hypothesis once was that Tesus was ^f'^^i'^ 
 
 ■' '■ . . •' Chap. VII. 
 
 not really dead when He was laid in the grave, and 
 that His Resurrection was o?i^y His recovery from a hypoThSl 
 sivoon. This hypothesis ignores the narrative which 
 tells us of the means that were used to ascertain that 
 He was really dead. And Strauss himself ' rejects it 
 contemptuously. "It is quite evident," he says, "that 
 this view of the resurrection of Jesus, apart from the 
 difficulties in which it is involved, does not solve the 
 problem which is here under consideration — the origin, 
 that is, of the Christian Church by faith in the miracu- 
 lous Resurrection of the Messiah. It is impossible 
 that a being who had stolen half dead out of die 
 sepulchre, who crept about weak and ill, wanting 
 medical treatment, who required bandaging, strengthen- 
 ing, and indulgence, and who still, at last, yielded to 
 His sufferings, could have given to His disciples the 
 impression that He was a conqueror over death and 
 the grave, the Prince of Life — an impression which 
 lay at the bottom of their future ministry." 
 
 2. The hypothesis on -which Strauss and the greater .The 
 
 /- 11- 1-1 ,.,. "^ visionary 
 
 part oj unbelmei's 7tow rely is that winch is called the hNputhesis, 
 
244 IIAXDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 visionary hypothesis. The disciples were the victims 
 of their own imaginations ! They beheved that Jesus 
 had risen, but their behef was a pure haUucination of 
 their own brains ! a halhicination which originated 
 with Mary Magdalene and seized the other disciples 
 with all the force of an epidemic ! This is the key 
 by which Strauss fulfils his " pledge " to explain the 
 honest belief of the disciples, without admitting a 
 miraculous resurrection. 
 
 Let any one read the Gospel narratives, and Paul's 
 statements, with a view to ascertain whether they can 
 be reconciled with this idea, and he will need no aid 
 from us. These narratives must be blotted out and 
 the whole history recast in order to make room for a 
 new and altogether different story. And after all one 
 cannot help exclaiming, what simpletons these dis- 
 ciples of Jesus were ! So easily deceived, founding 
 their faith on less than a shadow ! And these are the 
 men who, by a faith thus unsubstantial and ground- 
 less, turned the world upside down ! 
 
 It is a notable fact that while the women who 
 devoted themselves so lovingly to the care of the 
 precious body which they expected to find in Joseph's 
 tomb, were rewarded by being the first to see the 
 Risen one, from that hour they drop out of sight 
 and are never appealed to as witnesses. The appeal 
 is to the Apostles that were assembled on the evening 
 of the day on which he rose, and on the evening of the 
 following first day of the week, and at the sea of 
 Galilee, and on the Galilean mountain. And Paul, as 
 already remarked, while making special mention of 
 Christ's appearing to Peter and James, makes no 
 mention of His appearing to the women who had 
 gone to anoint the body of Jesus; — so little had the 
 appearing to Mary Magdalene to do with the faith of 
 
CHRIST CERTIFIED BY HIS RESURRECTION. 2^5 
 
 the edrly Church in the resurrection of Christ, and so 
 far was it from being the occasion of a great error 
 which has survived unto this day ! Many reasons 
 have ah^eady been given why we may be sure that 
 the Apostles exercised a most intense vigilance as to 
 the grounds of their faith in the resurrection of their 
 Lord, and they might all be repeated in rejecting the 
 hypothesis that they were deceived by the hysterical 
 impulses of J\Iary Magdalene. 
 
 3. Another hypothesis has been invented with a view Tiie 
 to relieve us of the difficulty of supposing that a dead hypo'the°L^ 
 body was restored to life. // may be called the spiritual 
 or the appariiional. This newer hypothesis supposes 
 that the appearances of Jesus after His death were 
 real, objective occurrences, apparitions, or communi- 
 cations from the spirit world, to assure the disciples 
 that Jesus was glorified. It necessarily supposes like- 
 wise that the body that was laid in Joseph's tomb was 
 not restored to life, but "saw corruption." Though 
 more respectful to Gospel story, this theory is really 
 as groundless as the older Visionary, {a) The term 
 " Resurrection " is utterly misapplied when all that is 
 meant is that the soul of Jesus went into heaven — ■ 
 which is equally true of the penitent malefactor. 
 The argument of Peter on the day of Pentecost was a Acts a. 
 mistake, if nothing more than this is meant by the ^■*~^"' 
 resurrection of Christ, (b) This theory is as irrecon- 
 cileable with the Gospel narratives as the older 
 visionary hypothesis. "Behold my hands and my Lukexxh-. 
 feet," said the Risen Jesus, "that it is I myself: ^'^' 
 handle me and see ; for a spirit hath not flesh and 
 blood as ye see me have." {c) This new theory, like 
 the former, leaves the final destination of Christ's 
 body altogether unaccounted for. If His resurrection 
 
246 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 was only " spiritual," the glorification of His spirit in 
 heaven, His body did not rise to a new life ; it " saw 
 corruption." But it was "taken away." By whom 
 and whither? 
 
 This theory moreover fails to accomplish the object 
 for which it is preferred to the common belief that 
 the resurrection of Jesus was a bodily resurrection. 
 That object is to reduce, if not altogether to eliminate, 
 the supernaturalness of the occurrence. But " appa- 
 ritions " or " visible manifestations " of a Being who 
 was now in His heavenly home, are as supernatural 
 as the restoration of a dead body to life. It need 
 scarcely be added that the hypothesis which reduces 
 the resurrection of Christ to a mere ghost story, is 
 utterly inconsistent with the solemn and persistent 
 averments of those who profess to have seen the 
 Risen Christ with their own eyes, and to have heard 
 Him with their own ears. 
 
 The result of The cvidcnce for the resurrection of Jesus Christ 
 
 every test. i • i 1 • 1 r i i 
 
 has been subjected to every kmd of test, and the 
 more it is criticised the stronger and clearer it 
 becomes. And the collapse of all attempts to ex- 
 plain the facts which unbelievers themselves acknow- 
 ledge, while denying the main, the supernatural, fact, 
 add not a little to its force. In view of them we can 
 understand the exclamation ascribed to a French 
 savant — " In truth, I am not credulous enough to 
 be an unbeliever." 
 
 Now, if Christ be risen, the conclusion is happily 
 inevitable, that to which the centurion came when he 
 saw Him dying, " Truly this is the Son of God." 
 
( 247 ) 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. 
 
 L The Moral Teaching of Christ. 
 
 "We appeal with confidence to the moral teaching of 
 fcsus as corroborative of His claims. We have already 
 quoted some of the testimonies borne to that teaching 
 by writers who do not receive Christ in His higher 
 character as Son of God and Saviour of the world. 
 It is not necessary to disparage any approaches to 
 Christ's maxims which may be found in isolated pas- 
 sages written by confessedly uninspired men. These 
 were at best but faint glimpses of moral truth, and 
 they produced no practical impression, or but little, 
 on the world. Dr. Hopkins sums up the character- "Lowell ^ 
 istics of Christ's teaching as : " (i) That it establishes % I'^Z' 
 a perfect standard ; (2) that it takes cognizance of 
 the heart ; (3) that it forbids all the malevolent and 
 dissocial passions ; (4) that it forbids all merely 
 selfish passions, as vanity and pride ; (5) that it 
 forbids all impure passions ; (6) that it includes all 
 its positive duties under the two great requisitions of 
 love to God and love to man, which all moralists now 
 agree is the sum of human duty." 
 
 These two requisitions were the ancient law, and Dent.vi.^--, 
 
 JSIatt. x.xii. 
 
 Christ put His seal upon them as tlie unchangeable 4°- 
 
248 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 law. Their completeness, and their simplicity and 
 grandeur, are acknowledged by unbelievers. " Every 
 Strauss on persoH of eminent moral character," says Strauss, 
 "^ Moral ^ " every thinker who has occupied himself with the 
 leacher. guj^jgct; of the moral activity of man, has contributed, 
 within a circle more or less extended, to purify, to 
 complete, to develop, the moral ideal. Among the 
 personages to whom humanity owes the perfecting of 
 the moral consciousness, Jesus occupies, at any rate, 
 the foremost rank. He introduced into our ideal of 
 good some features which were wanting to it up to 
 His time. By the religious tendency which He im- 
 printed upon morality. He endowed it with a higher 
 consecration ; and by incarnating goodness in His 
 own person. He communicated to it a living warmth. 
 In regard to everything which concerns the love of God 
 and of our neighbour, to purity of heart a?id to the life 
 of the individual man, nothing can be added to that moral 
 intuition which has beeji bequeathed to us by Jesus 
 Christy 
 
 We should be going beyond the limits of a strict 
 
 logic if we argued, directly, from the lofty character of 
 
 Christ's moral teaching, that He was the Son of God ; 
 
 but we cannot help wondering how a man in the 
 
 position of Jesus of Nazareth, a peasant-carpenter, in 
 
 a corrupt age and among a corrupt people, could rise 
 
 to a height of moral knowledge, which may fitly be 
 
 called divine — and that, without the aid of those 
 
 thinkers who, in the words just quoted from Strauss, 
 
 contributed before Him to purify and develop the 
 
 moral ideal. And we may argue within the strictest 
 
 limits of logic, as follows : 
 
 Oirisfs I- 1'he moral teaching of Christ must have been 
 
 *reflec"ion'of^ the rcflcction of His own character. He was, in short, 
 
 Himself, -^vhat He taught others to be. In the words of an 
 
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. 249 
 
 unbeliever already quoted, " He presented the rare 
 spectacle of a life, so far as we can estimate it, uni- 
 formly noble and consistent with His own lofty prin- 
 ciples." We know that it would not be safe in all 
 cases to infer a man's character from his teaching; but 
 in the case of Jesus Christ it is impossible to doubt the 
 connection between His character and His teaching. 
 After recalling the sublime passage in the sermon on 
 the Mount, in which Jesus portrays the Heavenly 
 Father making His Sun to rise on the evil and on 
 the good, and sending rain on the just and on the 
 unjust, Strauss adds, " This intuition of a God Concession 
 good to all, Jesus could only have drawn out of His 
 own being ; it could only have emanated out of that 
 universal benevolence which was the fundamental 
 characteristic of His own nature, and by which He 
 felt Himself in perfect harmony with God. To be 
 able, like God Himself, to stand firm against the irri- 
 tation which is produced by wickedness, to conquer 
 an enemy only by conferring benefits upon him, and 
 to overcome evil only with good, — these were the 
 principles of conduct which He derived from the 
 disposition of His own heart. He pictured God to 
 Himself such as He felt Himself to be in the best 
 moments of His life. The dominant feature of His 
 character was the love which embraces all creatures, 
 and He makes of that the fundamental characteristic 
 of the Divine Essence." 
 
 If the marvellous beauty and loftiness of Christ's An 
 
 1 • 1 1 1 • ,- T-r- 1,- •■ • expl.ination 
 
 teachmg be thus but a mirror of Himself, a revelation required. 
 of His own moral beauty and loftiness, we ask with 
 wonder how all this beauty and loftiness are to be 
 accounted for ? Can any explanation be found that 
 does not admit the superhuman in His character, if 
 not in His person ? One thing is certain, that this 
 
250 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN- EVIDENCES. 
 
 divinely pure man is absolutely trustworthy in all that 
 He says respecting Himself. 
 
 2. There is another conclusion which we may assert 
 
 with equal confidence. The moral teaching of Jesus 
 
 Christ's Christ was worthy of the very highest claims asserted by 
 
 worthy offhe Or for Him. If He was all that the Gospels represent 
 
 Son of God. jj-^^^ ^Q j^^yg declared Himself to be -the Son of 
 
 63, 64 
 
 yokn i. 1, 14. 
 Col. it. 9. 
 
 ^^"ii tr'' God ; all that the Fourth Gospel calls Him— the 
 Eternal Word made flesh ; all that the Apostle Paul 
 ascribes to Him when he says that the fulness of the 
 Godhead dwelt in Him bodily, — His moral teaching 
 was worthy of Him. We might add that the life He 
 lived was worthy of Him. Unbelief itself admits that 
 "the teaching of Jesus carried morality to the sub- 
 limest point attained, or attainable, by humanity." 
 
 Awakening from this it follows (a) that in His teaching nothing 
 
 no suspicion . . 
 
 or doubt, can be discovered that could awaken any suspicion of 
 His very highest claims as the Son of God. Even 
 this amounts to a great deal. But more follows : (/») 
 
 No hitiher that cvcn on the assumption of His highest claims, a 
 couw'bf purer, diviner, moral teaching could not be anticipated ; 
 
 anticipated, ^.j^^^ j^^ ^^^ cannot Say — pure and sublime as this 
 teaching is — it would have been purer and sublimer if 
 it were indeed the teaching of the Son of God. On 
 the contrary, the moral law laid down by Jesus, and 
 embodied in His own life, is confessedly " the sublimest 
 attainable by humanity." 
 Nearly Surcly this approachcs very nearly to a demonstra- 
 
 tn^°oTHts tion that Jesus was all in authority, and in person, that 
 claims, ^j^g Gospels say He professed to be. No one doubts 
 the record which the Gospels contain of His moral 
 character and of His moral teaching. Now if that 
 character and that teaching are worthy of the further 
 record which they contain of His supernatural claims, 
 it is difficult to see how these claims can be disputed. 
 
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. 2$ I 
 
 A man appears who — in part expressly, and in greater 
 part indirectly — claims to be more than man, and to 
 have more than a man's authority ; and His moral 
 teaching, — His teaching of man's duty to God and to 
 man, — is found worthy even of that extraordinary 
 claim, such, in fact, that a purer and sublimer cannot 
 be conceived, and, if concciv^able, would be "unattain- 
 able by humanity." Can we rationally doubt that He 
 was what He professed and what HLs followers be- 
 lieved Him to be ? 
 
 3. There are two characteristics of Christ's moral 
 teaching which we have not yet mentioned in this 
 argument, and in which we see a consistency which 
 strengthens our faith in Him. In laying down moral ciinst 
 law, Jesus (a) used the language of ;pei'S07ial autho7-ity^ and 'aufhorky.'^ 
 {b) made Himself the centre of morals as of ail else that ^, . 
 He taught. As to " authority," it is enough to recall «ntre of 
 
 . i, • morals. 
 
 the fact that ui the Sermon on the Mount, m contrast 
 
 with the scribes and philosophers of His age. He said, 29.'"^"" 
 
 " Verily / say unto you." And as to the place which 
 
 He claimed for Himself in the moral motives of men, it 
 
 is enough to recall the solemn words, " Inasmuch as ye juait. xxv. 
 
 have done it unto one of the least of these, my brethren, '*°' '^^^ 
 
 ye have done it unto Me : " " Inasmuch as ye did it 
 
 not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to Me." 
 
 All this is in striking harmony with all the Gospel 
 representations of Christ. And in this consistency we 
 find an argument for their reality. The life, character, 
 and teaching, form one grand and perfect whole. 
 
 II. The Character formed by the Imitation of 
 Christ. 
 
 We now appeal to the character which is formed by 
 ike imitation of Christ as corroborative of His claims. The 
 Christ called on His disciples to follow His example, "cLri^"." 
 
252 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 yohnxiii. and they acknowledged the obhgation. Now consider 
 I pXli!zi ^\'l^^t mankind would be, w^hat the world would be, if 
 ^,"?. < all men followed Christ's example and were Christ- 
 like. Christ's idea of morals, we have seen, is the 
 highest " attainable to humanity," so that the embodi- 
 ment of it in a human life must be the highest attain- 
 able form of virtue. 
 Wherein The embodiment of Christ's life is not to be found 
 in either the Monk or the Communist. Christ was 
 Christ not an //(?/ an Ascctic, HOT was He an Iconoclast. His very first 
 
 Ascetic nor . . . , . . 
 
 an icono- miracle was a prophetic protest agamst the asceticism 
 which in after ages claimed to be the highest form of 
 Christian piety, and which has found its way into all 
 the religions of the world. The manner in which He 
 repudiated a kingship which would use the common 
 weapons of the world, and the way in which He repre- 
 sented the principles of His kingdom as leavening 
 society, is in utter contrariety to a communism which 
 would create by force a social fabric of equal posses- 
 sions. 
 
 The mind To be like Christ, is to have " the mind that was in 
 
 * ci^i^st.'" Christ." And what that mind was can be seen without 
 
 yokniv.z^. difficulty in the story of His life. "My meat," He 
 
 said, " is to do the will of Him that sent Me and to 
 
 Matt.xii. finish His work." And again, "Whosoever shall do 
 
 ** ''^' the will of My Father which is in heaven, the same is 
 
 my brother and sister and mother." Here is the 
 
 grand regulating principle which, in proportion as it is 
 
 The Will of operative, will so assimilate us to Christ that we shall 
 
 ^"'^' be His brothers and sisters, with a manifestly family 
 
 likeness. The will of God, the law of our affections 
 
 and thoughts and actions, this will make us Cluistlike, 
 
 in all our relations, domestic and social. 
 
 It must, however, be the will of God as understood by 
 Christ — God as revealed by Him, and God's will as 
 
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. 253 
 
 taught by Him. Wliat all this is has to be gathered 
 from the Gospels. Much of it is summed up in the 
 Apostolic words, " Whatsoever things are true, honour- Phu. iv. s. 
 able, just, pure, lovely, of good report ; if there be 
 any virtue, any praise, think on these things." 
 
 Christ's devotion to the will of God included The gnod of 
 devotion to the good of man. " Lo, I come to do "'^"' 
 Thy will," was the language of prophecy : " The Son p^'^- ^^- 1 ; 
 of Man is come to minister and to give His life a j^i_,ft_ i,... 
 ransom for many," is the language of history, Jesus ^^' 
 was doing His Father's will when He went about 
 doing good to men. We cannot follow Him in the 
 manner or measure of His good deeds, but we can in 
 the spirit of them. " If we cannot say to the widow's " Work and 
 only son, 'Arise!' we can stand by the bier and bear the '^tlifni'iHe 
 widow's sorrows. If we cannot say to the buried ^^t^^^f" 
 Lazarus, ' Come forth ! ' we can weep with Ivlarv and ^y ^'^^ 
 Martha, and rejoice too that their brother shall rise ". "• 
 again at the last day. If we cannot take five loaves, 
 and with them feed five thousand hungry men, we can 
 at the least deal our ow^n bread to the hungry, and 
 befriend the outcast and the naked. If it cannot be 
 said, in reference to our ministrations, 'The blind 
 receive their sight, the lame walk, and the lepers are 
 cleansed,' we may so follow Christ as to be able to 
 appropriate the words of Job, 'The blessing of him 7obx.xi.x. 
 that was ready to perish came upon me ; and I caused ''^' '^' '^' 
 the widow''s heart to sing for joy. I was eyes to the 
 blind, and feet was I to the lame. I was a father to the 
 poor; and the cause which I knew not I searched 
 out'" 
 
 Such will be the fruits of having in us the mind that 
 was in Christ. The man that has not in him the soul 
 of a philanthropist is not a true Christian. Devotion chrltL, ;» 
 like Christ's to the good of men. is not a mere senti- ^'hiiamhro- 
 
2 54 HA \D BOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 ment that may evaporate in tears or fine words. Time, 
 money, labour, prayer, are its fruits, and by these 
 fruits it is known. 
 
 It is not necessary to dwell particularly on the 
 l)urity, the lovingness, and lowliness of Christ. WJiat 
 manner of persons will they be whose character is 
 moulded by the principles and virtues Avhich pervaded 
 His character ? The practice of all that is just and 
 honourable, is but a small part of the effect that will 
 be produced. Universal love and goodwill, will be 
 the result The Sermon on the Mount will be 
 translated into actual life. The thirteenth of First 
 Corinthians will be no longer an ideal but a real 
 picture. 
 
 Again we ask, "What would the world be if all men 
 
 followed Christ? The imitation of Gautama, the 
 
 Examples of fouudcr of Buddliism, would make men beggarly as- 
 
 Mohamm'ed, cctics. The imitation of Mohammed would make 
 
 contrasted! men fierce, despotic, and sensual. The imitation of 
 
 Christ would make men angels in purity and love. 
 
 They must be credulous indeed who can believe that 
 
 Christianity, so widely differentiated from the most 
 
 boasted of the world's religions, is of the earth earthly. 
 
 The example left by its great Founder is nothing short 
 
 of Godlike, and the Imitation of it would make men 
 
 Godlike. A strange result this to be effected by an 
 
 Christianity carth-bom system — a system which, if earth-born, must 
 
 earth-bom. be charged either with falsehood or with delusion. 
 
 III. — ^The Early Successes of Christianity. 
 
 We do not maintain that the Divinity of the Chris- 
 tian faith can be inferred directly from its success 
 in the early ages of its existence. But when all the 
 circumstances of that success are considered, we Ji?id 
 
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. 255 
 
 /■/ difficult to accoimt for it ivitJioict supposing that it 
 ■was furthered by the Divine hand. As to the facts, we jhe facts, 
 must assume that they are known. We have seen 
 how it was in Rome, according to Tacitus, as early as 
 the days of Nero ; and how, forty years later, Pliny, Rome and 
 the Governor of Bithynia, was perplexed to know how ^"'^i""'^- 
 to deal with the multitude of every rank and of both 
 sexes who were accused of Christianity. What he 
 calls the contagion of this superstition had seized not 
 cities only, but the less towns likewise, and the open 
 country, so that the heathen temples were almost 
 forsaken, few victims were purchased for sacrifice, and 
 a long intermission of the sacred solemnities had 
 taken place. Thirty years after the date of Pliny's 
 letter — one hundred after the Gospel was first 
 preached to the Gentiles — Justin Martyr writes : — in the days 
 "There is not a nation, either Greek or barbarian, or Manyr" 
 of any other name, even those who wander in tribes 
 and live in tents, among whom prayers and thanks- 
 givings are not oftered to the Father and Creator of 
 the Universe, by the name of the Crucified Jesus." 
 Somewhat later, Avithout claiming Constantine as a constantine 
 Christian convert, and his establishment of the faith '"°"°'''*=<J ''^^ 
 
 ' people. 
 
 as a Christian proceeding, we see in the policy pur- 
 sued by him evidence of the extraordinary extent to 
 which Christianity had "leavened" the people of the 
 Roman Empire. The Emperor folloived the people, 
 did not lead them — a fact which shows what an 
 immense popular power the Christian faith had now 
 become. 
 
 And this in the face of difficulties which we can The 
 scarcely appreciate. The chief difiiculty was in the 
 doctrine in itself, the subject-matter of the Apostolic 
 ministry.- And, paradoxical as the statement may 
 seem, the doctrine was the power which subdued and 
 
22-31. 
 
 256 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 (a) Ti-.e won the world, (a) " Christ crucified was an offence 
 dXcu'ky. which it was not easy to overcome. Tell the world 
 to bow down before a crucified Jew as the Son of God 
 and the Saviour, the only Saviour of mankind ! Do 
 we wonder that men should turn away with scorn and 
 call Christianity a " pernicious superstition " ? And 
 yet the doctrine of reconciliation with God through 
 the death of the Crucified One, oiice understood, com- 
 mended itself to men's consciences and turned the 
 
 (/.) Ex- offence into a joy. (/') The exclusiveness of the claims 
 
 clusiveness, j j \ ' j 
 
 a difficulty, of the Christian faith was a great difficulty. The 
 
 ./ids jt*/t', . •^ii" 
 
 preachers of the faith recognized and built on the 
 truths which underlay all religions and modes of 
 worship. But they claimed an exclusive place for 
 Christ and His religion. It would not satisfy them 
 to obtain a place of honour for Christ in the temples 
 Ac/s-xiv. 15; of the heathen. The " idols " must be utterly for- 
 
 I y Aes. 2.9; _ _ _ ■' 
 
 Gal. iv. 8, 9. saken ; they were vanities and lies. The temples 
 
 must be utterly cleansed of their presence, and Christ 
 
 must reign alone. This claim roused both priest and 
 
 populace against the new faith. And yet, as in the 
 
 case of " the Cross," this assertion of the Unity of 
 
 God and of His exclusive right to worship, revealed 
 
 in Christ, commended itself to thoughtful reason and 
 
 (r) Purity of overcame the offence which itself created, {c) The 
 
 quiremen s, pwity of heart and life which the Gospel required 
 
 £•/>/«. ^" II,' "^^'cis an iinmeuse hindrance to its popular acceptance. 
 
 "■ Heathen moralists tolerated vices which Christians 
 
 felt it a shame even to speak of. Heathen religions 
 
 embodied vice and invested it with sanctity. But the 
 
 Christian faith would have " no fellowship with the 
 
 unfruitful works of darkness." It revealed a Holy 
 
 E/>h. iv. 17- God, a Holy Christ, and required men to be followers 
 
 ^' '^' of Christ in the practice of a divine holiness. It thus 
 
 aroused against itself all the evil passions and prac- 
 
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. 257 
 
 tices of mankind. But here, again, that which was the 
 occasion of resistance was itself the means of over- 
 coming the resistance. The Gospel, which was so 
 obnoxious to the sin-loving heart, commended itself 
 to the conscience which it enlightened and awakened, 
 and thus secured the approval of that which is the 
 strongest and most resolute part of our nature. 
 (d) -To these difficulties may be added the violent W Prejudice 
 prejudice which existed everywhere agamst the Jews — persecution, 
 
 ,-,, ..... .,_ ,., .. . a difficulty. 
 
 Christianity being of the Jews, and its missionaries 
 being Jews — and the persecutions which almost every- 
 where awaited the Apostles and their converts. 
 
 Such and such like being the difficulties in the way The means 
 of the Gospel, we turn to the means by tvJiich it was \o^eX^i 
 spread ; and these are summed up in the words ^p''^^'^. 
 Preach and Teach. " Preach the Gospel to every 
 creature." " Teach all nations." These were the 
 inarching orders of Christ ; and the Apostles observed 
 them religiously. They were but imperfectly in- 
 structed, and imperfectly imbued with the spirit of Lnkeix. 
 their Master, when they expressed a desire to call ^' ^ " 
 down fire from heaven to punish inhospitable Sama- 
 ritans. The teaching by which Christ corrected the 
 spirit of His disciples as they passed through Samaria, 
 is in glorious contrast with the teaching of Moham- 
 med, who pretended a Divine Order to wage war 
 against all unbelievers failing to submit themselves to 
 Islam, and who, and whose followers, used the sword 
 with savage mercilessness to convert men to the 
 Moslem faith. 
 
 While " preaching " and " teaching " were the only The first 
 weapons which Christ put into the hands of His mUeuerld. 
 followers, these followers were not men accustomed 
 to the use of such weapons, — neither Rabbis nor 
 philosophers. There was not one man of learniu"- 
 
2 58 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 among the eleven to whom Christ said, "Go ye 
 into all the world and preach the Gospel to every 
 
 Ads iv. 13. creature." They were all " unlettered and private " 
 persons, who " found the whole world before them 
 armed to the teeth to dispute their pretensions, to 
 
 " The Truth maltreat their persons, and to put an end to their 
 
 0/ the , . . . 
 
 Christian lives ; . . . With the power, wealth, learning, in- 
 Ravi genuity, malevolence, and malignity of the world 
 
 iOit^A 243. ready to exhaust their venom on their devoted heads." 
 These are the men who undertook, at their Master's 
 bidding, the more than gigantic task of turning the 
 
 Acts xvii. 6. world morally " upside down." But they had faith in 
 their Master. " To them the ultimate triumph of their 
 religion was only a question of time, and they calmly 
 and confidently looked upon the whole world as con- 
 quered territory." And, wonder of wonders! "they 
 lived to see their day-dreams realized to an extent 
 such as was enough to foreshadow the complete ful- 
 filment of the glowing prophecies they uttered ! They 
 scattered themselves throughout the greater part of the 
 then known world ; and everywhere, as they marched 
 forward, mighty superstitions receded, time-hallowed 
 institutions, and customs fell to the ground, and the 
 wilderness bloomed as the rose. And to-day, when 
 Socrates and Plato have perished, or live only to 
 tickle our fancy at times when Ave have nothing im- 
 portant to do, their word is law in millions of homes 
 scattered over the fairest as well as the darkest regions 
 of tlie world." "Why" (asks the converted Hindoo 
 Ka,n from whom these words are quoted), " why resist any 
 BoseTp. 244. loriger the conclusion that the word they preached 
 was the word of God, that the power they were en- 
 dowed with was the power of God ? " 
 
 Our argument, let it be observed, is not based on 
 the mej-e fact of the rapid extension of Christianity. 
 
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. 259 
 
 The merest delusion may spread with the rapidity of 
 wildfire. And it may be assumed that no religion 
 will spread rapidly or permanently unless it is favoured 
 by some elements of our nature, good or bad. But 
 the history of the race has nothing to show that can 
 for a moment compare with the conquests of the 
 Christian faith. It is true that the fulness of the times 
 had come, and that Providence had in important 
 respects prepared the world for the establishment of 
 the Kingdom of Heaven. But it is equally true that 
 the world had never been more corrupt than it was 
 when the Christ was preached to it. Though an age 
 of literature and refinement, the Roman world was 
 sunk into unfathomable depths of vice. "Voluptuous- 
 ness of the most disgusting type prevailed among the 
 great, rank scepticism flourished in the schools of 
 philosophy, poets and satirists laughed at the very 
 idea of religion, and society in general seemed 
 plunged into the deepest degradation." It was to 
 such a world that the Gospel was first preached. 
 And the propagation of such a religion as Christianity, 
 in opposition to such obstacles, with such rapidity, 
 and by such means, is a moral miracle, and can be 
 reasonably imputed only to the power of truth and of 
 God. "How will the infidel account for it? Does Dr. 
 he believe that these men were weak and deluded? ^liteiY 
 Then he believes that weak and deluded men could ^i'*"!'"' 
 
 P- 345- 
 
 accomplish a work requiring greater moral power than 
 any other. Does he believe they were deceivers? 
 Then he believes that these men laboured and 
 suffered, and died, to cause others to believe that 
 which they did not believe themselves." 
 
 We are told that the theophilanthropist Larevelliere- Anecdote of 
 Lepeaux once confided to Talleyrand his disap- ViiJe'"!^!'^ 
 pointment at the ill-success of his attempt to bring 
 
26o HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 into vogue a sort of improved Christianity, a bene 
 volent rationalism which he had invented to meet the 
 wants of a sceptical age. " His propaganda made no 
 way," he said; "what was he to do ?" he asked. The 
 ex-bishop politely condoled with him, feared it was 
 indeed a difficult task to found a new religion, more 
 difficult than could be imagined, so difficult that he 
 hardly knew what to advise ! " Still," so he went on 
 after a moment's reflection, " there is one plan which 
 you might at least try ; I should recommend you to he 
 crucified, and to rise again the third day." 
 
 " Yes, indeed ! " (says a recent author) " this is a 
 lightning flash that clears the air." The Gospel won 
 its way because of the great facts on which it was 
 based, and the great truths which it taught. God 
 was in it, " reconciling the world to Himself." 
 
 IV. The Effects of Christianity. 
 
 Within the limits of this handbook it is impossible 
 
 to do more than touch on this subject and indicate the 
 
 argument. It might be enough, indeed, to quote the 
 
 words of an Historian who does not profess to accept 
 
 " //M/<7rj' 0/ Christianity as a Divine Revelation. Mr. Leeks 
 
 Morality ■' , . ^, . . . 
 
 from writes as follows : " It was reserved for Christianity to 
 
 charie-^ prcscnt to the world an ideal character which, through 
 
 *"voTii. all the changes of eighteen centuries, has filled the 
 
 hearts of men with an impassioned love, and has shown 
 
 _ Christ's itself capable of acting on all ages, nations, tempera- 
 
 '"aii^ages°" mcnts, and conditions ; has not only been the highest 
 
 pattern of virtue, but the highest incentive to its 
 
 practice, and has exerted so deep an influence that it 
 
 may be truly said that the simple record of three 
 
 short years of active life has done more \D regenerate 
 
 and to soften mankind than all the disquisitions of 
 
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. 26 1 
 
 philosophers, and than all the exhortation of moralists. 
 This has indeed been the wellspring of whatever has 
 been best and purest in the Christian life. Amid all 
 the sins and failings, amid all the priestcraft, the per- 
 secution, and fanaticism, which have defaced the 
 Church, it has preserved in the character and example 
 of its Founder an enduring principle of regeneration." ^Seue'i-'atK)i'u 
 
 As to the evils " which have defaced the Church," 
 neither Christ nor Christianity is responsible for them. 
 One often wonders that Christianity has survived the 
 terrible wrong which has been done to it, by the mis- 
 representation of it both in doctrine and in practice, 
 but especially in practice, of those who have called 
 themselves Christians. But in spite of the imperfect Nohvith- 
 
 ^ . ^ . , ,.., ., , standing the 
 
 realization of it by its best disciples, and the shameful imperfection 
 travesties of it by men who have claimed to be its ° 
 disciples, " it has done more (according to the con- 
 fession just quoted) to regenerate and to soften man- 
 kind than all the disquisitions of philosophers, and 
 than all the exhortations of moralists," and it has in it 
 "an enduring principle of regeneration." It is not in 
 "the example and character," alotie, of its Founder 
 that this power and principle of regeneration resides. 
 But it is admitted that of all the moral and regener- 
 ating influences that have been exerted in the earth, 
 that of Jesus Christ has been the most potent. 
 " Enumerate all the great men that have ever existed, Bampton 
 whether kings, conquerors, statesmen, patriots, poets, prebendary 
 philosophers, or men of science; and their influence ^aZ'^^' 
 for good will be found to have been as nothing com- 
 pared with that which has been exerted by Jesus 
 Christ. Why is this ? He alone of the sons of men An 
 possesses in Himself a power of Divine attractiveness ^demTtuied" 
 which can penetrate to the depths of the human heart, 
 and exercise there a mighty moral and spiritual power. 
 
