& 
 
 £  tV{C  ®l?PoIogtra/  ^ 
 
 PRINCETON,  N.  J. 
 
 BT  1101  . R69  1888 
 Row,  C.  A.  1816-1895. 
 Christian  evidences  viewed 
 in  relation  to  modern  ? 
 
//v 
 
 b 
 
 \ 
 
CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES 
 
 VIEWED 
 
 LN  RELATION  TO  MODERN  THOUGHT. 
 
Works  by  the  same  Author. 
 
 REVELATION  and  MODERN  THEOLOGY  CONTRASTED: 
 
 or,  the  Simplicity  of  the  Apostolic  Gospel  demonstrated.  Second 
 Edition.  F.  Norgate. 
 
 THE  JESUS  OF  THE  EVANGELISTS:  his  Historical 
 
 Character  Vindicated ;  or,  an  Examination  of  the  Internal  Evidence  for 
 our  Lord’s  Divine  Mission  with  Reference  to  Modern  Controversy. 
 Third  Edition.  F.  Norgate. 
 
 THE  MORAL  TEACHING  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
 
 Viewed  as  Identical  to  its  Historical  Truth.  Christian  Knowledge 
 Society. 
 
 THE  SUPERNATURAL  IN  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT 
 
 Possible,  Credible,  and  Historical ;  or,  an  Examination  of  the  Validity 
 of  some  Recent  Objections  against  Christianity  as  a  Divine  Revelation. 
 F.  Norgate. 
 
 THE  PRINCIPLES  OF  MODERN  ATHEISTIC  AND 
 
 PANTHEISTIC  PHILOSOPHY  (published  by  the  Victoria  Institute). 
 
 THREE  LECTURES  delivered  at  Norwich  Cathedral ;  being 
 the  Seventh  Series  of  the  Norwich  Evidential  Discourses  on  “  The  Truth 
 of  Christianity  proved  by  the  admissions  of  Unbelievers.”  Hamilton, 
 Adams,  &  Co. 
 
 \ 
 
 FIVE  LECTURES  delivered  at  the  Request  of  the  Christian 
 Evidence  Society  (published  in  their  Evidential  Series).  Hodder  and 
 Stoughton. 
 
 REASONS  FOR  BELIEVING  IN  CHRISTIANITY,  addressed 
 
 to  Busy  People  ;  a  Course  of  Lectures  delivered  at  St.  Paul’s  Cathe¬ 
 dral  at  the  request  of  the  Dean  and  Chapter.  Church  of  England 
 Sunday  School  Institute. 
 
CHRISTIAN  EVIDENCES 
 
 VIEWED 
 
 IN  RELATION  TO  MODERN  THOUGHT. 
 
 EIGHT  LECTURES  PREACHED  BEFORE  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF 
 OXFORD  IN  THE  YEAR  1877  ON/THE  FOUNDATION 
 OF  THE  LATE  REV.  JOHN  BAMPTON,  M.A., 
 
 CANON  OF  SALISBURY. 
 
 BY  T1 
 
 THE^- 
 
 REV.  C.  A.  ROW,  M.A., 
 
 Pembroke  College,  Oxford;  Prebendary  of  St.  Paul’s  Cathedral. 
 
 FIFTH  EDITION . 
 
 LONDON : 
 
 FREDERIC  NORGATE, 
 
 7,  KING  STREET,  CO  VENT  GARDEN; 
 
 WILLIAMS  &  NORGATE,  20,  FREDERICK  STREET,  EDINBURGH. 
 
 1888. 
 
LONDON : 
 
 G.  NORMAN  AND  SON,  PRINTERS,  HART  STREET, 
 COVENT  GARDEN. 
 
EXTRACT 
 
 FROM  THE  LAST  WILL  AND  TESTAMENT 
 
 OF  THE  LATE 
 
 REV.  JOHN  BAMPTON, 
 
 CANON  OF  SALISBURY. 
 
 - “  I  give  and  bequeath  my  Lands  and  Estates  to 
 
 “  the  Chancellor,  Masters,  and  Scholars,  of  the  University 
 “  of  Oxford  for  ever,  to  have  and  to  hold  all  and  singular 
 “the  said  Lands  or  Estates  upon  trust,  and  to  the  intents 
 “and  purposes  hereinafter  mentioned;  that  is  to  say,  I 
 “will  and  appoint  that  the  Vice-Chancellor  of  the  Univer¬ 
 sity  of  Oxford  for  the  time  being  shall  take  and  receive 
 “all  the  rents,  issues,  and  profits  thereof,  and  (after  all 
 “  taxes,  reparations,  and  necessary  deductions  made)  that 
 “he  pay  all  the  remainder  to  the  endowment  of  eight 
 “Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  to  be  established  for  ever 
 “in  the  said  University,  and  to  be  performed  in  the 
 “  manner  following  : — 
 
 “I  direct  and  appoint,  that  upon  the  First  Tuesday 
 “in  Easter  Term,  a  Lecturer  may  be  yearly  chosen  by  the 
 “  Heads  of  Colleges  only,  and  by  no  others,  in  the  room 
 “adjoining  to  the  Printing-House,  between  the  hours  of 
 “ten  in  the  morning  and  two  in  the  afternoon,  to  preach 
 “  eight  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons,  the  year  following,  at 
 “  St.  Mary's  in  Oxford,  between  the  commencement  of  the 
 
yj  EXTRACT  FROM  CANON  BAMPTON’s  WILL. 
 
 <{  last  month  in  Lent  Term,  and  the  end  of  the  third  week 
 “  in  Act  Term. 
 
 “  Also  I  direct  and  appoint,  that  the  eight  Divinity 
 “  Lecture  Sermons  shall  be  preached  upon  either  of  the 
 «  following  subjects — to  confirm  and  establish  the  Chris- 
 a  tian  faith,  and  to  confute  all  heretics  and  schismatics — 
 “  upon  the  divine  authority  of  the  holy  Scriptures— upon 
 u  the  authority  of  the  writings  of  the  primitive  Fathers, 
 “  as  to  the  faith  and  practice  of  the  primitive  Church— 
 «  upon  the  Divinity  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ 
 
 “ _ upon  the  Divinity  of  the  Holy  Ghost— upon  the 
 
 “  Articles  of  the  Christian  Faith,  as  comprehended  in  the 
 Apostles’  and  Nicene  Creed. 
 
 “  Also  I  direct,  that  thirty  copies  of  the  eight  Divinity 
 ce  Lecture  Sermons  shall  be  always  printed,  within  two 
 “  months  after  they  are  preached ;  and  one  copy  shall  be 
 “  given  to  the  Chancellor  of  the  University,  and  one  copy 
 « to  the  Head  of  every  College,  and  one  copy  to  the 
 “  Mayor  of  the  city  of  Oxford,  and  one  copy  to  be  put 
 ff  into  the  Bodleian  Library ;  and  the  expense  of  printing 
 “  them  shall  be  paid  out  of  the  revenue  of  the  Land  or 
 “  Estates  given  for  establishing  the  Divinity  Lecture  Ser- 
 mons  \  and  the  Preacher  shall  not  be  paid,  nor  be 
 “  entitled  to  the  revenue,  before  they  are  printed. 
 
 “  Also  I  direct  and  appoint,  that  no  person  shall  be 
 “  qualified  to  preach  the  Divinity  Lecture  Sermons  unless 
 “  he  hath  taken  the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  at  least,  in 
 “  one  of  the  two  Universities  of  Oxford  or  Cambridge  ; 
 “  and  that  the  same  person  shall  never  preach  the  Divinity 
 i<  Lecture  Sermons  twice.” 
 
PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 
 
 In  answering  the  demand  for  a  Second  Edition  of  my 
 Bampton  Lectures,  I  have  only  to  express  my  thanks  to 
 my  numerous  critics  for  the  favourable  opinions  they  have 
 expressed  upon  them,  and  my  own  gratification  at  the 
 manner  in  which  the  great  principles  which  underlie  them 
 have  been  accepted  by  many  competent  judges,  as  em¬ 
 bodying  the  correct  mode  of  stating  the  Christian  argu¬ 
 ment.  Their  wide  acceptance  by  very  divergent  Schools 
 of  thought  seems  to  me  to  prove  that  they  had  been  long 
 commending  themselves  to  the  minds  of  thoughtful  men 
 as  constituting  in  the  present  aspects  of  thought  the 
 foundation  on  which  the  claims  of  Christianity  to  be 
 accepted  as  a  divine  Revelation  must  be  based,  and  as 
 the  only  mode  of  commending  it  to  the  acceptance  of 
 unbelievers. 
 
 What  I  have  really  effected  in  these  Lectures  is  to 
 give  expression  to  these  thoughts,  and  to  arrange  them 
 in  a  systematic  form.  Nothing  has  more  strongly  im¬ 
 pressed  upon  my  own  mind  the  necessity — nay,  the  duty, 
 of  placing  the  moral  evidences  of  Christianity  in  the  front 
 of  the  argument,  and  of  assigning  a  subordinate  place  to 
 those  events  which  are  commonly  designated  f<  miracles,” 
 than  the  enormous  difficulties  which  that  form  of  the 
 argument  which  relies  almost  exclusively  on  the  attesta- 
 
Vlll 
 
 PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 
 
 tion  of  miracles  places  in  the  way  of  an  inquiring  Hindu 
 theist,  and  the  all  but  illimitable  investigation  into  which 
 it  compels  him  to  enter  before  he  can  be  expected  to 
 accept  Christianity  as  a  divine  revelation. 
 
 The  alterations  introduced  into  the  present  edition  are 
 exclusively  verbal.  I  am  not  aware  that  any  one  of  my 
 chief  positions  has  been  called  in  question  by  any  writer 
 of  repute  (with  one  exception,  for  which  the  reader  is 
 referred  to  the  note  at  p.  448  of  the  present  Edition),  nor 
 have  I  myself  any  important  point  either  to  retract  or 
 to  qualify.  Some  minor  points  may  be  open  to  exception 
 according  as  men’s  minds  are  variously  constituted.  This 
 must  be  the  case  as  long  as  the  human  mind  is  what  it 
 is — Tut  on  the  great  principle  of  the  argument  I  am  at 
 one  with  my  numerous  critics. 
 
 To  the  remarks  in  the  Seventh  Lecture,  and  in  its  Second 
 Supplement,  in  which  I  discuss  certain  positions  taken  by 
 Dr.  Carpenter  in  his  “  Mental  Physiology ,”  and  in  his 
 article  in  the  Contemporary  Review  for  January,  1876,  I 
 must  ask  the  reader’s  brief  attention.  Some  points  in  them 
 have  led  to  a  correspondence  between  us,  and  I  have  been 
 requested  by  him  to  state  in  this  Preface  that  the  Resur¬ 
 rection  of  Our  Lord  was  not  intended  by  him  to  be  referred 
 to  in  the  article  in  question.  In  obedience  to  this  request. 
 I  cannot  do  better  than  quote  his  own  words  in  one  of  his 
 letters  to  me  on  the  subject : — “  I  shall  be  glad  if  you 
 will  state  in  your  new  preface  that  I  regard  the  historical 
 evidence  of  that  event  as  standing  on  a  far  wider  basis 
 than  the  historical  evidence  of  any  single  miracle  of  the  New 
 Testament.”  Again : — “  I  regard  the  historical  evidence  of 
 the  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord  as  of  quite  a  different  jharacter 
 from  that  of  ( e .  g.)  the  raising  of  Lazarus  or  of  the  widow’s 
 son  at  Nain.  Looking  simply  at  the  narratives  in  the  Gospels, 
 and  comparing  them  with  the  narratives  of  similar  miracles 
 
i 
 
 V 
 
 PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION.  ix 
 
 in  the  writings  of  the  early  Fathers,  I  see  no  more  ground 
 for  trusting  the  former  as  historically  true,  than  I  do  for 
 accepting  the  latter.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  looking  at 
 the  unquestionable  fact — for  such  it  appears  to  me — that 
 the  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord  was  the  foundation  of  the 
 preaching  of  Paul  and  (so  far  as  we  know)  of  the  other 
 Apostles,  and  was  universally  accepted  by  the  early  Church 
 as  the  cardinal  doctrine  of  Christianity  {“  if  Christ  be  not 
 risen,  then  is  our  faith  vain")  the  Gospel  narratives  derive 
 from  that  fact  a  support  that  is  given  to  none  other  of  the 
 miracles  either  of  Christ  or  His  follow ers."  And  again  : — 
 <e  I  regard  the  Life  and  Teachings  of  Christ  as  the  highest 
 moral  Revelation  of  the  Divine  Mind  that  we  possess, — 
 Nature  being  the  highest  Intellectual  Revelation." 
 
 I  feel  great  pleasure  in  inserting  these  extracts  as  defining 
 Dr.  Carpenter's  views  with  respect  to  Christianity ;  especially 
 as  they  seem  to  afford  a  very  strong  vindication  of  the  first 
 great  position  maintained  in  these  Lectures,  viz.,  that  the 
 moral  evidences  must  be  placed  in  the  front  of  the  Christian 
 argument ;  as  well  as  of  my  second  position,  viz.,  the  impor¬ 
 tance  of  the  Pauliue  Epistles  as  forming  the  very  sheet-anchor 
 of  our  historical  evidence.  I  by  no  means  wish  to  affirm  that 
 the  proof  of  the  fact  of  Our  Lord's  Resurrection  necessarily 
 establishes  the  truth  of  any  other  of  the  miracles  recorded 
 in  the  Gospels ;  but  it  certainly  removes  all  the  a  priori 
 difficulties  with  which  they  are  attended;  and  taken  in 
 conjunction  with  the  moral  evidence  adduced  in  the  second, 
 third,  and  fourth  Lectures,  renders  it  far  more  probable 
 that  such  a  person  as  Jesus  Christ  performed  miracles  than 
 that  he  did  not;  and  enables  us  to  accept  those  recorded 
 in  the  Gospels  on  evidence  similar  to  that  on  which  we 
 accept  the  facts  of  ordinary  history. 
 
 In  discussing  the  position  with  regard  to  miracles  taken 
 by  Dr.  Carpenter  in  the  Contemporary  Review ,  I  distinctly 
 
X 
 
 PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 
 
 stated  that  I  was  ignorant  as  to  what  were  his  private  views 
 about  the  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord.  There  is  nothing  in 
 his  article  which  implies  that  he  did  not  regard  it  as 
 included  among  “  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament.  I  was 
 simply  concerned  with  the  effect  which  the  reasonings  of  so 
 eminent  a  man  of  science  were  likely  to  produce  on  the 
 public  mind,  when  published  in  a  popular  periodical ;  and 
 I  hold  strongly  to  the  opinion  that  ninety  nine  out  of  every 
 hundred  of  those  who  read  it  would  conclude  that  the 
 Resurrection  of  Our  Lord  was  included  by  him  among 
 those  miracles.  It  affords  me  therefore  the  greatest 
 pleasure  to  be  able  to  affirm  on  his  own  authority  that 
 such  was  not  his  intention.  If  in  my  endeavour  to  point 
 out  the  inaccuracy  of  his  reasoning  I  have  ranked  him 
 among  the  unbelievers  in  the  truth  of  the  Resurrection, 
 it  was  solely  owing  to  the  fact  that  I  had  to  deal  with 
 his  arguments  as  representative  of  those  used  by  many 
 who  disbelieve  in  Christianity  as  a  Divine  Revelation ;  and 
 I  had  no  means  before  me  of  ascertaining  what  were  his 
 private  opinions  on  the  subject.  In  fact  I  had  only  to  do 
 with  his  published  writings.  The  brevity  of  space  to  which 
 I  was  limited  rendered  it  necessary  that  I  should  deal 
 exclusively  with  facts  and  arguments,  and  with  persons 
 only  as  representing  them. 
 
 The  same  remark  is  true  with  regard  to  the  discussion 
 of  the  subjects  of  “Prepossession,”  “Fixed  Idea,”  and 
 “  Expectancy  ”  in  the  Seventh  Lecture,  where  I  had  like¬ 
 wise  not  the  smallest  intention  of  implying  that  Dr.  Car¬ 
 penter  intended  the  principles  which  he  has  laid  down  on 
 these  subjects  to  be  applied  in  a  manner  adverse  to  Chris¬ 
 tianity.  On  the  contrary,  I  have  expressed  approbation  of 
 the  use  which  he  has  frequently  made  of  them  in  his  work 
 on  “  Mental  Physiology  ”  for  the  purpose  of  exposing  a 
 number  of  delusions,  among  which  is  modern  spiritualism. 
 
PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION.  XI 
 
 But  I  foresaw  that  unbelievers  were  certain  to  make  a  very 
 dangerous  use  of  those  principles  unless  they  were  carefully 
 guarded ;  and  this  was  my  sole  reason  for  discussing  them. 
 The  opinion  which  I  then  formed  has  since  turned  out  only 
 too  true,  for  the  author  of  “  Supernatural  Religion,”  in  his 
 third  volume,  which  appeared  shortly  after  the  publication 
 of  my  own  Lectures,  has  used  the  principles  in  question 
 for  the  purpose  of  throwing  discredit  on  the  truth  of  the 
 Resurrection  of  -Our  Lord.  I  therefore  laboured  to  show 
 that  these  three  principles,  instead  of  helping  to  account 
 for  the  belief  in  it  on  the  supposition  that  the  primitive 
 followers  of  Jesus  mistook  the  creations  of  their  own  dis¬ 
 ordered  imaginations  for  realities,  and  in  consequence  fancied 
 that  certain  visionary  appearances  were  an  actual  Resurrec¬ 
 tion,  would  have  a  contrary  effect. 
 
 In  conclusion,  I  have  only  to  observe  that  nothing  is 
 further  from  my  wishes  than  to  narrow  up  the  conception 
 of  a  Christian  to  one  who  holds  my  own  exclusive  views. 
 On  the  contrary,  I  am  fully  prepared  to  own  as  such  every 
 one  who  accepts  St.  PauPs  very  simple  definition  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity.  “  If  thou  shalt  confess  with  thy  mouth  the  Lord 
 Jesus  ( i.e .  that  He  is  the  Messiah)  and  shalt  Relieve  in 
 thine  heart  that  God  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead,  thou 
 shalt  be  saved.  For  with  the  heart  man  believeth  unto 
 righteousness,  and  with  the  mouth  confession  is  made  unto 
 salvation.” 
 
 London,  June ,  1879. 
 
. 
 
 ' 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 LECTURE  I. 
 
 THE  ORDER  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT;  ITS  NATURE 
 
 AND  EXTENT. 
 
 Introduction,  1.  The  Christian  revelation  progressive  according  to  the 
 analogy  of  the  divine  working  in  nature,  3.  Necessity  of  accommodating  our 
 evidential  position  to  our  increasing  light,  6.  The  question — What  constitutes 
 the  inner  life  of  Christianity,  as  distinct  from  the  vehicle  through  which  it  has 
 been  communicated,  considered,  7.  The  essence  of  the  Christian  revelation 
 consists  not  in  a  body  of  formulated  dogmatic  truth,  but  in  a  peisonal  history, 
 12.  The  bearing  of  this  on  the  limits  of  the  Christian  argument,  14.  The 
 relation  in  which  theology  stands  to  revelation,  16.  Various  points  which  are 
 eagerly  discussed  among  theologians  extraneous  to  the  Christian  argument,  20. 
 The  moral  miracles  of  Christianity  constitute  the  most  important  attestation  to 
 its  divine  character,  25.  Facts  capable  of  verification  ought  to  be  placed  in  the 
 forefront  of  the  Christian  argument,  29.  Reasons  for  assigning  a  primary 
 place  to  the  argument  from  the  moral  aspects  of  Christianity,  and  a  secondary 
 one  to  that  from  miracles,  30. 
 
 Supplement  I. 
 
 THE  EVIDENCE  AFFORDED  BY  THE  WRITINGS  OF  THE  NEW 
 TESTAMENT  THAT  THE  ESSENCE  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  REVELA¬ 
 TION  CONSISTS  IN  THE  OBJECTIVE  FACT  OF  THE  INCARNATION. 
 
 The  affirmations  of  St.  John  in  his  first  epistle,  39.  Those  in  his  Gospel,  41. 
 Our  Lord’s  direct  assertions  on  the  same  subject,  42.  Further  proof  from  the 
 numerous  incidental  references  made  to  it  by  St.  Paul,  44.  St.  Paul  s  direct 
 assertions  on  the  same  subject,  45.  Christianity  not  an  afterthought  for  the 
 purpose  of  repairing  the  failure  of  God’s  creative  plan,  47.  The  effects  of  the 
 incarnation  not  limited  to  the  human  race,  49.  The  views  propounded  on  this 
 subject  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  in  the  Apocalypse,  50.  The 
 testimony  of  the  epistle  of  St.  Peter,  and  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  51. 
 The  views  of  the  writers  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  in  strict  harmony  with  those 
 of  the  other  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  53. 
 
XIV 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Supplement  II. 
 
 THE  CONCEPTION  OP  A  MIRACLE  INVOLVES  NEITHER  A  SUSPEN¬ 
 SION  OP  THE  FORCES  NOR  A  VIOLATION  OF  THE  LAWS  OF 
 NATURE. 
 
 The  confusion  introduced  into  the  controversy  about  miracles  by  the  use  of 
 ambiguous  terms,  54.  The  distinction  between  the  laws  and  the  forces  of  nature, 
 57.  The  modus  operandi  of  God  in  the  performance  of  a  miracle  ought  not  to 
 form  a  portion  of  its  definition,  59.  Importance  of  the  question,  whether 
 under  the  term  “nature,”  man  and  his  free  agency  are  meant  to  be  included,  61. 
 Man  capable  of  modifying  the  order  of  nature  by  imparting  a  new  direction  to 
 its  forces,  63.  The  laws  of  nature  not  violated,  nor  its  forces  suspended  by  the 
 performance  of  a  miracle,  65.  The  distinction  between  God’s  modus  operandi 
 in  His  ordinary  providence  and  in  performing  miracles,  unknown  in  the 
 Old  Testament,  68.  The  New  Testament  does  not  represent  the  forces  of 
 nature  as  suspended  during  the  performance  of  miracles,  69.  The  Theism  of 
 the  Bible  represents  God  not  as  standing  external  to  the  Universe,  but  as 
 immanent  in  its  forces,  71. 
 
 LECTURE  II. 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OF  JESUS  CHRIST  VERIFIABLE  IN  THE 
 HISTORY  OF  THE  PAST  AND  THE  FACTS  OF  THE  PRESENT. 
 
 The  principles  on  which  the  argument  is  based,  73.  The  self-evidencing 
 character  of  Our  Lord’s  person  the  highest  evidence  of  his  divine  mission.  75. 
 His  own  direct  affirmations  on  this  subject  as  reported  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  76. 
 Similar  principles  underlie  his  teaching  in  the  Synoptics,  80.  Many  of  his 
 miracles  not  performed  for  purposes  directly  evidential,  81.  The  views 
 propounded  in  the  epistles  of  St.  John  and  St.  Paul  as  to  the  self-evidencing 
 character  of  Our  Lord’s  divine  person,  82.  The  evidential  value  assigned  to 
 miracles  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  in  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  83. 
 Certain  classes  of  miracles  wrought  rather  for  providential  than  for  evidential 
 purposes,  85.  The  supernatural  gifts,  how  far  evidential,  86.  General  summary 
 of  results,  88.  The  superhuman  action  of  Jesus  Christ  in  history  a  fact 
 capable  of  verification,  89.  The  argument  concisely  stated,  90.  Christianity 
 based  on  a  personal  history— the  unique  character  of  this  fact,  92.  The  mighty 
 influence  which  this  history  has  exerted  on  mankind,  93.  The  source  of  this 
 influence,  95.  The  testimony  of  history  to  the  solitary  grandeur  of  Jesus 
 Christ— Mr.  Lecky’s  admissions,  96.  Jesus  Christ  the  solitary  character  in 
 history  who  for  eighteen  centuries  has  inspired  the  hearts  of  men  with  an 
 impassioned  love,  98.  He  is  the  one  Catholic  man  capable  of  acting  on  every 
 condition  of  human  nature.  99.  He  alone  is  the  embodiment  of  holiness  in 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XV 
 
 his  human  life,  and  its  perfect  example,  101.  He  alone  of  men  is  capable  of 
 exerting  a  moral  and  spiritual  power  for  the  regeneration  of  mankind,  102.  His 
 energetic  action  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  worlds  testified  to  by  the  history  of 
 the  past,  and  the  facts  of  the  present,  104  The  Church  amidst  its  corruptions 
 has  found  in  the  person  of  its  Founder  an  ever-enduring  principle  of  regenera¬ 
 tion,  106.  The  alternative  propounded  by  unbelief  to  the  acceptance  of 
 Christianity,  103. 
 
 Supplement  I. 
 
 THE  EVIDENTIAL  VALUE  OF  MIRACLES  AS  AFFECTED  BY  ANSWERS 
 
 TO  PRAYER. 
 
 The  analogy  between  special  providences  and  miracles,  109.  The  difficulty 
 of  discriminating  between  miracles  and  answers  to  special  prayers,  which 
 involve  modifications  in  the  action  of  the  forces  of  the  material  universe,  110. 
 A  series  of  such  answers  in  favour  of  a  particular  person  would  constitute  a 
 crj/xelov,  111.  The  case  of  the  Bristol  Orphan  Asylum,  112.  How  far  such 
 answers  to  prayer  affect  the  value  of  miracles  as  the  sole  attestations  of  a 
 divine  Revelation,  115. 
 
 Supplement  II. 
 
 MIRACLES  WROUGHT  IN  THE  PHYSICAL  UNIVERSE  NOT  THE 
 EXCLUSIVE  ATTESTATION  OF  OUR  LORD^S  DIVINE  MISSION. 
 
 Summary  of  the  views  propounded  in  the  Lecture  on  this  subject,  116.  The 
 opposite  view  which  affirms  that  certain  doctrinal  statements  contained  in 
 the  New  Testament  can  only  be  accepted  as  true,  on  the  evidence  of  physical 
 miracles,  118.  The  positions  of  Professor  Mozley  considered,  119.  Our  Lord’s 
 affirmations  respecting  himself  to  be  accepted  on  the  ground  of  his  perfect 
 truthfulness,  and  the  adequacy  of  his  knowledge,  122.  While  such  assertions 
 would  have  been  incredible  on  the  simple  affirmation  of  an  ordinary  man,  Our 
 Lord  was  not  an  ordinary  man,  but  his  human  life  contained  throughout  a 
 manifestation  of  the  divine,  124.  Our  Lord’s  appeal  to  his  sinlessness  as  an 
 evidence  of  his  veracity,  125.  The  change  in  the  evidential  value  of  miracles 
 through  our  inability  to  witness  them,  and  the  consequent  difficulties  attending 
 their  proof,  126.  The  Mission  of  John  the  Baptist  affirmed  to  have  been  divine, 
 yet  destitute  of  a  miraculous  attestation,  127. 
 
 LECTURE  III. 
 
 THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OF  CHRISTIANITY  AND 
 THAT  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHERS  VIEWED  EVIDENTIALLY. 
 
 The  truth  of  Our  Lord’s  affirmation  that  he  is  the  Light  of  the  World,  and 
 the  Light  of  Life,  verified  by  eighteen  centuries  of  history,  and  verifiable 
 in  the  facts  of  the  present,  130-132.  The  continuity  of  the  moral  world— 
 its  changes  take  place  in  conformity  with  moral  laws,  133.  The  teaching 
 of  Christianity  involves  a  break  in  the  continuity  of  the  chain  of  moral 
 causes,  134.  Such  a  break  in  continuity  a  proof  of  the  presence  of  the 
 
XY1 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 superhuman,  136.  The  condition  of  thought  out  of  which  Christianity  must 
 have  been  evolved  if  it  owed  its  origin  only  to  the  ordinary  forces  energizing 
 in  man,  137.  Man’s  ability  to  discover  moral  truth  without  the  aid  of  revela¬ 
 tion,  instead  of  constituting  a  difficulty,  confirmatory  of  this  argument,  13S. 
 The  moral  teaching  of  Christianity,  141.  First  contrast  between  its  teaching 
 and  that  of  the  philosophers— its  earnestness,  method,  and  aim,  141.  Its  appeal 
 to  the  entire  moral  nature  of  man  contrasted  with  the  method  of  the  philo¬ 
 sophers,  143.  Second  contrast — its  freedom  from  all  attempts  at  political 
 legislation,  144.  Yet  Jesus  Christ  professed  to  be  the  founder  of  a  kingdom 
 contrasted  in  this  respect  with  all  previous  lines  of  thought,  144.  The  mode  in 
 which  Christianity  deals  with  great  social  questions,  147.  Third  conti  ast 
 —Jesus  Christ  the  founder  of  the  everlasting  religion  of  humanity,  148, 
 Fourth  contrast— the  all-comprehensiveness  and  self-determinative  character 
 of  the  Christian  law  of  duty,  and  the  basis  on  which  it  is  erected,  149-151. 
 Duty  measured  by  the  love  of  self,  151.  Duty  measured  by  love  to  Jesus 
 Christ,  152.  The  teaching  of  Christianity  incapable  of  evolution  out  of  the 
 atmosphere  of  Jewish  thought  by  the  forces  energizing  in  man,  154.  Fifth 
 contrast — the  importance  which  Christianity  assigns  to  the  milder  virtues 
 compared  with  the  political  and  heroical  ones,  1 54.  The  mild  and  heroic 
 virtues  combined  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  157.  Philosophy  wiong 
 in  its  preference  of  the  heroic  virtues,  and  Christianity  right  in  assigning  the 
 first  rank  to  the  milder  ones,  158.  Sixth  contrast— the  views  taken  by  Jesus 
 Christ  and  the  philosophers  of  their  respective  missions,  159.  Jesus  Christ  the 
 originator  of  all  attempts  to  ameliorate  the  condition  of  the  masses  of  mankind, 
 160.  Seventh  contrast- Christianity  the  creator  of  a  mighty  moral  and 
 spiritual  power,  161.  The  philosopher  deeply  conscious  of  his  inability  to 
 operate  on  the  masses  of  mankind,  162.  The  weakness  of  the  moral  forces  at 
 his  command  to  struggle  with  the  violence  of  passion,  163.  The  principle  of 
 habit,  the  only  moral  force  recognized  by  philosophy,  impotent  to  effect  the 
 regeneration  of  the  human  race,  or  the  individual,  165.  The  political  character 
 of°the  ancient,  and  several  modern  systems  of  Ethics,  167.  The  New  Testa¬ 
 ment  propounds  the  principle  of  faith  in  contradistinction  to  that  of  habit  as 
 capable  of  effecting  the  regeneration  of  mankind,  170.  The  mode  of  its  action 
 corresponds  to  the  necessities  of  man’s  moral  constitution,  172.  The  religious 
 principle  in  man  in  its  bearing  on  moral  action,  173.  The  results  of  the 
 contrast  of  the  teaching  of  Christianity  with  that  of  the  philosophers  viewed 
 evidentially,  174.  The  concessions  of  Mr.  Mill,  176. 
 
 LECTURE  IV. 
 
 THE  UNITY  OP  THE  CHARACTER  OP  CHRIST  A  PROOP  OP  ITS  HIS¬ 
 TORICAL  REALITY  ;  AND  THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OP  THE  ARGUMENT 
 FROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 The  principle  of  verification  recognized  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
 178.  While  the  evangelists  have  given  us  no  formal  delineation  of  the 
 character  of  Jesus  Christ,  its  presence  in  their  pages  is  a  patent  fact,  179.  It 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XVII 
 
 has  been  created  by  the  simple  juxta-position  of  the  materials  which  compose 
 the  Gospels,  180.  This  character  is  as  deeply  impressed  on  the  miraculous 
 narratives  of  the  Gospels  as  on  the  remaining  portions  of  their  contents,  181. 
 x  The  character  delineated  in  the  Gospels  is  an  essential  unity,  182.  Any  theory 
 which  attempts  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  miraculous  narratives  is  invalid, 
 unless  it  can  also  account  for  the  unity  of  the  character,  183.  The  mythic  and 
 legendary  theories  fail  to  account  for  it,  1S5.  The  four  Evangelists  present  us 
 with  four  portraitures  of  the  same  historical  reality  taken  from  different  points 
 of  view,  187.  The  argument  unaffected  by  the  question  whether  the  Gospels 
 were  composed  by  the  aid  of  written  documents,  or  out  of  traditional  remini¬ 
 scences,  188.  The  absurdity  of  the  supposition  that  a  number  of  mythologists, 
 acting  independently,  can  have  excogitated  a  number  of  legends  impressed  with 
 the  same  lofty  moral  idea,  1 89.  Statement  of  the  various  points  in  which  the 
 mythologists  must  have  concurred  in  their  delineations,  191.  Contrast  pre¬ 
 sented  by  the  delineations  in  the  apocryphal  Gospels,  194,  The  theory  of  ten¬ 
 dencies  equally  inconsistent  with  the  facts  and  phenomena  of  the  Gospels,  197. 
 The  meaning  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  when  they  affirm  that  the 
 prophetic  and  typical  delineations  of  the  Old  have  been  fulfilled  in  Jesus 
 Christ,  200.  iTha  logical  value  of  the  argument  from  prophecy  unaffected  by 
 questions  respecting  the  date  and  authorship  of  various  books  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
 ment,  206.  A  common  idea  underlies  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  such  as 
 can  be  found  in  no  other  set  of  writings  extending  over  an  equal  space  of  time, 
 .208.  The  nature  and  character  of  its  predictive  elements,  209.  Its  typical 
 | prophecies,  211.  Their  evidential  value  dependent  on  the  degree  in  which  they 
 j  converge  in  a  common  centre,  215.  Jesus  Christ  was  the  ideal  of  the  institu- 
 I  tions  of  the  Old  Testament,  216.  And  of  the  inspirations  which  underlie  its 
 I  entire  system,  218.  The  force  of  the  prophetic  argument,  219. 
 
 Supplement  I. 
 
 THE  IDENTITY  OF  THE  PORTRAITURE  OF  THE  JESUS  OF  THE 
 FOURTH  GOSPEL  WITH  THAT  OF  THE  JESUS  OF  THE  SYNOPTICS. 
 
 The  allegation  that  the  Jesus  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  differs  from  the  Jesus  of 
 the  Synoptics  considered,  220.  Points  in  which  the  two  delineations  form  an 
 essential  unity,  221.  The  Joliannine  discourses  the  counterpart  of  the  Synop¬ 
 tical  delineation,  223.  Points  in  which  the  two  delineations  exactly  coincide, 
 224.  A  perfectly  human  character  ascribed  to  Our  Lord  in  the  Fourth 
 Gospel,  226.  The  Johannine  and  the  Synoptical  delineations  of  the  Passion 
 compared,  227. 
 
 Supplement  II. 
 
 THE  MESSIANIC  ELEMENTS  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INADEQUATE 
 AS  A  MODEL  TO  IDEOLOGISTS  FOR  THE  DELINEATION  OF  THE 
 CHRIST  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 
 
 The  materials  which  were  open  to  mythologists  to  aid  them  in  the  delineation 
 of  an  ideal  Christ,  234.  The  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists  not  manufactured  out  of 
 
xvm 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 the  Messianic  delineations  of  the  book  of  Enoch,  235.  Nor  of  those  of  Esdras, 
 239.  Nor  of  Daniel,  240.  Nor  of  that  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  242.  Nor 
 from  the  other  Messianic  delineations  in  Isaiah,  245.  Nor  from  the  other 
 Messianic  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament,  246.  Nor  from  its  typical 
 character,  247. 
 
 LECTURE  V, 
 
 THE  EVIDENCE  AFFORDED  BY  THE  WRITINGS  OF  THE  FATHERS 
 WHO  FLOURISHED  BETWEEN  A.D.  90  AND  A.D.  180,  THAT  THE 
 CHURCH  WAS  IN  POSSESSION  OF  AN  ACCOUNT  OF  THE  ACTIONS 
 AND  TEACHING  OF  OUR  LORD  ANALOGOUS  TO  THAT  WHICH  IS 
 CONTAINED  IN  OUR  PRESENT  GOSPELS. 
 
 Mr.  Mill’s  positions  respecting  the  evidence  necessary  to  establish  the  truth 
 of  miracles,  as  set  forth  in  his  Logic  and  his  posthumous  Essays,  accepted  as 
 the  foundation  of  the  present  argument,  249.  Miracles  require  a  stronger 
 attestation  than  ordinary  facts,  252.  The  d  priori  difficulties  removed  by  the 
 considerations  adduced  in  the  preceding  Lectures,  254.  Paley’s  work  the  model 
 of  modern  evidential  treatises  ;  its  defects,  256.  While  martyr  testimony  is  a 
 perfect  guarantee  against  fraud,  it  is  by  no  means  equally  efficacious  as  a 
 safeguard  against  delusion,  257.  Paley’s  proof  that  we  are  in  possession  of  the 
 testimony  of  the  original  witnesses  imperfect  as  against  the  positions  taken 
 by  modern  unbelief,  261.  His  position,  that  miracles  constitute  the  only 
 adequate  evidence  of  a  revelation,  renders  it  necessary  not  only  to  prove  the 
 truth  of  the  Christian  miracles  but  the  falsehood  of  all  others,  262.  The 
 difficulties  with  which  this  is  attended,  263.  The  necessity  which  the  form  of 
 his  argument  imposes  on  him  of  proving  by  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  that 
 the  Gospels  were  the  work  of  the  persons  'whose  names  they  bear ;  and  the 
 imperfection  of  his  method,  2G6.  State  of  the  patristic  argument,  267.  The 
 Gospels  fully  recognized  by  the  great  Church  writers  who  flourished  at  the 
 conclusion  of  the  second  century,  268.  Marcion’s  Gospel  a  mutilated  edition 
 of  our  present  Luke,  269.  The  value  of  the  testimony  of  Papias,  270.  The 
 Clementine  homilies  render  it  nearly  certain  that  their  author  used  one  of  our 
 present  Gospels,  272.  While  the  writings  of  Justin  Martyr  render  it  highly 
 probable  that  he  used  one  or  more  of  our  Gospels,  the  evidence  comes  short  of 
 a  moral  demonstration,  273.  The  same  is  true  of  the  earlier  extra-canonical 
 writings,  275.  The  importance  of  proving  that  the  Fathers  actually  quoted 
 our  Gospels  has  been  over-estimated  by  both  sides  in  this  controversy,  277. 
 While  the  writings  of  Justin  only  afford  a  high  probability  that  his  “  Memoirs 
 of  the  Apostles”  contained  one  or  more  of  our  Gospels,  they  afford  a  moral 
 demonstration  that  they  contained  an  account  of  the  actions  and  teaching  of 
 Our  Lord  which  for  all  the  purposes  of  history  was  identical  with  them,  278. 
 The  larger  the  number  of  his  authorities,  the  more  complete  is  the  guarantee 
 of  the  truth  of  the  facts,  280.  The  testimony  of  the  earlier  Fathers  affords  a 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XIX 
 
 moral  demonstration  that  the  account  current  in  the  Church  was  substantially 
 the  same  as  that  contained  in  our  Gospels,  281.  The  accounts  of  Our  Lord’s 
 ministry  originally  handed  down  by  the  Church  in  an  oral  form,  of  which 
 the  Synoptics  are  three  different  versions,  282.  No  legendary  matter,  invented 
 between  a.d.  80  and  a.d.  180,  has  been  incorporated  into  the  Gospels,  283.  The 
 existence  of  the  Church  as  a  corporate  society  a  guarantee  of  the  accurate 
 transmission  of  the  events  of  the  Founder’s  life  such  as  is  possessed  by  no 
 other,  284.  Such  transmission  was  a  necessary  condition  of  its  existence,  286. 
 The  impossibility  of  imposing  a  mass  of  fiction  on  the  Church  in  place  of 
 the  real  events  during  the  interval  in  question,  287. 
 
 LECTURE  VI. 
 
 THE  NATURE  AND  VALUE  OF  THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES  AS  HIS¬ 
 TORICAL  DOCUMENTS  ;  AND  THE  EVIDENCE  THEY  AFFORD  THAT 
 THE  ACCOUNT  OF  OUR  LORD^S  ACTIONS  AND  TEACHING  WHICH 
 WAS  ACCEPTED  BY  THE  CHURCH  BETWEEN  A.D.  30  AND  A.D.  90 
 WAS  IN  ITS  MAIN  OUTLINES  SIMILAR  TO  THAT  IN  OUR 
 GOSPELS. 
 
 The  sixty  years  which  follow  the  Crucifixion  lie  completely  within  that 
 period  during  which  traditionary  reminiscences  possess  the  utmost  freshness, 
 2S9.  During  this  interval  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  the  real  facts  of 
 the  ministry  of  Our  Lord  to  he  superseded  by  myths  and  legends,  292.  The 
 entire  period  is  covered  by  the  testimony  of  St.  Paul’s  epistles,  293.  The 
 genuineness  of  the  four  great  epistles  admitted  by  a  large  majority,  and  that 
 of  four  more  by  a  considerable  number  of  learned  unbelievers,  294.  The 
 historical  value  of  the  other  writings  in  the  New  Testament,  295.  The  shortness 
 of  the  interval  between  the  date  of  these  letters  and  the  events  of  Our  Lord’s 
 ministry,  297.  The  value  of  original  letters  as  affording  materials  for  history : 
 and  the  special  value  of  those  of  St.  Paul,  298.  They  afford  incontestable 
 proof  of  his  sincerity,  and  of  the  calmness  of  his  judgment,  299.  The  value 
 of  incidental  allusions  as  affording  testimony  to  historic  facts,  302.  The 
 existence  in  the  Churches  to  which  these  epistles  are  addressed,  of  parties 
 strongly  antagonistic  to  St.  Paul,  renders  their  incidental  allusions  invaluable 
 as  testimony  to  facts,  303.  These  letters  prove  that  St.  Paul  was  firmly 
 persuaded  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of  working  miracles  during  the  whole 
 course  of  his  ministry,  305.  This  fact  fatal  to  the  legendary  theory,  308.  They 
 likewise  prove  that  St.  Paul  and  his  opponents  were  persuaded  that  a  number 
 of  supernatural  endowments  habitually  manifested  themselves  in  the  Church 
 from  its  foundation,  309.  They  also  prove  the  presence  in  Christianity  of  a 
 mighty  regenerating  power,  313.  The  direct  allusions  to  events  in  Our 
 Lord’s  ministry — their  nature  and  value,  314.  The  indirect  references  to  it 
 very  numerous, — their  character,  and  historical  value,  317.  Iney  picsupposo 
 
XX 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 the  existence  of  a  well-known  account  of  the  chief  events  of  Our  Lord’s 
 ministry  analogous  to  that  contained  in  the  Gospels,  320.  And  prove  that 
 it  was  the  same  as  that  which  was  handed  down  by  the  primitive  followers 
 of  Jesus,  321.  And  that  the  Church  was  reconstructed  on  the  basis  of 
 the  Resurrection  immediately  after  the  Crucifixion,  322.  The  strength  of 
 the  belief  in  the  Resurrection  in  the  Corinthian  Church  proved  by  St.  Paul’s 
 peculiar  mode  of  reasoning,  326.  Summary  of  results,  328.  The  facts  of  the 
 epistles  leave  only  two  alternatives — that  the  Resurrection  was  an  objective  fact, 
 or  that  the  belief  originated  in  some  form  of  mental  hallucination,  329. 
 
 Supplement. 
 
 THE  INCIDENTAL  ALLUSIONS  IN  ST.  PAULAS  EPISTLES  TO  THE 
 ACTIONS  AND  TEACHING  OP  OUR  LORD. 
 
 The  proof  afforded  by  the  epistles  that  the  Christ  who  was  accepted 
 alike  by  St.  Paul  and  his  opponents  was  a  superhuman  Christ,  and  a 
 worker  of  miracles  during  his  earthly  ministry,  330.  The  fact  that  the 
 Christology  of  the  epistles  is  not  formulated  proves  that  in  its  chief  outlines 
 it  was  accepted  by  the  various  parties  in  the  Church,  including  St.  Paul’s 
 opponents,  334.  The  incidental  allusions  to  this  Christology,  335.  The 
 Christology  of  St.  Paul’s  opponents  represents  that  of  the  primitive  followers 
 of  Jesus,  339.  The  Gospel  which  w^as  “another  Gospel,”  and  yet  not  another, 
 340.  Additional  proof  furnished  by  the  epistle  to  the  Philippians,  341.  The 
 evidence  furnished  by  the  Apocalypse,  342.  Proof  furnished  by  the  epistles  that 
 the  account  which  the  Church  possessed  of  the  actions  and  teaching  of  Our 
 Lord  must  have  been  one  of  considerable  fulness,  and  analogous  to  that  con¬ 
 tained  in  the  Gospels,  344.  By  the  indirect  allusions,  347.  By  the  exhortations 
 to  follow  Christ  as  an  example,  349.  The  facts  of  Our  Lord’s  ministry  formed 
 an  habitual  subject  of  instruction  in  the  Apostolic  Churches,  351.  And 
 especially  to  converted  heathen,  353.  Further  incidental  allusions,  354.  The 
 assumption  of  the  truth  of  the  Resurrection  underlies  every  portion  of  the 
 epistles,  356. 
 
 LECTURE  VII. 
 
 THE  THEORY  OP  VISIONS  CONSIDERED  AND  REPUTED. 
 
 The  historical  facts  to  be  accounted  for  by  those  who  deny  the  reality  of  the 
 Resurrection,  358.  The  theory  of  visions,  361.  The  state  of  mind  of  the 
 disciples  on  the  days  which  followed  the  Crucifixion,  the  starting-point  of  our 
 inquiry,  362.  Assumptions  necessary  to  impart  plausibility  to  this  theory,  364. 
 Not  only  is  it  necessary  to  account  for  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection,  but  for 
 the  reconstruction  of  the  Church  on  the  basis  of  this  belief,  366.  Inadequacy 
 of  the  three  principles  of  fixed  idea,  prepossession,  and  expectancy,  to  effect  this 
 result,  367.  The  theory  that  Mary  Magdalene  mistook  a  vision  of  the  risen 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XXI 
 
 Jesus  for  an  external  reality,  considered  and  refuted,  368.  The  fact  to  be 
 accounted  for  is  not  only  that  single  persons  mistook  such  visions  for  realities, 
 but  that  the  disciples  did  so  in  bodies,  370.  The  difficulties  attending  this 
 supposition,  372.  The  existence  of  the  Church  as  a  visible  institution  an 
 important  testimony  to  the  reality  of  the  Resurrection,  374.  The  objection 
 that  Mahometanism  is  a  great  institution  founded  on  a  visionary  delusion 
 considered,  375.  Further  difficulties  with  which  this  theory  is  encumbered, 
 377.  Objections  from  the  standpoint  of  Dr.  Carpenter’s  explanations  of  the 
 phenomena  of  spiritualism,  and  other  kindred  delusions,  considered,  379. 
 Answer  to  these  objections,  383.  The  state  of  mind  of  the  followers  of  Jesus 
 during  the  days  which  followed  his  Crucifixion  the  opposite  of  that  which 
 would  have  caused  them  to  see  visions  of  him  risen  from  the  dead,  and  to 
 mistake  them  for  realities,  387.  Points  in  which  the  evidence  of  the  Resur¬ 
 rection  is  contrasted  with  that  of  all  visionary  appearances  which  have  been 
 mistaken  for  realities,  389.  Solution  of  the  difficulty  that  Our  Lord  was  not 
 easily  recognized  by  his  disciples  after  his  resurrection,  392.  The  theory  that 
 Our  Lord  did  not  die  from  the  effects  of  crucifixion,  but  slowly  recovered,  and 
 that  his  recovery  was  mistaken  for  a  resurrection,  393.  This  theory  unknowr 
 to  the  Jewish  and  Pagan  opponents  of  Christianity,  394.  Its  inherent 
 difficulties,  395.  Presupposes  that  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection  owed 
 its  origin  to  a  deliberately  concocted  fraud,  397.  Results  of  the  foregoing 
 reasonings,  399. 
 
 Supplement  I. 
 
 THE  VALUE  OP  ST.  PAULAS  TESTIMONY  TO  THE  PACT  OP  THE 
 
 RESURRECTION. 
 
 The  circumstances  attending  the  appearance  of  Our  Lord  to  St.  Paul 
 different  from  those  of  his  appearances  to  the  other  Apostles,  400.  The 
 theories  propounded  by  unbelievers  inconsistent  with  the  unquestionable  facts 
 of  history,  403.  The  objection  that  St.  Paul  was  incapable  of  distinguishing 
 between  visions  and  objective  realities  considered,  407. 
 
 Supplement  II. 
 
 DR.  CARPENTER’S  OBJECTIONS  TO  THE  EVIDENCE  OP  THE 
 CHRISTIAN  MIRACLES  CONSIDERED. 
 
 Dr.  Carpenter’s  objections  stated,  410.  The  fallacy  of  urging  objections 
 against  the  miracles  in  the  Bible  in  a  mass  as  though  they  were  all  equal  in 
 point  of  attestation  and  evidential  value,  414.  The  question  whether  some 
 of  the  miracles  in  the  New  Testament  may  not  have  had  a  foundation  in 
 certain  natural  agencies,  as  for  example,  the  action  of  the  mind  on  the  body, 
 417.  The  influence  which  powerful  faith  is  capable  of  exerting  on  our  bodily 
 frames,  420.  The  question  of  Possession,  422.  The  existence  of  numerous 
 narratives  of  false  miracles  does  not  justify  us  in  rejecting  all  miracles, 
 irrespectively  of  the  evidence  on  which  they  rest,  423. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 xxii 
 
 LECTURE  VIII. 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OE  INSPIRATION — THEIR  RELATION  TO 
 
 SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT. 
 
 The  important  bearing  of  existing  theories  of  inspiration  in  the  controversy 
 between  Christianity  and  scientific  unbelief,  428.  The  functional  character  of 
 inspiration  analogous  to  the  mode  of  the  divine  action  in  the  constitution  of 
 onr  ordinary  faculties,  432.  The  real  points  of  danger  in  the  controversy,  433. 
 The  positions  laid  down  by  Butler  respecting  the  nature  of  inspiration  adequate 
 to  meet  the  chief  difficulties,  437.  Nine  propositions  which  he  has  enunciated 
 on  this  subject,  438.  Stated  generally,  they  affirm  the  invalidity  of  all  purely 
 a  priori  theories  as  to  what  must  be  the  extent  of  the  supernatural  assistance 
 afforded  to  those  through  whom  a  revelation  is  communicated,  440.  The 
 mechanical  and  verbal  theories,  442.  The  dynamical  theory,  443.  “  Plenary” 
 inspiration,  444.  The  theory  of  superintendence,  445.  The  theory  of  special 
 inspiration  vouchsafed  to  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  as  distinct  from 
 their  ordinary  inspiration,  446.  All  these  theories  invalidated  by  their 
 cl  priori  character,  447.  The  results  to  which  they  inevitably  lead  when 
 applied  to  the  facts  of  the  universe  :  Mr.  Mill’s  reasoning  on  this  subject,  449. 
 Principles  which  are  invalid  when  applied  to  the  facts  of  the  universe,  and 
 lead  to  false  conclusions  as  to  the  mode  in  which  God  must  have  acted  in  His 
 creative  work,  must  produce  similar  results  when  applied  to  the  phenomena  of 
 revelation,  449.  A  careful  induction  of  the  facts  and  phenomena  of  the  New 
 Testament  the  only  safe  guide  in  constructing  a  theory  of  inspiration,  451. 
 No  definite  theory  as  to  the  nature  or  extent  of  inspiration  laid  down  in  the 
 Bible  452.  Our  Lord’s  promises  of  supernatural  assistance  made  to  the 
 Apostles— their  extent,  454.  The  assertions  made  on  this  subject  by  the 
 sacred  writers  in  the  Epistles,  456.  The  nature  of  the  inspiration  afforded  by 
 the  supernatural  gifts  of  the  Spirit,  458.  Application  of  Butler’s  principles  to 
 the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  460.  The  alleged  antiquity  of  man— its  bearing 
 on  this  question,  466.  The  gradual  growth  of  civilization  and  language,  467. 
 The  Bible  not  pledged  to  a  system  of  chronology,  469.  The  universality  of  the 
 delucre— its  bearing  on  the  question  of  inspiration,  470.  Similarly,  the  question 
 of  the  authorship  of  the  Sacred  Books,  471.  The  alleged  discrepancies  in  the 
 Gospels,  472.  Conclusion,  474. 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTE. 
 
 REMARKS  ON  PROEESSOR 
 IN  EARLY  AGES 
 
 MOZLEpS  LECTURES  ON  “ RULING  IDEAS 
 
 475 
 
LECTURE  I. 
 
 “Jesus  saith  unto  them,  Have  ye  understood  all  these  things  ?  They 
 say  unto  him,  Yea,  Lord.  Then  said  he  unto  them,  Therefore 
 every  Scribe  which  is  instructed  unto  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  is 
 like  unto  a  man  that  is  an  householder,  which  bringeth  out  of  his 
 treasure  things  new  and  old.”— Matt.  xiii.  51,  52. 
 
 The  subject  which  it  will  be  my  duty  to  bring  before  you 
 in  the  present  course  of  Lectures,  is  “  Christian  Evidences 
 viewed  in  relation  to  modern  thought.”  Not  only  will  the 
 treatment  of  such  a  subject  carry  out  the  intention  of  tho 
 Founder  of  this  Lectureship,  but  its  careful  examination  is 
 imperatively  demanded  by  the  exigencies  of  the  times  in 
 which  we  live.  We  are  all  of  us  painfully  aware,  that  a 
 large  number  of  men  who  are  eminent  in  various  depart¬ 
 ments  of  philosophy,  science,  and  criticism,  have  ceased  to 
 believe  in  Christianity  as  a  divine  revelation.  Nor  is  it  less 
 certain  that  the  wide  diffusion  of  their  principles  has  had 
 the  effect  of  suggesting  anxious  doubts,  and  even  of  shaking 
 the  faith  of  a  still  larger  number  of  persons  who  would  not 
 willingly  range  themselves  in  the  ranks  of  unbelief.  That 
 this  latter  class  is  a  very  numerous  one,  is  a  fact  which  it  is 
 impossible  to  question.  Such  persons  have  a  right  to  our 
 utmost  sympathy,  especially  in  those  cases,  which  I  fear  are 
 numerous,  where  many  of  the  difficulties  which  they  ex¬ 
 perience  have  their  origin  in  some  imperfection  in  our  mode 
 of  stating  the  Christian  argument.  Nor  is  it  less  our  duty, 
 in  accordance  with  the  emphatic  warnings  of  our  divine 
 Master,  to  do  our  utmost  to  remove  every  stumbling-block 
 out  of  the  way  of  professed  unbelievers,  bv  placing  before 
 
 X 
 
2  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 them  in  the  simplest  form,  the  grounds  on  which  we  claim 
 their  acceptance  of  Christianity  as  a  divine  Revelation.  It 
 is  useless  to  close  our  eyes  to  the  fact,  that  the  progress  of 
 philosophical,  scientific,  and  critical  inquiry  during  the 
 present  century  has  suggested  difficulties  which  were  unfelt 
 when  our  great  defences  of  Christianity  were  composed. 
 We  need  not  therefore  wonder  that  they  are  inadequate  to 
 meet  them. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  it  is  no  less  certain  that  the  same 
 causes  have  disclosed  reasons  for  the  acceptance  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity  which  were  only  imperfectly  appreciated  by  our 
 predecessors.  This  being  the  case,  a  careful  reconsideration 
 of  the  Christian  position  in  relation  to  the  requirements  of 
 modern  thought  is  become  indispensable. 
 
 I  propose  therefore,  as  far  as  the  conditions  imposed  on 
 me  by  these  Lectures  will  allow,  to  take  a  view  of  our  posi¬ 
 tion,  in  relation  to  the  chief  difficulties  which  the  progress 
 of  modern  thought  has  suggested  in  connection  with  the 
 evidences  on  which  we  have  been  accustomed  to  rest  the 
 claims  of  Christianity  to  be  accepted  as  a  divine  revelation ; 
 and  to  point  out  the  nature  of  the  ground  which  the  new 
 positions  which  have  been  taken  by  opponents,  require  us  to 
 occupy  in  its  defence.  In  doing  this  it  will  be  necessary 
 to  take  a  careful  survey  of  those  points  in  the  Christian 
 position  which  require  to  be  defended  as  essential ;  and 
 that  I  should  separate  from  them  those  which,  however 
 interesting  they  may  be  in  relation  to  several  important 
 questions  of  theology,  are  really  non-essential  to  the  defence 
 of  Christianity  as  a  divine  Revelation.  It  will  then  be  my 
 duty  to  examine  how  far  our  old  forms  of  evidence  are 
 valid  for  the  purpose  of  meeting  the  difficulties  which  have 
 been  suggested  by  modern  philosophical  and  critical  thought, 
 and  to  sketch  the  general  outline  of  the  defence  necessary 
 to  meet  the  exigencies  of  our  present  position.  To  this 
 latter  point  the  seven  concluding  Lectures  of  this  course 
 will  be  exclusively  devoted. 
 
 I  am  deeply  conscious  of  the  responsibility  which  is 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 3 
 
 involved  in  the  treatment  of  this  subject,  which  renders  it 
 necessary  that  I  should  deal  with  several  of  the  most  critical 
 points  of  modern  controversy.  Still  it  has  become  the 
 plain  duty  of  Christian  men,  not  to  hesitate  to  meet  all 
 difficulties  honestly,  fearlessly,  cautiously  and  calmly.  The 
 time  is  past  for  propounding  inadequate  solutions  or  for 
 attempting  to  hold  ground  which  is  evidently  untenable. 
 Such  a  course  can  only  be  damaging  to  the  Christian  cause. 
 Its  abandonment,  instead  of  weakening,  will  strengthen  our 
 position.  If  on  the  other  hand  there  are  important  branches 
 of  evidences  which  have  been  but  imperfectly  recognized  by 
 our  predecessors,  our  duty  is  without  delay  to  assign  them 
 their  proper  place  in  the  Christian  argument.  To  effect 
 this  will  be  the  aim  of  the  present  course  of  Lectures. 
 
 In  the  mode  of  treatment  I  shall  take  the  text  as  my 
 motto.  It  contains  a  profound  and  far-seeing  truth,  which 
 theologians  have  been  greatly  prone  to  overlook.  In  it  the 
 great  Teacher  affirms  that  it  is  the  duty  of  every  subordinate 
 teacher  of  his  Gospel  to  bring  out  of  his  treasures  things 
 both  new  and  old.  Hot  the  old  only :  for  then  progress 
 would  be  impossible.  Hot  the  new  only:  for  this  would 
 destroy  that  principle  of  continuity  by  which  the  works  of 
 God  are  linked  together ;  but  the  new  in  union  with  the  old, 
 and  the  old  in  union  with  the  new.  Such  a  union  it  is  the 
 special  glory  of  Christianity  to  have  effected.  Revelation,  as 
 it  is  recorded  in  the  Bible,  has  not  been  imparted  to  us  at  the 
 first  complete  and  entire,  as  a  rigid  code  irrespective  of  the 
 ever-changing  conditions  of  humanity ;  but  it  is  a  plant 
 which  has  grown  in  a  succession  of  gradual  stages  until  its 
 culmination  in  Jesus  Christ,  just  as  the  Creator  has  effected 
 His  work  through  a  succession  of  developments,  each  one 
 of  which  has  been  closely  interwoven  with  that  which  pre¬ 
 ceded  it,  until  it  has  culminated  in  man.  In  maintaining 
 this  analogy  to  the  workings  of  God  in  nature  Christianity 
 stands  in  striking  contrast  to  all  other  professed  Revelations  ; 
 and  even  to  the  opinions  of  no  inconsiderable  number  of 
 those  who  accept  it  as  divine.  Our  Lord  Himself  affirmed 
 
 1  * 
 
4 
 
 THE  ORDER  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 that  He  came  not  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets ;  but 
 that  on  the  contrary  His  purpose  was  to  fill  the  ideal,  of 
 which  they  only  contained  an  imperfect  outline,  up  to  the 
 very  full.  Hence  it  has  resulted  that  Revelation  has  been 
 historical;  and  therefore  it  can  be  only  rightly  read  and 
 understood  when  it  is  contemplated  in  its  historical  aspect. 
 Consequently  Christianity  does  not  consist  of  a  mass  of 
 abstract  doctrines  or  precepts,  but  of  a  body  of  historical 
 facts,  the  proper  meaning  of  which  it  is  the  function  of 
 theology  to  explain. 
 
 But  while  Christianity  presents  no  break  in  continuity 
 with  former  revelations,  it  vastly  transcends  them,  in  the 
 same  manner  as  man,  who  in  respect  of  his  bodily  frame 
 is  closely  allied  to  the  inferior  animal  races,  is  raised  to 
 an  immense  elevation  above  them,  both  intellectually  and 
 morally.  It  is  hardly  possible  to  over-estimate  the  import¬ 
 ance  of  this  continuity  of  Revelation  in  relation  to  modern 
 thought.  The  doctrine  of  continuity  in  nature  is  one  of 
 very  recent  growth;  yet  continuity  in  religion  was  fully 
 accepted  as  the  mode  of  the  divine  working  by  those  who 
 composed  the  records  of  the  Christian  Revelation.  Nothing 
 is  more  certain  than  that  they  have  linked  together  a 
 series  of  gradually  progressive  revelations,  each  growing 
 out  of  that  which  preceded  it,  -without  a  single  break  in 
 the  historic  chain.  Such  an  analogy  to  what  modern 
 science  affirms  to  have  been  the  order  of  production  of 
 the  various  forms  of  being  which  are  possessed  of  life,  is 
 a  very  striking  one;  and  one  which  at  the  time  when 
 the  New  Testament  was  written,  would  have  been  beyond 
 the  reach  of  the  shrewdest  guess,  and  to  which  no  other 
 religion  can  put  in  a  claim.  The  developments  of  the 
 great  religions  now  existing  in  the  world  are  developments 
 of  retrogression;  Christianity  alone  is  a  development  of 
 progress.  “Many  prophets  and  kings, ”  says  Our  Lord, 
 “have  desired  to  see  the  things  which  ye  see,  and  have  not 
 seen  them ;  and  to  hear  the  things  which  ye  hear,  and  have 
 not  heard  them.” 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 5 
 
 But  further,  while  every  image  employed  by  the  great 
 Teacher  implies  that  the  growth  of  His  kingdom  would  be 
 a  slow  and  gradual  process,  it  is  no  less  clear  that  He  felt 
 assured  that  it  would  ultimately  penetrate  to  the  centre  of 
 humanity.  If  such  be  its  character,  can  we  wonder  that 
 the  Christian  revelation  should  contain  truths,  of  which  the 
 fulness,  like  the  great  works  of  creation  and  providence,  can 
 only  be  fully  recognized  after  the  lapse  of  time,  and  as  the 
 result  of  careful  investigation  ?  That  great  reasoner.  Bishop 
 Butler,  clearly  perceived  that  it  is  only  in  conformity  with 
 the  analogy  of  nature  that  a  book  which  has  been  so  long 
 in  the  possession  of  mankind  as  the  Bible,  if  it  contains  a 
 Revelation  from  God,  should  contain  truths  as  yet  undis¬ 
 covered  ;  and  that  events,  as  they  come  to  pass,  should  open 
 and  ascertain  the  meaning  of  Scripture ;  and  that  such 
 discoveries  should  be  made  “  in  the  same  way  as  all  other 
 knowledge  is  ascertained,  by  particular  persons  attending 
 to,  comparing,  and  pursuing  intimations,  scattered  up  and 
 down  in  it,  which  are  overlooked  and  disregarded  by  the 
 generality  of  the  world.”* 
 
 *  I  subjoin  the  entire  passage.  “And  as  it  is  owned  that  the 
 whole  scheme  of  Scripture  is  not  yet  understood,  so  if  it  ever  comes 
 to  be  understood  before  the  restitution  of  all  things,  and  without 
 miraculous  interventions,  it  must  be  in  the  same  way  as  natural  know¬ 
 ledge  is  come  at,  by  the  continuance  and  progress  of  learning  and 
 liberty,  and  by  particular  persons  attending  to,  comparing  and  pur¬ 
 suing  intimations  scattered  up  and  down,  which  are  overlooked  and 
 disregarded  by  the  majority  of  the  world.  For  this  is  the  way  in 
 which  all  improvements  are  made  by  thoughtful  men,  tracing  on 
 obscure  hints,  as  it  were  dropped  to  us  by  nature  accidentally,  or 
 what  seems  to  come  into  our  minds  by  chance.  iN  or  is  it  incredible 
 that  a  book  which  has  been  so  long  in  possession  of  mankind  should 
 contain  many  truths  as  yet  undiscovered ;  for  all  the  same  phenomena 
 and  the  same  faculties  of  investigation  from  which  such  great  dis¬ 
 coveries  have  been  made  in  the  present  and  the  past  age,  were  equally 
 in  possession  of  mankind  several  thousand  years  before.  And 
 possibly  it  might  be  intended  that  events  as  they  come  to  pass  should 
 open  and  ascertain  the  meaning  of  several  parts  of  Scripture.” — 
 Analogy ,  Part  II.,  chap.  iii.  These  remarks  are  worthy  of  the 
 deepest  attention  both  of  theologians  and  men  of  science. 
 
6  THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 Of  this  prediction  we  in  the  present  age  are  witnessing 
 the  fulfilment.  Science  and  research  of  every  kind  are 
 throwing  light  on  the  pages  of  the  Bible ;  and  we  are  now 
 viewing  many  of  its  supposed  affirmations  in  an  altered 
 aspect.  Astronomy  alone  has  shown  that  many  positions 
 which  were  supposed  in  former  times  to  be  deduced  from 
 its  phraseology,  as  infallibly  certain,  were  utterly  devoid  of 
 justification.  Numerous  others  have  shared  the  same  fate. 
 Who  then  can  venture  to  affirm,  with  the  history  of  the 
 past  before  us,  that  additional  light  may  not  yet  be  cast  on 
 the  contents  of  the  sacred  page  ?  Nay,  the  great  apostle 
 affirms  that  the  fulness  of  the  meaning  of  Revelation  will 
 be  only  gradually  unfolded  during  the  ages  of  the  future.* 
 
 If  the  knowledge  of  the  full  meaning  of  Revelation,  like 
 that  of  the  created  Universe,  be  thus  slowly  and  gradually 
 progressive,  it  is  clearly  our  duty  to  accommodate  our 
 evidential  position  to  our  increasing  light,  instead  of  raising 
 an  outcry  against  every  fresh  discovery  of  science,  as  if  it 
 was  fatal  to  the  claims  of  Christianity  to  be  accepted  as  a 
 divine  revelation.  If  the  principles  which  have  been  laid 
 down  by  the  foresight  of  the  great  Bishop,  more  than  a 
 century  ago,  had  been  kept  steadily  in  view  by  theologians, 
 a  large  proportion  of  those  disputes  which  are  now  raging 
 between  theologians  and  men  of  science  would  have  been 
 rendered  impossible. 
 
 This  power  of  self-accommodation  to  the  ever-varying 
 aspects  of  human  thought  which  is  possessed  by  Chris¬ 
 tianity  has  a  most  important  bearing  on  the  general 
 character  of  our  evidential  position.  Nay,  it  forms  one  of 
 the  strongest  proofs  of  the  superhuman  insight  possessed 
 by  its  Founder,  that  He  has  not  anchored  his  religion  to 
 the  rock  of  the  immovable,  as  has  been  done  by  others,  but 
 that  He  has  founded  one  which  is  capable  of  adjusting 
 itself  to  the  entire  condition  of  man.  By  doing  so,  he  has 
 become  the  Founder  of  the  eternal  religion  of  human 
 
 *  Ephesians  i.  10. 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 7 
 
 nature.  Such  a  religion  must  be  capable  of  presenting 
 itself,  not  in  a  single  and  unvarying  aspect,  but  in  a 
 manifold  and  varying  one ;  and  consequently  the  mode  of 
 exhibiting  its  claims  which  was  fitted  to  one  aspect  of 
 thought,  must  become  unsuited  to  another,  rendering  it 
 necessary  that  we  should  bring  the  new  as  well  as  the  old 
 out  of  our  treasures. 
 
 In  considering  this  subject,  it  is  clear  that  my  first  duty 
 must  be  to  institute  an  inquiry  into  what  constitutes  the 
 inner  life  of  Christianity,  as  distinct  from  its  accessories, 
 and  the  vehicle  through  which  it  has  been  communicated — 
 what  in  fact  is  its  essence  ?  The  importance  of  rightly 
 determining  this  cannot  be  over-estimated  in  reference  to 
 our  mode  of  stating  the  Christian  argument,  for  it  is  evi¬ 
 dently  essential,  whenever  we  undertake  to  defend  a  posi¬ 
 tion,  to  ascertain  what  portion  of  the  ground  constitutes  its 
 key ;  and  on  it  to  concentrate  our  entire  force. 
 
 What  then,  I  ask,  constitutes  the  essence  of  the  Christian 
 Revelation  ?  Is  it  a  mass  of  dogmatic,  or  abstract  truth 
 after  the  manner  of  other  religions  ;  or  of  reasoned  truth, 
 as  elaborated  by  the  various  philosophic  schools;  or  is  its 
 essence  to  be  found  in  its  moral  teaching,  as  numerous 
 unbelievers  are  in  the  habit  of  affirming ;  or  is  it  an  historic 
 life,  which  constitutes  its  inner  temple,  and  forms  its  dis¬ 
 tinguishing  characteristic — in  fact,  is  it  the  manifestation 
 of  a  divine  being  on  the  sphere  of  the  human,  who  is  the 
 source  of  all  the  moral  and  spiritual  power  which  it  con¬ 
 tains  ?  This  question  suggests  another : — Must  our  defence 
 embrace  the  wide  range  of  everything  which  is  contained 
 in  the  Bible,  in  all  the  multifariousness  of  its  contents ;  or 
 is  there  an  inner  temple  of  Christianity,  which  also  con¬ 
 stitutes  its  citadel  and  fortress,  on  which  if  we  can  maintain 
 a  firm  hold  we  shall  retain  the  command  of  the  entire 
 Christian  position  ? 
 
 The  answer  to  these  questions  will  not  only  be  of  the 
 highest  importance  in  its  bearing  on  our  general  conception 
 of  Christianity,  but  it  will  determine  what  must  be  the  only 
 
8  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 correct  method  of  conducting  its  defence.  Our  entire 
 evidences  will  require  to  be  marshalled  and  arranged  in  con¬ 
 formity  with  the  views  we  entertain  on  this  subject.  To  use 
 a  military  metaphor,  the  extent  of  the  ground  which  it  is 
 necessary  to  occupy,  forms  the  most  important  consideration 
 in  the  mode  of  posting  the  forces  at  our  command.  A 
 garrison  of  five  thousand  men  may  be  capable  of  holding  a 
 particular  fortress  against  the  most  numerous  army;  but  if 
 the  lines  are  carried  five  miles  in  advance,  they  may  be 
 broken  through  at  every  point.  Precisely  the  same  is  it 
 with  the  defence  of  Christianity.  If  we  confine  it  to  its 
 central  position  with  the  forces  at  our  command  its  citadel 
 will  be  impregnable ;  but  if  we  extend  our  defences  over 
 an  indefinite  mass  of  subject  matter,  only  incidentally  con¬ 
 nected  with  it,  and  for  that  purpose  proceed  to  enlist  into 
 our  service  reasonings  of  only  doubtful  validity,  we  shall 
 thereby  endanger  our  entire  position. 
 
 The  question  as  to  what  constitutes  the  inner  life  of 
 Christianity,  is  one  which  amidst  the  Babel  of  the  sects  that 
 distract  the  Church,  each  with  intemperate  zeal  propound¬ 
 ing  its  own  formulated  system  as  constituting  its  essence, 
 might  at  first  sight  appear  difficult  if  not  impossible  to 
 answer.  Yet  surely  an  intelligent  reader  of  the  New 
 Testament,  who  perused  it  for  the  first  time  free  from  the 
 prepossessions  of  theological  systems  would  return  no 
 ambiguous  reply.  He  would  affirm  as  a  matter  of  certainty 
 that  one  prominent  idea  pervades  its  pages  and  underlies 
 every  portion  of  its  teaching — the  divine  person  of  Jesus 
 Christ  our  Lord ;  and  that  the  central  life  of  Christianity, 
 as  it  is  there  depicted,  consists  neither  in  a  body  of  dogmas, 
 or  precepts,  but  in  an  historic  life. 
 
 This  point  is  so  obvious  that  it  seems  almost  unnecessary  to 
 give  a  formal  proof  of  it.  Still  as  it  is  vital  to  my  argument, 
 and  one  which  is  so  generally  overlooked  by  popular  theology, 
 I  must  draw  your  attention  to  a  few  of  its  salient  traits. 
 What  then  are  the  points  which  would  force  themselves  on 
 the  attention  of  my  supposed  reader  ?  They  are  indisput- 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 9 
 
 ably  these.  He  would  observe  that  the  four  most  prominent 
 treatises  in  the  volume  are  four  memoirs,  which  give  a  four¬ 
 fold  account  of  the  actions  and  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ, 
 by  which  he  founded  Christianity  as  a  religion,  and  the 
 Church  as  a  Society.  These  evidently  constitute  the  essence 
 and  foundation  of  the  religion,  for  nothing  can  be  more 
 certain  than  that  every  other  portion  of  the  Hew  Testament 
 presupposes  the  existence  of  this  divine  life  as  the  founda¬ 
 tion  on  which  it  rests. 
 
 Next  follows  another  historical  work,  which  details  to  us 
 the  means  through  which  the  Church  was  constituted  a 
 visible  Institution  in  the  world.  One  idea  is  fundamental  to 
 the  entire  book,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  or  in  other  words, 
 that  He  is  the  Ruler  of  God’s  spiritual  kingdom,  on  which 
 is  founded  the  summons  consequent  thereon  to  men  to 
 enrol  themselves  as  His  subjects.  To  this  idea  and  to  this 
 purpose,  all  the  other  details  of.  the  book  are  plainly  subor¬ 
 dinated.* 
 
 To  these  follow  twenty-one  writings  of  an  historical 
 character  in  the  form  of  letters.  They  contain  a  mass  of 
 teaching,  doctrinal  and  moral,  pervaded  and  dominated  by 
 one  idea  which  runs  through  them,  that  of  J esus  as  the  per¬ 
 sonal  Christ.  While  they  contain  doctrinal  statements,  it  is 
 worthy  of  particular  remark  that  not  one  of  them  contains  a 
 formulated  statement  of  what  constitutes  Christianity  as  a 
 system  of  dogmatic  or  abstract  truth.  On  the  contrary, 
 such  doctrinal  statements  as  are  found  in  them  are  wholly 
 wanting  in  systematic  form,  and  are  evidently  called  forth 
 
 *  This  is  evidently  the  burden  of  the  entire  book,  from  the  first 
 opening  speech  of  St.  Peter  to  the  concluding  one  of  St.  Paul.  The 
 following  passages  are  summaries  of  its  teaching  : — “  And  daily  in  the 
 temple  and  from  house  to  house  they  ceased  not  to  teach  and  preach 
 Jesus  to  be  the  Christ.”  (Acts  v.  42.)  “This  Jesus  whom  I  preach 
 unto  you  is  Christ.”  (xvii.  3.)  “  And  when  Silas  and  Timotheus  were 
 
 come  from  Macedonia,  Paul  was  pressed  in  the  spirit,  and  testified  to 
 the  Jews  that  Jesus  was  Christ.”  (xviii.  5.)  “  To  whom  he  expounded 
 
 and  testified  the  kingdom  of  God,  persuading  them  concerning  Jesus/' 
 (xxviii.  23.) 
 
10  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 by  the  special  circumstances  of  particular  communities  of 
 Christianity  to  which  the  letters  are  addressed. 
 
 But  further,  every  one  of  them  presupposes  a  Christianity 
 already  existing,  and  the  obvious  purpose  of  each  letter  is 
 to  explain  it  and  to  accommodate  it  to  the  state  of  thought 
 and  feeling  as  it  existed  in  each  particular  Church.  But 
 throughout  the  entire  contents  of  these  letters,  composed 
 by  six  different  writers,  each  of  whom  possessed  marked 
 mental  peculiarities,  one  common  idea  unquestionably  domi¬ 
 nates — that  of  Jesus  as  the  living  personal  Christ.  Every 
 doctrinal  statement  is  made  to  have  its  focus  in  Him.  Every 
 moral  precept  has  a  vitality  communicated  to  it  by  being 
 referred  to  Him  as  the  centre  of  obligation  and  spiritual 
 power.  Truth  is  propounded,  but  it  is  truth  as  it  is  in 
 Jesus.  Over  all  Christians  He  reigns  by  sovereign  right. 
 He  is  the  supreme  motive  to  holiness.  He  is  Lord  of  the 
 conscience.  In  Him  centre  all  God’s  creative  and  providen¬ 
 tial  acts.  The  manifested  revelation  of  God  is  His  historic 
 life  and  actions.  He  is  a  great  spiritual  power,  capable  of 
 acting  on  the  human  heart  with  energetic  might.  I  fully 
 admit  that  these  points  are  brought  out  in  different  degrees 
 and  aspects  by  these  writers.  Yet  one  common  thread  runs 
 through  the  entire  series.  It  is  not  too  much  to  say  of  every 
 writer  that  the  idea  of  Jesus  as  the  Christ  interpenetrates 
 and  modifies  his  entire  thoughts,  whether  doctrinal  or  moral. 
 To  this  even  the  Epistle  of  James,  where  it  is  least  apparent, 
 forms  no  exception. 
 
 Its  predominance  throughout  these  writings  is  no  theory, 
 but  a  fact,  and  forms  the  feature  which  distinguishes  them 
 from  every  other  literary  composition  in  the  world.  Of  the 
 dominance  of  this  idea  we  have  a  striking  example  in  the 
 epistle  to  Philemon.  In  it  St.  Paul  asks  a  personal  favour 
 of  a  Christian  friend  on  behalf  of  a  delinquent  slave.  That 
 favour  is  asked  in  the  name  of  Christ.  There  remains  one 
 other  writing  in  the  Hew  Testament,  the  Apocalypse. 
 Whatever  opinion  we  may  form  of  the  purpose  of  its  author, 
 one  thing  respecting  it  is  as  clear  as  the  existence  of  the 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 11 
 
 sun  in  the  firmament — that  the  great  prominent  idea  which, 
 penetrates  it  from  one  end  to  the  other  is  that  of  Jesus  as  the 
 Christ  living  and  reigning.  The  removal  of  this  idea  from 
 the  pages  of  the  New  Testament  would  reduce  the  residuum 
 of  its  contents  to  a  shapeless  chaos. 
 
 These  facts  then  afford  the  most  complete  proof  that  the 
 person  of  Jesus  Christ  constitutes  the  inner  centre  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity,  and  underlies  its  entire  system ;  and  that  everything 
 else  that  is  connected  with  it  occupies  a  position  wholly 
 subordinate  to  this  its  inner  life.  From  this  the  inference  is 
 plain,  that  the  Revelation  which  constitutes  the  essence  of 
 Christianity  is  not  a  body  of  dogmatic  statements  or 
 precepts,  but  the  manifestation  of  that  divine  person  whose 
 actions  and  teachings  are  recorded  in  the  Gospels — or  in 
 other  words,  that  the  essence  of  Christianity  as  distinct  from 
 its  adjuncts,  consists  of  a  number  of  objective  facts  which 
 have  actually  occurred  in  the  history  of  the  world.  Of  these 
 facts  the  original  followers  of  Jesus  were  the  witnesses  and 
 proclaimers,  and,  as  far  as  light  was  communicated  to  them 
 by  the  divine  Spirit,  the  exponents  to  mankind.  We  must 
 be  careful  however  to  observe  that  in  accordance  with  their 
 own  statements,  this  exposition  is  far  from  having  exhausted 
 all  their  meaning,  for  the  greatest  of  apostolic  writers  affirms 
 that  a  greater  unfolding  of  it  is  reserved  for  the  ages  of  the 
 future.* 
 
 What  then  is  the  position  occupied  by  the  other  books  in 
 the  canon  relatively  to  those  which  contain  the  objective 
 
 *  “Having  made  known  unto  us  the  mystery  of  his  will  according 
 to  his  good  pleasure  which  he  hath  purposed  in  himself  ;  that  in  the 
 dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times  he  might  gather  together  in  one  all 
 things  in  Christ,  both  which  are  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  even  in  him.” 
 (Ephes.  i.  9, 10.)  “  And  to  make  all  men  see  what  is  the  fellowship 
 
 of  the  Mystery,  which  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  hath  been 
 hid  in  God,  who  created  all  things  by  Jesus  Christ,  to  the  intent  that 
 now  unto  the  principalities  and  powers  in  heavenly  places  might  bo 
 known  by  the  Church  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God  ;  according  to  the 
 eternal  purpose  which  he  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.” 
 (Ephes.  iii.  8,  9,  10.) 
 
12  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 facts  which  constitute  Christianity  ?  The  Acts  of  the 
 Apostles  convey  to  us  information  how  that  divine  Society 
 called  the  Church  was  instituted,  and  established  in  the  world 
 as  a  visible  institution,  through  whose  agency  these  facts 
 were  to  exert  a  mighty  influence  on  mankind  ;•  and  they  also 
 inform  us  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the  minds  of  the  Apostles 
 became  gradually  enlightened  as  to  their  meaning  and 
 import.  The  character  of  the  Epistles  is  clear.  They  make 
 no  professions  of  being  a  dogmatic  revelation  ;  but  in  every 
 case  they  assume  the  existence  of  a  prior  Christianity,  which 
 had  been  communicated  orally  to  the  converts,  and  consisting 
 of  such  facts  of  its  Founders  life  as  proved  Him  to  be  the 
 Christ,  and  which  the  writers  endeavour  to  unfold,  explain, 
 and  apply  in  accordance  with  the  various  emergencies  of  the 
 primitive  societies  of  believers.  One  of  these  Churches, 
 that  at  Corinth,  is  expressly  reminded  by  St.  Paul,  that 
 the  essence  of  the  Christianity  which  he  had  proclaimed 
 among  them  consisted  of  a  number  of  such  objective 
 facts.*  These  writings  are,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the 
 term,  letters  which  were  called  forth  by  the  special  exi¬ 
 gencies  of  those  to  whom  they  are  addressed ;  and  in  them 
 the  Christian  revelation  is  unfolded,  and  adapted  to  the 
 requirements,  habits,  and  modes  of  thought  of  particular 
 Churches,  or  individuals,  who,  having  originally  been  Jews, 
 proselytes,  or  pagans,  had  united  themselves  into  a  society, 
 whose  one  bond  of  union  was  that  Jesus  was  its  Messiah 
 and  King. 
 
 My  position  therefore  is,  that  like  as  we  have  a  great 
 revelation  of  God  in  the  created  universe,  which  is  the 
 manifestation  of  His  eternal  power  and  Godhead ;  as  also  we 
 have  a  second  revelation  of  God,  made  in  the  conscience 
 and  moral  nature  of  man,  which  at  the  same  time  affords 
 manifestations  of  the  moral  character  of  the  Creator,  and 
 forms  the  foundation  of  moral  obligation,  so  we  have  a  third 
 revelation  of  His  innermost  moral  and  spiritual  perfections 
 
 *  1  Cor.  xv.  1-3. 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 13 
 
 in  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  This 
 revelation  may  be  briefly  summed  up  as  consisting  of  the 
 Incarnation  and  its  results,  by  means  of  which  the  moral 
 and  spirital  perfections  of  God  have  been  exhibited  in  the 
 actions  and  teachings  of  a  divine  man ;  or  in  other  words,  in 
 the  life,  death,  and  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 If  this  view  be  correct,  it  follows  that  the  personal  history 
 of  our  Lord  must  constitute  the  citadel  of  Christianity,  and 
 must  therefore  form  the  key  of  the  Christian  position,  on 
 which  if  we  can  retain  a  firm  hold,  we  shall  remain  masters 
 of  the  entire  ground;  and  other  points  connected  with 
 Christianity  will  assume  their  due  place  and  proper  sub¬ 
 ordination.  But  if  this  cannot  be  maintained,  the  most 
 successful  defence  of  the  remaining  contents  of  the  Bible 
 will  be  so  much  wasted  labour.  On  this  point  therefore  the 
 defence  of  Christianity  must  be  concentrated. 
 
 It  is  evident  if  this  view  is  correct,  that  the  proof  that 
 the  inner  temple  of  Christianity  consists  in  the  personal 
 manifestation  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  sphere  of  human  history, 
 is  of  the  highest  importance  in  reference  to  the  position 
 which  ought  to  be  taken  by  the  Christian  advocate.  But 
 such  a  proof  can  only  be  supplied  by  an  examination  of  a 
 large  number  of  passages  in  the  New  Testament.  If  I  were 
 to  do  so  in  the  body  of  this  Lecture,  it  would  swell  it  to  an 
 undue  length.  I  will  therefore  adduce  the  full  proof  in  a 
 Supplement ;  and  assume  for  the  purpose  of  this  argument 
 that  the  essence  of  Christianity  consists  neither  in  a  body 
 of  dogmas  nor  of  precepts,  but  in  a  personal  history  which 
 constitutes  a  manifestation  of  the  divine  on  the  sphere  of  the 
 human. 
 
 This  being  so,  in  order  to  prove  that  Christianity  is  a 
 divine  revelation,  it  will  be  only  necessary  to  establish  two 
 points  : — 
 
 First,  that  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  is  not  a  mani¬ 
 festation  of  the  ordinary  forces  which  energise  in  man,  but 
 of  a  power  which  is  superhuman  and  divine. 
 
 Secondly,  that  the  account  which  the  Church  possesses  of 
 
14  THE  ORDER  OE  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 His  life,  teaching,  death,  and  resurrection,  is  not  an  ideal 
 
 creation,  but  a  body  of  historic  facts.  _ 
 
 In  determining  the  extent  of  the  position  which  must  be 
 occupied  by  the  defender  of  Christianity,  it  is  of  the  highest 
 importance  that  we  should  keep  clearly  m  view  the  dis¬ 
 tinction  which  exists  between  Revelation  on  the  one  hand, 
 and  inspiration  and  theology  on  the  other.  On  this  point 
 great  confusion  of  thought  has  prevailed ;  and  the  result  lias 
 been  that  the  line  of  our  defence  has  become  dangerously 
 extended.  The  wide  extent  of  the  position,  to  the  defence 
 of  which  the  Christian  advocate  is  supposed  to  be  com¬ 
 mitted,  forms  one  of  the  strongholds  of  popular  unbelie  . 
 It  is  also  undeniable  that  theology  has  in  former  ages 
 claimed,  as  its  legitimate  domains,  whole  provinces  of 
 thought  from  which  it  has  had  to  beat  a  retreat  before  the 
 steady  advance  of  scientific  knowledge.  It  will  probab  y 
 have  to  retire  further  still  before  it  occupies  its  rightful 
 position.  Such  retreats  have  been  attended  with  disastrous 
 results:  and  with  the  experience  of  the  past  before  us, 
 must  claim  the  right— it  is  in  fact  our  duty— to  separate 
 the  defence  of  Christianity  from  every  question  which  is  not 
 vitally  connected  with  the  Christian  position,  and  to  confine 
 it  to  the  historic  facts  which  form  the  foundation  on  which 
 the  Church  has  been  erected,  and  the  inner  life  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity,  as  a  great  moral  and  spiritual  power,  is  based.  The 
 consideration  of  the  inferences  deducible  from  these  facts  is 
 the  proper  function,  not  of  the  Christian  advocate,  but  of 
 the  scientific  theologian.  The  relation  in  which  the  popular 
 theories  of  inspiration  stand  to  science,  and  theii  beaiing 
 on  Christianity  as  a  divine  revelation,  I  shall  consider  m 
 the  concluding  Lecture  of  this  course;  at  present  it  will 
 be  only  necessary  for  me  to  offer  a  few  brief  remarks  on  the 
 distinction  between  Revelation  and  Inspiiatiou. 
 
 I  have  already  shown  that  the  innermost  temple  of 
 Christianity,  around  which  the  whole  might  of  our  defence 
 mnst  be  concentrated,  is  the  objective  fact  of  the  Incar¬ 
 nation,  and  the  historical  truth  of  the  divine  life,  as 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 15 
 
 recorded  in  the  pages  of  the  Evangelists.  But  in 
 addition  to  this  great  fundamental  revelation  some  of 
 the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  claim  to  have  been  the 
 subjects  of  special  revelations,  by  which  the  meaning  of 
 the  great  facts  which  constitute  the  essence  of  Christianity 
 was  imparted  to  their  minds.  These  revelations,  however, 
 differ  widely  from  that  of  which  I  have  been  speaking; 
 and  it  is  very  difficult  to  lay  down  a  clear  distinction 
 between  them  and  the  gift  which  we  commonly  call 
 inspiration.  Thus  St.  Paul  affirms  that  he  received  his 
 knowledge  of  the  great  principles  of  Christianity  by 
 revelation,  and  that  he  did  not  derive  them  from  any 
 human  source.*  In  other  cases  we  can  discover  clear 
 traces  of  the  presence  of  a  human  element.  Thus  the  slow 
 and  gradual  influence  of  the  Spirit  unfolded  to  the  leaders 
 of  the  Church  what  constituted  the  essential  principles  of 
 Christianity,  as  distinct  from  the  Judaism  in  which  they 
 had  been  born  and  educated.  This  we  know  from  the 
 history  to  have  been  brought  about,  not  so  much  by  a  direct 
 infusion  of  light  and  knowledge  into  their  minds  as  by  the 
 leading  of  the  events  of  Providence.  Of  this  we  have  a 
 remarkable  illustration  in  the  account  which  is  given  us  of 
 the  mode  in  which  the  enlightenment  of  Peter  was  effected, 
 which  led  to  the  reception  of  Cornelius  into  the  Church. 
 In  it  Peter’s  reason  co-operated  with  the  divine  enlighten¬ 
 ment.  A  vision  was  the  immediate  agent,  of  which  several 
 events  of  Providence  suggested  the  interpretation.  Of  a 
 
 '*  Thus  he  writes,  “  But  I  certify  you,  brethren,  that  the  Gospel 
 which  was  preached  of  me  is  not  after  man ;  for  I  neither  received 
 it  of  man,  neither  was  I  taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus 
 Christ”  (Gal.  i.  11,  12).  Again,  “How  that  by  revelation  he 
 made  known  unto  me  the  mystery,  as  I  wrote  before  in  few  words, 
 whereby,  when  ye  read,  ye  may  understand  my  knowledge  in  the 
 Mystery  of  Christ”  (Eph.  iii.  3,  4).  This  latter  x>assage  implies 
 that  the  two  former  chapters  may  be  received  as  the  record  of  this 
 revelation.  Both  passages,  however,  definitely  affirm  that  its  subject 
 matter  was  strictly  limited  to  the  communication  of  Christian  truth, 
 and  involved  no  enlightenment  beyond  its  limits. 
 
16  THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 similar  character  was  the  revelation  made  to  St.  Paul,  which 
 led  to  the  first  preaching  of  Christianity  in  Europe.  This 
 forms  a  remarkable  illustration  of  the  relation  in  which  such 
 revelations  stood  to  the  ordinary  action  of  the  faculties  of 
 those  who  received  them.  The  command  to  pass  into 
 Europe  was  not  one  which  was  given  in  direct  terms.  The 
 historian  tells  us  that  St.  Paul  proposed  to  open  a  mission 
 in  two  other  places  ;  but  that  he  was  hindered  by  the  Spirit. 
 On  arriving  at  Troas  he  saw  a  vision  of  a  man  of  Macedonia 
 standing  by  him,  and  saying,  Come  over  into  Macedonia 
 and  help  us.  From  these  circumstances  the  historian  tells 
 us  that  they  assuredly  gathered  that  the  Lord  had  called 
 them  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  them  ;  or  in  other  words,  that 
 it  was  not  a  direct  revelation  of  the  Spirit,  but  an  inference 
 from  the  vision,  united  with  the  fact  that  they  had  been 
 forbidden  to  preach  in  two  other  places.  In  this  case,  as 
 in  St.  Peter's  vision,  the  divine  and  the  human  elements 
 are  quite  separable  from  one  another,  the  duty  of  passing 
 into  Macedonia  being  a  rational  inference  from  the  vision. 
 Flow  far  this  was  the  case  in  the  other  revelations  spoken  of 
 by  St.  Paul,  we  have  no  means  of  judging. 
 
 Both  these  modes  of  communicating  truth  may  be  desig¬ 
 nated  revelations. 
 
 Theoretically  therefore,  the  New  Testament  may  be  said 
 to  contain  the  record  of  two  species  of  revelations — one, 
 the  record  of  those  objective  facts  which  form  God's  great 
 moral  and  spiritual  revelation  of  Himself  in  the  person  of 
 Jesus  Christ — and  the  other,  the  commentary  made  by  its 
 authors  on  those  facts,  as  far  as  their  meaning  was  revealed 
 to  them  by  the  Divine  Spirit.  This  latter,  however,  is  so 
 mixed  up  with  the  question  of  inspiration  that  for  all 
 practical  purposes  it  is  inseparable  from  it  ;  and  must 
 therefore  be  dealt  with  on  the  same  principles  as  a  branch 
 of  scientific  theology. 
 
 It  will  now  be  necessary  for  the  purpose  of  defining 
 clearly  the  limits  of  our  evidential  position  to  consider  the 
 relation  in  which  theology  stands  to  Revelation. 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 17 
 
 If  I  have  correctly  laid  down  the  two  preceding  proposi¬ 
 tions,  that  Revelation  consists  of  the  objective  facts  on 
 which  Christianity  is  based;  and  in  a  secondary  sense,  oi 
 the  disclosures  made  to  Apostolic  men  respecting  their 
 nature  and  meaning,  it  follows  that  the  position  of  theo¬ 
 logy  in  relation  to  Christianity  must  consist  in  the  elabo¬ 
 ration  of  a  body  of  systematic  truth  out  of  the  facts  and 
 data  furnished  by  Revelation.  For  evidential  purposes  it  is 
 of  the  utmost  importance  to  keep  this  distinction  clearly  in 
 view,  and  thereby  to  guard  agaiust  that  widely-spread 
 confusion  of  thought  which  identifies  Christianity  as  a 
 revelation  with  Christianity  as  a  theology,  and  has  led  to 
 the  almost  indefinite  extension  of  the  position  which  it  is 
 supposed  to  be  the  duty  of  the  Christian  advocate  to  defend. 
 As  a  clear  perception  of  the  nature  of  this  distinction  is  of 
 the  highest  importance  in  relation  to  my  argument,  it  is 
 necessary  that  I  should  define  the  position  which  I  take  with 
 the  utmost  clearness. 
 
 I  observe  therefore,  that  theology  as  a  science  must 
 stand  in  the  same  relation  to  the  facts  of  Revelation  as  the 
 physical  sciences  [do  to  the  facts  of  the  Universe.  The 
 function  of  these  latter  is  to  investigate  the  facts,  to 
 formulate  them,  and  to  evolve  out  of  them  the  truths 
 which  they  contain.  Precisely  similar  is  the  function  of 
 theology  with  regard  to  the  facts  of  Revelation.  These 
 form  its  data.  The  duty  of  the  theologian  is  to  perform 
 for  them  an  office  similar  to  that  which  the  scientific  inves¬ 
 tigator  does  for  the  facts  of  nature.  This  being  so,  the 
 same  methods  of  investigation  must  be  applicable  to  each, 
 as  far  as  is  consistent  with  their  different  subject-matter. 
 
 Both  must  involve  rational  processes ;  both  will  be  liable 
 to  the  intrusion  of  human  error  ;  and  their  successful  study 
 will  be  dependent  on  the  employment  of  a  proper  method 
 of  investigation. 
 
 The  distinction  therefore,  between  Christianity  as  a 
 revelation  and  Christianity  as  a  theology,  becomes  clear. 
 Christianity  as  a  revelation  consists  of  those  objective 
 
 2 
 
18  THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 facts  through  which  God  has  manifested  to  man  his  moral 
 and  spiritual  character.  Christianity  as  a  theology  consists 
 of  a  body  of  formulated  truths  elaborated  by  reason  out  of 
 those  facts  as  its  data. 
 
 It  will  be  objected  that,  in  running  this  parallel,  I  over¬ 
 look  the  necessity  of  the  influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit  for 
 the  purpose  of  illuminating  the  heart  and  the  understanding 
 in  the  study  of  theology.  I  by  no  means  do  so.  The 
 Baconian  method  teaches  us  that  physical  truth  can  only  be 
 successfully  studied  by  first  dissipating  those  dark  mists, 
 and  the  various  idola,  which  naturally  brood  over  the  human 
 understanding;  and  its  founder  has  elaborately  described 
 their  nature  and  character.  Precisely  the  same  is  it  with 
 the  successful  study  of  the  data  furnished  by  Revelation. 
 Here  even  darker  mists  enshroud  our  understandings,  which 
 must  be  dissipated  before  our  mental  powers  can  be  suc¬ 
 cessfully  applied  to  the  study  of  Christian  truth.  One  of 
 these  pre-conditions  is  a  willingness  to  do  the  will  of  God.* 
 We  all  know  how  the  progress  of  scientific  knowledge  has 
 been  impeded  in  the  past  by  the  prepossessions  of  those 
 who  have  devoted  themselves  to  its  study.  Witness  the 
 failure  of  the  acutest  intellects  of  the  ancient  world  to 
 penetrate  the  arcana  of  the  Universe.  Similar  preposses¬ 
 sions  are  equally  fatal  to  the  appreciation  of  Christian 
 evidences  and  of  Christian  truth.  The  attention  of  many 
 of  the  students  of  the  physical  sciences  may  not  unfitly  be 
 directed  to  the  closeness  of  the  analogy ;  and  they  may  well 
 be  asked  to  consider  whether  some  of  their  methods  of 
 dealing  with  Revelation  are  not  due  to  prepossessions  and 
 idola  which  darken  their  mental  vision,  in  the  same  manner 
 
 *  Such  a  precondition  for  the  effectual  appreciation  of  Revelation  is 
 distinctly  laid  down  by  Our  Lord,  “  If  any  man  will  i.e.  wills, 
 
 is  earnestly  desirous  of  doing)  do  God’s  will,  he  shall  know  of  the 
 doctrine  whether  it  be  of  God,  or  whether  I  speak  of  myself”  (John 
 vii.  17).  This,  though  pre-eminently  true  of  religious  truth,  is 
 applicable  to  every  kind  of  truth,  except  perhaps  the  evidence  of 
 mathematical  demonstration.  The  ethical  readiness  to  accept  it  is  a 
 precondition  of  its  perception. 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 19 
 
 as  in  former  ages  the  same  causes  have  rendered  theologians 
 insensible  to  the  realities  of  physical  truth. 
 
 But  the  dissipation  of  these  being  presupposed  in  both 
 cases,  it  follows  that  in  the  same  manner  as  physical  science 
 is  the  result  of  the  application  of  our  rational  powers  to  the 
 investigation  of  the  phenomena  of  the  Universe,  and  mental 
 science  results  from  their  application  to  the  facts  of  mind, 
 and  moral  science  to  those  of  our  moral  nature  and  con¬ 
 science  ;  so  theological  science  is  the  result  of  the  application 
 of  our  reason  to  the  data  furnished  us  by  Revelation.*  In 
 each  case  our  reason  is  fallible,  and  we  are  liable  to  draw 
 erroneous  conclusions,  from  which  fallibility  neither  theolo¬ 
 gians  nor  scientists  can  claim  exemption.  In  by-gone  ages 
 the  latter  have  propounded  erroneous  systems  in  abundance. 
 Can  it  be  said  that  theologians  have  not  fallen  into  similar 
 errors  ?  Or  have  we  at  the  present  day  any  right  to  claim 
 an  infallibility  for  our  various  theological  systems,  and  after 
 the  manner  of  the  sects  stake  the  life  of  Christianity  on 
 their  truth?  Our  only  safeguard  is  so  to  profit  by  the  errors 
 of  the  past  as  to  lead  us  to  employ  better  methods  of  investi¬ 
 gation  in  the  future.  But  let  it  be  observed  that  like  as  the 
 errors  of  philosophers  and  scientists  are  unable  to  obscure 
 the  great  truth  that  the  Universe  is  a  manifestation  of  the 
 eternal  power  and  Godhead  of  the  Creator, — a  truth  which 
 will  ever  be  recognized  by  the  unsophisticated  heart  of 
 man,  despite  all  the  theories  of  atheism  and  pantheism, — 
 
 #  Nothing  is  more  dangerous  to  the  Christian  cause  than  the  outcry 
 which  various  schools  of  popular  theology  are  in  the  habit  of  raising 
 against  the  use  of  reason  in  religious  investigations,  and  the  mode  in 
 which  it  is  constantly  spoken  of  as  opposed  to  faith.  Such  persons 
 would  do  well  to  meditate  on  the  following  passage  of  Bishop  Butler:— 
 “  I  express  myself  with  caution  lest  I  should  be  misunderstood  to 
 vilify  reason,  which  is  indeed  the  only  faculty  we  have  wherewith  to 
 judge  concerning  anything,  even  Revelation  itself,  or  be  misunderstood 
 to  assert  that  a  supposed  revelation  cannot  be  proved  false  from 
 internal  characters.” — ( Analogy ,  Part  II.  chap,  iii.)  Reason  is  not 
 a  perfect  light,  nor  an  infallible  guide ;  but  as  it  is  the  only  light 
 and  guide  which  we  possess,  we  shall  not  improve  our  condition  by 
 extinguishing  it. 
 
 2* 
 
20  THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 so  the  errors  of  theologians  are  unable  to  hide  from  us 
 the  still  greater  truth,  that  the  moral  perfections  of  God 
 clearly  shine  forth  in  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ 
 our  Lord. 
 
 In  making  these  observations,  I  by  no  means  wish  to  deny 
 that  the  Apostolic  epistles  contain  a  theology  in  a  rudimen¬ 
 tary  form.  But  viewed  in  relation  to  the  present  subject, 
 the  important  point  to  observe  is  that  they  are  a  com¬ 
 mentary  on  the  facts  of  Revelation  in  a  very  unsystematic 
 form,  just  as  it  was  called  forth  by  the  exigencies  of 
 particular  Churches,  and  that  they  also  form  our  sole  record 
 of  the  subordinate  revelations  through  which  the  meaning 
 of  the  great  facts  of  Christianity  was  communicated  to  the 
 primitive  believers. 
 
 I  am  aware  that  there  is  also  another  theory,  which  affirms 
 that  these  revelations  and  their  meaning  have  been  handed 
 down  by  the  traditions  of  the  Church,  and  secured  from 
 errors  by  the  permanently  abiding  presence  in  it  of  the 
 divine  Spirit.  But  to  discuss  this  question  would  be  to  enter 
 into  a  controversy  which  has  neither  limits  nor  bounds.  Its 
 indefinite  character  alone  must  exclude  it  from  forming  a 
 
 <D 
 
 portion  of  Christian  evidences.  Christianity  must  on  other 
 grounds  be  accepted  as  a  divine  revelation  before  it  is  pos¬ 
 sible  to  accept  the  theory  in  question. 
 
 My  position  therefore,  stated  generally,  is,  Revelation  is 
 throughout  essentially  divine ;  systematized  theology  is  a 
 human  science. 
 
 This  being  so,  the  ground  which  must  be  occupied  and 
 defended  by  the  Christian  advocate  becomes  clear  and 
 definite.  It  is  not  the  wide  range  of  Christian  theology, 
 nor  any  particular  theory  as  to  the  mode  in  which  Revelation 
 has  been  communicated,  or  as  to  the  degree  of  inspiration 
 which  has  been  afforded  to  those  by  whom  its  record  has 
 been  committed  to  writing ;  but  the  proof  of  the  actual 
 presence  of  a  divine  element  in  Christianity.  My  duty  is  to 
 show  not  only  that  the  facts  are  true,  but  that  the  divine 
 is  manifested  in  them.  All  other  considerations  stand 
 extraneous  to  the  subject-matter  of  these  Lectures. 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 21 
 
 If  this  position  be  correctly  taken,  the  points  of  contro¬ 
 versy  between  those  who  affirm  and  those  who  deny 
 Christianity  to  be  a  divine  revelation,  are  brought  within 
 definite  limits.  We  are  saved  from  the  necessity  of  wan¬ 
 dering  over  an  indefinite  range  of  subject-matter.  Numerous 
 controversies  now  raging  have  only  an  indirect  bearing  on 
 the  real  point  at  issue.  This,  I  repeat,  is.  Have  we  evidence 
 that  there  is  a  manifestation  of  the  divine  in  Christianity  ? 
 If  this  be  so,  it  must  be  a  divine  revelation,  and  a  matter  of 
 unspeakable  importance  to  mankind.  Under  the  influence 
 of  increasing  light,  whether  derived  from  the  study  of  the 
 Universe,  or  as  Butler  has  pointed  out,  of  the  facts  of  Beve- 
 lation  itself,  we  may  have  to  change  many  of  our  theo¬ 
 logical  positions,  as  inadequate  exponents  of  its  great 
 realities ;  but  the  great  fact  that  God  has  spoken,  and 
 is  still  speaking  to  man  in  Jesus  Christ  will  remain 
 untouched. 
 
 Such  being  the  case,  it  will  be  desirable  that  I  should 
 enumerate  a  few  of  the  questions  which  lie  outside  the 
 position  which  the  defender  of  Christianity  is  called  upon  to 
 occupy.  It  is  necessary  to  do  so,  because  the  identification 
 of  a  large  number  of  questions  now  eagerly  debated  between 
 Christians  and  unbelievers  with  the  truth  of  Christianity 
 itself,  not  only  in  the  popular  mind,  but  by  many  earnest 
 inquirers,  is  one  of  the  chief  causes  by  which  the  faith  of 
 multitudes  has  been  shaken  in  the  present  day.  This  is  the 
 reason  why  I  have  been  careful  to  lay  down  the  distinction 
 between  Christianity  as  a  revelation,  and  Christianity  as  a 
 theology.  If  the  view  above  taken  is  correct,  the  whole 
 range  of  formulated  theology,  except  as  far  as  it  is  a  matter 
 of  direct  and  positive  revelation,  is  extraneous  to  the  question 
 whether  Christianity  is  or  is  not  a  divine  revelation.  The 
 determination  whether  its  statements  are  legitimate  deduc¬ 
 tions  from  the  facts  of  Christianity,  belongs  to  scientific 
 theology,  and  will  not  affect  the  divine  character  of  the  facts 
 themselves.  In  a  similar  manner,  various  questions  con¬ 
 nected  with  the  origin  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
 
22  THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 ment,  and  their  correct  interpretation,  however  profoundly 
 interesting  in  a  theological  point  of  view,  form  no  portion  of 
 our  evidential  position.  The  defender  of  Christianity  is  by 
 no  means  called  upon  to  prove  that  they  are  free  from 
 philosophical,  scientific,  or  historical  errors,  or  even  from 
 moral  imperfections.  To  use  an  illustration  borrowed  from 
 Paley,  it  is  most  unwise  to  stake  the  truth  of  Christianity  on 
 our  ability  to  prove  that  every  miraculous  narrative  recorded 
 in  its  pages  must,  beyond  all  controversy,  be  accepted  as  an 
 historical  fact.  To  do  this,  would  involve  the  defender  of 
 Christianity  in  the  necessity  of  maintaining  the  truth  of 
 some  special  theory  of  inspiration,  against  which  it  is 
 impossible  at  the  present  time  too  earnestly  to  protest ;  for 
 its  identification  with  certain  theories  extensively  popular 
 forms  one  of  the  strongholds  of  unbelief.  So  likewise  I 
 accept  Paley's  general  positions,  that  the  Christian  advocate 
 is  only  concerned  with  the  Old  Testament  so  far  as  portions 
 of  it  have  received  the  direct  sanction  of  Our  Lord.  I  by  no 
 means  overlook  the  importance  of  these  questions  as  far  as 
 they  bear  on  the  elaboration  of  a  true  Christian  theology; 
 but  they  must  not  be  allowed  to  be  mixed  up  with  the  all- 
 important  question,  whether  Christianity  contains  a  mani¬ 
 festation  of  the  divine,  or  whether  it  has  been  the  mere 
 evolution  of  those  moral  and  spiritual  forces  which  energize 
 in  man.  To  do  so  is  to  weaken  our  position  by  indefinitely 
 extending  it ;  a  movement  which  can  only  be  profitable  to 
 our  opponents. 
 
 For  the  same  reasons  a  number  of  very  interesting  ques¬ 
 tions  respecting  the  New  Testament,  which  have  been  made 
 the  subjects  of  most  eager  controversy,  form  no  portion  of 
 the  position  necessary  to  be  maintained  by  the  defender  of 
 Christianity  as  vital  to  its  truth.  It  is  a  matter  of  compara¬ 
 tive  unimportance  in  reference  to  the  real  issue  whether 
 Lysanias  was  tetrarch  of  Abilene  in  the  year  when  John  the 
 Baptist  commenced  his  ministry;  whether  Cyrenius  was 
 twice  governor  of  Syria ;  whether  our  Lord  cured  one  or  two 
 demoniacs  at  Gadara,  or  one  or  two  blind  men  at  Jericho; 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 23 
 
 or  the  precise  mode  in  which  Judas  died.  The  successful 
 solution  of  these  and  a  number  of  similar  questions 
 would  doubtless  afford  an  additional  confirmation  of  the 
 historical  accuracy  of  some  of  the  writers  of  the  New 
 Testament.  But  such  points  are  often  discussed  as  if  the 
 life  of  Christianity  was  involved  in  them,  whereas  the  only 
 point  which  they  really  involve  is  the  truth  of  a  particular 
 theory  of  inspiration.  Nor  is  the  question  whether  each 
 Gospel  was  written  by  the  person  whose  name  it  bears,  nor 
 the  actual  date  when  its  contents  were  first  committed  to 
 writing,  material  to  the  present  issue.  Nor  is  it  necessary 
 to  prove  that  the  quotations  from  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
 New  are  accurate  renderings  of  the  meaning  of  the  original, 
 or  that  the  logic  of  the  Epistles  is  always  accurate,  when 
 estimated  according  to  our  scientific  forms  of  reasoning.* 
 These,  and  a  number  of  other  questions,  are  profoundly 
 interesting  in  a  theological  point  of  view  ;  but  they  have  no 
 direct  bearing  on  the  all-important  questions,  whether  there 
 is  evidence  that  a  superhuman  power  has  manifested  itself 
 in  Christianity;  whether  the  great  facts  on  which  Chris¬ 
 tianity  is  based  were  historical  realities ;  whether  the  Resur¬ 
 rection  of  Jesus  Christ  is  a  fact,  or  the  belief  in  it  originated 
 
 *  I  have  selected  several  of  these  questions,  because  they  are  those 
 by  means  of  which  modern  unbelief  directs  some  of  its  sharpest 
 attacks  on  Christianity  as  a  divine  revelation.  This  indefinite  exten¬ 
 sion  of  our  position  is  simply  to  play  into  the  hands  of  our  opponents. 
 They  naturally  prefer  to  raise  side  issues,  instead  of  dealing  with  the 
 centre  of  the  Christian  position.  Thus  nothing  is  more  common  than 
 to  raise  questions  about  miracles  generally,  and  the  imperfection  of 
 the  attestation  of  this  or  that  particular  miracle,  instead  of  dealing 
 with  the  one  great  evidential  miracle  of  Christianity,  the  Resurrection, 
 on  the  reality  of  which  its  truth  rests.  If  they  could  prove  that  this 
 was  a  fiction,  they  would  force  the  entire  Christian  position.  If  it  is 
 a  fact,  Christianity  will  remain  intact,  notwithstanding  all  their  attacks 
 on  the  other  miraculous  narratives  in  the  Bible.  It  must  be  confessed, 
 however,  that  the  defenders  of  Revelation  have  greatly  encouraged 
 them  in  this  practice,  by  not  insisting  on  confining  the  issue  to  the 
 discussion  of  this  one  great  question. 
 
24  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 in  the  hallucination  of  His  followers.  If  all  these  things 
 can  be  firmly  established,  it  follows  that  Christianity  must 
 be  a  divine  revelation ;  and  we  can  afford  to  wait  for  the 
 solution  of  the  minor  difficulties  with  which  it  is  attended. 
 To  lay  down  clearly  the  distinction  between  points  which  are 
 essential,  and  those  which  are  non-essential  to  the  defence 
 of  Christianity,  is  at  the  present  day  of  the  highest  import¬ 
 ance  ;  because  a  wide-spread  opinion  prevails,  that  many  of 
 the  questions  that  are  eagerly  discussed  in  theological  con¬ 
 troversies  are  essential  to  its  truth. 
 
 Thus  ordinary  Christians  have  been  led  to  believe  that 
 such  questions  as — Whether  St.  Matthew  was  the  author  of 
 the  Gospel  that  bears  his  name ;  whether  the  writings  of 
 Isaiah  consist  of  two  portions,  one  of  which  was  composed 
 at  an  earlier,  and  the  other  at  a  later  date ;  whether  the 
 Pentateuch  in  its  present  form  was  written  by  Moses; 
 whether  the  commonly-received  Chronology  of  the  Old 
 Testament  is,  or  is  not  accurate;  whether  the  book  of 
 Daniel  was  composed  by  the  prophet  of  that  name,  who  lived 
 during  the  Captivity ;  whether  it  is  possible  to  weave  the 
 narratives  of  the  Evangelists  into  an  harmonious  whole ; 
 whether  the  references  made  by  the  earlier  Fathers  to  events 
 in  the  Evangelical  history  are  citations  from  our  Gospels, 
 and  not  from  others  which  must  have  closelv  resembled 
 
 1/ 
 
 them — that  all  these,  and  a  multitude  of  similar  questions, 
 are  so  bound  up  with  the  acceptance  of  Christianity  as  a 
 divine  revelation  that  they  must  stand  or  fall  together.  Men 
 hear  that  a  vast  number  of  accepted  beliefs  on  these  and 
 similar  subjects  have  been  called  in  question  by  persons  of 
 profound  learning,  and  their  faith  in  Christianity  is  shaken. 
 What  is  the  cause  of  this  ?  The  true  answer  is  that  popular 
 theology  has  widely  diffused  the  belief  that  a  number  of 
 points  which  are  really  non-essential  to  Christianity  as  a 
 divine  revelation  are  vital  to  its  defence.  Unbelievers  have 
 not  unnaturally  accepted  this  position,  and  in  consequence 
 have  loudly  proclaimed  that  the  belief  in  Christianity  as  a 
 divine  revelation  is  no  longer  tenable.  The  assumption  that 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 25 
 
 the  defence  of  this  wide  extent  of  matter  is  essential  to  the 
 Christian  position,  is  unquestionably  one  of  the  causes 
 which  has  led  to  that  wide-spread  shaking  of  belief  which 
 prevails  at  the  present  day.  The  whole  question,  however, 
 as  to  the  nature  and  validity  of  our  popular  theories  of 
 inspiration  is  a  subject  of  which  I  must  defer  the  con¬ 
 sideration  till  my  concluding  Lecture. 
 
 My  position  therefore  is,  that  the  ground  on  which  the 
 whole  of  our  defences  must  be  concentrated,  is  the  historic 
 reality  of  the  life  of  Our  Lord,  as  it  has  been  handed 
 down  by  the  traditions  of  His  primitive  followers;  and 
 that  this  life  has  exerted  a  unique  and  superhuman  power 
 throughout  the  last  eighteen  centuries  of  history.  Before, 
 however,  I  can  address  myself  to  the  direct  proof  of  this, 
 it  will  be  necessary  to  consider  the  relative  value  of  the 
 evidences  themselves,  the  order  in  which  they  should  be 
 stated,  and  the  modifications  in  the  mode  of  treatment  which 
 are  rendered  necessary  by  the  requirements  of  modern 
 thought. 
 
 1.  The  proof  of  Christianity  has  been  hitherto  based  on 
 what  is  called  its  miraculous  attestation.  Miracles  have 
 been  placed  in  the  forefront  of  the  Christian  argument,  and 
 other  evidences  have  occupied  in  it  a  very  subordinate 
 position.  This  is  the  line  of  reasoning  which  modern 
 apologists  have  all  but  unanimously  adopted. 
 
 An  opinion  however  is  becoming  widely  diffused  among 
 thoughtful  men,  that  this  mode  of  putting  the  argument  is 
 unsound.  I  am  fully  aware  of  the  weight  of  the  authorities 
 who  have  taken  the  opposite  view  to  the  one  which  I  feel  it 
 to  be  my  duty  to  propound  in  these  Lectures.  Of  these 
 Paley  may  be  cited  as  a  crucial  example.  Subsequent 
 writers  have  followed  closely  in  his  steps ;  and  have  con¬ 
 tented  themselves  with  adducing  proof  of  the  possibility 
 of  miracles,  or  with  strengthening  his  central  position. 
 Some  of  them,  however,  it  must  be  admitted,  have  handled 
 the  moral  argument  far  more  effectually  than  has  been 
 
26  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 done  by  him ;  for  the  principles  of  his  moral  philosophy 
 necessarily  rendered  his  treatment  of  the  moral  aspects  of 
 Christianity  inadequate. 
 
 I  am  not  aware  that  any  modern  writer  has  suggested  the 
 necessity  of  a  complete  change  of  front  in  our  evidential 
 position,  although  many  have  attached  a  far  higher  value  to 
 the  moral  aspects  of  Christianity,  as  evidences  of  its  truth. 
 As  however  it  seems  to  me  that  the  whole  exigencies  of 
 modern  thought  render  such  a  change  of  front  absolutely 
 necessary,  I  will  briefly  give  reasons  why  I  consider  that 
 the  moral  evidences  of  Christianity  ought  to  occupy  the  first 
 place,  and  its  miraculous  attestation  the  second,  in  the 
 Christian  argument. 
 
 As  the  three  following  Lectures  will  chiefly  be  devoted  to 
 the  consideration  of  what  I  shall  designate  the  moral 
 miracles  of  Christianity,  it  will  be  necessary  that  I  should 
 briefly  explain  the  meaning  which  I  attach  to  this  expression. 
 Our  evidential  treatises  restrict  the  term  “  miracle  ”  to  an 
 occurrence  in  the  physical  universe,  the  origin  of  which 
 cannot  be  accounted  for  by  the  action  of  its  ordinary  forces. 
 From  such  an  event  is  inferred  the  presence  of  a  power  or 
 force  of  a  different  order,  capable  of  energizing  in  them, 
 directing,  controlling,  and  bending  them  in  such  a  manner 
 as  to  effect  a  particular  purpose,  and  to  bring  about  a  result 
 different  from  that  which  would  have  taken  place  from  their 
 ordinary  action.  Such  an  event  we  designate  “a  miracle;” 
 and  from  it  we  infer  the  presence  of  a  superhuman  power.  But 
 why  the  expression  should  be  limited  to  occurrences  of  this 
 kind  as  constituting  the  sole  divine  attestation  of  Christianity 
 it  is  difficult  to  say.  Surely  there  is  an  order  in  the  moral 
 and  spiritual  world  no  less  than  in  the  material.  Moral 
 and  spiritual  forces  act  no  less  in  conformity  with  moral  and 
 spiritual  laws  than  the  forces  which  energize  in  the  physical 
 universe  act  in  conformity  with  physical  laws.  If  deviations 
 from  the  accustomed  order  of  the  one,  or  the  occurrence  of 
 events  which  cannot  be  accounted  for  by  the  action  of  any 
 of  its  known  forces,  prove  the  presence  of  a  divine  power. 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 27 
 
 so  must  similar  phenomena  in  the  moral  and  spiritual 
 worlds  be  manifestations  of  the  energy  of  a  superhuman 
 power.  Such  manifestations  I  shall  designate  “  moral 
 miracles,”  by  which  I  mean,  events  occurring  in  the  moral 
 and  spiritual  world,  for  the  origin  of  which  none  of  its 
 known  forces  are  sufficient  to  account.  If  I  can  prove  that 
 such  manifestations  have  taken  place  in  connection  with 
 Christianity,  it  will  be  evidence  that  a  superhuman  power 
 has  manifested  itself  in  it.  This  being  so,  the  all-important 
 question  will  be,  Are  we  able  to  verify  in  connection  with  it 
 the  presence  of  such  a  superhuman  power  in  the  history  of 
 the  past,  or  in  the  facts  of  the  present  ?  If  we  can,  I 
 contend  that  it  will  afford  a  stronger  proof  of  its  divine 
 character  than  that  which  can  be  supplied  by  miracles 
 wrought  in  the  physical  universe,  which  require  a  long  and 
 complicated  chain  of  historical  reasoning  to  establish  their 
 truth. 
 
 Much  confusion  has  been  introduced  into  our  reasonings 
 about  miracles  by  the  practice,  which  has  been  common  to 
 both  the  opponents  and  the  defenders  of  Christianity,  of  using 
 a  number  of  ambiguous  terms,  so  that  it  has  become  difficult 
 to  express  oneself  with  precision  on  the  subject.*  A  brief 
 allusion  to  them  is  all  that  will  be  necessary  in  this  place. 
 Even  the  word  “  Supernatural”  itself  is  one  which  it  is 
 almost  dangerous  for  a  theist  to  employ.  When  we  use 
 it  to  denote  God's  mode  of  action  in  connection  with  a 
 
 *  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  arguments 
 employed  by  the  author  of  “  Supernatural  Religion”  against  miracles 
 are  founded  on  the  ambiguous  senses  in  which  the  various  terms 
 employed  in  the  Christian  argument  are  used.  To  this  their  entire 
 plausibility  is  due.  The  inconclusiveness  of  his  reasoning  is  obvious 
 enough  to  close  logical  thinkers;  but  unfortunately  the  great  majority 
 of  the  readers  of  such  works  are  not  such,  and  the  large  number  of 
 editions  through  which  this  work  has  passed  proves  that  on  them  its 
 influence  has  been  sufficiently  telling.  This  alone  shows  the  import¬ 
 ance  of  not  allowing  our  strength  to  be  wasted  on  a  number  of  side 
 issues,  but  of  confining  our  defence  of  Christianity  to  its  great  central 
 position. 
 
28 
 
 THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 revelation,  as  distinguished  from  other  modes  of  the  divine 
 activity,  we  run  no  little  danger  of  making  the  covert 
 assumption  that  God  is  not  everywhere  energizing  in  the 
 ordinary  forces  of  the  Universe  by  which  we  are  surrounded ; 
 a  view  which  is  not  only  opposed  to  all  sound  principles  of 
 Theism,  but  one  to  which  the  writers  of  the  Bible  are  entire 
 strangers.  If  one  thing  is  more  certain  than  another,  it  is 
 that  the  whole  series  of  these  writers  view  the  forces  of 
 nature  as  manifestations  of  the  energies  of  God.  In  fact  the 
 modern  distinction  between  the  Natural  and  the  Supernatural 
 is  to  them  unknown.* 
 
 This  confusion  has  originated  in  the  various  senses  which 
 have  been  assigned  to  the  words  “  Nature,”  c'  Natural,”  and 
 their  derivatives,  and  from  the  ambiguous  use  of  the  word 
 “  law,”  not  only  to  denote  the  invariable  sequences  of  events, 
 but  also  the  mode  of  the  action  of  the  forces  which  energize 
 in  the  Universe.  The  all-important  question  on  which  the 
 entire  controversy  turns  is.  What  do  we  mean  by  C(  Nature,” 
 and  what  class  of  phenomena  do  we  include  under  it  ? 
 Thus  if  we  confine  the  words  (( Nature”  and  “  Natural” 
 to  matter,  its  necessary  forces  and  laws,  we  denote  by 
 them  a  definite  class  of  phenomena ;  but  if  we  include  under 
 them  man,  his  freedom,  his  intellect,  and  his  moral  and 
 spiritual  being,  we  mix  up  with  the  former  phenomena  of  a 
 wholly  different  class  and  order.  But  these  terms  have  been 
 used  by  both  sides  in  this  controversy,  as  though  they  had 
 a  clear  and  definite  meaning;  and  thus  various  classes  of 
 
 *  This  may  be  affirmed  absolutely  of  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
 ment.  Thus  in  the  Book  of  Psalms  the  energy  of  God  is  represented 
 as  being  quite  as  much  manifested  in  the  daily  course  of  nature  as  in 
 the  miracles  of  the  Exodus.  This  is  not  quite  so  apparent  in  the  New 
 Testament,  in  which  the  references  to  the  forces  of  nature  are  com¬ 
 paratively  rare.  But  whenever  our  Lord  refers  to  nature  in  His 
 teaching,  He  uniformly  recognizes  in  it  the  presence  of  His  Father. 
 According  to  the  Bible  both  the  energies  which  are  constantly  exhi¬ 
 biting  themselves  in  the  Universe,  and  the  phenomena  which  we 
 designate  miracles,  are  alike  manifestations  of  the  divine  activity,  the 
 one  differing  from  the  other  merely  in  their  mode  of  action. 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 29 
 
 phenomena  fundamentally  distinct  have  become  mixed  to¬ 
 gether  in  hopeless  confusion.  A  similar  result  has  followed 
 from  the  habitual  use  of  the  term  “  law,”  to  denote  both  the 
 invariable  sequences  and  the  forces  that  energize  in  the 
 material  Universe.  Can  any  one  wonder  at  the  confusion  of 
 thought  which  has  arisen  in  consequence  ?  The  importance 
 of  this  subject  will  render  it  necessary  that  I  should  consider 
 it  more  fully  in  a  supplement  to  this  Lecture. 
 
 This  confusion  of  thought,  in  which  the  whole  question  of 
 miracles  has  become  involved,  is  a  sufficient  justification  for 
 placing  what  I  have  designated  the  moral  miracles  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity  in  the  forefront  of  our  evidential  position.  But  this 
 change  seems  to  me  to  be  also  imperatively  called  for  by  the 
 following  reasons,  in  order  that  we  may  adapt  our  evidential 
 position  to  the  requirements  of  modern  thought. 
 
 All  its  requirements  point  to  verification  as  the  great  test 
 of  truth.  The  entire  history  of  discovery  has  proved  that 
 theories  which  are  incapable  of  being  submitted  to  this 
 test  have  failed  to  conduct  us  to  the  realities  of  things. 
 Hence  has  arisen  a  great  difficulty  in  the  way  of  accepting 
 as  actual  occurrences  such  events  as,  being  without  counter¬ 
 parts  in  the  modern  world,  require  that  their  truth  should 
 be  established  by  a  long  and  intricate  chain  of  reasoning, 
 owing  to  the  danger  that  exists,  that  among  its  numerous 
 links  there  may  be  flaws  which  have  escaped  our  observation. 
 The  habits  of  reasoning  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of 
 modern  science  have  all  tended  to  confirm  the  opinion  that 
 facts  which  can  receive  no  kind  of  verification  either  in  the 
 realities  of  the  present  or  in  the  palpable  historical  events  of 
 the  past  can  only  be  accepted  as  true  on  an  amount  of 
 evidence  which  is  practically  demonstrative.  Whether  this 
 position  be  right  or  wrong,  it  is  unquestionable  that  such  is 
 the  tendency  of  modern  thought.  This  has  introduced  a 
 difficulty  into  the  proof  of  miracles,  which  was  little  felt  in 
 former  times,  as  from  the  nature  of  the  case  they  cannot  be 
 subjected  to  any  species  of  verification.  Very  different, 
 however,  will  it  be  with  those  manifestations  of  a  super- 
 
30  THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 human  power  energizing  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  worlds, 
 which  I  shall  claim  for  Christianity.  I  shall  prove  that 
 they  can  be  clearly  traced  in  the  history  of  the  past  and 
 in  the  facts  of  the  present,  in  connection  with  the  person 
 of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Church  which  He  has  founded. 
 The  facts  are  plain  and  simple,  requiring  no  long  or  intri¬ 
 cate  historical  proof  to  establish  their  truth,  but  admit  of 
 an  easy  verification.  As  their  reality  is  indisputable,  the 
 only  question  that  can  arise  is,  Are  they  manifestations  of  a 
 superhuman  power,  or  can  they  be  accounted  for  as  the 
 results  of  the  known  forces  energizing  in  man?  On  this 
 point  I  shall  appeal  to  your  judgment  in  the  following 
 Lectures.  Their  verifiable  character  alone  forms  a  suffi¬ 
 cient  reason  for  placing  them  in  the  forefront  of  the  Chris¬ 
 tian  argument. 
 
 2.  As  miracles,  in  the  sense  in  which  that  term  is  employed 
 in  evidential  treatises,  do  not  take  place  in  the  present  day, 
 the  only  mode  of  proving  their  occurrence  in  former  times 
 is  by  a  chain  of  historical  reasoning  which  involves  the 
 necessity  of  carefully  weighing  and  balancing  a  large 
 number  of  intricate  probabilities  which  constitute  our 
 historical  argument,  a  process  which  requires  a  special 
 training  for  its  due  appreciation.  In  one  point  of  view  it 
 must  be  conceded  that  modern  thought  has  increased  the 
 value  of  miracles  as  evidential  to  a  divine  commission,  if  we 
 could  either  witness  them  ourselves,  or  their  occurrence 
 could  be  proved  by  demonstrative  evidence.  In  the  present 
 day  our  belief  in  the  invariability  of  the  forces  of  the 
 material  Universe,  and  in  the  continuity  of  nature,  is  of 
 the  strongest  kind.  We  are  firmly  persuaded  that  this  con¬ 
 tinuity  is  only  capable  of  being  interrupted  by  the  Creator, 
 or  by  one  delegated  by  Him.  To  us,  therefore,  if  an  indubit¬ 
 able  miracle  could  be  performed  before  our  eyes,  it  would 
 have  the  highest  evidential  value,  as  affording  indisputable 
 proof  of  the  intervention  of  a  Being  distinct  from,  and 
 superior  to,  the  forces  of  the  material  universe,  i.e.,  God. 
 But  very  different  were  the  ideas  entertained  on  this  subject 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 31 
 
 in  former  ages.  Tlie  belief  was  then  all  but  universal,  that 
 other  beings  were  able  to  interfere  with  and  modify  its 
 forces  at  their  pleasure.  Consequently,  to  persons  who  held 
 such  opinions,  a  miracle  only  offered  evidence  of  the 
 presence  of  a  superhuman ,  and  not  of  a  divine ,  power; 
 and  its  evidential  value  was  diminished  in  proportion  to 
 the  prevalence  of  this  belief.  As  in  Our  Lord^s  days  the 
 belief  was  wide-spread  that  demons  were  capable  of  ex¬ 
 ercising  this  power,  He  habitually  appealed  to  the  moral 
 aspect  of  His  miracles  in  proof  that  they  were  wrought  by 
 the  finger  of  God.  But  while  the  course  of  modern  thought 
 thus  assigns  a  higher  evidential  value  to  miracles,  on  the 
 supposition  that  their  proof  is  rigid  and  exact,  this  ad¬ 
 vantage  is  far  more  than  counterbalanced  by  the  rigid 
 exactitude  of  the  proof  which  it  requires.  Nothing  sets 
 this  difficulty  in  a  stronger  light  than  the  prevailing 
 tendency  in  modern  times  summarily  to  reject  any  account 
 of  the  occurrence  of  a  miracle  without  even  deigning  to 
 inquire  into  the  evidence  on  which  it  rests  ;  and  this  feeling 
 is  far  from  being  confined  to  unbelievers.  The  Church  of 
 Rome  professes  to  possess  a  continuous  miraculous  attesta¬ 
 tion  ;  but  whenever  we  hear  of  a  Romish  miracle  we  set  it 
 aside  at  once  without  troubling  ourselves  to  inquire  into  its 
 evidence.  This  tendency  is  in  some  degree  increased  by 
 the  unquestionable  fact  that  this  Church  has  encouraged 
 the  belief  in  miracles  which  are  notoriously  false,  and 
 therefore  stands  before  us  in  the  character  of  a  convicted 
 impostor.  Still  we  entertain  much  the  same  feelings  with 
 respect  to  all  similar  accounts,  be  they  reported  by  whom 
 they  may. 
 
 Men  would  now  accept  the  reality  of  a  miracle  only  on 
 the  very  strongest  evidence  that  it  was  not  the  result  of 
 delusion  or  imposture.  From  these  difficulties  moral 
 miracles  are  exempt. 
 
 The  difficulty  which  was  felt  in  resting  the  proof  of  the 
 divine  origin  of  Christianity  on  miracles  alone  is  shown  by 
 the  line  of  reasoning  for  the  most  part  adopted  by  the  early 
 
32  THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 apologists,  who  lived  in  daily  contact  with  the  heathen, 
 when  they  endeavoured  to  recommend  Christianity  to  their 
 acceptance.  It  is  evident  that  with  them  miracles  occupied 
 a  very  different  place  in  the  controversy  from  that  which 
 has  been  assigned  to  them  by  modern  writers.  One  feels 
 a  difficulty  in  believing  that  if  Paley^s  argument  had  been 
 placed  before  a  Father  of  the  second  or  third  century,  it 
 would  have  commended  itself  to  him  as  an  efficient  mode  of 
 persuading  an  unbeliever  to  embrace  the  Christian  faith. 
 With  them  the  moral  aspects  of  Christianity  preponderate 
 over  the  miraculous,  as  the  chief  means  of  winning  the  assent 
 of  the  heathen  to  the  Gospel. 
 
 3.  The  usual  proof  which  is  adduced  for  miracles  in  our 
 common  evidential  treatises  consists  in  marshalling  a  very 
 complicated  mass  of  historical  evidence,  requiring  a  course 
 of  special  training  for  its  due  appreciation.  This  alone  forms 
 a  sufficient  reason  why  it  should  not  occupy  the  van  of  the 
 Christian  position,  while  other  evidences,  capable  of  a  more 
 direct  appreciation,  are  equally  available.  It  is  evident 
 that  the  number  of  those  who  have  either  the  ability,  the 
 time,  or  the  means  of  sifting  a  body  of  evidence  of  this 
 description,  is  comparatively  small,  and  consequently  all 
 that  others  can  do,  is  to  take  it  at  second-hand.  For 
 example :  one  of  the  necessary  media  of  proof  for  this 
 purpose  is  to  establish  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of 
 the  Gospels  by  quotations  from  the  Fathers.  A  mass  of 
 evidence  of  this  description  involves  the  careful  balancing  of 
 a  large  number  of  probabilities,  and  in  the  case  before  us 
 their  complication  is  considerable ;  and  of  the  effect  of  the 
 whole  the  ordinary  reader  feels  himself  to  be  a  very  imperfect 
 judge.  But  the  whole  current  of  modern  thought  is  steadily 
 moving  in  an  opposite  direction.  It  justly  refuses  to  rest 
 its  religious  convictions  on  the  authority  of  others,  and 
 demands,  on  a  subject  of  such  profound  importance,  evi¬ 
 dence  the  value  of  which  each  individual  can  estimate  for 
 himself. 
 
 I  merely  adduce  this  as  one  out  of  many  difficulties,  in 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 33 
 
 which  the  historical  argument,  as  it  is  usually  set  forth,  is 
 involved  ;  and  which  render  it  highly  dangerous  to  rest  upon 
 it  the  chief  weight  of  the  defence  of  Christianity.  The 
 entire  field  of  evidence,  as  we  know,  extends  over  a  large 
 body  of  literature,  and  fully  to  estimate  its  value  requires  the 
 exercise  of  a  practised  judgment.  This  alone  constitutes  a 
 decisive  reason  why,  if  we  can  adduce  proof  of  the  operation 
 of  a  superhuman  power  in  Christianity,  capable  of  easy 
 verification  in  the  history  of  the  past  and  in  the  facts  of 
 the  present,  we  should  assign  to  it  the  place  which  the 
 
 argument  from  miracles  now  holds  in  our  ordinary  evidential 
 treatises.* 
 
 4.  The  evidential  value  of  miracles  operates  less  strongly 
 on  a  large  number  of  minds  at  the  present  day,  because  we 
 have  not  only  to  prove  that  those  who  have  reported  them 
 honestly  believed  that  they  witnessed  them,  but  that  they 
 
 #  It  has  not  been  sufficiently  observed  that  evidence  which  may  at 
 some  former  period  have  been  perfectly  satisfactory  as  proving  a  divine 
 commission  to  those  to  whom  it  was  vouchsafed,  may  have  lost  much 
 of  its  force  by  lapse  of  time.  It  is  one  thing  to  witness  a  miracle,  and 
 from  it  to  infer  the  presence  of  a  divine  power,  and  quite  another  thing 
 to  believe,  as  the  result  of  carefully  balancing  a  long  and  complicated 
 mass  of  historical  testimony,  that  a  miracle  has  been  performed  at 
 some  distant  period  of  time.  Besides,  as  many  of  the  witnesses  die 
 without  leaving  any  record  of  their  testimony,  the  evidence  is  less 
 powerful  to  us  than  it  must  have  been  to  contemporaries,  who  had  the 
 entire  evidence  before  them.  It  follows,  therefore,  even  if  it  could  be 
 proved  that  miracles  formed  the  chief  attestation  of  Christianity  in  the 
 Apostolic  age,  that  it  is  by  no  means  a  necessary  result  of  this  that  they 
 should  form  its  sole  and  all-commanding  attestation  eighteen  centuries 
 after  they  have  ceased  to  be  performed.  Christianity,  however, 
 possesses  this  most  remarkable  characteristic.  Precisely  in  propor¬ 
 tion  as  its  miracles  have  diminished  in  evidential  value  through  lapse  of 
 time  and  the  complicated  methods  thereby  rendered  necessary  to  prove 
 their  occurrence,  the  evidence  derived  from  what  I  have  designated  its 
 moral  miracles  becomes  stronger  and  stronger,  being  testified  to  alike 
 by  the  history  of  the  past,  and  the  facts  of  the  present.  Christianity 
 is  in  fact  the  only  religion  in  the  world,  the  moral  evidence  of  which 
 increases  by  lapse  of  time.  Contrast  with  this  Mahometanism,  the 
 moral  evidence  of  which,  if  it  ever  had  any,  is  steadily  diminishing. 
 
 3 
 
34  THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 were  at  tlie  same  time  not  labouring  under  any  of  tliose 
 mental  hallucinations  which  have  unquestionably  led  persons 
 under  their  influence  to  mistake  the  subjective  creations  of 
 their  own  imagination  for  objective  realities.  Modern  re¬ 
 search  has  proved  that  such  phenomena  are  not  uncommon, 
 and  that  they  have  exerted  no  inconsiderable  influence  in 
 originating  many  of  the  delusions  of  the  past,  which  were 
 once  assigned  to  the  effect  of  deliberate  imposture.  Not 
 only  is  it  the  case  that  a  large  number  of  occurrences  have 
 been  reported  as  true,  which  rational  men  now  refuse  to 
 accept  as  objective  facts ;  but  some  of  them  rest  on  an 
 attestation  far  stronger  than  would  be  necessary  to  establish 
 the  truth  of  an  ordinary  event.  In  several  cases  the  honesty 
 of  the  reporters  is  unquestionable.  Consequently  the  only 
 way  of  accounting  for  the  belief  in  them  is  to  assume,  that 
 under  certain  states  of  mental  hallucination,  the  reality  of 
 which  has  been  fully  recognized  by  modern  science,  they 
 have  mistaken  impressions  purely  subjective  for  external 
 realities.  The  importance  of  this  is  increased,  because  it  is 
 a  well  ascertained  fact  that  persons  are  capable  of  labouring 
 under  delusions  on  particular  subjects,  while  in  other  respects 
 they  are  mentally  sound. 
 
 This  principle  has  been  applied  as  the  explanation  of 
 some  well  attested  narratives  of  miracles  in  past  ages,  the 
 honesty  of  the  reporters  of  which  it  would  be  difficult  to 
 controvert,  but  the  reality  of  which  it  would  be  equally 
 difficult  to  believe.  But  we  need  not  wander  over  the  ages 
 of  the  past  for  examples  of  well  attested  miraculous  narra¬ 
 tives.  At  the  present  day  the  recently  reported  miracles  in 
 France,  which,  while  they  rest  on  a  very  high  form  of 
 attestation,  probably  none  of  us  accept  as  objective  realities, 
 are  instances  in  point.  Still  more  so  are  the  phenomena  of 
 spiritualism,  occurring  as  they  are  alleged  to  do,  in  the  very 
 midst  of  us.  These  latter,  as  far  as  mere  attestation  goes, 
 unquestionably  rest  on  one  which  is  extremely  strong. 
 Their  reality  is  affirmed,  not  only  by  large  numbers  of 
 persons  of  every  variety  of  mental  cultivation,  but  by  men 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 35 
 
 who  have  been  accustomed  to  estimate  legal  evidence,  and 
 by  some  who  deservedly  hold  a  high  rank  in  departments  of 
 physical  science,  and  cannot  but  be  well  acquainted  with 
 scientific  processes  of  investigation.  As  their  honesty  is 
 unquestionable,  and  on  the  supposition  that  they  are  not 
 the  dupes  of  fraud,*  which  in  some  cases  is  highly  impro¬ 
 bable,  it  follows  that  if  the  phenomena  which  they  believe 
 themselves  to  have  witnessed  are  unreal,  their  belief  in  them 
 must  be  owing  to  their  having  mistaken  subjective  im¬ 
 pressions  for  external  realities.  I  have  selected  the  case  of 
 spiritualism  as  an  illustration,  because  it  is  evident  that  if 
 we  view  the  question  as  one  of  attestation  pure  and  simple, 
 banishing  all  other  considerations,  some  of  its  phenomena 
 rest  on  a  testimony  which  is  unusually  strong.  I  propose  to 
 discriminate  between  it  and  the  evidence  of  Our  Lord's 
 resurrection  when  I  discuss  the  theory  of  visions  in  my 
 seventh  Lecture.  My  object  in  noticing  the  subject  here  is 
 to  point  out  the  difficulty  and  complexity  which  the  existence 
 of  such  beliefs  imports  into  the  historical  argument,  if  we 
 view  it  as  a  simple  question  of  attestation. 
 
 It  has  now  therefore  become  necessary  to  show,  not  only 
 that  the  reporters  of  miracles  believed  that  they  actually 
 witnessed  them,  but  also  that  it  was  impossible  that,  in  ac¬ 
 cordance  with  the  explanations  which  an  eminent  scientific 
 authorityf  has  given  of  some  well-attested  spiritualistic 
 phenomena,  the  belief  could  have  originated  in  mistaking 
 subjective  impressions  for  external  realities.  It  would  be 
 absurd  to  shut  our  eyes  to  the  fa  ct  that  the  proof  of  miracles 
 which  have  occurred  in  the  distant  past,  if  we  view  the 
 question  exclusively  as  one  of  testimony,  is  rendered  far  less 
 convincing  to  a  considerable  number  of  minds  by  the  exist¬ 
 ence  of  wide-spread  delusions  of  this  description,  to  which 
 
 *  I  state  this  on  the  authority  of  Dr.  Carpenter.  While  he  attri¬ 
 butes  a  large  number  of  these  phenomena  to  fraud,  and  others  to  mes¬ 
 meric  influences,  he  is  of  opinion  that  there  is  a  considerable  residuum 
 which  it  is  impossible  to  refer  to  imposture  as  their  cause. 
 
 t  Dr.  Carpenter’s  Mental  Physiology. 
 
 3  * 
 
36  tbs  order  of  the  Christian  argument, 
 
 men  of  unquestionable  intelligence,  and  no  small  amount  of 
 scientific  eminence,  are  a  prey.  Still  further :  it  complicates 
 the  entire  question  by  imposing  on  us  the  necessity  of  clearly 
 discriminating  between  tbe  evidence  of  the  Christian  miracles 
 and  those  which,  although  they  rest  on  a  strong  attestation, 
 we  reject  as  unrealities.  These  considerations  alone  furnish 
 the  strongest  reason  why  the  argument  from  miracles,  as  it 
 has  been  usually  stated,  should  no  longer  occupy  the  van  of 
 our  evidential  position,  but  that  it  should  give  place  to  one 
 which  is  capable  of  verification,  namely,  the  superhuman 
 action  of  Christ  in  history. 
 
 5s.  Our  increased  acquaintance  with  the  power  of  the  mind 
 to  produce  important  results  by  its  action  on  our  bodily 
 frames  has  tended  to  produce  in  many  a  distrust  in  the 
 evidence  of  miracles  alleged  to  have  been  wrought  in  distant 
 ages,  the  precise  character  of  which  it  is  now  impossible  to 
 submit  to  such  a  rigid  scrutiny,  as  we  would  any  miracles 
 alleged  to  have  been  performed  at  the  present  day,  before 
 admitting  their  reality.  The  limits  of  this  power  are  un¬ 
 known;  but  it  is  unquestionably  extensive  and  capable  of 
 producing  results  which  to  ordinary  minds  would  seem 
 miraculous.  The  eminent  physiologist  above  referred  to* 
 has  expressed  his  belief  that  the  stigmata ,  alleged  to  have 
 been  produced  on  the  bodies  of  some  mediaeval  saints,  were 
 realities,  and  that  a  purely  mental  influence  is  adequate  to 
 produce  them.  On  such  a  point  I  can  only  quote  his 
 authority;  but  it  is  unquestionable  that  within  certain 
 limitations,  the  power  is  a  real  one,  and  capable  of  produc¬ 
 ing  results  which  in  former  ages  would  have  been  deemed 
 miraculous.  This  being  so,  it  places  a  certain  class  of  cures 
 in  an  ambiguous  position,  and  deprives  them  of  much  of 
 their  value  as  evidential  miracles.  It  is  clear,  however,  that 
 while  some  of  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  New  Testament 
 may  be  referred  to  influences  of  this  kind,  others  lie 
 quite  beyond  the  power  of  any  action  of  the  mind  on  the 
 
 *  Mental  Physiology,  p.  6S9. 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 87 
 
 body  to  have  effected.  Still  it  cannot  be  denied  that  such 
 phenomena,  the  belief  entertained  by  large  numbers  of 
 intelligent  men  in  the  phenomena  of  spiritualism,  and  other 
 kindred  delusions,  and  the  existence  of  a  considerable 
 number  of  well  attested  miraculous  narratives  in  the  history 
 of  the  past,  the  objective  reality  of  which  it  is  impossible  to 
 admit,  have  tended  to  weaken  the  force  of  the  argument 
 from  miracles,  and  to  increase  the  difficulty  of  proof,  render¬ 
 ing  it  necessary,  if  the  entire  weight  of  the  Christian  argu¬ 
 ment  is  to  be  made  to  rest  on  it,  clearly  to  discriminate 
 between  the  evidence  of  the  one  set  of  miraculous  narratives 
 and  of  the  other.  The  complexity  of  such  an  argument  is, 
 I  think,  a  sufficient  reason  why  we  should  place  a  body  of 
 evidence  which  admits  of  an  easy  verification  in  the  fore¬ 
 front  of  the  Christian  position,  and  assign  to  that  of  miracles 
 a  collateral  and  subordinate  one. 
 
 By  way  of  illustration  of  my  general  position  let  us  sup¬ 
 pose  a  well  informed  missionary,  endeavouring  to  win  over 
 to  the  acceptance  of  Christianity  \  an  intelligent  Hindoo 
 Theist,  well  acquainted  with  all  our  modern  objections.  Is  it 
 conceivable  that  he  would  begin  by  placing  before  him  the 
 argument  from  miracles,  as  it  is  set  forth  in  our  common 
 evidential  treatises  ?  Ought  he  not  rather  to  place  in  the 
 forefront  of  his  reasoning  the  moral  and  spiritual  aspects 
 of  Christianity,  assigning  the  first  place  to  that  mighty 
 energy  which  eighteen  centuries  of  history  testify  to  be 
 centred  in  the  person  of  its  Founder?  To  take  the 
 former  course  would  not  only  render  it  necessary  for  his 
 proposed  convert  to  enter  into  the  discussion  of  all  the 
 a  priori  difficulties  with  which  the  question  of  miracles  is 
 attended,  but  also  to  undertake  an  intricate  and  laborious 
 historical  investigation,  not  only  for  the  purpose  of  esti¬ 
 mating  the  value  of  the  evidence  in  favour  of  the  Christian 
 miracles,  but  of  discriminating  between  them  and  the  mass 
 of  false  miracles  with  which  history  abounds.  To  plunge 
 an  intelligent  heathen  into  a  vast  range  of  inquiries  of 
 this  description  would  surely  be  very  unlikely  to  result 
 
38  TEE  ORDER  OE  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 in  his  speedily  embracing  the  Christian  faith.  But  if  the 
 order  in  which  the  Christian  argument  is  arranged  in  our 
 common  evidential  treatises  would  be  an  unwise  mode  of 
 setting  the  claims  of  Christianity  before  an  intelligent 
 heathen,  it  surely  cannot  be  a  right  mode  of  presenting  it 
 for  the  conviction  of  unbelievers,  the  confirmation  of 
 waverers,  or  the  strengthening  of  the  Christian  in  his 
 faith. 
 
