L-s-l ■’ ',•; • 
 
 ' :'.'^V^*' t-- 
 
 l\xe ^ 
 
 PRIlSrCETON, N. J. 
 
 \ 
 
 er^} Central evidences of 
 
 Christianity 
 
 BT 1101 .C43 
 
 •i ■ 1 ■ - ■', '‘■^<. 
 
Central Evidences 
 
 OF 
 
 Christianity. 
 
 AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY, 
 
 150 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK. 
 
CHRIST THE CENTRAL EVIDENCE OF CHRIS¬ 
 TIANITY. By Principal Cairns .j 
 
 UNITY OF THF CHARACTER OF THE CHRIST OF 
 
 THE GOSPELS. By Prebendary Row . . -45 
 
 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. By 
 
 Prebendary IVace . iii 
 
 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF THE RESURRECTION 
 
 OF JESUS CHRIST. By Prebendary Row. . .165 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES AT THE PRES¬ 
 ENT DA Y. By Principal Cairns . 217 
 
 THE WITNESS OF MAN'S MORAL NATURE TO 
 
 CHRISTIANITY. By Dr. Thomson , . . .263 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2019 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/centralevidencesOOunse 
 
CHRIST 
 
 THE 
 
 Ceiiiial Evidence of Codictiiinitv 
 
 BY 
 
 REY. PRIHCIPAR'^CAIRHS, D. D., 
 
 AUTHOR OF 
 
 “CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES.’* 
 
THE ARGUMENT IN BRIEF. 
 
 - ■ 
 
 I. The Christ of the Gospels is a real person, be¬ 
 cause of the wonderfulness, originality, and unity of 
 the conception of his character, which are admitted by 
 the most eminent unbelievers; because of the harmony 
 of the portraiture found amid all the diversities in the 
 four Gospels; because of the failure of recent attempts 
 to invalidate the historical truth of the Gospels, or 
 produce a new reading of them which commands gen¬ 
 eral acceptance. 
 
 II. The Christ of the Gospels is shown to be the 
 centre and strength of every argument for the truth of 
 Christianity. The miracles of the Old Testament all 
 lead up to him. The success of Christianity is due to 
 him. Prophecy derives all its coherence and signifi¬ 
 cance from him. The adaptation of Christianity is 
 due to him. The argument from the reflection of 
 God’s holiness and love centres in him. 
 
CHRIST 
 
 THE 
 
 Central Evidence of Christianity. 
 
 ■ 4 ' — - 
 
 It is becoming more and more apparent to 
 friend and foe, in the great struggle between 
 Christian faith and doubt, that the key of the 
 position is the person of Christ himself; and that 
 so long as the obvious meaning of the Gospel 
 narrative as to the life, character, and work of 
 that grand central figure can be accepted as 
 ‘ ‘ fact, and not delusion, ’ ^ no weapon lifted 
 against Christianity can prevail. It is a pre¬ 
 sumptive argument of truth in any system to 
 have a centre; and in this tract I propose to show, 
 confining attention chiefly to the four Gospels, that 
 the life of Christ as there exhibited is a reality, 
 and is so fitted to bind all the Christian evidences 
 together as to furnish an additional and indepen¬ 
 dent evidence of the divinity of the Christian 
 faith. 
 
 Our question is twofold: Is THR Christ OR 
 the: Gospres a rrae person ? 
 
8 CHRIST THi; CKNTRAR KVID^NCK 
 
 If SO, HOW DOES THIS CONCENTRATE, AND 
 THUS STRENGTHEN ARE TPIE EVIDENCES OE 
 
 Christianity ? 
 
 I. 
 
 It is not neccessary to go into any other part of 
 the New Testament to find a sufficient answer to 
 the question, what the Gospels really mean by 
 their narratives of Christ’s life and death and res¬ 
 urrection. No doubt most important and precious 
 expositions are, as Christians believe, divinely 
 added. But to the vast majority of Christians, it 
 has ever seemed that the Gospels, not excluding 
 the foregoing light of the Old Testament, are 
 the very fountain-heads of all Christian doctrine, 
 and they are so because they contain the portrait 
 of Christ himself, and his own utterances as to 
 his personal rank and character, and the aim and 
 issue of his earthly mission. The sum of the 
 teaching of Christ’s recorded life and history may 
 be given thus: that we have in him, as man, a 
 perfect and sinless example; that he is truly God 
 as well as man; and that as a Saviour, by his 
 sacrifice on the cross, and other provisions of his 
 redemption, he rescues men from the guilt and 
 power of sin, and restores them to God. 
 
 Deeper statements of Christian theology are 
 not here needed. These are concurred in by the 
 
OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 9 
 
 immense majority of Christians as drawn from 
 and founded on the records of Christ’s own life. 
 Nor by them only, for there are others of no small 
 name, unhappily not themselves Christians, who 
 grant that Christians have not here misinter¬ 
 preted their own records, and that, whether true 
 or false, these are the conceptions of Christ’s per¬ 
 son, character, life, and influence which the 
 writers of these documents intended them to em¬ 
 body. 
 
 It will be granted, to begin with, that these 
 conceptions of a human life, actually realising 
 perfection, nay, embracing an incarnation of God, 
 and thus affording a complete and divinely sanc¬ 
 tioned remedy for moral and spiritual evil, are the 
 most remarkable, simply as conceptions, in all 
 literature. The mere statement of them is enough 
 to relieve us from the charge of vagueness and 
 generality when we speak of the life, character, 
 and work of Christ; we can therefore proceed to 
 the argument of this tract, and show first that 
 these are not mere conceptions, however great, 
 but facts of a true and solid history; and then 
 that all Christian evidence becomes, by this proof, 
 strong with a new strength, and bright with a 
 new light. 
 
 The proof of my first point is more copious 
 than can be fully stated; but the arguments for 
 
lO CHRIST th:^ ckntrar KVIDKNCK 
 
 the historical reality of the life and character of 
 Christ, as indicated, are such as follow: 
 
 I. The historical truth of the Christ of the 
 Gospels is vouched for by its transcendent wonder^ 
 fulness a7td originality. It is not the Christian 
 church only that speaks thus; for even those on 
 its outer verge or beyond its limits give back 
 Christian language here with a strange echo. 
 Rousseau’s picture of Christ-—almost incredible 
 from a man of such life, though he always claimed 
 to be a Christian—is wound up in these words, 
 “The gospel has marks of truth so great, so 
 striking, so perfectly inimitable, that the inven¬ 
 tor of it would be more astonishing than the 
 hero.”* Nor can we say that Rousseau limits 
 himself to the human side of Jesus, for he says, 
 
 ‘ ‘ If the life and death of Socrates are those of a 
 sage, the life and death of Jesus are those of a 
 God.”t 
 
 It is a lower testimony that Mr. Stuart Mill 
 delivers; yet though he takes exception to the 
 proper deity of Jesus, as not claimed even by 
 himself, he grants the originality of his character 
 to be a proof of its historical truth. “Who 
 among the disciples of Jesus or among their pros¬ 
 elytes was capable of inventing the sayings as¬ 
 cribed to Jesus, or of imagining the life and 
 
 ^ Emile^ Book- IV. f Ibid., Book IV. 
 
OF' CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 II 
 
 character revealed in the Gospels ? Certainly not 
 the fishermen of Galilee, as certainly not St. 
 Paul.”* The question then comes back on Mr. 
 Mill, who it was that suggested to the evangel¬ 
 ists the more divine features of Jesus, or those 
 which have led the Christian world to take him 
 for divine. According to Mr. Mill himself, “it 
 is the God incarnate, more than the God of the 
 Jews or of nature, who, being idealised, has taken 
 so great and salutary a hold on the modern 
 mind.”t But if the evangelists could not have 
 invented, as he grants, the human Christ, how 
 much less could they have idealised him into 
 God ? A history which has led the vast majority 
 of readers in all ages to feel that it was more than 
 human, is confessedly beyond human construction. 
 Christian theology itself is baffled when it tries to 
 state in propositions the two natures of Christ, 
 and the relation between them. The decrees of 
 councils and the terms of creeds rather exclude 
 error than grasp truth. Yet here admittedly, in 
 the narratives of the evangelists, the impossible 
 is achieved. The living Christ walks forth, and 
 men bow before him. Heaven and earth unite 
 all through: power with gentleness, solitary great¬ 
 ness with familiar intimacy, ineffable purity with 
 forgiving pity, unshaken will with unfathomable 
 
 Essays on Theism, p. 252. f Ibid., p. 252. 
 
12 
 
 CHRIST THK CJ:nTRAL EVIDENCE: 
 
 sorrow. There is no effort in these writers, but 
 the character rises till it is complete. It is thus 
 not only truer than fiction or abstraction, but truer 
 than all other history, carrying through utterly 
 unimaginable scenes the stamp of simplicity and 
 sincerity, creating what was to live for ever, but 
 only as it had lived already, and reflecting a glory 
 that had come so near, and been beheld so in¬ 
 tently, that the record of it was not only full of 
 ‘ ‘ grace, ’ ’ but of ‘ ‘ truth. ’ ’ 
 
 The unity of the character of Jesus is one of 
 the most singular features in each Gospel narra¬ 
 tive. We apprehend this better when some great 
 and admired writer in going over the same sacred 
 ground falls, so to speak, out of the piece. An 
 instance of this has struck me much in so con¬ 
 summate a master of description as Goethe; and 
 it has struck me all the more that the injury is 
 only done to the Saviour as his character is re¬ 
 flected in his disciples. In the admired Easter 
 scene in the “Faust,” the chorus of angels bring 
 the message of resurrection, and the women take 
 up the language of disappointment, saying that 
 they find Christ no longer here. This may be 
 the result of lingering doubt; but when the mes¬ 
 sage is sounded again by the angels, and taken up 
 by the chorus of disciples, who now accept the 
 fact, their first utterance is one of grief that their 
 
OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 13 
 
 Master is raised to heaven, and they are left to 
 suj0fer below, so that the angels need again to 
 comfort them by the assurance of his continued 
 and invariable presence. Now nothing is less 
 like the Gospel scenes. The disciples suffer there 
 only from the stroke of Christ’s death, and the 
 fear that his rising was too good news to be true. 
 Their sense of joy and of triumph, of joy in, and 
 of triumph with, him, were he but risen indeed, 
 was so great, that no room could possibly have 
 been left, with Christ anywhere, for such lamen¬ 
 tation as Goethe introduces; and thus these art¬ 
 less, unlettered men have drawn a truer Christ 
 than this great genius, with their example before 
 him, and with all Christian literature beside, was 
 able to do. 
 
 2. A seco7id argument for the historical reality 
 of Christ’s life and character is found in the consent 
 of so many separate testimonies. I am not now 
 urging the credibility of the evangelists on the 
 ordinary historical grounds of their nearness to 
 the facts and their integrity as witnesses. These 
 considerations cannot, in their own place, be 
 overestimated ; and the whole strain of recent 
 criticism is in the direction of confirming disputed 
 points of date and authorship. I proceed now, 
 however, rather upon the simple fact that so 
 many separate writers, with visible independence, 
 
14 CHRIST the: central EVIDENCE 
 
 should have drawn essentially the same unpar¬ 
 alleled character. One Gospel is a marvel; what 
 shall we say of four, each with its distinct plan— 
 its enlargements and omissions, its variations even 
 where most coincident, its problems as yet un¬ 
 solved, but always yielding something to fresh 
 inquiry, and only making more manifest the un¬ 
 challengeable oneness and divinity of the history ? 
 The difficulties of the Gospels from divergence are 
 as nothing compared with the impression-made 
 by them all of one transcendent creation; and for 
 my part, if I rejected inspiration, I should have 
 reason to be still more astonished. Some slight 
 mistake could so sadly have impaired perfection— 
 or yet more easily lowered divinity; some careless 
 handling might have deranged the balance at the 
 most critical point, or pulled down the structure 
 in hopeless disaster. Yet, though we see how 
 different the plan of each Gospel is, there is not 
 any such trace of failure. The long discourses / 
 are left out by Mark, but in action his Christ 
 equals that of Matthew. Luke has his own type 
 both of parable and miracle; but the same inimi¬ 
 table figure starts up from all. The sorest trial to 
 the familiar features comes from the fourth Gos¬ 
 pel, without a parable and hardly a miracle like 
 the foregoing, and with so great a flood of novelty, 
 especially towards the end. But the unity in di- 
 
OB' CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 15 
 
 versity is only tlie more marvellous. The Christ 
 of the fourth Gospel is the Word of God; but he 
 is still the Son of man. He utters no Sermon on 
 the Mount; but he still preaches the kingdom of 
 heaven. The sheep scattered abroad find in him 
 still the Good Shepherd. There is no exorcism; 
 but the prince of this world is cast out. There is 
 no transfiguration, but his glory is throughout 
 beheld; no agony in the garden, but his soul is 
 troubled. Mary and Martha reappear, but at¬ 
 tended by Lazarus. He does not say, “This is 
 my body,” but he gives his flesh to eat; and words 
 as heavenly, and in fuller measure, soothe the 
 parting meal. He has the same night watches. 
 He sheds the same tears. He walks the same 
 waters, and ascends up where he was before. His 
 prayer in all the Gospels is intercession—in the 
 last most prolonged and tender. He returns from 
 the grave to breathe the Holy Ghost, and to con¬ 
 nect that name with the Father’s and his own. 
 His presence is the final hope of the earlier Gos¬ 
 pels ; his coming of the last; and the closing 
 charge but repeats all former calls, “ Follow thou 
 Me.” In the view of this vast and stupendous 
 harmony, how small are all objections, as that the 
 scenes in the fourth Gospel lie more in Jerusalem, 
 though this also is met by the word in the other 
 Gospels, “How often would I have gathered you,” 
 
l6 CHRIST THE CENTRAL EVIDENCE 
 
 Matt. 23:37; or that the chronology differs, though 
 the last Gospel really aids us in solving chronologi¬ 
 cal difficulties; or that the style tends more to self- 
 assertion in the face of unbelief, though this is 
 part of the self-revelation that enters into the idea 
 of this Gospel, and is abundantly prefigured in the 
 great denunciation of the Pharisees, and in the 
 sad but lofty utterances of Capernaum, “No man 
 knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom¬ 
 soever the Son will reveal him,” Matt. 11:27, 
 the exact parallel of the intercessory prayer, “O 
 righteous Father, the world hath not known thee; 
 but I have known thee, and these have known 
 that thou hast sent me.” John 17:25. With all 
 these data, then, and many others, of the Gospel 
 records, which are not conjectures but facts, the 
 only rational conclusion is, that they embody 
 reality, the greatest reality ever transacted on the 
 scene of time; that the very diversities so often 
 appealed to as an objection to this conclusion 
 really strengthen it, and prove that writings 
 which can so bring forth the one out of the mani¬ 
 fold have in them not only truth but inspiration; 
 and that the Christian church stands in the centre 
 of all history, divinely planted there, when she 
 still proclaims as from the beginning that Jesus 
 is the Christ—the Son of God. 
 
 3. A third argument, and the last here adduced 
 
OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 17 
 
 by us, in favor of the strict and literal truth of 
 the Gospel views of Christ is the faihu'e of rece 7 tt 
 attempts to set them aside. If the Christ of the 
 evangelists were unhistorical, surely by this time 
 some better reading of the story ought to have 
 been established to the satisfaction of all. But as 
 it is, the simple primitive records keep the field; 
 and every new scheme is only brought to birth to 
 find a speedy extinction. Let me illustrate this 
 by two instances—the modern theories of Christ’s 
 moral excellence, and the alleged origin of super¬ 
 human views of his character and work. 
 
 Take first the modern theories of Chrisfs moral 
 excellence. They have at first a look of great lib¬ 
 erality towards Christ and Christianity, and of 
 almost unexpected concession and homage. Thus 
 says Renan, “This Sublime Person, who daily 
 presides still over the destiny of the world, we 
 may call divine, not in the sense that Jesus ab¬ 
 sorbed all the divine, or, to use a scholastic word, 
 was adequate to it, but in the sense that Jesus is 
 the individual who has made his species take the 
 greatest step towards the divine.” “Jesus is the 
 highest of the pillars that show to man whence 
 he comes and whither he ought to tend. In him 
 is condensed all that is good and exalted in our 
 nature.”* But then mark how all, in harmony 
 
 * “Vie de Jesus,” pp. 457, 458 (nth French edition). 
 
 2 
 
l8 CHRIST THE CENTRAL EVIDENCE 
 
 with rationalism, is qualified. “ He was not im¬ 
 peccable; he has conquered the same passions that 
 we combat; no angel of God comforted him, save 
 his own good conscience; no Satan tempted him, 
 but only that which each carries in his breast.”* 
 Exactly so it is with Strauss. He speaks in 
 his second “Eeben Jesu,” 1864, as if Christ’s 
 teaching in the Sermon on the Mount brought to 
 the world a genial revolution, “like a fertilising 
 rain in spring. ’ ’ f He grants ‘ ‘ that in every re¬ 
 spect Jesus stands in the first line of those who 
 have developed the ideal of humanity,” and “by 
 embodying it in his own person has given it the 
 most living warmth, while the society that pro¬ 
 ceeded from him has secured for this ideal the 
 widest reception among mankind. ”J But he 
 also, like Renan, soon makes exceptions, and 
 speaks of sides of excellence that in Jesus “were 
 only faintly indicated, or not even hinted at.Ӥ 
 We see something, though less, of the same 
 conflict in Mr. John S. Mill. “When this pre¬ 
 eminent genius is combined with the qualities of 
 probably the greatest moral reformer and martyr 
 to that mission who ever existed upon the earth, 
 religion cannot be said to have made a bad choice 
 in pitching upon this man as the ideal represent- 
 
 « “Vie de Jesus,” p. 458 (nth French edition). 
 
 t “ Leben Jesu,” p. 204. J Ibid., p. 625. § Ibid., p. 626. 
 
OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 19 
 
 ative and guide of humanity; nor even now would 
 it be easy even for an unbeliever to find a better 
 translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract 
 to the concrete than to endeavor so to live that 
 Christ would approve our life.”* Mr. Mill is 
 indeed restrained from uttering the same qualifi¬ 
 cations as Renan and Strauss; but they lie in the 
 context of his system, which excludes an abso¬ 
 lutely perfect man as a miracle, just as Mr. Mill 
 takes exception expressly to Jesus as divine. 
 
 Now, without raising the question of divinity, 
 is it not plain that such a moral hero, great but 
 still defective, as these writers have endeavored 
 to substitute for the Christ of the Gospels, is 
 utterly incredible, if the Gospels are to have even 
 so much historical worth as they themselves 
 allow ? What flaw have the evangelists exposed 
 in Christ, so as to have it generally admitted as 
 in the case of the other great men of the Bible ? 
 While the biographers of Christ, with their severe 
 simplicity, do not panegyrise him, it is written 
 on the face of their narrative that they hold him 
 faultless. And what is far more, Christ holds 
 himself so, and refuses to accept the eulogies, 
 even the most gently qualified, that are now 
 heaped upon him. Any noble type of goodness 
 that is still imperfect, is always painfully, exqui- 
 
 * “ Essays on Theism,” p. 255. 
 
20 
 
 CHRIST the: central EVIDENCE 
 
 sitely alive to the imperfection, confesses it before 
 man, lays it open before God, and repels with 
 utter abhorrence words that savor of unlimited 
 perfection. Had the character of Jesus been what 
 these writers assert, could he have concealed it 
 from himself, or disguised it from his disciples? 
 Must he not have uttered some note of warning-, 
 like the greatest of his followers, “Stand up, I 
 myself also am a man;” “We also are men of 
 like passion with yourselves ’ ’ ? Whereas Christ 
 challenges the Pharisees, “Which of you con- 
 vinceth me of sin?” John 8:46. 
 
 Even in the most solemn act of prayer, and in 
 the review of a completed life, he addresses the 
 Father, “I have glorified Thee on the earth. I 
 have finished the work which Thou gavest me to 
 do.” John 17:4. These, it may be said, are 
 expressions drawn from the fourth Gospel, and in 
 its peculiar strain. But do not the synoptists 
 represent Jesus as fully accepting the professedly 
 divine testimony, “Thou art My beloved Son: 
 in Thee I am well pleased ’ ’ ? And does he not 
 claim universal obedience and imitation, as in the 
 words, “Team of Me, for I am meek and lowly 
 in heart, and ye shall find rest to your souls ’ ’ ? 
 We cannot but here admire the superiority of 
 these simple writers to their modern improvers. 
 The Gospel Christ without stain, without confes- 
 
OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 21 
 
 sion, without prayer for pardon, is in harmony 
 with himself and with every law of moral con- 
 gruity; whereas this Christ of recent criticism, 
 covering up under a fair exterior the blemishes 
 which he must feel but never avows, is not so 
 remote from the whited sepulchres that he de¬ 
 nounces; and the picture violates every canon of 
 truth and reason. 
 
 The second instance where a departure from 
 'the Gospel scheme lands in incoherence and ab¬ 
 surdity, is in regard to the alleged origm of super- 
 htiman views of Chrisf s life and character. Ac¬ 
 cording to the uniform testimony of the Gospels, 
 Christ from the beginning understands his own 
 dignity, and the nature of his mission as a Sa¬ 
 viour by sacrifice; whereas his disciples, notwith¬ 
 standing his frequent teaching, have very vague 
 notions of his true greatness, and wholly fail to 
 take in the meaning and necessity of his death, 
 and by consequence the certainty and importance 
 of his resurrection. It is only when Christ re¬ 
 turns from the dead, and teaches his followers on 
 these points from Scripture, that they begin to 
 understand his true design, and are lifted up from 
 the depression into which they had fallen, so as 
 to be henceforth, after he has left them, suitable 
 witnesses of these great truths to others. No part 
 of the Gospel narrative is more natural or more 
 
22 CHRIST the: CKNTRAI, EVIDENCE 
 
 beautiful than this opening of minds blinded by 
 prejudice, like the rest of their countrymen, to 
 the real greatness of their Lord, and to the sacri¬ 
 ficial character of the death which had so much 
 afilicted them; but which they now see, through 
 the lesson of his resurrection and his own instruc¬ 
 tions, to have been the needful path to the saving 
 of mankind and to his own glory. But now mark 
 how all this is, by modern criticism, dislocated 
 and turned into utter chaos. According to some, 
 Christ’s own plan changes through stress of cir¬ 
 cumstances; and others, who save him from this 
 weakness or crooked design, credit his followers 
 with a fertility of expedient and a flexibility of 
 character that go into the regions of the unreal 
 and monstrous. Without the help of miracle, or 
 word of the returning Christ, or prompting of any 
 spirit higher than their own invention or fancy, 
 they suddenly believe in an imaginary resurrec¬ 
 tion. In the depths of the darkest midnight, 
 when overwhelmed by the catastrophe which has 
 wrecked for ever their worldly hopes, they start 
 into creators of a moral w^orld of boundless nov¬ 
 elty. They not only devise a resurrection of 
 which previously they had heard nothing from 
 Jesus or any other, but they read this into the Old 
 Testament, and with it an entirely new concep¬ 
 tion of their Messiah. They raise their dead 
 
Ol? CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 23 
 
 Master not only to life but to divinity, finding for 
 this also warrant in misapplied texts and oracles 
 without number. They construct the Trinity, or 
 at least its outline. They set up the Atonement, 
 and make the failure of the Crucified the end of 
 the law and the hope of the world. Thus these 
 few dreamers, whose paralyzed faculties construct 
 in a few days out of nothing the gigantic scheme 
 which has exercised all the theologians of Chris¬ 
 tendom, go forth with an invincible enthusiasm 
 begotten of disaster to try it upon the world, and 
 by a marvel greater than its own origin, to suc¬ 
 ceed. Verily this is the romance of history, 
 where the conjuror’s wand plays havoc with all 
 reality, and laws of nature, to escape miracle, are 
 so twisted off their hinges as henceforth to lose all 
 power of being shut or opened. We thus see 
 the strength of the Gospel record when unbelief 
 is challenged, instead of mere endless doubts, to 
 produce its own solution, and this poor incoherent 
 phantom starts from the grave to take the place 
 and do the work of Him who was dead, and is 
 alive for evermore. 
 
24 
 
 CHRIST THE CENTRAL EVIDENCE 
 
 II. 
 
 Having thus briefly surveyed the massive foun¬ 
 dation of proof on which the reality of the time- 
 hallowed gospel Story reposes, and which all the 
 criticism and reconstructive hypotheses of our own 
 age only bring into greater prominence, let us, as 
 our second topic, endeavor to show how the per¬ 
 sonal Christ — living, sinless, divine —mingles ) 
 with and adds strength to every argument for the 
 truth of Christianity. 
 
 I. If we begin with evidences resting on divine 
 power as bearing witness to Christianity, Christ is 
 the visible centre of them all. The miracles of 
 the Old Testament all lead up to him; those of 
 the New all stream forth from his own person or 
 through his messengers. A miracle may seem 
 detached or difficult; but if connected with the 
 great central miracle of the Incarnation, it ac¬ 
 quires credibility and value. It is an earlier or 
 later stroke in the same battle; and if the Son of 
 God be really in the field, it is not wonderful that 
 higher than mortal weapons should gather round 
 him. The harmony between the inner and outer 
 miracle is here complete; and when the rod of 
 Christ’s strength strikes the rock of natural law 
 it is only reasonable that it should ‘ ‘ turn the rock 
 
Of' CHRISTIANITY. 25 
 
 into a standing water, the flint into a fountain of 
 waters. ’ ’ 
 
 The same consideration gathers up to this ul¬ 
 timate centre the argument from the success of 
 Christianity. Though not the same display of 
 power without means as absolute miracle is, this 
 has been always justly reckoned a virtual and 
 practical miracle. The argument has force when 
 looked on simply as the working of God, through 
 whom the weapons of this warfare become mighty; 
 but at every point it is enhanced by connection 
 wdth Christ, as presiding over the struggle and 
 wielding all power in heaven and in earth. The 
 sign of the cross, as in the vision of Constantine, 
 whatever we think of that tradition, by stamping 
 itself on all Christian victories gives them a more 
 visibly divine character. The contrast between 
 original weakness and ultimate triumph is more 
 marked. The purity of the means — and with 
 pure means alone Christianity connects this argu¬ 
 ment—recalls the simplicity, humility, and right¬ 
 eousness of the Founder of this kingdom. His 
 church breaks forth as the expansion of his own 
 power, silent and gradual, but invincible; and 
 thus there is a unity in the process, which can be 
 felt not only by Christians, but by unbelievers, 
 and the secret conviction is inspired by the march 
 of history that all things are put under his feet. 
 
26 CHRIST the; central EVIDENCE 
 
 So is it witli that argument from personal ex¬ 
 perience. Though it cannot be directly pleaded 
 with unbelievers, it is with Christians the most 
 signal of all acts of divine power, and renews in 
 every Christian life the deepest side of the miracle 
 of Damascus. For there is here contact with the 
 personal Jesus in his risen life and greatness, in 
 his power to stamp his image and to convey his 
 will, so that this most subduing of all evidences, 
 prolonged into the manifold experiences^ of a 
 Christian life, and carrying with it a sense of lib¬ 
 erty, peace, and nearness to God otherwise wholly 
 unattainable, so visibly centres in Christ that it 
 cannot even be conceived of without him, and is 
 really the conscious reception and reproduction of 
 his own life and character. Nor is this argument 
 so incommunicable as has sometimes been alleged; 
 for'Christian experience has a power of irradiation 
 even into dark and unsightly places; and wher¬ 
 ever it goes it bears with it not only something of 
 rebuke in Christ’s name, but of hope to the most 
 outcast and fallen that the dead may yet live 
 again and the lost be found. 
 
 2 . The evidences of Christianity that depend 
 on divine knowledge as exerted on the side of the 
 gospel, are all equally related to Christ. Timit- 
 ing ourselves here to the evidence from prophecy 
 (though other indications of supernatural knowl- 
 
OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 27 
 
 edge are found in Scripture), it is remarkable how 
 natural prophecy becomes, as well as how much 
 more forcible, when it ceases to be a mere heap 
 of divinations or unconnected oracles, and points 
 according to a settled and gradually developed 
 plan to a central person in history—the divine 
 Saviour. The greater, purer, brighter we make 
 Christ, the more does the prophetic argument gain 
 at every point. The Christ of the rationalist re¬ 
 pels prophecy, not only from the prejudice against 
 the supernatural, but quite as much because there 
 is nothing in such a Christ to attract the eye of 
 the whole world from the beginning. It is like 
 kindling a star in the sky, and bringing the wise 
 men all the way to Bethlehem to show them little, 
 if anything, greater than themselves; and hence 
 rationalism cannot for very shame accept the pro¬ 
 phetic theory, but must seal up every ray of ear¬ 
 lier Scripture that seems to point so far forward, 
 and parcel out all the greatness that would natu¬ 
 rally be concentrated in Christ amid all conceiv¬ 
 able human subjects possible, with whom the 
 pijophets are supposed to have begun and ended. 
 
 It calls this guesswork of a human sagacity or 
 longing, groping all round a limited hori:5on, and 
 arrested everywhere by the local and temporal, a 
 reasonable scheme. Yet it is put to sore distress, 
 not only because the grand and sublime visions of 
 
28 CHRIST THK CENTRAL EVIDENCE 
 
 the prophets burst at every point through this 
 narrow environment, but also because rationalism 
 itself wants larger anticipations of a coming De¬ 
 liverer to operate with, so as even fantastically 
 and unreally to create the picture of a great fu¬ 
 ture, and a great world-monarch in the heart of 
 it, which might in so far account for Christianity 
 by misread and over-colored fulfilment. 
 
 This is one of the most perplexing problems of 
 the rationalism of our time, unable as it is to be¬ 
 lieve in prophecy, but compelled to believe in 
 anticipation, yet driven back from the anticipa¬ 
 tion in its fulness, and torturing it at every point 
 to speak with bated breath lest it should openly 
 proclaim Christ. Nor is this its only affliction; 
 for whereas by the uniformity of nature every 
 religion should, like Christianity, have had an¬ 
 other as its herald, and even every great person¬ 
 age a train of precursors to have, as in the case of 
 Christ, opened his way and forecast his history, 
 the phenomenon stands here alone, and its soli¬ 
 tude cannot be accounted for. 
 
 In striking contrast to this felt littleness of 
 rationalism, when its Christ is seen through the 
 inverted end of the telescope, is the greatness of 
 the ordinary Christianity, when the anticipative 
 world of prophecy comes into its view, shaded, 
 abrupt, and often impenetrable, but with a light. 
 
OK CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 29 - 
 
 a harmoii}^, and a grandeur sufficient not only to 
 warrant its own existence, but to attest the stu¬ 
 pendous reality that was to come. It would have 
 been possible to have given forth real prophecy 
 that was remote from Christ. Some of it, in one 
 sense, is so; as, for example, the predictions bear¬ 
 ing on some of the ancient nations. But the 
 strength of prophecy lies in its chain of references 
 to Christ, from the first mention of the “ Seed of 
 the woman,” to the virgin-born Immanuel; from 
 the Sufferer, whose heel is bruised in terms of the 
 earliest promise, to the ‘ ‘ Man of sorrows ’ ’ in the 
 fifty-third of Isaiah; and from the peaceful Caw- 
 giver of a yet uncrowned tribe, to the heir of 
 David, who enters the long-established seat of 
 rule as a king. Even the predictions that bear 
 on the church of God and its universal progress 
 are but the sequel to those which foretell the per¬ 
 sonal Christ, and they then reflect the light of his 
 exaltation; nor can the judgments on the Jewish 
 nation be dissociated, as the depth of their fall is 
 but the measure of the grace and truth that were 
 in Christ, and for rejecting which they were to be 
 cast away. 
 
 Thus centralized in Christ, not only sinless, 
 but divine, and in the fullest sense a Sacrifice and 
 a Saviour, the prophecy of the Old Testament has 
 a meaning, a coherence, a majestic onward move- 
 
30 CHRIST the; central evidence 
 
 ment unparalleled in literature. But in propor¬ 
 tion as it is isolated and detached from Christ, the 
 more does all sink into twilight. When he is de¬ 
 nied, prophecy becomes a mere ignis fatuus made 
 up of vain and abortive fancies, flickering in the 
 wastes of a history as flat and stagnant in the Old 
 Testament as in the New, where indeed there is 
 neither old nor new, but, under the boasted name 
 of evolution, an eternal sameness, and the reign of 
 the dreary inevitable law, ‘ ‘ Bx nihilo nihil fit. ’ ’ 
 
 3. It is not difficult to show how the mass of 
 evidence in Christianity, that builds upon the 
 divine wisdom as shining forth in it, must also 
 gather around the person and work of Jesus 
 Christ. If the argument from design leads us to 
 trace a Designer in nature, it does so not less in 
 the economy of revelation. Christianity has a 
 work to do or a problem to solve; and though the 
 unbeliever cannot enter into this survey as the 
 believer can, yet even he may see contrivance in 
 salvation, and be self-condemned for rejecting it. 
 
 Now it is exactly in relation to Christ that this 
 argument from adaptation comes in. The union 
 in Christ of divinity and humanity is not a mere 
 theological dogma or mystery, but an intelligible 
 and practical arrangement for gaining the ends of 
 salvation. Every one can see that if such a con¬ 
 junction be possible, however the abstract theism 
 
OK CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 31 
 
 of Judaism, of Mohammedanism, and, we may 
 add, of a rationalised Christianity, recoils from it, 
 there are many beautiful fitnesses instantly im¬ 
 pressed upon any saving scheme. The very ap¬ 
 pearance of Divinity on the field indicates the 
 greatness and danger of the crisis produced by sin; 
 and this, being thus laid down to start with, in 
 harmony with the deepest voice of conscience, 
 carries the resources of Deity everywhere—its 
 strength and its tenderness—to meet at successive 
 points the exigency, and to afford the guarantee 
 that these shall not be applied in vain. 
 
 While the higher nature of Christ thus yields 
 an unlimited reserve of power and grace, it is seen 
 to be fitting that human sympathies and organs 
 should also mingle in the work of man’s redemp¬ 
 tion. How these were to be harmonised we could 
 not have told beforehand; indeed we can hardly 
 tell now that the God-man is before us. But that 
 in this incarnation—the central and fundamental 
 fact of Christianity—there is a wealth and a ful¬ 
 ness of adaptation, otherwise altogether inconceiv¬ 
 able, to remedial ends, the consent of the Chris¬ 
 tian church in all ages attests. The so-called offi¬ 
 ces of Christ are filled in with a grandeur and 
 completeness self-evidently true. Revelation rises 
 to its highest point in one who is not merely a 
 messenger, but a partaker of divinity. Vicarious 
 
32 CHRIST THE CENTRA!, EVIDENCE 
 
 suffering for sin becomes possible in human form, 
 yet clothed with transcendent and illimitable 
 merit. A universal dominion founded on grace 
 enchains the affections, while it transforms the 
 lives of its subjects. These provisions of Christi¬ 
 anity strike all fair and open minds by their wis¬ 
 dom not less than by their grandeur and tender¬ 
 ness; and though they are resisted and overborne 
 by the very evil they are designed to remedy, they 
 not less leave their witness, and widely diffuse the 
 secret, though, alas! in how many cases ineffec¬ 
 tual, conviction that this religion is divine. 
 
 But is it not clear that the strength of this 
 evidence is derived from the dependence of this 
 whole system on Christ? It is made up of the 
 power and sympathy of his incarnation, of the ef¬ 
 ficacy of his sacrifice, of the perfection of his ex¬ 
 ample, and of the influence of his reign. And to 
 deny that Christ, as he moves in the Gospel his¬ 
 tory, is the Author and Finisher of all, and to re¬ 
 solve all, were that possible, into, some more ob¬ 
 scure and transcendental action of the general di¬ 
 vine will, would be to eclipse this whole argu¬ 
 ment from the manifold wisdom of God, and 
 could only be exceeded in disaster by the denial 
 of the end, not less than of this grand effectual 
 means, so as to leave only a morality and a bare 
 naturalism as the last issue of the so-called gospel 
 
OF CHRISTIANITY. 33 
 
 dispensation, without anything of redemption at 
 all. 
 
 The wisdom that shines in the remedial pro¬ 
 visions of Christianity is not less discernible in its 
 history. Redemption grows from the faintest 
 outline as a revelation to the perfect day. The 
 history of the world unconsciously prepares for it. 
 A special people rise up to guard quite as much 
 as to develop it. Every step in their history is 
 singular, and the occasional periods of it that 
 want the miraculous are like the silent pauses 
 out of which it is again born. When Christ’s ad¬ 
 vent has filled the old channels to overflowing, it 
 has to burst upon the world ; and this law marks 
 all its subsequent expansions, that it is a return 
 of the life-blood to the heart that sends it forth 
 again in fresh and ever-widening diffusion. 
 There is not the least doubt that all the succes¬ 
 sive steps of Jewish history, from Abraham to 
 Moses, from Moses to David, from David to the 
 close of prophecy, and from the close of proj^hecy 
 to the Incarnation, lead up to Christ, and become 
 epochs from their relation to him. So, also, if 
 the history of the Christian church teaches any 
 lesson, it is that the recovery of clearness, of 
 power, of victory lies in his name, and that the 
 greatness of every truly great age, in doctrine or 
 
 in work, lies in the prominence of that name. 
 
 3 
 
34 CHRIST the: central evidence 
 
 How could this be unless Christ were the key 
 to the whole of this progress, for progress, in spite 
 of unaccountable stops, and even recessions, we 
 must call it; and is there not here in the history, 
 as truly as in the doctrine, a veiled yet discovera¬ 
 ble wisdom, which centres in the supernatural 
 Christ, and shows him to be alike the moving 
 force and the last end of this apparently untrace- 
 able but really all-including system? The evi¬ 
 dences from wisdom in Christianity and in con¬ 
 nection with it may need reflection ; but they are 
 among the most solid, appealing to minds like 
 Pascal and Butler, like Edwards and Neander, 
 that can take in the sweep of a wide, though in 
 many parts inscrutable, scheme; and of all the 
 light that is in it—more than enough to counter¬ 
 balance the darkness—the origin is to be found in 
 Christ. 
 
 4. We now come to the fourth and crowning 
 argument for the truth of Christianity, that drawn 
 from the reflection in it of the moral attributes of 
 holiness and love in God. Here, preeminently, the 
 argument is wrought up with, and centres in, the 
 life and work of Jesus Christ. We have here, to 
 start with, the unspeakable advantage of a person¬ 
 al God in whom the moral law is enshrined. 
 This is carried over from Judaism, with its faith 
 alike in Jehovah and in the Decalogue; and thus 
 
OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 35 
 
 religion and morality spring up together. A 
 shadow of this is found in the teaching of Plato, 
 who makes virtue the imitation of God, and in 
 Kant, who makes it obedience to sovereign will : 
 but in the one, the element of law is too feeble; 
 in the other, the personality of God is lost in mor¬ 
 al order. 
 
 More wonderful perhaps is the glimpse of 
 Plato, amid the darkness of paganism, into the 
 indissoluble union between morality and religion, 
 than the rediscovery by Kant, amid the obscured 
 light of Christianity, of duty as an eternal, invio¬ 
 lable law. But Christianity starts with both a 
 personal God and a moral law, and with both in 
 their deepest principles and demands, which Christ 
 has then to fulfil. He has to resemble or glorify 
 God, not by the harmony of ordinary obedience, 
 but by the bearing of penalty, for there is no 
 law in the universe if penalty can be lightly set 
 aside. 
 
 Those have totally mistaken the life of Christ, 
 who, like Renan, have made it mainly genial or 
 idyllic; or, like others, have seen in it only the 
 evolution in normal circumstances of moral ex¬ 
 cellence. The solitude, the shadow, the cry, pro¬ 
 claim the burden and the woe—a heart filled 
 with all human discords and sorrows not its own, 
 yet accepting all with meekness and love—a 
 
36 CHRIST the: central EVIDENCE 
 
 meekness and love that bow to the stroke of right¬ 
 eousness, and feel that to avert it from man is 
 the greatest of divine tasks and favors. Thus 
 the color of Christ’s virtue is all sacrificial—red 
 with the mark of blood, and yet transcendently 
 greater than had it borne other wrong and con¬ 
 tumely, but not the sin of the world. Out of the 
 depths of this crushed and lonely heart there 
 rises to heaven the fragrance of an unutterable 
 devotion to God, and of an unfathomable com¬ 
 passion to man—a purity, a tenderness, a strength 
 of sublime endurance, which float their influence 
 downward through all time, and fill eternity with 
 their memories. Erelong it is seen that this life 
 and death, thus construed, are worthier of the Son 
 of God, and adjust themselves better to the level of 
 incarnation, than any other achievement of vir¬ 
 tue; and while in the lower ranges of this history 
 all human graces and sympathies find a home 
 and a shelter, it is in this aspect that it towers to 
 the very firmament, and sends down its floods of 
 moral influence to make all things new. 
 
 It is the penal sufferings of the Lamb of God, 
 and not the brightness of his other moral features, 
 that strike the heart with the pangs of repent¬ 
 ance, that melt the heart while they break it, 
 and in reproducing something of his own agony 
 in the soul originate a moral crisis there which 
 
OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 37 
 
 issues not in death, but in life. Then the at¬ 
 tractions of obedience enchain the heart, when 
 the sense of terror and of shame has given place 
 to gratitude and moral admiration; and the imi¬ 
 tation of Christ, so awful and even intolerable, 
 when it lays upon the soul a new bondage of 
 duty, becomes easy and irresistible when it is the 
 effusion of love. No heart will open till the bar 
 of guilt be first burst asunder; and though there 
 be also a key needed to turn the lock by which 
 human nature and habit are fixed in evil, it is 
 Christ who, by the power of his Spirit, can ac¬ 
 complish this further extrication, yet not by other 
 instrumental means than by the lesson of his 
 atoning life and death, divinely urged and made 
 the watchword of moral freedom. 
 
 Thus a perfect moral example, at the very point 
 where it reaches its highest perfection, begins by 
 its own surpassing charm of condescension and 
 tenderness to work on the lowest and most fallen, 
 and to invite them up the steeps of its own gran¬ 
 deur and purity; whence we see the falsehood of 
 the current idea, that the example which is most 
 like ourselves, and the least raised above our own 
 struggles and falls, is the best, at least for begin¬ 
 ners in the race of holiness. The whole experience 
 of the Christian church refutes this. Who have 
 acted with the greatest power on our degraded 
 
38 CHRIST THE CENTRAL EVIDENCE 
 
 and criminal classes? Not their own compan¬ 
 ions, striving like themselves to raise their heads 
 above the wide surrounding sea of evil; but the 
 holiest men and women, who have come to them 
 as ministering angels, who have recalled the 
 image of good in all its loveliness, and by associa¬ 
 ting all with self-sacrificing kindness have given 
 them the hope and the possibility of escape, other¬ 
 wise almost as remote as if they had been aban¬ 
 doned for ever. Of this law of the attraction of 
 the holy—if it be supremely kind, still more if 
 it bring the news of pardon—Christ is the limit; 
 and hence as of old to the publicans and sinners, 
 and to all the wide family of the outcast and the 
 miserable, he stretches down his loving arms; 
 and high as he rises above them, he can still 
 reach their level, and lift them upward with 
 the call, “Come unto me, all ye that labor and 
 are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” 
 
 It is a mighty proof of the blending of divine 
 holiness and love in Christ’s remedial work, that 
 his example never shifts away from those earliest 
 lessons of the cross which first give peace to the 
 troubled conscience, and then awake the trem¬ 
 bling throb of a new and heaven-born existence. 
 Christ has nothing greater to show, nothing more 
 advanced to inculcate in the wide range of his 
 own moral obedience. There has been a school 
 
OK CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 39 
 
 even of Christian theology and morality which 
 has hastened away from Christ’s death to his life; 
 as if in the region of moral precept, whether 
 more rare or more familiar, when the awful eclipse 
 of suffering were lifted off, divine excellence 
 shone out with a more winning and cheering 
 ray. This is, however, to forget that the lofti¬ 
 est virtues of Christ start from the vale of humili¬ 
 ation; that the eye which reads in his sacrifice 
 afresh the promise of pardon receives with equal¬ 
 ly new welcome the quick succeeding charge, 
 “Follow thou me!” and that, while every vir¬ 
 tue of Christ has its place and its lesson, those 
 that come associated with the tenderest memories 
 alike of his life and of ours must wing the soul 
 nearest to heaven. 
 
 Here, then, is the problem for all moralists, 
 reformers, teachers of the world, who deny the 
 divine Christ. By what miracle of selection 
 were the Bible writers who have drawn that stu¬ 
 pendous picture led to connect all the transform¬ 
 ing power of their S3^stem, not with separate pre¬ 
 cepts or laws of God, but with a living Saviour! 
 And then how came it that when the more bright, 
 serene, unshaded virtues of his life appeared to 
 demand a more exhilarating and joyous pursuit, ~ 
 they with sure instinct, while not neglecting 
 these, gave them the second place, and found the 
 
40 
 
 CHRIST THE CENTRAL EVIDENCE 
 
 deepest, purest, most unfailing well of all moral 
 aspiration and impulse beneath the dark, and as 
 it might even seem repulsive, shade of the cross 
 and of the sepulchre! To this day this is to the 
 world a mystery and a stumbling-block. But the 
 laws of Christianity are not on that account sus¬ 
 pended ; their authority is not overthrown : “I am 
 crucified with Christ; nevertheless, I live.” 
 
 The last wonder of Christianity, then, as a 
 remedy, is that it sets forth in God, and in Christ 
 as the image of God, the supreme demands, at first 
 sight irreconcilable, yet truly reconciled, of holi¬ 
 ness and of love. Amid the storm and surge of 
 sin, the holiness of God rises like a frowning wall 
 to shut up every avenue to the regions of safety, 
 and to wreck and dash in pieces every human 
 hope. It is as when Ulysses, flung from the bro¬ 
 ken ship, was tossed day after day upon the boil¬ 
 ing ocean, more afraid even of the breakers which 
 revealed the land than of the billows which 
 formed the peril of the sea.* It is the picture 
 of a soul driven by the resistless tide of guilt 
 against the eternal laws which guard the uni¬ 
 verse. But at length a rent is opened in the 
 mighty barrier, where the gentle stream divides 
 even’ the encircling rock; and by this unlooked- 
 for inlet safety and shelter are found. It is the 
 
 Odyssey V. 441 . 
 
OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 41 
 
 emblem of heaven’s greatest discovery—of the 
 soul’s best deliverance, the victory of love, not by 
 breaking down and overturning justice, but by 
 opening a pathway through it to salvation as 
 wonderful as it is easy and effectual. 
 
 Here, then, is the summation of this cumula¬ 
 tive argument, where every other evidence con¬ 
 verges to the life and character of Jesus Christ. 
 What other religion has such a mass of evidence 
 in its favor, historic, prophetic, doctrinal, moral ? 
 What other religion, if it had any to adduce, 
 could centralize all in the person of its founder? 
 Not Confucianism ; not Buddhism (attractive 
 though in one sense the record of its founder be); 
 not Brahminism, which has no commanding per¬ 
 sonality in its history; and as little Mohamme¬ 
 danism. These religions lie mainly outside the 
 lives of their human authors. Why did not their 
 authors in this way make these religions more 
 strong, interesting, and likely to endure? They 
 were as able on human principles as the original 
 or secondary founders of Christianity, who here 
 also strike clear off from philosophy, for what 
 philosophy ever thought of constituting itself out 
 of the biography of Socrates or Zeno, of Descartes 
 or Hegel ? If it had been a failure in the history 
 of religion, the experiment would still have been 
 singular. But it has been the secret of success, 
 
42 CHRIST the: CKNTRAI. EVIDENCE 
 
 and could not fail to be so; for a religion witli 
 the living God in the heart of it could not rise to 
 anything higher, more unchanging, more attrac¬ 
 tive than its one incessant theme of Divine Re¬ 
 demption, nor could the gracious Providence 
 which presided over its origin fall short of ma¬ 
 king its development and career as effectual, 
 while as unexampled, as its birth. 
 