262 ITAXDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 What has He accomplished ? He who was in outward 
 form a GaHlean peasant, who died a malefactor's death, 
 has founded a spiritual empire which has endured 
 for eighteen centuries of time, and which, despite the 
 vaticination of unbelievers, shows no signs of decrepi 
 tude. Commencing with the smallest beginnings. His 
 empire now embraces all the progressive races of men. 
 Those by whohi it has not been accepted are in a 
 state of stagnation and decay. It is the only one 
 which is adapted to every state of civilization." 
 The "What is the legitimate deduction from these facts? 
 
 legitimate _ ^ 
 
 deduction. Are they consistent with the theory that Christianity 
 Prebendary }-jr^g originated in nothing but the action of those forces 
 
 KOW, p. 97. *^ ^ 
 
 which for three thousand years of unquestionable 
 history, and for an indefinite period which is semi- 
 historical, have been, energizing in man's intellectual, 
 moral, and spiritual being, and have produced the 
 results which we behold in his past developments? 
 Or do they testify to the presence and energy of a 
 superhuman power ? " 
 
 The effects of Christianity are in the nineteenth 
 century what they were in the first. We see them first 
 of all in individuals. In our modern Churches there 
 are men who were only less sensual, less degraded, 
 
 1 Cor. vii. tl'ian those whom Paul found in Corinth ; and who 
 
 9-"- give evidence not less demonstrative than was given 
 
 in Corinth, that the Gospel of Christ is the power of 
 
 God to the regeneration of men. You will find the 
 
 Greenland, samc rcsults of the Christian faith in Arctic regions 
 where Eskimos were turned to God by the simple 
 story of the cross ; in the sunny Isles of the Pacific, 
 where " every prophet pleases, and only man is vile," 
 you will find tribes which were sunk into a lower con- 
 dition than that of any that heard the gospel from the 
 lips of Paul, redeemed from cannibalism and savage- 
 
CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. 26} 
 
 ism, and clothed with the virtues and graces of Polynesia. 
 
 Christian hoUness ; in lands which were civiUzed when 
 
 our fathers were barbarians, such as India and China, i"<^''? -'"'^ 
 
 you will find thousands who were as polluted a {e\v 
 
 years ago as any to whom the Apostles preached in 
 
 Antioch and Rome and Corinth, and who are now as 
 
 worthy to be called saints as those to whom the 
 
 Apostolic epistles were addressed. Blot out the 
 
 history of all the ages before our own, — and out of our 
 
 own we can produce evidence that Christianity, the 
 
 Christianity of the New Testament, possesses a power 
 
 to regenerate and purify which is worthy of the origin 
 
 which it claims for itself. More than this, so far as we 
 
 can judge from the history of the past or the experience 
 
 of the present, the only rational hope that can be 
 
 entertained of mankind ever being regenerated and 
 
 purified is in Christianity. In such circumstarxes 
 
 there is scarcely room for the question, Whether of God or of 
 
 Christianity is of God or whether it is of man ? "'""'^ 
 
 Evidences corroborative of the Divine claims of Con- 
 Christ and the Divine origin of Christianity might be 
 multiplied. But these will suffice to show that our 
 faith does not rest on a single line of argument, but 
 on many, all converging to one point and shutting us 
 up, happily, to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was 
 indeed the Son of God and the Saviour of man. 
 We admit the justice of the demand that we prove 
 our case. But, in the words of our preface, " un- 
 believers should remember at the same time that their 
 position is not rational or defensible unless they can 
 furnish a better explanation of the universe than is to 
 be found in the doctrine of an Intelligent Creator, and 
 a better explanation of the wonderful story of the 
 Gospels than is to be found in the admission of their 
 
264 
 
 Objections 
 no objection. 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 truth. Whatever be the difficulties of faith, the diffi 
 culties of unbelief are greater." It is no objection 
 to any scheme, either of philosophy or of religion, 
 that objections can be taken to it. Very plausible 
 objections may be taken to many things which we 
 know to be true. Let the inquirer study the various 
 The lines of argument by which we have endeavoured to 
 
 argument . . ... 
 
 multiform establish the clamis of Christ ; let him examine them 
 cumulative, first Separately, as we have presented them, chapter 
 by chapter, — inadequately, we are conscious, but suffi- 
 ciently, we hope, for the purpose of this volume : and 
 then let him examine them in combination, and in 
 their combined force. I^et him say how these things 
 can be explained, any one of them, and above all how 
 they can altogether be explained, on any other hypo- 
 thesis than that of their truth. If he cannot do this 
 honestly and satisfactorily, let him bow the knee to 
 the Saviour of the world. 
 
 The evidences of the Christian faith form more 
 than that " threefold cord " which is " not quickly 
 broken ; " they form a manifold cord, binding it round 
 and round, which has resisted the utmost strength 
 and skill to tear it or to break it. All that an ex- 
 pounder of these evidences can do is to help his fellows 
 to understand them, and to perceive somewhat of the 
 glory of Him who is enshrined in the heart of the 
 Christian Church. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 f-HINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, 
 LONDON AND BECCLES. 
 
HANDBOOK 
 
 OF 
 
 CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 PART TH I RD. 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE SPECIALITIES OF THE BIBLE : PRELIMINARY 
 OBJECTIONS AND PRELIMINARY PRESUMPTIONS. 
 
 In the First Part of this Handbook we considered the pan First, 
 great question of Theism — God or no God? — and 
 questions immediately connected therewith. The 
 Second Part, on " Christ and Christianity," was based Pan Second, 
 on the principle set forth in our preface — to the effect 
 that the Divine origin and authority of Christianity 
 may be established without any foregoing discussion 
 of the principles of Natural Religion. On this prin- 
 ciple we stated grounds on which we are justified in 
 believing in Jesus Christ as the Revealer and, in a 
 unique sense, the Revelation of God — grounds which 
 are independent of all antecedent questions of Natural 
 Religion or of Philosophy. 
 
 Having reached the conclusions which are main- 
 
268 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 tained in Parts First and Second, our task may be 
 regarded as completed. Practically, we need no 
 further argument, and we need travel into no other 
 region of inquiry, to justify our assured confidence in 
 The "Book" Christ as our Lord and Saviour. But there is a Book 
 con^dered. which professcs to Contain the history of the Faith 
 which found its culmination and consummation in 
 Christ, from the very beginnings of man on the earth. 
 And there are certain aspects of this Book, and certain 
 considerations regarding it, which demand most 
 earnest study, and which, we think, will establish its 
 claim to be regarded as the authoritative record of 
 Divine Revelations. 
 
 This not an It docs not comc within the scope of our plan to 
 
 tion"'To "he wHte what are called " Introductions " to the books 
 
 Bible, ■which together form the Bible, An " Introduction " 
 
 discusses the history, date, authorship, and contents 
 
 of a book ; our concern is with the specialities of the 
 
 Bible, which may be stated briefly thus : — 
 
 What the I. From the beginning to the end of the Bible it 
 
 fesses'to cwi- profcsscs to Contain, or it contains professedly, histories 
 '^'"' of supernatural communications from God to man, or 
 supernatural communings between God and man. 
 The most superficial reader can verify this statement 
 for himself In Paradise, and after Paradise, onwards 
 to the last of the Apostles in " the isle that is called 
 Patmos," we find such professed histories. In the 
 Revelation world bcfore the Flood, they are connected with the 
 
 wkh 'historic names of Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Enoch, and 
 Noah.' In the world after the Flood, they are con- 
 nected, among others, with the well-known names of 
 Abraham, Moses, Samuel, and a long array of prophets, 
 to whom it is said God spoke at sundry times and in 
 divers manners. And in later times, according to the 
 
 names. 
 
SPECIALITIES OF THE BIBLE. 269 
 
 Book, God hath spoken unto us by or in His Son, 
 and by Apostles whom the Son appointed to be His 
 ambassadors to mankind. All this is avowed in the 
 Bible, whether truly or not. 
 
 2. The second speciality of the Book may be stated 
 thus : Amid all that is local and temporary, amid laws 
 and judgments, amid a variety of prose and poetry, 
 the historic and the didactic, we can trace one grand 
 characteristic of the whole series and system — -the 
 prophetic anticipation or revelation of Redemption, Redemption 
 and that Redemption associated with the work of a Redeemer 
 Person, " The Revelation recorded in the Scriptures ^^""cipated. 
 is before all things a self-manifestation of God, as the Emiof 
 God oi grace. In that revelation God appears as One by Pro/. 
 who cherishes a gracious purpose towards the human '"'^'"'■^•s- 
 race. The revelation consists, not in the mere intima- 
 tion of the purpose, but more especially in the slow 
 but steadfast execution of it by a connected series of 
 transactions which all point in one direction, and at 
 length reach their goal in the realization of the end 
 contemplated from the first." 
 
 To the same effect Professor Wace says, " The Bible Bampton 
 is not so much a record of the efforts of men to seek oti " tiu 
 and find God, as a revelation of His gracious work in 'of the 
 seeking and guiding men." "'^'^' ^' ^' 
 
 We might select a few books, or portions of books, 
 from the writings of the Greeks and Romans, such as 
 Socrates and Plato, Cicero and Seneca, the common 
 theme of which should be God or the Gods, and the 
 relations of mankind to God. But the volume thus 
 formed, even with God as its theme, would be totally 
 different from our Bible. It would exhibit man feeling 
 after God — and that with very little success ; whereas 
 our Bible exhibits God in actual communication with 
 man, teaching, and saving man. 
 
270 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 On "verify. Such being the specialities of the Bible, and such 
 d.eluej''see the claims involved in them, can these claims be 
 ^'"J.'^^''"' verified ? Shall we find in the Book itself sufficient 
 grounds for faith in them as true ? 
 
 There are two preliminary objections or prejudices 
 which we mention only to brush them out of our way. 
 ForDefini- I. The first is the (7/;w/-/ objection to all that is 
 "'sZper- supernatural — the alleged impossibility or improba- 
 "ee'pa^i bility of the miraculous. On the dictum that God 
 ^'77-79^ cannot speak to men, or reveal Himself, otherwise 
 Part First, than in nature and in the human conscience, we have 
 ^antvn'.' already said all that is necessary. This can be main- 
 tained consistently only by those who will maintain at 
 the same time that there is a gulf between God and 
 man which God Himself cannot bridge over — a con- 
 clusion which comes to this, that whether God wills it 
 or not, or whatever may be the urgency of human 
 want or danger, God is doomed by His very great- 
 ness, or perchance by some insuperable limitation of 
 His power, to the Epicurean enjoyment of His own 
 existence, and cannot make His voice heard or His 
 hand seen on earth. It is a conclusion, moreover, 
 which involves those who accept it in this logical 
 See Part difficulty : Thev say that God is unknoivable, and vet 
 
 First, pp. 16- ^ ^ ■' . . ' 
 
 18. they profess to know this of God — that He is unknow- 
 able, and that He cannot reveal Himself in any special 
 or supernatural way to mankind. We hold that it is 
 See Part not Only possiblc but probable that God should reveal 
 
 First, CItap. ^-f. ,- ,, 
 
 VII. Himself supernaturally. 
 A Book- 2. Another preliminary objection is taken to the 
 
 revelation ,. . ... , 
 
 objected to. claims of the Bible. It is a vague objection to what 
 
 is called a Book-revelation. But on the assumption 
 
 that God is pleased to reveal Himself or His Will 
 
 Heb. i. I. supernaturally, whether once for all or " in divers 
 
 portions and at sundry times," it is evident that, so far 
 
ORAL TRADITION NOT SUFFICIENT. 2y I 
 
 as the bulk of mankind in successive ages and in all 
 lands are concerned, the revelation must be conveyed .wo»-w- 
 to them either by oral tradition or in a Book. How ''^•'cycditi/iVy 
 far tradition may be accepted as a tolerably safe guide, "-^ fiomuf/^ 
 is a question which we need not consider. But the ""^^£J' 
 utmost imaginable capacities of oral tradition are un- ■ff«''f^'«-^''«''^ 
 
 ° _ 1 _ Bainpton 
 
 equal to the requirements of the case with which we Lectures, 
 have to deal. Let special Revelations have been 
 given by God in Palestine or Greece or Rome some 
 thousands of years ago ; let the period of their com- 
 munication have extended over one or two thousand 
 years : how should they be conveyed to the peoples 
 of distant lands, of different tongues, and of an im- 
 mense variety in habit and culture ? And how should 
 these revelations be preserved uncorrupt through all 
 ages to the end of time .-* It needs no argument to Tradition not 
 prove that oral tradition could not effect all this, 
 except by a perpetual miracle, a miracle greater than 
 the original revelation itself. 
 
 Against the supposition of Divine Revelations being No real pre- 
 recorded in a Book, there is really no presumption 2gainst''a 
 whatsoever. The art of writing is scarcely less myste- 
 rious than the power of speech. We cannot assert 
 that the one is contemporaneous with the other, and 
 say that as soon as men learned to speak they learned 
 to write. But the origin of writing is so ancient as to be Antiquity of 
 lost in the unhistoric dimness of the earliest ages, and \vHting? 
 its value is so evidently great that it was very natural 
 to ascribe it to the gods. Without it the thoughts of 
 one age could not be communicated to ages following, 
 except within a very narrow range and in a very 
 imperfect manner. The art of writing may be pro- 
 nounced essential to the progress and education of 
 the race. We have only to think of the place which 
 it has occupied, and still occupies, in the intellectual 
 
2/2 irANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 and moral forces which rule the world, to be assured 
 that there is nothing undivine or unworthy of God, or 
 in any way improbable, in the use of a Book to record 
 God's revelations of Himself, and thus to speak to 
 man in God's name. 
 
 What an Were we Writing an "Introduction" to the Bible, 
 
 Introauc- ^ 
 
 tipn " would we should have to consider the grounds on which we 
 
 require. .. 
 
 credit the books of the Bible with the antiquity which 
 
 is commonly ascribed to them, and the grounds on 
 
 which we affirm their historical truthfulness. The 
 
 reader will find in the note below, the names * of 
 
 some books which will enable him to study these 
 
 subjects. As to the truthfulness of Bible histories, we 
 
 Impartiality may pause to remark on the impartiality with which 
 of BiWe , , -^ ,^ . . , - /_ ■',,,. 
 
 histories, the douigs 01 the most honoured heroes of the history 
 
 * Two by the author of this Handbook, and pubhshed by the 
 Sunday School Union : — 
 
 " The Pentateuch : its Age and Authorship.''' 
 
 " The Gospels: their Age and Authorship.''' 
 
 See also, published by the Sunday School Union, " Tlic 
 Bible, the Sunday School Text-Book,'' by A. Holborn, M.A. 
 
 Canon Rawlinson's Bampton Lectures on " The Historical 
 Evidences'''' (Murray). 
 
 Canon Rawlinson's " Historical Illustrations of the Old Testa- 
 vient" {?,.V.C.K.). 
 
 •' Fresh Light from the IllonuinentSy' by A. II. Sayce. 
 
 " The Witness of A7icie>!t Mo)iuments to the Old Testament 
 Scriptures," by A. H. Sayce. A " Present-Day " Tract. (Reli- 
 gious Tract Society. ) 
 
 Moses Stuart on " The Canon of the Old Testament.''' 
 
 Canon Westcott's Works : " Introduction to the Study of the 
 Gospels," and " The Canon of the Neiu Testament" (Macmillan). 
 
 Isaac Taylor on " The Transjuission of Ancient Books to 
 I\Iode7'n Times." 
 
 Dr. Scrivener's ^' Six Lectures on the Text of the N'av Testa- 
 ment and the Ancient MSS. 'ivhich contain it" (Deighton, Bell 
 & Co.). 
 
IMPARTIALITY OF BIBLE HISTORIANS. , 2/3 
 
 are recorded. Dr. Thomas Arnold says, " In estimat- "Lecture:! 
 
 . . , . . 1 -r 1 1 1 ^ "" Modern 
 
 mg whether any history is trustworthy, 1 should not History:' 
 ask whether it was written by a contemporary, or by r///.' 
 one engaged in the transaction which it describes, but 
 Avhether it was written by one who loves the truth 
 with all his heart and cannot endure error." That 
 such was the spirit in which the writers of the Bible 
 history wrote — whether actuated merely by their own 
 conscience or by special Divine guidance — is evident 
 from the way in which they pourtray character. They 
 make no attempt to glorify Noah, Abraham, Jacob, Faults of 
 Moses, David, Solomon, and others, great and sacred '^sahus. 
 as these names were in the eyes of the Jews — no 
 attempt to conceal their failings and sins. On the 
 contrary, there is nothing more prominent in the story 
 of their lives than the record of their sins and short- 
 comings. It is notorious that in the monumental Partiality of 
 histories of Egypt and Assyria, which recent discove- "hiTto^L".'' 
 ries have brought to light, there is a studious conceal- 
 ment, or passing by, of events which did not contribute 
 to the glory of the monarch or the nation. Royal 
 defeats and national disasters are either unrecorded 
 or recorded with a gloss which misrepresents their 
 true character. Such is the testimony of all writers 
 on the subject. But we have a perfect contrast to 
 this in the Bible histories of the Jewish people. And 
 yet, taking this people as a people, they were as 
 vainglorious as others. And they had a reason of 
 their own for exalting themselves above others — they 
 regarded themselves as chosen of God for His peculiar 
 people. And among the most distinguished of those 
 whom God had called and honoured were Abraham, 
 Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon. And yet there 
 is no glorifying of these favoured ones — there is an 
 almost ostentatious exhibition of what was evil in 
 
2/4 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 them. Not only have we in this proof that the history 
 is genuine and honest, but we might find in the scrupu- 
 lous fairness and honesty of the history proof that 
 those who wrote it were guided by higher principles 
 than those that are common to men, and in fact were 
 overruled by an influence higher than any which was 
 natural to themselves. 
 
 From this point we assume, not without abundant 
 reason, that the books which compose the Bible 
 are genuine, and that they contain honest and trust- 
 worthy histories, and our task is to examine their 
 special claims as a record of Revelations made by 
 God to man through long ages. In one of the latest 
 Heb. i. 1, 2, of these books we read — " God, having of old time 
 version, spokcn unto the fathers in the prophets by divers 
 portions and in divers manners, hath at the end of 
 these days spoken unto us in His Son." These words 
 justify the definition of Revelation given by Professor 
 ■; The Chief Bruce : " Revelation signifies God manifesting Him- 
 ' latioH," self in the history of the world in a supernatural 
 manner and for a special purpose. Manifesting Him- 
 self; for the proper object of revelation is God. The 
 Revealer is also the Revealed. Manifesting Himself 
 in History, I add, to distinguish the revelation now 
 under discussion from that which God has made of 
 Himself in Nature. The words, ' in a supernatural 
 manner and for a special purpose,' are included in 
 the definition to distinguish the subject under con- 
 sideration from that revelation of God as a moral 
 Governor which is discernible in the ordinary course 
 of Providence. I believe we have the record of such 
 a Revelation in the Bible." 
 
 This definition includes, it will be observed, not 
 only words but acts — not only communications made 
 
 J>- 57- 
 
RE VELA TION A ND INSPIRA TION. 275 
 
 to men in words or in thoughts imparted to, or 
 awakened in, human minds, but also those special acts 
 or works by which God was pleased to accomplish 
 His purposes. 
 
 The terms "revelation" and "inspiration" are Revelation 
 often used synonymously, but they are not strictly ^tk)n"d?r^ 
 synonymous. "Inspiration" may be understood as ""suished. 
 including Revelation, in fact all that is implied in 
 ascribing anything to a Divine origin and investing 2 Tim.iu. 
 it with a Divine authority. But much may be peu'i. 21. 
 inspired that is not revealed and that needed no 
 revelation. The contents of the historical books 
 of Scripture were not revealed to the historians. The 
 knowledge of them was derived from natural sources, 
 and many of these sources are referred to by the 
 Bible historians, as they might be by other historians. 
 But we believe that the Bible historians were inspired 
 in the use of them — that is, Divinely guided as to the 
 choice of their materials and in the correct using 
 of them. The introduction to the Gospel by Luke 
 explains what we mean. The Evangelist did not z«/.v/. 1-4. 
 acquire his knowledge of the life of Christ by revela- 
 tion, but from those who from the beginning were 
 eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, and, thus 
 informed, he "traced the course of all things ac- seethe 
 curately from the first." This he did, we believe, by yfrsZi. 
 Divine Inspiration, or the Divine guidance of the 
 Holy Spirit. While Inspiration does not necessarily /o/i«.r/i'. 26. 
 imply a foregoing Revelation, Revelation, if it is to 
 be communicated by him who receives it to others, 
 must be accompanied by Inspiration or a Divine 
 guidance to secure its faithful transmission. Practi- 
 cally, therefore, the two go together. And when we 
 say that the Bible contains Divine Revelations, we 
 
276 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 mean likewise that it contains a faithful record of 
 them. 
 
 Moham- The only religion, other than that of the Bible, 
 which claims without doubt to have been a revelation 
 from God, at least in an historical sense, is the 
 Mohammedan. But, as has been well remarked, " it is 
 so obviously a bare-faced imitation of the Bible — both 
 of the Old Testament and of the New^that we need 
 
 The Hindoo not tarry over it." The Hindoos, indeed, maintain 
 that their Vedas were uncreated, that they came 
 directly from the mouth of Brahma, and were identi- 
 fied with him as the shadow is with the substance. 
 But Hindoo legends have no claim to be regarded 
 as historical. They are utterly beyond verification, 
 going back, as they do, to millions of years and into 
 regions beyond this world into which we cannot 
 penetrate. The distinction of the Bible, as a Revela- 
 tion capable of being historically tested, is unique. 
 Can it be maintained, or must it be regarded as false 
 and hollow ? 
 
 The struc- We find a presumption in favour of it in the very 
 
 tare of the - , „., , . ,. . , . 
 
 liibie : Structure of the Bible, its diversity and its unity. 
 "''unky.^" The Book is not one but many. It is a collection 
 of books, and these of all forms of literature — poetry 
 and prose, history and prophecy. It is the product 
 of many authors, the earliest of them separated from 
 the latest by at least sixteen hundred years. These 
 books follow each other in orderly succession, like 
 successive developments or growths, or like the 
 successive portions of a great structure, each of which 
 rests on that which went before. By this it is not 
 meant that all the books as they appear in the Bible 
 are placed there in chronological order. Of some 
 books — Job, for example — it is not easy to determine 
 
THE BIBLE XOT A MISCELLANY. 2 J "J 
 
 the date of their writing; and of others — the prophets 
 of the Old Testament, for example — it is certain, from 
 the histories which accompany them, that they are 
 not placed in the order of time. But this does not 
 affect the orderliness of which we speak. The Book Orderliness. 
 tells us first of the creation of the world and of man, 
 and of the relations of God and man during long ages 
 before a particular people was separated from others 
 to be God's witnesses in the world ; it then tells us 
 of this particular people, the Jewish, from the call of 
 their progenitor, Abraham, until the object of that call 
 ■and of the separation of his descendants from other 
 nations was accomplished by the Advent of Him in 
 whom, according to the Book, all nations are to be 
 blessed. And it contains professedly Divine com- 
 munications, such as the circumstances of the people 
 during the period before the Advent of the Promised 
 One seemed to require. The later portion of the The New 
 Book, called by us the New Testament, contains a .'^^"""^"'■ 
 fourfold history of Jesus Christ, Avhose coming it sets 
 forth as having been predicted even before the call 
 of Abraham ; the history of the early propagation of 
 the faith of Jesus Christ throughout the world ; several 
 letters, containing expositions and discussions of 
 Christian doctrines and morals, addressed by apostles 
 to Churches and to individuals ; and, lastly, a book of 
 practical instruction and prophecy, the record of pro- 
 fessed communications received by the last surviving 
 Apostle while he was an exile in the Isle of Patmos. 
 
 From this description of the Bible, which the 
 reader will recognize at once as true, it will be seen 
 that, though it consists of many and various parts, it is The Bible 
 no miscellany ; it is not a mere binding together of "ciifany! ' 
 the works of authors whose only connection is that 
 of race or nation, and whose onlv succession is that of 
 
2/8 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 the ages in which they happened to Hve. Any attempt 
 
 to gather into one volume the Hterature of any other 
 
 About 700 nation — say of the Greeks from Homer to Proclus, 
 
 V..C. to 450 . . ' 
 
 A.D. rangmg over a period of about twelve hundred years ; 
 About 240 or of the Romans from Titus I.ivius Andronicus to 
 
 li.C. to 524 
 
 A.D. Boethius, ranging over a period of about eight hundred 
 Contrast ycars — would show, by way of contrast, the peculiarity of 
 
 with Greek , tt 1 i- 
 
 and Roman the Hebrew literature. In the case of the Greeks and 
 Romans, you would have nothing but a conglomerate, 
 and that made up for the most part of discordant and 
 irreconcilable materials. In the case of the Hebrews 
 the unity is as marked as the diversity. The many 
 books form one, not only externally but internall)'. 
 And their theme is one from first to last : stated 
 popularly, it is Paradise lost and Paradise restored. 
 The truth of Further, it will occur to the student at once that 
 involved in the adniission of the genuineness of the books and 
 'nes^of the the trustworthiucss of their histories carries with it the 
 history, j-j-yt^ of the Divinc Revelation which they embody. 
 For not only is the history of these Revelations in- 
 separable from the other historical matter in the Bible, 
 but it constitutes the chief part of Bible history. In- 
 stead of being subsidiary to the main theme, it is itself 
 the main theme, and all else is subsidiary to it. The 
 history makes no distinction between the Natural and 
 the Supernatural ; it records both, not as if they were 
 separate and separable things, but as parts of an 
 indivisible whole. This is true of the book from be- 
 ginning to end, from the age before the Flood to the 
 days of the Apostles. The attempt to eliminate the 
 supernatural and leave the natural as a historical 
 residuum, is no sooner made than it fails. 
 
 In the inseparability of the natural and the super- 
 natural in the histories of Abraham and Moses, as well 
 as of Christ, we have a sound basis on which to 
 
THE TRUTHFULNESS OF BIBLE HISTORY. 279 
 
 defend the truthfulness of the supernatural. But this, 
 after all, is but a small part of the grounds of our 
 belief in the Bible records of the Revelations which 
 God has given of Himself and His will. We are 
 content to leave it for the present without further 
 enforcement, and proceed to illustrate signs of the 
 superhuman in the Bible which, we think, are unmis- 
 takable. 
 
.280 . HA XD BOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 SIGNS OF THE SUPERHUMAN IN THE TEACHINGS OF 
 THE BIBLE. 
 
 We turn, first of all, to the Teachings of the Bible. 
 
 Part Fi-rst, Naturc, we have shown, is not Aenostic. It does 
 
 teach that there is a Supernatural Being, in whom and 
 
 in whom alone we find the First Cause of all things, 
 
 Nature not and to whosc intelligence and power are to be 
 ascribed all the order and manifold adaptations of the 
 universe. Of the attributes of this Great Being some 
 at least are discernible in the material creation, and 
 in our own moral constitution — such as His Per- 
 sonality, His righteousness, and His benevolence. 
 Not that all this is still unquestioned ; but all this 
 the arguments already urged allow us now to assume 
 to be the true teaching of Nature, however far short 
 men may come of understanding and receiving it. 
 But the Bible professes to tell us more of God than 
 Nature does. And so far as these two teachers go, 
 they must be consistent with each other. So that if we 
 should find the Bible teaching a doctrine concerning 
 God inconsistent with what Nature teaches, we should 
 
 If— a con- ]-)g compelled to reiect it as untrue. But if we should 
 
 sensus ' -^ _ 
 
 between the find the doctrine of God in the Bible consistent with 
 
 Bible and 
 
 Nature, the doctrmc of God in Nature, we shall have at least 
 
THE BIBLE AND NATURE COINCIDENT. 28 1 
 
 presumptive evidence that it comes from God Himself 
 — especially as notvhcre else but in the Bible do tue find 
 this perfect consensus. And if, further, we should 
 find the Bible lighting up the doctrine of nature, 
 making it clearer to our apprehension, turning the 
 probabilities of it into certainties, and this in a way 
 which wins our heart as well as convinces our judg- 
 ment ; if, further, we should find the Bible supple- 
 menting the teaching of nature respecting God, by a if-the Bible 
 knowledge of which only the vaguest hints are fur- ^"pp^""^"'^- 
 nished by nature ; if, still further, we should find the 
 Bible answering questions of deep and even awful 
 import which nature and conscience suggest but 
 cannot answer, and answering these questions in a 
 way which commends itself to men's consciences ; — 
 if all this be found true, we shall not be far from a 
 moral demonstration that the professed revelations of 
 God in the Bible are genuine. Let us, then, look at 
 these points in detail. 
 
 First. The teaching of the Bible respecting God is coin- The Bible 
 cident ivith the teaching of nature. One of the most im- wkh^nature. 
 portant conclusions to which, as we have seen, nature See Part 
 leads us, is that God is a Person, a self-conscious Agent, chap. v. pp. 
 an Intelligent Being who can say "I." Many readers '^chapl'iv. 
 will wonder that any other idea should ever have been ^' ^'' 
 entertained. But it has been and still is. Not only 
 among those who have to grope after God unaided 
 by Revelation, but among those who will not accept 
 the aid of Revelation, there are who dream of an 
 " Impersonal " God who has no self-consciousness, 
 can exercise no volition, is capable neither of ap- 
 proving nor of disapproving, who never consciously 
 does anything and never can. Now, on this subject the The 
 Bible is explicit. In its first verse we have the key to o^G^od."^ 
 
 u 
 
282 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 all that follows. " In the beginning God created the 
 heavens and the earth." The God of the book which 
 follows is " not a God who is a part of nature or a 
 personification of the powers of nature, but one who 
 is as distinct from nature as the builder of a house is 
 from the house." "God said, Let there be light." 
 "God said, Let the earth bring forth grass." "God 
 said, Let us make man in our image." In that 
 marvellous first chapter of Genesis " God said " occurs 
 nine times. And in other fourteen sentences in the 
 same chapter He is represented as a Personal Being, 
 working, creating, blessing, and taking pleasure in 
 the results of His power. Whatever may be the 
 relation of the first chapter of Genesis to the physical 
 history of the earth as disclosed by science, its relation 
 to the nature and character of God is clear as day. 
 Btunfiton " The Opening chapter of Revelation is, in short, most 
 
 Lecture by , ^ ■ , \ , . ' ' 
 
 Professor propcrly Considered, not as a revelation of nature, but 
 m'^a!, as a revelation of God. All the wonders of nature 
 are reviewed and displayed so as to reflect the power 
 and majesty of that great Being who created them." 
 And throughout all the books which constitute the 
 one Bible it is the same. There is no faltering in the 
 voice with which they speak, no hesitancy, no con- 
 sciousness of doubt. Historians, prophets, poets, are 
 all one in ascribing creation to the will and power of 
 God — never sliding into a pantheistic tone, and never 
 seemingly conscious of an effort to avoid it, but 
 writing and speaking as men to whom it was a simple 
 matter of knotcledge that God is, in our modern 
 awkward phraseology. Personal and not Impersonal, 
 a conscious Being with intelligence and will. The 
 very last of them, the seer of Patmos, represents the 
 spirits of the just in heaven as worshipping God, 
 saying, " Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and 
 
 /• 194- 
 
NATURAL AND MORAL ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 283 
 
 honour and power : for Thou hast created all things, i^ev. iv. 
 and for Thy pleasure they are and were created." 
 
 With the personality of God nature teaches us His The Unity 
 Unity. Not that men have always so understood ° ° ' 
 nature, but that when thoroughly studied such is the 
 conclusion to which, with a very high degree of 
 probability, it leads us. It need scarcely be said, 
 that monotheism or the Divine Unity is the doctrine 
 of the Bible from first to last. 
 
 It is with a very high degree of probability, likewise, Sec Part 
 that nature points to the Infinitude of the attributes chap. 'v. 
 of the One God. If we cannot logically infer an \^ ^ 
 Infinite cause from effects which, however vast, are infinitude of 
 still finite, the impression produced on our minds 
 by these effects is that there can be no limits to the 
 power and wisdom of the Creator. And for all 
 practical ends this is enough. The Bible confirms 
 this impression by representations which are not the 
 less true that they are not scientific but popular and 
 poetic, " Do not I fill heaven and earth ? saith the Jcr. xxUi. 
 Lord." " The heaven is my throne and the earth /^^ ;^^; ^ 
 is my footstool." "Behold the heaven and the ' "^''^ "'"• 
 heaven of heavens cannot contain thee." "Whither Psa. 
 shall I go from Thy Spirit ? or whither shall I flee "ilff" 
 from Thy presence ? If I ascend up into heaven, 
 Thou art there : if I make my bed in hell, behold. 
 Thou art there." The God of the Bible is Almighty 
 and Omniscient and everywhere present. And the 
 Naamathite expressed the feeling of all the Bible 
 writers when he exclaimed, " Canst thou by searching job xL 7, s. 
 find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty 
 unto perfection? It is as high as heaven ; what canst 
 thou do ? deeper than hell ; what canst thou know ? " s p t 
 
 We have seen likewise that nature is not wholly p^^^*' 
 
 .... -^ Chap. IV . 
 
 Silent with reference to the moral attributes of God, //■ 53-56. 
 
284 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 His Righteousness and His Goodness. If we are 
 
 ihe Moral undcr a moral law we are under a moral Lawgiver, 
 God/ " in whom the law abides as the uncreated light of 
 
 1 John i. 5; perfect essential goodness." The Bible idea of God's 
 moral nature is summed up in two sublime sentences, 
 " God is light " and " God is love." These sentences 
 occur towards the end of the Bible, but they only 
 condense doctrines which were held from the be- 
 ginning by Bible writers as the first principles of their 
 
 Ex.xxxiv. faith. "The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and 
 gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness 
 and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving 
 iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by 
 
 Ex. XV. IT. no means clear the guilty." " Who is like unto Thee, 
 O Lord, among the gods ? who is like Thee, glorious 
 in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders ? " 
 
 Thus far the teaching of the Bible concerning God 
 is coincident with the teaching of nature. But, 
 
 Bible teach- Secondly, It is far dearer, more conclusive, and more 
 
 ing more . .,,... - 
 
 conclusive tmpressive, and this is an important part 01 our argu- 
 impressive meut. The man who opens his ear to the voice of 
 '"^namre'. '^'^ nature, may find it difficult to be assured of what 
 it really says, and when he does attain to some as- 
 surance, the impression which he receives may be 
 faint, and the worship to which he is moved may 
 be cold and faltering. But the man who reads the 
 Bible seems to hear articulate sounds which cannot 
 be mistaken ; he feels himself in the presence of a 
 living speaker ; he not only understands what is said, 
 but it is said in a way which moves him to action 
 and to worship. "The Hebrew writers," says Mr. 
 7/i« .?//?-// ^/ Isaac Taylor, "stand possessed of an unrivalled 
 FoeiryJ^ij. prerogative as the teachers, not merely of mono- 
 theism, but of the spirit-stirring belief in God ; and 
 
BIBLE TEACHING MORE CONCLUSIVE. 285 
 
 near to us is He, not only because in Him we live 
 and move and have our being, but because He — in- 
 finite in power and intelligence — is in so true a sense 
 one with us, that the unabated terms of human emotion 
 are a proper and genuine medium of intercourse be- 
 tween Him and ourselves." 
 