 In  making  these  observations,  it  is  by  no  means  my  inten¬ 
 tion  to  depreciate  the  argument  from  miracles,  which  I 
 hope  to  show  in  subsequent  Lectures  to  possess  a  real  value 
 when  assigned  to  its  due  place,  in  proper  subordination  to 
 that  course  of  reasoning  which  the  exigencies  of  modern 
 thought  imperatively  demand.  For  this  purpose,  therefore, 
 in  conformity  with  Our  Lord's  precept,  ff  to  bring  out  of  our 
 treasures  things  both  new  and  old,"  I  propose  in  the  three 
 following  Lectures  to  state  the  outlines  of  the  argument 
 which  I  contend  should  be  placed  in  the  forefront  of  our  evi¬ 
 dential  position.  In  the  next  three,  I  propose  to  examine 
 the  argument  for  miracles  with  a  view  of  strengthening  those 
 portions  of  it  which  the  results  of  modern  investigation  have 
 shown  to  be  defective.  My  last  Lecture  will  be  devoted  to 
 the  consideration  of  the  value  of  existing  theories  of  inspira¬ 
 tion  and  the  relation  in  which  they  stand  to  modern  science. 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION, 
 
 39 
 
 * 
 
 •  V*  „  i"  X 
 
 :  ■  . r  -  *  ■  •.  ;  *.  i  '  i r.  1)  i  vL- a 
 
 •  •  ~  -  '  ■  f  ^  ✓♦/*  ♦*  u 
 
 SUPPLEMENT  L 
 
 The  position  which  I  have  taken,  that  the  essence  of 
 Christianity  as  distinct  from  its  adjuncts,  consists  not  in  a 
 mere  body  of  abstract  doctrinal  statements  or  moral  pre¬ 
 cepts,  but  in  the  manifestation  of  J esus  Christ,  his  teaching 
 and  historic  life,  is  so  important,  whether  we  view  it  in  its 
 apologetic  or  in  its  theological  aspect,  as  to  render  it 
 desirable  to  adduce  a  larger  body  of  proof  in  support  of  it 
 than  would  have  been  possible  to  bring  forward  in  the 
 Lecture  itself.  I  have  affirmed  that  the  Christian  revelation 
 is  not  only  made  by  Jesus  Christ,  but  consists  in  his  person, 
 his  actions  and  his  teaching  :  in  other  words  that  he  is  an 
 actual  manifestation  of  the  divine  in  the  sphere  of  the 
 human,  revealing  to  us  the  innermost  aspect  of  the  moral 
 and  spiritual  character  of  God,  as  far  as  it  can  be  conceived 
 of  by  finite  intelligence.  If  this  position  is  correctly  taken, 
 it  has  not  only  a  most  important  bearing  on  our  evidential 
 position,  but  on  the  entire  range  of  Christian  theology.  On 
 the  latter  subject  however  I  must  not  enter;  but  confine  my 
 observations  to  the  former. 
 
 If  the  writings  of  St.  John  form  a  legitimate  portion  of 
 the  New  Testament  canon,  the  truth  of  this  position  must 
 be  considered  as  firmly  established.  I  will  therefore  adduce 
 the  chief  points  of  the  evidence  which  they  supply. 
 
 The  introduction  to  the  first  epistle  affirms  in  the  most 
 direct  terms  that  the  Christian  Revelation  is  made  in  the 
 historic  life  and  actions  of  Jesus  Christ;  that  this  constitutes 
 the  truth  which  underlies  the  entire  letter,  and  that  its 
 subsequent  portions  were  intended  to  unfold  it,  and  to  form 
 a  commentary  on  it. 
 
 “  That  which  was  from  the  beginning,”  says  he,  “  which 
 
40  the  oedeb  oe  the  cheistian  aegument, 
 
 we  have  heard,  which  we  have  seen  with  onr  eyes,  which  we 
 have  looked  upon,  and  onr  hands  have  handled,  concerning 
 the  Word  of  life;  for  the  life  was  manifested,  and  we  have 
 seen  it,  and  bear  witness,  and  show  unto  yon  that  eternal 
 life,  which  was  with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  unto 
 us.  That  which  we  have  seen  and  heard  declare  we  unto 
 you,  that  ye  also  may  have  fellowship  with  us ;  and  truly 
 our  fellowship  is  with  the  Father  and  with  his  Son  Jesus 
 Christ.  And  these  things  write  we  unto  you  that  your  joy 
 may  be  full.” 
 
 Nothing  can  be  more  explicit  than  this  statement.  The 
 following  points  are  either  directly  affirmed  in  it,  or  dedu- 
 cible  from  it  by  the  strictest  rules  of  logical  inference. 
 
 1.  That  the  subject  on  which  the  author  of  the  Epistle 
 was  going  to  address  those  to  whom  he  wrote  was  <f  con¬ 
 cerning  the  Word  of  life,"  whom  he  identified  with  the 
 historic  Jesus. 
 
 2.  That  this  “Word  of  life”  was  from  the  beginning, 
 having  existed  prior  to  the  manifestation  of  Jesus  Christ  in 
 history. 
 
 3.  That  this  divine  life  which  dwelt  in  the  Logos  was 
 manifested  to  men  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  by  the 
 Incarnation. 
 
 4.  That  this  divine  life  took  so  substantial  a  form  that  the 
 Apostle  had  seen  it  with  his  eyes,  looked  upon  it,  and 
 handled  it  with  his  hands.  Further,  he  had  had  the  testi¬ 
 mony  of  his  ears  to  the  reality  of  this  divine  manifestation : 
 for  he  had  listened  throughout  the  period  of  his  ministry  to 
 its  heavenly  utterances. 
 
 5.  That  the  actions  and  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  consti¬ 
 tuted  this  divine  life  of  the  Logos,  which  was  originally 
 
 with  the  Father,  and  in  Jesus  Christ  became  manifested  to 
 men. 
 
 6.  That  the  great  end  and  purpose  of  his  Apostolic 
 ministry  was  to  testify  to  the  reality,  the  facts,  and  the 
 teachings  of  this  divine  manifestation.  ff  We  have  seen  it, 
 and  bear  witness,  and  show  unto  you  that  eternal  life  which 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION 
 
 41 
 
 was  with  the  Father,  and  was  manifested  unto  us.”  Now 
 the  only  mode  in  which  it  was  possible  for  the  Apostle  to 
 “show  that  eternal  life”  to  others  was  by  furnishing 
 details  of  the  actions  and  teaching  of  that  person  in  whom 
 it  was  exhibited.  Consequently,  as  he  affirms  that  his 
 Apostolic  ministry  was  a  bearing  witness  to  it,  it  must 
 evidently  have  consisted  in  furnishing  to  those  to  whom  he 
 ministered  details  of  its  manifestation,  and  in  commenting 
 on  their  meaning.  From  this  it  follows  that  the  details  of 
 this  divine  life  which  the  Apostle  communicated  to  the 
 Church  formed  the  essence  and  foundation  of  the  Christianity 
 which  he  taught. 
 
 7.  The  communication  of  what  he  had  seen  and  heard, 
 was  capable  of  imparting  to  those  to  whom  it  was  addressed, 
 communion  with  the  Father,  with  His  Son  Jesus  Christ, 
 and  with  one  another  ;  in  other  words,  it  formed  the  bond 
 which  united  the  Church  together  and  the  basis  on  which  it 
 rested. 
 
 These  statements  prove  beyond  question  that  the  Apostolic 
 writer  viewed  the  Christian  Revelation  as  consisting  in  the 
 Incarnation,  and  the  historic  manifestation  of  the  divine 
 character  and  perfections  in  the  life  of  Jesus  Christ.  “The 
 life  was  manifested  and  we  have  seen  it,  and  bear  witness.” 
 This  is  his  fundamental  conception  of  Christianity,  which 
 forms  a  striking  contrast  to  those  modern  popular  concep¬ 
 tions  of  it  which  are  usually  designated  “  plans  of  salvation.” 
 With  statements  thus  explicit  it  will  be  superfluous  to 
 adduce  further  evidence  from  the  Epistle  that  such  was  the 
 view  of  its  author,  for  the  entire  writing  is  a  commentary 
 on  it,  with  the  introduction  as  its  text.  The  concluding 
 words  will  be  sufficient.  “We  know  that  the  Son  of  God 
 is  come,  and  hath  given  us  an  understanding,  that  we  may 
 know  Him  that  is  true,  and  we  are  in  Him  that  is  true,  even 
 in  His  Son  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  the  true  God,  and  eternal 
 life.”  Words  cannot  be  more  explicit. 
 
 I  now  proceed  to  consider  the  testimony  furnished  by  the 
 Gospel.  Its  author  makes  the  following  affirmations  in  the 
 
42  THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 prologue  : — “  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word  and  the  Word 
 was  with  God  and  the  Word  was  God.  The  same  was  in 
 the  beginning  with  God.  All  things  were  made  by  Him 
 (iravra  $1  avrov  tyivero),  and  without  Him  was  not  any 
 thing  made  that  was  made.  In  Him  was  life,  and  the  life 
 was  the  light  of  men.  And  the  light  shineth  in  darkness 
 and  the  darkness  comprehended  it  not.”  .  .  .  “  And  the 
 Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we  beheld 
 His  glory,  the  glory  as  of  the  only  begotten  of  the  Father, 
 full  of  grace  and  truth.”  .  .  .  “No  man  hath  seen  God  at 
 any  time,  the  only  begotten  Son  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the 
 Father,  He  hath  declared  Him.” 
 
 The  passage  here  quoted,  with  its  context,  makes  it 
 certain  that  the  author’s  conception  of  what  constituted  the 
 fundamental  essence  of  Christianity  was  : 
 
 First,  that  all  manifestations  of  the  eternal  Father  were 
 communicated  through  the  divine  Logos. 
 
 Secondly,  that  He  was  both  the  life  and  the  light  of  men. 
 
 Thirdly,  that  He  became  man  in  the  person  of  Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 Fourthly,  that  the  glory  which  shone  forth  in  Jesus  Christ 
 in  the  Incarnation  was  the  glory  of  the  only  begotten  of  the 
 Father,  of  whose  perfections,  incomprehensible  to  finite 
 intelligences.  He  is  the  sole  and  adequate  manifestation : 
 or,  to  put  the  same  thought  in  other  words,  J esus  Christ  in 
 His  human  manifestation  is  the  objective  revelation  of  the 
 Godhead. 
 
 Fifthly,  that  this  revelation  was  an  objective  revelation. 
 The  Apostle  in  his  personal  intercourse  with  Jesus  Christ 
 had  beheld  in  Him  “  the  glory  of  the  only  begotten  of  the 
 Father,”  whose  life  and  actions  had  been  the  revelation  of 
 the  Father  to  men. 
 
 Such  statements  can  leave  no  doubt  that  the  writer  of 
 this  Gospel  viewed  the  essence  of  the  Christian  revelation 
 as  consisting  in  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ  our 
 Lord,  His  teaching.  His  life,  death,  and  resurrection.  And 
 not  only  is  this  so,  but  he  ha3  represented  Our  Lord  as 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 43 
 
 affirming  the  same  truth  in  the  most  decisive  language,  of 
 which  the  following  are  instances.  “  Philip  saith  unto  Him, 
 Lord,  show  us  the  Father  and  it  sufficeth  us.  Jesus  saith 
 unto  him,  have  I  been  so  long  time  with  you,  and  yet  hast 
 thou  not  known  me,  Philip  !  he  that  hath  seen  me  hath 
 seen  the  Father,  and  how  sayest  thou.  Show  us  the  Father. 
 Believe  me,  that  I  am  in  the  Father  and  the  Father  in  me.^ 
 — (John  xiv.  8-11.) 
 
 If  these  words  are  a  real  utterance  of  Our  Lord,  nothing 
 can  be  more  conclusive  than  that  He  claimed  to  constitute 
 revelation  in  His  own  person.  They  form  a  reply  to  a 
 direct  request  made  by  Philip  for  a  revelation  of  the 
 Father.  “Lord  show  us  the  Father  and  it  sufficeth  us  !” 
 Our  Lord  in  express  words  affirms  that  He  constituted 
 such  a  revelation,  “  He  that  hath  seen  me,  hath  seen 
 the  Father."  “From  henceforth  ye  know  Him,  and  have 
 seen  Him.”  “  Believest  thou  not  that  I  am  in  the  Father 
 and  the  Father  in  me.'”  Ho  words  could  convey  a  more 
 direct  affirmation  that  the  apostles  during  their  converse 
 with  Our  Lord  had  beheld  in  His  works  and  character  a 
 perfect  revelation  of  the  Father.  Again,  Jesus  stood  and 
 cried,  “  he  that  believeth  on  me,  believeth  not  on  me,  but 
 on  Him  that  sent  me,  and  he  that  seeth  me,  seeth  Him  that 
 sent  me.  I  am  come  a  light  into  the  world,  that  whosoever 
 believeth  in  me  should  not  abide  in  darkness.” — (John  xii. 
 44-46.)  Again,  “I  am  the  light  of  the  world;  he  that 
 followeth  me  shall  not  walk  in  darkness,  but  shall  have  the 
 light  of  life.” — (John  viii.  12.)  “  Then  said  they  unto 
 him.  Where  is  thy  Father?  Jesus  answered.  Ye  neither 
 know  me,  nor  my  Father,  for  if  ye  had  known  me,  ye 
 should  have  known  my  Father  also.” — (viii.  19.)  “If  I  do 
 not  the  works  of  my  Father,  believe  me  not,  but  if  I  do, 
 though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe  the  works,  that  ye  may 
 know  and  believe  that  the  Father  is  in  me  and  I  in  Him.” — 
 (x.  37-38.) 
 
 These  passages  all  affirm  the  same  truth,  that  the  perfec¬ 
 tions  of  the  Father  are  manifested  in  the  person  of  Jesus 
 
44  THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 Christ.  He  is  the  revealer  of  the  Father;  in  fact,  He 
 affirms  that  He  that  sees  Him,  sees  Him  that  sent  Him ;  and 
 that  the  knowledge  of  Him  is  the  knowledge  of  the  Father. 
 In  this  capacity  He  is  the  light  of  the  world,  and  the  light 
 of  life.  These  assertions,  when  put  together,  constitute  a 
 most  direct  affirmation  that  He  is  the  objective  revelation  of 
 God.  The  author  of  this  Gospel  also  ascribes  to  Our  Lord 
 a  number  of  other  assertions  respecting  Himself  and  His 
 relation  to  the  Father,  all  of  which  presuppose  the  same 
 truth,  but  which  it  will  be  unnecessary  for  me  to  cite. 
 
 A  similar  view  runs  through  the  entire  writings  of  St. 
 Paul.  The  passages  which  assert  that  Revelation  is  made 
 in  Christ  are  exceedingly  numerous,  and  what  is  greatly  to 
 the  purpose,  the  allusions  are  not  only  direct  but  incidental, 
 and  made  in  every  variety  of  form.  Of  these  latter  I  cite  a 
 few  examples  as  showing  the  extent  to  which  the  conception 
 underlies  the  whole  range  of  the  Apostle's  thought.  “  God 
 was  in  Christ  reconciling  the  world  to  Himself."  (2  Cor.  v.  19.) 
 “  For  of  Him  are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus ,  who  of  God  is  made 
 unto  us  wisdom,  and  righteousness,  and  sanctification,  and 
 redemption,  that  according  as  it  is  written,  he  that  glorieth, 
 let  him  glory  in  the  Lord."  (1  Cor.  i.  30,  31.)  “In  whomwe 
 have  redemption."  (Eph.  i.  7.)  “  In  whom  we  have  attained 
 
 an  inheritance."  (i.  11.)  “  The  spirit  of  wisdom  and  revela 
 
 tion  in  the  Itnowledge  of  him.33  (i.  17.)  The  working  of  God's 
 mighty  power  “  is  wrought  in  Christ.33  (i.  30.)  “In  Christ , 
 ye  who  sometimes  were  afar  off  are  made  nigh."  (Eph.  ii.  13.) 
 “  In  Him  were  all  things  created."  (Col.  i.  16.)  “In  Him 
 should  all  the  fulness  (i.e.  the  fulness  of  the  divine  per¬ 
 fections)  dwell."  (Col.  i.  19.)  “In  whom  are  hid  all  the 
 treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge."  (Col.  ii.  3.)  “  Ye  are 
 complete  in  Him.33  (Col.  ii.  10.)  “  The  grace  of  our  Lord 
 
 was  exceeding  abundant  with  faith  and  love  in  Christ  Jesus.33 
 (1  Tim.  i.  14.)  “  Live  godly  in  Christ  Jesus.33  (2  Tim.  iii.  12.) 
 “  The  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.33  (Rom.  iii.  24.) 
 “The  law  of  the  spirit  of  life  in  Christ  Jesus.33  (Rom. 
 viii.  2.)  “I  know  and  am  persuaded  in  the  Lord  Jesus.33 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 45 
 
 (Rom.  xiv.  14.)  ec  The  veil  is  done  away  in  Christ ."  (2  Cor. 
 
 iii.  14.)  “We  preach  Christ  Jesus  the.  Lord”  (2  Cor.  iv.  5.) 
 “  The  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ”  (2  Cor. 
 
 iv.  6.)  All  these  passages  in  various  forms  affirm  that 
 Revelation  was  given  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ ;  and 
 their  incidental  character  proves  the  intense  familiarity  of 
 the  idea  to  the  Apostle's  mind,  far  more  than  any  number  of 
 directly  dogmatical  assertions.  They  exhibit  it  as  directly 
 forming  the  basis  on  which  his  religious  life  was  founded. 
 
 Equally  important  are  some  of  his  assertions  when  speak¬ 
 ing  of  the  progressive  character  of  revelation,  and  of  the 
 purposes  formed  in  the  divine  mind  respecting  it.  These 
 must  be  considered  in  greater  detail.  Thus  we  have  the 
 remarkable  assertion  in  Rom.  xvi.  25,  26.  ({  Now  to  Him 
 
 who  is  of  power  to  stablish  you  according  to  my  Gospel, 
 and  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  according  to  the  reve¬ 
 lation  of  the  mystery  which  was  kept  secret  since  the  world 
 began  (tv  alioviotg  %p6voig,  in  the  eternal  ages),  but  now 
 is  made  manifest,  and  by  the  Scriptures  of  the  prophets 
 according  to  the  commandment  of  the  everlasting  God, 
 made  known  to  all  nations  for  the  obedience  of  faith." 
 
 This  passage  enunciates  the  following  truths  : — 
 
 1.  That  revelation  is  no  afterthought  of  the  Divine  mind, 
 but  a  part  of  His  eternal  purpose,  forming  with  creation 
 one  great  harmonious  plan. 
 
 2.  That  it  has  been  kept  secret  as  a  hidden  truth 
 (/uvarripiov)  in  the  divine  mind  during  the  eternal  ages,  but 
 has  been  manifested  in  the  proclamation  of  Jesus  the  Messiah 
 (cv  Krjpvy/uan  T rjcrov  Xpiarov). 
 
 3.  That  this  revelation  is  made  known  to  all  nations 
 for  the  obedience  of  faith;  and  is  a  manifestion  of  the 
 wisdom  of  God  through  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 In  conformity  with  this  view  the  Apostle  at  the  very 
 commencement  of  the  epistle  declares  that  the  subject  of 
 his  writing  was  “  concerning  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord."  In 
 Ephesians  iii.  8-11  he  makes  the  following  statement: — 
 "  Whereof  (the  Gospel)  I  am  made  a  minister  according  to 
 
46  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 the  gift  of  the  grace  of  God  given  unto  me,  by  the  effectual 
 working  of  His  power.  Unto  me  who  am  less  than  the 
 least  of  all  saints  is  this  grace  given,  that  I  should  preach 
 among  the  Gentiles  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ,  and 
 to  make  all  men  see  what  is  the  fellowship  of  the  mystery, 
 which  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  (cnro  tCjv  ahovtov) 
 has  been  hid  in  God  who  created  all  things  by  (tv) 
 Jesus  Christ,  to  the  intent  that  now  unto  the  principalities 
 and  powers  in  heavenly  places  might  be  known  by  the 
 Church  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God,  according  to  the 
 eternal  purpose  which  he  purposed  in  Christ  Jesus  our 
 Lord.”  Similar  assertions  occur  in  chap.  i.  8,  “  Wherein 
 He  hath  abounded  towards  us  in  all  wisdom  and  prudence, 
 having  made  known  to  us  the  mystery  of  His  will  according 
 to  the  good  pleasure  which  He  purposed  in  Himself,  that  in 
 the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  times  He  might  gather 
 together  in  one  all  things  in  Christ,  both  which  are  in 
 
 heaven  and  which  are  on  earth,  even  in  Him . That 
 
 the  God  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Father  of  glory,  may 
 give  you  the  spirit  of  wisdom  and  revelation  in  the  know¬ 
 ledge  of  Him  .  .  .  according  to  the  working  of  His  mighty 
 power  which  He  wrought  in  Christ.” 
 
 These  passages  are  so  important  in  relation  to  the  present 
 argument  that  I  will  enunciate  in  as  many  distinct  proposi¬ 
 tions  the  various  affirmations  which  they  contain. 
 
 1.  They  affirm  that  the  Eevelation  made  in  Jesus  Christ 
 formed  one  of  the  eternal  purposes  of  the  Divine  mind, 
 coeval  with  those  which  produced  His  work  of  Creation ;  in 
 fact  that  Creation  and  Redemption  form  portions  of  the  same 
 great  whole,  and  that  the  latter  is  not  a  mere  remedial 
 measure  superinduced  in  consequence  of  the  failure  of  the 
 purpose  intended  by  the  former. 
 
 2.  That  the  Incarnation  is  the  manifestation  of  this  eternal 
 purpose  existing  in  the  Divine  mind. 
 
 3.  The  unsearchable  riches  both  of  wisdom  and  goodness 
 as  yet  undisclosed  in  God's  creative  work,  were  manifested 
 in  the  incarnate  Christ. 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 47 
 
 4.  That  so  entirely  coeval  in  the  divine  purposes  are 
 Creation  and  the  divine  self-manifestation  in  Christ,  that 
 the  creative  work  of  God  itself  was  given  in  Him  “  Who 
 created  all  things  in  Jesus  Christ .” 
 
 5.  That  the  purpose  and  effects  of  the  Incarnation  are 
 not  limited  to  man,  but  on  the  contrary,  it  is  intended  to  be 
 a  manifestation  to  “the  principalities  and  powers  in  heavenly 
 places  of  the  manifold  wisdom  of  God.” 
 
 6.  The  ultimate  purpose  of  the  Incarnation  is,  that  God 
 might  “  in  the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  the  times  gather 
 together  in  one  all  things  in  Christ,  both  which  are  in 
 heaven  and  which  are  on  earth,  in  Him.” 
 
 The  views  thus  propounded  by  the  Apostle  stand  in 
 striking  contrast  to  various  schemes  of  salvation  which  have 
 become  widely  diffused  by  the  influence  of  popular  theology, 
 and  which  profess  to  give  a  complete  rationale  of  redemption. 
 Their  general  theory  is  that  the  revelation  of  God  in  Jesus 
 Chi*ist  is  a  kind  of  afterthought  in  the  Divine  mind,  to  remedy 
 the  failure  of  His  original  creative  purpose,  occasioned  by  the 
 Fall ;  in  fact,  a  scheme  devised  for  the  mending  His  marred 
 plan  of  Creation.  Still  coarser  views  of  the  divine  plan  in 
 redemption  have  been  extensively  popular,  exhibiting  it  in 
 the  vulgar  form  of  a  bargain  between  two  independent 
 parties,  each  of  whom  has  thereby  become  bound  to  perform 
 his  part  of  the  contract.  The  whole  has  proceeded  from  the 
 assumption  that  it  is  possible  accurately  to  represent  the 
 purposes  of  the  Divine  mind  in  the  formularies  of  human 
 thought.  Such  theories  belong  to  that  worst  form  of 
 rationalism  which  makes  man  and  his  imperfections  the 
 accurate  measures  of  the  divine  purposes  and  modus  ojperandi; 
 being  closely  analogous  to  that  which  in  a  lower  stage  of 
 mental  development  is  the  parent  of  idolatry,  and  which  has 
 invested  deity  with  some  of  the  worst  attributes  of  human 
 nature,  representing  God  as  altogether  such  a  one  as  our¬ 
 selves.  These  assertions  of  the  Apostle  as  to  the  extent  of 
 the  divine  purposes  in  Revelation  are  of  the  utmost  import¬ 
 ance  in  relation  to  the  subject  before  us,  for  nothing  has 
 
48  THE  OEDEE  OP  THE  CHEISTIAN  AEGUMENT, 
 
 more  damaged  Christianity  with  thoughtful  men  than  the 
 idea  which  has  been  so  generally  adopted  by  various  forms  of 
 popular  Christianity,  that  these  so-called  schemes  of  salvation 
 not  only  embody  the  Christianity  of  the  New  Testament, 
 but  are  co-extensive  with  the  divine  purpose  in  Revelation. 
 
 Assertions  of  a  similar  character  are  made  by  the  Apostle 
 in  the  Epistle  to  the  Colossians.  Thus  he  writes:  “In 
 whom  we  have  redemption  through  His  blood,  even  the  for¬ 
 giveness  of  sins,  Who  is  the  image  of  the  invisible  God,  the 
 Eirst-bom  of  every  creature  (irpwToroKO'g  Traaiyg  kt'kjzwq, 
 the  First-born  before  all  creation);  for  in  Him  (ivavrio)  were 
 all  things  created  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth, 
 visible  and  invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones  or  dominions, 
 or  principalities  or  powers,  all  things  were  created  by  (Si 
 avrov,  through  Him),  and  for  Him  (ttg  civtov,  in  reference  to 
 Him) ;  and  He  is  before  all  things,  and  by  Him  (iv  avno,  in 
 Him)  all  things  consist :  and  He  is  the  head  of  the  body,  the 
 Church,  who  is  the  beginning  (cipx1)*  the  principle  of  things), 
 the  first-born  from  the  dead,  that  in  all  things  He  might 
 have  the  pre-eminence.  For  it  pleased  the  Father  that  in 
 Him  should  all  the  fulness  dwell ;  and  having  made  peace  by 
 the  blood  of  His  cross,  through  Him  to  reconcile  all  things 
 unto  Himself,  through  Him,  whether  they  are  things  on 
 earth,  or  things  in  heaven.”  (Col.  i.  14-20.)  Again:  “That 
 their  hearts  might  be  comforted,  being  knit  together  in  love 
 unto  all  riches  of  the  full  assurance  of  understanding,  to  the 
 acknowledging  of  the  mystery  of  God,  and  of  the  Father,  and 
 of  Christ,  in  whom  are  hid  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and 
 knowledge.  As  ye  therefore  have  received  Christ  Jesus  the 
 Lord,  so  walk  ye  in  him,  rooted  and  built  up  in  him  and 
 stablished  in  the  faith,  as  ye  have  been  taught,  abounding 
 therein  with  thanksgiving.  Beware  lest  any  man  spoil  you 
 through  philosophy  and  vain  deceit,  after  the  tradition  of 
 men,  after  the  rudiments  of  the  world,  and  not  after  Christ, 
 for  in  Him  dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodily, 
 and  ye  are  complete  in  Him  which  is  the  head  of  all  princi¬ 
 pality  and  power.”  (Col.  ii.  2-10.) 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 49 
 
 These  passages  make  it  certain  that  the  Apostle  contem¬ 
 plated  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  objective  revelation 
 of  the  Godhead.  On  this  point  he  lays  down  the  following 
 propositions  : — 
 
 1 .  That  the  fulness  of  the  divine  perfections  abides  in  the 
 Incarnate  person  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord. 
 
 2.  That  He  in  His  incarnate  person  13  the  image  (dicwv)  of 
 the  invisible  God. 
 
 3.  That  all  creation  has  been  constituted  in  Him,  not  only 
 this  world,  but  the  entire  Universe  of  Being. 
 
 4.  That  He  is  the  instrumental  agent  (dl  avrov)  through 
 whom  the  creative  work  has  been  effected  ;  that  it  has  been 
 formed  in  reference  to  Him ;  and  that  He  had  a  prior  exist¬ 
 ence  to  it. 
 
 5.  That  the  same  person  who  has  been  the  source  of 
 creation,  the  instrument  through  whom  it  has  been  effected, 
 and  the  purpose  towards  which  it  tends,  is  He  through 
 whom  the  revelations  of  the  Father  have  been  communicated, 
 and  who  has  carried  out  the  great  work  of  Redemption. 
 
 6.  That  through  the  work  of  Redemption  it  is  the  divine 
 purpose  to  reconcile  all  things  unto  Himself,  whether  things 
 on  earth,  or  things  in  heaven. 
 
 This  last  assertion  proves  that  according  to  the  views  of 
 the  Apostle  the  effects  of  the  Incarnation  were  not  limited 
 to  the  human  race,  but  would  be  consummated  by  uniting 
 to  God  all  things  in  heaven  and  earth. 
 
 These  propositions  if  accepted  as  the  genuine  utterances 
 of  the  Apostle  Paul,  fully  prove  that  according  to  the  views 
 entertained  by  him,  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord 
 constitutes  the  great  objective  revelation  of  God,  which  has 
 manifested  forth  the  divine  character  during  the  past  and 
 the  present,  and  is  destined  still  further  to  unfold  it  in 
 the  ages  of  the  future.  It  is  true  that  the  genuineness  of 
 the  two  Epistles  which  contain  the  most  definite  affirma¬ 
 tions  on  this  point  has  been  disputed  by  a  number  of  unbe¬ 
 lieving  critics,  for  which  one  of  the  chief  reasons  is  their 
 advanced  Christology,  But  although  the  statements  in  the 
 
 4 
 
50  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 other  Epistles  are  somewhat  less  definite  in  form,  the  occa¬ 
 sion  and  purpose  of  writing  them  not  having  called  them 
 forth  with  the  same  definiteness,  yet  there  are  statements, 
 both  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  and  those  to  the  Corin¬ 
 thians,  and  even  to  the  Galatians,  which  prove  that  the 
 Apostle  regarded  the  Christian  revelation  as  centred  in  the 
 person  of  our  Lord.  The  reference  which  I  have  above 
 made  to  these  Epistles  is  far  more  than  sufficient  to  prove 
 that  their  author  entertained  the  same  views  as  are  more 
 formally  enunciated  in  these  latter  writings.  Whether  Paul 
 or  any  one  else  was  the  author  of  the  Epistles  to  Timothy, 
 these  likewise  contain  a  strong  affirmation  of  the  same  truth. 
 “  Great/’  says  he,  “  is  the  mystery  of  godliness,  God  (or 
 who)  was  manifested  in  the  flesh.”  If  we  suppose  these 
 Epistles  to  have  been  the  work  of  another  writer,  this 
 would  prove  the  wide  acceptance  of  this  view  of  the  essence 
 of  Christianity  in  the  Church. 
 
 I  have  not  yet  referred  to  the  opinions  of  the  writer  of 
 the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  on  account  of  the  doubts  as  to 
 its  authorship.  It  is  however  important,  because,  if  not 
 written  by  the  Apostle,  it  proves  that  the  Pauline  and 
 Johannine  views  on  this  subject  were  accepted  by  other  sec¬ 
 tions  of  the  Christian  Church  j  for  whoever  may  have  been 
 its  author,  its  early  date  is  unquestionable.  For  this 
 purpose  it  will  be  sufficient  to  cite  the  opening  of  the  first 
 chapter :  (<  God,  who  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers 
 manners  (TroXvpzpCjQ  kcu  TroXvrpoTrtog,  implying  the  imperfec¬ 
 tions  of  former  revelations)  spoke  in  times  past  to  the 
 fathers  by  the  prophets,  hath  in  these  last  days  spoken  unto 
 us  by  his  Son,  whom  he  hath  appointed  heir  (/cX^povo^toc)  of 
 all  things,  by  whom  (Si  ov )  also  he  made  the  worlds  (rovg 
 alojvag  h rolriatv,  constituted  the  ages),  who  being  the  bright¬ 
 ness  of  his  glory  (ai Tauyaapa  Trig  SoKvg,  the  outshining  of  his 
 glory),  and  the  express  image  of  his  person,  and  upholding 
 all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power,  having  by  himself 
 purged  our  sins,  sat  down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  majesty 
 on  high,”  This  passage  is  a  direct  affirmation  of  the 
 
/ 
 
 ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 51 
 
 Pauline  positions.  It  declares,  first,  as  distinct  from  tlie 
 partial  manifestations  which  God  made  of  Himself  in  former 
 ages  in  the  prophets,  that  in  these  last  days  He  has  spoken 
 to  us  in  His  Son;  secondly,  that  the  manifestation  in  the 
 Son  differs  from  that  made  in  the  prophets  as  the  divine 
 differs  from  the  human.  He  being  the  inheritor  of  all  things 
 in  whom  God  has  constituted  the  ages ;  and  thirdly,  that 
 the  Son,  in  whom  God  has  made  this  last  revelation,  is  “  the 
 shining  forth  of  the  divine  glories,”  the  precise  resemblance 
 of  the  divine  subsistence,  the  inheritor  of  all  things* 
 through  whom  the  divine  activities  in  the  former  ages 
 have  been  manifested,  and  that  He  is  the  person  through 
 whom  God  has  effected  His  work  of  providence  and  redemp¬ 
 tion.  The  whole  passage  therefore  affirms,  in  the  most 
 unmistakable  language,  that  the  divine  person  of  Jesus 
 Christ  constitutes  the  objective  revelation  of  God,  a 
 view  which  is  consistently  carried  out  through  the  entire 
 Epistle. 
 
 It  will  be  superfluous  for  me  to  cite  passages  from  the 
 Apocalypse  in  proof  that  similar  views  were  entertained  by 
 its  author,  because  it  is  the  idea  which  underlies  the  entire 
 book,  and  forms  the  groundwork  of  all  its  visions.  Through¬ 
 out  them  Jesus  Christ  is  depicted  as  the  only  Revealer 
 of  the  Father.  A  single  instance  will  be  sufficient.  A 
 book  containing  the  divine  decrees  is  represented  as  seen 
 in  the  right  hand  of  the  Creator  of  all  things.  A  proclama¬ 
 tion  is  made  to  every  creature  in  heaven  and  earth  to  come 
 forward  and  establish  such  a  claim  of  worthiness  as  would 
 entitle  him  to  take  possession  of  the  book,  and  unfold  the 
 divine  decrees.  All  creation  fails  to  establish  such  a  claim. 
 But  no  sooner  does  the  incarnate  Lamb  appear  than  a 
 universal  chorus  of  acclamation  from  all  God's  creatures 
 pronounces  Him  worthy ;  and  from  henceforth  He  assumes 
 throughout  the  whole  book,  which  is  the  revelation  of 
 Jesus  Christ,  the  office  of  the  Revealer  of  the  Father. 
 
 The  remaining  writings  of  the  New  Testament,  with  the 
 exception  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  the  Acts  of  the 
 
 4* 
 
52  THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 Apostles,  are  very  brief.  One  of  them  however,  the  first 
 Epistle  of  St.  Peter,  contains  an  unquestionable  reference 
 to  the  same  truth  : — 
 
 “  Searching  what,  or  what  manner  of  time  the  Spirit  of 
 Christ  which  was  in  them  did  signify,  when  it  testified 
 beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ  and  the  glory  that 
 should  follow.  Unto  whom  it  was  revealed  that  not  unto 
 themselves,  but  unto  us,  they  did  minister  the  things  which 
 are  now  reported  unto  you  by  them  that  have  preached  the 
 Gospel  unto  you,  with  the  Holy  Ghost  sent  down  from 
 heaven,  which  things  the  angels  desire  to  look  into.” 
 (i.  11.  12.) 
 
 This  passage  makes  the  definite  affirmation  that  the 
 angels  desire  to  look  into  the  things  “  which  were  reported 
 by  those  who  have  preached  the  Gospel  unto  you.”  From 
 this  two  inferences  follow.  First,  that  the  Christian  reve¬ 
 lation  forms  a  matter  of  interest  to  other  beings  than  men. 
 Secondly,  that  it  consists  of  a  number  of  objective  facts  in 
 connection  with  our  Lord's  divine  person,  viz.,  “  The  things 
 reported  unto  you  by  them  that  have  preached  the  Gospel 
 unto  you,  which  things  the  angels  desire  to  look  into.” 
 
 This  last  point  is  in  strict  agreement  with  the  remaining 
 contents  of  the  Chapter.  The  Epistle  of  James,  which 
 contains  not  a  single  statement  which  can  be  viewed  as 
 theoretical,  is  without  any  allusion  to  the  subject. 
 
 We  now  come  to  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Its  subject- 
 matter,  which  is  to  record  the  chief  incidents  in  the  planting 
 of  Christianity,  would  naturally  afford  to  the  writer  little 
 opportunity  of  making  definite  statements  on  the  point 
 before  us.  One  idea  however,  which  is  closely  con¬ 
 nected  with  it,  runs  through  the  entire  book.  The  writer 
 affirms  that  the  one  great  subject  of  the  Apostles  preaching 
 was,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ.  Such  an  affirmation 
 proves  that  certain  historic  facts  connected  with  the  life  of 
 Jesus  must  have  been  regarded  by  them  as  forming  the 
 essence  of  Christianity.  This  idea  is  by  the  writer  iden¬ 
 tified  with  Christianity  itself.  Thus  he  says  of  the  Apostles 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 53 
 
 that  they  daily,  and  from  house  to  house,  ceased  not  to 
 
 teach  and  to  preach  Jesus  the  Christ. 
 
 The  only  portions  of  the  New  Testament  requiring  any 
 further  observations  are  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  It  will  be 
 objected  that  this  idea  is  wanting  in  them  and  m  the  Epistle 
 of  James ;  and  consequently  that  it  is  not  an  original,  but 
 a  subsequent  development  of  Christianity,  due  to  the 
 Johannine  and  Pauline  parties  in  the  Church.  To  which  I 
 
 reply, 
 
 First :  that  although  there  is  only  one  statement  on  this 
 subject  in  the  Synoptics  equally  formal  with  that  in  the 
 fourth  Gospel,  it  is  inaccurate  to  assert  that  the  idea  does 
 not  underlie  them.  Both  Matthew  and  Luke  record  an 
 utterance  of  our  Lord  respecting  Himself,  which  approaches 
 very  closely  to  the  strongest  affirmations  of  the  fourth 
 Gospel,  “  At  that  time  Jesus  rejoiced  in  spirit,  and  said, 
 I  thank  thee,  0  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  no  man  knoweth  who  the  Son  is  but 
 the  Father,  neither  knoweth  any  man  the  Father  save  the 
 Son  ;  and  he  to  whom  the  Son  will  reveal  Him.”  (Luke  x. 
 21,  22.)  Into  the  doctrinal  statements  of  this  passage  I  need 
 not  at  present  enter.  It  is  sufficient  for  my  present  purpose 
 that  it  distinctly  affirms  that  the  Son  is  the  one  Bevealer  of 
 the  Father  ;  and  that  in  terms  quite  as  plain  as  any  which 
 we  read  in  the  fourth  Gospel,  or  in  the  Johannine  and 
 Pauline  Epistles,  or  in  the  book  of  the  Revelation. 
 
 Secondly:  with  this  express  statement  another  trait 
 which  underlies  the  whole  of  these  Gospels  is  in  strict 
 agreement,  and  is  only  explicable  on  the  supposition  of  the 
 truth  of  the  assertion  in  question.  I  allude  to  the  habitual 
 self-assertion  of  our  Lord,  and  to  the  fact  that  He.  is 
 uniformly  depicted  as  deriving  the  whole  of  His  teaching 
 from  the  sole  source  of  His  own  self-consciousness.  When 
 we  consider  the  mildness,  unobtrusiveness,  and  humility, 
 
54  THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 which  these  Gospels  uniformly  attribute  to  Him,  His  self- 
 assertion  is  the  most  striking  phenomenon  in  all  history ; 
 and  if  it  had  been  assigned  to  any  other  man,  however  great, 
 it  would  have  been  simply  extravagant.  But  it  fits  in  with 
 exquisite  harmony  with  all  the  other  divine  aspects  of  His 
 character,  and  can  only  be  explained  on  the  principle  that 
 He  felt  within  Him  the  direct  self-consciousness  of  the  pre¬ 
 sence  of  the  divine.  Hence  it  was  that  throughout  His 
 teaching*  He  referred  to  no  other  authority  than  His  own. 
 As  He  is  uniformly  depicted  by  the  Synoptics,  His  con¬ 
 sciousness  of  the  Divine  was  immediate  and  direct,  and  He 
 felt  within  Himself  an  inherent  worthiness  before  which 
 every  merely  human  tie  must  yield.  This  trait,  which 
 underlies  the  entire  structure  of  the  Synoptics,  is  not  only 
 in  strict  conformity  with  the  great  utterance  above  referred 
 to,  but  pre-supposes  its  truth.  I  might  easily  adduce  a 
 far  larger  mass  of  evidence  on  this  subject;  but  I  submit 
 that  what  I  have  brought  forward  is  abundantly  sufficient 
 for  my  purpose,  and  proves  beyond  all  question  that  accord¬ 
 ing  to  the  views  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  the 
 person  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ  constitute  the  very  centre 
 and  essence  of  Christianity,  and  that  the  Christian  revelation 
 is  made  in  His  divine  person. 
 
 SUPPLEMENT  II. 
 
 A  vast  amount  of  confusion  has  been  introduced  into  the 
 controversy  about  miracles  by  the  vague  use  of  such  terms 
 as  “Nature,”  “Natural,"  “  Supernatural,"  “  The  Order  of 
 Nature,"  “Law,"  “Force,"  &c.,  without  any  attempt  to 
 assign  to  them  a  definite  and  consistent  meaning.  In  a 
 controversy  of  this  kind,  involving  as  it  must  a  large  number 
 of  abstract  reasonings,  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  keep 
 the  signification  of  the  chief  terms  which  we  employ  in  it  free 
 from  ambiguity.  These  terms,  however,  have  a  great  variety 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 55 
 
 of  meaning,  and  yet  they  are  habitually  used  as  if  they  were 
 terms  of  the  utmost  precision.  Webster’s  Dictionary  assigns 
 no  less  than  twelve  distinct  meanings  to  the  word  “  Nature,” 
 fourteen  to  “  Natural,”  and  twenty-seven  to  “  Law.”  The 
 Duke  of  Argyll  tells  us  that  even  in  scientific  treatises  the 
 term  “  law  ”  is  used  in  not  less  than  five  different  senses, 
 
 First, — When  applied  simply  to  an  observed  order  of 
 facts. 
 
 Secondly, — To  that  order  as  involving  the  action  of  some 
 force,  or  forces,  of  which  nothing  more  can  be  known. 
 
 Thirdly, — As  applied  to  individual  forces,  the  measure  of 
 whose  operation  has  been  more  or  less  clearly  defined  or 
 ascertained. 
 
 Fourthly, — As  applied  to  those  combinations  of  forces 
 
 which  have  reference  to  the  fulfilment  of  purpose  or  the 
 
 discharge  of  functions.  . 
 
 Fifthly, — As  appplied  to  abstract  conceptions  of  the  mind, 
 
 not  corresponding  with  any  actual  phenomena,  but  deduced 
 therefrom  as  axioms  of  thought,  necessary  to  an  understand¬ 
 ing  of  them.  Law  in  this  sense  is  a  reduction  of  the  pheno¬ 
 mena  not  merely  to  an  order  of  facts  but  to  an  order  of 
 
 thought.  .  ,  n 
 
 Such  are  the  various  senses  in  which  this  word  is  employed 
 
 even  by  scientific  men ;  yet  the  Duke  is  not  certain  that  he 
 has  enumerated  them  all.  As  this  term  enters  as  one  of  the 
 most  important  factors  into  the  discussion  about  miracles,  we 
 need  not  wonder  that  its  ambiguity  has  opened  wide  the 
 gate  for  the  introduction  of  a  large  number  of  fallacies. 
 
 Equally  ambiguous  is  the  term  “Nature”  and  its  com¬ 
 pounds.  As  however  only  two  or  three  of  its  various  signi¬ 
 fications  enter  largely  into  this  question,  it  will  be  unneces- 
 
 sary  to  enumerate  the  others.  . 
 
 -First, _ The  term  “  Nature  ”  is  used  to  denote  the  material 
 
 Universe,  its  necessary  forces  and  laws.  This  is  a  class  o 
 phenomena  definite  and  distinct,  and  if  its  use  were  confined 
 to  them  it  would  be  free  from  ambiguity. 
 
56 
 
 THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 But  it  is  also  used  to  denote  another  class  of  phenomena, 
 separated  from  these  by  the  widest  interval,  viz.,  man,  his 
 intellectual  and  moral  nature,  including  his  volition.  Thus 
 phenomena  become  complicated  together  under  a  common 
 term,  which  differ  from  one  another  as  widely  as  freedom 
 and  necessity,  the  material  and  moral  worlds,  with  the  laws 
 which  regulate  their  action.  It  is  even  not  unfrequently  used 
 to  include  everything  which  exists. 
 
 When  the  same  term  is  indiscriminately  used  to  denote 
 phenomena  thus  widely  differing  in  character,  inaccurary  of 
 reasoning  is  the  inevitable  result.  But  when  two  terms  as 
 ambiguous  as  “ nature ”  and  “law”  become  complicated 
 together,  as  is  so  frequently  the  case  in  this  discussion,  the 
 confusion  is  greatly  increased.  The  whole  controversy  is 
 chiefly  made  up  of  questions  respecting  the  Natural  and  the 
 Supernatural ;  whether  miracles  are  the  results  of  a  power 
 within,  or  without  nature ;  whether  they  are  contrary  to  the 
 laws  of  nature,  or  are  violations,  or  suspensions  of  them,  or 
 are  violations  of  its  order;  or  involve  the  action  of  some 
 higher  natural  law ;  or  the  introduction  of  a  new  force  into 
 nature,  or  whether  on  these  or  any  other  grounds  miracles 
 are  impossible,  irrational,  or  incredible.  This  being  so,  it  is 
 evident  that  if  we  include  under  the  same  terms  things  so 
 widely  different  in  conception  as  the  phenomena  of&  the 
 material  and  the  moral  worlds,  nothing  but  hopeless  con¬ 
 fusion  of  thought  can  be  the  result.  The  whole  question 
 in  fact  turns  on  the  meaning  which  we  attach  to  the  terms 
 “ Mature,”  “Natural,”  “  Supernatural, ”  “  Order  of  Nature,” 
 “Force,”  and  “Law.”  This  last  term  is  constantly  used 
 to  coyer  two  conceptions  which  are  radically  distinct. 
 The  first  of  these  is  when  the  word  is  used  to  denote 
 an  invariable  sequence,  of  events.  This  is  unquestionably 
 the  more  correct  meaning  to  attach  to  it;  and  if  its 
 use  was  rigidly  limited  to  it,  it  would  save  both  theo¬ 
 logians  and  men  of  science  no  small  amount  of  useless 
 discussion.  The  term  “law”  in  its  primary  meaning  is 
 only  applicable  to  man  and  his  actions.  It  denotes  a  rule 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 57 
 
 of  conduct  which  he  is  bound  to  obey,  flence  it  has  been 
 applied  by  analogy  to  the  orderly  sequences  of  events  in  the 
 material  universe,  which  are  said  to  observe  a  certain  law. 
 This  simply  means,  that  they  occur  in  an  invariable  order, 
 which  we  call  the  law  of  their  recurrence.  But  nothing  is 
 more  common  in  this  controversy  than  to  speak  of  the  laws 
 of  nature  as  if  they  possessed  an  efficient  power,  or  in  other 
 words  to  introduce  into  the  conception  of  law  the  idea  of 
 causation.  Yet  nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  in 
 the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  the  laws  of  nature  are  incapable 
 of  effecting  any  result  whatever.  They  simply  denote  the 
 invariable  sequences  of  natural  phenomena,  and  nothing 
 more.  They  are  wholly  distinct  from  the  causes  of  things, 
 and  those  active  energies  in  the  universe  which  we  desig¬ 
 nate  forces.  Its  forces  are  the  efficient  causes;  its  laws, 
 the  invariable  sequences  of  the  phenomena  which  result 
 from  the  action  of  its  forces.  Thus  the  force  of  gravitation 
 is  quite  distinct  from  the  law  of  gravitation.  The  force 
 is  the  active  energy ;  the  law  is  the  invariable  order  of 
 phenomena. 
 
 From  this  simple  and  obvious  meaning  the  term  ff  law 99 
 has  become  complicated  with  the  conception  of  cause  or 
 force ;  and  thus  the  laws  of  nature  are  habitually  spoken 
 of  even  by  scientific  men  as  though  they  were  efficient 
 causes,  and  language  is  used  respecting  them  which 
 amounts  to  little  short  of  their  personification.  This 
 confusion  of  thought  is  brought  about  as  follows  : — there 
 is  a  principle  in  our  minds  (how  it  has  originated  is 
 immaterial  to  the  subject  we  are  now  considering)  which 
 irresistibly  leads  us  to  believe  in  the  continuity  of  pheno¬ 
 mena  ;  and  that  a  set  of  sequences  which  have  invariably 
 occurred  in  times  past,  will  recur  in  times  future.  This 
 principle  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  inductive  process,  and 
 its  validity  depends  on  the  assumption  of  its  truth.  It  has 
 been  expressed  in  various  forms,  the  most  simple  of  which 
 is  that  which  affirms  the  truth  of  the  principle  of  the 
 
53  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 continuity  of  nature ;  or  that  like  causes  must  produce  like 
 effects.  For  example,  we  infer  because  the  sun  has  risen 
 every  day  in  times  past,  that  it  will  rise  every  day  in  times 
 future ;  and  we  designate  the  sun's  rising  and  setting  for 
 all  future  time  a  law  of  nature.  In  this  way  the  concep¬ 
 tion  of  necessity,  causation,  or  efficiency  becomes  mixed  up 
 with  that  of  law,  instead  of  simply  denoting  what  it  really 
 is,  a  succession  of  invariable  sequences.  Hence  when  a  par¬ 
 ticular  class  of  events  is  spoken  of  as  a  law  of  nature,  the  idea 
 of  necessity  is  superadded  to  that  of  invariable  sequence. 
 
 Thus  it  is  said  to  be  a  law  of  nature  that  all  men  must 
 die.  What  does  such  an  affirmation  mean  ?  It  affirms  as 
 an  observed  fact  that  all  men  have  died  ;  and  infers  on  the 
 principle  of  continuity  that  what  has  taken  place  in  the 
 past,  will  take  place  in  the  future.  In  consequence  of  this 
 inference,  the  proposition  becomes  altered  in  form  from 
 “all  men  have  died,"  to  “all  men  must  die;"  and  thus 
 the  conceptions  of  necessity  and  causation  become  con¬ 
 fused  with  the  simple  one  of  law  as  an  observed  order 
 of  phenomena.  The  proposition  “All  men  must  die" 
 involves  several  assumptions,  among  the  most  important 
 of  which  is,  that  the  same  causes  must  produce  like  effects 
 in  the  future,  unless  other  forces  interpose  which  are  capable 
 of  modifying  their  action.  In  this  manner  the  term  “  law  " 
 has  been  extensively  employed  both  by  theologians  and 
 men  of  science  to  denote  not  only  a  set  of  invariable 
 sequences  of  phenomena,  but  the  causes  which  produce 
 them,  and  the  forces  which  energize  in  them.  In  this  way 
 it  is  that  great  confusion  of  thought  has  been  introduced 
 into  the  controversy  about  miracles.  We  are  told  that 
 the  laws  of  nature  have  effected  this  or  that  result :  that 
 they  act  with  irresistible  power ;  and  a  multitude  of  similar 
 expressions  are  habitually  applied  to  them,  whereas  the 
 only  active  energies  are,  not  the  laws,  but  the  forces 
 of  nature,  and  the  laws  by  themselves  effect  nothing. 
 Even  in  the  primary  sense  of  the  word,  law,  as  a  rule  of 
 
59 
 
 ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 human  conduct,  can  effect  nothing;  the  only  things  which 
 are  efficient  are  the  penalties  which  attend  its  violation. 
 What  effect  this  confusion  of  terms  has  on  the  clearness 
 and  precision  of  scientific  reasonings  it  would  be  presump¬ 
 tuous  in  me  to  offer  an  opinion ;  but  in  discussions  about 
 the  possibility  of  miracles,  involving,  as  they  do,  the  most 
 intricate  questions  of  causation  and  efficiency,  the  only 
 result  of  using  the  term  to  denote  two  such  fundamentally 
 distinct  classes  of  phenomena  is  to  invite  confusion  of 
 
 thought.  .  . 
 
 I  will  now  adduce  a  few  examples  of  the  confusion  arising 
 
 from  this  indiscriminate  use  of  the  term  “  Nature  in  union 
 
 with  that  of  “law.”  # 
 
 One  of  the  moot  points  of  this  controversy  is,  whether 
 
 miracles  are  contrary  to  nature,  or  involve  violations,  or 
 suspensions  of  its  laws,  and  it  has  been  affirmed  that  it  is 
 essential  to  the  conception  of  a  miracle  that  it  should  do  so- 
 On  the  other  hand  the  opponents  of  Revelation  affirm  that 
 this  renders  them  absolutely  incredible.  It  is  evident  how¬ 
 ever  that  when  such  a  question  is  raised,  the  all-important 
 subject  for  consideration  is,  what  nature  are  they  alleged  to 
 be  contrary  to,  or  what  are  the  laws  which  they  violate. 
 Nor  is  it  less  important  that  our  conceptions  should  be 
 clear  as  to  what  distinguishes  that  kind  of  event  which  we 
 call  a  miracle  from  all  other  occurrences.  What  then  do 
 we  mean  by  a  miraclo  ?  Viewed  merely  as  an  occurrence 
 in  the  physical  universe,  it  is  an  event  of  a  very  unusual 
 character,  for  which  none  of  its  known  forces  are  sufficient 
 to  account.  If  such  an  event  can  be  proved  to  have  actually 
 v  occurred,  it  leaves  only  two  alternatives,  either  that  its 
 existence  must  have  been  due  to  the  action  of  some  un¬ 
 known  force  which  has  manifested  itself  on  this  special 
 occasion  only,  or  to  the  energy  of  a  Being  who  is  able 
 either  to  combine  the  existing  forces  in  the  universe  m 
 such  a  manner  as  to  produce  the  event  in  question ;  or  to 
 effect  the  same  result  by  calling  into  existence  a  new  force, 
 or  by  the  direct  agency  of  His  creative  will.  Viewed 
 
60  THE  OEDEE  OP  THE  CHEISTIAN  AEGUMENT, 
 
 merely  as  an  objective  occurrence,  therefore,  there  is  no 
 difference  between  a  miracle  and  a  very  unusual  event. 
 The  distinction  is  a  creation  of  the  mind,  and  consists  in 
 the  fact  that  the  occurrence  of  the  very  uncommon  event 
 has  been  subsequently  accounted  for  by  the  action  of  the 
 known  forces  of  the  universe,  while  the  other  cannot. 
 
 Another  important  factor  in  the  idea  of  a  miracle  is  that 
 its  occurrence  is  ushered  in  by  a  prediction  that  it  is  going 
 to  happen,  and  thus  it  becomes  a  manifestation  of  purpose. 
 Theologians  however  have  greatly  increased  the  perplexity 
 of  the  entire  question  by  introducing  into  their  definition 
 of  a  miracle  some  account  of  the  mode  of  the  divine  activity 
 by  which  they  suppose  it  to  have  been  effected.  Thus 
 miracles  have  been  defined  to  be  events  which  involve 
 violations  or  suspensions  of  the  laws  of  nature,  or  are 
 brought  about  by  the  action  of  a  higher  law  of  nature  on  a 
 lower  one,  or  are  contrary  to  nature,  or  are  brought  about 
 by  the  simple  energy  of  God's  creative' will.  Nothing  can 
 be  more  unwise  than  to  introduce  such  conceptions  into  the 
 idea  of  a  miracle.  It  is  impossible  for  us  to  have  any 
 abstract  knowledge  whether  God  would  bring  such  an 
 occurrence  about  by  a  combination  of  existing  forces,  or  by 
 neutralizing  the  action  of  one  force  by  the  superior  energy 
 of  another,  or  by  the  direct  action  of  His  creative  will. 
 This  being  so,  it  is  hardly  possible  to  pursue  a  method 
 which  can  involve  us  in  greater  difficulties  than  to  introduce 
 into  our  definition  of  a  miracle  some  theory  as  to  God's 
 modus  operandi  in  its  performance,  since  from  the  nature  of 
 the  case  we  must  be  ignorant  of  the  mode  in  which  He 
 works  in  the  universe,  except  as  far  as  His  action  is  mani¬ 
 fested  in  its  known  forces ;  and  into  the  higher  regions  of 
 the  divine  activity  we  are  utterly  unable  to  penetrate.  Yet 
 every  consistent  theist  must  hold  that  God  is  everywhere 
 present  energizing  in  the  forces  of  nature,  directing  them 
 and  controlling  them  ;  for  if  there  be  a  God  the  energies  of 
 the  universe  must  have  issued  from  Him,  and  be  dependent 
 on  Him.  This  being  so,  it  is  absolutely  beyond  our  power 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 61 
 
 to  determine  by  what  instrumentality  He  would  effect  a 
 miracle  if  it  were  His  pleasure  to  work  one. 
 
 Next:  What  is  the  nature  to  which  miracles  are  alleged 
 to  be  contrary,  and  what  are  its  laws  and  its  order  which  they 
 are  said  to  violate  ?  Ho  we  include  within  it  the  material 
 universe,  its  necessary  forces,  and  the  sequences  which 
 inevitably  result  from  their  activity  j  or  man,  his  reason,  his 
 free  agency  \  in  a  word  his  intellectual  and  moral  nature  j  or 
 even  everything  that  exists  ?  It  is  evident  that  the  question 
 whether  miracles  involve  violations  of  the  laws  or  order  of 
 nature,  or  suspensions  of  the  activity  of  its  forces,  or  the 
 counteraction  of  one  force  and  the  superior  energy  of 
 another,  will  entirely  depend  on  the  class  of  phenomena 
 which  we  include  under  the  term  “  Nature/"  If  we  include 
 in  it  free  agency  and  its  results,  the  view  which  we  take  of 
 the  relation  in  which  miracles  stand  to  it  and  to  its  order 
 will  be  quite  different  from  what  it  would  be  if  we  confined 
 it  to  the  material  universe  and  its  necessary  forces.  If  man 
 is  a  part  of  nature,  it  is  evident  that  a  being  exists  within 
 it  who  is  capable  within  certain  limits  of  exerting  a  control 
 over  it. 
 
 It  is  needless,  in  reference  to  the  subject  under  discussion, 
 to  enter  into  the  vexed  question  of  necessity  or  freedom. 
 All  that  we  need  do  is  to  take  the  facts  of  consciousness 
 as  we  find  them ;  and  it  is  wholly  unnecessary  to  enter  into 
 a  discussion  about  their  origin.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is 
 unquestionable  that  the  forces  which  energize  in  the  material 
 universe  are  necessary  ones  \  i.e.  they  are  incapable,  by  any 
 inherent  power,  of  acting  otherwise  than  they  do.  If 
 nothing  external  to  them  interferes  with  their  action,  they 
 will  go  on  to  all  eternity  grinding  out  the  same  invariable 
 results,  mutually  acting  and  counteracting  on  one  another. 
 The  never-ending  sequences  which  result  from  their  energy 
 constitute  the  order  of  the  material  universe,  which,  if  it 
 existed  alone,  would  leave  no  place  for  such  an  occurrence 
 as  a  miracle,  which,  as  I  have  said,  is  an  event  which 
 manifests  purpose.  But  wholly  different  is  it,  if  man  and 
 
62 
 
 THE  ORDER  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 the  forces  which  energize  in  him,  form  a  part  of  our  con¬ 
 ception  of  nature.  In  that  case  it  becomes  certain  that  a 
 being  exists  in  nature,  who  is  capable  of  controlling  it  and 
 modifying  its  order.  It  is  beyond  dispute  that  man  acts  on 
 nature,  and  that  the  extent  and  mode  of  this  action  is  deter¬ 
 mined,  not  by  the  blind  action  of  necessary  forces,  but  by 
 the  action  of  forces  which  are  under  the  control  of  intelli¬ 
 gent  volition,  and  are  capable  of  manifesting  purpose. 
 
 It  follows  therefore,  that  the  action  of  man  on  nature 
 differs  wholly  in  character  from  that  of  the  blind  forces  of 
 the  material  universe  which  are  incapable  of  acting  other¬ 
 wise  than  they  do,  or,  by  any  self-direction,  of  modifying 
 their  results.  This  being  so,  nature  must  be  made  up  of 
 two  widely  different  factors,  viz.,  its  blind  unintelligent 
 forces,  and  man,  who  by  his  intelligence  and  volition  is 
 capable  of  controlling  those  forces  for  the  effectuation  of 
 purpose.  In  this  point  of  view  a  miracle,  as  a  deviation  from 
 the  order  of  the  material  universe,  can  be  no  more  contrary 
 to,  or  violate  nature,  than  those  actions  of  man  which 
 effectuate  purpose. 
 
 It  has  often  been  objected  that  volition  is  not  a  force,  and 
 is  incapable  of  creating  any  not  already  in  existence.  But 
 for  the  purpose  of  this  argument  it  is  unnecessary  to  assume 
 that  it  either  is  a  force  or  can  create  force.  One  thino* 
 respecting  it  is  certain,  that  it  is  capable  of  imparting 
 a  direction  to,  and  combining  existing  forces,  and  of  neu¬ 
 tralizing  the  action  of  one  force  by  the  superior  energy 
 of  another;  and  thereby  it  can  effectuate  results  entirely 
 different  from  those  which  would  have  taken  place  from  the 
 uncontrolled  action  of  forces  destitute  of  self-direction. 
 
 It  follows,  therefore,  that  man  is  capable  of  modifying  the 
 order  of  nature,  for  it  is  certain  that  a  wholly  different  order 
 of  events  must  have  taken  place,  had  it  not  been  for  his 
 intervention.  To  this  the  entire  surface  of  the  globe  bears 
 witness.  Yet  every  one  of  the  mighty  results  which  man 
 has  effected,  has  been  brought  about  without  the  suspension 
 of  a  single  force  in  the  universe,  or  a  violation  of  its  laws. 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 03 
 
 Consequently,  whether  man  be  included  in  Nature,  or 
 excluded  from  it,  a  being  exists  who  is  capable  of  using 
 its  necessary  forces  for  the  effectuation  of  purpose.  If  we 
 include  him,  then  a  being  capable  of  modifying  its  order 
 exists  within  it.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  exclude  him 
 from  Nature,  then  a  being  exists  outside  it  who  can  do  the 
 same,  without  suspending  its  forces,  or  interfering  with  the 
 laws  of  their  activity.  From  this  a  further  inference  is 
 inevitable.  What  man  can  do  on  a  limited  scale,  the  Creator 
 of  the  universe  must  be  able  to  effect  on  a  much  larger  one. 
 If  man,  without  actually  suspending  any  of  the  existing 
 forces  of  the  universe,  can  change  their  direction,  combine 
 them,  or  neutralize  one  by  the  superior  energy  of  another  in 
 such  a  way  as  to  effectuate  the  results  of  purpose,  much 
 more  must  God  be  able  to  do  the  same  for  the  effectuation 
 of  His  purposes  ;  since  His  ability  to  do  so  must  be  so 
 much  the  greater  as  He  is  mightier  and  wiser.  On  the 
 same  principles  it  is  no  less  certain  that  God  can  answer 
 prayer,  if  it  be  His  pleasure  to  do  so,  without;  any  such 
 interference  with  the  forces  of  the  universe,  as  some  eminent 
 men  of  science  have  affirmed  to  be  necessary,  and  have 
 therefore  rashly  pronounced  that  the  expectation  of  it  is 
 irrational.  It  may  be  contrary  to  His  will  to  answer  many 
 prayers  which  are  offered  to  Him ;  but  this  by  no  means 
 affects  the  general  principle  that  He  can  answer  them  when 
 it  is  His  pleasure  to  do  so,  without  throwing  the  order  of 
 the  universe  into  confusion. 
 
 These  observations  are  not  made  with  the  smallest  inten¬ 
 tion  of  affirming  anything  as  to  the  agency  which  God  must 
 adopt  in  the  performance  of  a  miracle,  on  the  supposition 
 that  it  is  His  pleasure  to  work  one ;  but  for  the  purpose  of 
 guarding  against  the  introduction  of  needless  difficulties  into 
 the  subject,  which  cause  us  to  incur  the  danger  of  running 
 counter  to  the  truths  of  science.  All  that  1  am  desirous  of 
 showing  is,  that  the  practice  which  has  prevailed  of  laying 
 down  that  a  miracle  must  necessarily  involve  a  violation  or 
 a  suspension  of  the  laws  of  nature ;  or  that  it  is  effected  by 
 
64  THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 the  introduction  of  a  higher  law  to  act  on  a  lower,*  is  not 
 only  unnecessary,  but  dangerous ;  and  also  that  by  intro¬ 
 ducing  into  our  definition  of  a  miracle  a  number  of  ambi¬ 
 guous  terms,  it  involves  us  in  confusion  of  thought.  The 
 neutralization  of  the  action  of  one  force  by  the  superior 
 energy  of  another,  is  a  thing  which  we  witness  every  day. 
 Thus  the  chemical  forces  within  a  certain  range  neutralize, 
 but  do  not  suspend  that  of  gravitation  :  and  the  vital  forces 
 do  the  same  for  the  chemical  ones ;  and  effect  results  wholly 
 different  from  what  would  have  come  to  pass  from  the  single 
 action  of  either  of  them.  This  is  what  man  is  continually 
 doing,  and  thus  he  brings  about  the  results  of  purpose  by 
 skilfully  combining  those  forces  over  which  he  can  exercise 
 control.  But  laws  can  effectuate  nothing.  To  speak  there¬ 
 fore  of  a  miracle  as  the  result  of  the  introduction  of  a  higher 
 law  on  the  sphere  of  nature,  is  to  use  words  as  counters  and 
 not  as  representatives  of  realities. f 
 
 *  “  So  far  from  this,  the  true  miracle  is  a  higher  and  purer  nature, 
 coming  down  out  of  the  world  of  untroubled  harmonies  into  this 
 world  of  ours,  which  so  many  discords  have  jarred  and  disturbed ;  and 
 bringing  them  back  again,  though  it  is  for  one  mysterious  prophetic 
 moment,  into  harmony  with  that  higher.  .  .  .  We  should  term 
 
 the  miracle,  not  an  infraction  of  a  law,  but  behold  in  it  a  lower  law 
 neutralized,  and  for  a  time  put  out  of  working  by  a  higher;  and  of 
 this  abundant  analogous  examples  are  evermore  going  forward  before 
 our  eyes.  Continually  we  behold  in  the  world  around  us,  lower  laws 
 held  in  restraint  by  higher,  mechanic  by  dynamic,  chemical  by  vital ; 
 physical  by  moral.” — Trench,  On  Miracles ,  p.  15.  Throughout  this 
 whole  passage  the  terms  Law  and  Nature  are  used  without  any  definite 
 meaning. 
 
 f“The  chemical  laws  which  would  bring  about  decay  in  animal 
 substances  still  subsist,  even  when  they  are  hemmed  in  and  hindered 
 by  the  salt  which  keeps  these  substances  from  corruption.  The  law 
 of  sin  in  a  regenerate  man  is  held  in  continual  check  by  the  law  of 
 the  Spirit  of  Life  ;  yet  it  is  in  his  members  still,  not  indeed  working, 
 for  a  mightier  law  has  stepped  in,  and  now  holds  it  in  check,  but  still 
 there,  and  ready  to  work.”— Trench  On  Miracles ,  p.  16.  Surely  such 
 assertions  not  only  confound  laws  and  forces,  but  almost  personify 
 both. 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 65 
 
 Similar  ambiguities  result  when  miracles  are  said  to  be 
 violations  or  suspensions  of  tbe  laws  of  nature.  The  thing 
 probably  intended  is  that  they  involve  suspensions  of  its 
 forces.  Let  the  question  be  fairly  asked,  What  laws  must 
 a  miracle  violate,  or  suspend  ?  Surely  not  the  invariable 
 sequences  which  are  the  result  of  the  energies  of  its  forces, 
 as  for  instance  the  law  of  bodies  falling  in  the  proportion 
 of  the  inverse  square  under  the  influence  of  the  force  of 
 gravitation.  Viewed  as  a  set  of  sequences,  there  is  a  sense 
 in  which  man  may  be  said  to  produce  results  contrary  to  the 
 laws  of  nature,  i.e .  of  the  physical  universe,  or,  to  speak 
 more  correctly,  contrary  to  the  order,  which  would  result  from 
 the  action  of  its  forces  independently  of  his  volition,  whenever 
 by  a  combination  of  them  he  brings  about  an  order  of  events 
 different  from  that  which  would  have  happened  without  such 
 a  combination.  This  he  is  accomplishing  every  day ;  and 
 thus  he  introduces  into  the  Universe  an  order  of  events 
 different  from  that  which  would  have  occurred  without  his 
 intervention.  But  this  is  in  no  proper  sense  a  violation  of  the 
 order  of  nature.  The  laws  of  nature  are  consequently  no 
 more  violated  by  the  performance  of  a  miracle  than  they  are 
 by  the  activities  of  man. 
 
 But  it  may  be  objected  that  a  law  of  nature,  viewed  as  an 
 invariable  recurrence  of  a  set  of  observed  phenomena,  as  for 
 example,  that  “all  men  must  die,”  is  violated  by  such  a 
 miracle  as  that  of  a  resurrection.  The  whole  force  of  the 
 objection  arises  from  importing  into  the  conception  of  law 
 that  of  causal  power  or  force.  As  far  as  we  use  the  term 
 to  denote  a  set  of  phenomena  which  have  been  invariable  as 
 far  as  human  observation  has  extended,  the  effect  of  the  occur¬ 
 rence  of  a  different  phenomenon,  as  for  instance,  the  case  of 
 a  man’s  not  dying,  would  be  to  render  it  inapplicable  to  the 
 occurrences  in  question.  But  the  fallacy  arises  from  making 
 law  a  causal  power.  The  expression  "  it  is  a  law  of  nature 
 that  all  men  must  die”  simply  means  that  there  are  a  set 
 of  forces  in  constant  operation  which,  unless  their  action 
 is  counteracted  by  some  other  force,  must  cause  death. 
 
 5 
 
66  THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 But  if  some  counteracting  forces  could  be  brought  to  bear 
 on  man's  bodily  structure,  by  which  the  action  of  those 
 forces  which  result  in  death  could  be  neutralized,  no  viola¬ 
 tion  of  the  laws  of  nature  would  be  the  result.  Thus  it 
 would  be  with  a  resurrection.  What  takes  place  in  death  ? 
 The  cessation  of  the  action  of  those  vital  forces  (be  they 
 what  they  may)  which  control  and  neutralize  the  action  of 
 those  chemical  forces,  which,  if  unrestrained  by  the  former, 
 would  cause  the  dissolution  of  the  frame ;  and  which,  when 
 death  has  taken  place,  effect  that  dissolution.  Without 
 making  any  affirmation  as  to  the  means  by  which  a  resur¬ 
 rection  might  be  effected  by  God,  one  thing  is  clear,  that  it 
 must  involve  the  reversal  of  the  process  of  dissolution; 
 or,  in  other  words,  the  presence  of  a  power  capable  of 
 neutralizing  the  forces  which  have  resulted  in  death ;  and  the 
 presence  of  such  a  vital  force  as  is  capable  of  recons tructiug 
 the  bodily  frame  and  imparting  a  renewed  activity  to  its 
 organism.  What  force  or  forces  may  be  capable  of  bringing 
 about  such  a  result,  we  know  not ;  but  we  do  know  that 
 a  force  exists,  which,  in  our  ignorance  of  its  true  nature, 
 we  call  the  vital  force,  which  has  built  up  our  bodily  frames 
 out  of  a  mere  germ.  This  has  been  effected  without  the 
 smallest  violation  of  any  law  or  order  of  nature,  though  in 
 the  course  of  its  activity  it  has  neutralized  the  action  of 
 other  forces  which  would  have  exerted  an  opposite  influence 
 if  left  to  their  unrestrained  action.  As  this  process  has  been 
 effected  once  without  any  violation  of  such  order,  there  is 
 no  reason  why  the  might  of  the  Creator  should  not  be  able 
 to  effect  it  a  second  time  without  any  violation  of  the  same 
 order.  Abstractedly  we  should  probably  have  deemed  it 
 impossible  to  construct  a  body  in  the  way  in  which  it  is 
 actually  accomplished ;  it  is  therefore  impossible  for  us  to 
 affirm  that  the  Creator  cannot  reverse  the  process  without 
 any  violation  of  the  forces,  laws,  or  order  of  nature.  There 
 is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the  case  more  difficult  in  the 
 effecting  of  a  resurrection  than  there  is  in  what  God  has 
 actually  accomplished — the  formation  of  our  present  bodies 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 67 
 
 by  the  combination  of  the  forces  of  the  universe  which  He 
 has  under  His  control.  Many  of  the  forces  by  which  the 
 first  portions  of  the  process  have  been  effected  are  hidden 
 ones,  but  they  are  nevertheless  real,  though  they  cannot  be 
 measured  by  any  of  our  instruments.  So  may  it  be  with  a 
 resurrection.  Surely  that  Being  who  has  built  our  bodies  by 
 means  of  forces  actually  existing  in  the  Universe,  without 
 once  violating  its  order,  if  it  be  His  pleasure  to  do  so,  can 
 rebuild  them  without  introducing  the  smallest  particle  of 
 ■confusion  into  His  creative  work.  Ignorant  as  we  are  of  the 
 mode  of  the  Creator's  working,  we  can  have  no  possible 
 ground  for  affirming  that  the  mode  of  His  action  in  the  per¬ 
 formance  of  a  miracle  must  differ  from  that  of  His  ordinary 
 providence.  He  must  be  a  bold  man  who  will  venture  to 
 affirm  that  we  are  acquainted  with  all  the  forces  of  the 
 Universe  which  are  under  His  control,  or  all  the  possible 
 combinations  of  them  by  which  He  may  work  out  results  in 
 the  distant  ages  of  the  future  very  different  from  man's 
 narrow  experience  in  the  past. 
 
 It  follows  therefore  that  we  are  only  encumbering  the 
 question  with  needless  difficulties  when  we  introduce  into 
 •our  conception  of  a  miracle  some  theory  as  to  the  mode  of 
 the  divine  action  in  its  performance.  It  is  clear  that  there 
 is  not  the  smallest  necessity  to  affirm  that  the  performance 
 of  one  must  involve  either  a  directly  creative  act  of  God, 
 or  a  violation  or  suspension  of  the  action  of  any  law  or 
 force  in  nature.  I  do  not  mean  to  affirm  that  such  may  not 
 have  been  the  mode  of  the  divine  working,  but  that  it  is 
 wholly  unnecessary  to  assert  that  it  must  have  been.  The 
 only  thing  necessary  to  the  conception  of  a  miracle  is  that  it 
 should  be  some  manifestation  of  the  divine  activity  which 
 exhibits  special  purpose  on  the  part  of  God ;  and  the  only 
 thing  necessary  for  its  performance  is  the  active  operation  or 
 the  combination  of  such  forces  as  are  adequate  to  accom¬ 
 plish  it. 
 
 As  on  general  grounds  the  introduction  of  these  questions 
 into  the  controversy  about  miracles  is  unnecessary,  so  it  is 
 
 5  * 
 
68  THE  OEDEE  OP  THE  CHEISTIAN  AEGUMENT, 
 
 without  any  support  whatever  from  anything  which  is 
 affirmed  respecting  them  in  the  Bible.  If  the  sacred  writers 
 had  made  any  affirmation  as  to  the  mode  of  the  divine  action 
 in  the  performance  of  miracles  we  should  have  been  com¬ 
 pelled  to  adopt  it,  and  to  abide  by  the  consequences  of  doing 
 so.  Whatever  difficulties  we  encounter  on  this  subject  are, 
 however,  entirely  of  our  own  creation,  and  cannot  possibly 
 be  charged  on  Holy  Scripture.  I  have  already  observed  that 
 as  far  as  the  Old  Testament  is  concerned  no  distinction  is 
 made  between  God  as  the  worker  of  miracles  and  God  as 
 the  active  agent  in  Providence.  If  a  miracle  is  referred  to 
 as  a  wonder,  God's  operations  in  nature  are  affirmed  to  be 
 wonderful;  if  as  an  act  of  power,  still  greater  displays  of 
 might  are  ascribed  to  Him  in  His  ordinary  Providence ;  if  it 
 is  referred  to  as  a  proof  of  the  divine  working,  so  are  all 
 the  operations  of  the  Universe.  “  When  the  waves  of  the 
 sea  arise,”  says  the  Psalmist,  “  thou  stillest  them.”  “  In  His 
 hands  are  the  deep  places  of  the  earth ;  the  strength  of  the 
 hills  is  His  also ;  the  sea  is  His,  and  He  made  it,  and  His 
 hands  prepared  the  dry  land.”  The  writers  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
 ment  were  certainly  without  the  smallest  idea  that  God  was 
 violating  the  order  of  the  Universe  when  He  wrought  miracles. 
 Iam  aware  that  it  has  been  asserted  that  the  writers  of  the 
 Bible  did  not  recognize  any  order  in  the  Universe  at  all,  but 
 this  objection  never  could  have  been  urged  if  the  most 
 palpable  facts  had  not  been  carelessly  overlooked.*  Nor  is  the 
 case  different  with  the  New  Testament.  It  contains  not  a 
 single  affirmation  as  to  the  modus  ojperandi  by  which  a 
 miracle  was  accomplished,  or  a  hint  that  it  suspended  either 
 the  forces  or  laws  of  the  Universe.  On  the  contrary,  during 
 the  performance  of  some  of  Our  Lord's  miracles,  the  intima¬ 
 tions  that  the  forces  of  the  Universe  were  not  suspended  are 
 sufficiently  definite.  We  may  take  Peter's  walking  on  the 
 water  as  a  crucial  example.  It  has  been  affirmed  that  the 
 force  of  gravitation  must  have  been  suspended  in  his  favour. 
 But  the  narrative  affirms  the  contrary,  for  the  sacred  writer 
 
 *  Psalms  19,  33,  104,  111,  139,  148. 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 69 
 
 tells  ns  that  the  moment  Peter's  faith  failed  him  he  began  to 
 sink,  thus  proving  that  the  power  of  gravitation  was  not 
 suspended  for  a  moment.  The  only  thing  necessary  was  the 
 presence  of  some  force  capable  of  neutralizing  its  action  on 
 Peter's  body,  precisely  in  the  same  way  as  it  is  constantly 
 neutralized  by  ourselves  whenever  we  lift  a  weight  from  the 
 ground.  In  whatever  way  the  miracle  was  performed  it  is 
 clear  that  the  suspension  of  the  force  of  gravitation  formed 
 no  portion  of  it. 
 
 Equally  gratuitous  is  the  affirmation  that  the  performance 
 of  certain  miracles  must  have  involved  an  act  of  creative 
 power.  As  far  as  we  have  any  hints  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
 ment,  it  is  clear  that  its  authors  did  not  suppose  that  the 
 performance  of  a  miracle  was  attended  by  an  act  of  creation. 
 Thus  in  the  miracle  of  turning  the  water  into  wine,  the  wine 
 was  not  produced  in  the  empty  jars,  but  an  express  direc¬ 
 tion  was  given  to  fill  them  first  with  water,  and  then  the 
 water  was  converted  into  wine.  Of  the  mode  of  effecting 
 it  we  are  not  informed;  but  there  is  nothing  to  imply 
 that  the  performance  of  this  miracle  added  one  ounce  to 
 the  weight  of  the  globe.  The  jars  were  filled  with  water, 
 and  the  water  became  wine.  God  slowly  produces  the 
 grape  out  of  substances  already  existing,  of  which  water 
 is  the  chief,  by  a  set  of  elaborate  combinations  of  the  forces 
 of  the  Universe.  The  grapes  are  gathered  by  man,  and 
 then  subjected  by  him  to  the  action  of  another  set  of  forces 
 more  or  less  under  his  control,  and  by  these  are  converted 
 into  wine.  This  process  we  think  nothing  wonderful,  because 
 we  habitually  witness  it.  In  the  case  of  the  miracle  He 
 turned  the  water  into  wine  in  some  other  way,  by  the  use 
 of  forces  of  which  we  have  had  no  prior  experience;  but 
 there  is  nothing  to  imply  that  in  this  operation  He  violated 
 or  suspended  any  force  or  law  of  the  Universe,  or  created 
 one  particle  of  matter  which  was  not  already  in  existence. 
 I  make  this  last  observation  because  it  is  this  supposed 
 creation  of  matter  in  certain  miracles,  thereby  adding  to  the 
 weight  of  the  globe,  which  endangers  our  coming  in  collision 
 
70  THE  ORDER  OF  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT, 
 
 with  physical  science.  The  same  observations  are  applicable 
 to  the  miracle  of  the  multiplication  of  the  loaves  and  fishes. 
 All  the  materials  were  at  hand,  either  in  the  earth,  the  air, 
 or  the  water.  The  ordinary  action  of  God^s  Providence 
 makes  bread  and  fish  in  one  way  :  in  a  miracle  He  produces 
 them  in  another.  In  the  former ,  case  we  understand  some 
 portion  of  the  process,  though  the  remainder  is  buried  in 
 profound  darkness.  In  the  latter  the  whole  process  is 
 hidden  from  our  view. 
 
 Another  striking  phenomenon  in  the  miracles  of  the  New 
 Testament,  pointing  to  a  similar  result,  is  the  remarkable 
 economy  in  the  exercise  of  miraculous  power  displayed  in 
 them.  Ordinary  means  are  invariably  had  recourse  to  where 
 they  are  sufficient  to  effect  the  end  in  view ;  and  where  they 
 are  adequate,  miracle  is  never  invoked.  Thus,  in  the 
 miracle  of  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus,  the  stone  is  ordered 
 to  be  removed  by  human  hands ;  and  after  the  dead  man 
 was  recalled  to  life  the  grave-clothes  are  directed  to  be  re¬ 
 moved  by  the  same  agency.  So  again,  after  the  miracle 
 wrought  on  Jairus*  daughter.  Our  Lord,  who  is  described  as 
 having  miraculously  fed  the  multitudes,  directs  the  parents 
 to  furnish  her  with  food.  Whatever  was  the  nature  of  the 
 divine  intervention  in  these  miracles  it  was  clearly  limited 
 to  the  smallest  possible  extent.  This  economy  in  the  use 
 of  miracle  forms  one  of  the  remarkable  characteristics  which 
 distinguish  those  of  the  New  Testament  from  those  of  all 
 other  miraculous  narratives.  In  the  case  of  the  resurrection 
 of  Lazarus  a  forger  would  hardly  have  been  able  to  refrain 
 from  ordering  the  stone  to  roll  back  of  itself ;  still  less 
 would  it  have  occurred  to  such  a  person  to  direct  that  a 
 child  just  raised  from  the  dead  should  be  furnished  with  a 
 supply  of  food. 
 
 But  by  far  the  greater  number  of  the  miracles  of  the 
 New  Testament  were  wrought,  not  on  dead  matter,  but  on 
 the  living  organisms  of  the  human  body.  Of  the  mode  of 
 action  cf  no  force  which  comes  under  human  observation 
 are  we  more  profoundly  ignorant  than  of  the  vital  ones,  or 
 
ITS  EXTENT  AND  LIMITATION. 
 
 71 
 
 of  the  mode  or  extent  in  which  mind  can  act  on  matter. 
 In  this  region,  therefore,  it  is  quite  clear  that  a  Being  who 
 is  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  vital  forces,  and  holds 
 them  in  His  hand,  can  work  miracles  without  any  disturb¬ 
 ance  of  the  forces,  laws,  or  order  of  nature. 
 
 In  several  of  the  Old  Testament  miracles  the  affirmation 
 of  the  active  presence  of  what  have  been  designated  second 
 causes,  or  in  other  words  the  known  forces  of  the  Universe, 
 as  the  means  through  which  they  were  accomplished,  is 
 direct.  Thus  the  miracles  of  the  dividing  of  the  Bed  Sea, 
 and  of  the  supply  of  quails,  are  asserted  to  have  been 
 effected  through  the  agency  of  a  wind  blowing  in  a  par¬ 
 ticular  direction.  A  similar  affirmation  is  made  respecting 
 several  of  the  plagues  of  Egypt.  A  similar  principle,  though 
 less  obvious,  may  be  detected  in  other  miracles.  All 
 these  instances  prove  that  the  introduction  of  a  particular 
 theory  of  the  mode  of  the  divine  action  into  the  conception 
 of  a  miracle  is  entirely  uncalled  for  by  anything  which  is 
 asserted  in  the  pages  of  the  Old  or  the  New  Testament. 
 Nor  can  it  be  shown,  on  any  grounds  of  solid  reason,  to  be 
 necessary. 
 
 The  whole  theory  that  miracles  must  be  contrary  to 
 nature,  and  that  their  performance  must  involve  violations 
 or  suspensions  of  its  laws  and  forces,  arises  out  of  a  prac¬ 
 tical  denial  that  God  is  everywhere  every  moment  energizing 
 in  nature ;  in  fact  it  involves  the  assumption  that  the 
 Universe  is  a  huge  machine,  outside  which  the  Creator,  if 
 there  be  a  Creator  at  all,  exists— a  machine  which  He  has 
 once  contrived  and  set  in  motion,  and  will  go  on  for  ever 
 grinding  out  results  by  the  never  ceasing  activity  of  its 
 forces,  without  any  further  exercise  of  His  power.  To  such 
 a  conception  of  the  Universe  a  miracle  becomes  a  special 
 intervention  of  the  Creator,  interrupting  the  order  of  its 
 working,  and  consequently  an  indication  of  His  presence  in 
 that  from  which  He  had  previously  retired.*  Such  a  con- 
 
 *  Such  a  view  of  tlie  Universe  (undoubtedly  a  very  popular  one 
 at  tlie  present  day  among  scientific  men)  is  involved  in  the  conception 
 
72  THE  ORDER  OP  THE  CHRISTIAN  ARGUMENT. 
 
 ception  of  God  differs  wholly  from  the  God  of  the  Bible, 
 which  contains  the  only  worthy  theistic  conception  of  Him, 
 not  only  as  the  Creator  of  the  Universe,  a  skilful  mechanist 
 and  chemist,  but  as  the  Father  of  those  beings  whom  he  has 
 created.  Christian  theism  affirms  that  God  is  not  only  a 
 Being  who  exists  independently  of  the  Universe,  but  that 
 in  Him  we  live,  and  move,  and  exist ;  that  the  earth  is  the 
 Lord's  and  the  fulness  thereof,  the  compass  of  the  world  and 
 they  that  dwell  therein ;  and  that  all  its  forces  and  energies 
 are  the  manifestations  of  His  ceaseless  activity.  What  we 
 designate  the  forces  of  nature,  and  miracles,  are  alike  mani¬ 
 festations  of  God,  the  latter  differing  from  the  former,  not 
 in  the  degree  of  power  which  they  exhibit,  nor  in  the  fact 
 that  He  is  more  present  when  He  works  a  miracle  than  He 
 is  in  the  active  energies  of  those  forces  in  the  midst  of 
 which  we  daily  live,  but  in  the  fact  that  a  miracle  is  an 
 event  fitted  to  awaken  attention  by  a  special  manifestation 
 of  intelligent  purpose,  and  stamped  with  the  indications  of 
 it.  As  such  it  constitutes  a  ctjjjuUov,  and  possesses  an 
 evidential  value. 
 
 of  a  miracle  as  the  effect  of  the  introduction  of  a  higher  law.  (See 
 Mozley’s  Bampton  Lectures ,  Lecture  VI.)  The  whole  idea  involves 
 the  confusion  between  the  conceptions  of  law  and  force  which  I  have 
 already  referred  to,  as  well  as  the  mechanical  view  of  the  Universe  as 
 a  bare  machine  in  which  He  is  not  immanent,  but  to  the  action  of  which 
 He  stands  outside, 
 
LECTUEE  IL 
 
 *  I  am  one  that  bear  witness  of  myself,  and  the  Father  that  sent  me 
 beareth  witness  of  me.” — John  viii.  18. 
 
 At  the  conclusion  of  the  last  Lecture  I  offered  some 
 general  considerations  for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the 
 argument  from  miracles  ought  to  occupy  a  less  prominent 
 place  among  the  evidences  of  Christianity  than  that  which 
 has  been  assigned  to  it  in  our  modern  apologetic  works. 
 The  proper  function  which  they  discharge  in  relation  to  the 
 Christian  argument  is  a  matter  of  such  deep  importance, 
 that  before  I  proceed  to  deal  with  the  reconstructive  portion 
 of  it,  I  must  endeavour  to  estimate  their  proper  value. 
 While  doing  so,  I  must  ask  you  to  bear  in  mind  the  distinc¬ 
 tion  which  I  have  laid  down  between  the  word  “  Miracle” 
 in  its  ordinary  acceptation  as  an  extraordinary  occurrence  in 
 the  physical  Universe,  and  those  manifestations  of  a  super¬ 
 human  power  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  world,  which  I  have 
 designated  moral  miracles. 
 
 I  shall  assume  as  the  foundation  of  my  argument,  that  it 
 is  an  established  philosophic  truth,  that  the  forces  which 
 energize  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  world,  act  in  conformity 
 with  moral  laws  no  less  than  those  which  dominate  in  the 
 physical  Universe  with  physical  ones.  As,  therefore,  an 
 event  which  manifests  purpose,  for  the  origin  of  which  the 
 known  forces  of  the  physical  Universe  are  unable  to  account, 
 is  a  physical  miracle ;  so  an  event  in  the  moral  Universe, 
 of  the  origin  of  which  the  forces  energizing  in  man  can  give 
 
74 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OF 
 
 no  explanation,  is  a  moral  miracle;  and  is  therefore  the 
 manifestation  of  the  energetic  presence  of  a  superhuman 
 power. 
 
 The  moral  miracle  possesses  this  advantage  over  the 
 physical  one  in  point  of  evidential  value.  To  those  who 
 believe  in  conformity  with  the  theism  of  the  Bible,*  that 
 God  is  energizing  in  all  the  forces  of  nature,  there  is  some 
 difficulty  in  laying  down  a  clear  line  of  distinction  between 
 miracles  and  remarkable  acts  of  His  providential  govern¬ 
 ment,  as  they  are  both  alike  manifestations  of  a  divine 
 energy.  (See  Supplement  I.)  On  the  other  hand,  those  who 
 view  the  Universe  as  a  piece  of  self-acting  mechanism,  are 
 always  able  to  account  for  the  occurrence  of  an  extra- 
 
 #  Whatever  may  he  said  for  any  other  species  of  theism,  such  as 
 that  which  contemplates  the  forces  of  the  Universe  as  having  an 
 objective  existence,  by  the  action  of  which  it  has  been  evolved, 
 independently  of  the  immanence  in  them  of  the  Creator,  of  whose 
 activity  they  are  the  manifestations,  as  an  intellectual  necessity, 
 it  evidently  differs  widely  from  the  theism  of  the  Bible.  If  one  thing 
 is  more  certain  than  another,  it  is  that  the  Bible  contemplates  G-cd  as 
 immanent  in  the  forces  of  nature ;  and  that  they  are  the  manifestations 
 of  His  energies,  as  much  as  any  miracle  recorded  in  its  pages.  He  has 
 not  retired  from  Creation,  but  is  present  energizing  in  it  every 
 moment.  This  is  not  only  beyond  all  contradiction  the  theism  of  the 
 Old  Testament,  of  which  the  book  of  Psalms  forms  a  perpetual 
 witness,  but  also  that  of  the  IS  ew.  Thus  Our  Lord  not  only  expressly 
 affirms  that  His  Father  works  hitherto,  and  He  in  imitation  of  Him; 
 but  he  ascribes  to  His  energetic  action  the  rising  of  the  sun,  the  falling 
 of  rain,  the  beauty  of  the  flowers,  the  feeding  of  the  animal  races,  and 
 a  providential  care  over  man,  even  to  the  extent  that  a  hair  does  not 
 fall  to  the  ground  without  His  providence.  The  God  of  the  Bible  is 
 not  only  immanent  in  the  Universe,  and  energizing  in  its  forces,  but 
 its  moral  governor,  and  the  Father  of  rational  creatures.  The  God  of 
 philosophy  is  assumed  merely  as  an  intellectual  necessity.  The  authors 
 of  The  Unseen  Universe  lay  down  that  it  is  the  duty  of  science  to 
 banish  God  as  far  as  possible  into  the  regions  of  the  unknowable. 
 With  them  the  Universe  is  a  huge  machine.  The  authors  of  the 
 Bible  affirm  that  it  is  our  duty  to  recognize  in  all  His  creative  works 
 the  manifestation  of  the  presence  and  energies  of  Him  who  is  our 
 Father. 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 75 
 
 ordinary  event,  by  assigning  it  to  tbe  action  of  some  force 
 which  has  never  yet  come  under  human  observation.  But 
 as  the  long  experience  of  history  has  made  us  thoroughly 
 acquainted  with  the  forces  which  energize  in  man,  an  occur¬ 
 rence  in  the  moral  world  which  transcends  their  power  to 
 have  produced,  is  a  direct  proof  of  the  presence  of  a  super¬ 
 human  power.  Hitherto  the  attention  of  evidential  writers 
 has  been  almost  exclusively  directed  to  physical  miracles, 
 while  the  evidence  afforded  by  moral  ones  has  been 
 comparatively  neglected.  I  propose,  on  the  contrary, 
 to  appeal  to  the  might  with  which  Jesus  Christ  has 
 energized  in  history ;  to  His  whole  character  as  it  is 
 depicted  in  the  Gospels;  and  to  the  elevation  of  His 
 teaching  above  the  conditions  which,  in  conformity  with  the 
 laws  of  the  moral  world,  were  imposed  on  Him  by  the 
 environment  of  thought  in  the  midst  of  which  He  was  born 
 and  educated,  as  constituting  a  proof  capable  of  being 
 verified  by  the  most  palpable  facts  of  history,  of  the 
 presence  in  Christianity  of  an  element  which  is  superhuman. 
 
 What  then  is  the  evidential  value  of  miracles;  and  in 
 what  relation  do  they  stand  to  the  Christian  argument? 
 In  answering  this  question  the  obvious  course  is  not  to 
 start  with  a  number  of  a  'priori  assumptions,  but  to  ascer¬ 
 tain  what  views  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  have  pro¬ 
 pounded  on  the  subject.  Have  they  in  fact  made  any 
 affirmations  respecting  the  functions  of  miracles  in  connection, 
 ■with  Christianity,  and  if  so,  what  are  they  ?  Nothing 
 can  be  more  absurd  than  to  claim  for  them  an  evidential 
 value  which  was  unknown  to  those  who  actually  performed 
 them. 
 
 Many  modern  writers  have  affirmed  that  miracles  con¬ 
 stitute  the  sole  evidences  of  a  revelation,  and  that  there  are 
 truths  in  Christianity  which  would  be  utterly  incredible 
 unless  they  were  thus  confirmed.  The  question  therefore 
 becomes  one  of  supreme  importance — Are  such  opinions  as 
 to  the  functions  of  miracles  borne  out  by  the  contents  of  the 
 New  Testament  ?  Above  all,  what  are  the  grounds  on 
 
76 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OF 
 
 which  Our  Lord  himself  rested  his  claims  to  a  divine 
 Mission  ?  I  will  answer  this  latter  question  first. 
 
 It  is  clear  that  Our  Lord  did  not  rest  His  claim  to  be  the 
 Christ,  nor  to  the  acceptance  of  His  teaching  as  authoritative 
 and  divine,  exclusively  on  the  miracles  which  He  performed. 
 Of  this  the  text  is  one  out  of  many  direct  affirmations,  “  I  am 
 one  that  bear  witness  of  myself,  and  the  Father  that  sent  me 
 beareth  witness  of  me.”  In  this  passage  a  marked  distinction 
 is  laid  down  between  His  own  testimony  and  that  of  His 
 Father  to  the  truth  of  His  divine  mission.  In  what  did 
 that  distinction  consist  ?  His  own  testimony  must  have 
 been  His  self-evidencing  divine  character;  the  testimony 
 of  His  Father,  the  miracles  that  He  performed.  Ho  other 
 distinction  is  possible.  The  same  truth  is  brought  out  in 
 another  passage.  “  If  I  do  not  the  works  of  my  Father, 
 believe  me  not,  but  if  I  do,  though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe 
 the  works,  that  ye  may  see  and  believe  that  the  Father  is  in 
 me,  and  I  in  him”  (John  x.  37,  38). 
 
 These  words  are  important,  because  they  are  addressed  by 
 Our  Lord  to  His  opponents,  and  therefore  they  throw  a  clear 
 light  on  my  position.  Our  Lord  affirmed  that  they  ought  to 
 have  believed  in  Him  on  His  own  testimony,  i.e.  on  the 
 evidence  afforded  by  His  moral  and  spiritual  character,  and 
 His  entire  working,  which  He  addressed  to  the  depths  of  the 
 human  spirit.  If  however  they  were  incapable  of  appre¬ 
 ciating  this,  then  He  appeals  to  His  miraculous  works,  yet 
 not  as  mere  wonders  or  energies  of  power,  but  to  their 
 entire  moral  environment;  nor  even  to  them  as  simply 
 evidencing  a  divine  commission,  but  to  their  special  character 
 as  proving  His  direct  union  with  the  Father,  as  He  himself 
 puts  it,  “  that  ye  may  see  and  believe  that  the  Father  is  in 
 me  and  I  in  him.” 
 
 Secondly :  the  account  of  the  interview  between  Our 
 Lord  and  Nicodemus  proves  that  the  latter,  even  from  his 
 own  low  standpoint,  did  not  view  miracles  alone  apart  from 
 their  attending  circumstances  as  sufficient  proofs  of  a  divine 
 commission.  “  Babbi,”  says  he,  “  we  know  that  thou  art 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 77 
 
 a  teacher  come  from  God,  for  no  man  can  do  these  miracles 
 that  thou  doest  except  God  be  with  him.”  Such  words 
 imply  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  speaker,  a  certain  class  of 
 miracles  could  be  wrought  without  the  intervention  of  God. 
 We  are  not  told  how  he  discriminated  between  the  one  class 
 and  the  other,  but  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  it  must 
 have  been  by  their  moral  impress.  The  Divine  Speaker, 
 however,  rests  the  acceptance  of  His  testimony  on  higher 
 grounds  than  the  attestation  of  miracles  wrought  for  the 
 purpose  of  confirming  the  truth  of  His  assertions.  “We 
 speak  that  we  do  know,  and  testify  that  we  have  seen,  and 
 ye  receive  not  our  witness.”  He  then  proceeds  in  the  re¬ 
 mainder  of  the  discourse  to  make  a  number  of  affirmations 
 respecting  His  own  divine  character,  which  the  whole  con¬ 
 text  makes  it  clear  that  Nicodemus  must  have  heard  with 
 profound  astonishment,  yet  He  not  only  works  no  miracle 
 to  prove  the  truth  of  His  affirmations,  but  does  not  make 
 any  allusion  to  them  as  distinct  from  His  general  super¬ 
 human  working. 
 
 Here  it  is  important  that  I  should  draw  attention  to  the 
 term  by  which  our  Lord  throughout  this  Gospel  designates 
 His  miracles.  They  are  His  works  (epya).  By  the  use  of 
 such  a  term  it  is  clear  that  He  did  not  view  them  as  a  class 
 of  actions  standing  by  themselves,  but  as  portions  of  His 
 divine  working.  His  working  included  not  only  His 
 miracles  but  His  entire  divine  life,  His  actions,  and  His 
 teaching.  It  is  a  remarkable  fact  that  this  use  of  the  word 
 ipya  is  almost  peculiar  to  Our  Lord,  proving  that  He 
 viewed  His  miracles,  not  as  standing  in  a  class  by  them¬ 
 selves,  but  as  constituting  a  portion  of  the  manifestation  of 
 the  divine  which  dwelt  within  Him.  The  sacred  writers, 
 when  they  refer  to  miracles,  usually  designate  them  as 
 “signs”  (d)7/xc7a),  less  frequently,  “mighty  works”  (dvvaptig), 
 and  “wonders”  (rlpara).  But  Our  Lord  Himself  never 
 uses  these  terms  except  when  He  is  stating  the  views  of 
 others  respecting  them ;  as  when  He  addressed  the  nobleman 
 of  Capernaum,  “  Except  ye  see  signs  and  wonders,  ye  will 
 not  believe.” 
 
78 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OR 
 
 Thirdly:  the  following  utterances,  even  if  they  stood  alone, 
 would  afford  strong  proof  that  Our  Lord  considered  that  He 
 had  higher  evidences  of  His  divine  character  than  that  which 
 could  be  afforded  by  mere  objective  miracles,  and  that  He 
 appealed  to  these  latter  only  when  the  others  failed.  Thus 
 He  says  to  the  Jews,  “  Though  ye  believe  not  me,  believe 
 the  works.”  But  His  “works”  are  meant  to  include 
 His  whole  superhuman  working,  of  which  His  miracles 
 formed  a  remarkable  portion,  and  were  stamped  with 
 the  moral  perfection  of  His  character.  Thus  “  The  works 
 which  the  Father  hath  given  me  to  finish,  the  same  works 
 which  I  do  bear  witness  of  me  that  the  Father  hath  sent 
 me,”  must  embrace  the  whole  of  that  divine  work  which  He 
 came  to  accomplish.  A  similar  view  is  propounded  in  His 
 prayer  of  intercession,  “  I  have  glorified  thee  on  the  earth; 
 I  have  finished  the  work  that  thou  gavest  me  to  do,”  a  work 
 which  is  subsequently  defined  as  consisting  in  the  manifes¬ 
 tation  of  His  Father.  So  likewise  in  the  declaration  made 
 to  the  disciples,  “  My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  him  that  sent 
 me,  and  to  finish  his  work.”  The  working  of  Our  Lord,  in 
 short,  included  the  whole  of  His  divine  life  and  actions, 
 in  which  those  who  witnessed  it,  beheld  “  the  glory  of  the 
 only  begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace  and  truth.” 
 Such  a  manifestation  must  necessarily  have  been  self- 
 evidential. 
 
 Fourthly:  The  entire  discourse  recorded  in  the  eighth 
 chapter  definitely  affirms  that  Our  Lord  laid  claim  to  a  higher 
 class  of  evidence  than  that  of  mere  objective  miracles  con¬ 
 templated  as  “  mighty  acts  ”  or  “  wonders  ”  in  proof  of  His 
 superhuman  claims.  This  chapter  is  particularly  important 
 as  bearing  on  the  present  question,  because  throughout  it 
 Our  Lord  is  reasoning  with  His  opponents.  It  will  be  suffi¬ 
 cient  to  cite  the  following  passage “  And  because  I  tell 
 you  the  truth  ye  believe  me  not.  Which  of  you  convinceth  me 
 of  sin  ?  and  if  I  say  the  truth  why  do  ye  not  believe  me  ? 
 He  that  is  of  God  heareth  God^s  words,  lie  therefore  hear 
 them  not  because  ye  are  not  of  God.” 
 
 The  entire  reasoning  throughout  this  chapter  is  made  to 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 79 
 
 turn  on  Our  Lord's  self-evidencing  character.  It  is  most 
 remarkable  that  throughout  the  whole  argument  Our  Lord 
 never  once  refers  to  a  miracle  either  in  its  character  of  a 
 mighty  work,  a  wonder,  or  even  a  sign.  On  the  contrary. 
 He  rests  His  claim  to  be  believed  on  His  complete  and 
 absolute  sinlessness.  “  Which  of  you  convinceth  me  of 
 sin?"  says  He,  “and  if  I  say  the  truth  why  do  ye  not 
 believe  me  ?"  The  perfection  of  his  holiness,  as  he  affirms, 
 constituted  the  great  proof  that  his  teaching  was  worthy  of 
 all  acceptation.  His  testimony  was  in  fact  that  of  an  eye¬ 
 witness  who  could  not  fail  to  know  the  truth  of  the  things 
 which  He  uttered  by  the  directness  of  his  intercommunion 
 with  God,  and  his  perfect  sinlessness  was  the  guarantee  of 
 the  truth  of  his  assertions.  “  I  speak,"  says  He,  “  what  I 
 have  seen  with  my  Father,  and  ye  do  what  ye  have  seen 
 with  your  Father."  But  further :  it  is  worthy  of  particular 
 notice  that  immediately  after  making  these  declarations,  He 
 proceeds  to  make  one  of  the  strongest  affirmations  of  His 
 divine  character  which  is  to  be  found  in  the  Gospels — 
 “  Before  Abraham  was  I  am."  According  to  the  views 
 which  have  been  entertained  by  many  on  this  subject.  Our 
 Lord  ought  to  have  performed  one  of  His  greatest  miracles 
 in  confirmation  of  the  truth  of  so  astounding  a  statement, 
 as  being  the  only  thing  which  could  give  it  credibility,  yet 
 throughout  the  whole  discourse  He  never  once  alludes  to 
 His  miracles,  which  He  surely  would  have  done  if  He  had 
 regarded  them  as  the  sole  or  even  the  chief  guarantee 
 of  His  veracity. 
 
 Fifthly  :  Another  striking  proof  that  Our  Lord  uniformly 
 appealed  to  the  self- evidencing  power  manifesting  itself  in 
 His  person  is  contained  in  His  last  discourse.  The  apostle 
 Philip  makes  a  definite  request  that  He  would  afford  them 
 a  visible  manifestation  of  the  Father,  and  declares  that  if 
 He  would  do  so  it  would  be  sufficient  for  their  complete 
 conviction.  What  is  Our  Lord's  reply  ?  “  Have  I  been  so 
 long  time  with  you,  and  yet  hast  thou  not  known  me,  Philip  ? 
 He  that  hath  seen  me  hath  seen  the  Father,  and  how  sayest 
 
80 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 thou.  Show  ns  the  Father  ?  Believest  thou  not  that  I  am 
 in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me  ?  The  words  that  I 
 speak  nnto  you  I  speak  not  of  myself,  but  the  Father  who 
 dwelleth  in  me,  he  doeth  the  works.  Believe  me  that  I  am 
 in  the  Father,  and  the  Father  in  me ;  or  else  believe  me  for 
 the  very  works’  sake.”  Such  an  affirmation,  even  if  it  stood 
 alone,  would  prove  conclusively  that  the  evidence  afforded 
 by  the  presence  of  the  divine  in  Our  Lord’s  person  and 
 working  ought  to  occupy  a  very  prominent  place  in  the 
 Christian  argument.  But  further  :  Our  Lord  affirmed  that 
 He  was  the  light  of  the  world.  This  is  equivalent  to  the 
 assertion  that  His  person  and  work  were  self-evidential; 
 or  in  other  words,  as  the  best  proof  that  the  sun  is  shining 
 is  to  turn  and  behold  its  beams,  so  the  strongest  evidence 
 of  the  existence  of  the  spiritual  Sun  is  the  light  which  He 
 emits.  A  pretender  to  be  the  light  of  the  world,  who  emits 
 no  radiance,  is  self-convicted  of  being  an  impostor. 
 
 Sixthly :  Although  no  such  explicit  affirmations  are  to  be 
 found  in  the  Synoptics,  they  afford  abundant  confirmations 
 of  the  same  view.  They  fully  concur  with  St.  John  that 
 whenever  Our  Lord’s  opponents  challenged  Him  to  work  a 
 miracle  as  a  proof  of  His  divine  mission,  He  uniformly 
 refused  to  do  so.  This  seems  inexplicable,  if  He  viewed 
 them  as  constituting  its  sole  and  only  proof.  But  they 
 inform  us  of  the  further  fact,  that  He  was  deeply  grieved 
 when  this  demand  was  made  on  Him ;  that  He  declared 
 that  it  was  an  evil  and  adulterous  generation  that  sought 
 after  a  sign  of  this  description;  and  that  the  only  sign 
 which  He  would  afford  them  would  be  the  sign  of  the 
 prophet  Jonas,  i.e.  His  own  death  and  resurrection.  It 
 seems  incredible  that  persons  who  have  attributed  to  Our 
 Lord  utterances  of  this  description  could  have  imagined 
 that  miracles  form  the  exclusive  attestation  of  a  divine 
 mission. 
 
 Neither  the  Synoptics  nor  St.  John  have  once  represented 
 Our  Lord  as  performing  miracles  for  the  purpose  of  proving 
 the  truth  of  any  doctrine  or  moral  precept  uttered  by  Him. 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 81 
 
 Whenever  they  mention  His  motive  at  all  for  performing 
 them,  they  nearly  uniformly  ascribe  it  to  His  divine  com¬ 
 passion,  or  to  its  being  an  answer  to  a  prayer  for  help.  The 
 only  exceptions  are,  when  Our  Lord  cured  the  paralytic  in 
 proof  that  He  had  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins;  and 
 when  He  wrought  several  miracles  in  reply  to  the  message 
 sent  Him  by  John  the  Baptist,  “  Art  thou  he  that  should 
 come,  or  look  we  for  another  ?”  In  His  reply.  He  directed 
 the  messengers  to  report  the  miracles  they  had  seen  and 
 heard,  as  proofs  of  His  Messianic  character.*  To  these 
 may  be  added  the  miracle  of  the  Resurrection  of  Lazarus, 
 which  is  directly  stated  to  have  been  wrought  that  the 
 people  which  stood  by  might  believe  that  the  Father  had 
 sent  Him.  But  so  far  were  Our  Lord’s  miracles  from  being 
 performed  with  the  direct  purpose  of  proving  either  doc¬ 
 trines,  precepts,  or  even  His  divine  mission,  that  in  no 
 inconsiderable  number  of  cases  He  strictly  charged  those 
 
 ^  St.  Luke  s  account  is  as  follows  : — f(  When  the  men  were  come 
 unto  him,  they  said,  John  Baptist  hath  sent  us  unto  thee  saying,  Art 
 thou  he  that  should  come,  or  look  we  for  another?  And  the  same 
 hour  he  cured  many  of  their  infirmities,  and  plagues,  and  of  evil 
 spirits,  and  unto  many  that  were  blind,  he  gave  sight.  Then  Jesus 
 answering  said  unto  them,  Go  your  way,  and  tell  John  what  things 
 ye  have  seen  and  heard ;  how  that  the  blind  see,  the  lame  walk,  the 
 lepers  are  cleansed,  the  deaf  hear,  the  dead  are  raised,  to  the  poor 
 the  Gospel  is  preached.  And  blessed  is  he  whosoever  shall  not  be 
 offended  in  me”  (Luke  vii.  20-23).  The  miracles  wrought  on  this 
 occasion  were  evidently  wrought  for  an  evidential  purpose ;  but  they 
 were  not  merely  performed  as  proofs  of  a  divine  commission,  but  as 
 works  which  were  suitable  for  the  Messiah  to  perform  as  part  of  His 
 divine  character.  As  such,  several  of  them  are  directly  attributed  to 
 the  Messiah  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  It  should  be  observed 
 that  among  them,  the  preaching  the  Gospel  to  the  poor  holds  an  equal 
 rank  with  those  occurrences  which  we  commonly  designate  as  miracles, 
 a  reference  which  not  only  points  out  the  fulfilment  of  the  prediction 
 of  the  prophet,  but  draws  attention  to  their  moral  aspect.  Besides, 
 the  miracles  in  question  are  all  works  of  healing  — not  wonders 
 wrought  in  the  physical  universe  —  being  manifestations  of  the 
 divine  goodness  which  dwelt  in  Our  Lord;  and  as  such,  proofs 
 of  His  Messianic  character. 
 
 6 
 
82 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OF 
 
 whom  He  liealed  to  keep  the  miracle  secret.  It  is  simply 
 impossible  that  such  miracles  could  have  been  wrought  for 
 directly  evidential  purposes,  though  all  miracles,  as  portions 
 of  His  divine  working,  and  as  manifestations  of  the  super¬ 
 human  power  which  dwelt  within  Him,  were  evidential  in 
 the  sense  so  often  referred  to  in  St.  John's  gospel.  In  this 
 point  of  view,  they  form  at  the  same  time  portions  of  the 
 Revelation,  and  of  its  evidence. 
 
 Such  then  are  Our  Lord's  affirmations  on  this  subject. 
 They  prove  beyond  contradiction  that  He  considered  His 
 own  divine  character  and  working  self- evidential )  and  that 
 it  formed  a  higher  attestation  to  His  divine  mission  than 
 miracles  viewed  as  mere  wonders  and  mighty  deeds.  Also 
 that  the  right  view  to  take  of  the  miracles  which  He  per¬ 
 formed  is,  not  that  they  are  merely  marvellous  acts  of 
 power,  displayed  in  the  physical  Universe,  but  essential 
 portions  of  His  divine  working,  entirely  in  harmony  with  it, 
 and  stamped  with  the  same  moral  impress.  Viewed  in  this 
 aspect,  the  perfection  of  His  divine  character  and  working 
 constitutes  His  witness  to  Himself ;  and  His  miracles,  bear¬ 
 ing  the  impress  of  the  same  character,  the  testimony  of  the 
 Father  to  His  Divine  Mission. 
 
 The  self- evidencing  power  of  Our  Lord's  divine  person 
 and  working  occupies  a  very  prominent  place  in  the 
 Apostolic  Epistles. 
 
 1.  The  affirmations  made  by  St.  John  on  this  point  in 
 his  first  Epistle  and  in  the  prologue  to  his  Gospel  are  con¬ 
 clusive.  I  have  fully  examined  them  in  a  supplement  to 
 the  first  Lecture ;  it  will,  therefore,  be  sufficient  here  to 
 observe  that  they  affirm  in  the  clearest  manner  that  the 
 highest  form  of  Christian  evidence  consists  in  the  mani¬ 
 festation  of  the  divine,  made  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 This  is  in  fact  the  burden  of  the  entire  Epistle. 
 
 2.  St.  Paul's  mode  of  placing  the  claims  of  Christianity 
 to  be  accepted  as  a  divine  revelation  is  precisely  similar. 
 With  his  Epistles  in  our  hands  it  is  impossible  to  doubt  that 
 the  Apostle  viewed  the  moral  and  spiritual  power  residing 
 
83 
 
 JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  as  the  all  commanding 
 evidence  of  His  Divine  Mission.  He  again  and  again 
 eclares  that  this  had  formed  the  very  centre  and  essence 
 of  his  teaching ;  and  he  appeals  to  those  to  whom  he  wrote 
 as  witnesses  of  the  mighty  effects  which  it  had  wrought  in 
 them.  That  teaching  which  had  been  mighty  to  lay  deep 
 the  foundation  of  the  Christian  Church,  and  had  manifested 
 ^e  energetic  power  of  which  they  were  the  monuments, 
 might  be  summed  up  in  two  pregnant  sentences— -Christ 
 the  power  of  God,  and  Christ,  the  wisdom  of  God.  They 
 make  it  clear  that  the  Apostle  was  not  in  the  habit  of 
 appealing  to  miracles  as  the  sole,  or  even  the  most  con- 
 elusive  evidence  of  Christianity.  In  fact,  he  has  never 
 once  appealed  to  them  in  this  light,  either  in  the  Epistles 
 themselves  or  in  his  discourses  as  recorded  in  the  Acts. 
 With  him  the  great  evidential  miracle  of  Christianity  is  the 
 Resurrection;  his  references  to  other  miracles  wrought  by 
 Our  Lord  are  indirect,  and  only  three,  or  at  most  four  times 
 has  he  referred  to  any  as  having  been  wrought  by  himself. 
 These  he  viewed  not  as  proofs  of  his  divine  commission  but 
 as  manifestations  of  a  divine  power  residing  in  Jesus  Christ, 
 and,  as  such,  proofs  of  His  Resurrection.  Numerous  and 
 profound  as  are  his  doctrinal  statements,  and  vehement  as 
 was  the  opposition  of  his  opponents  to  certain  aspects  of 
 the  Gospel  which  he  preached,  it  never  once  occurred  to 
 him  to  work  a  miracle  in  vindication  of  their  truth.  It  is 
 clear  therefore,  that  he  could  not  have  regarded  miracles 
 as  the  necessary  confirmations  of  his  doctrines. 
 
 Portions  of  the  Acts  afford  on  this  point  strong  confirma¬ 
 tory  evidence.  In  dealing  with  Jews  and  Proselytes,  he  is 
 uniformly  described  as  endeavouring  to  prove  that  Jesus  was 
 the  Messiah,  not  by  working  miracles  in  their  synagogues, 
 but  by  reasonings  drawn  from  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures! 
 When  he  addressed  heathen  auditories,  his  first  efforts  were 
 directed  to  prove  the  Unity  and  Fatherhood  of  God;  and  he 
 concludes  by  referring  to  the  Resurrection  as  a  proof  that 
 God  will  render  to  man  hereafter  a  righteous  retribution 
 
 6  * 
 
84 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OF 
 
 according  to  their  deeds.  He  describes  bis  own  teaching  as 
 having  consisted  of  two  things,  repentance  towards  God,  and 
 faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  but  nowhere  does  he  intimate 
 that  miracles  formed  the  groundwork  or  the  chief  support  of 
 his  arguments.  This  is  rendered  the  more  remarkable 
 because  the  historian  tells  us  that  he  wrought  miracles  at 
 Cyprus,  at  Lystra,  at  Philippi,  and  at  Ephesus ;  yet  neither 
 in  his  discourses  recorded  in  the  Acts  nor  in  his  Epistles 
 addressed  to  these  latter  Churches  does  he  make  a  single 
 allusion  to  them.  One  miracle,  and  one  only,  is  habitually 
 appealed  to  by  him,  the  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord. 
 
 3.  It  will  be  only  necessary  to  notice  one  further  affirma¬ 
 tion  made  by  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  on  this  sub¬ 
 ject,  the  remarkable  one  which  occurs  in  the  Epistle  to 
 the  Hebrews.  Having  spoken  of  the  revelation  made  of  the 
 perfections  of  God  in  Our  Lord's  divine  person,  the  author 
 says,  “  How  shall  we  escape  if  we  neglect  so  great  salvation ; 
 which  at  the  first  began  to  be  spoken  by  the  Lord,  and  was 
 confirmed  unto  us  by  them  that  heard  him ;  God  also  bearing 
 them  witness  ((jvvETripapTvpovvTog  tov  Ocou,  God  also  bearing 
 a  joint  and  additional  testimony)  both  with  signs,  and 
 wonders,  and  with  divers  miracles,  and  gifts  of  the  Holy 
 Ghost,  according  to  His  own  will.” — (Heb.  ii.  3,  4.) 
 
 Here  the  enumeration  of  miracles  is  complete  in  all  the 
 various  aspects  in  which  they  are  presented  to  us  in  the  New 
 Testament.  Respecting  them  the  author  makes  the  following 
 affirmations : — 
 
 1.  That  the  great  salvation  spoken  of  in  the  first  chapter 
 was  announced  by  Our  Lord. 
 
 2.  That  it  was  confirmed  by  the  testimony  of  eye-witnesses 
 of  the  facts. 
 
 3.  That  the  various  classes  of  miracles  which  took  place  in 
 the  Apostolic  Church  formed  a  conjoint  and  additional  testi¬ 
 mony  to  its  truth,  the  miracles  not  standing  by  them¬ 
 selves  but  forming  a  portion  of  the  same  divine  working 
 ((jvvtTTipapTvpovvTOQ  tov  0£ou).  In  conformity  with  this, 
 several  of  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 85 
 
 are  stated  to  have  been  wrought  in  proof  of  the  Kesurrection 
 of  Our  Lord.  As  such  they  are  affirmed  to  be  manifesta¬ 
 tions  of  His  living  energy  rather  than  proofs  of  His  Divine 
 Mission. 
 
 A  few  further  brief  remarks  will  be  necessary,  as  to  the 
 nature  of  some  of  the  other  miraculous  occurrences  recorded 
 in  the  New  Testament. 
 
 1.  A  considerable  number  of  these,  while  they  are 
 manifestations  of  a  superhuman  power,  were  certainly  not 
 performed  for  directly  evidential  purposes.  Some  of  them 
 were  providential,  as  the  liberation  of  St.  Peter  from  prison. 
 Others  were  answers  to  the  prayer  of  faith,  as  the  cures 
 mentioned  by  St.  James,  which  were  effected  by  prayer,  and 
 by  anointing  the  sick  with  oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.* 
 These  evidently  partook  of  a  semi-miraculous  character,  and 
 were  only  evidential  as  being  manifestations  of  the  presence 
 of  the  divine  Spirit  abiding  in  the  Church. 
 
 2.  Two  other  cases  of  miraculous  occurrences  men¬ 
 tioned  in  the  history  are  of  a  very  peculiar  character; 
 I  allude  to  the  cures  said  to  have  been  wrought  by  the 
 passing  of  Peter's  shadow;  and  by  garments  which,  during 
 his  abode  at  Ephesus,  were  brought  from  St.  Paul's  person, 
 and  applied  to  the  sick.  It  seems  impossible  to  regard  these 
 as  intended  for  evidential  purposes.  The  historian  describes 
 the  latter  as  occurrences  of  a  very  unusual  kind.  They 
 seem  to  have  taken  place  at  Ephesus  alone,  a  city  which 
 was  especially  addicted  to  the  practice  of  Magic.  This 
 latter  circumstance  must  have  deprived  them,  in  the  eyes 
 
 *  This  passage  in  St.  James  is  as  follows : — “Is  any  sick  among  you  ? 
 let  him  call  for  the  elders  of  the  church ;  and  let  them  pray  over  him, 
 anointing  him  with  oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord.  And  the  prayer  of 
 faith  shall  save  the  sick  j  and  the  Lord  shall  raise  him  up  ;  and  if  he 
 have  committed  sins  they  shall  be  forgiven  him.” — (James  v.  14,  15.) 
 The  cure  is  here  expressly  described  as  being  an  answer  to  prayer ; 
 and  it  is  implied  that  it  would  be  gradually  effected.  Consequently  it 
 is  impossible  to  appeal  to  it  as  an  evidential  miracle,  since  it  forms 
 no  attestation  to  a  Divine  Mission. 
 
8(3 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 of  the  heathen  inhabitants,,  of  any  value  as  proofs  of  a 
 divine  commission.  All  that  they  could  have  proved, 
 would  have  been  the  presence  of  some  kind  of  super¬ 
 human  agency,  similar  to  those  in  which  they  already 
 believed ;  but  they  could  have  had  no  means  of  identifying 
 it  with  that  of  the  only  God.  But  although  they  could  not 
 have  been  in  our  modern  sense  of  the  word  evidential 
 miracles,  there  was  a  very  important  purpose  which  these, 
 and  others  which  are  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament, 
 were  fitted  to  subserve,  viz.  that  of  arresting  attention,  and 
 procuring  a  hearing  for  the  Christian  missionary.  This 
 purpose  has  been  far  too  generally  overlooked  in  this 
 controversy.  The  difficulty  which  the  primitive  missionary 
 encountered  in  obtaining  a  hearing  for  his  message  must 
 have  been  extreme.  He  was  a  member  of  a  despised 
 race,  and  consequently  subject  to  all  the  disadvantages 
 attending  one  who  belongs  to  an  inferior  civilization, 
 when  he  sets  himself  up  as  a  teacher  of  those  who  consider 
 themselves  his  superiors.  Even  our  modern  missionary 
 finds  a  difficulty  in  commanding  the  attention  of  his 
 hearers,  though  he  goes  armed  with  all  the  appliances  of 
 a  higher  civilization,  and  the  advantage  of  being  a  member 
 of  a  dominant  race.  But  if  the  primitive  believers  had  some 
 of  those  miraculous  endowments  which  are  referred  to  in 
 the  New  Testament,  such  as  the  gifts  of  healing,  the 
 difficulty  in  question  would  have  been  greatly  obviated. 
 Such  seems  to  have  been  the  character  of  St.  Paul's  cure 
 of  the  cripple  at  Derbe.  To  the  heathen  inhabitants  it 
 evidently  had  no  evidential  value,  as  they  attributed  it  to  a 
 visit  from  their  own  gods.  But  it  served  a  valuable  purpose 
 in  procuring  their  attention  to  the  teaching  of  two  despised 
 Jews.  Such  also  seems  to  have  been  the  purpose  of  many 
 of  the  manifestations  of  superhuman  power  in  the  early 
 Church. 
 
 3.  To  this  class  belong  those  numerous  superhuman 
 endowments  which  are  described  with  considerable  detail  in 
 
 A  SL'A. 
 
 (  (n-  fb 
 
 I 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 87 
 
 the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians,  and  repeatedly  referred  to 
 elsewhere  in  the  New  Testament  as  possessed  by  large 
 numbers  of -the  primitive  believers. 
 
 They  are  uniformly  represented  as  being  the  fulfilment  of 
 the  promises  of  supernatural  assistance  which  were  made  by 
 Our  Lord  to  His  followers,  to  qualify  them  for  the  work  of 
 laying  deep  the  foundations  of  His  Church.  But  with  two 
 exceptions,  they  differ  wholly  from  what  we  now  designate 
 evidential  miracles.  These  gifts,  according  to  the  enumera¬ 
 tion  of  St.  Paul,  were  nine  in  number,  two  of  which  only 
 conferred  miraculous  powers ;  and  the  remaining  seven,  as 
 many  distinct  mental  endowments.  The  purpose  of  these 
 latter  was  evidently  providential,  conferring  a  supernatural 
 enlightenment  within  their  special  spheres  of  activity.  As 
 such  they  were  fitted  to  supply  the  defects  in  the  character 
 and  training  of  the  primitive  converts,  taken,  as  large 
 numbers  of  them  were  from  the  lower  strata  of  society, 
 thereby  qualifying  them  for  the  arduous  work  of  setting  up 
 the  Church  as  a  visible  community  in  the  world,  for  which 
 their  natural  powers  would  have  been  utterly  unfit.*  The 
 precise  distinction  between  the  two  miraculous  gifts  it  is 
 now  impossible  to  determine ;  but  we  shall  not  greatly  err, 
 if  we  suppose  that  one  of  them,  ^apidfiara  lapaTujv ,  was  the 
 gift  mentioned  by  St.  James,  and  conferred  on  the  missionary 
 those  po’wers  which  were  necessary  for  commanding  the 
 attention  of  heathen  audiences,  just  as  in  modern  times 
 
 *  The  following  is  the  complete  list  of  them: — 1.  The  word  of 
 wisdom.  2.  The  word  of  knowledge.  3.  The  gift  of  faith.  4.  Gifts 
 of  healing  (%aph r/iara  tajuarw^).  5.  The  working  of  miracles  (evfpy/y- 
 fxara  Swa/iew).  6.  The  gift  of  prophecy.  7.  That  of  discerning  of 
 spirits.  8.  Divers  kinds  of  tongues.  9.  Interpretation.  The  con¬ 
 clusion  of  the  chapter  contains  a  second  list  of  the  same  gifts,  viewed 
 as  qualifications  for  special  offices  in  the  Church.  Their  order  is  as 
 follows  : — 1.  Apostles.  2.  Prophets.  3.  Teachers.  4.  Miracles. 
 5.  Gifts  of  healing.  6.  Helps.  7.  Governments.  8.  Diversities  of 
 tongues.  9.  Interpretation.  I  shall  consider  the  nature  and  evidential 
 value  of  these  supernatural  endowments  more  at  length  in  the  Sixth 
 Lecture. 
 
88 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OF 
 
 the  union  of  the  functions  of  missionary  and  physician  is 
 found  so  influential  a  mode  of  procuring  attention  among 
 uncultivated  people.  These  gifts  are  uniformly  represented 
 as  proofs  of  the  energetic  action  of  Christ  in  the  Church  ; 
 and  the  results  of  His  resurrection  and  ascension  into  heaven ; 
 but  they  are  never  appealed  to  as  evidential  miracles,  from 
 which  they  differed  in  their  entire  conception. 
 
 Such  are  the  affirmations  of  the  New  Testament  on  this 
 subject.  From  which  I  draw  the  following  conclusions. 
 
 First,  that  Our  Lord's  divine  person  is  self- evidential ; 
 and  that  the  various  manifestations  of  the  divine  which  have 
 been  exhibited  in  Him,  whether  they  are  recorded  in  the 
 New  Testament,  or  subsequently  manifested  in  history,  con¬ 
 stitute  the  highest  evidence  that  He  came  forth  from  God ; 
 and  therefore  they  ought  to  be  placed  in  the  front  of  the 
 Christian  argument. 
 
 Secondly,  that  the  evidential  value  of  miracles,  viewed 
 merely  as  objective  facts  in  the  physical  universe,  is  subor¬ 
 dinate  to  this,  and  in  estimating  it,  it  is  necessary  to  take 
 into  account  the  moral  impress  which  they  bear. 
 
 Thirdly,  that  while  all  miracles,  as  being  manifestations  of 
 the  divine  on  the  sphere  of  the  human,  have  an  indirectly 
 evidential  value,  a  considerable  number  of  those  wrought 
 by  Our  Lord  were  not  performed  for  the  purposes  of  proof ; 
 but  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  Him  as  ordinary  actions 
 do  to  other  men. 
 
 Fourthly,  while  several  of  the  apostolic  miracles  were 
 wrought  for  the  express  purpose  of  proving  to  those  who 
 witnessed  them  the  truth  of  Our  Lord's  resurrection,  and 
 of  His  Messianic  character  consequent  thereon,  a  very  con¬ 
 siderable  number  of  them  were  wrought  for  merely  provi¬ 
 dential  purposes,  and  consequently  were  only  indirectly 
 evidential. 
 
 Fifthly,  that  the  great  evidential  miracle  of  Christianity  is 
 the  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  which,  if  it  can  be  proved 
 to  have  been  an  objective  fact,  will  carry  all  the  other 
 miracles  in  the  Gospels  along  with  it. 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 89 
 
 Having  determined  what  is  the  relative  importance  of 
 these  evidences,  it  will  now  be  my  duty  to  lay  before  you  a 
 sketch  of  the  line  of  argument  which  the  exigencies  of 
 modern  thought  require  us  to  place  in  the  front  of  the 
 Christian  position. 
 
 We  have  seen  that  the  great  difficulty  with  which  the 
 argument  from  miracles  is  attended  is  the  intricacy  of  the 
 proof  by  which  it  is  necessary  to  establish  their  occurrence, 
 and  the  doubts  which  have  been  suggested  with  respect  to 
 portions  of  that  proof.  The  question  therefore  becomes  of 
 the  highest  importance.  Is  there  any  other  species  of 
 evidence  which  will  lead  us  to  the  same  result  by  a  less 
 circuitous  route  ?  The  whole  course  of  modern  thought 
 has  produced  in  the  minds  of  men  an  urgent  demand  that 
 our  beliefs  should  be  based  on  facts  which  admit  of  some 
 species  of  verification  ;  and  a  conviction  that  long  processes 
 of  reasoning  which  are  incapable  of  being  submitted  to  such 
 a  test,  are  unreliable.  This  being  so,  the  method  which  I 
 propose  to  pursue  in  this  inquiry  is  one  in  strict  conformity 
 with  the  principles  of  the  inductive  philosophy.  I  shall 
 inquire,  therefore,  whether  we  can  discover  either  in  the 
 history  of  the  past  or  in  the  facts  of  the  present  anything 
 in  Christianity  which  manifests  the  action  of  a  superhuman 
 power ;  and  whether  it  is  possible  for  those  facts  connected 
 with  it,  the  truth  of  which  is  beyond  dispute,  to  be  accounted 
 for  as  the  mere  result  of  the  ordinary  forces  that  energize 
 in  man. 
 
 I  shall  base  my  reasonings  only  on  facts  which  are  either 
 verifiable  in  the  history  of  the  past,  or  of  which  we  have 
 present  experience.  In  drawing  inferences  from  them  I 
 shall  assume  such  only  to  be  valid  as  are  in  conformity  with 
 the  realities  of  human  nature  and  the  past  experience  of 
 history.  This  mode  of  inquiry  is  strictly  analogous  to  that 
 by  which  our  discoveries  in  physical  science  have  been 
 effected.  In  fact  it  involves  the  application  of  the  inductive 
 method  of  investigation  to  the  facts  and  phenomena  of 
 Christianity,  a  method  which  is  strictly  in  conformity  with 
 
90 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OE 
 
 the  requirements  of  modern  thought.  I  shall  therefore 
 directly  put  the  question,  Do  the  known  forces  which 
 energize  in  man  give  any  rational  account  of  the  might 
 with  which  Jesus  Christ  has  energized  in  history  ?  If  not, 
 it  must  be  the  manifestation  of  a  superhuman  power.  If 
 we  can  discern  distinct  manifestations  of  a  superhuman 
 power  energizing  in  Christianity  it  will  form  a  far  more 
 decisive  proof  of  its  being  a  divine  revelation  than  the  long 
 and  intricate  argument  from  miracles. 
 
 My  argument  is  founded  on  the  principles  of  common 
 sense.  If  Christianity  is  divine  we  ought  to  be  able  to 
 discern  in  it  the  clear  indications  of  the  operation  of  a 
 superhuman  power.  If  Jesus  Christ  really  was  what  the 
 writings  of  St.  John  and  St.  Paul  affirm  Him  to  have  been, 
 surely  we  ought  to  be  able  to  discover  in  Him  the  presence 
 and  action  of  forces  different  from  those  which  operate  in 
 ordinary  humanity.  If  He  is  the  light  of  the  world,  that 
 light  must  be  visible  to  those  who  seek  for  it.  If  He  is  a 
 living  power  energizing  in  the  Church,  its  Governor  and 
 Head,  indications  must  exist  of  that  life  and  energy;  or  to 
 put  the  same  idea  in  other  words,  the  action  of  Jesus  Christ 
 in  history  ought  to  have  been  different  from  that  of  all 
 other  men  however  great.  If  a  divine  attractiveness  dwells 
 within  Him,  He  ought  to  manifest  such  a  power  of  attract¬ 
 ing  the  human  heart  as  has  been  manifested  by  none  other 
 beside  Him.  If  Jesus  Christ  was  a  manifestation  of  the 
 divine  on  the  sphere  of  the  human,  then  His  entire  work 
 and  teaching  ought  to  manifest  a  breadth  and  depth  which 
 has  been  possessed  by  no  other  man — one  which  is  abso¬ 
 lutely  unique — in  fact  His  entire  character,  and  not  merely 
 those  actions  which  are  commonly  called  miraculous,  ought 
 to  be  instinct  with  the  presence  of  the  divine. 
 
 The  great  question  therefore  for  us  to  consider  is,  Are 
 any  such  manifestations  of  the  divine  discoverable  in  con¬ 
 nection  with  Jesus  Christ?  On  these  and  similar  points 
 the  evidence  is  of  no  doubtful  character.  Present  facts, 
 no  less  than  the  unquestionable  testimony  of  history,  prove 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 91 
 
 that  He  stands  on  an  elevation  which  among  the  sons  of 
 men  is  solitary  and  alone.  But  if  He  be  the  one  man  who 
 has  no  peer,  His  solitary  greatness  must  be  due  to  some 
 cause  different  from  those  forces  which  have  produced  not 
 only  ordinary  men,  but  all  great  men ;  for  a  unique  effect 
 must  have  a  corresponding  cause.  If  so,  He  must  have 
 been  a  manifestation  of  the  superhuman. 
 
 My  argument  briefly  stated  will  stand  thus  : — As  an  event 
 manifesting  purpose,  for  which  the  action  of  the  forces  of  the 
 Material  Universe  is  insufficient  to  account,  is  a  physical 
 miracle,  and  proves  the  presence  of  a  power  different  from 
 those  forces,  so  an  event  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  worlds, 
 for  which  the  forces  that  energize  in  a  man  are  insufficient 
 to  account,  must  be  a  moral  miracle,  and  must  prove  the 
 presence  of  a  superhuman  power.  I  claim  on  behalf  of 
 Jesus  Christ,  that  His  character  and  action  in  history  con¬ 
 stitute  a  manifestation  of  such  a  power,  the  presence  of 
 which  admits  of  an  actual  verification  in  the  history  of  the 
 past  and  the  facts  of  the  present. 
 
 If  it  be  objected  to  this  line  of  reasoning,  that  we  are 
 not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  those  forces  that  energize  in 
 man,  and  the  laws  of  their  action,  to  determine  when  an 
 event  is  a  moral  miracle ;  and  that  man  may  possess  within 
 him  a  number  of  latent  powers  of  which  we  have  as  yet  no 
 knowledge,  my  reply  is,  that  our  experience  of  them  lies 
 over  an  historical  period  of  not  less  than  three  thousand 
 years,  during  which  they  have  had  ample  opportunity  of 
 manifesting  themselves  and  proving  what  they  can  accom¬ 
 plish.  If,  therefore,  Jesus  Christ  was  the  result  of  their 
 activity,  it  is  clear  that  during  this  long  interval  of  time 
 they  must  have  produced  other  men  at  least  approaching  to 
 His  greatness. 
 
 Further,  if  I  can  establish  the  fact  that  Jesus  Christ  has 
 acted  on  history  with  an  energy  which  is  absolutely  unique, 
 the  proof  of  the  miraculous  actions  attributed  to  Him  in  the 
 Gospels  will  be  rendered  easy;  for  it  would  be  far  more 
 improbable  that  such  a  person  did  not  manifest  a  super- 
 
92 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 human  power  in  the  Material  Universe,  than  that  He  per¬ 
 formed  the  miracles  in  question.  In  other  words,  the  a  priori 
 difficulties  attending  them  will  disappear,  and  their  occur¬ 
 rence  can  be  proved  by  the  evidence  which  is  valid  to 
 establish  the  ordinary  facts  of  history. 
 
 Such  is  my  argument.  My  inquiry  therefore  must  be 
 directed  to  ascertain  the  following  points: — -What  is  there 
 in  Christianity,  and  in  its  action  on  history,  which  distin¬ 
 guishes  it  from  every  other  system  which  man  has  invented 
 in  the  past  or  in  the  present  ?  Is  there  anything  in  it  which 
 stands  out  absolutely  unique  ?  Surely,  if  Christianity  con¬ 
 tains  a  manifestation  of  the  superhuman,  this  is  where  we 
 ought  to  be  able  to  discover  unequivocal  traces  of  its  pre¬ 
 sence.  To  this  question  there  is  only  one  possible  answer 
 — that  it  stands  out  in  marked  contrast  to  every  other  human 
 institution,  in  that  its  entire  system,  its  inner  life,  and  its 
 sole  principle  of  cohesion  is  based  on  the  personal  history  of 
 its  Founder. 
 
 I  ask  your  deep  attention  to  this  most  remarkable  fact. 
 The  inner  life  of  Christianity,  as  I  have  shown,  consists  not 
 in  a  body  of  moral  precepts,  or  of  dogmas,  or  in  a  ritual,  or 
 a  system  of  philosophy,  but  in  a  personal  history.  To  this 
 the  entire  history  of  man  presents  nothing  parallel.  Take 
 a  careful  survey  of  its  wide  range.  He  has  originated  religious 
 without  number;  and  every  form  of  political  and  social 
 institution ;  but  the  inner  life  of  not  one  of  them  is  based  on 
 the  personal  history  of  its  founder.  Not  to  speak  of  others 
 of  inferior  importance,  three  great  religions,  exclusive  of 
 Christianity,  now  existing  in  the  world,  viz.  Brahminism, 
 Buddhism,  and  Mahomedanism,  probably  number  among 
 their  votaries  between  seven  and  eight  hundred  millions  of 
 the  human  family.  Two  of  these  have  known  founders, 
 whose  memory  is  held  in  deep  reverence  by  their  votaries. 
 Yet  the  essential  principle  of  each  consists  in  a  body  of  dog¬ 
 matic  teaching,  and  not  in  a  personal  history.  As  systems  of 
 religion,  the  personal  history  of  their  founders  might  be 
 removed  out  of  them,  and  yet  leave  their  fundamental  prin- 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 93 
 
 ciples  intact.  The  same  is  true  of  every  other  religion  which 
 has  existed  in  the  past,  or  still  exists  in  the  present.  But  to 
 take  away  the  person  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity  out  of 
 His  religion  would  be  its  destruction.  Its  doctrines  and 
 its  precepts  would  lose  all  cohesion  :  the  key- stone  would 
 be  removed  from  its  arch,  and  its  whole  superstructure 
 would  collapse. 
 
 If  we  take  a  survey  of  all  the  various  philosophical 
 systems  and  political  and  social  institutions  that  have  ever 
 existed,  we  shall  arrive  at  the  same  result.  Individuals 
 may  have  founded  them ;  but  that  is  all.  Their  vitality  and 
 cohesion  have  never  been  based  on  their  own  personal 
 histories.  A  common  agreement  in  a  number  of  dogmatic 
 statements  has  formed  the  bond  of  union  among  all  the 
 philosophic  sects  which  have  ever  existed  in  the  ancient  or 
 the  modern  world.  The  last  thing  which  would  have 
 occurred  to  the  leaders  of  ancient  thought  would  have  been 
 to  found  their  systems  on  their  own  persons.  So  it  has 
 been  with  every  political  and  social  institution.  A  common 
 end  or  purpose,  not  a  personal  history,  has  constituted  the 
 principle  of  their  inner  life. 
 
 But  further,  although  Christianity  has  set  the  example 
 of  basing  itself  as  a  religion,  and  the  Church  as  a  society, 
 on  a  personal  history,  it  has  never  yet  found  a  successful 
 imitator.  A  vast  number  of  sects  have  sprung  up  within 
 the  Church,  but  the  bond  which  has  imparted  to  them  unity 
 and  vitality,  has  been  a  doctrinal  one,  and  never  the  events 
 of  an  historic  life.  Here  then  we  are  in  the  presence  of  a 
 fact  which  is  absolutely  unique  in  the  history  of  man. 
 
 It  is  needless  to  attempt  to  prove  that  the  supreme  attrac¬ 
 tiveness  of  the  person  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity  has 
 imparted  to  the  Church  the  whole  of  its  vitality.  To  this 
 fact  all  history  bears  witness.  Nor  is  its  testimony  less 
 certain  that  of  all  the  influences  that  have  been  exerted 
 in  this  earth,  that  of  Jesus  has  been  the  most  potent. 
 Enumerate  all  the  great  men  who  have  ever  existed, 
 whether  kings,  conquerors,  statesmen,  patriots,  poets. 
 
94 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 philosophers,  or  men  of  science;  and  their  influence  for 
 good  will  be  found  to  have  been  as  nothing  compared  with 
 that  which  has  been  exerted  by  Jesus  Christ.  Why  is  this? 
 He  alone  of  the  sons  of  men  possesses  in  Himself  a  power 
 of  divine  attractiveness  which  can  penetrate  to  the  depths 
 of  the  human  heart,  and  exercise  there  a  mighty  moral  and 
 spiritual  power.  What  has  He  accomplished  ?  He  who 
 was  in  outward  form  a  Galilean  peasant,  who  died  a  male¬ 
 factor’s  death,  has  founded  a  spiritual  empire  which  has 
 endured  for  eighteen  centuries  of  time,  and  which,  despite 
 the  vaticinations  of  unbelievers,  shows  no  signs  of  decrepi¬ 
 tude.  Commencing  with  the  smallest  beginnings,  His 
 empire  now  embraces  all  the  progressive  races  of  men. 
 Those  by  whom  it  has  not  been  accepted  are  in  a  state  of 
 stagnation  and  decay.  It  is  the  only  one  which  is  adapted 
 to  every  state  of  civilization.  It  differs  from  all  other  states 
 and  communities  in  that  it  is  founded  neither  on  force  nor 
 self-interest,  but  on  persuasion,  and  the  supreme  attractive¬ 
 ness  of  the  character  of  its  Founder.*  The  holiest  of  men 
 have  bowed  before  Him  with  the  supremest  reverence ;  and 
 have  accepted  Him  as  a  king  who  is  entitled  to  reign  by 
 right  of  inherent  worthiness,  and  with  the  greater  eagerness 
 in  proportion  to  their  holiness. 
 
 Such  are  indisputable  facts  of  history.  Even  unbelievers 
 are  not  unwilling  to  yield  to  Him  the  highest  place  in  their 
 pantheon  of  great  men  among  the  benefactors  of  mankind. 
 
 *  I  fully  admit  that  force  has  been  employed  in  the  propagation  of 
 Christianity  by  some  of  its  zealous  but  mistaken  adherents.  Two 
 facts  must,  however,  be  borne  in  mind  respecting  it.  First, — That 
 this  did  not  take  place  until  several  centuries  after  it  had  attained  a 
 firm  footing  in  the  world,  when  Mahomedanism  had  set  the  evil 
 example  of  propagating  religion  by  the  sword.  Secondly, — That  its 
 use  is  in  direct  opposition  both  to  the  letter  and  the  spirit  of  the  New 
 Testament,  which  not  only  repudiates  every  form  of  violence  for  its 
 propagation,  but  directly  affirms  that  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  Christ  is 
 based  only  on  persuasion.  It  is  also  an  unquestionable  fact  that  the 
 influence  of  force  in  the  propagation  of  Christianity  has  been  really 
 very  inconsiderable. 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 95 
 
 But  this  by  no  means  satisfies  the  requirements  of  the  case. 
 History  affirms  that  Jesus  has  not  only  been  a  great  man 
 among  great  men,  or  even  the  greatest  of  them,  but  that  He 
 stands  at  an  immeasurable  height  above  them,  as  their  Lord, 
 before  whom  it  is  becoming  that  the  greatest  of  them  should 
 bow  down.  He  is  the  one  only  catholic  man,  the  one  ideal 
 of  humanity,  for  whose  presence  in  and  action  on  history 
 none  of  the  known  forces  that  energize  in  the  moral  and 
 spiritual  worlds  can  account.  What  is  the  necessary  infe¬ 
 rence  from  this  ?  I  answer,  that  as  those  forces  which  have 
 energized  in  man  from  the  day  of  His  appearance  on  this 
 earth  have  failed  to  produce  His  fellow,  we  must  be  in  the 
 presence  of  a  moral  miracle. 
 
 It  is  all  important  that  we  should  observe  in  what  this 
 mighty  influence,  or  in  other  words,  this  supreme  greatness 
 of  J esus  consists  :  It  is  not  the  mere  result  of  either  His 
 doctrinal,  or  His  moral  teaching,  nor  is  it  simply  because 
 His  human  life  constitutes  an  embodiment  of  the  morality 
 which  He  taught.  Nor  is  it  the  mere  result  of  intellectual 
 superiority,  nor  of  all  the  causes  combined  which  by  their 
 united  action  make  a  great  man  in  the  ordinary  acceptation 
 of  the  term.  The  mighty  influence  of  Jesus  is  founded  on 
 that  divine  life  which  runs  through  His  entire  character,  as 
 it  is  depicted  by  the  Evangelists — not  merely  in  those 
 actions  which  we  designate  miracles — but  in  every  portion 
 
 of  it.  This  attractiveness  culminates  in  one  aspect  of  it _ 
 
 the  perfection  of  self-sacrifice  manifested  in  His  life,  fol¬ 
 lowed  by  the  divinest  exhibition  of  love  displayed  in  His 
 voluntary  death.  This  is  it  which  distinguishes  the  great¬ 
 ness  of  J  esus  from  that  of  all  other  men,  and  constitutes 
 the  secret  of  His  power.  Wonderful  is  that  great  utterance 
 of  His,  if  we  view  it  merely  as  a  prediction  :  “  I,  if  I  be 
 lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men  unto  me.” 
 
 Who  would  have  believed  in  the  possibility  of  its  accom¬ 
 plishment,  even  if  we  accept  the  late  date  which  some 
 have  assigned  to  the  composition  of  the  fourth  Gospel  as 
 that  of  its  utterance  ?  What  human  foresight  could  have 
 
96 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 anticipated  the  fact  that  the  crucifixion  of  a  Galilean  peasant 
 would  prove  the  most  attractive  influence  which  has  been 
 exerted  on  the  heart  of  man  throughout  all  succeeding  ages  ? 
 If  this  portion  of  the  divine  delineation  were  removed  from 
 the  portraiture  of  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels,  it  would  exert 
 no  more  influence  than  that  of  other  men  who  have  been 
 good  and  great. 
 