 When we speak of the wonderfulness of Chris¬ 
 tianity we must not neglect the future. It only 
 among religions has at once an Alpha and an 
 Omega. The future alone shall bring out its 
 great proportions. It is said that in our century 
 for the first time the master-works of Handel are 
 fully disclosed as he conceived them. Their airs 
 penetrate through vaster spaces ; their choruses 
 are borne up by mightier instruments and voices. 
 So shall it be, if the comparison may be permit¬ 
 ted, with that grander “Messiah” which is now, 
 amid incredible struggle, breaking out in living 
 music throughout the world. We have been 
 long in the earlier parts, awed, no doubt, and 
 cheered by the glorious strains, “ Unto us a child 
 is born;” “He shall feed his flock like a shep¬ 
 herd “ Come unto me, all ye that laborbut 
 sunk also to the deepest minors, “Thy rebuke 
 hath broken my heart,” and perplexed in our 
 strongest faith by the tremendous jars and dis- 
 
OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 43 
 
 cords, “All they that see him laugh him to 
 scorn.” But there shall come, like the sweep of 
 innumerable armies, or the march of light, the 
 unbounded, resistless advance, “Their line is 
 gone out into all lands;” and the stupendous all- 
 triumphant chorus shall shake earth and heaven, 
 “ Hallelujah, for the Tord God omnipotent reign- 
 eth !” In these “great voices” may it be given 
 to us, not without earlier note of preparation, to 
 bear a part; and may it be, though with broken 
 utterance, yet with true and growing concord, 
 that we—all unworthy—now rehearse this grand¬ 
 est burst of time and prelude of eternity : The 
 kingdom of this world has become the kingdom 
 of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign 
 for ever and ever. 
 
THE 
 
 UNITY OF THE CHARACTER 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Christ OF THE Gospels 
 
 A PROOF OF ITS HISTORICAL REALITY, 
 
 REV. C. A. ROW, M. A. 
 
ARGUMENT OF THE TRACT. 
 
 Nothing is assumed but what is admitted by be¬ 
 lievers and unbelievers alike, viz., the existence of the 
 Gospels, that they contain the portraiture of a great 
 character which is the product of their conjoint con¬ 
 tents, that the parts constitute a unity, and that the first 
 three Gospels at least portray the same character from 
 different points of view; and the conclusion is drawn 
 that this unity is only consistent with their being the de¬ 
 lineation of a historical reality. None of the negative 
 theories propounded to account for the Gospels attempt 
 to account for the origin of the portraiture. The two 
 factors in the character, the divine and human, are in¬ 
 separably united, and are marked by the same moral 
 tone. The blending of benevolence and holiness, the 
 loftiest self-assertion and the deepest humility, and the 
 exquisite shading into one another of the other portions 
 of the character, are such that it is inconceivable it could 
 have been independently portrayed by a number of my- 
 thologists. The moral teaching of Jesus is so much 
 above the age that it could not have been invented by 
 the originators of the legends which are supposed to 
 have formed the materials of the gospel narratives. 
 The moral teaching grows out of the miraculous narra¬ 
 tive in such a manner that the two cannot be separated. 
 The tone of the miraculous narratives and of the teach¬ 
 ing growing out of them is as lofty as the tone of the 
 didactic portion. The theory of tendencies is refuted.’ 
 The identity of the Synoptic and the Johannine Christ 
 is vindicated, and the conclusion is drawn that the only 
 alternative which satisfies all the conditions of the case 
 is that the portraiture of the Christ of the Gospels is the 
 delineation of a historical reality and not an ideal cre¬ 
 ation. 
 
THE 
 
 UNITY OF THE CHARACTER 
 
 OF THE 
 
 CHRIST 0P THE 60SPELS 
 
 A PROOF OF ITS HISTORICAL REALITY. 
 
 • ' ♦ 
 
 Our Ivord’s person, work, and teaching, as 
 they are depicted in the Gospels, constitute the 
 essence of Christianity, and render it certain, if 
 they are historical realities, that Christianity is a 
 divine revelation. Modern unbelief has not been 
 slow to perceive this. Accordingly, although dur¬ 
 ing the present century the old plan of assailing 
 Christianity through an unsparing criticism of the 
 Scriptures of the Old Testament has been pur¬ 
 sued with the utmost vigor, its strongest efforts 
 have been directed to capture what really consti¬ 
 tutes the key and citadel of the Christian position, 
 by attempting to prove that the Gospels, which 
 constitute our only* source of information respect- 
 
 * It is a most remarkable fact that tradition has failed to hand 
 down anything additional respecting our Lord’s teaching and ac¬ 
 tions beyond what is recorded in the Gospels. The whole of the 
 
48 the: unity of thf character of 
 
 ing our I^ord’s actions and teachings, are no true 
 account of the life and teaching of the actual Je¬ 
 sus; but that although they may contain a few 
 grains of historical truth, the bulk of their con¬ 
 tents consists of a mass of myths, legends, and 
 ideal creations which the credulity and enthusi¬ 
 asm of his followers have thrown around the his¬ 
 torical Jesus. 
 
 The controversy thus engendered extends over 
 a wide range of subject matter, both in the attack 
 and in the defence. The writer of the present 
 tract, however, proposes to concentrate the read¬ 
 er’s attention on a single point of the evidence, 
 under the firm persuasion that by itself it is con¬ 
 clusive of the entire question, vi^., that the unity 
 of the portraiture of the Christ of the Gospels 
 proves that it is the delineation of a historical 
 
 Patristic writings contain only about twelve additional incidents of 
 this kind, and those of a very unimportant character, two or three 
 of which savor strongly of the apocryphal. These really add noth¬ 
 ing to our knowledge of his teaching or his actions. Yet there can 
 be no doubt that traditionary reminiscences of both were current 
 as late as the first half of the second century, and that they must 
 have been rife at an earlier period. The fact of their existence is 
 directly affirmed by Papias in the extract of his writings which has 
 been preserved by Eusebius. He states that he himself preferred 
 these reminiscences to written documents. But his testimony is 
 hardly required, for the thing itself is inherently probable; and the 
 authors of the Gospels themselves inform us that our Lord did and 
 uttered many things which they have not recorded. A recorded 
 speech of St. Paul contains one saying, and the remainder of the 
 New Testament not one. Respecting those Gospels called apoc¬ 
 ryphal some observations will be made below. 
 
THE CHRIST OE THE GOSPELS. 49 
 
 reality, and is utterly inconsistent with the theory 
 that it is an ideal creation. 
 
 The following facts, which will form the foun¬ 
 dation of the argument, must be admitted to be 
 true by believers and unbelievers alike. 
 
 First. The Gospels exist. 
 
 Secondly. Whatever theory may be propound¬ 
 ed respecting their origin or the nature of their 
 contents, they contain the portraiture of a great 
 character, that of Jesus Christ our Ford. 
 
 Thirdly. That this character is composed of a 
 multitude of parts, i. e., it is the product of their 
 conjoint contents. 
 
 Fourthly. That the parts of which it is com¬ 
 posed constitute a harmonious unity. 
 
 Fifthly. That in three, at least, of the four 
 Gospels, in St. Matthew, St Mark, and St Luke, 
 which are commonly called the Synoptics, and as 
 we believe, and shall prove below, in the fourth 
 also, we possess different portraitures of the same 
 character, the only difference between them 
 being that they have been taken by their respect¬ 
 ive authors from somewhat different points of 
 view. 
 
 My position is that this unity is only consistent 
 with the portraiture having been the delineation 
 of a historical reality, and is utterly inconsistent 
 
 with the theory which affirms that the Gospels 
 
 4 
 
50 the unity oe the character oe 
 
 consist of a mass of myths, legends, and ideal 
 creations. 
 
 Now as it is certain, whatever account may be 
 propounded of the origin of the Gospels, that the 
 portraiture exists in them, its origin must be ac¬ 
 counted for. I ask, therefore, how did it get 
 there ? 
 
 One theory affords a rational account of its 
 presence, vi^., that it is the delineation of a char¬ 
 acter that actually existed, copied from the life. 
 This fully satisfies all the conditions of the case; 
 no other theory which unbelief has succeeded in 
 propounding affords an account of its origin 
 which sound reason can accept. 
 
 What then is the course which modern unbe¬ 
 lievers have pursued in dealing with this subject? 
 While they affirm that the Gospels are unhistori- 
 cal, they fully admit that they are bound to give 
 a rational account of how they came into exist¬ 
 ence. Numerous theories, which vary in detail, 
 have been propounded for this purpose. All that 
 is essential in these may be reduced under the 
 four following heads: 
 
 1. The Naturalistic theory, now utterly aban¬ 
 doned as hopelessly inadequate. 
 
 2. The Mythic theory. 
 
 3. The Legendary theory. 
 
 ’ 4. A theory which for the sake of brevity may 
 
THE CHRIST OE THE GOSPEES. 51 
 
 be designated the Evolution theoty, or the theory 
 of tendencies. This theor}", however, involves a 
 liberal use of myths, legends, and ideal inven¬ 
 tions, in the formation of the materials out of 
 which our present Gospels were composed. 
 
 The reader should observe that, singular to 
 say, these theories have been propounded, not to 
 account for the origin of the portraiture, but of 
 the narratives, and especially of its superhuman 
 elements. Lly contention is that no theory which 
 fails to give a rational account of the origin of the 
 portraiture can be accepted as affording a true ac¬ 
 count of the origin of the narratives, for the obvi¬ 
 ous reason that the portraiture is the conjoint 
 effect of the narratives. 
 
 This is obvious, yet strange to say, it is a point 
 which has been universally overlooked by those 
 who impugn the historical character of the Gos¬ 
 pels. Not a single writer on this side of the ques¬ 
 tion, as far as I am aware, has deemed it neces¬ 
 sary to show how it is possible, if the Gospels are 
 such as they are affirmed to be, viz., a mass of 
 myths, legends, and ideal creations, for the por¬ 
 traiture ever to have got there; nor have any of 
 them atte^npted to meet the objection which its 
 presence obviously suggests to the truth of their 
 theories. Yet it is evident the theory w^hich 
 fails to account for the origin of the portraiture 
 
53 the unity ok the character ok 
 
 can be no true account of the origin of tlie narra¬ 
 tives. 
 
 I now ask the reader’s attention to the follow¬ 
 ing points connected with the portraiture, which 
 render the theory that it is an ideal creation sim¬ 
 ply incredible. 
 
 1. The Gospels not only contain the delinea¬ 
 tion of a character, but of one which even a large 
 majority of eminent unbelievers allow to be the 
 greatest which has either existed in fact or which 
 has been invented by fiction. It also possesses 
 this remarkable characteristic, that it is capable 
 of evoking the admiration alike of the most sim¬ 
 ple-minded and the most intellectual of men. It 
 is, in fact, the most catholic of characters, and 
 one which speaks more powerfully than any other 
 to the higher affections of man. 
 
 2. It is evidently not an artificial creation, 
 such as we meet with in ordinary historians and 
 poets. These are in the habit of giving elaborate 
 delineations of the characters of their heroes which 
 are the embodiment of the views of their charac¬ 
 ters which the writers designed to impress on the 
 minds of their readers. Their characters are not 
 the combined result of the facts which they nar¬ 
 rate, but are the artificial creations of the poets or 
 historians. To take an example. The works of 
 kord Clarendon, or Macaulay, abound with delin- 
 
TIIK CHRIST OR THE GOSPETS. 
 
 53 
 
 eations of this description; but they are pictures 
 which are the creations of the historian. Precise¬ 
 ly similar is it with the poets. Their characters 
 are artificial elaborations out of their own con¬ 
 sciousness, or aided by such historical materials as 
 they possessed, the details of which are filled up 
 and colored by the imagination. The point to 
 which I ask the reader’s attention is that all such 
 delineations are evidently artificial. 
 
 But in the evangelists, this artificial character 
 is absolutely wanting. This is palpable to every 
 reader. Nothing can be more artless than the 
 structure of the Gospels. It is impossible to read 
 them without rising from their perusal with the 
 conviction that it was not the purpose of their 
 authors to delineate a character, but to compose 
 a narrative which should be a record of the ac¬ 
 tions and teaching of Jesus Christ. The creation 
 of the character is the indirect—I may say, the 
 accidental result of this purpose. Still the char¬ 
 acter is conspicuous on their pages. Yet, as I 
 have said, it is impossible to find, from one end of 
 the Gospels to the other, anything which bears the 
 smallest resemblance to an artificial delineation. 
 
 Another remarkable fact deserves attention. 
 While there can be no doubt that their authors 
 were penetrated with the profoundest admiration 
 for the person of their Master, yet never once do 
 
54 MB UNITY OU THK CHARACTER OE 
 
 they dilate on his great qualities. They contain 
 no bursts of admiration at his benevolence, the 
 dignity of his demeanor, his humility, his pa¬ 
 tience, his perfect sinlessness, the perfection of 
 his holiness, or his self-sacrifice. All that they 
 do is to record his actions and discourses with 
 scarcely a comment or remark. They have even 
 scarcely a hard word to say of his opponents, al¬ 
 though they must have regarded the chief agents 
 in- bringing about his execution as the worst of 
 murderers. The strongest word of denunciation 
 which they have is that of “traitor,” which St. 
 Luke, and “thief,” which St.John, applies to 
 Judas, the other two evangelists being content 
 with desmnatinof him as “ the man who delivered 
 Him up.” In this respect the Gospels form a 
 striking contrast to the Epistles. Their authors 
 are constantly bursting out in admiration at his 
 greatness, his humility, his meekness, and his 
 self-sacrificing love, and habitually propound the 
 perfection of his character as a subject for the 
 imitation of believers, and to which they should 
 strain their utmost efforts to grow. They even 
 occasionally present us with a brief delineation of 
 him as a patient sufferer. In a word, he is the 
 object around which the affections of their writers 
 and the different members of the churches centre. 
 The absence of this from the Gospels, therefore, 
 
THE CHRIST OR THE GOSPELS. 
 
 55 
 
 cannot have been due to insensibility in their au¬ 
 thors, but to the fact that the purpose of compo- 
 sinof a record of his life and teachinof held exclu- 
 sive possession of their thoughts. Yet, despite 
 the absence of the smallest conscious attempt to 
 delineate a character, they have done so more 
 effectually than any of the poets, historians, or 
 biographers of the past or of the present. 
 
 3. What then forms the character, and of what 
 does it consist? Evidently it is made up of the 
 combined effect of the various narratives which 
 compose the Gospels; and it results from simply 
 placing them in juxtaposition in the order in 
 which they stand in the evangelists. It is also 
 clear that the effect produced is not dependent on 
 a skilful arrangement of the parts. I draw atten¬ 
 tion to this for the purpose of showing how com¬ 
 pletely inartificial is its production. How then 
 has it originated ? The design of the evangelists 
 in composing their Gospels, as is stated by two of 
 them, was to edify believers and to instruct them 
 in the principles of Christianity. To effect this 
 they have given us four narratives of our Lord’s 
 teaching and actions, and in doing it they have 
 produced a result which they evidently did not 
 contemplate, viz., they have set before their 
 readers that most perfect of all delineations, the 
 Christ of the Gospels. 
 
5^ THK UNITY OU THE CHARACTER OF 
 
 Now tlie parts of which this portraiture con¬ 
 sists are extremely numerous; and if the theory of 
 those whose views I am controverting is correct,- 
 they consist of a mass of legends and ideal crea¬ 
 tions, spontaneously elaborated by various persons 
 at different times, without the smallest intention 
 of delineating a character. Yet it is beyond dis¬ 
 pute that they adjust themselves into a harmo¬ 
 nious whole; for, as a matter of fact, the portrai¬ 
 ture spontaneously arises before the mental vision 
 of every reader. Further, while the Jesus of the 
 evangelists is depicted in a wide range of action, 
 in a great variety of circumstances, and often in 
 the most trying situations, and while the dis¬ 
 courses which are attributed to him embrace an 
 extensive range of subject, the unity of the char¬ 
 acter is preserved throughout. 
 
 4. Next observe, the portraiture is composed of 
 two factors, a divine and a human element. The 
 former consists of the miraculous narrative of the 
 Gospels, and of those portions of the discourses in 
 which our Lord directly affirms his own superhu¬ 
 man character, or makes declarations which are 
 only consistent with the consciousness that he 
 possessed it. These portions of the Gospels un¬ 
 believers are unanimous in affirming to be either 
 mythical, legendary, or ideal additions to the ac¬ 
 tions and teaching of the real Jesus, which have 
 
THE CHRIST OE THE GOSPELS. 57 
 
 been attributed to him by the enthusiasm of his 
 followers. 
 
 This being so, I ask the reader’s attention to 
 a fact of the greatest importance in this contro¬ 
 versy, which he can easily verify for himself. As 
 far as the moral coloring is concerned, it is impos¬ 
 sible to discern any difference between this super¬ 
 human element and the other portions of the nar¬ 
 rative. In this respect the divine and the human 
 Jesus are precisely alike. Both bear indubitable 
 marks of having been stamped with the same die. 
 Instead of there being in the Gospels two Jesuses, 
 a divine and a human one, both factors insensibly 
 shade into each other, and blend together into a 
 harmonious unity. So intimate is the union in 
 the pages of the evangelists that it is simply im¬ 
 possible to separate the superhuman from the hu¬ 
 man Jesus without making the entire narrative a 
 mass of confusion. It is evident, therefore, if the 
 human elements are historical and the superhu¬ 
 man unhistorical, that those who invented the lat¬ 
 ter must have been penetrated with the elevated 
 moral tone which is characteristic of the former. 
 
 The following shows the importance of this 
 consideration. Mr. Mill, in his “Posthumous 
 Essays,” expresses the opinion that it is incon¬ 
 ceivable that the Jesus of the Synoptic Gospels 
 can be an ideal creation, on the ground that his 
 
^8 I'HE UNITY OU THE CHARACTER OE 
 
 character is one which is absolutely above the 
 conceptions of his followers, of the primitive 
 Christians, or even of the apostle Paul, to have 
 invented. But while he makes this admission, 
 he affirms that it is quite possible that His fol¬ 
 lowers may have invented any number of the 
 miracles which have been attributed to him. 
 Although Mr. Mill does not say so, I consider 
 that I am justified in inferring that he would in¬ 
 clude among these supernatural elements all our 
 kord’s lofty affirmations respecting himself; for 
 if he was not conscious of an indwelling presence 
 of the superhuman, those utterances would have 
 been in the highest degree presumptuous, and ut¬ 
 terly inconsistent with that moral elevation which 
 Mr. Mill justly attributes to the Jesus of the Sy¬ 
 noptics. On the other hand, he directly affirms 
 that the contents of the fourth Gospel, which he 
 designates a mass of poor stuff, might have been 
 produced in almost any quantities by his fol¬ 
 lowers. 
 
 This being so, the reader will at once perceive 
 the importance of the fact to which I now draw 
 attention, that the moral aspect of the superhu¬ 
 man and the human elements in the Gospels is 
 precisely similar. If it is impossible to believe 
 that the latter can have been an invention of the 
 followers of Jesus because it stands at an eleva- 
 
the: CHRIST OR THK GOSPRTS. 
 
 59 
 
 tion far above tlieir conceptions, the same reason 
 is equally applicable to the former. Further, if 
 the latter are affirmed to be historical and the for¬ 
 mer nnhistorical, then it is evident that those who 
 invented the former must have been interpenetra¬ 
 ted with the elevated moral tone which is charac¬ 
 teristic of the latter—a moral tone which Mr. Mill 
 would certainly not attribute to a number of cred¬ 
 ulous mythologists. The whole question, there¬ 
 fore, resolves itself into one of simple fact: is the 
 moral elevation of the superhuman elements of 
 the Gospels on a level with that of the human 
 ones? We affirm that it is. 
 
 For the necessary proofs we refer the reader 
 not merely to a number of detached passages, but 
 to the entire Gospels. The New Testament is 
 accessible to every reader, and he can test the 
 truth of the above affirmation for himself by a 
 careful perusal of their contents. If he will do 
 so, I have no doubt that he will arrive at the con¬ 
 clusion that the moral aspects of the superhuman 
 and the human Jesus are precisely the same, and 
 that they so insensibly blend into each other in 
 the Gospel narrative that it is impossible to sepa¬ 
 rate the one from the other. * 
 
 * I would refer the reader to the following, among many pas¬ 
 sages, as examples of this blending : Matthew 5, the whole chap¬ 
 ter. I might add the entire Sermon on the Mount, in which Je- 
 
6 o "THE UNITY OF THE CHARACTER OF 
 
 Such are some of the more striking facts on 
 the surface of the Gospels which are obvious to 
 every reader. How, then, do those w’ho impugn 
 their historical character account for the existence 
 of these facts ? 
 
 Stated briefly, their theory is as follows : The 
 historical Jesus was a very great man, who suc¬ 
 ceeded in attaching to himself a number of enthu¬ 
 siastic and credulous followers. These imagined 
 him to be the Messiah of certain old predictions; 
 and believing that the Messiah must do such and 
 such things, they fondly imagined that Jesus ac¬ 
 tually performed them. This tendency greatly 
 increased during the century which followed his 
 death. Numerous ideologists invented a number 
 of stories which ascribed to him a superhuman 
 character and the possession of miraculous pow¬ 
 ers, and the credulity of the primitive believers 
 
 sus is depicted as acting the part of legislator of the kingdom of 
 God, and as enunciator of its laws on His own sole authority, and 
 even enlarging and annulling precepts which both he and his 
 hearers accepted as precepts unquestionably divine. A similar 
 assertion of authority pervades the whole of his moral teaching: 
 Matthew 10:32-42; Matthew 11:25-30; Matthew 19:27-29, inclu¬ 
 ding the context from ver. 25; Matthew 25 :31-46; Matthew 26: 64, 
 including the entire narrative of the passion and betrayal; John 
 II, John 13. To these should be added everyone of the miracu¬ 
 lous narratives, including their entire context, in which our Lord 
 is depicted as performing his miracles without any reference to a 
 higher power or authority than his own, and those in which by his 
 sole authority he undertakes to forgive sins. 
 
THE CHRIST OE THE GOSPELS. 6l 
 
 led them to mistake these stories for the facts of 
 his historic life. The result was that the historic 
 Jesus became gradually metamorphosed into a 
 mythic hero, and the real events of his life became 
 buried under a mass of myth, legend, and ideol¬ 
 ogy. In this state of things the authors of our 
 first three Gospels took these legendary reminis¬ 
 cences in hand, and with the aid of a certain num¬ 
 ber of documents which were already in existence, 
 composed their respective Gospels, which speedily 
 acquired such a degree of popularity among the 
 primitive believers that they have caused all the 
 other legendary accounts to sink into oblivion, 
 except those which happen to have been preserved 
 in those eighteen compositions which are com¬ 
 monly designated the Spurious Gospels. The 
 fourth Gospel, on the other hand, is affirmed to 
 be a deliberate forgery, the work of some Chris¬ 
 tian, bent on glorifying his Master, who was 
 deeply imbued with the principles of the Alexan¬ 
 drine philosophy. These theories, it is true, have 
 been propounded with considerable variations, 
 but what I have here stated will be sufficient to 
 put the reader in possession of their general sub¬ 
 stance. Such is the account which modern un¬ 
 belief propounds of the origin of the portraiture. 
 The following are some of the impossibilities in- 
 vol ved in it; 
 
62 the unity ot the character of 
 
 According to the theories which I am contro¬ 
 verting, the inventors of the legendary matter 
 out of which our present Gospels were composed 
 must have been a numerous body. This is not 
 only conceded by those against whose views I am 
 contending, but it necessarily results from the 
 fact that it was a gradual growth. It is also 
 certain from the nature of the case that mutual 
 consultation was impossible, inasmuch as the 
 mythologists were the members of churches, wide¬ 
 ly separated from each other. 
 
 What then are we asked to accept as the true 
 account of the origin of the portraiture in place of 
 the natural one that it is the delineation of a 
 historical reality? We are invited to believe 
 that a body of ideologists spontaneously engaged 
 in the work of inventing a number of imaginary 
 stories and attributing them to Jesus; that the 
 three first evangelists made a selection out of a 
 large mass of such stories, and by simply weaving 
 them into a narrative their respective Christs have 
 emerged, each a unity in itself, and all three con¬ 
 stituting a common unity. This is the theory 
 which we are asked to accept of the origin of the 
 different narratives which compose the Gospels, 
 and consequently of the portraiture, for it is the 
 conjoint effect of the narratives. 
 
 The reader will perhaps wonder that the crea- 
 
THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS. 63 
 
 tion of the entire character has not been ascribed 
 to a single ideologist; but this is so opposed to all 
 the historical conditions of the case that such a 
 theory has not been propounded by a single unbe¬ 
 liever of eminence. I^et it be observed that the 
 only model which the inventors of the portraiture 
 could have had to assist them was that of the 
 Messiah as delineated in the Scriptures of the Old 
 Testament, a certain number of apocryphal wri¬ 
 tings of which the book of Enoch was the chief, 
 and the popular Messianic conceptions of the day. 
 But the assistance which these writings could 
 have afforded them must have been indefinitely 
 small, because among other differences of charac¬ 
 ter, the Messiah of the Old Testament is usually 
 depicted under the image of a triumphant warrior 
 who tramples his foes beneath his feet, whereas 
 the Jesus of the Gospels is the Christ of peace, 
 and One who denies to his followers the use of 
 carnal weapons to promote his cause. The Mes¬ 
 siah of the book of Enoch is a superhuman being, 
 without one human trait; and the leading idea of 
 the Messiah of popular expectation was that of a 
 hero who would break the Roman yoke from off 
 the neck of the Jewish people and exalt them to 
 universal rule. To all such ideas the Christ of 
 the Gospels forms a striking contrast. It is cer¬ 
 tain, therefore, that the ideologists, if they had 
 
64 the unity of the character of 
 
 used any of the above materials as their model, 
 would have depicted a Christ widely different 
 from the delineation which is set before us in the 
 pages of the evangelists. 
 
 Now, according to the theories of those whose 
 views I am controverting, the Gospels are a 
 natural growth out of the moral and religious 
 ideas and the Messianic conceptions of the times. 
 These were beyond all question earthly and carnal. 
 The mythologists therefore must have made a start 
 of some kind in advance of the moral and spiritual 
 atmosphere in the midst of which they lived; for 
 the Christ of the Gospels is beyond all question a 
 spiritual Christ, and his moral teaching is a mo¬ 
 rality of the greatest elevation. It follows, there¬ 
 fore, as mutual consultation among the fabrica¬ 
 tors of the myths and legends which compose our 
 Gospels was out of the question, that they must 
 have spontaneously arrived at the same conclu¬ 
 sion as to the style of character with which the 
 Christ ought to be invested. The reader will, 
 I think, be of opinion that such a supposition is 
 incredible. 
 
 But another alternative may be suggested. 
 The authors of our present Gospels, out of the 
 large mass of materials at their command, may 
 have selected only such as were of a certain type, 
 and by rejecting the remainder have consigned 
 
THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS. 65 
 
 them to oblivion. This supposition, however, is 
 only a little less incredible than the previous one; 
 for it is essential to the theory in question to as¬ 
 sume that the primitive believers (the mytholo- 
 gists included) were to the last degree credulous 
 and superstitious. Now, such people when they 
 invent myths and legends, as all past history 
 testifies, invariably invent such as are of a low 
 type. Whence then did the authors of our Gos¬ 
 pels get their supply of stories of a high moral 
 elevation? or even if such were available, how 
 has it come to pass that they have uniformly 
 rejected everything which w^as mean and con¬ 
 temptible, and incorporated into their narratives 
 only what was elevated and moral? To this 
 question it is impossible to give a satisfactory 
 answer. 
 
 But further, our present Gospels have super- 
 ceded this mass of current legendary matter. How 
 was this to be effected? The taste of credulous 
 and superstitious enthusiasts is for the grotesque; 
 and the theory in question affirms the primitive 
 believers to have been credulous and superstitious 
 enthusiasts. How then were they to be induced 
 to accept a set of stories of an elevated type as 
 the only true account of the life and actions of 
 the Founder of the church, in the place of the 
 
 current ones so congenial to their taste? Yet as 
 
 5 
 
66 TH^: UNITY OF THE CHARACTER OF 
 
 a matter of fact they were thus accepted, and 
 have consigned the others (with the exception of 
 the contents of the spurious Gospels) to a well- 
 merited oblivion. 
 
 Happily, however, we are not left in doubt as 
 to the kind of fictions which credulous mytholo- 
 gists invent. In these spurious Gospels we pos¬ 
 sess a number of such fictions, of which the person 
 of our Lord forms the centre. To two of these are 
 assigned as early a date as the end of the first half 
 of the second century; the remainder are of a later 
 date. They enable us to know for certain what 
 was the class of actions which during these times 
 writers of fiction were in the habit of ascribing to 
 our kord. The incidents which they record are 
 confined to two periods of his life, vi^., his child¬ 
 hood and early boyhood, on which our Gospels 
 are all but silent, and his passion and resurrec¬ 
 tion; and they omit the history of his ministry 
 and teaching. The miracles which they attribute 
 to him are for the most part of a most grotesque 
 character, and are devoid of all moral impress. 
 They are almost too painful for quotation, being 
 little better than caricatures of the Holy One of 
 God. I have elsewhere drawn a brief contrast be¬ 
 tween the Jesus of these Gospels and the Jesus of 
 the evangelists, and I cannot give the reader a 
 better idea of their contents than by quoting it: 
 
THE CHRIST OR THE GOSPELS. 67 
 
 “The case stands thus: Our Gospels present 
 us with the picture of a glorious Christ; the mythic 
 Gospels with that of a contemptible one. Our 
 Gospels have invested him with the highest con¬ 
 ceivable form of human greatness; the mythic 
 ones have not ascribed to him a single action 
 wdiich is elevated. In our Gospels he exhibits a 
 superhuman wisdom; in the mythic ones a nearly 
 equal superhuman absurdity. In our Gospels he 
 is arrayed in all the beauty of holiness; in the 
 mythic ones this aspect is entirely wanting. In 
 our Gospels not one stain of sinfulness defiles his 
 character; in the mythic ones the boy Jesus is both 
 pettish and malicious. Our Gospels exhibit to us 
 a sublime morality; not a single ray of it shines in 
 those of the mythologists. The miracles of the 
 one and the other are contrasted in every point. 
 A similar opposition of character runs through the 
 whole current of their thought, feeling, morality, 
 and religion. ” (“ The Jesus of the Evangelists, ’' 
 p. 381.) 
 
 Such is mythology when it undertakes to deal 
 with the person of our Lord. The supposition 
 that the great character of the Gospels is the cre¬ 
 ation of a number of credulous and superstitious 
 enthusiasts is therefore simply incredible. 
 
 The character of the Christ of the Gospels is 
 admitted even by unbelievers to be one of the 
 
68 the unity ou the character of 
 
 greatest elevation. Consequently, if it is an ideal 
 creation, it is entitled to rank among the most 
 perfect works of art; in fact, it is a work of art, 
 just as great poems, paintings, and statues are 
 works of art. Now these latter are never pro¬ 
 duced at hap-hazard, but are the creations of per¬ 
 sons endowed with lofty genius. If, therefore, 
 the Christ of the Gospels has resulted from the 
 labors of a number of mythologists (which is the 
 theory of my opponents), it follows that those who 
 assisted at its creation must have been persons of 
 lofty genius and moral elevation. 
 
 The application of this theory to some ac¬ 
 knowledged work of art, be it poem, painting, or 
 statue, will render its absurdity manifest. Let us 
 suppose that a character which runs through the 
 entire action of a poem forms a consistent unity; 
 that both poem and character are admitted to be¬ 
 long to a very high order of such compositions, 
 and are the result of the labors of a considerable 
 number of poets who spontaneously delineated 
 the different parts of which it is composed. But 
 as the whole is made up of the parts, it is neces¬ 
 sary to assume that a number of persons of high 
 poetic genius must have spontaneously concurred 
 in its production. In a similar manner, if we 
 were asked to believe that a celebrated painting 
 or statue originated in a similar way, it would be 
 
THE CPIRIST OE THE GOSPETS. 69 
 
 necessary to assume the coexistence of a numer¬ 
 ous body of eminent artists, who either by consent 
 or chance devoted themselves to the elaboration 
 of the various parts, which when put together 
 compose the picture or the statue; and that these 
 different fragments, when put together, formed 
 not only a unity, but a painting or a statue of the 
 highest artistic merit. 
 
 A single illustration will enable the reader to 
 appreciate the absurdity of such a position. There 
 is in the picture gallery of the Louvre a celebrated 
 painting called “The Marriage of Cana in Gali¬ 
 lee.’’ It consists of a very considerable number 
 of figures in a common grouping, all of which 
 shade into each other and form a harmonious 
 unity of conception. Let us apply to this paint¬ 
 ing the theory which we are invited to accept as 
 affording a rational account of the origin of the 
 Gospels, and consequently of the portraiture which 
 they contain. If, then, the picture is not the work 
 of a single artist, but of a multitude of artists, 
 each of them, in accordance with the above the¬ 
 ory, must have spontaneously painted a number 
 of figures, from which, when a selection had been 
 made, and the selected figures were skilfully 
 placed side by side, this celebrated picture was 
 formed. This is simply incredible. Yet it is an 
 undeniable fact that the theory which we are in- 
 
70 THE UNITY OE THE CHARACTER OE 
 
 vited to accept as affording a rational account of 
 the origin of the Gospels, and consequently of the 
 portraiture of their Christ, is encumbered with far 
 greater difficulties; for its fabricators, instead of 
 being men of lofty genius and moral elevation, 
 are, owing to the necessities of the above theory, 
 affirmed to have been a body of credulous and 
 superstitious enthusiasts. 
 
 The reader will probably wish to be informed 
 why those who have propounded the different the¬ 
 ories which I am combating encumber themselves 
 with the assumption that the primitive believers 
 were a body of credulous and superstitious enthu¬ 
 siasts. The reason is that it is necessary to do so 
 to enable them to account for the ready acceptance 
 of the various miracles, which were attributed to 
 Jesus as actual facts of his real life, while in truth 
 he himself performed none. 
 
 But not only does the legendary spirit involve 
 a low moral ideal (for this is an invariable accom¬ 
 paniment of extreme credulity and superstition), 
 but according to theories widely current among 
 unbelievers, these particular legends must have 
 been the creations of men who were at once nar¬ 
 row-minded, credulous, and, I may say, fanati¬ 
 cally enthusiastic. Yet they are destitute of a 
 single trait of fanaticism, and contain, as I have 
 •observed, scarcely any indication of enthusiasm. 
 
THE CHRIST OR THE GOSPEES. 
 
 Still more, according to the theories of modern 
 unbelief, the communities in the midst of which 
 the legends originated were animated by a strong 
 party spirit, which split them up into a number 
 of contending sects. What effect would this have 
 produced on the legends evolved in such socie¬ 
 ties? They would certainly be deeply tinged 
 with their moral impress, and they would bear 
 the indubitable marks of narrow-mindedness, big¬ 
 otry, and fanaticism. Each sect also would have 
 elaborated a set of legends in conformity with its 
 own tastes; and as the Judai^ing party was the 
 predominant one among the primitive followers 
 of Jesus, they would certainly have invented leg¬ 
 ends which were the counterparts of their own 
 narrow-mindedness and intolerance. But, as a 
 matter of fact, no such spirit is impressed on the 
 narrative of a single action which is attributed to 
 our Eord. Great, therefore, must have been the 
 unanimity of the inventors, and their moral ideal 
 preeminently lofty ! 
 
 I now ask the reader’s attention to a few facts 
 in illustration of the difficulties which the ideolo¬ 
 gists must have overcome before they could have 
 succeeded in delineating the various parts of 
 which this great character is composed. 
 
 I. They must spontaneously have concurred 
 in delineating a character which beyond all ques- 
 
72 the: unity of the character of 
 
 tion exhibits a combination of the divine and the 
 human in a single personality. The character 
 portrayed in the Gospels is obviously not the de¬ 
 lineation of one which is divine throughout, nor 
 of one which is purely human; but it is composed 
 of a union of the superhuman and the human. 
 The problem w^ould have been comparatively 
 .easy of solution if a single mythologist had pro¬ 
 posed to himself to delineate a character which 
 should exhibit either of these separate from the 
 other; but when they are to be delineated in com¬ 
 bination the problem becomes extremely compli¬ 
 cated as to the proportion in which the superhu¬ 
 man and the human are to enter into the charac¬ 
 ter, and how they are to be made insensibly to 
 shade into each other and form a harmonious 
 unity. But immeasurably greater would have 
 been the difficulty if a number of mythologists 
 had spontaneously engaged in elaborating por¬ 
 tions of a character of this description, which, 
 when combined, or even a selection of them, 
 should form a unity. Yet it is a simple fact that 
 the Christ of the Gospels does exhibit this unity, 
 and that the two factors shade into each other 
 with exquisite perfection. 
 
 2. They must also have concurred in delinea¬ 
 ting a character which is the most perfect mani¬ 
 festation of benevolence, tempered with the per- 
 
THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPEES. 73 
 
 fection of holiness, and they have at the same 
 time invested it with an aspect of stern severity 
 when brought into contact with certain forms of 
 moral evil. I draw attention to this point because 
 the whole range of literature which bears on this 
 subject proves that the diversity of opinion—how 
 these three attributes are to be exhibited in com¬ 
 bination in the same character—is very wide; not 
 a few contending that the perfection of benevo¬ 
 lence requires the exclusion of the sterner aspects 
 of holiness. Yet these aspects of character, as 
 they are depicted by the evangelists, unite to¬ 
 gether in the portraiture of our Lord with an ex¬ 
 quisite harmony; nor do the Gospels contain an 
 indication of the existence of a single legend 
 which portrayed him otherwise. In this respect 
 its unity is complete. 
 
 3. Numerous as must have been the mytholo- 
 gists, they all have concurred in attributing to 
 Jesus absolute unselfishness. If we read the Gos¬ 
 pels from one end to the other we shall not detect 
 in him one single selfish trait. It follows, there¬ 
 fore, that none of the numerous legends out of 
 which the character has been composed could 
 have depicted him as stirred to anger by a sense 
 of personal injury or animated by a single motive 
 of self-interest. Still, anger is not infrequently 
 ascribed to him; but it is invariably aroused by 
 
74 "The; unity of thf character of 
 
 the extreme form of moral obliquity. Further, 
 nowhere is this unselfishness more strongly exhib¬ 
 ited than in the miraculous narratives, which, 
 according to the theory I am combating, must 
 have been all legendary inventions. 
 
 4. Equally unanimous must they have been in 
 attributing to our Eord a self-consciousness of the 
 highest greatness in combination with the most 
 perfect humility. I say self-conscious greatness, 
 because the self-assertion which is attributed to 
 the Christ of the Gospels is of the strongest pos¬ 
 sible character. It is such as would be simply 
 extravagant in the mouth of any other man ; in 
 fact it would have been profane; and its extrava¬ 
 gance is greatly increased by the humble position 
 of the utterer. Now nothing w^ould have more 
 taxed the skill of a poet or a novelist than to 
 make the parts of such a character harmonise 
 with one another in an ideal delineation. Proba¬ 
 bly no more difficult problem could be presented 
 to either; yet both fit into one another in the Jesus 
 of the evangelists with an exquisite harmony, and 
 are preeminently conspicuous in his miraculous 
 actions. But his self-assertion, great as it is, is 
 never obtrusive; and while our Lord is uniformly 
 depicted as conscious of supreme worthiness, he 
 is invariably clothed in a garment of humility. 
 These are traits the fine touches of which defy 
 
THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPEES. 
 
 75 
 
 all power of imitation, yet they underlie the en¬ 
 tire structure of the Gospels. A single ideologist 
 would have found the delineation of this portion 
 of the character a work of the greatest difficulty; 
 yet, according to the theory I am controverting, 
 not only must the numerous mythologists of prim¬ 
 itive Christianity have been unanimous in attrib¬ 
 uting these exquisite traits of character to Jesus, 
 but they have succeeded in delineating them to 
 perfection. 
 
 5. Equally unanimous must they have been 
 in attributing the ideal of moral perfection to the 
 character which they invented; and still more re¬ 
 markable is it that they must have agreed in what 
 the ideal of moral perfection consisted. We know 
 as a matter of fact that there has been a wide di¬ 
 versity of opinion as to the mode and degree in 
 which the various virtues ought to be combined 
 so as to form a perfect character. Yet the deline¬ 
 ators of the portraiture of the Jesus of the evange¬ 
 lists must in some way or other have arrived at 
 an unconscious unanimity, for no trait of discord 
 can be found in it throughout. Further, it is the 
 universal tendency of mankind, and preeminently 
 of the ancient world, to ascribe the highest place 
 to the heroic and political virtues, and a lower 
 one to the milder and -more unobtrusive ones. 
 But in the Christ of the Gospels, while the heroic 
 
76 THK UNITY OT THE CHARACTER OE 
 
 ones are not wanting, they are subordinate to the 
 milder aspects of his character. Here again the 
 numerous mythologists must have unanimously 
 arrived at a conclusion the very opposite of which 
 the almost unanimous opinion of the times would 
 have urged them to adopt. 
 
 6 . The suffering Christ is a marvellous deline¬ 
 ation, and so important is the place which it oc¬ 
 cupies, that in point of space the history of the 
 passion fills about three-seventeenths of the entire 
 Gospels. But, as we have seen, the mythologists 
 unanimously agreed in attributing to their ideal 
 Christ a superhuman character. The problem 
 which must have presented itself to their minds 
 must therefore have been an extremely compli¬ 
 cated one—how such a character was to be de¬ 
 picted as a sufferer. Here the whole course of 
 ancient literature, even if they had been acquaint¬ 
 ed with it, would have furnished them with no 
 model; for if they had used as such the few in¬ 
 stances of this kind in the ancient poets, they 
 would have conducted them wide of the Christ of 
 the Gospels. Witness the Prometheus of ^schy- 
 lus. Nor with the exception of two, vi^., the 
 twenty-second Psalm and the fifty-third of Isaiah, 
 would the Messianic delineations of the Old Tes¬ 
 tament have guided them nearer to it; and these 
 two could only have furnished them with the 
 
THE CHRIST OE THE GOSPEES. 
 
 77 
 
 barest outline, not easy to reconcile with the 
 other Messianic delineations. Further, in at¬ 
 tempting to depict the Messiah as a patient suf¬ 
 ferer, the whole current of popular thought was 
 against them. Yet their portraiture of the suffer¬ 
 ing Christ is consistent throughout. No discord¬ 
 ant trait mars its harmony. He is all submission 
 to his Father’s will, he is calm, he is dignified in 
 the presence of his persecutors, he is absolutely 
 patient under the acutest sufferings. What can 
 surpass the dignity or the self-possession of the 
 scene before Pilate, or the patience of the Suf¬ 
 ferer on the cross? But, further: the extremity 
 of suffering concentrates the thoughts exclusively 
 on self. Not so is it in the case of the Jesus of 
 the Gospels. Yet it is human to be perturbed at 
 suffering, even at the prospect of it, and the Suf¬ 
 ferer of the Gospels is not only conceived of as 
 superhuman, but as human also—how, then, were 
 these factors to be brought into harmonv? The 
 answer of the Synoptic Gospels is the scene at 
 Gethsemane. Who shall describe it after them ? 
 The entire account of the Passion is a unitv 
 throughout. If, therefore, a mythic element en¬ 
 ters into it, the mythologists must have been 
 unanimous as to the mode of its delineation. Its 
 execution is so perfect that a writer not too favor¬ 
 ably disposed to Christianity has put into the 
 
78 the; unity ou the character oe 
 
 moutli of a fictitious character what are believed 
 to have been his own sentiments, that if the death 
 of Socrates was worthy of a philosopher, the Pas¬ 
 sion of Jesus, as it is delineated in the Gospels, is 
 worthy of a God. 
 
 7. Renan has expressed the opinion that no 
 character, whether real or ideal, approaches that 
 of Jesus in the closeness of his consciousness of 
 God, and in his intimate perception of his moral 
 fatherhood. If I understand him rightly,_he con¬ 
 siders this to be a real trait in the character of the 
 historical Jesus, though it is very difficult to un¬ 
 derstand how it is consistent with his theories 
 respecting the large amount of legendary matter 
 which is incorporated in the Gospel narratives. 
 But, at any rate, the presence of so large an 
 amount of historic truth in their pages, which 
 Renan’s position presupposes, is inconsistent with 
 the theories which are currently accepted by mod¬ 
 ern unbelievers. He has, however, only stated a 
 fact which must be patent to every reader of the 
 Gospels, vi^., that the Christ is uniformly depict¬ 
 ed as possessing a most intimate consciousness of 
 God and of his Fatherhood in relation to Himself, 
 and as teaching the great truth of His fatherhood 
 of mankind. The fact thus noted by Renan may 
 be more accurately stated as follows: Their Christ 
 is depicted as uniformly conscious of the indwell- 
 
THE CHRIST OE THE GOSPELS. 79 
 
 ing of the divine. Instances of this may be found 
 in nearly every page, but especially when he acts 
 the part of a moral teacher, enunciating, as he 
 does, the laws of the kingdom of heaven on his 
 own sole authority, when he works his miracles, 
 and in the closeness of his communion with God. 
 If, then, the portraiture is an ideal one, the my- 
 thologists must have spontaneously arrived at an 
 agreement as to how, in these aspects of it, it was 
 to be delineated; for the character in these re¬ 
 spects is unique, and they were absolutely with¬ 
 out a model to aid them in the delineation; yet 
 they have succeeded in successfully embodying 
 the idea over an extensive area of dramatized ac¬ 
 tion. The reader must form his own opinion 
 whether the above theory affords a rational ac¬ 
 count of the unity of the conception, which, in 
 the points above referred to, indubitably pervades 
 the entire narrative of the Gospels and the por¬ 
 traiture of their Christ. 
 
 8 . The Gospels are set in a historic framework, 
 i. e., they contain very numerous allusions to the 
 history, manners, customs, modes of thought, and 
 circumstances of the times during which the 
 events which they profess to record occurred. It 
 is true that the correctness of some few of these 
 have been called in question by hostile critics; 
 yet it is beyond question that the bulk of them 
 
8 o THE UNITY OE THE CHARACTER OE 
 
 (and they are very numerous) have been verified. 
 The reader can readily form an estimate of the 
 difficulty with which the attempt to set ideal cre¬ 
 ations in a historical framework is attended by 
 simply bringing under review the works of fiction 
 with which he is acquainted. He will find that 
 poets and novel writers, even of the highest emi¬ 
 nence, when they dramatize their characters over 
 an extensive sphere of action, very imperfectly 
 succeed in adjusting them to the actual facts of 
 history. This is even the case with Shakespeare, 
 of which any one may satisfy himself by reading 
 those of his historical plays of which certain 
 events in Roman history form the groundwork. 
 The characters and the sentiments attributed to 
 them are really modern ones ticketed with Roman 
 names. Thus, to adduce one or two instances, 
 the poet has confounded between the two Bru- 
 tuses, Decimus and Marcus, supposing that the 
 latter was Caesar’s favorite, whereas it was the 
 former. He makes Marcus proclaim himself to 
 be free from the vice of paltry pelf, with the gains 
 of which he avers that he will never defile his 
 hands; yet we know from Cicero’s letters that 
 this paragon of Roman virtue was an extortioner, 
 and was ready to enforce payment of his debts by 
 means so unhallowed that the great orator, al¬ 
 though his friend, refused to allow of his doing so 
 
THE CHRIST OR THE GOSPELS. 8r 
 
 during liis administration of Cyprus and Cilicia, 
 though a former governor had actually conceded 
 to his agent the use of a troop of horse, who close¬ 
 ly besieged the senate of Salamis, until some of 
 its members died of starvation. The debt was a 
 loan, on which the interest was at the rate of 48 
 per cent, per annum. He is also made to address 
 the mob in the Forum, who called themselves the 
 Roman people, as “Friends, Romans, country¬ 
 men!” No Roman orator would ever have used 
 these or similar expressions. So again, he is made 
 to address senators as ‘ ‘ My Fords, ’ ’ a term which 
 the Em*peror Tiberius said, when it was attempt¬ 
 ed to be addressed to himself, was only fit to be 
 used by slaves to their masters. In speeches in 
 the senate the uniform mode of address was ‘ ‘ Con¬ 
 script Fathers”—“ Patres Conscripti.” It would 
 be easy to adduce a number of similar instances 
 from the writings of the poet, but these will be 
 sufficient to give the reader an idea of the thing 
 intended. If, then, the greatest of dramatists has 
 conspicuously failed in accurately portraying the 
 historical persons whom he professes to delineate, 
 their habits and modes of thought, and making 
 them fit in with the historical facts of the times, 
 I need hardly say that the difficulties must have 
 been great indeed which must have encumbered 
 
 the credulous mythologists who invented the 
 
 6 
 
82 THE UNITY OF THE CHARACTER OF 
 
 mythical and legendary stories of which our Gos¬ 
 pels are alleged to be chiefly composed, to adjust 
 their inventions to the facts of history and to the 
 geography of the places in which the scenes are 
 alles’cd to have occurred. Yet the allusions made 
 in these to current ideas and events are far more 
 numerous than those in the plays in question, and 
 most of them are of the most incidental character; 
 yet every discovery in history proves their cor¬ 
 rectness, even in those cases which in former 
 times have been made subjects of dispute. The 
 simple truth is, that the more history has been 
 explored, the more their historical accuracy has 
 been vindicated. The common sense of the read¬ 
 er will therefore lead him to conclude that the 
 difficulties would not only have been great, but 
 insuperable. 
 