 If it be objected that to ascribe to God anything 
 like "human emotion," and to speak of His thoughts 
 and works in terms descriptive of man's thoughts 
 and works, is " anthropomorphic," — we reply, that this sec Part 
 anthropomorphism is based on the fact that man is 'll^-iH'' 
 made in the image of God, and instead of " dwarfing 
 the Supreme Being," without it all our ideas of God 
 become shadowy and unreal. We maintain, with Mr. 
 Isaac Taylor, "that, not less in relation to the most spirit 0/ the 
 highly cultured minds than to the most rude — not Poetryl^. 2. 
 less to minds disciplined in abstract thought than to 
 such as are unused to generalization of any kind, 
 the Hebrew Scriptures, in their metaphoric style and 
 their poetic diction, are the fittest medium for con- 
 veying what it is their purpose to convey, concerning 
 the Divine nature, and concerning the Spiritual life, 
 and concerning the correspondence of man, the finite, 
 with God, the Infinite." 
 
 We admit, as a general principle, that natural and 
 moral truths do not need Revelation to teach them. 
 They shine in their own light and commend them- 
 selves by their own inherent force. But we can 
 imagine men to be so sunk in ignorance that the light 
 and force of nature are not sufficient to illumine them 
 in the knowledge of God, and still less sufficient to 
 recall them to their duty to God. And in any cir- 
 cumstances we can imagine a state of great perplexity 
 being occasioned by the entire absence of direct 
 communications from God. Dr. Mark Hopkins, writ- 
 
286 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Lowell ing of " the effect of miracles in producing a conviction 
 
 ^'tfeEvr of the being of a Personal God," says well, " This is of 
 
 'ckrhti^ the utmost importance. Let us suppose there had 
 
 Fifilerth been no miracle, nor any supposition of one, as far 
 
 Edition, back as history goes : that the uniform course of 
 
 //. 59, 60. . 
 
 nature had moved on without any supposed interven- 
 The super- tion of a supcrior personal Power ; that, in the lan- 
 
 naturai 
 
 needful to guagc of the scoffcr, all things had continued as they 
 natural, wcre from the beginning of the creation ; that no flood 
 had swept the earth, and no law had been given in 
 the midst of thunderings and earthquakes, and no 
 messenger from above, whose form was ' like the Son 
 of God,' had walked with good men in the fire, and 
 The absence no Other indication of a righteous administration 
 suppoTed'^ "" and of future retribution had appeared than are con- 
 nected with those unswerving laws that bring all things 
 alike to all, — and who can estimate the tendency to 
 practical, if not to speculative, atheism, of such a 
 state of things? It may even be questioned whether 
 the common argument from contrivance, for the 
 being of a Personal God, when that stands alone, and 
 is connected with such a uniform course of things, 
 would be valid. If this rigid order could once be 
 infringed for a good and manifest reason, it would 
 obviously change the whole force of the argument. 
 Could we see gravitation suspended when the good 
 man is thrown by his persecutors from the top of the 
 rock — could we see a chariot and horses of fire 
 descend and deliver the righteous from the universal 
 law of death, then should we be assured of the exist- 
 ence of a personal Power, with a distinct will, whose 
 agents and ministers these laws were. Such attesta- 
 tions of His being we might expect God would give, 
 not merely to confirm a particular revelation, but with 
 reference to this feeling of indefiniteness, of gene- 
 
MORE CONCLUSIVE AND IMPRESSIVE. 28/ 
 
 rality, of a want of personality in the Supreme Power, 
 which the operation of general laws, necessarily con- 
 founding all moral distinctions, has a tendency to 
 produce." 
 
 Bible teaching, then, gives to nature teaching addi- BiWe teach- 
 tional light and force, especially in relation to the relation to 
 moral attributes of God. Not only is the Bible one Attribut°eTof 
 with nature in teaching that God is both righteous forcfi^^the 
 and good, but it brings these grand truths out of the '^^'^'ture °^ 
 obscurity in which nature leaves them, and out of the 
 practical forgetfulness of mankind, and makes them 
 shine as in sunlight. The government of the world 
 which the Bible ascribes to God, and the histories in 
 which we have glimpses of that government, are all 
 mirrors in which both the righteousness and the good- 
 ness of God are reflected. The story of our first 
 parents, of Noah and the flood, and of the Jewish 
 people in all their generations, is one long recital of 
 the fact in which the world should rejoice, that God 
 is both Light and Love. Those who wrote these 
 stories and other portions of the Old Testament were 
 not unconscious of perplexity and difficulty in this 
 matter. The existence of sin and suffering, the in- 
 equalities and wrongs, which distress us, distressed 
 them. But this only makes their faith in God more 
 remarkable. They did not shut their eyes, they 
 neither refused nor failed to see the evils that are 
 done under the sun. No observers or writers, ancient p^^ /rwvv 
 or modern, have seen them more clearly or mourned 
 over them more painfully. But through all they clung 
 to the assurance that the Judge of all could only do 
 right. The Psalmist gives voice to the uniform doc- 
 trine of the Bible when he says, " The Lord reigneth ; Psa. xc^;-;. 
 let the earth rejoice ; let the multitude of isles [all '' ^' '""' 
 Gentile lands] be glad thereof. Clouds and darkness 
 
288 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 are round about Him : righteousness and judgment 
 are the habitation of His throne. . . . Rejoice in the 
 Lord, ye righteous ; and give thanks at the remem- 
 brance of His hohness." 
 
 If it be thus true, as it is, that the Bible teaching 
 concerning God not only coincides with that of 
 nature, but makes the teaching of nature immensely 
 clearer, and turns its lessons into a practical force, we 
 have at least presumptive evidence that it is of God 
 Dr. Mark Himsclf. " Who Can believe that atiy speculative and 
 
 Hopkins s ^ ' 
 
 Lo7vcn problematical solution of one or all of the great 
 
 Lectures, . ._,,,. 
 
 /. 56. questions respectmg God and His government and 
 human destiny, could introduce a religion that would 
 effectually control the passions, and predominate over 
 the senses, of men ? No. It is exceedingly clear that 
 if anything was to be done to enlighten man, it must 
 be by a voice from Heaven — a voice that should 
 speak with authority, and not as the scribes." 
 
 Thirdly. We come now to a still more important 
 
 See Part fact. The teaching of the Bible supple?nents the teaching 
 
 Chap. VII. of nature where that fails, and answers questio7is ivhich 
 
 ■ ^^ ^ ■ thai suggests but cannot ansiver. The moral nature 
 
 The Bible whicli points to God as a righteous Ruler troubles man 
 
 supplements . . . 
 
 the teaching With a consciousncss of sin and demerit ; and the 
 
 question which man has asked himself in every age, 
 
 Micah 7'/. and toiled in vain to answer, is in substance — " Where- 
 67.. 
 
 with shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself 
 
 before the High God ? shall I come before Him 
 with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old ? Will 
 the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or with 
 ten thousands of rivers of oil ? shall I give my first- 
 born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the 
 See Part sin of my soul?" There is not, we repeat, a darker 
 /A 96, 97. P'^^ge ii'' the moral or religious history of mankind, than 
 
NATURE SUPPLEMENTED BY THE BIBLE. 289 
 
 that which records men's efforts to answer such ques- 
 tions as these, the gross conceptions of God which they 
 indicate, not as the Just God but the Mahgnant — and 
 the insane and unutterable cruelties to which these 
 conceptions have led. But underneath them all, there 
 is the deep-seated feeling of alienation from God, of 
 guilt and condemnation, and the necessity of atone- 
 ment. 
 
 We have here the greatest moral difficulty of human 
 experience, and no light which nature sheds on the 
 character of God can remove it. " Nothing can be Dr. Mark 
 more contrary to the history of all the past than what itwdV 
 is asserted by some modern deists, that it is a dictate of ^^p''^l'' 
 natural reason that God will pardon sin on repentance. 
 . . . The deist may be challenged to show any heathen 
 creed in which this was an article. . . . Repentance, Nature does 
 even as a condition of pardon, is peculiar to the Gospel that God win 
 system ; and as an historical fact, it is produced only ^penUent'!'' 
 by Gospel motives. The truth is, deists have bor- 
 rowed this partial truth from the Bible, and then used 
 it to show that we do not need the very book from 
 which they borrowed it. The question of the method 
 or possibility of pardon, by a perfectly just God, in- 
 volves the highest problem of moral government ; and 
 there is no analogy of the operation of human laws, 
 and certainly nothing which we see of the inflexibility 
 and severity with which the natural laws of God are 
 administered, which could lead us to believe in the 
 efficacy of repentance alone for the pardon of moral 
 transgressions." 
 
 It is a matter of no small moment that the Bible 
 teaches the possibility of forgiveness. " If there is 
 any one primary doctrine of natural religion, it is that 
 God is Just. This was so strongly felt by Socrates 
 that he doubted whether God could pardon sin." 
 
290 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 But the Bible is full of the doctrine of forgiveness. 
 P^f^- ,. Its histories teach it, its prophets and its Psalmists 
 
 xxxii., a. , ' i J. 
 
 Psa. cxxx. teach It. " If Thou, Lord, shouldest mark iniquities, 
 O Lord, who shall stand ? But there is forgiveness 
 with Thee, that Thou mayest be feared" — that men 
 may be brought to serve and worship Thee. God is, 
 in these striking words, represented as one who for- 
 gives sin in order that the sinner may be encouraged 
 to come to Him, and be His true and trustful wor- 
 shipper. Without the assurance that God waits to be 
 gracious, there can be no worship but the most servile 
 and abject. And this assurance the most enlightened 
 Natural Religion cannot give. 
 
 Those to whom only the earlier revelations of the 
 Bible were known had to rest in large measure on 
 the simple assurance that God would forgive the 
 
 The mysteo' penitent sinner, without knowing how. But thev 
 
 of sacrifice. . . . . . . -^ 
 
 practised a rite the origin of which cannot be explained 
 except by ascribing it to God Himself, and the all 
 but universal prevalence of which, often in cruel and 
 perverse forms, can be accounted for only on the 
 supposition that its origin dates from the very begin- 
 ning of man's history — the rite of sacrifice. The only 
 key to the mystery of so strange a rite is to be found 
 Heh. ix. 22. in one of the last books of the Bible — " Without 
 shedding of blood is no remission." As an expression 
 of thanksgiving, the shedding of blood would be most 
 unnatural. As an expression of self-devotement it 
 The Bible would be Scarcely less so. But as a confession that 
 
 idea of ... 
 
 sacrifice, the offerer's life was forfeited by sin, and a belief that 
 the life of the sacrifice would be accepted instead, it 
 would possess a profound significance. As thus 
 understood, however, it could have been no human 
 invention. Nor could it have been based on any 
 humanly conceived probabilities as to the Divine 
 
QUESTIONS WHICH NATURE CANNOT ANSWER. 
 
 2QI 
 
 acceptance of it. The Biblical representation of it 
 is self-consistent. The shedding of blood in sacrifice 
 was ordained of God. It was designed to teach men 
 that their lives were forfeited to Divine justice ; and, 
 by the constant repetition of sacrifice, to teach them 
 that the animals offered in sacrifice were in themselves 
 no adequate substitute for the lives that were spared. 
 In the fulness of the times an adequate substitute Heb. ix. 24 
 was revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, who died 
 the just for the unjust. And henceforward the shed- 
 ding of blood on the altar of worship should cease 
 for ever. 
 
 This, in few words, is the Bible doctrine on the 
 subject. We do not at present assume its truth. 
 But we present it as the Bible answer to the question 
 which nature cannot answer, as to how sin may be 
 pardoned and the sinner brought into amity with 
 God. Those who understood the answer most im- 
 perfectly thousands of years before Christ came, 
 understood it sufficiently to have peace with God. 
 And since Christ came it has been the grand means 
 of reconciling men to God, and enabling them to 
 cherish towards Him the affectionate confidence of 
 children. It is a doctrine, to use the words of Mr. 
 Isaac Taylor, " which in a peculiar manner refuses to 
 be tampered with or compromised, and which will 
 hold its own place or none. . . . If it be asked, Is it a 
 truth ? in reply, besides citing the Apostolic authori- 
 ties, which are most explicit, we might well ask 
 whence such a doctrine might proceed, if not from 
 God. Which of the creations of the human mind 
 does it resemble ? Whether we regard that aspect of 
 it which is thoroughly intelligible, or that in which 
 it presents an inscrutable mystery, it stands equally 
 remote from the customary style of human specula- 
 
 The Bible 
 
 answer to the 
 
 question — 
 
 How may 
 
 sin be 
 pardoned ? 
 
 Spiritual 
 Cliyisti- 
 anity. 
 
292 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 tions ; besides that, it contravenes the pride and 
 prejudices of the heart. Clear and bright as noon 
 is this truth ; vast and deep as infinity." 
 
 Other There are other questions less urgent than that 
 
 questions 1 • i 1 ^ i i 1 • • 
 
 answered by to which the iinal and complete answer is given m 
 the death of Jesus Christ, but still important, to which 
 nature and reason have given but dubious answers. 
 A future It is a significant fact that men have everywhere and 
 in every age had at least a presentiment or foreboding 
 of a future state. But still the question has been 
 asked bewilderingly, If a man die, shall he live again ? 
 It is well known that Greek and Roman philosophers 
 could not satisfy themselves on the subject. Cicero, 
 who had carefully studied the arguments of Socrates, 
 and added others of his own, says, " Which of these 
 is true, God alone knows ; and which is most probable, 
 is a very great question." As a practical doctrine, 
 " Life and immortality were brought to light by the 
 gospel." "This alone has revealed it with such 
 authority and certainty, and in such connections as 
 to give it all its efficiency as a motive of action ? " 
 
 The books of Surprisc has often been felt that there is no clear 
 and explicit intimation of a future state in the books 
 of Moses ; but it cannot be supposed that the doctrine 
 of a life beyond the grave was unknown to Moses and 
 Egyptian to the people whom he led out of Egypt. This 
 doctrine was one of the most prominent beliefs of the 
 people of Egypt — pervading their ritual, and inspiring 
 their monuments ; and it must have been familiar to 
 all who lived within their borders. The silence of 
 Moses on the subject could not have resulted from 
 ignorance or from indifference. There was a reason 
 for it which can scarcely be ascribed to his wisdom. 
 In the writings of Homer and Hesiod, and in the 
 
THE BIBLE ON A FUTURE STATE. 
 
 293 
 
 Vedas and Puranas of the Hindoos, there is a pro- 
 fusion of details respecting the future state. " With 
 these there is no reserve, no sense of mystery, no 
 fahering as if from imperfect knowledge. These 
 Greek and Hindoo authorities speak with all the 
 fulness and frankness of persons describing scenes of 
 which they are personally cognisant, yet what scenes 
 are these ? There is nothing in them to quicken the 
 intellect, purify the heart, ennoble the character, or 
 even gratify a well-ordered imagination. They are but 
 the shadow thrown on the future by the lower and 
 baser qualities of man — his caprice, selfishness, pride, 
 and wantonness. Such a future would only be an 
 aggravation of the evils of the present state." 
 
 Contrast with this the faith in a future state which 
 underlies the historic teaching of the books of Moses, 
 " God made man in His own image." This funda- 
 mental fact involves in it, as in a seed, all the assur- 
 ances of after ages respecting the life that is to come. 
 God communed with members of the race which He 
 had made in His own image. And the argument, if the 
 people needed argument on the subject, was near at 
 hand : Is man's nature such that he can thus commune 
 with God ? Does God speak to him, as one speaketh 
 to his friend, and will He not bind to Himself for ever 
 those with whom He has entered into close relation- 
 ship ? Christ's reply to the Sadducees was based on 
 this idea. God was not the God of the dead, but 
 of the living. The God who was the God of Abra- 
 ham, Isaac, and Jacob, while they were on earth, 
 was their God still, when He appeared to Moses in 
 the burning bush. His covenant with the patriarchs, 
 His communion with them, was the pledge of the 
 life which they now lived with Him in the unseen 
 world. 
 
 Greek and 
 
 Hindoo 
 Mythology. 
 
 James 
 Kennedy, 
 
 M.A. 
 
 What the 
 
 books of 
 Moses 
 taught. 
 
 God's 
 image. 
 
 Communion 
 with God. 
 
 The 
 
 patriarchs 
 living. 
 
294 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Translation 
 of Enoch. 
 
 2 Pet. Hi. 4 
 
 Possible 
 primitive 
 scepticism. 
 
 Effect of 
 
 Enoch's 
 
 translation. 
 
 See Heh. .xi. 
 8-IO, 13-16. 
 
 Sec Taylor 
 Lewis in 
 Laiige's 
 
 "Genesis." 
 
 One fact is said to be worth a thousand arguments. 
 And Moses had the knowledge of a fact, whose sig- 
 nificance could not be mistaken — the translation of 
 Enoch. A thousand years were long enough to pro- 
 duce sceptics and scepticism, and the argument of a 
 later age might already be used, " All things continue 
 as they were from the beginning of the creation." 
 For a thousand years, so far as we know, there had 
 been no visible change in the world. Let godliness 
 decline, and the sense of God's law and presence in 
 the world become faint, and sceptics could easily 
 involve men in wonderment and doubt. And even 
 the better-thinking portion of the community might 
 become faint-hearted, and long for some sign from 
 Heaven that should strike conviction into every soul. 
 In these circumstances the translation of a holy man 
 who had witnessed against the world's sins and doubts, 
 who had spoken to his fellows of God and His law 
 and a coming judgment with the authority of a 
 prophet, was the very sign from Heaven which that 
 generation needed. It must have thrilled with exulta- 
 tion all who feared God in that early age. It brought 
 Heaven very near to earth, and God very near to man. 
 The lessons which it taught were perpetuated to those 
 who possessed its history. Holy men who walk with 
 God on the earth, still walk with God after they die. 
 There is a world that is not seen as well as a world 
 that is seen. God is, and He is the rewarder of them 
 that diligently seek Him. 
 
 It is not necessary that we follow the later traces 
 of the great doctrine of a future state through the 
 books of the Old Testament. If any doubts whether 
 it lay at the base of the thinkings of ancient saints 
 concerning God, let him test this by endeavouring 
 to fix in his mind the idea that the Old Testament 
 
RELIGION AND A FUTURE LIFE INSEPARABLE. 
 
 295 
 
 Involved in 
 the idea of 
 Religion. 
 
 writers all regarded themselves as beings destined 
 
 soon to depart into nothingness — in other words, that 
 
 they were all sheer animal materialists. Let him 
 
 carry along this impression, and keep it constantly 
 
 present in reading the Psalms, the Prophets, or even Psa. i^xUi. 
 
 the Book of Proverbs. What a discord will arise 1-4^ jrwv. 14', 
 
 between it and many of their vivid utterances, even s-ii. ^^isa. 
 
 though there is nothing in them, dogmatically or ^Hab.iX\. 
 
 didactively, about a future life ! Let the reader study 
 
 some of these utterances, and say whether men who 
 
 believe in no hereafter ever talk so. 
 
 The truth is, that the idea of a future life is in- 
 separable from the idea of religion, at least of such 
 a religion as we have in the Bible, a religion which 
 brings the individual soul into communion with God, 
 the Father of spirits. " God and immortality," it has 
 been said, " are the two great pillars on which rests 
 'the edifice of religion. Remove either of them, and 
 the entire structure falls into ruins." 
 
 These two things are now noticeable : first, that 
 the Bible speaks with certainty of the doctrine of the Certainty. 
 Future, and not with the uncertainty which cha- 
 racterized the speculations of philosophers. And, 
 secondly, that the Bible speaks with a holy reserve, or 
 reticence, of the conditions of the future life. This is 
 true even of the teaching of Christ and of the New 
 Testament. The metaphorical language of the Book 
 of Revelation is no exception. Whereas the Jews 
 themselves, when they left Moses and the prophets, 
 as appears from their Talmudical writings, pictured 
 the Future as other nations had done. The only xhetme 
 explanation which meets the facts of the case is that explanation 
 the writers of our Scriptures were divinely instructed 
 to say what they did say, and were divinely re- 
 strained from saying what, judging by the analogy of 
 
 Holy reti- 
 cence. 
 
296 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 the history of the human mind, they would have 
 said, if left to themselves. Their revelations of a 
 future state all possessed a moral character which 
 rendered the life to come a joy to the righteous and 
 a terror to the wicked. 
 
( 297 ) 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 FURTHER SIGNS OF THE SUPERHUMAN IN THE 
 TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 The arguments which we have just outhned to prove 
 that in Bible teaching there are manifest signs of a 
 superhuman source, admit of being greatly strengthened 
 by considerations which cannot be challenged. 
 
 I. In the teaching of the Bible respecting God and Bible ideas 
 His relations to the universe and man, we have not onrman but 
 the teaching of a single man, but of a succession of men, succession of 
 many of them separated by long intervals of time as well ""*"' 
 as by marked peculiarities of character and of circum- 
 stances. From the latest Old Testament writer to the 
 earliest New Testament writer, there is the distance 
 of four centuries and a half From the latest New 
 Testament writer to the earliest Old Testament writer, 
 the distance is scarcely less than fifteen centuries and 
 a half The earliest Old Testament writer gives us, 
 in a few brief chapters, the history of mankind for at 
 least five and twenty centuries before his own time. 
 And whencesoever he derived his information, the 
 notable fact is that the ideas of God and man which 
 pervade that earlier history are the ideas which pervade 
 the later books. The ideas which are embodied in the 
 legislation and history of Moses, and which remain sub- 
 
298 HASWBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 stantially unchanged until the tune of John in Pamos, 
 are found in all their purity, though not in all their 
 fulness, in the earlier history of Abraham, of Noah, and 
 even of Adam and Eve, and of the Creation. 
 Contrast This is a fact without parallel in any other literature 
 
 with others. . . 
 
 or m any other so-called religion. Zoroaster, Confucius, 
 Buddha, and Mohammed, whatever be their merits or 
 demerits, stand each one isolated and alone. They 
 may have learned much from predecessors or contem- 
 poraries, as Mohammed certainly did : or they may 
 have been moved to their opinions and teachings by 
 the errors and practices of others. But nowhere do 
 we find, except in our Bible, a succession of men, 
 actors, speakers, and writers, whose widely separated 
 teachings constitute the authoritative and self-consistent 
 basis of one Faith. In the one Faith of the Bible, even 
 Jesus Christ, special as his mission was, and unique as 
 His person and character were, belongs to the great 
 succession which begins with Moses and ends with the 
 Apostle John — a unity this which points to a super- 
 human origin. 
 
 r.iwe writers 2. In this long line of prophets and Apostles, we do 
 
 ' "of^mentar* ;«<?/ find OHC wJio Seemed conscious of 7nental effort in 
 
 efTort in attaining or defending or teachins: the doctrines which 
 
 attaining ° y ti o 
 
 their ideas, they Held in common. There is not one in whom we 
 find any approach to the processes by which philoso- 
 phers, Greek or Roman, worked out theories for their 
 own satisfaction, or argued them for the satisfaction of 
 others. Their ideas appear in the histories which they 
 wrote with all the naturalness and ease with which 
 familiar facts are told ; and when asserted in the form 
 of teaching, they are asserted in the spirit of certainty 
 as matters of knowledge. 
 
TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE WITHOUT PARALLEL. 299 
 
 3. In no instance did the prophets of the Old R'b'e writers 
 Testament or the Apostles of the New claim origin- originality. 
 ality foi' their teaching, or any personal credit ivhatsoever. 
 
 What they taught they professed to have received from 
 God, and they spoke in the name of God. That they 
 believed that they had a right thus to profess and 
 speak, is certain. They were teachers of righteous- 
 ness. Falsehood they trace to the devil as the 
 enemy of God. And if they were conscious that what 
 they said was not of God, while they said it was, but 
 of themselves — or even conscious of uncertainty as to 
 whence it came — their hypocrisy would admit of no 
 rational explanation. 
 
 4. The teachings of the Bible, common to all its Kibie 
 writers, are unique, without parallel in the history ^'/ '''^unique ^"^^ 
 mankind. The higher we ascend in the history of the See Part 
 world's religions, in all nations, the nearer we come to 32-38! 90V91. 
 the Bible doctrine of God — no mean proof that Mono- 
 theism, or the belief in one God, instead of being 
 
 a development from Polytheism, and of later growth, 
 is, as the Bible represents it, the older and earlier 
 faith. But this older faith became obscured, and was 
 finally practically lost in the world. By the time of see Part 
 Abraham, while clearer traces of it may be found ^Z,-\t^' 
 in individual instances and obscurer traces in frag- 
 ments of very ancient literatures, it was practically an 
 extinct faith. And it continued so through all the 
 later histories, of Egypt, of the Aryan race in the far 
 East, of the Assyrians, Phoenicians, Greeks, and 
 Romans. Nor do we find one of those who may be 
 called religious reformers, even attempting to restore 
 
 . ... . . . , Zoroaster— 
 
 It m anythmg like its origuial purity. The doctrine founder of 
 of Zoroaster, which ascribed the universe to two 'rdigion-' 
 co-equal and co-eternal principles, light and darkness, '^mai'"." 
 
300 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 good and evil, may be regarded as holding an inter- 
 mediate rank between the Pantheism of India, in 
 which the universe was confounded with God and was 
 to be finally absorbed in God, and the purer Theism 
 of the Jews, which regarded the Almighty Jehovah 
 Confucius, as the Creator and Ruler of the universe. Confucius 
 taught a system of morals which, without denying 
 God, ignored Him. It is still a moot question 
 
 Buddha, whether the founder of Buddhism believed in God 
 
 See Part OX HOt. " Philosophic Buddhism is sheer Atheism; 
 
 ■^^fiJ!'' popular Buddhism is gross superstition." Mohammed 
 
 Mohau.med. p^j. jj^^ existencc of God in the forefront of his 
 
 teaching ; but such a God ! — a God of unapproachable 
 
 majesty, who had fashioned man as an artificer 
 
 fashions an image out of clay, with no living bond 
 
 Moham- bctwceu them. The God of Mohammed gives man 
 God^ ° rain and fruitful seasons, but " He is not the less 
 the inscrutable despot acting upon no principle but 
 the caprices of His will." Mohammed deemed it 
 blasphemy to suppose that man could claim any 
 spiritual kinship with his Creator. " Almost," he ex- 
 claimed in horror, " might the very heavens be rent 
 thereat, and the earth cleave asunder, and the moun- 
 tains fall down in fragments. Verily, there is none 
 in the heavens and the earth but shall approach the 
 God of mercy as a slave." This is not the God of 
 the Bible, the God of Judaism or of Christianity. He 
 indeed is "full of Majesty." He is awful in His 
 judgments, but not capricious — ever just and righteous, 
 while in his relation to man. He is a Father. In the 
 very first chapter of Genesis man is declared to have 
 been made in the image of God — and the Fatherhood 
 thus ascribed to the Creator becomes brighter, and 
 to the heart of man more real, as the book advances. 
 Neither, then, in Mohammedanism which makes God 
 
THE JEWISH FAITH NOT OF THEMSELVES. 301 
 
 an Almighty tyrant, nor in Buddhism which, as taught 
 by its founder, ignores God altogether, if it does not 
 deny Him, do we find any exception to the statement 
 that the teachings common to all the writers of the 
 Bible respecting God are unique and without parallel 
 in the history of mankind. 
 
 This is a great fact, a moral phenomenon, which a moral 
 demands explanation. In the small territory lying ^''^whTch'"' 
 between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, between ^,fpj^^"t'|,'„ 
 the mountains of Lebanon and the Arabah, some fort)^ 
 miles in average breadth, and one hundred and forty in 
 length, there Uved a people who dwelt in light, while 
 all the world around was in darkness. " In Judah is 
 God knowTi," we read in one of their own odes. This 
 was their grand distinction among the nations. Their 
 nearest neighbours, the Phoenicians and Syrians, their 
 superiors in the arts of civilization, were Nature- 
 worshippers, and in their worship practised the most 
 cruel and licentious rites. Wherever the Hebrews 
 looked, east, west, north, or south, they saw all nations 
 "given to idolatry." There was no difference between 
 mighty empires, Assyrian, Macedonian, Roman, and 
 the feeblest tribes on which these trampled ; no dif- 
 ference between the wisest and the rudest, the most 
 civilized and the most barbarous — all alike worshipped 
 the works of their own hands or the fictions of their 
 own minds. What account can we give of this pheno- 
 menon ? 
 
 5. That the difference between the Jewish and other The cause of 
 
 . . , difference 
 
 nations ongmated m a cause that was %vitliout afid not /« the 
 above them, and not within them, is capable of as per- 
 fect a demonstration as any proposition of a moral 
 nature admits of. To say that while other races of 
 mankind, such as the Greek and Roman, had their 
 
 Jew. 
 
302 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 own peculiarities, it was the peculiarity of the Semitic 
 race to originate and uphold a pure Monotheism, 
 explains nothing. The question is, whence this 
 The Semitic i)eculiarity ? The Semitic race was not superior in 
 better Th'an intellect or in its moral nature to other races ; in 
 others, gonie respccts it was inferior ; how came it to pass 
 that it should have penetrated beyond the material 
 universe and discovered what lay beyond as no 
 other people ever did, and as no individual, the most 
 gifted, of any other people, ever did ? How came it 
 to pass that the shepherds and herdsmen and plough- 
 men of Judaea were more enlightened than the philo- 
 sophers and statesmen of all other lands ? or rather 
 that these shepherds, herdsmen, and ploughmen, 
 walked in light, while these philosophers and states- 
 men walked in darkness ? How came it to pass that 
 lowly mothers in Israel, like Hannah, could impart 
 to their children truths which the noblest fathers in 
 other lands, whose minds were profoundly exercised 
 on these very subjects, could not imi)art to theirs ? 
 Only one Further, How comes it to pass that of the entire 
 Semitic race Semitic racc, the descendants of Shem, only one 
 tli"e°"t°c; branch is distinguished by the peculiarity of which 
 we are speaking — the branch, namely, which sprang 
 from Abraham ? The Semitic race, as such, was not 
 distinguished in this respect from all other races, the 
 descendants of Japheth and Ham, till Abraham's time. 
 That is, they were all alike sinking gradually into 
 ignorance of the true God, and becoming idolators. 
 Was it by some marvellous power of his own — call 
 it a religious genius or by any other name — that 
 Abraham resisted the tide that was rolling so strongly, 
 and laid hold of the truth and held it high up above 
 the waves ? Or was Abraham, when being carried 
 away, or in danger of being carried away, by the 
 
ARGUMENT FROM JEWISH HISTORY. 
 
 303 
 
 from 
 Abraham. 
 
 universal tide, grasped by the Divine hand, as the 
 Bible represents, and redeemed from the world's 
 ignorance and idolatry, that he might be the instru- 
 ment of that same Divine hand in maintaining the 
 truth which the world did not like to retain in its 
 knowledge ? 
 
 A further question arises. How came it to pass And only one 
 that every offshoot from even Abraham's branch of the "descended" 
 Semitic race, when separated from the Hebrew branch, 
 passed into the darkness and idolatry of the outer 
 world? Ishmael was Abraham's firstborn, but his 
 descendants lapsed into the condition of other nations. 
 Esau, Abraham's grandson, was born in the same 
 birth with Jacob, but Esau's descendants, the 
 Edomites or Idumseans, became Polytheists, and 
 were merged in the world that knew not God, while 
 only among the descendants of Jacob were the know- 
 ledge and worship of the true God preserved. 
 
 But perhaps the most conclusive proof that the 
 monotheism of the Jews was not of themselves^neither 
 originating in any constitutional peculiarity of theirs, 
 nor preserved and maintained by any attributes which 
 belonged to them and not to others — is to be found 
 in their own history. That history, from the day of 
 their redemption from Egypt to the day when they 
 were exiled from their own land by the Babylonian 
 conquest, is the history of one long struggle between 
 the great truth which, according to the Bible, was 
 given them in charge, and their own preferences for 
 the ways of the nations around them. They were 
 not many months out of Egypt when it became mani- 
 fest that they were deeply tainted with the super- 
 stitions of the land they had left. The wisest of their 
 sovereigns, whose lips had uttered the sublimest sen- 
 timents of pure devotion, yielded to the idolatrous 
 
 The Jews 
 
 themselves 
 
 ncr prone ti_ 
 
 idolatry. 
 
 I Kings via. 
 
 XI. 
 
29-34 
 xvm. 
 
 304 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 influences of his wives, and filled Jerusalem and the 
 heights around it with altars to the gods of the 
 I Kings X7'i. heathen. In the days of Ahab the apostacy of 
 the northern portion of the nation seemed complete. 
 The very existence of the nation as a separate people, 
 its peculiar constitution and laws and statutes, were 
 all witnesses for the true God. And yet now seven 
 hundred years after the Exodus, and after more 
 than six hundred years' possession of the promised 
 land, the question had still to be fought out, so far as 
 the people zuere concerned, whether there was one God 
 or many, whether worship was to be rendered to the 
 pure Eternal Spirit, known to Israel as Jehovah, or to 
 the powers of nature under the hideous characters of 
 Baal, Moloch, and Astarte. From this period onward 
 to the very eve of the Babylonian exile, the Jewish 
 people still show a most perverse disposition to for- 
 sake Jehovah and to conform to the practices of 
 other nations. False prophets, apostate priests, idola- 
 trous princes and princesses, are in league, from 
 generation to generation, to extinguish the light of 
 God. The very keepers of the Divine lamp, those 
 to whose solemn charge it had been committed, with 
 awful penalties denounced on the neglect of their 
 duty, make it their study and business to put it out, 
 but they cannot. There it shines, as in a charnel 
 vault, braving the mists and fogs that come one does 
 not see whence. 
 