 The  testimony  of  history  to  the  solitary  grandeur,  and  to 
 the  might  of  the  influence  which  has  been  exerted  by  Jesus 
 Christ,  is  indisputable.  I  cannot  better  state  the  facts  which 
 it  discloses,  than  in  the  words  of  an  historian,  who  does  not 
 accept  Christianity  as  a  Divine  Revelation,  and  whose  par¬ 
 tiality  as  a  witness  cannot  be  suspected.  Mr.  Lecky,  in  the 
 second  volume  of  his  History  of  Morality  from  Augustus  to 
 Charlemagne,  writes  as  follows  “  It  was  reserved  for 
 Christianity  to  present  to  the  world  an  ideal  character 
 which  through  all  the  changes  of  eighteen  centuries  has  filled 
 the  hearts  of  men  with  an  impassioned  love,  and  has  shown 
 itself  capable  of  acting  on  all  ages,  nations,  temperaments, 
 and  conditions ;  has  not  only  been  the  highest  pattern  of 
 virtue,  but  the  highest  incentive  to  its  practice,  and  has 
 exerted  so  deep  an  influence  that  it  may  be  truly  said  that 
 the  simple  record  of  three  short  years  of  active  life  has  done 
 more  to  regenerate  and  to  soften  mankind  than  all  the  dis¬ 
 quisitions  of  philosophers,  and  than  all  the  exhortations  of 
 moralists.  This  has  indeed  been  the  well-spring  of  what¬ 
 ever  has  been  best  and  purest  in  the  Christian  life.  ,A.mid 
 all  the  sins  and  failings,  amid  all  the  priestcraft,  the  perse¬ 
 cution,  and  fanaticism  which  have  defaced  the  Church,  it  has 
 preserved  m  the  character  and  example  of  its  Founder  an 
 enduring  principle  of  regeneration”  (vol.  ii.,  p.  8). 
 
 This  passage  will,  I  think,  be  admitted  even  by  un¬ 
 believers  to  be  a  correct  statement  of  the  facts  as  they  are 
 presented  to  us  by  history.  They  all  admit  of  the  most 
 certain  verification.  Jesus  Christ  has  exerted  an  influence 
 such  as  is  here  described  by  the  historian,  and  He  is  the 
 onlv  one  of  the  sons  of  men  who  has  done  so.  The  only 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 97 
 
 question  which  can  admit  of  discussion  is — What  is  the 
 legitimate  deduction  from  the  facts  ?  Are  they  consistent 
 with  the  theory  that  Christianity  has  originated  in  nothing 
 hut  the  action  of  those  forces  which  for  three  thousand 
 years  of  unquestionable  history,  and  for  an  indefinite  period 
 which  is  semi-historical,  have  been  energizing  in  man's  intel¬ 
 lectual,  moral,  and  spiritual  being,  and  have  produced  the 
 results  which  we  behold  in  his  past  developments  ?  Or  do 
 they  testify  to  the  presence  and  energy  of  a  superhuman 
 power  ?  The  long  course  of  history  has  furnished  us  with 
 abundant  materials  for  forming  an  accurate  judgment  as  to 
 what  the  forces  which  energize  in  human  nature  are  capable 
 of  accomplishing.  It  is  in  vain  to  plead  that  we  are  here 
 dealing  with  a  number  of  unknown  quantities.  We  know 
 that  the  forces  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  worlds  do  not  work 
 at  haphazard,  but  in  a  definite  order.  Here,  no  less  than  in 
 the  physical  Universe,  like  causes  must  produce  like  effects, 
 and  different  results  cannot  flow  from  the  same  cause. 
 If  therefore  the  character  of  J esus  Christ  and  his  action 
 in  history  are  separated  by  a  profound  interval  from  that 
 of  every  other  man,  if  He  stands  at  an  elevation  immeasur¬ 
 ably  higher  than  the  greatest,  the  wisest,  and  the  best 
 of  men,  if  His  influence  for  good  not  only  transcends  that  of 
 single  great  men,  but  of  all  great  men  united,  it  is  utterly 
 unphilosophical  to  affirm  that  He  was  the  simple  product  of 
 those  forces  that  energize  in  humanity;  on  the  contrary, 
 the  difference  in  the  effect  proves  a  difference  in  the  cause 
 which  has  produced  it.  If  He  were  their  simple  product, 
 how,  I  ask,  has  it  come  to  pass  that  they  have  produced  only 
 this  one  great  perfect  man,  this  single  ideal  of  human 
 nature,  and  then  ceased  from  their  activity  for  evermore  ? 
 Such  a  question  urgently  demands  solution,  if  our  beliefs 
 are  to  be  grounded  on  rational  conviction.  The  difference 
 in  the  results  proves  that  the  causes  which  produced  them 
 must  have  been  different ;  in  other  words,  that  the  greatness 
 of  Jesus  Christ  and  His  action  on  history  cannot  have  been 
 due  to  those  forces  which  have  produced  other  great  men, 
 
 7 
 
gg  THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OF 
 
 but  are  manifestations  of  the  energy  of  a  superhuman 
 power. 
 
 This  conclusion  will  become  more  clearly  established  if  I 
 examine  each  fact  as  it  has  been  stated  by  the  historian,  and 
 place  before  you  separately  and  conjointly  the  inferences 
 which  they  justify. 
 
 1.  “It  has  been  reserved  for  Christianity/' ’  says  Mr. 
 Lecky,  “  to  present  to  the  world  an  ideal  character,  which, 
 through  all  the  changes  of  eighteen  centuries,  has  filled  the 
 hearts  of  men  with  an  impassioned  love.”  This  character,  I 
 need  not  say,  is  that  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  it  is  depicted  in  the 
 Gospels.  Whether  it  be  the  creation  of  the  imagination  or 
 an  historical  reality,  space  will  not  allow  me  to  discuss  in 
 this  place.  I  have  done  so  in  another  work  *  My  present 
 argument  is  unaffected  by  the  question  whether  it  be  an 
 ideal  or  an  actual  one.  The  great  fact  will  remain  the  same, 
 that  during  eighteen  centuries  it  has  inspired  the  hearts  of 
 men  with  an  impassioned  love,  and  that  its  power  to  accom¬ 
 plish  this  shows  no  signs  of  diminution. 
 
 The  statement  before  me  contains  two  distinct  affirmations. 
 First :  that  the  character  of  Jesus  Christ  has  accomplished 
 this  result. 
 
 Secondly :  that  it  is  the  only  one  in  the  history  of  man 
 which  has  succeeded  in  doing  so.  These  two  affirmations,  as 
 matters  of  fact,  rest  on  evidence  which  is  so  plainly  written 
 on  the  pages  of  history  as  to  render  a  formal  proof  un¬ 
 necessary. 
 
 Whence,  I  ask,  has  come  this  power  of  inspiring  the 
 hearts  of  men  with  an  impassioned  love,  which  has  been 
 exhibited  by  Jesus  Christ  for  a  period  of  more  than 
 eighteen  centuries  after  the  termination  of  his  earthly 
 life  ?  Why  have  not  other  great  men  exerted  a  similarly 
 attractive  power  ?  If  they  have  not  done  so  to  the  full 
 extent,  why  have  they  not  at  least  made  some  approach 
 towards  it  ?  Great  men  have  existed  in  abundance ;  and 
 not  a  few  of  them  have  been  great  benefactors  of  mankind, 
 
 *  The  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists, 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 99 
 
 and  to  the  utmost  of  their  powers  have  laboured  to  do 
 them  good.  But  where  is  the  great  man,  Jesus  Christ 
 alone  excepted,  who  has  for  eighteen  centuries  after  the 
 termination  of  his  earthly  life  been  capable  of  exciting  in 
 the  hearts  of  men  an  impassioned  love  ?  Who  among  them 
 has  called  forth  a  self-sacrificing  devotion  of  heart  and  life  ? 
 The  memory  of  other  great  men  we  respect  and  reverence ; 
 but  not  one  of  them  inspires  us  with  impassioned  love. 
 Take  a  careful  survey  of  the  entire  history  of  the  past. 
 Does  Socrates,  or  Plato,  or  Aristotle  ?  does  Zoroaster,  or 
 Confucius,  or  Sakyamuni?  does  Mahomet,  does  even  the 
 venerable  Howard?  Who  among  the  sons  of  men  who 
 have  ever  existed  has  kindled  towards  himself  a  self-sacri¬ 
 ficing  love  in  the  smallest  degree  analogous  to  that  which 
 has  been  aroused  towards  Jesus  Christ  ?  Even  if  we  assume 
 the  character  of  Jesus  to  be  an  ideal  creation,  the  argument 
 is  no  less  cogent.  Where  is  the  ideal  creation  which  has 
 exerted  this  singular  power?  The  interval  which  separates 
 the  earliest  of  poets  from  the  greatest  of  living  ones  is  very 
 wide,  and  contains  many  illustrious  names ;  yet  poetic 
 genius  has  been  unable  to  create  a  character  which  could 
 similarly  inspire  the  hearts  of  men,  and  thereby  act  mightily 
 on  maps  moral  and  spiritual  being  for  eighteen  centuries, 
 and  afford  the  promise  of  continuing  to  act  mightily  for 
 ever.  Jesus  Christ  alone  has  exerted  such  a  power.  What 
 then  is  the  inference  ?  I  answer  that  we  must  be  in  the 
 presence  of  the  superhuman. 
 
 2.  The  next  fact  mentioned  by  the  historian  is,  that  this 
 influence  has  not  been  merely  temporary  or  local,  but  has 
 acted  on  all  ages,  nations,  temperaments  and  conditions  of 
 men ;  in  one  word,  it  has  been  as  wide  as  humanity  itself. 
 
 The  truth  of  this  will  not  be  far  to  seek ;  for  it  is  every¬ 
 where  stamped  on  the  pages  of  history.  The  European, 
 the  Asiatic,  the  African,  the  aboriginal  American,  the  native 
 of  the  Polynesian  Isles,  notwithstanding  that  these  races 
 exhibit  the  widest  divergency  of  intellect  and  character, 
 have  alike  confessed  its  power.  It  has  surmounted  every 
 
 7* 
 
100 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 peculiarity  of  temperament  and  of  race.  Men  of  the  pro- 
 foundest  intellect  have  been  penetrated  by  it ;  men  of  the 
 greatest  moral  elevation  have  been  raised  still  higher  by  its 
 influences ;  it  has  touched  a  chord  in  the  hearts  of  the  un¬ 
 civilized  and  the  savage;  yes,  its  influence  has  burst  the 
 trammels  imposed  by  nationality,  intellectual  and  moral 
 training,  and  social  condition.  It  speaks  to  man  as  man. 
 
 Is  it  true  then  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  one  solitary 
 character  known  to  history  who  has  exerted  this  influence  ? 
 
 We  have  had  no  lack  of  great  men  during  the  ages  of 
 the  past ;  great  conquerors,  great  philosophers  and  great 
 poets — great  men  of  various  orders  and  degrees,  who  have 
 possessed  a  wide  range  of  intellectual  vision;  and  I  may 
 add,  many  of  whom  have  been  animated  by  an  earnest 
 desire  to  benefit  their  fellows  according  to  the  light  that 
 was  in  them.  But  every  one  of  them  has  been  national 
 or  local,  only  partially  able  to  break  through  the  con¬ 
 ditions  imposed  upon  them  by  their  birth  and  their  moral 
 and  intellectual  environment.  Not  one  of  them  has  been 
 capable  of  speaking  to  all  races,  nations,  temperaments, 
 and  conditions  of  mankind.  No  genius  is  perhaps  more 
 catholic  than  that  of  Shakespeare;  yet  compared  with 
 Jesus  it  is  narrow.  Its  influence  too  is  the  influence  of 
 intellect,  not  of  character.  We  may  feel  admiration  for  it; 
 but  to  whom  is  the  character  divinely  attractive  ?  Who  is 
 impelled  to  self-sacrifice  by  the  love  of  Shakespeare  ? 
 Whom  does  it  elevate  to  holiness  ?  Whom  has  it  rescued 
 from  moral  degradation  ?  None  can  speak  to  the  universal 
 heart  of  man  but  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 What  then  is  the  inference  ?  I  answer,  that  a  power  must 
 have  manifested  itself  in  Him  which  has  burst  through  those 
 bands  by  which  the  greatest  of  men  are  chained  fast  to  that 
 spiritual,  moral,  and  intellectual  environment  in  the  midst  of 
 which  they  have  been  born  and  educated.  If  He  is  thus  the 
 only  really  catholic  man,  it  proves  the  presence  in  Him  of 
 something  which  exists  in  no  other  man  ;  He  must  be 
 superhuman.  Is  it,  I  ask,  believable  that  the  very  ideal  of 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 101 
 
 humanity  has  been  produced  and  developed  in  the  midst  of 
 the  atmosphere  of  Jewish  narrowness  and  exclusiveness, 
 through  the  sole  agency  of  those  forces  by  which  the  moral 
 and  intellectual  character  of  mankind  is  generated  and  pro¬ 
 duced  ?  To  assert  its  possibility  is  to  deny  the  reign  of  law 
 in  the  moral  and  spiritual  worlds.  Thistles  cannot  produce 
 figs,  nor  brambles  grapes. 
 
 3.  The  next  fact  mentioned  by  the  historian  is,  that  Jesus 
 is  “  the  highest  pattern  of  virtue  ”  that  has  ever  been  exhi¬ 
 bited  among  mankind ;  in  fact,  the  only  one  who  can  be 
 propounded  as  an  actual  embodiment  of  holiness.  This  has 
 been  admitted  by  numbers  of  unbelievers.  Mr.  Mill  concurs 
 with  Mr.  Lecky.  To  these  it  would  be  easy  to  add  a  whol& 
 chorus  of  assenting  voices.  Mr.  Mill  goes  so  far  as  to 
 affirm  that  even  in  these  modern  days  the  rational  sceptic 
 would  do  well  to  make  Him  the  subject  of  imitation,  and  to 
 live  such  a  life  as  would  meet  with  His  approbation.  Nay 
 more,  he  treats  with  absolute  scorn  the  idea  which  has  so 
 frequently  been  thrown  out  by  opponents,  that  the  perfec¬ 
 tion  of  the  character  can  have  been  due  to  the  inventions  of 
 His  followers,  or  of  the  early  Christians,  whose  whole  sphere 
 of  thought  was  immeasurably  beneath  Him.  The  perfection 
 of  the  moral  character  of  Jesus  therefore  is  an  indisputable 
 fact,  which  remains  unaffected  by  the  minute  criticisms  of 
 an  inconsiderable  number  of  objectors.  What  the  Baptist 
 said  of  himself  is  still  true  of  the  holiest  of  men.  They  are 
 not  worthy  to  unloose  the  latchet  of  His  sandals. 
 
 But  if  this  be  so,  the  question  demands  solution,  how  can 
 we  account  for  the  moral  perfection  of  Jesus  Christ  ?  To 
 say  that  it  is  due  to  his  exalted  genius  is  simply  to  confess 
 our  inability  to  account  for  it.  Why,  I  ask,  is  it  that  this 
 exalted  genius  has  appeared  only  once  among  men,  if  it  is 
 nothing  more  than  the  offspring  of  the  forces  which  energize 
 in  the  production  of  men  ?  Has  nature  expended  all  her 
 powers  in  His  production ;  and  retired  ever  since  wearied  with 
 her  work.  But  if  one  fact  respecting  man  is  more  certain 
 than  another,  it  is  this  —  characters  of  commanding  moral 
 
102 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 elevation  do  not  emerge  from  a  hotbed  of  narrowness, 
 bigotry,  and  fanaticism.  .All  that  great  men  undei  such  circum- 
 stances  can  effect  is  to  raise  themselves  to  a  modeiate  height 
 above  their  surroundings.  Yet  Jesus  was  by  birth  a  Jew  ; 
 and  His  entire  surroundings  were  those  of  Jewish  thought 
 and  feeling  such  as  prevailed  during  the  century  which  pre¬ 
 ceded  and  that  which  followed  the  Advent,  and  respecting 
 the  character  of  which  history  gives  ample  evidence.  Far 
 more  might  we  expect  the  forces  of  nature  to  develop  by 
 their  unassisted  power  a  venerable  Howard  out  of  one  born 
 and  educated  in  the  moral  and  spiritual  atmosphere  of  a 
 society  of  Kaffirs  or  of  Bushmen,  than  that  the  perfection  of 
 the  character  of  Jesus  could  be  the  natural  outcome  of  the 
 condition  of  Jewish  thought  during  that  period  of  time. 
 
 4.  Further  :  the  historian  tells  us  that  Jesus  Christ  has 
 not  only  been  the  highest  example  of  virtue,  but  the  highest 
 incentive  to  its  practice.  Here  then  we  are  in  the  presence 
 of  a  fact  which,  if  true,  is  of  the  profoundest  significance. 
 Multitudes  of  men  have  in  different  degrees  been  patterns, 
 though  not  perfect  patterns,  of  virtue;  but  the  whole  course 
 of  history  presents  us  with  only  one  character  who  has  been 
 set  up  as  the  great  motive  and  incentive  to  its  practice  ;  or, 
 in  other  words,  who  constitutes  in  his  person  and  history  a 
 great  moral  and  spiritual  power.  This  person  is  Jesus 
 Christ  our  Lord.  Some  of  the  great  teachers  of  religion 
 and  morality  have,  with  various  degrees  of  modesty,  and 
 frequently  with  the  deepest  misgivings,  ventured  to  pro¬ 
 pound  their  example  for  the  imitation  of  their  followers ; 
 but  the  idea  of  propounding  a  teacher  as  the  highest  incen¬ 
 tive  to  the  practice  of  holiness,  or,  in  other  words,  as  the 
 mightiest  moral  and  spiritual  power  that  can  be  brought  to 
 bear  on  man,  is  to  be  found  in  Christianity  alone.  The  fact 
 is,  there  is  not  one  character,  real  or  fictitious,  known  to 
 history,  with  respect  to  whom  this  would  have  been  possible 
 except  Jesus  Christ.  The  idea  is  absolutely  unique. 
 
 Let  it  be  observed  that  to  propound  a  man  as  an  example 
 of  virtue,  and  to  propound  him  as  an  incentive  to  its  prac- 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 103 
 
 tice,  are  two  things  fundamentally  distinct.  All  good  men 
 may  be  used  as  patterns  of  virtue  in  proportion  to  the 
 degree  of  their  holiness,  and  the  elevation  of  their  characters. 
 There  is  also  a  very  subordinate  sense  in  which  they  may  be 
 said  to  be  incentives  to  its  practice,  if  their  example  is 
 capable  of  exciting  in  others  a  spirit  of  emulation  either  to 
 rival  or  to  excel  it.  But  such  a  power  is  very  limited,  nor 
 is  it  in  this  sense  that  Jesus  Christ  is  an  incentive  to  holi¬ 
 ness  ;  for  no  man  has  yet  been  found  presumptuous  enough 
 to  think  that  he  can  rival  or  excel  the  holiness  of  Jesus. 
 They  can  also  exhort  us,  urge  on  us  the  motives  to  virtue ; 
 in  a  word,  preach  to  us.  But  this  is  all  that  can  be  accom¬ 
 plished  by  even  the  holiest  and  the  best  of  men. 
 
 Why  is  this  ?  The  answer  is  evident.  A  power  which  is 
 capable  of  acting  as  an  incentive  to  holiness,  must  be  one 
 that  is  capable  of  energizing  on  man's  moral  and  spiritual 
 being.  It  must  be  a  power  capable  of  exerting  an  attrac¬ 
 tive  influence ;  one  which  can  bind  the  conscience,  pro¬ 
 foundly  stir  the  emotions  and  the  affections,  call  into 
 activity  all  that  is  good  in  them,  and  enable  the  higher 
 portions  of  human  nature  to  triumph  over  those  which  are 
 meaner  and  baser.  Now  there  is  nothing  in  an  ordinary 
 man,  however  holy,  which  can  effect  this.  If  done  at  all,  it 
 can  only  be  by  the  exhibition  of  an  attractiveness  capable  of 
 seizing  on  some  affection  of  our  moral  being ;  and  of  a  right 
 which  is  self-assertive  to  rule  the  conscience,  and  make  him 
 in  whom  it  dwells  the  centre  of  moral  and  spiritual  obliga¬ 
 tion.  Such  a  power  implies  worship,  adoration,  love.  Our 
 moral  nature,  unless  debased,  refuses  to  bow  before  a  fellow- 
 man,  however  holy.  If  therefore  one  can  act  on  another  as 
 a  power  capable  of  impelling  him  to  virtue,  in  the  sense  in 
 which  Jesus  Christ  is  an  incentive  to  holiness,  it  can  only 
 be  by  right  of  a  superhuman  superiority  residing  within 
 him.  Many  men  have  inspired  devotion  within  the  sphere 
 of  their  influence,  as  has  been  done  by  great  generals  both 
 in  ancient  and  modern  times ;  but  it  is  impossible  to  pro¬ 
 duce  any  man  known  to  history,  however  great,  who  has 
 acted  as  a  motive  to  holiness. 
 
104 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 Yet  that  Jesus  Christ  is  thus  presented  in  the  New  Testa¬ 
 ment  is  apparent  from  the  most  casual  perusal  of  its  pages. 
 Nor  is  this  merely  accidental  to  its  teaching,  but  of  the  very 
 essence  of  it.  The  Synoptic  Gospels,  which  have  been  repre¬ 
 sented  as  depicting  Him  in  a  less  divine  aspect,  represent 
 Him  as  claiming  a  right  to  supersede  every  tie  which  binds 
 man  to  man  in  favour  of  Himself ;  and  as  grounding  that 
 claim  on  His  own  inherent  worthiness,  even  to  the  extent  of 
 demanding  unlimited  sacrifice  of  self  as  due  to  Him.  His 
 whole  deportment  as  depicted  in  these  Gospels  is  that  of  one 
 who  feels  that  He  has  an  inherent  right  to  reign ;  and  the 
 fourth  Gospel  and  the  Apostolic  epistles  do  little  more  than 
 unfold  the  idea  which  runs  through  the  discourses  of  the 
 Synoptics.  It  is  impossible  therefore  to  affirm  that  the  idea 
 of  representing  Jesus  as  the  centre  of  obligation  is  an  after¬ 
 growth  on  Christianity.  Every  record  which  we  possess 
 proves  that  it  formed  part  of  its  primary  and  original 
 conception:  yet  the  originality  of  the  idea  is  startling, 
 for  it  is  the  one  solitary  attempt  to  do  so  known  to 
 history.  But  further :  since  it  has  been  made,  it  has  not 
 had  a  single  imitator. 
 
 The  question  of  fact  therefore  becomes  one  of  the  highest 
 importance.  Has  the  attempt  proved  a  success  ?  Has 
 Jesus  Christ  energized  in  history  as  the  mightiest  of  moral 
 and  spiritual  powers  ?  Is  the  evidence  clearly  legible  on 
 its  pages  ?  Further,  I  ask,  is  it,  or  is  it  not  a  fact,  that  He 
 is  the  mightiest  incentive  to  holiness,  and  self  sacrifice, 
 which  is  energizing  at  the  present  hour  ?  There  can  be  no 
 doubt  what  must  be  the  answer.  To  remove  the  action  of 
 Jesus  Christ  out  of  the  history  of  the  last  eighteen  centuries 
 would  be  to  reduce  it  to  a  blank.  Whether  his  character, 
 as  depicted  in  the  Gospels,  be  an  ideal  or  an  historical  one, 
 does  not  in  any  way  affect  the  fact  that  its  energy  has  been 
 mighty,  and  that  this  one  solitary  attempt  to  exhibit  a 
 character  as  the  highest  incentive  to  virtue  and  holiness, 
 has  proved  a  great  success.  I  will  state  the  answer  of 
 history  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Lecky.  “  The  brief  record  of 
 three  short  years  of  active  life  has  done  more  to  regenerate 
 
JESUS  CHKIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 105 
 
 and  soften  mankind  than  all  the  disquisitions  of  philo¬ 
 sophers,  and  than  all  the  exhortations  of  moralists.” 
 
 Who  with  the  history  of  the  past  in  his  hands  can  doubt 
 the  truth  of  this  statement  ?  Jesus  Christ  has  stamped  His 
 impress  on  the  entire  range  of  modern  civilization,  its 
 modes  of  thought,  its  legislation,  its  social  customs,  and  its 
 morality.  If  we  survey  the  efforts  that  have  been  made  for 
 the  amelioration  of  mankind,  and  the  self-sacrifice  by  which 
 these  efforts  have  been  carried  out,  it  is  not  too  much  to  say 
 that  nine-tenths  of  it — it  would  probably  be  more  correct 
 to  say  ninety-nine  hundredths  of  it — have  been  called  forth 
 by  attachment  to  Him,  and  by  this  alone. 
 
 I  ask  you  specially  to  observe  that  this  result  has  not 
 been  due  to  the  mere  teaching  of  Jesus,  great  as  its  influ¬ 
 ence  has  been.  It  has  been  the  result  of  a  personal 
 influence,  seated  in  the  record  of  a  life.  To  this  the  entire 
 history  of  Christendom  bears  witness.  This  alone  has 
 made  Him  capable  of  acting  as  a  power,  mighty  to  inspire 
 devotion,  love  and  adoration.  Apart  from  this.  His  doc¬ 
 trines  and  His  moral  teaching  would  have  exerted  as  little 
 influence  as  those  of  the  philosophers  and  moralists,  for 
 what  mankind  stand  in  urgent  need  of  is,  not  wise  precepts 
 for  the  regulation  of  life,  but  a  moral  and  spiritual  power, 
 capable  of  making  obedience  to  it  an  actuality.  Nor  is  His 
 unique  power  seated  in  a  mere  fond  reminiscence  of  departed 
 worth  which  perishes  after  a  lapse  of  time ;  but  in  self- 
 sacrifice  rendered  to  one  who  is  capable  of  recognizing  that 
 sacrifice  which  He  has  Himself  evoked. 
 
 And,  I  ask,  is  He  not  energizing  at  this  moment? 
 Although  we  cannot  see  Him  with  our  eyes,  we  can  verify 
 His  present  power  in  the  facts  of  daily  experience.  The 
 noble  army  of  self-sacrificers  in  the  Christian  Church  may  be 
 counted  by  hundreds  of  thousands.  Wherever  Christianity 
 exists,  its  rank  and  file  may  be  found.*  Let  us  put  the 
 
 *  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  this  is  the  case  even  in  the  most 
 degraded  forms  of  Christianity,  and  has  been  so  in  every  age.  The 
 divine  rays  which  issue  from  the  person  of  its  Founder  succeed  in 
 
106 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OF 
 
 question  to  them.  What  is  impelling  you  to  your  self-denying 
 exertions  ?  They  will  answer  with  unanimous  voice.  We  are 
 constrained  by  the  love  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  His  divine 
 attractiveness — His  self-sacrifice  for  us  impels  us  to  sacrifice 
 ourselves  for  Him.  This  is  a  fact  which  each  of  us  may 
 verify  for  himself,  and  it  is  unique  in  the  history  of  man. 
 These  modern  times  have  set  up  a  phantom  called  the  reli¬ 
 gion  of  humanity,  whose  great  moral  principle  is  altruism, 
 or  the  sacrifice  of  self  to  the  idea  of  human  nature,  i.e., 
 the  sum  total  of  men  and  women  who  have  existed  in  the 
 past,  or  will  exist  in  the  future — a  mere  caricature  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity.  But  it  is  powerless  !  WFere  is  its  army  of  self- 
 sacrificers  ?  It  stamps  on  the  ground,  but  no  legions  appear 
 at  its  bidding.  All  that  its  adherents  have  yet  succeeded  in 
 accomplishing  is  to  draw  largely  on  the  bank  of  hope. 
 
 It  follows  therefore,  inasmuch  as  the  idea  of  making 
 an  individual  the  centre  of  a  great  moral  and  spiritual 
 power  is  unique  in  the  history  of  man,  and  when  tried  in 
 the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  only  being  known  to  history 
 in  whom  the  experiment  was  possible,  has  as  a  matter  of 
 unquestionable  fact,  exerted  a  mightier  influence  for  good 
 than  all  philosophers  and  moralists  united,  that  the  power 
 thus  manifested  in  Him  must  be  superhuman. 
 
 5.  One  more  fact  is  noticed  by  the  historian— While  the 
 Christian  Church,  like  all  other  societies  which  have  ever 
 existed,  has  been  infected  and  defaced  by  various  corrup¬ 
 tions,  it  differs  from  every  other  in  that  it  possesses  in  the 
 character  and  example  of  its  Founder  an  ever-enduring 
 principle  of  regeneration. 
 
 Here  again  the  facts  of  history  are  indubitable.  The 
 Chiu ch  has  been  frequently  overlaid  by  superstition;  she 
 
 penetrating  those  mists  of  darkness  and  superstition  which  have 
 brooded  over  the  Church.  Although  these  have  grievously  obscured 
 the  light,  they  have  never  been  able  to  extinguish  it.  The  reason  of 
 this  is,  that  the  person  of  Our  Lord  is  so  essential  to  Christianity,  that 
 even  its  most  degraded  forms  cannot  wholly  destroy  His  personal 
 influence ;  and  wherever  the  bright  lineaments  of  His  character  dis¬ 
 close  themselves  they  are  necessarily  an  influence  for  good. 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 107 
 
 Las  sanctioned  practices  which  her  Founder  expressly  for¬ 
 bade  :  slie  Las,  terrible  to  say,  unsheathed  the  sword,  which 
 He  expressly  enjoined  her  to  put  up  into  its  scabbard.  All 
 this  is  true  :  and  its  truth  only  increases  the  marvellousness 
 of  the  fact  which  the  historian  brings  to  our  notice,  that  she 
 has  ever  found  in  the  person  of  her  Founder  an  enduring 
 principle  of  regeneration.  There  is  a  depth  of  meaning  in 
 the  person  and  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  has  trans¬ 
 cended  the  actual  Christianity  of  every  age — something 
 in  fact  which  soars  high  above  the  discordant  Babel  of 
 her  sects.  It  has  been  the  universal  law  of  human  institu¬ 
 tions  that  their  corruptions  have  resulted  in  their  slow  and 
 gradual  dissolution.  Hence  empires  have  passed  away ; 
 institutions  have  become  effete ;  religions  have  become 
 corrupt.  But  a  principle  of  ever-renewing  vitality  has  been 
 seated  in  the  bosom  of  Christianity ;  and  the  effect  of  the 
 unveiling  of  the  person  of  its  Founder  before  the  eyes  of 
 men,  just  as  He  has  been  depicted  by  the  Evangelists,  free 
 from  the  false  lineaments  in  which  He  has  been  enshrouded 
 by  human  folly  and  human  sin,  ever  has  been  and  ever 
 will  be,  the  source  of  a  new  social  life  to  the  Church  which 
 He  has  founded.  In  this  respect  the  Church  of  Christ  differs 
 from  every  merely  human  institution. 
 
 Finally  :  let  me  ask  you  to  observe  that  each  one  of  these 
 manifestations  of  a  superhuman  power  shining  forth  in 
 Jesus  Christ,  does  not  stand  by  itself  solitary  and  alone. 
 Even  if  it  did,  its  evidential  value  would  be  great.  But 
 the  whole  of  this  evidence  (and  it  is  only  some  of  the  most 
 striking  portions  of  it  which  I  have  adduced)  possesses  a 
 cumulative  force.  I  ask  you  fully  to  estimate  the  weight 
 of  the  whole  of  it  taken  together,  centring  as  it  does  in  the 
 person  of  Jesus  Christ.  From  Him  issues,  not  a  single  ray 
 of  divine  light,  but  a  mass  of  rays  all  converging  in  a 
 common  focus.  Before  the  brightness  of  the  light  which 
 He  emits,  all  other  illuminations  grow  dim,  like  the  stars  in 
 the  presence  of  the  sun  ;  all  other  activities  are  feebleness. 
 There  are  only  two  alternatives  before  us.  I  will  simply 
 
103 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 state  them,  and  leave  it  to  yourselves  to  choose  which  is  the 
 most  philosophical  and  rational ;  Jesus  Christ  must  be  either 
 the  manifestation  of  a  superhuman  power,  or  of  the  ordinary 
 forces  which  act  in  man,  which  have  energized  only  this  once 
 in  His  production,  and  then  ceased  from  their  activity  for 
 evermore. 
 
 There  is,  I  am  aware,  one  other  alternative  which  unbelief 
 propounds,  but  which  space  prevents  me  from  discussing 
 here.  It  is  that  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  is  an  ideal  cha¬ 
 racter,  devoid  of  historical  reality.  What  does  this  mean  ? 
 Its  meaning,  stripped  of  all  disguises  is,  that  the  mightiest 
 power  which  for  eighteen  centuries  has  energized  for  good, 
 nay  more,  which  at  this  moment  is  the  cause  of  nearly  every 
 institution  for  good  which  exists  in  Europe,  is  based  on  a 
 delusion.  This  theory  when  examined  in  its  details  and 
 tested  by  philosophy  and  fact,  hopelessly  breaks  down.  It 
 will  be  sufficient  here  to  say,  that  until  it  can  be  shown  that 
 some  such  shadowy  creation  has  exerted  a  mightier  influence 
 for  good  during  the  ages  of  the  past  than  the  most  strenuous 
 exertions  of  the  wisest  and  the  best  have  been  able  to 
 accomplish,  the  objection  is  dashed  in  pieces  against  the 
 facts  of  history  and  the  realities  of  human  life. 
 
 But  this  alternative  which  unbelief  propounds — the  only 
 one  which  it  is  able  to  propound — is  terrible  to  contemplate. 
 If  it  be  true,  human  life  is  a  delusion.  It  means  this,  and 
 nothing  less  : — If  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  is  an  ideal  crea¬ 
 tion,  and  not  an  historical  reality,  then  a  phantom  and  a 
 shadow  has  been  the  centre  of  a  mightier  power,  and  has 
 exerted  a  mightier  influence  for  good,  than  all  the  realities 
 which  have  ever  existed.  Good  and  wise  men  have 
 struggled  hard,  but  the  results  of  their  combined  efforts 
 have  been  as  nothing  compared  with  those  which  have  been 
 accomplished  by  this  unreal  creation  of  a  number  of  distem¬ 
 pered  brains.  If  this  be  so,  one  thing  is  true,  and  one  only 
 
 that  man  is  walking  in  a  vain  shadow  and  disquieting 
 himself  in  vain.  Why  then  struggle  for  truth  ?  for  delusions 
 are  mightier  than  realities.  Let  us  therefore  take  refuge 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 109 
 
 in  delusions,  for  their  influence  for  good  has  been  greater 
 than  that  of  all  the  self-sacrifice  of  the  wisest  and  the  best 
 of  men.  This  is  the  alternative  which  unbelief  presents  to 
 us ;  and  I  say  it  is  an  alternative  terrible  to  contemplate. 
 If  so,  all  is  vanity  :  the  present  life  is  a  dream ;  the  life  to 
 come  a  blank ;  and  man’s  only  hope — shall  I  not  rather 
 say,  his  best  hope — to  be  speedily  swallowed  up  in  that 
 eternal  silence  out  of  which  he  has  come,  to  which  he  is 
 hastening,  and  from  which  there  will  be  no  awakening. 
 This  is  the  prospect  we  are  asked  to  accept  in  exchange  for 
 our  Christianity  and  our  belief  in  that  God  who  is  the  mer¬ 
 ciful  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  whose  kingdom  is  an 
 everlasting  kingdom,  and  whose  dominion  endureth  through¬ 
 out  all  ages ;  in  whose  presence  there  is  fulness  of  joy,  and 
 at  whose  right  hand  there  must  be  pleasures  for  evermore. 
 
 SUPPLEMENT  I. 
 
 The  question  of  the  evidential  value  of  miracles  as  neces¬ 
 sary  proofs  of  a  revelation  is  in  some  degree  complicated 
 with  that  of  special  providences  and  answers  to  prayer. 
 Professor  Mozley  allows  that  these  are  unseen  miracles, 
 only  differing  from  visible  ones  in  that  their  manifestation 
 of  special  purpose  is  more  or  less  imperfect.  It  is  obvious 
 that  if  a  miracle  be  viewed  simply  as  an  occurrence  in  the 
 physical  Universe,  it  is  impossible  clearly  to  distinguish  it 
 from  a  special  providence,  because  both  alike  involve  such 
 an  interference  with  the  order  of  nature,  that  a  different 
 order  of  events  must  have  taken  place  but  for  the  fact  of 
 such  interference.  The  idea  of  a  special  providence  is  that 
 the  order  of  events  has  been  diverted  for  a  special  purpose, 
 and  a  new  order  of  sequences  introduced,  which  otherwise 
 would  not  have  existed.  I  use  this  language  because  it  is 
 the  best  that  I  can  employ,  although  it  is  unquestionably 
 inaccurate,  since  the  very  affirmation  that  God  interferes 
 with  the  order  of  the  Universe  in  acts  of  His  special  provi- 
 
110 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OF 
 
 dence  amounts  almost  to  a  denial  that  He  is  always  ener¬ 
 gizing  in  the  production  of  its  usual  order ;  or  in  other 
 words,  that  those  events  which  are  designated  special 
 providences  are  the  effects  of  God's  action  in  the  Universe, 
 while  ordinary  providences  are  not.  Having  thus  pointed 
 out  the  inaccuracy  of  the  term,  I  may  proceed  to  use  it  in 
 its  ordinary  acceptation. 
 
 If  special  providences  and  miracles  are  alike  interferences 
 with  the  order  of  the  Universe,  they  can  only  be  brought 
 about  by  some  modification  in  the  action  of  its  forces ;  for 
 the  order  of  nature  is  nothing  else  than  the  sequences 
 which  are  the  results  of  their  activity.  In  this  respect 
 special  providences  and  miracles  are  alike ;  and  only  dis¬ 
 tinguishable  from  one  another  as  far  as  the  one  may  be  a 
 more  clear  manifestation  of  purpose  than  the  other.  It 
 follows  therefore  that  the  evidential  value  of  a  miracle  as  an 
 attestation  to  a  revelation  is  diminished  in  proportion  to  the 
 difficulty  of  discriminating  between  the  special  purpose 
 involved  in  a  miracle,  and  that  which  is  manifested  in  what 
 is  called  an  act  of  God's  special  providence :  for  it  is  clear 
 that  if  the  same  event  could  subserve  two  purposes,  it  could 
 no  longer  be  the  distinguishing  mark  of  either. 
 
 But  a  distinction  may  be  laid  down  between  a  miracle 
 and  a  special  providence,  if  the  word  “  miracle  "  is  used 
 only  to  denote  such  occurrences  as  are  preceded  by  a  pre¬ 
 diction  that  they  are  going  to  happen.  Such  a  prediction 
 would  make  the  purpose  of  the  event  apparent  as  centring 
 in  a  particular  person,  and  thus  constitute  a  special  attesta¬ 
 tion  to  him.  But  here  the  question  becomes  complicated 
 with  events  which  are  brought  about  as  answers  to  prayer ; 
 and  hence  the  difficulty  of  discriminating  between  them  and 
 miracles.  A  special  answer  to  a  special  prayer,  if  the  peti¬ 
 tion  be  for  something  other  than  the  exertion  of  an  influence 
 on  the  mind,  although  the  answer  may  be  brought  about 
 through  the  agency  of  the  existing  forces  of  the  Universe, 
 necessarily  involves  some  special  modification  of  their  action, 
 because  the  supposition  pre-supposes  an  order  of  events 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 Ill 
 
 introduced  in  answer  to  the  prayer  different  from  that 
 which  would  have  happened  if  the  petition  had  not  been 
 offered.  But  the  event  occurring  in  answer  to  a  petition  is 
 almost  as  clear  a  manifestation  of  purpose  as  an  event  occur¬ 
 ring  after  a  prediction  that  it  is  going  to  happen,  which  we 
 call  a  miracle.  Both  the  one  and  the  other  cause  the  event 
 to  point  to  a  particular  person;  in  the  one  case,  to  the 
 person  who  offers  the  petition  and  obtains  the  answer ;  and 
 in  the  other,  to  the  person  who  uttered  the  prediction  on 
 which  the  miracle  followed  as  the  result.  In  each  case  it 
 would  constitute  an  attestation  to  that  particular  individual, 
 showing  that  the  order  of  nature  has  been  changed  in  his 
 favour.  Several  of  the  Scriptural  miracles  are  in  fact 
 described  as  answers  to  prayer ;  and  this  increases  the  diffi¬ 
 culty  of  clearly  discriminating  between  palpable  answers  to 
 prayer,  and  what  are  usually  called  evidential  miracles. 
 
 One  distinction  between  them  has  been  laid  down,  that  to 
 constitute  an  event  an  evidential  miracle,  it  must  be  brought 
 about  instantaneously ;  whereas  an  answer  to  prayer  may  be 
 a  slow  and  gradual  operation.  I  doubt,  however,  whether 
 the  distinction  is  one  of  real  importance,  because  a  series  of 
 definite  and  unquestionable  answers  to  prayer  occurring  to 
 the  same  person  would  be  as  clear  a  manifestation  of  purpose 
 in  reference  to  that  individual  as  any  miracle  could  be,  and 
 would  prove  that  God  marked  him  out  for  His  special  favour 
 by  deviating  from  His  usual  course  of  action  at  his  request. 
 A  series  of  such  answers  would  constitute  such  a  special 
 divine  intervention  as  the  Scriptures  designate  a  sign 
 (crrjjuaov).  It  is  true  that  in  some  of  the  Scripture  miracles 
 which  are  described  as  taking  place  in  answer  to  prayer,  a 
 special  command  was  given  that  the  event  should  happen 
 after  the  prayer  had  been  offered,  though  this  is  not  always 
 the  case,  as  in  the  resurrections  wrought  by  Elijah  and 
 Elisha ;  and,  in  fact,  many  of  their  other  miracles  were 
 unaccompanied  by  a  prediction.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how 
 a  series  of  such  answers  can  be  distinguished  as  to  its 
 evidential  value  from  a  miracle. 
 
112 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 This  difficulty  is  increased  when  a  person  professes  to 
 have  been  favoured  with  a  long  series  of  answers,  all  of 
 which  are  brought  about  in  favour  of  a  particular  institu¬ 
 tion.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  such  do  not  constitute  a 
 direct  divine  attestation  in  its  behalf.  I  cannot  better  illus¬ 
 trate  my  meaning  than  by  referring  to  the  well-known  case 
 of  Mr.  Muller's  Orphan  Asylum  at  Bristol.  This  institution 
 has  been  in  existence  for  a  considerable  number  of  years, 
 and  is  one  which  from  a  small  beginning  has  grown  to  very 
 large  dimensions.  Its  founder  believes  that  it  owes  its  sup¬ 
 port  exclusively  to  the  influence  of  faith  and  prayer.  He 
 disclaims  the  use  of  those  means  by  which  other  religious 
 societies  are  supported ;  he  makes  none  of  the  usual  appeals 
 for  funds,  holds  no  public  meetings,  inserts  no  advertise¬ 
 ments,  and  refuses  to  employ  any  organization  for  the 
 purpose  of  obtaining  pecuniary  support.  On  the  contrary, 
 when  funds  are  wanted,  prayer  is  offered  for  them ;  and 
 they  are  believed  to  come  in  consequence ;  and  he  affirms 
 that  this  has  never  failed  to  supply  them  in  their  greatest 
 straits. 
 
 But  further :  not  only  does  Mr.  Muller  believe  that  this 
 has  supplied  him  with  all  the  necessary  funds  for  the  sup¬ 
 port  of  his  establishment,  but  he  narrates  a  considerable 
 number  of  occurrences  as  having  taken  place  in  answer  to 
 his  prayers,  involving  not  mere  influences  exerted  on  the 
 mind,  but  direct  interferences  with  the  order  of  nature ;  as, 
 to  adduce  a  single  example,  the  change  of  a  north  wind  into 
 a  south  wind,  when  in  consequence  of  the  failure  of  his 
 warming  apparatus,  and  the  difficulty  of  repairing  it,  the 
 children  were  in  danger  of  suffering  from  cold.  Taking 
 the  whole  series  of  these  events,  and  supposing  them 
 to  have  been  brought  about  in  the  manner  in  which 
 Mr.  Muller  believes  them  to  have  been,  as  definite  answers 
 to  no  less  definite  prayers,  they  constitute  as  distinct  a  divine 
 attestation  to  the  Orphan  Asylum  as  could  be  given  by  any 
 series  of  miracles. 
 
 I  have  cited  the  Orphan  Asylum  as  a  crucial  example. 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 113 
 
 because  it  is  so  remarkable  an  institution  as  to  have 
 attracted  the  attention  of  unbelievers.  Mr.  Wallace,  who 
 has  some  claims  to  be  called  the  originator  of  the  Darwinian 
 theory  of  evolution,  has  referred  to  it  in  his  work  on 
 Spiritualism,  as  a  proof  of  the  reality  of  spiritual  influences. 
 He  pronounces  a  just  condemnation  on  Sir  W.  Thomson's 
 and  Professor  TyndalPs  proposal  to  bring  answers  to  prayer 
 to  an  experimental  test  by  separating  off  two  hospitals,  one 
 of  which  should  receive  the  benefit  of  the  united  prayers  of 
 Christians,  and  the  other  should  not,  and  testing  the  efficacy 
 of  such  prayers  by  the  results  as  manifested  by  the  number 
 of  recoveries.  Accepting  the  facts  in  connection  with  the 
 Orphan  Asylum,  precisely  as  they  appear  to  Mr.  Muller's 
 mind,  he  urges  them  on  their  consideration  as  an  unques¬ 
 tionable  proof  of  the  efficacy  of  prayer.  He  then  propounds 
 his  own  theory  as  to  their  origin.  He  does  not  consider 
 them  as  answers  to  prayer  in  any  Christian  sense  of  the 
 term ;  but  that  Mr.  Muller  by  the  fervour  of  his  devotions 
 congregates  around  him  a  large  number  of  kindred  spirits, 
 who  suggest  to  other  men  and  women  of  similar  feelings, 
 and  possessing  adequate  means,  to  supply  the  wants  of  the 
 Institution.  To  similar  influences  Mr.  Wallace  ascribes  no 
 inconsiderable  number  of  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Bible, 
 and  those  which  are  reported  in  Church  and  other  histories. 
 
 On  the  discussion  of  Mr.  Wallace's  theories  in  connection 
 with  this  subject,  I  cannot  enter  here.  I  have  only  to  do 
 with  the  facts  of  the  Orphan  Institution,  as  bearing  on  the 
 evidential  value  of  miracles.  I  have  no  intention  to  dispute 
 the  general  truth  of  the  facts  as  stated  by  Mr.  Muller, 
 although  it  is  highly  probable  that  they  have  received 
 some  colouring  from  his  own  peculiar  opinions.  To  accept 
 his  testimony  to  the  facts  is  one  thing ;  to  accept  his  views 
 as  to  the  agency  which  has  brought  them  about  is  altogether 
 another.  If  his  views  on  this  point  are  correct,  the  conclu¬ 
 sion  is  inevitable  that  the  Orphan  Asylum  has  as  definite  a 
 divine  attestation  in  its  favour  as  it  would  if  its  wants  were 
 supplied  by  the  most  direct  form  of  miracle.  In  fact,  a 
 
 8 
 
114 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 long  series  of  such  immediate  answers  to  a  set  of  definite 
 petitions  is  of  itself  a  miracle  of  the  most  unequivocal 
 description.  But  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  person 
 who  believes  himself  to  have  been  favoured  by  this  kind  of 
 attestation  for  a  long  period  of  years,  makes  no  claims  to  a 
 divine  commission  of  any  kind,  only  to  be  the  founder  of  a 
 useful  institution;  nor  does  he  lay  claim  to  any  divine 
 illumination  as  directing  him  in  its  superintendence.  The 
 divine  attestation  which  has  been  given  by  this  long  series 
 of  answers  to  prayer,  is  tendered  to  the  institution,  and 
 nothing  else.  If  the  facts  as  narrated  by  Mr.  Muller  are 
 assigned  by  him  to  their  true  causes,  the  value  of  the 
 testimony  of  miracles  to  a  divine  commission  is  greatly 
 weakened  by  them,  as  in  that  case  it  is  clear  that  a  series 
 of  events  which  it  is  impossible  to  distinguish  from  miracles, 
 has  been  brought  about,  not  for  the  purpose  of  attesting  a 
 divine  commission,  or  anything  resembling  it,  but  for  the 
 benefit  of  an  institution  which  does  not  differ  in  point  of 
 goodness  from  a  vast  number  of  others.  This  difficulty  is 
 further  increased  when  it  is  remembered  that  the  principle 
 laid  down  is,  that  all  other  institutions  for  good  might  live 
 and  prosper  by  the  use  of  similar  means.  If  so,  this  would 
 make  a  set  of  special  interferences  with  the  order  of  nature 
 not  the  exception,  but  the  rule  of  the  divine  government, 
 thereby  depriving  a  miracle  of  all  evidential  value  as  an 
 attestation  to  a  divine  commission. 
 
 But  I  have  not  to  deal  with  anything  theoretical  as  to 
 what  might  happen  if  other  institutions  were  to  adopt 
 similar  means  of  supporting  themselves,  but  with  what  has 
 actually  happened  with  respect  to  the  Orphan  Asylum.  I 
 fully  concede  that  it  is  a  very  remarkable  institution  ;  but  I 
 believe  that  its  growth  and  success  can  be  accounted  for  by 
 ordinary  human  causes,  without  having  recourse  to  the 
 theory  of  special  divine  interventions. 
 
 I  observe  therefore  that  although  its  founder  adopts  none 
 of  the  usual  methods  by  which  other  societies  obtain  their 
 income,  it  is  clear  that  he  employs  means  which,  although 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 115 
 
 highly  efficacious,  are  nevertheless  purely  human.  It  is  the 
 single  institution  ox  its  kind,  and  appeals  to  a  sentiment 
 which  is  particularly  attractive  to  a  large  number  of  minds, 
 namely,  the  profession  of  living  by  faith :  or  in  other  words' 
 of  deriving  its  support  from  a  set  of  supernatural  interven¬ 
 tions.  All  such  persons  (and  their  class  is  a  numerous  one), 
 take  a  deep  interest  in  the  success  of  such  an  institu¬ 
 tion.  Now,  although  its  founder  disclaims  the  use  of  means, 
 such  as  are  employed  by  other  societies,  yet  he  uses  others 
 equally  efficacious,  among  which  is  the  annual  publication  of 
 a  book  containing  an  account  of  these  special  interventions 
 during  the  past  year,  which  is  sent  to  all  subscribers.  This 
 certainly  constitutes  an  appeal  of  a  very  effective  character, 
 and  one  pre-eminently  fitted  to  stimulate  the  particular 
 class  of  minds  to  which  it  is  addressed,  to  large  and  frequent 
 contributions. 
 
 But  it  may  be  objected,  that  however  efficacious  these 
 means  may  be  now,  this  will  not  account  for  the  original 
 setting  up  of  the  institution.  I  think  that  any  one  who  will 
 cai  efully  investigate  the  account  which  Mr.  Muller  has  given 
 of  its  origin,  will  be  able  to  assign  it  to  a  number  of  ordinary 
 human  causes,  without  invoking  the  aid  of  any  special 
 divine  interventions  in  its  favour ;  but  to  enter  on  a  minute 
 criticism  of  them  would  not  be  desirable  in  this  place. 
 
 Many  of  the  events  narrated  by  him  which  involve  special 
 interferences  with  the  order  of  nature,  may  be  readily 
 accounted  for  on  the  principle  of  coincidences,  such  as  have 
 occurred  to  each  of  us  during  our  past  lives  ;  and  are  often 
 of  a  very  remarkable  character,  but  which  by  no  means 
 justify  the  assumption  that  they  have  been  brought  about 
 by  special  interferences  with  the  forces  of  nature  in  our 
 favour.  It  is  not  my  purpose,  however,  in  this  place  to 
 discuss  the  abstract  question,  but  only  to  consider  how  far 
 such  interferences  as  those  alleged  to  have  taken  place  in 
 connection  with  the  Orphan  Asylum  affect  the  question  of 
 miracles  as  evidential  to  a  divine  revelation.  It  seems  to  me 
 impossible  to  distinguish  such  occurrences  as  those  above 
 
 8* 
 
116 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 alluded  to,  if  they  are  brought  about  in  answer  to  definite 
 petitions,  from  evidential  miracles.  They  would  be  simply 
 marks  of  divine  favour  to  particular  persons  and  institutions; 
 and  would  consequently  be  devoid  of  evidential  value  as 
 proofs  of  the  reality  of  a  divine  commission. 
 
 We  know  from  the  history  of  St.  Paul  that  he  habitually 
 trusted  in  God’s  ordinary  providence  for  the  supply  of  his 
 wants,  rather  than  to  special  interventions.*  Viewed  in 
 connection  with  the  question  of  the  evidential  value  of 
 miracles,  the  whole  subject  of  special  answers  to  prayer 
 requires  very  serious  consideration,  as  it  is  evident  that  the 
 analogy  between  them  and  miracles  is  of  the  closest  character. 
 When  we  offer  special  requests  for  special  interferences  with 
 the  ordinary  mode  of  the  divine  acting,  it  is  only  in  conso¬ 
 nance  with  Christian  humility  to  add  to  our  prayers  that  God 
 will  be  pleased  to  reject  them,  if  we  in  our  ignorance  have 
 asked  Him  to  do  what  is  not  in  accordance  with  the  divine 
 will.  Surely  a  firm  trust  in  His  ordinary  providence,  and 
 an  habitual  recognition  that  the  forces  of  the  universe  in 
 their  daily  operation  are  regulated  by  His  wisdom,  and 
 subserving  the  purposes  of  His  goodness,  is  quite  as  religious 
 and  reverential  a  state  of  mind,  as  that  which  is  constantly 
 asking  Him  to  make  special  interventions  on  our  behalf. 
 Many  of  the  prevailing  ideas  on  this  subject  even  among 
 religious  men  owe  their  origin  to  their  failing  to  recognize 
 the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  that  all  the  forces  of  the  universe 
 are  manifestations  of  the  activity  of  God. 
 
 SUPPLEMENT  II. 
 
 It  will  be  seen  that  the  view  which  I  have  taken  in  this 
 and  the  preceding  Lecture  respecting  the  evidential  value  of 
 miracles,  and  the  relation  in  which  they  stand  to  the 
 
 *  See  the  account  of  the  dangers  he  encountered  in  his  Missionary 
 travels,  2  Cor.  xi.  St.  Luke’s  narrative  of  his  voyage  to  Kome,  his 
 shipwreck,  and  escape,  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  same  habitual 
 trust. 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 117 
 
 Christian  revelation,  differs  very  materially  from  that  which 
 has  been  propounded  by  Professor  Mozley  in  his  first  Bampton 
 Lecture.  So  important  is  this  difference  that  it  will  be  neces¬ 
 sary  to  offer  a  few  additional  observations  on  the  subject,  for 
 which  it  was  impossible  to  find  room  in  the  Lecture  itself. 
 
 The  view  propounded  in  the  Lecture,  briefly  stated,  is  as 
 follows  : — The  essence  of  the  Christian  Revelation  consists  in 
 Our  Lord's  Divine  person  and  work,  which  constitute  Him 
 the  visible  manifestation  of  the  invisible  God,  and  not  in  a 
 number  of  dogmatic  statements  or  moral  precepts.  His 
 entire  character  is  in  fact  a  manifestation  of  the  divine 
 in  union  with  the  human,  constituting  an  harmonious  whole, 
 of  which  the  miracles  form  an  important  portion  of  the 
 delineation.  In  one  word,  they  are  viewed  as  the  natural  out¬ 
 come  of  the  divine  which  dwelt  within  Him,  and  which 
 manifested  itself  as  much  in  His  actions  and  teaching,  in  the 
 spotless  perfection  of  His  character,  and  above  all,  in  the 
 divine  self-sacrifice  of  His  life  and  death,  as  in  those  actions 
 which  are  usually  designated  His  miracles.  Further,  while 
 many  of  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  were 
 not  wrought  for  directly  evidential  purposes  (those  which  are 
 directly  affirmed  to  have  been  wrought  for  this  purpose  being 
 few  in  number) ;  yet  all  miracles,  like  all  other  manifestations 
 of  the  divine,  must  have  an  indirectly  evidential  value,  as 
 indicating  the  presence  and  energy  of  a  superhuman  power. 
 Also,  while  there  are  recorded  in  the  New  Testament  a  con¬ 
 siderable  number  of  doctrinal  statements  and  moral  precepts, 
 it  is  a  fact  that  however  startling  a  statement  may  have 
 been  uttered  by  Our  Lord,  or  whatever  degree  of  opposition 
 it  called  forth  on  the  part  of  His  opponents,  or  of  incredulity 
 in  His  disciples.  He  nevers  condescends  to  perform  a  miracle 
 in  order  to  prove  the  truth  of  His  assertions,  but  rests  it 
 solely  on  His  own  absolute  knowledge  and  veracity.*  Nor 
 
 *  There  are  hut  two  apparent  exceptions  to  this  rule,  viz.,  that  of 
 the  cure  of  the  paralytic  in  proof  of  His  “  power  on  earth  to  forgive 
 sins,”  and  the  raising  of  Lazarus,  “  that  the  people  who  stood  by 
 might  believe  that  His  Father  had  sent  Him.” 
 
118 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 was  such  a  thing  once  done  by  His  apostles.  In  the  same 
 manner,  whilst  He  repeatedly  appealed  to  His  miracles  as 
 evidence  of  His  divine  character,  He  referred  to  them  as 
 portions  of  His  moral  working,  and  only  appealed  to  them 
 separately  when  the  higher  form  of  evidence  failed  to 
 command  assent. 
 
 This  view  of  the  subject  seems  to  me  to  be  rendered 
 necessary  by  the  most  direct  assertions  of  the  sacred  writers. 
 Besides  the  evidence  adduced  in  the  Lecture,  a  large  number 
 of  the  passages  quoted  in  the  Supplement  to  the  first  Lecture 
 for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  the  essence  of  the  Christian 
 revelation  consists  in  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  tend 
 equally  to  prove  that  the  highest  attestation  to  His  divine 
 Mission  was  His  self-evidential  character.  So  strong  are 
 the  assertions  on  this  point  in  those  portions  of  the  First 
 Epistle  and  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  to  which  I  have  already 
 referred,  that  any  other  view  appears  to  me  inconsistent  with 
 assigning  to  them  canonical  authority.  The  writer  affirms 
 that  the  life  of  the  Logos  was  manifested.  It  was  the 
 light  of  men.  This  light  was  manifested  in  the  person  of 
 Jesus  Christ.  It  shone  in  the  darkness,  and  the  darkness 
 comprehended  it  not.  He  was  the  true  light,  which 
 enlightens  every  man  that  cometh  into  the  world.  If  these 
 statements  are  the  veritable  utterances  of  the  Apostle,  they 
 are  conclusive  on  the  subject.  They  make  it  certain  that 
 Jesus  Christ  must  be  a  manifestation  of  the  Divine  on  the 
 sphere  of  the  human,  the  Sun  of  the  moral  and  spiritual 
 worlds,  which  energizes  in  them  mightily.  If  this  be  so,  it 
 follows  that  the  character  of  our  evidential  position  must  be 
 such  as  I  have  described — First,  Jesus  Christ  and  His  entire 
 divine  working,  in  which  He  bears  witness  to  Himself: 
 Secondly,  His  miracles,  viewed  as  wonders,  signs,  and 
 mighty  deeds. 
 
 The  entire  argument  of  Professor  Mozley  rests  on  a 
 different  basis.  He  considers  the  essence  of  Christianity  to 
 consist  in  a  number  of  statements  of  dogmatic  truth,  the 
 discovery  of  which  lies  beyond  the  powers  of  human  reason. 
 
JESUS  CUEIST  IN  HISTOEY. 
 
 119 
 
 Of  the  truth  of  these  statements  he  maintains  that  the 
 miracles  form  the  one  great  attestation  and  guarantee ;  in 
 other  words,  that  they  would  be  absolutely  incredible  but 
 for  their  confirmation  by  miracles.  His  position  is  clearly 
 stated  in  the  following  passage : — “  There  is  one  great 
 necessary  purpose,  then,  which  divines  assign  to  miracles, 
 viz.,  the  proof  of  a  Revelation.  And  certainly  if  it  were  the 
 will  of  God  to  give  a  Revelation,  there  are  plain  and  obvious 
 reasons  for  asserting  that  miracles  are  necessary  as  the 
 guarantee  and  voucher  of  that  Revelation.  A  Revelation  is, 
 properly  speaking,  such  only  by  virtue  of  telling  us  some¬ 
 thing  which  we  could  not  know  without  it.  But  how  do  we 
 know  that  that  communication  of  what  is  undisco verable  by 
 human  reason  is  true?  Our  reason  cannot  prove  the  truth 
 of  it,  for  it  is  by  the  very  supposition  beyond  our  reason. 
 There  must  be  then  some  note  or  sign  to  certify  it,  and  dis* 
 tinsruish  it  as  a  true  communication  from  God,  which  note 
 can  be  nothing  else  than  a  miracle.” 
 
 This  passage,  which  contains  the  essence  of  the  view  in 
 question,  seems  to  me  to  be  based  on  the  direct  assumption  of 
 the  point  of  issue.  “ A  Revelation,”  says  the  Professor,  “  is 
 properly  speaking  such  only  by  telling  us  something  that  we 
 could  not  know  without  it.”  This  assumption  is  involved  in 
 the  use  of  the  word  “  Telling.”  It  takes  for  granted  that  a 
 Revelation,  to  be  such,  must  consist  in  certain  abstract 
 statements  of  truths  to  be  believed,  and  not  of  facts  such  as 
 St.  John  speaks  of,  which  he  could  see,  hear,  and  bear 
 witness  to.  It  is  in  fact  assumed  not  only  that  a  Revelation, 
 to  be  such,  must  be  a  dogmatic  Revelation ;  but  that  it  can¬ 
 not  consist  of  truths  which  have  a  self-evidencing  power  to 
 the  heart  and  the  conscience,  and  through  them  to  the 
 understanding.  Such  a  view  seems  to  me  to  contravene 
 not  only  the  express  statements  of  the  fourth  Gospel,  but 
 the  whole  of  the  implied  teaching  of  the  Pauline  epistles. 
 
 I  by  no  means  dispute  that  a  Revelation,  <c  to  be  worthy 
 of  the  name,”  must  communicate  to  us  something  which 
 was  previously  unknown.  This  can  certainly  be  done  in 
 
120 
 
 THE  SUPEEHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 many  other  ways  besides  in  a  number  of  dogmatic  proposi¬ 
 tions.  St.  Paul  definitely  affirms  that  the  Universe  is  a 
 Revelation  of  God.  “  The  invisible  things  of  Him  from  the 
 creation  of  the  world  are  clearly  seen,  being  understood  by 
 the  things  that  are  made,  even  His  eternal  power  and  God¬ 
 head,  so  that  they  are  without  excuse.  For  that  which  is 
 known  of  God  is  manifest  in  them ;  for  God  has  showed  it 
 unto  them.”  Words  could  hardly  have  been  framed  to 
 affirm  in  a  more  definite  manner  that  the  Universe  consti¬ 
 tutes  a  revelation  of  the  eternal  power  and  Godhead  of  its 
 Creator,  and  one  of  so  distinct  and  definite  a  character  that 
 the  heathen  were  without  excuse  for  not  attending  to  it. 
 Yet  in  making  this  revelatiou,  God  has  told  us  nothing 
 respecting  its  forces  or  its  laws,  but  has  left  them  to  be  dis¬ 
 covered  by  the  use  of  the  faculties  with  which  He  has 
 endowed  us.  Of  what,  I  ask,  does  this  revelation  consist  ? 
 Evidently  of  an  immense  number  of  objective  facts,  showing 
 forth  the  divine  power  and  wisdom,  and  in  an  inferior  degree 
 Hi©  other  attributes.  Every  creative  work  of  God  is  unques¬ 
 tionably  a  discovery  of  a  new  truth,  and,  as  such,  a  revela¬ 
 tion  of  Himself.  But  it  consists  of  a  fact,  manifested  to 
 man's  understanding,  the  meaning  of  which  he  is  capable  of 
 discovering ;  not  the  dogmatic  affirmation  of  some  truth 
 previously  unknown.  Least  of  all  does  such  a  revelation 
 require  to  be  confirmed  by  a  miracle  wrought  to  attest  either 
 its  reality  or  its  truth.  On  the  contrary  it  is  self- evidencing, 
 
 and  its  miracles,  which  are  God's  creative  works,  constitute 
 its  essence. 
 
 In  a  similar  manner  another  great  revelation  of  God  has 
 been  made  in  man's  conscience  and  moral  nature,  by  which 
 we  learn  the  law  of  duty,  and  that  the  Creator  of  the 
 Universe  is  not  only  a  Being  who  possesses  wisdom  and 
 power,  but  that  He  is  also  a  moral  being.*  But  here  again 
 the  revelation  does  not  contain  a  single  dogmatic  statement, 
 
 *  Here  again  St.  Paul  s  assertions  are  definite  and  precise.  “  For 
 when  the  Gentiles,  which  have  not  the  law,  do  by  nature  the  things 
 contained  in  the  law,  these,  having  not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  them- 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 121 
 
 nor  is  it  confirmed  by  a  single  miracle,  except  tliat  great  one 
 wbicb  constitutes  its  essence,  tbe  moral  nature  of  man,  and 
 tbe  greatest  of  all  marvels,  tbe  creation  of  a  free  agent. 
 
 Again,  a  resurrection  from  tbe  dead  would  constitute  a 
 real  revelation ;  even  if  unaccompanied  by  a  single  dogmatic 
 explanation.  It  would  plainly  be  a  discovery  of  at  least  one 
 truth  wbicb  was  previously  unknown,  viz.  tbat  man  was 
 capable  of  a  renewed  life  after  be  bad  undergone  tbe  stroke  of 
 death,  and  would  thereby  impart  a  certain  degree  of  reason¬ 
 ableness  to  tbe  expectation  tbat  others  would  receive  tbe 
 same.  So  again  tbe  appearance  of  an  angel,  and  an  actual 
 conversation  with  one,  would  be  an  unquestionable  revela¬ 
 tion  tbat  there  were  other  orders  of  intelligences  in  existence 
 besides  men.  These,  and  a  multitude  of  other  kindred 
 things,  would  in  tbe  truest  sense  of  tbe  term  constitute 
 revelations  of  truths  to  wbicb  tbe  unaided  power  of  man  s 
 reason  could  never  have  penetrated,  yet  they  are  self- 
 evidential,  and  require  no  miracle  to  confirm  them.  In  a 
 similar  manner  God^s  revelation  of  His  moral  perfections 
 made  in  tbe  life  and  death  of  Jesus  Christ  is  self-evidential. 
 In  it,  as  St.  John  says,  tbe  divine  life  is  manifested.  We 
 can  see  it,  i.e.  with  tbe  eye  of  our  moral  vision,  and  draw 
 conclusions  from  it  in  tbe  same  manner  as  we  do  from  tbe 
 other  objective  revelations  of  God. 
 
 In  reply  then  to  tbe  question  proposed  by  Professor  Mozley, 
 How  do  we  know  tbat  tbe  communication  of  what  is  undis- 
 coverable  by  human  reason  is  true  ?  I  answer,  By  beholding 
 it.  Our  reason  cannot  prove  tbe  truth  of  it  until  it  has  been 
 discovered.  Granted.  But  this  forms  no  obstacle  to  our 
 ability  to  recognize  God  in  it,  when  He  has  thus  revealed 
 Himself.  Such  revelations  require  no  note  or  sign  to 
 certify  tbat  they  are  true  communications  from  God,  other 
 than  themselves,  when  contemplated  by  tbe  eye  of  reason. 
 It  is  clear  therefore  tbat  bis  remarks  are  only  applicable 
 
 selves  ;  wbicb  show  tbe  work  of  tbe  law  written  in  their  hearts,  their 
 conscience  also  bearing  witness,  and  their  thoughts  tbe  meanwhile 
 accusing,  or  else  excusing  one  another.” — (Horn.  ii.  14,  15). 
 
122 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OF 
 
 to  sucIl  revelations  as  consist  of  statements  of  dogmatic 
 truths  which  would  have  been  undiscoverable  by  the  unaided 
 human  intellect.  But  whatever  connection  such  truths  may 
 have  with  the  Christian  Revelation,  it  is  certain  that  the 
 sacred  writers  affirm  the  presence  of  an  objective  Revelation 
 in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  apart  from  the  dogmatic 
 assertions  which  are  found  in  the  New  Testament. 
 
 I  fully  agree  with  Professor  Mozley  that  such  assertions 
 as  some  of  those  made  by  Our  Lord  respecting  Himself 
 would  be  incredible  if  made  by  one  who  had  passed  thirty- 
 three  years  in  converse  with  mankind  without  once  exhibit¬ 
 ing  anything  superhuman  in  his  character.  But  it  by  no 
 means  follows  that  the  only  way  of  doing  this  is  by  the  dis¬ 
 play  of  those  marvels  in  the  physical  universe  which  we 
 commonly  designate  miracles.  Surely  the  presence  of  the 
 divine  is  as  clearly  recognizable  in  superhuman  holiness 
 and  loveliness  as  in  acts  of  power  in  nature.  I  admit  that 
 the  divine  presence  is  manifested  in  the  volcano  and 
 earthquake ;  but  it  is  far  more  so  in  the  character  of  Christ 
 our  Lord  as  delineated  in  the  Gospels.  Every  one  of  His 
 actions  was  radiant  with  superhuman  goodness,  and  surely  a 
 character  which  is  a  manifestation  of  superhuman  goodness 
 is  a  stronger  guarantee  of  truthfulness  than  the  performance 
 of  any  number  of  marvellous  works.  Apart  from  such 
 manifestations  the  assertions  concerning  Himself  which  are 
 attributed  to  Him  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John  would  not  be 
 rendered  credible  by  the  performance  of  any  number  of 
 mere  marvels  in  the  physical  Universe.  Power  is  no  doubt 
 an  attribute  of  God,  but  moral  perfection  is  no  less  so.  If 
 anything  analogous  to  miracles  can  be  performed  by  the 
 agency  of  demons,  it  is  clear  that  the  only  means  of  dis¬ 
 tinguishing  between  the  divine  and  the  diabolical  must  be 
 by  observing  the  moral  impress  which  they  bear. 
 
 It  follows  therefore  that  our  acceptance  of  Our  Lord's 
 testimony  respecting  himself  is  founded  on  His  entire  divine 
 working,  manifested  during  His  life  on  earth,  and  not  on  His 
 miracles  pure  and  simple.  Such  a  person  could  not  but 
 
123 
 
 JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 have  known  whether  his  statements  were  true  or  false.  We 
 therefore  accept  them  as  we  do  those  of  any  other  witness, 
 on  the  ground  of  his  adequate  knowledge  and  entire  veracity. 
 Professor  Mozley  has  more  fully  expressed  his  views  on 
 this  subject  in  another  passage  of  this  lecture.  It  has  been 
 quoted  somewhat  unfairly  by  the  author  of  Supernatural 
 Religion.  Still  I  think  that  the  general  mode  of  putting 
 the  case  incurs  a  serious  danger  of  causing  misconception. 
 As  the  passage  is  a  long  one  I  will  only  quote  its  salient 
 
 points. 
 
 “  If  then  a  person  of  evident  integrity  and  loftiness  of 
 character  rose  into  notice  in  a  particular  country  and  com¬ 
 munity  eighteen  centuries  ago,  who  made  these  communica¬ 
 tions  about  himself,  that  he  had  existed  before  his  natural 
 birth,  &c.,  &c”  (here  follow  a  number  of  affirmations  which 
 Our  Lord  actually  made  respecting  Himself  as  reported  in 
 the  fourth  Gospel).  “  If  this  person  made  these  assertions 
 respecting  himself  j  and  all  that  was  done  was  to  make  the 
 assertions,  what  would  be  the  inevitable  conclusion  of  sober 
 reason  respecting  that  person  ?  The  necessary  conclusion 
 of  sober  reason  respecting  that  person  would  be  that  he  was 
 disordered  in  his  understanding.  WTiat  other  decision  could 
 we  come  to,  when  a  man  looking  like  one  of  ourselves ,  and 
 only  exemplifying  in  his  life  and  circumstances  the  ordinary 
 course  of  nature ,*  said  this  about  himself,  but  that  when 
 reason  had  lost  its  balance,  a  dream  of  extraordinary  and 
 unearthly  grandeur  might  be  the  result.  By  no  rational 
 being  could  a  just  and  benevolent  life  be  accepted  as  proof 
 of  such  astonishing  announcements.  Miracles  then  are  the 
 necessary  complement  of  the  truth  of  such  announcements, 
 which  without  them  are  purposeless  and  abortive,  the 
 unfinished  fragments  of  a  design  which  is  nothing  unless  it 
 is  the  whole.  They  are  necessary  to  the  justification  of  such 
 announcements,  which,  unless  they  are  supernatural  truths, 
 are  the  wildest  delusions.  The  matter  and  its  guarantee 
 
 *  The  italics  are  mine. 
 
124 
 
 THE  SUPEEHUMAN  ACTION  OF 
 
 are  the  two  parts  of  a  revelation,  the  absence  of  either  of 
 which  neutralizes  and  undoes  it.” 
 
 This  passage  is  misleading,  because  while  it  contains 
 statements  very  closely  resembling  the  facts  of  the  Gospel, 
 Dr.  Mozley  applies  them  to  a  condition  of  things  wholly 
 different  from  those  exhibited  in  the  life  of  Christ  as  there 
 depicted.  I  fully  admit  that  if  a  mere  man,  who  differed  in 
 nothing  from  ordinary  good  men,  made  such  statements, 
 they  would  be  utterly  incredible,  and  the  fair  inference 
 would  be  that  he  had  become  suddenly  insane.  But  the 
 Gospels  do  not  tell  us  that  it  was  an  ordinary  man  like 
 ourselves  who  made  these  assertions ;  but  one  whose  entire 
 character  and  actions  were  as  much  a  manifestation  of 
 superhuman  goodness  and  holiness  as  His  miracles  were  of 
 superhuman  power.  To  assume  that  Our  Lord  before  He 
 performed  his  first  miracle  at  Cana,  did  not  differ  from  an 
 ordinary  man,  is  to  beg  the  whole  question.  In  fact  it  is 
 simply  impossible  that  He  did  not,  if  His  own  affirmations 
 and  those  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  that  he  who 
 had  seen  Him  had  seen  the  Father ;  and  that  the  fulness  of 
 Godhead  dwelt  in  His  incarnate  person,  are  true.  The 
 question  is  not  what  we  should  think  of  such  assertions,  if 
 made  by  a  man  of  ordinary  goodness ;  but  what  we  should 
 think  of  them,  if  made  by  one  who  during  the  whole  of  his 
 past  life  had  been  the  highest  manifestation  of  the  moral 
 perfections  of  God.  St.  Luke  tells  us  that  even  at  the  age 
 of  twelve  years  Jesus  astonished  the  Jewish  doctors  by  His 
 understanding  and  answers.  Surely  during  the  eighteen 
 years  which  elapsed  between  this  event  and  His  public 
 ministry,  when  His  manhood  had  become  fully  developed,  the 
 divine  rays  must  have  shone  in  Him  with  greater  brilliancy. 
 According  to  Professor  Mozley’s  position,  these  assertions, 
 if  they  had  been  made  by  Our  Lord  before  He  had  performed 
 His  first  miracle  at  Cana,  might  have  been  justly  deemed  the 
 results  of  insanity  (we  know  that  the  Jews  did  subsequently 
 affirm  that  He  was  mad) ;  but  they  would  have  been  rendered 
 credible  by  its  performance.  Surely  such  a  position  ia 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 125 
 
 untenable.  The  error  has  originated  in  the  incorrect 
 assumption  that  Our  Lord  did  not  differ  from  an  ordinary 
 man  until  He  manifested  that  difference  by  the  performance 
 of  miracles. 
 
 But  the  Professor  continues,  “  Would  not  a  perfectly 
 sinless  character  be  a  proof  of  a  revelation  ?  Undoubtedly 
 that  would  be  as  great  a  miracle  as  any  that  could  be  con¬ 
 ceived;  but  where  is  the  proof  of  perfect  sinlessness  ?  No 
 outward  life  and  conduct,  however  just,  benevolent,  and 
 irreproachable,  could  prove  this,  because  goodness  depends 
 on  the  inward  motive,  and  the  perfection  of  the  inward 
 motive  is  not  proved  by  the  outward  act.  .  .  .  AATe 
 accept  Our  Lord’s  perfect  goodness  then  on  the  same  evi¬ 
 dence  upon  which  we  admit  the  rest  of  His  supernatural 
 character ;  but  not  as  proved  by  the  outward  goodness  of 
 His  life,  by  His  character,  sublime  as  it  was,  as  it  presented 
 
 itself  to  the  eye.” 
 
 This  affirmation  is  a  very  unfortunate  one,  because  it 
 directly  traverses  one  made  by  Our  Lord  Himself  as 
 reported  in  the  Fourth  Giospel,  ce  which  of  you  convinceth 
 me  of  sin ;  and  if  I  say  the  truth,  why  do  ye  not  believe 
 me  ?”  Surely  Our  Lord  here  affirms  that  the  inability  of 
 any  one  to  convince  Him  of  sin  was  an  adequate  proof  that 
 His  moral  character  was  perfect.  He  demands  to  be  be¬ 
 lieved  in  virtue  of  His  inherent  truthfulness ;  and  on  the 
 strength  of  it  He  proceeds  to  make  the  affirmation  of  His 
 pre-existence,  “  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am.  He  certainly 
 here  distinctly  lays  down  that  His  absolute  sinlessness  was 
 a  sufficient  ground  for  His  affirmation  being  entitled  to  the 
 
 fullest  credence. 
 
 But,  says  the  Professor,  how  could  this  sinlessness  be 
 known  ?  It  is  impossible  that  we  could  know  that  any 
 man  was  sinless  unless  we  could  penetrate  to  his  motives, 
 and  this  we  cannot  do.  Surely  this  is  hypercritical.  A 
 being  whose  entire  outward  life  was  a  manifestation  of 
 absolute  moral  purity,  must  have  been  equally  pure  in  his 
 inward  character.  “  The  tree,”  says  Our  Lord,  “  is  known 
 
126 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 by  its  fruits.”  A  being  whose  actual  life  is  moral  perfec¬ 
 tion,  while  his  inward  life  is  corrupt,  must  possess  a  super¬ 
 human  power  of  hypocrisy.  My  answer,  therefore,  to  the 
 question,  “  How  could  the  perfection  of  Jesus  be  proved  V7 
 is.  By  His  perfect  life.  It  was  a  question,  not  of  theory,  but 
 of  fact.  I  fully  admit  “  that  we  accept  Our  Lord's  perfect 
 goodness  on  the  same  evidence  on  which  we  admit  the  rest 
 of  His  supernatural  character,”  i.e.  by  its  manifestations. 
 But  here  let  it  be  observed,  the  proof  of  the  manifestations 
 of  His  superhuman  power  derived  from  His  miracles  is 
 dependent  on  a  complicated  chain  of  historical  proof; 
 that  of  His  divine  working  in  the  history  of  the  past  and 
 the  facts  of  the  present  is  patent  to  the  ordinary  student 
 of  history. 
 
 It  may  be  urged  that  large  numbers  of  the  Jews  would 
 not  have  any  evidence  that  His  character  was  morally 
 stainless ;  and  consequently  to  such  persons  it  would  be 
 no  sufficient  guarantee  of  the  truth  of  His  assertions.  This 
 I  fully  admit.  The  same  observation  is  equally  true  with 
 respect  to  those  who  did  not  witness  His  miracles ;  and  we 
 know,  as  matter  of  fact,  that  even  many  who  did,  ascribed 
 them  to  demoniacal  agency.  But  it  was  far  more  difficult 
 to  ascribe  His  manifestations  of  divine  goodness  to  such  an 
 influence  than  His  miracles,  when  viewed  separately  from 
 their  moral  environment.  Both  His  moral  perfection  and 
 His  miracles  could  only  be  evidential  as  far  as  He  afforded 
 evidence  of  their  reality. 
 
 But  the  character  of  the  evidence  has  become  widely 
 different  in  the  present  day  from  what  it  was  in  Our 
 Lord's.  Then  the  miracles  could  be  witnessed ;  now  they 
 cannot.  Then  their  reality  could  be  tested ;  now  it  cannot : 
 now  they  can  only  be  accepted  on  the  testimony  of  those 
 who  witnessed  them.  Then  the  only  alternative,  if  they 
 were  accepted  as  true,  was  between  their  being  wrought 
 by  the  finger  of  God  or  by  Satanic  agency.  This 
 latter  alternative  would  weigh  little  now ;  but  we 
 are  embarrassed  by  the  length  of  the  chain  of 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 127 
 
 the  historic  proof,  and  by  other  difficulties  peculiar 
 to  modern  times,  which  considerably  overbalance  this  advan¬ 
 tage.  Those  who  came  into  direct  contact  with  Jesus  were 
 able  to  behold  the  divine  radiance  of  His  character.  This 
 we  cannot  do ;  but  we  have  eighteen  centuries  of  experience 
 of  the  superhuman  working  of  this  character  in  history, 
 and  of  the  laws  which  regulate  the  evolution  of  ordinary 
 men.  This  furnishes  us  with  materials  for  judging  whether 
 a  superhuman  power  manifested  itself  in  Jesus  Christ  of 
 which  His  contemporaries  were  destitute.  We  have  also 
 the  character  depicted  before  our  eyes  in  the  pages  of  the 
 Evangelists.  The  only  question  is,  whether  it  is  possible 
 that  this  character  can  be  an  ideal  one ;  and  of  this  our 
 means  of  judging  are  ample.  If  any  one  will  set  himself 
 thus  carefully  to  balance  our  losses  and  our  gains,  I  think 
 that  the  conclusion  at  which  he  will  arrive  must  be  that  the 
 evidences  of  the  divine  mission  of  Jesus  Christ  which  we 
 now  possess  are  of  equal,  if  not  of  greater  weight,  than 
 those  which  were  enjoyed  by  those  who  lived  in  the  apos¬ 
 tolic  age.  It  is  true  that  we  witness  no  physical  miracles 
 now;  but  we  witness  mightier  moral  ones.  The  moral 
 miracles  we  can  behold  and  verify  ;  these  being  established, 
 render  our  proof  of  the  physical  ones  comparatively  easy, 
 which,  when  dissevered  from  that  of  the  moral  ones,  becomes 
 a  balance  of  intricate  probabilities. 
 
 The  history  of  John  the  Baptist  fully  confirms  the  posi¬ 
 tions  laid  down  in  the  Lecture,  that  miracles  are  not  the 
 one  indispensable  proof  of  a  divine  mission.  The  divine 
 mission  of  John  is  directly  affirmed  by  Our  Lord.  “  Among 
 those  that  are  born  of  women,;;  He  says,  “  there  has  not 
 arisen  a  great  prophet  than  John  the  Baptist.”  These 
 words,  if  taken  strictly,  affirm  that  he  was  a  greater  prophet 
 even  than  Moses.  Yet  not  only  do  the  Synoptics  record  no 
 miracle  as  having  been  performed  by  him,  but  the  Fourth 
 Gospel  expressly  affirms  that  he  wrought  none,  while  at  the 
 same  time  it  attributes  to  him  several  dogmatical  assertions 
 respecting  the  superhuman  greatness  of  Our  Lord.  If 
 
128 
 
 THE  SUPERHUMAN  ACTION  OP 
 
 it  be  urged  that  a  miracle  was  wrought  on  the  occasion 
 of  the  descent  of  the  divine  Spirit  on  Our  Lord  at  His 
 Baptism,  I  reply,  though  the  special  mark  to  John  by  which 
 the  presence  of  the  Messiah  was  indicated,  and  to  him  in  the 
 highest  sense  evidential,  yet  it  was  not  so  to  others.  As  far 
 as  the  people  are  concerned,  the  evidence  of  the  Fourth 
 Gospel  is  incontestable,  (C  John  did  no  miracle,  but  all  things 
 which  John  spake  of  this  man  were  true/ 
 
 If  it  be  urged  that  while  miracles  may  not  be  necessary  to 
 prove  a  divine  mission,  yet  they  are  necessary  to  prove  the 
 truth  of  a  revelation,  and  that  John  had  no  revelation  to 
 communicate,  I  reply  that  it  is  equally  true  that  neither  Elijah 
 nor  Elisha  introduced  a  new  revelation,  yet  the  Old  Testa¬ 
 ment  ascribed  to  them  a  number  of  miracles.  Nor  is  the 
 affirmation  that  he  had  no  revelation  to  communicate  strictly 
 accurate :  for  he  was  far  more  a  communicator  of  one  than 
 any  of  the  former  prophets,  in  that  he  pointed  out  the 
 Messiah  as  actually  come ;  and  authoritatively  affirmed  that 
 Jesus  was  He.  It  is  true  that  the  Synoptics  describe  him 
 rather  as  a  preacher  of  repentance ;  but  St.  J ohn's  Gospel 
 not  only  affirms  that  he  gave  distinct  testimony  to  Jesus  as 
 the  actual  Messiah,  but  that  he  made  several  remarkable 
 statements  as  to  the  divine  character  of  His  person,  one  of 
 them  being  an  affirmation  referred  to  by  Hr.  Mozley,  as 
 requiring  to  be  substantiated  by  miracle,  that  ce  He  was  the 
 Lamb  of  God  who  takes  away  the  sin  of  the  world and 
 if  we  accept  the  conclusion  of  the  third  chapter  as  an  utter¬ 
 ance  of  the  Baptist,  and  not  a  meditation  of  its  author, 
 he  must  have  announced  yet  profounder  truths  respecting 
 His  Divine  character.  Although  utterances  of  this  kind  are 
 not  directly  mentioned  by  the  Synoptics,  yet  they  make  it 
 certain  that  John  must  have  given  a  very  clear  and  well 
 known  testimony  to  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus,  for  they  inform 
 us  that  after  Our  Lord  had  performed  the  high  Messianic  act 
 of  cleansing  the  temple,  and  the  Sanhedrim  demanded  His 
 authority  for  doing  so,  He  replied  by  asking  their  opinion 
 as  to  the  divine  mission  of  John  the  Baptist  \  and  that  after 
 
JESUS  CHRIST  IN  HISTORY. 
 
 129 
 
 consulting  among  themselves,  they  declined  to  return  an 
 answer,  on  the  ground  that  if  they  affirmed  its  reality.  Our 
 Lord  would  fall  back  on  His  testimony  to  Himself  as  the 
 Messiah ;  and  if  they  denied  it,  they  were  afraid  of  a  serious 
 loss  of  reputation  among  the  people,  who  believed  in  John 
 as  a  prophet.  If  miracles  are  the  necessary  confirmation  of 
 a  revelation,  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  a  prophet  who 
 had  a  direct  divine  commission  to  point  out  Jesus  as  the 
 Messiah,  was  not  armed  with  the  power  of  working  them, 
 while  that  power  was  so  largely  possessed  by  prophets  with 
 a  mission  so  inferior  as  that  of  Elijah  or  Elisha.  According 
 to  the  theory  which  has  been  commonly  accepted,  when 
 John  the  Baptist  pointed  out  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  and 
 declared  Him  to  be  “  the  Lamb  of  God,  who  takes  away  the 
 sins  of  the  world,”  and  that  “  he  that  believed  on  Him  had 
 everlasting  life,”  he  ought  to  have  wrought  a  miracle  to 
 prove  that  such  extraordinary  assertions  were  true.  It  is 
 impossible  for  me  to  enter  here  on  a  discussion  of  the 
 grounds  on  which  John  rested  the  truth  of  his  divine 
 mission.  I  am  only  concerned  with  it  in  this  place  as 
 showing  that  the  affirmation  that  miracles  are  indispensable 
 for  the  proof  of  its  reality,  and  that  certain  truths  are 
 incredible  unless  they  are  attested  by  them,  is  not  borne 
 out  by  the  statements  of  the  New  Testament.  I  am  far 
 from  wishing  to  deny  their  value  as  a  portion  of  the  attesta¬ 
 tion  given  to  Jesus  as  the  Messiah,  but  this  is  a  very  different 
 thing  from  affirming  that  they  constitute  the  sole  attestation, 
 or  are  absolutely  necessary  to  prove  the  truth  of  His  utter¬ 
 ances.  The  fact  is,  that  neither  abstract  nor  moral  truths 
 can  be  attested  by  miracles,  viewed  merely  as  marvels  or 
 exhibitions  of  power.  As  mere  exhibitions  of  power,  the 
 greatest  miracles  recorded  in  the  Bible  are  transcended  by 
 the  daily  workings  of  God  in  Creation  and  Providence.  If 
 we  cannot  attain  to  the  knowledge  of  certain  truths  by  the 
 use  of  our  reason,  we  can  only  accept  them  on  the  testimony 
 of  a  witness  whom  we  know  to  be  veracious  and  to  possess 
 adequate  means  of  information. 
 
 9 
 
130 
 
 THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OF 
 
 LECTUEE  III. 
 
 “I  am  the  light  of  the  world ;  he  that  followeth  Me  shall  not  walk  in 
 darkness,  but  shall  have  the  light  of  life.”— John  viii.  12. 
 
 Is  this  light  clearly  shining  in  the  spiritual  and  raora. 
 firmament?  Can  we  behold  its  beams?  Do  the  rays  of 
 the  spiritual  Sun  generate  vitality  and  life  in  the  moral 
 World?  These  are  questions  not  of  theory  but  of  fact, 
 which  can  be  verified  in  the  experience  of  the  past  and  of 
 the  present.  The  text  affirms  not  only  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
 the  great  illuminator  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  worlds,  but 
 that  the  light  which  He  emits  communicates  also  a  vital 
 influence.  He  is  the  Light  of  Life.  Such  an  assertion  was 
 a  bold  one,  for  it  removes  His  pretensions  out  of  the  regions 
 of  the  abstract  and  the  theoretical,  and  brings  them  to  the 
 test  of  fact.  If  we  can  discover  neither  in  the  history  of 
 the  past  nor  in  the  facts  of  the  present  clear  and  unmistak¬ 
 able  signs  of  an  illuminating  and  vital  power  issuing  from 
 Jesus  Christ,  then  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  has 
 placed  in  His  mouth  words  which  make  Him  bear  false 
 witness  of  Himself,  and  He  thus  becomes  convicted  of 
 imposture.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  He  has  pioved  during 
 eighteen  centuries  the  great  source  of  man's  spiritual  illu¬ 
 mination,  then  the  writer  has  either  reported  a  true  utter¬ 
 ance  of  Jesus,  or,  if  a  forger,  he  must  have  been  possessed 
 of  a  superhuman  insight  into  the  history  of  the  future. 
 
 This  inference  will  be  equally  certain,  whether  we  accept 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OP  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  131 
 
 the  Gospel  as  the  veritable  work  of  the  Apostle  John,, 
 written  near  the  conclusion  of  the  first  century,  or  adopt 
 the  theory  so  dear  to  modern  unbelievers,  that  it  is  the  pro¬ 
 duction  of  an  unknown  author  some  seventy  or  eighty  years 
 afterwards.  In  either  case  the  assertion  that  an  obscure 
 Jewish  carpenter  would  be  the  great  illuminator  of  the  most 
 civilized  and  energetic  races  of  mankind ;  that  he  would  be 
 the  creator  of  a  new  moral  and  spiritual  life ;  that  he  would 
 indelibly  stamp  the  impress  of  his  action  on  all  the  progres¬ 
 sive  races  of  mankind — nothing,  I  say,  could  have  been 
 more  unlikely  in  the  year  170,  than  that  such  a  saying 
 would  be  realized.  No  human  foresight  could  have  antici¬ 
 pated  the  fact  that  this  obscure  carpenter  would  exert  this 
 mighty  influence  on  history,  and  would  distance  the  com¬ 
 bined  efforts  for  good  of  the  wisest  and  the  best  of  men. 
 Such  an  utterance,  if  made  by  an  ordinary  man,  could  have 
 only  been  attributed  to  madness.  The  question  is.  Have 
 this  and  similar  utterances  which  this  Gospel  has  attributed 
 to  Jesus  been  verified  in  fact?  If  they  have,  not  only  is  the 
 assertion  that  Jesus  is  the  Light  of  the  World,  and  the 
 Light  of  Life,  proved  on  indisputable  evidence  to  be  true, 
 but  the  further  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  a  spirit  of  the 
 profoundest  prophetic  insight  must  have  dwelt  in  Him  who 
 gave  utterance  to  it — or,  in  other  words,  that  it  proves  in 
 Him  the  presence  of  a  superhuman  power. 
 
 The  evidence  that  Jesus  Christ  has  exerted  this  mighty 
 influence,  as  the  illuminator  of  the  world,  and  the  introducer 
 of  a  new  principle  of  moral  and  spiritual  life,  is  so  complete 
 and  overwhelming,  that  I  need  not  further  discuss  it.  It  is 
 written  on  every  page  of  history  from  the  year  315  down¬ 
 wards.*  I  have  pointed  out  its  evidential  value  in  the  last 
 
 *  I  take  the  date  of  the  conversion  of  Constantine  as  the  starting 
 point,  because  it  is  clear  that  from  that  time  to  the  present  Christianity 
 has  been  the  mightiest  influence  which  has  acted  on  the  history  of  the 
 Western  world.  From  that  time  its  action  emerges  into  the  clear 
 light  of  history.  Previously  it  had  been  comparatively  obscure ; 
 Mr.  Lecky’s  observation  is  worthy  of  deep  attention,  that  nothing  is 
 
 9  * 
 
132  THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OF 
 
 Lecture.  Look  at  the  modern  world.  Is  it  not  everywhere 
 present  in  its  institution s,  its  legislation,  its  forms  of 
 thought,  its  morality,  its  language,  and  its  social  life  ?  The 
 unbeliever  cannot  dispute  the  fact  that  the  whole  course  of 
 modern  civilization  has  been  deeply  imbued,  if  it  has  not 
 been  actually  created  by  Christianity.  Let  the  experiment 
 be  tried  of  striking  out  of  the  history  of  the  last  eighteen 
 centuries  every  event  which  has  been  affected  by  its  influ¬ 
 ence,  and  we  shall  empty  our  historical  libraries. 
 
 It  follows  then  that  the  assertion  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
 Light  of  the  World,  and  the  Light  of  Life,  is  not  only  capable 
 of  being  verified  in  the  history  of  the  past,  but  is  visibly 
 receiving  its  accomplishment  before  our  eyes  in  the  facts  of 
 the  present.  What  is  the  inevitable  inference  ?  I  answer : 
 Either  Jesus  Christ  has  been  the  manifestation  of  a  super¬ 
 human  power,  or  all  this  influence  has  been  exerted  by  an 
 obscure  carpenter,  whose  entire  moral  and  intellectual 
 character  must  have  been  fashioned  and  developed  in  the 
 narrow  atmosphere  of  Jewish  thought.  If  it  be  objected 
 that  a  large  portion  of  mankind  are  still  unillumined  by 
 him,  I  reply  that  Christianity  obeys  the  laws  of  the  moral 
 world  in  exerting  an  influence  which  is  slowly  and  gradually 
 progressive,  and  that  its  Founder  distinctly  stated  that  such 
 would  be  its  mode  of  operation.* 
 
 I  now  pass  on  to  consider  the  evidence  afforded  by  the 
 moral  teaching  of  Christianity  to  the  presence  of  a  super¬ 
 human  power  in  Jesus  Christ.  I  will  first  state  the  condi¬ 
 tions  of  the  argument,  and  point  out  what  it  is  valid  to 
 prove. 
 
 more  remarkable  than  the  unconsciousness  of  pagan  writers  of  the 
 second  and  third  centuries  of  the  power  that  was  growing  up  among 
 them,  prior  to  the  hour  of  its  triumph.  This  being  so,  we  need  not 
 wonder  at  the  inconsiderable  notice  it  received  from  the  heathen 
 writers  of  the  first. 
 
 *  This  is  the  idea  which  underlies  those  parables  of  Our  Lord  which 
 draw  their  imagery  from  the  processes  of  nature.  Among  them,  those 
 of  the  sower,  the  wheat  and  the  tares,  the  mustard  seed,  and  the 
 leaven,  stand  out  conspicuously. 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OP  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  133 
 
 First,  I  assume  as  an  established  scientific  truth  that  the 
 forces  which  energize  in  the  moral  world,  act  in  conformity 
 with  moral  laws ;  *  that  the  long  course  of  human  history 
 has  enabled  us  to  ascertain  what  these  forces  are,  and  the 
 laws  of  their  action ;  that  each  successive  stage  of  the  moral 
 world  has  grown  out  of  that  which  preceded  it ;  and  that 
 its  changes  are  not  sudden,  nor  violent,  but  follow  a  law 
 of  gradual  evolution.  This  being  so,  it  follows  that  there 
 are  no  violent  breaks  in  the  developments  of  man ;  but,  on 
 the  contrary,  that  the  entire  atmosphere  of  thought  and 
 feeling  of  any  one  particular  period  has  grown  out  of  that 
 which  preceded  it,  and  has  only  slowly  elevated  itself 
 above  it. 
 
 Such  is  a  brief  statement  of  the  law  of  human  progress, 
 as  confirmed  by  the  universal  voice  of  history,  and  accepted 
 by  modern  philosophy.  It  is  now  an  established  truth  that 
 man  presents  no  great  gaps  in  the  course  of  his  intellectual 
 and  moral  development,  so  long  as  he  is  only  acted  on  by 
 the  forces  which  energize  within  him.f 
 
 *  The  difference  between  the  forces  that  act  in  the  material  and  the 
 moral  Universe  is  precisely  this.  Material  forces  possess  no  power  of 
 self-determination.  Moral  forces  energize  in  a  being  who  possesses  such 
 a  power.  This  we  designate  freedom,  or  free  agency.  Necessitarians, 
 while  denying  its  existence  theoretically,  are  compelled  to  admit  it 
 practically ;  i.e.,  human  nature  is  in  reality  so  constructed,  whatever 
 account  may  be  given  of  its  origin,  that  not  only  is  the  existence  of  a 
 power  of  self-determination  one  of  the  most  certain  facts  of  conscious¬ 
 ness,  but  we  cannot  help  acting  on  it  as  a  practical  truth.  This  power, 
 which  man  is  capable  of  exerting  within  a  limited  sphere,  is  perfectly 
 consistent  with  the  great  truth  that  moral  forces  act  in  conformity 
 with  moral  laws.  Necessitarians  are  constantly  in  the  habit  of  charg¬ 
 ing  their  opponents  with  assuming  positions  which  exclude  law  from 
 the  moral  Universe;  and  that  the  assertion  of  a  self-determining  power 
 in  man  is  equivalent  to  affirming  that  confusion,  not  order,  reigns 
 within  it.  This  subject  is  far  too  large  to  admit  of  discussion  here,  but 
 it  is  not  too  much  to  affirm,  that  such  a  charge  is  simply  a  caricature 
 of  the  views  of  those  who  hold  in  conformity  with  the  principles  of  the 
 inductive  philosophy,  that  self-determination  in  man  is  as  much  a 
 phenomenon  of  the  moral  Universe,  as  the  absence  of  it  is  of  the 
 forces  which  dominate  in  the  material  one. 
 
 f  The  principle  of  production  by  evolution  has  been  looked  upon  by 
 
134  THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OP 
 
 It  has  been  objected  to  this  form  of  the  argument  that 
 the  elevated  moral  teaching  of  Christianity  was  due  to  the 
 lofty  genius  of  J  esus.  To  this  I  reply,  that  history  proves 
 that  no  human  being,  however,  exalted  may  have  been  his 
 genius,  has  been  able  wholly  to  emancipate  himself  from 
 the  conditions  imposed  on  him  by  his  birth,  and  the 
 
 many  with  great  jealousy  as  a  theory  which  is  destructive  of  religion. 
 On  the  value  of  such  theories  as  a  philosophical  account  of  the  origin 
 of  things,  I  would  not  wish  to  express  an  opinion,  as  having  no 
 immediate  bearing  on  the  subject  of  these  Lectures.  In  fact  all  dog¬ 
 matic  assertions  on  this  subject  are  evidently  premature,  as  our  induc¬ 
 tions  are  as  yet  far  too  narrow  to  form  a  firm  foundation  for  a 
 theory  so  vast.  But  viewed  as  an  abstract  question,  there  is  no  more 
 difficulty  in  conceiving  that  the  Creator  has  carried  on  His  work  in 
 conformity  with  some  principle  of  evolution  than  by  that  which  is 
 designated  special  creation.  I  say  this  on  the  supposition  that  the 
 theory  presupposes  an  intelligent  Creator  acting  in  the  forces  of  the 
 Universe  and  moulding  them  to  His  purposes.  Such  theories  are 
 only  dangerous  to  religion  when  they  assume  that  the  results  which 
 we  behold  in  the  Universe  have  been  brought  about  by  the  action  of 
 its  blind  forces  independently  of  the  direction  of  intelligence.  We 
 know  as  a  fact  that  every  existing  man  and  woman  has  been  brought 
 into  existence  by  a  very  complicated  process  of  evolution  through  a 
 long  train  of  ancestry,  yet  this  is  no  hindrance  whatever  to  our 
 acceptance  of  the  great  truth,  “I  believe  in  God  the  Father,  who 
 made  me  and  all  the  world.”  The  outcry  which  has  been  raised 
 against  theories  of  evolution  as  destructive  to  religion  is,  to  say  the 
 least  of  it,  unwise.  But  I  am  here  concerned  with  them  only  as  far 
 as  they  bear  on  the  Christian  argument.  In  this  respect  their  import¬ 
 ance  has  been  far  too  generally  overlooked  by  both  parties  in  the 
 controversy.  If  for  the  sake  of  argument  we  assume  that  things  have 
 been  produced  in  conformity  with  a  principle  of  evolution  (and  it  is 
 important  to  observe  that  this  is  maintained  by  a  great  majority  of 
 unbelievers),  then  it  follows  that  the  principle  of  continuity  in  the 
 development  of  man  must  be  a  great  philosophical  truth ;  and  the 
 existence  of  considerable  intervals  between  its  stages  an  impossibility. 
 As  in  conformity  with  the  principles  laid  down  by  evolutionists, 
 evolution  is  effected  by  a  number  of  small  and  inconsiderable  varia¬ 
 tions,  it  follows  that  it  is  impossible  that  a  man  can  emerge  suddenly 
 as  a  moral  and  intellectual  giant  abo^e  those  surroundings  in  the 
 midst  of  which  he  has  been  born  and  has  drawn  his  entire  moral  and 
 intellectual  nourishment.  This  being  so,  a  theory  of  evolution  inter- 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  135 
 
 moral  and  spiritual  atmosphere  in  which  he  was  educated. 
 While  it  is  true  that  we  are  ignorant  of  the  laws  which  regu¬ 
 late  the  production  of  genius,  and  of  the  precise  extent  of 
 its  action,  yet  the  experience  of  history  renders  it  certain 
 that  there  are  limitations  imposed  on  it  by  its  surroundings, 
 which  it  is  unable  to  transcend.* 
 
 This  being  so,  it  will  follow,  if  there  was  nothing  super¬ 
 poses  an  impenetrable  harrier  against  the  theory  that  Jesns  Christ  and 
 His  mighty  action  on  history  has  been  the  simple  creation  of  the 
 ordinary  forces  energizing  in  man.  The  interval  which  separates  Him 
 not  only  from  his  own  countrymen,  in  the  midst  of  whom  he  was 
 born  and  educated,  but  from  the  greatest  of  men,  is  too  wide  to  be 
 bridged  over  by  any  theory  of  evolution  with  which  philosophy  is 
 acquainted.  In  this  point  of  view  the  theories  propounded  by  modern 
 philosophy  instead  of  weakening,  impart  strength  to  the  Christian 
 argument. 
 
 *  It  may  be  objected  that  I  am  basing  my  argument  on  the  prin¬ 
 ciples  of  the  Necessitarian  philosophy.  I  am  simply  appealing  to  the 
 plain  facts  of  the  moral  world,  which  I  believe  to  be  entirely  consistent 
 with  the  principle  of  self-determination  in  man.  It  is  impossible  to 
 deny  that  the  characters  of  the  majority  of  mankind  are  largely,  though 
 not  exclusively,  formed  by  their  surroundings  ;  and  that  such  as  has 
 been  the  environment,  such  will  be  the  man.  The  power  of  self- 
 determination  is  confined  within  definite  limits  which  it  cannot 
 transcend,  though  it  may  be  able  to  effect  modifications  of  the 
 character  within  those  limits.  The  distinction  between  physical  and 
 moral  law  is  that  the  sequences  of  the  former  are  invariable,  while 
 those  of  the  latter  are  subject  to  modification  by  this  principle,  as  in 
 the  material  Universe  the  action  of  one  force  may  be  controlled  by 
 that  of  another.  Whatever  theory  we  may  hold  on  these  subjects,  it 
 is  our  duty  to  make  it  accord  with  the  facts,  and  not  the  facts  with 
 the  theory.  Nothing  has  been  more  common  in  this  controversy, 
 whenever  unbelievers  are  beset  by  difficulties,  than  to  ascribe  every 
 fact  connected  with  Jesus  which  cannot  be  accounted  for  on  ordinary 
 principles,  to  the  influence  of  genius.  Thus,  in  endeavouring  to  account 
 for  the  mighty  influence  which  He  has  exerted  in  history,  and  for  the 
 elevation  of  His  teaching  and  character,  it  is  found  to  be  a  ready 
 way  of  escape  from  all  difficulties  to  say  that  it  was  due  to  His  exalted 
 genius.  This  however  is  really  equivalent  to  the  admission  that  it  has 
 been  due  to  a  force  for  which  we  are  unable  to  account,  and  that  a 
 power  has  manifested  itself  in  Him  of  a  character  wholly  different 
 from  those  which  energize  in  ordinary  humanity. 
 
136 
 
 THE  CONTKAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OP 
 
 human  in  Jesus  Christ,  and  if  the  forces  which  manifested 
 themselves  in  him  were  nothing  but  the  ordinary  ones  which 
 energize  in  human  nature,  that  the  moral  teaching  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity  must  have  been  a  natural  growth  out  of  that  moral 
 and  spiritual  environment  in  which  he  and  his  Jewish 
 followers  were  born  and  educated,  aided  by  such  influences 
 as  may  have  been  imported  into  it  by  St.  Paul  and  his 
 Grecian  converts.  Consequently,  however  exalted  may 
 have  been  the  genius  of  Jesus,  it  would  only  have  enabled 
 him  to  elevate  himself  above  those  conditions  in  a  way 
 precisely  analogous  to  what  has  been  done  by  other  great 
 men,  of  whom  Mahomet  may  be  cited  as  an  example.  His 
 case  is  one  which  bears  directly  on  my  argument.  I  readily 
 concede  that  he  must  be  numbered  among  the  great  men  of 
 our  race ;  but  the  Koran  makes  it  certain  that  his  genius, 
 great  as  it  was,  was  unable  to  break  through  the  conditions 
 imposed  on  him  by  his  birth,  his  education,  and  his  sur¬ 
 roundings.  Its  whole  teaching  bears  the  strongest  impress 
 of  the  Arab  mind,  and  proves  that  the  prophet  was  unable 
 to  free  himself  from  the  conditions  which  it  imposed  on 
 him.  The  same  truth  is  borne  witness  to  by  all  the  other 
 great  teachers  of  mankind.  The  peculiarities  of  the  moral 
 and  spiritual  atmosphere  which  they  breathed  are  indelibly 
 impressed  on  their  respective  systems.  All  are  national,  and 
 local ;  Jesus  Christ  alone  is  catholic  as  humanity. 
 
 From  these  principles  I  draw  the  following  conclu¬ 
 sions  : 
 
 First.  If  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  clearly  transcends 
 the  limits  imposed  on  him  by  his  birth  and  surroundings,  it 
 proves  the  existence  in  him  of  a  force  different  from  those 
 which  energize  in  ordinary  humanity. 
 
 Secondly.  If  the  moral  teaching  of  Christianity,  taken  as 
 a  whole,  not  only  transcends  that  of  the  great  teachers  of 
 the  ancient  world,  but  solves  problems,  of  which,  while  they 
 recognized  the  importance,  they  found  the  solution  im¬ 
 possible,  it  proves  that  it  cannot  have  originated  in  that 
 hot-bed  of  fanaticism  and  credulity  which  unbelievers 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OP  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  137 
 
 are  obliged  to  attribute  to  the  followers  of  Jesus  in 
 order  to  impart  plausibility  to  the  theories  they  have 
 propounded  to  account  for  the  belief  in  His  resurrection 
 from  the  dead. 
 
 I  shall  assume  as  one  of  the  bases  of  this  argument  the 
 position  which  is  taken  by  a  large  number  of  my  opponents,1* 
 that  the  Jewish  race,  during  the  century  which  preceded 
 and  that  which  followed  the  advent,  were  to  the  last  degree 
 
 *  I  accept  the  positions  laid  down  by  unbelievers  on  this  subject 
 for  the  purposes  of  the  argument,  though  there  can  be  no  doubt  that 
 they  can  only  be  received  with  considerable  modifications.  They  have 
 freely  attributed  to  the  Jewish  mind  at  the  period  of  the  advent  an 
 enormous  amount  of  credulity  and  superstition  for  the  purpose  of 
 enabling  them  to  give  something  like  a  plausible  account  of  the 
 miraculous  narratives  contained  in  the  Gospels,  and  above  all,  of  the 
 belief  in  the  Eesurrection.  In  taking  this  course  it  does  not  seem  to 
 have  occurred  to  them  that  just  in  proportion  as  they  heap  on  the 
 primitive  Christians  this  charge  of  credulity  and  superstition,  they 
 increase  the  difficulty  of  accounting  for  the  moral  teaching  of  the 
 Hew  Testament  as  the  natural  product  of  such  a  soil.  Besides,  if  the 
 entire  environment  of  Jesus  was  such  a  mass  of  credulity  and  super¬ 
 stition  as  they  assume,  no  amount  of  genius  could  have  wholly 
 freed  him  from  its  influences  ;  for  we  know  as  a  matter  of  fact 
 that  even  the  greatest  of  men  have  shared  in  the  credulity  and  super¬ 
 stition  of  their  age.  Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  an  elevated 
 system  of  moral  teaching,  which  embodies  a  wide  catholicity  of 
 spirit,  cannot  be  the  natural  product  of  a  soil  which  is  deeply 
 impregnated  with  these  qualities.  It  follows  therefore  that  the  more 
 certainly  it  can  be  proved  that  such  was  the  moral  and  spiritual 
 atmosphere  of  the  primitive  followers  of  Jesus,  the  stronger  will  be 
 the  evidence  that  the  moral  teaching  of  the  Hew  Testament  is  not  of 
 their  creation.  The  evidence  that  their  credulity  exceeded  that  of 
 the  average  of  mankind  hopelessly  breaks  down  when  tested  by  the 
 facts  of  history — it  is,  in  short,  an  hypothesis  which  has  been  invented 
 to  support  a  theory — still,  in  arguing  with  unbelievers,  I  am  fully 
 entitled  to  the  benefit  of  their  own  assumptions,  especially  as  their 
 reasonings  against  the  truth  of  the  Eesurrection  owe  all  their  plausi¬ 
 bility  to  them.  But  the  evidence  of  the  narrow-mindedness  and 
 exclusive  bigotry  of  the  Jews  of  this  period  rests  on  a  firm  historical 
 foundation  ;  and  this  fact  is  alone  sufficient  to  support  the  weight  of 
 the  argument. 
 
138 
 
 THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OF 
 
 exclusive,  fanatical,  and  superstitious;  and  tliat  in  an  atmo¬ 
 sphere  of  this  kind  Jesus  and  his  disciples  must  have  been 
 born  and  educated ;  and  that  a  corresponding  character  was 
 deeply  impressed  on  his  early  followers.  So  much  was  this 
 the  case,  that  in  the  opinion  of  so  profound  a  thinker  as 
 Mr.  Mill  it  is  simply  incredible  that  the  discourses  attributed 
 to  him  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels  can  have  been  invented  by 
 the  Evangelists,  or  even  by  the  Apostle  Paul.  This  being  so, 
 it  is  surprising  that  he  did  not  ask  himself  the  question. 
 Whence  did  this  man  get  all  this  wisdom  ?  instead  of  con¬ 
 tenting  himself  with  a  vague  platitude  about  the  genius  of 
 the  prophet  of  Nazareth.* 
 
 Further  :  it  will  be  quite  unnecessary  for  the  purposes  of 
 this  argument  to  maintain  that  a  large  amount  of  moral 
 truth  has  not  been  discovered  by  maiFs  unassisted  reason. 
 Many  persons  have  argued  on  the  principle  that  the  more 
 they  can  detract  from  reason,  the  more  they  strengthen 
 Revelation.  Such  a  position  is  however  utterly  unsound. 
 
 *  On  the  other  hand  another  class  of  unbelievers  endeavour  to 
 prove  that  a  considerable  number  of  the  moral  precepts  in  the  Gospels 
 were  the  current  sayings  of  Jewish  doctors,  who  were  Our  Lord’s 
 contemporaries.  The  sole  authority  for  this  is  the  Talmud,  one 
 portion  of  which,  the  Mishna,  was  not  committed  to  writing  before 
 a.d.  180  at  the  earliest ;  and  the  other,  the  Gemara,  about  a.d.  500. 
 This  being  the  case,  it  is  impossible  to  say  how  far  any  of  its  sayings 
 accurately  represent  the  teaching  of  Our  Lord’s  contemporaries,  or 
 whether  they  may  not  have  been  borrowed  from  Christian  sources. 
 These  writers  display  an  unbounded  trust  in  tradition  when  it  can  be 
 used  as  a  weapon  against  Christianity,  and  an  equal  distrust  in  it 
 when  it  makes  in  its  favour.  They  also  forget  to  inform  their  readers, 
 that  these  moral  gems  which  are  scattered  over  twelve  folio  volumes 
 are  entombed  in  a  mass  of  contemptible  trivialities  and  hair-splittings 
 about  questions  of  which  not  a  single  vestige  can  be  found  in  the 
 pages  of  the  Gospels.  All  the  evidence  of  which  we  are  in  possession 
 tends  to  prove  that  J ewish  teaching  in  Our  Lord’s  time  had  fully 
 entered  on  that  course  of  casuistry  of  which  the  Talmud  is  the  con¬ 
 summation,  and  of  which  the  moral  teaching  of  Christianity  is  the 
 absolute  contrast.  But  as  I  shall  show,  objections  cf  this  kind,  even 
 if  they  had  all  the  value  which  has  been  attributed  to  them  by  those 
 who  have  adduced  them,  leave  the  real  point  of  issue  untouched. 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  139 
 
 To  assert  the  inability  of  reason  to  discover  moral  truth,  is 
 not  only  to  contradict  the  most  unquestionable  facts ;  but 
 it  is  equivalent  to  the  denial  that  man  possesses  a  moral 
 nature ;  for  if  he  does,  the  discovery  of  a  large  amount  of 
 moral  truth  must  be  possible.  To  adopt  this  course  is  in 
 fact  to  sacrifice  one  of  our  strongest  arguments.  On  the 
 contrary,  my  position  is,  that  as  far  as  portions  of  the  teach¬ 
 ing  of  the  New  Testament  are  in  agreement  with  that  of  the 
 most  enlightened  teachers  of  the  ancient  world,  it  proves 
 that  the  persons  by  whom  it  has  been  elaborated  must  have 
 been  emancipated  from  the  narrow-mindedness  of  the  Jew 
 of  the  Apostolic  age;  and  consequently  that  it  could  not 
 have  been  evolved  by  any  natural  process  out  of  such  a 
 moral  and  intellectual  atmosphere.  Further;  if  Jewish 
 peasants  and  fishermen  have  succeeded  in  accomplishing 
 what  all  the  masters  of  ancient  thought,  after  all  their 
 efforts,  failed  to  effect,  it  proves  the  presence  in  Christianity 
 of  an  insight  which  is  more  than  human. 
 
 It  has  been  objected  against  this  line  of  reasoning,  that 
 some  of  the  moral  precepts  which  are  contained  in  the  New 
 Testament  can  be  found  elsewhere;*  and  that  if  reason  can 
 
 *  Of  the  first  of  these  objections  we  have  some  remarkable 
 examples  in  Mr.  Buckle’s  History  of  Civilization.  He  not  only 
 charges  the  writers  of  the  N ew  Testament  with  borrowing  largely 
 from  heathen  sources,  but  he  goes  the  length  of  affirming  that  it  is  a 
 fact  well  known  to  every  scholar  that  several  of  its  most  elevated 
 moral  precepts  are  quotations  from  heathen  authors.  When  we  con¬ 
 sider  that  the  quotations  from  such  sources  are  only  three  in  number, 
 it  is  incomprehensible  how  a  man  of  Mr.  Buckle’s  extensive  erudition 
 can  have  committed  so  extraordinary  a  blunder.  I  am  aware  that  it 
 has  been  inferred  from  some  passages  in  St.  Paul’s  writings  that  he 
 was  acquainted  with  the  Greek  tragedians.  But  of  this  the  evidence 
 amounts  to  little,  or  nothing.  Nothing  can  be  more  absurd  than  to 
 affirm,  because  two  sets  of  writings  contain  a  few  moral  precepts  which 
 bear  a  close  affinity  to  one  another,  that  the  one  must  have  been 
 derived  from  the  other,  when  the  resemblance  can  be  sufficiently 
 accounted  for  by  the  fact  that  both  writers  drew  from  the  dictates  of 
 that  moral  nature  which  is  common  to  man.  The  bare  perusal  of 
 St.  Paul’s  epistles  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  convince  any  reader  of  the 
 
140  THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OF 
 
 discover  moral  truth,  a  revelation  is  unnecessary.  But  how, 
 
 I  would  ask,  can  the  fact  that  some  of  its  precepts  are  to  be 
 found  scattered  up  and  down  in  detached  aphorisms,  m  the 
 writings  of  ancient  moralists,  be  valid  against  its  originality 
 taken  as  a  whole  ?  The  objection  would  only  have  weight, 
 if  some  one  of  them  had  succeeded  in  elaborating  its  entire 
 system.  Nor  does  it  follow,  that  because  reason  can  dis¬ 
 cover  a  considerable  amount  of  moral  truth,  it  can  discover 
 all  that  is  necessary  for  the  well-being  of  man.  But  above 
 all,  it  is  founded  on  the  assumption  that  the  chief  end  and 
 aim  of  Christianity  is  to  propound  a  body  of  ethical  truth, 
 instead  of  what  it  affirms  to  be  its  great  purpose,  namely,  to 
 communicate  to  man  a  great  moral  and  spiritual  power  of 
 which  he  was  previously  destitute.  The  real  point  for  our 
 investigation  is,  Are  there  specialities  in  Christianity,  which 
 all  the  wisdom  of  the  ancient  world  was  unable  to  discover  ? 
 
 vast  difference  between  his  teaching,  taken  as  a  whole,  and  the  entire 
 system  of  Pagan  ethics  ;  nor  can  the  smallest  trace  of  such  an  influence 
 he  found  in  that  of  Jesus  Christ.  But  Mr.  Buckle,  in  common  with 
 nearly  every  unbeliever  who  has  touched  on  the  moral  teaching  of 
 Christianity,  persistently  ignores  the  fact  that  the  most  striking  c  a- 
 racteristic  of  the  teaching  of  the  ISiew  Testament  consists  in  its  bringing 
 the  principle  of  faith  to  bear  on  the  human  mind  as  a  great  moral  and 
 spiritual  power  In  fact  they  habitually  speak  of  it  as  a  mere  system 
 of  ethical  doctrine.  Of  the  second  objection,  the  writings  of  Mr.  k .  VV. 
 Newman  contain  many  remarkable  examples.  He  has  even  gone 
 the  length  of  affirming  that  a  revelation  of  moral  truth  is  an  impos¬ 
 sibility.  In  giving  utterance  to  such  a  paradox,  he  has  laid  himself 
 open  to  a  severe  retort  which  constitutes  in  fact  its  best  refutation. 
 As  a  writer  on  moral  subjects  it  is  clear  that  he  must  consider  himself 
 able  to  impart  information  to  those  who  are  less  informed  than  him¬ 
 self ;  or  in  other  words,  that  he  has  some  revelation  of  moral  truth  to 
 impart  to  them.  Hence  it  follows,  if  his  views  are  correct,  that  what 
 is  impossible  to  God  is  possible  to  himself.  Numerous  affirmations 
 made  by  both  these  writers  constitute  a  remarkable  proof  that  high 
 mental  powers  form  no  safeguard  against  the  blinding  effects  of 
 inveterate  prejudices.  Of  this  a  short  work  of  the  latter  entitled 
 On  the  Defective  Morality  of  the  New  Testament ,  forms  a  singular 
 example,  the  blunders  in  reasoning  being  such  that  if  it  did  not  bear 
 the  author’s  name  on  the  title-page,  it  would  have  been  scarcely 
 credible  that  it  could  be  the  product  of  his  pen. 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OP  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  141 
 
 Does  it  bring  to  bear  on  man's  moral  being  a  regenerating 
 power,  of  the  want  of  which  the  philosopher  was  deeply 
 conscious,  but  which  his  philosophy  was  unable  to  supply  ? 
 If  so,  the  peasants  of  Galilee  have  distanced  the  results 
 effected  by  all  the  great  teachers  of  the  ancient  world. 
 Such  are  the  conditions  of  the  argument. 
 
 II.  We  must  now  inquire  in  what  does  the  moral  teaching 
 of  the  New  Testament  consist.  It  naturally  separates  itself 
 into  three  divisions. 
 
 First :  a  body  of  special  precepts  in  a  very  unsystematic 
 form,  which  were  called  forth  for  the  purpose  of  meeting 
 the  particular  emergencies  of  those  to  whom  they  were 
 addressed ;  but  with  no  pretensions  to  constitute  a  body  of 
 ethical  doctrines  applicable  to  all  time. 
 
 Secondly  :  a  number  of  principles  which  form  the  founda¬ 
 tion  of  all  moral  obligation,  and  are  as  catholic  as  humanity 
 itself,  embracing  every  conceivable  form  of  duty  in  their 
 all-comprehensive  range. 
 
 Thirdly  :  its  chief  specialty  consists  in  the  revelation  of 
 a  mighty  moral  and  spiritual  power  which  is  intended  to 
 render  obedience  to  the  moral  law  a  possibility;  to  elevate 
 the  holy  to  higher  degrees  of  holiness,  to  rescue  those  whose 
 powers  of  self-control  are  weak  from  the  violence  of  their 
 passions ;  and  to  recover  from  their  degradation  those  who 
 have  fallen  into  a  state  of  moral  corruption.  This  principle 
 is  the  power  of  faith  in  its  action  on  the  moral  nature 
 of  man ;  and  forms  the  great  characteristic  by  which  the 
 teaching  of  the  New  Testament  is  distinguished  from  every 
 other  system. 
 
 III.  The  following  are  the  chief  points  in  which  the 
 teaching  of  the  New  Testament  is  most  strikingly  contrasted 
 with  that  of  the  philosophers ;  and  in  which  its  authors  have 
 transcended  all  the  great  masters  of  ancient  thought  in  their 
 deep  insight  into  the  realities  of  things. 
 
 First  Contrast.  Its  earnestness,  method,  and  aim. 
 
 The  first  thing  which  strikes  every  reader  is  the  intense 
 
142  THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OE 
 
 earnestness  and  reality  of  its  teaching.  He  feels  himself 
 brought  into  contact  with  a  power  whose  aim  is,  not  to 
 enunciate  a  mere  set  of  rules  for  the  regulation  of  life  or  to 
 write  disquisitions  on  the  grounds  of  moral  obligation,  but 
 to  bring  men  into  subjection  to  the  moral  law.  In  sti  iking 
 contrast  to  this  was  the  teaching  of  philosophy..  A  large 
 portion  of  its  attention  was  directed  to  the  investigation  of 
 the  grounds  of  moral  obligation.  These  Christianity  assumes 
 as  testified  to  by  the  conscience,  and  therefore  sufficiently 
 known.  It  accepts  the  moral  nature  of  man  as  a  fact,  and 
 assumes  that  every  one  of  its  primary  principles  has  a 
 legitimate  sphere  of  action  in  its  proper  place.  This  has 
 imparted  to  its  teaching  a  catholicity  which  is  to  be  found 
 in  no  other  system.  Thus,  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  the 
 practice  of  holiness,  it  appeals  to  every  principle  which  acts 
 mightily  on  human  nature.  It  addresses  itself  to  the  love 
 of  God,  to  the  love  of  Christ,  to  the  principle  of  benevolence 
 in  man,  to  his  self-love,  to  his  perception  of  moral  beanty, 
 to  his  sense  of  truth,  to  his  love  of  justice,  to  his  apprecia¬ 
 tion  of  the  honourable,  his  sense  of  self-respect,  his  love  of 
 approbation,  and  even  to  his  desire  of  praise.*  These  last 
 principles  are  deeply  implanted  in  human  nature ;  and 
 instead  of  denouncing  them  as  unhallowed  or  ignoble,  it 
 appeals  to  every  one  of  them  as  holding  a  legitimate  place 
 in  man's  moral  constitution. 
 
 Striking  is  the  contrast  between  this  and  the  course 
 which  has  been  pursued  by  a  large  number  of  systematic 
 moralists.  They  have  occupied  themselves  in  endeavouring 
 to  ascertain  a  number  of  abstract  questions  respecting  the 
 nature  of  moral  obligation ;  as,  for  example,  whether  regard 
 for  others  or  rational  self-love  constitutes  the  fundamental 
 
 #  No  less  that  seven  of  these  principles  are  appealed  to  by  St.  Paul 
 in  one  single  passage,  as  incentives  to  holiness.  “  Finally,  brethren, 
 whatsoever  things  are  true ;  whatsoever  things  are  honest  {estiva)  ; 
 whatsoever  things  are  just ;  whatsoever  things  are  pure;  whatsoever 
 things  are  lovely  ;  whatsoever  things  are  of  good  report ;  if  there  be 
 any  virtue,  if  there  be  any  praise,  think  on  these  things."—  (I  ml. 
 
 iv.  8.) 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  143 
 
 principle  of  virtue;  and  according  as  they  have  deter¬ 
 mined  in  favour  of  one  or  the  other,  they  have  elaborated 
 systems  based  on  partial  principles,  and  in  disregard  of 
 some  of  the  great  realities  of  man's  moral  constitution.* 
 This  is  also  the  case  with  several  of  our  modern  systems. 
 Some  of  the  ancient  ones  in  this  respect  even  displayed  a 
 spirit  of  fanaticism,  and  preached  the  uprooting  of  some  of 
 the  fundamental  principles  of  our  moral  constitution  as  a 
 duty.  Other  defects  inherent  in  their  method  have  stamped 
 them  with  an  impress  which  is  partial,  national,  and  local. 
 The  New  Testament,  on  the  contrary,  embraces  all  its 
 
 ^  Such  has  been  the  course  taken,  by  systematizers  in  every  age,  to 
 concentrate  the  mind  on  one  or  two  motives  as  correct  principles  of 
 action,  and  to  ignore  all  others,  however  deeply  seated  they  may  be 
 in  the  moral  nature  of  man.  Thus  those,  who  hare  taken  a  narrow 
 view  of  Christianity  have  affirmed  that  the  only  motive  which  ought 
 to  influence  the  Christian  is  the  love  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  that  for  a 
 Christian  to  act  on  any  inferior  motive,  such  as  the  desire  of  approba¬ 
 tion,  or  the  love  of  praise,  would  be  almost  sinful.  The  love  of  Christ 
 is  undoubtedly  the  highest  motive  appealed  to  by  Christianity ;  but 
 while  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  habitually  place  this  in  the 
 forefront,  they  appeal  to  every  principle  in  man’s  moral  constitution 
 which  can  be  enlisted  in  the  service  of  holiness.  Thus  St.  Paul  urges 
 the  forwardness  of  other  Churches  in  making  contributions  to  relieve 
 the  poverty  of  the  Church  in  J udaea  as  a  motive  to  provoke  the  Corin¬ 
 thians  to  additional  liberality.  Sectarianism  would  pronounce  such  a 
 motive  unworthy  to  regulate  the  conduct  of  Christian  men.  St.  Paul, 
 however,  recognizes  the  fact  that  every  principle  in  man’s  moral  nature 
 has  a  legitimate  sphere  of  action ;  and  in  so  doing,  he  shows  a  com¬ 
 prehensiveness  of  view  wholly  foreign  to  the  enthusiast  or  the  fanatic. 
 A  similar  exclusiveness  has  been  often  exhibited  by  philosophy.  The 
 principle  of  self-love  is  one  which  is  deeply  seated  in  human  nature, 
 and  as  such,  it  claims  to  occupy  a  suitable  place  in  the  philosophy  of 
 man..  But  a  well-known  school  denounces  the  appeal  to  it  as  a 
 pi  inciple  of  action,  and  affirms  that  an  elevated  system  of  morality 
 must  be  founded  on  absolute  benevolence.  Yet  Jesus  Christ  has 
 repeatedly  appealed  to  enlightened  self-love  as  a  principle  of  action. 
 Thus  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  by  recognizing  every  prin¬ 
 ciple  of  man  s  moral  nature  in  its  proper  subordination,  have  shown 
 themselves  alike  free  from  the  exclusiveness  of  sectarianism  and 
 philosophy. 
 
144  THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OF 
 
 principles  within  its  comprehensive  range,  and  is  as  catholic 
 as  human  nature.  What  is  the  necessary  inference  ?  It 
 is  this :  that  from  whatever  source  its  teaching  has  been 
 derived,  it  is  impossible  that  it  can  have  been  developed  by 
 any  natural  process  of  evolution  out  of  that  hot-bed  of 
 narrow-minded  bigotry  which  unbelievers  affirm  to  have 
 constituted  the  moral  and  spiritual  atmosphere  which  was 
 breathed  by  Jesus  and  His  early  followers.  To  attribute 
 such  a  result  to  the  genius  of  Jesus  is  to  allow  that  it 
 cannot  be  accounted  for  by  the  action  of  any  of  the  known 
 forces  energizing  in  man. 
 
 Second  Contrast.  The  freedom  of  Christianity  from  all 
 
 attempts  at  political  legislation. 
 
 A  very  remarkable  contrast  between  the  teaching  of 
 Christianity  and  that  of  philosophy  is  presented  to  us  in  that 
 the  former  is  entirely  free  from  all  attempts  to  deal  with 
 either  political  or  social  questions.  The  universal  practice 
 of  the  great  philosophers  of  the  ancient  world  was  precisely 
 the  reverse.  With  them  moral  questions  invariably  assumed 
 a  political  aspect;  Ethics  were  in  fact  a  branch  of  politics. 
 The  reason  of  this  is  obvious.  Their  only  hope  for  the 
 regeneration  of  man  was  based  on  the  creation  of  sound 
 political  and  social  institutions,  by  means  of  which  men 
 might  be  trained  to  virtue.  Hence  they  thought  it  necessary 
 to  sketch  an  ideal  republic,  which  never  became  an  actual 
 one.  The  Jew  on  the  contrary,  who  knew  nothing  of 
 philosophy,  was  filled  with  the  profoundest  reverence  for  the 
 Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament.  Not  only  did  these  pro¬ 
 pound  a  system  of  political  legislation  as  of  divine  authority , 
 but  the  teaching  of  the  prophets  is  addressed  to  Israel,  not 
 in  an  individual,  but  in  a  corporate  or  political  capacity. 
 Surely  if  the  teaching  of  Christianity  had  been  the  mere 
 natural  outcome  of  either  Jewish  or  Gentile  thought,  this 
 striking  feature  would  not  have  been  entirely  wanting. 
 
 But  what  is  still  more  remarkable,  the  great  Teacher 
 professed  to  be  the  founder  of  a  kingdom;  yet  His  abstinence 
 from  political  and  social  questions  is  total :  the  kingdom 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OR  THE  PHILOSOPHERS  145 
 
 which  He  set  up  was  different  in  character  from  everything 
 which  had  existed  in  the  past,  being  exclusively  based 
 on  conviction  and  persuasion.  Yet  it  has  existed  in 
 full  vigour  for  eighteen  centuries ;  and  during  this  long 
 interval  of  time  not  a  single  attempt  to  erect  another 
 on  the  same  principles  has  proved  successful.  Jesus 
 Christ  alone  at  one  single  bound  has  passed  from  the 
 political,  the  formal,  and  the  ritual,  to  the  individual, 
 the  spiritual  and  the  moral.  The  one  single  sentence  of 
 His  teaching  which  bears  a  political  aspect,  Render  to 
 Caesar  the  things  that  are  Caesar’s,  and  to  God  the  things 
 that  are  God’s/’  has  for  ever  emancipated  the  conscience 
 from  the  control  of  the  State,  assigning  to  each  their 
 respective  limits,  and  establishing  for  ever  the  liberty  of  the 
 individual.* 
 
 I  need  not  draw  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
 presence  of  a  body  of  political  and  social  legislation  in 
 the  Koran  constitutes  the  rock  on  which  Mahomedanism 
 is  being  hopelessly  shipwrecked  before  our  eyes,  and  utterly 
 unfits  it  for  being  the  religion  of  humanity.  Is  it  possible, 
 I  ask,  that  any  one  who  was  born  and  educated  under  the 
 influences  by  which  Jesus  was  surrounded  could  have 
 rigidly  excluded  all  political  and  social  questions  from  his 
 
 *  It  has  often  been  objected  that  St.  Paul  has  taught  the  doctrine 
 of  non-resistance  to  Governments,  however  tyrannical  they  may  be. 
 (Rom.  xiii.  1-9.)  This  objection  has  arisen  from  a  disregard  of  the 
 important  principle  that  the  precepts  in  the  Epistles,  in  the  special 
 form  in  which  they  are  there  enunciated,  are  not  portions  of  a  moral 
 code,  binding  for  all  time,  but  were  called  forth  by  the  special  circum¬ 
 stances  of  those  to  whom  they  were  addressed.  The  J ewish  element 
 in  the  Church  was  always  turbulent,  and  by  such  persons  the  doctrine 
 of  the  Kingdom  of  God  easily  admitted  of  being  perverted  into  a 
 treasonable  principle  against  pagan  Governments,  and  thus  compro¬ 
 mising  the  Church  as  a  political  institution.  Hence  it  became  necessary 
 that  the  Apostle  should  carefully  guard  against  this  danger,  which  was 
 so  far  real  that  the  Roman  Government,  only  a  short  time  previously, 
 had  made  it  the  pretext  for  expelling  all  Jews,  and  doubtless  the 
 Christians  among  them,  from  the  city.  Hence  in  the  peculiar  circum¬ 
 stances  of  the  Roman  Church  these  precepts  of  the  Apostle  against 
 
 10 
 
146  THE  contrast  retween  the  teaching  op 
 
 teaching  ?  With  the  experience  of  the  past  before  him, 
 would  any  amount  of  foresight  have  enabled  him  to  guess 
 that  if  he  had  prescribed  a  body  of  political  legislation, 
 the  consequences  would  have  been  fatal  to  his  religion, 
 and  would  have  caused  the  ruin  of  that  kingdom  which 
 it  was  his  purpose  to  establish  ?  Mr.  Mill  considers  the 
 moral  teaching  of  Christianity  defective  because  it  dwells 
 so  little  on  public  duties  and  public  virtues .*  Such  an 
 opinion  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  when  we  consider  that 
 the  whole  school  of  thought  to  which  he  belongs  place 
 their  hopes  of  man^s  future  regeneration  on  improving  his 
 condition  politically  and  socially,  rather  than  by  acting  on 
 his  conscience  and  his  heart.  This  most  remarkable  absti¬ 
 nence  from  entering  on  questions  of  this  description  I  claim 
 to  be  a  striking  proof  that  the  Founder  of  Christianity 
 possessed  an  insight  which  must  have  raised  Him  above  all 
 the  trammels  imposed  on  Him  by  His  birth  and  His  sur¬ 
 roundings,  in  that  while  He  has  kept  clear  of  all  political  and 
 social  questions.  He  has  been  able  to  enforce  all  the  duties 
 which  they  demand  in  the  all-comprehensive  principle  of 
 self-sacrifice  rendered  to  Himself.  If  He  had  pursued  the 
 course  which  many  eminent  moderns  would  have  suggested 
 to  Him,  and  commenced  his  work  of  regenerating  mankind, 
 not  by  appealing  to  the  conscience  of  the  individual,  but  by 
 
 political  turbulence  are  peculiarly  appropriate.  In  them  he  lays  down 
 that  civil  government  is  a  divine  ordinance,  and  consequently  civil 
 obedience  a  duty  which  must  be  conscientiously  rendered  by  the 
 Christian.  He  then  decides  the  question  which  the  Jews  were  con¬ 
 stantly  raising  as  to  the  lawfulness  of  paying  taxes  to  heathen  Govern¬ 
 ments,  and  affirms  that  it  is  a  Christian  duty  to  do  so  on  the  grouud 
 that  the  end  of  all  government  is  the  protection  of  the  individual,  and 
 that  this  was  the  divine  purpose  in  its  institution.  It  is  quite  true 
 that  the  Apostle  has  given  no  precept  as  to  what  is  the  duty  of 
 Christians  when  Governments  fail  in  the  discharge  of  this  their  proper 
 function.  If  he  had  done  so,  he  must  have  converted  his  epistle  into  a 
 political  treatise,  and  incurred  the  danger  which  under  the  existing 
 circumstances  of  the  Church  he  wished  to  avoid.  (See  also  p.  156, 
 
 note.) 
 
 *  Essay  on  Liberty. 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OP  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  147 
 
 addressing  Himself  to  the  external,  the  social,  and  the 
 
 political,  Christianity  would  never  have  survived  the  centurv 
 that  gave  it  birth.*  J 
 
 It  will  perhaps  be  urged  that  the  far-seeing  genius  of 
 esus  enabled  Him  thus  to  penetrate  into  the  realities  of  the 
 distant  future.  But  genius  can  only  act  in  conformity  with 
 the  laws  of  our  intellectual  and  moral  being.  If  therefore 
 Jesus  was  a  genius  after  the  model  of  other  great  men,  and 
 nothing  more,  all  this  profound  insight  must  have  been 
 generated  in  the  solitary  musings  of  a  Jew,  whose  moral 
 and  spiritual  surroundings  were  the  atmosphere  of  narrow 
 
 ™  m  wkcl1  Christianity  deals  with  the  great  social 
 
 ques  ion  of  Slavery  is  a  remarkable  instance  of  the  profound  wisdom 
 which  dwelt  in  the  authors  of  the  New  Testament.  Many  modem 
 writers  would  have  had  Our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  denounce  it  as  an 
 unha  lowed  institution.  What  would  have  been  the  consequences  if 
 ley  had  done  so .  It  would  have  brought  down  the  whole  weight 
 of  the  Homan  Government  on  the  Church  as  a  political  society  whose 
 object  was  to  subvert  the  existing  order  of  things,  and  thus  have 
 caused  its  speedy  extinction.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  an  anti-slavery 
 propaganda  had  been  instituted,  and  any  amount  of  success  had 
 attended  its  efforts,  which  in  the  then  condition  of  society  was  in  tho 
 highest  degree  improbable,  the  result  would  have  been  a  war  of 
 classes ;  and  we  know  as  a  matter  of  fact  that  the  previous  revolts  of 
 e  s  aves  had  been  attended  with  one  result  only,  the  production  of  a 
 frightful  amount  of  human  misery,  and  the  more  firmly  riveting  their 
 chains.  The  course  taken  by  Christianity  in  dealing  with  this  great 
 evil  has  been  very  different  from  that  which  modern  theorizers  would 
 have  suggested,  but  it  has  been  an  effectual  one.  Instead  of  a  number 
 of  precepts  directly  aimed  at  Slavery,  it  has  laid  down  certain  great 
 principles  of  duty  obligatory  towards  all  men,  with  the  practice  of 
 which  the  existence  of  Slavery  is  impossible.  These  have  gradually 
 leavened  tue  whole  atmosphere  of  thought,  and  after  a  long  and  severe 
 Struggle,  Slavery  has  become  extinct  in  every  nation  which  professes 
 Christianity  In  this  manner  it  has  far  more  effectually  crushed  the 
 evil  than  if  it  had  openly  declared  war  against  it  as  a  social  institution. 
 Other  social  evils  will  share  the  same  fate  in  proportion  as  its  great 
 principles  gradually  leaven  the  entire  lump  of  humanity.  Nothin  v  can 
 afford  a  stronger  proof  that  Christianity  has  not  been  the  invention  of 
 a  number  of  credulous  fanatics  than  the  wisdom  it  has  shown  in  dealim 
 witli  these  and  kindred  questions. 
 
 10* 
 
148  THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OP 
 
 exclusiveness,  and  wlio  perished  at  the  early  age  of  thirty- 
 four.  We  may  call  this  genius,  if  we  please,  but  it  must  be 
 one  which  manifests  the  presence  of  the  superhuman. 
 
 Third  Contrast.  The  teaching  of  Christianity  has  founded 
 
 the  religion  of  humanity. 
 
 I  adduce  from  the  Fourth  Gospel  another  instance  of  the 
 profound  insight  which  must  have  dwelt  in  the  Author  of 
 Christianity,  or  whoever  put  into  His  mouth  the  saying  by 
 which  He  has  enthroned  religion  in  the  centre  of  man’s  moral 
 and  spiritual  being.  The  utterance  to  which  I  allude,  is  the 
 great  utterance  made  to  the  woman  of  Samaria,  Woman, 
 believe  me,  the  hour  is  coming  when  ye  shall  neither  in  this 
 mountain  nor  yet  at  Jerusalem  worship  the  Father.  .  .  . 
 
 But  the  hour  cometh  and  now  is,  when  the  true  worshippers 
 shall  worship  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth,  for  the 
 Father  seeketh  such  to  worship  Him.  God  is  a  Spirit ;  and 
 they  that  worship  Him  must  worship  Him  in  Spirit  and  in 
 truth.”  (John  iv.  21,  24.) 
 
 Mr.  Mill  has  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  utterances 
 which  the  author  of  this  Gospel  has  put  into  the  mouth  of 
 Jesus  (and  he  makes  no  exception  in  favour  of  the  one  before 
 us),  are  “  poor  stuff.”  It  was  only  in  conformity  with  the 
 principles  of  his  philosophy,  and  of  the  atmosphere  of 
 thought  in  which  he  was  nurtured  from  his  earliest  years, 
 that  he  should  have  been  incapable  of  appreciating  their 
 insight  and  their  depth.  M.  Benan,  however,  affirms  that  in 
 this  utterance  Jesus  has  for  ever  laid  deep  the  foundations 
 of  the  religion  of  humanity.  Can  there  be  any  doubt,  with 
 respect  to  this  great  saying,  that  an  overwhelming  majoiity 
 of  deep  thinkers  will  confirm  his  verdict?  No  such  piofound 
 utterance  had  up  to  this  time  passed  the  lips  of  man. 
 
 What  then  are  the  facts  before  us  ?  J esus,  or  the  author 
 of  this  Gospel,  who  has  put  the  saying  into  His  mouth,  must 
 have  been  possessed  of  an  insight  so  profound  as  to  have 
 broken  through  all  the  conditions  of  his  environment,  and  in 
 three  short  sentences  laid  deep  for  all  ages  the  evei lasting 
 foundations  of  the  temple  of  humanity.  The  repudiation  of 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  149 
 
 what  is  national,  local,  and  outward  is  complete,  and  religion 
 is  declared  to  rest  for  evermore  on  the  Fatherhood  of  God. 
 By  this  act  He  has  effected  what  the  philosophers  were  un¬ 
 able  to  accomplish,  the  union  of  man's  religious  aspirations 
 with  his  moral  nature.  Compare  with  this  our  modern 
 worship  of  humanity  and  its  moral  aspects.  Surely  those 
 unbelievers  who  allow  a  religion  to  be  possible  must  concede 
 that  the  Author  of  this  saying  has  placed  it  on  a  foundation 
 which  will  endure  for  evermore.  Yet  the  moral  and  spiritual 
 atmosphere  in  the  midst  of  which  He  was  born  and  nurtured, 
 was  the  exclusiveness  of  Judaism.  If  it  be  said  that  an 
 insight  which  rose  to  such  an  elevation  above  its  surround¬ 
 ings,  was  due  to  the  exalted  genius  of  the  prophet  of  Naza¬ 
 reth,  I  shall  not  absolutely  quarrel  with  the  term,  but  it 
 must  have  been  a  genius  which  manifested  the  presence  of 
 the  superhuman. 
 
 Fourth  Contrast.  The  all-comprehensiveness  of  the  Chris¬ 
 tian  law  of  duty. 
 
 I  now  ask  your  attention  to  the  great  law  of  duty  as 
 enunciated  by  Christianity,  and  its  all-comprehensive  cha¬ 
 racter.  The  great  Teacher,  who,  if  there  was  nothing 
 superhuman  in  him,  must  have  been  a  mere  peasant,  nurtured 
 in  the  narrow  exclusiveness  of  Judaism,  has  by  the  enun¬ 
 ciation  of  three  great  principles,  solved  all  the  various 
 questions  of  duty  raised  by  the  endless  discussions  of 
 philosophers.  These  are  : — 
 
 First.  Man's  duty  to  man,  as  founded  on,  and  originating 
 in  the  relation  in  which  man  stands  to  God. 
 
 Secondly.  Man's  duty  to  man,  measured  by  the  regard 
 which  he  feels  for  himself. 
 
 Thirdly.  Man's  duty  to  man,  measured  and  sanctioned  by 
 the  obligations  he  is  under  to  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 The  first  of  these  makes  the  law  of  duty  co-extensive  with 
 the  human  family.  We  are  all  aware  that  the  greatest  of  the 
 ancient  philosophers  failed  to  discover  any  law  of  duty 
 which  could  make  it  co-extensive  with  all  races  and  con¬ 
 ditions  of  men.  They  did  not  regard  duty  as  an  obligation 
 
150  THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OP 
 
 to  man  as  man,  but  restricted  it  within  the  narrow  bounds 
 of  citizenship,  race  and  social  condition ;  and  consequently 
 looked  upon  the  majority  of  mankind  as  pariahs,  who  stood 
 outside  the  pale  of  obligation.  Some  dim  conception  of  the 
 universal  brotherhood  of  mankind  may  be  found  in  the  later 
 Stoic  philosophy,  but  it  exists  only  as  a  barren  speculation, 
 devoid  of  any  substantial  basis.  Ancient  philosophy,  in 
 short,  divorced  morality  from  religion,  and  thereby  deprived 
 itself  of  all  moral  and  spiritual  power.  Jesus  Christ,  on  the 
 contrary,  has  united  the  two,  and  thereby  strengthened  the 
 moral  principle  by  all  the  sanctions  which  religion  can 
 impart.  Contrast  with  the  teaching  of  the  illiterate  J ewish 
 peasant  that  of  our  modern  Atheistic  and  Pantheistic 
 systems.  Instead  of  being  able  to  announce  a  law  of  duty 
 extending  to  all  men,  because  all  men  are  the  children  of  the 
 same  gracious  Father,  who  has  made  all  the  nations  of  the 
 earth,  the  only  bond  of  union  they  can  suggest  is,  not  that 
 all  men  are  the  children  of  the  same  Father  in  heaven,  but 
 that  they  are  the  common  descendants  of  some  primeval 
 savage.* 
 
 #  All  modern  systems  of  anti-Christian  philosophy  find  it  impos¬ 
 sible  to  propound  any  principle  which  can  form  an  effectual  basis  on 
 which  to  rest  the  universal  brotherhood  of  mankind.  The  question 
 demands  an  answer — How  do  we  know  that  we  owe  obligations  to 
 others  ?  Why  is  self-sacrifice  a  duty  ?  To  those  who  admit  that 
 gratitude  and  a  sense  of  justice  are  inherent  portions  of  man’s  moral 
 nature,  and  that  the  voice  of  conscience  is  authoritative,  the  answer  is 
 not  difficult.  The  principle  that  we  are  bound  to  render  to  others 
 what  we  would  wish  to  have  done  to  ourselves,  is  at  once  pronounced 
 by  it  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  highest  reason.  The  answer  of 
 Christianity  on  this  point  is  clear  and  distinct.  God  is  our  Creator, 
 and  the  Creator  of  all  men.  From  Him  come  down  every  faculty  and 
 power  we  possess,  and  we  are  His  stewards  in  the  use  of  them.  He 
 has  therefore  a  right  to  demand  the  highest  self-sacrifice  ;  and  the 
 voice  of  conscience  asserts  that  His  claims  are  just.  As  therefore  all 
 men  are  the  children  of  God,  all  fall  within  a  common  bond  of  obliga¬ 
 tion,  as  members  of  the  same  family.  But  if  the  Fatherhood  of  God, 
 and  the  principle  of  intuitional  morality  is  renounced,  the  question, 
 Why  is  one  man  bound  to  an  act  of  self-sacrifice  on  behalf  of  another, 
 becomes  incapable  of  solution.  A  system  which  denies  that  our  moral 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  151 
 
 The  second  great  principle  of  the  teaching  of  Jesus 
 renders  the  law  of  duty  self- determinative,  i.e.}  it  converts 
 the  individual  conscience  into  a  law  to  itself.  Under  it  the 
 question,.  What  is  my  duty  in  this  or  that  particular  in¬ 
 stance  ?  is  infallibly  answered  by  another,  which  the  ques¬ 
 tioner  may  put  to  himself.  What  would  I  have  done  to  me, 
 if  I  were  in  that  man’s  place?  Obedience  may  be  hard,  but 
 the  answer  will  certainly  be  unmistakably  distinct. 
 