 9. No small portion of the Gospels is occupied 
 with giving an account of our Lord’s moral teach¬ 
 ing, in which I include his parabolic utterances. 
 Unbelievers of the type of the late J. S. Mill are 
 ready to accept the moral teaching of the Synop¬ 
 tic Gospels as the actual moral teaching of the 
 historic Jesus, while they deny everything in him 
 which savors of the supernatural. This position, 
 however, even if it could be admitted to be the 
 true solution of the facts, leaves the real point at 
 issue entirely untouched. As I have above ob- 
 
THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS. 83 
 
 served, the ground taken by this eminent writer 
 is, that the moral teaching which these Gospels 
 attribute to Jesus is so elevated above the concep¬ 
 tions of his followers that it was absolutely above 
 their powers to have invented it. This position 
 I cordially accept. It is founded on the general 
 principle that a man cannot, by any effort of his 
 own, raise himself more than a few degrees above 
 that moral and spiritual atmosphere in which he 
 is born and educated. But this being so, the fol¬ 
 lowing question urgently demands an answer: If 
 Jesus was a mere man like ourselves, how became 
 he capable of attaining an elevation high above 
 the surroundings of his birth and education? The 
 reader will perceive that the position taken by Mr. 
 Mill and others does not meet the difficulty, but 
 only removes it one step higher up. Those who 
 propound this theory as an adequate solution of 
 the facts may be justly called upon to answer the 
 question which was asked over eighteen hundred 
 years ago, and which remains unanswered to the 
 present day, except on the assumption of the in¬ 
 dwelling in him of the superhuman: Whence got 
 this man all this wisdom ? 
 
 But I am persuaded that a careful perusal of 
 the Gospels will convince the reader that it is im¬ 
 possible to effect this separation between the moral 
 teaching of our Lord and the supernatural ele- 
 
^4 THE UNITY OF THE CHARACTER OF 
 
 ments which they contain. I would ask him to 
 observe, in the first place, that considerable por¬ 
 tions of the moral teaching directly grow out of 
 the miraculous narrative, and cannot be separated 
 from it without doing violence to the whole. Yet 
 this portion of it is equally elevated with those 
 parts of it which are not so united. But, secondly 
 and chiefly, the far larger proportion of it is per¬ 
 meated by utterances in which our Bord makes 
 claims of so exalted a nature as to be only consist¬ 
 ent with the assumption that he was conscious in 
 himself of the presence of the divine. To the 
 general character of these I have already alluded. 
 All that I here wish to observe is, that these utter¬ 
 ances as much involve the presence of a superhu¬ 
 man element as those actions which are common¬ 
 ly called ‘‘ miracles.” Yet the whole of this ele¬ 
 vated moral teaching of Jesus is interpenetrated 
 with this idea. Throughout the Gospels his ut¬ 
 terances are placed by himself on a level with ac¬ 
 knowledged oracles from heaven. Yet if all the 
 superhuman elements of the Gospels are ideal, all 
 the utterances which contain these lofty claims, 
 as well as those which grow out of the miraculous 
 narratives, must have been the inventions of the 
 mythologists. From this it follows that these 
 credulous and superstitious followers of Jesus must 
 have been men of a moral ideal elevated high 
 
THE CHRIST OE THE GOSPEES. 85 
 
 above the conceptions of their times, otherwise 
 they could not have invented them. But this is 
 not only contrary to the principle on which Mr. 
 Mill’s reasoning is based, but is in itself incred¬ 
 ible. 
 
 I must now ask the reader’s attention to a few 
 striking traits in our Lord’s moral teaching. Ta¬ 
 ken as a whole, it possesses that unity of concep¬ 
 tion which is the acknowledged characteristic of 
 the productions of single minds. It bears none of 
 the marks which a set of aphorisms bear when 
 they have been selected out of a number of other 
 systems and attempted to be woven into a whole. 
 It is admitted to be a moral system of the greatest 
 elevation. It is one which is catholic; i. e., it is 
 one founded on nothing which is merely local or 
 temporary, but is applicable to the whole family 
 of man. It is one in which the principles of cas¬ 
 uistry find no place. It comprehends in itself all 
 possible moral obligation, and embraces in its 
 great principles every duty which is due from 
 man to God or from man to man. It is one im¬ 
 mensely elevated above the moral and spiritual 
 atmosphere of the times in which it originated, 
 and of the narrow-minded of the particular race 
 in the midst of which it was born. All these are 
 simple facts, and many others might be added. 
 
 Now if, in accordance with the general theory 
 
86 the: unity of the: character of 
 
 I am controverting, the Gospels chiefly consist of 
 a mass of myths and legends, it follows that those 
 portions of their moral teaching which are closely 
 interwoven with their legendary matter must have 
 been the invention of mythologists, who must 
 . have spontaneously elaborated portions of it, 
 which have been woven into a whole by the au¬ 
 thors of our present Gospels. Further, numerous 
 as they were, they must not only have been all 
 elevated above the conception of the times in 
 which they lived, but they must have concurred 
 as to the line of moral teaching which was to be 
 attributed to Jesus, and as to what constituted the 
 highest type of morality. If, on the other hand, 
 it is urged that the authors of our Gospels selected 
 those of the current legends which presented an 
 elevated type of morality, and rejected the re¬ 
 mainder, then not only would the Gospels bear 
 clear indications of such a selection, but it would 
 still be necessary to attribute the invention of this 
 elevated moral teaching to a number of credu¬ 
 lous mythologists. It is scarcely necessary for me 
 to waste the reader’s time in proving that the the¬ 
 ories above referred to are utterly incredible. 
 
 lo. The mythologists who invented the ideal 
 matter of which the Gospels are alleged mainly 
 to consist must have been men of either Jewish 
 or Grecian culture. Of these the former must 
 
THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS. 8/ 
 
 have been by far the most numerous; and we 
 have abundant testimony how deeply the princi¬ 
 ples of Judaism were impressed on the Jews of 
 the apostolic age. But according to all the laws 
 which regulate the production of myths and leg¬ 
 ends, such productions are an embodiment of the 
 feelings and ideas of their inventors; i. e., those 
 invented by Jews would have been an embodi¬ 
 ment of Jewish, and those by Greeks of the Gre¬ 
 cian type of thought. But, as a matter of fact, 
 the Jesus of the evangelists is neither Jew nor 
 Greek, nor an amalgamation of both, but as broad 
 as humanity itself; i. e., he is a character com¬ 
 pletely catholic. What follows ? If the theories 
 against which I am contending are correct, these 
 credulous mythologists must have concurred, 
 without previous concert, in delineating a num¬ 
 ber of ideal creations, which, when placed side 
 by side in our Gospels, have formed the great 
 character which is neither Jew nor Greek, but 
 absolutely catholic. The reader will, I think, be 
 of opinion that such a theory is absolutely incred¬ 
 ible. 
 
 II. The Evolution theory, or the theory of 
 tendencies, has some difficulties which are pecu¬ 
 liar to itself, to which I must invite the attention 
 of the reader. Briefly stated, this theory is as fol¬ 
 lows : 
 
88 THE UNITY OU THE CHARACTER OR 
 
 According to it the primitive churches were 
 divided into a number of discordant sects, among 
 whom party spirit raged with violence. These 
 elaborated a set of doctrines and fictitious stories 
 for the purpose of embodying their own particular 
 tendencies. When this sectarian spirit had risen 
 to a dangerous height, it was found desirable 
 to effect compromises between these discordant 
 schools. Of this spirit of compromise St. Luke’s 
 Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles are^alleged 
 to be striking examples. Both works are said to 
 have been composed for the purpose of mediating 
 between two contending parties, the Petrine and 
 the Pauline, and thereby of aiding in the creation 
 of a common Christianity, For this purpose their 
 author is alleged to have largely modified the 
 materials of which he was in possession, and to 
 have imparted a strong coloring to most of the 
 miracles whieh are recorded in the latter book, if 
 he did not actually invent them. 
 
 In addition to the difficulties with which this 
 theory, in common with those which we have al¬ 
 ready considered, is encumbered, it contains one 
 remarkable assumption which contradicts all the 
 facts of human nature. It assumes that a number 
 of compromises have been effected in the church, 
 and that catholic Christianity has grown out of 
 them. But what says the voice of history respect- 
 
TIIK CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS. 
 
 89 
 
 ing the quarrels of religious creeds? Do they 
 effect compromises ? Do they conclude treaties 
 or propound irenicons? Have mediators arisen 
 who have succeeded in forming out of several con¬ 
 tending sects a united church? On these points 
 history returns no ambiguous answer. Party spirit 
 in religion, instead of effecting compromises, goes 
 on continually widening. Witness the history of 
 the internal divisions of all the religions in the 
 world. When have a number of contending sects 
 fused into one, and out of the fusion erected a 
 common church? It has passed into a common 
 proverb that nothing is more irreconcilable than 
 religious divisions. Yet without these compro¬ 
 mises the theory of tendencies cannot advance a 
 step. It is one, therefore, which, while it may 
 look plausible in the study, is dashed to pieces 
 against the facts of history and the realities of 
 human nature. 
 
 It is a matter of indifference with respect to 
 the foregoing arguments whether the materials 
 out of which the evangelists composed our Gos¬ 
 pels were oral traditions, or, as some contend, 
 written documents, or were partly written and 
 partly oral. If we adopt the theory that the Sy¬ 
 noptic Gospels were composed by the aid of pre¬ 
 viously existing documents, then it is evident that 
 the character which they delineate must have been 
 
90 THK UNITY OF THE CHARACTER OF 
 
 already portrayed in these documents, only with 
 somewhat less of detail. The question therefore 
 still demands an answer, How did it get into these 
 earlier documents? The documents themselves 
 must have been composed from traditions, which, 
 if the Gospels are unhistorical, must have been a 
 set of legendary inventions. It follows, therefore, 
 whether we assume the Gospels to have been com¬ 
 posed by the aid of existing documents, or that 
 the evangelists drew directly from tradition, that 
 the portraiture of Jesus must have been formed 
 out of what was once a floating mass of legends; 
 and further, that these legends must have had 
 numerous inventors. 
 
 It follows, therefore, whatever alternative we 
 adopt, that the great character delineated in the 
 Gospels must have been the creation of the per¬ 
 sons who originally invented the legends of which 
 it is composed, each one having portrayed that 
 portion of it which is contained in the narrative 
 which he invented. The only other possible sup¬ 
 position is that the conception of the character 
 was already so deeply impressed on the minds of 
 the mythologists that the legends which they in¬ 
 vented became stamped with its moral impress; 
 but this supposition is inconsistent with the theo¬ 
 ries which we have been considering, for it pre¬ 
 supposes the character already to have been in 
 
THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS. 91 
 
 existence, and consequently to have been the de¬ 
 lineation of a historical reality. 
 
 I have assumed throughout this entire argu¬ 
 ment that the reader of the Gospels instinctively 
 perceives that the delineation of their Christ con¬ 
 stitutes a unity of conception. I do not think that 
 this has ever been denied with respect to the Sy¬ 
 noptics, except in a very few cases, which are not 
 worthy of notice, against the all but universal 
 consent to the contrary. The objections which 
 have been urged against the character are direct¬ 
 ed against the perfection of certain aspects of it, 
 such as those which have been urged by Mr. F. 
 Newman and a similar class of objectors. Into 
 their minute and frequently most captious criti¬ 
 cisms it is not my purpose to enter; the fact will 
 be sufficient that its greatness is not only unani¬ 
 mously affirmed by Christians, but freely conce¬ 
 ded by the majority of eminent unbelievers. But 
 the case is somewhat different with respect to the 
 fourth Gospel. It has been affirmed that the Je¬ 
 sus of this Gospel differs widely from the Jesus of 
 the Synoptics. 
 
 Here I would ask the reader particularly to 
 observe that if all that has been alleged by critical 
 unbelief on this subject were conceded to be cor¬ 
 rect, the above arguments will remain totally 
 unaffected by this concession. The unity of the 
 
92 TIIK UNITY OU THE CHARACTER OF 
 
 character of the Christ of the Synoptic Gospels is 
 sufficient to sustain their entire weight. Even if 
 the Gospel of St. John were proved to be a for¬ 
 gery, and its portraiture to be that of a different 
 Christ from the Christ of the Synoptics, still it 
 would be impossible to account for the unity of 
 the character of the Synoptic Christ except on 
 the assumption that it is the delineation of a 
 historical reality. The question would still re¬ 
 tain all its force. If it is an ideal creation, how 
 did their portraitures get into the Synoptics? 
 The argument is undoubtedly strengthened if 
 the four portraitures are portraitures of one and 
 the same Christ; but it does not depend on this for 
 its validity, nor does the assumption of the unhis- 
 torical character of the fourth Gospel get rid of one 
 of the difficulties with which the theories which 
 are propounded by unbelievers are attended. 
 My position, however, is that the four portrai¬ 
 tures are portraitures of one and the same Christ, 
 only differing from one another in the point of 
 view at which they have been taken; but I fully 
 admit that the point of view from which the 
 author of the fourth Gospel contemplated the 
 character differs more from that of the Synoptics 
 than any one of the three differs from the others. 
 
 The facts stand as follows: While it is un¬ 
 questionable that the Jesus of the fourth Gospel 
 
THE CHRIST OR THE GOSPELS. 
 
 93 
 
 habitually makes higher assertions respecting 
 himself than the Jesus of the Synoptics, the Jesus 
 of the Synoptics puts in claims in his various 
 utterances of which the truth of the assertions in 
 the fourth Gospel is the vindication. My mean¬ 
 ing will be rendered clear by a few illustrations. 
 In the Sermon on the Mount our Lord claims for 
 his utterances, as legislator of the kingdom of 
 heaven, not only a higher authority than those 
 which Moses uttered in the name of God, but that 
 they are on a level with those uttered by the di¬ 
 vine voice at Sinai. In like manner, throughout 
 his entire teaching, he speaks in the highest tones 
 of authority; but the authority is none other than 
 his own. This authoritative form of his utter¬ 
 ances, as we are informed by the evangelists, 
 formed a very striking feature in his teaching, 
 and particularly arrested the attention of his hear¬ 
 ers. St. Matthew says (7:29): “The multitudes 
 were astonished at his teaching, for he spake as 
 one having authority.” He also claims su¬ 
 preme regard and the highest self-sacrifice on 
 the part of his disciples, founded on his own in¬ 
 herent worthiness—a regard so great as to be 
 entitled to supersede the strongest natural ties 
 which unite man to man. Thus he affirms: 
 “He that loveth father and mother more than 
 me is not worthy of me; he that loveth son or 
 
94 the unity oe the character of 
 
 * 
 
 daughter more than me, is not worthy of me; he 
 that taketh not up his cross and followeth after 
 me, is not worthy of me.’^ Matt. 10:36, 37. 
 Again, 
 
 “Whosoever, therefore, shall be ashamed of 
 me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful 
 generation, of him also shall the Son of man be 
 ashamed when he comes in the glory of his Fa¬ 
 ther with the holy angels. Also I say unto you, 
 whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall 
 the Son of Man also confess before the angels of 
 God; but he that denieth me before men shall be 
 denied before the angels of God.” Matt. 8:38; 
 Luke 12:8, 9. Again and again he affirms that 
 he it is, and no other, who will determine the 
 final destinies of man, as a righteous judge, in 
 conformity with their conduct here; and in a re¬ 
 markable parabolic utterance he gives us the 
 delineation of himself as the king thus seated on 
 the throne of his glory with all nations assem¬ 
 bled before him. Further, in performing his mir¬ 
 acles he unifoimly works them in his own name, 
 without referring to any other than himself. Thus 
 a suppliant leper cries, “Lord, if thou wilt, thou 
 canst make me clean.” “I will,” is the reply. 
 “Be thou clean. And immediately his leprosy 
 was cleansed.” Matt. 8:3. Again, to the sick of 
 the palsy, ‘ ‘ I say unto thee. Arise, take up thy 
 
THE CHRIST OE THE GOSPELS. 95 
 
 bed. ’ ’ Mark 2:11. And in the case of every other 
 miracle he uses similar language. The careful 
 reader of the Synoptics will find numerous in¬ 
 stances of these authoritative utterances, which 
 it is unnecessary to particularise. 
 
 These and other similar claims which are 
 made by the Jesus of the Synoptics would be the 
 height of presumption if their utterer were a mere 
 man who was devoid of all consciousness of the 
 indwelling of the divine. In fact their arrogance 
 would be so great as to be inconsistent with the 
 presence of holiness, not to say humility, in any 
 purely human character. They are indefinitely 
 higher than those made by the greatest of great 
 men known to history. Neither prophet nor 
 apostle ventures to use such language. Their 
 only vindication is the consciousness on the part 
 of the utterer of the indwelling of the divine. 
 
 This being so, the utterances of our Tord in 
 the fourth Gospel, if true, are their ample vindi¬ 
 cation. The case stands thus: 
 
 This Gospel is the complement of the utter¬ 
 ances in the Synoptics, and the claims put forth 
 in the Synoptics of the utterances in the fourth 
 Gospel. “My Father worketh hitherto, and I 
 work,” is the utterance of the Christ of St. John. 
 The Synoptic Christ says, “Stretch forth thy 
 hand, ’ ’ and the hand is restored. 
 
q6 "thh unity ot the; character of 
 
 But although our I^ord’s aflSrmations respect- 
 ting himself are more lofty than those in the 
 Synoptics, his teaching in both is indelibly im¬ 
 pressed with the same moral character; it is in 
 fact the teaching of the same Jesus. 
 
 On the other hand, when we compare the 
 two sets of narratives as distinct from the dis¬ 
 courses, the two characters which they delineate 
 are identical. It has been alleged that the Johan- 
 nine Christ is depicted as more divine-and less 
 human than the Synoptic Christ. This I deny; 
 and as the point is one of considerable importance, 
 I must afford proof of it. One passage in the 
 Synoptics contains affirmations made by our Lord 
 respecting himself quite as elevated as anything 
 which can be found in the fourth Gospel; in fact, 
 it forms their connecting link. It is as follows: 
 
 “At that time Jesus answered and said, I 
 thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, 
 because thou hast hid these things from the wise 
 and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. 
 Even so. Father, for so it seemed good in thy 
 sight. All things are delivered unto me of my 
 Father; and none knoweth the Son but the Father, 
 neither knoweth any the Father save the Son, 
 and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. 
 Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy 
 laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke 
 
THE CHRIST OR THE GOSPEES. 97 
 
 Upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and 
 lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your 
 souls; for my yoke is easy, and my burden light.” 
 Matt. 11:25-30. 
 
 It would be difficult to find any utterance of 
 our Lord which is recorded in the fourth Gospel 
 which claims for himself a more superhuman 
 character than the one before us. It affirms that 
 he possesses an exclusive knowledge of the Fa¬ 
 ther, and that none knows him but the Father, 
 or the Father but himself, and that all things are 
 delivered by the Father into his hands; and in 
 virtue of this superhuman character he invites 
 those who labor and are heavy laden to obtain 
 rest in him, affirming that the yoke and the bur¬ 
 den which he will impose on them is light; but 
 at the same time they are his yoke and his bur¬ 
 den. 
 
 But while the fourth Gospel frequently attrib¬ 
 utes to our Lord the strong dogmatical assertions 
 respecting the dignity of his person which we 
 read in its pages, it delineates the other portions 
 of his character as being equally human as those 
 in the Synoptics. Thus St. John describes him 
 as sitting at Jacob’s well, wearied with his jour¬ 
 ney; the Synoptics on several occasions describe 
 him as retiring to rest himself after his day’s 
 
 labor. In the account of the resurrection of 
 
 7 
 
98 THE UNITY OF THE CHARACTER OF 
 
 Lazarus, the fourth Gospel represents him as 
 shedding tears of sympathy, and the whole de¬ 
 scription, while attributing to him a highly divine 
 character, invests him with a number of character¬ 
 istics which are preeminently human. Similarly 
 the third Gospel depicts him as shedding tears, 
 and uttering the most pathetic lamentation over 
 Jerusalem and its impending ruin. So again 
 the description of the last supper in the Johan- 
 nine Gospel delineates him as exhibiting precise¬ 
 ly the same aspects of character as in the Synop¬ 
 tics, only in the former its traits are more deli¬ 
 cately drawn. Similar also is the narrative of 
 the betrayal, the trial, and the crucifixion. All 
 this is utterly inconsistent with the theory which 
 asserts that the author of this Gospel was so in¬ 
 tent on delineating a divine Christ that he has 
 suppressed some of those human aspects of his 
 character which are conspicuous in the Synop¬ 
 tics. In both the identity of character is unmis¬ 
 takable. 
 
 This identity will become apparent if we in¬ 
 stitute a comparison between an entire section in 
 the Synoptics and a corresponding one in the 
 fourth Gospel. As it is the longest and most 
 complete, I will take that which, on the theory 
 that the Gospels are unhistorical, may not in¬ 
 aptly be designated the Drama of the Passion. 
 
THE CHRIST OR THE GOSPELS. 99 
 
 It will only be necessary to notice the chief in¬ 
 cidents. 
 
 The narrative in question begins with the ac¬ 
 count of the anointing of our Lord at Bethany. 
 It is narrated both by the Synoptics and St. John, 
 but in a different connection. It is remarkable 
 that the latter omits an utterance of our Lord 
 which proves that He accepted the act as having 
 a certain divine significance: “Verily I say unto 
 you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached 
 in the whole world, there shall also this that this 
 woman hath done be told for a memorial of her. ’ ’ 
 Matt. 26 :13. But in all other respects the de¬ 
 scriptions are precisely alike. 
 
 To this follows the account in the fourth Gos¬ 
 pel of the triumphal entry into Jerusalem, in 
 which all four evangelists represent our Lord as, 
 prior to his great act of self-sacrifice, assuming 
 the character of the King Messiah. Notwith¬ 
 standing a considerable number of minor varia¬ 
 tions, the delineations are similar throughout, 
 except that the Synoptics attribute to him the 
 high Messianic act of cleansing the temple, which 
 in this place is omitted by St. John. At this 
 point the narratives diverge, those of the Synop¬ 
 tics representing him as engaged during the days 
 which intervened between his entry and his pas¬ 
 sion in teaching in the temple and in discussions 
 
lOO the UNITY OF THE CHARACTER OF 
 
 with the Jews, while that of St. John records only 
 an interview with some Greeks, in which he is 
 depicted in an aspect preeminently human. On 
 the other hand, the Synoptical delineations depict 
 our I^ord during this interval in an attitude pre¬ 
 eminently divine. I allude to his great eschato¬ 
 logical discourse, which is recorded by all three 
 Synoptics, and the supplemental parable of the 
 last judgment, which is attributed to him by St. 
 Matthew. 
 
 This discourse, in conjunction with this par¬ 
 able, contains the greatest and most perfect de¬ 
 lineation of our Tord in the divine and human 
 aspects of his character which is to be found 
 in the New Testament, and is certainly not ex¬ 
 ceeded by anything which is affirmed respecting 
 him in the fourth Gospel. So far the aspect of 
 the Christ of this Gospel is more human than the 
 Christ of the Synoptics. 
 
 Next follows the narrative of the last supper. 
 That of John, while differing in numerous points 
 of minor details, which have no bearing on our 
 present argument, from those of the Synoptics, 
 consists of three scenes—the washing of the dis¬ 
 ciples’ feet, the detection and exposure of Judas, 
 and the warning given to Peter. In each of these 
 our Tord is delineated as the perfect combination 
 of dignity with humility and condescending love, 
 
THE CHRIST OE THE GOSPEES. 
 
 lOl 
 
 yet in an aspect exquisitely human. No bare de¬ 
 scription of it will do it justice. 
 
 But how stands the case with the Synoptics ? 
 It is clear that all four evangelists intended on 
 this occasion to delineate our Lord in his pro- 
 foundest humiliation ; and it is equally certain, 
 notwithstanding their variations, that the concep¬ 
 tion is identical in all four writers. The last two 
 inciden^ in thejohannine account form a portion 
 of that of the Synoptics, while the first is omitted; 
 and in St. Luke’s Gospel there is inserted in place 
 of it an account of a contest for superiority among 
 the disciples at the very supper-table, and our 
 Lord’s rebuke of it. This discourse, however, 
 contains a very remarkable utterance of our Lord 
 (Luke 22 :29, 30): “And I appoint unto you a 
 kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me, 
 that ye may eat and drink at my table in my 
 kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve 
 tribes of Israel.” It thus combines the highest 
 self-assertion with profound humiliation. 
 
 So far the Johannine narrative, as distin¬ 
 guished from the discourses, does not disclose a 
 single trait of a conscious purpose to depict a 
 more divine Christ, or to invest him with less hu¬ 
 man feelings, than the Christ of the Synoptics. 
 
 But how about the long discourse in chapters 
 14, 15, and 16 of St. John’s Gospel, terminated 
 
102 THE UNITY OF THE CHARACTER OF 
 
 by the prayer of intercession ? Is not this intend¬ 
 ed to invest our I^ord with a halo of glory prior to 
 his passion, and to depict him as preeminently 
 divine ? I answer that the divine aspect of his 
 character as set forth in this discourse is not 
 greater than in Matthew 24 and 25, which was 
 uttered less than two days before the one we are 
 now considering, both alike being spoken under 
 the shadow of the cross. In both our Lqrd is de¬ 
 scribed as investing himself with superhuman 
 greatness immediately before his deepest humili¬ 
 ation, and in both alike he is invested with sym¬ 
 pathies preeminently human. So far the Christ 
 of this Gospel is certainly identical with the Christ 
 of the Synoptics. 
 
 We now pass on to the scenes of the arrest and 
 trial. Here the details differ considerably, the 
 Johannine narrative passing over in silence the 
 account of the agony in the Garden; yet the same 
 fundamental conception pervades all four narra¬ 
 tives, viz., that of our Lord’s voluntary self-sur¬ 
 render. This is expressed in the fourth Gospel 
 by the mode in which Jesus is represented as go¬ 
 ing to meet the band at the entrance of the Gar¬ 
 den; in the Synoptics, by the declaration that he 
 had only to pray to his Father, and He would 
 presently send him more than twelve legions of 
 angels. It is simply absurd to affirm that either 
 
THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS. IO 3 
 
 incident was invented for the purpose of height¬ 
 ening the effect Certainly his consciousness, as 
 it is depicted by St John, is not more divine than 
 as it is depicted by the Synoptics. Both delinea¬ 
 tions are portraitures of Jesus supported by the 
 consciousness of the indwelling of the divine in 
 the act of voluntarily yielding himself up to death. 
 It is worthy of remark that the Synoptics describe 
 him immediately before his condemnation as ma¬ 
 king a deliberate assertion of his superhuman 
 character in the presence of the Jewish council, 
 which incident is passed over in silence in the 
 fourth Gospel. The only counterpart to it in this 
 Gospel is our kord’s assertion of his royal dignity 
 before Pilate. Thus each character fits harmoni¬ 
 ously into the other. 
 
 But what about the omission in this Gospel of 
 the account of the agony in the Garden ? Is not 
 the objection which has often been urged true, 
 that its author omitted it of set purpose, fearing 
 that his divine Christ could not endure the weight 
 of so great a humiliation? That such an objec¬ 
 tion can have been made in the face of the facts 
 above referred to, and numerous others contained 
 in this Gospel, is only one of many proofs that the 
 enunciators of certain theories are ready to accept 
 anything which is in accordance with their pre¬ 
 conceived opinions on a very slender foundation 
 
104 THE UNITY OF THE CHARACTER OF 
 
 of evidence. It is now impossible to determine 
 with absolute certainty what was the reason which 
 induced the author of this Gospel to omit from his 
 account of the passion any reference to the agony 
 in the garden; but nothing can be more certain 
 than that it could not have been that which has 
 been alleged by the school of critics to which I 
 allude; for while he has omitted the account of 
 the agony, he alone of the evangelists gives us an 
 account of another perturbation of our Lord occa¬ 
 sioned by the prospect of his sufferings and death, 
 which occurred only two days previously. Both 
 accounts depict him in aspects equally human. It 
 will be necessary to set both before the reader. 
 
 The following is the Johannine portraiture : 
 
 “And Jesus answered them, saying. The hour 
 is come that the Son of man should be glorified. 
 Verily, verily, I say unto you. Except a corn of 
 wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth 
 alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. . .. 
 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? 
 Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause 
 came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. 
 Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I 
 have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.. .. 
 Jesus answered and said. This voice came not be¬ 
 cause of me, but for your sakes. Now is the judg¬ 
 ment of this world: now shall the prince of this 
 
THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS. 105 
 
 world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from 
 the earth, will draw all men unto me.” John 
 12 : 23 - 32 . 
 
 The following is one of the Synoptical deline¬ 
 ations of the subsequent agony: 
 
 He said unto them, “Sit ye here while I go 
 and pray yonder. And he took with him Peter 
 and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sor¬ 
 rowful and very heavy. Then saith he unto them. 
 My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: 
 tarry ye here, and watch with me. And he went 
 a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, 
 saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup 
 pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as 
 thou wilt. And he cometh unto the disciples, 
 and findeth them asleep, and saith unto Peter, 
 What, could ye not watch with me one hour? 
 Watch and pray, that ye enter not into tempta¬ 
 tion: the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is 
 weak. And he went away again the second time, 
 and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may 
 not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will 
 be done. And he came and found them asleep 
 again: for their eyes were heavy. And he left 
 them, and went away again, and prayed the third 
 time, saying the same words. ’ ’ Matt. 26 : 36-44. 
 
 On this follows the narrative of his voluntary 
 surrender into the hands of his enemies. 
 
io6 thk unity of the: character of 
 
 The reader will observe that the sentiment 
 expressed in both passages is identical, vi^., that 
 Jesus was perturbed at the contemplation of his 
 sufferings now just impending over him, that he 
 uttered a prayer for deliverance from them, and 
 that after the prayer perfect calmness returned 
 and the full purpose of submission to the divine 
 will. So far the Synoptic narrative of the Agony 
 differs from the perturbation described by St. John 
 only in the threefold repetition of the prayer and 
 in the language in which it is expressed. Both 
 alike are described as having been uttered under 
 the immediate shadow of the cross. 
 
 If the fourth Gospel is a forgery, its author 
 must have been an adept at his art, for its deline¬ 
 ations are almost perfect of their kind. But the 
 idea that he invented the narrative of the pertur¬ 
 bation, and suppressed that of the agony for the 
 purpose of imparting a more divine aspect to his 
 Master’s character, is only consistent with his 
 having been little better than a bungler; for the 
 description of the Synoptics is the grander of the 
 two, and the submission of the will of the sufferer 
 to that of the Father is absolute and complete. 
 The struggle and final submission, as it is depict¬ 
 ed in the Synoptics, is Godlike and, at the same 
 time, intensely human, and is strictly in conform¬ 
 ity with the character of the Johannine Christ. 
 
THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS. 107 
 
 The narrative of the condemnation and of the 
 crucifixion calls for little remark. Here again 
 the incidents are extremely varied; but this only 
 imparts a greater force to my argument: for not 
 a single circumstance affects the identity of the 
 character. It is impossible to affirm that the au¬ 
 thor of the fourth Gospel has imparted a more 
 divine or a less human character to our kord, 
 either before Pilate or on the cross, than is attrib¬ 
 uted to him by the Synoptics. If he has omitted 
 the cry, “My God, my God, why hast thou for¬ 
 saken me?” which is attributed to him by the lat¬ 
 ter, he has inserted that of “ I thirst,” which they 
 pass over in silence. Surely this is as truly hu¬ 
 man as the former. Again, if he has attributed 
 to him, just prior to his death, the triumphant 
 cry, “It is finished,” we know from the Synop¬ 
 tics that he uttered some cry which infused awe 
 into the mind of the centurion, and the exclama¬ 
 tion itself has its complete counterpart in St. 
 Luke’s Gospel, in his answer to the prayer of the 
 repentant robber that he would remember him 
 when he came into his kingdom : “Verily I say 
 unto thee. To-day shalt thou be with me in Para¬ 
 dise.” 
 
 From these considerations the following con¬ 
 clusion is a necessary consequence. The Johan- 
 nine Christ and the Synoptic Christ are portrai- 
 
io8 the unity of the character of 
 
 tures of the same cliaracter, only varying from 
 each other in the points of view from which their 
 authors contemplated them; and the more nu¬ 
 merous the variations are in the details, the strong¬ 
 er is the evidence which they afford of identity; 
 for if there had been any conscious purpose of im¬ 
 parting a more divine character to his Christ than 
 the reality in the author of the fourth Gospel, it 
 would have certainly manifested itself in these va¬ 
 riations. The portraiture of the Jesus of the evan¬ 
 gelists, therefore, not only forms a harmonious 
 unity of character throughout, but the assertion 
 that the Johannine Christ differs in point of char¬ 
 acter from the Christ of the Synoptics is utterly 
 unfounded. Our position, therefore, is a most 
 favorable one. We have not one only, but four 
 portraitures of our Cord, no two of which are 
 identical, thus proving the independence of the 
 delineators; but all four possessing that essential 
 unity of conception which is the characteristic of 
 historical reality, but which is unattainable in the 
 ideal inventions of multitudes of mythologists. 
 
 In conclusion, there are only two possible al¬ 
 ternatives : the portraiture of the Christ of the 
 Gospels is either the delineation of a historical 
 reality, or it is an ideal creation. The first of 
 these alternatives satisfies all the historical condi¬ 
 tions of the case; the second, none. Nay, more, 
 
THK CHRIST OF THE GOSPHTS. IO 9 
 
 as I have proved above, it involves a mass of 
 hopeless contradictions and absurdities, in the 
 possibility of which reason refuses to believe. It 
 follows, therefore, that the portraiture of the 
 Christ of the Gospels is the delineation of a his¬ 
 torical reality. This being so, Christianity car¬ 
 ries with it all the consequences of being a divine 
 revelation. These consequences I will sum up in 
 our Gord’s own words: 
 
 “Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on 
 me believeth not on me, but on him that sent 
 me. And he that beholdeth me beholdeth him 
 that sent me. I am come a light into the world, 
 that whosoever believeth on me may not abide in 
 darkness. And if any man hear my sayings, and 
 keep them not, I judge him not: for I came not 
 to judge the world, but to save the world. He 
 that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, 
 hath one that judgetti him: the word that I spake, 
 the same shall judge him in the last day. For I 
 spake not from myself; but the Father which sent 
 me, he hath given me a commandment, what I 
 should say, and what I should speak. And I 
 know that his commandment is life eternal: the 
 things therefore which I speak, even as the Fa¬ 
 ther hath said unto me, so I speak.” John 
 12 : 44-50, Revised Version. 
 
 Tet us therefore accept his gracious invita- 
 
no 
 
 the: CHRIST OF THF GOSPFTS. 
 
 tion: “Come unto me, all ye that labor and are 
 heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my 
 yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek 
 and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto 
 your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden 
 is light” (Matt, ii 128-30); and his declaration 
 that his person is the revelation of the Father. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY 
 
 The Four Gospels 
 
 BY 
 
 \/ 
 
 HENRY WAGE, D.D., 
 
 PREBENDARY OF ST. PAUL’S, PROFESSOR OF ECCLESIASTICAL 
 HISTORY IN king’s COLLEGE, LONDON. 
 
ARGUMENT OF THE TRACT. 
 
 The evidence furnished by the opening passage of 
 the Acts of the Apostles to the authorship of the third 
 Gospel, the internal evidence of the Acts to the person¬ 
 ality of the author, and the various circumstances which 
 identify him as St. Luke are pointed out. The m^edical 
 language which permeates both the Gospel and the 
 Acts of the Apostles is shown to confirm this conclu¬ 
 sion-. The admissions of M. Renan with reference to 
 St. Luke’s authorship of the books are adduced, and 
 the value of them as embodying the conclusions of a 
 hostile witness is indicated. St. Luke is shown to have 
 had ample opportunities of instituting inquiries into the 
 truth of the facts which he records, and a comparison 
 between him and Tacitus as historians in this respect ts 
 instituted. The establishment of the authenticity of 
 St. Luke’s writings is shown to obviate practically the 
 objections to the other three Gospels. Those Gospels 
 are proved, however, to rest on sufficient evidence. 
 The value of M. Renan’s conclusions as invalidating the 
 force of the objections of skeptical criticism is pointed 
 out, and the admissions of distinguished negative critics 
 are quoted with reference to their fundamental objec¬ 
 tion to the authenticity of the Gospels, namely, the fact 
 that the writers record supernatural events. 
 
THE AUTHENTICITY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE FOUR GOSPELS. 
 
 This is a question which, during the present 
 century, has been discussed with the most intense 
 eagerness. Perhaps there is no other on which 
 such an amount of critical labor has been be¬ 
 stowed, or which in its various aspects has occa¬ 
 sioned so much excitement. The controversy 
 began at the latter part of the last century; it was 
 brought to a crisis, which aroused anxiety through¬ 
 out Europe, by the publication in the year 1835 
 of Strauss’ “Eife of Jesus.” His criticism was 
 succeeded by that of the Tubingen school, found¬ 
 ed by Baur. The challenges thus offered to the 
 faith of the Church were met by numerous and 
 able theologians both in Germany and in this 
 country; and every point in the argument has 
 been contested with the utmost keenness. The 
 
 prolonged and vehement character of this contest 
 
 8 
 
114 authenticity oe the four gospels. . 
 
 is certainly not disproportioned to its importance. 
 Nothing can be of more consequence to Chris¬ 
 tians than to know whether they have good rea¬ 
 son for their belief that in the four Gospels they 
 possess four faithful records of the life, the teach¬ 
 ing, the death, and the resurrection of their Lord 
 and Master. We are by no means, indeed, en¬ 
 tirely dependent on those records for the grounds 
 of our faith, since the Epistles of St. Paul, even 
 if they stood alone, would afford strong testimony 
 to the main facts respecting our Lord which are 
 asserted in the Christian Creed. But the Gospels 
 alone afford us full information respecting our 
 Lord’s character and work; and they must ever 
 be regarded as the most precious and important 
 of testimonies to His claims. 
 
 It is this, indeed, which has led the skeptics 
 and unbelievers of this century to direct such 
 persistent and fierce attacks upon the Gospels. It 
 has been felt that if they are trustworthy records 
 of what our Lord said and did, the chief positions 
 for which skeptics have contended are at once 
 overthrown. Christ himself bears witness in those 
 Gospels to his own claims, to his supernatural 
 powers, to all that Christians believe respecting 
 him. In fact, all cardinal questions of religion 
 are practically answered if the Gospels can be 
 trusted. Our Lord there bears overwhelming tes- 
 
AUTHENTICITY OE THE EOUR GOSPELS. 115 
 
 timony to the existence and character of God, to 
 the fact that we are now under God’s govern¬ 
 ment, and shall hereafter be judged by him, and 
 to the truth that he himself can alone save us 
 from our sins and their consequences. Accord¬ 
 ingly, the simple facts of the Gospel history were 
 from the earliest moment the sum and substance 
 of the apostles’ preaching. In the tenth chapter 
 of the Acts of the Apostles we have a record of 
 St. Peter’s first address to a Gentile audience, and 
 it is like a brief summary of one of our Gospels. 
 He tells Cornelius “how God anointed Jesus of 
 Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power; 
 who went about doing good, and healing all that 
 were oppressed of the devil; for God w^as with 
 him . . . whom they slew and hanged on a tree; 
 him God raised up the third day, and showed him 
 openly; . . . and he commanded us to preach unto 
 the people, and to testify that it is he which was 
 ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and 
 dead. To him give all the prophets wkness, that 
 through his name whosoever believeth in him 
 shall receive remission of sins.” Such has ever 
 been in substance the message of the gospel. The 
 chief question which has exercised the minds of 
 men in our own time is whether the four records 
 we possess of that gospel can be relied upon. 
 
 Now if we wish to know whether any narra- 
 
Il6 AUTHENTICITY OE THE EOUR GOSPELS. 
 
 tive or statement wliicli we cannot ourselves ver¬ 
 ify is true, the first question to be asked is, On 
 whose authority does it rest ? Is it reported to us 
 by persons who had the means of knowing the 
 facts, and whose accounts can be trusted? If 
 such accounts were written by contemporaries 
 who either themselves witnessed the events nar¬ 
 rated, or who were intimately associated with such 
 eye-witnesses, we have the highest kind of evi¬ 
 dence which in historical matters is possible. It 
 will be necessary, of course, to inquire further 
 into the honesty and good judgment of such wri¬ 
 ters; but the first and most important inquiry 
 must be whether their evidence is that of contem¬ 
 poraries. This accordingly is the point which has 
 been chiefly challenged by writers who wish to 
 discredit the trustworthiness of the Gospels; and 
 it is the main question to which we shall address 
 ourselves. By whom were the Gospels written, 
 and when? If there is good reason to believe 
 that they were written by apostles or intimate 
 friends of apostles, the main objections which 
 have been raised to their credibility within this 
 century will at once fall to the ground. 
 
 Now, notwithstanding the elaborate character 
 of the controversies which have been raised re¬ 
 specting this question, it will be found that the 
 case can after all be very simply stated. It might 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. II 7 
 
 be supposed, from the manner in which the prob¬ 
 lem is generally discussed by opponents of the 
 Christian faith, that some elaborate and far¬ 
 fetched argument is necessary in order to vindi¬ 
 cate the received belief respecting the Gospels. 
 There could not be a greater misapprehension. 
 It is the case of our opponents that is marked by 
 these characteristics; our own is perfectly straight¬ 
 forward and simple. The four Gospels bear upon 
 their title-pages, as we should now say, the state¬ 
 ment that they were written by St. Matthew, St. 
 Mark, St. Luke, and St. John. That is the way 
 in which, from the earliest date, the words, ‘ ‘ ac¬ 
 cording to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John,” were 
 understood. No suspicion can be shown to have 
 been entertained by any writer of the first few 
 centuries that these inscriptions had any other 
 meaning, or that the meaning thus implied was' 
 untrue. Now, if in our own day a book appears 
 with a name purporting to be that of the author 
 on the title-page, and not a single doubt is ex¬ 
 pressed during his own lifetime or the lifetime of 
 any of his friends as to the fact of his having 
 written it, who would doubt that he had done 
 so? 
 
 It is not merely with respect to modern books 
 that this principle is acted upon; it is equally 
 adopted with respect to ancient books. The 
 
Il8 AUTHENTICITY OE THE EOUR GOSPEES. 
 
 works of Sophocles or Thucydides bear their 
 names; and as the authorship was never doubted 
 in ancient times we accept it still, unless positive 
 external or internal objections to the contrary can 
 be adduced. But the burden of proof lies on those 
 who urge such objections. If certain books have 
 borne the names of certain authors unquestioned 
 for centuries, we have a right to demand very co¬ 
 gent evidence from those who would have us re¬ 
 ject this constant consent. In short, from the 
 first moment they are heard of, these four books 
 were accepted as the work of the writers whose 
 names they bear. The question is not, Why 
 should we believe they were written by those per¬ 
 sons ? but. Why should we not believe it ? 
 
 But this is only a preliminary step. The most 
 natural and the fairest course is to inquire, in the 
 first place, what the Gospels say for themselves. 
 It is reasonable to allow a witness to speak for 
 himself before we listen to any evidence in oppo¬ 
 sition to him. Now it so happens that, although 
 the authors of the four Gospels are singularly reti¬ 
 cent respecting themselves, two, at least, of them 
 have incidentally afforded us indications which, 
 in the opinion of all critics, are extremely signifi¬ 
 cant of their individuality and of their positions. 
 This is peculiarly the case in respect to the Gos¬ 
 pel of St. Ivuke; and it will be found the simplest 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPEUS. HQ 
 
 introduction to this part of our subject, if we be¬ 
 gin by considering the books which are attributed 
 to him. For in this case we start with the ad- 
 vantao^e that we have two books on which to base 
 our judgment, instead of one. The book of the 
 Acts of the Apostles opens by a reference to a for¬ 
 mer book by the same author, and that reference, 
 combined with internal evidence, leaves no prac¬ 
 tical doubt that this book was the Gospel accord¬ 
 ing to St. Fuke. “The former treatise have I 
 made, O Theophilus,” says the writer, “of all 
 that Jesus began both to do and teach, until the 
 day in which he was taken up.” But the Gospel 
 according to St. Fuke treats of the subject thus 
 defined, and it is similarly addressed to Theophi¬ 
 lus. It is moreover generally recognised, even by 
 some of the chief rationalistic critics to whom ref¬ 
 erence will subsequently be made, that the two 
 treatises are marked by a singular unity of style, 
 idiom, and thought, that one mind conceived the 
 two books and one hand wrote them. If we can 
 determine who was the author of one of them, we 
 know the author of the other. 
 
 Now, the authorship of the Acts of the Apos¬ 
 tles is revealed by one of those pieces of incident¬ 
 al evidence which, in a matter of this kind, are 
 sometimes more convincing than direct state¬ 
 ments. In the 16th chapter the writer is descri- 
 
120 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPEES. 
 
 bing one of tlie journeys of St. Paul, and at first 
 he speaks of St. Paul and his companions in the 
 third person. Thus, in the 6th verse, he says, 
 “Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia 
 and the region of Galatia . . . after they were 
 come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia; 
 but the Spirit suffered them not.” A vision ap¬ 
 peared to Paul in the night, bidding him go over 
 to Macedonia; and here the writer suddenly 
 changes his expression, and begins to speak in 
 the first person. In the loth verse he proceeds: 
 “And after he had seen the vision, immediately 
 we endeavored to go into Macedonia. ” It is nat¬ 
 ural to conclude that at this point the writer 
 joined St. Paul’s company. He proceeds with 
 him to Philippi; but appears to have remained 
 there when St. Paul passed on to Amphipolis, as 
 he resumes the third person at the commencement 
 of chapter 17. But in the 5th verse of chapter 20, 
 where it is described how St. Paul again passed 
 through Philippi when going through Macedonia 
 on his final journey to Jerusalem, the writer be¬ 
 gins again to speak of what “we” did. From 
 that time he speaks as though he were constantly 
 in St. Paul’s company. He arrived at Jerusalem 
 with him, and was received with him by St. 
 James (21 :i7, 18); and when St. Paul’s imprison¬ 
 ment at Csesarea was terminated by his appeal to 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPEES. I2I 
 
 Caesar, the writer accompanies him on his voyage, 
 suffered shipwreck with him, and arrived with 
 him at Rome (28 :16). 
 
 Now, from some references in St. Paul’s Epis¬ 
 tles, there remains no practical doubt who was the 
 person thus associated with St. Paul. In Col. 
 4:14, St. Paul sends a salutation from “Euke, 
 the beloved physician;” in 2 Tim. 4:11, he says, 
 “ Only Euke is with me;” and at the end of the 
 letter to Philemon, the salutation of Euke is add¬ 
 ed, among others, to that of St. Paul. St. Euke, 
 therefore, was an intimate companion of the apos¬ 
 tle; and there is no other known companion to 
 whom the circumstances mentioned in the Acts 
 are appropriate. Thus the internal evidence 
 which is furnished by the third Gospel, by the 
 Acts of the Apostles, and by St. Paul’s Epistles, 
 is in complete harmony with the tradition that 
 St. Euke was the author of both the Gospel and 
 the Acts. A further piece of very striking inter¬ 
 nal evidence has been added within the last year. 
 St. Paul speaks of Euke as a physician, and it 
 had already been observed that the descriptions of 
 our Eord’s miracles of healing, in the third Gos¬ 
 pel, bear traces of the hand and eye of a medical 
 observer. But an Irish scholar, the Rev. Dr. Ho¬ 
 bart, published last year a full investigation of 
 what he describes as “The Medical Eanguage of 
 
122 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPEUS. 
 
 St. Ivuke,”* and He points out the following facts: 
 that we find running througHout the third Gospel 
 and the Acts of the Apostles a number of words 
 which were either distinctly medical terms, or 
 commonly employed in medical language; that 
 we find a constant use of the same compounds of 
 simple words which the medical writers employ, 
 and that these are for the most part peculiar to 
 this author, or that he makes more frequent use 
 of them than the other New Testament writers; 
 that he alone uses the special medical terms for 
 the distribution of nourishment, blood, nerves, 
 etc., through the body, as well as the medical 
 terms for “stimulation,” and to denote an inter¬ 
 mittent or a failing pulse; that there are some 
 words confined to St. Tuke and the medical au¬ 
 thors in the sense which they bear in his writings; 
 and that the medical style of St. I^uke accounts 
 for the very frequent and peculiar use made by 
 him of some words which were habitually em¬ 
 ployed, and were indeed almost indispensable, in 
 the vocabulary of a physician. This peculiar 
 phraseology, moreover, permeates the entire ex¬ 
 tent of the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apos¬ 
 tles, and thus adds a strong evidence of the integ¬ 
 rity of those writings. 
 