 We dwell on this point because of its extreme im- 
 portance. There is a great moral phenomenon to be 
 accounted for. From the beginnings of the Hebrew 
 people in the call of Abraham, or — if the term be pre- 
 ferred, in the migration of Abraham from his native 
 Chaldffia to the land of Canaan — to the time when 
 Judai-a was laid waste by the arms of Babylon, a 
 
THE JEWS PRONE TO IDOLATRY. 305 
 
 period of fourteen or fifteen hundred years, that 
 people, and that people alone, is in possession of a 
 Monotheistic faith of the purest character. We demand 
 an explanation of this fact. That it was neither origi- 
 nated by themselves nor preserved by themselves, is 
 demonstrated by their history. Instead of being 
 better than their neighbours, their most persistent 
 desire was to be like their neighbours. Prophet after 
 prophet appears, not by descent from one another as 
 in the priestly ^' order," but as circumstances rendered 
 it needful, to resist the idolatrous tendencies of the 
 people. Whencesoever the authority of these pro- 
 phets, the fact of their appearance and of their minis- 
 try is historic They professed to speak in the name 
 of God. The last of them before the exile represents 
 God as pleading thus with the people: "Pass over /^r.//. 10, n. 
 the isles of Chittim, and see ; and send unto Kedar, 
 and consider diHgently, and see if there be such a 
 thing. Hath a nation changed their gods, which are 
 yet no gods ? but My people have changed their glory 
 for that which doth not profit." The same prophet 
 foretells coming disaster in these words : " Because ley. xvL 
 your fathers have forsaken Me, saith the Lord, and 
 have walked after other gods, and have served them, 
 and have worshipped them, and have forsaken Me, 
 and have not kept My law ; and ye have done worse 
 than your fathers ; for, behold, ye walk every one after 
 the imagination of his evil heart, that they may not 
 hearken unto Me : therefore will I cast you out of this 
 land into a land that ye know not." This is the Bible 
 account of the matter. The idolatry of the people, 
 not their pure and peculiar monotheism, was the fruit 
 of the " imagination " of their hearts. Their mono- 
 theism, their knowledge and worship of the everliving 
 and Holy God, came from God Himself. And He 
 
306 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 who gave it watched over it. His providence and 
 grace were its guardians. Only by the constancy of 
 His care and love was the light of Divine truth pre- 
 served among the Jews, and preserved not for their 
 sakes alone or chiefly, but that in the fulness of the 
 times that light should be communicated to other 
 nations. 
 
 This is a rational and adequate explanation of the 
 phenomenon. There is no other. And we are shut 
 up to the conclusion that throughout the line of 
 Jewish history, God revealed Himself even as " the 
 
 Psa. cxh'ii. Book " says : " He showeth His word unto Jacob, 
 19, 20. . -^ •' 
 
 His statutes and His judgments unto Israel. He hath 
 
 not dealt so with any nation : and as for His judg- 
 ments, they have not known them." 
 
 6. There is another remarkable feature in the Bible 
 religion which can be accounted for only in the same 
 way — namely, its progressive development ; not the 
 mere fad of progress, nor the mere fact of develop- 
 ment, but the peculiar 7iature of the progress which 
 is traceable in the Bible. The fact that God is the 
 Creator of all things is as clearly asserted in the first 
 chapter of Genesis, as in the song of praise which the 
 
 Kev. iv. 10. writer of the last book in the Bible ascribes to the 
 hosts of heaven. The essential attributes of the 
 Creator are likewise very explicitly asserted at a very 
 
 Ex. Hi. 14. early period : His eternal self-existence, His almighti- 
 ness, His omnipresence. His righteousness. His 
 holiness, His goodness. His character was revealed 
 progressively, only, or at least mainly, in this sense, 
 that new manifestations of Himself in deed and word 
 made clearer what it was ; and, as by line upon line, led 
 on the people to a more perfect knowledge of it. But 
 there is one respect in which there was literal progress. 
 
EARLY PROMISES OF REDEMPTION: 30/ 
 
 It will be remembered that the history of the Crea- 
 tion in the Bible is followed immediately by the 
 history of the entrance of sin into this world. We do 
 not now assume the truth of either ; but, as a fact, 
 they are both there, in the Book. 
 
 Now, in the latter of these histories these words 
 are ascribed to God : "I will put enmity between Cen. m. 
 thee [the serpent] and the woman, and between thy 
 seed and her seed ; it shall bruise thy head, and thou 
 shalt bruise his heel." In these words we cannot find 
 less than a prediction of conflict between good and 
 evil, between man tempted to evil and his tempter, 
 man finally overcoming the tempter, but not without 
 suffering while conquering. The phrase " seed of the 
 woman " might mean either an individual or the race 
 descended from the woman. At this stage we have Gen. iv. i. 
 no right to assume that it meant an individual, though 
 possibly Eve understood it so, and later scriptures 
 confirm this interpretation. Throughout the long 
 ages which preceded the call of Abraham, no indi- 
 vidual appeared and no event occurred which could 
 be supposed to be a fulfilment of the prophecy — they 
 were ages of conflict between good and evil, but ages 
 in which evil seemed to triumph, and man to be its 
 earnest agent rather than its earnest enemy. 
 
 In the history of what the Bible regards as the call 
 of Abraham by God, we find God represented as say- 
 ing to Abraham — " In thee shall all families of the Gen. xu. 3. 
 earth be blessed." Again : " Abraham shall surely cen. xviu. 
 become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations '^" 
 of the earth shall be blessed in him." Again : " In cen. xxn. 
 thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed ; '^' 
 because thou hast obeyed my voice." Again: '"''1 Gen.xxvi.u 
 will make thy seed to nmltiply as the stars of heaven, 
 and will give unto thy seed all these countries ; and 
 
308 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be 
 blessed." By the seed of Abraham in these predictive 
 promises, might be meant either the race descended 
 from him or an individual of the race, or the two 
 ideas might be combined thus — Through the Jewish 
 race, by means especially of one member of the race, 
 all nations shall be blessed. He in whom Christians 
 see the fulfilment of this ancient promise said, " Salva- 
 yohniv.22. tion is of (or from) the Jews." It was, because He, 
 the Saviour, was a Jew. The point of our present 
 argument is this, that here we have a new development 
 of the primitive promise of conquest over evil. This 
 conquest was to be effected by the "seed of the 
 woman." We have it now, in the form of "blessing 
 to all nations," by one who should be of the " seed of 
 Abraham." 
 
 Some hundreds of years later the great Lawgiver of 
 the race which was descended from Abraham repre- 
 Biui. xviii. sented God as saying to him, " I will raise them up a 
 ' ~'^" prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, 
 and will put My words in his mouth ; and he shall 
 speak unto them all that I shall command him." The 
 writer of the chapter in which the death of Moses is 
 recorded evidently understood this promise to refer to 
 an individual, for he says, in what may be regarded as 
 DeuUxxxiv. a postscript to the book of Deuteronomy, " There 
 See. Acts Hi. arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, 
 22, ■z-y, vti. ^yj^Qj^ |.]^g Lord knew face to face, in all the signs and 
 wonders, which the Lord sent him to do in the land 
 of Egypt." But whether we accept the Christian in- 
 terpretation of the prophecy or not, we have in it a 
 promise of future and further Divine revelation and 
 legislation to which the people of Israel should be 
 bound to give heed. 
 
 When we come to the days of David and Solomon, 
 
PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF PROMISE. 309 
 
 we find the hopes of the future connected with the 
 
 expectation of a great King who should reign in 
 
 righteousness. Whether such scriptures as the second 
 
 and seventy-second Psahiis had any reference to con- Psa. a. and 
 
 temporary events, or whether their form was suggested 
 
 by contemporary events, or not, the only rational in- FortkeMes- 
 
 terpretation of them is that which looks for their ^"dlctio^ 
 
 fulfilment in a great King that should come, and whose cj/hsi, ue 
 
 reign should produce effects on the world which no ^auip!^7y' 
 
 other reign produced. 
 
 In the later prophets the glorious future which was 
 in store for the world was not only described in 
 brighter colours than ever, but was more expressly 
 connected with an individual man who should be of 
 the royal race of David, and who should in some see isa. ix. 
 mysterious way possess Divine attributes. Isaiah, ' l\^^ ' 
 moreover, represents the great benefits of the reign of 
 this Prince of the House of David as resulting from ha. im. 
 suffering — reminding us of the first promise that, while 
 the seed of the woman should bruise the head of the 
 serpent, the serpent should bruise his heel. Succeed- 
 ing prophets, Jeremiah, Daniel, Zechariah, and 
 Malachi, all foretell the coming of great spiritual 
 changes, a great deliverance and Deliverer. And when 
 John the Baptist, after a prophetic silence of four 
 hundred years, startled Israel by the preaching of 
 Repentance, he stood avowedly in the old succession. 
 " The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand," he said. 
 The kingdom long foretold, long expected ; the king- 
 dom of which Zechariah, Daniel, Jeremiah, Isaiah, 
 and the Psalms, had spoken. And Jesus Himself did 
 not appear as the Founder of a new religion. He had 
 not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil. It was of 
 Him, He said, and His followers said, the prophets had 
 spoken. He was manifested to destroy, as the first 
 
 10-12. 
 
3IO HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 promise had indicated, the works of the devil. So 
 that in Jesus Christ, according to the Book, we have 
 the consummation of hopes and predictions which 
 extend back to the very beginning of man's history on 
 the earth. 
 
 Such is the representation of the Book — and we 
 regard it at present simply as such. Now, this is 
 a very notable fact. The religion which we call 
 Christianity does not date from Christ, as Moham- 
 medanism from Mohammed, Confucianism from 
 Confucius, and Buddhism from Gautama. It is the 
 consummation of a progress which had been going on 
 for several millenniums. It is the ripened fruit of 
 seed which had been sown or sowing for many gene- 
 'Heb. i. I. rations. Or, more literally, it is the completion of 
 Versionrays revelations which had been made at sundry times and 
 ''By divers \^ divcrs manners, for many centuries. This is a fact 
 
 fortions and ' _ ■' 
 
 in divers^^ which cau bc verified by the study of books which 
 can be traced back through fifteen or sixteen cen- 
 turies, and which tells us of earlier centuries, more 
 than these, before they were A\Titten, during which 
 men were taught to look forward to the coming of 
 some great Deliverer. 
 
 The principal subject of this progressive revelation 
 is, as \ve have seen, not the fact of the Divine exist- 
 ence, nor the fact of the creation by God, nor the 
 attributes of God, but a purpose, or promise, or pre- 
 diction, of deliverance from the evil by which the 
 ■world is cursed. And this progressive revelation does 
 not assume the form of a natural development pro- 
 perly so called. It is not as when one author or man 
 of science takes up the theory of his predecessor, and. 
 by genius or experiment, confirms it and extends it 
 beyond the point at which his predecessors left it, 
 until by successive experiments it is fully established 
 
 ftianners. 
 
THE DEVELOPMENT NOT NATURAL. 31I 
 
 and all its bearings and results are ascertained. The 
 promises said to have been given to Abraham make 
 no reference to the promise which was designed to 
 bring hope to the dejected hearts of the first human 
 sinners, and they have no formal or apparent connec- 
 tion with it. The predictions of a King who should 
 reign in righteousness have no formal connection with 
 the promises made to Abraham ; they are not de- 
 veloped out of them by any reflective process on the 
 part of the prophets. The earlier predictions of a 
 great King in the book of Psalms do intimate that He Psa. a. 
 was to be of more than mortal race ; but it was only 
 three hundred years later that prophecy clearly as- 
 cribed to His person the " Wonderful " combination isa. ix. 6. 
 of a " child born " and " the Mighty God ;" and with 
 equal clearness ascribed His conquests and the bless- isa. mu 
 ings of His reign to sufferings which He should endure '°"^^' 
 for the sins of men. The later predictions of Daniel 
 and Malachi, in which the coming One is represented 
 as the Messiah "cut off, but not for Himself," and as Dau.ix. 26. 
 " the Lord " who should " suddenly come to His Mai. iv. i. 
 temple," may not add anything substantially new to 
 the doctrine of the person and work of the promised 
 Saviour as it appears in Isaiah, but yet they contain 
 phases of His mission which were not previously 
 indicated. 
 
 Thus throughout we have progress, but not such as 
 can be accounted for by any process of natural de- 
 velopment. We cannot imagine any natural process by 
 which " the seed of the woman " should, two thousand 
 years later, be interpreted to be " the seed of Abra- 
 ham ; " and by which " the seed of Abraham " should, 
 nine hundred years later, be interpreted to be a son 
 of David ; and by which this Son of David should, 
 three hundred years later, be expressly declared to be 
 
312 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 both Human and Divine, and represented as con- 
 quering and blessing the world by the virtue of suffer- 
 ing endured for the sin of the world ; and by which, 
 Dan. ix. 24. two hundred years later, the time of the promised 
 deliverance should be indicated ; and by which a 
 hundred and fifty years later still, the appearance of 
 Mai. in. I. the Deliverer in His temple should be foretold as 
 sudden, and to be preceded by an Elijah who should 
 prepare His way. In all this we have not a develop- 
 ment of the seed sown in the primitive promise to our 
 first parents, effected by the genius of thinkers of after 
 ages. The only rational and adequate explanation of 
 it is that which is supplied by the author of the Epistle 
 to the Hebrews, namely this, that God spoke to the 
 Heh.i. T. fathers " by the prophets, by divers portions and in 
 Version, divers manners," and then in these last days hath 
 spoken unto us by His Son. We can trace for our- 
 selves historically, throughout the books of the Old 
 Testament, the " divers portions " in which promise 
 upon promise, prophecy upon prophecy, created and 
 sustained the faith and hope of some Great One who 
 should bless mankind. This is one of the phenomena 
 of the Old Testament which seems at least to point to 
 a superhuman origin. Without assuming at present 
 that this phenomenon is of God, we call attention to it 
 as a fact, and repeat that Christianity does not date 
 from Christ, that it claims to be the consummation of a 
 progress which had been going on for several millen- 
 niums, the completion of revelations which had been 
 made in divers portions throughout the ages during 
 which man had been on the earth. 
 
 7. I have this far spoken of what nature teaches 
 
 teaches'"^^ respecting God — God in Himself and God in His 
 
 "^^man!'"^ relation to man. Let me say something of the teaching 
 
NATURE AND THE BIBLE ON MAN. 
 
 313 
 
 Pascal's 
 paradox. 
 
 Man a 
 
 emple in 
 
 ruins. 
 
 of nature respecting man himself. Man studied by 
 himself, as he is in himself and in the light which 
 his conditions on earth throw upon him, is a para- 
 dox ; as Pascal puts it, " If man was not made for 
 God, why can he enjoy no happiness but in God ? 
 If man was made for God, why is he so opposed 
 to God? Man is at a loss where to fix himself. 
 He is unquestionably out of his way, and feels 
 within himself the remains of a happy state which 
 he cannot retrieve." One of the finest passages in 
 the English language is that in which John Howe 
 described man as a temple in ruins. It begins thus : 
 " The stately ruins are visible to every age, that bear 
 in their front (yet extant) this doleful inscription, 
 'Here God once dwelt.' Enough appears of the 
 admirable frame and structure of the soul of man 
 to show the Divine Presence did some time reside in 
 it ; more than enough of vicious deformity to proclaim 
 He is now retired and gone. The lamps are extinct ; 
 the altar overturned ; the light and love are now 
 vanished, which did the one shine with so heavenly jokn Hmve, 
 brightness, the other burn with so pious fervour." 
 And it concludes — " The faded glory, the darkness, 
 the disorder, the impurity, the decayed state in all 
 respects of this temple, too plainly show the Great 
 Inhabitant is gone." The true reading of man's 
 moral condition finds him fallen, fallen from an 
 estate of which evidence is found in what Howe 
 describes as " the relics of common notions ; the 
 lively prints of some undefaced truth ; the fair 
 ideas of things ; the yet legible precepts that relate 
 to practice." " Behold ! " (says the great Puritan) 
 " with what accuracy the broken pieces show these 
 to have been engraven by the finger of God; and 
 liow they now lie torn and scattered, one in this dark 
 
 Y 
 
 The 
 Living 
 Tent-pie" 
 Part II. 
 
jH handbook of christian evidences. 
 
 corner and another in that, buried in heaps of dirt 
 and rubbish." 
 
 But in the existence of these very remains of the 
 
 fallen temple there is hope. And this is the other 
 
 side of the paradox — the temple fallen, but not 
 
 abandoned to destruction, — man fallen, but not out- 
 
 " The cast. " Besides the traces of original beauty and 
 
 flfhtit subsequent degradation," says Dr. McCosh, "there 
 
 wtv/T" ^''^ signs of reconstruction or reorganization," These 
 
 >• ^9- are not so obvious as are the signs of ruin. But 
 
 great as is the ruin, our earth is not deserted. There 
 
 are no signs of neglect or abandonment. 
 
 The Bible It may be difficult to say how far these truths could 
 ^ ^'^' ' be discovered from nature alone. But, reading nature 
 with the light which we possess, we do see in nature 
 at once signs of a great fall, and indications that the 
 ruin caused by it is not absolute and final. And my 
 argument in support of the superhuman in the Bible 
 
 Argument, is this, that the Bible has lifted the veil from the 
 
 moral history of man and reveals to us clearly what 
 
 nature indicates but obscurely. The argument may 
 
 '■Divine be put in the words of Dr. McCosh, " The fact that 
 
 mJnt,"p. 74. the Scriptures furnish such an explanation of nature, 
 may be regarded as a proof of their heavenly origin. 
 The writings on the tombs and temples of ancient 
 Egypt long baffled the skill of the most distinguished 
 scholars. It was the Rosetta stone, with its triple 
 inscriptions, one of them being Greek and a trans- 
 lation of the two hieroglyphical ones, which first 
 furnished, or rather suggested, the discovery of the 
 key. The key thus suggested by the Greek transla- 
 tion is shown to be the true one, by the number of 
 hidden meanings which it has satisfactorily opened. 
 Let it be acknowledged, if persons insist on it, that the 
 inscriptions on the works of God are not very easily 
 
MCCOSH AND PASCAL ON MAN. 3 1 
 
 deciphered ; still, should it be found that a professed 
 revelation explains them, and that the two coincide, 
 there is evidence furnished in behalf both of the 
 genuineness of the revelation, and the correctness 
 of the interpretation which it has put on nature. As 
 it opens chamber after chamber, we become con- 
 vinced that we have at last found the true key. * Who 
 can do otherwise,' says Pascal, ' than admire and 
 embrace a religion which contains the complete 
 knowledge of truths which we still know the better 
 the more we receive?'" 
 
3l6 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 SIGNS OF THE SUPERHUMAN IN THE PROGRESSIVE 
 DEVELOPMENT OF THE TEACHINGS OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 There are other aspects of the development of Revela- 
 tion in the Old Testament than those which have 
 been considered in the last chapter, which are very 
 significant, and of which no adequate explanation can 
 be given if we exclude the action of a superhuman 
 wisdom. The chief instance of development, we 
 
 Chap. III. have seen, is to be found in the prophetic revelation 
 of Redemption and a Redeemer, from the promise of 
 
 Gen. Hi. 15. the Seed of the woman who should bruise the head 
 of the serpent, to the hour when the announcement 
 
 Lukeii.w. was made to the shepherds of Bethlehem, "Unto 
 you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, 
 which is Christ the Lord." Now, the Bible account 
 
 Childhood of of this long period is that it was the childhood of 
 
 ihe world. . 
 
 the world, or the childhood of man in his relation to 
 
 Gal. Hi. 23- the Redeeming God. " The law," the Jewish dis- 
 25 ; iv. 1-7. . 
 
 pensation, was a tutor, a guide and guardian, by 
 
 whom the " child " was taught and protected and led 
 
 onwards, until he reached manhood, at the coming of 
 
 the Christ. The advent of Christ was " the fulness 
 
 of the time," previous to which the world was in its 
 
 nonage, and was trained and taught accordingly. 
 
SACRIFICE A PRIMEVAL INSTITUTION. 31/ 
 
 Without assuminsf the truth of this representation, Key to the 
 
 earlier 
 
 we find in it a key to the understanding of the revelations. 
 earher revelations of the Bible, and in this we have 
 presumptive evidence of its truth. The adaptation of 
 these earlier revelations to a condition of nonage or 
 childhood may be traced in various particulars. 
 
 I . The first of these is the primeval institution of sacrifice. 
 Sacrifice — an institution which can be traced to the 
 very infancy of the human race, and which, as one 
 has well said, " was equally accepted by the sweet Mac-Lear— 
 singer of Israel, the Greek philosopher, and the the Eiuha- 
 Roman magistrate," and which "prevailed amongst '^'^ ' 
 all nations and peoples, though in well-nigh every 
 other respect — habits, institutions, ideas, and modes 
 of life — sundered from one another as widely as the 
 poles." My present purpose does not require me Origin of 
 to prove that the only rational explanation of the ^"^ ^'^' 
 universality of this strange institution is to be found 
 in an original Divine appointment ; while the cruel 
 forms which it assumed, and the gross conceptions 
 of God with which it was associated, are to be re- 
 garded as a degeneration of what was in itself signifi- 
 cant of important truths. Interpreted Biblically, 
 animal sacrifice set forth the fact of a sad moral con- 
 troversy between God and man, and prefigured one 
 great sacrifice by which God should bestow on man 
 a free forgiveness, and man should be reconciled to 
 God. Thus regarded, we can see how admirably 
 adapted it was to the pre-Christian ages, the childhood 
 of the race. It was a grand awe-inspiring symbol, Awe-inspir- 
 which at once awoke and pacified the conscience of '"° *^"' 
 the guilty. The Bible represents it as practised from 
 the day when Abel offered the firstlings of his flock Gen. h. 4. 
 
3l8 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 to the Lord, to the very eve of the day when Christ 
 died on the cross. From that day it ceased to have 
 meaning, and it found no place among the institutions 
 of Christ's followers. The manhood of the world had 
 Shadow and comc, shadow gavc place to substance, and, in 
 possession of the substance, ineti no longer needed 
 those outward signs which were fitting and necessary 
 in the period of childhood. This, at least, is the 
 interpretation which the Bible gives of its own 
 institutions, and its self-consistency and reasonable- 
 ness should place its truth beyond question, 
 i.eviticai 2. The laws and prescriptions of the Levitical code 
 '^'"^' were adapted to a condition of childhood. Read 
 in the light in which we now live, these laws and pre- 
 scriptions seem needlessly minute and cumbersome. 
 But read in the light of the circumstances of the 
 people to whom they were given, we see in them a 
 Divine condescension to the moral and intellectual 
 condition of the nation. They had been for centuries 
 bondsmen in Egypt, and had become to a great 
 extent Egyptian in their habits and spirit. They were 
 Direcied about to occupy the land of Canaan, where they should 
 Canaanitish be cxposcd to moral influences which were even worse 
 ^"morals!" than those of Egypt. And it is only in the light of 
 Egypt and Canaan that we can understand the mean- 
 ing and purpose of many of the Levitical statutes, which 
 are specially directed against the immoralities of the 
 nature-worship which prevailed all around. " Not a few 
 details, which to the modern eye seem trivial or 
 irrational, disclose to the student of Semitic antiquity 
 an energetic protest against the moral grossness of 
 Canaanite heathenism. These precepts give the law 
 a certain air of ritual formalism, but the formalism 
 lies only on the surface, and there is a moral idea 
 below." In short, there is a " constant polemical 
 
ADAPTATION TO THE CHILDHOOD OF THE RACE. 3 19 
 
 reference to Canaanite worship and Canaanite 
 morality " throughout the Levitical system. 
 
 As to the system as a whole, it represented spiritual visible signs 
 things by outward and visible signs. " Ideas of moral spiritual ; 
 purity and of the Divine holiness were communicated 
 and cherished by the repeated ablutions of their 
 persons and dwellings ; by the selection of clean 
 animals for sacrifice ; by the unblemished perfection 
 required in the victims to be offered ; and by the 
 restriction of the priestly functions to a class of men 
 who were specially set apart for these duties, and 
 upon whom repeated purifications were enjoined. 
 By means of impressive symbols the worshippers 
 were constantly reminded of the justice and sanctity 
 of the violated law, and of their own guiltiness 
 and need of Divine mercy ; and when these services 
 were performed in a right spirit, their mind would 
 be inspired with a humble hope of mercy, leading to 
 corresponding gratitude, obedience, and love." The 
 Levitical system belonged essentially to the nonage Adapted to 
 of the Church, and when its full age was attained the ' ' of'u.e'^^ 
 Church was placed under a very different law of ^'>"'''=h. 
 worship and of practice. 
 
 3. Above all, it is in the modes of Revelation in Modes of 
 the earlier ages that we trace the adaptation of God's 
 communications, to and with men, to the childhood ' 
 
 of the world, and their progress onward to the perfect 
 day. It is remarkable that, for the most part, the 
 history mentions it as a simple fact that " God spoke," "God_ 
 or conveyed His will to men, without indicating hoiv, '''^° ^' 
 and without even seeming to feel that it was at all 
 necessary to explain how. " Noah walked with God. 6:.«.m.9, 13 
 . . . And God said unto Noah. . . . According to all ^^.^^ '^■. ^ 
 that God commanded him, so did he." "The Lord -'^V'- <^<:«- •^■^' 
 said unto Abram, get thee out of thy country and ^"■- '• 
 
320 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 from thy kindred." Throughout the history of tlie 
 prophets, and throughout the books of Moses, it is in 
 this simple matter-of-fact way that a Divine com- 
 munication is recorded, — from the days of Samuel, 
 
 I Sam. -iTv. when we read, " The Lord said unto Samuel, How 
 long wilt thou mourn for Saul ?" onward through the 
 periods represented in the books of the prophets. 
 " Thus saith the Lord," is the common formula, but 
 Jioiv we are not told. 
 
 Gen. iii.%. Sometimes we read of a " Voice," as in the case of 
 
 I Sam. z. _ , . , 
 
 4-IO. our first parents, and m the case of Samuel ; some- 
 
 Cen. xvi. I ; , • r ^ 1 • • 1 • 1 
 
 .XX. 3, etc. times of dreams and visions ; and sometimes the 
 words " The Lord appeared " occur, probably without 
 
 "The Lord intending to convey the idea of a visible form. Bat 
 sometimes there was a visible form, and the instances 
 in which such form appeared are the most remarkable 
 illustrations of the Divine condescension to the child- 
 
 Gcu. xviii. hood of the world. The earliest of them is the most 
 
 To Abraham singular. " The Lord appeared to Abraham in the 
 amre. pj^jj^g ^f ]yjamre : and he sat in the tent-door in the 
 heat of the day ; and he lift up his eyes and looked, 
 and, lo, three men stood by him." Two of the three 
 ultimately proceed to Sodom, and the third remains 
 behind, and after a time is addressed by Abraham as 
 God, the hearer of prayer, in whose hands were the 
 destinies of Sodom. When Joshua was about to enter 
 on his great task of conquering Canaan, he lifted up 
 Josh. V. 13 - his eyes, and behold there stood a man over against 
 
 •vl. 3. . . . . , . 
 
 him with his sword drawn in his hand. This man 
 
 "The announced himself as the Captain of the Lord's host, 
 
 the^Lo"d°s 3,nd addressed to Joshua the words which Jehovah 
 
 ^°^'" addressed to Moses out of the burning bush, " Loose 
 
 thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou 
 
 chap.vi.2. standest is holy." And this Captain of the Lord's 
 
 host is immediately after spoken of as " the Lord." 
 
ANCIENT THEOPHANIES. 321 
 
 In the history of Jacob we have another instance in Jacob at 
 which He who appears at first as a " man " is recog- Gen^xxxU. 
 nized as God. '^''~^°' 
 
 These and similar Revelations are called " Theo- Theophanies. 
 phanies," or manifestations of God, in the language 
 of theology. And I cannot doubt that they are right 
 who see in them anticipations of the Incarnation of 
 the Son of God. There is a mysterious person spoken 
 of as *' The angel of the Lord," who appears possessed see Ex. m. 
 of Divine attributes, and to whom Isaiah ascribes the /j^. ixiu. 9. 
 redemption and guidance of Israel, and whom later Comp. isa. 
 scriptures justify those who bow to their authority, in ^''' xu. 4,°-'"^ 
 identifying with the Logos, or Second Person of the 
 Trinity. But our reference to these Theophanies has a 
 more limited object than the illustration or proof of 
 the great doctrine of the Tri-une God. We have to do 
 only with the fact, or the alleged fact, of early Divine 
 Revelations to man, and the peculiar character of 
 these revelations. 
 
 Is there anything improbable in this alleged fact ? sce Part 
 If we held Epicurean ideas of God, we should say it cha/.%-[[. 
 was most miprobable. But if man was made in the No improb- 
 image of God ; if man was in a condition of suffering, 
 whether through sin or through misfortune ; if God 
 be man's Father and Ruler, and if as such He is both 
 Righteous and Compassionate, nothing could be more 
 probable than that He should reveal Himself to man, 
 by threatening and promise, by deeds of judgment 
 and deeds of mercy, such as are recorded in the earlier 
 books of the Old Testament. 
 
 And if God should be pleased to reveal or manifest >fo improb- 
 Himself and His will, is it not reasonable to expect the'mode". 
 that He will do it in a manner suitable to the moral 
 and intellectual condition in which He finds man ? 
 It is impossible for us to gauge the mental condition 
 
322 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 of the ages which preceded the flood, and of the 
 patriarchal and still later ages which followed. But 
 we must take that condition into account when we 
 read the histories of those olden times. And if we 
 do, we shall feel that the "divers manners " in which 
 God is said to have spoken to men possess no small 
 Instructive degree of verisimilitude. And it is a noteworthy fact 
 
 even now. . . •,,,,,•, ^ 
 
 that even now, m our maturity, with all the light of 
 Christianity, we turn with the deepest interest to the 
 old-world stories of the Old Testament, and find them 
 instinct with the highest truths and the purest lessons. 
 Men, with the intellect and intelligence of a Bacon, 
 are content to be taught by those Theophanies which 
 we justify as in keeping with the childhood of the 
 world. And they are right, for in these Theophanies 
 — using the word as inclusive of all the earlier Reve- 
 lations of God — they see very God condescending, 
 not unworthily, to instruct men as they were " able to 
 bear." 
 Mystery of Be it that there is something very mysterious in 
 ''^'for'i^^" these Theophanies, especially in the Divine assumption 
 of the human form. But if visible form was to be 
 assumed at all, no form but the human could be 
 assumed that would not be either grotesque, or un- 
 intelligible, or in some way misleading. 
 
 11. 
 
 Corrective To judgc aright of the earlier Revelations in the 
 trut s. BJijie^ y^Q must observe certain truths and principles 
 
 which underlay them or pervaded them, which we 
 
 may regard as corrective or preventive of possible 
 
 error. 
 One Living I. First and chief of all was the great doctrine of 
 
 One Living God, Creator, Ruler, and Judge. This 
 
CORRECTIVE AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES. 323 
 
 we have in the first chapters of Genesis. Men might 
 forget it, or might not Hke to retain it in their know- 
 ledge. But there it is in the Book, and there it was, Gen. i. m. 
 the possession of primitive man according to the 
 Book. All the Revelations subsequently recorded in 
 the Book implied it, and, how condescending soever 
 might be their mode, there was nothing in them to 
 diminish the faith and awe and reverence which this 
 great truth inspires. 
 
 2. Then there is the notable fact that even in the No form of 
 earliest Revelations there is no attempt to describe or ^"^' 
 to give form to the Deity. On the contrary, every- 
 thing combines to make men stand in awe of any 
 
 such attempt, as both vain and impious. One of the Ex.xx. 4. 
 
 laws of Sinai forbad it. And, prone and eager as 12. 
 
 the people ever were to have visible symbols, if not of 
 
 their God Himself, at least of some of His attributes, 
 
 there is not a trace of concession to this very human ^^■ 
 
 desire in any of the Revelations granted to them ; 
 
 but, on the contrary, a most rigid abstinence from it, 
 
 an abstinence which shows that these Revelations 
 
 were not human but superhuman. It is true that we 
 
 find Jacob exclaiming at Peniel, " I have seen God ^01. xxxU. 
 
 face to face, and my life is preserved." But it was a 
 
 " man " that Jacob saw, though the words of that Ver. 24. 
 
 mati revealed to him that God was there. 
 
 3. Further, all these Revelations are associated Lofty con- 
 with the loftiest conceptions of the Divine nature and of t^he'DWine 
 character and purposes. They are as far as possible '"^ ^""^"er. 
 from being reflections of the thoughts of the people 
 
 to whom they were given. Most truly might it be 
 said that as the heavens are high above the earth, so 
 the thoughts ascribed to God in these Revelations 
 were high above the thoughts of men. Whether the -^^^ ^^- "'.: 
 
 ° _ " i-io ; xxxit. 
 
 Revelation be primarily one of judgment or one of 18-23- 
 
 . xxxtt. 
 4- 
 
324 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 mercy, God is seen in it as All-Righteous and All- 
 Good. 
 Supremacy 4- Notwithstanding the minuteness and com- 
 spirituaiand plexity of the Levitical law and ritual, the peoplt; 
 '"°'''''' were expressly taught that God requires the spiritual 
 /sa. i. ii-i6. and moral. The principles so strongly and sternly 
 'e-s/' enforced by the later prophets are to be found in the 
 books of Moses. So much more important was the 
 chap.'.'ii. moral than the ritual, that Jeremiah represents God as 
 ^^' ^^' saying, " I spake not unto your fathers nor com- 
 manded them in the day that I brought them up out 
 of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or 
 sacrifices : but this thing commanded I them, saying, 
 Obey My voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall 
 be My people," — not that God had not ordained 
 sacrifice, but that the requirement of practical 
 Sec 1 Sa7n. obedicuce so far transcended the requirement of 
 sacrifice as almost to efface it. The words of 
 Jeremiah are an echo of the words of Moses. 
 Deut.x.i2. "And now, Israel, what doth the Lord thy God re- 
 quire of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, to walk 
 in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the 
 Lord thy God with all thy heart and with all thy 
 soul ? " The two great commandments on which, 
 j\iatt..r.xii. Christ said, " hang all the law and the prophets," 
 "^^I&i8."" were embedded in the very heart of the Levitical 
 ^Js"i',i3,2l code. And in the chief book of the code, the high 
 and seemingly unattainable requirement is three times 
 Lev. xix. 2; repeated : " Be ye holy, for I the Lord your God am 
 AX. 7^, xAi. |-jQ}y_)) Nowhere else, in connection with no other 
 In other religion, do we find such safeguards as these against 
 
 religions the , , ■ r ■ .i v 1 t ^ i- • 
 
 ritual unduly magnifymg the ritual. In most religions, so 
 supreme. f^^\\^^^ jj^g ^^^^^^ jg ^jj j^^ 3^ll_ jj^ Judaism, while it 
 
 occupied a very large place in worship, and bore a 
 Divine seal, it was absolutely subordinated to the 
 
VUl. ». 
 