 The  third  great  principle  carries  the  law  of  duty  to  its 
 extremest  limits.  The  love  of  Jesus  Christ  to  man  is  made 
 both  the  measure  and  the  motive  of  the  love  of  man  to  man. 
 It  has  been  objected  (I  think  absurdly)  tbat  the  divine  rule, 
 “Thou  skalt  love  thy  neighbour  as  thyself”  (obedience  to 
 
 perceptions  of  right  and  wrong  are  intuitional,  is  compelled  to  resolve 
 all  moral  distinctions  into  mere  questions  of  expediency ;  or,  in  other 
 words,  into  the  principle  of  self-love.  If  it  be  affirmed  that  the 
 sacrifice  of  self  for  others  is  a  duty  merely  because  it  is  conducive  to 
 our  own  highest  happiness,  the  difficulty  is,  to  prove  it.  In  fact  there 
 are  cases  of  unquestionable  duty,  where  the  highest  forms  of  self- 
 sacrifice,  even  that  o t  life  itself,  are  demanded  of  us,  where  such  prool 
 becomes  impossible.  Atheistic  and  Pantheistic  systems  of  though! 
 have  no  resource  but  to  base  moral  obligation  on  expediency.  If  tlm 
 be  its  only  foundation,  it  is  clear  that  each  man  must  be  a  measure  of 
 obligation  to  himself  only  as  far  as  he  is  capable  of  perceiving  that  a 
 particular  line  of  conduct  is  conducive  to  his  own  happiness.  I  am 
 aware  that  this  principle  is  affirmed  to  mean  the  greatest  happiness  of 
 the  greatest  number,  and  not  merely  the  greatest  happiness  of  the 
 individual.  Put  the  question  immediately  arises,  How  do  we  know 
 that  it  is  obligatory  on  us  to  pursue  the  greatest  happiness  of  the 
 greatest  number  except  as  far  as  the  realization  of  it  is  conducive  to 
 our  own?  It  is  quite  conceivable  that  the  pursuit  of  the  greatest 
 happiness  of  the  greatest  number  may  involve  a  degree  of  self-sacrifice 
 which  is  inconsistent  with  the  pursuit  of  our  own  individual  good. 
 The  fact  is,  that  all  theories  which  refuse  to  rest  duty  on  some 
 intuitional  basis  resolve  it  into  a  question  of  accurate  calculation  ;  and 
 the  best  man  will  be  he  who  possesses  the  clearest  head.  The  Father¬ 
 hood  of  God  being  renounced,  and  the  intuitional  perception  of  any 
 moral  principle  denied,  Atheistic  and  Pantheistic  philosophy  are  able 
 to  announce  no  principle  binding  on  the  conscience  which  will  bring 
 all  mankind  within  the  range  of  obligation. 
 
152  THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OP 
 
 which  would  certainly  go  far  to  convert  this  world  into  a 
 heaven),  sets  up  a  selfish  standard  of  morality. .  Those  who 
 have  made  the  objection,  if  they  had  looked  a  little  further, 
 would  have  found  in  the  last  great  precept  of  Jesus  Christ, 
 which  He  designates  His  “new  Commandment,”  a  rule  which 
 would  have  gratified  their  most  unselfish  wishes ;  “  Love 
 one  another,  as  I  have  loved  you.33  This  removes  the  ideal 
 of  duty  out  of  self;  and  measures  and  sanctions  it  by  the 
 divine  self-sacrifice  of  Christ  our  Lord.  Surely  this  is  one 
 beyond  which  it  is  impossible  for  human  thought  to  pass. 
 On  this  is  founded  the  great  Christian  duty  of  self-saciifice, 
 which  underlies  the  whole  moral  teaching  of  the  New 
 Testament,  and  which  embraces  within  its  comprehensive 
 range  all  other  possible  duties,  whether  they  be  individual, 
 social,  or  political.  Every  duty  which  man  owes  to  man  in 
 every  situation  in  life  in  which  he  is  placed,  he  is  bound  to 
 render  as  a  grateful  sacrifice  to  Christ  his  Lord,  whom  he  is 
 bound  to  glorify  alike  in  life  and  death.  I  earnestly  draw 
 your  attention  to  this  principle,  because  its  existence  is 
 overlooked  by  the  various  classes  of  unbelievers  who  treat 
 of  the  moral  teaching  of  Christianity,  and  pronounce  it  de¬ 
 fective  *  A  popular  school  of  modern  thought  has  made 
 the  charge  against  Christianity  of  not  having  made  adequate 
 provision  for  the  discharge  of  those  duties  which  man  owes 
 to  the  public.  Surely  those  who  have  made  this  charge 
 must  have  read  the  New  Testament  with  blinded  eyes,  for 
 nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  its  great  fundamental 
 
 *  I  am  not  aware  that  Mr.  Mill  has  once  recognized  the  fact  that 
 the  great  Christian  duty  of  sacrifice  of  self  as  due  to  Christ  our  Lord, 
 and  the  equally  comprehensive  one  by  which  the  Christian  in  every 
 position  in  society  in  which  he  is  placed  as  God’s  steward,  is  bound  to 
 use  every  gift  with  which  he  is  entrusted  to  God  s  glory,  is  a  funda¬ 
 mental  principle  of  the  moral  teaching  of  the  New  Testament.  His 
 philosophy  was  no  doubt  very  adverse  to  its  recognition.  Yet 
 surely  it  is  absurd  to  discuss  the  value  of  any  system,  above  all,  tu 
 pronounce  it  inadequate  to  meet  the  requirements  of  advancing  civili¬ 
 zation,  when  we  neglect  to  include  its  most  fundamental  principles  in 
 our  survey  of  it. 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  153 
 
 principles  of  our  being  stewards  of  God,  and  our  duty  of 
 sacrifice  of  self,  measured  by  the  self-sacrifice  of  Christ, 
 must  include  every  social  duty  which  man  can  owe  to 
 man.* 
 
 Striking  then  is  the  contrast  between  the  all-comprehen¬ 
 sive  teaching  of  the  illiterate  Jewish  peasant  and  that  of 
 the  profoundest  teachers  of  the  ancient  world.  The  one  is 
 onesided,  national  and  partial;  the  other  as  catholic  as 
 human  nature,  and  as  many-sided  as  the  moral  nature  of 
 man.  The  one  bears  on  it  the  impress  of  those  by  whom 
 it  was  elaborated;  the  other  has  burst  through  every 
 trammel  which  was  imposed  on  it  by  its  surroundings.  The 
 one  discussed  questions  of  duty  with  endless  prolixity;  the 
 other  by  a  few  comprehensive  utterances  has  solved  all  "such 
 questions  for  evermore.  Whence  then  did  this  man  derive 
 all  this  wisdom?  The  profoundest  thinkers  of  the  ancient 
 woild  with  all  the  mass  of  accumulated  experience  at  their 
 
 The  New  Testament  lays  down  another  principle  which  has  a 
 most  important  bearing  on  the  obligation  of  the  Christian  to  the  faithful 
 discharge  of  all  the  various  duties  which  he  owes  to  the  public.  It 
 teaches  that  every  mental  gift  which  he  possesses,  and  the  position  in 
 society  in  which  he  is  placed  are  a  stewardship  intrusted  to  him  by 
 God,  for  the  right  discharge  of  which  he  is  responsible.  The  over¬ 
 looking  of  these  two  great  principles  has  caused  many  unbelievers  to 
 charge  the  moral  teaching  of  Christianity  with  imperfection.  It  is 
 clear  that  if  the  position  in  society  in  which  a  Christian  is  placed  is  a 
 stewardship  intrusted  to  him  by  God,  he  is  bound  by  the  strongest 
 considerations  to  the  diligent  discharge  of  the  various  duties  which  it 
 imposes  on  him.  If  he  possesses  wealth,  he  is  bound  to  administer  it, 
 not  merely  as  he  pleases,  but  under  a  direct  feeling  of  responsibility 
 to  God  who  has  intrusted  him  with  it.  The  same  is  true  of  every 
 mental  endowment,  and  of  all  the  political  and  social  influence  he 
 possesses.  Christianity,  in  short,  knows  nothing  of  the  distinction  so 
 commonly  laid  down  between  religious  and  secular  duties ;  between 
 things  sacred  and  the  pursuits  of  daily  life.  It  has  made  every  duty 
 which  man  can  owe  to  man  a  religious  duty.  It  has  sanctified  the  whole 
 of  human  life,  including  its  pleasures  and  enjoyments,  and  claimed  it 
 for  God.  £sone  of  us  liveth  unto  himself,”  says  the  Apostle,  “  and  no 
 man  dieth  unto  himself,”  “  Ye  serve  the  Lord  Christ.”  The  error  above 
 referred  to  has  originated  in  the  idea  that  Christianity  has  so  directed 
 
151 
 
 THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OF 
 
 command,  were  unable  to  approach  to  the  comprehensive¬ 
 ness  or  the  elevation  of  His  teaching.  Yet  if  Christianity 
 be  a  mere  human  development,  this  world-wide  catholicity 
 must  have  been  evolved  out  of  a  system  of  narrow-minded 
 exclusiveness. 
 
 Fifth  Contrast.  Another  contrast  between  the  teaching  of 
 the  Hew  Testament  and  that  of  the  philosophers,  which 
 probably  strikes  every  intelligent  reader,  is  the  relative 
 importance  it  assigns  to  the  milder  virtues.  As  no  incon¬ 
 siderable  amount  of  misrepresentation  has  taken  place  on 
 this  subject,  I  will  briefly  state  what  are  the  actual  facts. 
 
 Respecting  the  views  of  philosophy  there  can  be  little 
 doubt.  The  political  or  heroical  virtues  occupy  the  first 
 place  in  every  system ;  the  milder  ones  a  place  wholly  sub¬ 
 ordinate  ;  and  one  of  them,  humility,  a  virtue  much  insisted 
 on  by  Christianity,  has  no  place  at  all.  We  have  only  to 
 read  the  Ethics  of  Aristotle  to  ascertain  the  fact,  and  the 
 writings  of  the  great  philosopher  fairly  represent  the  views 
 
 our  attention  to  the  importance  of  the  world  to  come  as  to  divert  it 
 from  the  concerns  of  the  present.  This  however  is  an  evident  misappre¬ 
 hension  of  its  teaching.  Is  is  perfectly  true  that  it  speaks  in  the 
 strongest  manner  of  our  interest  in  the  future  state  ;  and  that  the 
 interests  of  this  world  are  unimportant  in  comparison  with  those  of  the 
 next.  But  its  assertions  are  no  less  emphatic  that  the  only  mode  of 
 securing  our  interests  in  the  world  to  come  is  by  a  faithful  discharge 
 of  every  duty  which  man  owes  to  man  in  the  present.  Thus,  instead 
 of  disparaging  the  importance  of  present  duties,  it  imparts  the  highest 
 possible  sanction  to  the  conscientious  and  faithful  discharge  of  them. 
 The  fact  is,  that  Christianity  lays  down  that  this  world  is  God’s 
 world  ;  and  that  whatever  duty  man  is  called  upon  to  discharge,  he  is 
 to  do  it  heartily  unto  the  Lord,  and  not  to  man,  because  he  is  bound  to 
 glorify  God  in  his  body  and  in  his  spirit,  which  are  God’s.  Such  is  the 
 provision  which  Christianity  makes  for  the  discharge  of  all  the  duties 
 we  owe  to  the  public  ;  and  I  maintain  that  it  is  more  comprehensive 
 than  that  enjoined  by  any  system  of  modern  teaching,  and  sanctioned 
 by  the  highest  motives  that  can  be  brought  to  bear  on  man.  If  on  the 
 other  hand  we  view  the  question  as  one  of  fact,  it  is  certain  that  no 
 servants  of  the  public  discharge  their  duties  with  greater  faithful¬ 
 ness  and  devotion  than  those  who  are  thoroughly  leavened  with  the 
 principles  of  Christianity. 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OP  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  155 
 
 of  the  ancient  world.  If  we  consider  its  standpoint,  the 
 case  could  hardly  have  been  otherwise.  Christianity  on  the 
 contrary  places  the  milder  virtues  in  the  forefront,  quite  as 
 emphatically  as  philosophy  did.  the  political  ones.*  Of  some 
 of  these  latter,  such  as  patriotism,  it  takes  no  direct  notice. 
 To  the  practice  of  others  its  exhortations  are  few ;  but  so 
 earnest  is  its  effort  to  enforce  the  practice  of  the  milder 
 ones,  that  several  of  its  precepts,  if  taken  literally,  and 
 detached  from  the  immediate  circumstances  which  called 
 them  forth,  may  be  said  to  be  inconsistent  with  a  due  regard 
 for  the  public  rights  of  man. 
 
 In  considering  this  subject  it  should  be  borne  in  mind 
 that  while  it  was  the  end  and  purpose  of  philosophy  to 
 propound  a  complete  ethical  code,  such  was  wholly  foreign 
 to  the  aim  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament.  While  the 
 great  principles  of  the  latter  are  of  world-wide  comprehen¬ 
 siveness,  their  special  precepts  are  invariably  called  forth 
 
 ^  I  do  Dot  claim  for  Christianity  absolute  originality  in  assigning  a 
 more  prominent  place  to  the  milder  virtues.  The  principle  is  very  dis¬ 
 tinctly  recognized  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  In  fact  the  assign¬ 
 ing  a  prominent  place  to  certain  virtues,  such  as  humility,  the  existence 
 of  which  is  scarcely  recognized  by  pagan  ethics,  is  inseparable  from 
 any  system  of  theism  which  views  God  as  the  Creator  of  all  things, 
 and  man  as  standing  in  a  personal  relation  to  Him  as  His  creature. 
 Whenever  this  conception  receives  a  practical  recognition,  all  those 
 feelings  which  spring  out  of  man’s  relationship  to  God,  and  from  a  sense 
 of  sin,  are  called  into  lively  exercise.  But  while  the  Old  Testament 
 assigns  to' the  milder  virtues  a  very  different  place  from  that  which  is 
 assigned  to  them  in  pagan  ethics,  most  of  its  great  characters  are 
 striking  exemplifications  of  the  predominance  of  the  heroic  ones.  A 
 few  of  them  exhibit  the  former  qualities,  but  taking  the  whole  as  a 
 series,  the  sterner  aspects  of  human  nature  unquestionably  predominate. 
 It  is  therefore  quite  true  that  it  has  been  reserved  for  Christianity  to 
 bring  the  importance  of  the  milder  virtues  into  prominent  light,  by 
 placing  them  in  the  forefront  of  its  teachings ;  and  above  all,  by 
 exhibiting  them  as  the  predominant  element  in  the  divine  character  of 
 Christ  our  Lord.  The  manner  in  which  they  are  exhibited  in  Him, 
 in  the  closest  union  with,  but  yet  predominant  over  the  heroical  ones, 
 constitutes  Him  the  perfect  exhibition  of  moral  loveliness. 
 
156  THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  03? 
 
 by  the  special  circumstances  of  those  to  whom  they  are 
 addressed  *  Consequently  before  they  can  be  applied  to 
 other  circumstances  and  conditions,  they  require  to  be 
 resolved  into  the  principles  on  which  they  are  based,  and 
 then  accommodated  to  the  altered  facts.  They  are  in  fact 
 directions  for  practice  under  special  circumstances ;  and  to 
 interpret  them  as  though  they  were  intended  as  abstract 
 precepts  binding  on  man  for  all  time,  is  utterly  to  mistake 
 their  meaning.  Thus  a  precept  like  that  in  Horn.  xiii.  1  7, 
 
 apparently  inculcating  the  duty  of  implicit  obedience  to 
 governors,  might  be  very  appropriate  when  addressed  to  a 
 body  of  turbulent  Jews,  but  would  be  wholly  inapplicable  to 
 the  free  citizens  of  a  well-ordered  State.  Similarly,  pre¬ 
 cepts  urging  abnegation  of  the  rights  of  property  might 
 be  very  necessary  under  certain  conditions  of  society, 
 but  would  be  absolutely  pernicious  if  regarded  as  appli¬ 
 cable  to  every  state  of  civilization. t  Nothing  has  been  a 
 
 #  The  precepts  given  by  St.  Paul  to  the  Roman  and  Corinthian 
 Churches  in  reference  to  the  duty  of  observing  certain  days,  and 
 the  lawfulness  of  eating  certain  kinds  of  food,  form  a  very  remarkable 
 illustration  of  this  principle.  The  circumstances  which  called  them 
 forth  have  passed  away  ;  and  consequently  the  precepts,  in  the  form 
 in  which  they  were  given  by  the  Apostle,  have  no  direct  bearing  on 
 the  present  condition  of  the  Church.  But  the  underlying  principles 
 are  valid  for  all  time  for  the  solution  of  a  vast  number  of  questions 
 beyond  those  which  came  within  the  Apostle  s  immediate  view.  They 
 lay  down  the  broadest  principles  of  toleration  with  respect  to  the 
 differences  which  arise  among  Christians  in  every  age  ;  and  may  be 
 truly  said  to  constitute  the  “  Magna  Charta  ’  of  religious  liberty. 
 Would  that  the  Church  had  given  heed  to  them  during  the  various 
 controversies  that  have  agitated  her  throughout  the  long  period  of  her 
 history !  The  principles  of  no  modern  philosophical  system  surpass 
 them  in  comprehensiveness.  Yet  they  are  the  utterances  ol  one  who 
 was  born  and  nurtured  amid  the  narrowest  Jewish  fanaticism  and 
 intolerance,  and  who  had  carried  out  these  principles  by  fiercely 
 persecuting  the  Church. 
 
 f  I  allude  to  those  which  seem  to  condemn  saving,  and  to  enjoin 
 indiscriminate  almsgiving.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  if  such  pre¬ 
 cepts  were  acted  on  to  the  letter,  they  would  not  only  occasion  a  far 
 greater  amount  of  misery  than  would  be  relieved  by  their  observance 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  157 
 
 more  fruitful  source  of  error  respecting  the  teaching  of  the 
 New  Testament  than  this  assumption  that  its  precepts,  as 
 distinct  from  its  great  moral  principles,  were  intended  to 
 constitute  a  body  of  ethical  doctrine  applicable  to  all  time, 
 instead  of  being  specially  addressed  to  particular  Churches 
 and  individuals,  in  reference  to  the  circumstances  in  which 
 they  were  placed. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  it  should  be  observed  that,  although 
 the  political  virtues  receive  but  a  partial  recognition,  they 
 are  strongly  exemplified  in  the  actions  of  its  great  charac¬ 
 ters.  While  there  is  scarcely  a  precept  which  enjoins  courage 
 or  self-respect,  the  world  contains  no  grander  example  of 
 these  two  virtues  than  is  exhibited  in  the  Founder  of 
 Christianity  and  the  Apostle  Paul.  I  invite  you  to  compare 
 the  portraiture  of  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  as  exhibiting 
 the  perfection  of  self-conscious  dignity  with  that  which 
 has  been  drawn  by  the  great  author  of  the  Ethics,  of  his 
 
 but  would  be  destructive  of  modern  civilization.  It  has  been  said 
 that  such  precepts  are  intended  to  embody  an  ideal  morality,  which 
 would  be  fitted  to  a  perfect  state  of  society.  I  cannot  attribute  any¬ 
 thing  so  unpractical  to  Our  Lord  and  His  Apostles,  for  it  is  clear 
 that  they  did  not  anticipate  the  realization  of  a  perfect  state  of  society 
 during  the  present  condition  of  things  ;  and  when  it  was  realized, 
 such  precepts  would  be  unnecessary.  The  only  correct  view  seems  to 
 me  to  be,  that  they  are  precepts  enunciated  in  a  very  popular  form, 
 addressed  to  a  state  of  thought  and  feeling  in  which  the  opposite 
 tendencies  were  extremely  powerful.  As  a  general  fact  there  can  be 
 no  doubt  that  the  benevolent  impulses  are  the  weakest  in  human 
 nature,  and  therefore  require  to  be  called  forth  by  having  the  whole 
 weight  of  the  religious  principle  thrown  into  the  scale  with  them ; 
 and  that  those  which  terminate  in  self  are  so  powerful  as  to  require 
 the  strongest  repression.  I  fully  allow  that  these  precepts  (which  are 
 far  fewer  in  number  than  is  commonly  supposed),  if  carried  out  to  the 
 letter,  amount  to  communism  ;  but  the  great  Teacher  Himself  has 
 given  an  emphatic  warning  against  such  a  mode  of  interpreting  them, 
 and  so  has  the  Apostle  Paul  (John  vi.  63  ;  2  Cor.  iii.  6).  Taking  the 
 teaching  of  the  New  Testament  as  a  whole,  it  is  clear  that  while  it 
 makes  the  strongest  effort  to  awaken  the  benevolent  affections,  it 
 keeps  itself  wholly  free  from  communistic  principles. 
 
153 
 
 THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OP 
 
 fnyaXo^vxoq,  or  magnanimous  man.  The  comparison  makes 
 the  latter  seem  like  a  burlesque.  Though  none  of  the 
 writers  of  the  New  Testament  have  written  direct  commen¬ 
 dations  of  courage,  they  exhibit  the  brightest  example  of  it 
 in  their  practice,  and  place  it  on  its  true  foundation  in  the 
 great  saying,  "It  is  right  to  obey  God  rather  than  man/' 
 The  very  men  whose  exhortations  to  the  practice  of  the 
 milder  virtues  are  so  strong  that  they  almost  seem  to  have 
 overlooked  the  existence  of  the  heroic,  exhibit  these  latter 
 in  their  own  persons  on  the  grandest  scale,  affording  them 
 thereby  the  highest  recognition. 
 
 I  fully  concede,  however,  that  while  it  is  an  utter  mis¬ 
 representation  of  the  moral  teaching  of  the  New  Testament 
 to  charge  on  it  the  purpose  of  superseding  the  heroical  and 
 political  virtues,  it  was  its  aim  and  purpose  to  reverse  the 
 order  in  which  they  stood  in  the  estimation  of  the  ancient 
 world.  Admitting  the  fact,  the  important  question  is,  have 
 they  in  adopting  this  course  exhibited  a  deep  insight  into 
 the  realities  of  human  nature  ?  Which  in  fact  have  been 
 right,  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  or  the  philosophers, 
 in  the  relative  importance  they  have  assigned  to  these  two 
 classes  of  virtues  f  If  this  question  can  be  decided  by 
 authority,  there  cannot  be  a  doubt  that  since  Christianity 
 has  pronounced  in  favour  of  the  milder  virtues,  an  over¬ 
 whelming  majority  of  the  wisest  aud  the  holiest  of  men  have 
 accepted  its  decision  as  the  right  one.  There  can  be  no 
 doubt  that  if,  during  the  last  three  thousand  years,  the 
 milder  virtues  had  occupied  the  place  which  the  heroical  ones 
 have  held  in  men's  estimation,  the  happiness  of  mankind 
 would  have  increased  a  thousand-fold.  Take,  for  example, 
 the  three  great  political  virtues,  of  courage,  patriotism  and 
 ambition,  which  have  in  all  ages  commanded  the  most  un¬ 
 bounded  admiration.  When  we  calmly  survey  the  pages  of 
 history,  is  it,  I  ask,  too  much  to  affirm  that  a  large  portion 
 of  the  crimes  with  which  it  has  been  stained,  have  been  due 
 to  the  unrestrained  action  of  these  three  qualities  :  qualities 
 noble  in  themselves,  but  which  become  simply  pernicious 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OP  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  159 
 
 when  uncontrolled  and  unregulated  by  the  predominant 
 influence  of  the  milder  virtues  ?  The  political  and  heroical 
 ones  are  highly  valuable  when  kept  in  proper  subordination 
 to  the  milder  qualities  of  the  human  mind  ;  but  when  they 
 reign  supreme  and  alone,  as  they  have  generally  done 
 throughout  the  ages  of  the  past,  the  perniciousness  of  their 
 influence  has  only  been  in  proportion  to  their  greatness. 
 
 I  claim  therefore  for  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament, 
 that  in  reversing  the  order  of  the  importance  of  the  virtues, 
 they  have  shown  a  profound  insight  into  the  realities  of 
 human  nature  ;  and  that  they  are  right  in  assigning  the  first 
 place  to  the  fruits  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  the  subordinate 
 one  to  the  qualities  in  question.  The  place  they  have  assigned 
 to  the  milder  virtues,  and  their  exhibition  of  them  in  com¬ 
 bination  with  the  heroical  ones  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ, 
 have  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Lecky,  done  more  to  regenerate 
 and  soften  mankind,  than  all  the  disquisitions  of  philoso¬ 
 phers,  and  than  all  the  exhortations  of  moralists.” 
 
 Sixth  Contrast.  The  views  taken  by  Jesus  Christ  and  by 
 the  philosophers  of  the  extent  of  their  respective  missions. 
 
 This  striking  contrast  between  the  Founder  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity  and  the  philosophers  consists  in  His  great  conception 
 of  addressing  His  mission  to  the  masses  of  mankind,  while 
 theirs  was  confined  to  a  small  spiritual  aristocracy.  In  this 
 respect  the  interval  which  separates  Jesus  Christ  from  the 
 traditions  of  the  past  is  profound.  He  is  the  founder  and 
 the  leader  of  all  the  benevolent  and  missionary  exertions  in 
 the  modern  world,  and  has  made  the  duty  of  following  His 
 example  an  inherent  portion  of  His  system  to  such  an  extent 
 that  is  it  impossible  for  any  genuine  disciple  to  avoid 
 making  Him  the  object  of  his  imitation. 
 
 I  need  not  in  this  place  dwell  on  the  exclusiveness  of  the 
 great  teachers  of  the  ancient  world.  This  was  inevitable 
 from  their  position.  Their  teaching  was  not  a  religion,  but 
 a  philosophy,  and  their  object  was  to  form  a  school  for  its 
 study.  Hence  it  was  that  nothing  could  be  more  alien  to 
 the  ideas  of  the  philosopher  than  to  go  out  into  the  high- 
 
160  THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OF 
 
 ways  and  hedges  of  humanity,  and  compel  the  degraded  to 
 come  in.  The  reason  is  obvious.  Philosophy  had  no 
 Gospel  of  good  news  for  such.  With  the  means  at  its 
 command  it  could  only  address  itself  to  the  intellectual 
 aristocracy  of  mankind.  Two  sentences  will,  I  think,  pre¬ 
 sent  the  contrast  between  the  method  of  Jesus  and  that  of 
 the  philosophers  in  a  striking  light.  Jesus  Christ  affirmed 
 that  he  came  not  to  call  the  righteous  but  sinners  to 
 repentance.  Philosophy  affirmed  that  its  special  mission 
 was  e:  to  those  of  mankind  who  have  a  natural  tendency 
 and  disposition  towards  virtue.”  The  conception  which 
 Jesus  Christ  and  the  philosophers  entertained  of  their 
 respective  missions  differed  as  widely  as  the  poles. 
 
 I  boldly  affirm  that  all  modern  attempts  to  ameliorate 
 the  condition  of  the  masses  have  originated  in  this  grand 
 conception  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  is  the  originator,  the 
 leader,  and  the  pioneer  of  every  self-sacrificing  effort  which 
 has  been  made  for  the  improvement  of  mankind ;  its  example, 
 and  what  is  more,  the  motive  force  which  has  impelled 
 all  subsequent  efforts.  In  this  respect  it  is  beyond  all  ques¬ 
 tion  that  the  teaching  and  example  of  Jesus  has  transcended 
 that  of  all  philosophy.  Yet  if  the  positions  of  unbelievers 
 be  true,  the  genius  of  a  peasant,  born  and  educated  in  the 
 narrowest  atmosphere  of  Jewish  exclusiveness,  has  origi¬ 
 nated  and  carried  out  this  grand  conception.  If  it  be  so, 
 the  genius  which  has  effected  this  great  result  must  have 
 been  an  inspiration  from  above,  for  it  is  unique  in  the  history 
 of  mankind.* 
 
 *  It  will  perhaps  be  urged  that  Socrates  took  a  wider  view  of  his 
 mission  than  that  which  I  have  assigned  to  the  philosophers  ;  that  he 
 spent  his  whole  life  in  endeavouring  to  improve  his  fellow-citizens  in 
 virtue  ;  and  that  he  died  a  martyr  to  his  exertions.  There  can  be  no 
 doubt  that  he  took  a  wider  view  of  his  mission  than  that  which  was 
 taken  by  the  other  philosophers.  Still  it  was  confined  to  the  citizens 
 of  a  single  state  ;  and  these  formed  the  intellectual  aristocracy  of  the 
 ancient  world.  The  philosopher  affirms  in  his  defence  that  it  was  his 
 fixed  purpose  to  confine  his  labours  to  his  countrymen :  and  in  reply 
 to  all  exhortations  to  avoid  the  dangers  which  surrounded  him,  by 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OP  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  161 
 
 Seventh  Contrast.  The  creation  by  Christianity  of  a 
 mighty  moral  and  spiritual  power,  which  philosophy,  while 
 confessing  the  need  of  it,  altogether  failed  to  discover. 
 
 This  brings  me  to  the  consideration  of  the  most  striking 
 contrast  which  exists  between  the  teaching  of  philosophy 
 and  that  of  Christianity,  viz.  the  affirmation  which  Chris¬ 
 tianity  makes  that  it  possesses  within  itself  a  moral  and 
 
 transferring  his  labours  to  another  sphere  of  action,  declined  to  do  so 
 on  the  ground  that  it  would  prove  an  uncongenial  soil.  It  is  clear 
 therefore  that  Socrates  never  entertained  the  idea  of  a  mission  to 
 mankind,  nor  even  to  the  Grecian  race,  but  that  his  efforts  were 
 strictly  confined  to  the  improvement  of  his  fellow -citizens.  With 
 these  in  the  public  places  of  resort  he  spent  his  time  in  arguing  and 
 discussing.  Between  his  own  conception  of  his  mission  and  that  of 
 Jesus  Christ,  or  even  that  of  an  Old  Testament  prophet,  there  is 
 scarcely  a  single  point  of  resemblance.  Jesus  Christ  authoritatively 
 announced  a  number  of  great  truths  which  penetrated  to  the  depths 
 of  the  human  heart.  The  method  of  the  philosopher  was  to  create  a 
 philosophy  by  awakening  a  spirit  of  sceptical  inquiry.  He  declared 
 that  he  could  affirm  nothing  as  certain.  His  whole  position  dis¬ 
 qualified  him  to  act  the  part  of  a  preacher  of  repentance,  and  none 
 would  have  more  readily  admitted  than  himself  that  he  was  devoid  of 
 the  means  of  acting  as  the  regenerator  of  those  who  were  fallen  into  a 
 condition  of  moral  corruption  and  degradation.  His  views  were 
 incapable  of  appreciation  except  by  those  who  possessed  a  high 
 order  of  intellectual  power,  and  a  character  in  some  degree  congenial 
 to  his  own.  This  is  evident  from  the  discourses  attributed  to 
 him  by  his  two  great  disciples,  unless  they  have  wholly  misre¬ 
 presented  his  meaning.  It  is  true  that  he  addressed  himself  to 
 the  citizens  generally,  but  the  mode  of  his  address  was  only  cal¬ 
 culated  to  attract  the  intellectual  aristocracy  among  them.  These  he 
 endeavoured  to  discover  in  every  circle  of  society.  The  result  was 
 that  his  leading  disciples  became,  not  a  number  of  missionaries  who 
 exhorted  mankind  to  repentance  and  conversion,  or  conceived  that 
 it  was  their  special  duty  to  devote  themselves  to  the  improvement 
 of  the  condition  of  degraded  man,  but  the  founders  of  a  number 
 of  philosophic  sects.  There  is  nothing  therefore  in  the  conduct 
 or  the  example  of  Socrates  which  at  all  affects  the  originality  of 
 the  conception  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity  ;  but  everything  to 
 impress  us  with  a  sense  of  the  unique  power  with  which  He  has  acted 
 as  the  regenerator  and  the  ameliorator  of  the  condition  of  mankind. 
 
162 
 
 THE  CONTEAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OP 
 
 spiritual  power,  adequate  to  effect  the  regeneration  of  man¬ 
 kind.  This  power,  it  affirms,  can  elevate  the  holy  to  higher 
 degrees  of  holiness,  and  rescue  the  degraded  from  their 
 degradation.  This  portion  of  my  subject  is  one  of  pro¬ 
 found  importance,  and  to  it  I  earnestly  invite  your  attention, 
 for  it  is  one  which  has  been  greatly  overlooked.  Of  the 
 want  of  such  a  power  all  the  ancient  philosophers  were 
 profoundly  conscious,  but  all  their  efforts  failed  to  produce 
 any  permanent  influence  on  the  regeneration  of  mankind 
 from  their  inability  to  discover  one.  The  originality  of  the 
 claim  on  the  part  of  Christianity  to  have  created  such  a 
 power  is  unquestionable. 
 
 In  proof  of  this,  I  adduce  the  whole  course  of  ancient 
 philosophic  thought.  If  we  read  the  entire  remains  of 
 ancient  literature,  we  shall  arise  from  it  with  the  conviction 
 that  the  idea  of  preaching  repentance  and  amendment  to 
 those  portions  of  mankind  who  were  sinking  into  a  state  of 
 moral  corruption,  or  who  had  already  become  degraded,  was 
 one  which  never  entered  into  the  heads  of  the  philosophers. 
 Yet  it  is  a  certain  fact  that  from  the  time  of  Socrates 
 onwards,  man,  intellectually,  politically,  and  morally,  formed 
 the  chief  subject  of  their  investigations.  To  their  labours 
 we  are  deeply  indebted,  for  they  have  thrown  a  flood  of 
 light  on  what  could  or  could  not  be  effected  by  rational  in¬ 
 vestigation,  before  the  great  spiritual  Sun  threw  the  radiance 
 of  His  beams  on  the  moral  and  spiritual  world.  Their 
 expenditure  of  intellect  on  this  subject  was  enormous.  Of 
 the  tendency  of  man  to  moral  corruption  they  were  deeply 
 sensible,  and  have  submitted  its  causes  and  its  symptoms  to 
 &  minute  analysis  of  which  we  enjoy  the  benefit.  But  did 
 this  produce  on  their  part  an  energetic  effort  to  work  its 
 cure  ?  No ;  they  did  what  the  Priest  and  the  Levite  in  the 
 parable  did  to  the  wounded  traveller.  They  looked  curiously 
 and  with  inquiring  eye  on  degraded  man,  and  passed  by  on 
 the  other  side,  leaving  him  to  perish  in  his  degradation. 
 Was  this  owing  to  inhumanity  ?  No ;  they  felt  that  they 
 had  no  means  of  cure.  When  moral  deterioration  had 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  TnAT  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  163 
 
 advanced  to  a  certain  stage,  philosophy  contemplated  it  with 
 despair.  Read  your  Ethics.  Portions  of  the  Seventh  book 
 speak  on  this  point  in  language  which  it  is  impossible  to 
 misunderstand.  That  passage  in  the  Tenth  book,  in  which 
 the  great  philosopher  surveys  the  probable  results  of  his 
 labours,  is  almost  pathetic  in  its  melancholy.*  Whom  did 
 he,  the  spiritual  physician,  consider  himself  capable  of  bene¬ 
 fiting?  A  small  body  of  ingenuous  youths,  born  with  a 
 natural  tendency  to  what  is  good  and  noble;  but  as  for  the 
 masses,  they  have  no  perception  of  the  morally  beautiful, 
 and  can  only  be  operated  on  by  the  fear  of  punishment. 
 Such  are  the  views  which  the  great  philosopher,  with  his 
 deep  insight  into  human  nature,  took  of  the  hopeless  cha¬ 
 racter  of  moral  corruption.  For  it  he  knew  no  remedy. 
 We  need  not  wonder  therefore  that  the  Schools  pronounced 
 on  the  degraded  multitude  the  ban  of  spiritual  excommuni¬ 
 cation. 
 
 To  those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  range  of  ancient 
 philosophic  thought,  the  reason  of  its  impotency  to  deal 
 with  moral  corruption  will  not  be  difficult  to  discover.  The 
 philosopher  was  profoundly  conscious  that  there  was  no 
 moral  and  spiritual  power  which  he  was  capable  of  wielding 
 adequate  to  cope  with  the  violence  of  the  passions.  Reason 
 was  the  only  principle  to  which  he  could  appeal;  but  he 
 
 *  El  jxiv  ovv  fjvav  oi  Xoyoi  avrdpictig  rrr pog  to  7 roirjeai  iirisucsig  7ro\Aot'£,’ 
 av  fucrBovg  Kcti  p,tyaXovg  Sucaiiog  iiptpov  icard  t'ov  Qioyviv,  icai  tSei  av 
 rovrovg  tt opiaaaBai'  vvv  Si  Qettvovrai  7rporpi\pa<jSai  piv,  tcai  7 rapopprjaai 
 TUJV  vkiov  rovg  iXevBipovg  ioxv tiv,  tjBog  r’tvyevig  kcli  <bg  dXrjBujg  (piXoKaXov 
 irob'aai  av  Karotcuxt-pov  tic  rrjg  dptrrjg,  rovg  Si  7 roXXovg  aSvvartiv  7r pog 
 KaXoicayaSlav  7rpoTpeipaaBcu'  ov  yap  7 rtQvicacnv  aiSol  TrtiBapictiv  dXXa  <poj3(p, 
 ovS’  mrextoBai  tu>v  <pavXu>v  Sia  to  aiaxpov  dXXd  Sid  Tag  Tipcopiag’  tt aBei 
 yap  Zuivrtg  Tag  ohctiag  r/Sovag  Suvkovgi  ical  Si  iov  avrai  toovrai ,  tytvyovai  Si 
 Tag  dvriKtiptvag  Xvirag ,  tov  Si  KaXov  ical  dig  dXtjBuig  rjS’tog  ovS ’  ivvoiav 
 txovcnv,  dytvaroi  ovTtg.  Tov g  Sr)  roiovTovg  Tig  av  Xoyog  perappuBpiaai  ; 
 ov  yap  olovre  irj  ov  pqiSiov  ra  ek  7rctXaioii  roig  i)Bs<Ti  icaTtiXrjppsva  Xoyip 
 ptTaGTijGat.  *  *  *  Ov  yap  av  aKovatis  Xoyov  aTroTptTrovrog  ovS’  av 
 
 vvveir]  6  Kara  7raBog  %u>v’  tov  S’  ovTwg  lx0VTCL  olovrt  peTa7ruaai  ; 
 
 oXog  r*  ov  SoKt l  Xoyip  vithkhv  to  7 rdBog  aXXa  (31$. — Ethics,  Book  X, 
 Chap.  10. 
 
 11* 
 
164 
 
 THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OF 
 
 was  unable  to  produce  convictions  of  sufficient  strength  to 
 kindle  into  active  energy  the  higher  principles  of  our  moral 
 being. 
 
 Let  me  briefly  enumerate  the  only  forces  at  his  command, 
 by  the  aid  of  which  he  could  set  himself  to  the  task  of 
 reforming  a  degraded  character.  He  could  appeal  to  the 
 ordinary  incentives  to  virtue,  as  the  love  of  the  morally 
 beautiful,  or  the  nobleness  of  self-sacrifice ;  but  what  effect 
 could  such  appeals  have  on  those  in  whom  such  perceptions 
 were  wanting  ?  To  what  purpose  was  it  to  exhort  a  man 
 who  had  entered  on  the  downward  course  of  vice  to  practise 
 holiness  because  it  was  morally  beautiful  to  do  so  ?  How 
 could  such  an  appeal  aid  the  man  who  had  become  the  slave 
 of  his  appetites  and  passions,  or  even  whose  principle  of  self- 
 control  was  weakened  ?  It  is  clear  that  if  such  a  person  could 
 be  reclaimed  at  all,  it  could  only  be  by  the  creation  of  some 
 powerful  conviction  in  his  inmost  spirit  capable  of  acting 
 mightily  on  his  entire  moral  being.  But  the  creation  of 
 such  a  conviction  was  the  very  thing  which  philosophy  was 
 unable  to  effect.  It  had  nothing  to  hold  up  to  the  eye  of 
 faith  that  could  mightily  influence  the  spirit  of  man,  or 
 awaken  him  from  the  stupor  and  slavery  of  vice.  If,  on  the 
 other  hand,  he  appealed  to  the  principle  of  self-love,  and 
 argued  that  a  virtuous  life  was  on  the  whole  more  conducive 
 to  happiness,  the  evidence  of  this  was  not  sufficiently  strong 
 to  command  the  assent  of  a  degraded  or  even  an  imperfect 
 character.  On  such  the  prospect  of  remote  good  is  power¬ 
 less  against  the  violence  of  present  impulse. 
 
 Let  us  suppose  that  a  person  conscious  that  his  powers 
 of  self-control  were  weak,  but  who  was  desirous  of  returning 
 to  the  practice  of  virtue,  had  consulted  the  philosopher  as 
 his  spiritual  physician,  and  asked  him  for  a  prescription, 
 which  would  restore  him  to  moral  health,  what  must  have 
 been  his  answer  ?  “  Do  virtuous  actions,  and  in  time  you 
 
 will  form  virtuous  principles ;  restrain  your  passions,  and  in 
 time  you  will  acquire  the  habit  of  self-control.”  But  if  the 
 diseased  man  had  replied,  “how  am  I  to  be  rendered  capable 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  165 
 
 of  performing  these  virtuous  actions,  while  destitute  of  the 
 power  of  self-control ;  or  how  am  I  to  restrain  the  violence 
 of  the  passions,  unless  you  can  call  into  active  energy  some 
 force  which  is  capable  of  mastering  them,” — no  answer 
 except  a  few  platitudes  from  the  philosopher’s  standpoint  was 
 possible.  The  reason  for  this  is  obvious.  The  philosopher 
 was  incapable  of  appealing  to  the  conscience  through  the 
 medium  of  religious  conviction,  for  of  such  conviction  he 
 himself  was  destitute.  His  prescription  would  have  been  a 
 mere  mockery  of  the  patient. 
 
 But  there  was  another  force  with  which  the  philosopher 
 was  acquainted,  and  on  which  his  only  hope  of  the  possible 
 regeneration  of  mankind  was  based,  that  of  habit.  The 
 question  therefore  becomes  one  of  profound  importance,  Is 
 it  a  power  capable  of  regenerating  mankind,  or  reforming 
 the  individual ;  or  must  it  be  supplemented  by  a  mightier 
 influence  ?  Now  the  powerful  influence  of  habit  is  unde¬ 
 niable.  To  a  very  considerable  extent  it  has  made  us  what 
 we  are.  While  it  is  an  unquestionable  fact  that  man  pos¬ 
 sesses  a  principle  of  volition  which  within  definite  limits  is 
 capable  of  influencing  the  formation  of  his  character,  yet 
 it  is  no  less  true  that  the  characters  of  a  great  majority 
 of  mankind  are  largely  affected  by  habits  which  have 
 been  impressed  on  them  by  their  birth  and  surroundings. 
 According  to  a  very  popular  theory  of  modern  philosophy, 
 even  those  portions  of  our  characters  which  we  suppose 
 to  be  original,  are  nothing  else  than  accumulations  of 
 habits  which  have  been  handed  down  by  our  remote 
 ancestors.  As  my  present  duty  is  to  deal  with  facts,  I  am 
 not  called  on  to  discuss  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  a  theory 
 of  this  description.  I  only  notice  it  because,  if  true,  it  forms 
 the  strongest  evidence  of  the  powerlessness  of  habit  to 
 effect  the  regeneration  of  the  individual,  and  of  the  slow¬ 
 ness  of  its  operation  in  the  improvement  of  the  race. 
 
 As  the  force  of  habit  is  the  only  one  known  to  philosophy 
 which  is  capable  of  powerfully  acting  on  character,  it  becomes 
 a  matter  of  the  highest  importance  to  ascertain  how  far  it  is 
 
166  THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OP 
 
 adequate  to  effect  the  regeneration  of  the  individual  or  the 
 race.  On  the  other  hand  the  New  Testament  propounds 
 another  and  mightier  force,  which  it  designates  faith,  as 
 alone  able  to  effectuate  this  purpose.  Is  it  philosophically 
 right  in  doing  so  ?  If  it  is,  it  has  a  most  important  bearing 
 on  our  argument.  I  observe — 
 
 First.  The  operation  of  habit  on  character  is  necessarily 
 slow,  being  in  fact  the  accumulated  result  of  actions  con¬ 
 stantly  repeated.  Consequently,  the  changes  which  take 
 place  in  the  moral  world  under  its  influence  can  only  be  very 
 gradual.  This  alone  renders  it  incapable  of  acting  as  a  great 
 regenerating  power  on  the  individual. 
 
 Secondly.  Habit  can  only  act  through  materials  already 
 existing  in  the  character,  or  the  surroundings,  but  is 
 incapable  of  creating  a  new  principle  of  life.  It  is  a  powerful 
 lever ;  but  without  a  fulcrum  on  which  to  support  itself,  it 
 is  powerless.  Consequently  under  its  influences  men  can 
 do  little  more  than  develop  the  characters  which  are 
 impressed  on  them  by  their  birth  and  surroundings.  If 
 they  are  good  by  nature,  habit  will  cause  them  gradually 
 to  increase  in  goodness ;  if  bad,  in  vice.  I  fully  admit  that 
 the  individual  has  the  power,  if  he  chooses  to  exert  it,  of 
 slowly  modifying  his  character  under  the  discipline  of 
 habituation ;  but  to  render  this  possible,  he  must  be  pos¬ 
 sessed  of  a  considerable  power  of  self-control )  and  of  this, 
 characters  that  are  imperfect  and  morally  corrupt  are  entirely 
 destitute.*  The  old  prophet  exactly  described  the  effects  of 
 
 *  TIie  slowness  of  the  action  of  habit  in  producing  changes  in  the 
 character  is  of  itself  a  sufficient  reason  why  it  is  powerless  to  effect 
 the  regeneration  of  an  individual  in  an  advanced  stage  of  moral 
 coiruption.  Whatever  changes  can  be  effected  in  a  formed  character 
 can  only  be  gradual.  But  in  the  case  of  a  man  who  is  morally 
 corrupt,  not  only  have  evil  principles  to  be  eradicated,  but  good 
 ones  to  be  generated.  The  term  of  human  life  is  far  too  short  to 
 render  the  regeneration  of  a  vicious  character  possible  in  this  way, 
 even  if  the  other  conditions  were  favourable.  I  make  this  observation 
 on  the  supposition  that  a  man  is  attempting  the  work  of  self-reform 
 by  the  sole  aid  of  the  principle  of  habituation.  As  a  matter  of  fact 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OP  THE  PHILOSOPHERS,  167 
 
 habit  when  he  said,  c<  Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin,  or 
 the  leopard  his  spots  :  then  may  they  do  good  who  are 
 accustomed  to  do  evil.”  Philosophy  itself  says  plainly  that 
 it  can  only  exert  an  influence  for  good,  where  there  is  a 
 large  substratum  of  goodness  on  which  to  commence  its 
 operations. 
 
 Thirdly.  The  only  mode  in  which  habit  can  be  used  as  a 
 means  of  strengthening  the  character  of  one  in  whom  the 
 principle  of  self-control  has  been  weakened  is  by  bringing 
 to  bear  on  him  some  external  power  of  coercion.  This 
 results  from  the  fact  that  virtuous  principles  can  only  be 
 formed  and  strengthened  by  doing  virtuous  actions.  But 
 how  can  a  man  do  them  who  is  a  prey  to  the  violence  of  his 
 passions  ?  It  is  evident  that  the  only  mode  of  enabling 
 him  to  do  them  is  by  bringing  to  bear  on  him  a  power  of 
 external  coercion  sufficient  to  restrain  him  until  he  has 
 acquired  the  habit  of  self-control. 
 
 From  this  has  resulted  the  political  character  of  all  the 
 ancient  and  several  of  the  modern  systems  of  Ethics.  The 
 philosopher  saw  plainly  that  he  could  do  little  or  nothing  in 
 the  way  of  regenerating  the  individual  who  had  become 
 habituated  to  evil.  Hence  his  only  hope  of  improving 
 mankind  lay  in  founding  a  society  in  which  men  should 
 be  trained  to  virtue,  or,  if  necessary,  coerced  into  it  by 
 a  system  of  discipline.  Of  the  effects  of  such  a  training 
 he  saw  some  remarkable  examples  in  some  of  the  small 
 States  of  antiquity,  which  existed  under  very  peculiar 
 conditions.  He  hoped  therefore  that  if  he  could  obtain 
 the  power  of  legislation  he  could  produce  important 
 results  in  a  select  number  of  citizens  in  favour  of  virtue. 
 Mr.  Mill  has  even  given  utterance  to  the  opinion  that  what 
 was  done  on  a  small  scale  by  a  particular  system  of 
 training  may  be  done  on  a  larger  one  on  mankind  in 
 
 we  know  that  nothing  is  more  difficult  to  uproot  than  a  confirmed 
 habit  of  vice.  Every  act  of  self-indulgence  weakens  the  power  of 
 self-control ;  and  the  moment  the  temptation  presents  itself,  the  old 
 habit  re-asserts  its  power. 
 
168 
 
 THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OF 
 
 general.  If  the  name  of  Sparta  could  elicit  the  sacrifice  of 
 the  individual  to  the  State,  why  may  not  the  conception  of 
 humanity  be  made  to  call  forth  the  same  self-sacrifice  for 
 the  interests  of  mankind  ?  I  reply,  that  the  conditions  are 
 so  widely  different  that  there  is  no  parallel  between  tho  two 
 cases.*  The  possibility,  however,  need  not  be  discussed; 
 for  there  is  one  insuperable  difficulty  which  ever  has  and 
 ever  will  prevent  this  philosophic  speculation  from  becoming 
 a  fact — the  inability  of  the  philosopher  to  create  a  State 
 
 #  The  position  taken  by  those  who  affirm  that  the  enthusiasm  for 
 humanity  may  be  made  a  substitute  for  a  religion  is  this.  Several  of 
 the  ancient  republics,  of  which  Sparta  and  Home  are  conspicuous 
 examples,  succeeded  by  means  of  a  careful  system  of  training  in 
 evoking  on  the  part  of  the  individual  a  profound  feeling  of  the  duty  of 
 self-sacrifice  to  the  interests  of  the  State.  This  was  carried  to  such  an 
 extent  that  large  bodies  of  citizens  were  prepared  to  sacrifice  even  life 
 itself  sooner  than  bring  dishonour  on  their  country.  Hence  it  has 
 been  argued  that  what  was  practicable  on  a  small  scale,  must  be 
 capable  of  being  realized  on  a  large  one,  and  that  under  a  suitable 
 system  of  training,  the  same  spirit  of  sacrifice  of  the  individual  may 
 thus  be  elicited  for  the  general  interest  of  mankind  as  that  which 
 was  displayed  by  the  citizen  of  old  for  the  State  of  which  he  was  a 
 member.  One  objection  against  this  view  is  obvious ;  it  is  a  theory 
 which  contradicts  all  the  facts  with  which  we  are  acquainted.  The 
 spirit  of  patriotic  self-sacrifice  has  always  been  the  strongest  in  small 
 communities.  It  is  no  theory,  but  a  fact,  that  it  burnt  with  a  far 
 stronger  flame  in  the  small  states  of  antiquity,  which  consisted  of  a 
 few  thousand  citizens,  than  in  our  modern  kingdoms,  which  number 
 their  subjects  by  millions.  Thus  it  was  strong  in  Home  while  the 
 privileges  of  citizenship  were  limited  to  a  comparatively  small  class, 
 but  when  she  became  an  empire,  and  it  was  necessary  to  extend  the 
 privileges  over  an  ever-increasing  surface,  patriotism  gradually  died 
 out.  The  same  is  true  of  party  spirit  and  sectarianism.  The  self- 
 sacrifice  of  the  individual  for  his  party  or  his  sect  is  elicited  just  in  pro¬ 
 portion  to  their  narrowness.  The  reason  is  obvious.  It  is  necessary,  in 
 order  to  create  a  strong  patriotic  spirit  of  self-devotion,  that  the  indi¬ 
 vidual  should  feel  that  his  own  interests  and  those  of  the  community 
 are  one  ;  and  that  what  is  injurious  to  the  State  is  likewise  injurious  to 
 himself :  in  other  words,  that  the  glory  of  the  State  is  the  gain  of  the 
 individual.  The  feelings  which  inspired  the  patriotic  self-devotion  in 
 the  citizen  of  an  ancient  State  are  graphically  placed  before  us  in  the 
 
CHRISTIANITY-  AND  THAT  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  169 
 
 in  which,  his  principles  can  be  worked  out  in  practice.  Of 
 this  the  necessary  data  are  a  body  of  virtuous  governors  and 
 a  body  of  subjects  willing  to  submit  themselves  to  their 
 guidance,  dhis  is  a  state  of  things  which  has  never  yet 
 succeeded  in  emerging  from  the  ideal  into  the  actual. 
 
 These  considerations,  therefore,  prove  that  the  only  agency 
 with  which  the  philosopher  was  acquainted  was  impotent  in 
 his  hands  to  effect  the  regeneration  either  of  the  individual 
 or  the  race.  Even  its  most  eminent  modern  advocates,  while 
 
 funeral  oration  which  Thucydides  has  put  into  the  mouth  of  Pericles, 
 over  those  Athenians  who  perished  in  the  first  year  of  the  Peloponnesian 
 War  j  and  if  we  admit  that  the  historian  has  accurately  described  them, 
 it  is  evident  that  no  system  of  training  would  be  adequate  to  call  them 
 forth  in  favour  of  the  abstract  conception  of  humanity.  In  the  small 
 states  of  antiquity  the  close  binding  up  of  the  interests  of  the 
 individual  with  those  of  the  community  was  capable  of  a  very  distinct 
 realization.  They  in  some  respects  resembled  a  joint  stock  company, 
 in  which  the  interest  of  each  individual  in  the  common  weal  is  a 
 definitely  appreciable  quantity.  If  it  be  urged  that  this  will  not 
 account  for  the  readiness  of  the  individual  to  sacrifice  his  life  in  the 
 service  of  the  State,  I  reply,  that  not  only  is  this  accounted  for  by  the 
 love  of  posthumous  glory  which  is  inherent  in  a  large  number  of 
 mankind;  but  in  many  of  the  ancient  States  the  penalties  attached  to 
 cowardice  were  so  severe,  that  death  was  far  preferable.  The  feelings 
 which  prompt  a  man  to  surrender  his  life  in  battle  are  of  a  very  varied 
 character,  and  are  probably  never  wholly  due  to  a  simple  desire  for 
 the  good  of  the  community,  nor  altogether  separate  from  the  love  of 
 posthumous  fame,  the  feeling  of  revenge,  or  the  dread  of  disgrace,  all 
 of  which  are  principles  ultimately  terminating  in  self.  Prom  these 
 considerations  it  follows  that  those  principles  which  kindled  the 
 patriotic  self-devotion  of  the  citizens  of  ancient  states  would  be 
 utterly  inadequate  to  create  that  enthusiasm  for  the  abstract  idea  of 
 humanity  which  a  certain  school  of  modern  unbelief  invites  us  to 
 accept  as  a  substitute  for  those  great  principles  of  Christianity  which 
 have  created  a  mighty  army  of  self-sacrificers  in  the  cause  of  Jesus 
 Christ,  and  through  Him,  on  behalf  of  the  entire  family  of  man.  Even 
 according  to  the  opinions  of  those  who  have  propounded  this  theory, 
 the  era  of  its  realization  must  be  delayed  to  the  remote  ages  of  the 
 future,  after  thousands  of  generations  of  men  have  become  silent  in 
 their  graves.  Such  is  the  phantom  which  unbelief  exhibits  before  the 
 eyes  of  those  who,  conscious  of  the  evil  which  dwells  within  them, 
 are  sighing  for  moral  and  spiritual  regeneration. 
 
170  THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OF 
 
 expressing  themselves  in  terms  of  hope,  are  compelled  to 
 adopt  what  is  practically  the  language  of  despair.  This 
 regeneration,  if  possible  at  all,  will  be  only  so  at  some 
 indefinitely  remote  period  of  the  future.  For  the  present 
 we  must  be  content  to  console  ourselves  with  the  assurance 
 that  man  is  slowly  but  steadily  progressing  for  the  better 
 notwithstanding  that  the  experience  of  the  past  proves 
 that  not  a  few  races  of  mankind  have  entered  on  a  course 
 of  gradual  retrogression.*  The  only  message  of  good  news 
 which  a  popular  gospel  of  unbelief  at  the  present  day  is  able 
 to  announce,  though  certainly  not  very  consoling  to  man  in 
 his  degradation,  is  “  The  fittest  shall  survive."”  To  a  man 
 impotently  struggling  with  the  violence  of  the  passions, 
 “the  survival  of  the  fittest”  means  “destruction.”  Such 
 an  announcement  is  the  “  ministration  of  death  ”  to  all  the 
 degraded  races  of  mankind. 
 
 Such  was  the  impotence  of  philosophy.  To  do  them 
 iustice,  ancient  philosophers  felt  and  confessed  it.  Contrast 
 with  this  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ.  He  has  not  only 
 pronounced  maids  regeneration  possible,  but  has  put  into 
 execution  a  plan  for  making  it  a  reality,  and  has  actually 
 succeeded  in  recovering  to  holiness  a  multitude  of  imperfect 
 and  fallen  men,  whom  no  man  can  number.  He  has  created 
 a  moral  and  spiritual  power  capable  of  stirring  the  hearts 
 of  men  to  their  inmost  depths.  This  power  the  New  Tes¬ 
 tament  designates  faith.  He  has  likewise  created  the 
 greatest  of  Societies — the  Christian  Church — in  which  the 
 subjects  of  His  spiritual  kingdom  may  be  trained  to  holi¬ 
 ness.  The  philosophers'  principle  of  sanctification  was, 
 
 *  This  is  unquestionably  true  of  a  very  large  numerical  majority 
 of  mankind.  Witness  the  races  in  which  Buddhism,  Braminism,  and 
 Mahomedanism  prevail,  including  not  less  than  seven  hundred  millions 
 of  the  human  family.  What  prospect,  I  ask,  have  these  races  of  a 
 future,  apart  from  the  influence  of  Christianity  ?  To  these  must  be 
 added  the  Negro  race,  which  as  far  as  history  goes,  has  never  had  a 
 Past ;  and  unless  it  can  be  regenerated  by  the  aid  of  external  influences, 
 never  will  have  a  Future. 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OP  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  171 
 
 Begin  with,  the  outward  and  penetrate  to  the  inward  by  means 
 of  habit :  that  of  Jesus  Christ  is.  Begin  with  the  inward, 
 and  penetrate  to  the  outward  by  means  of  faith.  While  He 
 did  not  overlook  the  power  of  habit,  the  idea  of  effecting 
 man’s  regeneration  by  means  of  faith  is  His  exclusive  dis¬ 
 covery  ;  and  experience  has  proved  that  it  is  the  only 
 possible  method. 
 
 It  is  superfluous  to  prove  that  the  use  which  the  Hew 
 Testament  makes  of  faith  as  the  great  power  of  sanctifica¬ 
 tion  in  man  constitutes  the  most  striking  characteristic  of 
 its  moral  teaching,  and  most  distinguishes  it  from  every 
 other  system  which  has  been  elaborated  before  or  since. 
 There  is  scarcely  a  page  in  it  in  which  the  principle  of  faith 
 is  not  appealed  to  as  a  great  moral  and  spiritual  power. 
 Yet  the  observations  which  not  a  few  eminent  unbelievers 
 have  made  on  the  moral  teaching  of  Christianity  completely 
 overlook  the  fact  that  this  constitutes  its  inner  life.  They 
 have  assumed  that  its  essence  lies  in  its  ethical  precepts  or 
 in  its  moral  principles,  and  have  entirely  ignored  this,  its 
 great  underlying  element,  which  imparts  vitality  both  to  its 
 precepts  and  its  principles.  The  oversight  is  one  which 
 may  well  fill  us  with  surprise,  for  it  is  practically  to  treat 
 a  subject  and  to  leave  unconsidered  its  most  important 
 element. 
 
 Nor  are  we  ourselves  without  blame  in  this  particular. 
 We  are  in  urgent  need  of  a  system  of  moral  philosophy 
 which  places  Christ  and  the  specialities  of  Christianity  in  the 
 centre  of  its  teaching.  I  fear  that  I  am  speaking  correctly 
 when  I  say  that  a  system  of  philosophy  which  points  out  the 
 harmony  of  the  great  principle  of  Christianity  with  the 
 moral  nature  of  man  does  not  exist  except  in  very 
 partial  forms.  Instead  of  elaborating  a  system  which  assigns 
 to  Christianity  its  proper  place  in  philosophy,  we  have 
 handed  over  the  study  of  science  to  men  whose  sym¬ 
 pathies  with  revealed  religion  are  small,  and  in  whose 
 systems  Christianity  can  find  no  place.  Heed  we  wonder  if 
 the  result  has  been  eminently  unsatisfactory  ?  I  would  speak 
 
172 
 
 THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OF 
 
 with  the  deepest  respect  for  the  great  writers  of  antiquity. 
 To  them  our  debt  of  gratitude  is  great,  for  the  light  they 
 have  thrown  on  many  of  the  aspects  of  human  nature,  quite 
 independently  of  any  influences  derived  from  Revelation;  but 
 from  the  time  when  I  first  studied  them  in  this  University  I 
 have  felt  an  ever-deepening  conviction  that  their  philosophy 
 affords  no  adequate  place  for  the  great  principles  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity.  Why  has  not  a  philosophy  been  elaborated  which 
 has  assigned  an  adequate  place  to  the  great  principles  which 
 Christianity  has  brought  to  bear  on  human  nature,  and  shown 
 their  harmony  with  our  moral  constitution  ?  Heathen  Ethics 
 have  done  what  they  could — the  wonder  is  that  they  have 
 done  so  much — but  surely  there  is  something  in  Christianity 
 high  above  them,  and  systems  derived  from  them,  which,  if 
 true,  ought  to  receive  a  recognized  place  in  our  philosophy, 
 unless  a  divorce  is  to  take  place  between  reason  and  religion, 
 Christianity  and  modern  thought.  If  Christianity  is  true,  it 
 must  have  a  legitimate  place  in  the  philosophy  of  man.  Our 
 inability  to  assign  such  a  place  to  the  specialities  of  Christian 
 teaching  has  propelled  many  a  thoughtful  mind  downwards 
 to  unbelief. 
 
 But  to  return  to  the  argument.  We  have  shown  that  the 
 principle  of  habit,  the  only  moral  and  spiritual  force  at  the 
 command  of  philosophy,  was  unable  to  effect  the  regenera¬ 
 tion  of  the  morally  degraded.  All  that  it  could  do  was  to 
 strengthen  those  who  had  a  tendency  to  virtue  in  their 
 virtuous  character.  It  therefore  left  the  degraded  to 
 perish  in  their  degradation  from  pure  inability  to  help  them* 
 Where  philosophy  hopelessly  failed  is  precisely  the  point  at 
 which  Christianity  steps  in.  The  great  Teacher  has  pro¬ 
 claimed  Himself  the  centre  of  a  moral  and  spiritual  power, 
 which  is  not  only  adequate  to  strengthen  the  holy  in  their 
 holiness,  but  to  regenerate  the  morally  corrupt.  This  power 
 He  not  only  claims  to  possess,  but  has  actually  exerted 
 during  eighteen  centuries.  Who,  I  ask,  can  deny  the  fact 
 that  Jesus  Christ  has  exerted  an  influence  which  has  rescued 
 multitudes  from  their  degradation,  and  has  restored  them  to 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  173 
 
 holiness  and  to  God  ?  It  is  a  fact  verifiable  in  the  history 
 of  the  past.  Countless  numbers  of  sinners  have  had  their 
 hearts  melted  by  the  divine  power  which  resides  in  Him,  and 
 in  the  words  of  the  Apostle,  “  have  been  washed,  sanctified, 
 and  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the 
 Spirit  of  our  God.”  Who  else  has  exerted  a  similar  influence  ? 
 
 Let  us  now  inquire  how  does  Christianity  accomplish  this 
 great  result  ?  I  answer  by  producing  a  conviction  in  the 
 innermost  spirit  of  man  respecting  the  eternal  realities  of 
 things.  This  is  faith,*  which  the  New  Testament  affirms 
 to  be  the  great  principle  which  can  purify  the  heart.  The 
 only  mode  by  which  the  regeneration  of  a  morally  corrupted 
 man  is  possible  is  by  the  introduction  of  a  new  idea  into  the 
 mind,  which  from  the  understanding  passes  into  the  heart, 
 and  awakens  principles  which  were  previously  dormant. 
 Unless  some  profound  conviction  respecting  truth  previously 
 unrecognized  can  be  produced,  it  is  evident  that  a  man 
 morally  corrupt  must  continue  in  his  old  groove.  Such  a 
 conviction  has  been  proved  to  be  capable  of  revolutionizing 
 our  entire  moral  and  spiritual  being,  and  consequently  of 
 becoming  the  centre  of  a  new  life.  It  becomes  the  evidence 
 of  things  not  seen. 
 
 How  then  does  Christianity  seek  to  effect  this  result  ?  I 
 answer  by  concentrating  on  the  conscience  the  whole  force 
 of  the  religious  principle  in  man,  so  as  to  produce  a  profound 
 conviction  respecting  the  realities  of  moral  and  spiritual 
 truth.  It  then  presents  to  him  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  in 
 the  divine  attractiveness  of  His  life  and  death,  the  perfect 
 embodiment  of  all  that  is  pure,  holy,  and  lovely,  in  God  or 
 man,  as  the  centre  of  a  new  spiritual  life,  and  has  thus  not 
 
 *  The  faith  of  the  New  Testament  ranges  through  various  stages 
 of  conviction,  and  is  powerful  in  its  operation  on  our  moral  and 
 spiritual  being  in  proportion  to  its  intensity.  Its  limits  lie  between 
 the  fulness  of  knowledge  spoken  of  by  St.  Paul  and  St.  John  and  the 
 imperfect  conviction  of  the  father  of  the  demoniac  child,  expressed  m 
 the  words,  “  Lord,  I  believe ;  help  thou  mine  unbelief,”  and  include 
 
 both. 
 
174  THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OP 
 
 only  restored  to  holiness  vast  numbers  of  degraded  men, 
 but  has  elevated  every  holy  man  who*  has  come  under  its 
 influence  to  yet  higher  degrees  of  holiness. 
 
 Of  the  principle  of  faith  or  conviction  as  a  regenerating 
 power  the  philosopher  was  ignorant.  How  could  it  be 
 otherwise  ?  His  philosophy  created  no  profound  convic¬ 
 tions  ;  it  was  the  mere  region  of  probabilities.  Moreover, 
 he  was  destitute  of  real  religious  beliefs ;  he  justly  despised 
 those  of  the  vulgar,  but  he  was  unable  to  replace  them  by 
 any  which  amounted  to  real  conviction.  This  being  so,  he 
 was  utterly  unable  to  grapple  with  the  conscience;  he 
 had  no  image  of  divine  attractiveness  to  present  to  the 
 awakened  spirit — all  he  could  do  was  to  appeal  to  cold 
 reason ;  and  this  would  awaken  no  emotions,  nor  summon 
 into  existence  a  force  capable  of  grappling  with  the  violence 
 of  the  passions.  It  may  perhaps  be  urged  that  the  Platonic 
 philosophy  contains  a  nearer  approach  to  the  Christian 
 conception.  Viewing  the  question  abstractedly,  I  fully 
 admit  that  the  contemplation  of  the  to  ciyaObv,  or  the 
 abstract  idea  of  good,  is  so.  But  where  was  it  to  be  found  ? 
 The  words  of  the  Apostle  may  be  applied  to  it  with  entire 
 fitness,  “Who  shall  go  up  into  heaven  to  bring  it  down 
 from  above  V*  How  were  the  morally  degraded  to  raise 
 themselves  to  its  lofty  height  ?  On  the  contrary,  so  far  was 
 the  great  philosopher  from  viewing  it  as  a  principle  mighty 
 to  effect  the  regeneration  of  mankind,  that  with  him  it  was 
 the  reward  of  a  long  and  profound  study  of  philosophy, 
 which  was  to  be  the  special  privilege  of  the  members  of  his 
 spiritual  aristocracy. 
 
 Let  us  pause  for  one  moment  to  contrast  this  the  highest 
 achievement  of  philosophy  with  wdiat  has  been  effected  by 
 the  Jewish  peasant.  Plato  in  his  speculations  conceived  of 
 the  contemplation  of  the  abstract  idea  of  the  good  as  one 
 which  might  elevate  to  higher  holiness  the  most  advanced 
 students  of  philosophy.  Christianity  has  unfolded  this 
 divine  idea  of  goodness  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  in  a 
 form  which  is  capable  of  acting  on  every  member  of  the 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OP  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  175 
 
 human  family.  What  the  philosopher  could  only  dream  of 
 in  his  study  as  the  privilege  of  the  select  few,  Jesus  Christ 
 has  manifested  in  His  life  as  the  property  of  all.  Marvellous 
 has  been  the  fulfilment  of  the  philosopher's  anticipations 
 (although  that  fulfilment  has  been  brought  about  in  a 
 manner  which  he  utterly  failed  to  conceive)  by  Him  who 
 uttered  those  ever-memorable  words,  “  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up 
 from  the  earth  will  draw  all  men  unto  roe."  Philosophy  in 
 groping  after  truth,  stumbled  on  speculations  which 
 Christianity  has  realized. 
 
 So  also  has  it  been  with  the  ideal  republic  of  the 
 philosopher.  His  investigations  led  him  to  the  conclusion 
 that  if  men  were  ever  to  become  virtuous  they  must  be  trained 
 to  it.  He  therefore  sighed  after  some  institution  in  which 
 man  might  be  habituated  to  the  practice  of  virtue.  Such  an 
 institution,  though  the  subject  of  his  constant  speculations, 
 he  was  powerless  to  create.  Jesus  Christ  formed  the  idea 
 of  the  kingdom  of  God  as  the  great  training  institution  for 
 holiness.  But  with  Him  it  has  been  no  mere  idea.  He  has 
 instituted  the  Catholic  Church,  which  of  all  human  institu¬ 
 tions  has  exerted  the  mightiest  influence  for  good. 
 
 Thus  the  Jewish  peasant  has  not  only  realized,  but 
 surpassed  the  results  of  the  highest  reason  of  the  ancient 
 world. 
 
 Let  me  now  briefly  sum  up  the  results  of  this  argument. 
 The  philosophers  after  the  deepest  study  of  the  moral  nature 
 of  man,  confessed  their  inability  to  discover  any  spiritual 
 power  capable  of  effecting  the  regeneration  of  the  morally 
 degraded.  Jesus  Christ  has  acted  on  them  mightily;  and 
 after  the  lapse  of  eighteen  centuries,  He  is  still  the  most 
 powerful  regenerating  influence  acting  on  mankind.  The 
 one  discussed  intellectual  problems,  the  other  appealed  to  the 
 conscience  and  the  heart.  The  one  contemplated  the  masses 
 of  mankind  with  despair,  and  would  have  viewed  the  idea  of 
 devoting  an  entire  life  to  their  elevation  as  the  phantasm 
 of  a  disordered  brain  ;  the  other  has  been  the  founder,  and 
 the  impelling  motive  of  the  efforts  which  during  eighteen 
 
1  75  THE  CONTRAST  BETWEEN  THE  TEACHING  OP 
 
 centuries  have  been  undertaken  for  the  amelioration  of 
 mankind.  The  one  coldly  bade  men  become  virtuous  by  per¬ 
 forming  virtuous  actions,  but  could  impart  to  them  no  power 
 to  render  their  performance  possible ;  the  other  has  breathed 
 into  man’s  inmost  spirit  a  power  mighty  to  effect  his  spiritual 
 regeneration.  The  one  ignored  religion  as  a  principle  to  act 
 on  the  conscience  ;  the  other  concentrated  its  entire  force  on 
 man’s  moral  and  spiritual  nature,  and  placed  Himself  in  its 
 centre  as  the  perfect  image  of  divine  attractiveness.  The 
 one  descanted  on  the  duty  of  contemplating  the  divine  idea 
 of  goodness  as  a  means  of  moral  elevation,  but  pronounced 
 it  undiscoverable  by  the  multitude;  the  other  has  presented 
 an  incarnation  of  it  in  his  human  life.  The  one  speculated 
 in  his  study  on  ideal  republics;  the  other  has  created  the 
 Catholic  Church.  Nor  has  philosophy  in  these  latter  days 
 even  with  Jesus  and  His  teaching  for  its  model,  succeeded 
 better.  It  can  reach  neither  the  conscience  nor  the  heart. 
 "What  then  is  the  only  possible  inference  ?  I  answer  that 
 the  Galilean  peasant  must  have  possessed  a  greatness  above 
 that  of  all  the  great  men  of  the  past  and  of  the  present 
 united ;  that  He  stands  in  a  position  among  men  which  is 
 unique;  in  other  words,  that  a  superhuman  power  must  have 
 manifested  itself  in  Him. 
 
 Let  us  listen  to  the  conclusion  to  which  the  study  of  the 
 Synoptic  Gospels  has  led  so  profound  a  sceptical  philosopher 
 as  the  late  J.  S.  Mill.  He  is  of  opinion  that  they  contain 
 beyond  all  doubt  an  actual  delineation  of  the  character  and 
 teaching  of  Jesus,  and  that  it  is  impossible  that  either  the 
 one  or  the  other  can  have  been  an  invention  of  His  followers. 
 He  affirms  therefore  that  it  is  quite  consistent  even  for  the 
 rational  sceptic  to  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  all  that  He 
 said  that  He  was, — not  God,  for  Mr.  Mill  thinks  that  He 
 nowhere  affirmed  Himself  to  be  divine, — but  one  with  a  special 
 commission  to  lead  men  to  the  practice  of  holiness  and 
 virtue.  But  if  the  discourses  in  these  Gospels  are  his  veri¬ 
 table  utterances,  it  is  impossible  to  stop  at  this  conclusion, 
 for  He  affirmed  Himself  to  be  much  more  than  this.  He 
 
CHRISTIANITY  AND  THAT  OF  THE  PHILOSOPHERS.  177 
 
 declared  tliat  He  was  tlie  Christ  ;  that  He  is  the  supreme 
 legislator  in  the  kingdom  of  God ;  that  His  utterances  are 
 oracles  from  heaven  ;  that  He  has  power  on  earth  to  forgive 
 sins ;  that  He  possesses  a  peculiar  and  exclusive  knowledge 
 of  the  Father;  that  all  things  are  committed  into  His 
 hands;  that  He  possesses  claims  on  the  self-sacrifice  of  His 
 followers  more  powerful  than  can  be  asserted  by  any  earthly 
 ties;  that  He  will  be  the  Judge  of  quick  and  dead;  that 
 in  this  capacity  He  will  accept  works  of  love  done  to  others 
 as  having  been  rendered  to  Himself;  that  He  can  open 
 the  gates  of  Paradise ;  and,  finally,  that  He  came  to  give 
 His  life  a  ransom  for  many.  All  these  things  and  much 
 more  besides  He  certainly  claims  :  and  who  can  venture  to 
 affirm  that  the  claims  of  Him  who  during  eighteen  centuries 
 has  afforded  verifiable  proof  that  He  has  been  the  light  of 
 the  world,  and  the  light  of  life,  are  not  just  ? 
 
 12 
 
178 
 
 THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST 
 
 LECTURE  IV, 
 
 “  Philip  findeth  Nathanael ;  and  saith  unto  him,  We  have  found  him 
 of  whom  Moses  in  the  law  and  the  prophets  did  write,  J esus  of 
 Nazareth,  the  son  of  Joseph.  And  Nathanael  said  unto  him,  Can 
 any  good  thing  come  out  of  Nazareth  ?  Philip  saith  unto  him 
 Come,  and  see.” — John  i.  45,  46. 
 
 A  far  profounder  trutli  underlies  tliis  passage  than  we  are 
 commonly  in  the  habit  of  recognizing  in  it.  It  takes  for 
 granted  the  principle  on  which  the  arguments  of  the  pre¬ 
 ceding  Lectures  have  been  founded,  viz.,  that  a  law  of 
 continuity  reigns  in  the  moral  world.  Its  affirmations  are 
 based  on  what  we  now  know  to  be  a  great  truth  of  mental 
 science,  that  within  certain  limitations,  such  as  has  been  the 
 environment  in  which  a  man  has  been  born  and  educated, 
 such  will  be  the  man.  Many  prejudices  may  have  existed 
 in  Nathanael's  mind  :  still  it  is  a  great  truth,  that  such  a 
 person  as  the  Messiah  of  Old  Testament  prophecy  could  not 
 have  been  evolved  in  the  moral  £ind  spiritual  atmosphere  of 
 Nazareth,  by  the  mere  action  of  those  forces  by  which  our 
 characters  are  formed.  No  less  pertinent  is  the  reply  of 
 Philip,  “  Come,  and  see/'  i.e.,  verify  for  yourself,  and  draw 
 your  own  conclusion.  This  course  of  testing  theories  by 
 facts  was  adopted,  and  the  result  was  that  Nathanael  recog¬ 
 nized  in  Jesus  the  presence  of  a  superhuman  being : 
 “Rabbi,  Thou  art  the  Son  of  God,  Thou  art  the  King  of 
 Israel."  I  feel  assured,  if  we  apply  a  similar  process  to 
 the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels,  that  we  shall  arrive  at  a  similar 
 conclusion. 
 
A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY.  179 
 
 I  adopt  as  the  basis  oh  the  reasoning  of  this  Lecture  a 
 fact  which  each  of  us  can  verify  for  himself,  namely,  that  the 
 Gospels,  whether  we  suppose  their  narratives  to  be  an 
 account  of  actual  occurrences,  or  according  to  the  views  of 
 critical  unbelief,  to  consist  chiefly  of  a  mass  of  legendary 
 and  fictitious  matter,  contain  a  portraiture  of  the  divine 
 character  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  There  is  the  character 
 plainly  and  palpably  before  us.  It  is  the  grandest  character 
 known  to  history.  Hot  only  have  all  the  greatest  and  best 
 of  men  bowed  before  it  in  humble  adoration;  but  very  many 
 eminent  unbelievers  have  confessed  its  greatness  and 
 perfection.  Even  those  who  deny  its  historical  reality 
 cannot  help  allowing  that  it  is  the  grandest  ideal  creation  of 
 the  human  mind.  Equally  certain  is  it,  that  whether  the 
 character  be  an  ideal  or  an  historical  one,  it  has  proved  for 
 eighteen  centuries  the  mightiest  influence  for  good  which 
 has  been  exerted  on  mankind. 
 
 The  following  question  therefore  urgently  demands 
 solution: — If  a  large  portion  of  the  Gospels  consists  of 
 myths  and  legends,  how  has  the  delineation  got  into  their 
 pages  ? 
 
 Another  fact,  apparent  on  the  surface  of  the  Gospels,  has 
 a  most  important  bearing  on  this  question.  Of  this  great 
 character  they  present  us  with  no  formal  delineation. 
 Ho  thing  is  more  common  than  for  ordinary  historians  to 
 furnish  us  with  formal  portraitures  of  the  characters  of  the 
 persons  whose  actions  they  narrate,  and  to  render  them  the 
 meed  of  praise  or  blame.  All  this  is  totally  wanting  in  the 
 pages  of  the  Evangelists.  Hot  one  of  them  has  attempted 
 to  depict  the  character  of  his  Master.  Yet  so  conspicuously 
 does  it  stand  forth  in  them  that  it  is  obvious  to  every  reader, 
 and  produces  a  more  distinct  impression  than  the  most 
 elaborate  delineation.* 
 
 *  The  almost  entire  absence  of  praise  or  blame  assigned  to  the 
 different  agents  in  the  scenes  which  they  depict  is  a  most  striking 
 feature  in  the  Evangelists.  The  absence  of  the  expression  of  any 
 personal  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  writers  seems  almost  like  coldness. 
 
 12* 
 
180 
 
 THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST 
 
 Of  what  then  does  it  consist?  To  this  question  there 
 can  be  only  one  answer.  It  is  the  result  of  the  sum  total  of 
 the  narratives  and  discourses  which  compose  our  Gospels. 
 These  by  being  simply  placed  in  juxta-position,  by  their 
 combined  effect,  form  the  portraiture  of  the  divine  Christ. 
 
 I  say  that  this  result  has  been  produced  by  the  simple  juxta¬ 
 position  of  the  materials,  because  the  most  cursory  perusal 
 of  the  Gospels  must  convince  every  reader  that  nothing  was 
 farther  from  the  intention  of  their  authors  than  to  delineate 
 a  character  by  an  artificial  arrangement  of  its  parts. 
 Their  obvious  aim  and  purpose  was  to  furnish  such  a  selec¬ 
 tion  of  the  actions  and  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ  as  would 
 
 They  have  not  one  word  in  commendation  of  the  absolute  self-sacrifice 
 manifested  in  their  Master’s  life  ;  nor  of  His  unwearied  labours  in 
 doing  good  ;  nor  of  His  benevolence  ;  His  holiness,  or  His  humility  ; 
 or  any  one  of  the  striking  traits  of  His  character.  They  must  have 
 viewed  His  death  as  the  most  atrocious  of  murders  ;  yet  not  one  word 
 have  they  uttered  for  the  purpose  of  heightening  the  effect  of  His 
 cruel  sufferings,  or  even  of  drawing  our  attention  to  His  patient 
 endurance.  The  whole  account  of  the  Crucifixion  is  a  remarkably 
 matter-of-fact  one,  in  some  respects  it  is  even  meagre  ;  and  not  one 
 word  is  added  for  the  purpose  of  giving  pathos  to  the  scene.  Equally 
 remarkable  is  their  entire  absence  of  any  expression  of  surprise  or 
 admiration  at  any  miracle  which  Our  Lord  performed,  and  the  want 
 of  dramatic  colouring  in  their  relation  of  them.  The  authors  of  the 
 Gospels  are  exclusively  occupied  with  the  facts  which  they  narrate  ; 
 and  trusted  to  them  alone  to  produce  the  effect  which  they  desired. 
 In  one  word,  all  four  Evangelists  write  like  men  who  are  utterly 
 unconscious  that  they  are  delineating  the  greatest  character  in 
 history.  It  is  very  remarkable  that  even  with  respect  to  the  imme¬ 
 diate  agents  in  Our  Lord’s  death  there  is  an  absence  of  denunciation, 
 the  hardest  term  which  they  employ  being  that  by  which  they 
 designate  Judas  as  the  Traitor,  softened  in  three  out  of  the  four  into 
 the  expression,  “  he  who  delivered  him  up  (o  tt apaMdovc  instead  of 
 6  7 rpoSorrjc).  This  absence  of  remark  is  not  a  peculiarity  of  any  one  of 
 the  Evangelists,  but  alike  distinguishes  the  four.  When  we  consider 
 that  their  attachment  to  their  Master  was  profound,  it  constitutes  a 
 most  surprising  trait,  and  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that 
 any  portion  of  the  delineation  has  been  worked  up  for  the  purpose  of 
 producing  effect.  Yet  it  has  produced  one  which  has  utterly  distanced 
 the  mightiest  creations  of  genius. 
 
A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY. 
 
 181 
 
 be  adequate  to  teach  the  great  principles  of  Christianity. 
 Yet  out  of  what  I  may  call  a  chance  combination  of  their 
 materials  the  delineation  of  this  great  character  has 
 emerged,  which,  to  quote  once  more  the  words  of  Mr. 
 Lecky,  “  has  done  more  to  regenerate  and  soften  man¬ 
 kind  than  all  the  disquisitions  of  philosophers,  and  *  than 
 all  the  exhortations  of  moralists.”  The  question.  Of  what 
 does  the  great  character  consist  ?  will  be  best  answered  in 
 his  own  words :  it  consists  “  in  the  simple  record  of  three 
 short  years  of  active  life,”  and  I  may  add,  composed 
 extremely  inartificially. 
 
 Another  fact  requires  to  be  carefully  considered.  A  large 
 portion  of  the  Gospels  consists  of  a  miraculous  narrative, 
 and  of  events  so  closely  interwoven  with  it,  that  in  point  of 
 credibility  they  must  stand  or  fall  together.  So  likewise  is 
 it  with  respect  to  the  discourses  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels, 
 which  many  eminent  unbelievers  allow  to  have  been  the 
 veritable  utterances  of  Jesus.  Several  of  these  presuppose 
 the  miraculous  narrative,  and  others  contain  expressions 
 which  assume  in  Him  the  consciousness  of  a  superhuman 
 greatness,  and  which  it  is  impossible  to  believe  Him  to 
 have  uttered,  if  that  consciousness  was  unreal.  Now  as  the 
 delineation  of  the  character  is  the  result  of  the  mere  juxta¬ 
 position  of  the  contents  of  the  Gospels,  it  is  clear  that  the 
 miraculous  narratives  must  form  an  essential  portion  of  the 
 delineation,  and  the  effect  of  their  removal  as  unhistorical 
 would  be  not  only  that  the  residuum  would  lose  all  cohesion, 
 but  the  entire  destruction  of  the  character. 
 
 But  another  fact  connected  with  the  miraculous  narrative 
 has  a  most  important  bearing  on  the  argument.  The  cha¬ 
 racter  delineated  in  it  bears  the  same  moral  impress  as  that 
 which  is  delineated  in  those  parts  which  are  not  miraculous. 
 Both  are  embodiments  of  precisely  the  same  ideal  concep¬ 
 tion,  and  constitute  an  harmonious  whole  as  far  as  its  ideal 
 conception  is  concerned  ;  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  the 
 miraculous  portions  to  be  a  coinage  of  one  mint,  and  the 
 non-miraculous  of  another.  Both  are  stamped  with  the 
 
182  THE  UNTTY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST 
 
 same  impress^  and  bear  the  clearest  indications  of  having 
 issued  from  the  same  die.* 
 
 *  Mr.  Mill,  in  the  last  of  his  posthumous  essays,  lays  down  the 
 following  position,  “  It  is  no  use  to  say  that  Christ,  as  exhibited  in  the 
 Gospels,  is  not  historical ;  and  that  we  know  not  how  much  of  what  is 
 admirable  has  been  superadded  by  the  tradition  of  his  followers. 
 The  tradition  of  his  followers  suffices  to  have  inserted  any  number  of 
 miracles,  and  may  have  inserted  all  the  miracles  he  is  reported  to  have 
 wrought.  But  who  among  his  disciples  or  among  their  proselytes, 
 was  capable  of  inventing  the  sayings  ascribed  to  J esus,  or  of  imagining 
 the  life  and  character  revealed  in  the  Gospels  ?  Certainly  not  the 
 fishermen  of  Galilee,  certainly  not  St.  Paul,  and  still  less  the  eaily 
 Christian  writers,  in  whom  nothing  is  more  evident,  than  that  the  good 
 which  was  in  them  was  all  derived,  as  they  all  professed  that  it  was, 
 from  a  higher  source.”  This  is  certainly  a  most  remarkable  testimony, 
 coming  from  so  profound  a  reasoner,  with  such  antecedents  as  those 
 of  Mr.  Mill,  to  the  great  truth  which  I  am  labouring  to  establish,  that 
 it  is  impossible  that  the  followers  of  Jesus,  or  their  disciples,  can  have 
 invented  the  great  character  depicted  in  the  Gospels.  "W  hile,  how¬ 
 ever,  he  justly  pronounces  this  idea  utterly  untenable,  he  expresses 
 the  opinion  that  all  the  miraculous  narratives  recorded  in  them  may 
 be  their  invention.  It  is  clear  therefore  that  he  cannot  have  obseived 
 the  fact  pointed  out  in  the  text,  that  these  narratives  bear  the  same 
 moral  impress  as  the  other  portions  of  the  character ;  or  to  say  the 
 strict  truth,  that  some  of  its  finest  traits  form  portions  of  the 
 miraculous  narratives,  or  are  found  in  those  discourses  in  which  the 
 superhuman  aspects  of  Christ’s  character  are  depicted.  A  sti iking 
 instance  of  this  is  found  in  the  parabolic  representation  of  the  last 
 judgment  recorded  in  the  twenty-fifth  chapter  of  St.  Matthew.  Here 
 the  Son  of  Man  is  delineated  as  possessing  the  highest  super¬ 
 human  attributes,  yet  with  one  exception  it  is  the  most  exquisite 
 delineation  of  the  character  of  Our  Lord  to  be  found  in  any  single 
 passage  in  the  Gospels,  combining  as  it  does  the  perfection  of  dignity 
 with  condescension.  As  I  have  said,  to  take  away  all  those  portions 
 of  the  delineation  which  involve  the  presence  of  the  superhuman,  will 
 not  produce  a  human  Jesus,  but  merely  destroy  the  divine  one ;  and 
 therefore  on  the  principle  of  Mr.  Mill,  it  is  inconceivable  that  the 
 followers  of  Jesus  can  have  invented  the  miraculous  narratives  of  the 
 Gospels.  Some  of  them  may  have  been  within  their  powers  to  invent, 
 but  taken  as  a  series,  their  moral  environment  is,  to  use  Mr.  Mill’s 
 language,  absolutely  <f  above  them.5  Of  this,  the  contrast  presented 
 by  the  miraculous  narratives  in  the  apocryphal  Gospels  affords  a  most 
 decisive  proof. 
 
A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY.  183 
 
 I  also  assume  that  it  is  a  fact  palpable  to  every  reader, 
 that  the  great  character  delineated  in  the  Gospels  is  an 
 essential  unity.  All  the  parts  of  which  it  is  composed  fit 
 into  one  another  with  a  perfect  harmony.  It  should  be 
 especially  observed  that  this  is  equally  true  of  the  miraculous 
 actions  attributed  to  Our  Lord,  and  of  the  other  aspects  of 
 His  character.  Jesus  is  delineated  with  precisely  the  same 
 moral  aspect  as  a  worker  of  miracles,  as  He  is  in  His  dis¬ 
 courses.  The  delineation  is  made  up  of  a  vast  number  of 
 parts,  or,  in  other  words,  of  all  the  facts  recorded  in  the 
 Gospels ;  yet  it  forms  not  a  mere  congeries  of  materials, 
 but  a  perfect  unity.  This  is  so  evident  as  to  require  no 
 further  proof;  and  the  importance  of  its  bearing  on  the 
 argument,  whether  the  Gospels  are  narratives  of  facts,  or  a 
 confused  mass  of  legendary  matter,  is  unmistakable.* 
 
 The  existence  of  the  portraiture  being  a  fact,  it  follows 
 that  no  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospels,  or  of  the  nature 
 of  their  contents,  can  be  valid  which  is  inconsistent  with 
 its  reality.  The  theory  that  the  Gospels  are  in  all  their 
 main  outlines  historical  gives  a  philosophical  account  of  the 
 existence  and  unity  of  the  character.  The  creation  is  fully 
 
 *  Objections  have  been  made  to  the  unity  of  the  character  on 
 some  minor  points  of  detail,  bat  even  if  they  were  true,  it  would 
 not  affect  the  question  of  the  unity  of  all  its  grand  features,  or  the 
 hannonv  with  which  each  part  fits  into  the  others.  This  is  a  fact 
 which  ought  never  to  be  lost  sight  of  in  considering  this  question.  It 
 has  even  been  affirmed  that  the  character  of  Jesus  underwent  a 
 deterioration  during  the  latter  portion  of  His  ministry,  owing  to  the 
 opposition  which  He  encountered  from  His  opponents,  and  His  own 
 disappointed  expectations.  Even  if  the  allegation  were  true,  it  would 
 not  affect  the  question  of  the  essential  unity  of  the  character ;  but  the 
 alleged  deterioration  is  contrary  to  the  facts,  for  although  during  the 
 latter  days  of  His  ministry  Our  Lord’s  opponents  are  rebuked  with 
 the  greatest  sternness,  yet  at  no  period  are  the  milder  traits  of  His 
 character  more  exquisitely  brought  out.  Serious  objections  have 
 been  also  taken  to  the  severity  of  Our  Lord’s  denunciations  of  the 
 Pharisees,  as  inconsistent  with  the  perfection  of  His  character.  The 
 force  of  the  objection  entirely  depends  on  the  combination  of  qualities 
 
184  THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST 
 
 explained  by  the  fact  that  the  contents  of  the  Gospels  are  a 
 veritable  record  of  the  actions  and  sayings  of  Jesus,  taken 
 from  the  life.  The  mere  assertion  that  miracles  are  impos¬ 
 sible,  and  that  all  narratives  of  them  must  be  mythic  or 
 legendary,  is  no  solution  of  the  unquestionable  fact  that 
 their  contents  present  us  with  a  portraiture  of  Jesus  Christ; 
 and  that  this  portraiture  constitutes  an  harmonious  whole. 
 A  theory  which  asserts  their  unhistorical  character,  but 
 which  can  give  no  rational  account  of  the  origin  of  the 
 great  portraiture  which  they  contain,  is  crushed  under  its 
 own  weight. 
 
 Two  alternatives  only  are  open  to  those  who  assert  that 
 the  Gospels  consist  of  a  mass  of  legendary  matter  : — Either 
 their  portraiture  of  Jesus  Christ  must  be  an  ideal  creation 
 of  some  kind,  or  it  must  have  been  the  deliberate  invention 
 of  one  or  more  fraudulent  impostors. 
 
 requisite  to  constitute  a  perfect  character.  Those  who  have  urged 
 it  have  assumed  that  benevolence  is  the  one  attribute  which  con¬ 
 stitutes  perfection,  and  ignore  the  claims  of  holiness,  one  of  the 
 ingredients  of  which  is  indignation  at  wilful  moral  evil.  But  if  this  is 
 an  essentia]  portion  of  a  perfect  character  (and  I  contend  that  it  is  so), 
 then  the  delineators  have  displayed  a  more  accurate  knowledge  of 
 perfection  than  the  objectors.  It  should  be  observed  that  the  severity 
 of  aspect  which  the  Evangelists  have  attributed  to  Jesus,  is  not  called 
 forth  by  considerations  personal  to  Himself,  but  by  the  presence  of 
 deliberate  moral  evilj  above  all,  that  worst  form  of  it,  hypocrisy  :  and 
 even  in  its  sternest  manifestations,  as  in  the  twenty-third  chapter  of 
 St.  Matthew,  where  Our  Lord  denounces  the  hypocrisy  of  the  Phari¬ 
 sees,  it  is  accompanied  by  the  most  exquisite  burst  of  pathos  and 
 compassion  which  can  be  found  in  literature— “  O  Jerusalem,  Jeru¬ 
 salem,  thou  that  killest  the  prophets  and  stonest  them  that  are  sent 
 unto  thee,  how  often  would  I  have  gathered  thy  children  together 
 even  as  a  hen  gathereth  her  chickens  under  her  wings,  and  ye 
 would  not.”  I  maintain,  therefore,  that  holy  indignation  at  wicked¬ 
 ness  deliberately  persisted  in  is  an  essential  portion  of  a  perfect 
 character ;  that  its  absence  is  not  perfection  but  weakness ;  and  that 
 
 this  portion  of  the  delineation  perfectly  harmonizes  with  every  other 
 part. 
 
A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY.  185 
 
 This  last  alternative  has  only  to  be  expressed  in  plain 
 language  to  insure  its  refutation.  It  means  that  a  character 
 which  has  proved  to  be  the  greatest  incentive  to  holiness, 
 ever  brought  to  bear  on  mankind ,  has  been  the  deli¬ 
 berate  invention  of  conscious  fraud.  This  is  so  intrinsically 
 incredible  that  it  has  been  abandoned  by  all  the  great 
 leaders  of  modern  unbelief.  We  may  therefore  sum¬ 
 marily  dismiss  it.  It  only  remains  therefore  to  inquire, 
 whether  the  character  of  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels  can  be 
 an  ideal  creation ;  for  if  it  is  an  historical  reality,  it  is  too 
 clear  to  require  argument,  that  He  of  whom  it  is  the 
 delineation  must  have  been  superhuman. 
 
 The  theories  propounded  by  unbelievers  respecting  the 
 origin  of  the  Gospels  and  the  nature  of  their  contents,  have 
 been  framed  for  the  purpose  of  giving  a  plausible  account 
 of  the  origin  of  the  miraculous  narratives  they  contain. 
 They  vary  greatly  in  form,  but  the  following  brief  state¬ 
 ment  will  fairly  represent  their  general  character.  Jesus  of 
 Nazareth  was  a  great  man,  who  probably  fell  into  the  hallu¬ 
 cination  of  supposing  himself  to  be  possessed  of  a  divine 
 commission ;  nay,  that  he  was  the  Messiah  of  Old  Testament 
 prediction.  He  gathered  around  him  considerable  numbers 
 of  credulous  and  enthusiastic  followers.  It  is  uncertain 
 whether  he  professed  to  work  miracles ;  but  his  followers 
 and  their  converts  during  the  course  of  the  first  century 
 innocently  invented  a  number  of  legends,  containing,  as 
 such  usually  do,  a  multitude  of  stories  of  supernatural  and 
 superhuman  occurrences.  These  were  gradually  attributed 
 to  Jesus,  and  in  time  formed  the  substance  of  the  popular 
 beliefs  respecting  him ;  and  after  a  while  they  succeeded  in 
 completely  obscuring  the  actual  facts  of  his  history.  These 
 legends  were  gradually  accepted  by  the  Church  as  the 
 genuine  account  of  its  Founders  life;  portions  of  them 
 were  committed  to  writing,  and  out  of  a  mass  of  materials 
 of  this  kind,  partly  written,  and  partly  oral,  their  authors, 
 whoever  they  may  have  been,  composed  the  Synoptic 
 
186 
 
 THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST. 
 
 Gospels  early  in  the  second  century ;  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
 which  is  the  work  of  a  deliberate  forger  of  great  genius, 
 being  a  composition  of  much  later  date.  .According  to  this 
 theory,  the  authors  of  the  Synoptics  must  be  viewed  as 
 the  editors  of  a  set  of  legends  respecting  Jesus,  which  were 
 floating  about  in  the  Christian  Society,  the  ground-work  of 
 which  had  probably  been  previously  reduced  to  writing,  but 
 which  they  transformed  and  enlarged  by  the  aid  of  other 
 materials,  so  as  to  suit  the  views  of  the  respective  writers, 
 or  the  tastes  of  the  different  parties  in  the  Christian  Church. 
 The  Fourth  Gospel  however  is  fabricated  out  of  a-  wholly 
 different  class  of  materials. 
 
 Such,  in  brief  outline,  is  the  alternative  to  the  acceptance 
 of  the  Gospels  as  veritable  narratives  of  facts ;  for  every 
 ideal  theory,  however  varied  it  may  be  in  form,  is  com¬ 
 pelled  to  have  recourse  to  legend  or  deliberate  invention, 
 to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  miraculous  narrative.  It  will 
 be  impossible  for  me  to  point  out  all  its  inconsistencies, 
 or  to  discuss  its  minute  details  in  the  present  course 
 of  Lectures,  but  I  have  already  done  this  in  another 
 work.*  I  can  only  deal  with  it  here  in  relation  to  a 
 single  point,  namely,  that  the  unquestionable  unity  and 
 perfection  of  the  character  delineated  in  the  Gospels, 
 renders  it  impossible  that  it  can  have  originated  in  any 
 
 agglomeration  of  myths  and  legends,  such  as  the  theory 
 presupposes. 
 
 This  theory,  it  is  true,  has  not  been  propounded  for  the 
 specific  purposes  of  accounting  for  the  origin  of  the 
 portraiture  of  Jesus  in  the  Gospels;  but  for  that  of  their 
 miraculous  narratives ;  as,  however,  the  portraiture  itself 
 is  made  up  of  the  entire  mass  of  facts  which  they  record, 
 it  is  clear  that  a  theory  adequate  to  account  for  the  facts 
 ought  at  the  same  time  to  afford  a  rational  account  of  the 
 origin  of  the  portraiture.  This  has  been  almost  entirely 
 
 *  The  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists. 
 
A  PROOF  OP  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY. 
 
 187 
 
 overlooked  by  the  opponents,  and  but  very  imperfectly 
 insisted  on  by  the  defenders  of  Christianity.  The  former 
 have  acted  on  the  supposition  that  if  they  could  propound  a 
 theory  which  would  afford  a  plausible  account  of  the  origin 
 of  the  miraculous  narratives,  their  work  was  accomplished, 
 and  the  basis  of  Christianity  subverted.  But  this  is  obviously 
 a  mistake.  Before  this  can  be  effected,  a  theory  must  also 
 be  propounded  which,  on  the  supposition  of  their  legendary 
 character,  will  be  adequate  to  account  for  the  portraiture  of 
 the  divine  Christ — a  portraiture  which  does  as  clearly  exist 
 in  them  as  the  miraculous  narratives.  It  is  evident,  there¬ 
 fore,  that  a  theory  which  is  inadequate  to  account  for  the 
 origin  of  the  one  must  be  an  incorrect  account  of  that  of 
 the  other. 
 
 It  would  be  comparatively  easy  to  account  for  the  exist¬ 
 ence  of  this  portraiture,  supposing  it  to  be  an  ideal  one,  if 
 it  was  possible  to  assume  that,  like  other  great  ideal  con¬ 
 ceptions,  it  was  the  creation  of  a  single  genius,  and  that 
 the  four  Evangelists  had  used  it  as  a  common  model  in 
 framing  their  respective  delineations,  which  they  modified 
 to  suit  their  own  views.*  But  all  ideas  of  this  kind  are 
 completely  negatived  by  the  facts  and  phenomena  of  the 
 Gospels,  for  the  nature  of  the  materials  of  which  the  por¬ 
 traiture  is  composed  proves  to  demonstration  that  it  cannot 
 have  been  due  to  the  creative  powers  of  any  single  mind ; 
 
 *  I  do  not  mean  that  it  would  be  abstractedly  easy,  but  that  it  would 
 be  easy  by  comparison.  It  lias  been  well  observed  that  the  genius 
 which  was  capable  of  inventing  the  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists,  must 
 have  been  almost  as  great  as  that  of  the  character  which  he  has 
 delineated.  When  we  take  into  account  the  conditions  under  which 
 he  must  have  worked,  the  success  of  any  such  attempt  would  have 
 been  impossible.  This  I  have  endeavoured  to  show  in  the  before- 
 mentioned  work  by  examining  in  detail  the  difficulties  which  must 
 have  been  encountered  and  overcome  by  any  such  supposed  idealist. 
 It  is  clear  however  that  these  difficulties  are  immeasurably  increased 
 by  the  necessity  which  every  form  of  a  legendary  theory  is  under,  of 
 postulating,  that  the  legends  which  compose  our  Gospels  are  not  the 
 invention  of  a  single  mind,  but  of  many. 
 
188 
 
 THE  UNITY  OP  THE  CHARACTER  OP  CHRIST 
 
 and  equally  certain  is  it  that  it  cannot  have  been  due  to 
 any  artificial  combination  of  materials  on  the  part  of  the 
 authors  of  the  Gospels.  This  is  abundantly  proved  by  the 
 fact  that  we  have  not  merely  one  single  portraiture  of  the 
 Christ,  but  four,  each  of  which  is  taken  from  a  slightly 
 different  point  of  view,  while  at  the  same  time  all  the  great 
 features  are  identical;  for  the  very  fact  that  there  are  four 
 delineations,  each  possessing  a  substantial  unity  of  conception, 
 utterly  negatives  the  idea  that  the  resemblance  can  have 
 been  due  to  any  artificial  combination  of  materials.  Nothing, 
 therefore  can  be  more  certain  than  that  each  Evangelist 
 must  have  found  the  character  already  existing  in  the 
 materials  at  his  command,  and  that  the  four  portraitures 
 have  simply  resulted  from  their  having  arranged  them  in 
 four  sets  of  memoirs. 
 
 It  is  a  matter  of  indifference  in  reference  to  this  argument 
 whether  the  materials  out  of  which  the  Evangelists  have 
 constructed  the  Gospels  were  written  documents  or  oral 
 traditions,  or  partly  written  and  partly  oral.  If  we  adopt 
 the  theory  that  the  Synoptic  Gospels  have  been  largely 
 composed  by  the  aid  of  previously  existing  documents,  then 
 it  is  evident  that  the  character  must  have  been  already 
 virtually  portrayed  in  those  documents,  and  the  question 
 arises,  how  it  got  there.  The  documents  must  clearly  have 
 been  composed  from  traditions  which,  if  the  miraculous 
 narratives  in  the  Gospels  are  unhistorical,  must  have  been  a 
 set  of  legendary  inventions.  It  follows,  therefore,  whether 
 we  assume  the  Gospels  to  have  been  composed  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  mass  of  floating  legends ; 
 
 and,  further,  that  these  legends  must  have  had  numerous 
 inventors. 
 
 The  great  character  delineated  in  the  Gospels  must  there- 
 f°ie  have  been  the  creation  of  the  persons  who  originally 
 invented  the  legends  of  which  it  is  composed  ;  each  one 
 having  delineated  that  portion  of  it  which  is  contained  in  the 
 
A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY.  189 
 
 narrative  which  lie  invented.  The  only  other  possible 
 supposition  is,  that  the  conception  of  the  character  was  so 
 deeply  impressed  on  their  minds,  that  the  legends  which 
 they  invented  became  stamped  with  its  moral  impress  ;  but 
 such  a  supposition  is  subversive  of  the  theory  before  us;  for 
 it  presupposes  the  character  to  have  been  already  in 
 existence,  and  consequently  an  historical  reality.  Moreovei, 
 as  the  miraculous  narratives  in  the  Gospels  are  numerous, 
 the  number  of  persons  who  invented  the  legends  which 
 compose  them  must  also  have  been  large,  and  therefore 
 equally  numerous  must  have  been  those  who  contributed  to 
 the  portraiture  of  the  divine  Christ. 
 
 All  this  is  presupposed  by  the  legendary  theory  itself.  It 
 is  based  on  the  assumption  that  the  primitive  followers  of 
 Jesus  were  to  the  last  degree  enthusiastic,  credulous  and 
 superstitious.  In  such  an  atmosphere  the  legendary  spirit 
 would  run  riot.  It  is  quite  clear,  therefore,  if  this  theory 
 is  correct,  that  the  legends  in  our  Gospels  are  only  a 
 selection  from  a  much  larger  number  which  the  primitive 
 believers  invented  and  attributed  to  Jesus.  It  is  expressly 
 affirmed  in  numerous  passages  in  the  Gospels  that  He  per¬ 
 formed  many  more  miracles  than  are  there  recorded ;  con¬ 
 sequently  if  all  those  were  legendary,  such  legendary 
 narratives  must  have  been  exceedingly  numerous. 
 
 This  being  so,  it  is  hardly  too  much  to  say  that  the 
 legendary  theory  of  the  origin  of  the  miraculous  narratives 
 involves  a  greater  miracle  than  any  of  those  related  in  the 
 pages  of  the  New  Testament. 
 
 The  following  difficulties  are  insuperable: — 
 
 First :  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  delineation  of  a  charac¬ 
 ter,  possessing  the  unity  of  conception  of  the  Jesus  of  the 
 Evangelists,  can  have  resulted  from  the  fusion  of  a  number 
 of  legends  which  have  been  invented  by  a  variety  of  minds. 
 If  it  be  an  ideal  one,  it  is  certainly  the  greatest  of  ideal 
 creations,  and  it  is  therefore  quite  as  rational  to  imagine  that 
 one  of  the  grandest  works  of  art,  such  as  a  great  painting, 
 can  have  been  produced  by  the  selection  of  a  number  of 
 
190 
 
 THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHAEACTEE  OF  CHEIST 
 
 smaller  ones,  the  work  of  various  artists,  placed  in  juxta¬ 
 position  on  the  canvas,  as  that  the  Gospel  portraiture  of  the 
 Christ  can  have  originated  in  a  similar  manner.  The  unity 
 of  the  character  and  the  exquisite  harmony  of  the  parts  are 
 consistent  with  only  two  suppositions.  It  must  be  either 
 the  delineation  of  an  historical  reality,  or  the  creation  of 
 a  single  mind.  This  last  supposition  is  not  only  negatived 
 by  the  facts  of  the  Gospels;  but  it  has  not  even  been 
 suggested  by  those  who  deny  their  historical  character. 
 
 Secondly :  the  mythologists  must  have  all  concurred  in 
 inventing  legends  which  were  stamped  with  the  same  lofty 
 moral  ideal.  This  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  Jesus  of 
 the  miraculous  narratives  is  the  same  elevated  character  as 
 the  Jesus  of  the  non-miraculous  ones.  It  is  a  fact  which, 
 with  the  Gospels  in  our  hands,  is  undeniable,  that  wherever 
 He  is  delineated  in  the  superhuman  aspects  of  His  character. 
 His  moral  elevation  is  as  great,  or  even  greater,  than  in  the 
 oidinary  human  ones.  Yet  all  these,  if  there  was  nothing 
 superhuman  in  His  character,  must  have  originated  in  a 
 mass  of  legends. 
 
 But  not  only  does  a  legendary  spirit  universally  involve 
 the  presence  of  a  low  moral  ideal  (for  this  is  the  never- 
 failing  accompaniment  of  extreme  credulity),  but  according 
 to  the  theories  widely  accepted  by  unbelievers,  these  parti¬ 
 cular  legends  must  have  been  the  creation  of  a  body  of  men 
 who  were  at  once  narrow-minded,  credulous,  and  I  may  say, 
 fanatically  enthusiastic.  Such  a  character  its  propounders 
 are  compelled  to  attribute  to  the  followers  of  Jesus  in  order 
 that  they  may  impart  the  appearance  of  plausibility  to  their 
 account  of  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  the  miracle  of  the 
 Resurrection.  Still  more,  according  to  the  theories  of 
 modern  unbelief  the  community  in  the  midst  of  which  the 
 legends  originated  was  animated  by  a  strong*  spirit  of  party, 
 which  split  it  up  into  a  number  of  contending  sects.  What 
 effect  must  this  have  produced  on  the  legends  evolved  by 
 such  a  society  ?  They  would  be  deeply  tinged  with  its 
 moral  impress,  and  they  would  bear  the  indubitable  marks 
 
A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY. 
 
 191 
 
 of  narrow-mindedness,  bigotry,  and  fanaticism.  Each  sect 
 would  liave  elaborated  a  set  of  legends  in  conformity  with 
 its  owi!  tastes ;  and  as  the  Judaizing  party  was  the  pre¬ 
 dominant  one  among  the  primitive  followers  of  Jesus,  they 
 would  certainly  have  invented  legends  which  were  the 
 counterparts  of  their  own  narrow-mindedness  and  intoler¬ 
 ance.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact,  no  such  spirit  is  impressed 
 on  the  narrative  of  any  one  of  the  actions  attributed  to 
 Jesus.  Great  therefore  must  have  been  the  unanimity  of 
 the  inventors,  and  their  moral  ideal  pre-eminently  lofty.  I 
 ask  your  attention  to  a  few  facts  in  illustration  of  the  diffi¬ 
 culties  which  a  number  of  ideologists  must  have  encountered 
 and  overcome  before  they  could  have  succeeded  in  delinea¬ 
 ting  this  great  character. 
 
 1.  They  must  have  all  concurred  in  delineating  a  cha¬ 
 racter  which  is  the  most  perfect  manifestation  of  benevo¬ 
 lence,  tempered  with  the  perfection  of  holiness.  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  as  to  how  these  two  elements  are  to  be 
 exhibited  in  combination  is  very  wide ;  not  a  few  contending 
 that  the  perfection  of  benevolence  requires  the  exclusion  of 
 the  sterner  aspects  of  holiness.  Yet  these  two  aspects  of 
 the  character,  as  it  is  depicted  by  the  Evangelists,  weld 
 together  wdth  an  exquisite  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. 
 
 2.  Numerous  as  must  have  been  the  mythologists,  they 
 have  all  concurred  in  attributing  to  Jesus  absolute  unselfish¬ 
 ness.  If  we  read  the  Gospels  from  one  end  to  another,  we 
 can  detect  not  one  single  selfish  trait.  It  follows  therefore 
 that  none  of  the  numerous  legends  out  of  which  the  cha¬ 
 racter  has  been  composed,  could  have  depicted  Him  as 
 stirred  to  anger  by  a  sense  of  personal  injury,  or  animated 
 
192 
 
 THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST 
 
 by  a  single  motive  of  self-interest.  Still  anger  is  not 
 unfrequently  ascribed  to  Him ;  but  it  is  invariably  aroused 
 by  the  extreme  forms  of  moral  obliquity.  But  further  : 
 nowhere  is  this  unselfishness  more  strongly  exhibited  than 
 in  the  miraculous  narratives,  which  according  to  the  theory 
 I  am  combating,  must  have  been  pure  legendary  inventions. 
 
 3.  Equally  unanimous  must  they  have  been  in  attributing 
 to  Our  Lord  the  highest  degree  of  self-assertion,  united 
 with  the  most  perfect  humility*  Yet  at  the  same  time 
 it  is  blended  with  the  profoundest  humility;  both  fit  into 
 each  other  with  an  exquisite  harmony,  and  are  pre-eminently 
 conspicuous  in  his  miraculous  actions.  This  is  a  trait  the  fine 
 touches  of  which  defy  all  power  of  imitation,  and  which 
 underlies  the  entire  structure  of  the  Gospels.  The  most 
 
 *  This  self-assertion  of  Our  Lord  is  unique  in  history ;  and  if  it  had 
 been  put  into  the  mouth  of  any  other  character  would  have  been 
 positively  offensive.  It  pervades  the  Synoptics,  as  well  as  the  Fourth 
 Gospel,  though  in  the  latter  it  appears  in  a  somewhat  more  dogmatic 
 form.  Thus  the  Synoptics  are  unanimous  in  representing  Him  as 
 basing  his  teaching  on  no  other  authority  than  His  own.  This  is 
 conspicuously  exhibited  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  where  He 
 exercises  the  right  of  explaining  and  modifying  utterances,  which 
 both  He  and  His  hearers  esteemed  to  be  oracles  from  heaven,  on  the 
 simple  basis  of,  “  I  say  unto  you.  ’  Yet  all  the  former  prophets  had 
 uniformly  referred  their  utterances,  not  to  any  inherent  light  pos¬ 
 sessed  by  themselves,  but  to  one  coming  to  them  from  an  external 
 source,  always  using  a  formula  equivalent  to  the  words,  “Thus 
 saith  the  Lord.”  Such  a  formula  is  never  once  attributed  to  Jesus 
 throughout  the  entire  Gospels.  Precisely  similar  is  His  mode  of 
 performing  miracles,  the  reference  being  made  solely  to  Himself, 
 uniformly  denoted  by  the  words,  “I  say  unto  thee,”  or,  “I  will.”  In 
 a  similar  manner  He  is  depicted  throughout  with  a  consciousness  of 
 supreme  worthiness,  before  which  every  bond  that  unites  man  to  man. 
 even  the  highest  recognized  by  God’s  law,  must  yield.  Equally  uni- 
 form  is  His  aspect  of  self-conscious  dignity.  Yiewing  these  utterances 
 as  those  ot  a  mere  man,  however  great,  they  are  simply  extravagant ; 
 and  the  extravagance  is  greatly  increased  by  the  humble  position  of 
 the  utterer.  1c  et  all  this  is  united  with  an  inexpressible  sweetness  and 
 mildness  of  character,  a  humility  which  is  perfectly  natural,  because 
 it  is  never  obtrusive,  and  a  most  unwearying  patience.  JNow  nothing 
 
A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY. 
 
 193 
 
 accomplished  idealist  would  have  found  the  delineation  of 
 this  portion  of  the  character  a  work  of  the  greatest  difficulty. 
 Yet  if  the  legendary  theory  be  true,  not  only  must  the 
 numerous  mythologists  of  primitive  Christianity  have  been 
 unanimous  in  attributing  this  exquisite  trait  of  character 
 to  Jesus,  but  they  have  succeeded  in  delineating  it  to 
 perfection. 
 
 4.  It  cannot  fail  to  be  observed  that  the  same  moral 
 aspect  pervades  the  entire  Gospels.  We  do  not  find  one 
 conception  of  it  cropping  up  in  this  place,  and  another  in 
 that :  but  the  ideal  of  morality  is  uniform  throughout,  and 
 I  ask  you  particularly  to  observe  that  it  is  equally  impressed 
 on  those  portions  which  are  indissolubly  united  with  the 
 narratives  of  miracles,  and  on  the  remainder  of  their 
 contents.  The  inventors  of  the  legends  which  compose  them 
 must  therefore  have  been  all  thoroughly  penetrated  with  the 
 same  set  of  moral  ideas ;  and  those  too  of  the  most 
 elevated  character. 
 
 5.  Equally  unanimous  must  they  have  been  in  attributing 
 the  ideal  of  moral  perfection  to  the  character  they  invented ; 
 still  more  remarkable  is  it  that  they  must  have  been  agreed 
 in  what  the  ideal  of  moral  perfection  consisted.  We  know 
 as  a  matter  of  fact  that  there  has  been  a  very  wide  diversity 
 of  opinion  as  to  the  mode  and  degree  in  which  the  various 
 
 would  have  more  tried  the  skill  of  the  poet  or  the  novelist,  than  to 
 make  the  parts  of  such  a  character  harmonize  with  one  another. 
 Yet  the  self-assertion  is  free  from  every  mark  of  arrogance,  and  the 
 humility  from  meanness.  The  harmonious  union  of  all  these  traits  is 
 one  which  would  have  defied  the  powers  of  the  most  exalted  genius  ; 
 yet  every  reader  instinctively  feels  that  they  are  exquisitely  blended 
 together  in  the  portraiture  of  the  J esus  of  the  Evangelists.  Of  this, 
 the  25th  chapter  of  St.  Matthew  and  the  13th  of  St.  John  may  be 
 cited  as  crucial  examples.  Yet  if  the  legendary  theory  is  a  true 
 account  of  the  origin  of  the  Gospels,  not  only  must  the  parts  of  which 
 it  is  composed  have  been  the  creation  of  a  number  of  minds,  working 
 independently  of  each  other,  but  the  exquisite  blending  of  the  parts 
 has  resulted  merely  from  their  being  placed  in  juxta-position  on  the 
 canvas. 
 
 13 
 
194 
 
 THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST 
 
 virtues  ought  to  be  combined  so  as  to  form  a  perfect  cha¬ 
 racter.  Yet  the  delineators  of  the  portraiture  of  the  Jesus 
 of  the  Evangelists  must  on  this  point  have  been  unanimous. 
 No  trait  of  discord  can  be  found  throughout  it. 
 
 If  then  it  was  the  delineation  of  many  minds  (and  it 
 cannot  have  been  otherwise,  if  the  legendary  theory  be  true) 
 it  is  evident  that  they  must  have  all  concurred  in  working 
 out  one  common  conception. 
 
 I  have  thus  adduced  a  few  examples  of  the  unity  of  con¬ 
 ception  which  underlies  the  whole  structure  of  the  Gospels. 
 It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  them  indefinitely.  I  contend 
 that  their  existence  is  utterly  inconsistent  with  any  theory  of 
 the  origin  of  the  Gospels,  which  assumes  that  a  large  portion 
 of  their  contents  consists  of  legends  which  were  gradually 
 evolved  during  the  first  century,  and  afterwards  mistaken 
 for  historical  realities ;  and  that  the  only  theory  con¬ 
 sistent  with  the  fact  that  the  portraiture  of  Jesus  is  har¬ 
 monious  throughout  is,  that  it  is  a  copy  of  an  historical 
 reality. 
 
 The  suggestion  that  the  great  character  of  the  Gospels, 
 one  which  is  more  perfect  than  the  greatest  of  all  ideal 
 conceptions,  can  have  originated  in  the  agglomeration  of  a 
 mass  of  legends,  the  creation  of  a  multitude  of  minds,  is  as 
 much  opposed  to  our  reason,  as  the  supposition  that  an 
 exquisite  work  of  art  can  have  been  produced  by  any  mere 
 juxtaposition  of  the  parts  which  compose  it.  We  also  know 
 as  a  matter  of  fact  that  the  moral  ideal  of  a  society  in  which 
 the  mythic  spirit  predominates  is  low.  In  proof  of  this 
 may  be  quoted  the  whole  mass  of  legendary  literature.  Such 
 literature  is  invariably  stamped  with  the  moral  impress  of 
 its  inventors.  What  the  legendary  spirit  was  capable  of 
 perpetrating  in  Christianity,  we  have  the  means  of  verifying 
 for  ourselves  by  perusing  the  apocryphal  Gospels,  two  of 
 which  in  all  probability  date  not  later  than  the  first  half  of 
 the  second  century.  These  are  just  what  we  should  expect 
 that  such  productions  would  be.  Their  miraculous  narratives 
 are  stamped  with  a  low  moral  ideal.  Our  blessed  Lord 
 
A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY.  195. 
 
 Himself  is  depicted  in  tliem  not  unfrecpiently  as  a  mis¬ 
 chievous  boy,  armed  with  superhuman  power,  which  he 
 exerts  with  the  utmost  capriciousness.  I  do  not  think  that 
 they  contain  an  account  of  a  single  dignified  miracle, 
 although  the  miraculous  stories  are  numerous ;  they  are  all 
 distinguished  by  every  possible  contrast  from  those  recorded 
 in  the  Canonical  Gospels.  It  is  simply  incredible  that  the 
 same  spirit  which  has  created  the  contents  of  the  apocryphal 
 Gospels,  could  have  evolved  those  of  the  Canonical  ones,  or 
 vice  versa.  The  interval  which  separates  the  one  from  the 
 other  is  enormous.* 
 
 It  may  perhaps  be  objected  that  a  large  amount  of 
 legendary  matter  was  in  existence  when  the  Gospels  were 
 
 *  We  cannot  be  too  grateful  for  the  preservation  of  these  eighteen 
 collections  of  myths  and  legends  which  still  remain,  and  are  inaccu¬ 
 rately  designated  Gospels.  It  is  deeply  to  be  regretted  that  we  are 
 not  now  in  possession  of  the  entire  body  of  apocryphal  literature 
 which  is  known  to  have  been  in  existence  during  the  early  ages  of 
 Christianity.  It  would  have  made  our  means  of  instituting  a  com¬ 
 parison  between  it  and  the  Canonical  Gospels  more  perfect  and 
 thorough.  If  these  Gospels  have  perished  through  the  indiscreet 
 zeal  of  friends  to  the  Christian  cause,  it  proves  that  nothing  is  more 
 injurious  than  zeal  undirected  by  discretion.  Such  as  have  been 
 preserved,  however,  enable  us  to  ascertain,  not  merely  as  a  matter 
 of  theory,  but  of  fact,  what  was  the  kind  of  creations  effected  by  the 
 legendaiy  spiiit,  when  it  exerted  itself  on  subjects  connected  with  the 
 history  of  the  Founder  of  Christianity.  Every  person  who  wishes  to 
 form  a  definite  opinion  on  this  subject  should  carefully  peruse  these 
 eighteen  productions.  I  feel  confident  that  whoever  will  do  so,  will 
 rise  from  the  perusal  with  deep  conviction  of  the  vastness  of  the 
 interval  which  separates  legendary  from  historical  Christianity.  The 
 following  will  be  found  to  be  an  accurate  description  of  the  contrast 
 between  these  collections  of  legends  and  our  Canonical  Gospels.  I 
 quote  a  passage  from  the  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists,  in  which  I  have 
 endeavoured  to  convey  to  the  minds  of  those  who  have  not  read  them 
 a  correct  idea  of  this  contrast :  “  Our  Gospels  present  us  with  the 
 picture  of  a  glorious  Ciirist ;  the  mythic  Gospels  with  that  of  a 
 contemptible  one.  Our  Gospels  have  invested  Him  with  the  highest 
 conceivable  form  or  greatness ;  the  mythic  ones  have  not  ascribed  to 
 Him  one  action  which  is  elevated.  In  our  Gospels,  He  exhibits  a 
 
 13* 
 
196 
 
 THE  UNITY  OP  THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST 
 
 composed,  and  that  their  authors  have  incorporated  only  the 
 more  dignified  portions  into  their  narratives,  and  thereby 
 consigned  the  rubbish  to  oblivion.  I  reply  that  this  theory 
 contradicts  all  known  facts. 
 
 First,  it  is  contrary  to  experience  that  the  legendary 
 spirit  has  ever  invented  anything  of  the  elevated  moral  type 
 such  as  that  of  the  miraculous  narratives,  and  the  discourses 
 found  inseparably  united  with  them  in  the  Gospels. 
 
 Secondly  it  is  incredible  that  several  writers,  nurtured  in 
 the  midst  of  such  a  spirit,  should  have  concurred  in  select¬ 
 ing  all  the  elevated  ones,  and  rejecting  all  of  a  contrary 
 character.* 
 
 superhuman  wisdom ;  in  the  mythic  ones,  an  almost  equally  super¬ 
 human  absurdity.  In  our  Gospels,  He  is  arrayed  in  all  the  beauty 
 of  holiness ;  in  the  mythic  ones  this  aspect  of  character  is  entirely 
 wanting.  In  our  Gospels  not  one  stain  of  selfishness  defiles  His 
 character ;  in  the  mythic  ones,  the  boy  Jesus  is  both  pettish  and 
 malicious.  Our  Gospels  exhibit  a  sublime  morality  ;  scarcely  a  ray 
 of  it  shines  in  those  of  the  mythologists.  The  miracles  of  the  one 
 and  of  the  other  are  contrasted  in  every  point.  A  similar  opposition 
 of  character  runs  through  the  whole  current  of  their  thought,  feeling, 
 morality,  and  religion.”  This  contrast  is  rendered  all  the  more  remark¬ 
 able  by  the  fact  that  the  contents  of  these  Gospels  render  it  certain 
 that  if  their  authors  had  not  read  some  of  our  Canonical  Gospels, 
 they  must  have  drawn  from  a  common  source  of  information.  They 
 are  chiefly  confined  to  two  portions  of  Our  Lord’s  life,  His  infancy 
 and  boyhood,  and  His  Passion,  giving  also  a  number  of  incidents 
 respecting  Mary  and  Joseph,  but  they  leave  the  events  of  His 
 ministry  almost  entirely  unnoticed.  [Respecting  Our  Lord’s  infancy 
 and  boyhood,  of  which  the  accounts  in  the  Canonical  Gospels  are 
 extremely  brief,  the  legendary  ones  furnish  us  with  the  most 
 grotesque  details.  Portions  of  the  account  of  the  Passion  and  the 
 [Resurrection  are  nearly  in  the  words  of  the  GospelS  ;  but  they  add  a 
 number  of  incidents  of  a  character  utterly  unhistorical  ;  and  of 
 speeches  supposed  to  have  been  uttered  by  different  persons  connected 
 with  the  scenes,  the  contents  of  which  are  simply  incredible. 
 
 *  The  supposition  at  the  foundation  of  all  legendary  theories  of  the 
 origin  of  the  Gospels  is  that  the  Evangelists,  or  the  persons  who 
 composed  the  documents  which  they  employed,  were  themselves 
 deeply  infected  with  the  legendary  spirit,  This  assumption  is  neces- 
 
A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY. 
 
 197 
 
 Thirdly ;  even  if  this  had  been  possible,  yet  as  the 
 popular  legendary  spirit  always  seizes  on  what  is  wild  and 
 grotesque,  this  new  edition  of  chastened  legends  would 
 never  have  gained  acceptance  by  the  popular  mind ;  yet  it 
 is  evident  from  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  of  the  two  first 
 centuries,  that  the  accounts  in  our  Gospels,  or  at  any  rate, 
 precisely  similar  ones,  had  attained  universal  acceptance  as 
 embodying  the  true  type  of  the  actions  which  the  Church 
 attributed  to  its  Founder.  If  it  be  urged  that  in  accordance 
 with  the  theory  of  the  survival  of  the  fittest,  the  legends  of 
 an  elevated  type  would  survive,  while  the  rest  would  perish, 
 I  reply  that  this  theory  is  not  true  in  a  community  which  is 
 thoroughly  infected  with  the  legendary  spirit.  On  the 
 contrary,  the  grotesque,  as  more  adapted  to  the  popular 
 taste,  survive,  while  the  elevated  ones,  if  such  could  spring 
 up  at  all  in  such  a  soil,  must  perish. 
 
 Nor  is  the  theory  of  tendencies  more  successful  as  a 
 possible  account  of  the  facts.  This  theory  has  been  very 
 extensively  propounded  as  affording  an  adequate  ground  for 
 
 sary  in  order  to  account  for  the  miraculous  narratives.  Unless  they 
 had  been  profoundly  credulous,  it  is  impossible  that  they  could  have 
 mistaken  a  mass  of  floating  legends  for  historical  facts,  at  a  time 
 when  their  verification  was  not  only  possible,  but  easy.  Such  persons 
 could  have  possessed  neither  the  requisite  taste  nor  judgment  to 
 enable  them  to  select  from  the  mass  of  legends  then  in  circulation 
 those  of  an  elevated  type,  and  to  reject  the  grotesque,  which  from 
 the  nature  of  the  case  must  have  been  by  far  the  most  numerous  and 
 acceptable  to  the  popular  mind.  It  is  also  clear,  whatever  may  have 
 been  the  date  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  that  a  large  mass  of  legends 
 must  have  been  in  existence  when  they  were  composed.  Equally 
 certain  is  it,  although  the  common  narrative  may  have  been  derived 
 from  a  common  document,  that  each  of  the  Evangelists  has  incor¬ 
 porated  into  his  own  Gospel  matter  which  is  peculiar  to  himself,  and 
 which  must  therefore  have  been  derived  from  legendary  sources  of 
 information.  This  being  so,  it  is  inconceivable  that  each  of  these 
 writers  should  have  concurred  with  the  others  in  rejecting  every 
 grotesque  legend  from  his  pages,  unless  they  had  all  arrived  at  a 
 previous  understanding  to  do  so,  ’which  is  not  even  alleged  as 
 affording  a  probable  solution  of  the  facts. 
 
198 
 
 THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST 
 
 some  of  the  phenomena  presented  by  the  Gospels,  and  the 
 gradual  formation  of  Catholic  Christianity.  According  to  ifc 
 the  primitive  Church  was  divided  into  a  number  of  discor¬ 
 dant  sects,  which  elaborated  a  set  of  doctrines  and  fictitious 
 stories  for  the  purpose  of  realizing  their  own  peculiar 
 tendencies.  When  the  sectarian  spirit  had  risen  to  a 
 dangerous  height,  it  was  found  necessary  to  effect  com¬ 
 promises  between  these  discordant  schools.  Of  this  spirit 
 St.  Luke's  Gospel  and  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  are  adduced 
 as  striking  examples.  Both  works  are  said  to  have  been 
 composed  for  the  purpose  of  mediating  between  contending 
 parties,  and  thereby  creating  a  common  Christianity.  For 
 the  same  purpose  the  author  is  alleged  to  have  largely 
 modified  the  materials  of  which  he  was  in  possession,  and  to 
 have  imparted  a  strong  colouring  to,  if  he  did  not  actually 
 invent,  most  of  the  miracles  which  are  recorded  in  the  latter 
 book. 
 
 It  is  impossible  for  me  in  these  Lectures  to  discuss  the 
 details  of  this  theory.*  It  will  be  sufficient  for  my  purpose 
 to  observe  that  it  is  absolutely  negatived  by  the  fact  that  the 
 
 *  It  is  important  to  observe  that  this  theory,  in  common  with  every 
 other  which  affirms  the  unhistorical  character  of  the  G-ospels,  is 
 obliged  to  assume  the  existence  of  a  legendary  spirit,  as  that  which 
 has  created  their  miraculous  narratives.  The  only  difference  between 
 it  and  other  theories  which  account  for  them  on  this  principle  is  that 
 it  is  obliged  to  assume  a  certain  amount  of  fraud  on  the  part  of  their 
 inventors.  Thus  it  is  affirmed  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  that  a 
 certain  number  of  its  miracles  have  been  invented  for  the  purpose  of 
 producing  a  parallel  between  Paul  and  Peter,  by  some  disciple  of  the 
 former,  who  was  desirous  of  effecting  a  union  between  Petrine  and 
 Pauline  Christianity.  Whatever  theory  may  be  propounded  on  this 
 point,  it  is  impossible  to  avoid  falling  back  on  legend,  or  fraudulent 
 invention,  as  the  only  means  of  accounting  for  the  origin  of  miracu¬ 
 lous  narratives  ;  and  consequently  the  same  line  of  reasoning  which 
 proves  that  all  legendary  theories  are  inadequate  to  account  for  the 
 facts  and  phenomena  of  the  Gospels,  is  equally  subversive  of  the 
 theory  of  tendencies,  and  of  every  other.  This  is  also  true  of  all 
 attempts  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  Gospel  miracles  on  the  theory 
 
A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY. 
 
 199 
 
 Gospels,  in  addition  to  the  narratives  and  discourses  of  which, 
 they  consist,  contain  the  great  portraiture  of  the  divine 
 Christ,  for  the  existence  of  which  in  their  pages  this  theory 
 is  utterly  unable  to  afford  a  rational  solution.  I  must, 
 however,  ask  your  attention  to  one  remarkable  assumption 
 in  it,  which  contradicts  all  the  historical  facts  of  human 
 nature.  It  assumes  that  a  number  of  compromises  have 
 been  effected  between  contending  parties  in  the  Church, 
 and  that  Catholic  Christianity  has  grown  up  out  of  them. 
 What,  I  ask,  says  the  voice  of  history  respecting  the 
 quarrels  of  religious  sects  ?  Do  they  effect  compromises  ? 
 Do  they  conclude  treaties  ?  Do  mediators  arise  who  succeed 
 in  forming  out  of  several  contending  sects  a  united  Church  ? 
 On  these  points  it  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.  Where  have  a 
 number  of  discordant  sects  fused  into  one,  and  out  of  the 
 fusion  erected  a  common  Church  ?  It  has  passed  into  a 
 proverb,  that  nothing  is  more  irreconcilable  than  religious 
 divisions.  Yet  without  these  compromises  the  theory  of 
 
 that  they  are  imitations  of  similar  ones  in  the  Old  Testament.  This 
 not  only  breaks  down  by  the  application  of  the  same  course  of 
 reasoning,  but  the  affirmation  is  inaccurate  in  fact ;  for  although  such 
 similarity  exists  between  a  few  of  them,  as  far  as  the  mere  external 
 fact  is  concerned,  yet  when  they  are  compared  series  by  series,  they 
 present  the  most  striking  points  of  divergency,  so  that  it  is  im¬ 
 possible  that  the  one  can  have  formed  the  model  of  the  other.  The 
 Old  Testament  series  consists  chiefly  of  extraordinary  events  wrought 
 on  inanimate  nature  ;  that  in  the  New  Testament,  of  cures  performed 
 on  the  bodies  of  men.  The  moral  environment  of  the  two  also  differs 
 widely.  It  is  true  that  the  Old  Testament  contains  accounts  of  three 
 miracles  of  resurrections;  so  does  the  New:  or  if  we  include  the 
 Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  four,  But  between  the  account  of  the 
 resuscitation  of  a  dead  body  by  touching  the  bones  of  Elisha,  and  the 
 resurrection  of  Lazarus,  the  difference  is  vast,  not  to  speak  of  that  of 
 our  blessed  Lord,  which  rests  on  a  strength  of  attestation  such  as  can. 
 be  surpassed  by  no  fact  in  history. 
 
200 
 
 THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OP 
 
 tendencies  cannot  advance  a  step.  It  is  one,  therefore, 
 which,  while  it  may  look  plausible  in  the  study,  is  hopelessly 
 dashed  to  pieces  against  the  facts  of  history  and  the  realities 
 of  human  nature.  (See  Supplement  I.) 
 
 II.  I  must  now  draw  your  attention  to  the  argument  from 
 prophecy.  The  prophecies  of  the  Old  Testament  and  their 
 particular  fulfilment  have  been  already  discussed  by  my 
 predecessors,  and  into  that  portion  of  the  subject  I  do  not 
 propose  to  enter.  My  observations  will  be  confined  to  the 
 character  and  logical  value  of  the  prophetic  argument,  and 
 the  freeing  it  from  the  needless  difficulties  with  which 
 it  has  been  encumbered.  I  shall  draw  my  illustrations 
 exclusively  from  the  Messianic  prophecies,  for  unless  their 
 fulfilment  in  the  person,  work,  and  Church  cf  Jesus  Christ 
 proves  a  superhuman  prescience,  we  shall  in  vain  seek  it  in 
 any  other.  The  importance  of  a  correct  estimate  of  the  value 
 of  this  argument  is  great,  because  the  writings  of  the  New 
 Testament  make  it  certain  that  Our  Lord  and  His  Apostles 
 were  far  more  in  the  habit  of  appealing  to  the  evidence  of 
 prophecy  than  to  that  of  miracles  as  a  proof  of  His  Messiah- 
 ship.  The  argument  also,  as  far  as  it  is  valid,  is  one  which 
 admits  of  verification,  because  we  have  the  Scriptures  of  the 
 Old  Testament  in  our  hands,  and  are  therefore  able  to 
 compare  their  prophetical  announcements  with  their  alleged 
 fulfilment  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  history  of 
 the  Christian  Church. 
 
 In  estimating  the  value  of  this  argument  it  is  of  the 
 highest  importance  that  we  should  have  a  clear  idea  of  what 
 the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  mean  when  they  affirm 
 that  the  Old  Testament  has  received  its  fulfilment  in  Jesus 
 Christ,  and  in  the  history  of  His  Church.  Are  the  popular 
 ideas  on  this  subject  accurate  ?*  Are  the  prophecies  of  the 
 
 *  The  value  of  the  prophetic  argument  has  been  greatly  weakened 
 by  a  number  of  works  which  have  attained  a  very  wide  circulation, 
 professing  to  expound  the  prophetic  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
 Testaments.  These  have  treated  them  as  if  they  were  mere  vaticina- 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 201 
 
 Old  Testament  simply  predictions  and  nothing  more,  or  do 
 they  include  a  number  of  imperfect  delineations,  shadowy 
 
 tions,  that  is,  predictions  intended  to  be  minute  descriptions  of  events 
 coming  in  the  future,  and  which  have  received  an  equally  minute 
 fulfilment  in  the  facts  of  history.  The  effect  of  this  mode  of  treat¬ 
 ment  has  been,  not  only  that  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  prophetical 
 passages  has  been  utterly  disregarded,  and  the  fancies  of  the  writer 
 substituted  in  its  place,  but  that  historical  facts  have  too  often  been 
 misrepresented  for  the  purpose  of  accommodating  them  to  the 
 prophecy.  This  supposed  necessity  of  tracing  a  minute  agreement 
 between  all  the  minor  points  of  the  prophetic  delineations  and  the 
 events  of  history  has  led  many  writers  to  adopt  what  can  only  be 
 correctly  described  as  a  number  of  evasions.  This  evil  is  especially 
 exhibited  in  that  numerous  class  of  popular  writings  which  have 
 treated  the  books  of  Daniel  and  Eevelation  as  though  they  were 
 definite  historical  prophecies,  predicting  the  chief  events  of  the 
 world’s  history  between  the  times  in  which  they  were  composed 
 and  the  consummation  of  all  things,  and  delineating  them  beforehand 
 with  the  accuracy  of  a  map.  To  accommodate  these  to  the  facts  of 
 history,  a  system  of  symbolical  interpretation  has  had  to  be  adopted, 
 which  is  little  better  than  conjecture,  and  even  then  the  events 
 cannot  without  violence  be  accommodated  to  the  symbols,  feuch  a 
 theory  of  interpretation  has  been  adopted  by  a  man  of  no  less 
 learning  than  Mr.  Elliott  in  his  Horce  Apocalyptica  ;  and  carried  out 
 by  his  numerous  imitators.  If  this  theory  is  correct,  it  is  plain 
 that  a  successful  application  of  it  would  not  only  enable  us  to  ascertain 
 the  exact  point  in  the  prophetic  history  under  which  we  live,  but  to 
 predict  the  future.  Its  propounders  have  not  hesitated  to  predict 
 the  latter,  an  attempt  which  has  invariably  ended  in  their  confusion. 
 Thus,  if  Mr.  Elliott’s  system  had  been  correct,  not  only  ought  the 
 Turkish  empire  to  have  perished  several  years  ago,  but  the  con¬ 
 summation  of  all  things  should  be  an  event  of  the  past.  The 
 remarkable  thing  is  that  when  the  propounders  of  such  things  have 
 lived  to  discover  that  their  predictions  have  been  falsified  by  the  facts 
 of  history,  they  have  not  been  led  to  renounce  the  erroneous  principles 
 on  which  their  predictions  are  based,  but  have  endeavoured  to  show 
 that  the  prophetic  dates  admit  of  being  calculated  from  several 
 different  commencements,  and  consequently  that  their  fulfilment  may 
 be  deferred  to  some  period  of  the  future.  The  effect  of  this  mode  of 
 handling  the  argument  has  been  to  induce  a  large  number  of  thoughtful 
 minds  to  believe  that  it  is  little  better  than  a  mere  system  of  guess¬ 
 work,  and  rests  on  a  logical  basis  which  is  utterly  unsound. 
 
202 
 
 THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OP 
 
 outlines  and  aspirations,  the  true  ideal  of  which  has  been 
 realized  in  J esus  Christ  ?  Our  Lord  on  several  occasions 
 asserts  that  the  writers  of  the  Old  Testament  spake  of  Him. 
 This  He  directly  affirms  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  respecting 
 Moses,  under  whose  name  the  entire  Pentateuch  is  intended 
 to  be  included.  Yet  the  Pentateuch  contains  but  a  small 
 number  of  passages,  such  as  we  usually  designate  pro¬ 
 phecies.  St.  Luke  also,  tells  us  (xxiv.  27)  that  after  His 
 Besurrection,  “  Beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets, 
 He  expounded  unto  them  ( i.e .  two  of  the  disciples)  the 
 things  spoken  in  the  Scriptures  concerning  Himself and 
 a  little  further  on,  referring  to  the  recognized  threefold 
 division  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  He  makes  use  of  the 
 words  “  that  all  things  might  be  fulfilled  which  were  written 
 in  the  law  of  Moses,  and  in  the  prophets,  and  in  the  Psalms 
 concerning  me”  Such  wide  references  prove  that  He 
 must  have  held  not  merely  that  the  Old  Testament  con¬ 
 tained  a  certain  number  of  solitary  vaticinations  respecting 
 Himself;  but  that  He  was  that  to  which  its  entire  system 
 pointed ;  that  it  to  say,  that  He  regarded  Himself  as  the 
 perfect  ideal  of  every  reality  which  underlay  the  Mosaic 
 institutions,  and  of  all  the  aspirations  and  imperfect  truths 
 contained  in  the  prophets  and  the  Psalms,  as  well  as  of 
 the  express  Messianic  prophecies  ;  in  one  word  that  He  was 
 the  realization  of  the  idea  to  which  the  entire  scheme  of  the 
 Old  Testament  pointed.  A  similar  view  is  involved  in  the 
 use  which  the  apostolic  writers  make  of  the  Old  Testament 
 Scriptures.  They  regard  them  as  something  very  different 
 from  mere  vaticinations,  or  in  other  words,  as  containing  in 
 imperfect  outline  the  ideal  which  was  realized  in  Christianity. 
 
 It  is  important  to  observe  that  the  word  7rXrjpow,  by 
 which  the  writers  of  the  Hew  Testament  usually  express 
 the  realization  in  Jesus  Christ  of  the  prophetic  elements  of 
 the  Old,  bears  a  far  wider  signification  than  our  modern 
 counterpart,  the  English  word  "fulfil,”  in  its  popular  ac¬ 
 ceptation.  Its  obvious  signification  is  “  fill  up  to  the  full,” 
 corresponding  to  our  more  philosophical  form  of  expression, 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 203 
 
 i{  realize  tlie  fall  and  complete  ideal.”  That  this  is  its  true 
 meaning  is  rendered  certain  by  the  well-known  passage  in 
 the  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  in  which  Our  Lord  says,  “  Think 
 not  that  I  am  come  to  destroy  the  law  or  the  prophets ;  I 
 am  not  come  to  destroy,  but  to  fulfil,  for  verily  I  say  unto 
 you,  till  heaven  and  earth  pass,  one  jot,  or  one  tittle  shall  by 
 no  means  pass  from  the  law  until  all  be  fulfilled.”  He  then 
 proceeds  to  show  in  what  sense  He  claimed  to  be  the  fulfil¬ 
 ment  of  the  Law,  by  dealing  with  some  of  its  precepts  which 
 only  contained  imperfect  truths,  and  by  enunciating  the 
 great  moral  ideal  which  was  implied  in  the  true  conception 
 of  them.  Thus  the  full  conception  underlying  the  law  which 
 forbade  murder  was  the  law  of  love ;  of  that  which  forbade 
 adultery,  was  the  law  of  purity ;  of  that  which  forbade  per¬ 
 jury,  the  law  of  truthfulness.  In  a  similar  manner  He  was 
 the  fulfilment  of  the  other  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 inasmuch  as  He  was  the  complete  realization  of  those  truths 
 which  they  only  imperfectly  adumbrated.  It  is  important 
 to  observe  the  wide  sense  which  this  word  “fulfil”  bears  in  the 
 New  Testament;  otherwise  we  shall  get  a  very  imperfect  esti¬ 
 mate  of  the  evidence  which  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  bear 
 to  Our  Lord's  divine  Mission.  While  the  prophetic  element 
 in  them  contains  predictions,  it  is  a  great  mistake  to  restrict 
 it  to  bare  vaticinations  of  future  occurrences.  The  latter 
 contain  no  idea  of  type  or  symbol,  or  the  realization  of  an 
 imperfect  truth  in  a  more  perfect  ideal.  This  however  con¬ 
 stitutes  the  essence  of  by  far  the  larger  portion  of  the  Old 
 Testament  predictions  as  they  are  referred  to  in  the  New. 
 I  fully  admit  the  presence  of  a  directly  predictive  element 
 in  the  Old  Testament ;  but  to  rest  the  entire  force  of  the 
 argument  on  the  limited  number  of  passages  which  contain 
 such  predictions  is  to  overlook  at  least  two-thirds  of  the 
 evidence  which  Our  Lord  declares  that  Moses  and  the  pro¬ 
 phets  render  to  His  divine  Mission.  His  claims  go  to  the 
 full  extent  of  affirming,  that  not  only  is  He  the  subject 
 of  direct  predictions,  but  that  all  the  truths  which  are 
 imperfectly,  and  frequently  very  darkly  shadowed  forth  in 
 
204 
 
 THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OP 
 
 their  pages  are  realized  in  Him  as  tlie  ideal  to  which  they 
 pointed. 
 