 - “The Medical Language of St. Luke,” by the Rev. W. K. 
 Hobart, LL. D. London, 1882. 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPEES. 123 
 
 Here, then, we have the ancient tradition that 
 St. Luke, the companion of St. Paul, wrote our 
 third Gospel corroborated by various convergent 
 evidences of a very striking character. Now it is 
 only reasonable to ask that before evidence of this 
 consistent nature is rejected, very clear objections 
 to its validity should be established. No doubt 
 the evidence is in the main circumstantial and 
 not demonstrative, and it is conceivable therefore 
 that it might be refuted by counter evidence, or by 
 strong objections based on its internal inconsisten¬ 
 cy. But it is important to observe that the burden 
 of disproof is on the side of the objector; and he 
 ought to be able to make out at least as clear a 
 case on the other side before we can be asked to 
 abandon conclusions which have such a weight of 
 traditional and circumstantial evidence in their 
 favor. This being premised, we proceed to in¬ 
 quire to what the objections amount. 
 
 It fortunately happens that this inquiry may 
 be very briefly satisfied. It would be equally te¬ 
 dious and unsatisfactory to pursue in detail the 
 innumerable doubts which critics have urged on 
 this subject. But if we are able to adduce a prac¬ 
 tically impartial estimate of the value of all these 
 objections—an estimate not made by a believing 
 theologian, but by a skeptical critic who entirely 
 rejects the main teaching of the Gospels as Chris- 
 
124 authenticity of the four gospels. 
 
 tians believe it—in short, by one who is in every 
 sense of the word an outside observer, we may feel 
 satisfied that we are in possession of a fair meas¬ 
 ure of the force of the objections. Such an inde¬ 
 pendent witness we can call upon in the person of 
 M. Renan. The general character of his views 
 respecting our Lord is well known. He entirely 
 disbelieves in any miraculous occurrences, and 
 assumes that whatever reports we have of them, 
 in any historic document whatever, must by some 
 means or other be explained away. He is, there¬ 
 fore, for our purposes, of even more value than a 
 strictly impartial witness. He is a hostile witness; 
 he is prejudiced beforehand against the literal 
 trustworthiness of a document which contains ac¬ 
 counts of miracles, and it would be an assistance 
 to his argument if it could be shown that such a 
 document was not the work of a person who had 
 had access to contemporary evidence. 
 
 What, then, is the testimony of M. Renan? 
 It will be found in the Preface to his “ Vie de Je¬ 
 sus,” 15th edition, p. 48. The passage substan¬ 
 tially corresponds to that portion of our argument 
 which has hitherto occupied our attention. He 
 says: 
 
 “It is known that each of the four Gospels 
 bears at its head the name of a personage known 
 either in the apostolic history or in the evangeli- 
 
AUTHENTICITY OE THE EOUR GOSPELS. 125 
 
 cal history itself. It is clear that if these titles 
 are correct, these Gospels, without ceasing to be 
 partly legendary, assume a high value, since they 
 enable us to go back to the half-century which 
 followed the life of Jesus, and even, in two cases, 
 to eye-witnesses of his actions. ’ ’ 
 
 The reader will here notice M. Renan’s posi¬ 
 tion. He considers that parts of the Gospels must 
 under any circumstances be regarded as legenda¬ 
 ry, and therefore, as we have observed, he cannot 
 be prejudiced against criticism which would as¬ 
 sign them to authors of a late date. But he pro¬ 
 ceeds: 
 
 “As to lyuke, doubt is scarcely possible. The 
 Gospel of St. Luke is a regular composition, 
 founded upon earlier documents. It is the work 
 of an author who chooses, curtails, combines. 
 The author of this Gospel is certainly the same 
 as the author of the Acts of the Apostles. Now 
 the author of the Acts seems to be a companion 
 of St. Paul—a character which accords completely 
 with St. Luke. I know that more than one ob¬ 
 jection maybe opposed to this reasoning; but one 
 thing at all events is beyond doubt, namely, that 
 the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts is 
 a man who belonged to the second apostolic gen¬ 
 eration; and this suffices for our purpose. The 
 date of this Gospel, moreover, may be determined 
 
126 AUTHENTICITY OE THE EOUR GOSPELS. 
 
 with sufficient precision by considerations drawn 
 from the book itself. The twenty-first chapter of 
 St. Luke, which is inseparable from the rest of 
 the work, was certainly written after the siege of 
 Jerusalem, but not long after. We are therefore 
 here on solid ground, for we are dealing with a 
 work proceeding entirely from the same hand and 
 possessing the most complete unity. ’ ’ 
 
 Now M. Renan’s opinions as to the exact date 
 of St. Luke’s Gospel, whether a few years before 
 or a few years after the siege of Jerusalem in 
 A. D. 70, and his prejudice respecting the legen¬ 
 dary character of some of the narratives in the 
 Gospel, are clearly separable from his critical 
 judgment as to the person by whom the Acts of 
 the Apostles and the third Gospel were written. 
 If he allows that those two books were written by 
 a companion of St. Paul, who, beyond any rea¬ 
 sonable doubt, was St. Luke, we may form our 
 own opinions as to the conclusions to be deduced 
 from this admission. But it may be important to 
 observe that the admission has been supported by 
 M. Renan’s further iuvestigations, as expressed 
 in his subsequent volume on “The Apostles.” 
 In the Preface to that volume he discusses fully 
 the nature aud value of the narrative contained 
 in the Acts of the Apostles, and he pronounces 
 the following decided opinions as to the author- 
 
AUTHENTICITY OE THE EOUR GOSPEES. 127 
 
 ship of that book and its connection with the Gos¬ 
 pel of St. Luke (p. 10, s^.): 
 
 “One point which is beyond question is that 
 the Acts are by the same author as the third Gos¬ 
 pel, and are a continuation of that Gospel. One 
 need not stop to prove this proposition, which has 
 never been seriously contested. The prefaces at 
 the commencement of each work, the dedication 
 of each to Theophilus, the perfect resemblance of 
 style and of ideas, furnish on this point abundant 
 demonstrations. 
 
 “A second proposition, which has not the same 
 certainty, but which may, however, be regarded 
 as extremely probable, is that the author of the 
 Acts is a disciple of Paul, who accompanied him 
 for a considerable part of his travels. ’ ’ 
 
 At a first glance, M. Renan observes, this prop¬ 
 osition appears indubitable from the fact that the 
 author, on so many occasions, uses the pronoun 
 “we,” indicating that on those occasions he was 
 one of the apostolic band by whom St. Paul was 
 accompanied. “One may even be astonished 
 that a proposition apparently so evident should 
 have found persons to contest it.” He notices, 
 however, the difficulties which have been raised 
 on the point, and then proceeds as follows (p. 14): 
 
 “ Must we be checked by these objections? I 
 think not; and I persist in believing that the per- 
 
128 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 
 
 son who finally prepared the Acts is really the dis¬ 
 ciple of Paul, who says ‘ we ’ in the last chapters. 
 All difficulties, however insoluble they may ap¬ 
 pear, ought to be, if not dismissed, at least held 
 in suspense, by an argument so decisive as that 
 which results from the use of this word ‘ we.’ ” 
 
 He then observes that MSS. and tradition 
 combine in assigning the third Gospel to a cer¬ 
 tain Ivuke, and that it is scarcely conceivable 
 that a name in other respects obscure should have 
 been attributed to so important a work for any 
 other reason than that it was the name of the real 
 author. Luke, he says, had no place in tradition, 
 in legend, or in history when these two treatises 
 were ascribed to him. M. Renan concludes in 
 the following words: “We think, therefore, that 
 the author of the third Gospel and of the Acts 
 is in all reality Luke, the disciple of Paul.” 
 
 Now let the import of these expressions of 
 opinion be duly weighed. Of course M. Renan’s 
 judgments are not to be regarded as affording in 
 themselves any adequate basis for our acceptance 
 of the authenticity of the chief books of the New 
 Testament. The Acts of the Apostles and the 
 four Gospels bear on their face certain positive 
 claims, on the faith of which they have been ac¬ 
 cepted in all ages of the church, and they do not 
 appeal, in the first instance, to the authority of 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPEES. 129 
 
 any modern critic. But though M. Renan would 
 be a very unsatisfactory witness to rely upon for 
 the purpose of positive testimony to the Gospels, 
 it will be acknowledged that his estimates of 
 the value of modern critical objections to those 
 sacred books have all the weight of the admissions 
 of a hostile witness. No one doubts his perfect 
 familiarity with the whole range of the criticism 
 represented by such names as Strauss and Baur, 
 and no one questions his disposition to give full 
 weight to every objection which that criticism 
 can urge. Even without assuming that he is 
 prejudiced on either one side or the other, it will 
 be admitted on all hands that he is more favora¬ 
 bly disposed than otherwise to such criticism as 
 we have to meet. When, therefore, with this 
 full knowledge of the literature of the subject, 
 such a writer comes to the conclusion that the 
 criticism in question has entirely failed to make 
 good its case on a point like that of the au¬ 
 thorship of St. Luke’s Gospel, we are at least 
 justified in concluding that critical objections do 
 not possess the weight which unbelievers or skep¬ 
 tics are wont to assign to them. M. Renan, in a 
 word, is no adequate witness to the Gospels; but 
 he is a very significant witness as to the value of 
 modern critical objections to them. 
 
 To illustrate our meaning, let us take a defi- 
 
 y 
 
130 AUTH£:nTICITY of the four gospels. 
 
 nite example. Less than four years ago the au¬ 
 thor of the work entitled “Supernatural Reli¬ 
 gion ’ ’ published what he described as his ‘ ‘ com¬ 
 plete edition,” which he had carefully revised 
 throughout. This work was received with great 
 acclamation by the chief literary representatives 
 of skeptical opinions, and its statements were 
 widely quoted as embodying the final results of 
 impartial criticism. In its first edition the au¬ 
 thor had maintained that there was no evidence 
 of our present third Gospel being in existence 
 before the time when Marcion the heretic, who 
 flourished about the year 140, put forth a Gospel to 
 suit his peculiar views. The author of “Super¬ 
 natural Religion” maintained through several 
 editions that Marcion’s Gospel was the original, 
 and that our third Gospel was expanded from it. 
 This view, however, he has been compelled to 
 abandon by the researches of Dr. Sanday; and 
 he now admits “that our third Synoptic existed 
 in Marcion’s time;” so that we find evidence of 
 its existence “about the year 140, and it may of 
 course be inferred that it must have been com¬ 
 posed at least some time before that date.” 
 
 This is not the only point, as we shall see, on 
 which this writer had to abandon positions which 
 he had asserted with the utmost assurance. But 
 although thus compelled to surrender an impor- 
 
AUTHENTICITY OE THE FOUR GOSPEES. 13I 
 
 taut point in liis argument, he still asserts (voL 
 III. p. 39) that “there is no evidence whatever 
 that this Luke had been a travelling companion 
 of Paul, or that he ever wrote a line concerning 
 him or had composed a Gospel.” We are further 
 told.(p. 50) that “a very large mass of the ablest 
 critics have concluded that the ‘ wE ’ sections 
 were not composed by the author of the rest of 
 the Acts .... and that the general writer of the 
 work, and consequently of the third Gospel, was 
 not Luke at all.” 
 
 Still more positively it is laid down that “a 
 careful study of the contents of the Acts cannot, 
 we think, leave any doubt that the work could 
 not have been written by any companion or inti¬ 
 mate friend of the apostle Paul.” 
 
 Such language would naturally lead the read¬ 
 er to suppose that there was a substantial agree¬ 
 ment of independent critics in favor of these con¬ 
 clusions, and that none but uncritical supporters 
 of “ traditional ” views adhered to the old beliefs. 
 But we have called a witness whose admissions 
 on this point have an unimpeachable value, to 
 prove that criticism has established no such nega¬ 
 tive conclusions. In the face of it all, M. Renan 
 “persists in believing” that the Acts were writ¬ 
 ten, in the form we now possess them, by a com¬ 
 panion of St. Paul, and that this companion was 
 
132 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPEUS. 
 
 no other than St. I^uke, who was also the writer 
 of the third Gospel. We are justified, in view of 
 this testimony, in concluding that the critical 
 objections are not only destitute of any such posi¬ 
 tive, scientific, and convincing character as is 
 sometimes claimed for them, but that such weight 
 as they possess is entirely counterbalanced by 
 other critical considerations. In other words, 
 there is nothing left in respect to the third Gospel 
 to weigh against the positive testimony of all an¬ 
 cient authorities, and that testimony therefore has 
 every claim to be accepted. 
 
 We have thus arrived at this conclusion—that 
 the third Gospel was really written, in the form 
 in whieh we now possess it, by St. Luke, the 
 companion of St. Paul in several of his journeys, 
 and particularly on his last visit to Jerusalem and 
 in his subsequent journey to Rome. Now this 
 one point being established, it will be found that 
 all serious objections to the belief of the Church 
 respecting the authenticity of the other Gospels 
 are practically obviated. For it follows that the 
 claim put forward in the preface to the third 
 Gospel is completely justified. St. Luke was not 
 indeed himself an eye-witness of our Lord’s life 
 on earth; but he claims to have had “perfect 
 understanding of all things from the very first,” 
 or, as the revisers render the phrase, to have 
 
AUTHENTICITY OE THE FOUR GOSPELS. 133 
 
 “traced the course of all things accurately from 
 the very first.” St. Paul, in his intercourse with 
 the apostles, must have been fully informed of 
 the teaching and the acts of our Pord during his 
 ministry, and through St. Paul, St. I^uke must 
 have been similarly cognizant of them. But in 
 his visit with St. Paul to Jerusalem, St. Buke 
 himself must have been in communication with 
 other apostles, as well as with many other disci¬ 
 ples of our kord who had “ companied with them 
 all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out 
 among them. ’ ’ That visit to Jerusalem was about 
 twenty-five years after the crucifixion, when 
 those who had been the actual contemporaries of 
 our Lord were from fifty to sixty years of age, in 
 full possession of their faculties, with their mem¬ 
 ory still clear and their judgment vigorous. St. 
 Luke must have had abundant opportunities in 
 such company of following up, as he says he did, 
 everything from the very first. “Many,” he 
 says, had already taken in hand to set forth in 
 order a narrative of the same facts “even as they 
 delivered them unto us whieh from the be^in- 
 
 o 
 
 ning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the 
 word.” These written narratives he was in a 
 position to test, to complete, and to arrange in 
 better order, by personal inquiry of the same or 
 other'“ eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.” 
 
134 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPEUS. 
 
 If, therefore, he was a faithful historian, that 
 which he has recorded for us is the sifted and 
 well-arranged testimony of eye-witnesses: it is 
 the result of a mass of evidence at first hand. 
 
 Now we may well ask whether any better 
 ground for our belief than this could well have 
 been afforded us. All the evidence we can ob¬ 
 tain, with respect to the great mass of historical 
 events, is the account of them by some historian 
 who lived at or near the time of their occurrence, 
 and who had reports of them either at first or sec¬ 
 ond hand. This, for instance, is the evidence on 
 which we believe the annals of Tacitus. He was 
 born somewhat before the year 6o A. D., and nar¬ 
 rates the history of the years from A. D. 14-68, 
 of which the first forty were before he was born. 
 He was not, therefore, a contemporary of the 
 greater part of the events he narrates, while St. 
 Ivuke was. But like St. Luke, he had opportu¬ 
 nities for ascertaining the facts from eye-witness¬ 
 es, and as his writings produce the impression 
 that he was a truthful person, of sound judgment, 
 we accept his testimony. 
 
 But it must be observed that for the greater 
 part of the narratives in Tacitus we have no such 
 guarantee as is afforded us by the facts above es¬ 
 tablished respecting St. Luke. What is the ut¬ 
 most guarantee of truth that we could expect 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPEES. 135 
 
 from any historian? Surely that, being a con¬ 
 temporary of the events he narrates, he should 
 visit the country and the very spots in which they 
 are alleged to have occurred, that he should be 
 acquainted with reports of them already commit¬ 
 ted to writing, that he should be well acquainted 
 with many persons who actually witnessed them, 
 that he should possess the full confidence of such 
 persons, and that he should take pains to make a 
 thorough inquiry into the facts. Very few histo¬ 
 rians indeed have had the opportunity of fulfilling 
 these requirements. Tacitus, for instance, had no 
 such opportiinities for a great part of the events 
 he narrates. But St. Luke had those opportuni¬ 
 ties in the fullest degree, and he assures us sim¬ 
 ply and straightforwardly in the preface to his 
 Gospel that he made a diligent use of them. The 
 result of such considerations is that in St. Luke’s 
 Gospel we possess an account of our Lord’s birth, 
 ministry, passion, and resurrection which embod¬ 
 ies the harmonious evidence of eye-witnesses, and 
 which preserves for us the best contemporary evi¬ 
 dence which was attainable. 
 
 But it will readily be seen that if the authen¬ 
 ticity and credibility of one Gospel is thus clearly 
 established, the inquiry which remains respecting 
 the authenticity and credibility of the other three 
 is immensely simplified. With respect at least to 
 
136 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPEES. 
 
 the first two Gospels there would seem to remain 
 no sufficient reason why any skeptical critic should 
 trouble himself to dispute their authenticity. For 
 it is unquestionable that they tell substantially the 
 same story as is told in the third Gospel. There 
 are indeed some points of detail on which it has 
 been found difficult to harmonffie them. It is un¬ 
 necessary for our present argument to discuss these 
 minor difficulties. They are of importance in re¬ 
 spect to the relation of the Gospels to one another, 
 and they have also important bearings upon the 
 question of the character of the inspiration which 
 Christians believe was vouchsafed to the writers. 
 But, at the very utmost, they amount to no more 
 than the discrepancies wffiich, as w’e are reminded 
 every day by discussions respecting the biogra¬ 
 phies of men recently deceased, continually arise 
 between the accounts of truthful contemporaries 
 and eye-witnesses. We are not here admitting 
 that such apparent discrepancies in the Gospels 
 are real. We only say that, even if they exist, 
 they are of such a minor character as not to affect 
 materially the substantial harmony of the narra¬ 
 tives, or to impair their general trustworthiness. 
 But from this it follows that if any one of the first 
 three Gospels was written by a contemporary, and 
 is a record of contemporary evidence, both the 
 others might be. If criticism can adduce no suf- 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 137 
 
 ficient reason why the third Gospel should not be, 
 as it purports to be, written by St. Luke, it can 
 hardly be w^orth its while to expend much subtle¬ 
 ty in disputing the tradition that the first Gospel 
 w’as wnitten by St. Matthew and the second by 
 St. Mark. St. Luke’s Gospel, we have seen, is a 
 record of the accounts current among apostles and 
 contemporaries of our Lord respecting his minis¬ 
 try. Consequently it is only to be expected that 
 other records written by members of the same 
 company, at about the same period, should be 
 substantially of the same character. One positive 
 piece of evidence suffices to outweigh any number 
 of mere doubts and objections. In view of what 
 has been said, w^e are forced to the conclusion that 
 the story told by St. Luke is the story which w^as 
 harmoniously told by the contemporaries of our 
 Lord in Palestine. If so, there is at least no rea¬ 
 son arising out of the story itself wdiy St. Matthew 
 and St. Mark should not have written the two 
 Gospels attributed to them. 
 
 But, of course, in the interests of the Christian 
 faith, and for the purposes of Christian instruc¬ 
 tion, it is of the highest interest and importance 
 to know wdiether the objections which have been 
 raised against the authenticity of the Gospels at¬ 
 tributed to St. Matthew, St. Mark, and St. John 
 can be sustained; and with respect to the former 
 
138 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 
 
 two Gospels this question may be dealt with even 
 more simply and briefly than in the case of St. 
 Luke. Here again it is only reasonable to start 
 from the uniform tradition of the earliest ages on 
 the subject. As is said by HolUmann,* a ration¬ 
 alistic critic, “the first cononical Gospel was en¬ 
 tirely and unanimously attributed by the ancient 
 Church to the apostle Matthew.” As the same 
 critic observes, this is the more remarkable, since 
 there is nothing in what is otherwise known of 
 Matthew to account for the first Gospel being at¬ 
 tributed to him (p. 360): “That the early Church 
 must have had some ground in facts for referring 
 the first Gospel to this name must seem the more 
 probable, since, with this exception, the person of 
 INIatthew is entirely in the background in the his¬ 
 tory of the apostolic age.” 
 
 In other words, there was no reason why it 
 should have been believed that St. Matthew 
 wTote the Gospel except that he did write it; and 
 therefore, as has been urged before, the tradition 
 has, on the face of it, a claim to be believed in 
 the absence of evidence to the contrary. But, in 
 the first place, there is positive evidence to the 
 fact that St. Matthew did write a work of the 
 general character of our Gospel. There is one 
 valuable piece of early Christian testimony pre- 
 
 - “ Die Sj’noplischen Evangelien,” p. 359. 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 139 
 
 served to ns respecting the anthorship of the first 
 two Gospels. It is contained in a fragment of a 
 work by Papias, who was bishop of Hierapolis, in 
 Asia Minor, in the first half of the second centnry, 
 and who was a hearer of the apostle John. It is 
 natural that we shonld have bnt little discnssion 
 of the anthorship of the New Testament writings 
 in early times, if they were really gennine. Chris¬ 
 tians in snch case wonld accept them withont hes¬ 
 itation; and it wonld be only as time went on, and 
 heresies arose, or the Chnrch came into conflict 
 with heathen cnltnre, that donbts on this snbject 
 wonld be raised. The evidence of Papias is there¬ 
 fore particnlarly welcome, and it has been scrntin- 
 ized, by believers and nnbelievers alike, with the 
 ntmost keenness. With respect to St. Matthew, 
 he is qnoted by Ensebins (Hist. Eccl. 3 :39) as 
 saying that “ Matthew composed the Oracles in 
 the Hebrew tongne, and each one interpreted 
 them as he conld.” There has been much dis- 
 pnte as to the exact meaning of the term “ora¬ 
 cles” here nsed. Some writers have endeavored 
 to make orft that it is only applicable to sayings 
 or disconrses, and that conseqnently the work by 
 St. Matthew which was known to Papias can 
 only have been a collection of onr Lord’s sayings, 
 and cannot have been a narrative of his ministry, 
 like our present Gospel. Even if this restricted 
 
140 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPEUS. 
 
 interpretation of tlie word could be maintained, it 
 would be evidently pressing the argument too far 
 to assume that such a collection excluded all nar¬ 
 ratives of facts; but it has been conclusively 
 shown that the word bears no such narrow mean- 
 ing. It is the same word as is used by St. Paul 
 when he says (Rom. 3:1, 2) that the Jews had 
 the keeping of the oracles of God, by which he 
 evidently means the Old Testament Scriptures as 
 a whole, including the narrative books. At the 
 utmost, the fact that St. Matthew reports with 
 special prominence and fulness several of our 
 Lord’s discourses would be sufficient to answer 
 the meaning of such an expression. Thus we 
 have two positive facts from which to start—the 
 one, the fact that our first Gospel was uniformly 
 attributed to St. Matthew from the earliest times; 
 the other, the express statement of a disciple of 
 St. John that St. Matthew wrote a work of this 
 kind. Whether St. Matthew, besides writing the 
 original Gospel in Hebrew, subsequently transla¬ 
 ted it himself into Greek, or whether our present 
 Gospel is another work of the same *kind which 
 the apostle also wrote, are secondary points. From 
 these two facts it is reasonable to accept our first 
 Gospel as St. Matthew’s work, in the absence of 
 decisive critical objections. Before considering 
 the value of such objections, we will next inquire 
 
AUTHENTICITY OE THE EOUR GOSPELS. 14I 
 
 wliat positive evidence we have respecting the 
 Gospel of St. Mark. 
 
 Here again there is absolute unanimity in the 
 belief of the earliest times. No doubt was ex¬ 
 pressed for long centuries as to the truth of the 
 title which attributed the second Gospel to St. 
 Mark. This person is generally acknowledged 
 to be the same as the ‘‘John, whose surname was 
 ]\Iark,” mentioned several times in the Acts of 
 the Apostles as well as in the Epistles of St. Paul 
 and St. Peter. He was the cousin of Barnabas, 
 and is called by St. Peter (i Pet. 5:13), “My 
 son,” perhaps as having been converted by him. 
 His mother was the Mary in whose house in Je¬ 
 rusalem the Christians are described as ineetinQf 
 in the earliest days after the foundation of the 
 Church. Acts 12:12. He accompanied Paul 
 and Barnabas on their first missionary journey; 
 and though there was a temporary separation be¬ 
 tween him and St. Paul, he is afterwards men¬ 
 tioned by that apostle as one of his most valued 
 attendants. At another time, as we have seen, 
 he was with St. Peter, and Papias tells us that he 
 acted as St. Peter’s interpreter. He was, there¬ 
 fore, at least as much as St. Luke, in a position 
 to ascertain the truth respecting our Lord’s min¬ 
 istry. In his case also the tradition of antiquity 
 is supported by the evidence of Papias. That wri- 
 
142 AUMENTICITY OF' THE FOUR GOSPEES. 
 
 ter related that “ tlie elder,” who was either St. 
 John the apostle or a presbyter contemporary 
 with the apostle, gave him the following account: 
 
 ‘ ‘ Mark, having become interpreter of Peter, 
 wrote down accurately everything that he re¬ 
 membered, without however recording in order 
 what was either said or done by Christ. For 
 neither did he hear the Ford, nor did he follow 
 him; but afterwards, as I said, [attended] Peter, 
 who adapted his instructions to the needs [of his 
 hearers], but had no design of giving a connected 
 account of the Ford’s oracles [or discourses]. So, 
 then, Mark made no mistake while he thus wrote 
 down some things as he remembered them, for he 
 made it his one care not to omit anything that he 
 heard, or to set down any false statement therein. ’ ’ * 
 
 Now if these statements of Papias apply to 
 our present Gospels, they furnish invaluable evi¬ 
 dence as to their early date and as to their author¬ 
 ship. Once more we will ask M. Renan to tell 
 us how far in his opinion the criticism by which 
 this applicability is disputed has made out its 
 case. In his Preface to his “Fife of Jesus” 
 (p. 51), after reciting the testimony of Papias, he 
 says, “It is certain that these two descriptions 
 
 ■••• We have availed ourselves of Bishop Lightfoot’s translations, 
 given in his article on “ Papias,” in the “ Contemporary Review” 
 for August, 1875. 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 143 
 
 correspond well enough to the general physiog¬ 
 nomy of the two books now called ‘ The Gospel 
 aceording to Matthew ’ and ‘ The Gospel accord¬ 
 ing to j\Iark ’—the first being characterised by its 
 long discourses, the second being specially anec¬ 
 dotic, much more exact than the first in the de¬ 
 tails, brief to the extent of dryness, poor in dis¬ 
 courses, and but ill put together. ” 
 
 This surely is sufficient for practical purposes; 
 and, considering the slightness of the account of 
 Papias, such a general correspondence as is here 
 admitted would seem as much as could be re¬ 
 quired. M. Renan, however, goes on to lay upon 
 Papias’ words that undue stress already noticed, 
 and to argue that the work of St. Matthew which 
 Papias had before him can only have contained 
 discourses, and that therefore subsequent additions 
 must have been made to it, out of which our pres¬ 
 ent Gospel has arisen; while, on the other hand, 
 additions have been made to the original St. 
 Mark in order to supply its omissions and to 
 make it more like St. Matthew’s work. Of any 
 such revision of the original forms of these two 
 Gospels there is not a single trace of external 
 evidence, nor does M. Renan pretend to produce 
 any; and the best means of estimating the weight 
 to be attached to such a suggestion is afforded by 
 further conclusions expressed by himself. As the 
 
l44 authenticity oe the eour gospees. 
 
 result of Ills inquiries into the value of the four 
 Gospels he expresses himself as follows: 
 
 “To sum up, I admit the four canonical Gos¬ 
 pels as serious documents. All go back to the 
 age which followed the death of Jesus. But their 
 historical value is very diverse. St. Matthew 
 evidently deserves peculiar confidence for the dis¬ 
 courses. Here are ‘ the oracles, ’ the very notes 
 taken while the memory of the instruction of Je¬ 
 sus was living and definite. A kind of flashing 
 brightness, at once sweet and terrible, a divine 
 force, if I may so say, underlines these words, de¬ 
 taches them from the context, and renders them 
 easily recognizable by the critic” (p. 8i). 
 
 Now we ask with what reason it can be main¬ 
 tained that a Gospel like that of St. Matthew de¬ 
 serves “peculiar confidence” in its most char¬ 
 acteristic and most vital elements, but that this 
 confidence is at once to be withdrawn from it 
 whenever a critic like M. Renan fails to appreci¬ 
 ate the importance or the vividness of its observa¬ 
 tions. If a witness comes into court and is found 
 to be absolutely trustworthy in a vital and char¬ 
 acteristic portion of his evidence, would it be 
 deemed reasonable to say that he is not to be be¬ 
 lieved in the other part of his evidence because 
 you do not like it or do not understand it? Bet 
 us take a particular instance. That from which 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPEES. 145 
 
 M. Renan and all skeptical critics shrink in the 
 Gospel narratives is, as we shall have further occa¬ 
 sion to observe, their miraculous element. Now 
 the eighth and ninth chapters of St. Matthew’s 
 Gospel contain a record of ten of our Lord’s mira¬ 
 cles, and these are one-half of the whole number 
 recorded by that evangelist. But this record of all 
 these works of supernatural power and mercy im¬ 
 mediately follows the Sermon on the Mount. In 
 the three chapters preceding this miraculous rec¬ 
 ord St. Matthew has preserved to us, with a viv¬ 
 idness and force of which the most skeptical are 
 sensible, a long discourse by our Lord of the most 
 momentous import, which is universally felt to 
 embody some of his most characteristic teaching. 
 Now is it not a strange paradox to suppose that in 
 a record which is marked, as almost all admit, by 
 a substantial unity of design, we should pass im¬ 
 mediately from such teaching as that of the Ser¬ 
 mon on the Mount to a similarly long narrative 
 of wholly untrustworthy reminiscences ? In the 
 one passage we are surrounded with a bla^e of 
 moral and spiritual light piercing to the very 
 thoughts and intents of the heart, burning up all 
 falsehood in word or deed, all hypocrisy and un¬ 
 reality; and in the next passage we are asked to 
 believe that we find ourselves in an atmosphere 
 of illusion, credulity, and uncertainty. Such a 
 
146 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 
 
 transition from absolute light—light nndimmed, 
 nnobscured by a single shadow, unperverted by a 
 single false color—may well be regarded as in¬ 
 conceivable. But it is the same throughout the 
 Gospels. Many of our Lord’s most precious say¬ 
 ings are inseparably bound up with his miracles, 
 arise out of them, and point their lessons. The 
 two are indissolubly united; and the Sermon on 
 the Mount is thus itself the best guarantee for the 
 miraculous narratives which immediately follow. 
 
 In short, when M. Renan allows that Papias’ 
 language corresponds “very fairly” (asse^ bien) 
 to our present Gospel of St. Matthew, and that 
 the discourses, at all events, in that Gospel de¬ 
 serve “peculiar confidence,” he at any rate justi¬ 
 fies us in concluding that criticism can make out 
 no such case against the authenticity and credi¬ 
 bility of the book as deserves to be put in the 
 balance against the unanimous external evidence 
 in its favor. But with respect to the Gospel of St. 
 Mark his admissions are even more striking and 
 decisive. 
 
 “The Gospel of St. Mark,” he says, p. 82, 
 
 ‘ ‘ is the one of the first three which has remained 
 the most ancient, the most original, and to which 
 the least of later additions have been made. The 
 details of fact possess in St. Mark a definiteness 
 which we seek in vain in the other evangelists. 
 
AUTHENTICITY OE THE EOUR GOSPEUS. 147 
 
 He is fond of reporting certain sayings of our 
 Lord in Syro-Chaldaic. He is full of minute ob¬ 
 servations, proceeding, beyond doubt, from an eye¬ 
 witness. There is nothing to conflict with the 
 supposition that this eye-witness, who had evi¬ 
 dently followed Jesus, who had loved him and 
 watched him in close intimacy, and who had pre¬ 
 served a vivid image of him, was the apostle Pe¬ 
 ter himself, as Papias has it.” 
 
 What is this but to say that criticism has failed 
 to establish any valid objections against the tradi¬ 
 tional belief of the Church that the Gospel of St. 
 Mark is the book of which Papias spoke as hav¬ 
 ing been written by St. Mark from the narratives 
 of St. Peter, and that it contains the very remi¬ 
 niscences of that apostle ? 
 
 Let us then consider what is the general result 
 of this review of the evidence for our first three 
 Gospels, and of the validity of modern critical 
 objections, as estimated by the most famous skep¬ 
 tical critic of our generation. M. Renan, with all 
 these objections before him, being as well quali¬ 
 fied by his learning as any scholar, whether in 
 this country or abroad, to judge of such criticism, 
 and being necessarily predisposed by his disbelief 
 of Christian truths in favor of objections against 
 the credibility of the sacred writings, nevertheless 
 finds himself obliged to come to the conclusion 
 
148 AUTHENTICITY OE THE FOUR GOSPEES. 
 
 that the old traditions respecting the first three 
 Gospels are at least substantially true. He ad¬ 
 mits that all four Gospels were written in the age 
 following the death of our Hord, and therefore 
 while many of His contemporaries were living; 
 he admits that the third Gospel, and also' the 
 Acts of the Apostles, were written in their present 
 form by St. Huke, who was St. Paul’s intimate 
 companion, and who visited Jerusalem with him; 
 he admits that the discourses of our Hord, at all 
 events in the first Gospel, were recorded by St. 
 Matthew, one of the twelve apostles, and that 
 they deserve to be accepted with peculiar confi¬ 
 dence; and he further admits that the second Gos¬ 
 pel was in substance written by St. Mark, that it 
 is the most original in its present form of the three, 
 that it bears numerous marks of the reminiscen¬ 
 ces of an eye-witness, and that there is nothing to 
 lead us to doubt the ancient tradition that this 
 eye-witness was St. Peter himself. 
 
 In short, this is the result of modern criticism 
 as represented by M. Renan: that in St. Matthew 
 we have our Rord’s teaching recorded by an apos¬ 
 tle himself; in St. Mark we have the vivid rem¬ 
 iniscences of another apostle, who was one of 
 the three most intimate with our Lord; and that 
 in St. Luke we have the mature and deliberate 
 record of a cultivated writer, who, being a physi- 
 
AUTHENTICITY OT THE FOUR GOSPEES. 149 
 
 cian, was also trained in habits of observation, 
 after a careful inquiry from contemporaries, 
 amid the very scenes where the events he records 
 were transacted. We repeat that we do not 
 rest these facts respecting the first three Gospels 
 on M. Renan’s investigations. They stand, in 
 the first instance, on the direct evidence of his¬ 
 toric tradition, by which the authorship of all 
 other books is determined. _But we appeal to 
 M. Renan as affording abundant proof that mod¬ 
 ern criticism has produced no argument sufficient 
 to counterbalance, or even seriously to affect 
 this evidence. 
 
 We now turn to the Gospel of St. John; and, 
 vehement as has been the controversy on this 
 subject, the case in favor of its authenticity ad¬ 
 mits of being more simply and decisively stated 
 than even the case of the first three Gospels. In 
 the first place, the primary evidence to its author¬ 
 ship is peculiarly definite and direct. Irenaeus, 
 who became Bishop of Lyons about 177 A. D., 
 was a pupil of a famous disciple of St. John, Poly¬ 
 carp, who died as a martyr in the year 155 or 156. 
 Irenaeus tells us, in a letter of remonstrance he 
 wrote to a fellow-pupil, Florinus, who had lapsed 
 into heresy, how vividly he remembered Poly¬ 
 carp’s instructions and conversation; 
 
 ‘ ‘ I distinctly remember, ’ ’ he says, ‘ ‘ the inci- 
 
150 AUTHENTICITY OE THE FOUR GOSPEES. 
 
 dents of tliat time better than events of recent 
 occurrence; for the lessons received in childhood, 
 growing with the growth of the soul, become 
 identified with it; so that I can describe the very 
 place in which the blessed Polycarp used to sit 
 wdien he discoursed, and his goings out and his 
 comings in, and his manner of life, and his per¬ 
 sonal appearance, and the discourses which he 
 held before the people, and how he would de¬ 
 scribe his intercourse with John and with the 
 rest who had seen the Lord, and how he would 
 relate their words. And whatsoever things he 
 had heard from them about the Lord, and about 
 his miracles, and about his teaching. Polycarp, 
 as having received them from eye-witnesses of the 
 life of the Word, would relate altogether in ac¬ 
 cordance with the Scriptures.” (Buseb. Hist. 
 Bed., V. 20.) 
 
 In order to appreciate what this involves, we 
 must ask what Irenseus meant by the “Scrip¬ 
 tures.” Of course the expression must refer to 
 those portions of the Scriptures which narrate 
 the life of our Lord, and Irenseus has stated in a 
 memorable passage what these records were. In 
 the third book of his great work on “The Refu¬ 
 tation and Overthrow of Knowledge falsely so 
 called,” he relates briefly, says Bishop Lightfoot,* 
 * “ Contemporary Review ” for August, 1876, p. 413. 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 15I 
 
 circumstances under which the four Gos¬ 
 pels were written. He points out that the wri¬ 
 tings of the evangelists arose directly from the 
 oral gospel of the apostles. He shows that the 
 traditional teaching of the apostles has been pre¬ 
 served by a direct succession of elders, which in 
 the principal churches can be traced man by 
 man, and he asserts that this teaching accords 
 entirely with the evangelieal and apostolical wri¬ 
 tings. He maintains, on the other hand, that the 
 doctrine of the heretics was of comparatively 
 recent growth. He assumes throughout, not 
 only that our four canonical Gospels alone were 
 acknowledged in the church in his own time, 
 but that this had been so from the beeinnine. 
 His antagonists indeed accepted these same Gos¬ 
 pels, paying especial deference to the fourth evan¬ 
 gelist; accordingly he argues with them on this 
 basis. But they also superadded other writings, 
 to which they appealed, while heretics of a dif¬ 
 ferent type, as Marcion for instance, adopted some 
 one Gospel to the exclusion of all others. He 
 therefore urges not only that four Gospels alone 
 have been handed down from the begfinnine, but 
 that in the nature of things there could not be 
 more nor less than four. There are four regions 
 of the world, and four principal winds; and the 
 church therefore, as destined to be conterminous 
 
152 authe:nticity of the four gospels. 
 
 with the world, must be supported by four Gos¬ 
 pels as four pillars. The Word again is repre¬ 
 sented as seated on the cherubim, who are de¬ 
 scribed by Ezekiel as four living creatures, each 
 different from the other. These symbolize the 
 four evangelists with their several characteris¬ 
 tics. The predominance of the number four 
 again appears in another way. There are four 
 general covenants—of Noah, of Abraham, of 
 Moses, of Christ. It is therefore an act of auda¬ 
 cious folly to increase or diminish the number of 
 the Gospels. As there is fitness and order in all 
 the other works of God, so also we may expect to 
 find it in the case of the gospel. ’ ’ 
 
 The passage thus summarized by the present 
 learned Bishop of Durham is to be found in the 
 first eleven chapters of the third book of the work 
 of Irenseus just mentioned, and its immense signifi¬ 
 cance for the purpose of our argument will readi¬ 
 ly be perceived. The four Gospels we now pos¬ 
 sess constituted, in the view of Irenaeus, an essen¬ 
 tial part of “the Scriptures.’^ The reasons he 
 gives for the necessity of their being four in num¬ 
 ber may be fanciful, but they are adduced in 
 order to explain what he represents as a fact. 
 He appeals, however, to Polycarp’s authority, 
 and his view therefore respecting the four Gospels 
 must be in harmony with what he had learned at 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 153 
 
 Polycarp’s feet. The conclusion, therefore, can¬ 
 not fairly be avoided that Polycarp himself, St. 
 John’s own disciple, knew and recognized all four 
 Gospels, not only those of St. Matthew, St. Mark, 
 and St. Luke, but that which was attributed to 
 his own master, St. John. When Irenseus tells 
 us that Polycarp used to describe “his intercourse 
 with John and wdth the rest who had seen the 
 Lord, ’ ’ and that ‘ ‘ whatsoever things he had heard 
 from them about the Lord and about his miracles 
 and about his teaching” he would relate “alto¬ 
 gether in accordance with the Scriptures,” he 
 tells us nothing else than that what Polycarp had 
 heard from John and from the rest who had seen 
 the Lord was in complete agreement with our 
 present Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. 
 Luke, and St. John. That Irenseus used precise¬ 
 ly the same Gospels as are now in our possession 
 is disputed by no one; and these very books he 
 says are in full agreement with what he heard 
 from Polycarp and Polycarp heard from St. John. 
 
 Now this testimony to the first three Gospels is 
 of immense weight, for it gives at all events the 
 sanction of Polycarp, and goes far to give the 
 sanction and recognition of St. John himself to 
 those three books. But with respect to the Gos¬ 
 pel of St. John it would seem overwhelming. 
 The one point upon which Polycarp was special- 
 
154 AUraENTiCiTY OE THE EOUR GOSPEES. 
 
 ly qualified to bear testimou}^ to Irenaeus, and on 
 which he did bear testimony, was the teaching of 
 St. John, and that apostle’s account of our I^ord’s 
 words and works. If, then, St. John was not the 
 author of the fourth Gospel, is it conceivable that 
 Irenaeus should not only have been ignorant of 
 the fact, but that he should have treated that 
 Gospel as part of “ the Scriptures,” and have de¬ 
 clared that it was in entire conformity with what 
 he had heard from his aged master ? If the Gos¬ 
 pel was by St. John, it must have been written 
 before the year lOO, and it must have been in cir¬ 
 culation in Asia Minor at the time when Irenaeus 
 was a disciple of Polycarp. The book must have 
 been in their hands, and Polycarp certainly must 
 have known whether or not it was the work of his 
 own master. We have, therefore, the declared 
 and solemn evidence of a man whom we may call 
 the spiritual and literary grandchild of St. John, 
 with the implied evidence of St. John’s own 
 child in the faith, to the fact that that apostle 
 was the author of the fourth Gospel. We have 
 only to add that in early times no doubt respect¬ 
 ing St. John’s authorship is expressed by any wri¬ 
 ter likely to be acquainted with the facts; and 
 it may be confidently asked w^hether more direct 
 and positive testim.ony to the authorship of an 
 ancient work could be obtained or desired ? 
 
AUTHENTICITY OE THE EOUR GOSPEES. I55 
 
 It would need an enormous preponderance of 
 critical difficulties to justify the rejection of such 
 evidence. We are asked to doubt the very eyes 
 and ears, the very mind and heart, of two of the 
 best witnesses in all Christian antiquity; and 
 what are the objections on the strength of which 
 this demand is made upon us? We take M. Re¬ 
 nan once more as a fair exponent of the force 
 which these critical objections possess, and we are 
 content to ask him to what they amount. The 
 result will be scarcely credible to many readers; 
 but they may easily verify for themselves what we 
 say. He practically confesses that every objection 
 is insufficient except one; and what is that? Sim¬ 
 ply that in M. Renan’s opinion the discourses of 
 our Rord recorded by St. John are “pretentious 
 tirades, heavy, badly written, making but little 
 appeal to the moral sense.” (Introduction to 
 “ Vie de Jesus,” page 69.) 
 
 This extraordinary opinion, which will need 
 no refutation for most English readers, remains 
 M. Renan’s sole substantial ground for rejecting 
 St. John’s authorship. At the end of a long ap¬ 
 pendix he concludes that there are only two alter¬ 
 natives: “ Either the author of the fourth Gospel 
 was a disciple of Jesus, an intimate disciple, and 
 from the most early period; or else the author, for 
 the purpose of giving himself authority, has em- 
 
15 ^^ AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 
 
 ployed an artifice which he has maintained from 
 the beginning of the book to the end, with the 
 view of making it believed that he was a witness 
 in as good a position as possible for narrating the 
 truth of the facts.” (Page 537, 15th edition.) In 
 other words, as M. Renan goes on to admit, the ' 
 author is either St. John or he is a liar. “There 
 is no question here of legends, the creation of the 
 multitude, for which no person in particular is re¬ 
 sponsible. A man who, to procure credence to 
 Avhat he narrates, deceives the public not only re¬ 
 specting his name, but still more with respect to 
 the value of his testimony, is not a writer of leg¬ 
 ends, he is a forger.” (Page 538.) M. Renan 
 fully admits the difficulty of such an alternative, 
 and confesses as the result of all this discussion 
 that “ at a first glance it seems that the most nat¬ 
 ural hypothesis is to admit that all these wri¬ 
 tings—the Gospel and the three Epistles—are 
 really the work of John, the son of Zebedee.” 
 Why does not he accept this “natural hypothe¬ 
 sis”? He mentions, first, one or two objections 
 Vvffiich are of no real weight, and which have been 
 given up by other rationalistic writers—such as 
 that the Greek in which the fourth Gospel is 
 written is very different from the Palestinian 
 Greek of the other books of the New Testament. 
 But this, as has been often observed, is a strong 
 
AUTHENTICITY OE THE FOUR GOSPEUS. I57 
 
 argument in favor of St. John’s authorship; for if 
 he lived for thirty years, from A. D. 70-100, in so 
 thoroughly Greek a city as Ephesus, he would be 
 likely to acquire a purer Greek style than any of 
 his fellow-apostles. M. Renan falls back, as his 
 main objection, on his dislike to the discourses in 
 the fourth Gospel. “ The ideas, above all, are of 
 an order entirely different from those in the other 
 books of the New Testament. We are here in 
 full Philonian and almost Gnostic metaphysic. 
 The discourses of Jesus as reported by this pre¬ 
 tended witness, this intimate disciple, are false, 
 often insipid, and impossible.” That is all. As 
 to the general character of the narrative in itself, 
 it is all in favor of St. John’s authorship: “ Con¬ 
 sidered in itself, the narrative of the material cir¬ 
 cumstances of the life of our Eord, as furnished 
 by the fourth evangelist, is superior in point of 
 verisimilitude to the narrative of the other three 
 Gospels ” (p. 536). 
 
 M. Renan notices elsewhere the little traits of 
 precision in the story: “It was the sixth hour;” 
 “it was night;” “the servant’s name was Mal- 
 chus;” “ they had made a fire of coals, for it was 
 cold;” “the coat was without seam;” and he 
 speaks of characteristics which are “inexplicable 
 on the supposition that our Gospel was nothing 
 more than a theological thesis without historical 
 
158 AUTHENTICITY OE THE FOUR GOSPEES. 
 
 value, but wliicb are intelligible if we see in them 
 the reminiscences of an old man” (p. 68). There 
 is, in a word, a mass of internal as well as exter¬ 
 nal evidence in support of the belief of Irenaeus 
 and Polycarp on this subject; but it is all to be 
 thrown aside simply because M. Renan cannot 
 endure the exquisite discourses which the fourth 
 Gospel records! 
 
 Such is the weakness of the objections which 
 criticism is able to adduce against the genuine¬ 
 ness of the Gospel of St. John, according _to the 
 testimony of the most famous skeptic of modern 
 times. The truth is that, as was stated last year 
 by Dr. Bernhard Weiss, one of the most learned 
 scholars of Germany, the disciples of Baur, the 
 founder of the Tubingen school, have been com¬ 
 pelled, “step by step, to concede one after an¬ 
 other of the testimonies against which he con- 
 tended. Every new discovery since his time . . . 
 has positively refuted contentions of criticism 
 which had long been obstinately maintained.” 
 (“ lycben Jesu,” I. 92.) 
 
 One of these recent discoveries is perhaps 
 worth mention. Tatian, the disciple of Justin 
 Martyr, was said by tradition to have prepared a 
 harmony of our four Gospels, called the Diatessa- 
 ron. Of course, if he did, the four Gospels must 
 have been of recognised authority in his own 
 
Authenticity of the four gospels. 159 
 
 time and in that of his master, a consideration 
 which alone would take us back to the first half 
 of the second century. Accordingly, writers like 
 the author of “ Supernatural Religion” were at 
 great pains to maintain that there was no suffi¬ 
 cient evidence of Tatian having written any such 
 harmony at all; and more than this, that “it is 
 obvious there is no evidence of any value connect¬ 
 ing Tatian’s gospel with those in our canon” 
 (vol. 11. p. 157, 1879). 
 