 Sec 2 Cor. 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT RE VELA TLONS PRE PAR A TOR V. 325 
 
 spiritual and moral. And in this subordination we 
 see no mean proof that the seal which it bore was 
 really Divine. 
 
 5. There is another singular characteristic of the Conscious of 
 Revelations of the Old Testament — they were con- parSo^ry. 
 scious, so to speak, of their own imperfection, and pro- 
 phetic of other and higher Revelations at a future day. 
 The Epistle to the Hebrews rightly interprets the spirit 
 of the pre-Christian dispensations, when it says, " If ^ri. 
 that first covenant had been faultless, then would no 
 place have been sought for a second," — quoting the 
 prophecy of Jeremiah respecting "a new covenant, /^^- ■^-^'^^'- 
 not according to the covenant which God had made 
 with their fathers when He brought them forth out 
 of the land of Egypt." The Apostle Paul teaches Cai.ui.z. 
 that in the call of Abraham there was a universal 
 as well as a local and national intention — " In 
 thee shall all nations be blessed." The law under 
 which Abraham's descendants were placed by Moses GaLUi.xT, 
 some centuries after his call, did not set aside or ' ^' 
 supersede this universal intention ; it only served a 
 temporar}', though most important, purpose, until the 
 fulness of the times was come. The ancient "Scrip- Jsa.n.n,-^: 
 
 .XI. ID ; xhi. 
 
 ture foresaw" to use the Apostle's significant expres- 4. 6 ; xUx. 6. 
 sion, that in the fulness of the times God's grace 
 would cast down the barriers of Judaism and flow 
 forth to bless other nations. Moses himself, when he 
 had completed his establishment of the law which D'-i't- xvtU. 
 l)ears his name, was instructed by God to foretell the 
 coming of a Prophet "like unto him," a Legislator, a Prophet 
 Mediator, and Teacher, to whose authority the people 'mosm!" 
 should bow. 
 
 Our argiunent, let it be observed, is not concerned 
 with the question how far the Jewish people under- 
 
\26 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Stood or realized the Revelations which God was pleased 
 to give to men. There are critics who study the 
 history of the people with a view to determine what 
 the people thought and felt throughout the ages of 
 their national existence, and who identify what the 
 people thought and felt with Judaism, — the Judaism 
 which claims to be of God. As well might we identify 
 what peoples, having no teaching but that of nature, 
 have thought concerning God with what nature, 
 properly understood, teaches concerning Him. And 
 equally as well might we identify what Christians, so 
 called, have believed at different times throughout 
 these eighteen hundred years, with the Christianity 
 which we regard as Divine. This distinction is of 
 immense importance. What we are concerned with 
 is not what the people believed, but what God taught ; 
 not the progress of the people's knowledge, but the 
 progress of God's revelations. 
 
 Such Revelations as were given to men during the 
 long ages that preceded the coming of Christ, are, 
 it is admitted, given no longer. This fact, and the 
 cessation of miracles in general, have been made the 
 occasion of objection to Christianity and the Bible, 
 the inference drawn from it being that they really 
 never existed. If miracles were wrought of old, why 
 not now ? " We see no reason in God's goodness," 
 "Essays on says Mr. J. S. Mill, "why, if He deviate once from 
 Religion," |.^g ordinary system of His government in order to do 
 good to man. He should not have done so on a 
 hundred other occasions ; nor why, if the benefit 
 arrived at by some given revelation of Christianity 
 was transcendent and unique, that precious gift should 
 only have been vouchsafed after the lapse of many 
 ages, or why, when it was at last given, the evidence 
 of it should be left open to so much doubt and 
 
 Special 
 
 Revelations 
 
 given no 
 
 longer. 
 
 Objection 
 taken. 
 
THE CESSATION OF SPECIAL REVELATIONS. 327 
 
 difficulty." Reserving our reply to the last of these 
 objections, we reply to the general objection thus 
 taken, that it is a question of fact to be determined 
 by appropriate evidence whether Christianity be a 
 Divine revelation or not ; and this question once 
 determined in the affirmative, to say that it should Are we 
 
 ... • , ii i ■ wiser than 
 
 have been given sooner is to say that we are wiser oo^, 
 than God. The delay, if it may be so called, taken 
 in connection with the Divine history of the ages 
 going before, may be more than justified. Or rather 
 — not to seem even to be guilty of the irreverence of 
 implying that God's great work needs to be justified 
 — the Bible version of the whole matter commends 
 itself as true. It tells us of God revealing Himself 
 and His will in various ways through many ages, and 
 in these revelations giving the hope, sustaining and 
 quickening the hope, of a Revelation at a future time 
 which should be as the rising of the sun upon the 
 world — a Revelation which should be the consumma- 
 tion of all that went before — a Revelation, therefore, 
 which would render unnecessary the continuance of Continued 
 
 . Revelations 
 
 the line upon line, and precept upon precept, with unnecessary. 
 which the Divine Revealer had vouchsafed to instruct 
 the world for many ages. This Revelation we find 
 in Jesus Christ, and once His kingdom was established 
 in the world, the " divers manners " of former revela- 
 tions ceased, one might say almost as a matter of 
 course. The continuance of them would have been 
 inconsistent with their own character and with the very 
 end for which they were given. 
 
128 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE SUPERNATURAL IN THE 
 MIRACLES OF THE BIBLE. 
 
 We have now to consider another class of signs of the 
 The truth of superhuman in the Old Testament. In doing so, we 
 "assumed." shall not assume the truth of the miraculous histories 
 which it contains. This would be to assume what we 
 have to prove. But there are certain aspects of the 
 Old Testament miracles which may be fairly con- 
 sidered, as having an important bearing on the question 
 of their historical genuineness. 
 
 There are two classes of miracles which must be 
 distinguished, the one from the other. There are 
 those in which man took no part, which were alto- 
 gether outside the sphere of man's agency : and there 
 are those which were connected with man's agency, 
 directly or indirectly. 
 The creation I. The first of the former class is, obviously, the 
 mate'l-lai creatiou of the Material Universe. It is the legitimate 
 universe. pj-Qyip,ce of scicncc to discovcr, if it be possible, the 
 original form or condition of matter. With this, and 
 with other scientific questions, the Bible does not 
 intermeddle. And its abstinence or reticence is 
 worthy of remark. Be the first condition of matter 
 If atonic;, what it may, and be the ages which have passed since 
 ^^alomsV the first atoms (if atoms they were) came into existence, 
 
THE CREATION OF THE MATERIAL UNIVERSE. 329 
 
 we must find a cause sufficient to account for their 
 
 origination, and for tlie universe which they have 
 
 become. And this Cause the Bible calls God. And, 
 
 in words whose sublimity and oracular simplicity are 
 
 worthy of their truth, it says, " In the beginning 
 
 God created the heavens and the earth." There is 
 
 no attempt to define " God." His existence is assumed, 
 
 and Who or What He is becomes known by the works 
 
 which are ascribed to Him. He is One, for " the The God of 
 
 heavens and the earth," the entire material universe, '^'■^''""'"■ 
 
 is His creation. He is Uncaused, therefore Eternal, 
 
 for before Him nothing was. He possesses Will, 
 
 Intelligence, and Power, for without these He could 
 
 not give being to the universe. Much else respecting 
 
 Him may be inferred from His works ; but all this, 
 
 whatever else, lies at the foundation of the conception 
 
 of Him which is implied in the first sentence of our 
 
 Bible. 
 
 Whence did Moses get this conception of God ? Whence the 
 Not certainly from that Egyptian wisdom in which he 'mo^s°? 
 was trained and became " learned." Traces of a 
 primitive Monotheism are discoverable in Egypt, as See Part. i. 
 elsewhere, like " indestructible diamonds " amidst the ^^' '^~^^' 
 refuse of a later Polytheism. But the Egypt that was 
 contemporary with Moses was steeped in nature- Natuie- 
 worship. And it was not from learned priests or un- TgS't •'" 
 learned people who bowed down, not only before the 
 great Sun-God, but also before the meanest reptiles, 
 that Moses learned the great fact and doctrine of the 
 first verse of Genesis. That fact and doctrine was 
 either (first) a profound discovery of his own, an 
 inferring, by his own clear and penetrating intelli- 
 gence, of the Eternal Power and Godhead, from 
 the visible universe around him ; or (secondly) 
 an inheritance from Abraham, preserved among his 
 
 z 
 
 Whence 
 then 'i 
 
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Taylor 
 
 Le'cvis, ill 
 
 Langt's 
 
 " Genesis " 
 
 p. 148. 
 
 descendants ; or (thirdly) a Divine revelation to 
 Moses himself. The first of these, Moses, judging by 
 his writings, would be forward to disavow. The 
 second and third are substantially one ; for if Moses 
 inherited his knowledge from Abraham, Abraham 
 owed it to Him who called him out and away from a 
 Josh. xxiv. people who " served other gods " on the banks of the 
 Euphrates. 
 
 We are not wrong, then, in seeing a sign of the 
 superhuman in the Biblical record of the great miracle 
 of the creation. It is so utterly unlike any other 
 account of the " Beginning " of things which may be 
 found among the wisest and most civilized of peoples, 
 ancient or modern, that we know not how otherwise 
 to explain it. " Its great antiquity is beyond dispute ; 
 it is older certainly than history or philosophy. It 
 was before the dawning of anything called science, as 
 is shown by the fact that everything is denoted by its 
 simplest phenomenal or optical name. There is no 
 assigning of non-apparent causations, except the con- 
 tinual going forth of the mighty Word. It is impos- 
 sible to discover any connection between it and any 
 Antiquity mythical poetry. The holy sublimity that pervades it 
 ^"ity^of the is ^t war with the idea of direct and conscious forgery, 
 designed to impose on others ; and the thought of it 
 as a mere work of genius, having its interest in a 
 display of inventive and descriptive talent, is incon- 
 sistent with every notion we can form of the thinking 
 and aims of that early youth of the human race. It 
 was not the age then, or till long after, of literary 
 forgeries or fancy-tales. ^Ve are shut up to the con- 
 clusion of its subjective truthfulness, and its subjective 
 authenticity. At a very early day, to which no 
 profane history or chronology reaches, some man who 
 was not a philosopher, not a poet, not a fable-maker. 
 
 Mosaic 
 account. 
 
 The 
 conclusion. 
 
THE CREATION OF MAN. 331 
 
 but one who ' walked with God,' and was possessed 
 of a most devout and reverent spirit — some such man, 
 having a power of conception surpassing the ordinary- 
 human, or else inspired from above, had presented to 
 his soul in some way, and first wrote down, or uttered 
 in words, this most wonderful and sublime account 
 of the origin of the world and man. He believed, 
 too, what he wrote or uttered. He was conscious of 
 some source, whether by words or vision, whence he 
 had received it, and he had no doubt of its relation 
 to an outward objective truth which it purported to 
 set forth." 
 
 2. Equally significant and suggestive is the Biblical The crea- 
 
 , ^ , _, . r Ti r n-.i ,- ■ • tion of man. 
 
 record of the Creation of Man. The first nnpression 
 
 which it gives us is that God made man immediately 
 
 and directly from the dust of the ground. But a 
 
 different interpretation is not absolutely excluded. 
 
 All animals may be said to have been made ultimately 
 
 from the dust of the ground ; and if man was evolved Even if 
 
 from a lower form of animal life, it would still be true 
 
 of him that he was made from the dust of the ground, 
 
 not immediately, indeed, but mediately. So that if 
 
 science could prove that man was evolved from a 
 
 lower animal, it would prove nothing contrary to the 
 
 statement of Genesis, though contrary to our first 
 
 impression of what that statement means. The 
 
 essential point in the Bible record is that man came 
 
 into existence by a special act of God — in short, by 
 
 a miracle, not by any law of nature. And this is 
 
 admitted in substance, if not in form, by Mr. Wallace, 
 
 Mr. Darwin's co-apostle in the discovery and teaching 
 
 of the doctrine of Evolution. The action of " some Mr. Wallace 
 
 unknown higher law " may be traced, he says, " more '^unknmva" 
 
 or less distinctly in many phenomena of man's nature, '^"^^ ^^'^' 
 
33- HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 but the two most important of these are the origin 
 of sensation or consciousness, and the development 
 of man from the lower animals." He illustrates his 
 views of the matter, partly by characteristics of man's 
 physical nature which the doctrine of Natural Selection 
 cannot explain, and which are the reverse of what 
 that doctrine would lead us to anticipate, but chiefly 
 by the specialities of his mental faculties and his 
 moral sense. These, he thinks, could not be developed 
 from any rudiments pre-existing in the lower animals. 
 And to account for these there must have been the 
 intervention of an unknown higher law. Now, what 
 can such an intervention be, but the intervention of 
 God Himself? And what is this but another way of 
 saying that, in order to evolve man from a lower 
 existence, there must have been a special creative 
 Professor act. Profcssor Allman says, " The chasm between 
 unconscious life and thought is deep and impassable ; 
 and no transitional phenomena can be found by 
 which, as by a bridge, we may span it over." 
 
 The hypothesis of Evolution, in all the forms in 
 which it is held, is still but an hypothesis. It is 
 " not proven," and is far from being entitled to a 
 place among the fads of science. An eminent man 
 Professor of scicncc, Profcssor Virchow, of Berlin, at the 
 EvoiutTon? Tercentenary of the Edinburgh University (1884), in 
 the presence of a thousand students and of learned 
 and scientific men from all parts of the world, entered 
 his protest against the acceptance of the doctrine of 
 Evolution as an established conclusion of science. 
 It was only a " logical possibility." " Was there any- 
 where a pro-anthropos ? " he asked. " In regard to 
 this question," he said, " I tliought that the existence 
 of such a precursor of man was a logical possibility. 
 
''IN OUR IMAGE r 333 
 
 perhaps a probability. Only I found, to begin with, 
 that it was a purely speculative question — not one 
 raised by any observed phenomenon. No pro-a7ithropos No pro- 
 had ever been discovered, not even a fragment of himy man dis- 
 We may turn, then, to the Biblical record without any '^°^^'"''' 
 misgiving as to what may be proven in the future ; 
 and we shall find in it, I think, some signs of a higher 
 than human origin. 
 
 The terms in which the record represents the The Gene5;is 
 approach of the Creator to the work of creating man the'^creatk)ii 
 are very significant. The earth is covered with o^™^"- 
 vegetation, and peopled with life, but there is no king 
 to rule over this lower world, and no subject to 
 acknowledge, with conscious intelligence, a Higher 
 Power. The Almighty seems to take counsel : " Let 
 Us make man in Our Image, after Our Likeness ; and 
 let him have dominion." Much that was great and 
 noble, this record would have us to understand, had 
 already been made. The Eternal Mind had conceived 
 the idea, or pattern, or image, of everything that was, 
 and everything was good and beautiful after its kind ; 
 but even the Eternal Mind could not conceive a 
 pattern or image more glorious than its own, and this 
 image was reserved for man. Primitive man thus 
 bore a resemblance to the Author of his being — a 
 true resemblance, however faint and shadowy. He 
 was "an outline, faithful according to its capacity, 
 yet infinitely remote from the reality; a distant form 
 of the intelligence, wisdom, power, rectitude, goodness, 
 and dominion, of the adorable Supreme." 
 
 The record tells us farther that when the Lord God " a spirit in 
 formed man of the dust of the ground, " He breathed '"'*"■ 
 into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a 
 living soul." These words indicate that the life com- 
 
334 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 municated to man was of a higher kind than that 
 given to other Hving beings ; or, at least, that it was 
 associated with a higher unseen nature. By the act 
 of creative power thus described, man became, not an 
 emanation from the Eternal Spirit, as the ray is from 
 the sun, but the child of the Father of spirits, and 
 possessed of a spiritual as well as of a material nature. 
 The creation The story of the ^^ begituu'ng" of JVoman is as 
 woman, gjgj^jf^^^g^j-^j. ^g ^^^^X of the " beginning " of Man. " The 
 Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and 
 he slept : and He took one of his ribs, and closed up 
 the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord 
 God had taken from man, made He a woman, and 
 brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is 
 now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh : she shall 
 be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man." 
 This may be accounted a strange story ; but the 
 record gives it as a true story, for it founds on it a 
 great law, — " Therefore shall a man leave his father 
 and his mother; and they shall be one flesh." It was 
 no more an impeachment of the Divine wisdom and 
 power to say that He employed a portion of man's 
 body for the purpose of creating woman, than it would 
 have been to say that He employed any other 
 materials for the purpose. 
 
 Some, at least, of the reasons for this recorded 
 manner of woman's creation are obvious enough. 
 The lessons The Almighty embodied in His act the great lesson 
 taug t yit. ^£ ji^g intimate union and affection of the marital 
 relation. In the formation of the one woman to be 
 the companion of the one man, He laid the founda- 
 tion of the unchangeable law of marriage. And as to 
 the mode of her formation, why was she not formed 
 from the dust beneath his feet? Had the narrative 
 been a fiction or a parable, and a fiction or parable 
 
THE BEGINNING OF WOMAN. 335 
 
 formed among any other ancient people, such an 
 origin, not one more honourable, would have been 
 ascribed to her. In the Hindoo mythology the How 
 highest caste, the Brahmins, sprang from the head of would have 
 Brahma, and the lowest, the Shoodras, from his feet. ■■'^P'-'^j^'y"^^'^ 
 Did we find among the Hindoos, and even among 
 nations higher in the scale of intelligence and moral 
 feeling, the creation of woman shadowed forth in a 
 mythological fable, it would be under some similar 
 representation. The dust on which man stood would 
 be good enough for the material of the woman's frame. 
 But our record tells us of a rib from Adam's side as 
 the material of which the Creator formed for him, not 
 a slave, but a companion and a helpmeet. Were we 
 disposed to consider this a myth or invention of man, 
 we should be compelled to confess it the invention of 
 a profounder wisdom, and of a purer morality, than 
 have ever been found apart from the book which con- 
 tains it. But it is only of a piece with the entire 
 spirit of that book. " It is a beautiful circumstance Woman in 
 in the law of Moses that filial respect is exacted for Mosel" 
 the mother as well as the father. The threats and 
 promises of the Legislator distinguish not the one 
 from the other ; and the fifth commandment associates 
 the father and mother in a precisely equal claim to 
 honour from their children." In contrast with the 
 spirit both of Judaism and of Christianity, " nothing 
 can be more painful to contemplate than the humili- 
 ating condition in which Islamism still holds its so- 
 called free women — a condition of perpetual childhood 
 — childhood of the mind, while the passions receive 
 constant incense : leaving the fine endowments of 
 woman's soul undeveloped and inert, or crushing 
 them when in any case they happen to germinate ; 
 and converting man into a self-willed haughty idol, 
 
33^ HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 for whose will and pleasure the other sex lives and 
 suffers." 
 Whence the Whence, we ask with wonder — at least, we should 
 "moscs? wonder if we had no clue to the answer — whence " the 
 wisdom of Moses " in this matter? How came he, in 
 such an age and with such surroundings, to under- 
 stand man and the true relation of man and woman ? 
 How came he to anticipate the teaching of the greatest 
 moral Teacher the world has ever seen, and the highest 
 results attained or attainable under the Christian 
 civilization of a far distant age? Are we wrong in 
 seeing something superhuman in the insight and 
 Fichte. prescience of the man Moses ? The German Fichte, 
 after first combating revelation, confessed later on 
 that reason stood in need of its assistance, and said, 
 "A Higher Being undertook the charge of the first 
 members of our race, just as an old and venerable 
 document, containing the deepest and sublimest truths, 
 represents Him to have done ; and to this testimony 
 all philosophy must revert in the end." While 
 philosophers and poets have been floundering in all 
 ages in a chaos of conjectures and imaginings respect- 
 ing the origin of man, the oldest book in existence, 
 written by neither philosopher nor poet, contains this 
 marvellous sentence — " God said, Let Us make man 
 in Our Image, after Our Likeness, and let them have 
 dominion over the earth. So God created man in 
 His own Image ; in the Image of God created He 
 him ; male and female created He them." 
 The Deluge 3- The book of Gcncsis records other two great 
 cifies oflhe ^liracles of the same class, though very different from 
 .plain. (-j-^g Creation of the Universe and of Man — the Deluge 
 and the destr2ictio7i of the cities of the plain. ^Vhat 
 I have to prove at present is not that these miracles 
 really took place, that the events recorded in Genesis 
 
THE STORY OF THE DELUGE. 337 
 
 are historical and not legendary. I have to do only 
 with the form of the record, and with the sign which 
 I see in it of the superhuman. As to the reality of 
 the event of the Deluge, the traditions of all nations, 
 widely separated in time and space, cannot be 
 explained on any other supposition. Turning to the 
 Biblical record, it has all the simplicity of history, Simplicity of 
 
 ... ..... ... • 1 1 Biblical 
 
 a simplicity which is in striking contrast with the story. 
 forms which the story assumed or acquired elsewhere. 
 " Different nations have heathenized, mythologized, 
 in other words nationalized or localized the sacred 
 and universal tradition." Some of them have even 
 deified the patriarch of the Flood. In contrast with 
 the myths which gathered round the true central fact, 
 the Biblical story reads like the plain truthful narrative 
 of an eyewitness which was preserved in the family 
 of Shem. "It is impossible," says Canon Rawlinson, "Historical 
 " to derive the Hebrew account from any of the other t\ons!etc.;' 
 stories, while it is quite possible to derive all of them ^' ^^• 
 from it. Suppose the Deluge a fact, and suppose its 
 details to have been such as the author of Genesis 
 declares them to have been, then the widespread, 
 generally accordant, but in part divergent, tradition is 
 exactly what might have been anticipated under the 
 circumstances. No other theory gives even a plausible 
 explanation of the phenomena." 
 
 The cause to which the Bible ascribes the Deluge The moral 
 is very significant. In many traditions the great flood '^^De1u°ge. ^ 
 appears as a judgment upon a condemned race. But 
 in the Bible alone do we find a clear and full explana- 
 tion of the matter. " God saw that the wickedness of 
 man was great on the earth," " The earth was cor- 
 rupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. Gen. vi. n- 
 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was '^' 
 corrupt ; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the 
 
—Judge. 
 
 338 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh 
 is come before Me \ for the earth is filled with violence 
 through them ; and, behold, I will destroy them with 
 the earth." So, too, in the matter of the destruction 
 Sodom and of Sodom and Gomorrah. In language which may be 
 
 Gomorrah. iijai ,•, ,-, 
 
 called Anthropomorphic, but which conveys a true 
 Gen. xviii. idea of the Divine mind, we read, " The Lord said. 
 Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and 
 because their sin is very grievous ; I will go down 
 now, and see whether they have done altogether 
 according to the cry of it, which is come unto Me ; 
 and if not, I will know." 
 TheCreator The Creator now appears as the Ruler and the 
 Judge — All-righteous as He is Almighty. Take the 
 history, for the moment, only as an interpretation of 
 the thoughts of its author, and what do we find ? 
 Mankind has become utterly corrupt : the earth is 
 full of violence ; the wicked prosper : enough to 
 drive a thoughtful onlooker to despair, or to a pes- 
 simism which might say there is no God, or, if there 
 is, the Devil is God. But the historian has no mis- 
 giving : with him God is a Fact of which he has no 
 more doubt than of his own being ; and God is Holy 
 and Righteous ; the condition of the world is an 
 offence to Him, and He comes out of His place, to 
 speak after the manner of men, to punish and 
 destroy. Is there not something in this conception 
 of God and the world that points to a more than 
 human wisdom ? 
 
 4. We may further illustrate the position that 'we 
 may find signs of the superhuman in the Biblical 
 record of the Old Testament miracles, without assum- 
 ing the reality of the miracles, by referring to two 
 which are separated from each by more than a 
 thousand years, and which brmg into prominence 
 
THE BURNING BUSH. 339 
 
 Other Divine attributes than the Righteousness which 
 is prominent in the history of the Deluge. 
 
 The first of them is that of the Burning Bush. " The The Burning 
 angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in a flame of E^d. m. 
 fire out of the midst of a bush : and he looked, and, 
 behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was 
 not consumed." " The Lord said, I have surely seen 
 the affliction of My people which are in Egypt, and 
 have heard their cry by reason of their taskmasters ; 
 for I know their sorrows ; and I am come down to 
 deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians." \\\ 
 answer to the question, What is Thy name? "God 
 said, I AM THAT I AM : and He said, Thus shalt thou "i am that 
 
 ' . I AM. 
 
 say unto the children of Israel, I am hath sent me 
 unto you. And God said moreover unto Moses, 
 Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The 
 Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the 
 God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me 
 unto you : this is IMy name for ever, and this is My 
 memorial unto all generations:" 
 
 Dean Stanley speaks of the wild acacia, the shaggy "Lectures 
 thornbush of the Se?ieh, as the most characteristic tree °"cintich'r'' 
 of the whole region, and adds, "So natural, so ™''- '• i°s. 
 thoroughly in accordance with the scene, were the 
 signs in which the call of Moses makes itself heard 
 and seen. Not in any outward form, human or 
 celestial, such as the priests of Heliopolis were wont 
 to figure to themselves as the representatives of Deity, 
 but out of the midst of the spreading thorn, the 
 outgrowth of the desert v/astes, did the Lord appear 
 to Moses. A flame of fire, like that which seemed 
 to consume and waste away His people in the furnace 
 of affliction, shone forth amidst the dry branches of the 
 thorny tree, and behold the bush, the massive thicket, 
 burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed." 
 
340 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 We cannot be wrong in seeing in the Divine Name 
 which came forth from the Burning Bush a declara- 
 tion of His Eternity and Self-existence. But, taken 
 in their connection, the words, "I am that I am," 
 " Brithh "point rather to unbroken continuity of character 
 "Evangeiifai ^nd of purpose, to Unvarying constancy, to un- 
 Knnew,'' swerving faithfulness. The words told Israel that 
 
 April, 1 00 1, o 
 
 /• 237- the promises of God were not forgotten, that His 
 design was not laid aside, and that they had not, in 
 short, in any sense, a different God from Him who 
 had spoken to their fathers. What He had been in 
 the past, the present and the future would still reveal 
 Him to be. His deeds write all along the ages, ' I 
 am that I am : ' He is the same yesterday, to-day, 
 and for ever ; the Father of lights, with whom there 
 is no variableness neither shadow of turning." 
 ihe highest We havc here the highest conceptions that have 
 '^°"f Gocl"^ ever been formed of God. The most advanced and 
 enlightened ages have attained to none higher. God, 
 the Eternal and Uncha*igeable ; God, the Judge and 
 Avenger of the oppressor ; God, the Redeemer of the 
 oppressed. We have here, to use the common dis- 
 tinction, both the natural and the moral attributes of 
 God in their completeness and purity : His eternal 
 self-existence. His unchangeable righteousness and 
 mercy. Whence, we ask, as in former instances, 
 without assuming the truth of the story or the reality 
 of the miracle, — whence the wisdom that discovered, 
 if it was a discovery, these great Divine truths ? 
 Have we not here a sign of the superhuman ? And 
 a sign which leads by a simple process to the truth 
 of the story which contains it ? Thus — 
 
 It cannot be denied that the marvellous con- 
 ceptions of God which we have indicated are in 
 the story. Their existence there is a fact. Their 
 
MIRACLES IN BABYLON. 34 1 
 
 existence, therefore, in the mind of the writer, is a 
 fact. Whencesoever he got them he was in sympathy The writer 
 with them, and could not therefore have embodied "^ sympaThy 
 them in a series of ingenious falsehoods, and then concep't'jonl 
 given these falsehoods to the world under the cha- 
 racter of a true history. In short, no bad man could 
 have dreamed or imagined the views of God which we 
 find in the story of the Burning Bush : no good man 
 in whose soul these views were found could have 
 written that story and given it to the world if it was 
 not true. The whole narrative of the third chapter of 
 Exodus is radiant with a Divine glory. And, putting 
 our shoes from off our feet, we too would draw near 
 with reverence and behold this great sight — the bush 
 burning and not consumed. 
 
 Towards the end of the national history of Israel, 
 we find a miracle which illustrates and confirms the 
 mysterious designation in which God made Himself 
 known out of the Burning Bush — I am that I am. 
 The nation is again subject to an oppressor. Nebu- Miracles in 
 chadnezzar is as proud and despotic as Pharaoh. He ^ ^°"' 
 causes a huge image of gold to be made, and summons 
 all subject "peoples, nations, and languages" to fall 
 down and worship it. There are three Israelites, The three 
 " Israelites indeed," who, though captives, held high '^'■^'=''''='" 
 offices in Babylon, who would not. The king, " in 
 his rage and fury," called for them, and said, " If ye Dan. m. 15. 
 worship not, ye shall be cast the same hour into the 
 midst of a burning fiery furnace ; and who is that 
 God that shall deliver you out of my hands?" The 
 servants of the God of Israel knew that He was able 
 to deliver them, but they did not know that He 
 would. They were cast into the midst of the fiery 
 furnace, which was made "exceeding hot," and the 
 
342 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 issue of it is told in the words of the king himself : 
 " Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst 
 of the fire, and the form of the fourth is like the 
 Son of God," or, rather, a Son of God, a being of 
 Superhuman majesty. 
 Daniel. , In this story, and in the later story of the deliver- 
 ance of Daniel from the lions into whose den he was 
 cast, we see the same conceptions of God which 
 appear in the story of the Burning Bush, The God 
 of Moses and of Daniel is the same, the Living God, 
 ruling over men, at once righteous and merciful. The 
 conception which we receive of Him is not the Epicu- 
 rean conception, but that of One who takes a personal 
 and loving interest in those who serve Him. The 
 idea of God which we find in the miracles recorded 
 in Daniel is as remote from the Babylonian as that 
 No of Moses was from the Egyptian. And the records 
 ^"^" ' ' in both cases are free from those puerilities and follies 
 which invariably distinguish the legendary. 
 
( 343 ) 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 INTERNAL EVIDENCE OF THE SUPERNATURAL IN THE 
 
 MIRACLES OF THE BIBLE {continued). 
 
 We now turn to miracles with which some human 
 agency was connected ; and of these, miracles in attes- 
 tation of a Divine commission are the most prominent. 
 On the occasion and necessity of such miracles we s.-e Part r. 
 have already remarked. ^^' "^^' '^'^' 
 
 I. 
 
 When Moses received his commission at the 
 Burning Bush, it was quite natural for him to say, 
 " Behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto 
 my voice : for they will say, The Lord hath not ap- 
 peared unto thee." On the fitness of the signs which 
 he should be empowered to give to the people, Dean 
 Stanley says, "No sword of war, such as was wielded "Lectures 
 by Egyptian kings ; no mystic emblem, such as was ""cAuicJi,''^'' 
 borne by Egyptian gods ; but — ' What is that in thine ""'^- '■ 
 hand?' And he said, 'A rod,' — a staff, a shepherd's The rod of 
 crook, the staff which indicated his return to the ' °''^''' 
 pastoral habits of his fathers, the staff on which he 
 leaned during his desert wanderings, the staff with 
 which he guided his kinsman's flocks, the staff like 
 that still borne by Arab chiefs, — this was to be the 
 
344 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 humble instrument of Divine power. ' In this,' as 
 afterwards in the still humbler symbol of the cross — 
 in this, the symbol of his simplicity, of his exile, of 
 his lowliness, ' the world was to be conquered.' These 
 Fitness of were the outward signs of his call. And, v/hatever 
 the explanation put on their precise import, there is 
 this undoubted instruction conveyed in their descrip- 
 tion — that they are marked by the peculiar appro- 
 priateness and homogeneousness to the peculiar 
 circumstances of the Prophet, which marks all like 
 manifestations, through every variety of form, to the 
 prophets, the successors of Moses, in every age." 
 
 This, however, striking as it is, touches only the 
 surface of the miracles with which Moses began his 
 The grand prophctic ministry. The first great lesson which they 
 rod'tu°rned' taught him, and which, when repeated, they after- 
 serpent, wards taught the people, was that there was a Power 
 to which all nature, and all natural laws and causes, 
 were subject, and that this power would be put forth 
 to effect their redemption. The rod turned into a 
 serpent and the serpent into a rod, the hand made 
 leprous and the leprous hand healed, were signs to 
 Moses of a Power to Avhich nature in all its variety 
 was subject, and which could work all Its sovereign 
 will. And without the assurance that he was supported 
 by such a Power as this, Moses could not brave the 
 difficulties of his work, or summon the people to brave 
 its dangers. 
 
 These remarks apply equally and still more strik- 
 ingly to the " signs " by which the king and people 
 of Egypt were compelled to see in Moses a Divine 
 messenger, and to yield submission to the demand of 
 The lessons frccdom. In the " plagues " inflicted on Egypt we 
 plagues, have the history of a great conflict between Jehovah 
 and the deities that were then worshipped by the 
 
MIRACLES IN EGYPT. 
 
 345- 
 
 Dean 
 Stanley's 
 ' Lectures,' 
 
 A natural 
 
 element in 
 
 some of the 
 
 plagues. 
 
 wisest and most civilized of the nations of the earth. 
 " It was not an ordinary river that was turned into 
 blood; it was the sacred, beneficent, and solitary 
 Nile." " It was not the ordinary cattle that died in the 
 field, or ordinary fish that died in the river, or ordinary 
 reptiles that were overcome by the rod of Aaron. It 
 is the sacred goat of Mendes, the ram of Amnion, the 
 calf of Heliopolis, the bull Apis, the crocodile {serpent 
 in Ex. vii. 9) of Ombos, the carp of Latopolis." 
 