 A  number  of  very  interesting  questions  connected  with 
 the  criticism  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  eagerly  debated 
 among  theologians,  but  which  have  no  real  bearing  on  the 
 prophetic  argument,  have  been  imported  into  this  con¬ 
 troversy  ;  and  have  thereby  distracted  our  attention  from 
 the  real  point  at  issue,  which  is  this,  and  this  only :  Are 
 there  in  the  Old  Testament  Messianic  prophecies,  and  a 
 typical,  symbolical,  and  ritual  system,  of  the  true  idea  of 
 which  Jesus  Christ  and  His  Church  are  the  realization  ? 
 This  is  a  simple  question  of  fact,  and  one  quite  distinct  from 
 any  theories  as  to  the  date  when  the  various  books  were 
 written,  or  who  may  have  been  their  authors.* 
 
 Amidst  the  endless  theories  that  have  been  propounded 
 on  these  subjects,  one  fact  is  unquestionable,  that  every  one 
 of  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  was  in  existence  (with 
 the  possible  exception  of  the  book  of  Daniel)  in  the  form  in 
 •which  we  now  read  them,  and  consequently  with  all  their 
 Messianic  prophecies  in  them,  when  the  Septuagint  Version 
 was  made,  i.e.  at  least  180  b.c.  The  book  of  Daniel,  even 
 if  we  accept  the  latest  date  which  has  been  assigned  to  it 
 by  the  school  of  critical  unbelief,  must  have  been  written  at 
 
 *  I  by  no  means  overlook  the  importance  of  these  questions  ;  but 
 I  make  these  observations  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  them  from 
 being  mixed  up  with  the  evidential  value  of  the  prophetic  element  in 
 the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  Thus  it  would  very  materially  affect 
 our  views  of  Deuteronomy  if  it  could  be  proved  that  it  was  a  forgery 
 got  up  between  Jeremiah  and  Hilkiah  and  palmed  off  on  the  simplicity 
 of  King  Josiah  as  a  genuine  production  of  Moses.  Still  the  great 
 Messianic  prophecy  of  the  prophet  who  was  to  arise  in  the  future 
 like  unto  Moses  would  be  there,  and  the  only  question  would  be, 
 does  it  or  does  it  not  indicate  a  superhuman  prescience  P  In  such 
 a  case  we  should  have  to  rank  Jeremiah  with  Balaam,  a  false  prophet 
 who  delivered  true  oracles.  It  should  be  observed,  however,  that 
 as  far  as  these  theories  are  concerned,  they  are  but  theories  and 
 nothing  more ;  the  evidence  on  which  they  rest  being  little  better 
 than  a  foundation  of  sand.  This  is  the  case  with  a  large  number  of 
 the  theories  respecting  the  nature  and  origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  no 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 205 
 
 least  150  b.c.  What  more  can  we  require  for  our  argument  ? 
 If  there  really  exists  in  the  Old  Testament  a  prophetic 
 element,  which  has  been  realized  in  the  New,  it  is  precisely 
 the  same  for  all  the  practical  purposes  of  the  Christian 
 argument,  whether  the  predictions  were  uttered  180  or  1800 
 years  before  the  Christian  era.  In  either  case  they  prove 
 a  superhuman  prescience  in  their  author,  unless  by  any 
 possibility  they  could  have  been  made  the  means  of  their 
 own  fulfilment.  Thus  if  a  writer  had  put  forth  a  set  of 
 predictions,  which  foreshadowed  the  events  of  the  French 
 Revolution  and  the  career  of  Napoleon  the  First  in  the  year 
 a.d.  1600,  it  would  have  been  as  certain  a  proof  of  super¬ 
 human  foresight,  as  if  he  had  uttered  his  predictions  in  the 
 reign  of  William  the  Conqueror,  or  Charlemagne.  I  fully 
 allow  the  profound  interest  which  attaches  to  the  question 
 of  the  true  date  of  the  composition  of  the  various  books  of 
 the  Old  Testament.  Many  very  important  questions  of 
 theology  are  involved  in  it.  It  may  affect  our  view 
 as  to  the  character  of  their  contents,  according  as  it  is 
 determined  in  this  way  or  in  that.  But  as  far  as  the 
 question,  whether  a  superhuman  prescience  presided  over 
 their  composition,  or  whether  Jesus  Christ  is  their  perfect 
 realization,  is  concerned,  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  whether 
 they  were  composed  b.c.  200  or  b.c.  2000. 
 
 The  same  is  equally  true  of  the  fiercely  debated  question 
 
 two  propounders  of  them  agreeing  in  the  same  view ;  one  set  of  critics 
 affirming  that  Deuteronomy  is  the  later  composition,  and  Leviticus  the 
 earlier  ;  while  another,  for  reasons  equally  satisfactory  to  themselves, 
 exactly  reverse  this  order.  The  only  fair  conclusion  is,  that  both 
 endeavour  to  erect  a  pyramid  on  its  apex.  Similarly,  the  evidence 
 may  be  quite  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  book  of  Genesis  is  a 
 composite  document;  but  when  Ewald  not  only  affirms  that  these 
 documents  were  five  in  number,  but  authoritatively  assigns  each  part 
 to  its  respective  author,  and  that  on  no  other  foundation  than  his  own 
 intuitive  faculty  of  divination,  we  seem  to  have  reached  the  ne  plus 
 ultra  of  dogmatical  assertion.  This  theory  is  now  generally  rejected, 
 to  be  replaced  by  others  erected  on  a  basis  equally  unsubstantial. 
 What  we  want  on  the  part  both  of  theologians  and  men  of  science  is, 
 not  theories  formed  out  of  their  own  subjective  consciousness,  but 
 based  on  facts  which  are  capable  of  verification. 
 
206 
 
 THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OP 
 
 of  their  authorship.  Whether  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  ; 
 whether  it  has  been  made  up  of  a  number  of  older  docu¬ 
 ments  ;  whether  the  book  of  Deuteronomy  is  the  work  of 
 J eremiah ;  whether  there  was  an  earlier  and  a  later  Isaiah ; 
 whether  the  book  of  Zeckariah  is  the  work  of  several 
 writers  ;  whether  Daniel  was  composed  by  the  great  prophet 
 whose  name  it  bears,  or  by  a  later  writer;  however  deeply 
 interesting  such  questions  are,  or  however  they  may  be 
 determined,  all  this  will  not  add  one  prophecy  more  or  less 
 to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures ;  or,  if  they  contain  pro¬ 
 phecies  which  have  been  actually  fulfilled,  detract  one  atom 
 from  the  value  of  the  Christian  argument. 
 
 I  urge  these  considerations  on  your  attention  because  there 
 are  a  multitude  of  questions  at  the  present  day  profoundly 
 agitating  the  minds  of  theologians,  on  the  determination  of 
 which  it  is  commonly  supposed  that  the  life  of  Christianity 
 depends.  I  am  far  from  undervaluing  the  importance  of 
 the  questions  at  issue,  but  our  duty  is  to  contemplate  this 
 subject  from  an  evidential  point  of  view.  As  such  I  have 
 only  to  deal  with  a  question  of  fact,  from  which  we  must  not 
 allow  our  attention  to  be  distracted.  It  is  this :  Do  the 
 Old  Testament  Scriptures  contain  predictions  respecting  a 
 Messiah  and  a  future  Kingdom  of  God,  and  are  these  pre¬ 
 dictions  realized  in  the  person  and  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  ? 
 
 If  the  correspondence  really  exists  between  the  Messianic 
 elements  of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  Jesus  of  the  New,  it 
 follows  that  Jesus  must  be  the  Christ,  and  Christianity  a 
 Divine  Revelation. 
 
 As  this  point  is  one  of  the  greatest  importance,  I  must  illus¬ 
 trate  my  position  by  a  few  examples.  Nothing  can  exceed 
 the  eagerness  of  the  debates  respecting  the  date  and  the 
 nature  of  the  contents  of  the  Book  of  Genesis.  Yet  whatever 
 theory  we  adopt  on  this  subject,  it  will  not  alter  the  fact  that 
 the  Book  was  in  existence  before  the  Babylonish  captivity, 
 and  contained  the  affirmation  that  in  Abraham  all  the 
 nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed,  and  the  prophecy 
 about  Shiloh,  whatever  value  may  be  attached  to  it.  So 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  PROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 207 
 
 with  respect  to  the  Book  of  Deuteronomy  ;  whenever  it  was 
 composed,  it  was  certainly  written  several  hundred  years 
 before  Christ,  and  it  contained  the  affirmation  that  at  some 
 future  time  a  great  prophet  would  arise  like  unto  Moses ;  and 
 it  is  no  less  certain  that  although  the  prophets  who  subse¬ 
 quently  appeared  were  very  numerous,  the  only  one  who 
 possessed  a  real  resemblance  to  Moses  was  Jesus  Christ, 
 Moses  being  distinguished  from  all  the  other  prophets  by  the 
 fact  that  he  was  a  founder  of  a  dispensation,  in  which  respect 
 Our  Lord  exactly  resembled  him.  In  a  similar  manner  the 
 whole  system  of  the  typical  worship  of  the  Old  Testament 
 was  fully  evolved  long  centuries  before  the  Advent,  and  this 
 is  equally  true  whichever  of  the  innumerable  theories  we 
 may  adopt  as  to  the  date  or  authorship  of  the  different 
 Books  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  real  question  is  simply  one 
 of  fact :  Is  Jesus  Christ  and  His  Church  a  realization  of  the 
 ideal  involved  in  these  types  and  shadows  ?  Again :  the 
 date  and  authorship  of  the  22nd  and  other  Messianic  Psalms 
 may  be  open  to  question,  and  what  was  the  precise  idea 
 before  the  mental  eye  of  their  authors  when  they  com¬ 
 posed  them.  But  this  does  not  affect  the  fact  that  eveiy 
 one  of  them  was  in  existence  prior  to  the  time  of  the 
 Maccabees,  and  most  of  them  several  centuries  earlier,  and 
 that  Jesus  Christ  has  precisely  realized  the  idea  which  they 
 embody,  and  that  between  his  sufferings  and  those  described 
 in  the  22nd  Psalm  the  resemblance  is  marvellously  exact. 
 Illustrations  of  this  principle  might  be  adduced  in  large 
 numbers,  but  space  will  only  allow  me  to  refer  to  two  more. 
 Whatever  view  we  may  take  of  the  composite  character  of 
 our  present  Isaiah,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  foimei 
 portion  of  it  contains  prophecies  which  are  unquestionably 
 Messianic  \  and  whether  the  prophet  intended  them  for 
 Hezekiah  or  some  other  person,  that  these  persons  never 
 realized  their  full  ideal,  but  that  this  has  been  lealized 
 several  centuries  later  by  a  Jewish  carpenter.  So  also 
 respecting  the  second  portion  of  Isaiah.  Lven  if  its  authoi 
 lived  as  late  as  the  time  of  Cyrus,  still  the  great  prophecy 
 
208 
 
 THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OE 
 
 of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  and  the  future  Kingdom  of  God 
 must  have  been  in  existence  more  than  500  years  before 
 the  Advent ;  and  whatever  may  have  been  the  ideas  present 
 in  the  prophet’s  mind  at  the  time  when  he  composed  it,  it  is 
 certain  that  they  have  only  received  a  full  realization  in 
 Jesus  Christ  and  the  Church  which  He  has  founded.  The 
 same  thing  is  true  of  the  Book  of  Daniel.  Notwithstanding 
 all  the  attacks  which  have  been  made  on  its  authenticity  by 
 modern  criticism,  it  still  remains  indisputable  that  all  its 
 great  Messianic  prophecies  were  in  existence  not  less  than 
 150  years  prior  to  the  Advent ;  and  that  they  announce  the 
 coming  of  a  future  Kingdom  of  God,  which  would  differ 
 from  every  other  kingdom  which  had  been  previously  set 
 up.  The  important  question  is,  have  the  prophecies,  the 
 typology,  the  moral  teaching,  and  the  aspirations  of  the  Old 
 Testament  received  in  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Church  which 
 He  has  founded,  the  realization  of  the  ideas  which  they 
 embody,  or  are  all  the  resemblances  mere  guesses  such  as 
 an  exalted  genius  may  have  ventured  on,  and  occasionally 
 guessed  right  ? 
 
 To  aid  us  in  determining  this  question,  let  us  observe 
 what  these  Old  Testament  books  really  consist  of.  They 
 differ  from  all  other  prophetical  books  in  that  they  are 
 not  confined  to  the  single  subject  of  prediction,  but  they 
 constitute  an  entire  literature.  Their  composition  extends 
 over  a  space  of  at  least  one  thousand  years,  and  they  are 
 the  work  of  not  less  than  forty  different  authors,  com¬ 
 prising  men  of  every  condition  in  life,  including  the  king, 
 the  priest,  the  statesman,  and  even  the  herdsman.  The 
 books  themselves  consist  of  a  body  of  political  and  religious 
 legislation,  of  histories,  poems  of  the  highest  order,  the 
 utterances  of  prophets  on  the  burning  questions  of  the 
 day,  and  gnomic  maxims  of  proverbial  wisdom.  Even  the 
 writings  commonly  called  prophetical  contain  a  large  mixture 
 of  the  historical  element.  Most  of  the  prophets  were  also 
 statesmen;  and  a  large  portion  of  their  writings  consists 
 of  exhortations  called  forth  by  the  state  of  public  affairs,  and 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 209 
 
 the  moral  condition  of  the  people.  Yet  it  is  remarkable 
 that  this  literature,  extending  over  so  wide  an  interval  of 
 time,  and  composed  by  such  a  variety  of  authors,  is  inter¬ 
 penetrated  by  a  certain  number  of  common  ideas,  connected 
 with  many  of  the  profoundest  questions  of  human  thought  ; 
 among  which  may  be  numbered  the  announcement  of  a 
 kingdom  of  God  to  be  set  up  on  a  grand  scale  at  some 
 distant  period  of  the  future,  and  of  the  advent  of  a  Messiah 
 who  was  to  be  its  king.  If  we  take  any  similar  collection 
 of  writings  extending  over  an  equal  space  of  time,  and  com¬ 
 posed  by  an  equal  number  of  authors,  we  shall  find  nothing 
 like  this  in  history.  But  not  only  are  these  writings 
 distinguished  by  this  remarkable  peculiarity,  but  many 
 centuries  after  they  were  written  a  personage  called  Jesus 
 appeared,  who  has  succeeded  in  realizing  in  himself,  and  in 
 the  Church  which  he  has  founded,  the  true  idea  which 
 underlies  all  the  predictions,  the  symbolical  institutions,  and 
 the  aspirations  which  are  found  in  this  mass  of  literature. 
 If  we  search  the  entire  history  of  man,  we  shall  find  it  to  be 
 true  of  no  other  person  that  he  is  the  realization  of  the 
 aspirations  of  an  entire  literature. 
 
 Let  us  now  briefly  consider  the  prophetic  elements  in  the 
 Old  Testament,  and  the  value  of  the  evidence  they  supply. 
 And  first,  its  Messianic  prophecies. 
 
 These  are  of  two  kinds ;  first,  those  that  are  unquestion¬ 
 ably  Messianic,  and  admit  of  being  applied  to  no  other 
 person.  Of  these,  those  in  Daniel,  in  the  37th  of  Ezekiel, 
 the  23rd  and  33rd  of  Jeremiah,  several  in  Isaiah,  and  a 
 few  of  the  Psalms  may  be  cited  as  examples.  Of  a  similar 
 character  are  the  numerous  predictions  of  a  future  kingdom 
 of  God,  the  idea  of  which,  as  delineated  in  the  prophets, 
 necessarily  implies  that  of  a  Christ  who  was  to  be  its  king.* 
 
 *  It  is  one  of  the  peculiar  characteristics  both  of  Judaism  and 
 Christianity  that  they  alone  of  all  the  systems  of  ancient  thought 
 place  the  golden  age  of  man  in  the  future,  rather  than  the  past.  It 
 may  be  objected  that  the  book  of  Genesis  opens  with  an  account  of 
 
 14 
 
210 
 
 THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OP 
 
 All  tliese  passages  are,  in  the  strictest  sense  of  the  word, 
 prophecies,  i.e.,  the  writers  did  not  affirm  them  to  he  true 
 of  any  person  or  thing  then  existing ;  but  they  asserted 
 that  they  should  receive  a  realization  in  the  future.  They 
 announce,  in  language  that  cannot  be  mistaken,  the  advent 
 of  a  kingdom  of  God,  of  a  wholly  different  character  from 
 anything  which  had  been  realized  in  the  past,  which  was  to 
 include  both  Jew  and  Gentile,  and  the  end  of  which  was  to 
 be  the  establishment  of  righteousness  and  peace. 
 
 man’s  being  placed  in  Paradise  ;  hut  this  condition,  be  it  what  it  may 
 (for  the  whole  account  is  extremely  meagre,  and  popular  ideas  on  this 
 subject  have  been  far  more  indebted  to  Milton  than  to  the  Bible  for 
 anything  definite  which  they  contain),  was  only  enjoyed  by  the 
 original  human  pair,  and  apparently  for  a  very  brief  interval  of  time. 
 In  striking  contrast  to  this  is  the  entire  system  of  pagan  mythology, 
 which  uniformly  places  the  golden  age  of  man  at  some  indefinitely 
 remote  period  of  the  past.  The  idea  of  a  future  kingdom  of  God,  in 
 which  righteousness  and  peace  were  to  reign,  is  quite  foreign  to  it. 
 The  single  exception  to  this  is  the  fifth  eclogue  of  Yirgil,  composed  in 
 adulation  of  the  reigning  family  at  Eome  ;  but  the  language  of  which 
 bears  so  close  an  analogy  to  that  in  the  Old  Testament  respecting  the 
 advent  of  the  future  kingdom  of  God,  that  it  is  difficult  to  avoid 
 coming  to  the  conclusion  that  the  one  has  in  some  way  been  borrowed 
 from  the  other.  If,  however,  we  take  mythological  literature  as  a 
 whole,  its  views  respecting  man,  and  his  future  prospects,  are  invari¬ 
 ably  dispiriting.  IN  or  did  philosophy  take  a  more  cheerful  view  of  his 
 destinies.  In  fact,  there  was  nothing  in  the  history  or  condition 
 of  the  ancient  world  that  would  justify  the  conclusion  that  a  future 
 Millennium  of  holiness  or  happiness  was  in  store  for  the  human  race. 
 On  the  contrary,  everywhere  were  present  the  signs  of  moral  corrup¬ 
 tion  and  decay.  Nor  was  the  condition  or  history  of  the  Jewish 
 people  such  as  to  have  suggested  the  idea  to  the  minds  of  the 
 prophets  and  Psalmists.  On  the  contrary,  they  are  full  of  lamenta¬ 
 tions  at  their  degeneracy  and  repeated  apostacies.  The  language  of 
 the  prophetical  Scriptures,  as  addressed  to  the  times  in  which  the 
 prophets  lived,  may  be  summed  up  in  one  brief  sentence,  “  Ye  are 
 worse  than  your  fathers.”  The  idea,  therefore,  of  the  future  kingdom 
 of  God,  and  of  the  reign  of  righteousness  and  peace  under  its  in¬ 
 fluences,  was  certainly  not  suggested  by  anything  in  the  experience 
 of  the  past,  or  the  present ;  it  was  the  result  of  faith  in  God  as  the 
 righteous  governor  of  the  world,  and  that  righteousness  must  ulti- 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 211 
 
 Now  it  is  a  simple  fact  that  a  considerable  number  of  such 
 prophecies  are  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 
 N°  less  certain  is  it  that  after  the  lapse  of  several  centuries 
 a  spiritual  kingdom,  differing  in  character  from  every 
 earthly  institution,  was  actually  set  up,  of  which  Jesus 
 Christ  claimed  to  be  the  King,  and  which  has  during  a 
 period  of  eighteen  hundred  years  exerted  the  mightiest  and 
 most  beneficent  influence  on  mankind.  We  are  in  the 
 presence  therefore  of  two  facts— First,  a  set  of  predictions 
 uttered  by  various  persons,  and  at  widely  different  intervals 
 of  time,  affirming  that  a  kingdom  of  God  would  be  manifested 
 in  the  future,  and  a  Messiah  to  be  its  king.  Secondly, 
 their  realization  in  history  after  an  interval  of  several 
 centuries.  Such  a  correspondence  between  prediction  and 
 fulfilment  can  be  found  nowhere  else  in  the  entire  history 
 of  man. 
 
 The  second  class  consists  of  those  prophecies  of  which 
 Jesus  and  His  Disciples  claimed  that  He  was  the  fulfilment, 
 i.e.y  that  He  was  the  ideal  to  which  they  pointed.  These 
 were  spoken  by  the  prophet  either  of  some  person  who 
 had  existed  in  the  past,  or  who  was  then  living,  but  the 
 language  used  was  of  a  far  too  elevated  character  to  be 
 strictly  true  of  the  person  to  whom  it  was  immediately 
 applied.  This  class  of  predictions  may  be  called  typical 
 prophecies.  I  mean  by  this  term,  when  some  event  or 
 historical  character  was  used  for  the  purpose  of  portraying  a 
 future  one,  which  was  to  possess  similar  attributes,  only 
 highei  and  more  perfect  than  those  exhibited  in  the  person 
 or  event  of  which  they  were  immediately  spoken.  Thus 
 many  things  are  spoken  of  David  and  Solomon,  which  those 
 
 mately  prevail  and  flourish  under  His  government.  The  idea  that 
 some  Millennium  awaits  man  at  some  very  remote  period  of  the 
 future  has  now  become  widespread,  even  in  unbelieving  philosophy; 
 but  it  should  never  be  forgotten  that  the  original  conception  of  it  was 
 not  due  either  to  mythologists,  or  philosophers,  but  to  Psalmists  and 
 prophets,  in  whose  minds  the  idea  sprang  up,  as  Christians  believe, 
 under  a  divine  influence,  and  who  firmly  clung  to  it  notwithstanding 
 all  the  disasters  of  the  past  and  of  the  present. 
 
 14* 
 
212 
 
 THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OP 
 
 kings  were  incapable  of  realizing.  Divine  titles  are  given 
 to  them  by  propliets  who  were  the  strictest  theists,  and 
 to  whom  the  worship  of  a  man  would  have  been  an  abomina¬ 
 tion.  That  such  ascriptions  were  intended  to  be  idealiza¬ 
 tions  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  the  later  prophets  were  in 
 the  constant  habit  of  speaking  of  a  David  who  was  to  be 
 manifested  as  the  head  of  the  Kingdom  of  God  long  after 
 the  historical  David  was  silent  in  his  grave.  This  David  was 
 evidently  an  ideal  David,  or  in  other  words  a  Christ,  in  whom 
 the  promises  made  to  the  historical  one  were  to  receive  their 
 full  realization.  Similar  idealizations  are  very  common  m 
 the  prophetic  Scriptures,  of  which  that  of  Israel  may  be 
 quoted  as  an  example.  Many  of  the  things  there  spoken  wei  e 
 only  true  of  an  ideal  Israel,  and  are  utterly  inapplicable  to 
 the  Israel  with  whom  the  prophets  were  acquainted.  Of  this 
 class  of  predictions  our  Lord  claimed  to  be  the  realization, 
 and  the  correspondence  to  the  character  delineated  in  the 
 Gospels  and  to  the  Church  which  He  has  founded  is  incon¬ 
 testable.* 
 
 *  The  mode  in  which  this  class  of  prophecies  has  been  dealt  with  in 
 popular  treatises  has  tended  to  throw  discredit  on  the  entire  argument. 
 They  are  often  violently  wrenched  from  the  context  in  which  they 
 stand,  and  treated  as  if  they  were  prophecies  pure  and  simple,  their 
 typical  character  being  entirely  overlooked.  Thus,  for  example,  Isaiah 
 vii.  10-16,  is  frequently  spoken  of  as  if  it  were  a  direct  prophecy 
 of  Jesus  Christ.  The  reader  looks  into  the  context,  and  finds  that  the 
 sign  mentioned  by  Isaiah  was  one  given  to  Ahaz  to  encourage  him 
 in  a  war  then  pending  between  Syria  and  Ephraim  on  the  one  side 
 and  Judah  on  the  other.  This  sign  was  the  birth  of  a  child  of  a 
 virgin  mother  (as  our  English  version  renders  the  word)  who  was  to 
 receive  the  name  of  Immanuel.  Then  follows  a  particular  and  definite 
 promise  that  before  this  particular  child  had  attained  the  age  which 
 would  enable  him  to  judge  between  good  and  evil,  the  kingdoms  of 
 Israel  and  Syria  would  both  be  overthrown.  All  these  facts  are  stated 
 by  the  prophet  in  such  a  manner  that  it  is  impossible  to  get  rid  of  their 
 plain  signification,  except  by  haring  recourse  to  a  mode  of  interpre¬ 
 tation  which,  if  applied  to  any  other  writing,  we  should  designate  a 
 subterfuge.  Yet  this  passage  is  frequently  spoken  of  as  a  direct  and 
 palpable  prophecy  of  Jesus  Christ.  I  have  selected  it  for  the  purpose 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 213 
 
 Portions  of  the  Old  Testament  describe  a  person  who  is 
 the  greatest  of  sufferers,  but  who  in  the  midst  of  his  suffer¬ 
 ings  displays  the  most  unwavering  trust  in  God,  and  whose 
 career  terminates  in  a  most  triumphant  issue.  The  descrip¬ 
 tion  is  such  as  not  to  fit  the  circumstances  of  the  writer  himself, 
 or  of  any  other  person  known  to  history.  Two  examples  of 
 this  will  be  sufficient  to  refer  to,  the  22nd  Psalm,  and  the 
 
 of  illustration,  because  it  is  one  which  the  lower  class  of  unbelievers  are 
 never  weary  of  citing  as  a  proof  of  the  dishonesty  of  Christian  com¬ 
 mentators,  and  if  the  commonly  accepted  standpoint  is  correct,  I  think 
 it  very  difficult  to  answer  their  objection.  The  truth  is,  it  belongs  to 
 the  class  of  typical,  or  what  may  be  more  correctly  designated,  ideal 
 prophecies,  and  the  affirmation  that  it  is  a  direct  prophecy  of  Jesus 
 Christ  involves  a  system  of  interpretation  which  would  render  it 
 impossible  to  be  certain  of  the  sense  of  a  single  passage  in  the  Bible. 
 The  child  was  designated  “  Immanuel”  or  “  God  with  us,”  for  the 
 purpose  of  assuring  Ahaz  of  the  divine  protection  in  the  war  in  which 
 he  was  engaged,  and,  however  improbable  the  event  might  then  appear, 
 of  the  certainty  of  the  overthrow  of  the  two  hostile  kingdoms.  But, 
 it  will  be  urged,  the  popular  interpretation  must  be  correct,  because 
 St.  Matthew  assures  us  (Matt.  i.  22-23)  that  it  was  fulfilled  in  Jesus 
 Christ.  Undoubtedly  he  does,  i.e.  in  the  sense  in  which  the  New 
 Testament  uses  the  word  “fulfil.”  Jesus  Christ  realizes  the  idea 
 involved  in  the  passage  in  the  fullest  and  truest  meaning.  Nothing  is 
 more  common  in  the  New  Testament  than  to  cite  a  few  words  of  a 
 passage  when  the  writer  means  to  refer  to  the  entire  context.  This 
 is  done,  I  apprehend,  in  the  present  instance,  and  is  implied  in  the 
 words  of  the  Evangelist  when  he  says,  “All  this  was  done  that  it 
 might  be  fulfilled  which  was  spoken  of  the  Lord  by  the  prophet,” 
 referring  to  all  the  facts  previously  mentioned  by  him.  While  the 
 child’s  name  was  called  “  I  mmanuel,  or  God  with  us,”  as  a  pledge  of 
 the  divine  ordering  of  events  in  a  manner  favourable  to  the  Jewish 
 cause,  yet  the  idea,  “  God  with  us”  was  in  this  case  only  imperfectly 
 realized.  The  conception  was  filled  up  to  the  full  in  the  birth  of  Jesus 
 Christ.  The  child  referred  to  by  the  prophet  was  the  pledge  of  a 
 temporal  deliverance  within  a  specified  period  to  a  particular  nation. 
 The  child  whose  birth  “  filled  up  to  the  full”  the  conception  of  “  God 
 with  us,”  was  a  pledge  of  a  spiritual  deliverance  of  all  mankind,  by 
 manifesting  the  permanent  abiding  of  God  in  a  human  personality. 
 In  the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  saying  of  the  prophet  was  filled  up 
 full,  or  the  true  ideal  received  its  realization. 
 
214 
 
 THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OF 
 
 great  section  of  Isaiah,  which  gives  us  an  idealized  descrip¬ 
 tion  of  “  the  Servant  of  Jehovah.”  With  respect  to  the 
 Psalm,  if  it  was  composed  by  David,  it  is  incredible  that  it 
 should  have  been  intended  to  be  a  description  of  his  own 
 sufferings,  as  it  is  simply  at  issue  with  all  the  facts  of  his 
 life  ,  nor  can  we  conceive  of  any  other  person  whose  case  the 
 description  would  suit.  It  must  therefore  have  been  in¬ 
 tended  to  describe  some  ideal  sufferer,  and  that  it  is  a  very 
 close  description  of  the  sufferings  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  they 
 are  recorded  in  the  Evangelists,  extending  even  to  minute 
 details,  is  an  obvious  matter  of  fact.  With  respect  to  the 
 te  Servant  of  Jehovah,”  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the 
 whole  account  was  intended  to  be  an  idealized  description, 
 for  taking  it  as  a  whole,  there  has  been  only  one  historical 
 person,  with  the  circumstances  of  whose  life  it  will  fit  Jesus 
 Christ  our  Lord,  whose  whole  work,  rejection  and  sufferings, 
 followed  by  His  triumphant  resurrection,  are  a  complete 
 realization  of  the  entire  conception.  It  has  been  affirmed 
 that  Jeremiah  was  the  image  present  to  the  writer's  mind, 
 but  the  description  is  clearly  inconsistent  with  the  known 
 circumstances  of  his  life. 
 
 —  It  follows  therefore  that  two  points  are  incontestable. 
 The  Old  Testament  contains  passages  which  form  an  idealized 
 conception  of  a  divine  sufferer ;  and  that  several  centuries 
 afterwards  Jesus  Christ  realized  this  conception  in  His  own 
 person,  and  that  it  has  been  realized  by  none  other  besides 
 Him. 
 
 It  will  doubtless  be  objected  that  this  class  of  typical 
 prophecies  are  ambiguous,  as  having  a  human  subject  to 
 whom  they  have  an  imperfect  reference,  and  an  ideal  con¬ 
 ception  which  was  to  be  realized  in  the  future ;  and  con¬ 
 sequently,  that  their  evidential  value  is  less  cogent  than  if 
 they  had  simply  in  view  a  single  object  to  which  they  would 
 correspond.  To  this  I  answer — 
 
 First,  that  there  are  not  a  few  prophecies  of  this  latter 
 description  which  directly  predict  a  future  kingdom  of  God, 
 and  the  advent  of  a  Messiah  who  was  to  be  its  king ;  and 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY.  215 
 
 that  Jesus  Christ  not  only  attempted  to  found  such  a  king¬ 
 dom,  but  has  succeeded  in  the  attempt. 
 
 Secondly,  the  evidential  force  of  typical  prophecies  is 
 dependent  on  the  number  of  them  which  converge  in  a 
 common  centre.  As  in  all  circumstantial  evidence,  it  would 
 be  unsafe  to  draw  any  positive  conclusions  from  one  or  two 
 cases ;  but  when  large  numbers  of  them  converge  in  a  single 
 person,  and  will  fit  in  with  the  circumstances  of  none  other 
 known  to  history,  the  conjoint  effect  amounts  to  a  moral 
 demonstration. 
 
 .  '  1  J  •  •  i  ?  .  •  »  >  i  •  f  •  •  «•  r  _  J 
 
 I  now  invite  your  attention  to  another  element  of  the 
 Old  Testament  Scriptures  (it  is  a  very  extensive  one),  of 
 which  the  writers  of  the  New  affirm  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the 
 complete  and  perfect  realization,  viz.  its  entire  sacrificial 
 system,  and  its  symbolical  worship.  This  claim  is  also 
 made  by  Our  Lord  himself.*  It  amounts  to  this.  The  rites, 
 ceremonies,  and  institutions  of  Judaism  all  pointed  to  some 
 
 #  Here  again  the  force  of  the  argument  has  been  greatly  weakened 
 by  the  frequent  endeavours  which  have  been  made  to  evolve  out  of 
 the  typical  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  an  amount  of  Christian 
 truth,  which  we  can  only  find  in  them  by  first  putting  it  into  them 
 ourselves.  Thus  treatises  have  been  composed  on  Leviticus,  which, 
 if  the  views  of  the  writers  are  correct,  constitute  it  a  far  clearer  reve¬ 
 lation  of  Gospel  truth  than  anything  which  can  be  found  in  St.  Paul’s 
 Epistles.  The  same  course  has  been  pursued  with  the  whole  typolo¬ 
 gical  system  of  the  Old  Testament.  Every  one  of  its  minor  details 
 has  been  affirmed  to  be  not  merely  a  shadowy,  but  a  very  substantial 
 delineation  of  some  form  of  Christian  truth  so  definite  that  it  is 
 impossible  to  find  anything  of  equal  clearness  and  precision  in  any 
 portion  of  the  New  Testament.  Under  this  system  of  interpretation,  * 
 it  is  easy  to  make  the  typology  of  the  Old  Testament  affirm  anything 
 which  the  fancy  of  its  interpreter  may  suggest.  It  has  been  often 
 defended  on  the  ground  that  it  is  edifying,  and  enables  us  to  arrive 
 at  clear  views  of  Christian  truth.  But  certainly  any  system  of 
 interpretation  which  succeeds  in  evolving  out  of  the  Old  Testament 
 clearer  views  of  Gospel  truth  than  the  direct  statements  of  the 
 New,  is  open  to  grave  suspicion.  The  principle  laid  down  is  that 
 the  typical  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  have  been  so  framed 
 by  the  divine  Spirit,  that  with  the  light  of  the  New  Testament 
 
THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OF 
 
 216 
 
 deep-felt  want  in  liuman  nature.  This  want  they  imperfectly 
 endeavoured  to  satisfy ;  but  they  were  in  no  proper  sense 
 able  to  do  so.  What  the  New  Testament  affirms  is,  that  all 
 these  rites,  symbols,  and  sacrifices,  as  far  as  they  pointed  to 
 real  wants  felt  by  human  nature,  have  obtained  a  full  reali¬ 
 zation  in  the  person,  work,  and  history  of  Jesus  Christ;  and 
 that  so  complete  is  the  embodiment  in  His  person  of  every 
 reality  to  which  they  pointed,  that  they  have  become  for 
 
 ever  hereafter  nugatory  and  worthless. 
 
 Here,  again,  we  are  in  the  presence  of  a  simple  question 
 of  fact.  The  writers  of  the  New  Testament  affirm  that 
 Jesus  Christ  is  the  ideal  embodiment  of  whatever  was  real 
 in  the  institutions  of  the  Old  ;  the  substance  of  which  they 
 were  the  imperfect  shadows.  Whether  this  be  so  or  not  we 
 can  determine  by  a  simple  examination  of  the  Old  Testament, 
 
 shining  on  them,  they  form  perfect  delineations  of  some  of  the 
 profoundest  mysteries  of  Redemption.  Before  this  can  he  accepted, 
 it  is  surely  necessary  to  lay  down  some  principle  by  means  of  which 
 fancied  analogies  can  be  distinguished  from  divine  utterances ;  but 
 this  has  never  yet  been  attempted.  No  book  in  the  New.  Testament 
 so  much  deals  with  the  typology  of  the  Old  as  the  Epistle  to  the 
 Hebrews.  But  its  author  was  far  from  thinking  that  it  contained  a 
 hidden  Gospel  which,  by  the  aid  of  the  imagination  could  be  converted 
 into  a  full  delineation  of  the  Covenant  of  Redemption.  His  words  are 
 worthy  of  attention.  “  The  law  having  a  shadow  of  good  things  to 
 come,  and  not  the  very  image  of  the  things.”  It  follows  therefore 
 that  according  to  his  views  the  typology  of  the  Old  Testament 
 is  not  the  image  (eucwv,  the  substantial  resemblance)  of  Christianity, 
 but  only  its  shadow  (<ma)  or  unsubstantial  outline.  It  stood  there¬ 
 fore  in  the  relation,  not  of  an  image,  but  of  a  shadow  to  the  reality ; 
 or  in  other  words,  it  darkly  pointed  to  the  ideal  which  is  realized 
 in  Jesus  Christ.  If  it  be  confined  to  this,  its  evidential  value  is  con¬ 
 siderable,  proving  the  truth  of  those  aspirations  and  convictions  in  the 
 heart  of  man,  which  its  symbolism  was  only  in  a  most  imperfect 
 manner  capable  of  satisfying,  but  which  pointed  to  a  higher  and 
 diviner  reality,  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  in  whose  person  and  work  they 
 all  find  their  perfect  satisfaction.  But  the  effect  of  adopting  the 
 methods  of  interpretation  above  referred  to,  has  been  the  wide  diffusion 
 of  a  belief  among  thoughtful  minds,  that  the  typology  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  with  its  supposed  fulfilment  in  the  New,  rests  on  so 
 unsubstantial  a  basis  as  to  deprive  it  of  all  evidential  value. 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY.  217 
 
 and  by  comparing  its  entire  system  of  symbolism  with  the 
 reality  in  the  New. 
 
 Of  this  I  must  content  myself  with  citing  two  remarkable 
 examples.  Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  the  New 
 Testament  is  founded  on  the  Old;  Christianity  grew  out 
 of  J  udaism.  Unless  the  Old  Testament  had  been  written, 
 not  one  page  of  the  New  would  ever  have  been  composed, 
 or  the  claims  of  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah  set  up.  Yet 
 Christianity  claims  the  right  to  supersede  its  entire  system 
 on  the  ground  that  Jesus  Christ  is  not  only  its  complete 
 and  adequate  realization,  but  has  so  realized  it,  as  to  have 
 rendered  its  imperfect  methods  nugatory.  This  has  been 
 effected  wherever  the  Christian  Church  has  been  established, 
 and  constitutes  a  proof  that  whatever  was  real  in  Judaism 
 has  been  so  fully  satisfied  by  Christianity,  that  the  shadow 
 has  become  useless  now  that  we  are  in  possession  of  the 
 substance.  So  complete  a  supercession  of  one  system  by 
 another  which  is  founded  on  it,  and  has  grown  out  of  it,  is 
 without  a  parallel  in  history. 
 
 Secondly :  the  rite  of  sacrifice  was  universal  in  the  ancient 
 world.  The  only  conclusion  which  is  consistent  with  this 
 fact  is,  that  it  must  have  had  its  origin  in  some  deep-felt 
 want  of  human  nature.*  It  formed  the  very  essence  and 
 
 *  It  has  been  often  asserted  that  the  practice  of  sacrifices  originated 
 in  a  divine  institution.  Whether  this  were  so,  or  not,  we  have  no 
 means  of  arriving  at  a  certain  conclusion ;  for  although  the  Bible 
 always  speaks  of  sacrifices  as  a  thoroughly  established  portion  of 
 divine  worship,  and  describes  them  as  having  been  offered  by  the 
 immediate  descendants  of  the  first  man ;  it  affirms  nothing  as  to 
 whether  they  were  instituted  by  God,  or  were  a  spontaneous  sugges¬ 
 tion  of  the  human  mind.  It  is  highly  probable  that  God  may  have 
 revealed  himself  to  mankind  prior  to  any  revelations  which  are 
 recorded  in  the  Bible  ;  but  as  no  record  of  such  prior  revelations  has. 
 survived,  it  is  most  unsafe  to  attempt  to  determine,  on  mere  abstract 
 principles,  what  must  have  been  their  contents.  To  do  so,  is  to- 
 imitate  the  unsound  practice  of  those  historians  who,  when  certain 
 facts  have  perished,  endeavour  to  supply  the  deficiency  by  elaborating 
 them  out  of  their  own  consciousness.  One  thing  is  certain.  The 
 
218 
 
 THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OP 
 
 centre  of  Judaism.  Now  tlie  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
 affirm  that  Jesus  Christ  has  performed  an  act  which  has 
 realized  the  ideal  which  was  embedded  in  the  entire  sacri¬ 
 ficial  svstem  of  the  ancient  world ;  and  has  thereby  rendered 
 
 «/ 
 
 it  unnecessary  and  unmeaning.  What,  I  ask,  has  been  the 
 verdict  of  mankind  respecting  this  ?  Have  they  found  in 
 Him  the  reality  which  the  old  sacrifices  vainly  attempted  to 
 realize  ?  There  can  be  one  only  answer  to  this  question. 
 Wherever  Christianity  has  been  accepted,  the  entire  sacrifi¬ 
 cial  system  so  deeply  entwined  with  every  institution  of  the 
 ancient  world,  has  perished ;  and  a  bloody  victim  has  never 
 once  stained  the  altars  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  still  has 
 one  great  sacrifice  to  offer  to  God ;  but  it  is  the  sacrifice  of 
 self. 
 
 Further :  Christianity  has  realized  the  ideal  of  that  to 
 which  the  dispensation  of  the  Old  Testament  pointed  in  its 
 general  outline,  but  only  imperfectly  realized.  Thus  the 
 conception  of  Judaism  involved  that  of  a  Church ;  but  its 
 institutions,  strictly  in  conformity  with  the  ideas  of  the 
 times,  limited  it  to  the  members  of  a  single  nation.  Chris¬ 
 tianity  has  swept  away  all  the  restrictions,  broken  down  all 
 the  walls  of  separation,  and  created  the  Catholic  Church. 
 The  conception  of  Judaism  was  that  of  a  theocracy  ;  that 
 theocracy  involved  a  vast  system  of  symbolical  worship,  and 
 the  existence  of  an  hereditary  priesthood.  Christianity 
 retains  the  conception  of  the  theocracy ;  but  it  is  one 
 altogether  spiritual  and  moral,  the  priesthood  of  which  is 
 the  entire  Christian  community.  The  moral  teaching  of 
 the  Old  Testament  was  one  of  great  elevation ;  but  was 
 rendered  imperfect  by  being  frequently  obliged  to  accom¬ 
 modate  itself  to  the  circumstances  of  the  times,  which  were 
 those  of  barbarism,  ferocity  and  war.  Jesus  Christ  in  His 
 
 practice  of  sacrifice  corresponds  to  a  need  which  has  been  in  all  ages 
 deeply  felt  by  human  nature,  and  is  an  imperfect  attempt  to  satisfy 
 it.  This  is  sufficient  for  my  argument.  Jesus  Christ  has  so  com¬ 
 pletely  satisfied  that  want  that  He  has  superseded  the  practice 
 wherever  His  religion  prevails. 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 219 
 
 teaching  has  realized  the  conception  on  which  it  is  based, 
 and  freed  it  from  its  imperfections.  The  great  men  of  the 
 former  dispensation  were  filled  with  the  deepest  aspirations 
 for  a  light  which  would  illumine  many  of  the  dark  problems 
 in  the  midst  of  which  they  struggled ;  above  all,  which 
 would  throw  a  cheerful  ray  on  man’s  destiny  beyond  the 
 grave.  The  light  which  they  vainly  struggled  after  has 
 been  imparted  by  one  of  their  countrymen  who,  to  all 
 external  appearance  was  only  a  Jewish  peasant.  My  text 
 affirms  that  Jesus  is  He  of  whom  Moses  in  the  Law,  and 
 the  prophets  did  write.  If  He  has  fulfilled  them ;  i.e.,  if 
 He  is  the  ideal  to  which  they  pointed.  He  must  certainly  be 
 the  Christ. 
 
 Let  me  now  briefly  sum  up  the  prophetic  argument,  and 
 exhibit  its  conjoint  force.  The  Old  Testament,  many  cen¬ 
 turies  before  the  birth  of  Jesus  Christ,  announced  the  setting 
 up  of  a  future  kingdom  of  God,  and  the  advent  of  a  Messiah, 
 who  was  to  be  its  king.  Such  a  kingdom  of  God  has  cer¬ 
 tainly  been  set  up  by  Jesus  Christ,  in  which  He  reigns  as 
 king.  It  affirms  that  a  prophet  should  appear  in  the  future 
 like  unto  Moses.  A  multitude  of  prophets  have  appeared ; 
 but  the  only  one  who  bears  this  resemblance  is  Jesus  Christ. 
 It  has  described  a  person  of  exalted  holiness,  and  possessing 
 a  superhuman  character,  as  suffering  for  others.  The  full 
 conception  of  such  a  character  is  fully  realized  in  Him,  and 
 in  Him  alone.  It  announces  a  Messiah  who  was  to  be  a 
 royal  priest.  Jesus  Christ  has  assumed  this  office,  and 
 nullified  every  other  sacrifice  but  His  own.  The  Jewish 
 dispensation  consisted  of  a  mass  of  rites,  ceremonies,  sym¬ 
 bols,  and  shadowy  representations.  Jesus  Christ  and  His 
 Church  are  the  embodiment  of  all  the  reality  which  they 
 contain ;  and  have  rendered  them  for  the  future  as  worth¬ 
 less  and  unmeaning  as  it  would  be  to  hold  up  a  candle  to 
 the  noon-day  sun.  Its  great  kings  and  prophets  earnestly 
 longed  for  better  things  to  come.  Those  aspirations  have 
 received  their  satisfaction  in  the  person,  actions,  and  teaching 
 of  the  divine  man.  The  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament,  while 
 
220  THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST 
 
 founded  on  eternal  truths,  bears  evident  marks  of  imper¬ 
 fection.  Jesus  Christ  is  the  embodiment  of  the  ideal,  after 
 which  the  Law  and  the  prophets  were  dimly  groping.  The 
 argument  is  spread  over  a  large  amount  of  space,  and 
 consists  of  a  multitude  of  minor  details ;  but  such  are  its 
 salient  points.  View  them  not  separately,  but  as  they  con¬ 
 verge  in  a  common  centre,  in  the  one  great  Catholic  Man, 
 Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.  Is  it  possible  that  this  vast  concur¬ 
 rence  of  circumstances  in  a  single  person  can  have  been  the 
 result  of  a  number  of  fortunate  guesses  ?  But  if  it  has  been 
 the  result  of  foresight,  that  foresight  must  have  been  super¬ 
 human.  The  only  plausible  objection  to  this  conclusion  is, 
 that  the  character  of  Jesus  has  been  elaborated  out  of  the 
 Messianic  ideas  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  various  apocry¬ 
 phal  writings,  and  falsely  attributed  to  Our  Lord.  On  this 
 point  I  shall  offer  a  few  remarks  in  a  Supplement. 
 
 SUPPLEMENT  I. 
 
 It  has  been  often  confidently  asserted  that  the  Jesus  of 
 the  Fourth  Gospel  differs  widely  in  conception  from  the 
 Jesus  of  the  Synoptics.  If  this  be  so,  it  may  be  urged  as 
 an  objection  against  the  argument  of  this  Lecture,  although 
 even  if  this  difference  were  an  actual  fact,  it  would  lose  none 
 of  its  validity  as  founded  on  the  unquestionable  unity  of  the 
 character  delineated  in  the  Synoptics.  Still,  however,  as  I 
 am  firmly  persuaded  that  the  objection  is  groundless,  it  will 
 be  desirable  to  offer  a  few  general  observations  in  proof  of 
 the  identity  of  the  character  delineated  in  the  fourth  with 
 that  of  the  first  three  Gospels. 
 
 In  what  then  does  the  alleged  difference  consist  ?  The 
 answer  must  be,  that  the  Jesus  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is 
 delineated  as  possessing  far  higher  and  diviner  attributes 
 than  the  Jesus  of  the  Synoptics.  This  is  founded  on  the 
 
A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY. 
 
 221 
 
 fact  tliat  tlie  discourses  recorded  in  this  Gospel  represent 
 Our  Lord  as  ascribing  to  Himself  a  number  of  divine  attri¬ 
 butes  wliicli  are  wanting  in  the  Synoptics. 
 
 The  fact  is  unquestionable,  that  the  discourses  of  this 
 Gospel  represent  Our  Lord  as  making  a  large  number  of 
 dogmatical  assertions  respecting  Himself,  which  are  not 
 found  in  the  other  three ;  but  that  this  constitutes  any  real 
 break  in  the  unity  of  the  delineation,  I  deny  ;  in  other  words, 
 I  affirm  that  the  four  portraitures  are  simply  four  delinea¬ 
 tions  of  the  same  character  contemplated  from  a  different 
 point  of  view.  The  difference  is  precisely  this:  The  Jesus 
 of  St.  John  directly  affirms  His  divine  character;  the  Jesus 
 of  the  Synoptics  is  so  delineated,  that  the  assumption  that 
 He  must  possess  a  superhuman  character  is  the  only 
 adequate  explanation  of  the  delineation.  The  Jesus  of  St. 
 John  is  in  fact  the  explanation  of  the  Jesus  of  the  Synoptics. 
 In  proof  of  this  I  observe  : — 
 
 1.  The  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew  and  St.  Luke  contain  a 
 deliberate  affirmation  on  the  part  of  Our  Lord,  which  forms 
 the  connecting  link  between  the  Jesus  of  the  Synoptics 
 and  the  Jesus  of  the  Fourth  Gospel.  I  quote  from 
 St.  Matthew : — 
 
 “  At  that  time  Jesus  answered  and  said,  I  thank  thee,  0 
 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  labour 
 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. ” 
 
 This  passage  proves  what  has  often  been  denied,  that  the 
 Synoptical  traditions  represented  Jesus  as  making  dogma¬ 
 tical  affirmations  respecting  Himself.  Further,  that  the 
 
222  THE  UNITY  OP  THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST 
 
 assertions  which  He  is  represented  as  making  in  this 
 passage  are  fully  on  a  par  with  anything  which  can  be 
 found  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
 
 The  first  portion  of  this  utterance,  affirming  the  hiding  of 
 the  fundamental  elements  of  Our  Lord's  teaching  from  the 
 wise  and  prudent,  and  their  revelation  to  babes,  embodies 
 the  essence  of  several  of  the  thoughts  contained  in  the  great 
 discourse  which  was  delivered  in  the  synagogue  at  Caper¬ 
 naum,  in  which  He  asserts  the  necessity  of  a  divine  influence 
 for  the  appreciation  of  His  teaching  (John  vi.  36-37  ;  41-44; 
 65),  and  also  underlies  the  principles  involved  in  several 
 of  his  controversies  with  the  Jews,  as  they  are  reported  in 
 this  Gospel. 
 
 The  second,  “Even  so.  Father,  for  so  it  seemed  good  in 
 thy  sight,"  affirms  the  perfect  coincidence  of  His  own  with 
 the  Father's  will.  Declarations  of  a  precisely  similar  import 
 are  scattered  widely  over  the  discourses  of  the  Fourth 
 Gospel,  of  which  John  iv.  34;  v.  19,  30;  vi.  38;  viii.  29,. 
 may  be  cited  as  examples. 
 
 The  third  affirms  that  all  things  are  committed  unto  Him 
 by  the  Father.  The  Fourth  Gospel  reiterates  again  and 
 again,  that  this  power,  which  is  inherent  in  the  Father,  is 
 manifested  through  the  Son. 
 
 The  fourth  affirms  in  direct  terms  that  a  perfect  know¬ 
 ledge  of  the  Son  is  possessed  by  the  Father  alone — “  Hone 
 knoweth  the  Son  but  the  Father  " — and  that  the  Son  in  like 
 manner  possesses  an  equally  exclusive  knowledge  of  the 
 Father — “Neither  knoweth  any  one  the  Father,  save  the 
 Son."  The  reader  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  cannot  fail  to 
 observe  that  these  assertions  cover  a  large  portion  of  Our 
 Lord's  dogmatical  affirmations  respecting  Himself,  which 
 are  really  little  more  than  amplifications  of  them. 
 
 The  fifth  assertion  is,  that  He  is  the  exclusive  revealer  of 
 the  Father.  This  is  reiterated  again  and  again  in  the  Fourth 
 Gospel. 
 
 The  whole  concludes  with  the  invitation  to  the  weary  and 
 heavy  laden  to  come  to  Him,  with  the  promise  of  finding 
 
A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY.  223 
 
 rest,  and  that  the  burden  which  He  would  lay  upon  them 
 would  be  light.  Portions  of  Our  Lord's  last  discourse,  in 
 which  He  promised  His  disciples  peace,  and  proclaimed 
 that  His  service  must  be  a  service  of  love  (John  xiv. 
 27-31 ;  xv.  9-17;  xvi.  33),  are  the  perfect  analogue  of  this 
 affirmation. 
 
 It  follows  therefore  that  a  large  portion  of  the  utterances 
 in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  against  which  so  much  exception  has 
 been  taken,  as  though  they  constituted  a  delineation  of 
 Jesus  fundamentally  differing  from  that  of  the  Synoptics, 
 are  little  more  than  expansions  of  the  thoughts  contained 
 in  this  single  passage.  Yet  as  it  is  deliberately  ascribed 
 to  Him  by  the  Synoptics,  their  authors  must  have  thought 
 it  in  harmony  with  the  traditions  which  they  followed. 
 From  this  we  may  safely  infer  that  it  could  not  have  been 
 the  only  one  with  which  they  were  acquainted. 
 
 2.  The  form  of  the  Synoptical  delineation  implies  the 
 existence  of  utterances  of  this  description.  In  fact  the 
 Johannine  portraiture  is  its  direct  counterpart  and  vindi¬ 
 cation. 
 
 The  first  proof  of  this  which  I  adduce  is  that  the  Synoptic 
 delineation  of  Our  Lord's  teaching  invariably  represents  Him 
 as  resting  the  truth  of  His  affirmations  on  no  other  authority 
 than  that  of  His  own  consciousness.  He  never  speaks  as 
 though  his  knowledge  came  to  Him  from  without ;  but  all 
 His  assertions  rest  on  His  own  ultimate  authority.  His 
 utterances  are  in  fact  equivalent  to  oracles ;  but  they  rest 
 on  the  simple  basis  of  “  I  say  unto  you."  Of  this  the  mode 
 in  which  He  deals  in  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  with  the 
 Old  Testament  Scriptures  (which  as  a  Jew  He  must  have 
 viewed  as  of  divine  authority),  explaining,  enlarging,  and 
 occasionally  annulling  some  of  its  precepts  as  defective,  by 
 no  other  authority  but  His  own,  may  be  cited  as  a  crucial 
 example.  Without  the  smallest  hesitation  or  faltering,  the 
 Jesus  of  the  Synoptic  narrative  sets  himself  down  in  the 
 seat  of  the  chief  legislator  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ;  nor 
 can  we  trace  in  it  one  single  indication  of  a  misgiving  on  His 
 
224  THE  XJNITY  OP  THE  CHARACTER  OP  CHRIST 
 
 part  that  He  was  not  supremely  worthy  to  fill  it,  or  that  His 
 utterances  were  to  be  viewed  as  anything  short  of  oracles 
 from  heaven. 
 
 But  further  :  equally  uniform  is  the  Synoptic  delineation 
 of  Our  Lord  as  a  worker  of  miracles.  The  utterances  with 
 which  He  announces  them  are  as  follows  : — “  I  will.  Be  thou 
 clean,”  and  the  leprosy  immediately  departs.  “  Young  man, 
 I  say  unto  thee,  arise,”  and  the  dead  stands  up.  “  Receive 
 thy  sight,”  and  the  blind  man  sees.  “  That  ye  may  know 
 that  the  Son  of  Man  hath  power  on  earth  to  forgive  sins, 
 I  say  unto  thee,  Arise,  take  up  thy  bed  and  walk,”  and  the 
 sick  man  carries  his  bed.  “  Come  out  of  the  man,  thou 
 unclean  spirit,”  and  the  demoniac  is  restored  to  sanity.  To 
 the  waters,  he  says,  “  Peace,  be  still,”  and  the  storm  ceases.* 
 Such  is  the  invariable  form  of  the  Synoptical  delineation, 
 which  never  once  represents  Jesus  as  appealing  to  any 
 power  but  His  own,  or  entertaining  the  smallest  doubt  that 
 He  possessed  it  inherently,  or  even  as  performing  a  miracle 
 after  the  utterance  of  a  prayer  to  enable  Him  to  do  it.  In 
 this  respect  the  delineation  of  the  Synoptics  is  equally 
 divine  with  that  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  In  one  respect  it 
 even  transcends  it,  for  while  the  discourses  of  the  Fourth 
 Gospel  contain  numerous  passages  which  refer  His  miracu¬ 
 lous  works  to  His  own  concurrence  in  action  with  the  Father, 
 and  describe  them  as  the  Father's  testimony  rendered  to 
 Him,  there  is  not  a  single  passage  in  any  one  of  the  Synop¬ 
 tics  which  makes  any  such  affirmation,  except  on  one 
 occasion,  when  in  a  discussion  with  the  Pharisees  as  to  the 
 source  of  His  miraculous  power,  which  they  attributed  to 
 Satan,  He  uses  the  words,  “  If  I  by  the  finger  of  God  cast 
 out  devils,”  and  the  statement  made  on  one  occasion  by 
 the  author  of  the  Third  Gospel,  that  Jesus  went  out  “  in  the 
 power  of  the  Spirit.”  In  a  similar  manner,  the  Johannine 
 discourses  far  more  definitely  affirm  the  derivation  of  Our 
 Lord's  teaching  from  the  Father  than  any  declaration  of  His 
 own  which  is  recorded  in  the  Synoptics. 
 
 It  follows  therefore  that  the  utterances  above  commented 
 
A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY.  225 
 
 on,  and  the  discourses  in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  constitute  the 
 only  adequate  justification  of  the  Synoptical  delineation ;  and 
 instead  of  the  two  delineations  being  portraitures  of  different 
 
 characters,  the  one  forms  the  direct  counterpart  of  the 
 other. 
 
 Equally  uniform  are  the  two  delineations  in  attributing  to 
 Jesus  the  most  perfect  union  of  His  own  consciousness 
 with  the  divine,  and  in  carefully  distinguishing  it  from 
 that  of  other  men.  Of  this  a  remarkable  instance  may  be 
 cited  in  the  exactitude  which  both  the  Synoptics  and  the 
 Fourth  Gospel  attribute  to  Him  in  the  use  of  the  word 
 “  Father."  They  make  it  clear  that  He  claimed  that  God 
 was  His  Father  in  a  sense  different  from  that  in  which  He  is 
 the  Father  of  other  men.  Tn  all  four  Gospels  the  usage  in 
 this  respect  is  uniform.  He  frequently  speaks  of  God  under 
 the  character  of  “  Father,"  but  it  is  invariably  “  My  Father" 
 when  He  speaks  of  Him  in  relation  to  Himself;  and  “your 
 Father"  when  He  does  so  in  relation  to  others.  Never  is 
 the  expression  “  Our  Father "  once  attributed  to  Him  in 
 either  of  the  Gospels,  except  in  the  prayer  which  He  com¬ 
 posed,  not  for  His  own  use,  but  for  that  of  His  disciples. 
 Such  uniformity  on  a  minute  point  of  this  description  con¬ 
 stitutes  the  strongest  proof  of  identity  of  conception.  The 
 contrast  between  Our  Lord's  view  of  the  relationship  in 
 which  He  stood  to  God,  and  that  in  which  other  men  stand 
 to  Him,  is  brought  out  more  strongly  in  a  passage  of  the 
 Fourth  Gospel,  “My  Father  and  your  Father,  my  God  and 
 
 your  God,  and  the  distinction  is  invariably  observed  by  all 
 four  Evangelists. 
 
 3.  A  claim  of  the  most  complete  sacrifice  of  self  on  the 
 part  of  His  disciples  is  several  times  attributed  to  Jesus 
 in  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  So  strong  is  this  demand  that 
 no  greater  amount  of  self-sacrifice  could  be  rendered  to 
 Almighty  God  than  the  Galilean  peasant  claims  for  himself. 
 Two  passages  in  these  Gospels  explain  the  grounds  of  this 
 demand,  viz.  His  inherent  worthiness,  and  that  “  He  came 
 to  give  His  life  a  ransom  for  many."  On  another  occasion  it 
 
 15 
 
226  THE  UNITY  OP  THE  CHARACTER  OP  CHRIST 
 
 is  enforced  by  the  consideration  that  He  will  deny  those 
 who  deny  Him,  and  confess  those  who  confess  Him  before 
 the  angels  of  God  and  His  Father  who  is  in  heaven.  Such 
 claims,  and  on  such  grounds,  were  never  elsewhere  made 
 by  mortal  man.  In  these  respects  the  portraiture  in  all 
 four  Gospels  is  uniform,  and  the  Johannine  asseverations 
 are  only  an  expansion  of  those  in  the  Synoptics,  and  a 
 formal  statement  of  the  grounds  on  which  such  demands 
 
 can  rest. 
 
 4.  While  the  Fourth  Gospel  attributes  to  Our  Lord  the 
 strong  dogmatical  assertions  which  we  read  in  its  pages 
 respecting  the  dignity  of  His  person,  it  delineates  the  other 
 aspects  of  His  character  as  being  equally  human  with  those 
 of  the  Synoptics.  Thus  St.  John  describes  Him  as  sitting 
 near  Jacob’s  Well,  wearied  with  His  journey ;  the  Synoptics 
 on  several  occasions  represent  Him  as  retiring  to  rest  Him¬ 
 self  after  His  day’s  labours.  In  the  account  of  the  Resur¬ 
 rection  of  Lazarus,  the  Fourth  Gospel  represents  Him  as 
 shedding  tears  of  sympathy;  and  the  whole  description, 
 while  attributing  to  Him  a  very  divine  character,  invests 
 Him  with  a  number  of  characteristics  which  are  exquisitely 
 human.  Similarly  the  Third  Gospel  depicts  Him  as  shed¬ 
 ding  tears  and  uttering  the  most  pathetic  lamentation  over 
 Jerusalem  and  its  impending  ruin.  So  again  the  whole 
 description  of  the  Last  Supper  in  the  Johannine  Gospel 
 delineates  Him  as  exhibiting  the  same  aspects  of  character. 
 Its  traits  are  even  more  delicately  drawn  than  the  corre¬ 
 sponding  incidents  in  the  Synoptics.  Similar  also  is  the 
 narrative  of  the  betrayal,  the  trial  and  the  crucifixion. 
 In  both  the  Synoptics  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  the  identity  of 
 
 the  character  is  unmistakable. 
 
 Here  it  will  be  necessary  to  answer  an  objection.  It 
 has  been  affirmed  that  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  has 
 omitted  the  account  of  the  agony  in  the  garden  because  he 
 thought  it  inconsistent  with  the  divine  character  which  he 
 has  attributed  to.  his  Master.  That  such  an  assertion  can 
 have  been  made  in  the  face  of  the  facts  above  referred  to. 
 
A  PROOF  OP  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY.  227 
 
 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 
 preconceived  opinions  on  a  very  slender  foundation  of 
 evidence.  What  was  the  reason  which  led  the  author  of 
 this  Gospel  to  omit  from  his  account  of  the  passion  any 
 i  eference  to  the  agony  in  the  Garden,  it  is  now  impossible  to 
 determine;  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.  This  is  rendered  evident 
 by  the  fact  that  while  he  omits  the  account  of  the  agony, 
 he  alone  of  the  Evangelists  gives  us  an  account  of  another 
 perturbation  of  Our  Lord  occasioned  by  the  prospect  of 
 His  sufferings  and  death,  which  occurred  only  two  days 
 previously.  Both  delineations  depict  Him  in  an  aspect 
 equally  human.  It  is  impossible  therefore  that  the  author 
 of  this  Gospel  could  have  omitted  the  account  of  the  agony 
 because  he  thought  it  derogatory  to  the  character  which  he 
 attributed  to  his  Master. 
 
 The  following  is  the  J ohannine  portraiture  : 
 
 “  How  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,  I  have  both  glorified  it,  and  will  glorify 
 it  again.  The  people  therefore  that  stood  by  and  heard  it, 
 said  that  it  thundered;  others  said.  An  angel  spake  unto 
 Him.  Jesus  answered  and  said.  This  voice  came  not 
 because  of  me,  but  for  your  sakes.  How  is  the  judgment  of 
 this  world,  now  shall  the  prince  of  this  world  be  cast  out. 
 And  I,  if  I  be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men 
 unto  me.”  (John  xii.  27-32.) 
 
 The  following  is  one  of  the  Synoptic  delineations  of  the 
 subsequent  agony 
 
 He  said  unto  them  (the  apostles),  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  sorrowful  and  very 
 heavy.  Then  saith  He  unto  them.  My  soul  is  exceeding 
 
 15* 
 
228  THE  UNITY  OP  THE  CHARACTER  OP  CHRIST 
 
 sorrowful,  even  unto  death ;  tarry  ye  here  and  watch  with 
 me.  And  He  went  a  little  further,  and  fell  on  His  face,  and 
 prayed,  saying,  0  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  His  disciples,  and  findeth  them  asleep, 
 and  saith  unto  Peter,  What !  could  ye  not  watch  with  me 
 one  hour  ?  Watch  and  pray,  lest  ye  enter  into  temptation : 
 the  spirit  indeed  is  willing,  but  the  flesh  is  weak.  He  went 
 away  again  the  second  time  and  prayed,  saying,  0  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 On  this  follows  the  narrative  of  His 
 voluntary  self-surrender  into  the  hands  of  his  enemies. 
 
 If  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  a  forgery,  its  author  must  have 
 been  an  adept  at  his  art,  for  its  delineations  are  almost 
 perfect  of  their  kind.  But  the  idea  that  he  invented  the 
 narrative  of  the  perturbation,  and  suppressed  that  of  the 
 agony,  for  the  purpose  of  imparting  a  more  divine  aspect  to 
 his  Master’s  character,  is  only  consistent  with  the  idea  that 
 he  must  have  been  little  better  than  a  bungler  \  for  the 
 description  in  the  Synoptics  is  the  grander  of  the  two,  and 
 the  union  of  the  will  of  the  sufferer  with  that  of  the  Father 
 is  absolute  and  complete.  To  say  the  least  of  it,  the 
 struggle  as  depicted  in  the  Synoptics  is  trodlike  and  strictly 
 in  conformity  with  the  entire  scope  of  the  J ohannine  deli¬ 
 neation. 
 
 5.  The  identity  will  become  more  and  more  apparent  if 
 we  compare  an  entire  section  in  the  Synoptics  with  a 
 parallel  one  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  As  it  is  the  longest  and 
 most  complete,  I  will  take  that  which,  on  the  theory  that 
 the  character  is  an  ideal  one,  may  not  inaptly  be  designated 
 the  drama  of  the  Passion.  It  will  only  be  necessary  to 
 notice  its  chief  incidents. 
 
 This  really  commences  with  the  anointing  of  Our  Lord 
 at  Bethany,  as  preparatory  to  His  burial.  It  is  narrated 
 
A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY. 
 
 229 
 
 out  of  its  proper  place  by  tbe  Synoptics,  but  it  is  evident 
 that  they  attached  a  high  importance  to  it,  for  it  is  the 
 only  event  connected  with  His  life  which  they  represent 
 Him  as  declaring  that  it  should  be  proclaimed  to  the  whole 
 world  for  a  perpetual  memorial  of  the  act.  It  is  worthy  of 
 notice  that  this  latter  circumstance,  which  impresses  on  it 
 a  certain  divine  significance,  is  omitted  by  St.  John,  but  in 
 other  respects  the  descriptions  precisely  correspond.  To 
 this  follows  the  account  of  the  triumphal  entry  into  Jeru¬ 
 salem,  in  which  all  four  Evangelists  concur  in  representing 
 Him  just  prior  to  His  great  act  of  self-sacrifice,  as  openly 
 assuming  the  character  of  the  King  Messiah.  Notwith¬ 
 standing  several  minor  variations,  the  delineations  are 
 similar  throughout,  except  that  the  Synoptics  ascribe  to 
 Our  Lord  the  high  Messianic  act  of  cleansing  the  temple, 
 which  St.  John  omits  to  notice.  At  this  point  the  narratives 
 diverge :  those  of  the  Synoptics  representing  Him  as  being 
 engaged  during  the  days  which  intervened  between  His 
 entry  and  the  Passion  in  teaching  in  the  Temple,  and 
 in  discussions  with  the  Jews,  while  the  only  incidents  men¬ 
 tioned  by  St.  John  are  the  interview  with  the  Greeks  and  the 
 mental  perturbation  above  referred  to.  Here,  however,  it 
 should  be  observed  that  the  Synoptical  delineations  portray 
 Our  Lord  in  an  attitude  pre-eminently  divine  in  the  scene 
 immediately  preceding  the  account  of  the  Passion,  which 
 is  wholly  unnoticed  in  the  Fourth  Gospel;  I  allude  to  the 
 prophecy  which  they  ascribe  to  Him  of  the  destruction  of 
 Jerusalem,  His  final  advent,  and  the  supplemental  parable 
 of  the  Last  Judgment,  attributed  to  Him  by  St.  Matthew, 
 who  is  allowed  to  be  the  greatest  authority  for  Our  Lord^s 
 discourses.  This  last  portion  contains  the  grandest  and 
 most  perfect  delineation  of  Our  Lord  in  His  divine  and 
 human  characters  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament,  and 
 is  certainly  not  exceeded  by  anything  which  is  affirmed 
 respecting  him  in  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
 
 This  discourse  is  remarkable,  as  being  the  only  one  of 
 any  length  in  the  Synoptics,  except  the  one  above  alluded 
 
230  THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST 
 
 to ,  in  which.  Our  Lord  is  described  as  making  a  number  of 
 direct  assertions  respecting  Himself,  after  the  manner  of  the 
 Fourth  Gospel.  Even  if  we  take  the  discourse  as  it  is 
 recorded  by  St.  Mark  and  St.  Luke  without  the  additions 
 in  St.  Matthew,  Our  Lord  portrays  Himself  in  an  aspect 
 pre-eminently  divine,  the  brightest  objects  in  nature  being 
 darkened  before  the  manifestation  of  the  glory  of  His 
 appearance,  surrounded  by  the  Angels  of  His  might,  to 
 take  possession  of  His  Messianic  kingdom.  Yet  this  grand 
 delineation,  perhaps  the  grandest  in  the  entire  Gospels, 
 which  the  Synoptics  have  inserted  immediately  before  their 
 description  of  His  lowest  humiliation,  is  left  altogether 
 without  notice  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  This  is  simply  incon¬ 
 ceivable  if  its  author  was  a  forger  who  invented  his  fiction 
 for  the  sole  purpose  of  glorifying  his  Master.  The  only 
 incident  in  the  Johannine  narrative  which  supplies  its  place 
 is  the  voice  of  encouragement  from  heaven  in  the  account  of 
 Our  Lord^s  mental  perturbation. 
 
 The  Johannine  narrative  of  the  last  supper,  while  differing 
 in  numerous  points  of  minor  detail,  which  have  no  bearing 
 on  the  present  argument,  from  those  of  the  Synoptics, 
 consists  of  three  scenes,  the  washing  of  the  disciples^  feet, 
 the  detection  and  exposure  of  Judas,  and  the  warning  given 
 to  Peter.  In  each  of  these  Our  Lord  is  delineated  in  an 
 aspect  exquisitely  human,  the  perfect  combination  of  dignity 
 with  humility,  and  condescending  love.  Its  finer  touches 
 cannot  be  surpassed.  It  must  be  read,  and  carefully  medi¬ 
 tated  on  in  order  to  be  fully  appreciated. 
 
 How  stands  the  case  with  the  Synoptics  ?  It  is  clear  that 
 all  four  Evangelists  intended  in  their  respective  narratives  to 
 delineate  Our  Lord  in  His  profoundest  humiliation ;  and  it  is 
 equally  certain,  notwithstanding  their  variations,  that  the 
 conception  is  identically  the  same  in  all  four  writers.  The 
 last  two  incidents  in  the  Johannine  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  the  account 
 of  the  unseemly  contest  for  superiority  among  the  disciples 
 
A  PROOF  OP  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY. 
 
 231 
 
 immediately  after  tlie  institution  of  tlie  Lord^s  Supper,  and 
 His  rebuke.  The  variations  of  detail  in  tbe  four  narratives 
 only  confirm  tbe  identity  of  tbe  character  as  proving  that 
 among  tbe  various  records  of  incidents  banded  down  in  tbe 
 traditions  of  tbe  different  Churches,  there  was  no  real 
 diversity  of  delineation. 
 
 Here  tbe  Fourth  Gospel  again  diverges  from  tbe 
 Synoptics.  Immediately  after  tbe  supper  it  describes  Our 
 Lord  as  uttering  a  long  consolatory  address  to  tbe  disciples, 
 concluding  with  His  great  intercessory  prayer.  While  this 
 address  contains  a  number  of  the  most  exquisite  human 
 touches,  it  also  depicts  Him  in  tbe  diviner  aspects  of  His 
 character ;  tbe  prayer  of  intercession  being  tbe  act  of  self¬ 
 consecration  immediately  before  His  voluntary  sacrifice. 
 There  can  be  no  doubt  that  tbe  insertion  of  tbe  address 
 and  prayer  in  this  particular  place,  heightens  tbe  effect  of 
 His  self-sacrifice,  which  follows ;  but  precisely  tbe  same 
 result  is  produced  in  tbe  Synoptic  narrative  by  tbe  intro¬ 
 duction  of  tbe  great  prophetic  utterance,  with  its  additions 
 in  St.  Matthew,  immediately  before  tbe  account  of  the 
 Paschal  supper.  In  both  Our  Lord  is  described  as  investing 
 Himself  with  superhuman  greatness,  immediately  before  His 
 lowest  humiliation ;  and  it  is  impossible  to  affirm  that  the 
 speaker,  in  the  Gospel  of  St.  John,  has  portrayed  himself 
 in  a  more  divine  aspect  than  tbe  speaker  in  that  of  Matthew. 
 Tbe  one  is  in  fact  tbe  counterpart  of  tbe  other,  only  tbe 
 portraiture  is  taken  from  a  somewhat  different  point  of  view; 
 but  tbe  identity  is  unmistakable. 
 
 We  next  pass  on  to  the  scenes  of  tbe  arrest  and  trial. 
 Here  tbe  minor  details  differ  considerably.  I  need  offer  no 
 further  remarks  on  tbe  omission  of  tbe  agony  in  tbe  Garden 
 from  tbe  Jobannine  narrative,  for  amidst  numerous  varia¬ 
 tions  in  tbe  incidents,  tbe  same  fundamental  conception 
 prevails  throughout  all  four  narratives,  viz.,  that  of  Our 
 Lord^s  voluntary  self-surrender.  This  is  expressed  in  the 
 Fourth  Gospel  by  tbe  mode  in  which  Jesus  is  represented 
 as  meeting  tbe  band  at  tbe  entrance  of  tbe  Garden:  in  tbe 
 
232  THE  UNITY  OF  THE  CHARACTER  OF  CHRIST 
 
 Synoptics  by  tbe  declaration  tbat  He  bad  only  to  pray  to 
 His  Father,  and  that  He  would  immediately  obtain  the  aid 
 of  twelve  legions  of  angels :  the  Synoptics  record  the  one, 
 and  the  Fourth  Gospel  the  other.  It  is  therefore  absurd 
 to  affirm  that  the  incident  in  question  was  invented  for  the 
 purpose  of  heightening  the  effect.  Both  delineations  are 
 portraitures  of  Jesus  supported  by  a  consciousness  of  the 
 divine  within  Him,  in  an  act  of  voluntarily  yielding  Him¬ 
 self  up  to  death.  It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  while  the 
 Synoptics  describe  Him  immediately  before  His  condemna¬ 
 tion  as  making  a  deliberate  assertion  of  His  superhuman 
 character  before  the  Jewish  council,  this  incident  is  wholly 
 omitted  by  St.  John.  The  only  thing  which  corresponds 
 to  it  in  this  Gospel,  if  it  may  be  really  said  to  correspond, 
 is  His  deliberate  assertion  of  His  Kingship  in  reply  to  the 
 judicial  inquiries  of  the  Koman  Governor.  When  inter¬ 
 rogated  by  him  on  the  question  of  His  divine  origin,  He 
 made  no  answer.  It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  in  either  case 
 the  character  is  the  same,  however  much  the  incidents 
 may  vary.  This  variation  of  the  incidents,  while  the 
 identity  is  preserved,  constitutes  the  strongest  possible 
 proof  that  the  character  is  not  an  ideal  creation,  but  an 
 historical  reality. 
 
 The  narrative  of  the  condemnation  and  the  crucifixion 
 calls  for  little  remark.  Here  again  the  incidents  are 
 extremely  varied.  But  the  greater  the  amount  of  variation, 
 the  greater  force  it  imparts  to  my  argument,  for  not  a  single 
 variation  affects  the  identity  of  the  character.  It  is  impos¬ 
 sible  to  affirm  that  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  has 
 imparted  a  more  divine,  or  even  a  less  human  aspect  to  Our 
 Lord,  either  before  Pilate  or  on  the  cross,  than  is  attributed 
 to  Him  in  the  Synoptics.  If  he  has  omitted  the  cry,  “  My 
 God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me  ?”  which  is 
 attributed  to  him  by  the  latter,  he  has  inserted  that  of 
 “  I  thirst,”  which  they  omit.  Surely  this  is  equally  human 
 with  the  former.  Again,  if  he  has  attributed  to  Him  the 
 triumphant  exclamation  “It  is  finished”  prior  to  His  death. 
 
A  PROOF  OF  ITS  HISTORICAL  REALITY. 
 
 233 
 
 we  know  from  tke  Synoptics  that  He  uttered  some  cry 
 which  produced  awe  in  the  mind  of  the  centurion ;  and  it 
 has  its  complete  counterpart  in  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  in  the 
 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  Paradise." 
 
 Nothing  is  easier  than  to  raise  a  number  of  minute 
 objections  on  account  of  the  variations  with  which  the 
 Evangelical  narratives  abound ;  and  to  say  that  one  thing 
 has  been  invented,  or  left  out  for  this  purpose,  and  another 
 for  that.  What  was  the  express  design  of  each  Evangelist 
 in  making  these  additions,  and  omissions,  or  what  was  the 
 precise  amount  of  matter  which  each  had  before  him,  it  is 
 now  impossible  to  ascertain ;  and  if  we  supply  our  deficiency 
 of  knowledge  by  conjecture,  we  may  make  out  any  thing 
 which  falls  into  harmony  with  preconceived  ideas.  But 
 amidst  this  divergency  of  incidents,  one  thing  emerges  into 
 the  clearest  light,  that  the  portraiture  of  the  Jesus  of  the 
 Evangelists  constitutes  an  essential  unity  ;  that  the  separate 
 delineations  fit  into  one  another  with  exquisite  propriety, 
 and  that  the  separate  parts  of  which  each  delineation  is 
 composed,  adjust  themselves  to  each  other  as  portions  of 
 one  great  whole.  Each  Evangelist  has  some  points  in  his 
 delineation  peculiar  to  himself,  and  delights  to  dwell  on 
 some  particular  aspect  of  the  character  of  his  Master;  but 
 all  these  variations  amount  to  nothing  more  than  that  they 
 have  each  contemplated  the  great  reality  from  a  somewhat 
 different  point  of  view.  Identity  of  character  arising  out  of 
 great  diversity  of  materials,  points  to  one  thing,  and  to  one 
 thing  only — historical  reality. 
 
234 
 
 THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OF 
 
 SUPPLEMENT  II. 
 
 It  has  frequently  been  asserted  that  the  Messianic 
 character  of  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels  has  been  evolved 
 out  of  the  Messianic  delineations  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
 the  Apocalyptic  literature  current  at  the  time  of  the  Advent, 
 of  which  the  Book  of  Enoch,  the  Second  Book  of  Esdras, 
 certain  collections  of  Sybilline  verses  and  a  few  others  are 
 examples.  This  objection,  which,  if  valid,  would  be  fatal  to 
 the  whole  prophetic  argument,  has  derived  a  certain  amount 
 of  plausibility  from  the  fact  that  the  Messianic  prophecies 
 and  the  typology  of  the  Old  Testament  have  been  frequently 
 represented  by  Christian  writers  as  being  such  distinct,  full, 
 and  definite  predictions  of  Christ,  as  to  have  made  it  com¬ 
 paratively  easy  to  elaborate  the  Messiah  of  the  New 
 Testament  out  of  the  prophetic  intimations  of  the  Old. 
 This  being  so,  although  the  foregoing  arguments  are  valid 
 for  the  disproof  of  this  particular  form  of  the  ideal  theory, 
 yet  it  will  be  desirable  to  offer  a  few  additional  observations 
 for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  the  data  furnished  by  the 
 Old  Testament  and  the  Apocalyptic  literature  in  question 
 are  utterly  inadequate  to  have  afforded  the  materials  for 
 this  grand  delineation. 
 
 A  large  number  of  Christian  writers  in  their  eagerness  to 
 impart  additional  force  to  the  prophetical  argument,  and  a 
 divine  authority  to  doctrines  which  it  is  impossible  to  prove 
 by  the  direct  statements  of  the  New  Testament,  but  which 
 they  consider  to  be  integral  portions  of  Christianity,  have 
 represented  the  Old  Testament  as  containing  a  veritable 
 Gospel.  In  adopting  this  course  they  have  not  perceived 
 that  they  were  cutting  away  the  ground  from  under  their 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 235 
 
 own  feet ;  for  if  the  delineations  of  the  Old  Testament  are 
 thus  clear  and  distinct,  or  in  the  language  of  the  author  of 
 the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  elieovsg,  and  not  ancicu  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity,  it  would  have  been  comparatively  easy  for  mytho- 
 logists  and  inventors  of  fictions,  to  have  delineated  the 
 Jesus  of  the  Evangelists.  The  truth  however  will  be  found 
 to  be,  that  the  only  way  of  finding  in  the  Old  Testament 
 what  it  has  been  thus  alleged  to  contain,  is  by  practising  on 
 ourselves  the  fallacy  of  first  putting  into  it  what  we  imagine 
 that  we  find  there.  This  mode  of  procedure  has  greatly 
 impaired  the  value  of  the  Christian  argument  in  the  eyes  of 
 thoughtful  men;  and  put  a  dangerous  weapon  into  the 
 hands  of  opponents.  For  all  evidential  purposes  it  is  as 
 valueless,  as  it  would  be  foolish  in  common  life,  to  act  on  the 
 assumption  that  a  purse  which  we  ourselves  had  filled,  was 
 a  present  made  to  us  by  a  considerate  friend. 
 
 In  estimating  the  amount  of  light  communicated  by  the 
 prophetic  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament,  it  is  necessary 
 to  consider,  not  what  we  think  that  we  can  see  in  them  with 
 the  light  of  Christianity  shining  upon  them,  but  what  was 
 the  only  thing  which  any  one  could  have  seen  in  them  who 
 lived  before  Jesus  Christ  appeared  as  the  realization  of 
 the  ideal,  towards  which  they  obscurely  pointed.  In  deter¬ 
 mining  the  question  whether  the  Messianic  conceptions  of 
 the  Old  Testament  and  the  Apocalypses  can  have  served  as 
 the  model  for  the  Jesus  of  the  Gospels,  it  is  our  duty  to 
 contemplate  them,  not  with  the  light  which  has  been  thrown 
 upon  them  by  the  New  Testament,  but  in  the  plain  obvious 
 meaning  which  they  must  have  presented  to  the  delineators 
 themselves.  In  discussing  this  question  it  will  be  only 
 necessary  to  consider  the  chief  Messianic  prophecies  ;  for 
 the  idea  that  the  typology  of  the  Old  Testament  could 
 have  formed  any  portion  of  the  model  employed  in  the 
 delineation  of  the  Jesus  of  the  New,  is  too  absurd  to  require 
 serious  refutation.  It  could  only  have  served  that  purpose 
 if  it  had  been  first  put  there  by  the  delineator. 
 
 What  then  were  the  Messianic  conceptions  which  the  Old 
 
236 
 
 THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OP 
 
 Testament  and  tlie  Apocalypses  would  have  supplied ;  and 
 how  far  would  they  have  aided  them  in  delineating  the  ideal 
 Jesus  of  the  Evangelists  ? 
 
 Let  us  suppose  that  such  a  delineator  had  in  his  hands  the 
 book  of  Enoch.  I  notice  this  Apocalypse  first,  because  it 
 contains  the  Messianic  conception  in  its  clearest  and  most 
 distinctive  form.  It  is  very  doubtful  whether  the  Messianic 
 delineations  in  this  book  have  not  been  inserted  at  a  period 
 subsequent  to  the  Advent,  for  the  evidence  that  it  is  a 
 composite  work  is  strong.  On  this  point,  however,  I  will 
 not  insist,  but  suppose  that  the  delineator  of  an  ideal  Christ 
 may  have  been  in  possession  of  the  entire  book.  What  aid 
 would  it  have  afforded  him  in  creating  the  great  portraiture 
 of  the  Gospels  ?  He  might  have  derived  the  following 
 hints  :  that  while  the  Messiah  was  to  be  divine,  He  was  not 
 to  be  invested  with  the  attributes  of  absolute  Deity :  He 
 is  affirmed  in  it  to  have  existed  prior  to  all  creation :  His 
 most  usual  designation  is  “  the  Elect  One :  ”  He  is  also 
 repeatedly  designated  as  the  “  Son  of  God,”  te  the  Son  of 
 Man,”  and  once  as  “  the  Son  of  Woman :  ”  He  is  invested 
 with  the  titles  of  King  and  Judge  of  the  world  :  He 
 possesses  righteousness,  is  gifted  with  wisdom,  and  knows 
 all  secret  things  :  He  possesses  the  Spirit  in  all  its  fulness, 
 His  kingdom  is  everlasting,  and  He  stands  highest  in  the 
 acceptance  of  the  Lord  of  Spirits.  Although  the  book 
 nowhere  affirms  the  doctrine  of  an  incarnation,  it  is  unques¬ 
 tionably  implied  in  the  designations  given  to  the  Messiah, 
 of  “  the  Son  of  Man  ”  and  “  the  Son  of  Woman.” 
 
 It  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that  as  far  as  this  book  contains 
 anything  which  may  be  called  a  portraiture  of  the  Messiah,  the 
 character  which  it  attributes  to  Him  is  one  altogether  divine. 
 Although  He  is  repeatedly  called  the  Son  of  Man,  no  one 
 trait  of  character  strictly  human  is  ascribed  to  Him.  Further, 
 it  does  not  contain  one  single  intimation  that  the  Messiah  was 
 to  be  a  sufferer ;  and  that  through  His  sufferings  He  would 
 enter  His  glory,  which  constitutes  one  of  the  most  striking 
 features  in  the  delineation  of  the  Jesus  of  the  New  Testament. 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 237 
 
 The  form  of  the  book  is  that  of  a  vision :  and  its  Mes¬ 
 sianic  portions  are  not  portraitures  or  obscure  typical  out¬ 
 lines,  but  affirmations  respecting  Him  in  the  most  strictly 
 dogmatic  form.  It  is  very  remarkable  that  although  He  is 
 repeatedly  called  the  Son  of  Man,  He  is  nowhere  repre¬ 
 sented  as  exhibiting  simply  human  characteristics. 
 
 It  will  be  at  once  seen  that  the  Messianic  portions  of  this 
 book  are  greatly  in  advance  of  anything  contained  in  the 
 Old  Testament.  Whatever  view  we  may  take  of  its  author¬ 
 ship,  its  characteristics  are  very  striking ;  and  this  is 
 rendered  the  more  so,  because  the  reader  is  led  by  the 
 occurrence  of  certain  words  and  phrases  used  in  common 
 by  its  author  and  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament,  to  the 
 almost  inevitable  conclusion,  either  that  he  must  have  been 
 acquainted  with  some  of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament, 
 and  derived  his  phraseology  from  them,  or  vice  versa . 
 If  we  adopt  the  former  hypothesis  it  is  difficult  to  account 
 for  the  absence  of  any  delineation  of  the  Messiah  in  a  purely 
 human,  above  all,  in  a  suffering  character.  If  on  the  contrary 
 the  Messianic  portions  of  the  work  are  assumed  to  have 
 been  in  existence  prior  to  the  advent,  it  becomes  equally 
 difficult  to  account  for  the  extremely  advanced  form  of  its 
 dogmatical  assertions,  for  which  the  remnants  of  Jewish 
 literature  which  bear  on  the  ideas  of  the  times,  afford  no 
 adequate  vindication.  The  balance  of  probability  in  favour 
 of  their  post- Christian  date  greatly  preponderates ;  and 
 therefore  in  allowing  that  they  might  have  been  used  by 
 some  supposed  delineator  of  the  ideal  of  the  Gospels,  I  give 
 him  every  advantage.  The  question  therefore  arises,  how  far 
 would  the  dogmatic  assertions  of  this  book  have  aided  an 
 idealist  in  his  portraiture  of  the  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists  ? 
 
 It  will  immediately  strike  the  reader,  that  while  this  book 
 contains  a  number  of  dogmatic  statements  respecting  the 
 Messiah,  it  makes  not  a  single  attempt  to  give  us  a  drama¬ 
 tized  portraiture  of  Him ;  by  which  I  mean,  that  it  never 
 embodies  the  attributes  which  it  ascribes  to  Him  in  a  living 
 character.  This,  on  the  contrary,  forms  the  very  essence  of 
 
238 
 
 TIIE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OF 
 
 our  Gospels,  in  which  Jesus  not  only  possesses  certain 
 qualities,  but  actually  exhibits  them  over  a  wide  sphere  of 
 action,  and  in  every  variety  of  circumstances.  It  will  be  seen 
 at  once  that  between  merely  affirming  that  the  Messiah 
 was  both  Son  of  God  and  Son  of  man,  and  delineating 
 Him  in  a  career  in  which  He  is  made  to  act  both  these 
 characters  with  exquisite  propriety,  the  difference  is  vast. 
 In  a  similar  manner  it  is  easy  to  ascribe  to  such  a  person 
 wisdom,  holiness,  benevolence,  or  any  other  virtues,  or  even  to 
 affirm  that  he  will  be  the  future  judge  of  the  world;  but  it 
 is  a  very  different  thing  to  dramatize  him  as  exhibiting  these 
 characteristics  over  an  extensive  sphere  of  action.  This  is 
 what  has  been  effected  in  the  New  Testament ;  but  of  the 
 mode  in  which  the  Messiah  was  to  be  delineated  as  uniting 
 the  divine  and  human  characters,  or  as  exhibiting  in  action 
 a  number  of  virtues,  the  perfect  combination  of  which  in 
 any  single  person  is  a  matter  of  the  greatest  difficulty,  the 
 book  of  Enoch  would  not  have  furnished  a  single  hint. 
 The  difference  between  this  book  and  the  Gospels  may  be 
 summed  up  in  the  following  sentence  i  the  book  of  Enoch 
 declares  what  attributes  the  Messiah,  in  conformity  with  the 
 ideas  of  its  author,  ought  to  possess ;  the  Gospels  set  before 
 us  a  delineation  of  what,  contrary  to  the  ideas  of  their 
 authors,  He  actually  was.  The  one  utters  a  number  of 
 dogmatical  assertions  respecting  Him,  the  other  presents  us 
 with  an  actual  portraiture  of  a  living  Christ,  exhibiting  in 
 perfect  harmony  the  holiness  of  man,  and  the  holiness  of 
 God.  The  one  resembles  a  person  who  says  to  an  artist, 
 paint  a  magnificent  picture,  exhibiting  certain  principles ; 
 the  other  resembles  the  artist  with  the  picture  in  his  hands 
 exhibiting  the  highest  conceptions  of  genius,  and  finished 
 in  the  highest  style  of  art. 
 
 It  follows  therefore  that  although  he  might  have  learnt  from 
 this  book  that  the  Messiah  was  to  be  a  person  who  would 
 possess  high,  but  not  the  highest  form  of  divine  attributes ; 
 that  He  was  to  be  the  Son  of  man,  Son  of  woman,  and  the 
 Son  of  God ;  that  He  was  to  be  the  revelation  of  the  Lord 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 239 
 
 of  Spirits,  and  the  future  Judge  of  the  world,  the  delineator 
 would  not  have  derived  a  single  hint  as  to  how  these  charac¬ 
 teristics  were  to  be  exhibited  in  action.  Still  more  devoid 
 of  assistance  would  this  book  have  left  him,  in  depicting 
 the  human  aspects  of  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  The 
 solitary  hint  that  it  would  have  given  him  would  have  been 
 its  assertion  that  He  was  to  be  the  Son  of  man. 
 
 But  as  I  have  said,  the  aspect  of  the  Messiah  as  a  sufferer 
 is  utterly  wanting.  That  He  was  to  suffer,  above  all  to  die, 
 the  book  does  not  give  the  smallest  intimation.  Its  Messiah 
 is  altogether  triumphant  and  divine.  On  the  other  hand  His 
 character  as  a  sufferer  is  one  of  the  most  striking  aspects  of 
 the  Christ  of  the  New  Testament.  A  Christ  in  whom  this 
 portion  of  the  Evangelical  portraiture  is  wanting,  is  an  utterly 
 different  one  from  the  Christ  of  the  New  Testament;  and  if 
 this  was  the  only  distinction  between  them,  it  would  con¬ 
 stitute  a  proof  little  short  of  demonstration,  that  the  Messiah 
 of  Enoch  could  not  have  served  as  a  model  for  the  Christ  of 
 the  Gospels.  I  need  hardly  say  that  if  the  suffering  Jesus  is 
 an  ideal  creation,  it  must  have  been  one  of  the  most  difficult 
 portions  of  the  whole  character  to  conceive  and  dramatize. 
 It  follows  therefore,  that  apart  from  its  seven  or  eight 
 dogmatical  assertions  respecting  certain  attributes  which 
 the  Messiah  was  to  possess,  the  Messianic  elements  of  the 
 book  of  Enoch  would  not  have  afforded  the  smallest  assist¬ 
 ance  to  any  body  of  idealists  who  may  be  supposed  to  have 
 imagined  the  Christ  of  the  New  Testament. 
 
 2.  But  may  not  another  apocryphal  book,  that  of  Esdras, 
 have  supplied  the  deficiency,  and  formed  the  model  of  the 
 suffering  J esus  ?  Here  again,  great  uncertainty  exists 
 respecting  the  date  of  the  work.  Whatever  may  be 
 said  of  the  greater  part  of  it,  there  cannot  be  the  smallest 
 doubt  that  a  few  passages  in  it  are  interpolations  in 
 favour  of  Christianity.  While  the  book  of  Enoch  displays 
 a  generally  triumphant  tone,  this  apocalypse  is  distin¬ 
 guished  by  the  tone  of  profound  melancholy  which  per¬ 
 vades  it.  Under  this  influence,  it  recognizes  the  fact  that 
 
240 
 
 THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OP 
 
 the  Messiah  was  to  die ;  but  as  with  the  other  book,  the 
 idea  of  His  death  as  a  sacrifice  is  foreign  to  its  contents. 
 Its  Messiah  is  one  pre-eminently  Jewish, — an  aspect  of 
 thought  which  distinguishes  the  entire  work.  With  the 
 exception  that  the  Messiah  was  to  die,  and  the  world  to 
 return  to  chaos  before  the  Resurrection,  it  furnishes  us  with 
 no  fresh  element  of  Messianic  thought.  If  we  adopt  the 
 highly  improbable  supposition,  that  this  book  was  in  the 
 hands  of  some  idealists,  who  have  invented  the  portraiture 
 of  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  the  only  possible  aid  it  could 
 have  afforded  them  was  the  idea  that  the  Messiah  was  to 
 die ;  but  as  to  how  the  conception  of  a  dying  Messiah  was  to 
 be  combined  with  the  triumphant  one  of  the  other  apocalypse, 
 or  how  the  Messiah  of  Esdras  was  to  be  metamorphosed  into 
 the  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  it  would  have  imparted  to  the 
 idealist  neither  aid  nor  suggestion.  Any  one  who  carefully 
 peruses  this  book  must  arise  from  it  with  a  firm  conviction 
 that  it  has  not  formed  the  model  of  the  supposed  delineators 
 of  an  ideal  Christ,  who,  according  to  any  theory  which  does 
 not  ignore  the  plain  facts  of  history,  and  the  possibilities  of 
 things,  must  have  been  as  numerous  as  the  inventors  of  the 
 legends  of  which  the  Gospels  are  said  to  be  composed. 
 
 3.  It  being  clear,  therefore,  that  these  two  apocalypses 
 have  not  supplied  the  materials  out  of  which  a  number  of 
 ideologists  have  succeeded  in  delineating  their  Christ,  it  will 
 be  needless  to  inquire  whether  the  remaining  works  of  this 
 description  can  have  been  used  for  the  same  purpose.  A 
 cursory  perusal  of  them  will  be  sufficient  to  convince  the 
 reader  that  they  are  incapable  of  supplying  the  deficiency ; 
 and  it  is  also  certain  that  portions  of  them  must  have  been 
 composed  at  a  period  subsequent  to  the  Advent.  This  being 
 so,  it  only  remains  to  inquire  what  amount  of  aid  could  have 
 been  furnished  by  the  Messianic  elements  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
 ment. 
 
 4.  The  book  of  Daniel  would  have  furnished  the  concep¬ 
 tion  of  a  Messiah  who,  while  He  was  to  be  invested  with 
 superhuman  attributes,  was  also  to  be  the  Son  of  Man. 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 241 
 
 From  it  they  would  also  learn  that  the  kingdom  of  God,  the 
 advent  of  which  it  announces,  would  differ  from  all  other 
 earthly  kingdoms.  Another  prophecy  of  the  same  book 
 would  have  informed  them  that  one  of  the  purposes  of  His 
 coming  would  be  to  make  an  end  of  sin  and  reconciliation 
 for  iniquity,  and  that  to  effect  this  object  the  Messiah  would 
 die  by  a  violent  death.  From  this,  when  viewed  in  con¬ 
 nection  with  the  other  prophecies  which  assign  to  Him  a 
 kingdom  without  limits  and  without  end,  it  is  highly  pro¬ 
 bable  that  they  would  infer  that  it  was  part  of  the  Messianic 
 character  that  He  should  be  raised  again  from  the  dead;  but 
 this  could  only  have  been  an  inference,  for  the  book  nowhere 
 affirms  that  such  would  be  the  case.  This  book  and  that  of 
 Enoch  are  affirmed  by  those  whose  theories  I  am  contro¬ 
 verting,  to  have  contributed  largely  to  the  formation  of  the 
 Messianic  conception  of  the  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists.  It  is 
 clear  however  that  the  points  above  referred  to  form  the 
 utmost  aid  which  it  could  have  afforded  to  the  supposed 
 ideologists,  but  that  it  would  have  given  them  no  hint 
 as  to  the  proportions  in  which  the  divine  and  human  were 
 to  be  combined  in  the  person  of  the  Christ,  and  have  left 
 them  entirely  in  the  dark  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the 
 character  was  to  be  delineated.  In  one  word,  as  far  as  this 
 book  is  concerned,  with  the  exception  of  these  imperfect 
 hints,  the  entire  portraiture,  as  it  appears  in  the  Gospels, 
 must  have  been  their  own  pure  invention. 
 
 5.  The  Old  Testament  contains  two  distinct  classes  of 
 prophecies,  one  of  which  depicts  the  Messiah  in  the  divine, 
 and  the  other  in  the  human  aspects  of  His  character.  These 
 are  very  rarely  combined  in  the  same  prediction  :  I  mean 
 those  which  speak  of  Him  as  a  glorious  King,  and  those 
 which  speak  of  Him  as  a  sufferer.  Ideologists  therefore 
 could  only  have  arrived  at  the  conclusion  inferentially,  that 
 these  two  classes  of  predictions  were  intended  to  refer  to 
 the  same  person.  If  they  inferred  that  this  was  to  be  the 
 case,  the  problem  how  the  union  was  to  be  effected,  and  the 
 character  dramatised  over  a  course  of  action,  would  have 
 
 1G 
 
242 
 
 THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OF 
 
 proved  to  be  one  of  winch  each  ideologist  would  have  pro¬ 
 pounded  a  different  solution,  and  thus  rendered  all  unity 
 of  delineation  impossible. 
 
 6.  Let  us  now  turn  to  the  greatest  prophecy  in  the  Old 
 Testament,  that  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  in  the  latter 
 section  of  Isaiah.  It  is  evident  that  if  this  prophecy  is  not 
 sufficiently  definite  to  have  furnished  the  materials  for 
 constructing  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  no  other,  nor  the 
 whole  in  combination,  can  have  been  adequate  for  the  pur¬ 
 pose.  What  then  are  the  materials  with  which  it  could 
 have  furnished  them  ? 
 
 Taken  as  a  whole,  it  presents  us  with  five  characters,  viz., 
 that  of  Jehovah  himself,  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  of  an 
 ideal  Israel  who  is  often  identified  with  the  Servant  of 
 Jehovah,  of  the  actual  Israel,  and  of  the  prophet.  The 
 ideal  Israel  is  the  prophet's  conception  of  what  the  historical 
 Israel  ought  to  have  been  in  its  covenant  relation  to  Jehovah, 
 as  distinct  from  what  it  actually  was. 
 
 Throughout  the  entire  section  which  contains  this  deli¬ 
 neation,  Jehovah  Himself  is  frequently  introduced  as  a 
 speaker,  proclaiming  His  own  omnipotence,  and  revealing 
 Himself  in  His  capacity  as  a  Saviour.  His  personality 
 and  that  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  are  preserved  distinct 
 throughout  the  entire  prophecy,  and  there  is  no  con¬ 
 fusion  or  intermingling  of  the  characters.  It  should  be 
 observed  that  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  forms  the  Messianic 
 delineation. 
 
 The  conception  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  makes  its  first 
 appearance  in  the  forty-first  chapter.  It  is  clear  that  He  is 
 here  identified  with  the  ideal  Israel.  Precisely  the  same 
 conception  is  continued  throughout  the  following  chapter, 
 where  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  still  the  ideal  Israel,  is 
 invested  with  Messianic  attributes  of  a  very  high  order, 
 which  the  Gospels  affirm  to  have  received  their  perfect 
 realization  in  Jesus  Clirist  alone.  It  should  be  observed 
 that  not  only  are  the  personality  of  Jehovah  and  that  of  His 
 Servant  kept  perfectly  distinct,  but  the  latter  is  invested 
 with  no  attribute  which  is  properly  divine. 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  PROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 243 
 
 #  TIie  forty- third  chapter  opens  with  another  ideal  delinea¬ 
 tion  of  Israel  as  the  Servant  of  Jehovah,  who  is  described 
 as  His  witness.  In  this  chapter  we  are  first  introduced 
 to  the  historical,  as  distinct  from  the  ideal  Israel  whom 
 Jehovah  addresses  in  terms  of  expostulation. 
 
 The  forty-fourth  chapter  again  presents  us  with  the  ideal 
 Israel  as  Jehovah's  Servant,  who  receives  a  succession  of 
 promises,  and  to  whom  Jehovah  proclaims  His  omnipotence. 
 On  this  follows  a  description  of  the  character  of  the  histo¬ 
 rical  Israel.  Then  the  ideal  Israel  is  again  introduced  with 
 assurances  of  pardon,  for  whose  sake  a  deliverer  is  raised 
 up  in  the  person  of  Cyrus,  who  is  expressly  called  to  his 
 
 work  for  the  sake  of  Israel,  Jehovah's  Servant,  and  Israel 
 His  elect. 
 
 The  same  imagery  is  continued  until  we  arrive  at  the 
 forty-ninth  chapter,  where  a  speaker  is  introduced  who  desig¬ 
 nates  himself  by  the  name  of  Israel,  and  declares  himself  to 
 have  been  formed  from  the  womb  to  be  the  Servant  of 
 Jehovah.  He  describes  himself  as  having  been  discouraged 
 at  the  greatness  of  his  work,  but  as  supported  by  the  strength 
 of  his  God.  .  His  special  office  is  to  bring  the  actual  Israel 
 near  unto  him,  and  he  declares  that  though  he  should  fail 
 in  the  attempt,  he  would  still  be  glorious  in  the  eyes  of 
 Jehovah.  In  the  fiftieth  chapter  he  first  makes  his  appear¬ 
 ance  as  a  sufferer,  yet  as  firmly  bent  on  the  performance  of 
 his  work,  trusting  in  the  aid  of  the  Almighty. 
 
 In  the  fifty- second  and  fifty-third  chapters  we  are  intro¬ 
 duced  to  the  last  appearance  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah, 
 unless  in  the  subsequent  Messianic  prophecies  the  same 
 person  is  addressed,  but  not  named.  It  is  by  far  the  most 
 remarkable  of  them  all,  the  well-known  description  of  the 
 Man  of  Sorrows.  The  Servant  of  Jehovah,  though  acting 
 prudently,  is  described  as  having  his  visage  more  marred 
 than  any  man,  yet  he  is  to  sprinkle  many  nations,  while 
 kings  shut  their  mouths  at  him.  He  has  neither  form  nor 
 comeliness  ;  he  is  despised  and  rejected  of  men.  He  bears 
 our  griefs  and  carries  our  sorrows.  He  is  wounded  for 
 
 16  * 
 
 our 
 
244 
 
 THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OF 
 
 transgressions,  smitten  of  God  and  afflicted.  The  Lord  lays 
 on  him  the  iniquity  of  us  all.  He  is  unresisting  like  a 
 lamb,  and  his  life  is  cut  off  by  a  violent  death,  to  which  he 
 submits,  not  for  his  own  sin,  but  for  that  of  the  people. 
 His  soul  is  made  a  sin-offering ;  he  bears  the  sms  of  many, 
 and  makes  intercession  for  transgressors.  As  a  reward  for 
 \is  sufferings  voluntarily  submitted  to,  he  is  not  only 
 assured  of  their  triumphant  issue,  but  that  he  himself  would 
 be  satisfied  with  the  result. 
 
 This  is  the  most  important  Messianic  prophecy  in  the 
 Old  Testament,  not  only  on  account  of  its  length,  but 
 because  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  is  dramatized  over  a 
 limited  sphere  of  action.  It  is  easy  to  perceive,  now  that 
 the  reality  is  come,  that  the  Jesus  of  the  New  Testament  is 
 the  perfect  realization  of  these  various  shadowy  delineations: 
 but  the  question  is,  does  it  afford  adequate  materials,  out  of 
 which  a  number  of  ideologists  could  have  created  the  por¬ 
 traiture  of  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels  ? 
 
 The  reader  will  at  once  perceive  that  the  larger  portion 
 consists  of  doctrinal  statements  respecting  the  nature  of  the 
 Messiah's  work.  The  express  delineations  of  his  character 
 are  few.  They  are  in  fact  assertions  of  what  it  was  to  con¬ 
 sist  of,  rather  than  actual  delineations. 
 
 Supposing  a  body  of  ideologists  to  have  arrived  at  the 
 conclusion  that  the  Servant  of  Jehovah  was  intended  to  be 
 a  delineation  of  the  Messiah,  they  might  have  learned  from 
 the  fifty-second  and  fifty-third  chapters  the  following  facts  : 
 
 First :  he  was  to  be  one  of  the  greatest  of  sufferers. 
 
 Secondly:  he  was  to  be  despised  and  treated  with 
 
 contempt. 
 
 Thirdly  :  that  his  sufferings  were  to  terminate  in  death. 
 
 Fourthly  :  that  they  were  to  be  undergone  voluntarily. 
 
 Fifthly :  that  he  was  to  exhibit  in  his  sufferings  the 
 
 patience  of  a  lamb. 
 
 Sixthly :  that  his  sufferings  would  terminate  nob  only  in  a 
 triumphant  issue,  but  in  a  result  satisfactory  to  himself. 
 
 Such  are  the  materials  which  this  prophetic  delineation 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY.  245 
 
 would  have  afforded  the  ideologists,  to  enable  them  to 
 portray  the  suffering  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  It  will  be  at 
 once  seen  how  imperfect  a  model  they  would  have  formed  on 
 which  to  construct  the  drama  of  the  Passion.  It  is  impor¬ 
 tant  to  observe  that  they  are  confined  to  that  portion  of  his 
 Messianic  character  alone,  and  would  have  left  them  entirelv 
 in  the  dark  as  to  how  the  diviner  aspects  were  to  be  combined 
 with  the  human,  or  how  the  other  portions  of  the  character 
 portrayed  in  the  Gospels  were  to  be  delineated.  The  suffering 
 Christ  constitutes  only  a  portion,  though  a  very  important 
 one  of  the  great  portraiture  of  the  Gospels.  The  six  points 
 above  referred  to,  would  have  only  served  as  simple  direc¬ 
 tions  to  construct  a  character  in  which  these  particular 
 aspects  were  to  be  perfectly  embodied  :  but  they  would  have 
 left  the  question  unsolved  as  to  how  this  was  to  be  effected, 
 and  on  the  remaining  portions  of  the  delineation,  as  it 
 appears  in  the  Gospels,  these  two  chapters  would  have 
 afforded  them  not  the  smallest  assistance  j  consequently 
 each  ideologist  would  have  delineated  his  Christ  according  to 
 his  own  imagination,  which  must  have  destroyed  the  unity 
 of  the  conjoint  work. 
 
 7.  There  are  unquestionably  other  prophecies  in  Isaiah, 
 which  assign  to  the  Messiah  attributes  of  a  far  higher  order 
 than  those  attributed  to  him  in  the  section  which  contains 
 the  description  of  the  Servant  of  Jehovah.  These  however 
 afford  not  the  smallest  hint  as  to  the  mode  in  which  the 
 divine  aspects  of  his  character  were  to  be  delineated  in  com¬ 
 bination  with  the  human.  The  combination  of  a  divine  with 
 a  human  character  is  a  rock  on  which  all  poets  and  ideologists 
 have  suffered  shipwreck :  and  it  need  hardly  be  observed 
 that  the  difficulty  of  effecting  the  union  is  greatly  increased 
 when  it  is  necessary  to  delineate  the  human  as  a  sufferer. 
 But  it  is  very  unlikely  that  a  number  of  ideologists  who 
 used  Isaiah  as  their  model  would  have  arrived  at  the 
 unanimous  conclusion  that  the  divine  and  human  aspects  of 
 the  prophetic  delineation  were  to  be  combined  in  a  single 
 person.  It  is  far  more  probable  that  at  least  some  of  them 
 
246 
 
 THE  LOGICAL  VALUE  OE 
 
 would  have  considered  that  two  Christs  were  intended  by 
 the  prophet,  one  of  whom  was  to  exhibit  the  divine,  and  the 
 other  the  human  attributes  of  the  Messianic  delineation. 
 On  such  a  point  disagreement  would  have  been  fatal.  If, 
 on  the  other  hand  they  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  both 
 were  to  be  combined  in  a  single  person,  this  would  have  at 
 once  launched  them,  without  rudder,  compass,  or  star  to 
 direct  their  course,  on  the  boundless  ocean  of  conjecture  as 
 to  how  the  union  was  to  be  effected.  It  is  evident  that  the 
 only  possible  result  must  have  been  the  creation  of  as  many 
 ideal  Christs  as  there  were  ideologists. 
 
 8.  I  need  hardly  pursue  this  subject  further;  for  it  is 
 evident  that  if  the  Messianic  delineations  in  Isaiah  would 
 have  been  incapable  of  furnishing  the  suitable  materials  for 
 framing  the  portraiture  of  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  this 
 result  could  not  have  been  accomplished  by  all  the  other 
 Messianic  prophecies  in  the  Old  Testament.  In  fact,  the 
 larger  their  number,  the  greater  would  have  been  the 
 embarrassment  which  they  would  have  caused  as  to  how  the 
 various  scattered  rudimentary  delineations  were  to  be  com¬ 
 bined  into  a  harmonious  whole,  and  exhibited  in  the  actions 
 and  teachings  of  a  living  Christ.  They  would  have  formed 
 little  more  than  a  body  of  directions  to  construct  a  character 
 who  was  to  exhibit  a  certain  number  of  attributes;  but 
 artists  of  every  kind  are  painfully  aware  that  between  an 
 order  to  do  a  thing  in  this  or  that  particular  way,  and  its 
 realization,  the  interval  is  wide.  Such  must  have  been  the 
 position  of  ideologists  who  had  nothing  else  to  aid  them  in 
 the  delineation  of  an  ideal  Christ  than  the  Messianic 
 elements  in  the  Old  Testament.  Instead  of  the  unity  of 
 the  Jesus  of  the  New  resulting  from  their  labours,  they 
 would  have  constructed  Christs  of  a  wide  diversity  of  con¬ 
 ception.  The  Christian  typologist  has  a  very  different  task 
 before  him.  He  is  in  possession  of  the  substance  which, 
 after  he  has  seen  and  contemplated,  it  is  comparatively  easy 
 to  discern  in  the  shadowy  outline. 
 
 If  it  be  urged  that  if  ideologists  had  accepted  the  twenty- 
 
TPIE  AEGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 247 
 
 second  Psalm  as  Messianic,  it  would  have  aided  them  in  the 
 delineation  of  the  Passion,  I  fully  admit  that  its  imagery 
 would  have  suggested  to  them  the  idea  that  the  Messiah  was 
 to  die  by  crucifixion,  and  that  several  circumstances  connected 
 with  the  death  of  Our  Lord  are  described  with  remarkable 
 precision ;  as  the  staring  and  insulting  crowd,  the  limbs 
 almost  dislocated,  the  piercing  of  the  hands  and  feet,  the 
 effects  of  the  thirst,  the  parting  of  the  garments,  the  offer  of 
 vinegar  to  drink,  and  the  triumphant  issue  to  which  these 
 sufferings  tended.  These  suggestions  it  would  unques¬ 
 tionably  have  afforded ;  but  when  the  drama  of  the  Passion 
 is  contemplated  as  a  whole,  beginning  with  the  anointing, 
 and  terminating  with  the  Resurrection,  including  the  calm 
 composure  and  perfect  self-surrender  of  the  sufferer,  it  will 
 be  seen  that  although  the  materials  afforded  by  the  Psalm 
 would  have  furnished  them  with  these  facts,  they  would  have 
 been  wholly  insufficient  to  have  enabled  them  to  construct 
 the  grand  drama  of  the  Gospels,  of  which  they  only  form  an 
 inconsiderable  portion.  It  is  also  evident  that  as  to  the 
 rest  of  the  portraiture  of  the  Jesus  of  the  Evangelists  they 
 would  not  have  furnished  a  single  hint. 
 
 Once  more  :  when  historical  characters,  such  as  David, 
 are  idealized  as  typical  representations  of  the  Messiah, 
 instead  of  aiding  the  ideologists,  it  would  have  led  them 
 astray  in  their  delineation  of  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels. 
 Now  that  the  reality  has  come,  we  see  plainly  that  the 
 idealization  was  intended  to  be  confined  to  David  in  his 
 capacity  of  King  of  the  theocracy.  But  it  is  hardly  possible 
 that  this  would  have  occurred  to  an  ideologist.  On  the 
 contrary,  he  would  have  been  almost  certain  to  have  con¬ 
 sidered  that  the  personal  character  of  David  was  the  thing 
 intended  ;  and  consequently,  instead  of  delineating  a 
 character  who  was  mild  and  humble,  he  would  have 
 portrayed  one  of  which  the  heroic  qualities  would  have 
 formed  the  leading  characteristic.  Above  all,  he  would 
 certainly  have  invested  him  with  the  character  displayed  by 
 the  Psalmist  in  the  imprecatory  Psalms.  But  between  the 
 
248 
 
 VALUE  OF  THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  PROPHECY. 
 
 delineation  of  Him  who  prayed  in  the  extremity  of  His 
 agony,  “  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not  what  they 
 do,”  and  the  language  of  the  Psalmist  in  these  Psalms,  such 
 as  :  “  Let  there  be  none  to  extend  mercy  unto  him,  neither 
 let  there  be  any  to  favour  his  fatherless  children  •”  u  As  he 
 clothed  himself  with  cursing  like  as  with  his  garment,  so  let 
 it  come  into  his  bowels  like  water,  and  like  oil  into  his 
 bones “  Happy  shall  he  be  that  rewardeth  thee  as  thou 
 hast  served  us.  Happy  shall  he  be  that  taketh  and  dasheth 
 thy  little  ones  against  the  stones,”  the  contrast  is  striking. 
 
 These  brief  observations  will  I  think  be  sufficient  to  show 
 that  the  prophetical  Scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  would 
 have  been  utterly  inadequate  to  furnish  the  materials  out  of 
 which  the  ideologists  could  have  constructed  the  Jesus  of 
 the  Hew.  The  more  closely  the  materials  at  their  command 
 are  sifted,  the  more  firmly  will  this  conclusion  be  established. 
 If  it  be  an  ideal  creation,  it  is  certain  that  they  must  have 
 evolved  it  out  of  their  own  imaginations,  without  a  model 
 or  outline  to  direct  them.  But  this  supposition  I  have 
 shown  not  only  to  be  in  the  highest  degree  improbable,  but 
 one  which  is  absolutely  impossible. 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS 
 
 249 
 
 LECTURE  V. 
 
 “  Prove  all  things  ;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good.” — 1  Thess.  v.  21- 
 
 The  words  of  my  text  will  serve  as  an  appropriate  motto 
 to  tliis  and  the  following  Lectures,  in  the  first  three  of  which 
 I  propose  to  examine  the  evidence  of  the  miracles  in  the 
 New  Testament,  as  it  is  set  forth  in  our  popular  evidential 
 treatises ;  and  to  point  out  those  additional  lines  of  defence 
 which  the  exigencies  of  modern  thought  have  rendered 
 necessary  for  strengthening  our  position  where  it  is 
 defective.  In  the  treatment  of  this  subject,  I  shall  adhere 
 closely  to  the  principle  laid  down  by  Our  Lord,  that  the 
 Scribe  who  is  well  instructed  in  the  things  of  the  kingdom 
 of  heaven  should  bring  forth  out  of  his  treasures  things  both 
 new  and  old.  I  shall  therefore  adopt  the  old  as  far  as  it  is 
 applicable  to  the  present  aspects  of  thought,  and  strengthen 
 it  by  the  new  whenever  this  is  rendered  necessary  by  the 
 alteration  in  the  character  both  of  the  attack  and  the 
 defence. 
 
 On  the  a  priori  question  respecting  the  possibility  of 
 miracles,  it  will  unnecessary  for  me  to  enter  in  these 
 Lectures.  This  subject  has  been  already  so  fully  discussed, 
 that  after  the  vast  amount  of  intellectual  labour  which  has 
 been  expended  on  it,  it  is  surely  not  too  much  to  assume 
 that  some  points  in  the  controversy  must  be  considered  by 
 all  reasonable  men  as  settled.  I  am  therefore  quite  willing 
 to  accept  the  positions  which  have  been  laid  down  on  this 
 subject  by  Mr.  Mill  in  his  Logic  and  in  his  posthumous 
 
250 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 Essays.  We  may  do  this  the  more  readily,  because  un¬ 
 believers  cannot  dispute  his  competency  to  take  a  complete 
 survey  of  the  entire  question ;  and  all  his  intellectual 
 bearings  were  adverse  to  revealed  religion.  The  principles 
 which  I  shall  assume  as  fully  established  are  as  follows  . — 
 
 1.  In  all  reasonings  about  miracles  it  is  necessary  to 
 assume  the  existence  of  a  God  who  is  a  moral  and  personal 
 Being.  No  weight  of  evidence  can  prove  the  performance 
 of  a  miracle  to  any  one  who  affirms  that  we  have  no  sufficient 
 proof  of  His  existence.  To  such  a  person,  even  if  a  miracle 
 were  attested  as  a  fact,  it  would  simply  be  an  unusual  event, 
 the  occurrence  of  which  he  would  ascribe  to  some  force  in 
 nature  with  which  he  was  unacquainted. 
 
 2.  If  the  existence  of  a  God  who  is  a  moral  and  personal 
 Being  is  assumed  as  proved,  the  affirmation  that  miracles 
 are  impossible  is  no  longer  tenable ;  for  the  very  supposi¬ 
 tion  itself  presupposes  a  cause  which  is  adequate  to  perform 
 them ;  or,  to  express  the  same  truth  in  other  words,  the  idea 
 of  a,  miracle  violates  no  law  of  causation.  Theists  therefore 
 have  two  alternatives  to  choose  from,  viz.,  a  supernatural, 
 or  an  unknown  natural  agency;  and  in  forming  their 
 judgment,  a  most  important  consideration  must  be,  the 
 character  of  God  and  the  conformity  of  the  supposed  occur¬ 
 rence  to  that  character. 
 
 3.  The  occurrence  of  an  extraordinary  event,  such  as  a 
 miracle,  viewed  simply  as  a  phenomenon,  can  be  satis¬ 
 factorily  certified  by  our  senses,  or  by  testimony.  Conse¬ 
 quently  Hume’s  arguments,  by  which  he  endeavoured  to 
 prove  that  no  amount  of  evidence  can  establish  the  perform¬ 
 ance  of  miracles,  may  be  safely  dismissed  as  either  harmless 
 truisms  or  exploded  fallacies.* 
 
 *  The  author  of  Supernatural  'Religion  has  endeavoured  to  re¬ 
 construct  Hume’s  argument  against  Mill ;  but  the  attempt  is  a  hopeless 
 failure.  It  is  quite  true  that  there  is  a  sense  in  which  miracles  are 
 contrary  to  experience,  i.e.,  they  are  not  ordinary  occurrences ;  for 
 if  they  were,  they  would  lose  their  character  as  miracles  ;  but  Hume’s 
 argument,  if  it  is  valid  against  miracles  because  they  are  contrary  to 
 past  experience,  would  be  equally  valid  against  every  fresh  addition 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 251 
 
 4.  That  as  the  forces  of  the  Universe,  and  the  order  of 
 nature  must  be  manifestations  of  the  divine  will,  their 
 invariability  renders  the  occurrence  of  miracles  highly  im¬ 
 probable.*  To  overcome  this  improbability,  it  is  necessary 
 to  adduce  some  adequate  reason  why  the  Creator  has 
 deviated  from  the  observed  course  of  action  which,  except 
 in  the  specific  case  of  an  alleged  miracle,  prior  experience 
 proves  to  have  been  His  universal  rule. 
 
 5.  That  as  the  order  of  nature  is  the  rule  of  the  divine 
 acting  in  the  Universe,  and  as  that  order  is  invariable,  the 
 evidence  necessary  to  prove  the  occurrence  of  a  miracle 
 must  be  far  stronger  than  that  which  is  required  in  the  case 
 of  an  ordinary  event. 
 
 6.  If  adequate  proof  can  be  afforded  of  the  existence  of  a 
 God  who  cares  for  man ;  and  if  we  take  into  consideration 
 
 to  that  experience,  for  all  such  additions  must  be  facts  of  which 
 men  have  had  no  prior  experience. 
 
 *  Two  views  may  be  taken  of  the  forces  of  the  Universe,  which  are 
 both  consistent  with  Theism.  The  first  considers  them  as  directly 
 emanating  from  the  energy  of  the  divine  mind,  and  the  result  of  God’s 
 immanence  in  Nature.  Contemplated  thus,  they  are  manifestations  of 
 the  divine  activity ;  and  their  laws,  or  invariable  sequences,  of  the 
 divine  will.  This  is  the  view  which  underlies  the  entire  Bible,  which 
 contemplates  the  activities  of  nature  as  the  energies  of  God.  The 
 second  is  the  mechanical  theory,  which  affirms  that  matter  and  force 
 have  been  called  into  separate  and  permanent  existence  by  the  Creator, 
 and  have  been  so  constituted  by  Him  as  to  work  out  an  infinite 
 number  of  results  with  the  precision  of  a  machine  so  perfect  that 
 after  it  has  been  once  constructed  and  set  in  action  it  will  never 
 require  any  fresh  interference  on  His  part  to  regulate  its  motions.  The 
 latter  is  the  popular  scientific  theory  of  the  day,  and  if  true  it  renders 
 a  miracle  far  more  improbable  than  it  would  be  on  the  assumption  of 
 the  truth  of  the  former.  Still,  even  assuming  the  former  as  the  true 
 view,  the  fact  that  as  far  as  human  observation  has  gone,  God  has 
 always  energized  in  conformity  with  invariable  law,  lays  it  open  to 
 question  whether  it  is  in  conformity  with  His  character  to  act  in  any 
 other  manner ;  and  consequently  it  becomes  necessary  that  some 
 adequate  reason  should  be  assigned  why  He  has  deviated  in  any  parti¬ 
 cular  case  from  His  ordinary  course  of  action,  before  such  deviation 
 can  be  rendered  credible.  ; 
 
252 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 the  miserable  and  degraded  condition  in  which  so  large  a 
 portion  of  the  human  race  unquestionably  are,  some  inter¬ 
 ference  in  their  favour,  in  addition  to  God's  ordinary 
 providence,  may  be  regarded  as  probable ;  and  so  far  the 
 antecedent  improbability  of  miracles,  if  a  necessary  part  of 
 such  an  interference,  is  diminished.  In  estimating  the 
 degree  of  this  probability,  we  need  not  accept  Mr.  Mill's 
 terrific  indictment  against  nature  and  against  man,  as  a  true 
 account  of  the  actualities  of  things.*  If  only  one  fourth 
 part  of  it  is  true  (and  it  is  an  undeniable  fact  that  a  large 
 amount  of  physical  evil,  and  a  still  greater  amount  of  moral 
 evil,  prevails),  the  general  principle  must  be  considered  to 
 be  established ;  and  so  far  the  a  priori  difficulties  which 
 lie  against  such  special  interventions  as  miracles,  are 
 diminished. 
 
 These  points  being  assumed  as  true,  the  amount  of  proof 
 which  can  be  justly  demanded  of  us  for  the  miracles  of 
 Christianity  becomes  clear.  It  is  not  enough  to  affirm  that 
 an  equally  strong  attestation  can  be  adduced  for  them  as 
 
 *  “  Man,”  says  Mr.  Mill,  “  viewed  as  a  simple  production  of  nature, 
 has  in  him  but  one  good  thing,  the  capacity  of  improvement :  he  is 
 naturally  devoid  of  a  sense  of  truth,  a  coward,  cruel,  selfish,  and  even 
 a  lover  of  dirt.  The  truth  is”  says  he,  “there  is  hardly  a  point  of 
 excellence  belonging  to  human  character  which  is  not  decidedly 
 repugnant  to  the  untutored  feelings  of  human  nature.”  .  .  .  “  Whatever 
 good  thing  man  now  possesses,  either  in  himself  or  in  his  outward 
 surroundings,  he  has  attained  not  from  the  gift  of  nature,  but  from 
 his  having  conquered  and  subdued  her.”  It  will  be  useless  to  quote 
 more  to  a  similar  purpose.  The  impression  which  is  produced  on  the 
 mind  by  this  portion  of  the  Essay  is  that  we  are  in  the  presence,  not 
 of  the  calm  philosopher,  but  of  one  of  the  extremest  schools  of 
 Calvinistic  theologians.  If  this  statement,  however,  is  only  true  to 
 the  degree  which  I  have  stated  in  the  text,  and  assuming  that  a  God 
 exists  who  cares  for  man,  it  is  hardly  possible  that  the  argument  for 
 some  additional  interference  in  his  favour  on  the  part  of  God  could 
 have  been  put  more  forcibly.  Surely  if  man  is  naturally  as  bad  as 
 Mr.  Mill  represents  him,  the  mere  fact  of  his  having  succeeded  in 
 improving  himself  to  the  degree  which  he  has,  is  a  very  near  approach 
 to  a  miracle. 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 253 
 
 for  the  ordinary  facts  of  history.  Even  merely  extraordinary 
 events  require  a  stronger  attestation  than  ordinary  ones.  Far 
 more  must  this  be  the  case  with  miracles,  when  they  are 
 alleged  as  the  credentials  of  a  divine  Revelation.  The 
 distinction  in  point  of  attestation  which  we  justly  require 
 for  miracles  compared  with  ordinary  events,  receives,  a 
 striking  illustration  in  the  history  of  Herodotus.  His 
 history,  as  we  know,  contains  accounts  of  a  large  number 
 of  supernatural  occurrences,  which  are  closely  interwoven 
 with  his  narratives  of  ordinary  events.  While  we  readily 
 accept  the  latter,  we  summarily  reject  the  former,  although 
 as  far  as  we  have  any  means  of  judging,  they  rest  on  the 
 same  testimony  as  the  facts.  Thus  with  respect  to  the 
 battles  of  Salamis  and  Mycale,  we  accept  the  chief  incidents 
 as  historical,  while  we  attribute  the  accounts  of  the  super¬ 
 natural  ones  either  to  legendary  invention,  or  the  excited 
 imaginations  of  the  combatants  ;  although  as  a  bare  question 
 of  attestation,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  historian 
 derived  his  accounts  of  both  from  the  same  authorities.* 
 A  similar  course  we  habitually  pursue  in  daily  life  with  all 
 
 *  Large  numbers  of  the  subordinate  incidents  beyond  all  question 
 rest  on  a  very  inadequate  attestation,  and  not  a  few  of  them  are 
 simply  impossible.  (See  Cox’s  History  of  Greece .)  This  writer,  how¬ 
 ever,  carries  the  principles  of  historical  scepticism  to  unjustifiable 
 lengths  when  he  claims  the  right  of  rejecting  nearly  every  narrative 
 as  unhistorical  which  serves  as  an  illustration  of  the  theological  bias 
 of  Herodotus,  that  a  divine  Nemesis  rules  in  the  affairs  of  men.  The 
 particular  form  in  which  it  is  placed  before  us  by  the  historian,  is  no 
 doubt  a  part  of  his  theological  bias ;  and  not  a  few  of  the  events 
 narrated  by  him  have  received  a  colouring  in  conformity  with  it.  But 
 the  principle  which  underlies  the  Greek  conception  of  a  divine  Nemesis, 
 that  the  overbearing  arrogance  of  man  will  sooner  or  later  receive 
 a  downfall,  is  part  of  the  moral  order  of  the  Universe  ;  and  it  is  absurd 
 to  reject  as  unhistorical  all  narratives  which  illustrate  it.  Perhaps 
 no  better  illustration  of  the  doctrine  can  be  found  than  in  the  career 
 and  downfall  of  Napoleon  the  First;  yet  if  the  principles  on  which 
 Mr.  Cox  throws  suspicion  on  several  narratives  are  valid,  the  history 
 of  his  rise  and  fall  will  have  to  be  rejected  by  historical  critics  in  the 
 future  as  being  the  creation  of  particular  theological  bias,  of  which 
 
254 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  EROM 
 
 reputed  miracles.  We  justly  consider  tliat  tlie  evidence 
 requires  to  be  submitted  to  a  very  close  scrutiny,  before  it 
 can  claim  acceptance.  The  necessity  of  this  has  been 
 greatly  increased  by  the  large  number  of  fictitious  miracles 
 with  which  history  abounds,  some  of  which  rest  on  a  far 
 stronger  amount  of  attestation  than  would  be  necessary  to 
 establish  the  occurrence  of  ordinary  events.  But  if  I  have 
 been  successful  in  the  preceding  Lectures  in  proving  the 
 superhuman  action  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  history  of  the 
 past  and  in  the  facts  of  the  present,  our  a  priori  difficulties 
 will  not  only  be  diminished,  but  will  absolutely  disappear, 
 and  we  shall  be  fully  justified  in  accepting  a  number  of 
 supernatural  occurrences  in  connection  with  His  earthly 
 manifestation,  on  the  same  attestation  as  we  do  ordinary  facts. 
 
 Let  me  therefore  briefly  state  the  points  which  I  have 
 proved  in  the  preceding  Lectures. 
 
 1.  It  is  an  unquestionable  fact  that  Jesus  Christ  has 
 exerted  a  superhuman  power  in  the  moral  and  spiritual 
 worlds  during  the  last  eighteen  centuries ;  and  that  He  is 
 exerting  this  power  at  the  present  moment  is  a  fact  which 
 is  also  capable  of  verification. 
 
 2.  The  presence  of  a  superhuman  power  in  Jesus  Christ 
 is  further  proved  by  the  fact  that  His  teaching,  which,  if  He 
 was  nothing  but  an  ordinary  man,  must  have  been  that  of 
 an  uneducated  Jewish  peasant,  brought  up  in  the  narrowest 
 atmosphere  of  exclusiveness,  has  transcended  that  of  all  the 
 
 they  are  a  perfect  illustration.  Similar  principles  are  applied  by  tho 
 tendency  School  of  critics  to  the  New  Testament,  and  the  attempt  is 
 made  to  explain  away  its  historical  character  on  the  same  grounds. 
 Mr.  Cox  however  admits  that  all  the  great  events  of  the  history  rest 
 on  an  historical  basis,  and  this  is  all  that  we  require  for  the  Christian 
 argument.  It  is  an  unquestionable  fact,  however,  that  we  reject  the 
 miraculous  incidents,  although  they  rest  on  precisely  the  same  testi¬ 
 mony  as  the  facts  which  we  accept  as  historical.  This  is  quite  sufficient 
 to  show  that  the  observation  which  has  been  often  made,  that  the 
 miracles  of  the  Bible  are  as  strongly  attested  as  the  ordinary  facts  of 
 history,  does  not  meet  the  requirements  of  the  case. 
 
THE  TAT  El  STIC  WEITINGS. 
 
 255 
 
 great  thinkers  of  the  ancient  world  in  its  catholicity  and  its 
 breadth;  and  especially  by  His  having  succeeded  in  bringing 
 to  bear  on  human  nature  a  great  moral  and  spiritual  power, 
 of  the  want  of  which  the  philosophers  were  profoundly 
 conscious,  but  which  they  were  wholly  unable  to  create. 
 In  one  word.  He  has  shown  Himself  to  be  the  one  great 
 Catholic  man,  who  alone  has  burst  through  all  the  conditions 
 imposed  on  Him  by  the  environment  in  which  He  was 
 born  and  educated,  and  who  has  realized  in  His  own  person 
 all  the  aspirations  of  human  nature. 
 
 3.  Not  only  does  the  character  depicted  in  the  Gospels 
 stand  at  an  immeasurable  height  above  all  other  men ;  but 
 its  unity  proves  it  to  be  the  delineation  of  an  historical 
 reality,  and  not  a  fictitious  creation. 
 
 4.  That  in  the  person  and  work  of  Jesus  Christ  are 
 realized  the  aspirations  of  an  entire  literature,  extending 
 over  a  space  of  a  thousand  years.  Its  predictions  receive  in 
 Him  their  fulfilment ;  its  types  their  realization ;  He 
 constitutes  the  ideal  to  which  the  whole  system  pointed ; 
 and  not  only  so,  but  beyond  the  limits  of  the  Jewish  Church^ 
 realizes  in  his  own  person  the  inarticulate  sighings  and 
 aspirations  of  human  nature  during  the  centuries  of  the 
 past. 
 
 These  things  being  so,  the  conditions  of  the  historical 
 argument  are  changed.  The  argument  from  miracles  has 
 no  longer  to  support  the  entire  weight  of  Christianity.  But 
 while  it  is  removed  from  the  fore-front  of  our  evidential 
 position,  the  a  priori  difficulty  arising  from  the  abstract 
 improbability  of  miracles  is  converted  into  a  probability  in 
 their  favour ;  in  other  words,  it  is  far  more  probable  that  a 
 person  who  has  exerted  such  a  superhuman  influence  on  the 
 moral  and  spiritual  worlds,  should  have  manifested  a 
 corresponding  power  over  the  forces  of  the  material 
 Universe,  than  that  he  should  have  only  acted  on  them  in 
 the  same  manner  as  they  are  acted  on  by  ordinary  mon„ 
 Consequently,  the  whole  question  of  the  performance  of 
 miracles  becomes  one  of  adequate  attestation. 
 
256 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 Tlie  order  of  our  argument  therefore  must  be  as  follows  : — 
 
 First :  The  evidence  of  the  superhuman  action  of  J esus 
 Christ  in  the  history  of  the  past,  and  in  the  facts  of  the 
 present. 
 
 Secondly:  The  direct  historical  evidence  which  can  be 
 adduced  in  support  of  the  events  recorded  in  the  Gospels. 
 
 II.  Let  us  now  consider  what  are  the  links  in  the  old 
 •evidential  argument  which  modern  criticism  has  proved  to 
 be  either  weak  or  defective.  We  must  ascertain  where  the 
 ■defects  exist,  before  it  is  possible  to  strengthen  the  points 
 where  our  position  is  weak. 
 
 In  examining  this  subject  I  assume  that  Paley’s  argument 
 is  the  model  and  ideal  of  modern  evidential  treatises ;  for 
 not  only  has  it  been  prescribed  by  nearly  every  bishop  on 
 the  bench  for  more  than  half  a  century,  as  a  work  to  be 
 studied  by  the  candidates  for  holy  orders,  but  it  has  occupied 
 the  chief  place  in  the  theological  curriculum  of  our  sister 
 University  during  the  same  period.  In  addition  to  this, 
 nearly  all  our  other  evidential  treatises  have  been  intended 
 either  to  supplement,  or  to  strengthen  the  line  of  argument 
 which  Paley  has  taken.  The  question  therefore  becomes  one 
 of  great  importance.  Is  the  form  in  which  the  argument  for 
 Christianity  is  presented  in  the  “  Evidences,”  adequate  to 
 -enable  the  Christian  student  to  grapple  with  the  varied 
 forms  of  modern  unbelief  ? 
 
 I  yield  to  none  in  my  appreciation  of  the  ec  Evidences.” 
 The  reasoning  is  a  model  of  clearness  and  precision ;  but  it 
 is  directed  against  a  wholly  different  form  of  unbelief  from 
 that  with  which  we  have  at  present  to  contend.  Its  chief 
 aim  was  to  meet  the  scepticism  of  the  last  century ;  and 
 consequently  to  prove  that  Christianity  did  not  originate  in 
 an  imposture.  Against  this  form  of  unbelief  the  argument 
 is  perfect ;  and  from  this  ground  it  has  been  thoroughly  and 
 completely  driven,  and  so  far  we  may  pronounce  the  work 
 to  have  been  a  great  success ;  for  no  unbeliever  who  values 
 his  reputation,  would  now  venture  to  affirm  that  the  origin 
 of  Christianity  has  been  due  to  a  consciously  concocted 
 
TETE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 257 
 
 fraud.  But  the  line  of  attack  has  since  been  completely 
 changed.  W e  have  had  mythic  theories ;  legendary  theories  ; 
 theories  of  tendencies ;  theories  of  evolution,  which  account 
 for  the  origin  of  Christianity  as  the  natural  result  of  the 
 forces  which  energize  in  man ;  and  the  theory  of  visions  in 
 all  its  multiform  aspects,  backed  up  by  all  the  resources  of 
 modern  criticism,  and  a  searching  investigation  of  the 
 documents  of  primitive  Christianity.  All  these  have  been 
 propounded  as  affording  a  rational  account  of  the  origin  of 
 Christianity,  and  of  the  Catholic  Church  of  Jesus  Christ. 
 
 It  is  no  disparagement  to  Paley's  great  work  to  say  that 
 it  is  not  adequate  as  a  reply  to  these  various  theories  and 
 objections  raised  by  modern  unbelief.  Further ;  his  argu¬ 
 ment  fails  to  meet  the  attacks  which  modern  criticism  has 
 directed  against  the  Synoptic  Gospels,  nor  does  it  even 
 touch  those  which  are  connected  with  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
 If  it  were  otherwise  its  author  must  have  been  gifted  with 
 a  superhuman  insight  into  the  future,  for  the  chief  of  our 
 modern  difficulties  were  unknown  when  Paley  wrote.  The 
 change  in  the  line  of  the  attack  necessitates  a  corresponding 
 change  m  that  of  the  defence;  it  will  therefore  be  necessary 
 to  particularize  a  few  of  the  points  where  his  argument  is 
 inadequate  to  our  present  needs. 
 
 The  first  defect  which  I  shall  notice  in  relation  to  the 
 present  aspect  of  the  controversy  between  Christianity  and 
 unbelief  is  the  undue  prominence  which  he  gives  to  the 
 argument  from  miracles,  on  which  the  claims  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity  as  a  divine  revelation  have  been  almost  exclusively 
 based.  Many  of  the  points  considered  in  the  preceding 
 Iiectures  have  been  referred  to  by  him,  but  the  place 
 which  they  occupy  is  entirely  subordinate  to  this  its  main 
 position.  The  principle  which  underlies  the  “  Evidences,” 
 and  most  other  evidential  works  is,  that  the  Christian 
 Revelation  _  consists  of  a  number  of  dogmatic  statements, 
 not  otherwise  discoverable  by  reason,  and  of  moral  precepts’ 
 rather  than  a  body  of  historical  facts.  Of  such  a  revela¬ 
 tion,  it  is  evident  that  miracles  must  form  the  sole 
 
 17 
 
258 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 attestation.  But  as  it  is  allowed  on  all  hands  that  they 
 have  long  since  ceased  to  be  performed,  the  only  course  now 
 remaining  to  us  for  proving  their  occurrence,  is  by  a  long 
 chain  of  literary  evidence.  Consequently,  the  evidences  of 
 Christianity  resolve  themselves  into  a  literary  problem, 
 which  consists  in  the  balancing  of  a  large  number  of  his¬ 
 torical  probabilities.* 
 
 I  have  already  pointed  out  that  this  line  of  argument  is 
 inadequate  to  meet  the  requirements  of  modern  thought. 
 But  in  addition  to  this,  it  is  attended  with  an  obvious 
 danger.  It  at  once  brings  the  inquirer  face  to  face  with  the 
 whole  mass  of  difficulties  and  complicated  questions  which 
 have  been  suggested  in  reference  to  miracles,  a  thorough 
 investigation  of  which  is  thereby  rendered  absolutely  neces¬ 
 sary  as  a  preliminary  to  the  acceptance  of  Christianity.  I 
 think  that  I  shall  not  be  making  too  strong  an  assertion,  when 
 I  say  that  the  solution  of  these  difficulties  in  Part  II.  of 
 Paley's  work  is  inadequate  to  meet  the  objections  of  modern 
 times ;  and  that  they  require  a  far  deeper  handling  than 
 they  have  received  from  him. 
 
 But  in  addition  to  this,  his  historical  argument,  model  of 
 clearness  as  it  is,  really  consists  of  a  very  complicated  chain 
 
 #  The  value  of  miracles  as  the  evidence  of  a  revelation,  is  unques¬ 
 tionably  weakened  by  lapse  of  time.  It  is  one  thing  to  witness  the 
 performance  of  a  miracle  ;  it  is  quite  another  thing  to  accept  its  truth 
 as  the  result  of  carefully  testing  a  long  chain  of  historical  testimony. 
 Those  who  witnessed  them  could  judge  of  their  real  character;  we 
 have  not  only  to  do  this,  but  to  estimate  the  value  of  the  testimony  on 
 which  they  rest.  Our  position  is  even  less  favourable  than  that  of  the 
 generation  of  Christians  who  succeeded  that  which  witnessed  them. 
 They  had  means  of  forming  a  judgment,  and  possessed  an  amount  of 
 evidence  which  now  no  longer  exists.  It  therefore  by  no  means 
 follows,  even  if  it  could  be  shown  that  the  writers  of  the  New 
 Testament  attached  a  very  high  importance  to  miracles  as  proofs  of 
 a  divine  commission,  that  they  must  have  an  equal  value  for  us,  when 
 a  large  portion  of  the  evidence  on  which  they  originally  rested  has 
 ceased  to  exist.  The  course  of  time,  however,  has  given  us  an  ample 
 compensation  in  the  fulness  of  the  evidence  which  it  has  afforded 
 of  the  superhuman  power  residing  in  Christianity. 
 
THE  PATKISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 259 
 
 of  literary  evidence,  demanding  a  far  more  profound  sifting 
 than  it  was  supposed  to  do  when  first  propounded  by  him. 
 It  even  requires  a  considerable  amount  of  special  training 
 to  enable  the  student  to  estimate  its  validity ;  and  some 
 of  the  links  in  it  modern  criticism  has  shown  to  be  less 
 reliable  than  they  were  considered  by  Paley.  It  will  be  suffi¬ 
 cient,  if  I  draw  attention  to  a  few  only  of  the  weaker  points. 
 
 The  main  stress  of  Paley's  argument  rests  on  the  follow¬ 
 ing  proposition : — “  That  there  is  satisfactory  evidence  that 
 many  professing  to  be  original  witnesses  of  the  Christian 
 miracles  passed  their  lives  in  labours,  dangers,  and  suffer¬ 
 ings,  voluntarily  undergone  in  attestation  of  the  accounts 
 which  they  delivered ;  and  solely  in  consequence  of  their 
 belief  of  those  accounts  ;  and  that  they  also  submitted  from 
 the  same  motives  to  new  rules  of  conduct.” 
 
 There  can  be  no  doubt  that,  if  this  point  can  be  estab¬ 
 lished,  it  forms  the  strongest  evidence  that  the  miracles 
 were  not  the  deliberate  inventions  of  the  persons  who  pro¬ 
 fessed  to  have  witnessed  them  ;  or,  in  other  words,  it  proves 
 the  perfect  sincerity  of  their  belief  in  them.  But  unfortu¬ 
 nately  martyr  testimony,  although  a  perfect  guarantee 
 against  fraud,  is  far  from  being  a  safeguard  against  delusion. 
 On  the  contrary  the  spirit  which  makes  a  man  a  martyr  is 
 by  no  means  the  most  favourable  for  the  calm  investigation 
 of  facts.*  If  we  were  investigating  the  truth  or  falsehood 
 of  a  modern  miracle,  we  should  consider  the  readiness  of 
 those  who  declared  that  they  had  witnessed  it,  to  attest  the 
 
 #  It  is  quite  clear  that  the  spirit  which  makes  a  man  a  martyr  is 
 no  effectual  guarantee  against  the  action  of  the  three  principles  of 
 prepossession,  fixed  idea,  and  expectancy,  which  Dr.  Carpenter  has 
 pointed  out  as  the  originating  cause  of  a  large  number  of  delusions, 
 under  the  influence  of  which  those  subject  to  them  have  mistaken  sub¬ 
 jective  impressions  for  external  realities.  It  is  equally  certain  that  the 
 readiness  to  encounter  persecution  and  martyrdom  in  attestation  of 
 their  truth  would  be  no  guarantee  of  their  objective  reality.  All  that 
 it  would  guarantee  would  be  the  sincerity  of  the  narrators,  but  of  this 
 we  have  ample  proof  in  the  case  of  persons  in  our  own  time  who 
 have  mistaken  mental  hallucinations  for  objective  realities. 
 
 17* 
 
260 
 
 the  argument  from 
 
 truth  of  it  hy  their  lives,  as  a  fully  satisfactory  proof  or  their 
 honesty.  But  when  the  question  is,  whether  the  allege 
 miracle  he  a  real  fact  or  the  result  of  some  hallucination, 
 we  should  greatly  prefer  the  judgment  of  twelve  men,  who 
 united  scientific  attainments  with  sound  common  sense,  to 
 that  of  twelve  martyrs.  Now  the  ground  which  is  taken  hy 
 modern  unbelief  is,  that  Christianity  originated,  not  m  an 
 imposture,  but  in  a  delusion ;  consequently  Paley  s  argu¬ 
 ment,  though  perfectly  valid  as  a  reply  to  the  objections 
 which  he  had  specifically  in  view,  does  not  meet  the  modern 
 affirmation,  that  the  miracles  of  the  Now  Testament,  as  far 
 as  they  are  not  legends,  originated  in  the  enthusiastic  tem¬ 
 perament  of  the  simple-minded  followers  of  Jesus,  who, 
 under  the  influence  of  certain  mental  prepossessions,  gave 
 a  miraculous  colouring  to  facts  which  were  really  not  mira¬ 
 culous,  as  was  doubtless  the  case  with  regard  to  those 
 alleged  to  have  occurred  at  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp , 
 
 *  It  is  impossible  to  accept  as  objective  realities  the  occurrences 
 which  are  alleged  to  hare  taken  place  on  this  occasion.  _  Wit 
 the  exception  of  the  voice  from  heaven  they  differ  wholly  in  c  a- 
 racter  from  those  recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  Stephen, 
 the  proto-martyr  of  the  Christian  Church,  is  described  as  being 
 favoured  with  a  vision  of  the  risen  Jesus,  just  before  he  surrendered 
 his  life  as  a  sacrifice  in  his  Master's  cause ;  but  no  audible  words 
 of  encouragement  were  heard  either  by  him  or  by  others.  The 
 Christians  who  were  present  at  the  martyrdom  of  Polycarp  were  no 
 doubt  in  a  very  excited  state,  and  their  condition  of  mind  was  that 
 which  is  best  suited  for  viewing  the  various  occurrences  in  the  light 
 of  their  subjective  impressions.  Of  this  kind  are  the  supposed  voice 
 from  heaven,  which  may  have  grown  out  of  an  exhortation  addressed 
 to  Polvcarp  by  some  Christian ;  the  account  about  the  dove ;  the 
 peculiar  form  taken  by  the  flames  ;  and  their  inability  to  consume  the 
 body ;  its  colour,  and  the  sweet  scent  which  issued  from  it ;  the  neces¬ 
 sity  of  the  executioner  stabbing  him  (which  after  all  might  have  een 
 '  an  act  of  mercy) ;  and  the  extinction  of  the  fire  by  the  large  quantity 
 of  the  blood  which  issued  from  the  body.  All  these  things  might 
 easily  have  originated  in  facts  which  were  coloured  by  their  own 
 heated  imaginations.  While  they  bear  a  close  resemblance  to  a 
 large  number  of  legendary  miracles  they  differ  wholly  in  character 
 from  those  recorded  in  the  New  Testament. 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 261 
 
 above  all,  that  the  belief  in  the  great  miracle  of  the  Resur¬ 
 rection  originated  in  His  followers  having  mistaken  certain 
 subjective  impressions,  the  creations  of  their  own  heated 
 imaginations,  for  objective  realities.  Against  delusions  of 
 this  kind,  it  is  clear  that  martyr  testimony  is  no  effectual 
 guarantee ;  nor  is  Paley's  further  position,  “  that  in  conse¬ 
 quence  of  their  belief,  they  submitted  to  new  rules  of 
 conduct.” 
 
 But  there  are  several  difficulties  connected  with  the 
 details  of  his  argument,  which  modern  criticism  has  brought 
 to  light.  What  the  argument  renders  absolutely  necessary 
 is,  that  we  should  get  at  the  actual  testimony  of  the  original 
 witnesses  (otherwise  it  would  be  impossible  to  form  a  judg¬ 
 ment  as  to  their  competency),  and  prove  that  they  exposed 
 themselves  to  persecution  and  martyrdom,  as  a  consequence 
 of  this  belief.  This  imposed  on  Paley  the  necessity  of 
 establishing  the  authenticity  of  the  different  books  of  the 
 New  Testament,  and  above  all,  of  the  Gospels,  as  con¬ 
 taining  the  records  of  the  miracles,  by  an  intricate  chain  of 
 literary  evidence  consisting  of  quotations  from  the  Fathers. 
 How  far  these  quotations  will  support  the  weight  which 
 the  form  of  his  argument  imposes  on  them,  I  will  consider 
 presently. 
 