 At the very time these words were published, 
 only four years ago, a work by an eminent Chris¬ 
 tian father had been recovered which is regarded 
 by the general assent of German scholars as a 
 commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron; and hence 
 even skeptical critics now generally admit that 
 Tatian did weave into one harmony the very four 
 Gospels which we now possess. In short, as M. 
 Renan is acute enough to perceive and candid 
 enough to admit, all the external critical objec¬ 
 tions against the authenticity of our four Gospels 
 have successively broken down more or less fa¬ 
 tally ; and there remains no other objection to 
 be made to them than that some critics cannot 
 understand or account for them. 
 
 Some readers may, perhaps, be disposed to 
 think that the last sentence involves a rather 
 harsh judgment, and it is a statement we should 
 
I 
 
 l6o AUTHENTICITY OE THE FOUR GOSPELS. 
 
 not make unless, as we shall observe in conclu¬ 
 sion, it were made by the critics themselves. It 
 would be natural to ask, at the close of such an 
 inquiry as this, how it is that if the critical ob¬ 
 jections against the Gospels are so baseless, they 
 should have been maintained with such persisten¬ 
 cy by scholars so learned and so earnest as those 
 who have been the leaders of the negative schools 
 in Germany for the last fifty years. It is only to 
 be explained on one supposition, and that is that 
 they started with a prejudice against the truth of 
 the Gospel narratives, and they were concerned at 
 almost any cost to justify their disbelief. Again 
 we say that this is a charge we should not have 
 ventured to advance except on their own confes¬ 
 sion and avowal; but as the avowal has been 
 made by them, again and again, it is equally ne¬ 
 cessary and just that they should be held to the 
 consequences of it. 
 
 It will be sufficient on this point to quote the 
 testimony of Dr. Karl Hase, one of the most ven¬ 
 erable scholars of Germany, whose “Dife of Je¬ 
 sus,” published more than fifty years ago, was 
 the first work of the kind, who represents on the 
 whole a decidedly rationalistic view, and who has 
 lately reviewed the whole course of the contro¬ 
 versy in his “History of Jesus,” published in 
 1876. He there (p. 124) says that the novelty of 
 
 / 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. l6l 
 
 the mode of treatment adopted by himself and 
 by Strauss and his successors was that the chief 
 writers of this school labored in all earnestness, 
 and with all the resources of science, “to repre¬ 
 sent a purely human life, founded on purely 
 human writings.” That is, they started from the 
 supposition that our Ibord’s life was purely human, 
 and therefore could have had nothing miraculous 
 about it. Their avowed object therefore was, by 
 some means or other, to explain away the mi- 
 raculous narratives contained in the Gospels. 
 Strauss expressed this prejudice in the plainest 
 language by saying that ‘ ‘ that which could not 
 have happened did not happen;” and consequent¬ 
 ly the problem for the critic was to explain how 
 four writers like the authors of our Gospels came 
 to say with such circumstantiality that things 
 which could not have happened did happen. His 
 explanation w^as that the stories of the Gospels 
 grew up as myths, embodying certain religious 
 and political ideas which were then afloat. That 
 explanation was given up as inadequate, even by 
 his immediate successor, Baur. Bat Baur started 
 from the same prejudice, and set himself a similar 
 task. The theory which he and his followers 
 maintained was that the Gospels were very late 
 productions, which had been written with the 
 specific “tendency” or purpose of maintaining 
 
i63 authenticity oe the tour gospels. 
 
 special views—Petrine, Pauline, or Joliannine— 
 of the principles of Christianity. They invented 
 ingenious combinations for this purpose; but as 
 Dr. Hase, who admires them though he differs 
 from them, observes, ‘ ‘ the uncertainty of a nega¬ 
 tive result was exhibited in this case also; and 
 for Baur also the decisive reason is the marvel¬ 
 lous and impossible character of the contents of 
 the Gospels” (p. 143). So Baur himself said 
 (“Canon. Gospels,” p. 530) that “the capital 
 argument for the later origin of our Gospels re¬ 
 mains always this-—that each of them for itself, 
 and still more all of them together, represent so 
 much in the life of Jesus in a manner in which 
 in reality it never could have happened.” Thus, 
 says Dr. Hase, “The criticism of the Gospels 
 comes back to the criticism of Gospel history; . . . 
 and the question arises whether the Gospels do 
 really relate what is impossible.” 
 
 Dr. Hase thinks that the sacred narratives can 
 after all be explained away into something natural 
 and ordinary, only magnified by excited imagi¬ 
 nations; and something of the same kind is M. 
 Renan’s view, although the explanations of these 
 two writers differ very widely. But M. Renan 
 also bases the whole of his argument on the sup¬ 
 position that miracles are impossible. 
 
 “If,” he says, in the Preface to his thirteenth 
 
AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. 163 
 
 edition (p. 9.), “miracles and the inspiration of 
 certain books are realities, my method is detesta¬ 
 ble. If miracles and the inspiration of books are 
 beliefs without reality, my method is a good one. 
 But the question of the supernatural is decided 
 for us with perfect certainty by the single con¬ 
 sideration that there is no room for believing in 
 a thing of which the world offers no experimental 
 trace. ’ ’ 
 
 Accordingly M. Renan, in his turn, must find 
 some means of explaining away the Gospels. 
 But as we have seen, he is compelled to admit 
 that all attempts to trace their authorship to a 
 later age than that of the apostles, or in the main 
 to other hands than those of their traditional 
 authors, has failed; and so he endeavors to ex¬ 
 plain them as a kind of romance. 
 
 In view of these facts it will now be seen that 
 the difficulties connected with the history of the 
 four Gospels have never, at any time, been based 
 upon candid and unprejudiced criticism. They 
 have been raised in the interest of a criticism 
 which started with foregone conclusions, and 
 their authors have been driven back from post to 
 post, and have had to take refuge in one arbitra¬ 
 ry theory after another. The “natural hypothe¬ 
 sis” has always been what M. Renan declares it 
 is now in respect to the fourth Gospel, namely, 
 
164 AUTHENTICITY OF THE FOUR GOSPEES. 
 
 tliat St Matthew, St. Mark, St I^uke, and St 
 John were the real authors of the four books which 
 bear their names, and that they are faithful wit¬ 
 nesses to what actually occurred. It is remarka¬ 
 ble that if we put out of sight the hypothesis of 
 Baur, now confessedly exploded—that the four 
 Gospels were of late origin, and written with a 
 controversial purpose-—no serious critic impugns 
 the good faith of the writers. The only possible 
 objection which remains is that all four writers 
 were utterly deluded as to what they “saw and 
 heard and handled.’’ Other tracts of this series 
 have dealt and will deal with that extravagant 
 supposition. Our concern has simply been to 
 show that we possess in the four Gospels contem¬ 
 porary records by competent witnesses, and that 
 criticism has been unable to establish any serious 
 objection against this belief. 
 
THE 
 
 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 RESumiECTioi OF Jesus Christ 
 
 FROM THE DEAD. 
 
 BEY. C. A. HOW, M. A., 
 
 PREBENDARY OF ST. PAUL’S CATHEDRAL, 
 
THE ARGUMENT IN BRIEF. 
 
 Four Epistles of the apostle Paul — Galatians, 
 Romans, Corinthians 1 . and II.—are universally ad¬ 
 mitted by learned unbelievers to be genuine, and to 
 have been written within thirty years after the Cruci¬ 
 fixion. 
 
 Taking these Epistle alone, the writer shows the 
 impossibility of a belief in the Resurrection having 
 arisen, spread everywhere, been accepted without 
 doubt, and becoming the foundation of the Christian 
 church, on any other hypothesis than the reality of 
 the fact. 
 
THE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead. 
 
 — ■■■■» ■■■—i 
 
 THE ARGUMENT STATED. 
 
 The writers of the New Testament have staked 
 the truth of Christianity on the actual performance 
 of a single miracle—the resurrection of Jesus 
 Christ. If, therefore, this cannot be proved to be 
 an historical fact, it is a mere waste of time and 
 trouble either to attack any other of the miracles 
 of the Bible, or to attempt to prove their truth. 
 If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, all the 
 other miracles which are recorded in the New 
 Testament would not avail to prove that Chris¬ 
 tianity is a divine revelation. If he did, this one 
 alone proves it, and is capable of supporting the 
 weight of all the rest. As therefore this miracle 
 constitutes the key of the Christian position, we 
 challenge unbelievers to join issue on its truth; 
 
168 historicai, e:vidknce: ok the 
 
 and invite believers not to allow their attention 
 to be distracted to points of controversy where 
 the evidence is weaker, and which after all do 
 not involve the real point at issue. 
 
 I shall treat this subject precisely as I would 
 any point of secular history. I shall not require 
 the reader to believe that the New Testament is 
 inspired. I shall use the Gospels as I would any 
 other memoirs. I shall claim no other authority 
 for the letters of St. Paul than I would for the 
 letters of Cicero. The reader, on his part, must 
 not object that miracles are impossible; for whether 
 they are so or not is a philosophical question 
 which lies outside the regions of historical inquiry: 
 and to assume that they are so is simply to beg 
 the question which we are professing to discuss. 
 In this tract I can only deal with historical evi¬ 
 dence, not with a priori theories. 
 
 My purpose is, to prove that the resurrection 
 of Jesus Christ is a fact which rests on the high¬ 
 est form of historical evidence. In doing so, I 
 shall assume that no one who reads this tract will 
 deny the truth of certain facts which are admitted 
 by all the learned unbelievers of Europe; for to 
 attempt to prove the truth of what they allow, 
 would be a simple waste of time. I shall there¬ 
 fore take it for granted, that what such men as 
 Strauss, Renan, Baur, and the whole Tubingen 
 
RESURRECTION OE JESUS CHRIST. 169 
 
 school of critics admit, those with whom I am 
 reasoning will not deny. 
 
 THE FACTS ASSUMED. 
 
 1. That Jesus Christ existed; that he collected 
 around him a body of followers, who believed in 
 him as the Messiah of popular expectation; and 
 that he was crucified by the authority of the 
 Roman government. 
 
 2. That the three first Gospels were published 
 in the form in which we now read them, not later 
 than some time during the first twenty years of 
 the second century, and one of them not later 
 than the last ten years of the first century. 
 
 3. That the four most important letters of St. 
 Paul, viz.^ that to the Romans, the two to the 
 Corinthians, and that to the Galatians, were un¬ 
 questionably written by St. Paul himself; and 
 that the latest of them cannot have been written 
 at a later date than twenty-eight years after the 
 crucifixion. 
 
 4. That before the end of the first century, 
 i, ^., within seventy years after the crucifixion, 
 Christian churches were to be found in all the 
 great cities of the Roman Empire. 
 
 If any of my readers should refuse to concede 
 these points, I appeal from their judgment to that 
 of all the eminent critical unbelievers of modern 
 
170 HISTORICAI, evidence: OF THE 
 
 Europe, and say, ‘ ‘ Do not ignorantly deny to be 
 historical facts what all your own great men affirm 
 to have been so. ’ ’ 
 
 THE CHURCH EIGHTEEN CENTURIES ODD. 
 
 The first point of my proof is that the Christian 
 church has existed as a visible institution, with¬ 
 out a single break in its continuity, for a period 
 of more than eighteen centuries; and that it can 
 be traced up to the date which Christians assign 
 for its origin by the most unquestionable historical 
 evidence. Its existence therefore is a fact, and 
 must be accounted for. What account, then, 
 does this great society give of its own origin ? 
 
 IT IS FOUNDED ON A FACT. 
 
 It asserts, and ever has asserted, that the cause 
 of its renewed life after the death of its Founder^ 
 was the belief not in any dogmas or doctrines^ but in 
 a fact—that Jesus Christ rose again from the dead. 
 
 Now observe the importance of the fact that 
 the Christian church is, and ever has been, a 
 visible community. All communities must have 
 had an origin of some kind. The supposed 
 designs of its Founder were cut short by his exe¬ 
 cution by the authority of the Roman govern¬ 
 ment. Yet it is certain that the institution which 
 he founded was set agoing again after his death. 
 
RESURRECTION OE JESUS CHRIST. 171 
 
 Its present existence proves this. The Christian 
 church asserts in all its documents that the sole 
 cause of its renewed life was not that its followers 
 found a new leader^ but that they believed that fesus 
 Christ rose from the dead. This therefore formed 
 the foundation on which the society was recon¬ 
 stituted. 
 
 THIS THE ONLY RATIONAE ACCOUNT. 
 
 But observe further, if Jesus Christ rose from 
 the dead, this forms a rational account of the 
 origin of this great institution. If the fact be 
 denied, those who deny it are bound to propound 
 some other rational account of its origin. We 
 affirm that no other theory can account for it. 
 
 Let me illustrate the importance of the calling 
 into existence of a great historical institution, and 
 of its continuous life up to the present time, as 
 a proof of an historical fact. Let us take Mo¬ 
 hammedanism as an example. The church of Mo¬ 
 hammed has existed as a visible institution since 
 the seventh century. It affirms that it owes its 
 origin to the preaching of Mohammed at Mecca, 
 followed by his being acknowledged as prophet 
 and king at Medina. The facts, as reported by 
 his followers, are adequate accounts of its origin, 
 and the continuous existence of the Mohammedan 
 Church from the seventh century to the present 
 
■ 172 HISTORICAL evidence: OF THE 
 
 day forms tlie strongest possible corroboration of 
 the fact, as it has been handed down by its his¬ 
 torians that its institution was due to Mohammed, 
 and that certain occurrences, which his followers 
 believed to have been real events in his life, were 
 the causes of its existence. These events afford 
 a rational and philosophical account of its origin. 
 
 THEORY OF unbelievers. 
 
 But unbelievers have adopted a summary way 
 of disposing of the question of the historical char¬ 
 acter of Christianity. In place of the account 
 which has been accepted by the church of its re¬ 
 newed life, they tell us that the three first Gos¬ 
 pels consist of a bundle of myths and legends, in¬ 
 terspersed with a few grains of historic truth, 
 which were gradually elaborated in the bosom of 
 the Christian society between A. D. 30 and A. D. 
 100. About the latter date, or shortly afterwards, 
 three unknown persons made a selection out of a 
 large mass of these stories, and published them in 
 the form in which we now read them in the 
 Synoptical Gospels. These gradually superseded 
 all the other accounts, and were at length ac¬ 
 cepted by the church as the authentic account of 
 the actions and teaching of Jesus. The fourth 
 Gospel they affirm to have been a forgery, which 
 first saw the light about the year A. D. 170. I 
 
RESURRECTION OE JESUS CHRIST. 1/3 
 
 need hardly add that they also affirm that every 
 miracle which is recorded in the Gospels is devoid 
 of all historical reality, and owes its origin to 
 the imaginations of these credulous believers. 
 
 My answer raises a distinct issue; let it be 
 fairly met. It is this: There is one of the miracu¬ 
 lous narratives in the Gospels which certainly 
 could not have originated in this manner. This 
 is the miracle of the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 
 which—whether it occurred as a fact, or the belief 
 in it was due to the hallucinations of his follow¬ 
 ers, or was invented as a fiction—was believed in 
 by the church as a reality within an extremely 
 brief interval after its Founder’s death. This 
 belief was the foundation on which the Christian 
 church was erected, and the cause of its renewed 
 vitality. 
 
 IT IS A QUESTION OE EACT. 
 
 Now I ask the reader to observe that if it is 
 no fiction, but an historical fact, all the theories 
 that have been propounded by unbelievers as 
 affording an adequate account of the origin of 
 Christianity fall to the ground, and the account 
 of that origin which has been uniformly handed 
 down by the church is the only one which will 
 endure the test of rational investigation; in other 
 words, Jesus Christ rose from the dead. 
 
174 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF THE 
 
 THE LIFE AND DEATH OF JESUS CONCEDED. 
 
 As it is allowed to be an historical fact by all 
 the distinguished unbelievers of Europe that an 
 eminent Jew, named Jesus, collected a number of 
 followers, who believed in him as the Messiah of 
 Jewish expectations, I shall not waste time in 
 proving that which no one possessed of compe¬ 
 tent information will dispute. 
 
 NO OTHER JESUS APPEARED. 
 
 Now it is evident that his public execution 
 must have utterly extinguished their hopes that 
 he could ever fulfil the expectations which they 
 had formed of him. Such being the case, the 
 community which he had attempted to found 
 must have gone to pieces, unless a new leader 
 could be discovered who was capable of occupy¬ 
 ing his place. But as its existence at the present 
 moment proves that it did not perish, it is certain 
 that it must have made a fresh start of some 
 kind—something must have happened which was 
 not only capable of holding it together, but which 
 imparted to it a new vitality. It is no less certain 
 that this was not due to a new leader who stepped 
 into the place of the original Founder, but to a 
 new use which was made of the old one. Our 
 histories tell us that this new impulse was im- 
 
resurrection OE JESUS CHRIST. 175 
 
 parted to the society by the belief that he had 
 risen again from the dead. Whether this belief 
 was founded on a fact, or was the result of a de¬ 
 lusion, it is evident that it could not have occu¬ 
 pied many years in growing; for while this was 
 taking place, the original community founded by 
 Jesus must have perished from want of a bond of 
 cohesion adequate to maintain it in existence. 
 
 THE RESURRECTION EARUY BEUEVED. 
 
 This being clear, I now ask attention to the 
 fact that we have the most unimpeachable histor¬ 
 ical evidence that this renewed life of the church 
 rested on the belief that its Founder, after he had 
 been crucified, rose again from the dead. The 
 proof of this must be derived from the four letters 
 of the apostle Paul, which all the eminent unbe¬ 
 lievers of modern Europe admit to have been his 
 genuine productions. As these letters form his¬ 
 torical evidence of the highest order, I must draw 
 attention to their importance. 
 
 CONTEMPORARY LETTERS. 
 
 It has been often objected by unbelievers that 
 we have no contemporaneous historical evidence. 
 The first three Gospels, it is said, cannot be proved 
 to have been written until seventy or eighty years 
 after the events recorded in them, and the fourth 
 
176 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OE THE 
 
 is a forgery. I reply, that even if we allow this, 
 , for the sake of argument^ to be a correct statement 
 of the facts—which it is not—yet-we are in pos¬ 
 session of letters written by one who was both a 
 contemporary and also the most active agent in 
 fonnding the Christian church. Now contempo¬ 
 rary letters of this kind are admitted by all mod¬ 
 ern historians to be the most valuable of all his¬ 
 torical documents. Of such we have an example 
 in the letters of the great Roman orator and states¬ 
 man, Cicero, which were collected and published 
 after his death, about a century before St. Paul 
 wrote his. They still exist, and it is not too much 
 to say that they form the most important docu¬ 
 ments which we possess for giving us an insight 
 into the history of Rome between B. C. 100 and 
 B. C. 50. They contain a continuous reference 
 to current events in which the great statesman 
 bore a part, and they enable us to estimate the 
 secret springs of the events of the time, and the 
 agencies which brought them about, in a manner 
 which we should utterly fail to do if we had noth¬ 
 ing to trust to but the ordinary histories of the 
 period. It is true that we could not compose a 
 perfect history from them alone. Their allusions 
 to current events are for the most part incidental; 
 but the general facts of the history being known 
 from other sources, they not only furnish the 
 
RESURRECTION OE jESUS CHRIST. I 77 
 
 strongest attestation to them, but they enable us to 
 form a correct estimate of their true character in 
 a manner which it would have been impossible 
 for us to do if we had nothing but the histories to 
 guide our judgment. In truth, Cicero’s letters 
 form the most important historical documents 
 which have been handed down to us from the 
 ancient world. 
 
 A similar historical value attaches to all col¬ 
 lections of contemporaneous letters. Modern his¬ 
 torians are continually hunting them up in every 
 direction as the best means of throwing a clear 
 light on the history of the past. They are far 
 more valuable as a means of discriminating truth 
 from falsehood than formal histories, even when 
 composed by historians who were contemporane¬ 
 ous with the events. Such are frequently writ¬ 
 ten under a strong bias, as, for example. Lord 
 Clarendon’s “History of the Rebellion.” But 
 the incidental allusions in letters frequently put 
 us in possession of facts and motives which have 
 been carefully concealed from the world. This is 
 especially the case in confidential communications 
 between friends. 
 
 FOUR TETTERS OE PAUE. 
 
 It is therefore impossible to overestimate the 
 importance of the concession made to us by the 
 
178 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF THE 
 
 learned critical unbelievers of modern Europe, 
 that beyond all question we are in possession of 
 four documents of this description, carrying us up 
 to the earliest days of Christianity. The latest 
 date which can be assigned to them is twenty-eight 
 years after the cntcifixion. These letters put us into 
 direct communication with the thoughts of the 
 most active missionary of the infant church, and 
 of those to whom the letters are addressed. Their 
 character is such that they present us with a liv¬ 
 ing picture of the entire man who wrote them— 
 what he did, what he thought, and what he be¬ 
 lieved, with a freshness and a vigor scarcely to 
 be found in any other letters in existence. By 
 their means we can hold direct communication 
 with their author, and almost put him into the 
 witness-box. They depict him as he lived, 
 thought, and moved; and they render it indispu¬ 
 table that he was a man of the most unimpeach¬ 
 able veracity. It is of no little consequence, then, 
 that these letters, thus admitted to be genuine, 
 form the most important of those which have 
 been attributed to the apostle. 
 
 I rest my argument on these four letters alone. 
 At the same time I must not omit to draw atten¬ 
 tion to the fact that no small number of eminent 
 critical unbelievers admit the genuineness of four 
 more; but the first four are amply sufficient for 
 
MSURRKCTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 179 
 
 my present purpose, and I shall therefore rest no 
 portion of my proof upon the disputed ones. 
 
 WRITTEN FROM FRESH MEMORIES. 
 
 Having pointed out the value of contempora¬ 
 neous letters, I now ask the attention of the reader 
 to the fact that these four letters of St. Paul were 
 written within that interval of time after the date 
 of the crucifixion which the more rigid canons of 
 criticism lay down as within the period of the 
 most perfect historical recollection. There is no 
 possibility of dating them eighty or ninety years 
 after the events, as unbelievers for their own con¬ 
 venience endeavor to date the first three Gospels, 
 in order that they may get time during which it 
 might have been possible for a number of fictions 
 *to have grown up in the Christian church, and 
 superseded the genuine events of its Founder’s 
 life. Not only were they written within twe 7 ity- 
 eight years of the crucifixion by one whose activity as 
 a missionary of Christiariity had extended over the 
 preceding twenty years^ but he was theit of such an 
 age that his historical recollectio 7 ts were good for at 
 least fifteen years earlier. Although he had not 
 seen Jesus Christ before His crucifixion, he must 
 have conversed with multitudes who had done so 
 and had heard Him teach. In these letters, there¬ 
 fore, we are in possession of a contemporaneous 
 
l8o HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OK THE 
 
 record of tlie highest order, amply satisfying the 
 strictest rules laid down by the late Sir G. C. 
 Ivewis in his great work on the credibility of early 
 Roman history, in which he has rigidly analysed 
 the value of historical evidence. As the subject 
 on which he treats is one purely secular, and he is 
 usually considered to be very strict in his demands 
 for historical evidence, I refer the reader to this 
 work with confidence. 
 
 I^et us test, by our own practical experience, 
 the value of historical recollections that are only 
 twenty-eight years old. This period of time is 
 three years less than the interval which separates 
 us at the present year, 1882, from the coup-d''ztat 
 which made Napoleon the third emperor of the 
 French. Our recollections of that event are so 
 lively that it is simply impossible that we could 
 become the prey of a number of legendary stories 
 respecting it. Such stories can only grow up 
 after considerable intervals of time, when the rec¬ 
 ollection of events has lost its freshness, and the 
 generation w^hich has witnessed them has died 
 out. Let the reader observe, then, that St. Paul, 
 when he wrote these Epistles, was separated from 
 the crucifixion by an interval of time not so great 
 as that which separates us from the event in ques¬ 
 tion. Add three years more, and it will include 
 the whole of our Ford’s ministry. 
 
resurrection of JESUS CHRIST. l8l 
 
 THE DATE OF PAUL’S CONVERSION. 
 
 The latest possible date which can be assigned 
 for the conversion of the apostle is A. D. 40, or 
 ten years after the crucifixion. But this is far too 
 late; and several concurrent probabilities fix it at 
 five or six years earlier. St. Paul therefore had 
 the amplest means of information as to what were 
 the beliefs of the Christians at this early period, 
 and must not only have had the most positive cer¬ 
 tainty respecting what it was on which the re¬ 
 newed vitality of the church rested, but he could 
 not have failed to have known that his primitive 
 followers also ascribed a number of superhuman 
 actions to our Lord. Nor was this all. For some 
 time previous to his conversion he had acted the 
 part of the fierce persecutor of the church. This 
 fact we learn from his own pen. In acting this 
 part, common sense would have suggested to him 
 the necessity of minutely scrutinizing the tenets 
 of the new society, and, above all, of investiga¬ 
 ting with the utmost care the foundation on which 
 it rested: namely, the alleged resurrection of its 
 Founder. He must therefore have been fully cog¬ 
 nizant of the beliefs of the church in connection 
 with this event, and as a vehement opponent he 
 must have done his utmost to expose any delusion 
 respecting it. 
 
i 82 
 
 HISTORICAI. EVIDE:nCK OF THE 
 
 WHAT THE epistles PROVE. 
 
 Having thus pointed out the value of St. Paul’s 
 Epistles as historical evidence, I will now state 
 the chief facts which can be distinctly proved by 
 them, and the nature of the evidence which they 
 furnish of the historical truth of the resurrection. 
 
 1. They make it certain that not only did St. 
 Paul believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ 
 as an historical fact, but that he considered it as 
 the foundation on which the life of the revived 
 Christian community was based. Whatever may 
 have been urged respecting his references to mi¬ 
 raculous powers possessed by himself, his refer¬ 
 ences to the miracle of the resurrection are of the 
 most unimpeachable character. They are too 
 numerous for quotation here; I will therefore 
 only refer to one. In the fifteenth chapter of the 
 First Epistle to the Corinthians he expressly as¬ 
 serts that if the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not 
 a fact, Christianity is a delusion. 
 
 2 . His mode of reference to this event proves 
 that he not only himself believed in it as a fact, 
 but that he did not entertain the smallest doubt 
 that those to whom he wrote believed it as firmly 
 as himself. He refers to it in the most direct 
 terms; he also refers to it in the most incidental 
 manner as the foundation of the common faith 
 
RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 183 
 
 both of himself and of those to whom he wrote. 
 He evidently calculates that they would receive 
 his statements respecting it without the smallest 
 hesitation. Now nothing is more valuable than 
 incidental references such as these to an event. 
 They prove that the writer, and those to whom 
 he writes, know all about it, and have a common 
 belief respecting it. I ask the reader to observe 
 how this is exemplified in the ordinary letters 
 which we write. When we are of opinion that 
 our correspondent is fully acquainted with an oc¬ 
 currence, we simply allude to it, without entering 
 into a formal description of it; and we feel sure 
 that our view of the fact is accepted by him. 
 Such is the manner in which St. Paul refers to 
 the resurrection of Jesus Christ throughout these 
 letters, with the exception of i Cor. 15 and Gal. 
 I and 2, where his reference is for purposes di¬ 
 rectly historical and controversial. 
 
 3. But observe further: there are circumstan¬ 
 ces connected with these allusions which render 
 this testimony stronger than any other in history. 
 Party spirit raged fiercely in two of these church¬ 
 es. In the Corinthian Church there were several 
 parties who were more or less adverse to St. Paul. 
 He names three of them, namely, an Apollos 
 party; another, which professed to be the follow¬ 
 ers of St. Peter; and a third, which claimed in a 
 
l84 ■ HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF THE 
 
 Special sense to be the followers of Christ. Be¬ 
 sides these he specifies a fourth party, which was 
 especially attached to himself. One of these par¬ 
 ties went to the extreme length of denying his right 
 to the apostolical office on the gronnd that he had not 
 been one of the ojiginal companions of fesns. No 
 small portion of the second Epistle is occupied 
 with dealing with this party and defending his 
 own position against them. 
 
 Such being the state of affairs in this church, 
 it is obvious that if the party in opposition to the 
 apostle had held different views respecting the 
 reality of the resurrection from himself, the demo¬ 
 lition of his entire defence would have been cer¬ 
 tain. He puts the question, '■'‘Have I not seen fe- 
 sus Christ oitr LordV'' I do not quote these words 
 as evidence that he had really seen him, but as a 
 proof that if his opponents had not been firmly 
 persuaded that the resurrection was a fact, it 
 would have been an unanswerable reason for 
 affrming that his claim to apostolical authority, 
 based on his having seen the risen Jesus, was 
 worthless, because he had not risen. This refer¬ 
 ence also proves that the Petrine and the Christ 
 party in this church, which latter doubtless 
 claimed to represent the most primitive form of 
 Christianity, must have been firmly persuaded 
 that the original apostles had seen their risen 
 
RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 185 
 
 Master. It is evident, therefore, that so far as 
 the fact of the resurrection is concerned, St. Paul 
 and his bitterest opponents in the church must 
 have been agreed as to its truth. 
 
 4. The evidence which is furnished by the 
 Epistle to the Galatians is still more conclusive. 
 Here there was a powerful party, who not only 
 denied St. Paul’s apostleship, but who had so far 
 departed from his teaching that he designates 
 their doctrines by the name of a different gospel. 
 This party had been so successful that they had 
 drawn away a large number of his own converts. 
 No one can read this letter without seeing that 
 the state of things in this church touched him to 
 the quick. It is full of the deepest bursts of feel¬ 
 ing; yet the whole Epistle is written with the most 
 absolute confidence that however great were the 
 differences between his opponents and himself, 
 there was no diversity of opinion between them 
 that the belief in the resurrection of Jesus was the 
 foundation stone of their common Christianity. 
 Hear his words at the beginning of the letter: 
 “ Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through 
 men, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Fa¬ 
 ther, who raised him from the dead\ and all the 
 brethren which are with me, unto the churches 
 of Galatia. I marvel that ye are so quickly re¬ 
 moving from him that called you in the grace of 
 
l86 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OE THE 
 
 Christ unto a different gospel, which is not an¬ 
 other gospel; only there are some that trouble 
 you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But 
 though we, or an angel from heaven, should 
 preach unto you any gospel other than that which 
 we preached unto you, let him be anathema.” 
 Gal. I : 1-8. Revised Version. 
 
 If St. Paul’s belief and that of his opponents 
 on the subject of the resurrection had not been at 
 complete accord, no man in his senses would have 
 thrown down such a challenge as that which is 
 contained in these words, and also in terms equally 
 strong throughout the entire Epistle. 
 
 5. But the evidence which is furnished in this 
 letter goes far beyond the mere belief of the Ga¬ 
 latian churches at the time it was written. It 
 involves the testimony of two other churches : 
 namely, that of the church of Antioch, and of 
 the church at Jerusalem; the one the metropolis 
 of Gentile, and the other of Jewish Christianity, 
 and carries us up to the briefest interval after the 
 crucifixion. St. Paul’s opponents were Judai^ing 
 Christians, who professed to be the followers of 
 St. Peter and St. James. St. Paul, in the second 
 chapter of this Epistle, asserts that his teaching 
 was in substantial harmony with that of these two 
 great chiefs of the Jewish Church. It follows, 
 therefore, as their professed adherents concurred 
 
RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 187 
 
 with him in believing that the resurrection was a 
 fact, that these two apostles must have been per¬ 
 suaded that they themselves had seen their risen 
 Lord, and that the whole Jewish Church must 
 have concurred with them in this belief. This 
 same chapter also makes it certain that the entire 
 church at Antioch did the same at the period 
 when St. Peter and St. Paul jointly visited it, and 
 involves the fact of St. Peter’s direct testimony to 
 the truth of the resurrection. This proves for 
 certain that this belief was no late after-growth, 
 but that it was coincident with the renewed life 
 of the Christian church immediately after the cru¬ 
 cifixion. 
 
 6 . Let us now consider the evidence furnished 
 by the Epistle to the Romans. 
 
 If it be urged that St. Paul had founded the 
 churches of Corinth and Galatia, and that even 
 his opponents may have adopted his views on this 
 point, the church at Rome, at any rate, was one 
 which he had neither founded nor visited. It had 
 evidently been in existence several years before 
 he wrote his letter to them; and it was a church 
 so large and important that he felt that he was 
 in no danger of being misapprehended when he 
 said that '''' tJieir faith zvas a subject of conversation 
 throiighotit the zvhole worlds It contained a large 
 Jewish element; and from the number of stran- 
 
188 HISTORICAI. EVIDENCE OF THE 
 
 gers who visited the imperial city there can be no 
 doubt that among its members must have been 
 representatives of every variety of Christian 
 thought. Yet he addressed the church with the 
 fullest confidence that its members held the same 
 views respecting the resurrection as himself. 
 This is set forth in the opening words of the Epis¬ 
 tle: “Declared to be the Son of God with power 
 according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrec¬ 
 tion from the dead^ ’ ’ -Rom. 1:4; and the same 
 truth permeates the entire contents of the 
 Epistle. 
 
 We have thus fully proved, that within a pe¬ 
 riod of less than twenty-eight years after the cru¬ 
 cifixion, three large churches, separated from each 
 other by several hundred miles, were all of the 
 same mind in believing that Jesus Christ had 
 risen from the dead; and that this belief formed an 
 essential ground of the existence of the Christian 
 community. I ask the reader to consider how 
 long it must have taken for such a belief to have 
 grown up among churches thus widely separated. 
 It is useless, therefore, to assert that the miracu¬ 
 lous stories of the Gospels grew up gradually 
 during the first century, and that they thus be¬ 
 came mistaken for history, for our evidence is 
 simply overwhelming that the greatest of all 
 miracles was implicitly believed in by the entire 
 
resurrection of JESUS CHRIST. 189 
 
 churcli within less than twenty-eight years after 
 the crucifixion. 
 
 7. But further: this belief was not then one 
 of recent growth. The mode in which allusion 
 is made to it proves that it must have been con¬ 
 temporaneous with their first belief in Christian¬ 
 ity on the part of those to whom St. Paul wrote. 
 Many of these, as we have seen, were Jewish 
 Christians, who must have been very early con¬ 
 verts, or have derived their faith from those who 
 were. The allusions in the Epistle to the Gala¬ 
 tians plainly include the testimony of St. James 
 and St. Peter. We also find, by a most incidental 
 allusion in the Epistle to the Romans, that there 
 were two members of that church who had em¬ 
 braced Christianity before St. Paul. The allu¬ 
 sion is so incidental that it is worth quoting: 
 “Salute Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and 
 my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the 
 apostles, who also have been in Christ before me. ’ ’ 
 Yet they were all agreed on the subject of the 
 resurrection. St. Paul believed it from the time 
 of his conversion, i. e.^ within less than ten years 
 after the date of the crucifixion. Andronicus and 
 Junias believed it still earlier. Peter, James, and 
 John also believed it from the first; for St. Paul 
 tells us that he communicated to them the gospel 
 which he preached among the Gentiles, and that 
 
IQO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE: OE THE 
 
 they generally approved of it; and he informs us, 
 in the fifteenth of First Corinthians, that both 
 Peter and James had seen Jesus Christ alive after 
 his crucifixion. The reader’s attention should be 
 particularly directed to the fact that in the Epis¬ 
 tle to the Galatians he informs us that, three years 
 after his conversion, he paid Peter a visit of fif¬ 
 teen days, during which he was entertained by 
 him, and that during this visit he had an inter¬ 
 view with James. As it is incredible that they 
 did not explain their views to one another respect¬ 
 ing this fundamental fact of Christianity, we can¬ 
 not therefore err in assuming that we have here 
 the direct testimony of these two men that they 
 believed they had seen their Master risen again 
 from the dead. It follows, therefore, that their 
 belief in the resurrection was the foundation on 
 which the church was reconstructed immediately 
 after the crucifixion. 
 
 8 . In the fifteenth of the First Epistle to the 
 Corinthians, St. Paul makes a very definite state¬ 
 ment as to a number of persons who believed 
 that they had seen Jesus Christ after he had risen 
 from the dead. He tells us that on one occasion 
 He was so seen by more than five hundred persons 
 at once, of whom more than half were still alive 
 when he wrote the Epistle. Now, consider how, 
 in making this assertion, he must have put him- 
 
RESURRECTION OE JESUS CHRIST. 191 
 
 self in the hands of his opponents, if this fact was 
 not generally admitted to be true. They might 
 have put an end to his reasonings then and there 
 by simply exposing the falsehood of such a state¬ 
 ment. The attempt of unbelievers to escape the 
 force of this fact by the allegation that the apos¬ 
 tle was careless of inquiry into the truth of such 
 stories is here quite beyond the mark, for they 
 forget that it was made in the presence of those 
 who would have been only too eager to expose 
 his misstatements if they had been able. But if 
 these five hundred persons really believed that 
 they had seen Jesus Christ after his crucifixion, 
 how is it possible to account for so singular a fact 
 otherwise than on the assumption of its truth ? 
 
 9. But further: there were members of the 
 Corinthian Church who were far from being dis¬ 
 posed to accept with eager credulity the story of 
 a resurrection from the dead; many who affirmed 
 that a resurrection of the body was, if not impos¬ 
 sible, yet a most undesirable event, and that all 
 that was intended by the promise of a resurrec¬ 
 tion was a great spiritual change. Yet, with 
 singularly defective logic, they admitted that the 
 resurrection of Christ had been a bodily one. 
 I Cor. 15:14-17. The apostle presses them with 
 the following reasoning, to which I invite the 
 reader’s attention: How can you deny a bodily 
 
192 HISTORICAI. EVIDENCE OE THE 
 
 resurrection hereafter, when you admit that Christ 
 actually rose from the dead ? If the resurrection 
 of Christ had not been the foundation of the faith 
 of the church, they might have made short work 
 of the apostle and his logic, by simply denying 
 the truth of the bodily resurrection of our I^ord. 
 
 THE POINTS PROVED. 
 
 I have therefore proved, on the most unim¬ 
 peachable historical evidence, that there is at 
 least one miracle recorded in the Gospels which is 
 neither a myth, a legend, nor even a mental hal¬ 
 lucination which slowly grew during the latter 
 half of the first century, but that it was fully 
 believed in as a fact by those who gave the new 
 impulse to the Christian church immediately after 
 the crucifixion of its Founder, and that it formed 
 the one sole ground of its renewed life. Let it 
 be observed that I have foreborne to quote the 
 testimony of the Gospels, because unbelievers 
 affirm that their date is comparatively late. I 
 have, therefore, simply made use of historical 
 documents, the genuineness of which they do not 
 dispute. It remains, therefore, to inquire wheth¬ 
 er it is possible that this belief could have been 
 the result of some species of mental hallucination 
 on the part of the primitive followers of Jesus, for 
 this is the only possible alternative to its histori- 
 
RESURRECTION OE JESUS CHRIST. I93 
 
 cal reality. But before doing so, let me briefly 
 set before the reader the points which have been 
 proved on historical evidence of the highest order. 
 
 I. That within less than twenty-eight years 
 after the crucifixion the entire Christian church, 
 without distinction of party, believed that the 
 one sole ground of its existence was the fact that 
 
 Jesus Christ had risen from the dead. 
 
 2. That at that period there were more than 
 two hundred and fifty persons then living who 
 believed that they had seen him alive after his 
 crucifixion. 
 
 3. That the belief in the resurrection was held 
 in common by St. Paul and his most violent op¬ 
 ponents. 
 
 4. That it is an unquestionable fact that the 
 entire Christian church believed in the resurrec¬ 
 tion of its Founder, as an essential ground of its 
 existence, within six or seven years after the date 
 of his crucifixion. 
 
 5. That at least three of the original apostles 
 asserted that they had seen Jesus Christ alive 
 after his death. 
 
 6. That within a few months after the crucifix¬ 
 ion the church must have been reconstructed on 
 the foundation of the belief that its crucified Mes¬ 
 siah had been raised from the dead. I say a few 
 months, because if the interv^al had been lonefer 
 
 13 
 
194 HISTORICAI. EVIDENCE OF THE 
 
 while the belief was growing, the church must 
 have perished in its Founder’s grave. 
 
 three supposabee aeternatives. 
 
 Such being the facts of which the historical 
 evidence is unquestionable, it remains for me to 
 examine whether they are consistent with any 
 other assumption than that the belief in the res¬ 
 urrection was founded on a reality. 
 
 Fet the reader therefore observe that there are 
 only three possible alternatives before us.' 
 
 1. Either Jesus Christ actually rose from the 
 dead; 
 
 2. Or the belief in his resurrection was the re¬ 
 sult of a deliberately concocted fraud; 
 
 3. Or the original followers of Jesus were the 
 victims of some species of mental hallucination. 
 
 Other alternative there is none. 
 
 It will be unnecessary to examine the second 
 of these alternatives, because it has been aban¬ 
 doned by all eminent modern unbelievers. 
 
 MENTAE HAEEUCINATION : TWO THEORIES. 
 
 Two theories have been propounded as afford¬ 
 ing a rational account of the origin of the belief 
 in the resurrection of Jesus, on the assumption 
 that it was due to the mental hallucination of his 
 disciples. Of these the first is: 
 
resurrection OE JESUS CHRIST. I 95 
 
 That they were so intensely enthusiastic and 
 credulous that some one or more of them fancied 
 that they saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion, and 
 that they succeeded in persuading the others that 
 it was a fact. This theory is technically called 
 the theory of Visions. It has been propounded in 
 many forms, but that of Renan may be cited as a 
 fair illustration of it: that Mary Magdalene, in the 
 midst of her grief and emotion, mistook the gar¬ 
 dener for Jesus, fancied that he was risen from the 
 dead, and communicated her enthusiasm to the 
 rest. 
 
 The second is, that Jesus did not really die of 
 the effects of crucifixion, but that he was taken 
 down from the cross in a swoon, from which he 
 awoke in the sepulchre; that he succeeded in 
 creeping out of it in an exhausted state, in get¬ 
 ting to a place of retirement, and died shortly af¬ 
 terwards ; and that his credulous followers mis¬ 
 took this partial recovery for a resurrection from 
 the dead. 
 
 I must ask the reader to observe, that to im¬ 
 part to either of these theories the appearance of 
 plausibility, it is necessary to assume a boundless 
 amount of credulity, I may say one that surpasses 
 belief, on the part of the followers of Jesus. But 
 when we ask that some proof should be adduced 
 of the existence of this extreme credulity, the only 
 
196 HISTORICAI. evidence: OE THE 
 
 one which is forthcoming is, that the Jews of that 
 period were habitual believers in supernatural 
 and demoniacal agency. 
 
 I will deal with the second of these theories 
 first. 
 
 THEORY THAT HE DID NOT DIE. 
 
 I allow that it was possible for a man who had 
 been suspended for some time on the cross, if ta¬ 
 ken down and carefully treated, to recover. This, 
 we are informed by Josephus, happened to one of 
 his friends, though it was the exception, for two 
 out of three died under care. But in the case of 
 Jesus, unbelievers must meet the fact that he was 
 in the hands of his enemies, who, as a matter of 
 course, would have seen to his burial as a crimi¬ 
 nal who had been publicly executed, and have 
 thus put the possibility of his recovery in his 
 grave out of the question. It is true that our 
 Gospels inform us that Pilate surrendered his 
 body to his friends; our sole knowledge of this 
 fact is derived from their testimony, but unbv,- 
 lievers affirm that they are unhistorical, and they 
 cannot therefore in this particular case claim the 
 benefit of it. If, however, they accept the state¬ 
 ments of the Gospels on this point they are bound 
 also to accept their further assertion, that Pilate 
 took care to ascertain that Jesus had actually died 
 
RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. I97 
 
 before he resigned possession of the body; and 
 that it was afterwards consigned to a sepulchre, 
 the entrance of which was closed with a large 
 stone. But those who propound the above theory 
 cannot help admitting that a sepulchre hewn in a 
 rock was a most unlikely place for a man who had 
 been crucified to recover from a swoon which 
 could be mistaken for death; but even if this is 
 conceded to be a possibility, they are met with 
 the insuperable difficulty of a man in this wound¬ 
 ed and exhausted condition being able to get out 
 of a place, the doorway of which was closed by a 
 large stone, and then succeeding in taking refuge 
 in the house of a friend, and there hiding himself 
 from the eyes of his inveterate foes. 
 
 But as after the crucifixion Jesus disappears 
 from history, except on the supposition that he 
 rose from the dead, unbelievers are obliged to ad¬ 
 mit that he must have died from exhaustion 
 shortly afterwards. Now it is certain that if he 
 left the grave alive he must have been kept in 
 the closest concealment; for if those who had suc¬ 
 ceeded in procuring his crucifixion had the remo¬ 
 test suspicion that he had done so they would not 
 have allowed him to remain undisturbed, and 
 consequently his disciples could not have ven¬ 
 tured to have breathed a single word about a res¬ 
 urrection until they had succeeded in conveying 
 
198 HISTORICAI. EVIDENCK OF THE 
 
 him to some distant place of safety. This, as all 
 practical men know, would have involved insu¬ 
 perable difficulties; and in this case one or more 
 of the followers of Jesus must have been guilty of 
 a conscious fraud. 
 
 But further. It is also evident that if Jesus 
 lived in concealment, his followers either had 
 access to him or they had not. If the former was 
 the case, it would have been impossible for them 
 to have mistaken a wounded man’s gradual re¬ 
 covery, for a resurrection; or one dying from ex¬ 
 haustion, for the Messiah of Jewish expectations. 
 But if they never saw him, the idea that they 
 should have believed that he was risen from the 
 dead, and on the strength of that belief should 
 have proceeded to reconstruct the church on the 
 basis of his resurrection, and that they should 
 have succeeded in accomplishing it, is far more 
 incredible than the belief that all the miracles re¬ 
 corded in the Bible were actual occurrences. 
 
 But a Messiah who crept out of his grave, 
 took refuge in retirement, and afterwards died 
 from exhaustion, was not one who could satisfy 
 the requirements of the community, which had 
 been crushed by his crucifixion. His followers 
 had fully expected that he was going speedily to 
 reign, and lo, the cross was his only throne, and 
 all expectations of a visible reign must have been 
 
RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 199 
 
 crushed. Yet it is the most certain of historical 
 facts that the Christian community commenced 
 a new life immediately after its original ground¬ 
 work, that Jesus was the Messiah of popular Jew¬ 
 ish expectation, had been subverted by his cruci¬ 
 fixion. Nothing but a resurrection, or something 
 which could be mistaken for it, could have served 
 the purpose. Something must be done, and that 
 quickly, or the church must have perished in its 
 Founder’s grave. It was necessary, therefore, 
 that the old Messianic idea should be immediately 
 reconstructed, if the instant dissolution of the 
 church was to be averted. The church had before 
 it the alternative of finding a Messiah on a new 
 basis, or perishing. If it be urged that Jesus re¬ 
 covered from the effects of his crucifixion, and 
 lived in retirement ever afterwards, and that his 
 disciples mistook this for a resurrection, I ask in 
 the name of common sense, even if it is conceiv¬ 
 able that there was a single disciple capable of 
 such credulity, how long would such a belief take 
 in growing, so as to be accepted by the entire 
 body, and to be embraced by them with such 
 ardor as to cause them to proceed to the work of 
 reconstructing the church on its basis? The 
 truth is, that the requisite time is not to be had 
 for the growth of such a delusion, for while the 
 belief was growing, the church would have be- 
 
200 
 
 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OE THE 
 
 come extinct from want of any bond to keep it 
 united. Is it credible, I ask, that any body of 
 disciples could have been induced to believe that 
 their Master was risen from the dead, without 
 being favored with an interview with him ? and 
 that he was the Messiah, while he continued to 
 live in retirement in order that he might keep 
 himself in safety from his enemies ? or that they 
 would have ventured to proceed to the work of 
 reconstructing the church on the basis of his spir¬ 
 itual Messiahship, knowing well the opposition 
 they were certain to encounter, unless they had 
 been persuaded that they had received their Mas¬ 
 ter’s direct instructions to do so, and that he was 
 able to impart to the attempt the probability of 
 success ? Credulity, however great, certainly has 
 its limits, and such credulity as has been presup¬ 
 posed exceeds the limits of the possible. But 
 besides all this, the theory cannot be made to 
 bear the least appearance of plausibility, without 
 assuming either the incredible fact that Jesus 
 must have mistaken his partial recovery for a 
 resurrection, or the alternative that he lent him¬ 
 self to the perpetration of a conscious fraud, with 
 which not even unbelievers have actually dared, 
 except by insinuation, to charge the Holy One of 
 God. 
 
RESURRECTION OE JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 201 
 
 THEORY OE VISIONS. 
 