 My present purpose is not directly to prove the 
 truth of the narrative, but to point out certain features 
 of the alleged miracles, or of thp narrative of the 
 miracles, which may be taken as signs corroborative 
 of their supernatural reality. Some of the plagues 
 had a natural element in them. Swarms of frogs and 
 lice and flies, murrain and boils and blains, hail and 
 fire and locusts, are all in themselves natural. But 
 the intention of the narrative plainly is to represent 
 all the plagues as occurring supernaturally. In every The plagues 
 instance the plague was predicted, and it came to p''^'''"^''- 
 pass at the very time Moses said it would, and it 
 departed or ceased, as it came, at his word — -Pharaoh, 
 in his occasional relentings, being permitted again and 
 again to fix the time at which Moses should ask his 
 God to withdraw His hand. All nature seemed 
 under the control of " the man Moses." But, at the 
 same time, neither Pharaoh nor Moses, neither Egyp- 
 tian nor Israelite, was left or allowed for a moment to 
 attribute his mighty works to him, to his will or power 
 or holiness. God was the Worker — there was no more 
 efiicacy in the arm of Moses than in the rod which it 
 wielded. And in working as He did, God would 
 demonstrate that the deities of Egypt were impotent, 
 and that He was God alone, — a teaching which Israel 
 needed as well as Egypt. 
 
 2 A 
 
340 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 No idle pro- We thus scc that the " signs " wrought in Egypt 
 were far from being idle prodigies, such as are found 
 in legends. They had a profound significance, which 
 goes far to establish their historical character. The 
 natural elements of the story furnish by themselves 
 an argument for its genuineness, inasmuch as they 
 are perfectly and exclusively Egyptian ; while they 
 impart a special significance to the Supernatural 
 Power by which they were used and controlled, 
 which nothing else could have given it, inasmuch as 
 these natural elements were all, so far as we can trace 
 them, more or less intimately connected with the 
 idolatries of Egypt. 
 
 The moral 
 history of 
 Pharaoh. 
 
 Notjting 
 like it in 
 Fiction. 
 
 The moral history of the King of Egypt through- 
 'out the infliction of the plagues may likewise be 
 appealed to as a strongly corroborative " sign " of the 
 genuineness of the record. There is in it a truth to 
 nature which proves truth in fact — a truth to nature 
 in its most profound and subtle workings. Fiction, 
 in the hands of a master deeply versed in the know- 
 ledge of himself and of mankind, can portray human 
 character with wonderful accuracy. And a vivid 
 creative imagination, like that of John Bunyan, in 
 combination with a personal inward experience of 
 the action of Divine truth on the human heart, can 
 produce an allegory in which multitudes shall see as 
 in a mirror a picture of themselves. But since the 
 world began it hath not been known that such a 
 moral history as that of Pharaoh, while in conflict 
 with Moses and Aaron, and subjected to this strange 
 series of Divine judgments, has ever been traced in 
 legendary lore or painted by the hand of tradition. 
 Legend and tradition deal almost exclusively with the 
 outward and the marvellous, and furnish us with 
 
THE STANDPOINT OF THE HISTORY. 
 
 347 
 
 absolutely no example of the inner life, and especially 
 of an inner life brought into rebellious collision with 
 the will of a Holy God. And it is such an inner 
 life, and in such circumstances, we have in Pharaoh, 
 — strong evidence, to those who can appreciate it, 
 that the whole story is simple and absolute truth. 
 
 The miracles which are said to have been wrought 
 in order to, and in connection with, the Redemption 
 from Egypt, and the establishment of the redeemed 
 nation m Canaan, are all such as the circumstances 
 rendered necessary, if the end was to be attained. 
 There is nothing trivial or arbitrary about them. And 
 they are recorded in a simple and solid style be- 
 fitting a true history, without the adornments and 
 affectations of a conscious fiction or an unconscious 
 myth. 
 
 In order to see the more than reasonableness of 
 the supernatural story of the Red Sea and of the 
 Desert, the reader must remember the true stand- 
 point of the history. The history professes to be 
 far more than the history of the deliverance of an 
 oppressed people. If Moses had been a patriot only, 
 moved by the fire of his own soul to deliver his 
 nation from the Egyptian yoke, let him, like other 
 patriotic deliverers, trust in the blessing of the God of 
 judgment for a successful issue. In such circum- 
 stances a continuous series of supernatural inter- 
 positions would have been unnatural, being out of 
 keeping with the Providential history of mankind. 
 Nothing like it or parallel to it could be found any- 
 where. But Israel was not merely an oppressed 
 nation sighing for deliverance. The very reason of 
 its existence was, according to the history, super- 
 natural, and the end of its deliverance was super- 
 
 The signs 
 in Egypt 
 necessarj'. 
 
 Moses not 
 a mere 
 patriot. 
 
 The end 
 of Israel's 
 existence 
 super- 
 natural. 
 
34^ HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 natural. Israel did not exist for itself. However 
 far short it came of realizing the grandeur of its call- 
 ing, it was called, and it existed, for the world, — and 
 not for the world's mundane interests, but for interests 
 that extend far beyond time. The calling of this 
 nation and its redemption formed an important, we 
 may say an essential, part of a great Divine plan, in 
 the execution of which all the nations of the earth 
 •)he true were to be blessed. Men may deny all this. But if 
 standpoint. ^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ .^^^^ ^^.^^^_^^ ^j^^ miraclcs of the Red Sea 
 
 and the Desert, they must look at them from this 
 standpoint. The history is consistent with itself 
 It records " signs and wonders," which would be out 
 of place, and therefore naturally suspected, in the 
 story of a mere material deliverance. But professing 
 to be the history of a Divine purpose in which the 
 future of mankind was involved, its signs and 
 wonders, instead of being out of place, are in the 
 strictest keeping with its character. 
 
 XL 
 
 The days of Midway between the call of Abraham and the 
 
 ■jezebe"'^ coming of Christ— a thousand years after the former, 
 
 nine hundred before the latter— the Biblical record 
 
 ■ tells us of a great " outburst," as it has not very fitly 
 
 been called, of miraculous power. And the occasion 
 
 of it, as in the case of the Redemption by Moses and 
 
 the Redemption by Christ, is a sufficient explanation 
 
 of its occurrence. 
 
 Earlier Thc rcign of Ahab is memorable as a time when 
 
 apostasies. g^^|ig^ apostasics from Jehovah seemed on the eve 
 
 of being crowned by the entire undoing, so far as 
 
 Israel was concerned, of all that God had purposed 
 
 and was working out, by the call of Abraham and the 
 
PHCENICIAN DEITIES AND WORSHIP. 
 
 establishment of Abraham's descendants in the land 
 of Canaan. Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, caused 
 Israel to sin grievously by the worship of the golden 
 calves at Dan and Bethel. But this was not a formal 
 repudiation of the worship of Jehovah. These calves, 
 like that made at the foot of Sinai, were intended for 
 symbols of Jehovah— symbols, it is true, which had 
 been forbidden in the law given at Sinai, and symbols 
 which, whatever may be said in palliation of them, 
 were unworthy and degrading. But Ahab went far 
 beyond the son of Jeroboam. The difference, in fact, 
 IS not one of degree. Ahab, under the influence of 
 his wife, who was a daughter of the king of Sidon, 
 and a very fanatic in her devotion to her country's 
 gods, cast the name and worship of Jehovah aside 
 altogether, and substituted for it the worship of Baal, 
 Astarte, and Moloch. These deities were the repre- 
 sentatives of the energies and laws of nature. The 
 worship of them was essentially a worship of nature. 
 Under the name of Baal, the paternal principle was 
 worshipped; and under the name of Astarte, the 
 maternal. Baal became associated, if not identified, 
 with the sun; and Astarte with the moon. There 
 was a third principle discoverable in nature — the 
 destructive, and this was worshipped under the name 
 of Moloch. It was observed that the sun not only 
 creates life (apparently), but destroys likewise, covering 
 fields with plenty and scorching them into barrenness, 
 and Moloch became identified with the sun as well as 
 Baal. 
 
 Canon Rawlinson concludes his account of the 
 religion of the Phoenicians in these words : " Alto- 
 gether the religion of the Phoenicians, while possessing 
 some redeeming points, as the absence of images and 
 the deep sense of sin which led them to sacrifice what 
 
 349 
 
 The aim now 
 
 to utterly 
 destroy the 
 worship of 
 Jehovah. 
 
 The 
 PhcEnician 
 nature- 
 worship. 
 
 " The 
 Religions 
 
 of the 
 Ancient 
 World:' 
 p. i8o. 
 
350 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 was nearest and dearest to them (children cast into 
 the arms of a red-hot Moloch), to appease the Divine 
 anger, must be regarded as one of the lowest and 
 most debasing of the forms of belief and worship 
 
 if> cruelty prevalent in the ancient world— combining, as it did, 
 
 vieness. j,-,-,p^f jj-y ^f^\\\^ cruclty, the sanction of licentiousness 
 
 with the requirement of bloody rites, revolting to the 
 
 conscience, and destructive of any right apprehension 
 
 of the true idea of God. 
 
 Shall Israel Now, the objcct of Ahab and Jezebel was to sub- 
 c^a^rT? stitute the vile, gross, and cruel worship of Baal, 
 Astarte, and Moloch, for the pure and spiritual wor- 
 ship of Jehovah; in fact, to convert "Israel" into 
 " Canaan ; " to make Israel what Canaan was, when, 
 its " iniquity being full," it perished by the sword ot 
 Israel. And this object, the blotting out of the 
 Divine work of a thousand years, seemed all but 
 accomplished. For a time, we know not how long, 
 there is no sign in heaven above or in earth beneath, 
 that the doings of Ahab and Jezebel have incurred 
 the displeasure of the God of Israel. The rain 
 descends, the dew falls, the fields yield their increase. 
 
 The sudden as usual. But Suddenly there comes across the Jordan 
 
 ^omijX^ from the land of Gilead, a prophet — rough clad, like 
 him who a thousand years later appeared in the spirit 
 and power of Elijah — and utters in the king's ears 
 these terrible words, " As the Lord God of Israel 
 liveth before whom I stand, there shall not be dew 
 nor rain these years but according to my word." 
 The old This was the beginning of a great conflict different 
 
 renewed. J^i outward circumstauce, but similar in spirit, to that 
 which had been waged in Egypt in the days of 
 Pharaoh. The question at issue was not a mere 
 question of names, as between " Jehovah " and "Baal," 
 but, as we have seen, whether the fruits of the victory 
 
THE GREATER REDEMPTION. 351 
 
 won in the conflict with Pharaoh were to be lost. 
 The battle between the worship of the Creator and 
 the worship of the creature was renewed ; and, if not 
 won for God, the " signs and wonders wrought in the 
 land of Ham " were all in vain. Hence the super- 
 natural works of the ministries of Elijah and Elisha. 
 The reason which led to them was worthy of God, 
 and the history which records them is full of a moral 
 significance. 
 
 HI. 
 
 The only perfect parallel to the occasion of the The greater 
 miracles which are recorded in the history of Moses ^ «'^p'"^"- 
 is the still greater Redemption which was wrought by 
 Jesus Christ. The miracles of this greater Redemption, 
 and their connection with the person and work of the 
 Redeemer, have been already considered. Between /'.i>;otc^/^, 
 the work of Moses and the work of Christ there was ^'**^' ^' 
 a most intimate connection. Even on the low ground 
 that Christ was an inspired prophet, His mission was 
 to give " enlargement " to the institutions of Moses, 
 to develop their spiritual significance while putting 
 an end to their outward form, and to extend to other 
 nations blessings which had hitherto been for the 
 most part confined to the Jews. Let Him claim 
 special authority from the God of Abraham and 
 Moses to do all this, and the people might rightfully 
 ask, "What sign showest thou?" We have in this what Men? 
 alone a sufficient reason why the new Prophet should 
 have power to work miracles. 
 
 But Jesus Christ professed to be, and was, far more 
 than a prophet "hke unto Moses." The end for 
 which the nation redeemed by Moses existed, the 
 supernatural end which we have ascribed to it, was 
 
352 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 to be, and was, realized in Him. In Him all the 
 nations of the earth were to be blessed. He was 
 the Son of God in a high and unique sense. And 
 in this we have not only a reason for His miracles, 
 See the but an explanation of them. In the liffht of His 
 "Pilate's^ Divme person we understand how He should walk 
 
 /•/►""i-rse. through the world as the very Master of Nature. The 
 calmness and quiet dignity which uniformly charac- 
 terized Him indicate His Divine consciousness that 
 with Him all things were possible. He was Himself, 
 as has often been remarked, the Great Miracle. Thus 
 understood. His miracles are not, what some have 
 called them, stumblingblocks or hindrances to faith. 
 They are the outward and visible signs of the presence 
 of Incarnate God on earth. 
 The true Here again we have to insist that if we would 
 
 Stan poin . j^^gg ^f j.|^g reasouableness of the supernatural which 
 the Gospels record, we must study it from the stand- 
 point of the Gospels. And studying it thus, we quote 
 
 Dr. Arnold, oncc morc the words of Dr. Thomas Arnold, who 
 called the gospel miracles " the natural accompani- 
 ments of the Revelation of God in Christ," accom- 
 paniments the absence of which would have been far 
 more wonderful than their presence. 
 
( 353 ) 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE GRAND MIRACLE OF PROPHECY. 
 
 We have reserved for separate consideration a miracle The Miracle 
 which forms one of the most distinctive characteristics ° '°^ '"'^' 
 of the Old Testament — f/ie miracle of Prophecy. 
 From the days of Samuel to the days of Malachi, who the 
 a period of some eight hundred years, we find a class ^'vere^'" 
 of men known as prophets, not holding their office by 
 hereditary succession hke the priests, but Divinely 
 called, individually, to minister to the nations of 
 Judah and Israel. Divinely called, we have said, — 
 such being the averment of the history. Their 
 primary function was not the foretelling of future 
 events, but the proclaiming and preaching of the 
 Divine Will. The prediction of the future was only 
 a part of, or incidental to, this more general function. 
 The prophets were "preachers of righteousness," like .Pet.u. 5. 
 Noah, and it was in the discharge of this office that The 
 
 . . prophets 
 
 thev foretold things that were to come, their predic- preachers 
 tions bemg sometnnes threatenmgs 01 evil, sometimes Divine win. 
 promises of good. 
 
 What we mean by speaking of Prophec) the 
 
 function of these men — as a miracle, is, that the function 
 history represents both parts of that function as super- natural. 
 natural. When they taught the Divine will, with 
 rebuke and exhortation, it was in the name of God 
 
354 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Isa. VI. ; 
 fer. i. ; 
 Ezek. i. : 
 Amos vii. 
 IS- 
 
 "jfer. xxiii. 
 
 yer. xxiii. 
 
 2 1 ; also xiv. 
 
 14. 
 
 Dcut. xviii. 
 
 20-22. 
 
 See Jer. 
 
 xxviii. 7-17. 
 
 Warning 
 
 against 
 
 false 
 
 prophets. 
 
 A moral 
 test. 
 
 JDeiti. xiii. 
 1-3- 
 
 who had sent them to do it. When they predicted 
 the future, it was on the authority of a Divine 
 Revelation. Hence they prefaced their communica- 
 tions by "Thus saith the Lord." And in not a few 
 instances, as in the case of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 
 Amos, and others, we have the history of their call to 
 the prophetic office. There were men who professed 
 to be prophets and were not. And the charge against 
 them was that they spoke visions " of their own heart, 
 and not out of the mouth of the Lord." And God 
 is represented as saying, " I have not sent these 
 prophets, yet they ran : I have not spoken to them, 
 yet they prophesied." The nation was warned from 
 the beginning against false prophets. " If thou say 
 in thine heart. How shall we know the word which 
 the Lord hath spoken? 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, but the prophet hath spoken presump- 
 tuously : thou shalt not be afraid of him." There was 
 at the same time a moral test prescribed. False 
 prophets might, like the Egyptian magicians, succeed 
 in doing what might seem to be an accomplishment of 
 their word. And Moses said, " If there arise among 
 you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth 
 thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or wonder come 
 to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go 
 after other gods, whicli thou hast not known, and let 
 us serve them ; thou shalt not hearken unto the words 
 of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams ; for the 
 Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love 
 the Lord your God with all your heart and with all 
 your soul." 
 
 Without discussing in detail the predictions of the 
 
THINGS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR. 355 
 
 Old Testament and their fulfilment, we have in them Human or 
 
 1 r ■ 1 super- 
 
 a Strange phenomenon to be accounted for ; is the human? 
 explanation of it to be found in the human or in the 
 superhuman? Even Kuenen, who regards the religion 
 of Israel as "only one of the chief religions of the 
 world," speaks of prophecy as "one of the most 
 important and remarkable phenomena in the history 
 of religion." The true explanation of it, whatever it Things 
 be, must take into the account and harmonise these accoumed 
 following things. *^°''- 
 
 1. The prophets were confessedly men of high Their high 
 character. No one worth listening to dares to call *^ ^'■^'="='"- 
 them impostors. Even Kuenen takes pains to show 
 
 that he does not impugn the prophets' integrity in any 
 
 way. " The charges," he says, " which more than a xheir 
 
 hundred years ago, were here and there brought ad^ft"^'^ 
 
 against the prophets of Israel are all silenced. In ^'^ Kuenen. 
 
 high estimation of their aim and their work, all are 
 
 agreed." 
 
 2. The "aim and work" of the prophets from the Lofty aim. 
 first to the last of them, through all the ages of 
 Judaism, was the loftiest that can be imagined. It 
 
 was practically to enforce the great fundamental law, to enforce 
 " Thou Shalt love God with all thy heart, and thou "laT"' 
 shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." Around this 
 double law, circle all the fierce denunciations of 
 idolatry and its abominations, and the equally fierce 
 denunciations of the wrongs inflicted by man upon 
 man, which are found in the pages of the prophets. 
 
 3. The work of the prophets was prosecuted in the 
 face of a relentless opposition, sometimes by rulers, 
 sometimes by people, often by both. Many of them Their 
 died a martyr's death, all of them had to live a ex^Hence^. 
 martyr's life. As a rule the world "hated" them, as 
 
 it hated the Apostles of a later age. 
 
356 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Prediction. 
 
 Dcut. 
 xxviii. 
 
 20-22. 
 
 Jt-r. xxviii. 
 7-17. 
 
 Prediction 
 ascribed 
 to God. 
 
 Pet. 2. 21, 
 
 Revised 
 
 Version. 
 
 Their pre- 
 dictions 
 
 were 
 fulfilled. 
 
 Prediction 
 
 of a 
 Saviour. 
 
 Part 
 
 Second, 
 
 Chap. IV. : 
 
 also Part 
 
 Third, 
 Chap. IV. 
 
 Isa. xiii., 
 xxiii., etc. 
 
 E.g., Ch. U. 
 
 Jer. XXV. 
 
 S-I3. 
 Dan. a. 
 
 4. The prophets professed to foretell future events. 
 Prediction was indicated from the beginning as a part 
 of the prophetic function, and it is assumed through- 
 out their history to be their prerogative, not indeed at 
 their pleasure or as they pleased, but at the will and 
 pleasure of Him who sent them. 
 
 5. The prophets ascribed their predictions to God 
 Himself The authority they claimed for their pre- 
 dictions was invariably " Thus saith the Lord." The 
 words of Peter, so often quoted, are but the summing 
 up of their own uniform assertions — '"No prophecy 
 ever came by the will of man ; but men spake from 
 God, being moved by the Holy Ghost." 
 
 6. It is certain that some of their predictions were 
 fulfilled. We believe that they were all fulfilled. But 
 the fulfilment of some of them is so clearly demon- 
 strable that the denial of it can be maintamed only on 
 the ground, utterly untenable, that it is a priori im- 
 possible. The chief of these must ever be reckoned 
 the prediction of a world's Saviour, known in the 
 later stages of prophecy as the IMessiah, the anointed 
 servant of Jehovah. Of the import and evidential 
 force of this prediction or series of predictions, we 
 have treated in our Part Second, and we now only 
 repeat the last sentence : " The conclusion is twofold — 
 a superhuman prescience in the prophets, and a super- 
 human fulfilment in Jesus Christ." To speak of 
 Messianic prophecy as a " gigantic dream " is to set at 
 defiance the most conclusive moral evidence. There 
 are many other prophecies of which it can be said 
 that they have certainly been fulfilled ; those of Isaiah, 
 for example, respecting Babylon, Tyre, and other cities 
 and lands ; similar prophecies by Jeremiah, and his 
 prophecy of the captivity of the Jews in Babylon ; and 
 prophecies recorded in the book of Daniel respecting 
 
WHAT INDUCTION SIIAIL BE DRAWN? 357 
 
 the Kingdom of Heaven and dynastic and other 
 
 revolutions which should intervene and prepare the 
 
 way for it. The very last verses of the Old Testament Mai. iv. 
 
 contain prophetic intimations which were remarkably 
 
 fulfilled four hundred years after, in the ministry of the 
 
 Elijah-like prophet and of the Lord whose way he 
 
 prepared. 
 
 7. The prophets and the prophetic office are 
 peculiar to the Jewish nation — to be found among no 
 
 other people. "Hebrew prophecy, like the Y{.t\ix&\N Dr.McCmu, 
 people, stands without parallel in the history of the to Faith}' 
 world. Other nations have had their oracles, diviners, ^' ^^" 
 augurs, soothsayers, necromancers. The Hebrews 
 alone have possessed prophets, and a prophetic 
 literature. It is useless, therefore, to go to the 
 manticism of the heathen to get light as to the nature 
 of Hebrew prophecy." 
 
 8. In addition to all this, let it be remembered that The Bible 
 the Bible religion was a prophetic religion from the prophetic 
 beginning. It had a forward look from the opening ^■''^'^""•'' ^'■ 
 page of man's history in the beginning of Genesis to 
 
 the very last of the prophets. The Judaism to which See p. 325. 
 these holy men ministered was, in their estimation, to Seejer. 
 give way before another which was to be not national cJmp'ueb. 
 but universal. 
 
 viii. 8 ; Isa. 
 
 11. 2-4 ; 
 jclix. 6 : 
 
 Hi. 15. 
 
 Now, what induction shall we draw from all these what in- 
 things ? What induction can be suggested that will ""'°" ' 
 harmonize and explain them all? 
 
 The idea of imposture is rejected scornfully by all Noim- 
 classes of critics. And if it were not rejected on p'^^'"'''^- 
 moral grounds, it must be on intellectual ; for, if 
 entertained, it would utterly fail to account for the 
 rise, age after age, of a consistent succession of men, 
 all carrying the same message to the nation, and many 
 
358 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 of them foretelling, or professing to foretell, distant 
 events in which the honour of God and the good of 
 mankind were concerned. 
 Not human Equally insufficient is the explanation which would 
 
 sagacity. . ... 
 
 ascribe the anticipation of future events to human 
 sagacity and foresight on the part of the prophets. 
 This explanation, if accepted, would reflect on the 
 integrity of the prophets. For, notwithstanding all 
 disclaimers to the contrary, it would involve them in 
 the great fraud of ascribing to God, and claiming His 
 authority for what they knew to be of themselves. 
 ,,Th« J3ut apart from this fatal objection, what sagacity 
 
 Messianic _ -^ . . 
 
 hope. or foresight on the part of the prophets could originate 
 the Messianic hope, and develop Messianic predic- 
 tion through many ages, a hope and a prediction 
 which have found their fulfilments in Jesus Christ ? 
 Even in the matter of predictions of another kind 
 • the hypothesis fails utterly. These predictions are 
 not " vague surmises," or " pious deductions from 
 What godly the moral government of God." Godly patriots might 
 
 patriots ° . -^ ' . ° 
 
 might do. denounce judgments in general, even in vehement 
 What they tcrms, on a corrupt nation. But no amount of godli- 
 
 could not do. . . 
 
 ness or patriotism could enable a man to foresee 
 distant ages, the fall and rise of kingdoms and em- 
 pires, their interlacings, with many events and circum- 
 stances connected therewith. We could imagine 
 Moses warning the nation which he had led out of 
 Egypt against forsaking God by declaring the certainty 
 of punishment for their sin. But we cannot imagine 
 any man inventing out of his own brain the details of 
 judgment which we find in the twenty-eighth chapter 
 Deut. of Deuteronomy — details which are asserted with all 
 Lev.xxvi. the positiveness of the future "shall;" details, many 
 of which were literally accomplished a thousand 
 years and fifteen hundred years after, and some of the 
 
IX. 17 : 
 
 Dent, 
 xxviii. 
 
 THE TRUE HYPOTHESIS. 359 
 
 most striking of which are being literally fulfilled The 
 before our own eyes. "No thoughtful Jew denies orthe'jews 
 that the present condition of the nation is the ""^^"^ 
 fulfilment of the curse written in the book of the Law." 
 Israel, as foretold by Moses, has been scattered to 
 the four winds, but is still preserved. Of the nations by 
 whom, and amongst whom, they were first dispersed, 
 the Lord has made a full end. He has chastened 
 Israel in measure, but has not permitted them to 
 disappear. The Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Seejer. 
 Romans, have utterly perished. But the people of ^^^r/. 35-37; 
 the Jews are " wanderers among the nations." They T\-i-i\ 
 have survived all the revolutions of empires, ancient, 'h"s. 
 mediceval, and modern, and now, consciously or 
 unconsciously, await the consummation foretold by ^'" ^^" 
 prophets and apostles. 
 
 There is no hypothesis left for us, then, but that The true 
 which ascribes prophecy to God Himself. This is its ^'"^ 
 own explanation of the matter. The Biblical history 
 ascribes the communications made by the prophets to 
 the people to a Divine inspiration ; and in particular 
 it ascribes those predictions of future events which 
 were given by the prophets to the foreknowledge of 
 God, such foreknowledge being the prerogative of the a Divine 
 Living God, and of Him alone. This is asserted with p'-^^^s^''^'^ 
 repeated emphasis in the Book of Isaiah : "Shew the ch.xu. 23. 
 things that are to come hereafter, that we may know 
 that ye are gods : " "I am the Lord. . . . Behold the Ch.xiii.?,,c). 
 former things are come to pass, and new things do 
 I declare : before they spring forth, I tell you of 
 them:" "I am God, and there is none like Me, Ch. xm. 
 declaring the end from the beginning, and from ^""" 
 ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, 
 My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure : 
 
36o 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 See Ch. xlv. 
 - 1-3- 
 
 The only 
 objection 
 vntenable. 
 
 }''rof. Green 
 in ' ' Moses 
 
 and the 
 Prophets ; 
 
 and a 
 
 Re-vievj of 
 
 Kuenen," 
 
 p. 251. 
 
 An 
 impossible 
 chapter of 
 accidents. 
 
 The 
 
 Historico- 
 critical 
 theory 
 
 calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that 
 executeth My counsel from a far country : yea, I have 
 spoken it, I will also bring it to pass : I have purposed 
 it, I will also do it." 
 
 The only objection to the Biblical . explanation 
 of prophecy is the very illogical objection that the 
 thing was impossible. But to say that it was im- 
 possible to foretell future events, is to deny the fore- 
 knowledge of God. It was impossible for men, not 
 taught of God, to foretell the future. This we not 
 only admit but maintain. But it follows that if certain 
 men did really foretell the future, they were taught 
 of God. Their word was the word not of man but 
 of God. " It is plainly futile to attempt to account 
 for it on natural principles, — as, for example, that 
 Jeremiah's strong faith wrought upon the exiles, and 
 their faith wrought upon Cyrus, who, by a lucky 
 chance, appeared just at the right time and became 
 the conqueror of Babylon, and thus brought about the 
 return from captivity after seventy years ; or Isaiah, 
 by his faith, persuaded Hezekiah and his people to 
 persevere in their resistance to Sennacherib until 
 fortunately the plague swept off his army. On this 
 principle such a chapter of accidents would be required 
 to save the credit of the prophets, as would involve 
 that very supernatural intervention which the hypo- 
 thesis was invented to escape ; and that, too, in a form 
 far more incredible than the simple faith of ages — that 
 prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, 
 but holy men of God spake as they were moved by 
 the Holy Ghost." 
 
 This conclusion is not impugned — not in the 
 slightest degree impaired — by what is boastfully called 
 the Historico-critical or organic interpretation of 
 prophecy, and which is set forth in opposition to 
 
THE TRUE HISTORICAL THEORY. 36 1 
 
 what is called, by way of disparagement, the tra- 
 ditional. Interpreters have, no doubt, sometimes 
 mistaken superficial coincidences for prophecies. 
 But that which is really true in the Historic or organic 
 theory is not new, and does not in the least conflict 
 with the Divine origin of prophecy. That the occa- 
 sions of many prophecies were historical or circum- 
 stantial is certain — the prophecies " taking shape from 
 the necessities of the people, and being moulded by 
 their changing circumstances from age to age." 
 
 A true Historical theory of interpretation will include The trmh 
 (i) the Plistorical circumstances in which the prophecy 
 was given, the light which the circumstances throw 
 on the prophecy, and the light which the prophecy 
 throws on the circumstances, with the study of the 
 shape and colouring which the prophecy derives from 
 the circumstances. (2) It will include the Historical 
 progress of prophecy, the successive stages by which 
 the prophetic Revelation of the Divine will advanced 
 from its dawn to the perfect day. And it will include 
 (3) the eliciting and interpretation of those eternal 
 truths which may be embodied in the prophecy, and 
 which had practical bearings on the then present of 
 those who could not see in the prophecy more than 
 a dim foreshadowing of something that was future. 
 
 All this, while it may greatly aid in interpreting the 
 structure and relations of Bible prophecies, leaves 
 the question of their origin untouched. Those who 
 would exclude any direct intervention of God in 
 prophecy, content themselves with explanations that 
 are superficial and hollow. Thus one says that "the 
 phenomena [of the Prophets and Prophecy in Israel] 
 can be accounted for — without the resort to the " ^"froinc- 
 
 . . tion to 
 
 supposition of any miraculous intervention — by the Knenen" 
 
 J , , . , . . , hy Dr. John 
 
 genius and the peculiar religious character of the Muir. 
 
 2 B 
 
362 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Hebrews, as developed by their history and fortunes, 
 
 and acted upon by the circumstances of the times 
 
 See Pari in which the prophets lived." There is not a phrase 
 
 //. 302-io6. in this statement which does not imply an untruth. 
 {a) "The genius of the Hebrews." There is nothing 
 more certain historically than that the genius of the 
 Hebrews w^as as idolatrous as the genius of the other 
 Semitic races, {b) " The peculiar religious character 
 of the Hebrews," as it appears in " true Israelites," 
 was not the cause of prophecy, but the fruit of 
 prophetic instruction by a succession of inspired men 
 from age to age. And {c) as to the further explanation 
 that the genius and peculiar religious character of the 
 Hebrews were " acted upon by the circumstances of 
 the times in which the prophets lived," — we know that 
 the influence of the " times," that is, of all surround- 
 ing associations, on Israel, was to perpetually drag 
 the people down from the pure monotheism which 
 the prophets inculcated, into the grossest and cruellest 
 practices of the heathen. 
 
 There is no true explanation of the Prophets and of 
 Prophecy without seeking it outside and above them- 
 selves, their people and their circumstances. The 
 The only Hypothesis which maintains its ground from age 
 
 H'-poihesis ^° ^S^> ^"^ which accounts for all the phenomena of 
 the prophetic Scriptures, is the ancient Apostolic 
 hypothesis which ascribes them to the Eternal Spirit. 
 
J^O 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON BIBLICAL MIRACLES. 
 
 We do not assume, it must be remembered, that the The truth 
 miracles reported in the Bible took place ; we have narratives 
 
 , , , . . . r J^ • r not assumed. 
 
 only remarked on certam aspects of these mu-acles 
 which have an important bearing on the question of 
 their historical reality — such as the grave and im- 
 portant occasions on which they are said to have 
 been wrought, and the grave and simple style in which 
 they are narrated. There are other considerations Confirma- 
 
 .,.,..,, T tory con- 
 
 which go far to sustain their historical character. Let siderations. 
 us examine some of these. 
 
 I. 
 
 We do not find miracles recorded where, and in 
 circumstances in which, we might expect to find them, 
 //" f/ie history or tradition of them zvere legendary. 
 Miracles are not sown broadcast over the whole Old Not sown 
 Testament history, as Dean Trench has remarked and 
 shown. In fact, there are but two great outbursts of /• 
 them 3 the first at the establishing of the Kingdom 
 under Moses and Joshua, on which occasion it is evi- 
 dent that they could not have been wanting; the 
 second, in the time of Elijah and Elisha, and then also See Part 
 there was the utmost need. " There is, in all this an Chaj>. vi. 
 
 On Miracles, 
 
364 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Not cheap 
 
 off-hand 
 
 expedients. 
 
 Unlikeness 
 
 of legend to 
 
 history. 
 
 Goulds. 
 
 Legends 
 
 about 
 .Abraham. 
 His birth. 
 
 How he 
 ceased to be 
 an idolater. 
 
 entire absence of prodigality in the use of miracles ; 
 they are ultimate resources, reserved for the great 
 needs of God's Kingdom, not its daily incidents ; 
 they are not cheap off-hand expedients, which may 
 always be appealed to, but come only into play when 
 nothing else could have supplied their room." 
 
 But where Bible history is silent legend has spoken, 
 and in the uuUkeness of the Irgetid to the history we 
 have additional proof that the history is not legendary. 
 There is not a person of any note named in the Old 
 Testament respecting whom legendary traditions are 
 not found in the Jewish Talmud. How ancient these 
 may be, and how their origin and growth are to be 
 explained, it were difficult to say. But they serve to 
 show how different historic fact is from legend, 
 whether the legend be the unconscious product of 
 superstition or the deliberate invention of fancy. In 
 a modern work now before me, the legends about 
 Abraham occupy sixty-seven pages, and those about 
 Moses seventy-six. A {e\Y sentences will show their 
 character. Abraham, legend says, was born in a cave 
 to which his mother had fled to save her child from a 
 murderous decree of the King Nimrod. On visiting 
 the cave some time after, the mother found her child 
 sucking his thumbs, out of one of which flowed milk, 
 and out of the other honey. When three years old, 
 according to some, or ten according to others, the 
 child came out of the cavern and stood on the face 
 of the desert. When he saw the sun shining in all 
 its glory he was filled with wonder, and he thought, 
 "Surely the Sun is God the Creator;" and he knelt 
 down and worshipped the Sun. But when evening 
 came, the sun went down in the west, and Abraham 
 said, "No ! the author of creation cannot set." Now 
 the moon rose in the east, and the stars looked out of 
 
LEGENDS ABOUT ABRAHAM. 
 