 Further :  Paley  speaks  of  twelve  witnesses,  by  whom  he 
 means  the  twelve  Apostles ;  but  even  if  his  proof  was  fully 
 adequate  to  demonstrate  that  the  Gospels  were  written  by 
 the  persons  whose  names  they  bear,  this  would  only  put  us 
 in  possession  of  the  direct  testimony  of  two  of  them ;  and 
 would  leave  us  still  in  the  dark  as  to  their  competency  to 
 judge  of  the  reality  of  the  miracles  recorded  by  theim  Let 
 it  be  observed  that  these  remarks  are  made  on  the  sup¬ 
 position  that  miracles  constitute  the  sole  attestation  of 
 Christianity.  If  this  be  so,  it  is  evident,  when  we  consider 
 all  the  difficulties  which  modern  thought  has  suggested  in 
 connection  with  the  subject,  that  the  testimony  of  two 
 witnessss  only  is  insufficient  for  their  proof. 
 
 To  enable  us  to  get  at  anything  like  the  conjoint  testimony 
 
262 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 of  the  twelve  Apostles,  it  is  necessary  to  adduce  the 
 strongest  evidence  of  the  historical  character  of  the  earlier 
 chapters  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  for  it  is  here  only  that 
 we  meet  with  anything  which  can  be  designated  their  con¬ 
 joint  testimony  to  the  Resurrection,  the  reality  of  which  the 
 author  informs  us  that  they  affirmed,  and  that  they 
 encountered  great  dangers  and  sufferings  in  consequence  of 
 their  belief  in  it.  But  if  the  entire  weight  of  the  Christian 
 argument  is  made  to  rest  on  this,  it  becomes  necessary  to 
 establish  the  authenticity  of  these  chapters  by  evidence, 
 amounting  to  a  moral  demonstration ;  otherwise,  as  far  as 
 our  controversy  with  modern  unbelief  is  concerned,  the 
 argument  would  be  a  near  approach  to  a  jpetitio  jprincijpii ► 
 If  this  could  be  established  beyond  the  possibility  of  ques¬ 
 tion,  it  would  of  course  prove  that  the  Apostles  testified 
 to  the  truth  of  the  Resurrection,  and  that  the  Jewish 
 rulers  did  their  best  to  suppress  the  belief ;  but  even 
 this  would  not  settle  the  question  as  to  whether  the  belief 
 was  not  the  result  of  some  form  of  mental  hallucination. 
 I  think  it  must  be  admitted  that  if  we  view  the  question 
 simply  as  a  matter  of  literary  evidence,  the  proof  adduced 
 by  Paley  is  not  sufficiently  strong  to  bear  the  entire 
 weight  of  the  Christian  argument. 
 
 But  this  brings  us  into  the  presence  of  another  serious 
 difficulty. 
 
 The  form  of  the  argument,  which  rests  the  truth  of 
 Christianity  exclusively  on  its  miraculous  attestation,  renders 
 it  necessary,  not  only  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  miracles  by 
 evidence  of  the  highest  order,  but  also  that  all  other 
 miraculous  narratives  rest  on  an  inferior  order  of  attestation. 
 Hence  the  necessity  of  Paley^s  second  proposition,  “  That 
 there  is  not  satisfactory  evidence,  that  persons  pretending  to 
 be  original  witnesses  of  other  similar  miracles,  have  acted 
 in  the  same  manner  in  attestation  of  the  accounts  which 
 they  delivered,  and  solely  in  consequence  of  their  belief  in 
 those  accounts.” 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 263 
 
 This  proposition,  it  is  true,  does  not  affirm  the  falsehood 
 of  all  other  miracles  except  those  which  are  alleged  to  have 
 been  performed  in  proof  of  Christianity ;  all  that  it  does  is 
 to  throw  discredit  on  them  as  resting  on  an  inferior  degree 
 of  evidence.  But  this  is  not  enough  :  for  if  miracles  are  to 
 be  accepted  as  the  sole  adequate  attestation  of  a  divine  revela¬ 
 tion,  it  is  necessary  to  prove,  either  that  all  other  miracles  are 
 untrue,  or  that  they  bear  some  distinguishing  mark,  which 
 proves  that  they  could  not  have  been  wrought  by  the  finger 
 of  God,  since,  if  they  served  other  purposes  than  such  attesta¬ 
 tion,  they  would  no  longer  be  alone  adequate  to  prove  it.  But 
 as  we  have  seen,  martyr  testimony  is  no  guarantee  against 
 sincere  delusion.  Consequently  this  is  no  reply  to  the  objection 
 that  there  are  other  miraculous  narratives,  which  rest  on 
 a  very  high  form  of  attestation,  and  of  the  truth  of  which 
 those  who  have  reported  them  have  been  firmly  persuaded, 
 but  which  are  nevertheless  devoid  of  all  objective  reality ; 
 and  that  the  same  cause  which  has  created  the  belief  in  these, 
 may  have  generated  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection.  I  think 
 it  is  undeniable,  if  the  whole  question  be  viewed  as  one  of 
 attestation  pure  and  simple,  that  there  are  other  miraculous 
 narratives  which  rest  on  one  of  a  very  high  order,*  and 
 that  it  is  no  answer  to  it  to  affirm  that  the  witnesses  have 
 
 *  Among  these  may  be  enumerated  the  long  list  of  miracles  recorded 
 by  Augustine,  whose  honesty  cannot  be  called  in  question.  One  of 
 these  is  the  miracle  alleged  to  have  been  wrought  on  the  blind  man  at 
 Milan  by  the  relics  of  St.  Gervasius  and  St.  Protasius.  Augustine 
 tells  us  that  he  was  present  in  the  city  at  the  time,  and  that  large 
 numbers  of  persons  witnessed  it.  The  truth  of  this  miracle  and  of 
 the  strange  circumstances  attending  the  discovery  of  the  Martyrs’ 
 bones  is  also  distinctly  asserted  by  St.  Ambrose,  one  of  the  chief 
 actors  in  the  scene,  in  a  letter  to  his  sister.  Although  it  is  impossible 
 to  accept  the  account  of  the  discovery  of  the  relics  of  the  Martyrs,  and 
 of  the  cures  effected  by  touching  them,  yet  it  cannot  be  denied,  that 
 viewing  it  as  a  mere  question  of  attestation,  it  rests  on  one  of  a  very 
 high  order.  Either  the  actors  in  it  must  have  been  under  some  form 
 of  mental  delusion,  or  if  the  reporters  were  honest,  they  were  the 
 victims  of  a  carefully  got  up  imposture.  Substantial  accounts  of  a 
 large  number  of  other  miracles  occurring  within  his  own  diocese  are 
 
264 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 not  confirmed  their  testimony  by  martyrdom;  which  after  all 
 is  a  proof  of  sincerity,  but  of  nothing  more. 
 
 The  fact  is,  that  the  miraculous  narratives  examined  by 
 Paley  are  not  the  best  attested  ones  of  their  kind.  It  is 
 needless  however  to  cite  examples  from  the  past.  We  are 
 at  the  present  moment  confronted  by  a  number  of  similar 
 phenomena,  which  as  long  as  the  question  is  viewed  as  one 
 of  simple  attestation,  unquestionably  rest  on  testimony  of  a 
 very  high  order ;  I  allude  to  the  phenomena  of  .spiritualism.* 
 The  objective  reality  of  a  considerable  number  of  phenomena, 
 such  as  according  to  our  views  would  constitute  miracles,  is 
 not  only  attested  by  numbers  of  men  of  cultivated  intel¬ 
 lects,  but  even  by  several  who  have  a  practical  acquaintance 
 with  the  laws  of  evidence,  and  have  occupied  important 
 judicial  positions,  and  by  men  eminent  for  their  attain¬ 
 ments  in  modern  science,  who  must  be  fully  acquainted 
 
 given  by  Augustine,  one  of  which  he  may  be  said  to  have  partially 
 witnessed,  and  that  he  believed  in  their  reality  is  beyond  all  question. 
 The  attestation  of  the  existence  of  the  Stigmata  of  St.  Francis  of 
 Assisi  is  also  of  a  very  high  order.  St.  Bernard  likewise  speaks  of 
 miracles  as  actually  performed  by  himself.  Coming  nearer  to  our 
 own  times,  we  have  a  large  number  of  miracles  connected  with  the 
 Moravians,  which,  as  far  as  mere  attestation  is  concerned,  rest  on  a 
 very  strong  one.  Wesley  also  believed  that  he  performed  miracles ; 
 and  connected  with  him  we  have  a  strongly  attested  demoniacal 
 miracle  which  occurred  at  his  father’s  rectory,  the  evidence  of  which 
 is  preserved  in  the  family  letters,  and  is  accepted  by  Southey  as 
 conclusive  of  the  fact.  Again  :  the  attestation  which  has  been  given 
 to  the  recent  miracles  in  France  is  very  strong,  and  to  many  of  the 
 phenomena  of  spiritualism  still  stronger.  In  most  of  these  cases  the 
 real  question  is  whether  those  who  have  reported  them  have  not 
 mistaken  subjective  impressions  for  external  realities  ;  and  in  some 
 instances  perhaps  been  imposed  on  by  the  fraud  of  others. 
 
 *  I  am  aware  that  a  large  number  of  the  most  intelligent  spiritualists 
 affirm  that  the  spiritualistic  phenomena  are  part  of  the  existing  order 
 of  nature,  and  consequently  are  not  miraculous.  To  persons,  how¬ 
 ever,  who  do  not  hold  their  views,  it  is  impossible  to  discriminate 
 between  them  and  miracles.  Supposing  their  opinions  to  be  correct, 
 it  would  destroy  the  evidential  character  of  miracles  altogether. 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 265 
 
 with  the  principles  of  scientific  verification,  and  the  sincerity 
 of  whose  convictions  cannot  be  doubted.  I  will  only  refer 
 to  one  of  these  latter — Mr.  Wallace.  In  his  work  on  this 
 subject  he  tells  us  that  he  was  once  a  perfect  Sadducee  as  to 
 his  belief  in  a  spiritual  world ;  but  that  he  Las  been  led  to 
 accept  the  reality  of  its  existence  by  the  stern  logic  of 
 facts.*  Yet  most  of  us  will  be  of  opinion  that  his  belief  in 
 the  objective  reality  of  the  phenomena  which  he  is  firmly 
 persuaded  that  he  has  witnessed  is  the  result  of  some 
 species  of  mental  hallucination.  If  it  be  urged  that  the 
 spiritualistic  phenomena  are  discredited  by  the  large  amount 
 of  fraud  with  which  they  have  been  united,  the  same  is 
 equally  true  of  miracles,  for  the  number  of  supposed 
 miracles  which  have  originated  in  fraud  is  very  great. 
 Cases  of  this  kind  prove  that  if  the  belief  in  miraculous 
 narratives  is  made  to  rest  on  attestation,  and  nothing  else, 
 there  are  not  a  few  instances  in  which  a  very  high  form  of 
 it  is  certainly  not  wanting,  and  which  cannot  be  discredited 
 on  the  simple  ground  that  the  witnesses  have  not  sealed 
 their  testimony  by  their  blood. 
 
 The  entire  history  of  the  witch  mania  is  also  another 
 striking  illustration  of  the  difficulty  in  question.  Not  only 
 was  the  evidence  sufficient  to  induce  juries  to  convict,  and 
 judges,  among  whom  must  be  numbered  so  eminent  a  man 
 as  Sir  M.  Hale,  to  condemn  to  death  multitudes  of  unfortu¬ 
 nate  persons,  but  many  of  the  victims  themselves  confessed 
 the  reality  of  the  crime  for  which  they  suffered.  Yet  few 
 of  us  at  the  present  day  will  be  of  opinion  that  the  facts 
 testified  to  were  objectively  real ;  and  consequently  the  only 
 mode  of  accounting  for  the  belief  in  them  is  to  attribute 
 them  to  some  form  of  mental  hallucination. 
 
 But  apart  from  all  these  considerations,  the  following 
 objection  against  this  mode  of  putting  the  argument  requires 
 
 *  Mr.  Wallace’s  conversion  to  the  belief  in  the  existence  of  a 
 spiritual  world,  has  left  him  as  far  as  ever  from  the  acceptance  of 
 Christianity  as  a  divine  revelation.  He  even  considers  that  many  of 
 the  miracles  of  the  Gospels  are  explicable  on  spiritualistic  principles. 
 
266 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 our  serious  consideration.  It  renders  it  necessary  that  the 
 inquirer  should  enter  on  an  investigation  of  a  highly  com¬ 
 plicated  character,  viz.  an  inquiry  into  the  validity  of  the 
 evidence  on  which  a  large  number  of  well  attested  miracu¬ 
 lous  narratives  rest,  with  a  view  of  laying  down  a  clear  line 
 of  discrimination  between  their  attestation  and  that  of  the 
 miracles  recorded  both  in  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament. 
 
 There  is  another  point  in  which  the  argument,  as  it  has 
 been  laid  down  by  Paley,  is  clearly  inadequate  to  meet  the 
 exigencies  of  the  present  controversy,  if  we  rely  on  it  alone, 
 and  unsupported  by  other  considerations;  I  allude  to  that 
 portion  of  it  which  rests  the  question  of  the  authenticity  of 
 the  Gospels  on  our  ability  to  furnish  proof  of  it  from  the 
 writings  of  the  Fathers,  either  by  their  direct  mention  of 
 them  as  the  works  of  those  persons  whose  names  they  bear, 
 or  by  adducing  unquestionable  quotations  from  them  in  the 
 remnants  of  patristic  literature.  This  opens  one  of  the 
 most  complicated  questions  of  modern  controversy ;  and 
 the  form  of  Paley^s  argument,  rendering  it  necessary  as  it 
 does,  to  establish  the  authenticity  of  the  Gospels  by  a  mass 
 ol  evidence  which  is  purely  literary,  requires  that  our  proof 
 of  it  should  be  little  short  of  a  moral  demonstration.  I 
 think  we  must  admit  that  this  portion  of  his  reasoning  is 
 far  from  being  conclusive,  and  that  even  some  of  the 
 authorities  referred  to  are  of  a  doubtful  character.  Nor  can 
 we  wonder  that  it  is  so ;  for  historical  criticism,  even  if  it 
 can  be  said  to  have  been  born,  was  only  in  its  infancy  when 
 his  work  was  composed.  It  has  since  grown  up  to  become 
 a  science  of  the  highest  importance,  and  has  applied  all  the 
 resources  at  its  command  to  the  investigation  of  those 
 documents  of  Christian  antiquity  which  the  ravages  of  time 
 have  spared,  more  especially  to  that  of  the  writings  of  the 
 Fathers  of  the  first  two  centuries,  the  various  books  of  the 
 New  Testament,  and  above  all,  the  four  Gospels.  We  need 
 not  wonder,  therefore,  if  several  of  the  proofs  relied  on  by 
 him  as  affording  unquestionable  evidence  of  the  authenticity 
 of  the  Gospels  are  of  doubtful  validity.  Thus  it  unfortu- 
 
THE  PATJRISTIC  WEITINGS. 
 
 267 
 
 nately  happens  that  where  the  exigencies  of  modern  thought 
 require  that  our  historical  evidences  should  be  the  strongest, 
 viz.  from  a.d.  30  to  a.d.  180,  or  during  the  150  years  which 
 followed  the  Crucifixion,  is  precisely  the  point  where  Paley's 
 argument  is  the  weakest,  and  where  we  are  in  urgent  need 
 of  something  which  will  supply  the  deficiencies  of  his  system. 
 For  this  purpose  I  shall  endeavour  to  construct  a  line  or 
 argument  from  the  patristic  writings  more  efficacious  than 
 that  which  has  hitherto  been  adopted.  Above  all,  I  shall 
 appeal  to  the  evidence  afforded  by  the  Pauline  Epistles  as 
 historical  documents  of  the  highest  order,  and  claim  for  the 
 existence  of  the  Church  as  a  corporate  Society  a  far  higher 
 value  than  has  been  hitherto  assigned  to  it  in  our  evidential 
 treatises.  All  these  considerations,  the  value  of  which 
 Paley  has  greatly  overlooked,  are  most  important  at  the 
 present  time. 
 
 III.  I  now  proceed  to  take  a  brief  survey  of  our  position 
 as  far  as  it  respects  the  literary  evidence  which  can  be 
 adduced  for  the  authenticity  of  our  Gospels,  and  shall  then 
 devote  the  remainder  of  this  and  the  whole  of  the  two  next 
 Lectures  to  supplementing  the  defects  of  our  evidential 
 argument.  This  is  of  the  highest  importance  at  the  present 
 time,  because  the  utmost  efforts  of  unbelief  are  directed  to 
 prove  that  the  Gospels  are  compositions  of  a  comparatively 
 late  date ;  and  it  is  generally  taken  for  granted  that  if  this 
 can  be  established,  or  even  if  it  cannot  be  certainly  proved 
 that  they  were  composed  by  the  authors  whose  names  they 
 bear,  it  is  destructive  of  the  Christian  position.  I  shall  use 
 as  the  groundwork  of  my  remarks  on  the  present  state 
 of  the  evidence,  Mr.  Sanday's  recently  published  work. 
 The  Gospels  in  the  Second  Centuvy .  I  take  this  work  in 
 preference  to  others  because  the  candour  and  fairness 
 with  which  he  has  treated  the  subject  have  received  high 
 commendations  from  several  of  the  influential  organs  of 
 unbelief  in  this  country. 
 
 Let  me  first  point  out  where  the  difficulty  lies.  In  order 
 
268 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 to  give  full  force  to  tlie  argument  in  its  existing  form,  we 
 require  to  prove  two  tilings,  namely. 
 
 First,  that  the  Gospels  were  written  by  the  persons 
 whose  names  they  bear.  If  this  can  be  done,  it  will  be  im¬ 
 possible  to  date  the  publication  of  the  Synoptics  later  than 
 the  year  a.d.  70;  i.e.  they  must  have  been  composed  within 
 forty  years  after  the  termination  of  Our  Lord's  ministry : 
 and  that  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  later  than  the  last  ten  years 
 of  the  first  century,  and 
 
 Secondly,  that  it  is  impossible  that  the  facts  of  the 
 life  of  Jesus  can  have  become  obscured  during  this  short 
 interval  by  the  introduction  of  a  mass  of  legendary  matter 
 into  their  pages. 
 
 The  proof  of  the  first  point  is  made  to  depend  in  our 
 common  evidential  treatises  on  the  supposed  citations  from 
 the  Gospels  in  the  writings  of  the  Fathers.  It  happens, 
 however,  that  the  alleged  citations  from  them  in  the  earlier 
 Fathers  are  extremely  inexact,  and  not  one  of  our  Gospels 
 is  referred  to  by  name.  Consequently  this  opens  a  literary 
 problem  of  very  considerable  complexity,  as  to  whether 
 these  references  are  beyond  all  reasonable  question  made 
 to  our  present  Gospels,  or  to  other  documents  then  in 
 circulation. 
 
 One  point,  however,  is  absolutely  certain,  and  must, 
 therefore,  form  our  starting-point  in  this  inquiry.  The 
 great  Church  writers  who  flourished  towards  the  end  of 
 the  second  century — Irenseus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and 
 Tertullian — not  only  recognize  the  Gospels  as  the  com¬ 
 positions  of  the  persons  whose  names  they  bear,  but  they 
 also  refer  to  them  as  writings  of  canonical  authority,  quite 
 as  much  as  we  do  at  the  present  day.  Here,  then,  we  are 
 in  open  daylight.  But  this  leaves  an  interval  of  not  less 
 than  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  between  the  Fathers 
 above  mentioned  and  Our  Lord's  ministry,  and  nearly 
 one  hundred  and  twenty  between  them  and  the  supposed 
 publication  of  the  Gospels,  which  it  is  necessary  to  bridge 
 over  with  the  requisite  literary  testimony  as  to  their 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 269 
 
 authorship,  date,  and  the  authority  assigned  to  them. 
 This  constitutes  our  difficulty;  for  the  testimony  grows 
 more  dim  in  proportion  as  we  ascend  upwards,  affording 
 a  very  strong  probability  that  the  earlier  writers  read  and 
 quoted  from  some  of  our  Gospels ;  but  still,  except  in  a  few 
 cases,  and  those  the  latest  in  point  of  date,  not  amounting 
 to  so  complete  a  proof  as  to  place  the  fact  beyond  all  reason¬ 
 able  question. 
 
 Further.  The  period,  which  cannot  be  placed  at  less 
 than  thirty  years,  intervening  between  the  publication  of 
 the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  the  first  Christian  writing  not 
 included  in  the  canon,  viz.  the  first  epistle  of  Clement, 
 affords  no  attestation  whatever,  unless  it  be  one  or  two  very 
 doubtful  quotations  in  St.  Paul's  Epistles,  which  are  inade¬ 
 quate  to  prove  that  he  either  read  or  cited  from  any  one  of 
 our  present  Gospels. 
 
 Such  is  the  interval  of  time  which  it  is  necessary  to  cover 
 with  literary  evidence  in  proof  that  the  Gospels  are  the 
 works  of  the  persons  whose  names  they  bear.  Let  me 
 briefly  set  before  you  what  our  evidence  is  valid  to  prove. 
 
 I.  Mr.  Sanday  has  established  on  clear  and  incontrovertible 
 evidence  that  the  Gospel  used  by  Marcion  was  a  mutilated 
 version  of  our  present  Luke;  and  that  the  latter  has  nob 
 been  framed  out  of  the  former,  as  a  number  of  persistent 
 efforts  have  been  made  to  prove.  I  refer  with  great 
 pleasure  to  his  masterly  argument  on  this  subject,  which 
 must  be  considered  to  have  settled  the  question.  Assuming 
 therefore  that  the  date  of  Marcion's  Gospel  cannot  be  placed 
 later  than  a.d.  140,  it  becomes  certain  that  St.  Luke's 
 Gospel  must  have  been  in  existence  early  in  the  second 
 century. 
 
 II.  Another  inference  applicable  to  the  three  Synoptics, 
 proves  that  their  publication  cannot  have  taken  place  at 
 a  later  date.  The  citations  from  them  in  the  three  Fathers 
 above  referred  to,  prove  that  their  text  was  in  a  condition 
 so  extremely  faulty,  as  to  render  it  incredible  that  such 
 corruptions  can  have  been  introduced  in  a  less  period 
 
270 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 than  sixty  or  seventy  years  from  the  date  of  their  first 
 publication,  which  must  consequently  have  taken  place  not 
 later  than  the  early  part  of  the  second  century.  This  is  a 
 very  strong  point  of  the  evidence.  The  only  difficulty 
 respecting  it  is,  that  it  requires  a  special  course  of  study  for 
 its  due  appreciation. 
 
 III.  Two  Gospels,  bearing  the  same  name  as  two  of  the 
 Synoptics,  are  directly  referred  to  by  Papias.*  If  this 
 reference  could  be  shown  to  have  been  made  to  our  present 
 Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Mark,  it  would  prove  that  in  the 
 judgment  of  this  Father  they  were  the  works  of  the  persons 
 whose  names  they  bear;  and  supposing  his  judgment  to  be 
 trustworthy,  it  would  prove  that  they  were  published  at  the 
 date  which  has  been  usually  assigned  to  them.  But  here 
 our  evidence  is  anything  but  conclusive.  Not  to  enter  on 
 the  vast  controversy  which  has  taken  place  over  this  passage, 
 one  thing  respecting  it  is  absolutely  certain :  The  Matthew 
 with  which  Papias  was  acquainted  was,  according  to  his 
 express  statement,  written  in  Hebrew.  Our  Matthew  is  no 
 less  certainly  written  in  Greek.  Papias,  it  is  true,  has  been 
 affirmed  to  have  been  a  man  of  small  intellect ;  but  however 
 this  may  have  been,  it  cannot  have  been  so  small  that, 
 supposing  he  had  ever  seen  St.  Matthew's  Gospel,  he  was 
 unable  to  distinguish  between  the  Hebrew  and  the  Greek 
 character.  His  subsequent  affirmation  also,  that  each  inter¬ 
 preted  it  as  he  was  able,  seems  decisive  that  he  could  never  have 
 seen  a  Greek  copy.  To  meet  this  difficulty,  the  assumption  has 
 
 *  The  following  is  Papias’s  statement “  Matthew  wrote  the 
 oracles  in  the  Hebrew  tongue,  and  every  one  interpreted  them  as  he 
 was  able.  Mark,  as  the  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  down  accurately, 
 though  not  in  order,  all  that  he  remembered  that  was  said  or  done  by 
 Christ.  For  he  neither  heard  the  Lord,  nor  attended  upon  Him  ;  but 
 later,  as  I  have  said,  upon  Peter,  who  taught  according  to  the  occasion, 
 and  not  as  composing  a  connected  narrative  of  the  Lord’s  discourses, 
 so  that  Mark  made  no  mistake  in  writing  down  some  things  as  he 
 remembered  them.  For  he  took  care  of  one  thing,  not  to  omit  auy  of 
 the  particulars  that  he  had  heard,  or  to  falsify  any  part  of  them.” 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 271 
 
 "been  made  that  our  present  Greek  Matthew  is  a  translation 
 from  the  Hebrew.  Such  an  inference  however  rests  on  a 
 very  uncertain  foundation,  because  our  Matthew  has  all  the 
 appearance  of  being  an  original  composition.  The  difficulty 
 is  also  greatly  increased  by  a  careful  analysis  of  the  narrative 
 portions.  These  bear  few  indications  of  being  the  work  of 
 an  eye-witness,  even  less  than  some  portions  of  Luke, 
 which  is  confessedly  a  compilation,  and  form  a  striking  con¬ 
 trast  to  the  Gospels  of  Mark  and  John.*  Candour  there- 
 
 *  The  Gospel  of  St.  Mark  supplies  us  with  the  best  means  of  insti¬ 
 tuting  this  comparison,  because  so  large  a  portion  of  its  narratives 
 runs  parallel  to  those  in  Matthew,  which  is  not  the  case  with  the  Fourth 
 Gospel.  The  phenomenon  which  strikes  the  reader  of  Matthew  is 
 that,  except  in  a  few  cases,  such  as  the  accounts  of  the  Transfiguration, 
 the  history  of  the  woman  of  Canaan,  the  Crucifixion,  and  the  murder 
 of  the  Baptist,  there  is  a  total  absence  of  minute  detail.  This  is 
 carried  to  such  an  extent  in  some  of  his  narratives,  such  as  the 
 account  of  the  cure  of  the  woman  with  the  issue  of  blood,  as  to  leave 
 us  ignorant  of  the  precise  character  of  the  facts.  This  is  exactly 
 reversed  in  Mark.  His  narrative  is  extremely  rich  in  minute  details, 
 and  in  such  touches  as  would  naturally  form  portions  of  an  account 
 by  an  eye-witness  of  the  scenes  which  he  describes.  It  is  also  very 
 remarkable  that  these  touches  are  so  closely  interwoven  with  the 
 structure  of  the  narrative  as  to  be  inseparable  from  it.  It  is  incon¬ 
 ceivable  that  the  author  of  our  present  Mark,  be  he  who  he  may,  had 
 before  him  a  narrative  resembling  that  of  Matthew,  and  that  in  com¬ 
 posing  his  own  Gospel,  he  deliberately  inserted  those  graphic  touches 
 which  distinguish  nearly  all  its  narratives.  Hot  only  would  the  diffi¬ 
 culty  of  doing  this  be  extreme,  but  the  idea  that  lie  has  done  so  is 
 totally  inconsistent  with  the  honesty  of  the  author;  for  the  only  source 
 from  which  he  could  have  derived  them  must  have  been  deliberate 
 invention.  The  tradition  however,  mentioned  by  Papias,  that  Mark 
 derived  his  facts  from  the  teaching  of  Peter,  and  consequently  that 
 his  share  in  the  composition  of  this  Gospel  consisted  chiefly  in 
 imparting  to  his  materials  their  present  arrangement,  forms  an  adequate 
 explanation  of  the  phenomena  before  us ;  for  it  is  a  simple  matter  of 
 fact  that  in  nearly  every  case  where  we  can  ascertain  either  from  this 
 or  the  other  Gospels,  that  Peter  was  present  at  an  occurrence,  the 
 narrative  in  Mark  gives  us  a  graphic  description  of  it,  such  as  an  eye¬ 
 witness  of  Peter’s  temperament  would  be  likely  to  supply.  On  the 
 
272 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  EROM 
 
 fore  requires  us  to  admit  that  Papias  was  not  aware  of  the 
 existence  of  a  Greek  Matthew ;  and  that  the  proof  that  our 
 present  Matthew  is  a  translation  from  the  Hebrew  of  Papias 
 is  inconclusive.  It  is  highly  probable  that  it  has  grown  out 
 of  it :  but  if  the  argument  is  to  sustain  the  weight  which 
 has  been  imposed  on  it,  we  want  something  stronger  than 
 probabilities  of  this  description,  which  after  all  are  little 
 better  than  mere  conjectures. 
 
 The  identity  of  the  Mark  of  Papias  with  our  Mark  is  far 
 more  probable,  although  it  cannot  be  asserted  positively ; 
 still  I  think  that  the  probability  is  considerably  higher  than 
 that  which  is  assigned  to  it  by  Mr.  Sanday.* 
 
 It  will  be  unnecessary  for  me  to  pause  over  the  other 
 remnants  of  the  Patristic  writings,  or  the  testimony  afforded 
 by  the  early  heretics,  which,  as  far  as  it  goes,  is  very  valu¬ 
 able,  further  than  to  observe  that  while  they  render  it 
 highly  probable  that  the  authors  used  one  or  more  of  our 
 
 other  hand,  it  is  no  less  inconceivable  that  the  narrative  as  it  stands  in 
 Matthew  can  have  been  constructed  by  a  person  who  had  an  outline 
 before  him  at  all  resembling  our  present  Mark  ;  for  in  that  case  he 
 must  have  deliberately  struck  out  nearly  all  the  graphic  touches.  Not 
 only  could  no  purpose  have  been  effected  by  doing  this,  but  the  person 
 who  did  it  must  have  been  absolutely  devoid  of  taste.  The  idea  which 
 has  been  so  often  propounded,  that  one  of  these  Gospels  can  have 
 formed  the  basis  on  which  the  other  has  been  constructed,  is  in  direct 
 contradiction  to  the  phenomena  which  they  present.  One  thing  how¬ 
 ever  must  be  admitted,  the  narrative,  portions  of  St.  Matthew  present 
 few  of  the  distinguishing  traits  of  autoptic  testimony. 
 
 *  The  two  chief  difficulties  attending  the  identification  of  our  pre¬ 
 sent  Mark  with  the  Mark  of  Papias  are— First :  that  Papias  affirms 
 that  the  Mark  with  which  he  was  acquainted  was  not  written  in  order, 
 whereas  ours  follows  an  orderly  arrangement.  Secondly:  it  is  argued 
 from  the  number  of  cases  in  which  Matthew  and  Luke  are  in  agree¬ 
 ment,  and  Mark  at  variance,  in  their  use  of  particular  forms  of  expres¬ 
 sion,  that  our  present  Mark  cannot  be  one  of  the  original  docu¬ 
 ments  on  which  our  Synoptics  are  based,  and  consequently  that  it 
 is  not  the  Mark  of  Papias.  This  second  reason  seems  to  me  to  be  in¬ 
 conclusive  ;  for  our  Mark  may  be  the  Mark  of  Papias,  and  yet  not 
 be  one  of  the  documents  supposed  to  have  formed  the  basis  of  the 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 273 
 
 present  Gospels,  they  do  not  establish  the  fact  beyond  all 
 reasonable  question.  The  evidence  seems  very  nearly  con¬ 
 clusive  with  respect  to  the  author  of  the  Clementine 
 Homilies ;  still  it  must  be  allowed  that  the  probability, 
 though  high,  is  in  no  case  so  strong  as  to  amount  to  a 
 moral  demonstration.  The  whole  of  the  evidence,  however, 
 if  taken  together,  may  be  considered  as  establishing  beyond 
 reasonable  doubt  that  the  Synoptics  were  in  existence 
 during  the  first  twenty  years  of  the  second  century. 
 
 IV.  I  will  now  offer  a  few  remarks  on  the  evidence  fur¬ 
 nished  by  the  writings  of  Justin  Martyr  and  the  Apostolical 
 Fathers. 
 
 The  writings  of  Justin  not  only  exceed  in  bulk  all  the 
 remains  of  Christian  literature  previous  to  his  time,  but 
 their  references  to  the  actions  and  teaching  of  Our  Lord 
 are  exceedingly  numerous.  Assuming  that  he  wrote  not 
 later  than  a.d.  145  to  a.d.  150,  and  that  his  recollection 
 was  good  for  thirty  years  earlier,  his  testimony  becomes 
 
 Synoptic  narrative.  Such  documents  may  he  sought  for  in  memo¬ 
 randa  used  by  the  original  missionaries  of  the  Christian  Church,  and 
 which  by  frequent  use  had  become  thoroughly  impressed  upon  their 
 memories.  The  first  objection,  however,  is  a  more  serious  one. 
 Mr.  Sanday  justly  assumes  that  the  most  natural  meaning  of  the 
 words  “in  order”  is  “in  chronological  order.”  Still  they  are  ap¬ 
 plicable  to  any  kind  of  orderly  arrangement,  as  is  shown  by  the 
 use  in  the  preface  of  St.  Luke’s  Gospel;  for  it  is  hardly  possible 
 that  its  author  can  have  meant  by  this  expression  to  affirm  that  he 
 has  in  all  cases  followed  the  strict  chronological  order.  But  there 
 is  a  looseness  about  the  expression  in  Papias  which  renders  it  possible 
 to  apply  the  words  to  the  arrangement  of  the  discourses  which  Mark 
 has  incorporated  into  his  Gospel,  rather  than  to  the  events.  It  is 
 true  that  in  the  sentence  where  these  words  occur,  Papias  states 
 that  Mark  “  wrote  down  accurately,  but  not  in  order,  all  that  he 
 remembered  that  was  said  or  done  by  Christ.”  But  in  the  second 
 sentence  he  describes  Peter,  from  whom  he  says  that  Mark  derived 
 his  materials,  as  teaching  according  to  the  occasion,  and  “not  as 
 composing  a  connected  narrative  of  the  Lord's  discourses' ’  A  loose 
 writer  like  Papias  might  have  had  these  latter  in  view  when  he  said 
 that  Mark  had  not  followed  an  orderly  arrangement  in  the  com¬ 
 position  of  his  Gospel. 
 
 18 
 
274 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 valid  for  the  belief  in  the  facts  as  it  existed  in  the  Church 
 from  eighty  to  eighty-five  years  after  the  termination  of 
 Our  Lord’s  ministry.  This  brings  us  within  the  range  of 
 trustworthy  historical  tradition.  Of  this  testimony  I  shall 
 make  a  very  important  use  presently.  I  have  here  only 
 to  do  with  it  as  far  as  it  bears  on  the  date  and  authorship 
 of  the  Gospels. 
 
 One  thing  the  testimony  of  Justin  places  beyond  the 
 possibility  of  dispute,  viz.  that  he  derived  his  informa¬ 
 tion,  not  merely  from  oral  traditions  handed  down  in  the 
 Church,  but  from  written  documents  of  some  kind,  which 
 he  designates  “  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,”  and  occasionally,. 
 
 Gospels,”  and  which  he  tells  us  that  the  Church  was  in 
 the  habit  of  publicly  reading.  It  is  also  no  less  certain 
 that  in  his  time  these  memoirs  did  not  stand  on  the  same 
 level  in.  point  of  authority  as  the  Old  Testament  Scrip¬ 
 tures.*  The  important  question  is,  can  they  be  identified 
 with  our  present  Gospels  ?  If  they  could,  this  would  not 
 only  afford  evidence  of  their  composition  before  the  com¬ 
 mencement  of  the  second  century,  but  would  go  far  to 
 establish  the  fact  that  they  were  the  compositions  of  the 
 writers  whose  names  they  bear.  In  effecting  this  identi- 
 
 *  The  mode  in  which  these  “  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles  ”  are  referred 
 to  by  Justin  renders  it  impossible  that  at  the  time  when  he  wrote 
 they  could  have  been  recent  compositions.  They  had  already  attained 
 such  notoriety  as  to  be  publicly  read  in  the  Church.  His  mode  of 
 speaking  of  them  justifies  us  in  inferring  that  this  had  been  the  case 
 from  his  earliest  recollections  ;  and  that  the  practice  was  no  recent 
 innovation.  It  is  certain  therefore  that  they  must  have  been  pub¬ 
 lished  several  years  earlier,  as  it  could  be  only  by  gradual  steps  that 
 they  could  obtain  the  currency  requisite  to  entitle  them  to  this  dis¬ 
 tinction.  Doubtless  the  Christian  community  possessed  the  means 
 of  bringing  a  work — such  a  work  as  a  gospel — into  earlier  notice 
 than  it  could  obtain  under  ordinary  circumstances.  Still  a  con¬ 
 siderable  interval  of  time  must  have  been  necessary,  before  a  book 
 which  professed  to  be  a  “  Memoir  of  the  Apostles  ”  could  have 
 established  its  reputation  so  firmly  as  to  be  publicly  read  in  the 
 Church.  It  is  hardly  possible  therefore  that  Justin’s  “  Memoirs  ” 
 can  have  been  published  later  than  the  last  ten  or  twelve  years  of 
 the  first  century. 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 fication,  the  difficulty  is  caused  by  the  inexactitude  of  the 
 quotations.,  which  it  must  be  remembered,  extends,  although 
 not  in  the  same  degree,  to  his  unquestionable  citations  from 
 the  Old  Testament  Scriptures. 
 
 Another  fact  the  writings  of  Justin  establish  beyond 
 all  doubt.  If  the  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles  were  not  our 
 three  Synoptics,  they  must  have  been  writings  which  bore 
 the  closest  possible  resemblance  to  them. 
 
 The  following  is  the  general  conclusion  on  which  we  may 
 safely  rest.  The  writings  of  Justin  establish  to  a  very  high 
 degree  of  probability,  although  not  to  absolute  certainty, 
 that  among  the  documents  used  by  him  were  one  or  more 
 of  our  present  Gospels.  It  is  also  very  probable,  but  yet 
 not  absolutely  certain,  that  he  used  one  or  more  documents 
 besides  these,  which  are  no  longer  extant. 
 
 Y.  As  we  ascend  upwards  our  evidence  becomes  less  dis¬ 
 tinct.  Our  materials  become  few  and  meagre.  Some  of  the 
 earlier  writings,  once  accepted  as  genuine,  and  referred  to 
 as  such  by  Paley,  are  now  with  great  reason  rejected  as 
 spurious.  Still  they  are  not  altogether  without  value,  for 
 their  early  date  is  unquestionable ;  but  the  evidence  to 
 be  derived  from  them  requires  for  its  due  appreciation  such 
 an  amount  of  shill  in  textual  criticism  as  can  only  be 
 acquired  by  a  long  course  of  special  study,  to  which  few 
 persons  have  either  the  leisure  or  the  inclination  to  devote 
 themselves.  The  references,  as  far  as  they  go,  are  to  the 
 same  facts  and  teaching  as  those  in  our  present  Gospels ; 
 and  only  to  a  very  inconsiderable  number  in  which  they 
 differ  from  them.  But  whether  these  references  are  made 
 to  them,  or  to  other  documents  closely  resembling  them, 
 or  whether  the  information  was  derived  from  traditions 
 of  a  similar  character,  the  inexactitude  of  the  citations 
 prevents  us  from  determining  with  certainty.  Still  the 
 balance  of  evidence  is  in  favour  of  the  assumption  that 
 these  writers  used  one  or  more  of  our  present  Gospels. 
 If  we  could  be  certain  that  Clement  of  Borne,  Polycarp, 
 or  Ignatius,  used  our  Gospels,  it  would  go  far  to  establish 
 
 18* 
 
276 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 the  date  which  has  been  usually  assigned  to  them.  But 
 as  they  do  not  directly  refer  to  written  documents,  it  must 
 be  admitted  that  their  information  may  have  been  equally 
 well  derived  from  the  traditions  of  the  Church.  As  a 
 testimony  to  the  existence  either  of  traditions  or  of  docu¬ 
 ments  which  substantially  agreed  with  the  contents  of  the 
 Synoptics,  their  references  are  invaluable,  for  this  they 
 establish  beyond  a  question. 
 
 Such  then  is  the  position  in  which  the  testimony  of  the 
 Fathers  leaves  us  as  to  the  date  and  authorship  of  the 
 Gospels.  Let  me  briefly  summarise  it. 
 
 It  establishes  the  fact  that  those  who  flourished  as  late 
 as  160  years  after  the  events  recorded  in  them,  accepted 
 them  as  indubitable  authorities  respecting  the  actions 
 and  teaching  of  Our  Lord,  and  as  written  by  the  persons 
 whose  names  they  bear ;  but  this  leaves  the  question 
 open,  as  to  how  far  we  can  rely  on  their  critical  judgment. 
 The  evidence  afforded  by  the  earlier  writers  amounts  only 
 to  a  very  high  degree  of  probability,  which  diminishes  in 
 force  as  we  ascend  upwards,  and  will  in  no  case  carry  us 
 higher  than  the  last  ten  years  of  the  first  century.  But  our 
 greatest  difficulty  is  this,  that  the  evidence  is  made  up  of 
 the  balance  of  so  large  a  number  of  intricate  probabilities 
 which  vary  greatly  in  weight,  as  to  require  an  intellect 
 highly  trained  in  such  studies,  to  estimate  them  at  their 
 proper  value  ;  and  it  is  moreover  a  kind  of  evidence,  which 
 will  be  estimated  differently  by  different  persons.  It  must 
 be  conceded  therefore,  that  our  evidence  that  the  Synoptics 
 were  written  prior  to  the  year  a.d.  70,  and  the  Gospel  of 
 St.  John  about  a.d.  90,  by  the  authors  whose  names  they 
 bear,  if  we  rely  exclusively  on  the  literary  testimony  furnished 
 by  the  writings  of  the  Fathers ,  amounts  not  to  certainty,  but 
 only  to  a  high  degree  of  probability.*  Such  a  fact,  I 
 
 *  It  has  been  affirmed  by  Bishop  Butler  that  probable  evidence 
 constitutes  the  very  guide  of  life.  The  truth  of  this  I  fully  admit ; 
 but  it  is  a  kind  of  probable  evidence  which  those  who  are  guided  by 
 it  are  capable  of  weighing  and  judging.  This  renders  the  maxim  in 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS.  277 
 
 think,  fully  justifies  me  in  placing  another  kind  of  evidence 
 in  the  forefront  of  the  Christian  argument. 
 
 Such  being  the  position  in  which  our  purely  literary 
 evidence  leaves  us,  it  becomes  a  question  of  the  highest 
 importance  whether  we  have  made  the  best  possible  use  of 
 the  historical  materials  which  we  possess  ?  I  cannot  think 
 that  we  have.  On  the  contrary,  I  am  satisfied  that  they  can 
 be  made  to  afford  a  far  more  conclusive  proof  of  the  truth  of 
 the  supernatural  events  recorded  in  the  G-ospels,  than  any 
 amount  of  mere  citations  from  the  Fathers,  and  of  compli¬ 
 cated  reasonings  upon  them.  I  therefore  proceed  to  address 
 myself  to  the  re-constructive  portion  of  the  argument. 
 
 I  observe,  in  the  first  place,  that  far  too  much  importance 
 has  been  attached  on  both  sides  to  these  citations,  as  if  the 
 life  of  Christianity  depended  on  them.  They  are  doubtless 
 very  interesting  in  reference  to  many  important  questions  of 
 theology ;  but  with  regard  to  the  truth  or  falsehood  of  the 
 great  facts  on  which  Christianity  is  based,  their  value  has  been 
 greatly  over-estimated.  We  have  abundance  of  materials  for 
 proving  that  the  general  contents  of  the  Gospels  are  trust- 
 
 a  great  measure  inapplicable  to  the  kind  of  evidence  which  we  are 
 now  considering.  Even  the  great  majority  of  educated  men  are  very 
 imperfect  judges  of  its  value,  because  a  special  training  in  this  class 
 of  historical  studies  is  necessary  for  its  due  appreciation.  The  ordi¬ 
 nary  class  of  minds  can  form  respecting  it  little  or  no  judgment  of 
 their  own,  and  are  therefore  compelled  to  accept  it,  if  they  accept  it 
 at  all,  in  reliance  on  the  judgment  of  those  who  are  more  learned  than 
 themselves.  But  in  this  particular  case,  the  value  of  the  judgment 
 of  the  learned  is  greatly  weakened  in  the  eyes  of  ordinary  men, 
 because  those  who  should  be  guides  are  at  issue  amongst  themselves 
 as  to  the  importance  which  they  assign  to  the  evidence  in  question. 
 The  whole  tendency  of  thought  in  modern  times  is  to  re  piire  evidence 
 in  religious  matters  on  which  men  can  exercise  some  judgment  of 
 their  own.  Scientific  judgments  are  in  numerous  cases  accepted 
 without  this,  because  many  of  them  admit  of  verification  in  our 
 actual  experience,  which  imparts  a  credibility  to  the  assertions  of 
 eminent  professors  on  subjects  which  lie  beyond  its  range;  but  the 
 case  is  wholly  different  with  respect  to  religious  truth. 
 
278 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 worthy  accounts  of  the  traditions  which  were  handed  down 
 by  the  primitive  followers  of  Jesus  ;  and  the  value  of  the 
 evidence  would  be  only  slightly  increased  if  we  could  de¬ 
 termine  with  certainty  their  genuineness  and  the  date  of 
 their  publication.  I  do  not  deny  that  our  ability  to  prove 
 that  they  were  published  between  the  years  a.d.  60  and 
 a.d.  70,  and  written  by  the  authors  to  whom  they  have  been 
 ascribed,  would  strengthen  the  evidence ;  but  that  which  we 
 possess  is  so  strong  that  we  can  well  afford  to  dispense  with 
 this  additional  confirmation.  If  this  be  so,  it  is  surely  unwise 
 on  the  part  of  the  defenders  of  Christianity  to  rest  their 
 case  exclusively  on  evidence  which  consists  of  a  balance  of 
 intricate  probabilities,  when  it  is  in  our  power  to  base  it  on 
 that  which  amounts  to  a  moral  certainty. 
 
 Let  us  then  for  the  purpose  of  the  present  argument  lay 
 aside  the  question  whether  the  references  to  the  actions  and 
 the  teaching  of  our  Lord,  which  are  contained  in  the  remains 
 of  the  Patristic  and  heretical  writings  prior  to  the  year  180, 
 afford  a  valid  proof  that  the  authors  used  our  present  Gos¬ 
 pels.  One  thing,  however,  these  writings  establish  beyond 
 all  doubt,  viz.  that  their  authors  used  written  documents  of 
 some  kind,  whether  our  Gospels  or  others.  It  is  also  no  less 
 certain  that  these  documents  contained  an  account  which 
 (whatever  may  have  been  its  minor  variations)  was  for  all 
 practical  purposes  the  same  as  that  which  we  read  in  the 
 Synoptics.  The  actions  and  sayings  attributed  to  our  Lord 
 in  all  the  existing  remains  of  Christian  literature  between 
 a.d.  90  and  a.d.  180,  the  complete  counterparts  of  which 
 cannot  be  found  in  our  present  Gospels,  are  about  twelve  in 
 number.  It  follows,  therefore,  whatever  the  documents 
 may  have  been,  to  which  the  Fathers  referred,  or  whatever 
 traditional  sources  of  information  they  may  have  possessed, 
 that  the  facts  at  their  command  were  for  all  the  purposes  of 
 history  the  same  as  those  of  our  present  Gospels,  and  that 
 the  minor  differences  in  words  and  language  are  not  worth 
 taking  into  account  in  a  controversy  which  is  simply  histo¬ 
 rical. 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 279 
 
 As  the  writings  of  Justin  Martyr  are  by  far  the  most 
 extensive  of  those  which  have  come  down  to  us,  I  will  use 
 them  as  a  crucial  test  of  the  value  of  my  position.  His 
 references  to  events  in  the  Evangelical  History  and  to  the 
 teaching  of  our  Lord  are  very  numerous;  and  he  states  dis¬ 
 tinctly  that  he  made  use  of  documents  which  he  designates 
 “  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,”  and  occasionally  “  Gospels.” 
 Were  they  our  Gospels  ?  It  is  too  much  to  affirm  positively 
 that  they  were.  But  one  thing  his  writings  prove  to  be  an 
 actual  certainty.  Whatever  documents  he  may  have  used, 
 their  contents  must  have  borne  the  closest  resemblance  to 
 
 those  of  our  present  Gospels.* 
 
 Let  us  assume  that  the  actual  references  in  Justin  to 
 events  in  the  Evangelical  history,  are  about  two  hundred 
 in  number,  which  will  be  a  close  approximation  to  the  truth. t 
 Of  these  one  hundred  and  ninety-six  are  for  all  practical 
 purposes  the  same  as  those  which  we  read  in  the  Evan¬ 
 gelists.  The  remaining  four  are  references  to  some 
 unimportant  facts  which  we  do  not  find  in  their  pages; 
 consequently  the  facts  referred  to  by  Justin,  but  not 
 recorded  in  the  Gospels,  stand  to  those  which  are  recorded, 
 in  the  proportion  of  only  two  to  ninety-eight.  What 
 more  can  be  required  for  our  purpose  ?  What  more  im¬ 
 portant  historical  result  will  be  arrived  at,  by  engaging  m 
 
 *  Such  variations  as  the  assertion  that  our  Lord  was  born  m  a  cave 
 instead  of  in  a  stable,  and  the  addition  to  the  narrative  of  the  baptism 
 of  the  appearance  of  a  bright  light  shining  in  the  Jordan,  &c.,  are 
 really  so  inconsiderable  as  to  be  unworthy  of  serious  notice,  iwo 
 things  are  indisputable  :  first,  that  Justins  facts,  with  the  exception 
 of  a  few  trifling  variations  of  this  description,  are  our  facts  ;  an 
 secondly,  that  the  teaching  which  he  attributes  to  our  Lord,  although 
 varied  in  words,  is  for  all  practical  purposes  identical  with  that  m  the 
 Synoptic  Gospels.  The  references  to  the  Fourth  Gospel  are  more 
 remote  and  uncertain,  although  even  here  it  is  evident  that  he 
 accepted  many  of  its  fundamental  principles. 
 
 f  There  are  more  ways  than  one  in  which  these  references  may  be 
 counted.  According  to  some  methods  the  number  might  be  consider¬ 
 ably  augmented.  The  number  stated  in  the  text  may  be  taken  as  a 
 
 minimum. 
 
280 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 minute  discussions  as  to  whether  the  references  in  Justin 
 do  or  do  not  prove  that  the  documents  which  he  used,  were 
 our  four  Evangelists,  when  it  is  an  actual  certainty  that  if 
 not  the  same,  they  so  closely  resembled  them  as  to  vary  only 
 to  an  inappreciable  extent  ? 
 
 But  I  go  a  step  further,  and  affirm,  that  even  if  it  could 
 be  proved  that  Justin  made  use  of  several  documents 
 which  were  not  our  Gospels,  it  would  only  strengthen  our 
 position.  It  may  seem  almost  a  paradox,  but  I  would 
 say,  the  more  he  used  the  better.  Let  us  suppose 
 that  his  “  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,”  instead  of  being* 
 confined  to  our  four  Evangelists,  were  not  less  than  twelve 
 in  number,  what  would  follow  ?  The  more  numerous  the 
 documents  which  he  had  before  him,  the  more  certain  it 
 would  be  that  they  embodied  the  various  forms  of  the 
 traditions  current  in  the  Church  during  the  time  in  which 
 he  lived.  Our  knowledge  of  the  real  facts  of  history  is  far 
 more  certain  when  we  possess  several  authorities  than  when 
 we  are  obliged  to  trust  to  one  only.  Thus  the  large  number 
 of  the  narratives  of  the  murder  of  Thomas  a  Becket  puts  us 
 in  full  possession  of  what  were  the  actual  occurrences;  a 
 knowledge  which  we  should  fail  to  obtain  from  any  one 
 single  record.* 
 
 Let  us  suppose,  then,  that  Justin  had  a  large  number  of 
 documents  before  him,  and  that  his  citations  do  not  enable 
 us  positively  to  identify  any  one  of  them  with  either  of  our 
 
 #  Thus  for  our  knowledge  of  the  details  of  the  Persian  wars,  we 
 are  almost  exclusively  dependent  on  the  History  of  Herodotus,  our 
 other  informants  having  lived  at  times  comparatively  remote  from  the 
 events.  With  how  much  greater  certainty  should  we  now  be  able  to 
 reconstruct  the  history  of  these  wars,  and  to  solve  a  number  of 
 difficulties  in  his  narrative,  if  twelve  persons,  instead  of  a  single 
 individual,  had  gleaned  up  the  different  anecdotes  which  were  floating 
 about  in  traditionary  recollections  of  the  generation  which  im¬ 
 mediately  followed  them?  All  subsequent  history  bears  witness  to 
 the  inaccuracy  of  the  accounts  for  which  we  are  dependent  on  a 
 •jingle  narrator.  In  this,  above  all  other  branches  of  knowledge,  the 
 aid  proverb  is  true,  “  In  the  multitude  of  counsellors  there  is  safety 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 281 
 
 J 
 
 present  Gospels,  what  would  this  prove  ?  It  would  esta¬ 
 blish  on  incontestable  evidence  that  the  documents  which 
 he  used  must  have  agreed  in  ascribing  to  Jesus  similar 
 actions,  and  a  similar  teaching,  to  those  which  are  attributed 
 to  Him  by  the  Evangelists,  and  that  the  accounts  then 
 current  differed  from  them  in  the  proportion  of  two  to  ninety- 
 eight.  It  is  marvellous,  when  we  consider  the  nearness  of 
 tho  time  when  Justin  lived  to  Our  Lord’s  ministry,  that  he 
 should  have  preserved  so  few  incidents  respecting  it  which 
 vary  from  those  in  our  Gospels,  rather  than  that  those  te 
 which  he  has  referred  should  present  the  slight  variations 
 they  do;  for  it  is  an  interval  within  which  traditionary 
 reminiscences  must  have  possessed  all  their  freshness- 
 Nothing  can  give  us  a  stronger  sense  of  this  than  the  simple 
 reflection  that  the  period  of  his  distinct  historical  recollections 
 was  separated  from  the  close  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  by  the 
 same  interval  which  separates  us  from  the  death  of  tne 
 founder  of  IVesleyanism.  It  is  impossible  but  that  tradi¬ 
 tionary  reminiscences  must  then  have  been  numeious- 
 Papias  even  declares  his  preference  for  them  as  compared 
 with  written  accounts.  The  most  probable  solution  of  the 
 fact  that  Justin’s  references  to  anything  outside  our  Gospels, 
 are  so  few  is  that  he  must  have  assigned  to  them  a  para¬ 
 mount  authority ;  and  this  constitutes  one  of  the  strongest 
 proofs  that  he  actually  used  them. 
 
 The  remarks  which  are  true  of  Justin  are  equally  so  of 
 all  tho  earlier  extant  Christian  writings  which  are  not 
 included  in  the  Canon.  Let  it  be  granted,  for  the  sake  of 
 argument,  that  the  passages  in  them  which  bear  a  close 
 resemblance  to  corresponding  ones  in  our  Gospels  do  not 
 prove  that  their  authors  were  acquainted  with  them.  Still 
 they  prove  beyond  the  power  of  contradiction  not  only  that 
 either  the  written  documents,  or  the  traditions  of  Our  Lord’s 
 ministry  with  which  their  authors  were  acquainted,  contained 
 statements  of  a  character  precisely  similar  to  those  m  tne 
 Evangelists,  but  that  the  number  of  the  other  incidents 
 or  sayings,  not  included  in  them,  which  they  accepted  as 
 
282 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 genuine,  were  very  inconsiderable.  These  considerations 
 prove  that  the  traditions  embodied  in  our  Gospels  must 
 have  been  fully  accepted  in  the  Church  as  the  groundwork 
 of  its  faith,  either  in  a  written  or  an  oral  form  during  the 
 last  twenty  years  of  the  first  century ;  or  in  other  words, 
 that  they  were  separated  from  the  events  themselves  by  a 
 period  of  only  fifty  years.  With  such  evidence  in  our 
 hands  it  is  simply  useless  to  spend  our  time  in  endea¬ 
 vouring  to  determine  whether  the  references  in  question 
 prove  that  the  Fathers  were  acquainted  with  our  Gospels, 
 and  quoted  from  them.  To  represent  that  the  proof  of 
 this  is  vital  to  Christianity  is  not  only  needless  but  highly 
 dangerous. 
 
 The  point  at  issue  is  a  purely  historical  one.  It  is  simply 
 this  :  Are  the  accounts  of  the  actions  and  the  teaching  of 
 Jesus  Christ  as  we  read  them  in  our  Gospels  substantially 
 the  same  as  those  which  were  reported  by  His  primitive 
 followers  and  by  the  eye-witnesses  of  His  ministry  ?  If 
 so,  it  follows  that  the  subject  which  we  have  to  consider 
 is,  not  whether  the  Synoptic  Gospels  are  the  writings  of 
 Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  respectively,  concerning  whom 
 our  information  is  but  scanty  ;*  but  whether  their  contents 
 are  truthful  embodiments  of  the  traditions  of  the  ministry 
 
 *  If  we  could  prove  that  the  First  Gospel  was  written  by  St. 
 Matthew,  this  would  establish  the  fact  that  the  incidents  recorded 
 in  it  were  accepted  by  one  of  the  original  Apostles  ;  but  as  we  know 
 nothing  of  St.  Matthew  except  from  the  Gospel  itself,  it  would  afford 
 no  assistance  in  meeting  the  modern  objection,  that  the  belief  in  the 
 miracles  was  the  result  of  mistaken  judgment,  or  of  some  form  of 
 mental  hallucination,  although  it  would  be  fatal  to  the  belief  in  their 
 legendary  origin.  This  argument  will  be  still  more  applicable  to 
 Mark  and  Luke,  who  were  not  original  witnesses  of  the  events  which 
 they  narrate,  although  St.  Mark’s  Gospel  would  have  all  the  value  of 
 authentic  testimony,  if  it  could  be  proved  that  its  contents  repre¬ 
 sented  the  teaching  of  St.  Peter.  Yet  even  this  would  leave  the 
 question  as  to  the  competency  of  their  judgment,  or  whether  the 
 belief  in  the  miracles,  especially  that  of  the  Resurrection,  originated 
 in  mental  hallucination,  entirely  open. 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 283 
 
 of  Oar  Lord,  as  Landed  down  by  His  primitive  disciples. 
 On  this  the  controversy  really  turns.  Ho  these  Gospels 
 practically  embody  these  traditions,  or  are  they  made  up  of 
 a  number  of  later  mythic  and  legendary  additions,  which 
 
 have  obscured  the  real  history  ? 
 
 The  nature  of  the  case  renders  it  certain  that  during  the 
 
 early  years  of  the  existence  of  the  Church,  the  facts  of  Our 
 Lord’s  ministry  must  have  been  handed  down  by  His 
 followers  in  an  oral  form.  The  all-important  question  is, 
 not  whether  every  one  of  the  facts  recorded  in  the  Gospels 
 is  narrated  with  minute  accuracy  ;  but  whether  they  can  be 
 relied  on  for  the  practical  purposes  of  history,  as  an  embodi¬ 
 ment  of  these  traditions.  I  do  not  say,  that  if  we  could 
 establish  this,  it  would  prove  the  facts  to  have  been  actual 
 occurrences ;  for  it  would  be  still  open  to  the  supposition 
 that  His  followers  might  have  been  deceived  as  to  the 
 nature  of  the  events  which  they  supposed  themselves  to 
 have  witnessed.  But  it  would  prove  that  they  accepted 
 them  as  the  veritable  facts  on  the  belief  in  which  the  Church 
 was  founded,  and  the  question  whether  they  were  the  victims 
 of  delusion  must  be  settled  on  other  principles. 
 
 This  portion  of  the  Patristic  evidence,  which  is  of  a  very 
 simple  character,  and  is  one  which  the  most  ordinary  student 
 can  easily  verify  for  himself,  establishes  conclusively  the 
 
 following  points  : — 
 
 First,  that  the  traditions  of  the  Church  respecting  the 
 actions  and  teachings  of  Our  Lord,  whether  they  existed  in 
 a  written  or  an  oral  form,  were,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  first 
 century ,  substantially  the  same  as  those  which  we  read  in 
 the  Synoptics,  the  variations  being  so  inconsiderable,  that 
 for  historical  purposes  they  may  be  safely  disregaided. 
 
 Secondly :  if  there  was  a  different  class  of  traditions 
 floating  about  in  the  Church,  and  modelled  on  the  concep¬ 
 tions  involved  in  the  stories  contained  in  the  Apocryphal 
 Gospels,  that  the  writers  of  this  early  Christian  literature 
 did  not  attach  any  value  to  them ;  and  that  they  must  have 
 accepted  the  one  as  an  account  of  the  genuine  actions  and 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 281 
 
 teaching  of  their  Master,  and  rejected  the  other  as  a 
 fabulous  addition. 
 
 From  these  two  conclusions  it  follows  : — 
 
 First :  that  no  legendary  matter  worthy  of  the  notice  of 
 the  historian,  which  was  invented  as  late  as  the  last  ten 
 years  of  the  first  century,  has  been  incorporated  into  the 
 narratives  of  the  Synoptics. 
 
 Secondly  :  That  the  traditions  of  the  same  period 
 attributed  to  Jesus  a  number  of  miraculous  actions,  nearly 
 all  of  them  identical  with,  and  all  of  them  of  the  same 
 character  as  those  in  our  Gospels,  and  wholly  differing  in 
 type  and  conception  from  those  which  are  narrated  in  the 
 Apocryphal  ones. 
 
 Thirdly :  that  the  religious  and  moral  teaching,  which 
 these  traditions  attribute  to  Him,  whatever  slight  varia¬ 
 tions  it  may  have  contained,  is  for  all  practical  purposes  the 
 same  as  that  which  we  read  in  the  Synoptics. 
 
 Fourthly  :  that  if  the  narrative  of  the  Synoptics  consists 
 of  a  mass  of  legendary  matter,  these  legends  must  have 
 grown  up  between  a.d.  30  and  a.d.  90,  or  during  the  sixty 
 years  which  followed  the  conclusion  of  our  Lord's  ministry. 
 This  interval  I  shall  fully  cover  by  the  aid  of  the  Pauline 
 Epistles  in  my  next  Lecture. 
 
 The  importance  of  one  element  in  the  historical  inquiry 
 has  been  greatly  overlooked  both  by  the  opponents  and  the 
 defenders  of  Christianity;  I  mean  the  existence  of  the 
 Church  as  a  visible  society ;  and  the  guarantee  which  this 
 affords  of  the  accurate  transmission  of  the  facts  on  which  it 
 was  founded,  and  the  degree  in  which  it  renders  it  impossible 
 that  the  traditions  of  the  primitive  followers  of  Jesus 
 should  at  this  early  period  of  its  history  have  been  super¬ 
 seded  by  a  set  of  legendary  inventions,  which  obscured  the 
 true  facts  of  its  Founder's  life.  The  whole  question  has 
 been  discussed  as  though  it  were  a  purely  literary  one,  in 
 which  a  complicated  mass  of  testimony  consisting  of  a 
 number  of  minute  probabilities  has  to  be  carefully  estimated. 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 285 
 
 The  facts  of  Christianity  are  not  like  the  ordinary  facts  of 
 history.  They  differ  from  them  in  this,  that  not  only  do 
 they  form  the  foundation  on  which  the  Church  of  Jesus 
 Christ  has  been  erected,  but  that  a  constant  preservation  of 
 the  knowledge  of  them  is  a  necessary  condition  of  its  con¬ 
 tinued  existence — the}"  form  in  fact  the  sole  principle  of  its 
 cohesion  as  a  society,  and  the  mainspring  of  the  religious 
 life  of  its  individual  members.  In  this  respect  the  Church 
 -differs  from  every  human  institution  in  that  it  has  not  only 
 been  founded  by  Jesus  Christ,  but  has  been  built  on  Him, 
 He  being  at  the  same  time  both  its  foundation  and  chief 
 corner-stone.*  The  facts  of  its  founder's  life  first  brought 
 the  Society  into  being ;  an  acquaintance  with  them  was 
 essential  to  that  continuous  growth,  which  it  has  exhibited 
 from  the  first  dawn  of  its  existence  to  the  present  hour, 
 and  if  they  could  be  proved  to  be  fabulous  inventions,  its 
 destruction  would  be  inevitable. 
 
 Another  equally  powerful  reason  for  the  accurate  trans¬ 
 mission  of  the  traditions  constantly  in  operation,  was  the 
 
 *  The  relation  in  which  Jesus  Christ  stands  to  the  Church,  as 
 distinct  from  that  in  which  the  founders  of  human  institutions  stand 
 to  the  Societies  which  they  have  originated  is  best  expressed  in  the 
 words  of  the  great  Apostle,  “  That  we  may  grow  up  to  Him  who  is  the 
 head  of  all  things,  even  Christ.  From  whom  the  whole  body,  fitly 
 joined  together  and  compacted  by  that  which  every  joint  supplieth, 
 according  to  the  effectual  measure  of  every  part,  maketh  increase  ot 
 the  body,  to  the  edifying  of  itself  in  love.”  (Eph.  iv.  15,  16.)  “  He 
 
 is  the  Head  of  the  body,  the  Church.”  (Col.  i.  18.)  “  As  ye  therefore 
 have  received  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  so  walk  ye  in  Him,  rooted  and 
 built  up  in  Him,  and  stablished  in  the  faith.”  (Col.  ii.  6,  7.)  “  And 
 
 not  holding  the  Head,  from  which  all  the  body  by  joints  and  bands 
 having  nourishment  ministered,  increaseth  with  the  increase  of  God.” 
 <Col.  ii.  19.)  These  and  a  vast  number  of  other  passages  which  might 
 be  easily  quoted  from  the  Apostle  point  out  in  clear  and  unmistakable 
 language  the  difference  of  the  relation  in  which  the  Christian  Church 
 stands  to  its  Founder  from  that  in  which  the  founders  of  humaq 
 Societies  stand  to  theirs  ;  and  the  constant  necessity  which  it  was 
 under  of  keeping  the  great  facts  of  His  life  and  teaching  in  vivid 
 remembrance. 
 
286 
 
 THE  AEGUMENT  FEOM 
 
 necessity  for  making  converts.  Consisting  originally  of  a 
 few  hundred  members,  the  Church  has  grown  to  its  present 
 dimensions  by  inducing  others  to  join  its  ranks.  Unless 
 it  had  been  thus  enlarged,  the  century  which  gave  it  birth 
 must  have  witnessed  its  extinction.  What  was  the  only 
 mode  in  which  converts  could  be  made  ?  Only  one  answer 
 is  possible, — by  persuading  them  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ. 
 To  effect  this  two  things  were  necessary  :  First,  to  explain 
 to  the  proposed  convert  the  true  meaning  of  the  idea  of  the 
 Christ ;  and  secondly,  to  set  before  him  such  facts  in  the 
 history  of  Jesus  as  were  sufficient  to  prove  that  He  was  the 
 Christ.  This  involved  the  necessity  of  keeping  the  record 
 of  such  facts  in  constant  remembrance.  It  follows  therefore 
 that  as  the  Church  grew  with  great  rapidity  during  the 
 first  three  centuries  of  our  era,  its  members  must  have  been, 
 most  active  missionaries,  and  consequently  that  their  motive 
 for  keeping  in  vivid  recollection  the  chief  events  of  their 
 Master’s  life  must  have  been  of  the  strongest  character;  and 
 that  this  must  have  been  in  active  operation  during  the  entire 
 period  which  elapsed  between  the  conclusion  of  the  ministry 
 of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  period  when  I  have  proved  from 
 the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  that  the  Church  was  in  posses¬ 
 sion  of  an  account  of  His  actions  and  teaching,  similar  in 
 its  great  outlines  to  that  which  is  contained  in  the  Synoptic 
 Gospels. 
 
 These  considerations  therefore  make  it  certain,  that  the 
 knowledge  of  the  chief  events  of  Our  Lord’s  ministry  must 
 have  been  handed  down  in  the  living  recollections  of  the 
 individual  members  of  the  Church  in  a  stream  of  unbroken, 
 tradition;  and  it  is  immaterial  for  the  present  argument 
 whether  this  was  effected  by  the  aid  of  written  documents^ 
 by  oral  transmission,  or  by  a  union  of  both.*  The  import¬ 
 ance  of  this  fact,  of  which  so  little  account  is  made 
 
 *  I  use  the  word  “  tradition  ”  as  denoting  that  the  events  were  not 
 transmitted  merely  by  the  aid  of  written  documents  ;  but  that  they 
 must  have  formed  a  portion  of  the  living  consciousness  of  the  entire 
 Christian  community. 
 
THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS.  287 
 
 in  our  ordinary  evidential  treatises,  can  hardly  be  over¬ 
 estimated., 
 
 Assuming  these  positions  to  have  been  established,  the 
 following  conclusions  necessarily  result  from  them.  It 
 would  have  been  in  the  highest  degree  difficult,  not  to  say 
 impossible,  during  the  brief  interval  between  Our  Lord's 
 ministry  and  the  end  of  the  first  century,  to  have  imposed 
 on  any  community  of  Christians  a  mass  of  legendary  matter 
 of  a  character  wholly  different  from  those  facts  on  the 
 belief  in  which  the  Church  was  originally  founded,  and 
 which  formed  the  moving  spring  of  the  daily  life  of  its 
 individual  members,  and  which  many  of  them  had  accepted 
 as  the  ground  of  their  conversion.  It  is  absolutely  im¬ 
 possible  that  communities  like  the  Churches  of  the  first 
 century,  living  in  a  state  of  constant  antagonism  to  their 
 Jewish  and  pagan  neighbours,  and  having  to  justify  to 
 themselves  the  grounds  on  which  they  had  abandoned  their 
 former  beliefs,  could  have  become  oblivious  of  those  facts 
 which  had  induced  them  to  accept  Jesus  as  the  Messiah, 
 and  which  had  ever  since  formed  the  foundation  of  their 
 religious  life.  From  these  considerations  it  follows  that  the 
 Church  must  have  been  possessed  of  a  machinery  for  trans¬ 
 mitting  an  account  of  the  chief  events  of  its  Founder's  life, 
 which  was  incomparably  superior  to  that  of  every  other  form 
 of  traditionary  history. 
 
 This  difficulty,  in  itself  insuperable,  is  greatly  increased 
 by  the  number  of  the  Christian  communities,  and  the  wide 
 extent  of  territory  over  which  they  were  scattered.  Even 
 if  we  suppose  such  an  imposition  to  have  been  possible  in 
 the  members  of  a  particular  Church,  it  would  have  been 
 impossible  to  extend  it  to  any  considerable  number  of 
 them.  But  as  the  Patristic  testimony  is  fully  adequate  to 
 prove  that  a  body  of  facts  similar  to  those  recorded  in 
 the  Synoptic  Gospels  formed  the  foundation  of  the  life  of 
 the  entire  Church  at  the  conclusion  of  the  first  century,  it 
 follows  that  they  must  have  been  substantially  the  same  as 
 those  which  the  original  followers  of  Our  Lord  narrated  as 
 
288 
 
 THE  PATRISTIC  WRITINGS. 
 
 the  chief  events  of  His  ministry,  and  the  groundwork  of 
 the  Christianity  of  the  Churches  which  they  planted. 
 
 But  in  addition  to  these  considerations,  which  are  in 
 themselves  sufficiently  weighty,  the  whole  interval  of  time 
 lies  within  the  period  of  the  most  genuine  and  lively  his¬ 
 torical  recollection.  It  is  one  in  fact  which  is  completely 
 covered  by  the  lives  of  the  actual  witnesses  of  the  facts, 
 and  of  persons  who  heard  the  reports  of  them  from  those 
 witnesses.  These  various  reasonings  in  the  latter  portion  of 
 this  Lecture  fully  prove  that  the  Synoptic  Gospels  do  not 
 consist  of  a  mass  of  myths  and  legends  invented  between 
 the  years  a.d.  80  and  170.  The  still  more  important  evi¬ 
 dence  furnished  by  the  writings  of  St.  Paul,  I  shall  consider 
 in  the  following  Lecture.  In  the  meantime  I  will  only  press 
 on  your  attention  the  importance  of  the  Church  as  a  witness 
 to  the  facts  of  Christianity,  as  distinct  from  the  mere  literary 
 evidence  on  which  their  truth  has  been  almost  exclusively 
 rested,  in  the  words  of  St.  Paul,  “  The  Church  of  the  Living 
 God  is  the  pillar  and  ground  of  the  truth.” 
 
TN2  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 289 
 
 LECTURE  VI. 
 
 “  Moreover,  bretliren,  I  declare  unto  you  the  gospel  which  I  preached 
 unto  you,  which  also  ye  have  received,  and  wherein  ye  stand  ;  by 
 which  also  ye  are  saved,  if  ye  keep  in  memory  what  I  preached 
 unto  you,  unless  ye  have  believed  in  vain.  For  I  delivered  unto 
 you  first  of  all  that  which  I  also  received,  how  that  Christ  died 
 for  our  sins  according  to  the  Scriptures  ;  and  that  he  was  buried, 
 and  that  he  rose  again  the  third  day  according  to  the  Scriptures.” 
 1  Coe.  xv.  1 — 4. 
 
 In  my  last  Lecture  I  proved, 
 
 First :  that  the  writings  of  the  Fathers  who  flourished 
 during  the  first  sixty  years  of  the  second  century  afford 
 incontestable  evidence  that  prior  to  the  end  of  the  first 
 century  the  Church  was  in  possession  of  a  body  of  tradi¬ 
 tions  respecting  the  actions  and  teaching  of  its  Founder, 
 which  were  substantially  the  same  as  those  contained  in  the 
 Synoptic  Gospels.  From  this  it  followed  as  a  necessary 
 consequence,  that  no  legendary  narrative  invented  subse¬ 
 quently  to  a.d.  80,  can  have  been  incorporated  into  their 
 pages. 
 
 Secondly  :  that  in  the  remains  of  the  Patristic  literature, 
 the  references  to  anything  of  which  these  Gospels  do  not 
 contain  a  complete  analogue  are  extremely  few  :  and  that 
 only  four  or  five  of  the  incidents  referred  to  in  it  belong  to 
 a  type  of  actions  differing  from  those  which  the  Synoptics 
 have  attributed  to  Jesus.  From  this  it  followed,  that  not 
 only  must  the  traditionary  reminiscences  of  the  Church 
 within  fifty  years  of  its  Founder's  death  have  contained  the 
 chief  facts  and  sayings  attributed  to  Our  Lord  in  the  Synop¬ 
 tics,  but  the  whole  of  them  must  have  been  modelled  on 
 
290 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 the  same  type ;  and  further,  if  there  were  any  in  circulation 
 of  a  different  character,  such,  for  instance,  as  those  in  the 
 apocryphal  Gospels,  the  Church  must  have  rejected  them  as 
 spurious. 
 
 Thirdly  :  that  the  Christian  Church  was  not  only  in  a 
 more  favourable  position  for  handing  down  a  true  account  of 
 the  actions  and  sayings  of  its  Founder  than  any  other 
 Society  which  lias  ever  existed,  but  that  the  peculiarity  of 
 the  circumstances  in  which  it  was  placed  must  have  com* 
 pelled  it  to  do  so. 
 
 These  considerations  afford  a  probability,  amounting 
 almost  to  a  moral  certainty,  that  during  this  period  of  fifty 
 years  which  intervenes  between  the  termination  of  Our 
 Lord's  ministry  and  the  date  of  the  historic  testimony 
 which  we  have  adduced,  no  accumulation  of  legendary 
 matter  can  have  taken  the  place  of  that  genuine  account 
 which  each  Church  must  have  received  from  its  original 
 founders  as  the  ground  of  its  existence,  the  source  of  the 
 religious  life  of  its  individual  members,  and  the  bond  of  its 
 cohesion. 
 
 Further :  as  the  different  Christian  communities  were 
 scattered  over  a  wide  extent  of  territorial  space,  that  such  a 
 substitution,  even  if  it  could  have  occurred  in  the  case  of 
 some  one  of  the  Churches,  would  have  been  absolutely 
 impossible  among  any  considerable  number  of  them. 
 
 This  interval  is  so  brief  that  it  lies  far  within  those  limits 
 during  which  traditionary  reminiscences  are  trustworthy 
 informants  respecting  the  important  facts  of  history,  even 
 when  unsupported  by  written  documents.  Minor  details 
 may  undergo  modifications  according  to  the  prepossessions  of 
 those  who  repeat  them ;  but  this  does  not  affect  the  historical 
 truth  of  the  main  facts.  If  this  is  true  of  political  events, 
 in  which  the  interest  felt  by  individuals  is  comparatively 
 small,  how  much  more  must  it  have  been  the  case  with  those 
 actions  and  sayings  of  Jesus,  which  formed  the  ground  of 
 the  existence  of  the  different  Christian  communities,  and  of 
 their  daily  religious  life. 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 291 
 
 On  the  general  question  of  the  value  of  tradition  as  an 
 historical  informant,  and  the  limits  within  which  its  testi¬ 
 mony  is  to  be  relied  on,  I  need  not  enter  in  this  place.  The 
 whole  subject  has  been  so  fully  discussed  by  Sir  G.  C. 
 Lewis  in  his  work  on  The  Credibility  of  early  Roman 
 History,  as  to  render  any  observations  of  mine  un¬ 
 necessary. 
 
 Assuming  the  validity  of  his  principles,  it  would  follow, 
 that  even  if  the  Synoptic  Gospels  were  published  during  the 
 first  twenty  years  of  the  second  century,  they  would  still  lie 
 within  the  period  of  genuine  historical  tradition,  during 
 which,  though  variations  may  arise  on  subordinate  points, 
 the  recollection  of  important  events  still  remains  unimpaired. 
 But  in  the  present  case  we  have  only  to  cover  a  period  of 
 fifty,  or  at  most  sixty  years.  During  this  period  the  tradi¬ 
 tionary  reminiscences  of  the  Church  must  have  been  of  a 
 most  vivid  character.  If  we  assume  that  considerable 
 numbers  of  its  members  who  witnessed  the  events  of  Our 
 Lord's  ministry  were  not  older  than  himself,  and  that  many 
 .of  them  were  ten  years  younger,  according  to  the  average 
 duration  of  human  life,  not  a  few  of  them  must  have  sur¬ 
 vived  till  the  last  twenty  years  of  the  first  century;  and 
 several  of  them  even  longer.  This  being  so,  the  numbers 
 of  those  who  had  heard  details  of  those  facts  which  formed 
 the  ordinary  subjects  of  Christian  instruction,  from  those 
 who  had  been  eye-witnesses  of  them,  must  have  been  very 
 considerable  ;  and  many  of  them  must  have  been  surviving, 
 and  in  full  possession  of  their  faculties  during  the  first 
 twenty  years  of  the  second  century.  Consequently  during 
 this  period  of  time,  there  must  have  been  ample  means  of 
 obtaining  information  of  the  highest  order,  which  would 
 have  rendered  it  impossible,  while  these  persons  lived,  that 
 the  record  of  the  chief  incidents  of  Our  Lord's  ministry  could 
 have  been  buried  under  a  mass  of  legendary  inventions. 
 
 A  single  illustration  will  place  in  a  striking  light  the 
 value  of  the  historical  traditions  of  the  Church  during  this 
 interval  of  time. 
 
 19* 
 
292 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 The  last  ten  years  of  the  first  century  are  separated  from 
 the  termination  of  Our  Lord's  ministry  by  an  interval  some¬ 
 what  less  than  that  which  intervenes  between  the  present 
 year  and  the  date  of  the  Battle  of  Waterloo.  Several  of 
 those  who  were  present  in  it  are  still  living ;  and  many  of 
 those  who  hear  me  may  have  heard  details  of  it,  as  I  have 
 myself,  from  those  who  were  actually  engaged  in  it.  Precisely 
 similar  must  have  been  the  condition  of  the  Christian 
 Church  during  the  last  ten  years  of  the  first  century  as  to 
 the  chief  events  of  its  Founder's  life,  to  that  in  which  we 
 stand  in  respect  to  the  various  events  connected  with  the 
 return  of  Napoleon  from  Elba;  while  the  recollections  of 
 the  Church  must  have  been  far  more  vivid  in  proportion  to 
 the  profound  interest  which  was  felt  in  them  by  its  members. 
 While  historical  recollections  were  thus  fresh,  it  would  have 
 been  impossible  for  a  purely  legendary  Jesus  to  have  taken 
 the  place  of  the  actual  one,  and  obliterated  the  knowledge 
 of  the  real  events  of  His  life.* 
 
 *  To  take  another  illustration.  A  period  of  eighty-four  years 
 separates  us  from  the  execution  of  Louis  XVI.  This  is  only  slightly 
 less  than  that  which  must  have  separated  the  period  of  Justin’s 
 historical  recollection  from  that  of  the  crucifixion  of  J esus.  Most  of 
 us  who  have  attained  the  age  of  sixty,  have  conversed  with  persons 
 who  took  the  deepest  interest  in  that  event,  and  who  had  a  lively 
 recollection  of  it.  In  France  large  numbers  of  persons  must  be  still 
 living  who  have  heard  details  of  it  from  those  who  actually  witnessed 
 some  of  the  events  connected  with  it.  While  they  survive,  supposing 
 that  no  account  of  it  had  been  committed  to  writing,  it  would  be 
 impossible  that  its  chief  occurrences,  which  were  enacted  before  the 
 public  eye,  could  be  superseded  by  a  set  of  fictions.  The  events  which 
 took  place  near  the  scaffold  were  witnessed  only  by  few ;  and  here, 
 as  we  may  expect,  the  accounts  vary  considerably  according  to  the 
 minor  details,  but  these  variations  are  almost  exclusively  due  to  the 
 prejudices  of  the  narrators.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  if  we  were 
 destitute  of  a  single  written  or  printed  document,  it  would  be  quite 
 possible  to  construct  an  accurate  account  of  the  chief  facts,  by  the 
 aid  of  the  reminiscences  of  those  who  have  heard  them  described 
 by  persons  who  were  actually  present.  I  have  selected  this  event 
 because  its  interest  was  so  great  that  it  would  be  certain  to  have 
 impressed  itself  deeply  on  the  memory  of  those  who  witnessed  it. 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 293 
 
 These  considerations  seem  decisive:  but  we  have  evidence 
 of  a  far  higher  order,  which  I  will  now  proceed  to  adduce, 
 namely,  the  testimony  of  the  Pauline  epistles.  These  will 
 enable  me  to  cover  the  entire  period  in  question ;  and  to 
 prove  not  only  that  the  Church  accepted  the  gi  eat  facts  of 
 Christianity,  as  they  are  recorded  in  the  Gospels,  at  the 
 time  when  St.  Paul  wrote  these  letters  \  but  that  its  belief 
 was  coeval  with  its  reconstruction  immediately  after  the 
 crucifixion  of  its  Founder.  In  addition  to  this  they  establish 
 the  all-important  fact,  that  the  Church  was  reconstructed  on 
 the  basis  of  the  belief  in  His  Resurrection  within  a  few  days 
 after  His  crucifixion. 
 
 The  inconsiderable  use  which  evidential  writers  have 
 hitherto  made  of  these  epistles  may  well  excite  our  surprise. 
 They  have  looked  upon  them  as  a  portion  of  the  position 
 to  be  defended,  rather  than  as  one  of  the  most  important 
 elements  in  the  historical  proof.  This  has  resulted  partly 
 from  their  having  been  viewed  as  the  chief  source  of  our 
 doctrinal  theology,  and  partly  from  the  supposed  necessity 
 of  proving  the  canonical  authority  of  the  various  books  of 
 the  New  Testament,  as  an  essential  portion  of  the  defence 
 of  Christianity.  However  it  may  have  happened,  it  is 
 certain  that  their  value  as  historical  documents  has  been 
 greatly  overlooked ;  and  in  consequence  of  this  it  has  been 
 found  necessary  to  adopt  long  and  circuitous  methods  of 
 proof  to  establish  facts  of  which  they  afford  the  stiongest 
 confirmation.  Before  however  I  adduce  the  facts  which 
 
 / 
 
 and  thereby  insured  its  accurate  transmission.  Deeply  interesting, 
 however,  as  it  was  to  Frenchmen,  the  events  of  Our  Lord’s  ministry 
 must  have  had  a  far  more  profound  interest  for  the  members  of  the 
 Christian  Church,  and  both  the  necessity  and  the  means  of  trans¬ 
 mitting  an  accurate  report  must  have  been  far  greater.  It  follows, 
 therefore,  that  falsification  of  its  chief  events  within  this  brief  interval 
 of  time  would  have  been  impossible,  even  if  we  suppose  that  the 
 recollections  of  individuals  were  not  aided  by  written  memoranda  a 
 supposition  which  is  not  only  in  itself  in  the  highest  degree  improbable, 
 but  in  the  case  of  Justin,  and  the  author  of  St.  Luke’s  Gospel, 
 negatived  by  their  express  testimony. 
 
294 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 they  enable  us  to  prove,  I  must  draw  your  attention  to 
 their  high  value  as  historical  documents  in  connection  with 
 the  present  controversy. 
 
 I.  Nearly  all  the  educated  unbelievers  of  Europe  who 
 have  studied  this  question  fully  admit  the  genuineness  and 
 authenticity  of  the  four  most  important  of  these  epistles, 
 viz.,  the  two  to  the  Corinthians,  that  to  the  Romans  and 
 the  Galatians,  even  while  they  deny  that  of  nearly  every 
 other  writing  in  the  New  Testament.  The  evidence  is  of 
 two  kinds,  viz.,  external  attestation,  and  internal  testimony. 
 Both  of  these  are  of  the  strongest  character ;  but  the  latter 
 is  such  as  to  put  the  suspicion  of  forgery  out  of  the  ques¬ 
 tion.  In  these  four  writings  therefore  we  are  not  only  in 
 possession  of  compositions  of  the  most  active  missionary  of 
 primitive  Christianity,  but  of  documents  which  were  cer¬ 
 tainly  written  within  twenty-eight  years  of  the  Crucifixion. 
 Consequently  they  have  all  the  value  of  contemporaneous 
 testimony. 
 
 To  these  must  be  added  four  other  letters,  which  profess 
 to  have  been  written  by  the  same  Apostle,  and  which  must 
 be  either  his,  or  the  work  of  a  deliberate  forger,  viz.,  the 
 two  to  the  Thessalonians,  and  that  to  the  Philippians,  and 
 to  Philemon.  Some  sceptical  writers,  it  is  true,  have 
 endeavoured  to  throw  doubts  on  the  genuineness  of  these 
 letters,  but  the  greater  part  accept  them.  In  fact,  the 
 evidence  in  their  favour  is  of  the  strongest  kind ;  and  the 
 objections  against  them  are  of  a  very  trifling  character, 
 arising  chiefly  from  the  presence  of  expressions  and  forms 
 of  thought  in  them,  which  are  alleged  to  be  un-Pauline. 
 Such  evidence  is  at  best  very  inconclusive ;  but  when  it  is 
 weighed  against  the  overwhelming  proof  which  such  writings 
 as  the  epistles  to  the  Philippians  and  Philemon  afford  of  the 
 presence  of  the  Pauline  mind,  it  is  worthless.  We  can 
 estimate  it  for  ourselves  if  we  read  these  two  epistles  and 
 the  two  to  the  Corinthians  consecutively.  It  seems  to  me 
 almost  inconceivable  that  any  one  not  utterly  destitute  of 
 the  power  of  appreciation  of  character  can  do  so,  and  doubt 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 295 
 
 whether  the  same  individuality  is  stamped  on  their  respec¬ 
 tive  pages.  Such  an  identity  of  thought  and  feeling  utterly 
 outweighs  those  minute  variations  which  critics  who  possess 
 microscopic  eyes  think  they  can  detect  in  them  when  com¬ 
 pared  with  those  which  they  allow  to  be  the  genuine  writings 
 of  the  Apostle.  The  same  remarks  are  equally  applicable  to 
 
 the  two  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians. 
 
 We  are  therefore  in  possession  altogether  of  eight  letters 
 written  by  the  greatest  missionary  of  the  Apostolic  Church, 
 the  genuineness  of  which  is  beyond  all  reasonable  question, 
 two  of  which  date  within  the  short  interval  of  twenty-five 
 years  after  the  termination  of  Our  Lord's  ministry.  I 
 claim  the  whole  of  these  as  historical  documents  of  the 
 highest  order;  but  if  any  one  is  contentious,  the  first  four, 
 the  genuineness  of  which  is  universally  admitted,  will 
 furnish  us  with  all  the  evidence  that  we  require. 
 
 Against  two  more  letters  which  have  been  ascribed  to  the 
 Apostle,  viz.,  those  to  the  Ephesians  and  to  the  Colossians, 
 
 I  admit  that  more  plausible  objections  have  been  urged, 
 but  they  are  founded  on  the  erroneous  supposition  that 
 St.  Paul's  doctrinal  views  must  have  been  stereotyped,  and 
 incapable  of  progress.  To  the  Pastoral  epistles,,  as  of 
 more  doubtful  authority,  I  shall  not  refer  as  unquestionably 
 
 One  more  writing  in  the  New  Testament  has  a  definite 
 '  historical  value  in  this  controversy,  viz.  the  Apocalypse, 
 because  unbelievers  are  nearly  unanimous  in  conceding  its 
 genuineness ;  and  according  to  their  views,  it  is  the  only 
 book  in  the  New  Testament  which  was  composed  by  one  of 
 the  original  apostles  of  Jesus.* 
 
 *  If  the  views  of  the  unbelieving  critics  respecting  this  book  are 
 correct,  its  date  cannot  be  fixed  later  than  the  year  following  the 
 death  of  Nero,  or  about  seven  years  later  than  the  last  written  o 
 St  Paul’s  Epistles,  unless  we  accept  the  second  to  Timothy  as  a 
 genuine  production  of  the  Apostle.  Critics  of  this  school  consider 
 that  the  book  contains  unmistakable  allusions  to  events  in  the  civil 
 wars  between  Otho,  Yitellius,  and  Vespasian,  and  to  the  idea  that 
 
296 
 
 THE  AEGUMENT  FEOM 
 
 With  respect  to  the  other  writings  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
 ment,  although  their  genuineness  is  denied  by  the  majority  of 
 
 Nero  had  not  really  perished,  hut  had  retired  somewhere  into  the  East, 
 and  to  his  expected  return  in  the  character  of  Antichrist.  If  their 
 data  are  correct,  the  year  when  it  was  composed  would  be  unques¬ 
 tionably  fixed,  and  its  high  antiquity  established.  The  readiness  with 
 which  they  have  accepted  the  external  testimony  (which  is  certainly 
 strong,  although  not  stronger  than  that  which  can  be  adduced  for  other 
 books  which  they  summarily  reject),  that  it  is  the  work  of  the  Apostle 
 John,  arises  from  its  alleged  Judaizing  tendencies,  and  the  supposed 
 opposition  of  the  writer  to  Paul,  whom  they  consider  to  be  denounced 
 under  the  character  of  Balaam.  The  whole  forms  a  singular  illustra¬ 
 tion  of  the  kind  of  reasoning  which  will  satisfy  some  minds  of  the 
 truth  of  theories  which  favour  their  own  prepossessions.  It  may  be 
 briefly  stated  thus  :  We  know  from  the  Epistle  to  the  G-alatians  that 
 John  was  one  of  the  pillars  of  the  Church  of  Jerusalem.  He  must 
 therefore  have  been  one  of  the  chief  leaders  of  the  extreme  Judaizing 
 party  in  that  Church.  This  party  was  violently  opposed  to  Paul,  there¬ 
 fore  John  must  have  been  his  strong  opponent.  Moreover,  the  whole 
 imagery  of  the  Apocalypse  is  essentially  Jewish,  therefore  its  author 
 must  have  been  an  extreme  Judaizer.  In  it  he  uses  very  strong 
 language  denunciatory  of  some  leader  of  the  anti-Judaizing  party  in 
 the  Church,  under  the  name  of  Balaam.  Now  Paul,  as  we  learn  from 
 his  Epistles,  was  the  great  opponent  of  J udaism  in  the  Church.  There¬ 
 fore  Balaam  is  Paul.  On  these  grounds,  therefore,  we  accept  the 
 traditions  which  affirm  that  the  John  who  describes  himself  as  the 
 author  of  this  book  was  John,  not  the  presbyter,  but  the  Apostle.  It 
 will  be  readily  seen  that  this  course  of  reasoning  involves  throughout 
 a  petitio  principii ,  and  has  been  adopted  as  favouring  a  foregone 
 conclusion.  Other  internal  evidence  that  the  book  is  the  work  of  John 
 the  Apostle  there  is  none  (for  the  Gospel  and  the  first  Epistle,  which 
 contain  a  Christology  greatly  resembling  that  of  the  Apocalypse,  are 
 denied  to  be  his),  except  perhaps  the  roughness  of  the  Greek  in  which 
 it  is  composed,  which  agrees  well  with  the  idea  that  it  is  the  work 
 of  a  man  who  had  learned  the  language  late  in  life.  On  such 
 grounds,  however,  it  is  simply  absurd  to  accept  the  genuineness  of 
 the  traditions  which  assign  the  Apocalypse  to  the  Apostle  John, 
 and  at  the  same  time  to  reject  those  which  ascribe  the  first  Epistle 
 of  Peter  to  the  Apostle  of  that  name,  while  the  latter  has  the 
 advantage  over  the  former  in  possessing  very  strong  indications 
 of  the  presence  of  the  Peter  of  the  Gospels,  in  the  various  traits 
 of  the  individuality  of  the  writer,  which  are  scattered  up  and  down 
 its  pages. 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 297 
 
 unbelieving  critics,  yet  tlieir  value  in  an  historical  point  of 
 view  is  considerable.  Their  antiquity  is  undisputed;  and 
 although  they  cannot  be  referred  to  with  certainty  as  the 
 works  of  the  persons  whose  names  they  bear,  yet  they 
 afford  unquestionable  evidence  respecting  the  opinions  of 
 those  sections  of  the  Church,  in  furtherance  of  whose  views 
 they  are  alleged  to  have  been  composed.  Thus  the  Epistle 
 of  James  must  be  considered  to  be  an  unquestionable  repre¬ 
 sentation  of  the  opinions  which  were  entertained  by  Jewish 
 Christianity ;  and  the  first  of  Peter,  of  the  Christianity  of 
 compromise.  It  follows  therefore  that  even  if  we  provision¬ 
 ally  admit  that  they  are  not  the  work  of  these  two  Apostles, 
 they  form  documents  of  great  historical  value  respecting  the 
 facts  of  primitive  Christianity ;  and  whenever  they  support 
 the  Pauline  letters,  they  furnish  a  most  important  corrobo¬ 
 ration  of  their  testimony,  proving  that  St.  PauTs  statements 
 were  accepted,  not  merely  by  his  own  followers  and  disciples, 
 but  also  by  every  section  of  the  Church. 
 
 Such  are  our  historical  documents,  which  will  completely 
 cover  the  period  in  question  by  the  highest  form  of  contem¬ 
 poraneous  testimony. 
 
 II.  The  next  important  consideration  is  their  date. 
 
 The  two  latest  of  these  eight  letters  cannot  have  been 
 composed  after  a.d.  62,  nor  the  next  four  later  than  a.d.  58, 
 nor  the  remaining  two  later  than  a.d.  55.*  Consequently, 
 
 4 
 
 *  A  few  illustrations  will  place  before  us  in  a  striking  light  the 
 claim  of  these  Epistles  to  rank  as  contemporaneous  documents.  Thus 
 the  Epistles  to  the  Thessalonians  are  only  separated  from  the  termi¬ 
 nation  of  Our  Lord’s  ministry  by  the  same  interval  of  time  as  that 
 which  separates  us  from  the  proclamation  of  Napoleon  III.  as 
 Emperor  of  the  French ;  the  four  great  Epistles,  by  one  year  less 
 than  that  which  intervenes  between  the  present  year  and  the  de¬ 
 thronement  of  Louis  Philippe ;  and  the  latest  Epistles,  by  that  which 
 lies  between  us  and  the  repeal  of  the  Corn  Laws.  These  events  lie 
 within  our  most  lively  historical  recollections.  Equally  vivid  must 
 have  been  the  recollections  of  a  great  number  of  Christians  of  the 
 chief  events  of  Our  Lord’s  ministry,  when  the  Apostle  wrote  these 
 letters. 
 
298 
 
 THE  AEGUMENT  EE03I 
 
 as  far  as  they  afford  testimony  to  the  facts  of  primitive 
 Christianity,  they  enable  us  to  bridge  over  thirty-five  of  the 
 sixty  years  which  separate  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers 
 from  the  date  of  our  Lord’s  ministry.  As  far  therefore  as 
 we  can  prove  by  these  epistles  that  the  same  facts  were 
 accepted  by  the  Church  when  the  Apostle  wrote  them  as 
 those  which  are  referred  to  by  the  Fathers,  this  forms  a 
 proof  which  is  absolutely  conclusive,  that  the  latter  could 
 not  have  owed  their  origin  to  the  activity  of  a  legendary 
 spirit  daring  the  thirty-five  years  which  followed  the  com¬ 
 position  of  these  letters  j  and  that  the  same  remark  is 
 equally  true  with  respect  to  the  fundamental  facts  recorded 
 in  the  Gospels.  I  shall  also  prove  that  these  letters  contain 
 ample  materials  to  enable  us  to  carry  up  our  historical  evi¬ 
 dence  to  the  very  date  of  the  reconstruction  of  the  Church 
 immediately  after  the  Crucifixion. 
 
 III.  These  epistles  form  historical  documents  of  the 
 highest  order. 
 
 On  the  general  value  of  original  letters,  as  far  as  they 
 contain  allusions  to  contemporary  events,  I  need  not 
 enlarge  in  this  place.  Our  historical  studies  prove  that  no 
 materials  for  the  composition  of  history  are  of  greater 
 value.  They  constitute  far  more  reliable  informants  as  to 
 actual  occurrences  than  formal  documents.  This  is  more 
 especially  the  case  when  the  allusions  are  incidental.*  The 
 writer  in  such  cases  is  almost  invariably  off  his  guard ;  and 
 
 *  In  all  incidental  references  to  facts,  the  writer  always  assumes 
 that  those  whom  he  is  addressing  have  an  accurate  acquaintance  with 
 the  events  to  which  he  refers,  and  that  both  he  and  they  agree  in 
 accepting  the  general  truthfulness  of  the  accounts-  Thus  in  com¬ 
 menting  on  any  well-known  events  at  the  present  day,  we  never  think 
 it  necessary  to  give  a  formal  account  of  the  occurrences  to  which  we 
 refer,  but  take  it  for  granted  that  the  most  incidental  allusion  is  quite 
 sufficient  to  recall  them  to  the  mind  of  the  reader.  This  is  precisely 
 the  case  with  the  lauline  Epistles.  The  allusions  are  of  a  very  inci¬ 
 dental  character,  and  therefore  prove  that  the  writer  was  fully  per¬ 
 suaded,  not  only  that  his  correspondents  were  thoroughly  acquainted 
 with  the  facts,  but  that  they  also  accepted  them  as  true. 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 299 
 
 we  are  certain  to  get  at  tlie  real  facts,  winch  in  formal 
 histories  too  frequently  receive  a  colouring  in  conformity 
 with  the  prejudices  of  the  historian.  In  the  letters  which 
 we  are  now  considering,  we  have  this  additional  advantage, 
 that  the  indirect  references  greatly  exceed  the  direct  ones 
 in  number.  Further,  while  letters  addressed  to  opponents 
 are  carefully  guarded  in  their  statements,  in  those  written 
 to  friends,  the  writer  more  commonly  reveals  to  us  the 
 innermost  springs  of  action,  as  far  as  he  is  acquainted 
 with  them.  Both  these  advantages  we  possess  in  the 
 Pauline  letters,  for  not  only  had  the  Apostle  a  body  of 
 warm  friends  in  these  Churches,  to  whom  he  poured  out 
 his  whole  soul,  but  also  a  party  of  most  determined 
 opponents.  The  history  of  Borne  affords  a  striking  illus¬ 
 tration  of  the  value  of  such  compositions  in  the  letters 
 of  Cicero,  which  frequently  enable  us  to  discover  the 
 secret  springs  of  events  to  which  they  allude  incidentally, 
 and  the  true  character  of  the  agents.  Compared  with 
 these,  the  statements  in  his  orations  are  untrustworthy. 
 The  importance  of  letters  composed  by  active  participators 
 in  the  events  to  which  they  refer,  is  now  fully  admitted. 
 By  their  aid  the  disguise  has  been  stripped  from  many 
 a  man  who  has  been  surrounded  by  a  fictitious  halo ;  and 
 an  accuracy  has  been  imparted  to  the  writings  of  modern 
 historians  of  which  those  of  their  predecessors  were 
 destitute. 
 
 IY.  The  letters  of  St.  Paul  possess  an  especial  value, 
 in  that  they  present  us  with  a  vivid  picture  of  the  entire 
 man;  and  thereby  enable  us  to  judge  of  the  worth  of  his 
 assertions. 
 
 They  place  the  sincerity  of  the  writer  beyond  the  power 
 of  question.  The  indications  of  this  are  stamped  on  every 
 page.  They  vividly  depict  him  in  all  the  multiform  aspects 
 of  his  character.  We  have  him  before  us  in  every  alterna¬ 
 tion  of  feeling,  in  his  disappointments,  and  in  his  hopes ; 
 when  expostulating  with  opponents,  and  when  pouring  out 
 his  whole  soul  to  friends.  Probably  no  four  letters  exist 
 in  literature,  which  afford  us  so  intimate  a  view  of  the 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 300 
 
 character  of  the  writer  as  the  four  great  epistles  of  this 
 Apostle.  By  their  aid  we  can  reconstruct  the  entire  man  ; 
 and  thereby  form  as  vivid  a  conception  of  him  as  most 
 readers  are  able  to  form  of  Dr.  Johnson  by  perusing  his 
 life  by  Boswell.  Not  only  do  they  afford  incontestable 
 proof  of  the  perfect  sincerity  of  the  writer,  but  they  let 
 us  into  the  innermost  secrets  of  his  heart.  All  these 
 traits  impart  to  his  testimony  the  highest  value  as  historical 
 evidence,  affording  as  strong  a  guarantee  of  its  truth  as 
 if  we  were  able  to  place  him  in  the  witness-box,  and  subject 
 liim  to  a  rigid  cross-examination. 
 
 Y.  No  less  decisive  is  the  testimony  which  they  bear  to 
 the  calmness  of  his  judgment.  This  is  the  more  important, 
 since  it  has  often  been  affirmed  that  his  enthusiastic  tem¬ 
 perament  rendered  his  judgment  untrustworthy,  especially 
 in  all  matters  connected  with  the  supernatural.  While 
 nothing  is  more  rare  in  such  cases  than  the  union  of  a 
 highly  enthusiastic  temperament  with  soundness  of  judg¬ 
 ment  in  the  same  individual,  the  presence  of  both  these 
 qualities  is  deeply  impressed  on  the  pages  of  these  epistles. 
 That  the  Apostle  was  enthusiastic  none  will  dispute;  but 
 his  enthusiasm  was  under  the  control  of  one  of  the  calmest 
 judgments.  From  the  numerous  instances  with  which  these 
 •epistles  abound,  I  shall  content  myself  with  two,  which  have 
 a  direct  bearing  on  the  value  of  his  judgment  in  relation  to 
 the  supernatural.  These  are  : 
 
 1.  The  mode  in  which  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the 
 Corinthians  he  discusses  the  supernatural  gifts  of  the 
 Spirit,  and  the  rules  which  he  lays  down  for  the  sup¬ 
 pression  of  the  abuse  of  them  in  this  Church.  This  is 
 precisely  a  case  where  we  might  expect  that  enthusiasm 
 would  run  riot ;  yet  mark  the  sound  sense  in  the  directions 
 Which  he  gives  for  their  regulation.  The  whole  account 
 in  the  12th,  13th,  and  14th  chapters  requires  to  be  care¬ 
 fully  perused  in  order  to  its  due  appreciation.  I  question 
 whether  another  person  can  be  found  in  history  believing 
 himself  and  those  to  whom  he  wrote  to  be  the  subjects 
 of  influences  which  both  he  and  they  were  firmly  persuaded 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 301 
 
 to  be  divine,  wbo  would  have  written  such  directions,  and 
 discussed  the  subject  in  the  manner  in  which  it  is  here 
 done  by  the  Apostle.  Even  those  who  affirm  that  the 
 belief  in  the  reality  of  these  gifts  was  the  result  of  the 
 delusions  of  enthusiasm,  cannot  help  arriving  at  the  con¬ 
 clusion  that  it  must  have  been  an  enthusiasm  compatible 
 with  the  soundest  common  sense.* 
 
 2.  The  directions  which  he  gives  in  this  epistle,  and  in 
 that  to  the  Romans,  as  to  the  forbearance  to  be  exhibited 
 
 *  I  quote  a  few  brief  illustrations.  In  1  Cor.  xii.  3-7,  the  Apostle 
 distinctly  ascribes  all  these  gifts  to  the  operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit,, 
 and  at  verse  11  he  makes  the  following  definite  affirmation  “  But  all 
 these  worketh  that  one  and  self-same  Spirit,  dividing  to  every  mart 
 severally  as  he  will.”  Among  these  gifts  were  those  of  prophecy, 
 tongues,  and  interpretation,  which  on  each  mention  of  them  he 
 describes  as  being  the  direct  result  of  the  operation  of  the  Spirit. 
 The  fourteenth  chapter  informs  us  that  these  gifts  were  abused  by 
 those  who  possessed  them  in  the  Corinthian  Church ;  and  the  Apostle 
 gives  some  stringent  directions  for  the  suppression  of  the  evil.  Thus 
 with  respect  to  the  prophets  he  writes,  “  Let  the  prophets  speak  two 
 or  three,  and  let  the  other  judge.  If  anything  be  revealed  to  another 
 that  sitteth  by,  let  the  first  hold  his  peace  ;  for  ye  may  all  prophesy 
 one  by  one,  that  all  may  learn,  and  all  may  be  comforted.  And  the 
 spirits  of  the  prophets  are  subject  to  the  prophets.”  So  again  with 
 respect  to  the  gift  of  tongues,  the  abuse  of  which  the  Apostle 
 describes  as  producing  disorder  in  the  Church,  although  he  distinctly 
 affirms  that  it  was  a  gift  due  to  the  operation  of  the  Divine  Spirit. 
 After  having  described  this  disorder,  he  gives  the  following  rule  for 
 its  suppression.  “  If  any  man  speak  in  an  unknown  tongue,  let  it  be 
 by  two,  or  at  most  by  three,  and  that  by  course;  and  let  one  interpret. 
 But  if  there  be  no  interpreter,  let  him  keep  silence  in  the  church  ;  and 
 and  let  him  speak  to  himself  and  to  God.”  Rules  of  this  kind  con¬ 
 tribute  the  strongest  proof  that  he  who  gave  them  was  no  mere 
 enthusiast,  but  must,  on  the  contrary,  have  possessed  strong  common 
 sense  and  a  calm  judgment.  No  enthusiast  would  have  thought  of 
 imposing  restrictions  on  the  exercise  of  gifts  which  he  believed  to  bo 
 the  result  of  inspiration.  In  fact,  we  find  it  very  difficult  to  conceive 
 how  such  abuses  were  possible  under  the  circumstances.  Such  facts, 
 however,  are  highly  important  as  bringing  us  into  the  direct  presence 
 of  a  state  of  things  which  was  exactly  fitted  to  excite  enthusiasm  to 
 the  utmost  height,  and  consequently  to  overpower  the  judgment. 
 
302 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 towards  the  conscientious  scruples  of  weaker  brethren. 
 St.  Paul  claimed  both  divine  illumination  and  apostolical 
 authority  to  decide  the  questions  which  troubled  the  con¬ 
 sciences  of  the  different  members  of  these  Churches  as 
 to  the  lawfulness  of  eating  certain  kinds  of  food,  and  the 
 duty  of  observing  certain  days.  He  gives  his  apostolical 
 decision  that  the  points  at  issue  are  utterly  indifferent 
 under  the  Christian  dispensation ;  yet  with  a  singular 
 comprehensiveness  he  directs  that  the  scruples  of  those 
 who  were  unable  to  accept  his  judgment  on  these  matters 
 were  to  be  respected.  Such  a  spirit  of  toleration  is 
 without  example  among  pretenders  to  a  divine  commission, 
 whether  they  have  been  enthusiasts  or  impostors ;  and 
 vastly  exceeds  that  which  the  Church  has  since  been  able 
 to  realize  in  its  practice.* 
 
 VI.  The  presence  in  these  epistles  of  a  large  number 
 of  incidental  allusions  united  with  the  existence  in  these 
 Churches  of  a  violent  party  spirit,  imparts  to  them  a  value 
 as  materials  for  history,  which  is  possessed  by  no  other 
 similar  documents. 
 
 As  I  have  observed,  the  incidental  allusions  to  facts 
 connected  with  Our  Lord  greatly  exceed  in  number  those 
 which  are  direct.  Their  incidental  form  possesses  this 
 peculiar  advantage.  They  prove  not  only  that  the  writer 
 was  firmly  persuaded  of  the  truth  of  the  facts  to  which  he 
 
 *  The  following  passages  will  serve  as  illustrations.  The  same  man. 
 who  wrote,  “  But  meat  commendeth  us  not  to  God ;  for  neither  if  we 
 eat  are  we  the  better,  neither  if  we  eat  not  are  we  the  worse  ” — 
 
 “  Whatever  is  sold  in  the  shambles,  that  eat,  asking  no  question  for 
 conscience  sake,  for  the  earth  is  the  Lord’s,  and  the  fulness  thereof” — 
 wrote  also,  “  Wherefore  if  meat  make  my  brother  to  offend,  I  will  eat 
 no  flesh  while  the  world  standeth,  lest  I  make  my  brother  to  offend.” 
 “I  know  and  am  persuaded  by  the  Lord  Jesus  that  there  is  nothing 
 unclean  of  itself ;  but  to  him  that  esteemeth  any  thing  to  be  unclean, 
 to  him  it  is  unclean.  But  if  thy  brother  be  grieved  with  thy  meat, 
 now  walkest  thou  not  charitably ;  destroy  not  him  with  thy  meat  for 
 whom  Christ  died.”  Compare  with  such  precepts  the  conduct  of 
 Mahomet. 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 303 
 
 refers,  but  also  tbat  those  to  whom  he  wrote  entertained  a 
 similar  persuasion.  A  careful  perusal  of  the  epistles  cannot 
 fail  to  convince  the  reader  that  there  were  a  large  number 
 of  underlying  facts,  which  the  writer,  and  those  to  whom  he 
 wrote,  accepted  in  common  as  veritable  realities.  Allusions 
 of  this  kind  occurring  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  possess 
 the  highest  historical  value,  because  this  Church  derived  its 
 Christianity  from  sources  which  were  independent  of  St- 
 Paul;  nor  had  he  ever  visited  it.  Yet  he  presupposes  that 
 its  members  accepted  as  the  groundwork  of  their  common 
 Christianity  the  same  substratum  of  facts  as  those  which  had 
 been  planted  by  himself. 
 
 But  further:  These  epistles  make  it  clear  that  in  these 
 Churches  the  Apostle  had  not  only  a  number  of  devoted 
 friends,  but  also  a  body  of  determined  opponents.  Not 
 only  were  the  Corinthian  and  Galatian  Churches  divided 
 into  strongly  opposed  parties,  but  one  of  them  went  the 
 length  of  denying  the  validity  of  St.  PauTs  apostolical 
 ■commission.*  So  formidable  was  this  party  in  the  Galatian 
 
 #  Not  only  is  the  existence  of  a  violent  Judaizing  party  within  the 
 ■Church  apparent  on  the  face  of  the  letters,  but  that  they  went  the 
 length  of  disparaging  St.  Paul  in  comparison  with  the  original  twelve, 
 and  of  even  denouncing  him  as  a  false  apostle.  This  fact,  which  is  of 
 the  highest  importance  in  estimating  the  historical  value  of  these 
 epistles,  has  been  left  too  much  in  the  back-ground,  owing  to  a  desire 
 to  set  up  certain  theories  about  the  Apostolic  Church,  which  the  facts 
 of  the  case  will  not  warrant ;  but  it  is  necessary  for  a  right  under¬ 
 standing  of  the  letters  themselves,  and  of  their  doctrinal  statements, 
 that  the  existence  of  this  Judaizing  element  within  the  Church  should 
 foe  fully  recognized.  On  the  other  hand,  the  existence  of  an  actual 
 opposition  between  Paul  and  the  original  twelve  is  an  inference  for 
 which  the  premisses  afford  no  authority :  nor  have  we  any  other  data 
 adequate  to  prove  it.  Thus,  as  I  have  shown,  the  affirmation  that 
 Paul  is  the  Balaam  of  the  Apocalypse  rests  solely,  as  far  as  evidence 
 is  concerned,  on  its  being  the  good  pleasure  of  those  who  assert  it, 
 that  it  should  be  so.  That  James  was  the  head  of  the  Church  of 
 Jerusalem,  and  continued  until  the  end  of  his  days  to  practise  the 
 ■Jewish  rites,  is  doubtless  a  fact,  of  which  we  shall  do  well  to  take 
 Account ;  but  this  proves  nothing  as  to  his  opposition  to  Paul.  Paul 
 
304 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 Church,  that  they  had  succeeded  in  persuading  a  consider¬ 
 able  number  of  his  converts  to  embrace  the  principles  of 
 Jewish  Christianity  in  opposition  to  his  own,  a  fact  which 
 stirred  the  Apostle's  soul  to  its  inmost  depths.  The  pages 
 of  these  letteis  afford  the  strongest  proof  of  the  vehemence 
 of  the  controversy;  yet  they  were  intended  to  be  read  in  the 
 presence  of  the  very  persons  who  denied  his  apostolical  com¬ 
 mission,  and  whom  he  again  and  again  challenges  to  come 
 forward  and  refute  his  positions. 
 
 himself  fully  tolerated  the  observance  of  Jewish  rites  by  those  Chris¬ 
 tians  who  were  Jews  by  birth.  He  was  fully  aware  that  men  cannot 
 throw  off  the  customs  and  ideas  in  which  they  have  been  born  and 
 educated,  in  the  same  manner  as  they  do  their  garments,  but  that  it 
 must  be  a  work  of  time.  According  to  the  principles  which  he  has 
 laid  down,  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  if  he  had  occupied  the  post 
 filled  by  James,  he  himself  would  have  been  an  observer  of  the 
 Jewish  rites  ;  in  fact,  his  assertion  is  express,  that  he  did  so  when  he 
 lived  among  Jews.  What  St.  Paul  resisted  was  the  purpose  of  a 
 powerful  party  in  the  Church  to  convert  it  into  a  Jewish  Sect,  by 
 imposing  the  Jewish  rites  on  those  who  were  not  Jews  by  birth.  It 
 has  been  asserted  that  St.  James  concurred  in  this  attempt,  but  the 
 evidence  of  it  lies  in  the  subjective  consciousness  of  those  who  make 
 the  affirmation.  Its  sole  proof  rests  on  an  expression  in  Gal.  ii.  in 
 which  St.  Paul  alludes  to  his  disagreement  with  Peter  on  this  subject, 
 and  his  public  rebuke  of  his  inconsistency.  The  words  which  he  uses 
 are,  “  Before  certain  came  from  James,  Peter  ate  with  the  Gentiles  ; 
 but  when  they  were  come,  he  withdrew  and  separated  himself,  fearing 
 them  which  were  of  the  circumcision.”  This  is  certainly  a  very 
 slender  foundation  on  which  to  erect  a  theory  that  these  persons  were’ 
 sent  by  James  for  the  purpose  of  opposing  Paul.  All  that  the  passage 
 affirms  is,  that  they  had  come  from  J ames  ;  but  for  what  purpose  we 
 are  not  told.  That  they  were  Jewish  Christians  who  held  strongly  to 
 the  Mosaic  ordinances  there  can  be  no  doubt;  but  there  is  certainly 
 nothing  to  imply  that  they  were  authorized  messengers  of  James  sent 
 by  him  for  the  purpose  of  opposing  Paulinism.  Nothing  is  more 
 unsafe  than  such  general  inferences,  for  the  whole  history  of  religious 
 sectarianism  proves  that  the  rank  and  file  of  a  party  invariably  rush 
 into  extremes  which  its  chiefs  have  not  sanctioned.  One  thing  the 
 epistles  fully  establish,  viz.,  that  Peter,  James,  John,  and  Pauf  con¬ 
 templated  a  common  Christianity  from  somewhat  different  points  of 
 view  ;  but  of  any  trace  of  direct  opposition  to  the  writings  of  the  New 
 Testament,  not  even  the  Epistle  of  James  affords  any  proof. 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES, 
 
 305 
 
 ,  a^one  is  sufficient  to  place  tliese  epistles  in  tlie 
 highest  rank  as  historical  documents.  It  proves  that  when¬ 
 ever  they  contain  allusions  to  facts,  above  all,  where  they 
 are  incidental,  their  truth  must  have  been  accepted  alike  by 
 the  Apostle  and  his  opponents.  To  have  propounded  state¬ 
 ments  which  he  knew  they  would  call  in  question  in  a 
 controversy  of  this  kind,  would  have  indicated  a  degree  of 
 folly  which  is  incredible.  This  particular  feature  therefore 
 affords  such  a  guarantee  of  the  truthfulness  both  of  the 
 direct  and  indirect  allusions  to  facts  contained  in  these 
 letters,  as  is  probably  possessed  by  no  other  writings  in 
 existence.  I  fully  allow  that  this  does  not  prove  the  truth 
 of  the  facts  themselves,  but  it  renders  it  certain  they  were 
 equally  accepted  by  Paul,  and  those  to  whom  he  wrote, 
 including  his  bitterest  opponents.  This  being  the  case,  the 
 testimony  of  these  latter  also  carries  with  it  the  belief  of 
 the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  and  enables  us  to  prove  that  they 
 must  have  been  accepted  by  it  as  the  basis  on  which  the 
 Church  was  reconstructed  immediately  after  the  crucifixion 
 of  its  Founder. 
 
 Such  is  the  nature  and  the  value  of  these  epistles  as 
 historical  documents.  Let  me  now  point  out  the  facts 
 which  they  establish. 
 
 First,  with  respect  to  the  miracles  of  our  Lord : 
 
 They  prove  beyond  the  power  of  contradiction  that  the 
 Jesus  who  is  referred  to  iu  nearly  every  page,  was  accepted 
 by  the  Apostle,  and  those  to  whom  he  wrote,  as  a  super¬ 
 human  Christ.  It  is  no  part  of  my  duty  here  to  define  the 
 degree  of  the  divine  which  they  assign  to  Him ;  it  is  quite 
 sufficient  for  my  argument  that  the  Christ  of  these  epistles 
 possesses  a  highly  superhuman  character,  and  that  the 
 incidental  allusions  to  it  prove  that  this  was  not  only  the 
 opinion  of  Paul,  but  of  the  entire  Church.  Nor  less  certain 
 is  it,  that  both  the  Apostle  and  those  to  whom  he  wrote 
 were  fully  persuaded  that  this  divine  Christ,  who  was  now 
 absent  in  heaven,  had  passed  through  an  earthly  ministry 
 
 20 
 
306 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 of  some  duration  in  Judaea,  with  the  events  of  which  they 
 were  acquainted.  The  all-important  question  is,  What  was 
 the  character  of  this  ministry  ?  Are  we  justified  in  drawing 
 any  inference  respecting  it,  as  to  whether  it  contained  any 
 manifestations  of  a  superhuman  power  ?  It  seems  to  me 
 incredible  that  the  Apostle,  and  those  to  whom  he  wrote, 
 could  have  attributed  to  the  Christ  of  these  epistles  the 
 superhuman  character  with  which  He  is  evidently  invested, 
 while  the  narrative  of  His  earthly  ministry,  with  which  I 
 shall  presently  prove  that  they  were  intimately  acquainted, 
 assigned  to  Him  no  superhuman  actions.  Common  sense 
 refuses  to  believe  that  they  attributed  a  superhuman  power 
 in  heaven,  adequate  to  the  government  of  all  things,  to  a 
 man  who  had  never  performed  a  superhuman  action  in 
 vindication  of  His  Messianic  claims  while  on  earth.  This; 
 being  so,  it  follows  that  the  accounts  which  St.  Paul,  and 
 those  to  whom  he  wrote,  possessed  of  the  earthly  ministry 
 of  Jesus,  must  have  attributed  to  Him  the  performance  of 
 a  number  of  miracles. 
 
 This  point  is  important,  because  it  has  been  alleged  that 
 St.  Paul  refers  to  no  miracle  as  performed  by  Our  Lord. 
 This  is  true ;  but  it  is  no  less  true  that  the  subjects  which 
 he  discusses  in  the  epistles  did  not  suggest  a  reference  to 
 them.  Any  direct  reference  to  Our  Lord’s  miracles  would 
 have  been  quite  out  of  place  in  connection  with  the  subjects 
 discussed  in  the  four  great  epistles,  which  are  occupied  with 
 a  wholly  different  set  of  questions.  In  fact,  the  Apostle’s 
 silence  about  them  is  a  proof  that  their  reality  was  undis¬ 
 puted  in  the  Church.  My  point  is,  that  the  superhuman 
 character  presupposes  the  miracles,  and  renders  their  absence 
 from  the  accounts  which  he  possessed  of  Our  Lord’s  personal 
 ministry  incredible.* 
 
 Secondly,  as  to  the  miraculous  powers  possessed  by 
 St.  Paul. 
 
 They  afford  unquestionable  proof  that  he  was  fully 
 
 *  See  Supplement. 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 307 
 
 persuaded  that  both  himself  and  the  other  apostles  were  in 
 the  habit  of  performing  miracles,  and  that  those  to  whom 
 he  wrote  entertained  a  similar  belief.  On  this  point  he 
 makes  three  definite  assertions  in  his  undisputed  epistles.* 
 In  the  first  of  these  he  expresses  his  firm  conviction  that  he 
 had  been  in  the  habit  of  performing  them  during  the  whole 
 course  of  his  ministry.  (Rom.  xv.  k18,  19.)  In  the  second 
 (2  Cor.  xii.  11,  12),  he  makes  a  formal  enumeration  of 
 them  in  their  threefold  aspect,  as  they  are  viewed  in  the  New 
 Testament,  viz.,  signs,  wonders,  and  mighty  deeds,  and  not 
 only  affirms  that  they  were  the  signs  of  an  apostle,  but  that 
 he  himself  had  been  in  the  habit  of  performing  them  at 
 Corinth.  The  third  allusion  (Gal.  iii.  5)  is  made  in  a  very 
 incidental  form,  and  therefore  proves  that  the  fact  must  have 
 been  accepted  by  those  to  whom  he  wrote.  It  is  also  par¬ 
 ticularly  worthy  of  remark,  that  these  two  last  allusions  are 
 made  in  those  portions  of  the  epistles  wrhich  are  of  the  most 
 
 *  As  these  passage  are  very  important,  I  subjoin  them.  “  I  have 
 therefore  whereof  I  may  glory  through  Jesus  Christ  in  those  things 
 which  pertain  to  God.  Tor  I  will  not  dare  to  speak  of  any  of  those 
 things  which  Christ  hath  not  wrought  by  me,  to  make  the  Gentiles 
 obedient  by  word  and  deed  ;  through  mighty  signs  and  wonders,  by  the 
 power  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  so  that  from  Jerusalem,  and  round  about 
 unto  Illyricum,  I  have  fully  preached  the  Gospel  of  Christ.”  (Rom. 
 xv.  17-19.)  The  allusion  here  to  his  frequent  performance  of  miracles 
 is  of  a  most  incidental  kind.  So  again  in  2  Cor.  xii.  11-13,  “  I  am 
 become  a  fool  in  glorying ;  ye  have  compelled  me :  for  I  ought  to 
 have  been  commended  of  you ;  for  in  nothing  am  I  behind  the  very 
 chiefest  apostles,  though  I  be  nothing.  Truly  the  signs  of  an  apostle 
 were  wrought  among  you  in  all  patience,  in  signs  and  wonders  and 
 mighty  deeds.  For  what  is  it  wherein  ye  were  inferior  to  other 
 Churches,  except  it  be,  that  I  myself  was  not  burdensome  to  you? 
 Forgive  me  this  wrong.”  In  this  highly  controversial  passage  it  is 
 evident  that  the  Apostle  fully  calculated  that  those  to  whom  he  wrote 
 were  firmly  persuaded  that  he  had  wrought  miracles  among  them. 
 The  next  allusion  is  brief,  but  it  is  very  incidental,  and  in  a  highly 
 controversial  passage.  “He  therefore  that  ministereth  to  you  the 
 Spirit,  and  worketh  miracles  among  you,  doeth  he  it  by  the  works  of 
 the  law,  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith  ?”  (Gal.  iii.  5.)  The  context 
 makes  it  evident  that  by  the  expression,  “he  that  worketh  miracles 
 among  you,”  he  means  himself. 
 
 20* 
 
308 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 polemical  character ;  and  as  lie  urges  this  exercise  of  miracu¬ 
 lous  powers  in  proof  of  his  being  a  genuine  apostle,  it  con¬ 
 stitutes  a  direct  challenge  to  his  opponents  to  deny  their 
 reality  if  they  could.  But  further:  the  argument  of  the 
 epistle  proves  that  the  power  of  working  miracles  was 
 believed  to  be  inherent  in  the  apostolical  office  ;  and  therefore 
 it  establishes  the  fact  that  the  other  apostles  were  believed 
 to  have  been  in  the  habit  of  performing  them. 
 
 From  the  foregoing  facts  it  follows  by  necessary  infer¬ 
 ence  : 
 
 1.  That  it  is  untrue  that  the  belief  in  the  performance  of 
 miracles  in  connection  with  Christianity  can  have  been  due 
 to  the  gradual  growth  of  legend  during  the  first  century 
 of  our  era,  for  these  letters  make  it  unquestionable  that 
 St.  Paul  believed  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of  performing  them 
 from  the  commencement  of  his  work  as  an  apostle,  which 
 cannot  be  dated  later  than  a.d.  36-37 ;  and  that  the  other 
 apostles  were  believed  to  have  done  so  from  a  still  earlier 
 period. 
 
 2.  As  it  is  inconceivable  that  St.  Paul  could  have  believed 
 that  he  possessed  a  power  of  which  his  Master  was  destitute, 
 it  follows  also  that  the  attribution  of  miraculous  actions  to 
 Jesus  cannot  have  been  due  to  the  gradual  growth  of  a 
 legendary  spirit  in  the  Church ;  but  that  the  belief  that  He 
 was  in  the  habit  of  working  them  must  have  been  coeval 
 with  His  ministry.  Prom  this  it  follows  that  the  accounts  of 
 Our  Lord's  ministry  which  were  handed  down  in  the  Church 
 by  the  primitive  disciples  must  have  contained  miraculous 
 narratives.  Further,  the  Apostle's  position  as  a  persecutor 
 must  have  rendered  it  incumbent  on  him  to  investigate  the 
 facts,  and  to  make  himself  familiar  with  them. 
 
 These  considerations  absolutely  demolish  all  those  theories 
 which  account  for  the  origin  of  the  miraculous  narratives  in 
 the  Gospels  on  the  ground  that  they  were  the  growth  of  a 
 legendary  spirit  in  the  Church,  which  first  invented  the 
 miracles,  and  then  gradually  attributed  them  to  Jesus,  while 
 He  Himself  made  no  pretensions  to  perform  them.  On 
 the  contrary,  they  render  it  certain  that  He  must  have 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 309 
 
 been  a  professed  worker  of  them.  This  being  so,  few  will 
 doubt  that  He  believed  them  to  have  been  real.  Respecting 
 these  facts  the  information  possessed  by  St.  Paul  at  the 
 time  of  his  conversion  must  have  precluded  the  possibility 
 of  mistake.  I  fully  allow  that  all  this  does  not  prove  the 
 reality  of  the  miracles ;  and  leaves  the  question  still  open, 
 whether  the  belief  in  them  may  not  have  originated  in  some 
 form  of  mental  hallucination;  but  it  does  prove  that  the 
 belief  that  they  were  performed  by  Our  Lord  and  his  Apostles 
 was  coeval  with  the  birth  of  Christianity ;  and  whether  they 
 were  realities  or  not,  they  themselves  were  firmly  persuaded 
 that  they  wrought  them.* 
 
 These  letters  further  prove  that  St.  Paul,  and  the  members 
 of  the  Churches  to  which  he  wrote,  including  his  personal 
 opponents,  concurred  in  believing  that  not  a  few  of  them 
 were  in  possession  of  certain  superhuman  endowments  of  so 
 singular  a  character  as  to  be  without  parallel  in  the  history 
 of  miraculous  pretensions.  The  Apostle's  description  ot 
 them  is  extremely  minute ;  and  this  minuteness  constitutes 
 no  small  portion  of  the  evidential  value  of  his  account,  as 
 affording  proof  of  the  objective  reality  of  the  manifestation 
 of  some  very  extraordinary  phenomena  in  these  Churches, 
 whatever  opinion  we  may  form  of  their  character  or  origin. 
 My  space  however  will  only  allow  me  to  notice  a  few  of  the 
 most  salient  points. 
 
 1.  These  gifts  of  the  Spirit  are  affirmed  by  the  Apostle 
 to  have  consisted  of  certain  superhuman  endowments 
 
 *  These  allusions  also  dispose  of  another  objection  which  has  been 
 not  unfrequently  hazarded,  that  although  many  persons  have  ex¬ 
 pressed  their  belief  that  others  have  performed  miracles,  yet  it  is 
 impossible  to  find  a  man  of  high  character  who  has  deliberately 
 affirmed  that  he  himself  has  wrought  them.  Such  an  assertion  must 
 have  been  made  in  oversight  of  the  passages  above  referred  to,  and  of 
 the  other  allusions  to  the  exercise  of  this  power  which  are  found  in 
 the  Epistle.  It  is  quite  true  that  St.  Paul  nowhere  argues  from  his 
 miracles  in  the  same  manner  as  our  modern  evidential  writers  ;  but 
 this  is  nothing  to  the  point,  for  it  must  be  first  shown  that  he  accepted 
 their  position. 
 
310 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 imparted  to  a  considerable  number  of  the  members  of  these 
 Churches,  and  conferring  on  them  powers  different  from 
 those  which  were  imparted  by  their  natural  faculties. 
 According  to  an  enumeration  more  than  once  repeated, 
 they  were  nine  in  number,  two  of  them  only  conferrin 
 what  we  should  now  designate  the  power  of  workin 
 miracles.  The  remaining  seven  are  described  as  super¬ 
 human  mental  endowments. 
 
 .  2*  It  is  worthy  of  particular  observation,  that  each  of  these 
 gifts  is  repeatedly  affirmed  by  the  Apostle  to  have  been 
 distinct  in  function  from  the  others*  Such  a  description 
 of  them  is  about  the  last  thing  which  would  have  occurred 
 to  an  enthusiast,  and  stands  in  striking  contrast  to  the 
 populai  theories  of  inspiration  which  have  been  propounded 
 in  modern  times.  Such  a  distinction  is  twice  asserted  to 
 have  existed  even  between  the  two  gifts  which  wo  now 
 confound  together  under  the  common  name  of  the  power  of 
 working  miracles,  viz.  ^vva/uecov,  and  ^apbr/mra 
 
 ictfiariov.  The  seven  mental  gifts  also  conferred  no  special 
 illumination  beyond  the  subject  matter  to  which  their 
 function  was  limited.  This  is  clearly  shown,  not  only  by 
 the  Apostle  s  express  assertion  and  illustrations,  but  by 
 the  fact  that  a  person  could  possess  the  gift  of  tongues,  and 
 yet  be  destitute  of  that  of  interpretation.  Different  gifts, 
 too,  were  not  necessarily  united  in  the  same  person;  and 
 the  possession  of  one  by  no  means  involved  that  of 
 another,  even  when  the  subject  matter  on  which  they  were 
 exerted  was  closely  allied.  I  draw  attention  to  these  very 
 remarkable  peculiarities,  as  proving  not  only  the  discrimi¬ 
 nating  power  of  the  writer  of  the  epistle,  who  has  been 
 credited  with  such  a  degree  of  enthusiasm  as  to  have  rendered 
 him  unable  to  distinguish  the  creations  of  his  own  disordered 
 imagination  from  the  realities  of  things,  but  the  existence 
 
 *  Thus  the  Apostle  compares  their  action  to  that  of  different  organs 
 of  the  human  body,  as  the  eye,  the  ear,  the  nose,  the  hand,  and  the 
 feet,  all  of  which  possess  distinct  functions ;  and  no  one  of  them 
 conveys  information  on  the  definite  subject  matter  of  another. 
 
 Oq  CTQ 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES 
 
 311 
 
 of  some  very  extraordinary  phenomena  in  these  Churches, 
 wholly  differing  in  character  from  ordinary  miraculous 
 stories.  Further :  the  mode  of  statement  makes  it  certain 
 that  these  distinctions,  obscure  to  us,  were  clearly  under¬ 
 stood  by  the  members  of  the  Churches  to  which  the  Apostle 
 wrote,  and  the  reality  of  the  gifts  undisputed,  even  by  his 
 opponents.  No  less  certain  is  it  that  the  writer  of  the  letters 
 was  firmly  persuaded  that  he  himself  possessed  several  of 
 these  gifts,  and  had  the  power  of  conferring  them  on  others. 
 All  these  things  indicate  that  we  are  in  the  presence  of 
 realities. 
 
 3.  There  is  another  circumstance  connected  with  these 
 gifts,  of  so  remarkable  a  character,  that  I  am  bound  to  call 
 attention  to  it.  While  they  are  all  affirmed  to  have  been 
 imparted  by  the  direct  agency  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  the 
 Apostle  expressly  states  that  they  were  liable  to  be  abused, 
 in  the  same  manner  as  our  ordinary  faculties,  for  the  purpose 
 of  ostentation  and  display.  This  is,  I  believe,  without  pre¬ 
 cedent  in  the  history  of  those  who  have  claimed  the  posses¬ 
 sion  of  superhuman  powers.  With  such  it  has  been  the 
 invariable  course,  along  with  the  superhuman  gift,  to  claim 
 an  infallible  direction  as  to  the  use  of  it.  This  is  so  natural 
 that  we  find  it  difficult  to  comprehend  how  it  could  have 
 been  otherwise.  Yet  the  assertions  of  the  Apostle  on  this 
 point  are  express ;  and  the  facts  to  which  he  refers  as 
 taking  place  in  the  Corinthian  Church,  absolutely  conclu¬ 
 sive.  Not  only  was  the  gift  of  tongues  so  abused  as  to 
 incur  the  danger  of  throwing  the  whole  Church  into  con¬ 
 fusion,  but  the  prophetic  gift,  the  third,  if  not  the  second, 
 in  importance  of  the  whole  number,  was  liable  to  be 
 misused  by  its  possessor  to  such  an  extent  that  the  prophets 
 were  in  the  habit  of  interrupting  one  another  in  its  exercise. 
 A  number  of  stringent  rules  are  laid  down  by  the  Apostle 
 for  the  suppression  of  these  disorders,  such  as  could  never 
 have  been  propounded  by  a  man  who  was  labouring  under 
 mental  delusion.* 
 
 *  The  affirmation  of  unbelief  is  that  the  appearance  of  Our  Lord  to 
 St.  Paul  on  the  road  to  Damascus,  was  nothing  but  a  subjective 
 
312 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 The  points  established  by  the  foregoing  arguments  are 
 therefore  as  follows : 
 
 First,  that  these  phenomena  prove  that  we  are  dealing 
 with  realities  of  some  kind,  whether  we  explain  them  on 
 the  principle  of  a  human  or  a  superhuman  origin. 
 
 Secondly  :  that  St.  Paul,  who  was  himself  the  subject 
 of  these  gifts,  was  firmly  persuaded  of  their  superhuman 
 character. 
 
 Thirdly  :  that  a  similar  persuasion  was  entertained  by  the 
 whole  Christian  community,  including  his  opponents ;  and 
 that  the  possession  of  these  gifts  was  a  matter  of  warm 
 emulation  among  its  members. 
 
 Fourthly  :  that  the  belief  in  the  presence  of  such  mani¬ 
 festations  was  not  confined  to  the  time  when  the  Apostle 
 wrote  his  various  epistles,  but  was  coeval  with  the  recon¬ 
 struction  of  the  Church  after  the  Crucifixion. 
 
 Fifthly  :  that  these  gifts  were  believed  to  be  the  fulfil¬ 
 ment  of  our  Lord's  promise  made  to  His  disciples,  that  He 
 would  communicate  to  them  such  supernatural  endowments 
 as  were  necessary  for  building  up  the  Church  after  He  had 
 ascended  into  heaven. 
 
 I  fully  admit  that  these  points,  taken  alone,  and  apart 
 from  other  considerations,  do  not  prove  that  these  manifes¬ 
 tations  were  of  superhuman  origin  ;  but  they  go  a  great 
 way  to  establish  that  they  were  so.  One  thing,  however, 
 they  prove  beyond  question,  namely,  that  both  Jesus  and 
 His  followers  must  have  believed  themselves  to  have  pos¬ 
 sessed  superhuman  powers ;  and  consequently,  that  the 
 belief  that  they  performed  miracles  is  no  aftergrowth  of 
 Christianity,  but  is  coeval  with  its  birth.  From  this  the 
 inference  is  inevitable,  that  Jesus  Himself  must  have  pro¬ 
 fessed  to  have  performed  them.  If  they  were  unreal,  it 
 leaves  us  in  the  presence  of  only  two  alternatives  :  Either 
 Jesus  Himself,  who  on  the  confession  of  unbelievers  was  the 
 
 creation  of  his  own  mind,  which  he  mistook  for  an  external  reality. 
 The  discriminating  power  and  sound  judgment  exhibited  in  these 
 chapters  even  in  matters  relating  to  the  supernatural,  have  a  very 
 important  bearing  on  this  question. 
 
TEE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 313 
 
 greatest  of  the  sons  of  men,  must  have  laboured  under  a 
 mental  delusion  on  this  subject ;  or  (with  reverence  be  it 
 spoken),  while  He  Himself  was  the  sternest  denouncer  of 
 hypocrisy  who  has  ever  appeared  among  men.  He  must  have 
 concurred  in  the  perpetration  of  a  fraud.* 
 
 These  epistles  also  afford  unequivocal  evidence  of  the 
 existence  in  the  Apostolic  Church  of  another  class  of  pheno¬ 
 mena  which  were  believed  to  have  had  their  origin  in  the 
 operation  of  a  superhuman  power,  of  the  abiding  presence 
 of  which  they  were  the  manifestation.  The  superhuman 
 manifestations  were  not  confined  to  mere  wonders  wrought 
 
 O 
 
 in  the  material  Universe,  but  the  preaching  of  Jesus  Christ, 
 acted  as  a  mighty  regenerating  influence  in  the  moral  and 
 spiritual  world.  Considerable  numbers  of  those  whom  the- 
 Apostle  addressed  had  been  rescued  from  the  lowest  depths 
 of  Pagan  vice  and  moral  degradation,  and  elevated  by  their 
 reception  of  Christianity  to  a  life  of  purity  and  holiness. 
 The  reality  and  the  greatness  of  the  change  was  an  unde¬ 
 niable  fact,  which  was  not  only  verified  in  its  outward 
 results,  but  equally  so  in  the  inward  consciousness  of  those 
 who  had  experienced  it.  Whatever  view  we  may  take  of 
 the  cause,  the  reality  of  the  change  is  placed  by  these  letters 
 beyond  the  power  of  question.  I  will  cite  a  single  passage- 
 out  of  many  which  bear  similar  testimony  to  this  fact.  In 
 addressing  the  Corinthians,  the  Apostle  was  able  to  appeal 
 thus  to  his  own  experience.  “  Know  ye  not  that  the 
 unrighteous  shall  not  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God  ?  Be  not. 
 deceived  :  neither  fornicators,  nor  idolaters,  nor  adulterers, 
 nor  effeminate,  nor  abusers  of  themselves  with  mankind, 
 
 #  Mr.  Mill  accepts  the  discourses  in  the  Synoptics  as  accurate 
 representations  of  the  sense  of  the  veritable  utterances  of  Jesus,  and 
 almost  treats  with  scorn  the  idea  that  they  can  have  been  the  inven¬ 
 tions  of  His  followers.  In  taking  this  position  Mr.  Mill  is  in  strict 
 agreement  with  the  course  of  reasoning  adopted  in  these  Lectures. 
 But  if  these  utterances  are  allowed  to  be  genuine,  two  inferences 
 necessarily  follow  :  first,  that  Jesus  claimed  to  possess  a  superhuman 
 character  ;  and  secondly,  that  He  believed  Himself  to  be  a  worker  of 
 miracles.  These  Mr.  Mill  seems  unaccountably  to  have  overlooked. 
 
314 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 nor  thieves,  nor  covetous,  nor  drunkards,  nor  revilers,  nor 
 extortioners,  shall  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  And  such 
 were  some  oe  you;  but  ye  are  washed,  but  ye  are  sancti¬ 
 fied,  but  ye  are  justified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and 
 by  the  Spirit  of  our  God.”  (1  Cor.  vi.  9-11  .)  Can  any  one 
 doubt  that  the  Apostle  is  here  speaking  of  a  great  reality, 
 which  must  have  been  a  patent  fact  ?  It  follows  therefore 
 that  the  superhuman  energy  which  these  epistles  affirm  to 
 have  been  visibly  manifesting  itself  in  the  Church  was  not 
 believed  to  confine  itself  to  the  performance  of  those  acts 
 which  are  ordinarily  designated  miracles,  but  to  be  a  power 
 which  was  equally  energetic  in  the  moral  world.  In  this 
 respect  the  supernaturalism  of  the  Pauline  Epistles  differs 
 from  all  other  miraculous  narratives.  The  reality  of  its 
 manifestation  in  the  moral  world  is  unquestionable.  This 
 forms  a  strong  ground  for  believing  that  the  Apostle  cannot 
 have  been  mistaken  as  to  its  reality  in  the  material  world. 
 
 The  next  point  of  which  the  epistles  furnish  unquestion¬ 
 able  proof  is,  that  at  the  time  when  the  Apostle  wrote 
 them,  the  Church  was  fully  acquainted  with  an  outline  of 
 the  actions  and  the  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  was 
 similar  in  its  features  to  that  which  is  contained  in  our 
 present  Gospels.  Of  this  the  knowledge  was  so  widely 
 diffused  as  to  render  a  number  of  direct  references  to  it 
 unnecessary,  and  to  make  the  numerous  indirect  references 
 with  which  the  epistles  abound  thoroughly  intelligible.  It 
 is  immaterial  to  my  argument  whether  this  existed  in  a 
 written  or  an  oral  form.  All  that  we  require  is  to  prove 
 that  such  an  account  was  well  knowm  to  the  individual 
 members  of  the  different  Churches ;  and  that  it  formed  the 
 foundation  of  their  daily  religious  life.  Of  all  this  the 
 epistles  afford  indisputable  evidence  ;  and  what  is  still  more 
 important,  they  not  only  prove  its  existence  at  the  time  of 
 their  composition,  i.e.,  within  twenty-eight  years  after  the 
 Crucifixion,  but  they  enable  us  to  identify  it  with  the  beliefs 
 of  the  primitive  followers  of  Jesus.  This  being  so,  it  proves 
 that  all  those  various  theories  respecting  the  origin  of  the 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 315 
 
 Gospels  are  invalid,  which  affirm  that  a  large  portion  of  the 
 materials  of  which  they  consist,  are  the  production  of  a 
 legendary  spirit. 
 
 The  direct  references  in  these  epistles  to  events  in  the 
 history  of  Our  Lord  are  few  in  number.  The  most  remark¬ 
 able  are  the  statement  in  my  text  and  that  in  which 
 St.  Paul  gives  the  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Holy 
 Communion.  The  last  of  these  is  in  substantial  agreement 
 with  those  contained  in  the  Synoptics ;  and  is  equally  full. 
 The  mode  in  which  it  is  introduced  presupposes  that  the 
 writer  was  in  possession  of  a  history  of  the  Passion  on  an 
 equally  extensive  scale.  This  the  frequent  references  made 
 to  it  in  the  other  parts  of  these  letters  render  absolutely 
 certain.  It  follows  therefore,  that  the  Church  in  the  year 
 58  was  in  possession  of  an  account  of  the  history  of  the 
 Passion,  which  bore  a  close  analogy  to  that  which  is  con¬ 
 tained  in  our  Gospels. 
 
 The  reference  in  my  text  (1  Cor.  xv.  1-4)  is  a  very  impor¬ 
 tant  one,  because  it  affirms  that  the  Gospel  which  St.  Paul 
 imparted  to  the  Corinthians  consisted  chiefly  of  facts ;  and 
 both  this  and  the  former  reference  prove  that  there  was  a 
 body  of  facts  which  formed  the  groundwork  of  Christianity, 
 and  which  he  was  in  the  habit  of  solemnly  committing  to 
 the  custody  of  the  Church.  Thus  he  says,  <c  I  delivered  unto 
 you  among  matters  of  'prime  importance *  that  which  I  also 
 received  ”  (1  Cor.  xv.  3).  And  again,  ffFor  I  have  received 
 of  the  Lord,  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you.”  (1  Cor. 
 xi.  23).  Both  these  passages  affirm  a  solemn  act  of  recep¬ 
 tion  and  communication.  Those  which  he  enumerates  in 
 1  Cor.  xv.,  he  affirms  to  have  been  among  matters  of  prime 
 importance.  This  implies  that  among  the  things  which  he 
 was  in  the  habit  of  committing  to  the  Churches,  there  were 
 other  matters  of  prime  importance;  and  that  these  were 
 united  with  others  of  secondary  importance.  Such  an  account 
 must  have  been  analogous  to  that  contained  in  our  present 
 
 *  Gr.  iv  7r pu)Toig.  The  expression  “first  of  all”  in  our  Authorized  Version 
 does  not  convey  the  full  meaning  of  the  original. 
 
316 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 Gospels,  which  consist  of  a  number  of  facts  of  prim© 
 importance,  among*  which  the  accounts  of  the  death  and 
 resurrection  of  Christ  occupy  a  very  conspicuous  place ;  and 
 another  body  of  facts  of  secondary  importance,  which  are 
 very  closely  related  to  them. 
 
 To  another  fact  of  prime  importance  which  the  direct 
 evidence  of  these  epistles  proves  beyond  the  power  of  ques¬ 
 tion,  viz.  the  superhuman  character  which  the  apostles  and 
 the  Churches  attributed  to  Jesus,  I  have  already  referred. 
 This  proves  that  the  Church  must  have  been  in  possession 
 of  an  account  of  His  actions,  analogous  to  that  contained  in 
 our  Gospels. 
 
 These  epistles  contain  also  two  other  direct  references  to 
 Our  Lord's  life.  The  Apostle  opens  his  epistle  to  the 
 Romans*  by  affirming  that  he  was  of  the  seed  of  David 
 according  to  the  flesh,  thereby  ascribing  to  him  both  a  human 
 and  a  superhuman  origin ;  and  also  that  he  submitted  to  the 
 rite  of  circumcision.  These  references  prove  that  the 
 apostles  and  the  Church  at  Rome  accepted  an  account  of  the 
 infancy  analogous  to  that  in  the  Gospels  of  St.  Matthew  and 
 St.  Luke. 
 
 In  like  manner  they  contain  a  few  direct  references  to 
 the  moral  teaching  of  our  Lord,  in  exact  conformity  with 
 the  teaching  which  we  read  in  the  Synoptics ;  but  on  this 
 point  it  will  be  unnecessary  to  enlarge,  for  it  is  too  plain  to 
 require  argument,  that  the  whole  of  that  which  is  contained 
 in  these  epistles  and  in  the  other  writings  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
 ment,  is  based  on  that  which  the  Synoptics  have  attributed 
 to  Jesus  Christ ;  and  consequently  that  a  general  outline  of 
 this  teaching  must  have  been  preserved  among  the  traditions 
 of  the  Church. 
 