 Let US now proceed to consider the remaining 
 alternative, that the belief in the resurrection was 
 due to the followers of Jesus having, under the 
 influence of mental hallucinations, mistaken cer¬ 
 tain visionary appearances, the creations of their 
 overwrought imaginations, for objective realities; 
 and in consequence of this that they became firmly 
 persuaded that they had seen and conversed with 
 him after he had risen from the dead. Before 
 doing so, however, let me draw the reader’s atten¬ 
 tion to the all-important fact which is so habit¬ 
 ually overlooked in this argument, that the his¬ 
 torical condition of the case requires that those who 
 propound this theory^ as affordhtg an adequate ac~ 
 connt of the origin of the belief in the resurrection^ 
 should not only account for the origin of this belief as 
 a mere beliefs but for the erection of the cJmrch on its 
 basis. It is impossible too strongly to press this 
 last part on the attention of unbelievers. 
 
 Let us however assume, for the sake of argu¬ 
 ment, that the original followers of Jesus were to 
 the last degree credulous and enthusiastic, only 
 observing that we have not one atom of evidence 
 for the assumption. I am fully ready to concede 
 that a belief in a certain round of supernaturalism 
 is one which is very widely diffused among man- 
 
202 
 
 HISTORICAIv evidence: OF THE 
 
 kind, and that large numbers of marvellous stories 
 are readily accepted on little or no evidence. It 
 is comparatively easy to get men to believe that 
 they have seen ghosts, and still easier to believe 
 that others have seen them. But there is one 
 marvel at which the most profound credulity 
 stumbles, viz.^ that a man who has actually died 
 has been seen alive and conversed with in bodily 
 reality. I doubt whether an authentic instance 
 can be found of any one who has positively af¬ 
 firmed that he has seen and conversed with another 
 after he was dead, not as spirit, but in bodily 
 reality. The old pagans, who accepted super¬ 
 naturalism enough, would have scoffed at such a 
 belief as lying beyond the bounds of the possible; 
 and would have pronounced any one mad who had 
 affirmed that he had done so. I am aware that 
 there are a few old pagan stories about men who 
 had been brought back from the other world; but 
 these were wisely placed by the poets in the re¬ 
 motest ages of the past. But in the present case 
 history refuses to allow of any sufficient time for 
 the story of a resurrection to have grown up in 
 this gradual manner under shelter of the remote 
 past. 
 
 What then is the fact with which in the pres¬ 
 ent case those who deny the reality of the resur¬ 
 rection must inevitably grapple ? It is none other 
 
resurrection of JESUS CHRIST. 203 
 
 than this, that several persons must have believed 
 that they saw the risen Jesus within a few days or 
 weeks after his crucifixion, and what is more, 
 conversed with him separately and in companies. 
 
 Let the reader imagine for himself the amount 
 of credulity which would be necessary to enable 
 a number of men and women to believe that they 
 had not only seen and conversed with one who 
 had been publicly executed at Newgate, and 
 whose body was still close at hand mouldering in 
 its grave, but who actually proceeded to found a 
 society on the basis of that belief, and that society 
 the greatest, the holiest, and the most mightily 
 influential of all the institutions that have existed 
 on this earth; and what is more, that they could 
 actually succeed in the attempt. 
 
 three conditions of haeeucinations. 
 
 Three conditions have been laid down, by 
 those who have deeply studied the human mind, 
 as necessary for the production of those mental 
 hallucinations which have resulted in causing 
 subjective impressions to be mistaken for external 
 realities. These are prepossession^ fixed idea^ and 
 expectancy. Now, nothing can be more certain 
 than that, in the case of our Lord’s disciples, 
 these three principles, supposing them to have 
 been existent in them, would have acted in a 
 
204 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OP THE 
 
 direction exactly contrary to that which those 
 who propound this theory as an adequate account 
 of the facts above referred to require. 
 
 1. Their prepossessions were all in favor of 
 a Messiah visibly ruling and reigning, and most 
 adverse to the idea of a crucified one. The very 
 idea of a crucifixion dashed in pieces their dearest 
 hopes. Their prepossessions therefore ran directly 
 counter to what this theory requires that they 
 should have been to have produced the requisite 
 mental hallucinations. 
 
 2. Such fixed ideas as they possessed, instead 
 -of producing a visionary set of instructions from 
 their risen Master, to reconstruct the church on 
 the basis of his spiritual Messiahship, would have 
 infallibly led them to see visions in conformi¬ 
 ty with the old Jewish Messianic conception. If 
 a fixed idea ever produces visions in credulous 
 minds, these visions will certainly be on the lines 
 of their old ideas, and will not generate new ones. 
 Nothing can be conceived of as less revolutionary 
 than “fixed ideas,” and therefore they will not 
 aid us one single step towards the generation of 
 the idea of a spiritual Messiahship, or to the re¬ 
 construction of the church on its basis. 
 
 3. Of expectancy of a resurrection, the fol¬ 
 lowers of Jesus certainly had none. The only 
 possible ground for supposing that they had any 
 
RESURRECTION OE JESUS CHRIST. 205 
 
 would be the assumption that our Lord had pre¬ 
 dicted the event in the most express terms. But 
 this unbelievers do not venture to affirm, for to 
 admit it would be inconsistent with their position. 
 Some mere general utterance, such as that if he 
 was martyred he would live again in the future 
 success of his cause, is one far too general to pro¬ 
 duce that enthusiastic state of expectancy which 
 would be necessary to create such visions of him 
 risen from the dead as could be mistaken for 
 objective realities, it being remembered that 
 all the while his dead body must have been at 
 hand in the grave in the custody of either his* 
 friends or his foes. 
 
 Hopeless, therefore, is the attempt to produce 
 the requisite visions by the aid of either of these 
 three principles. 
 
 It is easy for a student in his closet to invent 
 the theory that Mary Magdalene, in the midst of 
 her grief and dejection, mistook the gardener for 
 Jesus, thought that He was risen from the dead, 
 and communicated her enthusiasm to the rest; 
 but those who have practical experience of the 
 realities of things will be confident that this is 
 much easier to say than to do. What! are we 
 to be asked to believe that an enthusiastic woman 
 succeeded in persuading a number of others that 
 a person who had been executed only a few days 
 
2o6 historical evidence of the 
 
 previously, and wliose body was close by in the 
 grave, bad appeared to ber in bodily reality, and 
 that they therefore accepted tbe fact, that be was 
 risen from tbe dead, without further inquiry? 
 Did they do so, I ask, without being favored 
 with a sight of him themselves; or did they all, 
 in the height of their credulous enthusiasm, take 
 to seeing visions of the risen Jesus, and mistake 
 them for objective realities, when all this while 
 the body was close at hand in the sepulchre? 
 What next are we to be invited to believe in the 
 name of philosophic history ? 
 
 Further. Is it to be believed that his disci¬ 
 ples without authority from him ventured to pro¬ 
 ceed to reconstruct the church on the basis of a 
 spiritual and invisible Messiah in the place of a 
 temporal and visible one, to make his person the 
 centre of the life of the new system, and to lay 
 the foundations of a universal church in place 
 of the old theocracy? This brings us into im¬ 
 mediate contact with the whole mass of insupera¬ 
 ble difficulties with which the theory of visions 
 is attended. 
 
 I must once more draw attention to the fact, 
 that it is necessary that those who affirm that the 
 belief in his resurrection was the result of a men¬ 
 tal hallucination on the part of the followers of 
 Jesus should account not only for that belief, 
 
RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. ZO’] 
 
 but for the erection of the church on the new 
 basis of a spiritual instead of a temporal Messiah, 
 and the other all-important changes in the entire 
 movement which resulted from this change of 
 front. I know that it will be urged that his 
 credulous followers fancied that, although his 
 body still continued in the hands of either his 
 friends or his foes, he had been taken up into 
 heaven, from whence he would come again after 
 a short interval in his visible Messianic glory. 
 But the church had in the meantime to be kept 
 together, and this could only be done by recon¬ 
 structing the Messianic conception on which it 
 has been based. However, days, months, and 
 years elapsed, and no return of Jesus took place. 
 A thorough reconstruction of the entire basis of 
 the original society became therefore more and 
 more urgently necessary, if utter extinction was 
 to be avoided. But it is an unquestionable his¬ 
 toric fact that, instead of dwindling away, it grew 
 and flourished immediately after its Founder’s 
 death. The reconstruction in question therefore 
 must have been actually effected immediately 
 afterwards. Are we to believe that the disciples 
 would have ventured on such a step, unless they 
 had been firmly persuaded that they had received 
 definite instructions from their Master to make 
 the transformation? or that a body of ignorant 
 
2 o8 historicai. evidence of the 
 
 fanatics, such as is supposed, had wit enough to 
 invent the mighty change which has resulted in 
 the erection of the church of Jesus Christ, and in 
 the influences which from thence have issued on 
 the world ? 
 
 Let us return to the theory of visions. What 
 then are we to be asked to believe ? In place of 
 the acceptance of the resurrection as a fact^—a fact, 
 be it observed, adequate to explain all the subse¬ 
 quent phenomena of the history of the church—we 
 are invited to believe that the belief in it origina¬ 
 ted in the followers of Jesus seeing visions of their 
 Master after his crucifixion, and mistaking them 
 for realities. In that case thev must have seen 
 not 07 te vision^ but several; not only singly and 
 m solitude^ but in bodies. St. Paul’s testimony 
 on this point is express, and his means of infor¬ 
 mation must have been ample. Will any one, 
 with his Epistles in hand, venture to affirm that 
 he wrote what he knew to be an invention of his 
 own ? He tells us that he had private interviews 
 with Peter and James, and also that both these 
 apostles believed that they had private interviews 
 with the risen Jesus. Is it credible that he did 
 not get this information from them, when he 
 actually abode for a fortnight in Peter’s house, 
 and had a personal interview with James? He 
 also tells us that on another occasion he had an 
 
resurrection of JESUS CHRIST. 209 
 
 interview with at least one more of the original 
 apostolic body, John; and he gives us the further 
 information that the eleven apostles, when assem¬ 
 bled together in a body, believed that on two 
 separate occasions they had interviews with their 
 risen Master. He also tells us that, on anoth¬ 
 er occasion. He appeared to no less than five 
 hundred in a body. Were all these visionary 
 appearances ? Did all the disciples take to seeing 
 visions together, and to mistaking them for reali¬ 
 ties? When they thus imagined that they saw 
 their Master singly and in bodies, did not one of 
 them ask him a question; and if so, did he get a 
 visionary answer? Is it credible, I ask, that cir¬ 
 cumstanced as they were, they did not ask him 
 what future course he was going to adopt; or, in 
 event of his removal, what course it was his 
 pleasure that they should pursue with respect to 
 carrying on the work which he had begun? 
 That they should have put to him no questions 
 such as these is simply incredible. To such 
 questions they either got answers or they did 
 not. If they got none, the bubble must have 
 burst then and there. If they believed that they 
 got answers, they must have been all visionary 
 ones; and this must have involved a whole set 
 of visionary conversations. 
 
 The fact that the church was reconstructed 
 
 14 
 
210 HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OE THE 
 
 shortly after the crucifixion renders it absolutely 
 certain that the followers of Jesus must have be¬ 
 lieved that they had conversations with their risen 
 Master, and that in these conversations he gave 
 them his directions both to reconstruct the church 
 and as to the mode in which they were to do so; 
 for, as I have said, unless they had believed that 
 they had received such instructions, it is simply 
 incredible that they should have ventured on the 
 attempt, and have dared to refound the church 
 on the basis of his resurrection and spiritual Mes- 
 siahship, and that too in the face of all the op¬ 
 position they were certain to encounter. But if 
 their belief in his resurrection was the result of 
 an hallucination, then the instructions which 
 they believed that they had received, and on which 
 they successfully acted, must have been mere 
 visions, the creation of their disordered imagina¬ 
 tions. What is more, they must have all fancied 
 that they heard similar utterances, or else there 
 would have been a diversity of plans. 
 
 To enable us to accept theories like these as 
 accounts of actual facts, requires on our part more 
 than all the credulity which unbelievers ascribe 
 to our Lord’s primitive followers. 
 
 But observe further: the belief in the resurrec¬ 
 tion was no idle belief, like that of a common 
 ghost story or an ordinary marvel. Such beliefs 
 
RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 211 
 
 begin and end in nothing; but this had an energy 
 and power sufficient to reconstruct the church in 
 the face of the greatest difficulties and perils. It 
 was therefore no sentimental belief entertained by 
 individuals who did nothing in consequence of it, 
 but one which sustained the weight of an institu¬ 
 tion which has endured for eighteen centuries of 
 time, and has acted more powerfully on mankind 
 than any other known to history. This belief 
 went on spreading, until within less than seventy 
 years it had firmly established itself in all the 
 great cities of the Roman Empire, and had shown 
 itself capable of enduring the test of martyrdom. 
 Where in history can be found an instance of a 
 community which has been founded on the belief 
 that a man who had been publicly executed rose 
 again from the dead, and who was thus proved to 
 be the King of the kingdom of God ? Is it easy 
 to persuade numbers of men and women to accept 
 so astounding a fact ? Where can be found an 
 example of a great institution which has lasted 
 for centuries, which has wielded a greater influ¬ 
 ence for good and a mightier power over the 
 human mind than all other institutions put to¬ 
 gether, which has been erected on the foundation 
 of a number of vulgar marvels ? 
 
 What, I ask, has the whole mass of ghost 
 stories, marvels, and current spiritism done to 
 
21 Z 
 
 HISTORICAI^ EVIDENCE OF THE 
 
 reform the world ? We have heard much in these 
 modern days of spiritualism and its wonders; has 
 there any great institution been erected on its 
 basis, or is there any probability that there ever 
 will ? Are mankind, or any portion of them, the 
 better or the wiser for its disclosures ? To these 
 questions there can be only one answer. Spirit¬ 
 ism, with all its alleged powers of penetrating 
 into the secrets of the unseen world, and all simi¬ 
 lar marvels, have achieved nothing; *they have 
 made man neither holier nor wiser; nay, they 
 have not effected a discovery which has enlarged 
 the knowledge or even made the fortune of any 
 of its votaries. But respecting the gospel of the 
 resurrection, the great Christian missionary could 
 write to those who had actual knowledge of the 
 facts, in the first of his extant letters, dating only 
 twenty-three years from the crucifixion: “Re¬ 
 membering without ceasing your work of faith 
 and labor of love and patience of hope in our 
 Lord Jesus Christ, before our God and Father,. . . 
 for our gospel came not unto you in word only, 
 but also in power; . . . and ye became imitators of 
 us, and of the Lord; . . . and how ye turned unto 
 God from idols, to serve the living and true God; 
 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom. He 
 raisedfrom the deadeve 7 t Jesus f i Thess. 1:3-10; 
 and as he wrote to another body of his converts 
 
RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. 213 
 
 only four years later, after lie had affirmed that 
 before becoming Christians they had been guilty 
 of some of the foulest vices which can disgrace 
 mankind: “And such were some of you; but ye 
 were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye were 
 justified in the name of the I^ord Jesus Christ, and 
 in the Spirit of our God.’^ i Cor. 6:11. 
 
 THE ONLY possible ALTERNATIVE. 
 
 The first of our three alternatives is therefore 
 the only possible one. Jesus rose from the dead. 
 If this was an actual event, it satisfies all the 
 facts of history, and affords a rational account of 
 the origin of the church. No other theory does 
 anything else but make boundless demands on 
 our credulity in the name of an unsound philos- 
 ophy. 
 
 THE gospel’s true history. 
 
 I am now in a position to assign to the Gos¬ 
 pels their proper place as historical documents. 
 The above facts having been proved on evidence 
 which is quite independent of their testimony, it 
 is useless for unbelievers to affirm, as far as the 
 resurrection is concerned, that they were written 
 by nameless authors long after the events which 
 they profess to record, for the truth of the resur¬ 
 rection can be proved independently of their tes- 
 
214 HISTORICAI. E:viDENC]e OF THE 
 
 timony. If, therefore, it is a fact that Jesus 
 Christ rose from the dead, the a priori presump¬ 
 tion against their miraculous narratives, the ex¬ 
 istence of which is the reason why unbelievers 
 pronounce them unhistorical, is destroyed; nay, 
 it becomes far more probable that Jesus Christ 
 wrought miracles than that he wrought none. 
 The Gospels, therefore, may be accepted for what 
 they profess to be—memoirs of the ministry of 
 Jesus Christ, composed by their authors'with the 
 design of teaching the fundamental principles of 
 Christianity.* Their accounts are fragmentary, 
 but are substantial narratives of facts. They 
 were not written for polemical purposes, but for 
 the edification of believers—a point which ought 
 to be carefully noted by every student. It has 
 been objected that their accounts contain narra¬ 
 tives which it is difficult to reconcile with one 
 another in minute details. I admit that such is 
 the fact, and that this results from the peculiar 
 class of writings to which the Gospels belong, 
 viz.^ not regular histories, but religious memoirs, 
 which class of writings do not profess to furnish 
 us with a complete and continuous narrative. 
 The last thing which occurred to their authors 
 was to guard against the objections of opponents. 
 In their accounts of the resurrection they satisfy 
 See the preface to St. Luke’s Gospel. 
 
resurrection of JESUS CHRIST. 215 
 
 all the conditions of the case. The events of that 
 Passover Sunday must have thrown the followers 
 of Jesus into the greatest excitement. The ac¬ 
 counts of them given in the first three Gospels 
 are exactly such as we should expect from men 
 and women under similar circumstances. They 
 are broken, disjointed, without any attempt being 
 made to weave them into a complete whole, yet 
 in all the main facts their testimony agrees, and 
 they are fully corroborated by the more definite 
 account of an eye-witness — the author of the 
 fourth Gospel. This is exactly what they should 
 be, if they contain the reports of genuine wit¬ 
 nesses, and what they certainly would not have 
 been if they had been written by men acting in 
 mutual concert and with the design of smoothing 
 over difficulties or answering objections. Tet us 
 hear on this point one of the highest authorities 
 of modern skepticism. “It is useless,” says the 
 “Westminster Review,” “to carp at small minor 
 details. All histories contain variations, or, if 
 you like to call them, contradictions on minor 
 points. This has been the case with every his¬ 
 tory that has been written from Herodotus to Mr. 
 Froude.” 
 
 Tet unbelievers, therefore, join issue on the 
 main facts of the Gospel history, just as they 
 would with any secular history, and we will meet 
 
2i6 resurrection OE JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 them. Above all, let them not carp at minor 
 details about miracles; but let them join issue on 
 the truth or falsehood of that great miracle, the 
 resurrection of Jesus Christ, on the truth of which 
 the writers of the New Testament have staked 
 the existence of Christianity; for if its historical 
 foundation can be proved to be baseless, the 
 Christian church must become a crumbling ruin. 
 But if Jesus Christ has risen from the dead, 
 Christianity must be a divine revelation, not¬ 
 withstanding all the objections which have been 
 urged against it by unbelievers, or any amount of 
 alleged discrepancies with which they charge the 
 narratives of the Gospels. 
 
Christianity and Miracles, 
 
 AT 
 
 THE PRESENT DAY. 
 
 BY 
 
 REY. PRIRCIPAR CAIRRS. D. D., 
 
 AUTHOR OF 
 
 “unbelief in the eighteenth century.’^ 
 
THE ARGUMENT IN BRIEF. 
 
 Miracles are shown to be, on the supposition of 
 the existence of God, neither impossible in themselves, 
 inconsistent with the order of nature, incapable of be¬ 
 ing proved by testimony, nor incapable of being deci¬ 
 sively connected with God. 
 
 The marvellous character of the Bible, the tran¬ 
 scendent character of the morality of the Bible, the 
 harmony of the miracles of the Bible with its doctrine, 
 are shown to be presumptions in favor of the miracles 
 of Scripture. 
 
 The historical testimony to the miracles of the New 
 Testament, and especially our Lord’s Resurrection, is 
 examined, and its bearing on this fact is shown. The 
 Resurrection of Christ is shown to account for all the 
 undeniable facts of the history, and the insufficiency of 
 any theory that denies its reality to account for them 
 is proved. 
 
Christianity and Miracles, 
 
 AT THE PRESENT DAY. 
 
 -» - 
 
 The alliance between Christianity and mira¬ 
 cles is of long standing, in fact is inherited from 
 the Old Testament religion; and for eighteen cen¬ 
 turies, friend and foe have been here agreed, the 
 one rallying to this position as an intrenchment 
 of their own; the other, though sometimes affect¬ 
 ing to despise it, not less looking askance upon it 
 as an adverse stronghold. In our unsettled time, 
 when everything is questioned, and not a little 
 rashly abandoned, the argument for the truth of 
 Christianity from miracles is in some quarters less 
 insisted on. There are even Christian minds that 
 have begun to waver at this point; while others, 
 on the opposite side, are perhaps nearer believing 
 their own illusive difficulties than at any former 
 period. I am persuaded, however, that this dis¬ 
 crediting of miracles is a great mistake, and that 
 no procedure could be less wise than that of wri¬ 
 ters in the Christian ranks who seek here to 
 
220 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACTKS. 
 
 change front in the midst of action. Christian¬ 
 ity—if it be worth anything as a remedy—is so 
 essentially supernatural in its inmost essence and 
 provisions that it cannot be detached from mira¬ 
 cles without losing its virtue; and though there 
 may be shades and varieties as well as improve¬ 
 ments, in the way of putting this argument, nay, 
 lawful differences as to its ultimate value in rela¬ 
 tion to other grounds of Christian belief^ it must 
 still take rank as a leading proof; and the nine¬ 
 teenth century, not less than the first, must accept 
 of Christ’s own challenge, “ If I do not the works 
 of my Father, believe me not.” Persuaded then, 
 with ever-growing conviction, of the solidity of 
 this argument, and of the futility of the objections 
 drawn from metaphysics, from history, and from 
 science against it, I shall endeavor, within the 
 compass of this tract, to set it forth in the light of 
 the present day. 
 
 It is necessary, in discussing this question, to 
 begin with some definition of a miracle, so 
 as to understand in what sense it is here em¬ 
 ployed. It may be spoken of then as an act of 
 God which visibly deviates from the ordinary 
 working of his power, designed, while capable of 
 serving other uses, to authenticate a divine mes¬ 
 sage. This restricts the argument to theists. 
 Unless there be belief in a God able and willing 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACTES. 
 
 221 
 
 to make and attest a revelation, the whole argu¬ 
 ment from miracles is below the horizon. Had 
 Hume been more thorough-going he would have 
 taken his stand against miracles as excluded by 
 his skepticism as to God. Had Spinoza been 
 more open in his earlier treatise, he would not, 
 while professing to believe in God, have assumed 
 that the wisdom of God did not admit of either a 
 revelation or such a proof of it; for this belonged 
 to his later pantheism. And had Strauss, in our 
 own days, been a more strict controversialist, he 
 would not have wasted so much of his life in crit¬ 
 icising the discords of the evangelists, but would 
 have rested in his fundamental exclusion of God, 
 that made the whole scheme of Christianity from 
 the first incredible and subversive of reason. No 
 one has been here more candid than the late Mr. 
 John S. Mill. He sees that miracles belong to, 
 and only belong to, the supposition of theism; 
 and whatever may be thought of his objections to 
 them, as not sufficiently proved to have existed 
 in God’s actual world, he deserves great credit for 
 having admitted that the belief in miracles is per¬ 
 fectly rational on the part of a believer in God, 
 and that it is a question of evidence and not of a 
 priori theory. 
 
 With this preliminary clearing up of the state, 
 and even of the terms, of the question, a number 
 
222 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 
 
 of MISTAKES ABOUT MIRACLES that have gath¬ 
 ered round it fall away of themselves. Some of 
 these may be briefly noticed. The first mistake 
 is, that miracles are impossible. To this much of 
 the skepticism of our time verges, even where it 
 does not bluntly assert it. Possibly this may be, 
 because our belief has found by experience that 
 it is not safe to grant so much as the being of a 
 moral and personal Deity. Miracles, of course, 
 fall with the denial of the only Being who can 
 exercise a moral government, who can, in connec¬ 
 tion with that government, make a revelation, 
 and who can so work in the physical world as to 
 connect that revelation with his own divine 
 powder. It is seen at once that if God be possible, 
 miracles are possible; and that hence nothing can 
 preclude them but abstract atheism, or panthe¬ 
 ism, or such agnosticism as makes the knowledge 
 of God hopeless. It is a great consolation to the 
 Christian that his belief in miracles can only be 
 uprooted by virtual denial of God. 
 
 A second mistake, not so extreme, but still 
 serious, is, that miracles are inconsistent with the 
 order of nattire. In so far as this puts nature in 
 the place of God, and keeps him bound, as nature 
 is without him held to be, by absolutely invaria¬ 
 ble laws, this is the same denial of God that has 
 been already considered. So far, however, as the 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACTEa. 223 
 
 position taken is that God has chosen to act in 
 ways so invariable as to exclude miracle, and has 
 revealed to us that choice, the distinction thus 
 drawn easily leads to the discovery of the mis¬ 
 take. There would need to be full and conclusive 
 evidence that it is God’s will and choice to exclude 
 miracle altogether from the realm of what is called 
 nature, but which is only to a theist the field of 
 God’s own working. Is there, then, this full and 
 conclusive evidence? It cannot be by revelation: 
 for this would be to bring in revelation to exclude 
 revelation. It can only be by what is called the 
 light of nature; and the question recurs. Does the 
 light of nature absolutely exclude any possible 
 deviation by God from the wonted sequences of 
 his operation ? This would exclude every begin¬ 
 ning and end of the universe, and every cosmical 
 change that was not in the strictest sense the 
 working out of foregoing law. On what can a 
 skepticism so rigorous be based? It has been 
 attempted to base it on our primary belief in the 
 uniformity of nature, which is thus regarded as 
 the voice of God to us warning us against trust in 
 miracles. But is this so? Philosophers still dis¬ 
 pute as to how far the expectation of uniformity 
 in nature is a rational principle of knowledge or a 
 mere instinct. But one thing is clear, that it can¬ 
 not exclude the weighing of evidence for miracle; 
 
224 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 
 
 otherwise, the origin or end of the world, consid¬ 
 ered as a scientific possibility, would be as sum¬ 
 marily rejected as any hypothesis confessedly 
 against reason. Canon Motley has shown con¬ 
 clusively against Mr. Mill that the progress of 
 science cannot exclude belief in miracle, for the 
 very principle of induction on which science 
 builds involves itself this prior belief in the uni¬ 
 formity of nature, which can thus receive from 
 science no greater strength than it has at first. 
 Nothing is more strange than the language of 
 Mr. Mill as to the growing impossibility of belief 
 in miracle as science advances; for this would 
 leave the belief a scientific one to Sir Isaac New¬ 
 ton, or even to Hume and Gibbon, and deny it 
 as such to Professor Huxley or Renan; not to 
 mention that this assertion is entirely opposed to 
 facts, as some of the most eminent men of science 
 are still believers in miracles; and Mr. Mill him¬ 
 self finds a consolation in clinging to their possi¬ 
 bility and the supernatural mission of Jesus Christ. 
 The admission of miracles does not at all depend 
 on a lax or unscientific conception of the course 
 of nature. In fact, it can only build on recog¬ 
 nized natural laws; and the discernment of these, 
 and of exceptions to them, was as possible in the 
 first century as in the nineteenth, as the words in 
 the gospel history indicate: “ Since the world be- 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 225 
 
 gan was it not heard that any man opened the 
 eyes of one that was born blind.” This limited, 
 exceptional, divinely-regulated minimum of devi¬ 
 ation, which leaves nature and science still stand¬ 
 ing as before, is all that Christianity asks in order 
 to start this argument, and no principle of natural 
 belief can pronounce the postulate inadmissible. 
 
 Besides, it is to be remembered that while in 
 one sense miracles set aside law, in another and 
 deeper sense they uphold it. The end of miracle, 
 through the coming and works of Christ, is the 
 restoration of moral order. The coming of Christ 
 as a sinless Being is a miracle. Christianity is 
 not an ordinary history, or even a great moral 
 system incorporated with the life of its founder. 
 It is, if it is anything, a system of redemption, 
 based on the incarnation of Jesus Christ as the 
 Son of God, and upon the grace of the Holy 
 Spirit, with a sequel of eternal results and issues, 
 greater through union with Christ or separation 
 from him than the ordinary immortality with its 
 hopes and fears. This scheme is wrought out by 
 the life and death, the dominion and influence, 
 the second coming to judgment, and endless reign 
 of Jesus Christ. Now this whole plan and system 
 transcends natural laws, in any common accepta¬ 
 tion of the word. It is believed to be in harmony 
 with the highest laws of the Divine nature, and 
 
 15 
 
226 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 
 
 to be the most glorious expression of them. But ‘ 
 it is born of and lives by miracle, so that to refuse 
 faith in this is to make sin the order of the uni¬ 
 verse. And if Christ needed to displace physical 
 law in order to vindicate and restore moral and 
 spiritual law, the conception of the universe 
 which would exclude this interference is really a 
 materialistic superstition, and so far from exalting 
 God as the God of order, it surrounds him and his 
 creatures with an outward barrier that shuts the 
 way even to the ‘ ‘ tree of life. ” It is by dwelling 
 on the order of nature without that a prejudice 
 against miracles has been created. A glance at 
 the disorder of nature within restores the balance; 
 and with the need, recalls the probability of a 
 remedy, and of a remedy attended by miracle. 
 
 A third mistake as to miracles is, that even if 
 wrought^ they eotild not be proved by testimony. 
 This is the celebrated argument of Hume, first 
 published in a set of his essays in 1748, but which 
 has not carried conviction, as he expected, and 
 has even lately been declared by Mr. Mill to be 
 inconclusive. Mr. Mill, in his “Essay on The¬ 
 ism,” p. 217, says, “ It is evidently impossible to 
 maintain that if a supernatural fact really occurs, 
 proof of its occurrence cannot be accessible to the 
 human faculties. The evidence of the senses 
 could prove this as it can prove other things.” 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 227 
 
 Hume, however, never looks the senses, in con¬ 
 nection with miracles, in the face. He dwells 
 exclusively on testimony, and thus tacitly leaves 
 it to be supposed that miracles are only matters 
 of testimony; and this testimony he makes neces¬ 
 sarily fallacious: for his argument is that our con¬ 
 fidence in testimony being due entirely to experi¬ 
 ence, can never warrant our believing any report¬ 
 ed departure from experience. If Hume had gone 
 farther back, and supposed an eye-witness dealing 
 with a miracle, he could not have advised that 
 eye-witness to reject the miracle simply because 
 the testimony of others had never reported any¬ 
 thing like it; and then that eye-witness could not 
 have been reasonably disbelieved himself, since 
 testimony could not fail to convey what sense had 
 vouched for. Hume, it is true, could not himself 
 believe a miracle, because his philosophy left him 
 in total doubt as to God. But it was c therwise 
 with believers in God: and his assault on testi¬ 
 mony had no value except as resting on his own 
 premises. It may be added that there is a shadow 
 of Hume’s error in the not uncommon objection 
 to miracles, that they lose their force with time, 
 and at length vanish away. Why should this be 
 so with miracles more than with secular history ? 
 The death of Ananias and Sapphira is as near to 
 us as the assassination of Julius Caesar. Tradition 
 
228 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACTES. 
 
 loses its weight by successive removes, but not 
 written history. Grant that the apostle John is 
 the author of the fourth Gospel, his testimony is 
 as good to us as if we had received it orally from 
 himself. There is a signal absence of the histor¬ 
 ical sense in this objection; and there is no reason 
 to think that a historian like Hume, if he could 
 have granted miracles as once credible, would 
 have supposed them decaying, though this idea 
 only carries his distrust in testimony to a more 
 paradoxical extreme. 
 
 The three mistakes as to miracles which have 
 been considered are all due to forgetfulness of the 
 fact that miracle appeals to a prior belief in God; 
 and they are redressed when his agency and rela¬ 
 tion to nature are recalled to view. The same 
 thing holds true of a fou 7 'th mistake, and the last 
 which we shall notice, which still exerts a dis¬ 
 turbing influence on some judgments: namely, 
 that miracles ca^inot be so decisively connected zvith 
 God as to lend any sanction to an alleged revelation. 
 There is evidently no force in the general allega¬ 
 tion that mere power can lend no support to 
 teaching: for power is appealed to as a link to 
 connect the teaching with God; and if such a con¬ 
 nection be secured, its authority is then bound¬ 
 less. All ages have felt this, and have reechoed 
 the simple confession of Nicodemus: “We know 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACDi:S. 229 
 
 that Tliou art a teacher come from God: for no 
 man can do these miracles that thou doest except 
 God be with him.” But the complaint is that 
 thong'll the connection, if it could be made out, 
 would serve the end, the connection cannot be 
 decisively established, since works apparently mi¬ 
 raculous may still be due to ordinary laws, and 
 not to divine interposition, or may even (so it is 
 pleaded on Scripture grounds) be wrought by evil 
 beings. This objection has often been taken, and 
 is renewed, among others, by the author of ‘ ‘ Su¬ 
 pernatural Religion.” 
 
 Now it may be granted that at times the de¬ 
 fenders of revelation have undertaken too much 
 by speaking as if a line could in all cases be 
 drawn to mark off miracle from nature; whereas 
 it was enough to fix on the leading miracles of the 
 Bible as decisively supernatural in their charac¬ 
 ter, since with these alone was there any concern: 
 and it may be also admitted that Christian writers 
 have differed somewhat in their interpretation of 
 those passages of Scripture which connect mira¬ 
 cle, or the appearance of it, with evil agency. 
 Neither of these circumstances, however, abates 
 the evidential value of the Bible miracles. They 
 still stand out as sharply as ever—distinguished 
 from all natural phenomena. It is because ra¬ 
 tionalism could not reduce them to natural facts 
 
230 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACTES. 
 
 that it tried to make them myths. No science 
 can ever reduce to its uniformities a fact, if fact it 
 be, like the death of the firstborn in one night. 
 The cures of our Lord seem still as little like the 
 fruits of secret medical knowledge as in his own 
 day; while the most thorough-going skepticism 
 rejects most scornfully the theory that his resur¬ 
 rection was a mere natural recovery from an in- 
 completed death. There is thus in the'miracles 
 of the Bible—abating some obscure instances—a 
 broad stamp of distinetion from extraordinary, 
 though still natural phenomena; while there is a 
 plan, a method, a reigning spirit, which takes 
 them completely out of the region of the mere 
 random wonders and portents of Livy, or the 
 childish marvels of the later ecclesiastical histo¬ 
 rians. It may be confidently affirmed that if the 
 Bible miracles are not recognizably divine, none 
 can be so; and thus the extremely skeptical posi¬ 
 tion would be reached, that a Being who wished 
 to make a revelation, and sought to attest it by a 
 seal which the general sense of mankind has 
 connected with such a communication, could not 
 thus stamp it by any sign of distinctive power. 
 
 Equally futile is the objection that the alleged 
 Bible miracles may be due to evil agency. The 
 deniers of revelation do not themselves believe in 
 such agency, superior to human, yet adverse to 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACTES. 23I 
 
 the divine: but only bring it in to perplex and 
 disconcert Christians. But if they borrow this 
 Christian doctrine to turn it against its own ad¬ 
 herents, they ought to remember the limitation 
 within which it is held. However Christians 
 may differ as to the amount of confusion which 
 evil beings may be permitted to introduce by 
 working what may be mistaken for miracle, they 
 all hold that under the government of God suffi¬ 
 cient light is granted to make the distinction pos¬ 
 sible to every humble and candid mind, either by 
 the true power which is divine visibly transcend¬ 
 ing every other, or by moral features in the reve¬ 
 lation appealing to conscience, in a way which 
 no pseudo-revelation can counterfeit. The Chris¬ 
 tian is thus not embarrassed by this arginneiittim 
 ad Iiomhiem^ and what is equally important to the 
 validity of this reasoning, neither is the theist. 
 
 The theist to whom the Christian offers the 
 Bible, and with whom he argues on the ground of 
 miracle, cannot deny that the supreme Power may 
 be able to outshine, even to human eyes, on this 
 field, all rivalry, and still more, to interweave the 
 revelation professedly given with such moral fea¬ 
 tures and accompaniments that no fair observer 
 can trace it up to an evil source. The reasoning 
 of our IvOrd with the Pharisees, that Satan could 
 not cast out Satan, was, no doubt, addressed to 
 
233 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACTES. 
 
 believers in revelation; but it is equally applicable 
 to believers in God simply, who as such cannot 
 believe in him without believing that all agencies 
 and events are under his control, and that he will 
 not suffer the elements of nature to be so turned 
 out of their course by evil beings as to mimic any 
 supposed signature of God or defeat his purpose— 
 if he has one—thus to confirm a revelation. Who 
 ever heard of any theist who was prepared to say, 
 “I admit an element of miracle, so far as God’s 
 working, otherwise known to us, is concerned. I 
 allow the credibility of miracles in the abstract, 
 and I allow the moral features of the Bible to be 
 reconcilable with a divine origin; but I cannot 
 decide that they have one, because the apparent 
 signs may be due to evil powers not sufficiently 
 restrained”? Now, it is with theists that we rea¬ 
 son here, and not with the author of “Supernat¬ 
 ural Religion ;” and till he can bring us theists 
 who are satisfied on other grounds, but take their 
 last stand against the gospel on this, all his air- 
 drawn difficulties go for nothing. 
 
 Having thus endeavored to remove these mis¬ 
 takes as to miracles, it might be our next task, as 
 it is our principal one, to go on to the evidence of 
 fact and history that the Christian miracles have 
 actually been wrought. But in order to do jus¬ 
 tice to the argument, it is necessary first to state 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACTES. 233 
 
 some PRESUMPTIONS WHICH DEAD TO THIS CON- 
 cuusiON and predispose the mind, great as the de¬ 
 mand made upon faith by miracles is, to concede it. 
 The considerations about to be named are of vary¬ 
 ing weight; and they are evidences of the truth 
 of Christianity by themselves ; nay, in one case, 
 more central to the proof than even miracles; nor 
 are they the only ones that might be named. 
 But they are here brought forward only as lead¬ 
 ing up and lending help to the direct argument 
 drawn from miracle in the common sense of the 
 word. 
 
 There may be mentioned then, firsts as a pre¬ 
 sumption in favor of the reality of the Bible mir¬ 
 acles, the wonderful nature of the book in which 
 they are recorded. There is here what may be 
 called a literary miracle. I do not ask any one at 
 this point to believe in inspiration, and from the 
 self-evident inspiration of the Bible to accept this 
 part of its contents, though there can be little 
 doubt that this self-evident superiority to all other 
 books goes a long way to secure for the Bible 
 claim to inspiration its wide acceptance. But it 
 is not because the book is divinely true that I 
 ask it to be here regarded, but because it is out¬ 
 standingly wonderful. This fact no one, even the 
 most skeptical, can deny. The Bible is itself a 
 phenomenon, embracing master-pieces in every 
 
234 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACDDS. 
 
 department of literature, from tlie most unlikely 
 hands. Renan, for slight reasons, denies that the 
 Gospel of Matthew is the work of a Jewish publi¬ 
 can ; but he admits that it is of equally obscure 
 origin, and yet says that, ‘ ‘ all things considered, 
 it is the most important book of Christianity, the 
 the most important book that ever has been writ¬ 
 ten.”* The Gospel of Luke he grants to be the 
 work of its received author; and says, in regard 
 to the Saviour’s birth, “This exquisite pastoral, 
 traced with a gentle outline upon the front of 
 Christianity, has never been surpassed by any 
 strain more fitted to lull the woes of poor human¬ 
 ity ’ t and in general he says of this Gospel, ‘ ‘ It 
 is the most beautiful book in the world. Of 
 the Gospels as a whole he also says, ‘ ‘ The com¬ 
 position of the Gospels is, next to the personal ac¬ 
 tion of Jesus, the capital fact in the history of the 
 origin of Christianity; I will add, in the history 
 of humanity. ” § It would be easy, were it neces¬ 
 sary, to quote other tributes to the stupendous lit¬ 
 erary greatness of the Bible. One may be taken 
 from Gibbon, where he contrasts the book of Job 
 with the Koran; and it is all the more remarka¬ 
 ble as belonging to a century in which, as Mac¬ 
 aulay says, Voltaire decried Ezekiel in the same 
 
 •=• “ Evangiles,” page 212. 
 
 X Page 283. 
 
 t Page 27S. 
 g Page 213. 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACTES. 235 
 
 narrow spirit as he did Shakespeare. ‘ ‘ The har¬ 
 mony and copiousness of style will not reach in a 
 version the European infidel: he will peruse with 
 impatience the endless incoherent rhapsody of 
 faith and precept and declamation, which seldom 
 excites a sentiment or an idea, which sometimes 
 crawls in the dust and is sometimes lost in the 
 clouds. The divine attributes exalt the fancy of 
 the Arabian missionary; but his loftiest strains 
 must yield to the sublime simplicity of the book 
 of Job, composed in a remote age, in the same 
 country, and in the same language.”* The 
 Bible is confessedly the greatest classic in the En¬ 
 glish or German language, we may add, even in 
 the French : and its influence has immeasurably 
 transcended that of all others. Does not this 
 agree with the supposition of miracle in connec¬ 
 tion with the system to which it belongs ? Could 
 the presumption be greater ? and how world-wide 
 is the contrast, as Gibbon acknowledges in regard 
 to Mohammedanism, with every other religion ? 
 
 A second presumption, even stronger, for the 
 reality of the Bible miracles, is the transcendent 
 character of the morality with which they are asso¬ 
 ciated. At no point has Christianity come out 
 of the struggle of centuries stronger than here. 
 The greatest of moralists like Kant have treated 
 
 Gibbon (Bohn’s Ed.), Vol. V. p. 474. 
 
236 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACTES. 
 
 the New Testament as containing a full moral 
 system; and attacks on the Christian morality, as 
 erring, either by excess or defect, have to a large 
 extent ceased. Mr. Mill, who, in his essay on 
 ‘ ‘ Tiberty, ’ ’ had charged Christianity on this head 
 with at least incompleteness, has in one of his 
 posthumous ‘ ‘ Kssays ’ ’ made the remarkable state¬ 
 ment that no one could find a better rule of life 
 than to act in every case so as that Christ would 
 approve of his conduct. The only really influen¬ 
 tial objections to the Christian morality are those 
 connected with its difficulty, and its failure to 
 realise itself among professed Christians; and this 
 has caused the gospel to suffer more than all other 
 hindrances put together, for the inconsistencies of 
 Christian nations and churches have been seen 
 and read of all men, while the excuses for those 
 failures, and even the attempts to clear Chris¬ 
 tianity from this reproach, have not been equally 
 successful in impressing the general mind. Still 
 it is a great and singular thing for any system of 
 morality to be complained of chiefly because it 
 is too high and ideal; w^hile at the same time all 
 candid minds allow that Christianity has here 
 been immensely effectual in elevating the moral 
 standard of the world, and in bringing round a 
 state of things when its own strictness and eleva¬ 
 tion shall seem less hopeless as a prevailing as- 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 237 
 
 piration and attainment. What is true of the 
 New Testament here is inclusive of the Old. 
 They must be partial judges who deny here a 
 radical identity, which Christ himself and his 
 apostles, notwithstanding some difficulties of fact 
 and interpretation, acknowledged between the 
 earlier and later development of the same revela¬ 
 tion. The Old Testament had something of the 
 same height relatively to everything outside itself 
 as the teaching and institutions of Christianity 
 still have; for what could be found among ancient 
 nations with anything of the same practical 
 weight and impression as the Decalogue, the 
 Psalms, the book of Proverbs, and the moral 
 lessons of the Prophets? while these have all 
 been found capable of being taken up into, and 
 mingling their force with, the mightier impulses 
 of Christianity. That a great moral system like 
 this should be connected with miracle, and gain 
 its support, is something totally different from the 
 transient, scattered, and for the most part legen¬ 
 dary and useless miracles that rise up out of the 
 mere love of the marvellous or under the spell 
 of superstition. The purpose is truly great and 
 godlike, worthy of miracle if miracle could help, 
 and, taken in conjunction with the success which 
 has followed, warrants the presumption that mir¬ 
 acle has here been at work, and not in vain. 
 
23S CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLE:S. 
 
 The third and the only other presumption 
 which shall be noticed here for the reality of the 
 Bible miracles, is their harmony with the doctrinal 
 system which they are brought in to establish. 
 It is a common fault of those who undervalue 
 miracles to overlook this, and to treat the miracle 
 and the doctrine as something belonging to differ¬ 
 ent spheres, and only externally applied to each 
 other, somehow as the royal stamp on a book is to 
 its contents. But in point of fact, the whole of 
 Christianity relatively to ordinary teaching is in¬ 
 ward miracle; and out of this the miracle, com¬ 
 monly so called, grows as a product, and hence 
 as a witness. The common Christian view of 
 the birth of Jesus Christ—of the union in him 
 of the divine and human natures—'Of his atone¬ 
 ment and intercession, and of his exaltation to 
 dispense the Holy Ghost and reign over the spirits 
 of men in his church, and even outwardly in 
 the universe, all this is so far from being God’s 
 visibly ordinary way of action as disclosed in 
 natural providence, that it rises above the thoughts 
 of men as far as the heavens are above the earth. 
 Hence this scheme, in its whole texture super¬ 
 natural, cannot be carried through without special 
 acts occurring that have been distinctively called 
 miracles, though they are not more miraculous 
 than the rest. For one who is God incarnate to 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 239 
 
 rise from the dead is not more miraculous than 
 to be God incarnate; nor is it so to ascend to 
 heaven, and thence to usher in the day of Pente¬ 
 cost, and to control and govern the church by his 
 Holy Spirit. There must be miracle, if there is 
 to be salvation. The laws of human nature must 
 be transcended by the divine being united with 
 the human. The human body could not be sur¬ 
 rendered to defeat, and the incarnation so far be 
 made void by the Saviour remaining in the grave. 
 Nor could the same law that applied to others 
 who were raised, limit the risen life of Christ, or 
 detain him upon earth. Miracles had thus, ac¬ 
 cording to the true Christian conception, a deeper 
 design than to be evidences of Christianity. They 
 had to be vital and integral parts of Christianity. 
 But this did not hinder them from being evidences 
 too; and as evidences they have a reason and a 
 credibility which would be wholly wanting if they 
 were extraneous and supplementary parts engrafted 
 upon an otherwise non-miraculous system. Take 
 for example our Lord’s so-called miracles of heal¬ 
 ing. Would it have been more credible that the 
 Son of God, invested with divine powers, should 
 stand in the midst of human disease and misery 
 without any outbursts of mightier sympathy and 
 help, and that he should be warned back by the 
 very laws of nature that were his own creation ? 
 
240 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 
 
 Or is it not credible that he should in these cures 
 have revealed and imaged his deeper power to 
 heal the soul ? When from the starting-point of 
 Christianity he could not be a Saviour at all 
 without miracle, is there not in the expansion 
 and development of this principle, and in the ap¬ 
 plying of it as he does to support his own claims, 
 a beautiful inward harmony which is a presump¬ 
 tion of truth, so that never could any religion set 
 forth this evidence from so lofty and consistent a 
 ground as that of Him who says, ‘ ‘ Believest thou 
 not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me ? 
 The words that I speak unto you, I speak not of 
 myself but the Father that dwelleth in me, he 
 doeth the works.” 
 
 With these explanatory and introductory re¬ 
 marks, it is now time to consider the argument 
 for the reality of the Bible miracles as posi¬ 
 tively ATTESTED BY HISTORY. The argument 
 is very extended, taking in the Old Testament as 
 well as the New. But it has been universally 
 felt that the strength of the argument lies most in 
 the New Testament period, because, while the 
 Old Testament wonders are sufficiently attested, 
 and are even vouched for in the New Testament, 
 while also held up by the ever-increasing author¬ 
 ity of the Old Testament in matters of ordinary 
 history, there is not the same abundance of con- 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACRES. 241 
 
 temporary literature, nor reigning clearness in 
 regard to the authorship of books and similar 
 matters affecting testimony. The question shall, 
 therefore, be limited to the miracles of the New 
 Testament, though every one can see that the 
 miracles of the Old Testament are not to be looked 
 on as a hindrance, but a help; and we can under¬ 
 stand how different our position would have been 
 had the New Testament revelation been con¬ 
 firmed by striking miracles, while the Old Testa¬ 
 ment oracles did not enjoy the help of so much as 
 one. Again, among the New Testament mira¬ 
 cles, those of Christ himself are the most fitted to 
 attract close and prolonged study; and among 
 these, by universal consent, one stands out as pre¬ 
 eminently important, the miracle of his resurrec¬ 
 tion. Even an unbeliever may be impressed by 
 the thought that Christ (as recorded) rested his 
 claims on this sign, in preference to others; for it 
 has turned out to be the strongest, and this by 
 any natural means Christ could not have known. 
 
 CHRIST’S RESURRECTION. 
 