 365 
 
 the firmament. Then said Abraham, " The moon 
 must mdeed be God, and all the stars are His host ; " 
 and kneeling down, he worshipped the moon. But 
 after some hours the moon set, and from the east 
 appeared once more the bright face of the sun. Then 
 said Abraham, " Verily, these heavenly bodies are no 
 gods, for they obey law; I will worship Him who 
 imposed the law upon them." 
 
 This is a myth rather than a legend — although the 
 distinction between the two is often overlooked. 
 Properly speaking, a myth is the creation of a fact out 
 of an idea ; a legend the seeing of an idea in a fact. 
 Thus defined the myth is pure and absolute imagina- 
 tion ; the legend has a basis of fact. But the mythical 
 and the legendary are often so intermingled that a 
 clear distinction cannot be preserved between them, 
 and in popular use the distinction vanishes. 
 
 There are other myths, some very beautiful, to 
 account for Abraham's knowledge of the One True 
 God, as, for example : — When Abraham came out of 
 the cave, he saw a number of flocks and herds, and he 
 said to his mother, "Who is lord of these?" She 
 answered, " Your father Azar (Zerah)." " And who 
 is the lord of Azar ? " he further asked. She replied, 
 "Nimrod." "And who is the lord of Nimrod?" 
 " Oh ! hush, my son," said she, striking him on the 
 mouth; "you must not push your questions so far." 
 
 The legendary history of Abraham is full of conflicts 
 with Nimrod, the great patron of idol-worship, and of 
 miracles by which he was delivered out of the hands 
 of this tyrant. His death is thus recorded: "The His death 
 angel of death did not smite him, but God kissed him, 
 and he died by that kiss ; and because the sword of 
 the angel touched him not, but his soul parted to the 
 kiss of God, his body saw no corruption." 
 
 How he 
 came to 
 know the 
 true God. 
 
 Conflicts 
 
 with 
 Nimrod. 
 
366 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Contrast Contrast with all this the naturalness and reticence 
 with all this. q|- ^i^g historical record. There is not one instance on 
 record in which the Patriarchs demanded a "sign" of 
 the reality of the communications which came to them 
 from God, or wrought miracles to prove themselves 
 favoured of God. How Abraham was assured that 
 the voice which he obeyed was the voice of God, and 
 not of his own imagination, we are not informed. 
 But while the Bible tells us of no " signs," the after 
 history of Abraham and of his descendants demonstrate 
 that he was not mistaken. 
 
 Legends The history of Moses is the subject of similar myths 
 ^u"'v,-°.r^" and legends. When he was born the house was filled 
 
 His birth. o 
 
 with light, as of the brightest sunshine. When the 
 
 In the ark. little ark Containing the babe was floating in the Nile, 
 
 the angels surrounded the throne of God and cried, 
 
 " O Lord of the whole earth, shall this mortal child, 
 
 fore-ordained to chant, at the head of thy chosen 
 
 people, the great song of delivery from water, perish 
 
 Pharaoh's this day by water?" When the king's daughter 
 
 crown, presented him, when a boy, to her father, and told 
 
 him that this child had been given to her in wondrous 
 
 fashion by the divine river Nile, the king put his 
 
 royal crown on the head of Moses. But the child 
 
 threw it on the ground, and, alighting from Pharaoh's 
 
 knee, danced round it in childish fashion, and finally 
 
 trampled it under his feet. Balaam advised the king 
 
 that he should be burnt with fire, and others that he 
 
 should be slain with the sword. But the angel 
 
 Gabriel, in the form of an old man, mingled with the 
 
 Test Councillors, and said, " Let not innocent blood be 
 
 ^"SrLi^^ shed. The child is too young to know what he is 
 
 doing. Prove whether he has any understanding and 
 
 design, before you sentence him. O King ! let a 
 
LEGENDS ABOUT MOSES. ^67 
 
 bowl of live coals and a bowl of precious stones be 
 brought to the little one. If he takes the stones, 
 then he has understanding, and discerns between 
 good and evil ; but if he thrusts his hands towards 
 the burning coals, then he is innocent of purpose and 
 devoid of reason." When the basins were brought in 
 and offered to Moses, he thrust out his hands towards 
 the jewels. But Gabriel, who had made himself 
 invisible, caught his hand and directed it towards the 
 red-hot coals; and Moses burnt his fingers, and he 
 put them into his mouth, and burnt his lips and 
 tongue ; and therefore it is that Moses said in after 
 days, " I am slow of speech and slow of tongue." 
 
 Such is the style in which legend tells the story of 
 Moses. And if the Biblical story were legendary, 
 such it would be. The difference between history , The 
 and legend, to be felt, need only that the two be betuVJ"!! 
 placed side by side. 'legTnd? 
 
 The only Old Testament miracles which have the The only 
 slightest resemblance to those which abound in myth di'sifnctiv 
 and legend are two which are connected with the "^legTnd"^ 
 name of EHsha. In 2 Kings vi. 1-7 we read how The floating 
 that Elisha caused an iron axe which had fallen into 
 the Jordan to rise to the surface. The occasion for 
 the exercise of supernatural power seems trivial, and 
 not involving any urgent necessity. It has been 
 suggested that possibly the power of working miracles 
 was under the control of its possessor and might be 
 exercised at his will, so that Elisha may have wrought 
 this miracle out of sheer kindness of heart. This 
 I regard as a very doubtful principle. The explana- 
 tion must be found in the circumstances of Elisha 
 and the sons of the prophets who were with him. 
 They were witnesses for God in a time of grievous 
 
 axe. 
 
363 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 apostasy, exposed to the bitter displeasure of the 
 royal court, and not supported by popular sympathy. 
 The place where Elisha was accustomed to meet his 
 disciples, either at Gilgal or at Jericho, was too strait 
 for them, probably from the increase of their number, 
 and they resolved to build on the banks of the 
 Jordan. It was while thus building that an axe fell 
 into the river. They were poor evidently, for the 
 axe was a borrowed one. And the loss of the axe, 
 however small in our eyes, may have been a very 
 real and serious loss. Its recovery may have been 
 of far greater consequence than it seems to us. And 
 7,esson of its rccovcry would doubtless confirm the faith of the 
 ' sons of the prophets in their leader and teacher, and 
 in the God whom he served. 
 
 Its recovery. 
 
 The other miracle to which I have referred has 
 been a stumbling block to many, it seems so like the 
 idle and superstitious tales we have about the wonder- 
 ful cures effected by the bones of saints. Elisha 
 
 2/w»^.s.t-///. (lied and they buried him. Some Israelites were 
 20, 21. 
 
 about to bury a man when they were alarmed by the 
 
 appearance of a troop of marauding Moabites, and in 
 
 their haste they cast the body into the sepulchre of 
 
 Tiiedcad Elisha. And when the body so cast into the pro- 
 
 Eiisha. phet's tomb touched the prophet's body, it was 
 
 A man restorcd to life. The tomb, it is obvious, was not 
 
 restored to , ..... 
 
 life. such a grave as we are familiar with ; it was near at 
 hand and easily opened. 
 
 All miraculous working is an exertion of the direct 
 power of the All-Powerful. Whether He will use any 
 instrument or what instrument, must depend, as Dean 
 Alford has remarked, on His own purpose in the 
 miracle — the effect to be produced on the recipients, 
 beholders, or hearers. - Without His special selection 
 
FITNESS OF OLD TESTAMENT MIRACLES. 
 
 369 
 
 and enabling, all instruments were vain — with these 
 
 all are capable. " In the present instance the primary "speaker 
 
 '■ _ ^ Cormnen- 
 
 effect was greatly to increase the reverence of the tary," in 
 Israelites for the memory of Elisha ; to lend force to 
 his teaching ; and especially to add weight to his un- 
 fulfilled prophecies, as to that concerning the coming 
 triumph of Israel over Syria. In the extreme state 
 of depression to which the Israelites were now reduced, 
 a very signal miracle may have been needed to 
 encourage and reassure them." 
 
 Thus regarded, the miracle loses every aspect of 
 the legendary. Elisha was dead, but Elisha's God was 
 living. And He would have the people to understand 
 that the prophet's words had not perished with him. 
 
 Not 
 legendary. 
 
 Doctor 
 Trench, 
 
 IL 
 
 The general fitness of Old Testament miracles. General f5t- 
 
 , . . ... . , . , ness of Old 
 
 their appropriateness in the circumstances in which Testament 
 they occurred, and for the accomplishment of their 
 ends, may likewise be regarded as corroborative of 
 their truth. On this subject Doctor Trench has well 
 said, " It is noticeable that the region in which the 
 miracles of the Old Testament chiefly move, is that 
 of external nature. Not, of course, that they are 
 exclusively so ; but this nature is the haunt and main 
 region of 'the miracle in the Old Testament, as in the 
 New it is mainly the sphere of man's life in which it 
 is at home. And consistently with this, the earlier 
 miracles, done, as the greater number of them were, 
 in the presence of the giant powers of heathendom, 
 have often a colossal character ; those powers of the 
 world are strong, but the God of Israel will show 
 Himself to be stronger yet. Thus it is with the 
 miracles of Egypt, the miracles of Babylon ; they are 
 
3/0 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 Miracles of miracles eminently of strength ; for under the influence 
 prete^e o"} of thc gfcat Haturc-worships of those lands, all religion 
 wcT/Xips. h^"^ assumed a colossal grandeur. Compared with 
 our Lord's works wrought in the days of His flesh, 
 those were the whirlwind and the fire, and His as the 
 still small voice which followed. In that old time 
 God was teaching His people, He was teaching also 
 the nations with whom His people were brought 
 wonderfully into contact, that He who had entered 
 into covenant with one among all the nations, was 
 not one God among many, the God of the hills or the 
 God of the plains (i Kings xx. 23), but that the God 
 of Israel was the Lord of the whole earth." 
 
 in. 
 
 The The cessation, or supposed cessation, of miracles, 
 
 '^mkades?'^ IS regarded by some as involving a presumption 
 
 against the genuineness of both the Old and New 
 
 /. i-. Mill. Testament miracles. John Stuart Mill says, in words 
 
 already quoted, " We see no reason in God's goodness 
 
 why, if He deviate once from the ordinary system of 
 
 His government in order to do good to man. He 
 
 should not have done so on a hundred other occa- 
 
 Repiy. sions." To which it should be enough to reply : If 
 
 we can see no reason in God's goodness why He 
 
 should not work miracles whenever any benefit 
 
 might be conferred thereby, we can see abundant 
 
 reason in His wisdom why He should not. It 
 
 is held by believers and unbelievers alike that a 
 
 miracle, or, as Mr. Mill puts it, " a deviation from 
 
 the ordinary system of God's government," to be 
 
 Part First, Credited must be supported by very strong, unusually 
 
 ^- ^5- strong, evidence. And one of the chiefest elements 
 
 in its strength must be inferfial—Xhe character of the 
 
CESSATION OF MIRACLES. 37 I 
 
 miracle and of its occasion. Where miracles are 
 
 alles;ed in the Bible these two things are very evident Two charac- 
 
 ° . teristics of 
 
 — first, that there was a manifest necessity for the Bible 
 
 . . , . . , . miracles. 
 
 givmg of supernatural signs or for supernatural action ; 
 and, secondly, that such supernatural action was never 
 independent of, but always associated with, high 
 moral considerations. Give us such occasions for 
 miraculous interposition as those which we find in 
 the Bible, and we may expect miracles as of old. 
 But in the absence of the occasion, we have a suffi- 
 cient reason for the absence of the miracle. Let 
 another Moses come to found a new Theocracy ; let 
 another Christ come to found a new Kingdom of 
 Heaven on earth, and their work and claims will 
 require such attestation as was given to the Moses 
 and the Christ of our Bible. But the miracles 
 wrought in connection with revelations and institu- 
 tions which have found their consummation in the 
 establishment of a Divine spiritual kingdom by the 
 Incarnate Son of God, cannot be discredited by 
 the fact that miracles are wrought no longer. There No longer 
 
 . occasion for 
 
 IS no longer occasion for them. them. 
 
 The only occasion foreshadowed in the Bible on a future 
 
 ■' great 
 
 which we have now to expect a " deviation " from material 
 
 . miracle. 
 
 the ordinary course of nature, is at what is called 
 " the end of the world." The language which it uses 
 is figurative, but its significance is obvious. " The ^ ^'"'- -"'• 
 trumpet shall sound." "The day of the Lord will ^Pet.ui. 
 come as a thief in the night; in the which the slTj^om. 
 heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the ^"'- ^S"^"*- 
 elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and 
 the earth and the works that are therein shall be 
 burned up, and we look for new heavens and a new 
 earth wherein dwellelh righteousness." Accepting 
 these scriptures, this globe shall not remain for ever 
 
2,72 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 in its present condition. We are not now in the 
 
 midst of an eternal procession of events, causes, and 
 
 This man- effccts. The mundanc state, whose natural laws are 
 
 dane state - , . ... 
 
 not for ever, olten Substituted by men for their Author and Ruler, 
 will come to an end. And its ending will be sudden, 
 not from exhaustion, not that the forces of nature 
 have worn themselves out, not that the earth has 
 grown weary in its race round the sun — but that God 
 has willed it. As its beginning was of God, so will 
 be its ending. 
 
 Men may doubt this, as did some of old, who 
 
 2 Pci. in. 4. appealed to the fact that since the fathers fell asleep 
 all things continued as they were from the beginning 
 of the creation. But it must be admitted at least that 
 the Bible is consistent with itself. From beginning to 
 end it teaches the dependence of the world on its 
 
 Continuance Maker. And if its teaching needed support, it would 
 origin b^y find it in the scientific conclusion of some of the 
 
 ^^'""^°''"' chiefest men of science, that not only must the origin 
 of the forces of Nature be traced to Will^ but likewise 
 and equally their continuance. From beginning to 
 end, moreover, the Bible represents this earth as the 
 theatre of moral Divine transactions, whose origin is 
 to be found in the eternal will and love of God, and 
 whose issues shall be reaped in the world that is to 
 come. The earth, we are thus taught, is a far more 
 glorious thing than mere students or observers of the 
 material universe conceive. Not only are the foot- 
 prints of God its Maker to be traced on its surface 
 everywhere, but He who made it has made it the 
 scene of a moral government, and of a Redemption, 
 in which He has revealed Himself more gloriously 
 than it were otherwise possible. 
 
MEJDL-EVAL MIRACLES. 373 
 
 IV. 
 We are not in a position to say when the miracles The liae 
 
 .,_,.. , --T , , between the 
 
 of the Christian age ceased. \Ve cannot draw a clear miraculous 
 and definite line between the miraculous and the non- miracXus 
 miraculous age. According to Scripture history, the deLTd. 
 Apostles conferred on others the power of working Acts via. 
 miracles ; and some of those who thus received this 
 power may have lived some way into the second 
 century, — one of the Apostles may have seen the 
 dawn of that century. Nor can we say for certain 
 that no others were gifted with this power. The 
 dispensations of God are not separated by a hard 
 and fast line. 
 
 But it is well known that professed miracles have Professed 
 been wrought, and continue to be wrought, throughout '""■^'^^"" 
 what we call the non-miraculous age. And these False 
 miracles are used by those who regard them as un- 
 genuine as an argument against the genuineness of the 
 miracles of what we call the miraculous age. We have Part First, 
 already shown the unreasonableness of the argument ' ^' 
 that because some alleged miracles were false, there- 
 fore all must be held to be false. And we have p art First, 
 argued that the universal disposition to believe in the ^^' ^^' ^^" 
 supernatural, instead of creating a presumption against 
 the reality of the supernatural, may be used as an 
 argument in favour of it. 
 
 As to the bearing of the alleged miracles of what 
 we call the Middle Ages — and which the Roman 
 Catholic Church regards as genuine — on the question 
 of the genuineness of the Biblical miracles, we shall 
 understand it best when we compare, or rather 
 
 contrast, the two. Difference as 
 
 I. First of all, there is a radical difference between saintilnets. 
 
374 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 medisevalism and primitive Christianity in their idea 
 of saintHness. In mediaeval and later Romish story, 
 a man is a saint in proportion to the marvels or 
 prodigies which are in any wise connected with his 
 person or his acts. Let it be told of a man that he 
 has seen angels, that the Virgin Mary has revealed 
 herself to him, that a shining light has been seen 
 round his head, and that he has done many marvellous 
 things — he is a saint ; collect all the stories you can 
 find of prodigies in his life, and lay them before the 
 Head of the Romish Church, and he will canonize 
 him and place his name among those to whom prayer 
 may be offered. 
 John X. 41 ; Now the Bible or Christian idea of saintliness is 
 ^ See Matt. ' altogether different. John the Baptist did no 
 Tcor.'xhi. miracle ; Judas Iscariot did. This fundamental 
 ^' ^' difference between Romanism and Christianity as to 
 what constitutes saintship, casts no small degree of 
 suspicion on the wonderful things that are told of 
 Romish saints, and which indeed constitute their 
 title to the name. 
 
 2. There is another difference between Romanism 
 
 and Christianity which has to do with this subject. 
 
 Fraud and That falsehood may be used to promote the interests 
 
 of the Church has been maintained by partisans of the 
 
 See Church of Rome. In fact, the spiritual supremacy 
 
 "Latli claimed by the Popes has its real foundation in a 
 
 ^anity':' scrics of deliberate forgeries which belong chiefly to 
 
 ja^iaq"'vi ^hc ninth century; and the temporal power of the 
 
 163- Popes over a portion of Italy is based on a series 
 
 of frauds and forgeries such as have disgraced no 
 
 other sovereignty on the face of the earth, — such as a 
 
 letter professedly from St. Peter in heaven, which was 
 
 2 Cor. iv. 2. forged by an Infallible Pope ! The contrast between 
 
 Rom. iii. 8. j.j^.g procedure and that of Christ and His Apostles is 
 
LOYOLA AND XAVIER. 375 
 
 too palpable to need remark. The effect of it is 
 that mediseval or Roman Catholic testimony on behalf 
 of mediaeval or Roman Catholic miracles must lie 
 under just suspicion. 
 
 3. The history of Christ's miracles and of the 
 miracles connected with the foundation of Christianity 
 can be traced up to the period of their occurrence ; 
 the history of Romish miracles, at least of the most The chief 
 
 . Romish 
 
 illustrious of them, begms long after the date of their miracles 
 - . Till 'lack con- 
 
 occurrence. It IS not necessary to add to what has temporary 
 
 already been said of the former. As to the latter, ^"^^^JJ,^ 
 
 two examples will suffice. Second, 
 
 There are few Romish saints which have been 
 surrounded with such a halo of wonders as Loyola and 
 Xavier. Upwards of two hundred miracles were laid 
 before the Pope when the canonization of Loyola was Loyola. 
 in question — miracles beside which those of Christ 
 sink into significance. But when were miraculous See Trench 
 tales first told respecting Ignatius Loyola? Fifteen ^^ Miracles,' 
 years after his death {1572 a.d.), there was a life of ^^•■^^-si- 
 him published by one who had been his scholar and 
 companion from early youth. Fifteen years later 
 (1587 A.D.) it was republished, containing now many 
 additional circumstances which had been communi- 
 cated by persons who had lived in familiar intercourse 
 with Ignatius, and who had most intimate oppor- 
 tunities of being acquainted with all the facts of his 
 life. And in neither the first nor the second and His friends 
 greatly enlarged edition of this memoir, does the mlrackr 
 slightest trace of a miracle appear. On the contrary, 
 the biographer enters into a lengthened discussion 
 of the reasons why it did not please God that any 
 signal miracle should be wrought by this eminent 
 servant of His. In the face of these facts how can 
 we receive a tale of two hundred miracles, of which 
 
Z7^ HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 those who had been his lifelong friends knew 
 nothing ? 
 Xavier. The Same fatal objection rests against the miracles 
 ascribed to Francis Xavier, the great Romish mission- 
 ary. According to the later accounts of his life, even 
 the very boys who served him as catechists received 
 and exercised the power of working miracles. He 
 spoke unknown languages without tuition, he calmed 
 sea tempests, he raised the dead to life. But the tales 
 told of him cannot be traced back to any original or 
 His letters authentic history. We have a series of letters written 
 '"miracles" by this great Apostle to the heathen, as he is com- 
 monly regarded, written in the midst of his Avork in the 
 far East, in which there does not occur a single word 
 about miracles wrought by him, or of miracles which 
 a missionary may expect in aid of his work. 
 Difference 4. There is another great contrast between the 
 avowed^end. Original Christian miracles and the alleged miracles of 
 the Cluirch of Rome — and that is, the avowed end of 
 both. Christ's miracles were " signs " — signs to attest 
 to the world that He was sent of God, and signs of 
 the nature of His mission. They are all significant of 
 His glory or designed to set forth His glory. This is 
 equally true of the miracles wrought by the Apostles. 
 "Not unto us, not unto us, but unto Christ, be the 
 Acts Hi. -LI. glory," was their habitual spirit. "Why marvel ye at 
 this," said Peter, " as if by our own power or holiness, 
 we had made this man to walk ? " And yet even Dr. 
 Contrast Newman could say : " I firmly believe that the relics 
 p^eTaTd of the saints are doing innumerable miracles and 
 XT ^''' graces daily, and that it needs only for a Catholic to 
 
 j\ewman. o -' ' ... 
 
 shoiv devotion to a?iy saint., in order to receive special 
 benefits from his intercession." Let a Catholic show 
 devotion to any saint and thus render him honour, and 
 the saint will intercede for him and bestow or procure 
 
CATHOLIC AND CHRISTIAN MIRACLES. 377 
 
 for him special benefits. It will all be to the glory of 
 
 the saint, not of Christ. The Catholic of Dr. Newman The Catholic 
 
 is very far from being identical with the Christian of christian. 
 
 Peter. 
 
 The whole history of those places which have La Saiette, 
 attracted Roman Cathohc pilgrmis durmg recent years Paray le 
 might be cited in illustration of this contrast between °"''^ " 
 the miracles of the Gospels and the miracles of Rome. 
 Christ is the end of the one, Mary and the saints the 
 end of the other. 
 
 5. Perhaps the most palpable contrast between Contra<:t 
 
 primitive and mediseval miracles is to be found in the miracles 
 
 miracles themselves. We have already remarked on sec^p^rt 
 
 the difference between the miracles of Christ recorded ■^f':<'»^> 
 
 p. 204. 
 
 in the Gospels and the miracles ascribed to Him in the 
 apocryphal gospels — the nobility and transparent truth- 
 fulness of the former, the grotesqueness and unmean- 
 ingness of the latter. The mediaeval miracles are of 
 a piece not with the former but with the latter. They 
 are mere prodigies, and when they cannot be dignified 
 even with the appellation " prodigy," they are childish 
 absurdities. Take a specimen of the wonders which a specirnen 
 composed the daily life of Xavier according to its later miracles. 
 history. He had a consecrated crucifix which he 
 greatly valued. On a sea voyage he dropped it over- 
 board, and was greatly distressed. The vessel, 
 however, sped her way across the ocean, and he 
 reached his desired haven, giving up the crucifix for 
 lost, — till one day, walking on the sea shore, he saw 
 the object of his reverential regard moving towards 
 him, elevated above the surface of the water, as if self- 
 conducted, or borne by the spirits of the deep. Filled 
 with astonishment and delight, he went to meet it, 
 when it was reverentially deposited at his feet by a 
 crab, which seemed to have had a Divine commission ! 
 
 2 c 
 
3/8 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.^ 
 
 The mind 6. There are certain alleged miracles which may be 
 ^body.^ explained by purely natural causes. " As the body acts 
 
 Grou d'% °'^ ^'^^ mind, so the mind powerfully affects the body. 
 riteistic Heated imagination, ardent faith, the confident hope 
 
 and . . ' 
 
 Christian of relief, may produce physical effects of an extra- 
 
 Belief" by .. . . . . 
 
 C. /■./'■«/«';■, ordinary character. Ihere is a variety of nervous 
 Chkp.'x. disorders which are cured by a sudden shock which 
 turns feeling into a new channel." If the miracles of 
 the Gospels consisted only of visions, or of the healing 
 of certain diseases which spring mainly from nervous 
 derangement, their supernatural character might be 
 called in question. But even in regard to miracles of 
 healing there is a marked difference between the 
 Gospel gospel miracles and all others. None of the gospel 
 never miraclcs were tentative, unsuccessful, or of doubtful 
 reality. But among those to whom in later times 
 miraculous power has been ascribed, the instances of 
 apparent success were connected with uncounted 
 failures of which no record has been preserved. Even 
 in the cases where it has been loudly proclaimed that 
 there was every appearance of miracles, it is found that 
 some have been only partially relieved of their maladies, 
 or have experienced soon a recurrence of them. But 
 
 No abortive with Christ and his Apostles there were no abortive 
 
 experiments. . . n i ^ i i i 
 
 experiments. All whom they attempted to heal were 
 healed. None went away as they came. In account- 
 ing for the gospel miracles the supposition of accident 
 or mere coincidence is thus precluded. 
 
 Summary. This review will justify such conclusions as these : 
 {a) The mediaeval miracles belong to a type entirely 
 
 Difference different from that of the Biblical miracles. The 
 difference is not one of degree but of kind. They do 
 not admit of comparison but of contrast. 
 
 evidence (/;) The mcdiseval miracles do not possess such 
 
 external and . . . 
 
 internal, evidence, either external or internal, as that on which 
 
CONCLUSIONS. 379 
 
 we rest our faith in the Bibhcal miracles. As to the 
 internal evidence it is such as compels us to ascribe 
 them, or the tales respecting them, to man and not to 
 God. 
 
 {c) The mediaeval miracles cannot claim to be ^^^.The^^^^ 
 in succession to the gospel miracles. They are not ^"j^'^^^^';°'p\[° 
 in any true sense a continuation of those " signs and miracles, 
 wonders " which attended the steps of the Incarnate 
 Christ and which attested the authority of His Apostles. 
 There is a gulf between them, somewhat in time but 
 more in character. 
 
 (d) The conclusions to which we are led with Jhe credi- 
 
 ^ ' -11 bility of the 
 
 reference to the medieval miracles do not m the least Bible 
 
 , .^., ,. , . , ^-.j miracles 
 
 affect the credibility of the Biblical mn-acles. VV e not 
 have seen that the legends which either superstition 
 or imposture gathered around the names of Abraham 
 and Moses only serve to assure us of the strictly his- 
 torical character of the Biblical records touching these 
 men. Even so and in like manner the mediaeval Rather 
 
 connrmeu. 
 
 follies, bearing the name of miracles, whatever their 
 origin — superstition, imposture, or possibly in some 
 instances, innocent misunderstanding — help us to see 
 that the miracles of the Gospels must be traced to a 
 higher and purer source. The two classes of miracles 
 do not come from the same fountain. 
 
 If it be still asked why miracles should not be The great 
 
 end acconi- 
 
 performed now as of old, I can only say what has piished. 
 already been said in substance, that the great end 
 which they were designed to accomplish has been 
 accomplished. It was not for their own sakes alone 
 that Abraham and Jacob and Moses heard those 
 words and saw those sights which are recorded in 
 the Bible. It was for the sake of all the world and 
 of all time. These men, and others, were instru- 
 
3 So HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 The purpose mcnts for the education of mankind. The greatest 
 "^nLtfon^ac"' Hiiracle which the Bible asserts, and which the 
 compiished. ^yQ^\^ has Seen, was the Incarnation of God in the 
 person of Christ. But for the purposes of that miracle 
 it was not necessary that Jesus Christ should remain 
 on the earth to the end of the world, that He should 
 be seen by the eyes of every human being, that He 
 should continue to work signs and wonders in attesta- 
 tion of His claim to be obeyed and worshipped as the 
 Son of God. The end of His mission was accom- 
 plished when He died and rose again. And it was fit 
 that He should return to His glory, and, still Incarnate, 
 should rule the world from His invisible throne. To 
 make miracles universal and perpetual was not 
 necessary. Christ said : " If they hear not Moses and 
 the prophets neither will they be persuaded though 
 one rose from the dead." Much more may we say : 
 " If men hear not Christ and His Apostles, neither 
 would they be persuaded if one rose from the dead." 
 
( 381 ) 
 
 CHAPTER IX. = 
 
 THE BIBLICAL BOOKS INSPIRED : AND IN WHAT SENSE. 
 
 We have already indicated an important distinction 
 between Revelation and Inspiration. Popularly, the inspiration 
 term Inspiration covers all that is meant by Revela- 
 tion, as when it is said that the Bible is the Inspired 
 word of God. Using the term more exactly, we 
 regard it as denoting the Divine guidance by and 
 under which the writers recorded the Revelations 
 they had received, and other things which needed 
 no Revelation, because they might be known without 
 Revelation — things, however, which were in close 
 relation with the stream of Revelation, and which 
 it was important to record. Using the term thus, we Applies to 
 
 • • • J r it- • writers and 
 
 may speak of the writers as inspired, or ot trieir writing. 
 writmgs as inspired, — the writers Divinely guided, 
 the writings the fruit of that Divine guidance — the 
 guidance not being such ordinary guidance as devout 
 men may expect to receive in answer to prayer, but 
 such special guidance as gave Divine authority to 
 the writing. Such inspiration was not confined to 
 writing. Scripture connects it as well with the 
 spoken words of prophets and apostles. 
 
 The arguments of the preceding chapters have ^^If^J^^^;;^ 
 shown, if they are true, that there are many signs of proved. 
 
382 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 the Superhuman in the Teachings of the Old Testa- 
 ment ; in the supernatural events recorded in them — 
 apart from any external evidence by which their truth 
 may be proved, — and in prophecies which have 
 certainly been fulfilled, notably the continuous 
 prophecy of redemption and a Redeemer which 
 was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. We have now to speak 
 of the Book in which the Revelations of God to man, 
 and related matters, have been recorded, luith reference 
 to its Inspiratio7i, or its claim to have been written by 
 a special Divine guidance. 
 
 Inspiration This claim is distinctly asserted by two Apostles. 
 Apostles. When Peter says that " the prophecy came not in old 
 
 2 Pet. 1. 21. j-;^-,g ]-,y i^iig ^^,jjj qC y^^T^ ^ i^ut holy men of God spake 
 
 as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," his reference 
 Ver.20. is expressly to the "Scripture" which contained the 
 
 2 Tim. Hi. prophecy. The Apostle Paul says, " All Scripture is 
 given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for 
 doctrine, etc." The Revised Version translates thus : 
 
 All Scrip- " Every Scripture inspired of God is also profitable, 
 ^^' etc.;" putting in the margin, "Every Scripture is 
 inspired of God and profitable, etc." Whichever 
 version we accept, the Apostle cannot be understood 
 to say that there is some scripture which is not 
 inspired, for he had immediately before spoken of 
 " the holy Scriptures," the entire collection of writings 
 known as such by the Jews, and universally regarded 
 as Divine. If the new translation be accepted, the 
 force of it must be, " Every scripture being inspired is 
 profitable." The inspiration is assumed if not asserted. 
 
 Theories not We need not concern ourselves with definitions or 
 
 needed. .... 
 
 theories of Inspiration. Many of the controversies 
 which have been waged around the terms " verbal " 
 and "plenary" might have been settled if the com- 
 
THEORIES OF INSPIRATION. 383 
 
 batants had understood each other, and had penetrated 
 through words and forms of speech to the substance 
 of the thin^. The strongest maintainers of Verbal what is and 
 
 is not meant 
 
 Inspiration have not supposed that the writers of by 
 
 „ . . , . "verbal." 
 
 bcnpture were mere amanuenses, usmg their pens 
 mechanically, and writing, without a living intellectual 
 action of their own, at the dictation of an external 
 voice or power. While the deniers of a Verbal 
 Inspiration — -believing in the Revelations to be 
 recorded as Divine, and other matters connected 
 with these Revelations as important — can scarcely 
 hold that the writers were left entirely to their own 
 judgment as to how they should record them. 
 
 The maintainers of a "plenary" Inspiration mean by what is and 
 that term that the Inspiration of Scripture covers all '^ "°b™ ^" 
 the contents of the Bible, and not merely those which ^ ^"^^^y- 
 are distinctively religious or moral, so far at least as 
 to preserve them from error in any part ; while those 
 who admit only a partial Inspiration will find it diffi- 
 cult to say where the Inspiration begins, or where it 
 ends. If they say that Inspiration belongs only to the 
 moral and religious teaching of the Bible, they will 
 find that this teaching is so embedded in the historical 
 that the two cannot be separated ; and error in the 
 historical will scarcely leave the teaching untainted. 
 On the other hand, if the maintainers of a plenary 
 Inspiration insist that every chapter of the Bible is 
 equally important, and that, for example, the Book of 
 Esther is as much or as certainly the work of the 
 Spirit of God as the Gospel by John, they only involve 
 the whole doctrine of Inspiration in discredit, 
 
 The substance of the truth contended for by those 
 who believe in the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures 
 may be secured without any of the objections which 
 are taken to that term as often understood. Thus — 
 
384 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 It is often said that there are human elements as 
 well as Divine in the Bible, and the impression 
 produced by this form of expression is that the Bible 
 resembles the image in the dream of the King of 
 
 Da7i. a. 33. Babylon, whose feet were part of iron and part of clay ; 
 that it is a composite book, partly true and partly 
 false; Divine wisdom mingled with what is at least 
 merely human and imperfect. In opposition to this 
 form of statement, with this possible construction of 
 
 All Human it, ouv Contention is that the Bible is all humafi and all 
 
 and all t-. • • 
 
 Divine. DlVinC. 
 
 It is all human. To begin with — 
 Written by i. Evcry part of it has been written by human 
 
 human . . 
 
 hands, hands, and, m bemg so written, has passed through 
 
 Dan. xii. 8. human minds. Revelations which were imperfectly 
 
 ^ '^12!' '° understood by those who received them, have still 
 
 come to us through the human mind and by the 
 
 human pen. 
 