 *  7 rtpi  tov  viov  avrov ,  (tov  ytvop'tvov  t/e  (nrsppaTOQ  Aa(3l5  Kara  adpica. 
 tov  opioSivrog  viov  Qtov  iv  dvvdpu  kcitu  7rvtvpa  ayiojcrvvrjg,  avaardcrtwe 
 vtKpCov,  (Ipcov  xpwTov  tov  Kvpiov  i)p.Cjv. — Rom.  i.  3,  4.  It  seems  incon¬ 
 ceivable  that  any  candid  reader  can  doubt  that  the  Apostle  takes  it 
 for  granted  in  this  passage  that  a  belief  in  Our  Lord’s  supernatural 
 conception  was  generally  entertained  in  the  Church  ;  and  that  it  was 
 accepted  by  the  Church  at  Rome,  which  he  had  never  visited. 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 317 
 
 Such  are  tlie  direct  references. 
 
 But  the  indirect  ones  are  very  numerous,  and  prove 
 beyond  the  power  of  contradiction  that  the  Apostle,  and 
 those  to  whom  he  wrote,  were  thoroughly  acquainted  with 
 an  account  of  the  actions  and  the  teaching  of  Our  Lord, 
 which  they  accepted  as  the  basis  of  their  common  Chris¬ 
 tianity.  If  I  were  to  attempt  to  bring  out  each  separate 
 point,  it  would  extend  this  Lecture  to  an  unreasonable  length. 
 I  will  therefore  only  summarize  their  general  character,  and 
 adduce  the  evidence  in  a  Supplement. 
 
 The  Apostle  affirms  again  and  again  that  the  essence  of 
 his  preaching  consisted  in  the  proclamation  that  Jesus  was 
 the  Christ.  This  was  addressed  to  men  ignorant  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity.  What  does  it  imply  ?  Is  it  consistent  with  the 
 idea  that  the  Apostle  taught  merely  a  body  of  doctrines  or 
 moral  precepts  ?  It  is  clear  that  his  teaching  must  have 
 been  utterly  unintelligible  if  it  did  not  contain  such  an 
 account  of  the  actions  of  Jesus  as  was  adequate  to  prove 
 that  He  was  the  Christ. 
 
 Again :  the  Christ  whom  the  Apostle  preached  was  a 
 superhuman  Christ.  He  was  a  Christ  who  claimed  to  be 
 “the  Lord.”  It  follows  therefore  that  the  actions  which  the 
 Apostle  attributed  to  Jesus  in  his  preaching  must  have  been 
 of  a  superhuman  character ;  otherwise  it  would  have  been 
 nugatory — in  other  words,  they  must  have  been  similar  in 
 general  type  and  outline  to  those  contained  in  our  Gospels. 
 
 The  incidental  character  of  the  allusions  proves  that 
 such  a  Christ  was  accepted  by  the  different  sections  of  the 
 Church  to  whom  the  Apostle  wrote,  including  the  Church 
 at  Rome,  which  had  received  its  Christianity  from  a  source 
 entirely  independent  of  him.*  From  this  it  follows  that 
 
 *  In  the  absence  of  all  definite  information  on  the  subject  it  is  now 
 impossible  to  determine  the  source  from  which  the  Christianity  of  the 
 Church  at  Rome  was  derived.  All  we  can  do  is  to  fall  back  on  the 
 probabilities  of  the  case.  Considering  the  constant  intercourse  which 
 •was  taking  place  between  Rome  and  the  provinces,  and  the  large 
 number  of  Jews  located  there,  the  probability  is,  that  it  was  directly 
 
318 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 all  these  various  Churches  must  have  accepted  a  body  of 
 facts  respecting  Our  Lord,  which  formed  a  portraiture  of 
 Him  in  entire  conformity  with  the  Christology  of  the 
 Gospels. 
 
 Further,  as  all  these  Churches  contained  a  party  of  Judaiz- 
 ing  Christians,  whose  opinions  must  have  been  in  conformity 
 with  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  it  follows  that  the  facts  of  the 
 life  of  Christ,  which  formed  the  substratum  of  the  Pauline 
 Gospel,  as  far  as  they  are  alluded  to  in  these  epistles,  must 
 have  been  accepted  by  that  Church,  or  in  other  words,  by 
 the  primitive  followers  of  Jesus. 
 
 The  same  result  follows  from  the  oft-repeated  reference- 
 to  the  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  synonymous  with 
 Christianity  itself.  Such  a  knowledge  necessarily  implies  an 
 intimate  acquaintance  with  an  extensive  body  of  facts  re¬ 
 specting  His  life  and  actions.  But  this  knowledge  is  described 
 as  one  which  was  deeply  influential  on  the  heart  and  character, 
 and  which  each  individual  Christian  would  immediately 
 
 derived  from  the  Church  at  Jerusalem.  Still  the  whole  tone  of  the 
 epistle  implies  that  Paul  was  well  known  to  the  members  of  this 
 Church.  It  is  highly  probable  that  some  of  them  became  acquainted 
 with  him  at  the  time  when  Claudius  expelled  the  Jews  from  Pome, 
 when  many  of  them  would  take  refuge  in  Greece.  Still  the  whole 
 tenor  of  the  epistle  proves  the  existence  of  a  decidedly  Jewish  element, 
 which  could  not  have  been  derived  either  from  Paul  or  from  his 
 disciples.  This  is  confirmed  by  a  salutation  in  the  last  chapter. 
 “  Salute  Andronicus  and  Junia,  my  kinsmen  and  my  fellow-prisoners, 
 who  are  of  npte  among  the  Apostles,  who  also  were  in  Christ  before 
 me.”  This  passage  proves  that  these  two  persons  had  joined  the- 
 Christian  Church  before  St.  Paul’s  conversion;  and  consequently,, 
 that  they  must  already  have  been  Christians  for  more  than  eighteen 
 years,  and,  therefore,  that  they  must  have  derived  their  Christianity 
 direct  from  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  ;  yet  it  is  evident  that  he  assumed 
 that  they  would  accept  the  chief  outlines  of  his  Christology ;  and  that 
 his  incidental  allusions  to  the  great  facts  of  Christianity  would  be 
 thoroughly  intelligible  to  them.  Doubts  have  been  expressed  by  a 
 certain  School  of  critics  as  to  the  genuineness  of  this  last  chapter 
 but  the  reasons  assigned  for  its  rejection  are  such  that  if  they  are 
 valid,  we  may  prove  almost  anything  we  wish. 
 
 i 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 319 
 
 recognize  as  forming  the  groundwork  of  his  religious  life. 
 From  this  it  follows,  that  it  must  have  consisted  of  a  number 
 of  facts  which  exhibited  Jesus  in  a  light  which  would  render 
 Him  capable  of  exerting  such  an  influence.  Such  a  delinea¬ 
 tion  we  possess  in  the  Gospels.  Consequently,  the  facts 
 referred  to  by  the  Apostle  as  constituting  this  knowledge 
 must  have  formed  a  portraiture  closely  analogous  to  that 
 which  they  contain.  Further,  one  effect  of  this  knowledge 
 was  to  produce  towards  Him  a  spirit  of  devoted  love.  But 
 love  can  only  be  inspired  by  the  presence  of  a  lovely  object. 
 The  delineation  of  Jesus,  which  was  accepted  by  these 
 Churches,  must  therefore  have  depicted  Him  as  a  character 
 capable  of  exciting  a  devoted  love.  Here  again  its  iden¬ 
 tification  in  general  outline  with  that  of  the  Gospels  is 
 complete. 
 
 These  epistles  also  contain  another  set  of  indirect  refe¬ 
 rences  which  prove,  not  only  that  the  persons  to  whom 
 they  are  addressed  must  have  had  an  intimate  acquaintance 
 with  the  actions  of  Jesus  Christ,  but  that  these  actions  must 
 have  formed  a  vivid  delineation  of  His  character.  I  allude 
 to  those  numerous  passages  in  which  Christians  are  exhorted 
 to  make  Him  the  subject  of  their  imitation.  These  exhor¬ 
 tations  are  not  unfrequently  introduced  by  the  words,  “  Ye 
 know.”  Such  a  form  of  expression  proves  that  the  writer 
 was  fully  persuaded  that  those  whom  he  addressed  were  in 
 possession  of  such  a  minute  account  of  Our  Lord's  actions 
 as  would  enable  them  to  adopt  them  as  a  model  for  imitation. 
 As  this  is  a  point  of  some  importance,  I  will  adduce  a  few 
 illustrations. 
 
 1.  They  are  exhorted  to  imitate  Him  in  various  special 
 details  of  conduct ;  and  again,  to  “  put  on  Jesus  Christ,” 
 which  can  only  mean  that  their  daily  life  was  to  be  an 
 exhibition  of  His  character.  Such  injunctions  would  be 
 simply  absurd  if  addressed  to  any  but  those  who  were 
 known  to  be  in  possession  of  a  detailed  account  of  his 
 personal  character  and  actions. 
 
 2.  Another  very  incidental  remark  of  the  Apostle,  “Ye 
 
320 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 have  not  so  learned  Christ/"  warrants  us  in  drawing  an 
 inference  considerably  in  advance  of  this.  It  presupposes 
 that  an  account  of  His  actions  and  teaching  formed  a  regular 
 subject  of  instruction  in  the  Church,  as  it  is  described  in 
 the  preface  of  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  “  That  thou  mightest 
 know  the  certainty  of  those  things  in  which  thou  hast  been 
 instructed." 
 
 3.  Another  similar  precept  adds  great  weight  to  this 
 inference  ;  “  As  ye  have  received  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  so 
 walk  ye  in  him."  The  persons  addressed  had  received 
 Christ  Jesus  the  Lord.  How  was  this  possible  ?  Only  by 
 having  details  furnished  them  of  His  life  and  actions,  in 
 conformity  with  which  they  are  directed  to  model  their 
 lives.  These  exhortations  therefore  prove  not  only  that  the 
 account  possessed  by  these  Churches  must  have  been  of 
 considerable  detail,  but  that  the  communication  of  the 
 knowledge  of  it  was  a  part  of  the  regular  course  of  Christian 
 instruction. 
 
 It  would  be  easy  to  multiply  examples  of  this  kind,  but 
 those  which  I  have  adduced  will  be  sufficient  as  illustrations. 
 They  all  firmly  establish  the  point  I  am  seeking  to  prove, 
 viz.,  that  when  the  Apostle  wrote  these  letters,  the  different 
 members  of  the  Churches  were  intimately  acquainted,  not 
 merely  with  a  body  of  doctrinal  statements,  or  rules  of 
 ■conduct,  which  they  attributed  to  Jesus,  but  with  an 
 account  of  His  actions  sufficiently  minute  to  enable  them  to 
 model  their  lives  upon  them.  This  is  precisely  what  the 
 accounts  in  our  present  Gospels  enable  us  to  do.  It  follows 
 therefore  that  whether  this  account  was  written  or  oral,  it 
 must  have  closely  resembled  them  in  character.  Further  :  As 
 the  Jesus  to  whom  St.  Paul  is  constantly  referring  is  not  an 
 ordinary  man,  but  a  divine  one,  it  follows  that  these  accounts 
 must  have  attributed  to  him  a  number  of  superhuman 
 actions.  Here  again  the  analogy  between  the  account  which 
 was  accepted  by  these  Churches  and  those  contained  in  our 
 Gospels  is  complete. 
 
 Only  one  additional  remark  on  this  portion  of  the  subject 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 321 
 
 Will  be  necessary.  When  St.  Paul  refers  to  Our  Lord  as  a 
 model  of  conduct,  he  rarely  thinks  it  necessary  to  mention 
 any  particular  act  as  an  illustration.  The  only  exceptions 
 are  when  he  refers  to  Him  as  the  great  example  of  self- 
 sacrifice.  Thus  when  he  refers  to  Him  as  the  highest 
 example  of  meekness,  he  does  not  quote  a  single  instance  of 
 the  exhibition  of  this  quality.  In  a  similar  manner  he  speaks 
 of  it  as  a  well-known  fact,  that,  “though  He  was  rich,  yet 
 for  our  sates  He  became  poor,"  yet  he  mentions  no  special 
 instances  of  His  poverty  or  humiliation.  I  may  say  that 
 this  mode  of  reference  is  almost  universal  throughout  the 
 New  Testament.  What  is  the  legitimate  inference  from  it  V 
 1  answer  that  its  writers  must  have  felt  certain  that  those  to 
 whom  they  wrote  were  so  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the 
 is  oiy  o  ur  Lord’s  actions,  as  to  have  rendered  any 
 definite  references  to  them  superfluous. 
 
 These  considerations  justify  the  two  following  conclu- 
 elusions  : — *  ° 
 
 1.  As  the  Church  was  in  possession  of  an  account  of  Our 
 Lord  s  actions,  which  in  its  great  outlines  was  analogous  to 
 that  which  is  contained  in  our  Gospels,  it  is  impossible  that 
 during  the  short  interval  between  a.d.  58  and  a.d.  90  a 
 
 legendary  Jesus  can  have  altogether  obscured  the  true 
 lineaments  of  the  Jesus  of  history. 
 
 2.  As  the  recollections  of  the  Apostle,  and  of  a  con¬ 
 siderable  number  of  those  to  whom  he  wrote,  must  have 
 
 een  good  for  at  least  twenty  years  earlier,  it  is  impossible 
 that  a  legendary  Jesus  can  have  taken  the  place  of  the 
 historical  one  between  a.d.  58  and  a.d.  37. 
 
 thflt wthf°  in„cideiltal  referenoos  in  these  epistles  prove 
 that  the  facts  referred  to  must  have  been  accepted  by  all  the 
 
 parties  in  hese  Churches,  including  those  which  adopted 
 
 le  Piniciples  of  Jewish  Christianity,  the  main  outlines  of 
 
 these  facts  must  have  been  substantially  the  same  as  those 
 
 which  were  accepted  by  the  Church  at  Jerusalem;  or  in 
 
 other  words,  as  those  which  were  handed  down  by  Our 
 
 Lord  s  primitive  disciples  ;  and  whatever  differences  existed 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 322 
 
 between  tliem  were  not  differences  as  to  the  fundamental 
 facts  of  Christianity,  but  as  to  doctrinal  inferences  from 
 them.  The  evidence  therefore  which  is  furnished  by  these 
 epistles  carries  us  up  to  the  period  of  the  reconstruction  of 
 the  Church  immediately  after  the  Crucifixion. 
 
 I  now  approach  a  subject  of  paramount  importance, 
 namely,  the  evidence  which  these  epistles  furnish  of  the 
 truth  of  the  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord.*  It  will  be  impos¬ 
 sible  for  me  to  adduce  within  the  limits  of  these  Lectures  the 
 whole  of  this  evidence.  All  I  can  do  is  to  summarize  the 
 results  of  a  careful  examination  of  them,  and  of  the  other 
 writings  of  the  New  Testament. 
 
 I.  They  furnish  unquestionable  proof  that  at  the  time  of 
 their  composition,  i.e .,  within  from  twenty-five  to  thirty 
 years  from  the  date  of  the  Crucifixion,  the  Resurrection  of 
 Jesus  Christ  was  accepted  as  a  fact  by  every  section  of  the 
 Christian  Church,  including  those  Jewish  opponents  who 
 denied  St.  PauTs  apostolical  commission ;  and  the  Church 
 at  Rome,  which  he  had  not  planted. 
 
 II.  It  was  not  accepted,  as  men  give  credit  to  an  ordinary 
 occurrence,  or  a  mere  ghost  story,  but  as  an  event  fi aught 
 
 *  It  will  be  evident  why  I  do  not  appeal  to  the  Gospels  to  establish 
 the  truth  of  the  Resurrection,  hut  rely  exclusively  on  the  Pauline 
 Epistles.  While  the  historical  character  of  the  former  is  denied  by 
 unbelievers,  that  of  the  four  great  epistles  is  undisputed.  Therefore, 
 in  dealing  with  their  evidence,  we  are  resting  on  a  foundation  which  is 
 unquestionable.  But  before  the  Gospels  can  be  made  available  for 
 this  purpose,  we  must  first  prove  their  genuineness,  and  that  their 
 contents  embody  an  accurate  account  of  the  traditions  of  the  primitive 
 followers  of  Jesus.  This  can  only  be  effected  by  the  circuitous  course 
 of  reasoning  above  referred  to.  In  the  present  aspects  of  thought 
 therefore,  to  attempt  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  Resurrection  by  appeal¬ 
 ing  to  the  testimony  of  the  Gospels-  alone,  and  unsupported  by  other 
 evidence,  involves  a  jpetitio principii  of  the  entire  question.  I  therefore 
 base  the  proof  on  documents  which  even  unbelievers  admit  to  be  the 
 genuine  writings  of  the  greatest  Missionary  of  the  Apostolic  Church — 
 in  fact,  on  a  species  of  evidence  which  the  universal  voice  of  modern 
 historians  affirms  to  be  historical  testimony  of  the  highest  order. 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 323 
 
 with  the  most  important  consequences.  It  was  the  founda¬ 
 tion  on  which  the  Church  was  erected ;  it  constituted  the 
 inner  life  of  Christianity ;  it  was  felt  to  constitute  a  great 
 moral  and  spiritual  power;*  in  fact  on  it  was  based  the 
 entire  claim  of  Jesus  to  be  accepted  as  the  Messiah,  and  His 
 right  of  Lordship  over  the  Church.  From  it  directly  flowed 
 that  duty  of  self-sacrifice  which  every  believer  felt  to  be 
 due  to  his  risen  Master,  in  return  for  His  self-sacrificing 
 love.  It  was  also  viewed  as  the  pledge  of  immortality,  and 
 formed  the  basis  of  the  religious  life  of  the  Church  as  a 
 community,  and  of  its  individual  members. 
 
 III.  The  evidence  furnished  by  these  epistles,  not  only 
 affords  indisputable  proof  that  the  Resurrection  was 
 accepted  by  the  entire  Church  as  the  ground  of  its  exist¬ 
 ence,  when  the  Apostle  wrote  them,  but  also  that  it  was 
 reconstructed  on  the  basis  of  this  belief  immediately  after 
 the  Crucifixion.  The  proof  of  this  is  of  the  utmost  impor¬ 
 tance  in  reference  to  the  historical  argument,  for  it  renders 
 it  certain  that  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection  could  not  have 
 grown,  after  the  manner  of  marvellous  stories,  made  up  of 
 one  addition  after  another,  aided  by  distance  of  time  and 
 place.  On  this  point  they  furnish  us  with  the  following 
 evidence  : — 
 
 1.  St.  Paul  accepted  it  as  a  fact  from  the  date  of  his  con¬ 
 version.  He  was  persuaded  that  he  had  seen  the  risen 
 Jesus.  Whether  what  he  believed  that  he  saw,  was  an 
 objective  reality,  or  the  result  of  a  heated  imagination,  it  is 
 equally  valid  to  prove  that  the  belief  was  at  that  period  the 
 accepted  one  of  the  entire  Church. 
 
 2.  The  Apostle's  personal  testimony  enables  us  to  prove 
 that  this  belief  must  have  originated  within  a  few  days  after 
 
 *  Between  a  fact  which  has  produced  no  effect  on  the  world’s  his¬ 
 tory  and  one  which  has  exerted  a  mighty  one,  there  is  a  wide  interval. 
 Great  results  are  produced  by  realities  ;  unrealities  collapse  of  them¬ 
 selves.  A  phenomenon  which  has  exerted  the  most  powerful  influence 
 on  the  history  of  mankind  affords  of  itself  a  strong  presumption  that 
 it  cannot  have  been  founded  on  pure  delusion. 
 
 21* 
 
THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 324 
 
 th.6  Crucifixion.  He  informs  us  that  lie  had  been  one  of  the 
 chief  agents  in  the  persecution  of  the  Church.  ^/Vlien 
 acting  in  this  capacity  his  means  of  ascertaining  when  and 
 where  the  belief  originated  must  have  been  ample  ;  and  as 
 the  agent  of  the  priesthood,  he  must  have  been  entrusted 
 with  their  private  theory  on  this  subject.  That  he  did  not 
 make  a  thorough  inquiry  into  a  point  of  such  importance,  is 
 inconceivable.  Yet  he  informs  us  that  Jesus  was  believed 
 to  have  risen  on  the  third  day  after  His  crucifixion  ;  and 
 that  His  appearances  took  place  immediately  afterwards.  It 
 is  impossible  therefore  to  account  for  this  oelief  on  the  prin¬ 
 ciple  that  it  originated  in  a  mere  idle  story,  which  distance 
 of  time  and  place  converted  into  a  fact.  Stories  of  this 
 kind  always  require  considerable  intervals  of  time  during 
 which  they  consolidate  themselves;  but  St.  Paul's  testimony 
 is  conclusive  that  the  necessary  interval  is  not  to  be  had. 
 If  the  belief  was  the  result  of  a  delusion,  it  must  have 
 originated  then  and  there. 
 
 3.  The  Apostle's  personal  testimony  is  corroborated  b y 
 the  fact,  that  such  was  also  the  belief  of  the  Judaizing 
 Section  of  the  Church.  The  incidental  form  of  his  refer¬ 
 ences  proves,  that  on  this  point  there  was  no  difference  of 
 opinion  between  him  and  his  opponents.  Their  beliefs 
 carry  with  them  that  of  the  Church  of  Jei  usalem,  and  of 
 the  primitive  disciples  of  Jesus.  This  being  so,  it  is  impos¬ 
 sible  that  they  could  have  been  ignorant  when  the  belief 
 originated ;  and  whether  the  Church  was  reconstructed  on 
 
 its  basis. 
 
 IY.  These  epistles  also  afford  definite  proof  that  Jesus 
 Christ  was  believed  to  have  been  seen  alive  after  His  cruci¬ 
 fixion  on  the  following  occasions.  First  by  Peter ;  after¬ 
 wards  by  the  entire  Apostolic  body,  when  they  were  assem¬ 
 bled  together ;  subsequently  by  upwards  of  five  hundred 
 disciples  at  once,  of  whom  more  than  half  survived  when 
 St.  Paul  wrote  the  letter  which  contains  the  statement. 
 Next  He  was  seen  by  James;  then  by  all  the  Apostles 
 in  a  body;  and  last  of  all  by  Paul  himself.  The  nature 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 325 
 
 of  tills  reference  by  no  means  implies  that  the  writer  meant 
 to  enumerate  all  the  appearances  with,  which  he  was  ac¬ 
 quainted. 
 
 Two  incidental  references  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
 will  help  us  to  verify  the  truth  of  these  statements.  The 
 Apostle  informs  us,  that  three  years  after  his  conversion  he 
 paid  a  visit  to  Jerusalem  of  fifteen  days'  duration,  during 
 which  he  was  entertained  by  Peter:  while  thus  in  close  com¬ 
 munication  with  him,  it  is  inconceivable  that  he  made  no 
 inquiries  of  him  respecting  his  interviews  with  his  risen 
 Master  ;  this  being  his  first  meeting  with  any  of  the  original 
 Apostles.  Now  in  the  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  a 
 private  interview  between  Peter  and  the  risen  Jesus  is 
 expressly  alleged  to  have  taken  place,  an  interview  of 
 which  we  have  no  other  knowledge  except  from  an  incidental 
 reference  in  St.  Luke's  Gospel,  who  represents  the  Apostles 
 as  exclaiming,  when  Cleopas  and  his  companion  entered  the 
 room  where  they  were  assembled  on  their  return  from 
 Emmaus,  “The  Lord  is  risen  indeed,  and  hath  appeared 
 unto  Simon."  Can  we  have  any  doubt  from  whom  St. 
 Paul  obtained  this  particular  piece  of  information  ? 
 
 In  like  manner  the  epistle  informs  us  that  on  the  occasion 
 of  this  visit  he  had  interviews  with  James.  Tfie  First 
 Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  likewise  informs  us,  that  James 
 was  favoured  with  a  private  interview  with  his  risen  Master. 
 This  fact  is  mentioned  nowhere  else;  can  we  doubt  that 
 the  source  of  St.  Paul's  information  must  have  been  James 
 himself  ?  It  is  inconceivable  that  he  should  have  had 
 interviews  with  these  two  Apostles  so  shortly  after  his 
 conversion,  which  he  attributed  to  an  appearance  of  the 
 risen  Jesus  to  himself,  without  making  any  inquiries  about 
 His  appearances  to  them.  The  comparison  therefore  of  the 
 statements  in  the  15th  chapter,  with  those  in  Gal.  ii.  puts 
 us  in  possession  of  the  direct  testimony  of  two  of  the 
 original  Apostles.  This  is  further  confirmed  by  the  fol¬ 
 lowing  fact : 
 
 St.  Paul  informs  us  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Galatians  that 
 
326 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 on  a  subsequent  visit  to  Jerusalem  lie  bad  a  formal  meeting* 
 with  the  heads  of  the  Jewish  Church,  of  whom  Peter, 
 James,  and  John,  were  the  acknowledged  chiefs;  and  on 
 this  occasion  he  communicated  to  them  the  most  important 
 points  of  that  Gospel  which  he  preached  among  the 
 Gentiles;  and  that  he  received  their  deliberate  sanction 
 of  it.  (Gal.  ii.  2,  9.)  Now  the  Epistles  make  it  certain 
 that  one  of  the  most  important  points  of  the  Pauline 
 Gospel  was  the  erection  of  the  Church  on  the  basis  of  the 
 Eesurrection.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  there  must  have 
 been  an  interchange  of  views  on  this  subject  not  only 
 between  St.  Paul  and  the  three  “  Pillar  Apostles,”  but 
 between  him  and  the  chiefs  of  the  Jewish  Church,  and 
 that  they  were  absolutely  in  accordance  with  him.  This 
 being  so,  it  carries  with  it  the  whole  weight  of  the  testi¬ 
 mony  of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem  to  the  fact  that  they 
 had  reconstructed  that  Church,  after  the  crucifixion  o 
 Jesus,  on  the  basis  of  His  resurrection.  This  fact,  there¬ 
 fore,  rests  on  an  historical  attestation,  than  which  nothing 
 can  be  stronger. 
 
 Y.  The  First  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  furnishes  us  with 
 a  singular  proof  of  the  tenacity  with  which  the  belief  in  Our 
 Lord’s  resurrection  must  have  been  clung  to  as  fundamental 
 to  the  Christian  faith.  Some  of  the  members  of  this  Church 
 jlenied  that  there  would  be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead 
 This  opinion,  if  carried  out  to  its  logical  conclusion,  would 
 have  been  destructive  of  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of 
 Jesus.  How  does  the  Apostle  deal  with  this  question  ? 
 He  endeavours  to  convince  them  of  their  error  by  the  fol¬ 
 lowing  very  singular  argument.  “  If  there  be  no  resurrec¬ 
 tion  of  the  dead,  then  is  Christ  not  risen.”  (xv.  13).  Or, 
 to  put  it  in  other  words,  “Your  denial  of  a  resurrection 
 involves  the  denial  of  the  resurrection  of  Christ.” 
 
 Now  nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  the  entire  force  of 
 the  Apostles’  reasoning  lies  in  the  firmness  of  their  belief  in 
 the  reality  of  the  resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  which  they  must 
 have  clung  to  as  a  fact,  although  they  held  opinions  which 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 327 
 
 were  logically  inconsistent  with  it.  If  this  had  not  been  the 
 case,  his  reasoning  was  obviously  exposed  to  the  following 
 crushing  answer:  “We  affirm  that  the  current  belief  m  the 
 resurrection  of  Jesus  is  the  result  of  some  mental  delusion, 
 and  therefore  the  argument  on  which  you  rely  is  worthless." 
 Nothing  can  more  strongly  prove  the  tenacity  with  which 
 the  resurrection  of  Our  Lord  must  have  been  accepted  as  a 
 fact  than  the  Apostle's  urging  it  as  a  proof  of  a  general 
 resurrection  to  those  who  considered  such  a  belief  to  be 
 
 irrational.*  # 
 
 YI.  These  statements  in  the  Pauline  letters  are  mlly 
 
 corroborated  by  other  portions  of  the  New  Testament, 
 among  which  I  would  especially  notice  the  Epistle  of  James 
 (which,  whoever  may  have  been  its  author,  presents  an  un¬ 
 questionable  portraiture  of  Jewish  Christianity),  and  prove 
 that  the  universal  Church,  without  distinction  of  party, 
 accepted  the  Resurrection  as  constituting  the  basis  on  which, 
 it  had  been  erected.  Further,  as  the  Apocalypse  is  admitted 
 on  all  sides  to  be  the  work  of  one  of  the  original  Apostles, 
 •it  furnishes  us,  not  with  secondary,  but  with  primary 
 
 evidence  on  this  point.  Not  only  does  it  make  it  clear 
 
 • 
 
 *  The  ground  of  the  denial  of  a  future  resurrection  would  be  in  all 
 probability  a  set  of  ideas  respecting  the  impurity  of  matter,  such  as 
 those  which  at  a  subsequent  period  lay  at  the  root  of  the  various 
 forms  of  Gnosticism,  viz.,  that  matter  was  the  source  of  moral  evil, 
 and  was  therefore  a  habitation  wholly  unfit  for  a  purified  spirit. .  If 
 these  were  the  views  which  formed  the  ground  of  this  denial,  it  is 
 strange  that  those  who  entertained  them  should  have  accepted  the 
 Resurrection  of  Christ  as  a  fact,  and  not  attempted  to  explain  it 
 away  in  some  spiritual  sense.  However  this  may  have  been,  it  forms 
 a  striking  proof  of  the  strength  of  the  belief  with  which  at  this  early 
 period  the  Church  must  have,  accepted  the  Resurrection  as  an  unques¬ 
 tionable  reality.  Not  long  afterwards  these  opinions  were  carried  out, 
 to  their  logical  conclusion  ;  but  they  did  not  result  in  the  denial  of  the 
 reality  of  Our  Lord’s  resurrection,  but  of  his  death  ;  one  party  affirming 
 that  it  was  nothing  but  a  phantom  which  suffered  on  the  cross  ;  and 
 another  that  the  Eon  Christ  had  united  himself  to  the  human  Jesus 
 for  the  purpose  of  revealing  the  unknown  Father;  and  had  deserted 
 him  on  his  crucifixion,  leaving  his  former  companion  to  expire  miserably 
 
 on  the  cross. 
 
328 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 that  its  author  was  firmly  convinced  of  the  truth  of  the 
 Resurrection;  but  I  think  that  it  is  impossible  to  read  it 
 and  arrive  at  the  conclusion  that  the  first  interview  which 
 St.  John  believed  that  he  had  with  his  risen  Master  was 
 the  vision  at  Patmos. 
 
 Such  are  the  facts  which  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  the 
 other  writing's  of  the  New  Testament  prove  with  regard  to 
 the  Resurrection.  I  will  briefly  summarize  them. 
 
 First. 
 
 That  it  is  an  unquestionable  fact  that  the  Church,  which 
 was  for  the  time  dissolved  by  the  Crucifixion,  was  recon¬ 
 structed  on  the  basis  of  the  Resurrection. 
 
 Second. 
 
 That  the  belief  originated  on  the  spot  within  a  few  days 
 of  the  Crucifixion,  and  that  the  fact  was  openly  proclaimed 
 as  the  new  foundation  on  which  the  Church  was  to  be 
 erected  and  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  to  be  set  up. 
 
 Third. 
 
 That  all  the  efforts  of  Paul  and  his  fellow-persecutors 
 failed  to  discover  that  this  belief  was  the  result  of  fraud  or 
 delusion. 
 
 Fourth. 
 
 That  the  Apostolic  body  believed  that  they  had  two  inter¬ 
 views  with  Jesus,  in  which  they  saw  Him  alive,  after  His 
 crucifixion. 
 
 Fifth. 
 
 That  two  of  the  Apostles  were  persuaded  that  they  had 
 private  interviews  with  Him. 
 
 Sixth. 
 
 That  upwards  of  five  hundred  brethren  believed  that  they 
 saw  Him  alive  after  His  crucifixion,  when  they  were  assem¬ 
 bled  in  a  body. 
 
 Seventh. 
 
 That  Paul  was  persuaded  that  he  had  seen  Him. 
 
 Eighth. 
 
 That  large  numbers  of  believers  were  firmly  persuaded 
 that  in  consequence  of  His  resurrection  they  had  become 
 possessed  of  certain  supernatural  gifts  and  endowments. 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 029 
 
 Ninth. 
 
 That  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection  acted  as  a  mighty 
 power  of  moral  and  spiritual  regeneration. 
 
 I  fully  admit  that  all  this  does  not  prove  that  the  Resur¬ 
 rection  was  an  objective  reality,  although  it  goes  a  long  way 
 in  that  direction.  It  is  still  open  to  the  alternative,  that  the 
 belief  in  it  may  have  originated  in  mental  delusion  ;  for  the 
 idea  that  it  was  owing  to  a  deliberately  concocted  fraud  may 
 be  dismissed  at  once.  Before  concluding,  let  me  briefly 
 state  what  the  evidence  which  I  have  adduced  is  adequate 
 to  prove. 
 
 1.  It  disposes  effectually  of  every  form  of  the  mythic  and 
 legendary  theories,  as  well  as  those  of  tendencies,  and  of 
 gradual  evolution,  as  affording  any  possible  account  of  the 
 origin  of  the  narratives  of  the  Gospels.* 
 
 2.  It  proves  that  it  is  impossible  that  the  belief  in  the 
 Resurrection  could  have  grown  up  in  the  gradual  manner  in 
 which  ordinary  fictions  do,  i.e.  at  a  considerable  distance  of 
 time  and  place  from  the  occurence  of  the  supposed  events ; 
 but  on  the  contrary,  that  it  originated  at  Jerusalem  within 
 a  few  days  after  the  public  execution  of  Jesus  ;  that  it  was 
 immediately  proclaimed  as  a  fact  by  His  followers ;  and  the 
 Church  was  reconstructed  on  its  basis. 
 
 *  It  is  simply  marvellous  that  such  an  amount  of  ingenuity  should 
 have  been  expended  in  inventing  theories  to  account  for  the  origin  of 
 the  miraculous  narratives  of  the  Gospels,  on  the  principle  that  they 
 have  originated  in  the  gradual  creations  of  the  legendary  spirit,  and 
 in  the  other  explanations  which  have  been  offered  on  the  supposition 
 that  the  belief  in  them  has  originated,  not  dishonestly,  but  in  some 
 form  of  delusion.  It  is  obvious  that  all  such  attempts  are  futile,  while 
 the  theories  propounded  are  not  adequate  to  account  for  the  belief 
 in  the  Resurrection.  No  possible  modification  of  any  theory  of  myth 
 or  legend  can  effect  this  consistently  with  the  facts  which  these  epistles 
 prove  to  have  been  unquestionable  historical  verities.  The  sooner 
 both  believers  and  unbelievers  fully  recognize  that  the  entire  con¬ 
 troversy  turns  on  the  objective  reality  of  the  Resurrection  of  Our 
 Lord,  the  better ;  for  it  will  save  useless  expenditure  of  intellectual 
 effort.  It  was  a  belief  which  created  the  Christian  Church,  and  not 
 one  which  was  evolved  by  it. 
 
330 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 3.  That  as  the  truth  of  the  Resurrection  is  a  cause  which 
 affords  a  philosophic  account  of  all  the  facts  of  history  in 
 connection  with  the  Christian  Church,  and  as  it  has  ever 
 been  put  forward  by  the  Church  as  the  true  account  of  those 
 facts,  and  the  sole  ground  of  its  existence,  we  are  fully 
 entitled  to  accept  it  as  the  true  one  until  some  other  can  be 
 propounded  which  is  equally  rational. 
 
 Modern  unbelief  has  fully  admitted  the  necessity  of  some 
 rational  and  philosophical  solution  of  these  unquestionable 
 facts  of  history.  It  denies  that  Jesus  ever  rose  from  the 
 dead.  It  affirms  that  the  belief  in  his  Resurrection  origi¬ 
 nated  in  the  hallucination  of  his  followers ;  and  in  order  to 
 account  for  this  delusion  it  has  propounded  two  theories. 
 One  of  these  is  “  the  Theory  of  Visions.”  The  other  is  that 
 Jesus  did  not  die  of  the  wounds  he  received  in  crucifixion, 
 but  that  he  recovered  and  retired  from  public  view ;  and 
 that  this  recovery  and  retirement  were  mistaken  by  his 
 credulous  followers  for  a  resurrection  and  an  ascension 
 into  heaven.  TIow  far  these  two  theories  are  adequate  to 
 account  for  the  verities  of  history  it  will  be  my  duty  to 
 inquire  in  my  next  Lecture. 
 
 SUPPLEMENT. 
 
 The  limits  imposed  on  me  by  the  necessity  of  treating 
 this  subject  in  a  single  Lecture,  have  allowed  me  to  give 
 only  a  summary  of  the  chief  historical  facts  of  which  these 
 epistles  afford  distinctive  proof;  but  as  the  subject  is  one 
 of  the  highest  importance  in  relation  to  the  Christian  argu¬ 
 ment,  I  propose  in  this  Supplement  to  adduce  the  evidence 
 on  which  my  positions  rest,  and  to  draw  the  conclusions 
 which  legitimately  follow  from  it. 
 
 In  estimating  this  evidence,  it  will  be  necessary  to  ob¬ 
 serve  the  distinction  between  St.  Pauks  express  assertions 
 and  those  which  are  made  in  so  incidental  a  manner  as  to 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 331 
 
 show  that  they  were  not  only  his  own  opinions,  but  were 
 accepted  by  Churches  which  did  not  derive  their  Christianity 
 from  him  ;  and  above  all,  by  his  opponents. 
 
 But  even  if  it  were  otherwise,  when  we  consider  that  the 
 date  of  the  composition  of  these  letters  was  only  separated 
 from  that  of  Oar  Lord's  ministry  by  the  brief  interval  of 
 twenty-eight  years,  and  his  conversion  by  only  six  or  seven, 
 his  metamorphosing  a  perfectly  human  Jesus  into  the  divine 
 Christ  of  the  epistles,  is  without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of 
 deifications ;  and  is  only  explicable  on  the  assumption  that 
 he  was  acquainted  with  certain  facts,  which  he  held  to  justify 
 him  in  depicting  a  man  who  had  been  publicly  crucified  by 
 the  chiefs  of  his  nation,  as  invested  with  divine  attributes. 
 
 But  I  have  already  shown  that  the  four  great  epistles 
 enable  us  to  get  far  beyond  the  Pauline  views  on  this  subject. 
 The  incidental  references  in  them  prove  that  certain  of  these 
 beliefs  must  have  been  held  by  the  churches  of  Pauline 
 foundation  in  common  with  tlio  members  of  the  Cnurch  at 
 Borne,  which  had  not  derived  its  Christianity  from  him  )  ana 
 those  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  and  Galatians  piove 
 that  even  his  opponents  must  have  accepted  Jesus  as  a 
 superhuman  Christ.  Hence  it  is  inconceivable  that  the 
 accounts  which  they  possessed  of  His  ministry  did  not 
 attribute  to  Him  the  exercise  of  miraculous  powers. 
 
 As  the  Epistle  to  the  Bomans  is  the  highest  authority  on 
 this  point,  I  will  refer  to  it  first.  It  opens  as  follows  : 
 
 “  Paul,  a  servant  of  Jesus  Christ,  called  to  be  an  apostle, 
 separated  unto  the  gospel  of  Glod  (which  he  had  promised 
 afore  by  his  prophets  in  the  Holy  Scriptures),  concerning  his 
 Son  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  who  was  made  of  the  seed  of  David 
 according  to  the  flesh,  and  declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with 
 power,  according  to  the  spirit  Of  holiness,  by  the  resurrec¬ 
 tion  from  the  dead."  (Bom.  i.  1-4.)  It  is  incredible  that 
 the  Apostle  should  have  introduced  himself  to  a  Church 
 which  he  had  never  visited,  and  whose  good  will  he  was 
 anxious  to  conciliate,  by  mahing  statements  such  as  are 
 contained  in  this  exordium,  unless  he  had  been  persuaded 
 
332 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 that  the)  were  already  fully  acquiesced  in  by  its  members. 
 His  opening  words,  in  which  he  affirms  that  the  good  news 
 respecting  the  Son  of  God  had  been  previously  promised 
 ( through  the  prophets  in  the  Holy  Scriptures/'  prove  that 
 a  large  proportion  of  those  whom  he  addressed  were  Jewish 
 Chiistians ;  for  such  a  reference  would  have  been  entirely 
 out  of  place  if  addressed  to  Gentile  converts,  whose  acquaint¬ 
 ance  with  the  Old  .Testament  must  have  been  very  limited. 
 As  the  epistle  makes  it  evident  that  his  purpose  was  to 
 win  their  good  will,  it  is  therefore  certain  that  he  could  not 
 have  entertained  the  smallest  doubt  that  the  Jewish  party, 
 which  was  a  powerful  one  in  this  Church,  would  accept  the 
 statement  in  the  exordium  as  a  portion  of  their  common 
 faith.  This  being  so,  it  must  have  constituted  the  faith  of 
 the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  and  could  not  have  been  a  mere 
 Pauline  development  of  Christianity. 
 
 This  exordium  therefore  establishes  the  following  points 
 respecting  the  beliefs  of  the  original  followers  of  Jesus  : 
 
 1.  That  He  was  the  Son  of  God  in  a  sense  wholly  different 
 from  that  in  which  other  men  are  the  sons  of  God.  Such 
 a  view  of  His  character  is  strictly  in  accordance  with  the 
 delineation  in  the  Gospels,  to  which  I  have  before  drawn 
 attention,  and  which  invariably  represents  Our  Lord  as 
 carefully  distinguishing  between  God's  Fatherhood  to  Him¬ 
 self,  and  His  Fatherhood  to  other  men,  speaking  of  Him  as 
 
 My  Father  and  ffyour  Father,"  but  never  as  “  our 
 Father,"  This  is  strongly  brought  out  in  the  language  of 
 the  Fourth  Gospel,  while  the  distinction  is  invariably 
 observed  by  the  Synoptics,  “  My  Father  and  your  Father," 
 “  My  God  and  your  God." 
 
 2.  That  lie  became  (rou  ysvo/utvov )  according  to  His 
 human  birth  (Kara  rrctpKa)  a  descendant  of  David. 
 
 3.  That  He  was  definitely  marked  out  (roD  opta^ivroc)  as 
 the  Son  of  God  with  power,  by  His  resurrection. 
 
 4.  That  He  was  the  Lord  of  the  Church,  and  the  source 
 of  grace  and  peace  in  conjunction  with  the  Father. 
 
 From  these  facts  it  follows : — 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 333 
 
 1.  The  Messiah  who  was  accepted  in  common  by  St.  Paul 
 and  the  Jewish  members  of  this  Church,  and  whom  they 
 identified  with  Jesus,  must  have  been  a  superhuman  Christ. 
 
 2.  That  in  conformity  with  the  statements  in  the  Gospels 
 Jesus  was  a  descendant  of  David.  (Rom.  i.  3.) 
 
 3.  That  He  had  an  origin  higher  than  His  purely  human 
 one,  and  consequently  that  St.  Paul  and  the  members  of  this 
 Church  must  have  accepted  an  account  of  his  superhuman 
 birth  analogous  to  that  which  is  contained  in  our  Gospels. 
 
 4.  That  by  the  Resurrection  He  was  definitely  marked  out 
 to  be  (C  the  Son  of  God  with  power.”  Such  are  the  views 
 respecting  the  superhuman  character  of  Jesus,  which  must 
 have  been  held  in  common  by  St.  Paul  and  the  Jewish 
 members  of  this  Church,  who  must  have  derived  their 
 Christianity  from  some  of  the  primitive  followers  of  Jesus.  Is 
 it  conceivable  that  persons  who  accepted  such  a  Christ  can 
 have  been  ignorant  of  the  events  of  his  earthly  ministry, 
 and  that  the  accounts  which  they  possessed  of  it  did  not 
 ascribe  to  him  a  number  of  miraculous  actions  ? 
 
 II.  The  ninth  chapter  contains  a  statement  closely 
 analogous.  The  Apostle  is  speaking  of  the  privileges  of  the 
 Jews,  whom  he  designates  his  kinsmen  according  to  the 
 flesh  ;  and  expressing  his  deep  sorrow  at  their  national 
 unbelief.  This  portion  of  the  epistle  is  expressly  addressed 
 to  that  part  of  the  Church  which  was  of  Jewish  origin ;  he 
 approaches  them  thus  :  “  For  I  could  wish  that  myself  were 
 accursed  from  Christ  for  my  brethren,  my  kinsmen  accord¬ 
 ing  to  the  flesh,  who  are  Israelites,  to  whom  pertaineth  the 
 adoption  and  the  glory,  and  the  covenants,  and  the  giving 
 of  the  law,  and  the  service  of  God,  and  the  promises, 
 whose  are  the  fathers,  and  of  whom  as  concerning  the 
 flesh  Christ  came,  who  is  over  all,  God  blessed  for  ever.” 
 (Rom.  ix.  3*5.) 
 
 This  passage  taken  by  itself  might  be  open  to  the 
 objection  that  the  Apostle  is  speaking  of  two  kinds  of  father¬ 
 hood,  one  arising  from  birth,  and  the  other  spiritual,  and 
 that,  as  it  is  in  the  former  sense  that  he  speaks  of  the  Jews 
 
334 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 as  his  kinsmen  according  to  the  flesh,  it  might  be  urged,  that 
 in  speaking  thus  of  J esus,  he  refers  to  His  earthly  origin,  as 
 distinct  from  His  spiritual  character.  But  when  we  compare 
 it  with  the  exordium  of  the  epistle,  no  doubt  can  remain  as 
 to  the  reference  intended.  In  like  manner  it  has  been  dis¬ 
 puted  whether  the  words  “  God  blessed  for  ever”  are 
 intended  to  refer  to  Jesus,  or  whether  they  are  a  doxology 
 to  God  the  Father.  I  therefore  forbear  to  urge  this  passage 
 by  itself  as  affording  a  certain  proof  of  my  position ;  but 
 only  adduce  it  as  a  strong  confirmation  of  that  furnished  by 
 the  exordium,  which  is  open  to  no  such  ambiguity.  Both 
 passages  taken  together,  prove  beyond  question  that  the 
 Jewish  members  of  the  Church  at  Borne  must  have  attri¬ 
 buted  to  Jesus  a  superhuman  character;  and  consequently 
 that  the  accounts  which  they  possessed  of  His  ministry 
 must  have  contained  narratives  which  afforded  a  justification 
 of  it. 
 
 It  will  be  needless  for  me  to  cite  all  the  passages  in  this 
 Epistle  which  attribute  a  high  Christology  to  Jesus.  The 
 all-important  question  is,  did  the  Church  accept  this  Christo¬ 
 logy  on  the  authority  of  the  Apostle,  or  were  they  already 
 believers  in  it  independently  of  his  testimony  ? 
 
 The  following  considerations  render  it  certain  that  the 
 latter  must  have  been  the  case. 
 
 First:  the  Christology  of  the  epistle  is  not  propounded 
 in  a  formulated  system,  as  it  certainly  would  have  been  by 
 a  person  who  was  endeavouring  to  set  forth  a  body  of 
 new  doctrines  with  which  those  to  whom  he  wrote  were 
 unacquainted.  On  the  contrary,  it  consists  entirely  of  very 
 incidental  allusions.  It  forms  a  striking  contrast  to  the 
 mode  in  which  the  writer  sets  forth  his  doctrine  of  justifica¬ 
 tion  by  faith.  This  is  carefully  formulated.  Here  it  is 
 evident  that  he  felt  that  he  was  communicating  something 
 which  could  be  only  imperfectly  appreciated  by  a  consider¬ 
 able  number  of  those  to  whom  he  wrote.  Quite  different  is 
 it  with  the  Christology.  Its  most  advanced  statements  are 
 made  for  purposes  pre-eminently  practical.  The  doctrine  of 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 335 
 
 justification  by  faith  is  attempted  to  be  proved.  Not  a 
 single  attempt  is  made  to  prove  the  truth  of  the  Christology. 
 What.,  then,  is  the  legitimate  inference  ?  I  answer,  that  the 
 author  must  have  been  convinced  that  those  to  whom  he 
 wrote  already  accepted  it  in  its  great  outlines. 
 
 Secondly  :  whenever  one  man  urges  a  truth  on  another 
 for  the  purpose  of  producing  a  practical  influence  on  his 
 conduct,  he  must  necessarily  do  one  of  two  things ;  either 
 he  must  endeavour  to  prove  it,  or  take  it  for  granted 
 that  the  person  whom  he  exhorts  is  already  persuaded  of 
 it.  Thus,  if  we  attempt  to  exhort  a  man  to  the  practice 
 of  virtue,  on  the  ground  that  it  will  be  conducive  to  his 
 highest  happiness,  common  sense  suggests  that  unless  the 
 person  we  exhort  admits  the  truth  of  our  principle,  we 
 must  endeavour  to  convince  him  that  it  is  so.  Now  the 
 epistle  clearly  shows  that  every  reference  which  it  contains 
 to  a  Christology  is  made  for  the  purpose  of  influencing 
 the  conduct  of  those  to  whom  it  is  addressed  :  so  that  they 
 must  have  already  accepted  one  which  assigned  to  Jesus  the 
 attributes  of  a  superhuman  Christ  as  fundamental  to  their 
 faith.  I  need  only  subjoin  a  single  example  of  the  Apostle's 
 mode  of  statement. 
 
 In  the  14th  and  in  the  opening  of  the  15th  chapter, 
 he  is  discussing  a  question  which  at  that  time  was  one  of 
 the  greatest  interest  to  Christians  generally,  and  above 
 all,  to  the  Jewish  Christians,  namely,  the  duty  of  observing 
 certain  days,  and  the  lawfulness  of  eating  certain  kinds  of 
 food.  He  disposes  of  the  entire  question  by  laying  down  a 
 great  principle,  which  involves  a  Christology  of  a  high 
 order;  and  as  these  questions  were  keenly  debated  between 
 the  two  great  parties  in  the  Church,  he  must  have  felt  con¬ 
 fident  that  the  principle  thus  propounded  was  one  in  which 
 both  of  them  would  cordially  acquiesce.  He  writes  as 
 follows : 
 
 “  Who  art  thou  that  judgest  another  man's  servant  ?  To 
 his  own  master  he  standeth  or  falleth.  Yea,  he  shall  be 
 hoi  den  up,  for  God  is  able  to  make  him  stand.  One  man 
 
336 
 
 THE  AEG GHENT  FEOM 
 
 esteemeth  one  day  above  another ;  another  esteemeth  every 
 day  alike.  Let  every  man  be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own 
 mind.  He  that  regardeth  the  day,  regardeth  it  to  the  Lord  ; 
 and  he  that  regardeth  not  the  day,  to  the  Lord  he  doth  not 
 regard  it.  He  that  eateth,  eateth  to  the  Lord ,  for  he 
 giveth  God  thanks :  and  he  that  eateth  not,  to  the  Lord 
 he  eateth  not,  and  giveth  God  thanks.  For  none  of  us 
 liveth  to  himself ;  and  no  man  dieth  to  himself,  for  whether 
 we  live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord ,  and  whether  we  die,  we  die 
 unto  the  Lord :  whether  we  live  therefore,  or  die,  we  are  the 
 Lord’s ;  for  to  this  end  Christ  both  died,  and  rose,  and 
 revived,  that  he  might  be  Lord  both  of  the  dead  and  living. 
 But  why  dost  thou  judge  thy  brother;  or  why  dost  thou 
 set  at  nought  thy  brother;  for  we  shall  all  stand  before 
 the  judgment  seat  of  Christ.  For  it  is  written,  As  I  live 
 saith  the  Lord  (Jehovah  in  the  Prophets),  every  knee  shall 
 bow  to  me ,  and  every  tongue  shall  confess  to  God.  So  then 
 every  one  of  us  shall  give  account  of  himself  to  God.’9 
 (B,oru.  xiv.  4-12.) 
 
 The  Christology  of  this  passage,  although  not  formulated, 
 is  unquestionably  an  elevated  one,  and  assigns  a  highly 
 superhuman  character  to  the  Lord  Christ.  He  is  not  only 
 regarded  as  the  supreme  source  of  obligation  to  Christians, 
 not  only  is  universal  Lordship  attributed  to  Him,  but  the 
 writer,  in  a  manner  which  is  almost  unconscious,  intermixes 
 the  acts  done  by  Him,  and  the  obligations  due  to  Him,  with 
 those  which  are  done  by  and  due  to  God.  It  is  impossible 
 to  conceive  anything  more  purely  incidental  than  the  allu¬ 
 sions  of  the  writer  to  the  Christology ;  nor  can  anything 
 be  more  practical  than  the  purpose  for  which  he  makes  them. 
 I  infer  therefore,  that  he  must  have  been  firmly  persuaded 
 that  the  idea  of  Jesus  as  a  superhuman  Christ  was  fully 
 acquiesced  in  by  both  sections  of  the  Church.  If  so,  not 
 only  does  its  acceptance  by  the  Jewish  section  carry  it  up  to 
 the  earliest  times  of  Christianity,  but  we  also  learn  that  two 
 members  of  it,  Androriicus  and  Junia,  were  members  of  the 
 Church  before  St.  Paul's  conversion ;  consequently  their 
 
THE  PAULINE  ’EPISTLES. 
 
 837 
 
 acquiescence  carries  with  it  that  of  the  primitive  Church  at 
 Jerusalem.  This  being  so,  it  is  incredible  that  persons  who 
 lived  so  near  the  times  of  Our  Lord’s  ministry  should  have 
 acquiesced  in  a  Christology  of  this  description,  unless  they 
 were  acquainted  with  a  number  of  actions  in  which  Jesus 
 
 was  believed  by  them  to  have  manifested  a  superhuman 
 power. 
 
 Equally  valuable  is  the  testimony  furnished  by  the 
 other  three  great  Epistles.  It  may  be  objected  that  they 
 are  addressed  to  Churches  founded  by  Paul,  and  there¬ 
 fore  that  they  only  represent  his  own  opinions  ;  but  for¬ 
 tunately  for  the  purpose  of  my  argument,  the  Corinthian 
 Church  also  contained  a  formidable  Judaizing  party,  which 
 was  far  more  opposed  to  the  views  of  the  Apostle  than  the 
 corresponding  party  in  the  Church  at  Rome;  and  in  the 
 Galatian  Churches  it  was  the  predominant  one.  We  may, 
 therefore,  safely  draw  the  conclusion  that  those  portions  of 
 the  Pauline  Christology  which  the  structure  of  the  Epistles 
 proves  to  have  been  accepted  by  his  opponents,  must  have 
 been  a  common  Christology  on  which  the  Church  was 
 erected,  and  similar  in  its  features  to  that  which  was  held 
 by  the  primitive  followers  of  Jesus. 
 
 Here  again  the  introduction  to  the  Epistle  furnishes  con¬ 
 clusive  evidence  that  every  one  of  the  numerous  parties  in 
 the  Corinthian  Church  must  have  recognized  Jesus  as  a 
 superhuman  Christ.  "  Paul,  called  to  be  an  Apostle  of 
 Jesus  Christ,  through  the  will  of  God ;  and  Sosthenes  our 
 brother,  unto  the  Church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth,  to 
 them  who  are  sanctified  in  Christ  Jesus,  called  to  be  saints, 
 with  all  that  in  every  place  call  on  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ 
 our  Loi  cl ,  both  theirs  and  ours.  Grace  be  unto  you,  and 
 peace  from  God  our  Father,  and  from  the  Lord  Jesus 
 Christ.”  (1  Cor.  i.  1-3.)  The  contents  of  the  Epistle  show 
 that  the  Apostle  was  fully  aware  of  the  existence  of  a  for¬ 
 midable  party  in  this  Church  who  denied  the  reality  of  his 
 apostolical  commission.  It  is  therefore  inconceivable  that 
 
 22 
 
338 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 lie  should  have  opened  it  with  the  statement  of  a  Christology 
 of  which  he  must  have  been  certain  that  his  opponents 
 would  take  advantage,  unless  he  felt  sure  that  they  agreed 
 with  him  in  its  main  outlines.  As  Jewish  Christians  they 
 must  have  been  deeply  imbued  with  rigid  monotheistic 
 views,  yet  he  speaks  of  them  as  invoking  the  name  of  Jesus 
 Christ ;  and  backs  it  up  by  a  prayer  invoking  grace  and 
 peace  from  Him  in  conjunction  with  the  Father.  Yet  the 
 following  verses  prove  that  it  was  the  Apostle’s  purpose  to 
 conciliate  his  opponents.  This  introduction,  therefore, 
 renders  it  certain  that  they  must  have  accepted  Jesus  as  a 
 superhuman  Christ ;  otherwise  its  reading  would  have  been 
 interrupted  by  cries  of  blasphemy. 
 
 But  the  same  chapter  furnishes  additional  evidence.  At 
 the  23rd  verse  he  writes:  aWe  preach  Christ  crucified, 
 unto  the  Jews  a  stumblingblock,  and  to  the  Greeks 
 foolishness  ;  but  unto  them  which  are  called,  both  Jews  and 
 Greeks,  Christ  the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God/' 
 (23,  24.) 
 
 The  Apostle  here  affirms  that  he  had  been  in  the  habit  of 
 proclaiming  Christ  as  “  the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom 
 of  God/'’  From  this  it  follows  that  he  must  have  reported 
 actions  which  justified  the  ascription  to  Him  of  the  character 
 of  a  superhuman  Christ. 
 
 Other  passages  follow  to  the  same  purport :  “  But  of  Him 
 are  ye  in  Christ  Jesus,  who  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom, 
 and  rigliteousnesss,  and  sanctification,  and  redemption :  that, 
 according  as  it  is  written.  He  that  glorieth,  let  him  glory  in 
 the  Lord.”  (1  Cor.  i.  30,  31.) 
 
 The  passage  here  applied  to  Christ  is  in  the  Old  Testa¬ 
 ment  spoken  of  the  Lord  Jehovah.  (Jer.  ix.  24.)  Nothing 
 could  have  been  more  offensive  to  a  Monotheistic  Jew. 
 
 Again  :  “Let  a  man  so  account  of  us,  as  of  the  ministers 
 of  Christ,  and  stewards  of  the  mysteries  of  God.  More¬ 
 over  it  is  required  in  stewards,  that  a  man  be  found  faithful. 
 But  with  me  it  is  a  very  small  thing  that  I  should  be  judged 
 of  you  or  of  man’s  judgment :  yea,  I  judge  not  mine  own 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 339 
 
 Self'.  For  1  kno'v  nothing  by  myself;  yet  am  I  not  hereby 
 justified:  but  he  that  judged  me  is  the  Lord.  Therefore 
 judge  nothing  before  the  time,  until  the  Lord  come,  who  both 
 will  bring  to  light  the  hidden  things  of  darkness,  and  will 
 make  manifest  the  counsels  of  the  hearts  :  and  then  shall 
 every  man  have  praise  of  God.”  (1  Cor.  iv.  1-5). 
 
 This  would  have  been  strange  language  to  address  to 
 opponents  whom  the  writer  knew  to  reject  the  fundamental 
 points  of  the  Christology  involved  in  it. 
 
 In  the  eighth  chapter,  where  the  Apostle  discusses  the 
 lawfulness  of  eating  food  which  had  been  offered  in  sacrifice 
 to  an  idol,  he  proposes  the  following  principle  as  the  solu- 
 tion  of  the  entire  controversy  : — 
 
 “  For  though  there  be  that  are  called  gods,  whether  in 
 heaven  or  in  earth  (as  there  be  gods  many,  and  lords 
 many),  but  to  us  there  is  but  one  God,  the  Father,  of  whom 
 are  all  things,  and  we  in  him  (tig  aurbv) ;  and  one  Lord 
 
 Jesus  Christ,  through  (&<*)  whom  are  all  things,  and  we 
 through  him." 
 
 This  passage  is  conclusive.  It  is  addressed  to  men  with 
 Jewish  scruples  for  the  express  purpose  of  providing  a 
 solution  of  therm  The  writer  must  therefore  have  fully 
 calculated  on  their  acceptance  of  the  Christology  which  it 
 
 contains,  otherwise  his  observations  would  have  been 
 nugatory. 
 
 I  need  only  cite  a  single  passage  from  the  second  epistle. 
 
 I  will  therefore  adduce  one  from  the  most  controversial  part 
 of  it,  where  the  Apostle  is  distinctly  grappling  with  those 
 
 opponents  who  denied  his  apostolical  authority: _ “For  I 
 
 fear  lest  by  any  means,  as  the  serpent  beguiled  Eve  through 
 his  subtilty ,  so  your  minds  should  be  corrupted  from  the 
 simplicity  which  is  in  Christ.  For  if  lie  that  cometh  preacheth 
 another  Jesus ,  which  we  have  not  preached,  or  if  ye  receive 
 another  Spirit ,  whom  ye  have  not  received,  or  another 
 Gospel,  which  ye  have  not  accepted,  ye  might  well  bear  with 
 him.  For  I  suppose  I  was  not  a  whit  behind  the  very 
 chiefest  apostles."  (2  Cor.  xi.  3-5.) 
 
 22  * 
 
340 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 In  this  passage  the  Apostle  directly  affirms  in  the  face  of 
 his  opponents  that  the  Gospel  which  he  preached  was  in  its 
 fundamental  facts  the  same  as  that  which  was  accepted,  by 
 themselves.  What  then  was  the  difference  ?  Clearly  in 
 the  question  whether  Judaism  was  or  was  not  an  essen¬ 
 tial  portion  of  Christianity.  By  the  words,  “  lie  that 
 cometh the  Apostle  evidently  designates  his  chief  Jewish 
 opponent.  Yet  they  both  proclaimed  the  same  Jesus.  This 
 could  only  have  been  the  case,  by  both  according  to  Him 
 the  character  of  a  superhuman  Christ ;  for  if  they  had 
 differed  on  this  point  the  affirmation  that  the  same  Jesus 
 was  accepted  by  both  would  have  been  untrue.  It  follows, 
 therefore  that  their  respective  Christologies  m-ust  have 
 resembled  one  another  in  their  great  outlines,  for  otherwise 
 it  is  inconceivable  that  the  Apostle  should  have  written  a 
 statement  like  this,  in  the  immediate  context  of  which  he 
 throws  down  repeated  challenges  to  his  opponents  to  grapple 
 with  his  assertions. 
 
 The  Epistle  to  the  Galatians,  the  most  controversial  of  all 
 his  writings,  and  in  which  he  denounces  his  opponents  in 
 the  most  vehement  language,  opens  with  the  announcement 
 of  a  Christology  precisely  similar  to  that  which  we  have 
 been  considering.  It  is  incredible  that  he  should  have 
 adopted  this  course  in  the  very  opening  of  his  letter,  if  he 
 had  believed  that  his  opponents,  who  formed  the  most 
 formidable  party  in  this  Church,  could  have  denounced  it  as 
 inconsistent  with  that  which  was  held  by  the  Church  at 
 Jerusalem ;  his  chief  object  being  to  show  that  the  Gospel 
 which  he  preached  was  accepted  as  genuine  by  the  great 
 pillars  of  the  Jewish  Church.  Yet  immediately  after  the  in¬ 
 troduction,  in  which  he  affirms  that  he  derived  his  apostolical 
 office  from  no  human  authority,  and  his  usual  prayer  for 
 grace  and  peace  from  God  the  Father,  and  from  the  Lord 
 Jesus  Christ,  dropping  the  conciliatory  tone  with  which  he 
 introduces  his  other  epistles,  he  writes:  “I  marvel  that  ye 
 are  so  soon  removed  from  him  that  called  you  into  the  grace 
 of  Christ  unto  another  Gospel,  which  is  not  another ;  but 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 341 
 
 there  are  some  that  trouble  you,  and  would  pervert  the 
 Gospel  of  Christ.  For  although  we,  or  an  angel  from 
 heaven,  preach  any  other  Gospel  unto  you  than  that  which 
 we  have  preached  unto  you,  let  him  be  accursed.  As  I  said 
 before,  so  I  say  now  again.  If  auy  man  preach  any  other 
 Gospel  unto  you  than  that  which  ye  have  received,  let  him 
 be  accursed.”  (Gal.  i.  6-9.) 
 
 I  draw  attention  to  the  very  remarkable  expression  here 
 used  to  designate  the  Gospel  of  his  Judaizing  opponents. 
 It  was  “  another  Gospel ,  which  was  not  another. }>  *  How 
 could  this  be  possible  ?  We  have  seen  in  the  passage  cited 
 above  from  the  Second  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  that  the 
 Apostle  distinctly  affirmed  that  his  opponents  did  not 
 preach  “ another  Jesus,”  “ another  Spirit,”  “or  another 
 Gospel.  Yet  in  this  passage,  where  he  is  roused  to 
 indignation  at  the  widespread  defection  which  had  taken 
 place  in  the  Galatian  Churches,  he  designates  this  Judaizing 
 Gospel  as  “another  Gospel,  which  is  not  another.”  The 
 only  possible  explanation  of  this  expression  is  that  both 
 Gospels  were  the  same  in  fundamental  facts,  but  that  they 
 differed  in  the  inferences  deduced  from  them;  in  other 
 words,  that  they  agreed  in  assigning  a  superhuman  cha¬ 
 racter  to  Jesus,  but  that  the  Judaizing  Gospel  differed 
 from  the  Pauline  in  seeking  to  impose  the  observance  of 
 
 the  Jewish  rites  as  a  condition  of  membership  in  the 
 Church. 
 
 This  conclusion  is  borne  out  by  the  following  passage 
 in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians :  “  Some  indeed  preach 
 Christ  of  envy  and  strife,  and  some  also  of  good  will.  The 
 one  preach  Christ  of  contention,  not  sincerely,  supposing 
 to  add  affliction  to  my  bonds;  but  the  other  of  love, 
 knowing  that  I  am  set  for  the  defence  of  the  Gospel. 
 What  then  ?  notwithstanding  every  way,  whether  in 
 pretence,  or  in  truth,  Christ  is  preached;  and  I  therein 
 do  rejoice,  yea,  and  will  rejoice.”  (Phil.  i.  15-18.) 
 
 Gr.  'drtpov  svayysXiov,  6  ovk  ianv  dXXo.  The  Apostle  evidently  uses 
 'irtpov  and  dXAo  as  synonymous,  both  here  and  in  2  Cor.  xi.  3,  4. 
 
342 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 Here  again  we  are  plainly  in  the  presence  of  some  form 
 of  this  Jewish  Gospel.  The  Apostle  is  evidently  in  a  calmer 
 state  of  mind  than  when  he  wrote  to  the  Galatian  Churches. 
 So  earnest  is  his  desire  that  the  Gospel  of  Jesus  Christ 
 should  be  proclaimed,  that  he  rejoices  at  its  being  preached, 
 even  by  Judaizing  opponents.  It  is  impossible  therefore 
 that  it  can  have  been  “ another  Gospel’*  in  the  sense  in 
 which  he  denounced  such  a  Gospel,  whether  preached  by 
 himself,  or  “  an  angel  from  heaven.*’ 
 
 From  these  considerations  I  draw  the  following  con¬ 
 clusions  : 
 
 1.  Even  if  we  admit  that  the  later  Epistles  of  St.  Paul 
 present  us  with  a  more  advanced  Christology  than  his  four 
 great  Epistles,  still  he  held  even  at  this  time  one  of  a  very 
 advanced  type  ;  and  must  consequently  have  been  ac¬ 
 quainted  with  such  details  of  the  ministry  of  Jesus  as  would 
 justify  it;  in  other  words,  he  was  in  possession  of  an 
 account  similar  in  general  character  to  that  recorded  in 
 our  Gospels. 
 
 2.  As  St.  Paul’s  opponents  accepted  a  Christology 
 analogous  to  his  own,  they  must  also  have  been  in 
 possession  of  an  account  of  Christ’s  ministry  which  was 
 substantially  the  same  as  that  which  was  handed  down 
 by  His  primitive  followers,  and  consequently  must  have 
 ascribed  to  him  the  character  of  a  superhuman  Christ; 
 or,  in  other  words,  must  have  attributed  to  Him  the  per¬ 
 formance  of  miraculous  actions. 
 
 There  is  yet  one  more  document  in  the  New  Testament 
 to  which  I  must  refer,  viz.  the  Apocalypse.  Its  affirmations 
 on  this  point  are  decisive.  Unbelievers  not  only  allow  that 
 it  is  the  work  of  the  Apostle  John,  but  they  affirm  that  he 
 was  one  of  the  pillars  of  the  Judaizing  party  in  the  Church : 
 and  the  uncompromising  opponent  of  St.  Paul.  This  being 
 so  it  must  be  decisive  as  to  the  opinions  of  the  Judaizing 
 party. 
 
 Nothing  can  be  clearer  in  this  book  than  the  ascription 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 343 
 
 to  Jesus  of  tlie  character  of  a  highly  superhuman  Christ. 
 In  this  respect  it  is  fully  equal  to  the  Christology  of  the 
 latest  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  and  to  that  of  the  Epistle  to 
 the  Hebrews ;  and  none  but  critics  who  possess  microscopic 
 eyes  can  discern  any  real  distinction  between  it  and  the 
 Christology  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
 
 It  is  impossible  by  brief  quotations  to  give  an  idea  of  the 
 elevated  Messianic  character  which  this  book  attributes  to 
 Jesus.  It  will  be  sufficient  for  my  purpose  to  observe  that 
 its  author  proclaims  Him  to  be  the  Prince  of  the  kings  of 
 the  earth :  He  is  the  first  and  the  last — the  Living  One,  who 
 was  dead  and  is  alive  for  evermore.  He  is  the  faithful  and 
 true  witness,  the  beginning,  i.e,  the  principle,  or  cause, 
 (apxn)  the  creation  of  God.  He  is  worshipped  in 
 heaven  in  conjunction  with  the  Father,  and  is  His  sole 
 revealer.  He  is  King  of  kings,  and  Lord  of  lords.  But 
 it  is  needless  to  make  further  references.  Yet  such  a  super¬ 
 human  character  is  attributed  to  Jesus  in  this  book  by  an 
 Apostle  who  was  pre-eminently  a  Judaizer. 
 
 But  it  will  be  objected  that  this  is  an  apocalypse,  and  the 
 work  of  a  dreamer.  Truly,  if  it  has  been  written  by  a 
 dreamer,  he  must  have  been  one  who  soared  to  the  heights 
 of  the  poetic  spirit.  Even  in  madness  there  is  a  method ; 
 and  it  seems  impossible  that  any  amount  of  mental  halluci¬ 
 nation  could  have  induced  a  man  who  had  associated  with 
 Jesus  during  his  earthly  ministry  to  attribute  to  Him  the 
 superhuman  character  assigned  to  Him  in  this  book,  unless 
 he  was  firmly  convinced  that  a  number  of  superhuman 
 actions  had  been  performed  by  Him ;  and  that  he  himself 
 had  witnessed  them. 
 
 If  our  opponents  are  correct  in  the  date  which  they  have 
 assigned  to  the  composition  of  the  Apocalypse,  it  is  separated 
 from  that  of  Our  Lord's  ministry  by  an  interval  of  only 
 thirty-eight,  or  thirty-nine  years.  Its  author  would  be 
 somewhere  between  sixty  and  seventy  years  of  age.  He 
 had  followed  Jesus  throughout  His  earthly  ministry;  and 
 had  been  intimately  acquainted  with  Him.  After  an  interval 
 
344 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 of  thirty-eight  years  he  writes  this  book,  in  which  he  arrays 
 Him  in  the  highest  attributes  of  a  superhuman  Christ.  Is 
 it  credible  that  he  can  have  done  this,  unless  he  was  firmly 
 persuaded,  that  during  Our  Lord’s  abode  on  earth,  he  had 
 witnessed  actions  which  were  the  counterpart  of  the  super¬ 
 human  character  which  he  has  ascribed  to  Him  ?  It  follows 
 therefore  that  the  Jewish  Church,  including  its  most  extreme 
 parties,  must  have  accepted  Jesus  as  a  superhuman  Christ; 
 and  consequently,  that  they  possessed  accounts  of  His 
 ministry,  of  which  narratives  of  miracles  wrought  by  Him 
 must  have  formed  a  portion. 
 
 What  then  is  the  general  conclusion  deducible  from  this 
 evidence  ?  The  narratives  of  the  Gospels,  and  the  Christo- 
 logy  of  the  Epistles  mutually  corroborate  each  other.  The 
 miraculous  actions  attributed  to  Jesus  in  the  Gospels  pre¬ 
 suppose  the  superhuman  Christ  of  the  Epistles  ;  the  super¬ 
 human  Christ  of  the  Epistles  presupposes  the  miraculous 
 narratives  of  the  Gospels.  The  one  is  the  natural  counter¬ 
 part  of  the  other.  Neither  is  intelligible  except  on  the 
 supposition  of  the  other. 
 
 But  farther:  a  superhuman  Christ, analogous  to  the  Christ 
 of  the  Epistles,  was  accepted  not  only  by  the  Pauline 
 Churches,  but  by  all  the  sections  of  the  Church,  including 
 the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  and  the  primitive  believers.  It 
 follows  therefore  that  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels,  whose 
 recorded  actions  form  the  counterpart  of  the  Christ  of 
 the  Epistles,  cannot  have  been  a  legendary  invention  of 
 times  subsequent  to  Our  Lord’s  ministry ;  but  that  the 
 Church  must  have  possessed  a  narrative  of  His  actions 
 similar  in  its  chief  outlines  to  that  which  we  possess. 
 
 II.  I  proceed  now  to  consider  the  evidence  furnished  by 
 these  Epistles  as  to  the  fulness  of  the  narratives  which  were 
 handed  down  in  the  Church  respecting  the  ministry  of  its 
 Founder. 
 
 1.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
 contains  such  a  reference  to  the  supernatural  birth,  the 
 
TEE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 345 
 
 Davidic  origin,  and  the  circumcision  of  Jesus,  as  to  prove 
 that  they  were  accepted  as  well-known  facts.  It  is  evident 
 therefore  that  the  account  handed  down  in  the  Church  must 
 have  been  one  sufficiently  copious  to  have  made  these  facts 
 intelligible,  and  consequently  it  could  hardly  have  been  less 
 full  than  that  which  we  read  in  St.  Matthew's  Gospel.  The 
 whole  subject  must  have  been  one  of  the  greatest  interest  to 
 the  primitive  believers,  and  consequently  they  would  be 
 certain  to  inform  themselves  as  to  the  facts. 
 
 2.  We  further  learn  from  the  same  epistle  that  Baptism 
 was  the  acknowledged  rite  of  initiation  into  the  Christian 
 Church.  It  follows,  therefore,  that  it  must  have  been  in 
 possession  of  an  account  of  the  institution  of  sufficient 
 fulness  to  be  explanatory  of  its  aim  and  purport. 
 
 3.  Of  all  the  direct  references  to  events  in  Our  Lord's 
 ministry,  St.  Paul's  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Eucha¬ 
 rist  will  enable  us  to  form  the  most  accurate  judgment  as  to 
 the  fulness  of  this  primitive  Gospel.  It  is  as  follows  : — 
 
 “  Eor  I  have  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I 
 delivered  unto  you,  how  that  the  Lord  Jesus  the  same  night 
 in  which  he  was  betrayed  took  bread ;  and  when  he  had 
 given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said,  Take,  eat,  this  is  my 
 body,  which  is  broken  for  you.  This  do  in  remembrance  of 
 me.  After  the  same  manner  also  he  took  the  cup,  when  he 
 had  supped,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  New  Testament  in 
 my  blood.  This  do  ye,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance 
 of  mo."  (1  Cor.  xi.  23-25.) 
 
 This  account  in  point  of  fulness  is  on  the  same  scale  as 
 that  of  the  Synoptics.  It  presupposes  also  that  the  Apostle 
 was  in  possession  of  an  account  of  the  Last  Supper  and  of 
 the  Passion,  which  he  was  in  the  habit  of  delivering  to  the 
 Church.  This  probability  is  converted  into  a  certainty  by 
 his  assertion  in  the  fifteenth  chapter,  that  among  the  matters 
 of  prime  importance  which  he  had  received  of  the  Lord,  and 
 formally  committed  to  the  custody  of  the  Church,  was  an 
 account  of  Ilis  death  and  resurrection.  We  have  every 
 reason  for  believing  that  these  would  be  equally  minute 
 with  his  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Sacrament,  which 
 
346 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 would  in  fact  have  lost  nearly  all  its  meaning,  unless  he  had 
 handed  over  with  it  an  account  of  the  Supper,  of  which  it 
 formed  a  portion,  and  of  the  death  which  it  was  intended  to 
 commemorate.  Both  accounts  are  described  by  the  Apostle 
 as  having  been  formally  committed  by  him  to  the  custody  of 
 the  Church  as  the  foundation  of  its  faith. 
 
 But  the  observation  made  in  the  15th  chapter  that  the 
 account  of  Our  Lord's  death  and  resurrection  was  one  of  the 
 matteis  of  prime  importance  which  he  had  committed  to  the 
 Chuich,  implies  that  there  were  other  matters  of  similar 
 importance  which  he  was  in  the  habit  of  committing  to  it  as 
 the  foundation  of  its  Christianity.  His  argument  only 
 rendered  it  necessary  to  refer  to  one  of  them,  Our  Lord's 
 death  and  resurrection;  but  the  whole  passage  makes  it 
 clear  that  this  was  not  the  only  one,  and  that  his  object  in 
 referring  to  it  in  this  brief  manner,  was  to  recall  a  much 
 fuller  account  to  their  recollection.  Whatever  these  other 
 matters  of  prime  importance  may  have  been,  there  is  no 
 reason  to  believe  that  they  were  on  a  less  extensive  scale 
 than  the  account  of  the  institution  of  the  Eucharist. 
 
 4.  These  epistles  also  clearly  establish  that  the  Church 
 was  in  possession  of  certain  well-known  details  of  Our  Lord's 
 teaching,  which  could  be  referred  to  as  authoritative.  Thus 
 the  Apostle  writes  :  — 
 
 “  And  unto  the  married  I  command,  yet  not  I,  but  the 
 Lord;  Let  not  the  wife  depart  from  her  husband;  but,  and 
 if  she  depart,  let  her  remain  unmarried,  or  be  reconciled  to 
 hei  husband,  and  let  not  the  husband  put  away  his  wife." 
 
 ( l  Cor.  vri.  10-12.) 
 
 This  is  evidently  an  allusion  to  a  well-known  account  of 
 Our  Lord  s  teaching,  of  which  we  possess  the  analogue  in  a 
 somewhat  more  condensed  form  in  the  Synoptic  Gospels. 
 
 Again :  “  Do  ye  not  know  that  they  which  minister  about 
 holy  things  live  of  the  things  of  the  temple,  and  they  which 
 wait  on  the  altar  are  partakers  with  the  altar.  Even  so  hath 
 the  Lord  ordained,  that  they  which  preach  the  Gospel  should 
 live  of  the  Gospel."  (1  Cor.  ix.  13,  14.) 
 
 The  reference  here  made  to  Our  Lord's  instructions  to  the 
 
TIIE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 347 
 
 Apostles  raid  to  tlie  seven ty,  when  lie  sent  them  on  their 
 mission  is  too  plain  to  be  misunderstood.  It  follows, 
 therefore,  that  the  Church  must  have  been  in  possession  of  an 
 account  of  those  instructions  analogous  to  that  which  we 
 read  in  our  Gospels. 
 
 No  less  clear  is  it  that  the  general  moral  teaching  of  these 
 epistles,  as  for  instance  that  which  is  contained  in  Rom.  xii., 
 is  formed  on  the  model  of  that  which  the  Gospels  have 
 attributed  to  Jesus.  The  incidental  mode  in  which  it  is 
 brought  out  proves  also  that  its  general  principles  were  well 
 hnown  and  thoroughly  recognized.  This  is  equally  true  of 
 every  other  writing  in  the  New  Testament.  It  follows, 
 therefore,  that  these  Churches  must  have  been  in  possession 
 of  an  outline  of  Our  Lord's  teaching  bearing  a  close  analogy 
 to  that  which  we  read  in  the  Synoptics. 
 
 It  is  needless  to  insist  further  on  this  point,  because  many 
 eminent  unbelievers  allow  that  the  discourses  in  the  Synop¬ 
 tics  are  the  veritable  utterances  of  Jesus.  This  being  so, 
 the  inferences  follow  : 
 
 First,  that  along  with  the  discourses  the  Church  must 
 have  possessed  an  account  of  His  actions  sufficiently  full  to 
 have  rendered  the  discourses  intelligible. 
 
 Secondly:  that  Jesus  must  have  professed  to  be  a  worker 
 of  miracles,  because  several  of  these  discourses  affirm  the 
 fact  that  tie  did  so. 
 
 5.  I  have  already  shown  that  the  reiterated  assertions  of 
 the  Apostle,  that  the  great  subject  of  his  teaching  had  been 
 Jesus  the  Christ,  and  that  the  essence  of  Christianity  con¬ 
 sisted  in  the  knowledge  of  Christ,  prove  that  the  Church 
 must  have  been  in  possession  of  considerable  details  respect¬ 
 ing  Our  Lord's  character  and  actions.  A  few  quotations  will 
 suffice  to  show  that  these  details  must  have  been  extensive. 
 
 Thus  we  read : — 
 
 “  For  if  our  Gospel  be  hid,  it  is  hid  to  them  that  are  lost, 
 in  whom  the  god  of  this  world  hath  blindeth  the  minds  of 
 them  that  believe  not,  lest  the  light  of  the  glorious  Gospel 
 of  Christ,  who  is  the  image  of  God,  should  shine  unto  them. 
 
348 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 For  we  preach  not  ourselves,  but  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord, 
 and  ourselves  your  servants  for  Jesus’  sake.  For  God,  who 
 commandeth  the  light  to  shine  out  of  darkness,  hath  shined 
 in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
 glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ/”  (2  Cor.  iv.  3-6.) 
 
 This  passage  proves  the  following  facts  : — 
 
 First :  That  the  Apostle’s  preaching  had  been  a  procla¬ 
 mation  of  Jesus  Christ  the  Lord;  or,  in  other  words,  it 
 must  have  contained  details  of  His  personal  history. 
 
 Secondly :  That  this  Jesus  whom  he  preached  was  the 
 image  of  God ;  and  that  the  light  of  the  knowledge  of  the 
 glory  of  God,  which  shone  forth  in  His  face,  or  person,  had 
 diffused  its  radiance  into  the  hearts  of  those  to  whom  it  had 
 been  proclaimed.  Hence,  it  follows,  that  if  the  character 
 of  Jesus  was  such  a  manifestation  of  the  divine  perfections 
 as  to  constitute  the  image  of  God,  through  which  the  know¬ 
 ledge  of  the  divine  glory  had  shone  into  the  hearts  of  the 
 Corinthians,  they  must  have  possessed  an  account  of  His 
 life  and  actions  in  considerable  detail ;  in  other  words,  one 
 which  delineated  Him  as  morally  perfect,  even  as  He  is 
 delineated  in  the  Gospels. 
 
 The  same  result  follows  from  another  passage  : — “  But  we 
 all,  with  open  face  beholding  as  in  a  glass  the  glory  of  the 
 Lord,  are  changed  into  the  same  image  from  glory  to  glory, 
 even  as  by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord.”  (2  Cor.  iii.  18.) 
 
 Again  :  “  Yea,  doubtless,  and  I  count  all  things  but  loss 
 for  the  excellency  of  the  knowledge  of  Christ  Jesus  my 
 Lord,  for  whom  I  have  suffered  the  loss  of  all  things,  and 
 do  count  them  but  dung,  that  I  may  win  Christ.  That  I 
 may  know  Him,  and  the  power  of  his  Resurrection,  and  the 
 fellowship  of  his  sufferings,  being  made  conformable  unto 
 his  death.”  (Phil.  iii.  8,  10.) 
 
 It  is  simply  incredible  that  the  Apostle  could  have  written 
 passages  of  this  description,  unless  he  had  made  every  effort 
 to  inform  himself  of  the  minute  details  of  his  Master’s  life. 
 
 Statements  of  this  kind  are  not  exclusively  Pauline. 
 “If  these  things  be  in  you,  and  abound,  they  make  you 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 349 
 
 that  ye  be  neither  barren  nor  unfruitful  in  the  knowledge 
 of  Our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.-”  (2  Pet.  i.  8.)  “But  grow  in 
 grace,  and  in  the  knowledge  of  Our  Lord  and  Saviour 
 Jesus  Christ.”  (2  Pet.  iii.  18.) 
 
 A  few  more  passages  will  suffice  to  show  the  extent  to 
 which  the  Pauline  Gospel  must  have  consisted  in  the  pro¬ 
 clamation  of  a  personal  Christ,  and  the  degree  in  which  His 
 historic  life  must  have  been  the  subject  of  constant  medita¬ 
 tion  in  the  Apostolic  Churches.  “We  preach  Christ  cruci¬ 
 fied,  to  the  Jews  a  stumblingblock,  and  to  the  Greeks 
 foolishness ;  but  to  them  who  are  called,  both  Jews  and 
 Greeks,  Christ  the  power  of  God,  and  the  wisdom  of  God.” 
 (1  Cor.  i.  23,  24.)  “  I  determined  to  know  nothing  among 
 
 you,  save  Jesus  Christ,  and  him  crucified.”  (1  Cor.  ii.  2.)  For 
 the  Son  of  God,  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  preached  among 
 you  by  us,  even  by  me  and  Silvanus  and  Timotheus.”  (2  Cor. 
 i.  19.)  “  But  ye  have  not  so  learned  Christ,  if  so  be  that  ye 
 have  heard  him,  and  have  been  taught  by  him,  as  the  truth 
 is  in  Jesus.”  (Epli.  iv.  20,  21.) 
 
 Incidental  allusions  of  this  kind  prove  that  the  acquaint¬ 
 ance  with  the  life  of  Jesus  which  was  possessed  by  the 
 apostolic  Churches,  must  have  been  one  of  considerable 
 minuteness,  and  that  it  must  have  been  kept  in  constant 
 recollection. 
 
 6.  Equally  definite  is  the  evidence  afforded  by  those  nume¬ 
 rous  incidental  references  which  exhort  Christiaus  to  follow 
 Christ  as  the  great  example  of  holy  practice.  Of  this  I  cite 
 the  following  instance  : — 
 
 The  Apostle  concludes  his  discussion  of  the  lawfulness 
 of  eating  certain  kinds  of  food,  in  the  following  words  : — 
 “  Whether  therefore  ye  eat  or  drink,  or  whatsoever  ye  do, 
 do  all  to  the  glory  of  God.  Give  none  offence,  neither  to 
 the  Jews  nor  to  the  Gentiles,  nor  to  the  Church  of  God. 
 Even  as  I  please  all  men  in  all  things,  not  seeking  my  own 
 profit,  but  the  profit  of  many  that  they  might  be  saved.  Be 
 ye  imitators  (yifi^rai)  of  me,  as  I  also  am  of  Christ.”  (1  Cor. 
 x.  31.-33 ;  and  xi.  1.) 
 
350 
 
 THE  AEGUMENT  FEOM 
 
 This  passage  proves  : — 
 
 Firsts  that  the  actions  and  character  of  Paul  were  so  well 
 known  in  the  Corinthian  Church,  that  he  could  appeal  to 
 them  as  unquestionable  proofs  of  his  disinterestedness. 
 
 2.  That  it  was  possible  to  institute  a  comparison  between 
 the  actions  of  Paul  and  those  of  Our  Lord. 
 
 3.  That  it  was  the  duty  of  Christians  before  they  took 
 St.  Paul  as  the  model  for  their  imitation,  to  institute  such  a 
 comparison,  and  only  to  imitate  him  as  far  as  his  conduct 
 was  in  conformity  with  that  of  Christ. 
 
 Next.  The  Church  must  also  have  been  in  possession  of  a 
 narrative  of  Our  Lord's  actions,  which  delineated  Him  in 
 various  special  aspects  of  his  character.  Thus  the  Apostle 
 writes : — “We  that  are  strong  ought  to  bear  the  infirmities  of 
 the  weak,  and  not  to  please  ourselves.  Let  every  one  of  us 
 please  his  neighbour  for  his  good  to  edification ;  for  even 
 Christ  pleased  not  himself ;  but  as  it  is  written,  the  re¬ 
 proaches  of  them  that  reproached  thee  fell  on  me."  (Pom. 
 xv.  1-3.) 
 
 Such  an  exhortation  would  have  been  meaningless,  unless 
 the  Church  had  been  in  possession  of  a  well-known  delinea¬ 
 tion  of  the  actions  of  Jesus,  which  exhibited  Him  as  the 
 model  of  self-sacrificing  disinterestedness. 
 
 Again  :  “  Now  the  God  of  patience  and  consolation  grant 
 you  to  be  like-minded  one  toward  another,  according  to 
 Christ  Jesus,  that  ye  may  with  one  mind  and  one  mouth 
 glorify  God,  even  the  Father  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ." 
 (Rom.  xv.  5-6.) 
 
 From  this  it  follows  that  a  delineation  of  Him  must  have- 
 been  well  known  by  the  members  of  this  Church,  on  which 
 it  was  possible  to  found  an  exhortation  to  unity.  Portions 
 of  the  contents  of  St.  John's  Gospel  correspond  to  this 
 idea. 
 
 The  Apostle  further  writes  to  the  same  Church  :  “  And 
 that,  knowing  the  time,  that  now  it  is  high  time  to  awake 
 out  of  sleep,  for  now  is  our  salvation  nearer  than  when  we 
 believed.  The  night  is  far  spent:  the  day  is  at  hand.  Let 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 351 
 
 us  therefore  cast  off  the  works  of  darkness,  and  let  us  put 
 on  the  armour  of  light.  Let  us  walk  honestly,  as  in  the 
 day,  not  in  rioting  and  drunkenness,  not  in  chambering  and 
 wantonness,  not  in  strife  and  envying.  But  put  ye  on  the 
 Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  make  not  provision  for  the  flesh,  to 
 fulfil  the  lusts  thereof.”  (Rom.  xiii.  11-14.) 
 
 Similar  exhortations  are  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
 Galatians  : 
 
 te  As  many  of  you  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ  have 
 put  on  Christ.”  (Gal.  iii.  27.) 
 
 cc  My  little  children,  of  whom  I  travail  in  birth  again  until 
 Christ  be  formed  in  you.”  (Gal.  iv.  19.) 
 
 The  exhortation  to  u  put  on  Christ,”  can  only  mean,  “  in-' 
 corporate  His  character  into  your  own ;”  and  in  order  to  do 
 this  it  is  obviously  necessary  that  we  should  possess  an 
 account  of  the  actions  of  Him  whom  we  are  directed  to 
 imitate  on  an  extensive  scale. 
 
 F urther :  the  Apostle  tells  the  Romans  that  the  thing  to 
 be  put  off  was  the  whole  range  of  Pagan  vice,  as  summed  up 
 in  the  expression,  “the  works  of  darkness;”  and  the  new 
 character  which  was  to  be  assumed  by  Christians,  as  the 
 opposite  to  this,  consisted  in  “putting  on  the  Lord  Jesus 
 Christ.”  From  this  it  follows  that  the  character  of  Christ 
 which  was  to  be  made  the  subject  of  imitation,  must  have 
 been  a  many  sided  one,  as  it  is  depicted  in  the  Gospels. 
 
 As  these  three  last  precepts  are  addressed  to  a  Church 
 which  St.  Paul  had  neither  visited  nor  taught,  it  is  evident 
 that  not  merely  the  churches  of  Pauline  origin,  but  the  whole 
 Church,  must  have  been  in  possession  of  such  a  delineation 
 as  the  foundation  of  its  common  Christianity. 
 
 Several  passages  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Corinthians  illus¬ 
 trate  the  same  subject.  Thus  the  Apostle  writes:  “Though 
 ye  have  ten  thousand  instructors  in  Christ,  yet  have  ye  not 
 many  fathers,  for  in  Christ  Jesus  I  have  begotten  you 
 through  the  Gospel.  Wherefore  I  beseech  you  be  ye 
 imitators  of  me.”  (1  Cor.  iv.  15,  16.) 
 
 The  expression,  “  ten  thousand  instructors  in  Christ  ”  is 
 
352 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 of  course  a  pleonasm;  but  tlie  whole  passage  clearly  proves 
 that  the  entire  body  of  Christian  teachers  held  up  the 
 actions  of  Christ  as  examples  for  imitation. 
 
 The  Apostle  continues : 
 
 “  For  this  cause  have  I  sent  unto  you  Timotheus,  who  is 
 my  beloved  son,  and  faithful  in  the  Lord,  who  shall  bring 
 you  into  remembrance  of  my  ways  which  be  in  Christ ,  as  I 
 teach  everywhere  in  every  Church.”  (1  Cor.  iv.  17.) 
 
 Here  the  Apostle  affirms  that  he  had  certain  “ways  in 
 Christ,”  and  that  one  of  the  purposes  for  which  he  had 
 sent  Timothy  was  to  remind  the  Corinthians  of  them. 
 These  “  ways  in  Christ  ”  he  likewise  affirms  that  he  taught 
 everywhere  in  every  Church.  What  were  these  ways  ? 
 Clearlv  the  instruction  in  Christ  above  referred  to,  which 
 the  Apostle  exhibited  in  his  own  conduct,  and  which  he 
 exhorted  those  to  whom  he  wrote  to  make  the  subject  of 
 imitation.  “  His  ways  in  Christ,”  of  which  Timothy  was 
 to  remind  them,  could  not  have  been  details  of  his  own 
 actions,  for  he  calls  the  Corinthians  to  witness  that  he  had 
 not  preached  himself,  but  Jesus  Christ  the  Lord.  It  follows 
 therefore  that  they  must  have  consisted  of  details  of  the 
 actions  and  teaching  of  his  Master. 
 
 A  delineation  of  Our  Lord  must  have  been  well  known  to 
 the  members  of  this  Church,  which  enabled  the  Apostle  to 
 plead  His  example  as  a  motive  for  a  liberal  contribution  for 
 the  relief  of  the  poorer  members  of  the  Jewish  Church. 
 Thus  he  writes : 
 
 “Therefore  as  ye  abound  in  faith,  and  utterance,  and 
 knowledge,  and  in  all  diligence,  and  in  your  love  to  us,  see 
 that  ye  abound  in  this  grace  also.  For  ye  know  the  grace 
 of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  that  though  he  was  rich,  yet  for 
 your  sakes  he  became  poor,  that  ye  through  his  poverty 
 might  be  rich.”  (2  Cor.  viii.  7,  9.) 
 
 Similarly  also,  they  must  have  been  in  possession  of  an 
 account  of  his  actions,  which  depicted  him  as  an  example  of 
 meekness  and  gentleness. 
 
 “Now  I  Paul,”  says  the  Apostle,  “beseech  you  by  the 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 353 
 
 meekness  and  gentleness  of  Christ,  who  in  presence  am 
 base  among  you,  but  being  absent  am  bold  towards  you; 
 and  I  beseech  you  that  I  may  not  be  bold,  when  I  am 
 present  with  that  confidence,  wherewith  I  think  to  be  bold 
 against  some,  who  think  of  us  as  if  we  walked  according  to 
 the  flesh.”  (2  Cor.  x.  1,  2.) 
 
 It  follows  therefore  that  this  Church  must  have  been  in 
 possession  of  a  delineation  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  exhibited 
 Him  as  a  perfect  embodiment  of  gentleness  and  meekness ; 
 and  aa  the  reference  occurs  in  the  most  controversial 
 portion  of  the  Epistle,  that  it  must  have  been  acquiesced  in 
 by  his  opponents.  The  delineation  therefore  must  have 
 been  precisely  similar  in  character  to  that  in  our  Gospels. 
 
 A  similar  exhortation  is  contained  in  St.  Paul's  earlier 
 Epistles.  Thus  he  writes  : 
 
 “  Remembering  without  ceasing  your  work  of  faith,  and 
 labour  of  love,  and  patience  of  hope  in  our  Lord  Jesus 
 Christ,  in  the  sight  of  God,  and  our  Father.  .  .  For  our 
 
 Gospel  came  not  in  word  only,  but  also  in  power,  and  in 
 the  Holy  Ghost,  and  in  much  assurance,  as  ye  know  what 
 manner  of  men  we  were  among  you  for  your  sake;  and 
 ye  became  followers  (imitators,  /uifir^rai)  of  us  and  of  the 
 Lord.  .  .  .  And  how  ye  turned  to  God  from  idols  to 
 
 serve  the  living  and  true  God ;  and  to  wait  for  his  Son  from 
 heaven,  even  Jesus,  who  delivereth  us  from  the  wrath  to 
 come.”  (1  Thess.  i.  3-10.) 
 
 This  passage  is  of  considerable  importance,  for  it  proves 
 that  the  body  of  this  Church  consisted  of  converted  heathen. 
 The  expression,  “  How  ye  turned  to  God  from  idols,”  proves 
 that  most  of  its  members,  previously  to  his  preaching,  had 
 been  ignorant  alike  of  Jesus,  and  of  the  idea  of  the  Christ. 
 This  must  have  rendered  it  necessary  for  him  to  give  a  large 
 number  of  explanations  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  Christ,  and 
 of  details  of  the  life  of  Jesus,  sufficient  to  prove  that  he  was 
 the  Christ.  The  Epistle  makes  it  clear  that  they  were  now 
 well  informed  on  both  subjects.  They  were  perfectly 
 familiar  with  the  idea  of  the  Christ,  and  they  knew  enough 
 
 23 
 
354 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 about  Jesus  to  make  Him  tbe  subject  of  love,  trust,  and 
 patient  hope.  They  were  also  acquainted  with  sufficient 
 details  of  His  life  to  make  Him  the  subject  of  imitation. 
 “Ye  became  imitators  of  us,  and  of  the  Lord;”  and  the 
 whole  announcement  had  produced  so  powerful  a  moral 
 influence  on  them  that  they  “  had  turned  to  God  from  idols, 
 to  serve  the  living  and  true  God,”  and  were  filled  with  the 
 strongest  missionary  zeal  to  spread  the  knowledge  of  it 
 through  the  neighbouring  cities.  In  fact,  a  personal  Jesus 
 stands  out  prominently  in  both  these  Epistles.  It ‘follows 
 therefore,  as  the  persons  addressed  had  been  heathens,  that 
 the  Gospel  preached  among  them  by  the  .Apostle  must  have 
 been  rich  in  details  respecting  the  person,  ministry,  and 
 teaching  of  Our  Lord ;  in  other  words,  that  it  consisted  of 
 what  I  have  above  referred  to,  viz.  “his  ways  in  Christ 
 Jesus  which  he  taught  every  where  in  every  Church.” 
 
 Two  passages  from  his  later  Epistles  bear  witness  to  the 
 same  facts.  Thus  he  writes  to  the  Ephesians  : 
 
 “  This  I  say,  therefore,  and  testify  in  the  Lord,  that  ye 
 henceforth  walk  not  as  other  Gentiles  walk,  in  the  vanity 
 of  their  mind,  having  the  understanding  darkened,  being 
 alienated  from  the  life  of  God  through  the  ignorance  that 
 is  in  them,  who  being  past  feeling  have  given  themselves 
 over  unto  lasciviousness,  to  work  all  uncleanness  with 
 greediness.  But  ye  have  not  so  learned  Christ ,  if  so  be  ye 
 have  heard  him ,  and  have  been  taught  by  him  as  the  truth  is 
 in  Jesus.  ”  (Eph.  iv.  17-21.) 
 
 Similarly  also  he  writes  to  the  Colossians  : 
 
 “As  ye  have  therefore  received  Christ  Jesus  the  Lord,  so 
 walk  ye  in  him,  rooted  and  built  up  in  him  and  stablished 
 in  the  faith,  as  ye  have  been  taught,  abounding  therein  with 
 thanksgiving.”  (Col.  ii.  6,  7.) 
 
 Both  these  passages  occur  in  the  Epistles  which  contain 
 the  Apostle's  most  advanced  Christology ;  and  as  this  was 
 accepted  by  these  Churches  it  follows  that  he  must  have 
 communicated  to  its  members  a  number  of  facts  which 
 justified  that  Christology,  for  as  a  large  proportion  of  them 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 355 
 
 consisted  of  heathen  converts,  the  whole  subject  must  other¬ 
 wise  have  been  beyond  their  comprehension.  The  Ephesians 
 are  here  described  as  having  “  learned  Christ,”  as  having 
 u  heard  him,”  Le.  his  teaching  (for  they  had  not  heard 
 him  personally),  and  as  having  been  taught  by  him,  "  as  the 
 truth  is  in  Jesus.”  This  had  led  them  to  renounce  their 
 old  pagan  character,  and  to  put  on  the  new  man  created 
 after  God  in  righteousness  and  true  holiness.  So  the 
 Colossians  are  directed  to  walk  in  him  as  they  had  been 
 taught.  It  follows  therefore  that  they  must  have  possessed 
 a  delineation  of  Jesus  which  they  had  been  in  the  habit  of 
 studying,  corresponding  to  this  description;  or,  in  other 
 words,  one  resembling  in  its  great  outlines  that  which  is 
 contained  in  our  Gospels,  and  formed  part  of  the  ordinary 
 teaching  of  the  Church. 
 
 Such  is  the  evidence  furnished  by  the  Pauline  epistles 
 that  the  various  Christian  Churches  were  in  possession  of  an 
 account  of  the  actions  and  teaching  of  Our  Lord,  analogous 
 in  its  mam  features  to  that  which  is  contained  m  our  Gospels, 
 and  was  accepted  by  its  various  sects  and  parties  as  the  basis 
 of  their  common  Christianity. 
 
 I  adduce  a  single  passage  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
 which,  although  we  cannot  claim  it  as  St.  Paul's,  is  unques¬ 
 tionably  a  writing  of  primitive  antiquity ;  and  if  not  by  him, 
 must  represent  the  views  of  a  different  section  of  the  Church. 
 After  stating  the  advanced  Christology  of  the  first  chapter, 
 the  author  writes  : — 
 
 “  Therefore  we  ought  to  give  the  more  earnest  heed  to 
 the  things  which  we  have  heard,  lest  at  any  time  we  should 
 let  them  slip.  For  if  the  word  spoken  by  angels  was  stead¬ 
 fast,  and  every  transgression  and  disobedience  received  a 
 just  recompense  of  reward,  how  shall  we  escape  if  we  reject 
 so  great  salvation,  which  at  the  first  began  to  be  spoken  by 
 the  Lord,  and  was  confirmed  unto  us  by  them  that  heard 
 him,  God  also  bearing  them  witness,  both  with  signs  and 
 wonders,  and  with  divers  miracles  and  gifts  of  the  Holy 
 Ghost  according  to  his  own  will.”  (Heb.  ii.  1-4.) 
 
 23* 
 
356 
 
 THE  ARGUMENT  FROM 
 
 Tliis  passage  renders  it  incontestable,  tbat  tbe  writer 
 was  in  possession  of  an  account  of  what  be  considered  to 
 be  tbe  great  salvation  spoken  by  tbe  Lord,  wbicb  bad  been 
 confirmed  to  those  to  wbom  be  wrote  by  tbe  testimony 
 of  eye-witnesses;  and  tbat  tbis  bad  received  a  miraculous 
 attestation. 
 
 Tbe  only  remaining  point  for  our  consideration  is  tbe 
 evidence  wbicb  these  epistles  furnish  of  tbe  truth  of  tbe 
 Resurrection.  All  tbe  great  facts  to  wbicb  they  testify  have 
 been  definitely  brought  out  in  tbe  foregoing  Lecture ;  and 
 to  quote  and  comment  on  all  tbe  various  passages  which 
 refer  to  it  would  make  tbis  Supplement  needlessly  prolix. 
 So  evident  are  the  facts  on  tbe  surface  of  tbe  Epistles  tbat 
 tbe  student  cannot  fail  to  recognize  them  for  himself ;  and 
 so  numerous  are  they,  tbat  it  is  impossible  to  find  any  two 
 pages  in  wbicb  tbe  truth  of  tbe  Resurrection  is  not  either 
 directly  asserted,  or  assumed  as  tbe  foundation  on  wbicb 
 tbe  Christian  Church  was  erected.  Tbe  Christ,  who  was 
 essential  to  tbe  Church,  was  not  a  dead  Christ,  but  a  living 
 one;  one  who  could  be  tbe  object  of  devoted  love  ;  one  who 
 could  kindle  tbe  affections ;  one  who  could  claim  tbe  alle¬ 
 giance  of  tbe  heart  on  account  of  what  be  bad  done  for  man; 
 who  could  recognize  devoted  service,  and  reciprocate  love. 
 He  must  be  not  merely  one  who  could  excite  the  fond 
 reminiscence  of  departed  worth,  but  who  was  capable  of 
 recognizing  tbe  acts  of  self-sacrifice  wbicb  be  evoked  in  tbe 
 hearts  of  those  who  loved  him.  Every  mention  of  tbe  Christ 
 of  these  epistles  either  affirms  or  implies  tbat  it  was  tbe  belief 
 of  tbe  whole  Church,  and  of  every  section  in  it,  tbat  Jesus  bad 
 risen  from  tbe  dead ;  and  every  reference  to  Him  makes  it 
 clear  tbat,  apart  from  tbis  belief,  tbe  Church  would  have 
 perished  in  its  Founder’s  grave.  The  belief  in  tbe  fact  of 
 tbe  Resurrection  was  entwined  around  every  association  of 
 tbe  Christian  heart.  It  was  not  only  accepted  as  a  fact, 
 but  felt  to  be  a  great  moral  power,  wbicb  imparted  to  tbe 
 Church  its  religious  life.  One  citation  will  be  sufficient,  and 
 it  shall  be  from  tbe  epistle  to  tbe  distant  Church  at  Rome, 
 wbicb  St.  Par ,1  bad  neither  visited,  nor  taught.  He  writes : 
 
THE  PAULINE  EPISTLES. 
 
 357 
 
 “  Know  ye  not  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into 
 Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death  ?  Therefore  we 
 are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death  ;  that  like  as 
 Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the 
 Father,  even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life. 
 For  if  we  have  been  planted  together  in  the  likeness  of  his 
 death,  we  shall  be  also  in  the  likeness  of  his  resurrection. 
 Knowing  this,  that  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him,  that 
 the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that  henceforth  we 
 should  not  serve  sin,  for  he  that  is  dead  is  freed  from  sin. 
 Now  if  we  be  dead  with  Christ,  we  believe  that  we  shall 
 also  live  with  him  :  knowing  that  Christ  being  raised  from 
 the  dead  dieth  no  more,  death  hath  no  more  dominion  over 
 him.  For  in  that  he  died,  he  died  unto  sin  once,  but  in  that 
 he  liveth,  he  liveth  unto  God.  Likewise  reckon  ye  your¬ 
 selves  to  be  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive  unto  God, 
 through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord.”  (Rom.  vi.  3-11.) 
 
 Thus  the  Pauline  epistles  render  it  indubitable,  that  the 
 resurrection  of  J esus  was  accepted  as  a  fact  by  every  section 
 of  the  Christian  Church ;  and  that  the  Church  was  recon¬ 
 structed  on  the  basis  of  its  truth  within  a  few  days  after 
 the  Crucifixion,  in  the  very  place  where  he  had  been  publicly 
 executed.  Whether  this  belief  could  have  originated  in  any 
 form  of  mental  hallucination  must  be  determined  on  other 
 grounds  than  those  of  simple  attestation. 
 
358 
 
 THE  THEORY  OE  VISIONS 
 
 LECTURE  VII. 
 
 “  Brethren,  be  not  children  in  understanding ;  howbeit  in  malice  be 
 ye  children,  but  in  understanding  be  men.” — 1  Cor.  xiv.  20. 
 
 I  have  proved  in  the  last  two  Lectures  that  within  a  very 
 short  interval  after  the  crucifixion  of  Our  Lord  the  Church 
 was  in  possession  of  an  account  of  His  life  and  actions 
 analogous  in  all  its  chief  outlines  to  that  which  is  contained 
 in  our  present  Gospels,  and  that  this  must  have  been  the 
 same  as  that  which  was  handed  down  by  His  primitive  fol¬ 
 lowers.  This  being  so,  the  theories  which  affirm  that  a 
 large  portion  of  their  contents  consists  of  myths  and  legends, 
 which  gradually  sprung  up  in  the  Church  during  the  first 
 century  of  our  era,  are  deprived  of  all  possible  locus  standi . 
 I  have  further  proved,  by  the  aid  of  the  Pauline  Epistles, 
 that  within  a  very  brief  interval  after  the  Crucifixion  the 
 Church  was  reconstructed  on  the  basis  of  the  Resurrection. 
 This  being  indubitable,  it  is  incumbent  on  those  who  deny 
 its  objective  reality  to  offer  a  theory  which  will  afford  a 
 rational  account  of  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  the  Resurrec¬ 
 tion,  and  of  the  reconstruction  of  the  Church  on  its  basis. 
 For  this  purpose  the  theory  of  visions  has  been  propounded. 
 It  will  now  be  my  duty  to  inquire  into  its  validity. 
 
 In  order  to  impart  the  semblance  of  plausibility  to  this 
 theory,  it  is  necessary  to  assume  that  the  original  followers 
 of  Jesus  consisted  of  a  body  of  men  who  were  in  the 
 highest  degree  enthusiastic,  credulous,  and  superstitious. 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 359 
 
 whose  enthusiasm  created  a  number  of  visionary  appear¬ 
 ances  of  Jesus  risen  from  the  dead,  and  whose  credulity 
 mistook  them  for  external  realities.*  But  as  it  is  impossible 
 to  credit  St.  Paul  with  excessive  credulity  or  superstition, 
 the  only  way  of  discrediting  his  testimony  is  to  affirm  that 
 he  had  been  wrought  up  to  so  high  a  degree  of  enthusiastic 
 exaltation,  that  he  was  unable  to  distinguish  between  his 
 own  subjective  imagination  and  the  realities  of  the  external 
 world.  This  charge  against  the  Apostle  I  have  disposed  of 
 in  my  last  Lecture,  by  the  evidence  afforded  by  the  three 
 chapters  connected  with  the  text,  which  it  seems  to  me  to 
 be  impossible  to  examine  carefully  without  arriving  at  the 
 conclusion  that  it  is  invalidated  by  the  facts. 
 
 #  The  mode  in  which  this  charge  is  attempted  to  be  established  is 
 a  noteworthy  specimen  of  the  reasoning  which  has  been  adopted  in 
 this  controversy.  Every  instance  of  superstition  which  can  be  found 
 in  any  J ewish  writer  for  several  centuries  preceding  the  advent,  or  in 
 any  writer,  whether  Jewish  or  Christian,  for  several  centuries  after, 
 has  been  carefully  collected  together  ;  and  the  whole  charged  on  the 
 followers  of  Jesus.  This  is  as  unreasonable  as  it  would  be  to  credit 
 Lord  Bacon  with  all  the  superstitions  which  were  held  by  Englishmen 
 during  the  three  centuries  before  his  birth,  or  with  believing  in  the 
 Spiritualism  of  the  present  day.  If  we  wish  to  ascertain  how  far  a 
 particular  author  is  superstitious,  it  is  absurd  to  credit  him  at  once 
 with  all  the  superstitions  which  may  have  been  prevalent  for  centuries 
 before,  and  after  his  birth.  The  only  correct  course  is  to  examine  his 
 own  writings  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  actual  superstitions 
 they  contain.  Thus  in  the  case  of  the  Grospels,  the  only  accurate 
 measure  of  the  superstition  of  the  writers  is  the  amount  of  it  to 
 be  found  in  their  pages.  It  follows,,  therefore,  that  to  charge 
 the  disciples  of  Jesus  with  a  degree  of  credulity  or  superstition 
 beyond  that  which  is  clearly  displayed  in  the  pages  of  the  New 
 Testament  is  to  draw  a  conclusion  which  the  premisses  will  not  warrant. 
 If,  on  the  other  hand  their  excessive  credulity  is  assumed,  because 
 they  believed  in  miracles,  this  is  not  to  reason,  but  simply  to  assume 
 the  point  at  issue.  It  maybe  objected  that  they  believed  in  demoniacal 
 possession.  Let  the  objection  be  accepted  for  as  much  as  it  is  worth. 
 But  this  is  certainly  no  distinctive  mark  of  credulity  or  superstition, 
 for  numbers  of  men  of  highly  cultivated  minds  and  of  sound  judgment 
 have  entertained  the  same  belief. 
 
360 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 In  a  similar  manner  the  affirmation  which  has  been  so 
 freely  made,  that  the  primitive  followers  of  Jesus  and  the 
 Christians  of  the  first  century  were  credulous  and  super¬ 
 stitious  beyond  the  average  of  mankind  is  an  assumption, 
 of  which  the  historical  evidence  is  wanting.  I  say  beyond 
 the  average  of  mankind  ;  for  unless  it  is  taken  for  granted 
 that  they  were  so»,  the  theory  of  visions  cannot  be  made  to 
 bear  even  the  semblance  of  plausibility.  If  the  Resurrection 
 was  unreal,  the  credulity  of  the  followers  of  Jesus  must  have 
 been  extreme ;  for  it  is  evident  that  no  ordinary  amount  of 
 it  would  afford  any  adequate  account  of  the  origin  of  the 
 belief.  But  if  the  question  is  asked.  How  do  we  know  that 
 His  followers  were  credulous  to  the  extent  demanded  by  the 
 exigencies  of  the  positions  taken  by  unbelievers  ?  the  only 
 possible  answer,  in  the  absence  of  all  adequate  historical 
 evidence  of  the  fact,  is  that  they  believed  in  the  reality  of 
 miracles  and  in  the  truth  of  the  Resurrection.  This,  how¬ 
 ever,  involves  a  plain  begging  of  the  entire  question.  The 
 requisite  degree  of  enthusiasm,  credulity,  and  superstition, 
 must  be  proved  and  not  merely  assumed. 
 
 The  following  facts  must  be  accounted  for  before  we  can 
 accept  the  theory  of  visions  as  affording  an  adequate  ground 
 for  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection. 
 
 1.  The  reconstruction  of  the  Church  on  the  basis  of  this 
 belief  within  a  very  brief  interval  after  the  Crucifixion. 
 
 2.  That  not  only  individual  disciples,  but  disciples  when 
 assembled  in  bodies,  were  firmly  persuaded  that  they  saw 
 Jesus  alive  after  His  Crucifixion,  and  had  interviews  with 
 Him. 
 
 3.  That  these  interviews  were  not  casual  apparitions,  but 
 they  were  fully  convinced  that  they  had  conversations  with 
 Him,  in  which  they  received  His  definite  instructions  as  to 
 the  mode  in  which  the  Church  was  to  be  reconstructed,  and 
 that  in  consequence  they  did  actually  reconstruct  the  Church 
 on  the  basis  of  His  spiritual  Messiahship. 
 
 4.  The  rapid  diffusion  of  the  belief  among  those  who 
 were  not  original  followers  of  Jesus,  as  is  proved  by  the 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 361 
 
 growth  of  the  Christian  Church  during  the  thirty  years 
 which  followed  the  Crucifixion. 
 
 5.  The  great  change  wrought  in  St.  Paul  from  the  most 
 violent  persecutor  into  the  most  devoted  missionary  of  the 
 Christian  faith,  as  is  proved  by  his  own  testimony. 
 
 6.  The  mighty  power  which  has  been  exerted  by  Jesus 
 Christ  during  eighteen  centuries  after  the  termination  of 
 His  earthly  life,  as  has  been  shown  in  the  second  Lecture  of 
 this  course. 
 
 Of  these  unquestionable  facts  of  history  the  Church  has 
 always  given  the  following  solution,  which  no  unbeliever 
 can  deny  that  a  sound  philosophy  must  pronounce  to  be 
 fully  adequate :  Jesus  Christ  rose  from  the  dead :  He  had 
 several  interviews  with  His  followers,  in  which  He  directed 
 them  to  reconstruct  the  Church  on  the  basis  of  His  spiritual 
 Messiahship :  He  endowed  them  with  supernatural  powers 
 according  to  a  promise  made  to  them  in  these  interviews, 
 which  enabled  them  to  accomplish  the  work  in  question  : 
 They  obeyed  His  commands.  The  result  has  been  the 
 creation  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  the  mighty  influence 
 which  it  has  exerted  on  the  destinies  of  man  during  the  last 
 eighteen  centuries. 
 
 Let  us  now  hear  the  solution  which  the  theory  of  visions 
 propounds  as  a  philosophical  explanation  of  these  astound¬ 
 ing  facts.  Jesus  Christ  never  rose  from  the  dead;  but 
 while  His  body  was  turning  to  corruption  in  the  grave, 
 some  one  or  more  of  His  enthusiastic  followers  fancied  that 
 they  saw  Him  alive,  and  mistook  the  creations  of  their  own 
 distempered  imaginations  for  an  actual  resurrection.  They 
 forthwith,  without  further  inquiry,  accepted  it  as  a  fact,  and 
 succeeded  in  persuading  the  other  disciples  that  He  was 
 risen  from  the  dead.  These  in  turn  took  to  seeing  visions 
 of  the  risen  Jesus,  which  they  mistook  for  objective  realities. 
 In  the  height  of  their  fanaticism,  they  not  only  fancied  that 
 they  had  interviews  with  Him,  but  that  they  received  His 
 orders  to  reconstruct  the  Church  on  the  basis  of  His  resur¬ 
 rection.  As,  however.  He  intended  to  withdraw  Himself 
 
362 
 
 THE  THEORY  OP  VISIONS 
 
 from  public  view,  the  happy  thought  occurred  to  some  of 
 them  that  they  heard  Him  direct  them  to  change  the  basis 
 of  His  Messiahship  from  that  of  a  present  and  visible  into 
 an  absent  and  spiritual  one.  The  attempt  was  made ;  the 
 Church  was  reconstituted ;  the  new  faith  spread ;  and 
 the  result  has  been  the  erection  of  the  greatest  of  institu¬ 
 tions,  and  all  the  mighty  effects  which  it  has  produced  in 
 the  history  of  man,  on  the  foundation  of  the  baseless  delu¬ 
 sions  of  a  few  credulous  fanatics. 
 
 Such  is  the  theory.  Its  entire  plausibility  is  derived 
 from  the  general  form  in  which  it  has  been  propounded. 
 The  moment  we  confront  it  with  the  facts  of  history  and 
 the  realities  of  human  life,  it  crumbles  to  pieces.  Thus 
 as  a  matter  of  mere  speculation  in  the  study,  nothing  is 
 easier  than  to  assert  that  some  enthusiastic  disciple  of 
 Jesus  fancied  that  he  saw  Him  alive  after  His  crucifixion, 
 mistook  an  apparition  for  a  resurrection,  and  communicated 
 his  enthusiasm  to  the  rest.  But  these  last  words  hide 
 whole  mountains  of  difficulty.  How  was  it  possible  under 
 the  circumstances  of  intense  discouragement  in  which  the 
 disciples  were  placed  by  the  blasting  of  all  their  Messianic 
 expectations,  through  the  crucifixion  of  their  Master,  to 
 breathe  into  them  the  enthusiasm  requisite  for  seeing  visions 
 of  the  risen  Jesus ;  and  on  the  strength  of  such  a  delusion 
 to  found  an  institution  which  has  stood  the  test  of  eighteen 
 centuries  ?  How,  I  ask,  are  a  body  of  men  to  be  made  to 
 believe  that  a  person  who  was  only  a  short  time  previously 
 publicly  executed  has  risen  from  the  dead,  while  his  body 
 must  be  still  somewhere  at  hand  in  the  grave  in  which  it  has 
 been  interred  ?  Has  anything  analogous  to  this  occurred  in 
 the  history  of  fact,  or  in  the  dreams  of  fiction  ?  Such  a 
 theory  hopelessly  breaks  down  when  it  is  tested  by  the  stern 
 realities  of  life  and  the  historical  conditions  of  the  case. 
 Let  us  proceed  to  subject  it  to  this  test. 
 
 I.  The  starting-point  of  all  reasonings  on  this  subject 
 must  be  the  night  of  the  Crucifixion;  for  the  affirmation 
 that  the  belief  was  a  gradual  growth,  which  sprang  up  at  a 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REPUTED. 
 
 363 
 
 distance  from  tlie  scene  of  the  Passion  is  effectually  disposed 
 of  by  the  testimony  of  the  Pauline  epistles.  In  what  state 
 of  mind  then  must  that  evening  and  the  following  days  have 
 found  the  disciples  of  Jesus  ?  A  high  state  of  mental  exal¬ 
 tation  is  indispensable  for  seeing  visions,,  and  mistaking 
 them  for  realities.  Such  visions  are  inconsistent  with  a 
 state  of  mental  depression  which  might  have  induced  some 
 disciple  to  fancy  that  he  saw  an  apparition  of  the  spirit  of 
 the  murdered  Jesus,  but  could  not  have  suggested  to  the 
 most  credulous  fanatic  the  idea  of  a  resurrection.* 
 
 What  then  were  the  facts  ?  It  is  certain  that  His  fol¬ 
 lowers  had  been  induced  to  believe  in  Him  as  the  Messiah 
 of  popular  expectation ;  and  that  the  public  execution  of  one 
 who  laid  claim  to  this  character  must  have  been  destructive 
 of  the  idea  of  His  Messiah  ship.  History,  it  is  true,  had 
 familiarized  them  with  the  idea  of  murdered  prophets ;  but 
 although  this  had  frequently  happened,  their  death  had 
 
 #  The  whole  range  of  Grecian  and  Roman  Mythology  may  be  quoted 
 as  a  case  in  point.  Rich  as  it  is  in  ideal  creations,  in  stories  which 
 involve  the  current  beliefs  in  the  supernatural,  and  in  accounts  of 
 the  apparitions  of  the  spirits  of  the  departed,  it  impresses  us  with  the 
 fact  that  the  idea  was  all  but  universal,  that  from  death  there  was  no 
 return.  An  inexorable  fate  demanded  the  death  of  man  ;  the  powers 
 of  the  world  below  firmly  grasped  their  prey  :  Jupiter  himself  was 
 unable  to  avert  from  his  children  this  inevitable  doom.  The  two  or 
 three  stories  of  heathen  mythology  which  bear  a  resemblance  to 
 resurrections,  are  not  only  extremely  grotesque,  but  are  relegated  to 
 the  distant  ages  of  the  past.  The  whole  aspect  of  heathen  literature 
 proves,  that  although  belief  in  the  appearance  of  the  spirits  of  the 
 departed  was  strictly  in  accordance  with  the  popular  ideas  of  the 
 possible,  yet  the  return  to  life  of  one  who  had  really  died  was  believed 
 to  be  impossible.  I  make  this  observation,  because  it  has  been  often 
 asserted  in  connection  with  this  discussion,  that  in  certain  ages  of  the 
 past  the  popular  mind  has  not  recognized  the  existence  of  such  a  thing 
 as  order  in  nature.  Their  order  may  not  have  been  our  order,  but 
 whenever  the  human  mind  advances  beyond  the  lowest  stages  of 
 barbarism,  it  is  impossible  but  that  it  should  recognize  an  order  of 
 some  kind  as  existing  in  nature  ;  but  of  this  order,  even  in  the  most 
 mythical  periods,  the  belief  in  the  possibility  of  a  genuine  resurrection 
 has  never  formed  a  portion. 
 
364 
 
 THE  THEORY  OP  VISIONS 
 
 never  once  been  vindicated  by  a  resurrection ;  and  the 
 Messiah  was  not  to  be  a  murdered  prophet,  but  a  King 
 who  was  to  reign  in  the  Kingdom  of  God.  Whatever 
 respect  therefore  they  may  have  entertained  for  the  cha¬ 
 racter  of  their  Master,  and  although  it  is  within  the  limits 
 of  possibility  that  they  should  have  believed  that  He  was  a 
 prophet,*  His  crucifixion  must  have  convinced  them  that 
 He  had  been  labouring  under  a  delusion  in  claiming  to  be 
 the  Christ.  Their  mental  condition  therefore  must  have 
 been  that  of  men  whose  hopes  and  expectations  were 
 utterly  blasted,  the  very  opposite  of  that  which  would  have 
 suggested  the  idea  of  a  resurrection,  and  induced  them 
 to  see  visions  of  their  Master  risen  from  the  dead.  The 
 necessary  conditions  of  doing  so  I  will  consider  presently. 
 
 It  may  perhaps  be  urged,  for  the  purpose  of  obviating 
 this  difficulty,  that  Jesus  may  have  foreseen  that  the  exas¬ 
 peration  of  His  enemies  would  probably  result  in  His  death, 
 and  that  for  the  purpose  of  encouraging  His  disciples,  He 
 told  them  that  if  this  should  happen,  He  would  be  raised 
 again  from  the  dead ;  by  which  He  only  meant  that  His 
 cause  would  be  resuscitated  ;  and  that  they  mistook  this  for 
 a  prediction  of  an  actual  resurrection ;  and  that  this  raised 
 so  strong  an  expectation  of  it,  as  to  cause  them  to  see 
 visions  of  Him  returned  to  life  again,  which  they  mistook 
 for  realities.  To  this  I  reply  that  our  only  information  that 
 Our  Lord  predicted  His  death  and  resurrection  is  derived 
 from  the  pages  of  the  Evangelists.  But  if  their  testimony 
 is  valid  to  prove  that  He  did  so,  it  must  be  equally  valid  to 
 prove  that  the  disciples  did  not  attach  to  His  words  their 
 literal  meaning,  and  that  they  certainly  did  not  suggest  to 
 
 *  I  make  this  admission  on  the  strength  of  the  words  of  Cleopas 
 recorded  in  Luke  xxiv.  19.  “Concerning  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  who 
 was  a  prophet  mighty  in  deed  and  word  before  God  and  all  the 
 people.”  These  words  were  spoken  on  the  evening  of  the  Resurrec¬ 
 tion.  It  is  impossible  that  even  his  most  devoted  followers  could 
 have  long  continued  to  believe  in  the  prophetical  character  of  one  who 
 had  been  self-deceived  in  believing  himself  to  be  the  Messiah. 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 365 
 
 them  the  idea  of  an  actual  death,  or  an  actual  resurrection.* 
 It  would  therefore  have  been  impossible  for  this  to  have 
 produced  the  state  of  expectancy  requisite  for  seeing  visions 
 and  mistaking  them  for  realities. j*  Still  less  could  such  an 
 
 *  This  habit  on  the  part  of  opponents  of  accepting  the  testimony  of 
 the  Gospels  when  it  favours  their  own  theories,  and  of  rejecting  it 
 when  adverse,  is  one  which  cannot  be  too  strongly  deprecated ;  for 
 however  it  may  help  to  confirm  preconceived  notions,  it  can  lead  to  no 
 result  favourable  to  truth.  Apart  from  their  testimony  that  Jesus 
 predicted  His  death  and  resurrection,  the  idea  that  He  foresaw  the 
 high  probability  of  His  death,  and  expressed  the  hope  that  His  cause 
 would  revive  afterwards,  and  designated  this  revival  a  resurrection, 
 and  on  the  strength  of  this  to  propound  such  a  theory  as  a  true 
 account  of  the  most  important  event  in  the  history  of  the  world,  is  to 
 build  on  a  foundation  of  sand.  When  criticism  accepts  possibilities 
 for  probabilities,  and  probabilities  for  certainties,  all  it  does  is  to 
 construct  history  out  of  its  own  subjective  consciousness,  a  practice 
 which  can  only  result  in  substituting  our  own  notions  for  the  realities 
 of  things. 
 
 f  It  may  be  urged  that  the  institution  of  the  Holy  Communion  was 
 a  distinct  intimation  made  by  Our  Lord  to  His  followers  of  His 
 impending  death.  Ho  doubt  it  was  so ;  but  it  is  very  remarkable  that 
 in  the  account  given  by  the  Evangelists,  there  is  no  hint  of  His 
 impending  resurrection.  If  we  take  the  accounts  as  they  stand,  not 
 one  word  spoken  by  Our  Lord  on  this  occasion  could  have  produced  an 
 expectation  of  it.  The  institution  itself  is  one  of  the  most  remarkable 
 facts  in  the  world’s  history,  and  is  without  precedent  in  the  history  of 
 martyrdoms.  A  man  in  anticipation  of  being  put  to  death  on  the 
 morrow,  directs  his  followers  to  perform  a  very  peculiar  rite  for  all 
 future  time  in  remembrance  of  his  death.  He  tells  them  that  they  are 
 to  take  a  piece  of  bread,  to  break  and  eat  it,  and  to  drink  of  a  cup  of 
 wine,  in  remembrance  that  his  body  had  been  broken  for  them,  and 
 his  blood  shed  for  the  remission  of  sins.  What  is  the  only  possible 
 inference  ?  Either  that  the  person  who  instituted  the  rite  was  fully 
 conscious  that  he  was  about  to  perform  an  act  pre-eminently  divine  in 
 thus  surrendering  his  life ;  and  that  that  act  had  an  intimate 
 connection  with  the  remission  of  sin ;  or  that  he  was  labouring  under 
 such  a  degree  of  hallucination  as  to  amount  to  disorder  of  the 
 intellect.  There  is  no  other  alternative.  The  world’s  history  contains 
 instances  enough  of  martyrdoms  ;  but  the  enthusiasm  of  no  martyr 
 has  ever  impelled  him  to  do  an  act  at  all  resembling  this.  Yet 
 nothing  can  be  more  calm,  impressive,  and  devoid  of  the  smallest  trait 
 
366 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 effect  have  been  produced  by  the  utterance  of  a  few  vague 
 expressions,  such  as  that  God  would  vindicate  His  cause 
 after  His  death;  and  that  He  would  live  again  in  its  renewed 
 life.  The  supposition  that  an  utterance  of  this  kind  could 
 have  produced  in  the  minds  of  the  disciples  such  a  state  of 
 expectancy  as  would  have  been  requisite  to  enable  them  to 
 see  visions  of  Him  risen  from  the  dead,  to  hold  imaginary 
 conversations  with  Him,  which  they  mistook  for  realities, 
 and  in  consequence  of  His  supposed  instructions,  to  proceed 
 to  the  work  of  reconstructing  the  Church,  is  too  incredible 
 to  require  serious  argument. 
 
 The  theory  of  visions  is  compelled  to  assume  two  things, 
 both  of  which  under  the  historical  conditions  of  the  case 
 involve  such  difficulties  as  amount  to  impossibilities. 
 
 First :  that  the  followers  of  Jesus,  both  individually  and 
 conjointly,  took  to  seeing  visions  of  their  Master  risen  from 
 the  dead. 
 
 Secondly :  that  not  only  must  they  have  mistaken  these 
 visions  for  realities,  but  they  must  have  believed  that  they 
 had  conversations  with  Him  in  which  they  received  His 
 instructions  as  to  the  new  basis  on  which  they  were  to 
 reconstruct  the  Church.  It  is  simply  incredible  that  they 
 would  have  ventured  on  making  such  a  change  if  they 
 believed  that  Jesus  had  risen  from  the  dead,  unless  they 
 were  also  persuaded  that  they  had  received  His  definite 
 instructions  to  do  so. 
 
 of  enthusiasm  than  the  account  of  the  institution  as  it  is  given  by  the 
 Evangelists.  The  whole  scene  is  one  of  the  profounclest  solemnity. 
 Yet  the  act  in  question  has  received  a  perpetual  series  of  commemora¬ 
 tions  from  the  night  of  the  Paschal  Supper  to  the  present  hour ; 
 certainly  without  the  intermission  of  a  single  week,  probably  not  of  a 
 single  day,  during  a  period  of  eighteen  hundred  and  forty-seven  years. 
 This  renders  the  fact  of  the  Institution  one  of  the  most  indubitable  in 
 history;  and  constitutes  an  incontestable  proof  that  Jesus  claimed  to 
 be  something  very  different  from  an  ordinary  man,  however  wise  or 
 good.  Still,  as  I  have  observed,  there  was  nothing  in  the  institution 
 itself  to  suggest  to  His  desponding  followers  the  idea  that  after  a  few 
 days  they  would  see  Him  risen  again  from  the  dead. 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 367 
 
 This  necessity  of  accounting  not  only  for  the  belief  in  the 
 Resurrection,  but  for  the  reconstruction  of  the  Church  on 
 the  new  Messianic  basis,  involves  those  who  propound  this 
 theory  in  a  difficulty  so  overwhelming  as  to  be  subversive 
 of  the  preconditions  on  which  it  necessarily  rests.  Accord¬ 
 ing  to  well-established  principles  of  mental  physiology, 
 three  mental  states  are  necessary  to  enable  even  the  most 
 enthusiastic  and  credulous  persons  to  mistake  subjective 
 impressions  for  external  realities.  These  are  Prepossession, 
 lixed  Idea,  and  Expectancy;  and  unless  they  had  been 
 most  energetically  present  in  the  minds  of  his  followers,  no 
 amount  of  enthusiasm  or  credulity  would  have  sufficed  to 
 create  the  necessary  visions.  But  supposing  that  under 
 the  influence  of  these  principles  they  had  visions  of  a  risen 
 Jesus,  it  would  have  been  impossible  that  visions  gene¬ 
 rated  by  either  prepossession  or  fixed  idea  could  have 
 
 suggested  the  reconstruction  of  the  Church  on  a  new 
 basis. 
 
 Yet  the  fact  that  the  Church  was  so  reconstructed  is 
 unquestionable.  It  follows  therefore  that  the  minds  of  the 
 disciples  must  have  undergone  a  change  as  to  the  nature  of 
 the  Messianic  character  during  the  interral  which  elapsed 
 between  the  crucifixion  of  Jesus  and  the  proclamation  of 
 His  resurrection.  How  then  will  the  principles  of  pre¬ 
 possession,  fixed  idea,  or  expectancy,  account  for  their  seeing 
 such  visions  as  could  have  led  to  the  reconstruction  of  the 
 Church  ?  As  for  expectancy,  I  have  already  shown  that  it 
 was  non-existent.  Prepossession  and  fixed  idea  are  prin¬ 
 ciples  of  the  most  conservative  description.  Under  their 
 influence  it  is  impossible  for  a  set  of  new  ideas  to  be  gene¬ 
 rated  m  the  mind.  It  follows  therefore,  if  these  principles 
 had  induced  the  followers  of  Jesus  to  mistake  visionary 
 appearances  and  conversations  for  realities,  they  could  neither 
 have  suggested  the  requisite  change  in  the  Messianic  con¬ 
 ception  nor  the  consequent  reconstruction  of  the  Church. 
 
 On  the  contrary,  they  would  certainly  have  gone  on  on  the 
 old  lines. 
 
8G8 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 II.  But  lot  us  for  a  moment  suppose  all  these  difficulties 
 to  be  non-existent,  and  that  such  a  state  of  enthusiastic 
 exaltation  existed  among  His  disciples  on  the  days  imme¬ 
 diately  following  the  Crucifixion,  that  some  one  of  them 
 fancied  that  he  saw  Him  alive,  and  spread  among  the  others 
 the  report  that  He  was  risen.  Let  us  further  assume  that 
 this  enthusiast  was  Mary  Magdalene  ;*  and  that  she  mistook 
 the  gardener  for  Jesus.  Is  it  credible  that  a  woman  so 
 enthusiastically  attached  to  him,  went  away  to  report  His 
 resurrection  to  the  disciples,  without  asking  Him  a  single 
 question?  If  she  had  done  so,  her  delusions  must  have 
 been  instantly  dissipated.  But  let  us  assume  that  what  she 
 fancied  she  saw  was  not  the  gardener,  but  a  visionary 
 creation  of  her  own  disordered  imagination.  Hid  she  make 
 no  attempt  to  speak  to  her  beloved  Master  ?  Some  questions 
 under  the  circumstances  must  have  been  inevitable.  If  she 
 put  them,  did  she  get  visionary  answers,  and  fancy  herself 
 charged  with  some  message  to  the  disciples  ?  Surely,  if  she 
 did,  it  must  have  contained  some  promise  to  meet  them.  If 
 so,  was  the  promise  kept  ?  Or  did  He  promise  to  meet  her 
 again  ?  If  he  did  so,  and  the  appointment  was  not  kept, 
 her  delusions  must  have  ended.  If  however  she  fancied 
 that  she  had  subsequent  interviews  with  him,  she  must  have 
 had  a  whole  series  of  visions  and  ideal  conversations,  and 
 mistaken  them  for  realities.  Such  things  may  be  conceiv¬ 
 able  in  theory,  but  they  become  absolutely  incredible  when 
 tested  by  the  realities  of  this  world  of  fact. 
 
 Let  us  however  assume  that  she  at  once  started  off  to  tell 
 the  disciples  that  she  had  seen  her  crucified  Master  risen 
 from  the  dead.  Are  we  really  to  be  invited  to  believe  that 
 
 *  I  make  this  assumption  because  it  is  the  most  plausible  form  in 
 which  the  theory  of  visions  can  be  presented,  it  being  far  easier  to 
 conceive  the  possibility  of  a  single  person  mistaking  apparitions  of  the 
 risen  Jesus  for  realities,  than  that  many  did  so  separately  and  conjointly. 
 As  however  it  contradicts  the  most  unquestionable  facts  of  history, 
 as  proved  by  the  testimony  of  the  Pauline  Epistles,  I  do  so  under 
 
 protest. 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 369 
 
 in  their  state  of  despondency,  occasioned  by  the  blasting  of 
 all  their  expectations,  they  received  such  an  announcement 
 with  open-mouthed  credulity  ?  Nothing  is  easier  than  to 
 affirm  with  M.  Eenan  that  she  communicated  her  enthusiasm 
 to  the  rest.  But  how  was  it  possible  to  do  so  ?  Does  all 
 history  contain  anything  analogous  to  it  ?  Mobile  there  is 
 no  great  difficulty  in  persuading  ignorant  people  that  a 
 spirit  has  appeared,  it  is  a  wholly  different  thing  to  per¬ 
 suade  even  the  profoundest  credulity  and  the  most  greedy 
 appetite  for  the  marvellous,  that  a  person  once  dead  has 
 risen  again  in  bodily  reality.  As  I  have  said,  the  history  of 
 fictions,  while  it  abounds  with  accounts  of  departed  spirits, 
 regards  stories  of  resurrections  as  lying  outside  the  regions 
 of  the  possible.  This  difficulty  however  is  greatly  in¬ 
 creased  when  the  person  said  to  have  been  raised  had 
 been  only  a  few  days  before  publicly  executed,  and  his 
 body  was  close  at  hand  corrupting  in  the  grave.  It  is 
 beyond  the  power  of  belief,  that  such  a  piece  of  infor¬ 
 mation  was  accepted  even  by  the  most  credulous  of  men, 
 on  the  bare  word  of  the  informant.  But  let  us  further 
 assume  that  she  brought  them  a  promise  of  an  interview, 
 which  specified  both  the  time  and  place.  Was  the  promise 
 kept  ?  If  not,  there  must  have  been  an  end  of  the  delusion. 
 But  if  they  supposed  that  it  was  kept,  then  the  whole  body 
 of  the  disciples  must  have  taken  to  seeing  visions  together. 
 Is  this  conceivable,  while  the  body  was  close  at  hand,  either 
 in  the  custody  of  his  friends  or  his  foes  ? 
 
 It  may  perhaps  be  urged  that  they  were  satisfied  with 
 the  allegation  that  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  retire  out 
 of  the  reach  of  his  enemies.  To  this  I  answer,  that  such 
 an  excuse  would  have  involved  an  open  renunciation  of  his 
 Messiahship,  and  rendered  the  reconstruction  of  the  Church 
 impossible.  No  amount  of  credulity  could  have  accepted  as  a 
 Christ  one  who  declined  to  have  an  interview  with  his  friends 
 because  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  withdraw  out  of  the  reach 
 of  his  enemies,  and  that  too  after  he  had  proved  the  reality 
 of  his  Messiahship  by  his  resurrection  from  the  dead. 
 
 24 
 
370 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 III. — This  brings  us  to  the  very  centre  of  the  difficulty, 
 viz.,  the  necessity  of  grappling  with  the  unquestionable 
 facts  instead  of  bare  assumptions.  Common  sense  affirms, 
 and  the  Pauline  epistles  prove  beyond  all  doubt,  that  these 
 apparitions,  if  such  they  were,  must  have  been  seen  not 
 merely  by  a  single  follower  of  Jesus,  but  by  many  of  them, 
 separately  and  conjointly ;  and  not  only  so  but,  that  during 
 these  apparitions  they  must  have  had  conversations  with 
 him,  in  which  they  received  their  Master’s  directions  as  to 
 the  reconstruction  of  the  Church  on  its  new  basis.  I  invite 
 especial  attention  to  this  latter  point  as  involving  the  theory 
 of  visions  in  the  necessity  of  assuming  these  imaginary 
 interviews  and  conversations ;  for  in  no  other  way  can  it 
 account  for  the  undeniable  fact  that  the  disciples  did 
 actually  proceed  forthwith  to  reconstruct  the  Church  on 
 this  new  basis,  since  it  is  incredible  that  they  should  have 
 done  so  unless  they  had  been  fully  persuaded  that  they  had 
 received  their  Master’s  definite  instructions  as  to  the  course 
 they  were  to  adopt.* 
 
 Unless  therefore  those  who  propound  the  theory  of 
 visions  as  a  rational  account  of  the  origin  of  the  belief  in 
 
 *  I  am  aware  that  those  who  have  propounded  this  theory  maintain 
 that  the  Church  was  reconstructed  with  the  smallest  possible  devia¬ 
 tion  from  the  old  Messianic  basis  ;  and  that  the  persuasion  of  the 
 early  followers  of  Jesus  was  that  He  had  only  withdrawn  from  earth 
 for  a  short  time  ;  and  would  soon  return  to  assume  the  old  Messianic 
 character,  and  to  take  vengeance  on  His  foes.  But  whatever  might 
 have  been  their  belief  respecting  His  speedy  return,  it  is  an  obvious 
 fact  that  the  Church  was  reconstructed  on  the  basis  of  an  absent 
 Messiah;  and  that  this  differed  very  materially  from  the  old  one 
 As  I  have  said,  if  Jesus  was  still  to  continue  to  be  the  Messiah 
 of  the  Church  after  His  crucifixion,  the  idea  of  a  visible  Messiah  was 
 no  longer  tenable,  unless  He  had  exhibited  Himself  openly  to  public 
 view  after  His  resurrection  ;  and  consequently  the  Messianic  concep¬ 
 tion  had  to  be  changed  from  that  of  a  visible  Christ  who  was  to  over¬ 
 come  all  opposition,  and  to  enter  into  His  glory,  to  that  of  a  Christ 
 who  had  asserted  his  Messianic  claims  before  the  Jewish  people,  had 
 been  rejected  and  crucified  by  them,  and  who,  although  He  had  risen 
 from  the  dead,  had  taken  no  steps  to  crush  His  enemies,  but  had 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REPUTED. 
 
 371 
 
 the  Kesurrection  can  solve  these  and  other  difficulties  which 
 are  forced  on  them  by  the  unquestionable  facts  of  history, 
 it  must  perish  under  the  weight  of  its  inherent  absurdity. 
 We  know  on  the  authority  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians, 
 that  the  Apostles  believed  that  they  had  at  least  two  inter¬ 
 views  with  Him,  when  assembled  together ;  that  two  of 
 their  number  had  private  interviews  with  Him  ;  that  it  was 
 the  universal  persuasion  of  the  primitive  believers  that  He 
 appeared  to  more  than  five  hundred  in  a  body,  more  than 
 half  of  whom  were  surviving  when  Paul  wrote  the  letter ; 
 and  that  Paul  was  firmly  persuaded  that  he  himself  had 
 seen  Him.*  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  Pauline 
 list  of  appearances  is  meant  to  be  exhaustive  of  all  he  had 
 been  informed  of ;  but  for  obvious  reasons,  I  do  not  refer 
 to  any  mentioned  in  the  Gospels. t  This  list,  however,  is 
 
 retired  out  of  danger  into  heaven,  from  whence  he  had  promised  at 
 some  future  time  to  return  and  take  possession  of  His  kingdom,  but 
 who  in  the  meantime  delegated  to  His  followers  the  work  of  making 
 converts,  and  the  danger  of  asserting  His  Messiahship  on  this  new 
 basis.  This  is  evidently  the  smallest  possible  change  which  the 
 Crucifixion  must  have  rendered  necessary  in  the  Messianic  conception, 
 if  the  claims  of  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ  were  still  to  be  asserted.  This 
 change,  however,  is  really  a  very  great  one,  and  amply  sufficient  for 
 the  purposes  of  my  argument.  It  is  one  which  it  is  impossible  to 
 believe  that  His  followers  would  have  ventured  on  unless  fully 
 convinced  that  they  had  received  His  definite  instructions  during  their 
 interviews  with  Him  after  He  had  risen  from  the  dead.  Men  had  now 
 to  be  urged  to  accept  as  Christ  one  who  had  been  rejected  and  crucified 
 by  the  heads  of  the  Jewish  nation,  who  had  withdrawn  Himself  out 
 of  the  reach  of  their  animosity,  and  who  had  put  off  to  some  future 
 day  the  work  of  vindicating  His  Messianic  claims  and  taking  vengeance 
 on  His  foes.  It  is  impossible  to  deny  that  this  was  a  very  onerous 
 undertaking,  and  that  it  involved  a  fundamental  change  in  the 
 conception  of  His  Messianic  character.  Nothing  is  more  natural  than 
 the  question  which  the  author  of  the  Acts  puts  into  the  mouth  of  the 
 Apostles,  as  addressed  to  the  risen  Jesus,  “Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this 
 time  restore  the  kingdom  to  Israel?”  The  whole  thing  is  utterly 
 inconsistent  with  expectancy,  fixed  idea,  or  prepossession. 
 
 *  See  Supplement  I. 
 
 f  Their  historical  character,  as  well  as  that  of  the  earlier  chapters 
 
 24* 
 
372 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 quite  sufficient  for  our  purpose  ;  tlie  facts  St,  Paul  had  such 
 ample  means  of  verifying,  that  unless  they  are  true,  he 
 stands  convicted  of  deliberate  falsehood. 
 
 This  being  so,  it  is  hardly  possible  to  conceive  such  a 
 state  of  mental  hallucination  as  this  theory  of  visions  is 
 compelled  to  presuppose,  as  an  adequate  explanation  of  the 
 historic  facts.  It  is  nothing  short  of  this,  that  a  body  of 
 persons  when  assembled  together,  believed  that  on  two 
 separate  occasions  they  saw  a  person  alive  in  the  midst 
 of  them,  within  a  few  days  after  he  had  been  publicly 
 executed;  and  that  too,  while  the  body  must  have  been 
 close  at  hand,  mouldering  in  the  tomb,  unless  it  had  been 
 removed  by  the  hands  of  his  friends,  in  which  case  they 
 must  have  known  of  its  removal;  or  of  his  enemies;  in 
 which  case  it  must  have  been  a  matter  of  public  notoriety. 
 
 Such  a  species  of  hallucination  exceeds  the  capacity  of 
 lunatics ;  for  although  individual  lunatics  often  mistake 
 visions  for  realities,  yet  concurrence  among  a  number  of 
 them  in  believing  that  they  see  the  same  object  is  unknown.* 
 
 But  let  us  even  assume  that  such  impossibilities  are 
 possible.  Here  again  we  encounter  all  the  difficulites  to 
 which  I  have  already  alluded,  and  with  aggravated  force. 
 Is  it  credible,  I  ask,  that  a  number  of  friends  would  have 
 asked  him  no  questions  ?  If  so,  did  they  get  answers  ?  Such 
 
 of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  being  denied  by  unbelievers,  forbids  me 
 to  quote  them  here  as  authorities  in  discussing  the  question  of  the 
 truth  of  the  Resurrection. 
 
 *  It  is  doubtless  a  well  established  scientific  fact  that  certain 
 abnormal  conditions  of  the  mind  can  produce  in  individuals  a  convic¬ 
 tion  that  they  see  certain  objective  realities,  while  what  they  fancy 
 that  they  discern,  is  nothing  but  the  subjective  creation  of  their  own 
 disordered  imaginations.  I  am  aware  of  the  existence  of  a  few  cases 
 of  spiritualistic  manifestations  which  are  alleged  to  have  produced 
 in  a  number  of  persons  when  assembled  together,  the  impression  that 
 they  all  saw  the  same  imaginary  object,  but  there  are  no  cases  on 
 record  in  which  a  number  of  persons  have  believed  that  they  received 
 collectively  from  a  visionary  object  an  extensive  body  of  instruc¬ 
 tions  for  the  regulation  of  their  future  conduct,  and  have  proceeded 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 373 
 
 answers  must  have  been  all  as  visionary  as  the  apparition 
 itself — the  result  of  a  common  delusion.  But  under  the 
 peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case,  we  may  be  sure  what 
 some  of  the  questions  must  have  been.  They  must  have 
 related  to  points  stirring  in  their  minds  of  the  profoundest 
 interest.  What  about  the  future  ?  Was  He  going  to  with¬ 
 draw  Himself  from  the  public  view  ?  Where,  and  when 
 should  they  see  Him  again?  Would  He  confront  His 
 enemies  ?  What  about  His  Messianic  claims  ?  What  course 
 were  His  followers  to  adopt  ?  These,  or  similar  questions, 
 must  have  been  inevitable.  Did  they  believe  that  they  got 
 answers  to  them  ?  If  they  did,  all  the  answers  must  also 
 have  been  visionary ;  but  if  they  got  none,  the  illusion  must 
 have  been  dissipated. 
 