 In considering the evidence of Christ’s resur¬ 
 rection, the same method is perhaps best taken 
 which is employed in any other question of fact. 
 Nothing is taken for granted, but that a miracle 
 
 like the resurrection ma}^ be a fact of history: all 
 
 16 
 
242 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACTES. 
 
 else is proved like any other matter which history 
 may embrace. And this is proved by three sets 
 of arguments: firsts the positive testimonies, more 
 or less direct, to the fact of the resurrection; sec¬ 
 ondly^ the agreement of this supposition with other 
 facts in the history; and, thirdly^ the failure of 
 every other supposition opposed to the resurrec^ 
 tion to account for these facts. 
 
 In discussing, then, the testi m onies, it is best 
 to begin with those that are farthest off from the 
 centre; and here there is to be placed in the outer 
 circle the unanimous, unbroken belief of the whole 
 Christian clmrch of the first centuiy from the begin¬ 
 ning. This indeed is not direct testimony; but it 
 is testimony in so far as the consenting belief of 
 contemporaries who are interested in a matter of 
 fact, and have every motive to test it, is testi¬ 
 mony to its historical reality. No Christian could 
 become one without believing in the resurrection, 
 and without avowing it. Christianity was thus 
 built on alleged fact from the beginning, as if 
 Mohammed had been held to have been killed in 
 one of his battles, and to have returned to life. 
 There are modern Christians, so-called, who think 
 the resurrection of Christ unimportant; but not so 
 then. The belief was universal, and was account¬ 
 ed vital. Celsus ridicules Christians for believing 
 on so slender an evidence as that of an excited 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 243 
 
 woman; but lie allows the uniformity of the be¬ 
 lief. Nor did it grow up by degrees, but was as 
 strong from the first, as we see among other proofs, 
 from the observance of the “lyord’s day.” This 
 is mentioned in Rev. i : 10 as already in use in 
 Asia Minor; and this writing is carried up by the 
 most extreme critics of our time to a date before 
 the fall of Jerusalem, and regarded by many of 
 them, who accept so little as apostolic, as the work 
 of the apostle John. Nothing but belief in a fact 
 behind it—a fact which to their own mind they 
 had sufficiently verified—could have led Jew and 
 Gentile thus to break away from their old calen¬ 
 dar, and put first in the new a once despised and 
 rejected name. It was on this “stated” day {die 
 stato\ as Pliny tells us, that the Christians met to 
 sing hymns to Christ as God, and that, as Justin 
 Martyr, about the middle of the second century, 
 assures us, they dedicated the once pagan day of 
 the sun as a memorial alike of the old and new 
 creation. But it is needless to enlarge on this 
 universal, immediate, unbroken, monumentally- 
 confirmed testimony. The whole New Testa¬ 
 ment, besides what is specially devoted to express 
 testimonies, is here a voucher of belief; for hardly 
 a book of it but contains some distinct reference 
 to the faith of Christians in this fundamental fact 
 of Christianity. 
 
244 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACRES. 
 
 Wlieti we pass beyond this wddest cirele, in¬ 
 cluding all Christian men, we come to a much 
 narrower, made up of Christian writcj's^ who attest 
 the result of their inquiries or their own actual 
 knowledge in regard to the fact of the resurrec- 
 tion. Those who state the results of inquiries are 
 the two evangelists, Mark and kuke; those who 
 have been generally believed to have been eye¬ 
 witnesses are the evangelists Matthew and John; 
 while the apostle Paul stands between the two 
 classes, not originally a witness of the resurrec¬ 
 tion scenes, but having later intercourse with the 
 risen Jesus. In examining this various testimony 
 we have, in arguing with others, to leave out of 
 account the inspiration of the writers as Chris¬ 
 tians believe in it, and consider only their capaci¬ 
 ties as recorders and witnesses of fact; and we 
 have in the same way to accept the best conclu¬ 
 sions, on ordinary historical grounds, as to the 
 genuineness and antiquity of the four Gospels and 
 the writings of Paul which bear on this subject. 
 
 The questions of a critical nature as to date 
 and authorship which arise have naturally occu¬ 
 pied much attention; but the results may be very 
 briefly stated. The fundamental passage of Paul 
 in I Cor. 15 is uncontested by the most extreme 
 criticism. In like manner, the hasty allegations 
 of Baur and Strauss as to a very late date of Mark 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 245 
 
 and Luke, have been recalled, among others by 
 Renan, who concedes that the Gospel of Mark is 
 the work of the companion of Peter, and Luke 
 that of the companion of Paul, who also writes 
 the Acts. So, also, the whole of recent discussion 
 is favorable to the genuineness of the Gospel of 
 John. Sixty years ago Eichhorn, the leader of 
 rationalist criticism in Germany, would not listen 
 to any objections to the received view. Now, 
 after a long and most earnest debate, the tenden¬ 
 cy—even of rationalism—is to return to the old 
 position ; while the highest names of the semi¬ 
 rationalist school—Bleek and Ewald—have never 
 countenanced this deviation; and more orthodox 
 writers, like Beyschlag and Luthardt, have met 
 it at every point—the aberration being all through 
 in Britain and America wondered at rather than 
 followed. The Gospel of Matthew has also prof¬ 
 ited by recent criticism in Germany, which has 
 floated it back to a much earlier date than was 
 contended for by Strauss; and the old received 
 opinion, that its author was an apostle and an eye¬ 
 witness, has not been essentially shaken, what¬ 
 ever difficulties may arise from the statements of 
 early writers as to a separate Hebrew and Greek 
 form of his Gospel, and the want of materials 
 thoroughly to clear up this critical question. It 
 may be added that the case would not be vitally 
 
24^ CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 
 
 altered in regard to the resurrection were the 
 Gospel of Matthew—as all moderate rationalism 
 admits—an ordinarily good historical record of 
 the first century, and connected with the inner 
 Christian circle, like the Gospels of Mark and 
 Luke. Strauss, among others, uses Matthew as 
 sufiiciently trustworthy to found an estimate of 
 the Saviour’s life upon; and if unbelievers may 
 use it historically for their purposes, why should 
 its value cease in the hands of Christians ? 
 
 What is now the bearing and worth of this 
 mass of testimony? It is impossible to examine 
 it in detail; but two main points, independent of 
 each other, stand out—the discovery on the morn¬ 
 ing of the third day that the tomb was empty, and 
 the various appearances of Jesus to his disciples, 
 by whom he was recognized. Paul vouches only 
 for the appearances; but the evangelists also for 
 the finding of the tomb empty. In regard to this 
 latter point, the indications in Matthew and Mark 
 are verified by the actual explorations in Luke 
 and John; so that, if we attach any credit to these 
 writers at all, the fact is proved. Nor did it need 
 any special witness, for it was not in itself a mir¬ 
 acle to find a tomb empty where a body had lain. 
 But much more various, strong, and, as befitted 
 the case, singular in their force as evidence, are 
 the recorded appearances of the risen Saviour. 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 
 
 247 
 
 There are appearances common to all the Gospels: 
 that to Mary Magdalene, and if we grant the last 
 verses of Mark 16, that to all the apostles, which 
 is also affirmed by Paul. There is in all the Gos¬ 
 pels the similar part played by women. There is 
 in all an original element of doubt and fear in 
 connection with the fact of resurrection; and there 
 starts up in all a most wonderful mental and 
 spiritual likeness of the risen Saviour to his for¬ 
 mer self, as, for example, in Matthew and Mark 
 (as supplemented), the apostolic commission ; in 
 Luke, the discourse on the way to Emmaus ; in 
 John, the scenes with Mary, with Thomas, and at 
 the Sea of Galilee. We can thus see for ourselves 
 the very process by which the disciples were con¬ 
 vinced, and can judge of its reasonableness ; for, 
 convincing as the bodily marks were, the evidence 
 of resurrection lies even more in identity of soul 
 than of body, and we can feel how unspeakably 
 beyond invention were these incidents and utter¬ 
 ances, while also so full of the past and so preg¬ 
 nant with the future. 
 
 The argument is rounded off by the appear¬ 
 ances that are recorded by separate writers—one 
 or more—as in Paul those to Peter and James, in 
 Matthew to the women, and so of others. It has 
 been made an objection that there is not room for 
 all the appearances; but this has never been 
 
248 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 
 
 proved, and, on the contrary, in forty days there 
 was opportunity, as the narrative bears, for more. 
 And however difficult it may be to harmonize all 
 the accounts, especially as to the first day, this, 
 as has often been remarked, is the inevitable ac¬ 
 companiment of all narratives, however authen¬ 
 tic, that travel over the same ground. It is won¬ 
 derful how much has been done by scholars to 
 show the compatibility of one part of the various 
 records with the rest; and though this is probably 
 an insoluble problem, it is striking how slight 
 hints in one Gospel or in Paul are borne out in 
 some other place. Thus, our Lord’s appearance 
 to Peter in i Cor. 15 is confirmed by the message 
 in Mark to Peter; the race of Peter to the sepul¬ 
 chre in Luke is enlarged in the fourth Gospel into 
 that of Peter and John; and the appearances in 
 Galilee, of which there is not a word in Luke, re¬ 
 appear in the last of the Gospels. Incidents like 
 these go a long way to balance alleged discords, 
 and show that we are on the track not of fabrica¬ 
 tion or license, but of real, though various, his¬ 
 tory. 
 
 One great merit of this testimony is, that it is 
 not carefully adjusted and dovetailed into a legal 
 argument. Some critics have rashly wished for 
 this, and have blamed the Gospels because they 
 are not cast in the m.ould of a p 7 'oces verbal^ signed 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACTES. 249 
 
 and countersigned by witnesses and authorities. 
 The Gospels were not written to prove a series of 
 points so much as artlessly to unfold the life, 
 death, and victory of their great subject; and the 
 delineation of character is more with them than 
 the establishment of incident. But with all their 
 disregard of legal dress and technical vouchers, 
 how strong is the body of proof which these wri¬ 
 ters have piled up almost unconsciously into one 
 of the clearest of moral demonstrations ! Could 
 the apostle Paul have thrown out at random, 
 when speaking with the solemnity of an oath, a 
 set of impressions as to Christ’s appearings which 
 he had rashly taken up, even to the extent of as¬ 
 serting one made to more than five hundred per¬ 
 sons at once, the most of whom are affirmed to be 
 still, after a quarter of a century, alive, while 
 others are known to be dead ? De Wette could 
 not resist this testimony, but says in his “Com¬ 
 mentary,” “The testimony of the apostle decides 
 as to the certainty of the fact.” But how many 
 critics of inferior order have supposed that a wri¬ 
 ter like Paul, who was so entirely at home in 
 every matter affecting what to him was the very 
 centre of existence, could, when laying down the 
 very articles of faith and hope, have been so igno¬ 
 rant or so careless as to have made the most cir¬ 
 cumstantial statements of fact without inquiry or 
 
250 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 
 
 foundation. Not less strong is Luke, who is ad¬ 
 mitted by Renan to have been the companion of 
 Paul, and consequently with him, in Jerusalem 
 and in Caesarea, during his imprisonment of two 
 years. How fresh must everything still have 
 been, after the lapse of six or seven and twenty 
 years, to an eager investigator, who doubtless met 
 in Palestine with eye-witnesses of the Gospel his¬ 
 tory, and who in his Gospel claims to have ‘ ‘ traced 
 the course of all things accurately from the first. ’ ’ 
 (Revised Version.) Mark likewise, whose author¬ 
 ship is not questioned, belongs to the most select 
 circle of the companions of the apostles, the friend 
 and fellow-laborer of Paul and Peter, the nephew 
 of Barnabas, and more even than Ruke mixed up 
 with the rise of the new faith, as a Jerusalem 
 Christian, and one whose personal recollections 
 went back to the time of the ministry and death 
 of Jesus. Still stronger is the testimony of the 
 fourth Gospel, as the work of an eye-witness, of a 
 leading apostle, and of our Cord’s most intimate 
 human friend. The deniers of the supernatural 
 were bound sooner or later to have disputed this 
 work, for it does not seem that their position can 
 possibly endure its uncontested authority. But 
 now that they have made the utmost effort in this 
 direction, and failed, the evidence of the resur¬ 
 rection comes forth all the clearer from one to 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 25I 
 
 whom the face and form of his Master were the 
 most cherished of remembrances, who had been 
 at the bottom of His empty grave, and who was 
 fitted as none other to catch and to perpetuate the 
 spiritual features, as well as the bodily, which re¬ 
 appeared, brightened but not altered by the vic¬ 
 tory over death. The testimony of Matthew—an¬ 
 other eye-witness, and from the more Judaic side 
 of Christian teaching—confirms the record; and 
 it is worthy of notice, in reply to those who have 
 sought by an alleged fundamental discord in doc¬ 
 trine to invalidate the evidence for the resurrec¬ 
 tion and other gospel facts, how the fact of the 
 resurrection is as necessary to the first Gospel as 
 to the fourth, leading in as it does the fullest state¬ 
 ment of the Trinity, taking up the lessons of the 
 baptism and the transfiguration, and harmoni¬ 
 zing with itself utterances ever-recurring, as in 
 Matt. 11:25-30, of a grandeur and sublimity not 
 distinguishable from those of the last of the evan¬ 
 gelists. 
 
 Let it be added that we have, not only in the 
 existence of these written testimonies, but also in 
 their reception and public use from the beginning 
 in the Christian church (which is something dis¬ 
 tinct from the universal belief in the resurrec- 
 tion), a powerful argument. The Gospels were 
 used as soon as they existed. For this we have 
 
252 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 
 
 the testimony of Justin Martyr in his first Apol¬ 
 ogy (chap. 67); and all that has been said to shake 
 this position leaves their alleged coining into use 
 between their origin and his day, which after all 
 was in much less than a century, wholly unex¬ 
 plained. It was thus not a mere generality as to 
 the resurrection that the church took up, but par¬ 
 ticular narratives, full, circumstantial, and capa¬ 
 ble at every point of contradiction or verification. 
 No history has ever received such an adhesion, 
 for the original witnesses and converts were but a 
 handful; and every accession of new converts car¬ 
 ried with it a guarantee never equalled for sincer¬ 
 ity and conviction, and that on the part of men 
 thoroughly competent to inquire for themselves. 
 
 This brings us to the second point necessary to 
 be urged, in addition to the separate weight of 
 the testimonies, viz., how far the admission of 
 the resurrection accounts for other tmde 7 iiable facts 
 of the history. Among these, two stand out pre¬ 
 eminent as rationally accounted for by the fact of 
 , the resurrection. The one is the change of mind 
 produced on the disciples, and the other is the 
 impression made on the world by the Christianity 
 which began immediately to be proclaimed. The 
 first of these facts is incontestable. We know 
 indeed only from the Scripture narrative itself of 
 the extreme depression of the apostles, and of the 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACTES. 253 
 
 joy and confidence wliich succeeded. But noth¬ 
 ing was so natural as the shock given them by 
 the crucifixion; and nothing was ever more natu¬ 
 rally described. How then did this give place ? 
 Nothing so completely accounts for it as the great 
 event which came between, and the operation of 
 this is in the Gospels a beautiful mental study. 
 It has been asked, indeed, why the apostles w^ere 
 not more cheerful if Christ had promised to re¬ 
 turn. But the mistake as to the meaning of his 
 death rather overwhelmed them with disappoint¬ 
 ment than allowed hope to revive, and a new and 
 joyful fact was the only thing that could w^ork a 
 change. There is a profundity, as w^ell as a sim¬ 
 plicity, in this part of the gospel history which 
 has alw'ays been admired; and wdien the resurrec¬ 
 tion is denied, the change to hopefulness sinks 
 into mere weakness and enthusiasm. Dr. Baur, 
 the leader of the Tubingen school, never missed 
 the mark more than when he said that it is of no 
 consequence how the apostles came by the belief 
 of the resurrection, for the mere belief would 
 anyhow do the same work. This is to build the 
 world upon delusion, and to make groundless fancy 
 as a moral force equal to the natural, steady, and 
 effectual action of truth. 
 
 Still more impressive is the harmony between 
 the resurrection, taken as a reality, and the start 
 
254 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 
 
 it gave the infant and apparently defeated Chris¬ 
 tian cause. lycssing was so struck with this that, 
 in spite of all the difficulties which he found in 
 the resurrection story as now before us, he felt 
 that truth lay at the bottom of what so prevailed. 
 The church becomes the aggressor, and the world 
 yields. It is lamentable if, in such a case, human¬ 
 ity could not hold its own against mental weak¬ 
 ness. Strauss has bitterly complained'of belief 
 in the resurrection as the ‘ ‘ humbug of history. ’ ’ 
 But the unreasonableness of belief in it as not a 
 fact, is the exact measure of the reasonableness of 
 belief in it as a fact which could not be gainsaid. 
 It is the test of its suitableness to solve the his¬ 
 tory. It explains the helplessness of the adverse 
 party, the paralysis which hindered every effort 
 at confutation or exposure as by the production 
 of the Saviour’s body, and the depression which 
 shut up the Jewish opposition to silence or to 
 unreasoning violence. It also accounts for such 
 wild rumors as that the disciples had stolen the 
 body. This has been charged home as a Chris¬ 
 tian slander on the Jewish authorities. But the 
 Christians had no motive to invent such a cal¬ 
 umny, which evidently comes from the other 
 camp. And it must be remembered that much as 
 this report has been scouted by recent unbelief, 
 so scouted that it has been utterly denied to have 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 255 
 
 had a place in the thoughts of the Jewish rulers, 
 it was, though a weak invention, such a one as 
 men fall upon when perplexed and baffled; and 
 so late as last century the truth of it was made 
 by Woolston the basis of his attack on the credi¬ 
 bility of the resurrection. 
 
 Having thus shown the sufflciency of the 
 great fact of the resurrection to clear the field of 
 history all round, it only remains to touch on our 
 third vi^., the discord with history which the 
 
 denial of the resurrection introduces. So far as this 
 is the opposite of what has been already urged, it 
 has been virtually considered. But there is more 
 than a blank; there is a positive collision, when 
 the denier of the resurrection goes on to give some 
 positive theory of how the alleged resurrection 
 originated, and seeks on the ground of that theory 
 to explain the facts of the case. A rapid review 
 then of the negative theories of the resurrection 
 will close this paper. 
 
 The weakest of all the theories is that which 
 traces up the current belief in the resurrection to 
 fr^d and imposture on the part of Christ’s disci¬ 
 ples. This is one of the controversies which the 
 Christian church has outlived; and though it 
 survived from Celsus down to the Wolfenbiittel 
 fragmentist of last century, there is no school of 
 unbelief that would now give it, even as an alter- 
 
25^ CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 
 
 native, a place on its record. This theory will 
 suit nothing, not even the disappearance of the 
 body. The narrative has to be falsified by the 
 denial that the tomb was sealed and guarded; and 
 the courage and daring of the apostles have to be 
 unhistorically exalted. The moral contradiction 
 is still more outrageous. The greatest of mor¬ 
 alists leaves his disciples capable of this in¬ 
 famy; and his influence, in spite of this scandal, 
 through these impure instruments, immediately 
 begins to elevate the world. 
 
 Equally incredible, though not quite so mon¬ 
 strous, is the theory that Christ did not really 
 die, but only swooned on the cross, and that he 
 emerged from the grave and showed himself alive 
 to his disciples. This so far attempts, like the 
 first theory, to account for the empty tomb, but 
 goes beyond it in explaining also the supposed 
 appearances. But it really violates the history at 
 every point. It violates the history of the cruci- 
 ‘ fixion, for our Lord received a special wound to 
 make sure of his death; it violates the history of 
 the burial; for even, if recovered from a swoon, 
 he could have found no means of extrication; 
 and it violates the history of the appearances of 
 resurrection, for Christ could not thus have sud¬ 
 denly recovered and his disciples never suppose 
 him a returned survivor of the last penalty, but 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 257 
 
 always one actually risen. This scheme disagrees 
 with the character of Christ’s enemies, who would 
 not have done their work so slackly; of his friends, 
 who could not have made such a mistake, or 
 received such an impulse from a mere natural 
 return; and most of all, of Christ himself, who 
 could not have so acted as to have suffered such a 
 delusion to arise as that his case was one of resur¬ 
 rection, and must have come out of his hiding- 
 place to have exposed it. This theory is only 
 worthy of the naturalism of a Paulus; and though 
 the genius of Schleiermacher has unhappily con¬ 
 descended to it, it is one of those eccentricities 
 which do not even set a fashion, but after a day’s 
 wonder pass away. 
 
 The only theory that is now seriously and 
 widely held is what is called the vision theory^ or 
 that Christ’s disciples, through the influence of 
 love or faith, or some other principle distinct 
 from wilful error, were led mistakenly to believe 
 that their Master had returned from the dead, and 
 propagated the accounts of these mere visions as 
 actual appearances. This is the view set forth 
 by Strauss and Renan in their well-known works, 
 though Renan inconsistently adds on to this the 
 theory of fraud, and supposes it conceivable that 
 Mary Magdalene and the other women had some¬ 
 thing to do with the transfer of the body. These 
 
 17 
 
258 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACTKS. 
 
 writers further differ, Strauss in supposing that 
 the appearances, due to the action of imaginative 
 love and longing, only began in Galilee, and that 
 the disciples after a long interval returned to Jeru¬ 
 salem to start the report and found the Christian 
 church; whereas Renan makes all begin imme¬ 
 diately in Jerusalem. Each of these writers, in 
 setting aside the other, attests the strength of the 
 Christian position; for if all began in Jerusalem 
 and began at once, by the appearances immedi¬ 
 ately happening, and being appealed to there, 
 Strauss seems to feel that the resurrection must 
 be a fact; while Renan probably realises the diffi¬ 
 culty of contradicting the evangelists here as to 
 place and time, and yet founding anything any¬ 
 where on their testimony. As it is, the difficul¬ 
 ties of Strauss, who is here the better advocate of 
 unbelief of the two, are immense. He has not 
 only to create in Galilee, amid disappointment 
 and defeat, and with no prophecy of resurrection, 
 a mood of mind that made belief in resurrection 
 easy; but when the disciples return to Jerusalem 
 the appearances of the risen Christ are to be 
 vouchsafed to meetings of any size, and after a 
 long silence, to help them in reviving an unwel¬ 
 come and fading memory; while thus excited and 
 even fanatical, the Jewish Christians are to be so 
 lofty and earnest in spirit as to shake the skepti- 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 259 
 
 cism of Paul, and predispose him to a similar vis¬ 
 ion and testimony; yet these visions of the risen 
 One are suddenly to end, and without them 
 Christianity is to prevail in regions where neither 
 risen Christ nor unrisen had ever been heard of 
 or expected. If the resurrection demands faith, 
 it cannot be said that this theory, which is per¬ 
 haps the best that can be offered, dispenses with 
 it; and we see how little it fills up the gap in the 
 fact that Baur prefers to leave the whole subject 
 of the resurrection of Christ a mystery; and Keim, 
 though otherwise disposed to leave out miracle, 
 is prepared to grant its ingress here a last possi¬ 
 bility, and to conceive that the glorified spirit 
 of Jesus so acted on his disciples that they con¬ 
 founded it with his material presence. Against 
 these visionary schemes the clear testimonies 
 of the evangelists and of Paul maintain their 
 place. 
 
 Attempts have been made to shake the au¬ 
 thority of Paul by urging that his own vision 
 of Christ, which he connects with the rest, was 
 only inward. But this is supported by nothing 
 in his other references to this memorable event 
 which in Acts affects to blindness his bodily sense; 
 nor can we well understand a visionary appear¬ 
 ance extended to five hundred witnesses, or by 
 any fairness of interpretation introduce into 
 
26 o CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACLES. 
 
 this an argument for the literal resurrection of 
 the body, the very turning-point of which lies 
 in Christ’s resurrection being itself real and 
 literal. 
 
 We are here, then, towards the end of the 
 nineteenth century, as unprovided with any de¬ 
 liverance from the historical necessity of accept¬ 
 ing the resurrection of Christ and other Gospel 
 miracles, as in the first century; and the whole 
 process of criticism and philosophy has simply 
 been to show that if the supernatural is cogniza¬ 
 ble and provable, it is here manifested and proved. 
 No one can admit, or has ever admitted, the res¬ 
 urrection miracle, without granting the others in 
 the Gospel history. The apostle Paul, in words 
 not contested by the most extreme criticism, claims 
 to have wrought miracles in his own person, and 
 claims this as what belonged to other apostles. 
 ‘‘Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought 
 among yon in all patience, in signs and wonders 
 and mighty deeds.” 2 Cor. 12 : i2. The mirac¬ 
 ulous element in the Old Testament will not be 
 contested by those who admit it in connection 
 with Christianity, or who allow a single proph¬ 
 ecy of Christ, or indeed any revelation before his 
 advent. Thus, where resistance is overcome at 
 one point, it yields throughout; and though it is 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACDKS. 261 
 
 a quite lawful question whether some particular 
 occurrences are held forth in Scripture as miracu¬ 
 lous in character, the general reign of miracle is 
 established. 
 
 The Christian church, indeed, is far from say¬ 
 ing that the mere historic belief in the resurrec¬ 
 tion of Jesus Christ, or in other miracles, will of 
 itself make any man a Christian, for he must add 
 to this—or, rather, have added by a higher grace— 
 a discernment of the divine greatness of Christ as 
 a Saviour from sin by his sacrifice, and a reliance 
 upon this and the other provisions of the Christian 
 remedy, whmh are all connected with Christ’s 
 death and resurrection. Nor is it held by the 
 Christian church that the argument from mira¬ 
 cles is the only avenue by which the presence of 
 God in support of Christianity may reveal itself, 
 and lead up to that higher faith in which the more 
 historical belief that is thus variously strength¬ 
 ened has its true and saving consummation. At 
 the same time it must be held that if the Christian 
 scheme be not founded on fact, and attested by 
 historic evidence, its saving applications and in¬ 
 fluences must be cut off, and rendered through 
 any other channel impossible; so that while the 
 historic proof of Christianity does not make Chris¬ 
 tian faith, its historic disproof would unmake it. 
 It is in this deep and important sense that the ar- 
 
263 CHRISTIANITY AND MIRACTKS. 
 
 gument for miracles is contended for in this tract, 
 and, as the writer rejoices to believe, by an ever¬ 
 growing host of earnest apologists; and it is his 
 prayer that however the cause must ever tran¬ 
 scend the best powers of the advocate, it may 
 not be contended for in vain. 
 
THE WITNESS 
 
 OF 
 
 MAN’S MORAL NATURE 
 
 TO 
 
 CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 BY THE . 
 
 y/ 
 
 REV. J. BRADFORD THOMSON, M. A., 
 
 PROFESSOR OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY IN NEW COLLEGE, AND IN HACKNEY 
 
 COLLEGE, LONDON. 
 
ARGUMENT OP THE TRACT. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 The existence of the moral nature of man, and the 
 existence of Christianity as a religion whose doctrines 
 are recorded in certain documents, and which is histori¬ 
 cal in its origin and potent in its influence, are assumed. 
 The most important facts of man’s moral nature and 
 life are set forth, and their correspondence is shown 
 with the leading revelations of Christianity, with what 
 Christianity teaches of the character and government of 
 God, the unique character and ministry of Christ, and 
 with the moral teaching of Christianity. 
 
 Conscience accords with Christianity. Man’s aspi¬ 
 rations after perfection are met by it. The redemption 
 it provides is adapted to man’s sinful state. Man’s 
 moral nature recognizes the beneficial influence of 
 Christianity on society. Conscience responds to the 
 Christian doctrine of retribution. The Christian doc¬ 
 trine of immortality satisfies man’s moral nature. 
 
Ae Witiiess of JVLaii’s JVEoral 
 
 to 
 
 The religion of Christ lays claim to authority 
 so high and special that it cannot be a matter of 
 surprise that its claims are constantly being ques¬ 
 tioned. In a sense, Christianity is always on its 
 trial; and happily the witnesses are many upon 
 whom Christianity may call to give evidence on 
 its behalf. 
 
 Recognising the value of them all, we pro¬ 
 pose to examine one of these witnesses with care, 
 thoroughness, and patience. 
 
 Man’s Morae Nature and Life may be 
 found, upon attentive inquiry, to yield evidence 
 the most important and material of all. For, be 
 it observed, Christianity is not simply a body of 
 truth; it is a practical law, a revealed principle, 
 motive, and aim of life. And man is not simply 
 an animal, not even simply an intellectual agent; 
 he is a moral being, with perceptions of right, a 
 
266 witne:ss of man’s moraf naturf 
 
 consciousness of duty, a power of choice, a na¬ 
 ture essentially responsible, with spiritual affinities 
 and immortal hopes. If the evidence furnished 
 by the special nature of man with regard to the 
 claims of Christianity can be fairly taken, that 
 evidence will certainly be relevant, and our con¬ 
 viction is that it will be found to support those 
 claims in a manner both effective and conclusive. 
 
 I. 
 
 The Nature of the Argument. 
 
 Every argument proceeds upon a certain basis 
 of admitted fact; as, for example, the principles 
 of reasoning native to the mind, and the phenom¬ 
 ena which actually exist, whether in outward 
 nature, in the mind, or in human society. We 
 here make two assumptions. First, we assume 
 ^/le facts of mail's 7 noral nature as they are and can 
 be shown to be. Secondly, we assume the exist¬ 
 ence of Christianity as a religion whose doctrines 
 are recorded in certain well-known documents, 
 and as a religion having a historical origin and 
 wielding an undeniable force in human society. 
 
 Addressing ourselves to those who do not deny 
 the facts or disparage the dignity, or even dis¬ 
 credit the authority of man’s moral nature, we 
 aim at showing them that their acknowledgment 
 
TO CPIRISTIANITY. 
 
 267 
 
 of man’s moral nature, and their reverence for the 
 moral law, should in all justice lead them to ad¬ 
 mit the authority of the Christian religion. The 
 acceptance of the one may be shown logically to 
 involve the acceptance of the other. 
 
 For dogmatic atheists this line of reasoning 
 has neither validity nor interest. If there be no 
 God, it is useless to endeavor to prove that Chris¬ 
 tianity has a divine origin. But it may cast some 
 light upon that great Unknown in whieh many 
 minds find, or rather fail to find, the Unknowable. 
 And for deists and skeptics this line of thought 
 has a profound significance, leading them whither 
 many would fain be led, if only they could lay 
 their hand upon the clew. 
 
 The argument is one fivni obvious adaptation and 
 from cej'-tain correspondence. 
 
 Took at the works of human art. Here is a 
 lock, with many wards and curious intricacies; 
 and here is a key, unlike other keys, and with 
 singulscr peculiarities. Experience shows that 
 there is a eorrespondence between the lock and 
 the key, for the one exactly fits and easily opens 
 the other. They are the workmanship of the 
 same skilful artificer, and are made, under the 
 direction of the same intelligent design, each for 
 the other. The key fits the lock; the lock, so to 
 speak, explains, accounts satisfactorily for, the key. 
 
268 WITNESS OK man’s MORAK NATURE 
 
 Look at one of the works of nature—as we 
 should say, of divine creative power. Take some 
 part of man’s bodily constitution. Here is the 
 eye, a marvel of optical mechanism. And here 
 is light, an ethereal undulation, entering the eye, 
 affecting the optic nerve, and awakening the sen¬ 
 sation of sight. We say the eye is adapted to the 
 light; light is adapted to the eye; neither can be 
 understood or explained without the other. The 
 theist recognizes in these the designed and corre¬ 
 sponding products of the wisdom and the power 
 of the same divine Optician and Mechanician. 
 
 The rejection of design, of purpose, is irra¬ 
 tional and unphilosophical. The repudiation of 
 conscious purpose, and of voluntary effort to 
 attain purpose, in the human sphere, is the ex¬ 
 tinction of philosophy, and is an insult to con¬ 
 sciousness. If mind have indeed presided over 
 the creation or development of the universe, it 
 would be absurd to exclude such adaptations as 
 are everywhere apparent in nature from the prov¬ 
 ince of that mind’s foresight and control. 
 
 If there are traces of design in the constitu¬ 
 tion of man’s moral nature; if he may justly be 
 said to have been made so as to distinguish be¬ 
 tween right and wrong, to approve of virtue, to 
 aspire to progress and perfection in all good, to 
 find a law and motive to the better life in a super- 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 269 
 
 sensible sphere; if man’s nature is distinctively 
 religious, having reference to a divine Ruler and 
 lyord: if this be so, what follows? This follows: 
 that if Christianity be the revelation of the mind 
 and heart of the Supreme, we may expect to fijtd a 
 correspondence between the two; they may be ex¬ 
 pected jointly to disclose the intentions of their 
 common Author, and will find, each in the other, 
 its proper complement. 
 
 It is not urged that this correspondence de¬ 
 monstrates the authority of Christianity. The 
 case is not one for demonstration, which belongs 
 to another sphere. But it is claimed that there is 
 a high degree of probability that the Author of na¬ 
 ture and of man, who is consequently the Author 
 of what is most distinctively human—man’s moral 
 nature—is also the Author of Christianity, as a 
 religion adapted alike to man’s deepest needs and 
 loftiest aspirations. 
 
 The witness before us has this advantage over 
 some others: it speaks a language all can under¬ 
 stand. Every reflecting man who desires to know 
 what is true, to love what is good, to do what is 
 right, hears from the recesses of his own breast, 
 and in his own familiar language, the evidence 
 in question. The reader has not to ask. What is 
 the dictum of the scientist or the philosopher or 
 the scholar ? but, What is the deliverance of my 
 
270 WITNESS OE man’s MORAE NATURE 
 
 own conscience, my own heart, my own daily 
 experience and observation ? ‘ ‘ The word is nigh 
 thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart.” 
 Rom. io:8. 
 
 This remark, of course, presumes, on the part 
 of the inquirer, not only attention to his own na¬ 
 ture, but also a candid consideration of the real 
 claims of the Christian religion. Ret it be clearly 
 understood that it is not of Christianity as embod¬ 
 ied, with more or less of justice and completeness, 
 in the life of its professors, that we speak; far less 
 is it of any actual historic church; for both pro¬ 
 fessing Christians and “visible churehes” have 
 too often utterly misrepresented the religion they 
 have claimed to represent to the world. We 
 speak of Christianity as constituted by its author¬ 
 itative Founder. 
 
 This appeal to man’s moral constitution as in 
 harmony with the religion of Christ constitutes 
 an arofument both reasonable and valid, and one 
 the force of which all men are capable of feeling. 
 
 It would be a mistake to suppose that an ap¬ 
 peal to the moral nature of man is an appeal to 
 evidence opposed to reason, or independent of 
 reason. If v/e were to try to show, from a, care¬ 
 ful inquiry into man’s bodily constitution, that 
 he is adapted to a life of labor and temperance, 
 and if we were able to point out several respects 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 271 
 
 in which such a life contributes to exercise and 
 develop the muscles, to promote digestion, to sus¬ 
 tain the physical constitution in health and vigor, 
 to promote comfort, and on the whole to increase 
 the amount of pleasure, the exhibition of such a 
 correspondence would be a reasonable and con¬ 
 clusive method of argument. Similarly, to aim 
 at showing that man is, as a moral being, adapt¬ 
 ed to a religious—a Christian—life: this is not to 
 forsake reason and to take refuge in sentimental¬ 
 ity. It is to reason legitimately upon plain and 
 unquestionable facts, according to the natural 
 principles of the intellect with which we are en¬ 
 dowed, and upon methods which we constantly 
 and justly employ. 
 
 II. 
 
 What are the eacts oe Man’s Moral Na¬ 
 ture AND LiEE which are OE HIGHEST 
 interest and value? 
 
 That man is a moral being who can be so 
 shameless as to deny ? Philosophy did not wait 
 for the advent of Christianity before she pro¬ 
 claimed the dignity of man to lie in his capacity 
 for duty, his voluntary subjection to a law of 
 righteousness. On these topics the glorious think¬ 
 ers of ancient Greece, Plato and Aristotle, have 
 
272 WITNESS OF MAN’S MORAE NATURE 
 
 said tilings as grand as literature records. It 
 needs not that one be a Christian, it is enough 
 that one be a man, in order to appreciate and to 
 insist upon the supreme excellence of morality as 
 the crown of human nature and life. 
 
 Are we like cattle, that we need but to be fed 
 and housed, left to live our little term, and die ? 
 Are we only raised above the brutes by a more 
 . developed intelligence, by a higher power of 
 adapting means to ends, by a faculty of foresight, 
 by the gift or acquirement of articulate speech? 
 ^ Might we not possess all these, and yet be less 
 . than men ? What is it that gives to a human 
 ' being dignity in his own view and interest in 
 ' the view of his fellows ? It is the possession of a 
 moral nature and life which distinguishes man 
 from the brutes, which is his chief characteristic, 
 his noblest prerogative. 
 
 Show me a fellow-creature who suffers every 
 disadvantage incident to the state of humanity. 
 Let him be crippled in his limbs, feeble in his 
 frame, poor in circumstances. Let his calling be 
 mean and sordid, and let there be in his appear¬ 
 ance and his station nothing to excite the vulgar 
 admiration or even attention. Let him be of 
 neglected education, untrained and undeveloped 
 powers. Still you show me a man; and because 
 he is a man I honor him. Poor, feeble, ignorant 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 273 
 
 thougli he be, he is capable of much that is pur¬ 
 est, gentlest, bravest, noblest, best in humanity. 
 He can be a dutiful son, a faithful husband, a 
 kind and self-denying father, a loyal subject, and 
 a generous friend. He can love; he can shed the 
 tear of sympathy; he can bear his daily burden 
 of labor and care with cheerfulness. He can toil 
 through patient years for wife and child; he can 
 reach to a sinking brother the hand of willing 
 help. He can brave the scorn of the bigot and 
 the insult of the fool, and can hold to his own 
 convictions through misunderstanding and perse¬ 
 cution. He can worship his Maker and can trust 
 his Saviour. And when the time comes for him 
 to die, he can, not with brutish indifference, but 
 with tranquil confidence, lie down and give up 
 his soul into the hands of Him who gave it. 
 
 The being of whom all this, and more than 
 this, is true, is a being possessed of a moral na¬ 
 ture. He has a clear view of the right, and the 
 power to admire, to choose, and to perform it. 
 He has a conscience to which he may be loyal. 
 He can frame to himself some notion of a God, 
 and can recogni2;e the presence and the voice of 
 the divine Father. He can even deliberately 
 order his life by reference to a standard of good 
 which he has not reali2:ed, and with a view to an 
 eternity which only faith can see. 
 
274 WITNESS OE man’s MORAE NATURE 
 
 There is a sense in which our opponents ad¬ 
 mit the moral nature of man. No one denies 
 that man has capacity for action; and it is main¬ 
 tained by some that he is always driven to act by 
 a desire to obtain pleasure and avoid pain. But 
 this does not represent, and obviously does not 
 exhaust, the facts of the case. Human nature and 
 life involve something more than the balance 
 between bodily functions and external nature, ac¬ 
 companied by consciousness, and especially by joy 
 and suffering. Not here attempting to explain 
 the undoubted connection between the physical 
 and the mental, and simply rejecting as unphilo- 
 sophical the dogmatic assertion of the subservi¬ 
 ency of the latter to the former, we would lay 
 down certain facts. 
 
 Liberty^ though, on purely dogmatic and irrele¬ 
 vant grounds, questioned by some students of 
 physical science, is so evident a fact of human 
 nature that men act upon its reality in reference 
 both to themselves and to others. It is the high¬ 
 est prerogative of the spirit that it possesses true 
 freedom and self-government. 
 
 Responsibility is a consequence of freedom, and 
 means something more than a mere mechanical 
 subjection to punishment inflicted by fatal laws 
 upon those who break them. Every eflbrt to 
 reduce man to the position of a wheel in the vast 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 275 
 
 mechanism of nature, moving as he is moved, 
 rouses the protest of dishonored and outraged 
 humanity. Man chooses between a lower and a 
 higher principle of action, assured that his own 
 moral elevation or deterioration is involved in the 
 choice he makes. 
 
 Conscience and duty are inseparable and cor¬ 
 relative. What man ought to do, the voice with¬ 
 in approves and enjoins with a moral imperative. 
 Theories of conscience differ, but the great cardi¬ 
 nal fact of conscience remains unassailable. The 
 command of duty within responds to the standard 
 of right without us. 
 
 The moral law is something quite different 
 from that uniformity of sequence which is de¬ 
 nominated law (by a usage of adaptation) among 
 the cultivators of physical science. It has also 
 important points of difference from those social 
 and political regulations which, as one source, 
 supply us with the conception. It is independent 
 of man’s judgment and feeling, yet its excellence 
 and authority may be intuitively perceived. 
 Whether obeyed or violated, it asserts its rightful 
 preeminence, and deigns not to lower its lofty 
 claims, however they may be defied or resented 
 by the rebellious. 
 
 Such are the great primary facts of man’s 
 moral nature: liberty of choice between higher 
 
276 WITNESS OE man’s MORAE NATURE 
 
 and lower ends and motives, an inner conviction 
 of responsibility for the choice resolved upon, an 
 intelligent apprehension of the law of rectitude, a 
 consciousness of obligation to obey that high and 
 sacred and imperative command, a nature which 
 can upbraid for sin and which can aspire to good¬ 
 ness. 
 
 The possession of a moral nature, the subjec¬ 
 tion to a moral law, must be regarded as man’s 
 distinguishing characteristic, his noblest endow¬ 
 ment. It is not a man’s property, it is not his 
 capacity for enjoyment, it is not even his power 
 of knowing and subduing nature, which consti¬ 
 tutes man’s chief interest and real dignity. 
 
 It is his character^ by which we understand the 
 principles which he voluntarily accepts and de¬ 
 liberately embodies in his conduct, the moral tone 
 and temper of his life, the moral influence he ex¬ 
 ercises over his fellow-men. It is these, in a word, 
 which give true humanity to man. 
 
 These truths are not merely asserted by ethical 
 philosophers and theologians; they are recognized 
 in hiimmt society. Mutual confidence is at the 
 foundation of social and civil relationships. Jus¬ 
 tice is required, and benevolence is praised, in all 
 civilized societies. Virtue, disinterestedness, and 
 unselfishness are held in esteem, even by those 
 who do not themselves possess such qualities, and 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 277 
 
 whether they profess to esteem them or not. The 
 regulations of society embody some portions of 
 the moral law, and rely upon some of the moral 
 sanctions. 
 
 So important is morality deemed in human 
 communities, that it is in part elaborated in juris¬ 
 prudence and embodied in legislation. The gov¬ 
 ernments of earth, the laws of nations, the magis¬ 
 tracies by which law is administered, and the 
 penalties by which it is enforced—all are wit¬ 
 nesses to the exalted position which the conduct 
 of men and the springs and motives and aims of 
 conduct, hold in the estimation of mankind. 
 
 To complete, for our purpose, this review of 
 man’s moral nature, we must advert to a distinc¬ 
 tion of great importance, which is in theory often 
 overlooked, though practically too obvious for 
 concealment. Human nature may be regarded 
 either as in its possible excellence or in its actual 
 defects. Scientifically, we may distinguish be¬ 
 tween the normal and abnormal state of man. We 
 do not need the Scriptures or the witness of reli¬ 
 gious teachers to convince us of the reality of this 
 distinction. What man’s nature is ideally is one 
 thing; what it is actually is another. We do not 
 find this distinction elsewhere; and its existence 
 here implies the specialty of the moral nature and 
 life of man. 
 
278 WITNESS OE man’s MORAE NATURE 
 
 Man, as we know him, is in an abnormal con¬ 
 dition. There are those who would not agree to 
 this statement, who would say, Man is as nature 
 made him, but is in the way to be something bet¬ 
 ter, which also nature will make him in good 
 time. At all events, this must be granted as true 
 of men, that they are not generally what they 
 ought to be, and may be, and perhaps will be. 
 There is a schism between the ideal and the ac¬ 
 tual. Moral evil, what theologians call sin^ is a 
 great and fearful fact. 
 
 This significant duality may at first sight seem 
 to render it a very difficult task to take the evi¬ 
 dence of man’s moral nature. On the one side 
 we have man’s highest intuitions of what is good 
 and morally beautiful. On the other side we have 
 man’s evil tendencies and habits. If we say man’s 
 nature is noble, admirable, sublime, the loftiest of 
 the Creator’s works, we speak the mere and unde¬ 
 niable truth. If we say man’s nature is corrupt 
 and depraved, who can dispute the assertion ? In 
 the one case we use the term “nature” of the 
 ideal and perhaps attainable state of man, as that 
 which is most excellent and most imbued with 
 and most illustrating the divine. In the other 
 case we use “nature” to designate the actual, 
 the general, state in which men are found to be 
 living, wherever they exist. 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 279 
 
 Does this twofold and (as it may seem at the 
 first view) all but contradictory view of man’s 
 moral state, render it an impossibility to elicit a 
 coherent testimony, whether for or against Chris¬ 
 tianity ? Our contention is that this fact, which 
 seems to present a difficulty, does in reality im¬ 
 part to the witness in question a convincing and 
 conclusive power. 
 
 III. 
 
 It remains to exhibit in SEVERAIv particu- 
 
 EARS OE ADMITTED IMPORTANCE AND SIG¬ 
 NIFICANCE the correspondence between 
 
 Man’s Morae Nature and Life on the 
 
 ONE HAND, AND THE READING REVEEATIONS 
 
 OF Christianity on the other. 
 
 In this endeavor the twofold aspect of man’s 
 moral nature and condition must be kept in sight. 
 Is it the fact that human nature is excellent, ad¬ 
 mirable, transcending all earthly things in dig¬ 
 nity and value ? Has man a power—whether by 
 creation, inheritance, or acquisition—a power of 
 appreciating and perhaps realising all moral 
 beauty ? Then it must be shown that Christian¬ 
 ity offers to him the ideal, the very source of all 
 goodness, in the God whom it reveals; and the 
 
28o witness oe man’s morae nature 
 
 realii;ation, the model, the motive of all goodness, 
 in the Saviour whom it alone presents to man. 
 Is it also the fact that man’s nature is a fallen 
 nature, or (if this representation be objected to) a 
 a very imperfect nature, prone to come short of 
 the high ideal, which nevertheless is native and 
 proper to it, and apt to take the lower level and 
 to seek the lower end ? Then it must be shown 
 that Christianity comes to hirU recognising this 
 fact, and prepared to deal with it, not by pallia¬ 
 ting or overlooking the mischief, but by convin¬ 
 cing men of sin, by securing to them divine for¬ 
 giveness, by extending to them the divine remedy 
 of compassion and mercy, by providing for them 
 the means to a new and holy life. 
 
 I. 
 
 Man’s Moral Nature agrees with the wit¬ 
 ness OE Christianity to the Character 
 AND Government oe God. 
 
 Some philosophers, as Sir William Hamilton, 
 have gone too far in affirming that nature has no 
 convincing testimony to give to its Creator and 
 Lord, that nature conceals God, and that only our 
 moral constitution gives evidence of a spiritual 
 Maker and Ruler. Still it seems just to say that 
 our moral nature is the one leading interpreter of 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 281 
 
 tile great facts of the divine government. Espe¬ 
 cially is this the case with the moral attributes 
 displayed in the divine treatment of humanity. 
 The very ideas of righteousness, mercy, longsnf- 
 fering, retribution, are ideas which we do indeed 
 apply to our conception of God, but which we 
 derive from our own constitution, our own rela¬ 
 tions, and from those varied experiences which 
 our constitution underlies, which our relations 
 develop. We can conceive of intelligent but 
 non-moral beings who might perceive the traces 
 of power, wisdom, and foresight as these exist in 
 the material world. But it is only a moral na¬ 
 ture that can admire, revere, adore; that can 
 cherish gratitude, faith, and love. Intellect 
 might apprehend something of a mighty Artifi¬ 
 cer, but only a moral being can recognize a just 
 and merciful Ruler, a tender and benevolent 
 Father. 
 
 Just such a Deity as the Scriptures reveal, as 
 the Eord Christ most clearly and fully manifests, 
 just such a Deity our nature is constructed to ac¬ 
 knowledge as corresponding to itself. In virtue 
 of our moral constitution we appreciate moral ex¬ 
 cellence and beauty, and we are capable of adoring 
 a Being who, in virtue of possessing moral attri¬ 
 butes in perfection, deserves and commands our 
 faith, homage, and worship. The eternal Su- 
 
282 WITNESS OF MAN’S MORAT NATURE 
 
 preme, revealed in the Bible, and manifested in 
 Jesus Christ, realizes all our conceptions of moral 
 perfection; nay. He actually exalts and purifies 
 those conceptions themselves. This indeed, if 
 what has been said is justifiable, is only what 
 might have been expected. He who framed the 
 soul-harp as his own choicest workmanship, he, 
 and he alone, can sweep all its strings, and can 
 call forth all its celestial melody. 
 