 Human 2. The writcrs freely employed ordinary common 
 
 speech, modes of speech. They wrote in prose and in poetry. 
 They used parable, simile, apostrophe, alliteration, 
 even artificial acrostic. They indulged in playfulness, 
 irony, or sarcasm, as occasion suggested or required. 
 All this may be said to be very human — it is entirely 
 after the manner of man. 
 individu- 3. The writers moreover left the impress of their 
 
 writers, own individuality on their writings. The differences 
 between them are as marked as the differences be- 
 tween other writers. And the differences concern the 
 thinking, within certain limits, as well as the style. 
 This is true of the Old Testament and of the New 
 alike. We can scarcely imagine an Amos or an Ezekiel 
 or a Malachi writing as did Isaiah. Every one wrote 
 in a style which distinguishes him from every other. 
 So with Paul and Peter and John : with one Christ and 
 
THE BIBLE ALL HUMAN. ^ 385 
 
 one Gospel, each of them had a style of his own and 
 a standpoint of his own. We can scarcely imagine 
 Paul writing the Epistles of John, or John writing the 
 Epistles of Paul. All this is perfectly human. 
 
 4. The Bible historians compiled and composed ^j,g'^*'j|fJJ[^ 
 their histories just like other historians. When they like other 
 
 -' history. 
 
 did not possess a personal knowledge of the events 
 which they recorded, they sought other means of in- 
 formation. This is expressly stated of himself by the 
 author of the third Gospel, who tells us that he " traced Luke i. 3, 
 
 Revised 
 
 the course of all things accurately from the first, as Version. 
 
 they were delivered to him and to others by those who 
 
 had been eyewitnesses and were ministers of the word. 
 
 And in Kings and Chronicles there is constant 2 chron. xn. 
 
 ^ . 15 ; xni. 22 ; 
 
 reference to the contemporary annals of the Kmgs of xx. 34 ; 
 Judah and Israel, and to the books of various seers j.-^»z: 22- 
 and prophets on whose authority the history was ^ ^"' ■^ ' 
 based. All this, again, is quite human. It is what the 
 historians of Greece and Rome did, and what modern 
 historians do to this day. In fact in no other way 
 could history be written, unless its events were super- 
 naturally revealed. 
 
 5. In another way the Bible may be described as FuUof 
 human— in that it is full of human experiences. It exp"rknces. 
 may be called a history of man — man sinless, man 
 
 fallen, man redeemed. And it is a history of many 
 men, in many ages, in many conditions ; men good, 
 bad, and indifferent • men sunk in sin, and men rising 
 to high excellence ; men fleeing from God, and men 
 seeking after God. It is a perfect mirror of man, and 
 reveals man to himself. It is instinct with the heart 
 of man, and speaks to the heart of man. There is no 
 other book so human. 
 
 Do not 
 
 The Bible, then, we say, is all human. And m detract from 
 saying this we do not detract from its excellence, we lency. 
 
386 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 rather set forth its excellence. We often say that men 
 are fitter missionaries of God's grace to their fellows 
 than angels could be. And, in the same way, this 
 Human Bible is a far fitter and more effective embodi- 
 ment of the story of God's grace than a Bible such as 
 angels might have written, or such as would-be-wise 
 men would construct, on what they would proudly 
 call philosophical principles, and in a style worthy of 
 God. 
 Analogy There is a noticeable analogy between the Bible and 
 
 B?bk^and it^s t^iG Apostlcs, as described by themselves. " We are 
 
 authors, j^^j^ ^j- |jj^g passious [or nature] with you," Paul said to 
 
 the people of Lycaonia, who would have worshipped 
 
 7a«/«z/. 17. him and his companion. James says that the great 
 prophet "Elijah was a man of like passions [or nature] 
 
 2 Cor. iv. 7. with us." Paul says, "We have this treasure [the trea- 
 sure of " the gospel," v. 3] in earthen vessels, that the ex- 
 cellency of the power may be of God and not of us." I 
 shall not call the Bible an earthen vessel, lest it should 
 be interpreted as a term of disparagement. But, as the 
 bearer of God's gospel to us, there is an analogy 
 between it and the living apostolic bearers of that 
 gospel to the world. They were inspired and spoke 
 J Cor. n. with authority : still they were only men, and spoke 
 ' ^' with the tongues of men and not of angels, adding 
 nothing to the power of their message by excellency of 
 speech or of wisdom. In this respect the Book w^hich 
 contains the writings of prophets and apostles is like 
 them, that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of 
 
 1 Cor. a. 5. men, but in the power of God. 
 
 But if the Book is all human in the sense which we 
 have explained — 
 
 All Divine // is Ukewisc all Divine. All its parts come to us 
 * Human, with a Divinc seal and sanction, and are profitable for 
 
THE BIBLE ALL DIVINE. 387 
 
 the ends for which they were severally designed, and for The 
 the common end of the whole. For those who ac- ^"chHsL ° 
 knowledge the authority of Christ and His Apostles, the 
 proof of this position is very simple. We have only ^ .The 
 
 . . ,^11 Scriptures m 
 
 to prove that the books which constitute our Old Testa- the time of 
 ment were all included in "the Scriptures" to which 
 Christ and His Apostles appealed as Divinely authori- 
 tative. This has been proved, and is admitted as an 
 historic fact, with scarce an exception, by critics of all 
 schools. As to the books which record the life of Christ 
 Himself, and contain the writings of the Apostles 
 whom He commissioned to preach His Gospel to the 
 world, the proof of their genuineness is sufficient proof 
 of their Divine authority to those who believe in Christ 
 Himself Assuming that the writings of the New Testa- 
 ment are the works of those whose Divine commission 
 was attested by sensible miracles, we may appeal to the 
 fact that they claim to speak in the name of Him by 
 whom their mighty works were wrought. The reality of i Pet. l 12 ; 
 a Divine Inspiration of the Apostles is clearly assumed Gai.i.\°,' 
 in the New Testament. If they w^ere themselves but i /-/Jj.'^v. s. 
 " earthen vessels," they were entrusted by God Himself 
 with a treasure that was not earthen but heavenly. 
 
 But let us look at the matter from another stand- Another 
 point, that to which the argument of this book has ^'^" ^°'"'' 
 brought us. We are now entitled to assume, argu- 
 mentatively, that the alleged Revelations contained in 
 the Bible are genuine, and that the supernatural com- 
 munications with men recorded in the Bible are true. 
 In proof of this we have appealed mainly to internal 
 evidence. Assuming it to be proved, we are entitled The record 
 to argue that the record of Divine Revelations and tions nof left 
 communications could not be left to the peradventure of '°of m'^aivr^ 
 man's wisdom and care. The historians of the super- '^^'^'^°™- 
 
388 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 natural in the Old Testament could not have been left 
 to themselves as to whether they should record it, or 
 how they should record it. Find in the histories as much 
 of the human as you will — human feelings, human forms 
 of speech, everything like ordinary human composition 
 — only admit the truth of the substance, it is impossible, 
 in view of the importance of that substance, to suppose 
 that He who so marvellously, so righteously, so 
 graciously revealed Himself, should leave the record 
 of His revelations to the uncertainties of a merely 
 human authorship. We are thus led to the conclusion 
 of a Divine as well as a human authorship. 
 The entire Divine authorship we regard as covering the entire 
 Th"e Book.^ contents of the Book. " In every portion of Scripture 
 J E_ Dwi- froni Genesis to Revelation," says an able American 
 '"'''nJI'" writer, "we find time marks, race marks, human-per- 
 ^Y'r " sonality marks, betraying its human relationship ; but 
 and in 'the none the less there are God marks there also, showing 
 and' that in both elements, the formal and the vital,it is the 
 EvZt'gdlcai Book of God. He chose to give it through man, and 
 jc^.^L. in a way to put it in a living union with man at the 
 time. His thought seemed to lay itself down on an 
 elect mind, here and there, now and then, during the 
 inspirational ages, to grasp it, qualify it, co-work with 
 it, enter into vital oneness with it ; and so these two 
 agencies, the Divine and the human, took together the 
 desired step in advance in giving that section of reve- 
 The duality lation to mankind. Thus man is in the inner and 
 "liui, ^f ' outer Bible ; and God also is there, from centre to 
 mechanical, circumfcrencc. Dual as the Book is in its nature, its 
 duality is not mechanical but vital, like all other vital 
 things. The two portions are not joined together like 
 dead branches and a living tree, but more as soul and 
 body. You cannot travel through it, and mechani- 
 cally toss asunder the two interblended elements, any 
 
MORE THAN REVELATION IN THE BIBLE. 389 
 
 more than you can pass through it and say, 'These 
 portions are put here by inspiration, and those without 
 it.' We Hke that view of inspiration according to which 
 two spirits are regarded as having been present and 
 active when all the parts, all the sentences and words, 
 too, if you please, were born into the record — God's 
 and man's, — in dynamic union, each in its freedom and 
 integrity, neither overlaid and crushed nor crowded 
 out by the other. So, in the blending of the formal 
 and the vital in scripture, each in a sense rests on 
 the other, and neither can be spared from the other. 
 They hold each other up, and so constitute the indi- 
 visible and imperishable Word to mankind— the letter 
 and the spirit." 
 
 We have argued that, admitting the reality of 
 Divine Revelations in the Bible, there must have been 
 a Divine guidance to secure a correct record of them. 
 But it will be observed that there is a great deal more More in the 
 in the Bible than the record of Revelations, and the direct record 
 record of the direct teachings of Inspired men. And uons-what 
 it may be asked whether Inspiration covers that " great °^'^^*- 
 deal more." The difficulty thus suggested may be 
 met as follows : — 
 
 I. God's Revelations to men are inseparably con- Connected 
 nected with the history of the men to whom they s'^naiand 
 were given, and, in the case of the chosen nation, hfstoJy. 
 with the history of that nation. Hence a history 
 of the Revelations, to be complete and intelligible, 
 must be a history of the men and of the nation, with, 
 ofttimes, incidental histories of associated circum- 
 stances. A bare record of Divine words spoken, and 
 of supernatural works wrought, separated from the 
 history of times and men and peoples, would make 
 a very different Bible from that which we have. Very 
 
390 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 different in two respects : first, it would lack the 
 extraordinary power which our Bible has to interest, 
 Extraordi- iniprcss, and instruct. Imagine the history of God's 
 "oTmuTresT dealings with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Samuel, David, 
 ^tion"thuT' ^J^d others, written in this fashion, and you feel at 
 gained, gncc that it would fail, not only in human interest, but 
 in spiritual power. Then, in the next place, a history 
 so written — a Divine history, you may call it, but not 
 rooted in the common history of man — would lack the 
 evidence of its truthfulness, which Bible history as it 
 is possesses. It would be rash to say that isolated 
 tales of Divine interventions might not approve them- 
 increased selves as genuine by their very character. But they 
 genuineness, would lose immensely by their isolation from contem- 
 poraneous history. When we find the Divine mani- 
 festations recorded in the Bible, not only associated 
 with the lives of men and with the fortunes of a people, 
 but interwoven with them, forming an integral and 
 essential part of them, we have means of testing their 
 genuineness which could be had in no other way. 
 Hence the necessity and the utility of those personal 
 memoirs and historical annals which form so large a 
 portion of our Bible. 
 Temporary 2. It must be remembered that the various portions 
 
 object of . . , . , . 
 
 some of scripture had an mimediate, and, m some respects, 
 
 por ions. ^ temporary object in view. The prophets all minis- 
 
 jPet.i.ii, tered to their own times. Searching, as we are told 
 
 Revised . . 
 
 Version, they did, " what tmie or what manner of tune, the Spirit 
 of Christ which was in them did point unto, when it 
 testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the 
 glories that should follow them," they were, like Noah, 
 preachers of righteousness to their contemporaries. 
 This appears on the very face of all their writings, 
 which have to do immediately much more with their 
 permaifent. own age than with succeeding ages. Consequently, 
 
THE LEVITICAL RITUAL. 
 
 391 
 
 in these writings we may find local colouring and 
 temporary precepts, but yet very little which, in its 
 principles and moral bearings, is not as true and 
 important now as it ever was. The loss of the pro- 
 phetic writings, even without taking into account their 
 predictive elements, would be simply immeasurable. 
 
 It is in the Levitical ritual and certain national 
 institutions of the Jews that we find, for the most 
 part, the temporary. But what a gap, in the history 
 of the Divine education of the race and of the Church, 
 the omission to preserve a permanent record of these 
 would create ! Not only would the subsequent history 
 of the Jewish nation be unintelligible, but Chris- 
 tianity itself would lose all the light thrown on it by 
 the Epistle to the Hebrews. Its character, as the 
 perfected development of successive age-long dispen- 
 sations, requires that we should know what these dis- 
 pensations were. The Book of Leviticus, and other 
 scriptures like it, cannot therefore be regarded as only 
 of temporary importance. They are of permanent 
 interest and utility. They are by no means obsolete, 
 and devout students find in them spiritual nourishment 
 even to this day. 
 
 Levitical 
 
 ritual. 
 
 Even here 
 
 permanent 
 
 interest. 
 
592 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The limits of this Handbook have necessitated a 
 very brief setting forth of arguments which otherwise 
 should have been greatly expanded, and the omission 
 of not a few old arguments which have lost none of 
 their cogency. Two of these may be mentioned. 
 Leslie's First, the old argument of ^^ Leslie's Short Method 
 
 Method/' '^•■"'^'^^'^ ^/'^ Deists." The argument of Leslie rests on 
 the peculiarity of Christian evidence, by which the 
 truth of Christianity is indissolubly connected with 
 matters of fact which could originally be judged of 
 by the senses, and also upon the fact that there exist 
 in the Church to this day certain institutions com- 
 
 The object mcmorative of those facts. The object of Leslie was 
 to show, from the very nature of the case, apart from 
 written testimony, that the matters of fact stated could 
 not have been received at the time unless they were 
 true, and that the observances could never have origi- 
 nated except in connection with these facts. 
 
 Then, the argument from the conversioti of Saul of 
 
 Published Tars2ts IS as good as ever. Lord Lyttelton's book on the 
 
 ^.z*. 1747. subject was described by Dr. Johnson a^ "a treatise 
 to which infidelity has never been able to fabricate 
 a specious answer." Modern attempts to account for 
 
 of his 
 argument 
 
THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. 393 
 
 the circumstances in which Saul became a Christian, 
 without the admission of their supernatural character, 
 have been equally unsuccessful. The truthfulness and 
 honesty of Paul are admitted. And it is equally cer- 
 tain, though some may affect to doubt it, that he was 
 no enthusiast. A more sober-minded man has never See Paiey 
 lived. " Neither the temper nor the opinions of a man "'ton, on kn 
 subject to fanatical delusions can be found" in his "^ quoted hi 
 writings. The naturalistic explanation which ascribes Re^Vrrec- 
 his conversion to a hallucination, leads to a iumble i^onofjesus 
 
 ' ■> Llirist an 
 
 of guesses most of which are belied by the known Historical 
 
 ° . ^ Fact,' 
 
 facts. He mistook the occurrences of a thunderstorm by the 
 for a supernatural address, in articulate speech, to //. 41-43. 
 himself! He mistook a sunstroke for a perception Absurd 
 
 . , . - , , . , naturalistic 
 
 of Christ ! And this, fool though he was, is the man explanation. 
 that turned the world upside down ! 
 
 Even Baur, in his later days, became convinced of Baur's 
 the insufficiency of the naturalistic solution, and said 
 that "neither psychological nor dialectical analysis can 
 explore the mystery of the act in which God revealed 
 to him His Son." " In his sudden transformation 
 from the most vehement adversary into the most 
 resolute herald of Christianity, we can see," says Baur, 
 "nothing short of a miracle." Keim, a man of the Keim. 
 same school, affirms the objective reality of the 
 manifestation of Jesus to Paul. " The whole character 
 of Paul ; his sharp understanding, which was not 
 weakened by his enthusiasm ; the careful, cautious, 
 measured form of his statement ; above all, the 
 favourable total impression of his narrative, and the 
 mighty echo of it in the unanimous, uncontradicted 
 faith of Christendom " are the considerations on which 
 Keim rests his belief 
 
 The Supernatural in the Bible is, we have endea- 
 
 2 D 
 
394 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 voiircd to show, its oivn witness. They who reject it, 
 not they who accept it, are the credulous people. 
 To disbelieve the Divine origin of Christianity, as 
 Archbishop Whately has pointed out, is to believe its 
 human origin. Now let the man who believes in its 
 human origin, endeavour honestly to account for all 
 that has been advanced in our Second Part respecting 
 Christ, and in this Third Part respecting the Divine 
 Book which contains the story of Christ and of earlier 
 revelations, on purely naturalistic principles ; let him 
 try to account for all on the hypothesis that it was and 
 is all " of man," and not " from heaven : " and he will 
 find that, so far as argument and reason are concerned, 
 the difficulty of not believing in its Divine origin is 
 logically infinitely greater than the difficulty of believing. 
 Still there are who demand more evidence. "If 
 God has made it possible for man to discover re- 
 ligious truth," it has been said, " He must have 
 written it as with a sunbeam, it must have been 
 discovered at a glance." But why should this be 
 Prov. Hi. assumed ? An ancient said that the merchandise of 
 '*' '^' wisdom "is better than the merchandise of silver, and 
 the gain thereof than fine gold. She is more precious 
 than rubies, and all the things thou canst desire are 
 not to be compared unto her." The same ancient 
 Prov. a. said, " If thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up 
 thy voice for understanding ; if thou seekest her as 
 silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures ; then 
 shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find 
 the knowledge of God." This may be called common 
 No good sense ; it is after the analogy of things. The gold 
 Tabour! ^ud silver, the iron and copper, which are so essential 
 to civilized life, are not found at our doors to be 
 picked up at our leisure and at our pleasure ; and men 
 do not grudge the toil and peril of searching for them. 
 
 3-s- 
 
THE DEMANDS OF AN ATHEIST. 395 
 
 and digging them out of the bowels of the earth. Our 
 daily bread is obtained only by labour ; learning is 
 acquired only by labour; nothing worth having becomes 
 ours without labour ; and that which is best worth 
 having usually costs us the greatest labour. Why 
 should it be assumed that religious truth, the most 
 precious and important of all acquisitions, should be Scc Part 
 thrust into our hand, or poured into our ear, without ^^^ ' 
 trouble or inquiry ? 
 
 The evidence, external and internal, historical and 
 experimental, which sustains the claim of the Biblical 
 Faith to a Supernatural origin, has been sufficient 
 to satisfy myriads of inquisitive and intelligent men. 
 And those who demand more or other evidence, See Part 
 should tell us plainly what they want. Many years pp. 59, 60. 
 ago, the author found himself sitting side by side with 
 an avowed Atheist. " I will not believe in God," this An atheist's 
 man said oftener than once, " till He owns Himself." 
 God must make Himself visible and stand before His 
 creature, and tell him with His own lips that He is, 
 and what He is ! He may have done so a thousand its presump- 
 times already in past ages, or to a thousand other 'foUy? 
 persons in this age, and the witnesses may have given 
 such testimony as no sane person can reject, but this 
 doubter puts them all aside, and says, " Except I see 
 Him with my own eyes, and hear Him with my own 
 ears, I will not believe." 
 
 Thus do we find the sceptic's demand for more evi- 
 dence echoed by the unlearned in a form which shows 
 its true character. " If they hear not Moses and the 
 prophets," said Christ, "neither will they be persuaded 
 though one rose from the dead." But even the resur- Even a 
 rection of one from the dead would not satisfy my tion""vmdd 
 fellow-traveller, nor would the resurrection of a "°' suffice. 
 thousand, if the fact depended on the testimony of 
 
396 
 
 HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES. 
 
 See Part 
 First, 
 
 La Place's 
 telescope. 
 
 Ps. cxxxix. 
 7-10. 
 
 Others. And even if he saw it with his own eyes, 
 he would find some means of accounting for it. Rather 
 than accept it as a true miracle, a true work of God, 
 he would credit any dream, any absurdity, that should 
 declare it a juggle and a delusion. 
 
 How shall God "own Himself" so as to make 
 Himself irresistibly known and confessed ? How shall 
 the Invisible God make Himself visible, and make it 
 certain that it is indeed God ? We have already shown 
 the impossibility of a satisfactory answer to this ques- 
 tion. The demand is that the Great God should do 
 as we list, — and if He does not, we declare in our 
 pride that we shall not believe in Him. The worm 
 despising the giant, whose one tread would put it out 
 of existence, is nothing to the presumption of the man 
 who says, " I will not believe in God till He owns 
 Himself" 
 
 Surely this is a very reditctio ad ahsurduvi. But not 
 more so than the saying of La Place, that " no God 
 could be seen within the range of his telescope." One 
 can scarcely give the philosopher credit for a moment's 
 belief, that the failure of his telescope to discover God 
 in the material universe furnished the most shadowy 
 presumption against the Divine existence. His words, 
 addressed to an assembly of atheists, might excite a 
 vulgar cheer, but could not impose even on their 
 reason. Neither telescope nor microscope could 
 bring within the range of La Place's vision the human 
 mind which conceived and constructed either, any 
 more than it could the Maker of heaven and earth. 
 Truer, and more philosophic, are the words of an 
 ancient : " Whither shall I go from Thy Spirit ? or 
 whither shall I flee from Thy presence ? If I ascend 
 up into heaven. Thou art there ; if I make my bed in 
 hades, behold, Thou art there. If I take the wings 
 
BISHOP BUTLER ON EVIDENCE. 397 
 
 of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of 
 
 the sea; even there shall Thy hand lead me, and 
 
 Thy right hand shall hold me." And they are right 
 
 who have discoursed eloquently on the impossibility Such a. 
 
 of finding, in the wide universe, a spot where the foot- -^"and^Dn^" 
 
 step of the Creator does not reveal His presence. Chalmers. 
 
 The desire for more evidence is very natural, and 
 sometimes very honest, but those who are hindered 
 by it in their search after truth, and who are pained 
 because it is not to be had, should see in these 
 extreme forms of it its essential unreasonableness. 
 And they should not forget, as Bishop Butler con- 
 tends, that "the evidence of religion not appearing 
 obvious, may constitute one particular part of some 
 men's trial in the religious sense, as it gives scope 
 for a virtuous exercise, or vicious neglect, of their 
 understanding in examining or not examining into 
 that evidence." 
 
 We fall back on the principle already laid down, 
 that it is not for us to prescribe to God hoiu He will 
 reveal Himself, but reverendy to inquire whether He 
 has or has not revealed Himself in any way. His 
 foolishness, we may be sure, is wiser than our wisdom. 
 And the survey which we have taken of the signs of 
 the Superhuman in our Scriptures justifies the con- 
 viction that He has revealed Himself "at sundry 
 times and in divers manners," all of them worthy of 
 Him and adapted to man; and that, chief of all, 
 He has "declared" Himself and spoken to us by 
 His Son, who is "the brightness of His glory and the 
 express image of His person." 
 
 A natural 
 desire. 
 
 Part II.. 
 
 Chap. VI. 
 
 Moral 
 discipline. 
 
 Sec Part 
 
 First, 
 pp. T, 8. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Abbott's "Through Nature to Christ," 222 
 Agnosticism, remarks on, 17, 18, 63 
 Anthropomorphism, Dr. Carpenter on, 67 
 
 the true and the false, 66 
 
 Arnold, Dr. Thomas, on the miracles of Christ, 22i 
 
 Astronomy, argument from, 45 
 
 Atheism, bald, verj' rare, 15 
 
 Atoms, Sir Edmund Beckett on, 42, 43 
 
 suppositions regarding, 41 
 
 Attributes, Divine goodness and righteousness, 73-76 
 
 infinitude of Divine, 68, 69 
 
 unity of the Deity, 70 
 
 Babylon, miracles in, 341, 342 
 Beckett, Sir Edmund, on probabilities, 4 
 Bible miracles, internal evidence of, 328-35! 
 — — not a miscellany, 277 
 
 • specialities of, 267-269 
 
 teaching, by a succession of men, 297 
 
 development of, 306-312, 316-322 
 
 respecting man, 313-315 
 
 without parallel, 299 
 
 of the. Superhuman, 280-315 
 
 Book-revelation, objection to, 270 
 Buddhism atheistic ? 25, 300 
 
 Max Miiller and Conder on, 106 
 
 Burning Bush, miracle of, 339 
 Bushnell on Christ, 171 
 Butler, object of the "Analogy," 14 
 on probability, 4 
 
 Carpenter, Dr., on anthropomorphism, 67 
 
 on will-force, 82 
 
 Channing on credibility of miracles, 86, 87 
 Christ certified by His miracles, 196-223 
 
400 INDEX. 
 
 Christ certified by His resurrection, 224-246 
 
 eulogia by unbelievers, 153, 154 
 
 evidence from Paul's letters, 145-149 
 
 from the Apocalypse, 149-151 
 
 facts related by Tacitus, 126, 127 
 
 His absolute superiority to all others, 154, 155 
 
 His marvellous self-assertion, 141-143 
 
 His perfect sinlessness, 1 56-158 
 
 His words not the accretions of a later age, 144 
 
 no deceiver, 143 
 
 not self-deceived, 143 
 
 Christ, portrait of, argument from unity of the fourfold biography, 
 166 
 
 arguments for reality of, 160-164 
 
 G. Matheson on its originality, 164-166 
 
 who could embody the idea in action? 169-172 
 
 of a consciously Superhuman man, 158-160 
 
 • true or imaginaiy ? 160 
 
 the character formed by imitation of, 251-254 
 
 the gospel portraiture of, internal evidence of its reality, 
 
 152-172 
 
 the moral teaching of, 247-251 
 
 the testimony of prophecy, 173-195 
 
 where find His true history, 131 
 
 who and what He was, 140-151 
 
 Cities of the Plain, 338 
 
 Coleridge on universal beliefs, 86 
 
 Conclusion to which we are shut up, 8-1 1 
 
 Conder, E., on Buddhism, 106 
 
 Confucius, Dr. Legge on, 25 
 
 Conscience in mythology, by J. S. Blackie, 56 
 
 the regal power, 55 
 
 Creation of man, 331-334 
 
 of the material universe, 328-331 
 
 of woman, 334-336 
 
 Christianity, early successes of, 254-260 
 
 effects of, 260-263 
 
 Christians in time of Pliny the Younger, 129, 130 
 
 Deists of the eighteenth century, 14 
 Deluge, in tradition and in the Bible, 336-338 
 Demonstration, when possible, 5, lOO, loi 
 Design, books on, 114 
 
 objection to some forms of the argument, 48 
 
 old argument from, 46 
 
 Socrates, Cicero, Kant, etc., on, 46, 47 
 
 Development of Bible teaching, 306-312, 316-322 
 Development, corrective and guiding principles, 322-325 
 
 Effect, every, must have a cause, 50, 51 
 
INDEX. 401. 
 
 Egypt, miracles in, 343-347 
 
 Elisha, peculiar miracles of, 367-369 
 
 Evidence, greater, imagined and desired, 7, 394-7 
 
 Howe on the demand for other forms of, 59 
 
 various kinds, 3 
 
 Evil, theories of origin of, 115 
 
 Evolution, Wallace and Virchow, 331, 332 
 
 Eye, human, argument from, defended, 49 
 
 Future state, the Bible on, 292-296 
 
 Godet on Sinlessness of Christ, 157 
 
 Gospels, certified by Irenceus, Justin Martyr, etc., 133-136 
 
 the four, 133 
 
 consistent with one another, 137 
 
 consistent with non-historical documents, 137 
 
 their histories consistent with what is known otherwise, 
 
 137, 138 
 Great men, no explanation of Christ, 162 
 
 Howe, John, on the religious faculty, 27 
 Hume, reply to his argument, 81 
 Huxley on Positivism, 106 
 on the religious sentiment, 27 
 
 Imitation of Christ, character formed by, 251-254 
 Impartiality of Bible historians, 273 
 Infinitude of Divine attributes, 68, 69 
 Introduction, this Handbook not an, 272 
 
 Jevons on probabilities, 4 
 
 Keim on expectation of Messiah, 173 
 
 on the sayings of Christ, 207 
 
 on the conversion of Paul, 393 
 
 Lecky on effects of Christianity, 260 
 Legends about Abraham, 364-366 
 
 Moses, 366, 367 
 
 Legge on Confucius, 25 
 
 on comparative religion, 33 
 
 Loyola, reputed miracles of, 375 
 
 Man, his religious nature, 23-26 
 
 originally not an Atheist, 36 
 
 primitive. Dr. Dawson on American tribes, 37 
 
 Materialism, Hodge and Calderwood on, 104, 105 
 
 in essence Atheistic, 20 
 
 Sir Edmund Beckett on, 19 
 
 Tyndall, 105 
 
402 INDEX. 
 
 Max Mliller on Buddhism, io6 
 
 IMessiah, Christ so regarded by Himself, 174 
 
 generally expected, 173 
 
 Jewish misconception of, iSl 
 
 — — subject of ancient prophecy, 176-179 
 
 the true conception of, realized in Christ, 184-1S8 
 
 Messiahship, ambition of, 158 
 
 ground of Christ's condemnation, 175 
 
 Prebendary Row on, 191-194 
 
 Mill, John S., on the character of Christ, 154 
 
 on the sayings of Christ, 207 
 
 ^Miracle, grand, of prophecy, 353-362 
 
 in reign of Ahab, 348-351 
 
 of Burning Bush, 339 
 
 IMiracles, admission by Renan, 206 
 
 appealed to by Christ, 210 
 
 argument from their style, 206 
 
 Catholic and Christian, 373-380 
 
 cessation of, 326, 370-372, 379 
 
 Channing on credibility of, 87 
 
 character of Christ's, 200 
 
 Christ certified by, 196-223 
 
 connection of, with His teaching, 207 
 
 definition of, 79, 197 
 
 Dr. Thomas Arnold on, 221 
 
 general considerations, 363-380 
 
 general fitness of, 369 
 
 how distinguish true and false, 85 
 
 if legendarj-, what, 363-369 
 
 in Babylon, 341-342 
 
 in Egypt, 343-347 
 
 not a hindrance to faith, 196 
 
 not impossible, 198 
 
 not prodigies, 212 
 
 ■ not wrought at the bidding of men, 21 1 
 
 of healing, 201 
 
 of the Apocr\-phal Gospels, 204 
 
 ■ of the Bible, internal evidence, 328-351 
 
 published to contemporaries, 203 
 
 signs of His Messianic authority, 216 
 
 Messianic dignity, 219 
 
 the narratives tmstworthy, 202 
 
 their harmony with Christ Himself, 210 
 
 Monotheism, Le Page Rcnouf on, in Egypt, 35 
 
 not developed from Polytheism, 34, 36, 37 
 
 Moral argument from our nature, 52-56 
 Moralists, two schools of, 54 
 Mozley on universal belief, 86 
 
 Nature and Bible teaching, 2S1-284 
 
INDEX. 403 
 
 Nature teaching less conclusive than Bible, 2S4-28S 
 
 • teaching supplemented by Bible, 288-296 
 
 transition from, to the Supernatural, 77-88 
 
 what of God known by, 61 -76 
 
 Necessary truths, loi, 102 
 
 Order, argimient from, 43, 112, 113 
 
 McCosh and Hodge on, 44, 45 
 
 Originality of character of Christ, 163-166 
 
 Pantheism, Matthew Arnold's theory of, 64 
 
 various forms, 16, 102, 103 
 
 Personality denied in Pantheism, 16 
 
 Dr. Carpenter on, 66 
 
 of God, nature teaches, 63 
 
 Phoenician worship, 349 
 
 Portraiture of Christ, evidence of its reality, 152-172 
 
 Positivism, fundamental principles of, 20, 21 
 
 Probability the guide of life, 4 
 
 Prophecy, a historical theory of mterpretation, 361-362 
 
 admission of Kuenen, 355 
 
 testimony to Christ, 1 73-1 95 
 
 the grand miracle of, 353-362 
 
 the true hypothesis, 359-360 
 
 what induction from all the facts, 357-360 
 
 what it comprehends, 354 
 
 Providence, anecdote of T. Carlyle, 116 
 
 Religion, comparative, its results, 32, 33, 107 
 
 in men's nature, 23, 26 
 
 not from lower to higher, loS 
 
 proper object of, a person, 30, 31 
 
 universality of, 23, 24, 28 
 
 Renan, false consolation, 97 
 
 on Christ, 17 1 
 
 Resurrection, admitted that Paul believed in it, 225 
 
 Dr. Carpenter on its evidence, 241 
 
 greater evidence would not satisfy doubters, 235 
 
 naturalistic hypotheses respecting, 243-246 
 
 of Christ, 224-246 
 
 ■ other witnesses of, 230-234 
 
 the belief in, dates from its occurrence, 236 
 
 the foundation of the Christian Church, 240 
 
 ■ the means of a revolution in the disciples, 238 
 
 why Christ did not show Himself to enemies, 234 
 
 Revelation and Inspiration distinguished, 275 
 
 argument from questions to be answered, 95, 96 
 
 modern experience, argument from, 91-94 
 
 necessity for, and probability of, 89-99 
 
 the state of Heathendom, argument from, 90 
 
404 INDEX. 
 
 Risen Christ, the, seen by Paul, 226-230 
 Rogers, Henry, on character of Christ, 155 
 Rosseau on character of Christ, 153, 160 
 
 Science and Probabilities, 4 
 
 and Religion, 1 16 
 
 catechism of beliefs, 119-121 
 
 Secularism, allied to Agnosticism, 18 
 
 Semitic Race, not superior to others religiously, 302-306 
 
 Sinlessness of Christ, 156 
 
 Strauss on character of Christ, 153 
 
 Success, early, of Christianity, 254-260 
 
 Supernatural, a universal idea, 34 
 
 definition of, 79 
 
 essential distinction from Natural, 77-79 
 
 probable moral reasons for, 83 
 
 the impossibility of, denied, 80 
 
 the improbability of, denied, 80, 81, 83 
 
 transition from nature to, 77~S8 
 
 Theism, classification of arguments, 109-III 
 Shairp on separate lines of argument, 57 
 
 Unbelief, modern forms of, 12 
 Uniqueness of character of Christ, 160-162 
 Unity of the fourfold biography, 167 
 Universe, origin of material, 39 
 John Howe's argument, 40 
 
 Vedas, the Hindoo, 276 
 Verification in various ways, 5 
 
 Xavier, reputed miracles of, 376-377 
 
 THE END. 
 
 PRINTED UY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, 
 LONDON AND BECCLES. 
 

 1 1012 01010 
 
 865