 Our constitution is such that we recognize and 
 revere moral authority—moral, as distinguished 
 from the authority of mere force. In this, how¬ 
 ever the origin of such a constitution be account¬ 
 ed for, we are above the most sagacious of the 
 brutes. Justice and equity, loyalty and unfaith¬ 
 fulness, merit and ill-desert, mercy and forgive¬ 
 ness, reward and punishment—all these are ideas 
 familiar in human society, and are necessary, not 
 only to its order and welfare, but even to its ex¬ 
 istence. And as our moral qualities suggest the 
 divine attributes, so our moral and social rela¬ 
 tionships, and the ideas to which they give rise, 
 suggest the character and principles of the divine 
 government. The fact is, that when revelation 
 makes known the kingdom of God, the mind and 
 heart of man find in that kingdom a perfect satis¬ 
 faction. The principles and methods of that gov¬ 
 ernment, the more they are understood, the more 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 283 
 
 do they commend themselves to our nature. The 
 voice within answers to the voice without. As 
 the rocks upon a river’s bank send back in echo 
 the roar of the cannon or the music of the horn, 
 so does the divinely-fashioned heart of man yield 
 an immediate and exact response, alike to the 
 thunders of Sinai’s law, and to the still small 
 voice that reaches us from the sacred hills of Gal¬ 
 ilee, or from the sorrowful garden of Gethsemane. 
 
 2 . 
 
 Man’s Moral Nature witnesses to the 
 Unique Character and Ministry op 
 Christ. 
 
 History witnesses to the facts of the Saviour’s 
 life; but the heart witnesses to the Saviour him¬ 
 self. 
 
 An impersonal God is an abstraction, to which 
 little interest can attach, and from which no help 
 can come. If God be defined as “the Power, not 
 ourselves, which makes for righteousness,” the 
 question forces itself. Is such a Power conceivable 
 which is not the power of a living, conscious, in¬ 
 telligent being? Is moral power—and that which 
 makes for righteousness must surely be moral— 
 conceivable, apart from a nature distinguished by 
 moral qualities, in which nature the moral power 
 
284 WlTNi:SS OF man’s MORAL NATURE 
 
 must reside ? The recognition of a moral rule in¬ 
 volves the being of a living and personal God. 
 
 Now Christianity is the religion which makes 
 known a personal Deity, and thus contradicts at 
 once the polytheism of the Gentiles and the pan¬ 
 theism of the philosophers. And how does it 
 render this service to humanity ? By revealing 
 to us, in and by Jesus Christ, the living God, who 
 is “the Saviour of all men, specially of them that 
 believe.” The personality of the Eternal was in¬ 
 deed revealed to the Hebrews, but it was in Jesus 
 of Nazareth that the divine nature was brought 
 near to man. “The Word became flesh, and 
 dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, as of 
 the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and 
 truth.” John i : 14. 
 
 So far as oral teaching extends, perhaps more 
 of God was taught by Jesus in two utterances 
 than has been taught in all words besides. When 
 he said, “ God is a Spirit,” John 3:24, and taught 
 his disciples to say, “Our Father, which art in 
 heaven, ’ ’ Matt. 6 :9, he revealed more than vol¬ 
 umes of philosophy could have unfolded. 
 
 But it was in himself that the chief revelation 
 was conveyed to mankind. “ He that hath seen 
 Me,” said Christ, “hath seen the Father.” John 
 14:9. Through the Incarnation Christianity 
 conveys the knowledge of the Father. No longer 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 285 
 
 was God distant, hard to apprehend and to real¬ 
 ise. From that time onward the most elevated 
 human notion of the Supreme and Eternal has 
 been derived from the Son, who made known the 
 Father. The human heart had long cried aloud 
 for the Creator, the Ruler, the Father; and now 
 the response came, not in words, but in the per¬ 
 son and ministry, the character and influence, the 
 sufferings and sacrifice, the triumph and glory, of 
 the Christ. The human heart received and wel¬ 
 comed the response, and has never ceased to wel¬ 
 come it with gratitude and with joy. “This is 
 our God; we have waited for him!” Isa. 25 : 9. 
 The attributes which the soul most admires and 
 honors it sees vital and active in the life of Im¬ 
 manuel. The righteousness and holiness, the 
 benevolence and pity, which are embodied in the 
 earthly ministry of Jesus, perfectly correspond 
 with the intuitions of the moral nature. It can¬ 
 not be denied that the moral nature recognizees in 
 Christ the realization of its ideal of moral perfec¬ 
 tion. Who does not feel that it would be an ab¬ 
 surdity to put forward any other being as the in¬ 
 carnation of absolute moral excellence? We 
 should shrink, as from a madman, from any fel¬ 
 low-man who claimed for himself a sinless nature 
 and a perfect virtue. But he who asserted him¬ 
 self to be the Son of God was above all detrac- 
 
286 WITNESS OE man’s MORAE NATURE 
 
 tion, and is entitled, by tlie suflfrages of mankind, 
 to the designation, “The Holy One and the Just.” 
 
 ‘ ‘ Which of yon, ’ ’ said he, ‘ ‘ convinceth me of 
 sin ?’ ’ John 8:46. “ Why callest thou me good ?’ ’ 
 Matt. 19 :17, was his question addressed to an ad¬ 
 miring inquirer: “there is none good save God,” 
 which was a virtual claim to be “equal with 
 God.” Witnesses at His trial could substantiate 
 no charge against him; his judge found no fault 
 in him; the officer who superintended his cruci¬ 
 fixion averred, ‘ ‘ Certainly this was a righteous 
 man!” Tuke 23:47; and the dying malefactor 
 justly testified, “This man hath done nothing 
 amiss.” Luke 23:41. Thus the unprejudiced 
 observers of his life acknowledged his peerless 
 holiness, and even prejudice itself was dumb be¬ 
 fore the moral dignity of the Son of Man. 
 
 The judgment of contemporaries did but antic¬ 
 ipate the judgment of coming generations. Men 
 may not always be the best judges of what is true 
 or of what is wise; but the common voice hails 
 the goodness of the good and the greatness of the 
 great. The moral nature of man is the same 
 throughout the ages; and there is no mistaking 
 its verdict upon the claims of Christ. The moral 
 judgment renders belief to his words, consent to 
 his claims, veneration to his character. 
 
 There was, and is, but one solution to the 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 287 
 
 problem presented by tbe unique pbenomenon. 
 Christ is the Son of the Father, who came from 
 God and went to God. A solution this which 
 not the white light of reason only, but the warm 
 glow of pure and sympathetic feeling, reveals as 
 conclusive and satisfactory. A solution this in 
 which the universal conscience finds repose. A 
 solution this in which the wisest and the best of 
 men have acquiesced, and which has rejoiced the 
 hearts of untold myriads of needy, sinful, yearn¬ 
 ing, and aspiring beings. 
 
 3 - 
 
 Man’s Moral Nature: attests the excel¬ 
 lence OE THE ethical PRINCIPLES AND 
 
 THE ETHICAL CODE OF CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 In the ancient Paganism, religion and morali¬ 
 ty were independent of each other; religion con¬ 
 sisted of a routine of observances conducted large¬ 
 ly by a priesthood, and morality, when scientific, 
 based itself upon philosophy. In the Hebrew 
 system there was a combination of doctrinal be¬ 
 liefs with ethical commands; and every reader of 
 the Old Testament is aware that conduct is very 
 largely the province which religious law-givers 
 and prophets sought to conquer and to hold for 
 God, the righteous King. The Christian Scrip- 
 
288 WITNESS OF man’s MORAL NATURE 
 
 tures stand preeminent in their insistence upon 
 morality as the ‘ ‘ fruit ’ ’ of religion. And what a 
 morality it is ! Even unbelievers have exhausted 
 the resources of language in their efforts to extol 
 its purity, its adaptation, its spiritual power. 
 Two peculiarities are here especially deserving of 
 notice. (i.) The unsectarian^ catholic nature of 
 Christian ethics. Other systems have their favor¬ 
 ite virtues, their distinctive aspect of the moral 
 life of man. Now, looking for the moment at 
 morality as concerned only with man’s relation to 
 his fellow-man, it may be asserted that the Chris¬ 
 tian code is faultless and complete, though not, of 
 course, in the view of scientific jurisprudence, sys¬ 
 tematic. Let any one who doubts this read the 
 fifth chapter of Matthew’s Gospel and the twelfth 
 chapter of the Epistle to the Romans. It cannot 
 but be observed that, while the sterner virtues of 
 justice, fortitude, and chastity are stringently en¬ 
 joined, a special stress has been laid upon what 
 may be termed the gentler and softer virtues of 
 compassion and benevolence, which have gener¬ 
 ally been regarded as distinctively Christian. 
 There is not a human one-sidedness, but rather a 
 divine comprehensiveness and completeness, in the 
 ethical code of the New Testament. (2.) Atten¬ 
 tion should also be paid to another prominent fea¬ 
 ture of Christian morality : the insistence upon the 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 289 
 
 subjectio 7 t to the perfect law of holiness and charity of 
 the very thoughts and desires of the heart. This is 
 a philosophical principle; but it is philosophy 
 made practical and popular. It recognises that 
 the spiritual nature is the source of the good and 
 evil which display themselves in the actions of 
 the life. Out of the heart—such is the teaching 
 of the Prophet of Nasareth—proceed the actual 
 vices and the actual virtues of mankind. As pure 
 streams from a fountain undefiled, so the moral 
 excellences that promote the welfare of society 
 flow from a heart cleansed by the Spirit and warm, 
 with the love of God. 
 
 Now, however philosophers in their exalted 
 moods may have recognised the necessity of a 
 spiritual lustration, it is certain that Christianity 
 alone has made the belief of the need of inward 
 purification and holiness the common possession 
 of man. Judaism did partially for one nation what 
 in this matter Christianity is doing for the race. 
 No religion is so resolutely opposed as is ours to 
 the substitution of the formal and ceremonial, or 
 even of outward rectitude of conduct, for the real 
 purity and charity of the spiritual centre of our 
 being. 
 
 In reply to this it is said, on the one hand, that 
 this very spirituality is opposed to human nature, 
 and that, therefore, instead of a harmony we have 
 
290 WITNESS OE man’s MORAE NATURE 
 
 a discord, and that thus our argument is shown to 
 be invalid. No doubt Christian morality is alien 
 from the inclinations of those who are living a life 
 of unrestrained passion and self-indulgence. Yet 
 even their conscience takes part with religion 
 against their impulses and habits. Account for it 
 as we may, there is that in the breast of the man 
 who will allow himself to reflect, who will give 
 time for the inner voice to speak, there is that 
 which witnesses to the excellence and beauty of 
 the moral law. Our nature bows down before 
 the highest expression of moral authority; awed 
 and wondering reverence greets the divine Pres¬ 
 ence. Even among those whom Christianity 
 would designate ‘ ‘ the unregenerate, ’ ’ there are 
 those whose candor constrains them to the famous 
 confession of the Roman poet Ovid: ‘‘I see and 
 approve the better things, while I follow those 
 which are worse.” 
 
 Another objection assails our argument from 
 the contrary side. We are told that the morality 
 of Christianity is indeed lofty, but yet is the 
 outgrowth of the ethical sentiments in human na¬ 
 ture ; that as every quality has appeared in its 
 perfection in some human beings, so goodness was 
 preeminently represented in Jesus, and was paint¬ 
 ed in colors of especial attractiveness by him, and 
 by those of his immediate school who drank most 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 291 
 
 fully into liis spirit; that there are not two terms 
 to be considered and harmonised, morality and 
 Christianity, for the religion is but the loftiest 
 embodiment of man’s moral nature, the flower 
 developed by the vigorous moral life of humani¬ 
 ty. 
 
 But the fact is that the ethics of Christianity 
 did not come from man but to man, that the Lord 
 Jesus professed a divine authority for his revela¬ 
 tions, and that, after all, what gives Christian 
 morality its true power is its actual embodiment 
 in Christ himself, and the special motive to aspi¬ 
 ration and obedience which he furnished in his 
 voluntary devotion to the cross for the salvation 
 of mankind. 
 
 To appreciate the argument, the reader must 
 bear in mind what has been said regarding the 
 two aspects of human nature. Man’s moral con¬ 
 stitution in its normal state involves reverence for 
 a law of right, a law independent, spiritual, all- 
 embracing, and of impalpable and invisible, yet 
 supreme, authority and sanction. The attempts 
 which have been made to substitute pleasure for 
 right, as the ultimate law of human conduct, have 
 either failed by their destruction of morality alto¬ 
 gether, or have really abdicated in favor of a prin¬ 
 ciple disinterested and dignified. The reader of 
 contemporary philosophy will appreciate this re- 
 
292 WITNESS OE MAN’S MORAE NATURE 
 
 mark by recalling the progress from Jeremy Ben- 
 tham’s system to Mr. J. S. Mill’s “Utilitarian¬ 
 ism,” and from this to the theories of Mr. Her¬ 
 bert Spencer in the ‘ ‘ Data of Ethics. ’ ’ It must 
 be acknowledged that we are amenable to law, 
 and to a law higher than any originating in hu¬ 
 man society, and that we are so constituted that 
 we feel this to be the case. 
 
 Both sides of human nature bear witness to 
 the morality of the New Testament. Our sinful 
 inclinations and habits are evidence that ethics so 
 lofty did not originate with man, but came from a 
 higher and independent source. And our moral 
 intuitions admit and admire the justice of claims 
 so lofty and the beauty of an ideal so divine. 
 
 4 - 
 
 The Human Conscience, or imperative oe 
 
 MORAE OBEIGATION, IS IN ACCORD WITH THE 
 
 Reeigion oe Christ. 
 
 There is within man a deep-seated conscious¬ 
 ness of duty. When combined with erroneous be¬ 
 liefs and with groundless prejudices, this faculty 
 may and does lead to perseverance in wrong-do¬ 
 ing; but in itself it is a noble attribute of human¬ 
 ity. Endeavors have been made to do away with 
 the great facts of duty and conscience, to resolve 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 293 
 
 them into such principles as interest, or the dread 
 of suffering, or the associations of early training, 
 or the gregarious impulse which leads men to 
 flock upon the same tracks. But these efforts 
 cannot be said to have succeeded, notwithstand¬ 
 ing the dogmatism of the great modern utilitarian 
 who averred that the word ‘ ‘ ought ’ ’ was a word 
 that ought to be banished from language. Ben- 
 tham was indeed a witness against his own theory; 
 for he taught that ‘ ‘ every pleasure is a prima fa~ 
 cie good, and ought to be pursued.” 
 
 Apart from questions as to the genesis of con¬ 
 science, the paramount claims of duty are admit¬ 
 ted, although there may be differences of opinion 
 as to the sphere within which it works. Virtuous 
 and lofty minds agree in acknowledging both the 
 commanding imperative and the awful beauty of 
 moral obligation. Who can do other than sym¬ 
 pathise with the invocation of our philosophic 
 poet: 
 
 “ Stern Lawgiver! yet thou dost wear 
 The Godhead’s most benignant grace; 
 
 Nor know we anything so fair 
 As is the smile upon thy face; 
 
 Flowers laugh before thee on their beds, 
 
 And fragrance in thy footing treads; 
 
 Thou dost preserve the stars from wrong, 
 
 And the most ancient heavens through thee are 
 fresh and strong.” 
 
 Wordsworth’s Ode to Duty. 
 
294 witne:ss oi^ man’s morai, nature: 
 
 Now let US ask, Wkat is tke relation between 
 the consciousness of obligation within and Chris¬ 
 tianity ? The question almost answers itself. 
 Conscience is assumed, is appealed to, in every 
 book of Scripture. There are nowhere to be 
 found appeals to man’s sense of duty which for 
 power and pungency can rival those of holy 
 writ. In the discourses of our kord, and in the 
 treatises of his apostles, the highest honor is put 
 upon our moral nature, for it is addressed and chal¬ 
 lenged, its sanction is invoked with confidence. 
 No doubt Christian ministers and churches have 
 often sought to work upon men’s base fears and 
 selfish interests and superstitious tendencies. Our 
 religion does indeed warn men of the fatal conse¬ 
 quences of unbelief and disobedience; and, on the 
 other hand, it seeks to allure men by the appro¬ 
 priate and powerful motive which impels us to 
 seek our true happiness. 
 
 Yet the Scriptures are remarkable for their 
 habit of appealing to the very highest principles. 
 There is a verse in St. Paul’s Second Epistle to 
 the Corinthians which confirms, in a very striking 
 way, the assertion just made: “ By manifestation 
 of the truth commending ourselves to every man’s 
 conscience (literally, to every conscience of men) 
 in the sight of God. ” 2 Cor. 4:2. This is quite in 
 harmony with all Christian appeal. Not to sense, 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 295 
 
 or carnal, worldly interest; not to superstitions ter¬ 
 ror; not to desire for human applause, but to the 
 moral nature, the conscience, the responsive con¬ 
 fession of the enlightened but not unbiassed soul, 
 the voice which we hold to be from heaven 
 addresses itself. We submit that the accord be¬ 
 tween the summons and the response is evidence 
 that the same wisdom appointed both, and made 
 the one for the other. A heathen moralist felt 
 this when he wrote: “ Sacer intra nos spiritus 
 sedet, bonorum malorumque nostrorum observator 
 et custos.” (There has its seat within us a holy 
 spirit, the watcher and guardian of what in us is 
 good and evil.) With Seneca this belief was, 
 alas ! consistent with disobedience to the authority 
 which yet he confessed to be divine. The power 
 of Christian gratitude and love made Paul’s life 
 a far nobler and more consistent thing. And 
 what Paul felt, the lowliest disciple of Christ feels 
 too, though in an inarticulate and unphilosophi- 
 cal fashion. As the thrill of the stricken lute¬ 
 string evokes the sympathetic vibration of the 
 untouched chord of its companion instrument, 
 so, when Christ speaks, however softly, yet with 
 a divine authority, it is to call forth the respon¬ 
 sive music of the human soul. There is one 
 explanation of this harmony which deserves con¬ 
 sideration: it is the conviction which Christians 
 
296 WITNESS OE man’s MORAE NATURE 
 
 have formed that the same divine Spirit who 
 speaks in the Word and by the Christ speaks 
 also in the sympathetic and responsive spirit of 
 man. 
 
 5 - 
 
 There is harmony between Man’s aspira¬ 
 tions TOWARDS Moral Perfection and 
 THE Religion of Christ. 
 
 This assertion may fail to carry conviction to 
 many minds. Oppressed with the spectacle of 
 human sinfulness and degradation, whether free¬ 
 ly developed among the brutal and criminal, or 
 carefully concealed by the varnish of luxurious 
 civilisation, some observers may be disposed to 
 question the fact of such aspirations as are here 
 assumed. But the distinction already drawn be¬ 
 tween man’s normal and abnormal state must 
 here be borne in mind. We need not extenuate 
 human sinfulness in order to justify a conviction 
 that human nature possesses a strain of moral 
 nobility. Apart from considerations of selfish 
 indulgence, mankind have an admiration for self- 
 devotion and moral heroism. 
 
 And as character advances in ethical maturi¬ 
 ty, this admiration is strengthened by sympathy. 
 Mr. I^ecky has well said that characters of re¬ 
 markable holiness have usually been formed 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 297 
 
 under the influence of one or the other of two 
 principles, the sense of sin, and the yearning for 
 holiness. 
 
 The aspiration in question is, we may confi¬ 
 dently assert, provided for in Christianity as 
 nowhere else. No doubt, as wflll be shown pres¬ 
 ently, our religion does lay the greatest stress 
 upon human sinfulness. But it is therefore all 
 the more gloriously characteristic of the breadth 
 of Christianity that it appeals to the finest possi¬ 
 bilities of moral excellence which the constitution 
 of our nature suggests. The New Testament is a 
 trumpet-call, summoning all who acknowledge 
 its authority to aspiration, progress, and eminence 
 in goodness. Our Ibord himself will submit to 
 no compromise with those who, to gain their 
 ends, would take a lower view than the high¬ 
 est of the aim to be set before them by those 
 who “would be perfect.” He not only lays 
 down laws of the utmost spirituality and com¬ 
 prehensiveness, he calls upon us to come after 
 him, to “ take up the cross and follow him.” 
 Inspiration addresses to us the most stirring and 
 sublime monitions: “ Be ye perfect, even as your 
 Father in heaven is perfect!” Matt. 5:48. , “I 
 press towards the mark for the pri^e of the high 
 calling of God in Christ Jesus!” Phil. 3:14. 
 Instead of encouraging or suffering men to remain 
 
298 WITNESS OF man’s MORAE NATURE 
 
 contentedly upon the lower level, the religion 
 which we accept forbids us either to retrograde or 
 to pause, commands us to advance and to aspire. 
 The whole provision of the spiritual economy is 
 adapted to secure our progress. We are assured 
 that we shall not in vain obey the call we have 
 received. On the contrary, we are assured, if we 
 are faithful unto the end, of final and everlasting 
 fellowship with “the spirits of just men made 
 perfect.” We are told in very simple, but in 
 most welcome and inspiring language, that the 
 goal to which w^e tend shall indeed be reached, 
 that we shall acquire the moral lineaments of our 
 great Deliverer and Leader: “We shall be like 
 him, for we shall see him as he is !” i John 3:2. 
 
 6 . 
 
 The provisions of Christianity are Ex- 
 
 ACTEY ADAPTED TO Man’S ABNORMAE, SIN- 
 
 FUE STATE. 
 
 Is there any inconsistency between the belief 
 that man was made for holiness and the belief 
 that his condition is a sinful and wretched one ? 
 It appears that there is none, when it is remem¬ 
 bered that the abnormal implies the normal, that 
 depravity is deflection from a standard of recti¬ 
 tude. Sin could have no meaning were it not 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 299 
 
 both a violation of law and an abuse of nature. 
 We do not charge a beast of prey with moral 
 evil because of his bloodthirsty tastes and savage, 
 ferocious devastations. The beast fulfils his 
 nature; he may be injurious, but is not blamable. 
 But we say that man has sinned, meaning that 
 in living in violation of the moral law he is not 
 fulfilling his destiny. Only a nature capable of 
 holiness, and meant for holiness, can sin. 
 
 Now, man was made for virtue and piety, and 
 can only find his true development in seeking 
 and his true satisfaction in finding these. But if 
 this is incontestable, it is equally certain that his 
 life is deflected from a standard which he cannot 
 but admire, that his way is a departure from a 
 course which he cannot but approve. These 
 things being so, there is an obvious discordance 
 between man’s proper nature and the actual state 
 in which he exists. This is a fact often strangely 
 overlooked by ethical philosophers. Yet it is 
 impossible to take a just estimate of human 
 nature, unless we consider and allow for the 
 discordance between the possible and the actual 
 in human life. In truth, our moral being is so 
 complex, that while it admits of the existence 
 and even the prevalence of sin, it lifts up a voice 
 of protest against the powerful position which 
 evil holds in humanity. There are dicta of mo- 
 
300 ^yITNKSS OF man’s moraf nature 
 
 rality, both natural and revealed; but with these 
 dicta the actual life of men does not accord. We 
 approve and justify a standard, which neverthe¬ 
 less we fail to reach. 
 
 If Christianity, or any religion, is oblivious of 
 this very important fact, such obliviousness is its 
 condemnation. But if Christianity assumes this 
 fact, and if its provisions are in accordance with 
 it, then so far it is justified. Upon examination 
 it will be found that the religion of Christ is 
 such that it has evidently been provided and con¬ 
 structed with reference to the discordance now 
 described. The Scriptures take for granted our 
 strangely divided nature, in which order and dis¬ 
 order, submission and rebellion, strive for the 
 mastery. A great and awful want is acknowl¬ 
 edged and declared; but this is not all: for that 
 want a full and perfect provision is made, a pro¬ 
 vision which evokes from the minds of those who 
 accept it a tribute of grateful appreciation. 
 
 Every reader of the New Testament must be 
 aware that Christianity makes the existence and 
 the prevalence of sin its starting-point. In fact, 
 the reign of moral evil over humanity is repre¬ 
 sented as the very reason of the existence of our 
 religion. There is very much in our Scriptures 
 which would be adapted to a sinless being: there 
 is the law, there are the impulses, the promises, 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 301 
 
 wliicli we can well believe would be suitable to 
 secure tbe continuance of sucli a being in a state 
 of Holiness, and His advance to loftier HeigHts of 
 moral excellence. But if tHe New Testament 
 Had been intended for sucH a being, its wHole 
 contents must Have been reconstructed. For, as 
 it actually is, it presumes that enmity against 
 God exists, and records tHe provision for reconcil¬ 
 iation witH Him. Can any inquirer. However su¬ 
 perficial, come to any otHer conclusion tlian tHis: 
 tHat CHristianity is a religion designed for a sin¬ 
 ful race, and is intended to secure for sinners tHe 
 blessings of forgiveness, of renewal, of spiritual 
 strength, guidance, progress, and peace ? 
 
 To be more special upon this point, let us 
 examine whether with regard to sin^ and what sin 
 requires^ there is accordanee between conseience and 
 Christianity, They certainly agree in opposing 
 and condemning sin. Yet general custom on the 
 one Hand, and popular philosophy on the other, 
 concur in extenuating the evil, proclaiming the 
 necessity and predicting the perpetuity of sin. 
 The Bible certainly says very Hard things of sin. 
 It is “ the transgression of the law,” i John 3:4, 
 
 ‘ ‘ that which God Hates. ” It is the sign of a Heart 
 at “enmity with God.” Its ill-desert is such that 
 no penalty is too severe for those who love and 
 practise sin. “God is angry with the wicked 
 
302 WITNESS OE man’s MORAL NATURE 
 
 every day.” Psa. 7:11. “The way of trans¬ 
 gressors is hard.” Prov. 13:15. “The sting of 
 death is sin. ’ ’ i Cor. 15:56. “ The wages of 
 
 sin is death.” Rom. 6:23. All this appears to 
 many very stern and harsh. But if we take the 
 question, not to our inclinations, not to our neigh¬ 
 bors, but to the tribunal of our own conscience, 
 what has this witness—shall we say this judge?— 
 to pronounce upon the matter? Interrogate, it 
 might be fairly said to every reader—interrogate 
 your own nature! Are you not compelled to ad¬ 
 mit that all that Scripture says concerning sin is 
 true? that nothing less than this would be the 
 truth? Try to explain away the seriousness, the 
 heinousness, of sin. Risten to the defences, the 
 apologies, by which men have striven to palliate, 
 to excuse, even to justify sin. They do not con¬ 
 vince you. On the other hand, you cannot take 
 exception to the treatment of human sin by the 
 Holy Scriptures; when they denounce and rebuke 
 iniquity, when they declare the inconsistency be¬ 
 tween sin and man’s real well-being, they carry 
 your judgment and your better nature with them. 
 Because your heart was not made for sin, your heart 
 witnesses that the Word—as we term it, the Word 
 of God~is right in exhibiting sin as heinous in 
 itself, and as deserving the displeasure of God, 
 the righteous and holy Judge. 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 303 
 
 Human nature, whicli witnesses to the reality 
 and enormity of sin, witnesses also to the need of 
 pardon. The conscience proclaims that sin is not 
 merely a violation of our nature, but an offence 
 against a personal Ruler and Rord. How deeply 
 rooted is this consciousness of the need of forgive¬ 
 ness appears from the prominence given in every 
 religion to the means by which it is professed that 
 forgiveness may be secured and enjoyed. It is not 
 necessary here to show (which might, however, be 
 most conclusively done) the futility of the devices 
 for expiating ^in and for reconciling the sinner 
 which have obtained in various stages of society, 
 and which have taken shape in various schemes 
 of religious doctrine and ritual. Neither is it ne¬ 
 cessary here to expound and defend the theories of 
 the Atonement. But it must be pointed out, as 
 distinctive of revealed religion, that it is redemp¬ 
 tive^ that it at the same time condemns the sin more 
 trenchantly than has ever been done elsewhere, 
 and absolves the sinner more completely and effec¬ 
 tually than elsewhere has ever been proposed or 
 professed. Bishop Butler has shown in his “An¬ 
 alogy” the consonance between a mediatorial 
 method of salvation and the usual method of the 
 divine government. Unless we are in rebellion 
 against the whole moral scheme of the universe, 
 we have reason to acquiesce in the central pro- 
 
304 WITNESS OE man’s MORAE NATURE 
 
 vision of Christianity now under consideration. 
 And our clearest judgment and our best feelings 
 concur in approving the plan upon which the New 
 Testament represents the divine Ruler as having 
 proceeded. The conscience of the most intelli¬ 
 gent and of those most earnestly striving after 
 goodness finds repose and satisfaction in the gospel 
 of pardon and acceptance through Jesus Christ, 
 in whose incarnation and sacrifice the divine Gov¬ 
 ernor appears supremely just, and at the same time 
 supremely gracious—condemning sin and absol¬ 
 ving the repenting and believing sinner. 
 
 Exception is widely taken in our times to the 
 doctrine of mediation; it is represented by some 
 as violating instead of harmonizing with our con¬ 
 victions of justice. It may, however, be con¬ 
 fidently urged that conscience does not rebel 
 against the unadulterated teachings of revelation. 
 Against these sin and prejudice may revolt, but a 
 quickened and enlightened conscience, never! 
 Those who are offended with this central and 
 vital part of the Christian religion are recom¬ 
 mended, in the first place, to examine for them¬ 
 selves what is the teaching of Scripture, and not 
 to waste their energies in fighting a foe of their 
 own invention. 
 
 Another aspect of the treatment of sin and the 
 sinner by the religion of Christ must be consid- 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 305 
 
 ered. There is a practical hostility to the lofty aiid 
 exacting demands of spiritual religioji. While the 
 higher nature approves, the baser nature resents 
 those claims. Can this hostility be overcome, 
 and how ? A religion which should undertake to 
 pardon sin—to release the sinner from the penal¬ 
 ties consequent upon sin—and should omit or fail 
 to secure his practical and cheerful submission to 
 the highest law of moral life, would surely betray 
 its origin in man’s own selfishness and sinfulness. 
 A religion which should, on the other hand, in 
 remitting the consequences of sin, provide for the 
 forgiven sinner’s renewal, reformation, and ad¬ 
 vance in the love and practice of goodness, would 
 seem to proclaim itself the production of Him 
 whose power in the moral universe ‘‘makes for 
 righteousness.” At all events, in this'case the 
 moral nature of man will give its cordial assent 
 and approbation, and so far will declare itself a 
 most favorable witness. 
 
 Now, as a matter of fact, Christianity has in¬ 
 troduced a moral power into humanity unknown 
 apart from the presence of Christian faith and 
 knowledge. This power has proved itself ade¬ 
 quate to the vanquishing of the natural enmity 
 of the heart to self-control and self-denial. The 
 Christian religion has found and revealed a way 
 
 of rendering virtue—which is admittedly admira- 
 
 20 
 
3 o6 witness of man’s moraf nature 
 
 ble and desirable—actually attainable; has made 
 the path of obedience progressively congenial, 
 attractive, and delightful. There is general agree¬ 
 ment that this is the distinguishing characteristic 
 of Christianity. First, in point of time, comes 
 the provision for pardon; but first in point of real 
 importance comes the provision of a spiriUtal 
 power^ which secures the love and practice of ho¬ 
 liness. The evidences of that power are open to 
 the observation of all; the secret explanation of 
 that power is a Christian doctrine, which is in¬ 
 deed reasonable, but may not command a univer¬ 
 sal credence. It is known to the disciples and 
 friends of the Lord Jesus that the great motive to 
 obedience is love to a personal Saviour, a motive 
 capable of producing results which no other power 
 could effect. The apostle Paul has summed up 
 this aspect of our religion in his memorable say¬ 
 ing, “The love of Christ constraineth us.” A 
 motive like this may meet with the scorn and rid¬ 
 icule of worldly and selfish minds, but it is in the 
 highest degree consonant with our nature. Per- 
 sonal gratitude, devotion, and consecration to a 
 divine Saviour lead to a higher style of morality, 
 a higher type of obedience, than can be secured 
 by any other means, however agreeable a carnal 
 nature and a worldly policy. Grateful love to 
 the Redeemer, awakened and sustained by the 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 307 
 
 Holy Spirit of God, prompts to purposes whicli 
 inspire and regulate a new moral life. A motive 
 more in consonance with our moral nature it 
 would not be possible to imagine. 
 
 L^t this twofold dealing with the condition of 
 sinful, feeble man be taken into consideration. 
 Let it be observed how Christianity provides for 
 the absolution of the penitent sinner and for the 
 renewal of the character and the purification of 
 the life. And then let the highest reason and the 
 best feelings of humanity be called upon to speak 
 as to the excellence and adaptation of this pro¬ 
 vision to human nature and to human need. And 
 if the witness be favorable, surely the fact is 
 worthy of weight in the estimation of those who 
 believe in a moral Governor of wisdom and be¬ 
 nevolence. At all events, it may be confidently 
 said that so far as the evidence of conscience goes, 
 it supports the claim which we make, that Chris¬ 
 tianity is divine, and is worthy of all acceptation. 
 
 « 
 
 7 - 
 
 Man’s Moral Naturk witnesses to the 
 wholesome influence of the Religion 
 OF Christ upon Human Society. 
 
 No just and complete view of man can regard 
 simply the life of the individual. Although there 
 
308 witness of man’s morae nature 
 
 have been and are tendencies impelling men to 
 accept Christianity simply as designed for their 
 individual salvation, it was not thus that our 
 religion was conceived by its Founder and first 
 promulgators; nor is it thus that its enlightened 
 adherents conceive it to-day. Man is social, is a 
 member of the family, of the State, of the race. 
 If there is in human nature a selfish tendency, 
 there is also a principle of sympathy and benevo¬ 
 lence. Much stress is laid, and justly laid, upon 
 a spirit of unselfishness, upon what it has become 
 the fashion to call ‘ ‘ altruism, ” as a principle 
 complementary to the quest of well-comprehend¬ 
 ed self-interest. 
 
 It may fairly be argued that the strength of 
 benevolence in modern society is owing to the 
 teaching and to the impulse of Christianity. 
 This, however, is not our present contention. All 
 that is asked is this: Is there an agreement be¬ 
 tween our “better nature,” our unselfish aims 
 and efforts, and the truths of the Christian reli¬ 
 gion taken in conjunction with their influence 
 upon society? 
 
 Fet the lessons of the New Testament be can¬ 
 didly considered. The divine Teacher issues his 
 new commandment, “ Love one another. ” John 
 13 134. He enunciates the principle of unselfish 
 helpfulness in the admonition, “Freely ye have 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 309 
 
 received, freely give.” Matt. 10:8. His apos¬ 
 tles enjoin the maxim, “Bear ye one another’s 
 burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.” Gal. 
 6 : 2. They strike at the trunk, the root, of self¬ 
 ishness with the axe-stroke, ‘ ‘ Get every man look 
 not upon his own things, but every man also upon 
 the things of others. ’ ’ Phil. 2 :4. Does not the 
 true, the higher nature of man listen to these laws 
 and precepts with a wondering reverence, and 
 render to them the response of an approving and 
 consenting testimony? 
 
 Yet it is not by words that the giant selfishness 
 is slain. The life, the love, the sacrifice of Christ 
 himself are the real weapons of this spiritual war¬ 
 fare. The cross is the true and effectual inspira¬ 
 tion of man’s devotion to the interests of his fel¬ 
 low-man ; the enthusiasm of Christ is the true 
 source of “the enthusiasm of humanity.” 
 
 “ Talk we of morals ? O thou bleeding Lamb, 
 
 The grand morality is love of thee.” Cowper. 
 
 It may be freely admitted that language far 
 too sweeping has sometimes been employed to 
 describe the actual amelioration of the human lot 
 which has already been effected by the religion of 
 Jesus Christ. Still, no well-informed and candid 
 person will deny that, of all the forces which have 
 contributed to improve the morals and to promote 
 
310 WITNESS OE man’s MORAL NATURE 
 
 the happiness of the race, none can compare for 
 vigor and for efficiency with the Christian faith. 
 Bvil is sometimes laid to the charge of Christian¬ 
 ity which is in reality the result of the system of 
 sacerdotalism. But how much of good must in 
 all fairness be credited to the influence of Christ 
 upon mankind ! 
 
 Against vice and crime Christianity from the 
 beginning directed its assaults with remarkable 
 energy and success. Against usages and institu¬ 
 tions belonging to half-civilised and selfish states 
 of society Christianity prepared its siege of mines 
 and batteries-—sooner or later, but only at the 
 right moment—to open fire. The frightful cru¬ 
 elty, the utter and wanton indifference to suffer¬ 
 ing, the disregard of life, so characteristic of the 
 ancient world, have certainly been immensely di¬ 
 minished by the prevalence of Christian princi¬ 
 ples. Those principles gradually but surely un¬ 
 dermined the degrading institution of slavery, 
 which has now all but disappeared from among 
 even nominally Christian communities. 
 
 What has been done is more than a proof of 
 the beneficent influence of Christianity, and may 
 fairly be deemed an earnest of the triumphs await¬ 
 ing its progress in the future. There are indica¬ 
 tions that evils still prevalent, but condemned by 
 our religion, will, by its growing influence, be 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 3^1 
 
 cliecked, if not eradicated. The war has not been 
 carried on with vigor along the whole line where 
 immorality of all kinds is confronted. But this at 
 least may be confidently claimed on behalf of the 
 religion of Christ, that, in every moral conflict in 
 this world, Christianity is on the right side; that, 
 when she speaks, her voice is uniformly and un¬ 
 falteringly opposed to vice and crime, and in favor 
 of the cause of virtue, liberty, and happiness. 
 
 Perhaps even more important than the protest 
 of Christianity against sin is its purifying, eleva¬ 
 ting, harmonising, and generally beneficial influ¬ 
 ence upon the social life of men. As a social re¬ 
 ligion, it has regard to all classes and conditions 
 of men, and seeks their elevation and well-being. 
 It is a kingdom, and its Head contemplates the 
 welfare of every subject; a family in which the 
 interests of no single child are overlooked. It 
 fosters the legitimate development of society, and 
 furthers the progress of mankind towards univer¬ 
 sal brotherhood and universal happiness. Bach 
 Christian congregation then only fulfils its mis¬ 
 sion when it is a centre of light and spiritual 
 power. Our religion is the enemy of uncharita¬ 
 bleness, hatred, envy, social disorganization, and 
 oppression; it cherishes “the hate of hate, the 
 scorn of scorn, the love of love.” Its aim is to 
 bring mankind into unity, by bringing all men 
 
313 WITNESS OF man’s MORAL NATURE 
 
 alike into subjection, not to an earthly conqueror 
 or king, but to the true and divine Head of “ the 
 new humanity.” Compare its design and its 
 method with those of great military conquerors, 
 or with those of such a fantastic philosopher as 
 Comte, and recognize its vast superiority. Here 
 is the highest ideal of the social life of humanity, 
 for here the free development of the individual is 
 to play its part in the harmonious and ordered co¬ 
 operation of all the members of society towards 
 the one great ultimate result. 
 
 The enlightened and unsophisticated con¬ 
 science, weighing these claims of Christianity in 
 virtue of its power to effect a social regeneration, 
 is constrained to acknowledge their validity. 
 Man’s moral nature recognizes in this religion 
 her mightiest auxiliary in the holy war, discerns 
 her hope fulfilled, her aspirations realized. Com¬ 
 pared with other claimants, Christianity, in the 
 view of morality, stands alone, peerless and un¬ 
 approachable, 
 
 “ Fair as a star, when only one 
 Is shining in the sky.” 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 313 
 
 8 . 
 
 There is Agreement between the Chris¬ 
 tian Doctrine oe Retribution and the 
 Morae Judgment or Conscience op 
 Man 
 
 Probably there was a time when religion was 
 regarded by theologians too much as a matter of 
 government, when God was represented too ex¬ 
 clusively as the ruler and judge. But in our own 
 day it is common to run into the other, the oppo¬ 
 site extreme, and, in laying just stress upon the 
 Fatherhood of God, the pity of Christ, the attrac¬ 
 tiveness of the gospel, to leave out of sight, per¬ 
 haps even contemptuously to disparage or to deny, 
 the moral government of God. Now, however 
 much a sentimental and invertebrate theology 
 may fret against the doctrine of responsibility and 
 retribution, those doctrines cannot be overthrown 
 so long as human nature remains what it i.s, so long 
 as the Scriptures are accepted as of supreme au¬ 
 thority. They are opposed from two sides. 
 
 Those who regard man as an automaton, acted 
 upon by physical forces, and acting as acted upon 
 (and these are a very numerous and influential 
 class in our days), deny moral retribution. Car¬ 
 rying the analogy of natural processes and laws 
 
314 WITNESS OF man’s MORAF NATURE 
 
 into tlie spiritual realm, they tell us that nature is 
 a system of inflexible laws, and that he who con¬ 
 forms to those laws will prosper, while he who 
 violates them will suffer; that in this sense retri¬ 
 bution is a fact, and in no other; that a vicious 
 man, who is prudent, will fare better than a vir¬ 
 tuous man who is impulsive; and that, as man 
 ceases to be when his body perishes, we need not 
 concern ourselves about a future which is but a 
 dream. 
 
 On the other hand, those who accept as much 
 of Christianity as falls in with their own fancies 
 and prepossessions, tell us that as God is love, we 
 need be under no apprehension that here or here¬ 
 after we shall be called to account for our sins, 
 that a benevolent Deity will secure our happiness 
 irrespectively of our conduct, in view of the 
 righteous and binding law of God. 
 
 Now, in this controversy, human theories and 
 imaginations are on one side, while on the other 
 are (i) The facts of our moral nature, and (2) the 
 plain statements of Scripture, giving an unmis¬ 
 takably accordant utterance. 
 
 Our human life is an education, but it is a pro¬ 
 bation also. We cannot leave out of view either 
 the reproaches and the remorse of a guilty con¬ 
 science, or the facts of an overruling and, to some 
 extent, retributive providence, even in this life. 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 315 
 
 Nor, further, can we set aside the anticipation of 
 judgment, which is almost universal among men, 
 and which is only exterminated when all is exter¬ 
 minated which raises man above the brutes. 
 
 In these respects how perfect is the agreement 
 between the teaching of the New Testament and 
 the enlightened and sensitive conscience of man ! 
 Not to dwell upon such general statements as 
 “God hath appointed a day in which he will 
 judge the world by that man whom he hath or¬ 
 dained,” Acts 17 : 31, and “We must all appear 
 before the judgment-seat of Christ,” 2 Cor. 5 :10, 
 we may call to mind that from the lips of the be¬ 
 nign, compassionate, and gracious Saviour him¬ 
 self came declarations the most comprehensive 
 and unmistakable regarding human retribution. 
 He pronounced blessings^ but he also pronounced 
 woes. He anticipates that general judgment when 
 all nations shall be gathered before him, and when 
 the same lips which shall utter the welcome, 
 “Come, ye blessed !” shall also utter the fearful 
 sentence, “Depart, ye cursed!” Matt. 25 : 34, 41. 
 It is in vain to represent religion as wearing only 
 an aspect of benignity; it wears also an aspect of 
 severity; and in this twofold aspect there is a 
 complete accordance with the manifest facts of 
 our nature. 
 
3i6 witness ot man’s morae nature 
 
 9 - 
 
 M'an’s Moral Nature finds satisfaction 
 IN THE Revelations of the Christian 
 Religion concerning Immortality. 
 
 Man alone, of the inhabitants of earth, has the 
 power to apprehend and to hope for a deathless 
 life. Men are not to be persuaded that this bod¬ 
 ily and earthly life comprises the whole of their 
 being; they have good reasons for believing oth¬ 
 erwise. The expectation of an endless hereafter 
 is not merely a conclusion derived from argument; 
 it springs from a natural tendency, a spiritual as¬ 
 piration^ strengthened by moral discipline. We 
 refuse to believe that we were made with death¬ 
 less hopes destined to be quenched in the cold 
 waters of annihilation and oblivion. Yet reason 
 is insufficient to transform this longing into a 
 definite belief. We can, while taught by reason 
 alone, go no farther than hope will lead us : 
 
 “ The hope that, of the living whole, 
 
 No part shall fail beyond the grave; 
 
 Derives it not from what we have 
 The likest God within the soul ?” 
 
 Tennyson. 
 
 A religion which shall command the acceptance 
 of man’s nature must satisfy man’s loftiest yearn- 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 317 
 
 ings and anticipations with regard to the future, 
 and must reveal a prospect worthy of man’s pow¬ 
 ers and capacities. 
 
 The teaching of Christianity is definite upon 
 these points. It encourages the hope that in a 
 higher condition of existence our best aspirations 
 shall be allowed a wider scope. There will be 
 provision for increase of knowledge; for here we 
 know in part, but there we shall know even as 
 we are known. i Cor. 13 :12. There will be 
 assimilation of character to Him who is supreme¬ 
 ly good; for “the pure in heart shall see God.” 
 Matt. 5 : 8. There will be limitless accessions to 
 happiness: “blessed are the dead that die in the 
 Tord.” Rev. 14 :13. There will be abundant 
 room for the exercise of our social sympathies in 
 “the general assembly and church of the first¬ 
 born, which are written in heaven.” Heb. 12:23. 
 There will be, what is preeminently congenial to 
 the Christian heart, intimate fellowship with 
 Christ himself: for there “shall we ever be with 
 the lyord.” i Thess. 4 :17. There will be eter¬ 
 nal security and felicity: for they “go no more 
 out.” Rev. 3:12. 
 
 In such representations and assurances Chris¬ 
 tianity supplies what nature cannot give, fills up 
 the void, makes the vision plain, the voice intel¬ 
 ligible. But the case is not merely one of ab- 
 
3i8 witness of man’s morae nature 
 
 stract teaching. The explicit declarations of the 
 Saviour are both embodied in his person and sup¬ 
 ported and sanctioned by his resurrection. “ I, ” 
 said he, ‘ ‘ am the Resurrection and the Rife; 
 whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never 
 die.” John ii : 25, 26. 
 
 Such are, in brief, the revelations of Christi¬ 
 anity concerning what must always be of intense 
 interest to men—the future and unseen state. 
 Such are the prospects held out by the religion 
 which is equally at home in this world and in the 
 world to come. 
 
 What has the moral nature of man to say to 
 revelations such as these ? That nature proposes 
 vast questions; how does it receive these answers? 
 It has been well said, “Every man feels within 
 himself a crowd of desires and faculties which this 
 life does not content; and he would deem himself 
 very unhappy, and Him who has made him very 
 unjust, if his destiny were never to attain this 
 happiness, this perfection of which he has the 
 idea. It is that which unavoidably sug¬ 
 
 gests to him thoughts of the other life; and, these 
 thoughts once awakened in his mind, there is no 
 more rest for him if the doubt remains, and if no 
 clear solution comes to resolve it. ” * 
 
 A nature with such requirements cannot be 
 
 *■ JoufFroy, “ Nouveaux Melanges Philosophiques,” p. 105. 
 
TO CHRISTIANITY. 
 
 319 
 
 indifferent to the professions and promises of the 
 religion of Christ. Is it likely that man, so con¬ 
 stituted, will turn aside from the revelations of 
 Christianity, and adopt in preference the teaching 
 of the materialist and atheist, according to whom 
 man perishes like the brutes, and is no more—a 
 foam-fleck upon the rushing river of universal be¬ 
 ing? Or will he not rather exclaim, God made 
 the soul for immortality, and appointed immor¬ 
 tality for the soul! Here is found the true and 
 longed-for rest; here the strong, sustaining hope ! 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The argument presented is one of adaptation 
 and correspondence. Man’s moral nature being an 
 admitted reality, and the Christian religion an 
 acknowledged fact, it has been attempted to show 
 that the one is fitted for the other. Man’s esteem 
 and honor for what is right, his contrition for sin, 
 and his aspirations towards immortality, all testify 
 to Him from whom not only do they proceed, but 
 the revelation also that responds to and satisfies 
 them; all testify to the Cross, that brings peace 
 to the conscience and inspiration to the new and 
 better life; all testify to the ascended King him¬ 
 self, who lives for ever to love and bless, and yet 
 eternally to reign. 
 
320 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 The argument is admittedly one of probability^ 
 and (it is urged) of probability so high as to afford 
 conclusive reason for action. It is an argument 
 cumulative in form. Each one of the particulars 
 mentioned has a certain strength; taken to¬ 
 gether, they constitute a powerful and conclusive 
 argument in favor of our religion, and justify a 
 cordial and practical acknowledgment of its 
 claims. 
 
. 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 < 
 
 
 i: • 
 
 \ 
 
 s 
 
 f 
 
 { 
 
 i 
 
 • 1.1 
 
 / 
 
 f 
 
 \