 But  let  us  assume  that  they  did  receive  visionary  answers, 
 which  contained  promises  of  future  interviews.  If  these 
 promises  were  believed  to  have  been  fulfilled,  then  there 
 must  have  been  a  whole  series  of  visionary  interviews  and 
 conversations.  If  they  were  not  fulfilled,  the  bubble  of 
 delusion  must  have  burst.  To  ask  us  to  accept  such  theories 
 as  affording  a  rational  account  of  verifiable  facts,  and  these 
 the  most  important  events  in  history,  is  to  make  a  demand 
 on  our  faith  compared  with  which  the  belief  in  the  most 
 stupendous  miracle  recorded  in  the  Gospels  is  a  trifle. 
 
 to  act  on  their  reality.  At  any  rate  it  is  quite  certain  that  not  one 
 of  the  abnormal  mental  conditions  referred  to  by  Dr.  Carpenter  in 
 his  work  on  “  Mental  Physiology,”  would  suffice  to  produce  in  a 
 number  of  persons  the  belief,  that  on  more  than  one  occasion  when 
 they  were  assembled  together,  they  saw  a  person  who  had  been 
 recently  executed,  alive  in  the  midst  of  them  ;  that  they  conversed 
 with  him,  and  heard  him  give  definite  instructions  in  reference 
 to  their  future  conduct,  altogether  different  from  their  former  views 
 and  ideas  ;  and  that  on  the  strength  of  their  persuasion  that  all  this 
 was  an  objective  reality,  they  founded  an  institution  which  has 
 had  an  historic  existence  for  eighteen  hundred  years.  Such  halluci¬ 
 nations  lie  beyond  the  regions  of  the  possible;  and  even  if  they 
 could  be  conceived  to  be  possible,  that  the  attempt  to  erect  a  mighty 
 institution  on  their  basis  should  have  proved  a  great  success,  is 
 inconceivable. 
 
374 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 In  considering  this  subject  it  is  hardly  possible  to  over¬ 
 estimate  the  importance  of  the  existence  of  the  Church  as  a 
 visible  institution,  which  has  lived  an  historic  life  from  a 
 brief  interval  after  the  Crucifixion  to  the  present  hour. 
 Those  who  propound  this  theory  forget  that  this  is  the  most 
 important  thing  to  be  accounted  for ;  and  treat  the  whole 
 subject  as  if  they  were  merely  investigating  the  origin  of  a 
 ghost  story.  That  this  great  Society  came  into  existence 
 at  a  particular  date,  and  at  a  particular  place,  is  an  historic 
 fact.  No  less  certain  is  it,  that  the  Messianic  conception  on 
 which  it  was  reconstructed  was  wholly  different  in  character 
 from  that  which  formed  the  original  bond  of  union  among 
 the  earliest  followers  of  J esus.  Such  a  change  must  there¬ 
 fore  have  taken  place  in  their  ideas,  as  was  adequate  to 
 convert  the  old  bond  of  union  into  that  on  which  the 
 Church  was  actually  reconstructed.  The  Crucifixion  rendered 
 the  old  Messianic  conceptions  utterly  untenable,  and  unless 
 new  ones  had  been  speedily  adopted  the  little  Society  must 
 inevitably  have  perished  in  its  founder's  grave.  But  it  is 
 the  most  certain  of  facts,  that  the  present  historic  Church 
 came  into  existence  within  a  few  weeks  after  this  event. 
 Consequently,  during  the  interval  which  elapsed  between 
 the  Crucifixion  and  the  .first  attempt  to  reconstruct  it,  the 
 disciples  must  have  abandoned  the  old  foundation  of  a 
 visible  Messiah,  and  adopted  the  new  one,  of  an  invisible 
 and  spiritual  Messiah.  But  if  the  theory  of  visions  is  a 
 rational  explanation  of  the  facts,  not  only  must  the 
 appearances,  and  the  interviews,  have  been  visionary,  but 
 the  instructions  must  have  been  so  likewise.  What  does 
 this  mean  ?  That  the  whole  foundation  on  which  the  Church 
 of  Jesus  Christ  has  been  erected — that  great  Society  which 
 has  acted  mightily  on  man  for  good  during  eighteen  cen¬ 
 turies  of  time — is  the  creation  of  the  fatuous  dreamings  of 
 a  number  of  disordered  imaginations ;  and  all  this,  we  are 
 invited  to  accept  in  the  name  of  reason,  and  philosophy, 
 rather  than  admit  the  reality  of  a  miracle. 
 
 It  will  probably  be  objected  that  Mahometanism  is  a  case 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 375 
 
 of  this  description,  and  that  as  far  as  it  is  not  founded  on 
 imposture,  it  rests  on  the  unreal  dreams  of  the  prophet  of 
 Mecca;  and  on  appearances  of  the  angel  Gabriel,  which, 
 unless  they  were  deliberate  inventions,  Mahomet  must  have 
 mistaken  for  realities.* 
 
 The  perusal  of  the  Koran  leaves  on  my  own  mind  the 
 impression,  that  during  the  earlier  portion  of  his  caieer  the 
 Arabian  prophet  may  have  been  a  sincere  fanatic.  No  less 
 certain  is  the  impression  produced  by  that  part  of  it  which 
 is  latest  in  date,  that  his  fanaticism  had  become  united  with 
 no  small  amount  of  imposture.  There  are  chapters  in  it 
 which  no  one  in  the  possession  of  his  senses  could  have 
 believed  that  he  received  from  the  angel  Gabriel,  or  that 
 they  were  written  on  the  eternal  tablets  ol  the  divine  mind. 
 On  the  whole,  Mahomet  seems  to  have  belonged  to  that 
 mixed  and  very  mysterious  order  of  character  which  we 
 occasionally  meet  with  in  history  and  in  actual  life,  uniting 
 self-delusion,  fanaticism,  and  imposture  in  nearly  equal 
 proportions. 
 
 But  it  will  be  urged  that  on  the  strength  of  his  con¬ 
 viction  of  the  reality  of  the  appearances  of  the  angel,  he 
 laid  claim  to  a  divine  Mission,  and  on  this  foundation  has 
 succeeded  in  erecting  the  Mahometan  Church,  ana  thus  a 
 hallucination  has  been  the  means  of  creating  a  great  reality. 
 
 X  answer,  that  the  assertion  that  Mahomet  succeeded  in 
 erecting  his  Church  on  this  basis  is  inaccurate.  The  utmost 
 that  can  be  affirmed  is  that  he  was  induced  to  undertake  his 
 thirteen  years*  peaceful  mission  at  Mecca  under  the  pei  sua¬ 
 sion  that  he  had  received  a  divine  commission  through  the 
 appearance  of  the  angel.  The  results  of  his  peaceful  labouis 
 
 £  It  is  not  my  purpose  in  this  place  to  draw  a  general  parallel 
 between  Christianity  and  Mahometanism,  but  simply  between  the 
 two  systems,  as  far  as  they  can  be  supposed  to  have  originated  msome 
 mental  hallucination,  in  the  supposed  visionary  appearance  of  the 
 angel  Gabriel  to  Mahomet,  those  of  Our  Lord  to  the  Apostles,  and 
 the  erection  of  Christianity  and  Mahometanism  on  the  basis  of  these 
 delusions. 
 
37  G 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 however  were  so  inconsiderable,  that  the  small  band  of 
 believers  whom  he  collected  never  succeeded  in  constituting 
 a  Church;  and  if  he  had  confined  himself  to  such  labours  the 
 Church  of  Mahomet  would  never  have  been  created.  And  no 
 wonder,  for  the  prophet  never  once  made  any  manifestation 
 of  superhuman  goodness,  holiness  or  power  which  could 
 impart  credibility  to  his  testimony.  He  stood  in  the  posi¬ 
 tion  of  a  mere  man  witnessing  to  himself,  precisely  corres¬ 
 ponding  to  what  Our  Lord  meant  when  He  said,  “  If  I  bear 
 witness  of  myself,  my  witness  is  not  true.”  His  visions  he 
 saw  alone,  and  whether  they  were  pure  illusions,  or  these 
 united  with  an  incipient  form  of  that  self-delusion  which 
 manifested  itself  in  the  latter  portion  of  his  career,  they 
 failed  to  create  a  Church  until  he  grasped  the  sword.  There 
 are  passages  in  the  Koran  which  produce  the  painful  impres¬ 
 sion  that  even  at  an  early  date  a  spirit  of  self-delusion  was 
 mixed  up  with  his  fanaticism.  I  allude  to  those  in  which 
 he  assumes  a  tone  of  deprecation,  on  account  of  his  inability 
 to  perform  a  miracle,  when  his  opponents  challenged  him  to 
 work  one  in  attestation  of  his  divine  mission.  But  the  real 
 foundation  of  his  Church  dates  from  his  advancement  to 
 sovereign  power,  which  a  fortunate  combination  of  circum¬ 
 stances  threw  into  his  hands.  With  this  event  begins  that 
 portion  of  his  career  in  which  unquestionable  self-delusion 
 and  imposture  become  united  with  the  original  fanaticism 
 of  his  character.  We  cannot  now  trace  the  stages  of  his 
 downward  course,  but  it  is  probable  that  his  change  from 
 fanaticism  pure  and  simple  to  fanaticism  combined  with  im¬ 
 posture  was  a  gradual  one.  However  this  may  have  been, 
 the  contrast  between  the  Christian  and  the  Mahometan 
 Churches  is  complete,  not  only  in  the  mode  of  their  founda¬ 
 tion,  but  almost  in  every  other  particular.  With  the 
 possession  of  royal  authority  Mahomet  ceased  to  be  the 
 missionary,  and  grasped  the  sword,  his  successful  use  of 
 which  formed  in  the  eyes  of  his  followers  the  real  vindica¬ 
 tion  of  his  divine  mission,  and  constitutes  the  foundation  on 
 which  his  Church  has  been  erected.  Jesus  renounced  the 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 377 
 
 sword  and  was  crucified;  His  cross  became  His  throne;  His 
 followers  proclaimed  Him  a  spiritual  Messiah,  who  would 
 conquer  his  kingdom,  not  by  force  but  by  persuasion ;  and 
 on  the  basis  of  His  resurrection  found  the  Catholic  Church, 
 over  which  for  eighteen  centuries  He  has  reigned  as  its 
 invisible  King.  If  then,  as  unbelievers  allege,  the  Church 
 of  Jesus  Christ  has  been  founded  on  a  body  of  visionary 
 delusions,  it  is  certain  that  the  Church  of  Mahomet  has  been 
 founded  on  the  sternest  of  realities,  the  sword  wielded  by 
 the  conqueror’s  hand. 
 
 But  the  theory  of  visions  breaks  down  at  every  point 
 where  it  can  be  tested  by  the  facts  of  history.  Not  only  is 
 it  the  most  certain  of  facts  that  the  Church  was  reconstructed 
 on  the  basis  of  the  Resurrection  within  a  very  brief  interval 
 after  the  Crucifixion,  but  it  rapidly  increased  in  numbers. 
 To  make  converts  was  a  necessity  of  its  existence.  How 
 could  this  be  effected  ?  There  was  only  one  mode,  viz.  to 
 proclaim  the  setting  up  of  the  New  Messianic  kingdom; 
 and  that  the  person  whom  the  chiefs  of  the  nation  had 
 recently  crucified  on  the  charge  of  being  a  false  Christ,  had 
 risen  from  the  dead  and  become  its  spiritual  King.  What 
 did  His  adversaries,  who  had  just  compassed  His  death,  say 
 when  within  a  few  weeks  they  saw  what  they  must  have 
 considered  a  new  imposture  set  up,  and  multitudes  joining 
 the  new  Society  ?  There  was  one  simple  way  of  crushing 
 the  movement — the  production  of  the  body.  No  amount  of 
 delusion  on  the  part  of  the  followers  of  Jesus  could  have 
 resisted  the  logic  of  such  an  act.  If  they  were  unable  to 
 produce  it,  the  only  possible  reason  must  have  been  that  it 
 had  passed  from  their  custody  into  that  of  His  friends.  But 
 such  a  supposition  is  destructive  of  the  entire  theory  of 
 visions ;  for  in  that  case  the  belief  in  His  resurrection 
 cannot  have  been  the  result  of  any  delusion,  but  its  sole 
 source  must  have  been  a  deliberately  concocted  fraud.  If, 
 on  the  other  hand,  the  body  was  still  in  the  custody  of  His 
 enemies,  it  is  simply  incredible  that  when  the  Resurrection 
 was  publicly  announced  they  would  not  have  produced  it 
 
378 
 
 THE  THEORY  OP  VISIONS 
 
 However  the  fact  may  have  been,  either  way  it  is  fatal  to 
 the  visionary  theory.  Its  only  refuge  is  to  suppose  that 
 some  one  stole  the  body,  and  thereupon  the  remainder 
 of  His  disciples  took  to  seeing  visions  of  the  risen  Jesus ; 
 but  for  such  a  fraud  it  is  impossible  to  assign  any  adequate 
 motive,  and  that  it  became  the  basis  of  a  set  of  visionary 
 appearances  which  were  mistaken  for  realities  is  incredible. 
 
 Pressed  by  this  difficulty,  some  of  the  adherents  of  this 
 theory  have  affirmed  that  the  followers  of  Jesus  retired  from 
 Jerusalem  after  the  crucifixion  of  their  Master,  to  more 
 friendly  Galilee;  and  that  these  took  to  seeing  visions  of  Him 
 raised  from  the  dead,  and  to  reconstructing  the  Church.* 
 The  object  of  this  is  to  gain  time  for  the  belief  to  grow ; 
 and  to  remove  the  scene  of  action  to  a  distance  from  the 
 place  of  the  Crucifixion.  The  supposition  however  is  not 
 only  devoid  of  all  evidence,  but  directly  contradicts  the 
 testimony  of  the  Pauline  Epistles.  These  render  it  certain 
 that  the  Church  was  set  up  at  J erusalem  within  a  very  brief 
 interval  after  the  Crucifixion ;  and  that  it  grew  to  sufficient 
 numbers  to  induce  the  authorities,  aided  by  Paul,  to  com¬ 
 mence  against  it  a  sharp  persecution.  On  this  point  we  are 
 
 *  The  only  ground  for  this  assumption  is  the  message  sent  to  the 
 disciples  through  the  women  on  the  morning  of  the  Resurrection  :  “  Go 
 and  tell  my  brethren,  that  they  go  before  me  into  Galilee  ;  there  shall 
 they  see  me  the  assertion  in  St.  Matthew’s  Gospel,  that  the  eleven 
 disciples  did  see  Him  in  Galilee,  and  that  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,  which, 
 while  it  affirms  that  He  was  twice  previously  seen  by  the  Apostolic 
 body  at  J  erusalem,  tells  us  also  that  He  was  seen  by  seven  disciples 
 in  Galilee.  It  should  be  observed  that  all  three  Synoptics  concur  in 
 stating  that  the  scene  of  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection 
 was  at  Jerusalem,  prior  to  any  of  the  disciples  leaving  It  for  Galilee. 
 This  being  so,  it  is  absurd  to  accept  their  testimony  in  the  one  case 
 and  to  deny  its  validity  in  the  other.  But,  as  I  have  shown  above,  it 
 is  impossible  that  St.  Paul  could  have  been  ignorant  where  the  belief 
 originated.  Every  circumstance  connected  with  him  as  a  persecutor 
 proves  that  it  must  have  taken  a  firm  root  in  J  erusalem  shortly  after 
 the  Crucifixion ;  and  that  the  theory  of  its  having  gradually  grown 
 up  in  Galilee,  has  no  other  foundation  than  the  imagination  of  those 
 who  have  propounded  it. 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 379 
 
 not  dependent  on  tlie  testimony  of  tlie  Acts  alone,  but  we 
 have  St.  Paul's  own  direct  affirmation.  This  being  so,  it  is 
 certain  that  both  the  priests  and  Paul  must  have  made 
 every  exertion  to  discover  the  source  of  the  delusion )  the 
 necessity  of  exhibiting  the  remains  of  the  body,  if  it  was  in 
 their  possession,  was  therefore  a  thing  too  palpable  to  be 
 overlooked.  Equally  certain  is  it,  that  if  the  body,  01  even 
 its  remains,  could  have  been  produced,  the  Chuich  could 
 never  have  made  another  convert.  Besides,  of  all  the  means 
 which  were  employed  to  put  the  Church  down,  and  to  con¬ 
 vict  the  alleged  witnesses  of  the  Resurrection  of  delusion  or 
 fraud,  Paul  must  have  known  the  minute  details ;  and  as 
 the  agent  of  the  priests  in  the  persecution,  he  must  have 
 been  entrusted  with  their  secret  theory  as  to  the  origin  of 
 the  delusion ;  yet  he  joined  the  Church. 
 
 The  following  conclusions  are  established  by  the  preceding 
 
 reasonings. 
 
 First  :  the  theory  of  visions  totally  fails  to  give  us  a 
 rational  account  of  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  the  Resurrec¬ 
 tion,  and  of  the  unquestionable  fact,  that  the  Church  was 
 reconstructed  on  its  basis. 
 
 Secondly  :  that  if  this  theory  be  accepted  as  a  solution  of 
 the  facts  of  history,  it  involves  a  succession  of  events  equally 
 miraculous  with  those  which  it  has  been  propounded  for  the 
 
 express  purpose  of  explaining  away. 
 
 IV. — Against  the  cogency  of  these  reasonings  however 
 an  objection  has  been  urged  by  an  eminent  modern  physio¬ 
 logist,  to  which  it  would  be  a  neglect  of  duty  on  my  part  not 
 to  give  a  serious  consideration.*  It  is  the  more  necessary 
 
 *  Dr.  Carpenter  lays  down,  in  an  article  in  the  Contemporary  Review, 
 entitled  “  The  Fallacies  of  Testimony,”  certain  principles  which  he 
 considers  will  explain  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament,  and  states 
 that  in  regard  to  the  New  Testament  miracles  generally,  he  fails  to 
 see  “in  what  respect  the  external  testimony  in  their  behalf  is  stronger 
 than  it  is  for  the  reality  of  the  miracles  attributed  to  St.  Columba.  * 
 (See  the  entire  passage,  which  I  quote  in  the  Second  Supplement  to 
 
380 
 
 THE  THEORY  OP  VISIONS 
 
 to  do  so,  because  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  is  one  which 
 is  felt  by  no  inconsiderable  number  of  thoughtful  men.  It 
 is  true  that  his  argument  is  directed  against  the  general 
 objective  reality  of  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Bible,  and 
 
 this  Lecture.)  The  expression  used  is  “the  New  Testament  miracles 
 generally.”  The  ordinary  reader  can  only  understand  that  under  this 
 expression  is  included  the  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  which  is  certainly 
 the  greatest  miracle  recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  This  paper  was 
 read  at  a  Meeting  of  the  Clergy  at  Sion  College  shortly  before  its 
 publication  ;  and  in  the  printed  Syllabus  he  distinctly  invites  theolo¬ 
 gians  to  join  issue  with  his  positions.  I  have  been  informed,  however, 
 that  at  the  Meeting  in  question,  Dr.  Carpenter  admitted  that  some  of 
 the  principles  which  he  there  laid  down  would  not  account  for  the 
 belief  in  the  Resurrection.  If  this  be  so,  it  is  greatly  to  be  regretted 
 that  he  has  not  stated  in  his  published  paper  that  such  is  the  case ; 
 for  it  is  impossible  for  the  reader  to  arrive  at  any  other  conclusion 
 than  that  the  Resurrection  must  be  included  among  “  the  New  Testa¬ 
 ment  miracles  generally.”  What  Dr.  Carpenters  views  are  respecting 
 the  Resurrection,  and  how  he  explains  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  it,  I 
 am  ignorant;  but  it  seems  to  me  that  if  he  believes  in  its  objective 
 reality,  it  is  inconceivable  that  he  should  put  himself  to  the  trouble  of 
 explaining  away  the  other  miracles,  while  he  leaves  the  Resurrection 
 untouched.  At  any  rate,  I  can  only  deal  with  his  published  writings, 
 and  not  with  any  private  explanations  of  his  views.  There  is  no  doubt 
 that  the  whole  tendency  of  the  article  in  question  is  not  only  to  shake 
 the  reader’s  belief  in  the  truth  of  the  miracles  of  the  N ew  Testament 
 generally,  but  in  the  objective  reality  of  the  Resurrection.  Most  of 
 the  principles  there  laid  down  for  the  purpose  of  accounting  for 
 the  belief  in  a  number  of  well-attested  miraculous  narratives,  and 
 also  for  that  in  the  phenomena  of  spiritualism,  are  unfolded  at  much 
 greater  length  in  his  work  on  “  Mental  Physiology.”  He  is  of  opinion 
 that  these  spiritualistic  phenomena,  which  rest  on  a  very  high  form  of 
 attestation,  are  the  result  of  certain  abnormal  actions  of  the  mind.  It 
 is  impossible  to  read  his  explanations  of  the  origin  of  these  and  of 
 various  other  delusions,  without  feeling  that  the  principles  employed, 
 if  true,  are  capable  of  being  used  to  bolster  up  “the  theory  of  Visions,” 
 the  fallacies  of  which  it  is  the  object  of  this  Lecture  to  expose.  Thus 
 in  “  the  Fallacies  of  Testimony”  we  are  referred  to  the  case  of  twelve 
 witnesses,  who  were  firmly  persuaded  that  they  saw  a  person  descend 
 through  the  ceiling  of  a  closed  and  darkened  room.  I  need  hardly  say 
 that  the  story,  whoever  may  have  invented  it,  looks  very  like  an  ugly 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 381 
 
 not  against  the  specific  miracle  of  the  Resurrection.  As 
 however  it  is  useless  to  propound  a  theory  which  assigns 
 all  these  miracles,  as  far  as  they  are  not  of  legendary  origin, 
 to  that  class  of  phenomena  in  which  mental  hallucinations 
 have  been  mistaken  for  external  realities,  while  the  one 
 great  evidential  miracle  of  the  New  Testament  is  left  un¬ 
 touched,  I  feel  fully  justified  in  dealing  with  it  as  if  intended 
 to  be  equally  applicable  to  the  Resurrection,  as  well  as  to 
 the  other  miracles  of  the  Bible.  Otherwise  it  would  be 
 simply  nugatory,  as  it  is  clear  that  if  the  Resurrection  was 
 an  objective  reality,  we  do  not  require  narrowly  to  scrutinize 
 the  attestation  of  each  of  the  other  miracles  of  the  New 
 Testament  ;  but  may  be  content  with  the  general  one 
 which  is  given  by  the  evangelists.*  It  cannot  be  too 
 strongly  impressed  on  both  sides  to  this  controversy,  that 
 the  Resurrection  is  the  one  great  crucial  miracle,  and  with 
 
 parody  of  the  appearance  of  Our  Lord  to  the  Apostles  at  Easter  Eve. 
 It  may  fairly  he  asked,  if  Dr.  Carpenter’s  principles  are  true  solutions 
 of  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  the  one,  why  are  they  not  equally 
 applicable  to  account  for  the  belief  in  the  other  ?  It  has,  therefore, 
 been  my  simple  duty,  irrespective  of  what  may  be  his  view  about  the 
 Resurrection,  to  point  out,  not  only  the  contrast  in  point  of  evidence 
 between  that  of  all  other  miraculous  narratives  and  of  Our  Lord’s 
 Resurrection,  but  also  to  show  that  the  principles  on  which  he 
 accounts  for  the  belief  of  numbers  of  men  of  cultivated  intellect,  and 
 and  of  some  men  of  eminent  scientific  attainments,  in  the  phenomena 
 of  spiritualism  and  other  similar  species  of  supernaturalism,  are 
 totally  inadequate  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  the 
 Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ.  (See  Supplement  II.) 
 
 *  What  I  mean  is  that  even  if  some  of  the  miracles  recorded  in  the 
 Gospels  could  be  shown  to  have  been  incorrectly  reported,  or  to  have 
 been  the  results  of  the  action  of  powerful  faith  on  the  bodies  of  those 
 who  were  cured  by  Our  Lord  or  the  Apostles,  while  the  truth  of  the 
 Resurrection  remains  unshaken,  Christianity  loses  none  of  its  claims 
 to  be  accepted  as  a  Divine  Revelation.  All  that  this  position,  if 
 established,  could  effect  would  be  to  alter  our  views  as  to  the  degree 
 of  supernatural  assistance  afforded  to  the  authors  of  the  Gospels.  To 
 offer  specific  objections  against  particular  miracles,  while  the  greatest 
 of  all  miracles  remains  untouched,  is  to  evade,  not  to  solve,  the 
 question  at  issue. 
 
382 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 it  Christianity  as  a  divine  revelation  stands  or  falls.  The 
 objection  may  be  briefly  stated  as  follows  : 
 
 There  are  a  considerable  number  of  miraculous  narratives 
 which  as  far  as  attestation  goes,  rest  on  an  exceedingly 
 strong  one ;  yet  their  objective  reality  is  not  believed  by 
 those  who  have  investigated  the  subject.  As  however  in 
 many  cases  imposture  is  out  of  the  question,  and  it  is 
 incontestable  that  those  who  have  reported  them  were 
 firmly  convinced  that  they  had  witnessed  them,  the  only 
 possible  mode  of  accounting  for  such  beliefs  is,  by  assum¬ 
 ing  that  they  are  the  result  of  mental  hallucination.*  That 
 the  human  mind  under  certain  well-known  conditions  is 
 capable  of  mistaking  subjective  impressions  for  external 
 realities  is  a  thoroughly  established  scientific  fact.f  Equally 
 so  is  it,  that  a  powerful  mental  action,  when  concentrated 
 on  some  portion  of  our  bodily  frame,  is  capable  of  pro¬ 
 ducing  results,  which  to  the  unskilled  observer  have  all 
 the  appearance  of  being  miraculous.  J  Among  the  mental 
 conditions  capable  of  producing  such  a  state  of  mind  are 
 unconscious  cerebration,  prepossession,  fixed  idea,  and 
 that  strong  expectancy  of  an  event  which  bears  no  in¬ 
 considerable  analogy  to  what  Christians  designate  faith. § 
 
 *  Of  these,  tke  phenomena  sworn  to  by  multitudes  of  credible 
 witnesses,  and  accepted  by  intelligent  judges,  in  connection  with 
 the  witch  mania,  and  those  of  spiritualism,  may  be  cited  as  crucial 
 examples. 
 
 f  A  large  number  of  well-attested  instances  of  spectral  illusions 
 place  this  beyond  the  possibility  of  doubt.  The  remarkable  fact  is 
 that  such  spectral  illusions  have  been  often  witnessed  by  persons 
 whose  mental  faculties  are  in  other  respects  sound.  The  illusions  of 
 which  I  am  speaking  occur  however  only  in  individual  cases  ;  many 
 persons  do  not  concur  in  beholding  the  same  object. 
 
 +  While  the  power  of  the  mind  to  act  on  the  body  is  an  unquestion¬ 
 able  fact,  the  limits  of  its  action  are,  in  our  present  state  of  scientific 
 knowledge,  extremely  obscure.  Limits,  however,  certainly  do  exist ; 
 and  it  is  no  less  certain  that  a  considerable  number  of  the  miracles 
 recorded  in  the  New  Testament  lie  outside  them. 
 
 §  I  have  only  here  enumerated  the  chief  of  those  which  are  referred 
 to  by  Dr.  Carpenter  in  his  work  on  **  Mental  Physiology,”  having 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 383 
 
 These,  and  other  similar  principles,  have  in  numerous  well- 
 attested  cases  produced  impressions  of  a  purely  subjective 
 character,  which  have  led  persons  in  other  respects  possessed 
 of  a  clear  discriminating  judgment,  to  mistake  them  for 
 external  realities.  It  is  urged  therefore  that  if  the  exis¬ 
 tence  of  such  delusions  in  men  of  otherwise  sound  judg¬ 
 ment  is  an  unquestionable  scientific  fact,  this  forms  a 
 rational  account  of  the  origin  of  the  beliefs  in  all  those 
 well-attested  miraculous  narratives,  which  it  is  impossible 
 to  believe  to  have  originated  in  deliberate  fraud.  From 
 this  the  inference  has  been  drawn  that  it  will  afford  an 
 equally  reasonable  account  of  the  origin  of  the  miracles 
 recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  Such  is  the  objection 
 stated  in  a  general  form. 
 
 The  first  observation  that  I  would  make  respecting  it 
 is  that  it  makes  no  distinction  between  the  various  classes 
 of  miracles  recorded  in  its  pages.  I  shall  not  dispute  that 
 there  are  some  which,  taken  by  themselves,  and  detached 
 from  the  great  character  who  must  have  believed  that  he 
 performed  them,  may  be  assigned  to  causes  such  as  those 
 which  have  been  enumerated  by  the  eminent  physiologist 
 above  referred  to.*  But  this  is  to  overlook  the  main  point 
 in  the  Christian  argument,  as  I  have  exhibited  it  in  the 
 preceding  Lectures,  resolving,  as  it  does,  the  whole  matter 
 
 only  to  do  with  those  which  hear  directly  on  the  question  of  the 
 reality  of  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  and  above  all, 
 of  Our  Lord’s  Resurrection. 
 
 *  To  this  class  would  belong  the  expulsion  of  demons ;  such 
 cures  as  were  slow  and  gradual,  as  those  referred  to  in  the  Epistle  of 
 James,  when  he  speaks  of  the  efficacy  of  the  prayer  of  faith,  and  the  - 
 anointing  of  the  sick  with  oil  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  ;  probably  the 
 cures  effected  by  the  passing  of  St.  Peter’s  shadow  over  the  sick,  and 
 the  application  of  garments  taken  from  St.  Paul’s  person;  and  in 
 general,  those  diseases  whose  immediate  cause  is  disorder  of  the 
 nervous  system  ;  but  resurrections  from  the  dead,  restoring  sight  to 
 the  blind,  hearing  to  the  deaf,  sound  limbs  to  the  maimed,  and  several 
 others,  belong  to  a  wholly  different  category. 
 
384 
 
 THE  THEORY  OP  VISIONS 
 
 into  a  question  of  simple  attestation  and  tlie  sincerity  of 
 the  beliefs  of  those  who  supposed  that  they  had  witnessed 
 them.  I  must  repeat  it  again,  that  while  the  Christian 
 miracles  rest  on  a  strong  attestation,  this  forms  only  a 
 portion  of  the  grounds  on  which  we  accept  them,  viz.,  their 
 connection  with  the  divine  Christ,  and  the  powerful  influence 
 which  has  been  exerted  by  Him  for  good  in  the  moral  and 
 spiritual  world  during  eighteen  centuries  of  time.  Events 
 which,  taken  by  themselves,  may  be  difficult  to  believe  on 
 an  extremely  strong  attestation,  assume  a  wholly  different 
 character  when  viewed  in  connection  with  their  attendant 
 circumstances.  To  treat  the  question  of  the  reality  of 
 the  Christian  miracles  as  a  simple  one  of  attestation,  and 
 nothing  more,  is  entirely  to  overlook  one  of  the  most 
 important  points  of  the  argument. 
 
 Next.  The  objection  not  only  confounds  together  the 
 miracles  in  the  Gospel  in  a  mass,  but  even  complicates  them 
 with  those  in  the  Old  Testament,  which  stands  in  a  very 
 different  position  even  in  point  of  attestation.  I  must 
 insist,  therefore,  on  confining  the  discussion  to  the  real 
 point  at  issue,  and  not  allowing  it  to  be  extended  over  an 
 indefinite  range  of  subject  matter;  for  the  only  question 
 worth  considering  is,  does  it  afford  an  adequate  solution 
 of  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection?  If  the 
 objection  fails  to  account  for  this  miracle,  it  is  simply 
 futile.  It  is  deeply  to  be  regretted  that  in  these  dis¬ 
 cussions  unbelievers  fail  to  recognize  that  this  forms  the 
 key  of  the  Christian  position,  which  if  it  can  be  firmly 
 held,  carries  with  it  all  the  other  miracles  of  the  Gospels  ; 
 and  if  it  cannot  be  retained,  renders  the  defence  or  attack 
 on  them  a  useless  expenditure  of  labour,  for  if  it  is  a  fact 
 that  Jesus  Christ  did  not  rise  from  the  dead,  Christianity 
 must  have  originated  in  some  form  of  mental  hallucination. 
 
 I  by  no  means  wish  to  deny  that  there  are  narratives  of 
 miracles  the  evidence  for  which,  viewed  as  a  simple  ques¬ 
 tion  of  attestation  and  of  the  sincerity  of  those  who  have 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 385 
 
 reported  them,  is  stronger  than  that  which  we  consider 
 necessary  to  establish  the  truth  of  ordinary  facts.  As  many 
 of  these  are  well  known,  I  need  not  particularize  them. 
 They  belong  to  times  past ;  and  the  discussion  of  their 
 truth  or  falsehood  is  wholly  unnecessary  in  reference  to  the 
 present  controversy.  But  we  need  not  go  for  well-attested 
 miraculous  narratives  to  the  history  of  the  past.  We  have 
 one  of  the  best,  if  not  the  best  attested  instance  of  this 
 form  of  supernaturalism  in  the  midst  of  us,  and  occurring, 
 I  may  say,  before  our  eyes,  in  the  phenomena  of  Spiritualism  ; 
 and  I  ought  perhaps  to  add,  in  the  recently  reported  miracles 
 in  France.  I  will  confine  my  observations,  however,  to  the 
 foimer,  as  it  is  a  subject  which  has  been  carefully  inves- 
 tigated  by  the  author  whose  positions  I  am  considering. 
 I  have  already  pointed  out  the  strength  of  the  attestation 
 on  which  these  phenomena  rest,  and  therefore  need  not 
 further  allude  to  it. 
 
 It  will  be  no  duty  of  mine  to  discuss  how  far  they  have 
 originated  in  fraud  or  hallucination,  or  have  some  foundation 
 in  causes  hitherto  unobserved.  I  have  simply  to  do  with 
 their  bearing  on  the  Christian  argument,  and  on  the  evidence 
 for  the  objective  reality  of  Our  Lord's  resurrection.  I 
 shall  therefore  only  briefly  state  the  conclusion  at  which 
 the  authority  above  alluded  to  has  arrived,  after  having 
 spent  several  years  in  the  careful  investigation  of  the  subject. 
 He  is  of  opinion  that  after  making  every  allowance  for 
 the  existence  of  a  large  amount  of  fraud,  there  remains 
 a  considerable  residuum  of  phenomena  which  cannot  be 
 referred  to  imposture  as  their  origin  ;  and  that  when  we 
 consider  the  persons  who  have  declared  their  deliberate 
 conviction  that  they  have  witnessed  them,  and  the  circum¬ 
 stances  under  which  they  are  alleged  to  have  been  manifested, 
 the  idea  that  they  have  been  the  dupes  of  mere  trickery  is 
 out  of  the  question.  If,  therefore,  we  assume  (as  the  author 
 in  question,  in  company  with  the  majority  of  intelligent 
 men,  does)  that  they  are  unreal,  the  only  way  of  accounting 
 for  them  is  to  suppose  that  they  are  subjective  impressions 
 
 25 
 
336 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 mistaken  for  external  realities ;  and  lie  proposes  the  mental 
 states  which  I  have  mentioned  above,  viz.,  unconscious  cere¬ 
 bration,  prepossession,  fixed  idea,  expectancy,  and  a  few 
 others,  as  adequate  to  account  for  the  phenomena.  As  a 
 result  of  this,  we  are  asked  to  show  why,  since  it  would  be 
 difficult  to  prove  that  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament 
 rest  on  a  stronger  attestation  than  these  phenomena,  the 
 belief  in  them  may  not  be  accounted  for  in  a  similar 
 manner. 
 
 Viewing  it  therefore  as  an  argument  against  the  objective 
 reality  of  the  Resurrection,  I  shall  do  it  no  injustice  if  I 
 put  it  as  follows : — If  eminent  men  of  science,  physicians, 
 lawyers,  even  judges,  and  considerable  numbers  of  men  of 
 cultivated  intellect,  and  who  have  proved  themselves  not 
 deficient  in  common  sense  in  other  departments  of  thought, 
 have,  under  the  influence  of  these  mental  conditions,  mistaken 
 subjective  impressions,  the  pure  creations  of  their  own  minds, 
 for  objective  realities,  is  it  not  equally  likely  that  the  simple 
 minded  followers  of  Jesus  were  a  prey  to  similar  halluci¬ 
 nations;  and  consequently,  that  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection 
 may  have  owed  its  origin  to  delusions  of  this  description  ? 
 Or  to  put  the  same  objection  from  another  point  of  view  : — 
 If  these  phenomena  are  the  work  of  cunning  impostors,  who 
 have  succeeded  in  imposing  on  men  of  highly  cultivated 
 intellects,  what  guarantee  have  we  that  the  belief  in  the 
 miracles  of  the  Gospels,  the  Resurrection  included,  has 
 not  originated  in  the  followers  of  Our  Lord  having  been 
 deluded  by  a  similar  imposture  ?  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we 
 assume  that  they  are  objectively  real,  then  miracles  would 
 cease  to  have  any  evidential  value,  for  they  would  be  undis- 
 tinguishable  from  this  species  of  natural  phenomena,  and 
 would  afford  no  evidence  of  the  presence  of  a  superhuman 
 power.  As  however  few  whose  opinions  are  of  weight 
 will  adopt  this  alternative,  it  will  be  needless  to  discuss  its 
 possibility. 
 
 Although  the  reasonings  which  I  have  urged  in  the  course 
 of  this  Lecture  against  the  theory  of  visions  are  virtual 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 337 
 
 answers  to  the  difficulties  involved  in  this  special  form  of  the 
 objection,  yet  as  a  direct  challenge  has  been  offered  to  theo¬ 
 logians  by  an  eminent  man  of  science,  to  distinguish  between 
 the  evidence  which  can  be  adduced  for  the  phenomena  of 
 spiritualism  and  other  well-attested  miraculous  narratives 
 which  are  no  longer  believed  by  intelligent  persons,  and  that 
 which  can  be  adduced  for  the  reality  of  the  miracles  of  the 
 New  Testament,  including  Our  Lord's  resurrection,  I  will 
 point  out  definitely  in  what  this  distinction  consists. 
 
 1.  The  three  principles,  of  Prepossession,  Fixed  Idea,  and 
 Expectancy,  which  have  been  laid  down  as  the  three  chief 
 causes  which  render  it  possible  to  mistake  subjective  impres¬ 
 sions  for  objective  realities,  are  incapable  of  affording  any 
 rational  account  of  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  the  Resur- 
 rection.  How  far  they  may  be  adequate  to  account  for  the 
 belief  in  other  miraculous  narratives,  it  is  no  part  of  my 
 duty  here  to  inquire.  The  defender  of  Christianity  has  to 
 deal  with  the  Resurrection,  and  the  Resurrection  alone. 
 I  observe  therefore  that  neither  of  these  three  states  of  mind 
 could  have  impelled  the  followers  of  Jesus  to  mistake 
 visions  of  their  risen  Master  for  external  realities,  and  this 
 for  the  simplest  of  all  reasons,  viz.  that  as  far  as  any  fixed 
 idea,  prepossession,  or  expectancy  of  His  resurrection  is 
 concerned,  they  must  have  been  non-existent.  Instead  of 
 expectancy,  they  must  have  been  in  a  state  of  profound 
 despondency,  which  prepossession  or  fixed  idea  could  have 
 had  no  tendency  to  dissipate.  Nothing  therefore  can  be 
 more  certain  than,  whatever  influence  these  principles  may 
 have  had  in  generating  the  beliefs  in  the  miraculous  narratives 
 referred  to  by  Hr.  Carpenter,  they  can  have  had  nothing  to 
 do  with  producing  a  belief  in  the  Resurrection. 
 
 2.  Not  only  are  they  inadequate,  but  as  far  as  they  could 
 have  exerted  any  influence  at  all,  it  would  have  been  in  a 
 contrary  direction.  I  have  proved  that  not  only  must  the 
 disciples  collectively  have  had  visions  of  J esus  raised  from 
 the  dead,  if  their  belief  was  a  delusion,  but  also  that  they  must 
 have  held  imaginary  conversations  with  Him,  in  which  they 
 
 25  * 
 
3S8 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 believed  that  they  received  His  instructions  as  to  the  recon¬ 
 struction  of  His  Church.*  To  this  last  fact  it  is  impossible 
 to  attach  too  great  importance  in  dealing  with  this  question. 
 Most  certain  too  is  the  fact  that  the  Church  was  recon¬ 
 structed  on  a  new  basis  shortly  after  the  Crucifixion ;  and 
 the  conditions  of  the  case  prove  the  truth  of  that  which  our 
 documents  affirm,  that  this  reconstruction  took  place  in 
 consequence  of  the  conviction  of  the  disciples  that  they 
 had  received  definite  instructions  from  their  Master  to  this 
 effect.  This  being  so,  if  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection  was 
 the  result  of  mistaking  visionary  appearances  for  realities, 
 the  supposed  instructions  must  have  been  equally  visionary. 
 Consequently,  if  fixed  idea,  prepossession,  and  expectancy 
 were  sufficiently  potent  in  the  minds  of  the  disciples  to  have 
 created  visions  of  the  risen  Jesus,  they  must  have  created 
 the  instructions  likewise.  But  these  instructions  involved 
 the  reconstruction  of  the  Church  on  a  new  basis.  It  is 
 evident,  therefore,  that  they  could  not  have  owed  their  origin 
 to  the  principles  in  question ;  for  if  they  can  be  supposed 
 capable  of  creating  a  set  of  visionary  instructions  they 
 would  certainly  have  been  in  conformity  with  their  old 
 Messianic  prepossessions,  and  we  should  have  heard  nothing 
 of  reconstructing  the  Church  on  a  new  basis.  Preposses¬ 
 sion  brings  out  only  what  was  previously  in  the  mind. 
 Fixed  idea  is  the  opposite  to  change.  Of  expectancy  I  have 
 already  sufficiently  disposed  f 
 
 *  That  such  instructions  were  believed  to  have  been  given  is 
 distinctly  affirmed  in  Acts  i.  3. 
 
 f  It  is  simply  marvellous  that  Dr.  Carpenter  should  have  written 
 the  following  passage : — “  I  fail  to  see  in  what  respect  the  external 
 testimony  on  behalf  of  the  New  Testament  miracles  generally  is 
 stronger  than  it  is  for  the  reality  of  the  miracles  attributed  to 
 St.  Columba.”  What  is  meant  by  external  testimony  ?  Surely  not 
 the  bare  counting  of  the  heads  of  the  witnesses,  and  deciding  by  a 
 majority  without  any  reference  to  their  intrinsic  weight.  It  is 
 impossible  to  separate  the  external  testimony  from  the  whole  of  the 
 attendant  circumstances.  As  I  have  observed  above,  the  testimony 
 which  would  be  utterly  invalid  to  establish  a  fact  under  one  set  of 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 389 
 
 3.  The  points  winch.  I  have  established,  in  the  former 
 Lectui  es  constitute  the  plainest  distinction  between  the 
 evidence  of  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament,  and  above 
 all,  of  the  Resurrection,  and  that  of  all  other  miraculous 
 narratives ;  for  not  only  does  that  divine  life  furnish  an 
 
 conditions  may  be  more  than  sufficient  to  establish  its  truth  under 
 wholly  different  ones.  The  affirmation,  therefore,  that  the  resurrection 
 of  Jesus  Christ,  or  even  that  His  other  miraodes  rest  on  no  stronger 
 external  testimony  than  those  of  St.  Columba,  is  to  me  all  but 
 incomprehensible.  Dr.  Carpenter  evidently  allows  that  attendant 
 circumstances  form  a  portion  of  what  he  designates  external  testimony. 
 “  No  fewer,”  says  he,  “than  thirty-two  separate  religious  foundations 
 among  the  Scots,  twenty-one  among  the  Piets,  and  thirty-seven  among 
 the  Irish,  many  of  which  occupied  conspicuous  places  in  the  monastic 
 history  of  the  earlier  middle  ages,  seem  to  have  been  planted  by 
 himself  or  his  immediate  disciples.  .  .  .  The  point  on  which  I  wish 
 to  lay  stress  is  the  continuity  of  the  history  as  trustworthy  as  any  such 
 history  can  be.”  Put  surely  the  contrast  is  clear  and  distinct.  If 
 St.  Columba  and  his  followers  have  founded  ninety  monasteries  which 
 have  since  perished,  Jesus  Christ  and  His  followers  have  founded  the 
 Christian  Church,  which  after  eighteen  centuries  of  energetic  life,  is 
 vigorous  still.  St.  Columba  has  exerted  some  inconsiderable  influence 
 on  the  history  of  the  Scots  and  Irish ;  Jesus  Christ  has  exerted  the 
 mightiest  influence  on  the  history  of  man— an  influence  which  at  the 
 present  hour  is  capable  of  verification.  The  miracle  of  the  Resurrec¬ 
 tion  created  the  Christian  Church,  and  the  proof  of  its  falsehood 
 would  subvert  it.  This  is  the  most  certain  of  facts:  but  that 
 St.  Columba’s  monasteries  rested  on  the  simple  basis  of  his  miracles, 
 or  that  they  have  perished  because  his  miracles  have  been  disbelieved,* 
 we  have  no  evidence  to  prove.  I  therefore  put  the  case  thus,  although 
 it  only  imperfectly  represents  the  reality  of  the  contrast.  Hot  only 
 will  the  evidence  for  the  truth  of  the  miracles  of  St.  Columba  bear  no 
 comparison  with  that  which  can  be  adduced  for  the  resurrection  of 
 Jesus  Christ,  but  in  accordance  with  the  principle  referred  to  in  a 
 former  note,  the  evidence  which  may  be  powerless  to  prove  the 
 performance  of  miracles  in  connection  with  such  a  personage  as 
 St.  Columba  may  be  more  than  sufficient  to  prove  them  in  connection 
 with  one  who  is  not  only  the  one  great  Catholic  man,  whose  influence 
 I  have  endeavoured  to  describe  in  the  second,  third,  and  fourth 
 Lectures  of  this  course,  but  who  has  exerted  an  influence  for  good 
 “  greater  than  that  of  all  the  disquisitions  of  philosophers,  and  than 
 all  the  exhortations  of  moralists.” 
 
390 
 
 THE  THEOllY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 adequate  reason  for  the  existence  of  the  miracles,  hut  the 
 one  is  the  counterpart  of  the  other.  I  have  proved  that  the 
 energetic  presence  of  a  superhuman  power  in  Christianity 
 is  a  verifiable  fact  in  the  history  of  the  past,  and  of  the 
 present.  Of  this  power  the  miracle  of  the  Resurrection  is 
 the  foundation.  However  strong  may  be  the  persuasion  of 
 various  intelligent  persons,  that  they  have  witnessed  a 
 number  of  occurrences  which  we  cannot  distinguish  from 
 miracles,  not  one  of  them  can  produce  an  attestation  of  this 
 description.  The  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  from  the 
 dead  has  operated  mightily  during  eighteen  centuries,  and 
 is  operating  mightily  at  this  hour.  To  spiritualism  and 
 other  kindred  phenomena,  the  language  of  the  old  prophet 
 may  still  be  applied  with  perfect  justice :  “  Show  the  things 
 that  are  to  come  hereafter,  that  we  may  know  that  ye  are 
 gods ;  yea,  do  good,  or  do  evil,  that  we  may  be  dismayed, 
 and  behold  it  together.  Behold  ye  are  of  nothing,  and  your 
 work  of  nought”  (Isa.  xli.  23,  24). 
 
 4.  The  belief  in  the  Resurrection  has  created  the  Catholic 
 Church  of  Jesus  Christ  and  all  the  mighty  results  which  it 
 has  wrought  in  history.  The  spiritualistic  and  other  kindred 
 marvels  have  created,  and  to  all  appearance  will  create,  no 
 
 institution  either  good  or  evil. 
 
 5.  The  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  has  operated  as  the 
 most  elevating  power  which  has  been  exerted  on  mankind. 
 These  alleged  manifestations,  with  their  kindred  phenomena, 
 instead  of  elevating  men,  degrade  them.* 
 
 » 
 
 *  Mr.  Wallace  is  not  insensible  to  the  fact  that  the  silliness  of  a 
 large  number  of  the  communications  from  the  spirit  world  forms  a 
 very  serious  obstacle  to  the  belief  in  their  objective  reality.  His 
 explanation  of  it  is  very  singular,  I  might  almost  say,  if  the  subject 
 were  not  so  serious  a  one,  amusing.  It  is  as  follows : — A  large 
 majority  of  those  who  die  have  during  life  habitually  talked  nonsense; 
 it  is  therefore  no  wonder  if,  when  they  have  entered  into  the  world  of 
 spirits,  they  still  continue  to  do  so,  and  only  raise  themselves  above  it 
 by  slow  and  gradual  steps.  I  also  refer  to  another  of  his  positions  as 
 showing  the  tendency  of  these  views.  He  informs  us  that  numerous 
 as  have  been  the  communications  from  the  spirit  world,  some  of  which 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 391 
 
 6.  While  the  Resurrection  has  changed  the  history  of  the 
 world,  the  spiritualistic  manifestations,  including  the  best 
 attested  miraculous  stories,  have  been  barren  of  result. 
 Yet  if  these  were  objective  realities,  they  must  certainly 
 have  been  able  to  produce  very  palpable  results.  It  is  clear 
 that  they  could  largely  aid  the  administration  of  justice  in 
 the  detection  of  crime ;  but  in  this  respect  they  neither  do 
 good,  nor  do  evil.  No  passion  is  stronger  in  the  human 
 mind  than  the  love  of  gain.  Yet  if  the  facts  reported  are 
 not  delusions,  these  manifestations  must  be  able  to  afford 
 the  means  of  gratifying  it.  But  while  the  resurrection  of 
 Jesus  Christ  is  the  key  which  unlocks  all  the  events  of 
 history,  manifestations  of  this  kind  effect  and  have  effected 
 nothing. 
 
 7.  Our  judgment  of  the  credibility  of  fact  does  not  rest 
 on  mere  attestation,  but  is  largely  modified  by  the  consi¬ 
 deration  whether  the  actions  are  in  conformity  with  the 
 character  of  the  agents.  Here  again  the  contrast  between 
 the  miracles  of  Christianity  and  the  best  attested  of  all  other 
 miraculous  narratives  is  complete.  Those  recorded  in  the 
 New  Testament  are  all  worthy  of  the  great  character  to 
 whom  they  are  attributed.  The  other  class  are  so  undig¬ 
 nified  and  grotesque,  as  to  destroy  the  weight  of  the 
 testimony  which  is  alleged  in  their  favour. 
 
 8.  For  the  occurrence  of  the  Resurrection  and  the  other 
 miracles  of  the  New  Testament  an  adequate  reason  can  be 
 assigned.  They  form  a  portion  of  a  divine  revelation,  which 
 is  in  harmony  with  the  facts  of  the  moral  and  spiritual 
 world.  But  the  spiritualistic  phenomena  are  out  of  harmony 
 with  all  the  known  facts  of  the  universe ;  and  if  real,  would 
 be  destructive  of  its  moral  order. 
 
 9.  Even  as  a  question  of  mere  testimony  the  contrast  is  no 
 
 are  of  an  elevated  character,  its  inhabitants,  as  far  a3  these  com¬ 
 munications  have  yet  informed  us,  know  no  more  about  God  and 
 Christ  than  we  do.  Yet  this  eminent  scientific  observer  tells  us  that 
 from  a  Sadducean  unbelief  in  the  existence  of  a  spiritual  world  he 
 has  been  converted  by  the  stern  logic  of  facts. 
 
392 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 less  complete.  The  resurrection  of  Jesus,  when  it  was  first 
 reported,  could  have  been  subjected  to  the  test  of  verifica¬ 
 tion,  by  the  simple  production  of  His  body,  by  those  who 
 denied  its  reality.  It  is  impossible  for  our  opponents  to 
 subject  the  phenomena  in  question  to  any  similar  test. 
 
 10.  The  altered  form,  and  the  want  of  immediate  recogni¬ 
 tion  of  the  risen  Jesus  on  the  part  of  His  followers,  has  been 
 alleged  as  a  ground  for  believing  that  the  appearance  must 
 have  been  visionary  and  unreal ;  and  at  first  sight  the  objec¬ 
 tion  seems  not  devoid  of  plausibility.  I  reply  however  that 
 on  the  contrary,  it  forms  a  proof  of  truthfulness,  such  as  is 
 possessed  by  no  other  supernatural  occurrence.  The  fact, 
 as  stated  by  the  Evangelists,  is  strictly  in  conformity  with 
 the  conditions  of  the  case.  ^Vhat  is  the  real  affirmation 
 made  ?  Not  that  Jesus  was  raised  to  die  again  j  but  with  a 
 body  no  longer  subject  to  the  conditions  of  mortality.  This 
 being  so,  it  is  not  only  in  the  highest  degree  probable — I 
 may  say,  it  is  certain — if  the  Resurrection  was  an  objective 
 reality,  that  the  body  in  which  He  rose  from  the  dead,  would 
 have  undergone  some  species  of  transformation  from  that 
 which  He  wore  previously  to  His  crucifixion.  If  the 
 Evangelists  had  asserted  that  there  was  no  difficulty  in 
 recognizing  Him,  it  would  have  cast  suspicion  on  their 
 entire  narrative.  But  if  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection  had 
 been  the  result  of  mistaking  subjective  impressions  for 
 objective  realities,  the  last  thing  which  would  have  occurred 
 to  them  would  have  been  to  attribute  an  altered  appearance 
 to  their  risen  Master.  Neither  unconscious  cerebration, 
 fixed  idea,  prepossession,  or  expectancy,  can  account  for  so 
 remarkable  a  fact. 
 
 Such  are  the  obvious  distinctions  between  the  evidence  for 
 Oui  Lord  s  resurrection  and  that  which  can  be  adduced  in 
 favour  of  the  best  attested  of  other  miraculous  occurrences. 
 
 Let  me  notice  one  further  objection  which  has  been 
 adduced  against  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  before  I 
 dismiss  this  portion  of  the  subject.  It  has  been  alleged  that 
 some  of  them  may  be  accounted  for  as  the  result  of  the 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 393 
 
 action  of  powerful  faith  or  expectancy  on  the  bodily  frame, 
 and  that  it  is  a  well-known  fact  that  such  an  effect  is  possible, 
 and  that  to  such  a  degree  as  to  bear  to  the  uninitiated  the 
 appearance  of  a  miracle.  As  this  objection  requires  more 
 space  for  its  discussion  than  can  be  given  to  it  here,  I  will 
 offer  a  few  remarks  on  it  in  a  Supplement.  For  the  present 
 it  will  be  sufficient  to  observe,  that  as  an  objection  against 
 the  Christian  miracles  it  is  futile ;  for  it  is  impossible  to 
 account  for  the  origin  of  the  belief  in  the  resurrection  of 
 Our  Lord  on  any  such  principle ;  and  until  this  can  be  done, 
 the  attempt  to  explain  away  the  other  miracles  recorded  in 
 the  New  Testament  as  the  result  of  natural  causes,  is  a  mere 
 waste  of  time  and  ingenuity. 
 
 V.  The  theory  of  visions  being  thus  proved  to  be  un¬ 
 tenable,  there  only  remains  one  alternative  to  the  accept¬ 
 ance  of  the  Resurrection  as  a  fact  which  it  will  be  necessary 
 to  discuss  at  length,  viz.,  the  theory  which  affirms  that 
 Jesus  did  not  die  from  the  effects  of  His  crucifixion,  but  that 
 He  was  taken  down  in  a  state  of  syncope,  which  was  mis¬ 
 taken  for  death ;  that  He  gradually  recovered ;  and  that  in 
 some  inaccurate  rendering  of  this  fact  has  originated  the 
 belief  in  the  Resurrection.  As  this  theory  has  been  pro¬ 
 pounded  by  several  eminent  writers,  it  will  be  necessary  to 
 give  it  a  brief  consideration,  although  it  is  encumbered  with 
 many  of  the  difficulties  which  attend  the  theory  of  visions,  in 
 addition  to  some  which  are  peculiarly  its  own. 
 
 Respecting  the  chief  facts  on  which  the  question  must 
 be  discussed  there  will  be  no  disagreement.  It  will  be  readily 
 admitted  that  crucifixion  did  not  necessarily  involve  the 
 death  of  the  crucified  person.  If  he  were  taken  down  in 
 time  and  carefully  attended  to,  recovery  was  possible, 
 although  the  chances  were  against  it.  This  we  know  from 
 the  testimony  of  Josephus,  who  procured  the  order  of  Titus 
 for  taking  down  from  the  cross  three  of  his  crucified  friends, 
 after  they  had  been  suspended  for  several  hours.  By  means 
 of  careful  treatment  one  recovered,  while  two  died.  As, 
 
394 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 however,  the  Jews  were  at  this  time  crucified  by  the  Romans 
 by  thousands,  it  may  be  a  question  whether  they  all  under¬ 
 went  the  terrible  infliction  of  a  scourging  previously  to 
 being  fastened  to  the  cross, — a  point  which  must  have  an 
 important  bearing  on  the  probability  of  recovery.  The  time 
 too  which,  according  to  the  accounts  of  the  Evangelists, 
 elapsed  between  Our  Lord’s  crucifixion  and  his  death,  was 
 not  sufficient  under  ordinary  circumstances  to  have  extin¬ 
 guished  life.  It  has,  therefore,  been  affirmed  that  we  have 
 no  evidence  that  He  actually  died  :  that  it  is  highly  probable 
 that  He  did  not,  and  that  His  recovery  was  in  some  way  or 
 other  mistaken  for  a  resurrection. 
 
 Respecting  the  possibility  of  recovery  under  such  circum¬ 
 stances,  the  question  into  whose  hands  the  body  was  com¬ 
 mitted  is  a  vital  one.  The  only  authority  for  affirming  that 
 His  friends  obtained  possession  of  it  is  that  of  our  Evan¬ 
 gelists.*  But  if  their  affirmation  is  good  for  this,  it  must  be 
 admitted  to  be  so  for  a  great  deal  more.  To  surrender  the 
 body  for  honourable  burial  would  have  been  contrary  to  the 
 Roman  practice.  His  Jewish  adversaries,  who  brought 
 about  His  crucifixion,  and  the  soldiers  who  accomplished  it, 
 and  who  from  the  frequency  of  such  executions  must  have 
 been  familiar  with  the  symptoms  of  that  kind  of  death, 
 were  not  likely  to  have  allowed  the  body  to  pass  out  of  their 
 custody  while  life  remained.  If  on  the  other  hand  the  body 
 continued  in  the  custody  of  His  enemies,  recovery  would 
 have  been  impossible. 
 
 But  viewed  as  an  historical  question,  the  supposition  that 
 the  story  of  the  Resurrection  has  originated  in  a  recovery 
 from  the  effects  of  crucifixion,  is  negatived  by  the  following 
 facts  : — The  theory  is  a  purely  modern  invention.  None  of 
 the  adversaries  of  Christianity  during  the  early  ages,  when 
 
 *  It  is  very  singular  to  observe  the  facility  with  which  those 
 against  whose  opinions  I  am  reasoning  quote  the  Gospels  as  autho¬ 
 rities,  when  they  can  find  any  fact  or  allusion  in  them  which  can  be 
 made  to  favour  their  own  views,  while  in  other  respects  they  treat 
 them  as  unhistorical. 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 395 
 
 crucifixion  still  continued  a  common  mode  of  punishment, 
 ever  expressed  a  suspicion  on  the  subject.  It  is  clear  that 
 such  a  suspicion  never  crossed  the  minds  of  His  Jewish 
 adversaries ;  nor  had  it  ever  occurred  to  the  Apostle  Paul, 
 who,  when  he  was  a  persecutor,  must  have  investigated  the 
 entire  subject;  and  after  he  became  a  Christian,  must 
 certainly  have  known  whether  Jesus  was  living  somewhere 
 in  retirement,  or  had  since  expired  from  exhaustion  or 
 premature  decay.  Consequently,  although  it  is  not  denied 
 that  a  person  who  had  been  crucified  might  escape  with  his 
 life,  if  carefully  attended  to,  the  facts  above  referred  to 
 demolish  utterly  the  theory  that  it  can  have  been  the  case 
 in  this  particular  instance. 
 
 But  even,  if  it  were  not  so,  the  affirmation  that  we  have 
 no  evidence  that  Jesus  really  died,  would  be  quite  irrelevant 
 to  the  present  issue ;  for  it  is  not  only  necessary  to  prove 
 that  he  may  not  have  died,  but  that  he  actually  did  not — 
 and  then  the  far  more  serious  duty  is  incumbent  on  those 
 who  propound  this  theory  to  show  how  it  is  possible  that  the 
 story  of  the  Resurrection  and  the  reconstruction  of  the 
 Church  on  it  as  its  basis,  can  have  originated,  if  the  only 
 foundation  on  which  it  rested  was  that  Jesus  slowly  recovered 
 from  His  wounds,  lived  somewhere  for  a  while  in  retirement, 
 and  afterwards  shared  the  common  fate  of  mortality. 
 
 But  let  us  suppose,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  Jesus 
 awoke  from  a  state  of  syncope  or  swoon  in  the  sepulchre  in 
 which  He  was  laid  by  His  friends  in  the  belief  that  He  had 
 expired;  that  He  succeeded  in  creeping  to  the  house  of 
 some  friend,*  where  under  careful  treatment  He  recovered, 
 
 *  It  should  be  observed  that  this  supposition  is  attended  with 
 difficulties  which  are  insuperable.  First :  it  involves  the  assumption 
 that  He  was  buried  in  a  sepulchre,  and  not  in  a  common  grave.  Xf 
 He  had  been  interred  in  the  latter,  no  resuscitation  would  have  been 
 possible.  But  the  fact  that  He  was  interred  in  a  sepulchre  we  learn 
 only  from  the  pages  of  the  Evangelists.  Independently  of  their 
 testimony  nothing  would  have  been  more  improbable  than  that  such 
 should  have  been  the  case,  as  to  surrender  a  criminal  for  honourable 
 burial  would  have  been  contrary  to  Roman  custom.  Secondly:  a 
 
396 
 
 THE  THEORY  OP  VISIONS 
 
 and  that  He  thereupon  withdrew  iato  retirement,  out  of  the 
 reach  of  His  enemies.  How,  I  ask,  could  such  facts  as 
 these  have  become  the  foundation  of  the  belief  in  His  resur¬ 
 rection,  and  of  the  reconstruction  of  the  Church  on  the 
 basis  of  His  spiritual  Messiahship  ?  We  shall  doubtless  be 
 told  that  such  a  belief  might  grow  up  after  a  time  among  a 
 body  of  very  credulous  people.*  How,  long,  I  ask,  is  the 
 
 sepulchre  would  have  been  a  place  very  unfavourable  to  the  supposed 
 recovery,  which  must  have  been  sufficiently  complete  to  have  enabled 
 Him  to  escape  to  the  house  of  a  friend.  To  aid  in  effecting  this, 
 the  assistance  of  the  spices  used  at  the  burial  has  been  invoked. 
 How  far  they  would  have  been  useful  for  this  purpose  J  know  not ; 
 but  here  again  the  fact  that  the  body  was  wrapped  up  with  them  is 
 known  only  from  the  pages  of  the  Evangelists  ;  and,  taken  by  itself, 
 would,  under  the  circumstances,  have  been  in  the  highest  degree 
 improbable.  Thirdly  :  it  is  difficult  to  imagine  how  a  man  in  such  a 
 state  of  extreme  exhaustion  as  that  which  the  suggestion  pre-supposes 
 could  have  succeeded  in  freeing  himself  from  the  bandages  and 
 wrappings  in  which  he  was  incased.  Fourthly:  if  on  leaving  the 
 sepulchre  those  who  interred  the  body  closed  up  the  entrance,  it  is 
 difficult  to  imagine  by  what  means  short  of  a  miracle  a  man  in  this 
 wounded  and  lacerated  condition  could  have  obtained  egress  from  the 
 tomb ;  and  that  the  sepulchre  was  left  open  is  simply  incredible. 
 Nothing  is  easier  than  to  affirm  that  He  succeeded  in  getting  out  of 
 the  sepulchre,  and  in  taking  refuge  with  a  friend ;  but  the  question 
 must  be  answered,  how  was  this  possible  under  the  circumstances  P  In 
 this  world  of  facts  it  is  useless  to  make  assumptions  which  conflict 
 with  the  realities  of  things,  and  then  propound  them  as  a  philosophical 
 explanation  of  the  origin  of  the  greatest  institution  that  has  ever 
 existed  among  men. 
 
 *  Nothing  is  more  conmon  in  this  controversy  than  the  vague 
 assertion  that  such  a  belief  would  grow  up  in  the  course  of  time.  The 
 fact  is,  that  the  time  at  command  for  the  growth  of  myths,  legends, 
 tendencies,  and  compromises,  in  short  for  the  whole  apparatus 
 necessary  for  the  manufacture  of  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels  and 
 Epistles  out  of  a  purely  human  Jesus,  is  very  limited  and  definite. 
 In  this  respect  criticism  is  in  a  very  disadvantageous  position,  compared 
 with  those  scientific  modern  speculators  who  seek  to  manufacture  this 
 Universe  and  all  its  wondrous  adaptations,  without  the  intervention  of 
 an  intelligent  Creator.  The  latter  have  eternity  at  their  back  ;  the 
 indefinite  periods  of  which  they  can  play  with  as  with  counters  ;  the 
 former  are  confronted  at  every  step  by  the  stern  facts  of  history  and 
 the  realities  of  human  life. 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 397 
 
 interval  that  would  be  required  for  its  growth  ?  Would  it 
 be  a  few  days,  weeks,  months  or  years  ?  I  feel  confident 
 that  if  those  who  maintain  this  theory  will  carefully  consider 
 the  question,  they  will  find  the  shortest  interval  necessary 
 for  the  growth  of  such  a  delusion  vastly  in  excess  of  that 
 which  the  unquestionable  historical  conditions  of  the  case 
 can  concede  to  them. 
 
 Let  us  suppose  that  He  succeeded  in  taking  refuge  in  the 
 house  of  a  friend :  in  that  case  the  matter  must  have  been 
 kept  profoundly  secret  in  order  to  prevent  it  from  coming  to 
 the  ears  of  His  enemies  ;  and  it  would  have  been  impossible 
 during  the  time  of  His  gradual  recovery,  and  until  He  had 
 escaped  to  some  place  of  safety,  to  breathe  one  word  about 
 His  pretended  resurrection,  lest  their  suspicions  should  be 
 aroused.  How  long  did  all  this  take  ?  At  any  rate,  he  must 
 either  have  died  under  cure,  or  slowly  recovered.  If  we 
 accept  the  former  alternative,  then  most  of  the  difficulties 
 
 which  I  have  discussed  in  connection  with  the  theorv  of 
 
 •/ 
 
 visions  must  be  surmounted  before  it  is  possible  to  erect  the 
 belief  in  the  Resurrection  on  such  a  basis;  and  in  addition 
 to  these,  it  is  impossible  to  advance  one  step  without  assum¬ 
 ing  that  some  one  or  more  of  His  friends  must  have  been 
 guilty  of  a  deliberate  fraud.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is 
 assumed  that  He  recovered,  how,  I  ask,  in  the  name  of 
 common  sense,  could  it  have  been  possible  to  mistake  a 
 gradual  recovery  for  a  resurrection  from  the  dead?  Is  it 
 believable  that  Jesus  Himself  could  have  laboured  under  the 
 delusion  that  His  awakening  in  agony  from  His  wounds  in 
 the  tomb.  His  retirement  to  the  house  of  a  friend ;  His 
 gradual  recovery,  and  His  survival  in  an  exhausted  condi¬ 
 tion,  was  an  actual  resurrection  from  the  dead  ?  If  the  real 
 facts  were  such  as  this  theory  assumes  them  to  have  been, 
 I  feel  confident  that  all  those  who  do  not  desire  to  prop 
 up  a  foregone  conclusion,  will  agree  that  the  only  way  of 
 accounting  for  the  belief  in  the  Resurrection  is  that  it  must 
 have  been  a  deliberately  concocted  fraud;  or,  in  other 
 
398 
 
 THE  THEORY  OP  VISIONS 
 
 words,  that  the  Gospel  of  holiness  is  based  on  a  foundation 
 of  conscious  imposture. 
 
 But  further,  if  the  belief  was  set  on  foot  by  two  or  three 
 disciples,  how  were  the  others  to  be  got  to  accept  it  without 
 being  favoured  with  a  sight  of  Him  ?  Some  story  must 
 have  been  invented  to  make  the  matter  plausible.  What 
 could  have  been  the  form  of  it  ?  Is  it  believable  that  the 
 other  disciples  at  once  accepted  the  tale  as  a  veritable  reality 
 without  receiving  any  information  as  to  what  was  become  of 
 Him  ?  Nor  is  this  all.  It  must  never  be  forgotten  that  the 
 Church  had  to  be  reconstructed,  and  a  claim  of  Messiahship 
 set  up  on  this  as  a  new  basis.  Who  suggested  the  change  ? 
 Will  anv  one  affirm  that  it  was  Jesus  Himself  ?  Yet  it  is  im- 
 possible  to  believe  that  His  followers  would  venture  to  change 
 Ilis  Messianic  character  from  that  of  a  visible  to  an  invisible 
 Christ,  while  they  believed  that  He  was  living  in  retirement, 
 unless  they  had  also  believed  that  He  had  given  definite 
 instructions  to  do  so.  If  then  we  would  avoid  charging 
 Jesus  and  His  followers  with  a  deliberately  planned  pious 
 fraud,  we  must  assume  that  He  must  not  only  have  mistaken 
 His  gradual  recovery  for  a  resurrection,  but  deliberately 
 determined  to  shift  the  basis  of  His  Messiahship ;  and  while 
 living  for  the  remainder  of  His  life  in  privacy  out  of  the 
 reach  of  His  enemies,  to  direct  His  disciples  to  propagate 
 the  belief  that  He  was  risen  from  the  dead,  and  on  this 
 foundation  to  erect  His  Church. 
 
 If  this  be  true,  it  is  impossible  to  account  for  it  on  any 
 theory  which  is  consistent  with  honesty.  It  is  impossible  to 
 believe  that  a  man  who  had  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah ;  who 
 by  that  claim  had  so  provoked  the  public  authorities  that 
 they  had  procured  his  crucifixion ;  who  only  slowly  recovered 
 from  his  wounds,  and  kept  himself  for  the  remainder  of 
 his  life  in  retirement,  could  have  believed  himself  to  be  the 
 Christ ;  or  that  those  of  his  followers  wTho  had  access  to 
 him  could  have  mistaken  him  for  one. 
 
 Further :  if  Jesus  died  shortly  after  His  supposed  resur- 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 399 
 
 rection,  some  of  His  followers  must  have  been  cognizant  of 
 the  fact.  In  that  case  it  is  impossible  to  acquit  them  of 
 having  invented  the  fiction  that  He  had  left  the  world,  and 
 gone  up  into  heaven.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  we  suppose 
 that  He  remained  several  years  in  retirement,  the  same  fic¬ 
 tion  must  have  been  propagated  while  He  was  still  living. 
 In  either  case,  the  most  liberal  attribution  of  credulity  and 
 enthusiasm  to  his  followers  will  fail  to  account  for  the  origin 
 of  the  delusion.  The  supposition  of  fraud  is  the  only  possi¬ 
 ble  solution,  a  fraud  which  must  have  succeeded  in  removing 
 whole  mountains  of  difficulties,  such  as  I  have  enumerated 
 in  considering  the  theory  of  visions,  and  which  it  will  be 
 unnecessary  again  to  refer  to.  The  truth  is,  that  this  theory 
 could  never  have  been  suggested  by  those  who  have  pro¬ 
 pounded  it,  if  they  had  considered  that  the  problem  before 
 them  was  not  simply  to  put  forward  a  possible  account  of 
 the  origin  of  a  belief  in  a  resurrection,  but  one  which  would 
 satisfy  the  conditions  of  history,  and  account  for  the  erection 
 of  the  Christian  Church  on  the  basis  that  its  Founder  rose 
 again  from  the  dead. 
 
 One  possible  theory  remains ;  but  its  bare  statement  will 
 be  its  sufficient  refutation.  It  is  this.  The  body  was  com¬ 
 mitted  to  the  custody  of  His  friends,  and  interred  by  them ; 
 but  it  was  removed  by  His  enemies  without  their  knowledge. 
 On  entering  the  tomb,  His  friends  to  their  surprise  found  it 
 empty  ;  and  in  their  inability  to  account  for  what  had  become 
 of  it,  they  adopted  the  theory  that  He  must  have  risen  from 
 the  dead ;  and  thereupon  they  proceeded  to  reconstruct 
 the  Church.  Such  a  theory,  in  addition  to  impossibilities 
 peculiar  to  itself,  has  to  encounter  all  those  which  I  have 
 adduced  in  the  course  of  the  foregoing  argument. 
 
 The  foregoing  reasonings  therefore  establish  the  following 
 conclusion.  The  assumption  that  Jesus  Christ  rose  from  the 
 dead  is  the  only  one  which  will  satisfy  the  historic  facts  : 
 the  account  therefore  which  the  Church  has  always  given  of 
 its  origin  is  the  only  true  one — He  has  risen  from  the  dead. 
 
400 
 
 THE  THEORY  OP  VISIONS 
 
 His  resurrection  being  thus  established,  the  Gospels  take 
 their  genuine  place  in  history  ;  the  Synoptics  as  three  reports 
 of  the  actions  and  teaching  of  Jesus  Christ,  as  they  were 
 reported  by  His  followers,  and  composed  within  that  interval 
 of  time  during  which  such  traditionary  reminiscences  must 
 have  preserved  all  their  freshness  ;  and  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
 as  an  account  of  the  same  divine  life  derived  from  an  inde¬ 
 pendent  source  of  information.  This  in  an  evidential  point 
 of  view  is  all  that  we  require.  It  establishes  the  truth  of 
 Christianity  as  a  divine  revelation.  To  determine  anything 
 beyond  this  does  not  belong  to  that  branch  of  theology 
 which  is  strictly  evidential ;  and  to  encumber  ourselves  with 
 the  defence  of  unnecessary  positions  tends  rather  to  weaken 
 than  to  strengthen  oar  defence. 
 
 SUPPLEMENT  L 
 
 The  appearance  of  Our  Lord  to  St.  Paul  stands  on  a 
 different  basis  from  the  appearances  which  I  have  dis¬ 
 cussed  in  the  preceding  Lecture.  It  will  be  therefore 
 desirable  to  give  a  brief  consideration  to  its  evidential 
 value. 
 
 The  affirmation  in  the  15th  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to 
 the  Corinthians  with  respect  to  the  interview  with  Our  Lord 
 on  the  road  to  Damascus,  “  And  last  of  all,  He  was  seen  of 
 me  also,  as  of  one  born  out  of  due  time,”  puts  it  on  a  par 
 with  the  appearances  to  the  original  disciples,  and  affords 
 decisive  proof  that  Paul  was  fully  convinced  of  its  objective 
 reality.  The  Epistles,  however,  furnish  us  with  no  informa¬ 
 tion  respecting  the  circumstances,  which  can  only  be  learned 
 from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles. 
 
 Two  facts,  however,  they  establish  on  the  Apostle’s 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 401 
 
 express  testimony :  firsts  that  previously  to  his  conversion, 
 he  had  persecuted  the  Church  of  God  and  wasted  it,  and 
 secondly,  that  after  his  conversion  he  became  its  most 
 laborious  Missionary,  and  that  the  whole  of  his  future  life  was 
 one  devoted  act  of  self-sacrifice  to  the  service  of  his  Master. 
 
 The  Acts  of  the  Apostles  furnish  us  with  three  accounts 
 of  the  circumstances  attending  his  conversion;  one  in  the 
 direct  narrative  of  the  historian,  and  the  other  two  in 
 speeches  purporting  to  have  been  uttered  by  St.  Paul. 
 Putting  these  accounts  together,  the  facts  are  as  follows 
 
 St.  Paul  left  Jerusalem  inspired  with  a  deadly  hatred 
 against  the  followers  of  Jesus,  and  in  possession  of  letters 
 commendatory  from  the  High  Priest  to  the  Synagogues  at 
 Damascus,  for  the  purpose  of  raising  a  persecution  against 
 the  Christians  in  that  city,  and,  if  possible,  bringing  them 
 bound  to  Jerusalem.  As  Paul's  party  approached  the  city, 
 they  found  themselves  surrounded  by  a  light  from  heaven, 
 
 4 "above  the  brightness  of  the  sun."  This  light  was  seen  by 
 Paul  and  his  companions,  who  thereupon  prostrated  them¬ 
 selves  to  the  ground.  In  the  midst  of  this  light,  Paul  saw 
 a  glorious  figure,  who  addressed  him  by  name,  and  expos¬ 
 tulated^  with  him  for  persecuting  him,  and  who  in  answer 
 to  Paul's  inquiry  who  he  was,  declared  that  he  was  Jesus. 
 Here  occurs  a  slight  variation  between  the  narrative  of  the 
 historian,  and  one  of  the  Apostle's  own  accounts  of  the  same 
 transaction,  the  former  telling  us  that  Paul's  companions 
 “  stood  speechless,  hearing  a  voice,  but  seeing  no  man," 
 while  the  latter  states  that  his  companions  “  saw  the  light, 
 and  were  afraid,  but  they  heard  not  the  voice  of  him  that 
 spake  to  him."  According  to  the  second  account  of  St.  Paul 
 a  prolonged  conversation  took  place  between  him  and  the 
 person  who  thus  appeared  to  him.  The  effect  of  the  light 
 on  the  Apostle  was  to  strike  him  blind,  so  that  he  had°to 
 be  led  by  the  hand  of  his  companions,  and  conducted  to 
 Damascus.  During  three  days  he  continued  without  sight, 
 after  which  he  recovered  it  by  a  miraculous  interposition, 
 on  which  occasion  something  resembling  scales  fell  from  his 
 
 26 
 
402 
 
 THE  THEORY  OP  VISIONS 
 
 eyes.  He  forthwith  joined  the  Christian  Church,  and  during1 
 the  next  twenty-five  years  devoted  himself  in  an  unceasing 
 course  of  labour  and  suffering  to  the  service  of  his  Master. 
 
 Such  are  the  facts.  The  utmost  has  been  made  of  the 
 slight  variation  in  the  accounts  above  referred  to,  as 
 throwing  suspicion  on  their  historical  accuracy ;  but  the 
 Greek  is  quite  consistent  with  the  fact  that  St.  PauTs 
 companions  heard  the  sound  of  a  voice,  but  did  not  distin¬ 
 guish  articulate  words.  Even  if  the  unhistorical  character 
 of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  were  granted,  it  is  in  the 
 highest  degree  improbable  that  a  forger,  and  especially 
 one  who  has  displayed  such  acuteness  in  his  forgery,  would 
 have  been  betrayed  into  so  palpable  a  contradiction  as  to 
 have  affirmed  in  the  same  work  that  PauTs  companions  did, 
 and  did  not  hear  the  voice. 
 
 The  following  consideration  fully  establishes  the  historical 
 character  of  the  narrative  given  in  the  Acts.  Whatever 
 objections  may  be  urged  against  the  earlier  chapters,  the 
 results  of  modern  investigation  have  proved  that  no  docu¬ 
 ment  which  has  been  handed  down  from  ancient  times  rests 
 on  a  firmer  historical  foundation  than  the  twenty-seventh 
 chapter,  which  gives  us  the  account  of  St.  PauTs  voyage 
 and  shipwreck.  Ho  shadow  of  doubt  can  rest  on  the  mind 
 of  any  one  who  studies  this  chapter,  that  the  person  who 
 composed  it  was  one  of  PauTs  companions.  The  perusal  of 
 the  preceding  chapters  renders  it  no  less  certain  that  the 
 author  of  them  had  accompanied  the  Apostle  in  his  Mis¬ 
 sionary  travels  during  several  years.  This  fact  is  alone 
 sufficient  to  establish  the  authenticity  of  the  account.  It  is 
 incredible  that  a  person  who  had  been  PauTs  companion 
 for  a  considerable  period,  did  not  receive  from  him  some 
 account  of  the  event  to  which  he  attributed  his  conversion, 
 and  which  had  changed  him  from  a  persecutor  into  the 
 most  devoted  Missionary  of  the  Christian  cause.  This  being 
 so,  it  follows  that  the  threefold  account  as  we  read  it  in  the 
 Acts,  relates  the  circumstances  of  St.  PauTs  conversion  as 
 he  himself  believed  in  them. 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 403 
 
 Such  then  are  the  facts  to  be  accounted  for.  Only  two 
 theories  respecting  them  are  possible.  Either  the  facts 
 were  objective  realities;  or  the  Apostle  was  labouring  under 
 some  species  of  mental  hallucination. 
 
 Even  unbelievers  must  admit  that  the  former,  if  true,  is 
 a  philosophical  account  of  the  facts  and  of  the  results  which 
 followed  them.  The  question  therefore  arises,  Can  any 
 theory  of  visions  afford  an  adequate  solution  of  them  ? 
 
 The  following  is  the  most  plausible  explanation  which 
 unbelief  has  propounded  of  the  conversion  of  St.  Paul  on 
 the  supposition  that  the  appearance  of  Jesus  was  due  to 
 mental  hallucination.  The  Apostle  was  a  man  of  that 
 exalted  and  enthusiastic  temperament  which  leads  those 
 subject  to  it  to  confound  the  subjective  and  the  objective. 
 This  is  said  to  be  proved,  not  only  by  the  whole  tenour  of 
 his  writings,  but  by  the  fact  that  after  his  conversion,  he 
 was  in  the  habit  of  seeing  visions,  and  falling  into  trances. 
 This  state  of  mind,  acting  on  the  beliefs  in  which  he  had 
 been  educated,  made  him  an  uncompromising  opponent  of 
 Christianity,  and  led  him  to  take  a  very  active  part  in  the 
 murder  of  Stephen.  The  demeanour  of  the  Martyr  however 
 had  profoundly  impressed  him  ;  and  the  whole  scene  con¬ 
 tinued  to  haunt  his  imagination.  In  this  divided  state  of 
 mind,  yet  with  his  former  hatred  of  Jesus  still  in  the  ascen¬ 
 dant,  he  started  for  Damascus  with  the  commission  from 
 the  Jewish  priests.  His  journey  gave  him  ample  time  for 
 meditation.  The  image  of  the  murdered  Stephen,  and  the 
 work  of  persecution  on  which  he  was  about  to  enter,  pro¬ 
 duced  in  him  a  feeling  of  deep  distraction.  As  he  approached 
 Damascus,  a  natural  phenomenon,  such  as  a  thunderstorm 
 and  a  flash  of  lightning,  occurred.  Paul,  already  in  a  state 
 approaching  frenzy,  fell  to  the  earth  in  terror.  His  excited 
 imagination  created  the  image  of  Jesus  himself,  and  made 
 him  fancy  that  he  heard  his  voice  saying,  “  Saul,  Saul,  why 
 persecutest  thou  me,”  the  voice  which  he  heard  being 
 nothing  but  the  echo  of  his  own  thoroughly  aroused  conscience, 
 further  meditation  led  him  to  join  the  Christian  Church, 
 
 26* 
 
404 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 and  tlie  same  temperament  which,  had  hitherto  made  him 
 its  most  active  persecutor,  converted  him  into  its  most 
 energetic  Missionary. 
 
 The  theory  of  visions  in  this  case  is  free  from  several  of 
 the  difficulties  with  which  it  is  beset  when  offered  as  a 
 rational  account  of  the  appearances  to  the  original  followers 
 of  Jesus.  In  the  latter  case  it  was  necessary  to  assume  that 
 bodies  of  disciples,  when  assembled  together,  saw  visions 
 which  they  mistook  for  realities.  In  the  case  of  Paul  the 
 statement  of  the  historian  is  express,  that  he  alone  saw 
 Our  Lord,  and  heard  His  voice,  and  that  his  companions 
 saw  only  the  light,  and  heard  a  sound  :  but  that  they  heard 
 no  articulate  words.  The  further  difficulty  in  the  case 
 of  the  disciples,  that  they  must  have  mistaken  visionary 
 conversations  containing  directions  for  the  reconstruction 
 of  the  Church,  for  realities,  applies  with  less  force  in  the 
 case  of  the  Apostle,  who  only  believed  that  he  received  a 
 direction  in  a  single  interview,  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the 
 Gentiles.  In  addition  to  this,  the  idea  of  the  resurrection 
 of  Jesus,  and  his  exaltation  to  mighty  power  in  the  kingdom 
 of  God,  was  now  no  longer  a  novelty;  and  the  investigations 
 of  Paul  the  persecutor  must  have  fully  disclosed  to  him 
 the  fact  that  such  was  the  belief  of  the  Christian  Church. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  St.  Paul's  case  is  encumbered  with 
 peculiar  difficulties  of  its  own.  While  acting  as  a  persecutor, 
 it  is  simply  incredible  that  he  did  not  sift  the  whole  matter 
 to  the  bottom.  He  must  have  been  familiar  with  the  account 
 which  was  given  by  the  disciples  of  Jesus.  He  must  have 
 been  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  theory  propounded  on 
 the  subject  by  the  Jewish  priests.  As  a  member  of  the 
 Cilician  Synagogue,  which  disputed  with  Stephen,  he  must 
 have  urged  all  his  objections  against  the  arguments  of  the 
 Protomartyr.  Let  us  suppose  that  his  reasonings  broke 
 down.  Yet  he  was  still  unconvinced  ;  and  remained  a 
 furious  persecutor.  He  must  therefore  have  been  under  the 
 influence  of  the  strongest  prepossession  and  fixed  idea,  and 
 wholly  devoid  of  expectancy.  Consequently,  his  state  of 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 405 
 
 mind  must  have  been  altogether  incompatible  with  seeing 
 a  vision  of  Jesus  risen  from  the  dead,  and  mistaking  it  for 
 a  reality. 
 
 The  idea  that  the  demeanour  of  Stephen  had  produced 
 any  powerful  impression  on  him  is  not  only  a  bare  assump¬ 
 tion,  without  one  atom  of  evidence  to  support  it,  but  is  con¬ 
 trary  to  his  own  express  affirmations.  Conscience  had  not 
 remonstrated  with  him  up  to  the  time  of  the  journey  to 
 Damascus.  “I  have  lived,”  he  says,  addressing  the  Jewish 
 Council,  “in  all  good  conscience  towards  God  until  this 
 day.”  Not  a  single  hint  that  he  was  in  any  sense  a 
 conscience-stricken  man,  or  that  he  was  in  a  relenting 
 mood,  occurs  in  any  of  his  Epistles.  On  the  contrary,  to 
 the  Galatians  he  writes:  “Ye  have  heard  of  my  conversa¬ 
 tion  in  times  past  in  the  Jews'  religion  how  that  beyond 
 measure  I  persecuted  the  Church  of  God,  and  wasted  it ; 
 and  profited  in  the  Jews'  religion,  above  many  my  equals 
 in.  mine  own  nation,  being  more  exceedingly  zealous  for  the 
 traditions  of  my  fathers.  But  when  it  pleased  God,  who 
 separated  me  from  my  mother's  womb,  and  called  me  by  his 
 grace,  to  reveal  his  Son  in  me,  that  I  might  preach  him 
 among  the  heathen ;  immediately  I  conferred  not  with  flesh 
 and  blood.”  Equally  decisive  is  the  address  to  King 
 Agrippa,  “  Many  of  the  saints  did  I  shut  up  in  prison, 
 having  received  authority  from  the  chief  priests ;  and  when 
 they  were  put  to  death,  I  gave  my  voice  against  them.  And 
 I  punished  them  oft  in  every  synagogue,  and  compelled 
 them  to  blaspheme;  and  being  exceedingly  mad  against 
 them,  I  persecuted  them  even  unto  strange  cities.  Where¬ 
 upon  as  I  went  to  Damascus  with  authority  and  commission 
 from  the  chief  priests,”  &c.  (Acts  xxvi,  10-12.) 
 
 If  the  Apostle  has  correctly  described  his  feelings  in 
 either  of  these  passages  (and  the  second  of  them  is  beyond  all 
 dispute  written  by  himself),  they  utterly  negative  the  idea  of 
 his  being  in  such  a  disturbed  state  of  mind  at  the  time 
 of  the  journey  as  could  have  produced  the  visionary  appear¬ 
 ance. 
 
406 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 If  it  was  simply  imaginary,  it  can  bo  accounted  for 
 on  no  principle  known  to  mental  science.  The  Apostle 
 tells  us  that  at  the  time  of  the  journey,  he  was  under  the 
 strongest  influence  of  those  kinds  of  prepossession  and  fixed 
 idea  which  would  have  produced  a  precisely  contrary  result. 
 <c  I  was  exceedingly  zealous/*  says  he,  “  for  the  traditions 
 of  my  fathers/*  “  Being  exceedingly  mad  against  them, 
 I  persecuted  them  even  unto  strange  cities/*  His  pre¬ 
 possessions  and  fixed  ideas  were  therefore  those  of  extreme 
 Judaism  and  narrow-minded  bigotry.  If  such  a  state  of 
 mind  could  generate  visions  at  all,  they  must  assuredly 
 have  been  of  a  character  precisely  opposite  to  those  which 
 St.  Paul  imagined  that  he  saw.  Even  if  they  could  have 
 suggested  to  him  the  appearance  of  the  risen  J esus  (which 
 is  impossible),  we  should  never  have  heard  one  word  about 
 preaching  Christianity  to  the  Gentiles. 
 
 The  thunderstorm  and  the  lightning-flash  are  not  only 
 a  mere  guess  on  the  part  of  those  who  have  suggested 
 them,  but  are  directly  contrary  to  the  evidence  we  possess. 
 Neither  narrative  says  one  word  about  darkness.  The  time 
 of  the  appearance  is  definitely  stated  to  have  been  at  noon¬ 
 day,  and  it  is  implied  that  the  sun  was  shining.  Under  such 
 circumstances  no'  flash  of  lightning  could  have  exceeded  the 
 sun  in  brightness,  aud  the  brightness  was  seen  by  the 
 Apostle*s  companions  as  well  as  by  himself.  The  hypothesis 
 of  an  attack  of  sunstroke  would  be  far  more  probable  under 
 the  circumstances  than  that  of  a  flash  of  lightning  ;  but  even 
 if  assumptions  wholly  devoid  of  foundation  can  be  admitted 
 as  accounting  for  one  of  the  most  important  events  in  his¬ 
 tory,  no  principle  then  operating  in  the  Apostle*s  mind 
 could  have  produced  the  results  with  which  the  vision  was 
 attended,  viz.,  a  complete  revolution  in  his  ideas,  and  a  self- 
 devotion  to  an  entirely  new  course  of  action,  which  ended 
 only  with  his  life. 
 
 One  little  circumstance  mentioned  by  the  historian  is 
 utterly  incompatible  with  any  theory  that  the  appearance 
 on  the  road  to  Damascus  was  only  a  subjective  vision. 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 407 
 
 When  Paul  recovered  liis  sight,  we  are  told  that  there  fell 
 from  his  eyes  “  as  it  had  been  scales/'  This  fact,  if  true 
 (and  it  seems  impossible  to  ascribe  it  to  the  inventive 
 powers  of  the  historian),  points  to  an  objective  reality  of 
 some  kind.  Any  theory  of  visions,  therefore,  is  simply 
 worthless  until  it  can  explain  how  it  was  that  Paul  was 
 stricken  with  blindness,  and  that  three  days  after,  when  he 
 recovered  his  sight,  scales  fell  from  his  eyes.  It  will  hardly 
 be  urged  that  the  scales  were  visionary  ones,  or  that  they 
 could  have  resulted  from  the  action  of  Paul's  mind  on  his 
 body. 
 
 So  far  are  the  contents  of  the  Epistles  from  justifying 
 the  observation  that  St.  Paul  was  a  man  of  such  a  mental 
 temperament  as  to  have  led  him  to  confound  between  the 
 subjective  and  the  objective,  that  they  point  to  a  conclusion 
 directly  opposite.  As  I  have  observed  in  the  sixth  Lecture, 
 if  he  had  been  a  man  of  this  temperament,  the  discussion 
 respecting  the  supernatural  gifts  must  have  afforded  ample 
 opportunity  for  its  display.  Yet  during  the  whole  discus¬ 
 sion  we  find  nothing  but  the  soundest  reason  and  the  acutest 
 mental  discrimination.  The  calm  judgment  exhibited  by 
 the  Apostle  throughout  the  entire  discussion  utterly  negatives 
 the  hypothesis  in  question. 
 
 The  Epistles  unquestionably  affirm  that  he  had  truth 
 communicated  to  his  mind  by  revelation.  But  to  erect  on 
 this  fact  the  theory  that  he  was  a  man  of  that  peculiar  tem¬ 
 perament  which  leads  to  the  confounding  of  the  subjective 
 and  the  objective  is  to  assume  the  point  at  issue.  On  the 
 contrary,  the  Epistles  abound  with  examples  of  his  discrimi¬ 
 nating  between  the  workings  of  his  own  mind  and  the 
 divine  illumination  with  which  he  believed  himself  to  have 
 been  favoured;  and  they  do  not  furnish  us  with  a  single 
 instance  in  which  the  two  are  confounded  together.  The 
 affirmations  of  Paul  in  his  human  character — even  those 
 which  he  made  as  one  who  had  “obtained  mercy  of 
 the  Lord  to  be  faithful,"  and  “believing  that  he  had  the 
 Spirit  of  God,"  are  everywhere  clearly  distinguished  from 
 
408 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 that  knowledge  which  he  believed  to  have  been  imparted  to 
 him  by  express  revelation. 
 
 The  following  is  the  only  apparent  instance  to  the  con¬ 
 trary,  and  will  therefore  require  a  brief  consideration.  The 
 Apostle  writes,  “  It  is  not  expedient  for  me  doubtless  to 
 glory.  I  will  come  to  visions  and  revelations  of  the  Lord. 
 I  knew  a  man  in  Christ  about  fourteen  years  ago  (whether 
 in  the  body,  I  cannot  tell ;  or  whether  out  of  the  body,  I 
 cannot  tell :  God  knoweth) ;  such  an  one  caught  up  to  the 
 third  heaven.  And  I  knew  such  a  man  (whether  in  the 
 body,  or  out  of  the  body,  I  cannot  tell :  God  knoweth) ; 
 How  that  he  was  caught  up  into  paradise,  and  heard  un¬ 
 speakable  words  which  it  is  not  lawful  (t£ov,  possible)  for 
 a  man  to  utter.  .  .  .  And  lest  I  should  be  exalted  above 
 
 measure  through  the  abundance  of  the  revelations,”  &c. 
 (2  Cor.  xii.  1-7.) 
 
 This  passage  is  remarkable,  and  clearly  establishes  the 
 following  facts : — 
 
 First :  that  St.  Paul  somewhere  near  the  time  of  his 
 conversion  believed  himself  to  have  been  favoured  with  a 
 preternatural  illumination  respecting  divine  truth. 
 
 Secondly :  that  this  illumination  was  imparted  by  means 
 of  visions. 
 
 Thirdly  :  that  in  the  particular  vision  in  question,  his  own 
 consciousness  was  unable  to  determine  whether  he  was  “in 
 the  body  or  out  of  it.’’ 
 
 Fourthly:  that  as  far  as  consciousness  was  concerned,  he 
 seemed  to  be  translated  out  of  this  world  into  a  higher 
 sphere. 
 
 So  far  then  is  this  passage  from  justifying  the  idea  that 
 he  was  in  the  habit  of  confounding  the  subjective  and  the 
 objective,  that  it  proves  that  on  ordinary  occasions  he  care¬ 
 fully  discriminated  between  them.  He  tells  us  twice  over, 
 that  on  this  particular  occasion  he  could  not  tell  for  certain 
 whether  he  was  in  the  body  or  out  of  it.  He  was  fully 
 aware  that  it  was  a  vision,  but  whether  it  was  attended  with 
 a  local  transportation  of  his  personality,  he  was  ignorant. 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 409 
 
 The  twofold  affirmation  therefore  of  his  ignorance  on  this 
 particular  occasion  proves  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of 
 exercising  a  careful  discrimination  between  his  visions  and 
 the  creations  of  his  own  mind ;  and  consequently  that  his 
 mental  character  was  the  opposite  of  that  which  the  pro¬ 
 pounders  of  the  theory,  that  the  appearance  of  Our  Lord  on 
 the  road  to  Damascus  was  a  creation  of  his  own  disordered 
 imagination,  are  compelled  to  assume. 
 
 The  other  visions  mentioned  by  St.  Luke  in  the  Acts  of 
 the  Apostles,  such  as  the  trance  in  the  temple,  the  vision 
 of  the  man  of  Macedonia,  the  subsequent  vision  of  Our 
 Lord  after  St.  Paul’s  arrest,  and  the  appearance  of  the 
 angel  during  his  voyage  to  Rome,  are  of  a  precisely 
 similar  character ;  and  instead  of  affording  the  smallest 
 countenance  to  the  opinion  that  he  could  not  discriminate 
 on  these  occasions  between  the  subjective  and  the  objective, 
 prove  that  he  was  constantly  in  the  habit  of  doing  so. 
 
 Let  me  briefly  recapitulate. 
 
 Paul  left  Jerusalem  for  Damascus  “  breathing  out  threat- 
 enings  and  slaughter  against  the  disciples  of  the  Lord,” 
 “  being  exceedingly  mad  against  them,”  “  exceedingly 
 zealous  for  the  traditions  of  his  fathers.”  Such  a  state 
 of  mind  both  philosophy  and  science  teach  us  to  be  the 
 direct  opposite  to  that  which  would  have  been  necessary 
 for  seeing  a  vision  of  Jesus  and  mistaking  it  for  a  reality, 
 even  if  we  assume,  contrary  to  the  conditions  of  the 
 history,  that  the  Apostle  encountered  a  thunderstorm  on 
 the  way.  The  Apostle  and  his  companions  believed  them¬ 
 selves  to  have  been  encompassed  suddenly  by  a  light 
 brighter  than  the  sun.  They  fall  to  the  earth.  Paul 
 beholds  a  divine  appearance,  which  addresses  him  by 
 name ;  expostulates  with  him  for  persecuting  Him ;  affirms 
 that  He  is  Jesus,  and  informs  him  that  he  shall  be  in¬ 
 structed  in  what  His  pleasure  is,  after  he  has  entered  the 
 city.  The  appearance  deprives  the  Apostle  of  his  eye-sight. 
 Three  days  he  continues  in  Damascus  in  profound  medi¬ 
 tation,  after  which  he  openly  joins  the  Christian  Church, 
 
410 
 
 THE  THEORY  OP  VISIONS 
 
 on  which  occasion  lie  recovers  liis  sight  by  the  visible 
 falling  of  scales  from  his  eyes.  From  this  day  forth  to 
 the  end  of  his  life,  St.  Paul  became  the  most  zealous  of 
 Christian  Mi  ssionaries.  That  Jesus,  who  had  been  the 
 object  of  his  deepest  hatred,  became  the  object  of  his  most 
 ardent  love.  His  narrow-mindedness  and  zeal  for  the  tra¬ 
 ditions  of  his  fathers  were  changed  into  the  most  Catholic 
 Christianity  and  a  readiness  to  encounter  every  danger  in 
 its  propagation.  The  subsequent  life  of  the  persecutor 
 was  one  continued  act  of  self-devotion  to  the  cause  of  the 
 persecuted,  despite  of  all  dangers  and  sufferings.  Such 
 are  the  facts.  Let  philosophy  or  science,  if  it  can,  afford 
 any  rational  account  of  them  on  the  supposition  that  they 
 were  the  result  of  mental  hallucination. 
 
 SUPPLEMENT  II. 
 
 The  following  are  Dr.  Carpenter’s  positions  as  stated  at 
 the  conclusion  of  his  article  on  “the  Fallacies  of  Testi¬ 
 mony  — 
 
 “  Now  I  fail  to  see  what  stronger  external  evidence  there 
 is  of  any  of  the  supernatural  occurrences  chronicled  in  the 
 Old  Testament,  than  that  which  is  afforded  by  the  assured 
 conviction  of  this  Jewish  community  as  to  what  is  taking 
 place  at  the  present  time  under  their  own  eyes.  And 
 assuming,  as  I  suppose  most  of  us  should  be  ready  to  do, 
 that  the  testimony  to  these  contemporary  wonders  would 
 break  down  under  the  rigorous  test  of  a  searching  exa¬ 
 mination,  I  ask  whether  we  are  not  equally  justified  in  the 
 assumption  that  a  similar  scrutiny,  if  we  had  the  power 
 to  apply  it,  would  in  like  manner  dispose  of  many  of 
 the  narratives  of  old  time,  either  as  distortions  of  real 
 occurrences,  or  as  altogether  legendary. 
 
 “In  regard  to  the  New  Testament  miracles  generally, 
 whilst  failing  to  see  in  what  respect  the  external  testimony 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 411 
 
 in  their  behalf  is  stronger  than  it  is  for  the  reality  of  the 
 miracles  attributed  to  St.  Columba,  I  limit  myself  at  present 
 
 to  the  following  questions  : — 
 
 “First.  Whether  the  c  miracles  of  healing  *  may  not  have 
 had  a  foundation  of  reality  in  f  natural '  agencies  perfectly 
 well  known  to  such  as  have  scientifically  studied  the  action 
 of  the  mind  upon  the  body.  In  regard  to  one  form  of 
 these  supposed  miracles — the  casting  out  of  devils  I 
 suppose  that  I  need  not  in  these  days  adduce  any  aigument 
 to  disprove  the  old  notion  of  c  demoniacal  possession,  m 
 the  face  of  the  fact  that  the  belief  in  such  f  possession '  in 
 the  case  of  lunatics,  epileptics,  &c.,  and  the  belief  in  the 
 powers  of  (  exorcists 5  to  get  rid  of  it,  is  still  as  prevalent 
 among  Eastern  nations  as  it  was  in  the  time  of  Christ. 
 And  I  suppose,  too,  that  since  travellers  have  found  that 
 the  Pool  of  Bethesda  is  fed  by  an  intermittent  spring,  few 
 now  seriously  believe  in  the  occasional  appeal  ance  of  an 
 « angel 9  who  moved  its  water ;  or  in  the  cure  of  the  first 
 among  the  expectant  sick  who  got  himself  placed  in  it,  by 
 any  other  agency  than  his  f  faith  ’  in  the  efficacy  of  the 
 means.  I  simply  claim  the  right  to  a  more  extended 
 application  of  the  same  critical  method. 
 
 “  Secondly.  Whether  we  have  not  a  similar  right  to  bring 
 to  bear  on  the  study  of  the  Gospel  narratives,  the  same 
 ‘principles  of  criticism  as  guided  the  early  Fathers  in  their 
 construction  of  the  Canon,  with  all  the  enlightenment  which 
 we  derive  from  the  subsequent  history  of  Christianity,  aided 
 by  that  of  other  forms  of  religious  belief.  The  early 
 Christian  Fathers  were  troubled  with  no  doubts  as  to  the 
 reality  of  miracles  in  themselves ;  and  they  testified  to  the 
 healing  of  the  sick,  the  casting  out  of  devils,  and  even  the 
 raising  of  the  dead,  as  well-known  facts  of  their  own  time. 
 But  they  rejected  some  current  narratives  of  the  miraculous 
 which  they  did  not  regard  as  adequately  authenticated,  and 
 others,  as  considering  them  puerile.  Looking  at  it  not  only 
 as  our  right,  but  as  our  duty,  to  bring  the  higher  critical 
 enlightenment  of  the  present  day  to  bear  upon  the  study  of 
 the  Gospel  records,  I  ask  whether  both  past  and  contem- 
 
412 
 
 THE  THEORY  OP  VISIONS 
 
 porary  history  do  not  afford  such  a  body  of  evidence  of  a 
 prevalent  tendency  to  exaggeration  and  distortion,  in  the 
 representation  of  actual  occurrences  in  which  c supernatural 9 
 agencies  are  supposed  to  have  been  concerned,  as  entitles 
 us,  without  attempting  any  detailed  analysis,  to  believe  that 
 if  we  could  know  what  really  did  happen,  it  would  often 
 prove  to  be  something  very  different  from  what  is  narrated. 
 
 By  such  a  general  admission,  we  may  remove  the  serious 
 difficulties  to  which  I  alluded  at  the  outset— difficulties 
 which  must,  I  think,  have  been  present  to  the  mind  of 
 Locke,  when  he  recorded,  in  the  Common-place  Book 
 published  by  Lord  King,  the  remarkable  aphorism  that 
 the  doctrine  proves  the  miracles,  rather  than  the  miracles 
 the  doctrine/  " — Contemporary  Renew,  Jan.  1876. 
 
 I  should  in  justice  to  Dr.  Carpenter  quote  a  brief  passage 
 from  the  earlier  portion  of  the  article  : — 
 
 “And,  moreover,  I  observe  it  to  be  among  those,  in 
 various  religious  denominations,  who  are  converging  to  the 
 conclusion  that  the  c  authority 3  of  Christianity  most  surely 
 consists  in  the  direct  appeal  it  makes  to  the  hearts  and  con¬ 
 sciences  of  mankind, — who  most  fully  recognize  in  the  life, 
 teaching,  and  death  of  Christ,  that  manifestation  of  the 
 Divine  (a? ravyaapa  tTiq  k at  x<*P™rr)p  tyiq  viroarcKTEwg 
 
 avrou)  which  constitutes  him  their  Master  and  Lord, — and 
 who  most  earnestly  and  constantly  aim  to  fashion  their  own 
 lives  on  the  model  of  his,— that  there  is  the  greatest  readi¬ 
 ness  to  admit  that  the  records  of  that  life  are  tinged  by  the 
 prepossessions,  and  subject  to  the  inaccuracies,  to  which  all 
 human  testimony  is  liable. 
 
 “But  the  Scientific  Theist  who  regards  the  so-called 
 ‘  Laws  of  Nature 3  as  nothing  else  than  Man’s  expressions  of 
 so  much  of  the  Divine  Order  as  it  lies  within  his  power  to 
 discern,  and  who  looks  at  the  uninterruptedness  of  this  order 
 as  the  highest  evidence  of  its  original  perfection,  need  find 
 (as  it  seems  to  me)  no  abstract  difficulty  in  the  conception 
 that  the  Author  of  Nature  can,  if  He  will,  occasionally 
 depart  from  it.  And  hence,  as  I  deem  it  presumptuous  to 
 deny  that  there  might  be  occasions  which  in  His  wisdom 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 413 
 
 may  require  sucIl  departure,  I  am  not  conscious  of  any  such 
 scientific  { prepossession 9  against  miracles  as  would  prevent 
 me  from  accepting  them  as  facts,  if  trustworthy  evidence  of 
 their  reality  could  be  adduced.  The  question  with  me,  there¬ 
 fore,  is  simply  : — ‘  Have  we  any  adequate  historical  ground 
 for  the  belief  that  such  departure  has  ever  taken  place  V  39 
 It  might  fairly  be  assumed  from  this  last  passage,  that 
 although  Dr.  Carpenter  holds  the  moral  character  of  Jesus 
 in  the  highest  estimation,  he  does  not  accept  His  resurrec¬ 
 tion  from  the  dead  as  a  fact  which  is  capable  of  proof.  If 
 he  did,  the  question  whether  we  have  any  historical  ground 
 for  the  belief  that  “such  a  departure”  (viz.  from  that 
 uniform  reign  of  law  which  is  commonly  affirmed  to  be 
 inconsistent  with  the  idea  of  a  miracle)  has  ever  taken 
 place,  would  be  irrelevant.  The  author  also  seems  to  be  of 
 opinion,  that  there  is  no  distinction  between  the  Resurrection 
 and  the  other  miracles  recorded  in  the  New  Testament, 
 either  as  to  the  attestation  on  which  it  rests,  or  as  regards 
 its  evidential  value.  Further:  a  miracle  in  his  view  is 
 nothing  more  than  an  extraordinary  occurrence  in  the 
 physical  universe,  brought  about  by  the  agency  of  forces  of 
 a  different  kind  from  those  at  present  in  activity.  Not 
 one  of  his  observations  recognizes  the  possibility  of  moral 
 miracles,  such  as  I  have  referred  to  in  the  preceding 
 Lectures.  In  a  word,  his  views  on  the  entire  question  are 
 identical  with  those  which  were  propounded  in  the  evidential 
 treatises  of  the  last  century  and  the  beginning  of  the  present. 
 I  draw  attention  to  this,  because  such  are  the  views  gene¬ 
 rally  propounded  by  scientific  men  when  they  attempt  to 
 deal  with  the  question  of  the  Christian  miracles.  They  have 
 probably  been  betrayed  into  this  mode  of  handling  the 
 subject  through  the  defective  state  of  our  evidential  litera¬ 
 ture  ;  but  it  is  hardly  too  much  to  say  that  in  so  doing  they 
 have  overlooked  the  real  point  at  issue.  It  will  therefore 
 be  my  duty  to  offer  a  few  observations  on  the  mode  in  which 
 the  subject  is  here  treated. 
 
 The  question  is  argued  as  if  the  whole  of  the  miracles 
 
414 
 
 THE  THEORY  OP  VISIONS 
 
 recorded,  in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  stood  on  a 
 common  level  in  point  of  attestation,  and  were  of  equal 
 evidential  value.  This  course  has  been  so  commonly  adopted 
 that  it  is  impossible  too  energetically  to  protest  against  it. 
 Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  one  miracle  recorded  in 
 the  New  Testament,  the  Kesurrection  of  our  blessed  Lord, 
 holds  a  position  in  point  of  attestation  which  is  occupied 
 by  no  other,  and  is  also  distinctly  affirmed  by  the  sacred 
 writers  to  be  the  foundation  on  which  the  Christian  Church 
 is  built.  This  being  so,  I  ask,  Why  do  not  those  who  deny 
 the  truth  of  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament,  confine 
 themselves  to  this  one  great  issue  ?  To  what  purpose  is  it 
 to  endeavour  to  disprove  the  truth  of  the  other  miracles,  or 
 to  explain  them  away,  while  this  one  is  left  standing?  If  it 
 is  true,  it  will  sustain  all  the  rest ;  if  it  is  not  true,  all  the 
 others  will  fall  with  it. 
 
 Nothing  can  be  more  unphilosophical  than  the  mode 
 which  is  generally  adopted  by  our  opponents  of  dealing  with 
 the  miracles  in  a  mass,  and  attempting  to  account  for  those 
 which  rest  on  an  inferior  attestation  instead  of  concentrating 
 their  efforts  on  the  centre  of  the  Christian  position.  Scientific 
 men  would  be  the  first  to  protest  against  the  application 
 of  such  a  method  to  any  great  subject  of  their  investiga¬ 
 tions,  and  their  complaint  would  be  just.  Let  us  suppose 
 that  a  body  of  theologians  were  to  attack  the  credibility  of 
 geology,  and  in  doing  so,  to  mix  up  all  the  theories  which 
 have  been  propounded  by  geologists,  and  affirm  that  the 
 best  authenticated  rest  on  no  better  evidence  than  the 
 weakest ;  and  having  demolished  these  latter,  were  then  to 
 raise  a  shout  of  triumph,  and  boast  that  they  had  demolished 
 geology  as  a  science.  They  would  justly  denounce  this 
 course  as  a  convincing  proof  of  the  irrational  conduct  of 
 theologians.  Yet  this  bears  a  close  resemblance  to  the 
 mode  in  which  the  question  of  the  miracles  of  the  New 
 Testament  has  been  discussed.  It  is  the  very  course  which 
 has  been  pursued  by  Dr.  Carpenter.  His  first  observations 
 are  directed  to  the  miracles  of  the  Old  Testament.  Having- 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 415 
 
 adduced  tlie  case  of  a  body  of  fanatic  Jews  who  at  the 
 present  day  are  persuaded  of  the  reality  of  some  very 
 grotesque  miraculous  performances,  he  observes  that  he  fails 
 to  see  that  the  miracles  which  are  chronicled  in  the  Old 
 Testament  rest  on  any  stronger  attestation  than  the  convic¬ 
 tions  of  this  Jewish  community. 
 
 I  reply,  first : 
 
 In  discussing  this  question  it  is  absurd  to  begin  with 
 the  miracles  of  the  Old  Testament.  We  readily  allow  that 
 the  evidence  on  which  they  rest  is  far  weaker  than  that  for 
 the  miracles  recorded  in  the  New.  In  fact,  our  reason  for 
 believing  in  their  reality  is,  not  tbe  evidence  jper  se ,  but  the 
 general  recognition  which  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa¬ 
 ment  give  to  the  books  of  the  Old.  To  treat  the  subject 
 as  though  the  evidence  for  the  resurrection  of  the  dead 
 man  who  was  thrown  into  Elisha's  grave  was  on  a  par  with 
 that  of  our  blessed  Lord,  would  be  simply  absurd,  since  the 
 one  was  barren  of  result  and  the  other  forms  the  foundation 
 on  which  the  Christian  Church  has  been  erected,  and  the 
 turning  point  in  the  history  of  the  world.  If  Jesus  Christ 
 really  rose  from  the  dead,  Christianity  must  be  a  divine 
 revelation,  even  if  we  were  unable  to  establish  the  histo¬ 
 rical  credibility  of  a  single  miracle  recorded  in  the  Old 
 Testament. 
 
 Secondly :  the  fallacy  is  committed  of  placing  all  the 
 miracles  of  the  Old  Testament  on  the  same  level  in  point  of 
 attestation.  As  among  the  New  Testament  miracles  there 
 is  one  which  holds  a  place  of  special  prominence — the  Resur¬ 
 rection — so  there  is  a  series  among  those  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
 ment,  which  hold  a  similar  position,  the  great  miracles  of  the 
 Exodus.  It  is  not  my  duty  in  this  place  to  enter  into  a 
 discussion  of  their  historical  credibility,  but  simply  to  draw 
 attention  to  the  fact,  that  in  point  of  attestation  they  exceed 
 that  of  every  other  miracle  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament. 
 They  are  directly  connected  with  the  historical  life  of  the 
 Jewish  nation  and  the  foundation  of  the  Jewish  Church.  From 
 that  hour  to  this  the  Jewish  nation  has  lived  a  life  differing 
 
416 
 
 THE  THEORY  OP  VISIONS 
 
 in  character  and  intensity  from  that  of  every  other  nation. 
 It  is  an  unquestionable  fact  that  some  events  connected  with 
 the  Exodus  created  this  nation.  Their  sojourn  in  Egypt  is 
 historical ;  their  sojourn  in  the  wilderness  is  historical ;  their 
 conquest  of  Canaan  is  historical.  Rightly  or  wrongly,  the 
 Jewish  nation  have  always  affirmed  that  these  events,  includ¬ 
 ing  the  foundation  of  the  Jewish  Church,  were  in  the  closest 
 way  connected  with  the  miracles  of  the  Exodus,  and  they 
 are  in  the  closest  manner  united  with  them  in  the  Jewish 
 records.  I  fully  admit  that  all  this  does  not  prove  that  they 
 were  actually  performed ;  but  in  point  of  attestation  it  clearly 
 places  them  in  a  very  different  position  from  some  of  the 
 miracles  performed  by  Elijah  and  Elisha. 
 
 The  same  observations  are  even  more  applicable  to  the 
 miracles  of  the  New  Testament.  Nothing  can  be  more 
 illogical  than  to  treat  them  in  a  mass  as  though  they  all 
 stood  on  the  same  level  in  point  of  attestation.  Such  a 
 mode  of  dealing  with  the  question  would  be  in  itself  suffi¬ 
 ciently  unscientific;  but  it  is  greatly  aggravated  when  the 
 writers  of  the  New  Testament  have  especially  selected  one 
 of  those  miracles,  and  affirmed  that  with  its  truth  or  false¬ 
 hood  their  case  stands  or  falls.  “  If”  says  St.  Paul,  “  Christ 
 be  not  risen,  then  is  our  preaching  vain,  and  your  faith  is 
 also  vain.  Yea,  and  we  are  found  false  witnesses  of  God, 
 because  we  have  testified  of  God  that  He  raised  up  Christ, 
 whom  He  raised  not  up,  if  so  be  the  dead  rise  not.” 
 
 It  is  therefore  an  entire  misapprehension  of  the  Christian 
 position  to  call  upon  us  to  adduce  direct  proof  for  each 
 miracle  recorded  in  the  New  Testament.  All  that  is  neces¬ 
 sary  is  to  establish  the  truth  of  the  Resurrection,  and  to 
 show  that  the  followers  of  Jesus,  who  must  have  witnessed 
 the  events  of  His  ministry,  reported  that  He  performed  a 
 number  of  actions  which  must  have  involved  the  possession 
 of  a  superhuman  power.  As  I  have  said  before,  if  He  rose 
 from  the  dead,  it  is  far  more  probable  that  other  miracles 
 were  performed  by  Him  than  that  none  were;  and  this 
 one  great  miracle  being  established,  the  truth  of  the 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 417 
 
 otliers  requires  no  stronger  attestation  than  the  ordinary 
 events  of  history,  but  may  be  accepted  without  the  necessity 
 of  pointing  out  who  were  the  witnesses  of  each  particular 
 one,  or  proving  that  they  were  competent  judges  as  to  its 
 really  miraculous  character.  Even  if  it  could  be  proved 
 that  some  have  been  incorrectly  attributed  to  Him,  or 
 that  they  were  wrought  by  calling  into  greater  activity 
 forces  which  under  certain  known  conditions  energize  in 
 man,  it  would  leave  the  real  point  of  the  Christian  argu¬ 
 ment  untouched.  Scientific  men  should  clearly  understand 
 that  the  Christian  position  is  not  dependent  on  our  ability 
 to  prove  the  truth  of  every  miracle  recorded  in  the  Bible, 
 but  of  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  mani¬ 
 festation  by  Him  of  a  superhuman  power  exerted  in  the 
 moral  and  spiritual  world  during  eighteen  centuries  of 
 history.  To  discuss  the  question  on  other  principles  is 
 to  raise  a  false  issue. 
 
 It  appears  however  that  Dr.  Carpenter  has  other  objec¬ 
 tions  against  the  Christian  miracles  than  those  adduced 
 in  the  Essay  which  I  am  considering.  “  I  limit  myself  at 
 present/'  he  says,  “  to  the  following  questions.”  Whether 
 these  other  objections  are  stronger,  or  weaker,  than  those 
 which  he  has  adduced,  we  are  left  in  ignorance ;  but  the 
 reader  is  allowed  to  remain  under  the  impression  that  there 
 is  yet  some  formidable  force  held  in  reserve  with  which 
 he  is  prepared  to  fall  upon  the  Christian  position.  Such 
 a  force,  even  when  existing  only  in  the  imagination,  has 
 produced  a  powerful  influence  on  the  decision  of  many  a 
 battle  in  actual  warfare.  All  that  we  can  do  on  the 
 present  occasion  is  to  guard  against  the  influence  which 
 any  unknown  force  of  reasoning  which  is  held  in  reserve 
 may  exert  on  our  imaginations,  and  to  point  out  that  that 
 which  is  actually  employed  wholly  fails  to  touch  the 
 Christian  argument. 
 
 First :  we  are  asked  to  solve  the  question  “  whether  ‘the 
 miracles  of  healing 9  may  not  have  had  a  foundation  of 
 reality  in  natural  agencies  perfectly  well  known  to  such  as 
 
 27 
 
418 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 have  scientifically  studied  the  action  of  the  mind  upon  the 
 body  V 3  The  meaning  of  this  question  is  made  sufficiently 
 clear  by  another  passage  (p.  292.)  After  speaking  of  the 
 effects  which  the  mind  when  powerfully  exerted  can  pro¬ 
 duce  on  our  bodily  frames  (for  Dr.  Carpenter  is  of  opinion 
 that  even  the  marks  of  the  stigmata  affirmed  to  have  been 
 produced  on  certain  medieval  Saints,  have  been  produced 
 in  this  manner),  he  writes  : 
 
 “  In  these  and  similar  phenomena  a  strong  conviction  of 
 the  possession  of  the  power  on  the  part  of  the  healer  seems 
 to  be  necessary  for  the  excitement  of  the  faith  of  those 
 operated  on ;  and  the  healer  recognizes  by  a  kind  of 
 intuition,  the  existence  of  that  faith  on  the  part  of  the 
 patient.  Do  not  several  phrases  in  the  Gospel  narratives 
 point  to  the  same  relations  as  existing  between  Jesus  and 
 the  sufferers  who  sought  his  aid  ?  The  cure  is  constantly 
 attributed  to  the  *  faith  3  of  the  patient,  whilst  on  the 
 other  hand,  we  are  told  that  f  Jesus  did  not  do  many  mighty 
 works  in  his  own  country,  because  of  their  unbelief 3 — the 
 very  condition  which,  if  these  mighty  works  had  been  per¬ 
 formed  by  His  own  will  alone,  would  have  been  supposed 
 to  call  forth  its  exertion,  but  which  is  perfectly  conformable 
 to  our  own  experience  of  the  wonders  of  mesmerism, 
 spiritualism,  &c.  So  Faul  is  spoken  of  as  f  steadfastly 
 beholding  the  cripple  at  Lystra,  and  seeing  that  he  had 
 faith  to  be  healed/  33 
 
 The  question  here  proposed  for  our  solution,  “  whether 
 
 the  miracles  of  healing  may  not  have  had  a  foundation  in 
 “  natural  agencies  well  known  to  such  as  have  studied  the 
 “  action  of  the  mind  on  the  body  33  is  altogether  beside  the 
 point  at  issue.  Such  might  have  been  the  case  without 
 interfering  with  their  miraculous  character.  There  is  no 
 reason  why  in  the  performance  of  a  miracle,  Our  Lord 
 should  not  have  made  use  of  forces  already  existing  in  the 
 universe,  only  so  modifying  and  combining  them  as  to  be  a 
 special  manifestation  of  purpose ;  for  it  is  this  manifestation 
 which  constitutes  the  great  distinction  between  an  unusual 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 419 
 
 occurrence  and  a  miracle.  Dr.  Carpenter  however  has 
 adopted  the  idea  that  to  constitute  an  event  a  miracle,  its 
 occurrence  must  involve  either  a  violation  or  a  suspension 
 of  the  laws  of  nature ;  and  that  it  would  no  longer  be  a 
 miracle  if  caused  by  the  agency  of  forces  already  existing. 
 He  seems  in  short  to  think  that  a  miracle  must  be  brought 
 about  by  the  direct  agency  of  the  divine  will  alone,  without 
 the  intervention  of  any  secondary  causes.  The  inaccuracy 
 of  this  idea  I  have  already  pointed  out  in  a  supplement  to 
 a  former  Lecture.  As  therefore  it  is  quite  conceivable  that 
 Our  Lord's  miracles  wrought  in  material  nature,  such  as 
 the  turning  of  the  water  into  wine,  and  the  feeding  of  the 
 five  thousand,  may  have  had  a  “  foundation  "  in  forces 
 already  existing,  by  combining  and  imparting  to  them 
 a  different  direction,  without  involving  any  creative  act, 
 in  the  same  manner  He  may  have  made  use  of  forces  ener¬ 
 gizing  in  man,  for  the  purpose  of  effecting  his  miraculous 
 cures.  I  do  not  say  that  this  was  the  real  mode  of  their 
 performance;  but  the  mere  possibility  that  it  was  so  is 
 a  sufficient  answer  to  Dr.  Carpenter's  objection.  He  that 
 used  a  strong  east  wind  as  the  intermediate  agent  for 
 effecting  the  great  miracle  of  the  Exodus  may  also  have 
 wrought  His  miraculous  cures  by  the  combination  and 
 intensifying  of  forces  already  acting  in  man.  The  event 
 would  be  none  the  less  a  miracle,  provided  it  exceeded 
 human  power  to  summon  them  into  activity,  and  to  combine 
 and  direct  them  in  such  a  manner  as  to  realize  the  special 
 purpose  of  His  will. 
 
 But  Dr.  Carpenter  goes  considerably  further,  and  ob¬ 
 serving  that  Our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  generally  required 
 “  faith  "  in  the  patient  as  a  condition  of  the  exercise  of  their 
 miraculous  powers,  propounds  a  theory  that  their  miracles 
 may  have  been  brought  about  in  a  manner  similar  to  the 
 wonders  of  mesmerism  and  spiritualism ;  and  that  the 
 operator  discovered  the  presence  of  a  suitable  amount  of 
 faith  in  the  patient  by  a  kind  of  intuition. 
 
 Here  again  the  reasoning  is  singularly  unfortunate,  for 
 
 27* 
 
420 
 
 THE  THEORY  OP  VISIONS 
 
 unless  tlie  principle  which  he  has  laid  down  is  capable  of 
 accounting  for  all  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  New  Tes¬ 
 tament,  it  is  valueless  as  affording  an  adequate  account  of 
 the  origin  of  any  of  them.  Even  if  we  admit  that  some  of 
 the  cures  could  have  been  effected  by  exciting  a  powerful 
 action  on  the  nervous  system,  all  the  most  important 
 miracles  lie  outside  its  limits ;  but  Dr.  Carpenter  falls  into 
 the  fallacy  to  which  I  have  already  alluded  of  disposing 
 of  them  all  in  a  mass. 
 
 It  will  be  unnecessary  to  discuss  the  truth  of  hi»s  position, 
 as  to  the  influence  which  a  powerfully  excited  “  faith,"  call 
 it  by  whatever  name  we  please,  whether  prepossession,  fixed 
 idea,  or  expectancy,  can  exert  on  our  bodily  frames.  It  is 
 doubtless  startling  to  be  informed  that  mental  phenomena 
 of  this  description  can  produce  the  stigmata;  but  on  general 
 points  of  physiology  I  am  ready  to  accept  Dr.  Carpenter  as 
 an  authority.  There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  not  only  is 
 u  faith  "  the  mightiest  power  in  the  moral  and  spiritual 
 worlds,  but  it  can  also  exert  a  powerful  influence  on  man's 
 bodily  structure.  Of  this  we  have  all  of  us,  in  greater  or 
 less  degree,  had  experience.  But  real  as  this  power  is,  and 
 although  the  precise  limits  within  which  it  can  be  exerted 
 are  unknown,  there  are  certain  bounds  which  it  cannot  pass. 
 I  submit,  therefore,  the  following  reasons,  which  render  it 
 certain  that  Dr.  Carpenter's  position  leaves  the  Christian 
 argument  untouched. 
 
 First :  whatever  power  faith  may  be  capable  of  exerting, 
 it  is  plain  that  it  could  not  have  effected  the  Resurrection 
 of  Our  Lord ;  and  that  this  event,  if  an  actual  occurrence, 
 lay  wholly  beyond  its  limits.  This  being  so,  it  is  simply 
 futile  to  propound  the  action  of  this  principle,  as  accounting 
 for  any  number  of  the  miracles  of  the  Gospels,  while  it 
 leaves  the  greatest  of  them  unexplained. 
 
 Secondly:  there  are  several  other  miracles  recorded  in  the 
 Gospels,  such  as  the  instantaneous  giving  of  sight  to  the 
 blind,  hearing  to  the  deaf,  speech  to  the  dumb,  the  cure  of 
 lepers  by  a  word,  and  others,  which  the  principle  of  faith 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 421 
 
 in  any  known  condition  of  its  action,  would  have  been 
 utterly  unable  to  effect.  This  being  so,  it  is  useless  to 
 propound  this  principle  as  a  rational  explanation  of  the 
 miracles  in  the  New  Testament,  while  it  is  at  best  only 
 capable  of  accounting  for  a  limited  number  of  them. 
 
 Thirdly :  it  by  no  means  follows,  even  if  the  action  of 
 powerful  faith  was  one  of  the  intermediate  instrumentalities 
 through  which  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  were 
 effected,  that  it  nullifies  their  miraculous  character.  To 
 affirm  that  it  does  so,  is  quietly  to  assume  that  God  cannot 
 work  miracles  through  the  agency  of  forces  already  existing 
 in  nature  and  in  man.  I  must  repeat  it  once  more,  that  the 
 particular  force  employed  in  its  production  does  not  consti¬ 
 tute  an  event  a  miracle,  but  the  combining  of  forces,  be  they 
 what  they  may,  and  the  imparting  to  them  such  a  diiection 
 as  to  be  a  manifestation  of  purpose.  Let  us  take  as  an  illus¬ 
 tration  the  case  of  the  woman  who  for  twelve  years  had 
 suffered  from  an  issue  of  blood,  and  whose  case  had  baffled 
 the  skill  of  the  physicians  of  the  time.  Our  Lord  tells  her 
 that  her  faith  has  saved  her.  If  we  admit  that  her  faith 
 wrought  so  powerfully  on  her  bodily  frame  that  it  effected 
 her  instant  cure,  will  Dr.  Carpenter  affirm  that  there  are 
 any  known  cases  of  instantaneous  cures  effected  by  mes¬ 
 merism  ?  If  not,  the  principle  is  worthless  to  invalidate  the 
 reality  of  even  the  miracle  in  question,  still  more  that  of  the 
 
 miracles  of  the  New  Testament  in  geneial. 
 
 The  position  which  I  take  is  this.  The  miracles  wrought 
 by  Our  Lord  were  the  natural  results  of  the  divine  which 
 dwelt  within  Him,  just  as  ordinary  human  actions  are  the 
 natural  results  of  the  forces  energizing  in  man.  Neither  the 
 one  nor  the  other  necessarily  involves  an  interruption  of  the 
 order  of  nature.  To  take  an  illustration :  If  the  moie 
 intelligent  animals  have  any  perception  of  such  an  order,  a 
 large  number  of  human  actions  must  appear  to  them  viola¬ 
 tions  of  the  only  order  which  their  limited  faculties  enable 
 them  to  conceive.  At  any  rate,  they  must  be  to  them 
 utterly  incomprehensible;  nor  can  they  have  the  smallest 
 
422 
 
 THE  THEORY  OE  VISIONS 
 
 idea  of  the  nature  of  the  forces  by  which  they  are  effected. 
 Belatively  to  them  therefore,  they  are  miraculous.  Yet  we 
 know  that  what  man  really  does,  when  he  performs  such 
 actions,  is  not  to  suspend  or  violate  any  natural  law,  but 
 merely  to  give  a  particular  direction  to  the  existing  forces 
 of  the  universe,  by  means  of  his  intelligent  volition.  In  the 
 same  manner  then,  if  our  blessed  Lord  was  really  a  super¬ 
 human  Christ,  actions  which  were  the  natural  results  of  His 
 superhuman  working  would  be  miraculous  to  men,  just  as  in 
 accordance  with  the  above  illustration  many  human  actions 
 must  be  to  the  highest  intelligence  of  the  inferior  races. 
 Such  actions  are  in  fact  signs  (c njfjiua)  ;  those  which  are 
 peculiar  to  man,  of  the  presence  of  human  intelligence  and 
 power  ;  those  of  the  divine  Christ,  of  divine  intelligence  and 
 power.  It  follows  therefore,  that  even  if  Dr.  Carpenter's 
 theory  is  correct,  it  is  useless  for  the  purpose  of  explaining 
 away  the  miracles  which  the  Gospels  have  attributed  to 
 Our  Lord. 
 
 As  the  real  nature  of  possession  is  a  point  still  eagerly 
 debated,  it  will  be  unnecessary  for  me  to  express  an  opinion 
 of  my  own.  I  have  fully  considered  the  position  taken  by  the 
 writers  of  the  Hew  Testament  on  that  subject  in  Chapters 
 IX.  to  XII.  of  The  Supernatural  in  the  New  Testament. 
 I  shall  only  observe  that  Dr.  Carpenter  is  labouring  under 
 a  misconception  when  he  supposes  that  the  question  of 
 possession  has  been  finally  disposed  of,  and  that  the  belief 
 in  its  objective  reality  is  incapable  of  a  rational  defence. 
 Before  we  can  arrive  at  this  conclusion,  his  philosophy  must 
 give  us  a  rational  solution  of  those  terrible  manifestations  of 
 the  human  mind,  which  a  most  intelligent  and  trustworthy 
 witness  has  recently  described  as  having  come  under  his  own 
 observation  among  the  devil-worshippers  in  India  ;*  and  of 
 many  other  of  its  abnormal  activities.  As  far  as  the  present 
 argument  is  concerned,  ifc  matters  not  whether  the  persons 
 
 *  See  Contemporary  Review ,  February,  1876,  “Demonolatry,  Devil- 
 dancing  and  Demoniacal  Possession.” 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 423 
 
 who  were  cured  by  Our  Lord  were  demoniacs,  or  maniacs,  or 
 both.  In  either  case  their  cure,  as  described  in  the  Gospels, 
 would  have  been  equally  miraculous.  Insanity  is  in  many 
 instances  a  complaint  capable  of  cure  by  human  means,  under 
 proper  treatment.  But  the  mode  in  which  Our  Lord  cured 
 demoniacs  would  be  found  utterly  inefficacious  in  the  hands 
 of  our  physicians  for  the  cure  of  lunacy.  The  successful 
 application  of  their  method  is  a  sign  (mj/tsTop)  of  human 
 skill ;  that  of  Our  Lord,  of  the  power  of  the  divine  Christ. 
 
 With  respect  to  the  descent  of  the  angel  to  trouble  the 
 waters  at  the  Pool  of  Bethesda,  I  need  only  remark  that  the 
 issue  here  raised  is  irrelevant  to  the  point  under  discussion. 
 He  seems  not  to  be  aware  that  most  recent  editions  of 
 the  Greek  Testament,  on  the  authority  of  the  best  manu¬ 
 scripts,  reject  the  passage  as  a  spurious  addition  to  the 
 Fourth  Gospel. 
 
 I  fully  concur  with  Dr.  Carpenter,  that  it  is  both  our 
 right  and  our  duty  to  bring  to  bear  on  the  Gospel  narratives 
 the  same  principles  of  criticism  as  guided  the  early  fathers 
 in  their  construction  of  the  Canon,  aided  by  all  the  enlight¬ 
 enment  which  we  derive  from  the  subsequent  history  of 
 Christianity,  and  of  other  forms  of  religious  belief.  I  would 
 even  add  to  what  he  considers  necessary  for  the  successful 
 study  of  the  question,  and  say,  aided  by  all  the  light  which 
 we  can  derive  from  any  quarter  whatever.  Those  who  have 
 studied  the  Gospel  narratives  have  long  felt  this  to  be  both 
 their  right  and  their  duty  ;  and  that  it  is  so,  is  certainly  no 
 discovery  of  the  author  before  me.  But  while  we  feel  it  to 
 be  a  duty  to  bring  to  bear  the  whole  enlightenment  of 
 modern  times  on  this  subject,  we  think  that  this  can  only 
 be  successfully  done  by  the  use  of  methods  which  aie 
 strictly  logical,  and  in  conformity  with  the  principles  of  the 
 inductive  philosophy;  not  by  the  practice  so  generally 
 adopted  by  a  particular  school  of  critical  historians,  of 
 creating  history  out  of  their  own  subjective  consciousness; 
 nor  by  assuming  that  everything  which  is  possible  is  pro¬ 
 bable,  and  that  everything  which  is  probable,  so  long  as  it 
 
424 
 
 THE  THEORY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 corresponds  to  our  own  ideas  of  what  things  ought  to  have 
 been,  is  a  certainty  on  which  we  may  erect  any  amount  of 
 theories,  however  contradictory  they  may  be  to  all  the 
 realities  of  life.  This  method  has  been  very  extensively 
 employed  by  modern  critics,  and  not  unfrequently  by  the 
 students  of  physical  science,  when  they  attempt  to  deal  with 
 questions  which  affect  the  inner  life  of  Christianity.  This  is 
 not  to  import  modern  enlightenment  but  modern  darkness 
 into  the  study  of  the  subject;  and  instead  of  basing  our 
 beliefs  on  the  firm  foundation  of  scientific  knowledge,  to 
 erect  them  on  the  sandy  foundation  of  conjecture. 
 
 The  following  passage  in  the  Essay  before  me  is  a  dan¬ 
 gerous  approach  to  the  use  of  some  of  these  darkening 
 processes  in  dealing  with  historical  questions  : — 
 
 “  I  ask  whether  past  and  contemporary  history  do  not 
 afford  such  a  body  of  evidence  of  a  prevailing  tendency  to 
 exaggeration  and  distortion  in  the  representation  of  actual 
 occurrences,  in  which  f  supernatural*  agencies  are  supposed 
 to  have  been  concerned,  as  entitles  us,  without  attempting 
 any  detailed  analysis,  to  believe  that  if  we  could  know  what 
 really  did  happen,  it  would  often  prove  to  be  something  very 
 different  from  what  is  narrated.** 
 
 In  one  sense,  these  last  words  are  very  like  a  truism ;  and 
 we  shall  all  egree  with  the  author  that  “if  we  could  know 
 what  really  did  happen,  it  would  often  prove  to  be  some¬ 
 thing  very  different  from  what  is  narrated.**  This  is  not 
 only  true  of  many  miraculous  narratives,  but  of  not  a  few 
 of  the  most  ordinary  events  of  life.  The  disposition  to 
 amplify  and  to  misrepresent  facts,  and  occasionally  even  to 
 invent  them,  is  unfortunately  but  too  prevalent ;  but  our 
 duty  in  all  such  cases  is  carefully  to  sift  out  the  truth  ;  and 
 not  to  take  refuge  in  a  universal  Pyrrhonism. 
 
 The  principle  here  laid  down  by  Dr.  Carpenter  amounts 
 to  this  “  Because  there  has  been  a  prevailing  tendency  to 
 exaggeration  and  distortion  in  the  representation  of  actual 
 occurrences  in  which  supernatural  agencies  are  supposed  to 
 have  been  concerned  ;**  therefore,  “  without  attempting  any 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 425 
 
 detailed  analysis  of  them/*  we  may  deal  with,  them  in  a 
 mass,  and  arrive  at  the  conclusion  “  that,  if  we  knew  what 
 really  did  happen,  it  would  often  prove  something  very 
 different  from  what  is  narrated.”  He  uses  the  word  “  often,” 
 but  it  is  evident  that  what  he  really  had  in  his  mind  was 
 not  “  often”  but  “  always for  if  this  were  only  often  the 
 case,  the  observation  would  be  inapplicable  to  the  point  at 
 issue  ;  because  the  Gospel  miracles,  crowned  as  they  are  by 
 the  Resurrection  of  Our  Lord,  which  rests,  as  we  have  seen, 
 on  the  highest  form  of  historical  attestation,  would  have 
 the  strongest  possible  claim  to  stand  among  the  excepted 
 number.  But  this  wholesale  method  of  dealing  with 
 extensive  classes  of  occurrences  which  vary  greatly  in  the 
 attestation  on  which  they  rest,  without  any  detailed  analysis 
 of  the  particulars,  is  alike  at  variance  with  the  laws  of 
 philosophical  and  historical  investigation.  Whenever  such 
 processes  are  employed,  they  indicate  the  presence,  not  of 
 calm  philosophical  inquiry,  but  of  a  foregone  conclusion. 
 
 What  would  be  said  by  our  men  of  science  if  theologians 
 had  applied  the  same  method  four  or  five  centuries  ago  to 
 every  fresh  discovery  as  it  occurred  ?  I  admit  that 
 unhappily  there  have  been  times  when  theologians  employed 
 the  same  methods  as  those  adopted  by  Hr.  Carpenter  in 
 respect  to  the  miracles  of  the  Gospels  \  and  none  are 
 more  stern  in  their  denunciations  of  them  than  the  writers 
 in  question.  Let  us  suppose,  for  example,  that  when 
 Columbus  returned  from  the  discovery  of  America,  and 
 related  the  wonders  he  had  seen,  he  had  been  met  by  the 
 following  reasoning  :  (( Hoes  not  past  and  contemporary 
 history  afford  such  a  body  of  evidence  of  a  prevalent 
 tendency  to  exaggeration  and  distortion  in  the  representation 
 of  actual  occurrences  of  distant  voyages  and  travels  as 
 entitles  us,  without  any  detailed  analysis  of  the  evidence,  to 
 believe  that  if  we  could  know  what  really  did  happen,  it 
 would  prove  something  very  different  from  what  you  have 
 
 told  us  ?” 
 
 Of  Hr.  Carpenter’s  work  on  “  Mental  Physiology”  I  wish 
 
THE  THEOEY  OF  VISIONS 
 
 to  speak  with  the  greatest  respect.  While  I  am  far  from 
 accepting  all  his  principles  and  conclusions,  I  have  to  thank 
 him  foi  his  successful  analysis  of  many  of  the  abnormal 
 phenomena  of  the  human  mind,  and  above  all  for  the 
 devotion  with  which  he,  almost  alone  of  scientific  men,  has 
 attempted  to  investigate  the  nature  of  the  phenomena  of 
 Spiritualism,  that  greatest  of  all  the  delusions  of  modern 
 times.  Whether  ho  is  right  in  all  his  explanations  of  these 
 phenomena  may  be  still  open  to  dispute;  but  it  is  certainly 
 high  time  that  both  religious  and  scientific  men  should 
 investigate  them  to  their  foundation,  when  we  consider  that 
 the  belief  in  their  objective  reality  has  been  accepted  not 
 only  oy  the  multitude,  but  by  no  inconsiderable  number  of 
 cultivated  minds.  But  on  carefully  considering  the  expla¬ 
 nations  which  he  has  given  of  these  phenomena,  and  of 
 various  other  delusions  of  the  past,  I  could  not  help  feeling 
 that  some  of  them  were  capable  of  being  used  for  the 
 purpose  of  invalidating  the  evidence  of  Our  Lord^s  Resurrec¬ 
 tion,  and  that  they  were  almost  certain  to  produce  this  effect 
 on  those  who  have  not  made  the  whole  subject  a  matter 
 of  careful  inquiry.  I  by  no  means  wish  to  imply  that 
 Dr.  Carpenter,  in  propounding  them,  intended  them  to  be 
 used  for  this  purpose.  But  the  fact  remains  that  they  can 
 be  so  used,  and  that  ordinary  readers  are  very  likely  so  to 
 use  them.  I  have  therefore  felt  it  a  duty  to  point  out,  as  I 
 have  done  in  the  foregoing  Lecture,  that  even  if  they  are 
 tlie  true  solution  of  the  phenomena  in  question,  they  have 
 no  real  bearing  on  the  attestation  of  that  great  miracle, 
 on  the  -objective  reality  of  which  the  Christian  Church 
 is  erected.  With  respect  to  his  observations  on  miracles 
 generally,  Dr.  Carpenter  has  only  shared  the  fate  of  a 
 large  number  of  persons  who  have  entered  on  the  discussion 
 of  questions  vhich  lie  outside  their  own  special  studies; 
 and  I  cannot  help  thinking,  despite  his  own  belief  to  the 
 conti ary,  that  what  he  has  written  on  the  subject  of  miracles 
 has  been  really  due  to  the  unconscious  presence  in  him  of 
 that  form  of  “  prepossession  ”  or  “  fixed  idea  ”  which  is  the 
 
CONSIDERED  AND  REFUTED. 
 
 427 
 
 4 
 
 “  eidolon”  of  scientific  men,  that  miracles  are  so  highly  im¬ 
 probable  that  to  inquire  into  their  evidence  in  any  particular 
 instance  is  a  superfluous  task ;  and  it  is  greatly  to  be  feared 
 that  no  inconsiderable  portion  of  this  prepossession  has  been 
 occasioned  by  his  assuming  the  position  which  has  been 
 taken  by  many  eminent  theologians  as  true,  that  the  idea 
 of  a  miracle  necessarily  involves  either  a  suspension  or  a 
 violation  of  the  laws  of  nature. 
 
428 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OF  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 LECTURE  VIII, 
 
 “  That  which  I  speak,  I  speak  it  not  after  the  Lord,  but  as  it  were 
 foolishly,  in  this  confidence  of  boasting.” — 2  Coe.  xi.  17. 
 
 There  is  no  one  thing  at  the  present  day  occasioning 
 a  greater  amount  of  difficulty  to  a  number  of  inquiring 
 and  deeply  religious  minds  than  some  of  the  theories  that 
 have  been  propounded  respecting  the  nature  and  extent 
 of  the  inspiration  under  the  influence  of  which  the  diffe¬ 
 rent  books  in  the  Bible  have  been  composed.  These 
 theories  have  been  identified  in  the  popular  mind,  and  by 
 not  a  few  students  of  science,  with  the  truth  of  Christianity 
 itself.  I  have  been  informed  by  Christian  men  who  have 
 devoted  themselves  to  the  study  of  physical  science,  that 
 nothing  so  heavily  presses  on  their  faith  as  the  persistency 
 with  which  the  truth  of  revelation  has  been  identified  with 
 these  theories  of  inspiration.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is 
 certain  that  many  of  the  sharpest  attacks  of  unbelief  derive 
 their  chief  strength  from  the  idea  that  Christianity  is 
 pledged  to  their  truth.  On  one  point  I  can  speak  with 
 something  like  authority,  namely,  as  to  the  effect  which 
 they  produce  on  the  unbelief  of  the  working-classes  of  this 
 country.  I  have  during  the  last  six  years  been  present  at 
 discussions  at  which  I  have  heard  not  less  than  one  hundred 
 addresses,  made  by  unbelievers  who  belong  to  this  class  of 
 society,  on  points  which  they  consider  to  involve  the  truth 
 of  Christianity.  Taking  these  objections  as  a  whole,  I  feel 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT.  429 
 
 convinced  that  at  least  two-tliirds  of  them  owe  their  entire 
 plausibility  to  their  identification  of  that  particular  form  of 
 inspiration  which  is  usually  designated  as  verbal  or  mechani¬ 
 cal,  with  a  divine  Revelation.  To  this  theory  they  believe 
 Christianity  to  be  pledged,  and  consequently  that  every 
 objection  which  can  be  urged  against  the  Old  Testament 
 on  the  ground  that  its  statements  or  its  language  are  not 
 scientifically  correct ;  or  that  its  moral  teaching  is  imperfect; 
 or  that  it  attributes  to  God  the  passions  of  humanity;  or 
 against  the  New  Testament,  on  the  ground  that  discre¬ 
 pancies  exist  in  the  Gospels  which  are  difficult  to  reconcile — 
 in  a  word,  that  everything  in  the  Bible  which  is  at  variance 
 with  mechanical  verbal  accuracy  is  fatal  to  its  claim  to  be 
 considered  a  revelation  from  God. 
 
 Nor  are  these  opinions  confined  to  the  classes  in  question, 
 but  with  various  modifications  there  is  also  among  educated 
 men  a  wide-spread  belief  that  Christianity  must  answer  with 
 its  life  for  our  inability  to  reconcile  every  statement  in  Scrip¬ 
 ture  with  the  discoveries  of  modern  science ;  and  not  only 
 so,  but  with  the  popularly  accepted  views  of  what  Scripture 
 affirms.  The  same  thing  is  true  with  respect  to  its  historical 
 statements,  even  to  the  extent  of  maintaining  the  accuracy 
 of  the  commonly  accepted  system  of  Chronology,  and  a  vast 
 number  of  other  points  which  it  is  needless  here  to  particu¬ 
 larize.  The  same  principle  has  been  applied  to  the  New 
 Testament,  and  it  is  hardly  too  much  to  affirm  that  no  in¬ 
 considerable  number  of  the  objections  which  are  popularly 
 urged  against  the  truth  of  the  Gospel  narrative  generally, 
 are  founded  on  the  assumption  that  every  part  of  it  must 
 belong  to  that  class  of  writings  which  rigidly  follow  the 
 sequences  of  time  and  place ;  and  that  any  deviation  from 
 this  is  fatal  to  its  historical  character.  All  this  has  been 
 quietly  assumed  in  the  face  of  the  fact  that  two  of  the 
 Gospels  affirm  in  definite  language  that  they  are  not  histories 
 in  the  strict  sense  of  that  term,  but  memoirs,  compiled  for 
 the  purpose  of  teaching  a  religion;  and  the  other  two,  if 
 they  do  not  assert  this  in  express  words,  plainly  imply  it. 
 
430 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OF  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 On  similar  principles  the  demand  is  frequently  made  to 
 defend  the  entire  morality  of  the  Old  Testament,  or  to 
 renounce  our  Christianity,  as  though  it  were  inconceivable 
 that  God^s  revelations  can  have  been  of  a  progressive  cha¬ 
 racter.  In  fact,  turn  where  we  will,  we  are  confronted  with 
 similar  objections,  most  of  which  owe  their  validity  to  the 
 assumption  that  the  truth  of  Christianity  is  dependent  on 
 our  ability  to  show  that  all  its  facts  and  phenomena  are  con¬ 
 sistent  with  the  theory  that  the  divine  assistance  imparted 
 to  the  writers  of  the  sacred  books  must  have  been  of  such 
 a  character  as  to  guard  them  from  the  possibility  of  error  on 
 all  subjects  alike,  whether  religious,  philosophical,  scientific, 
 or  historical ;  and  that  to  concede  the  possibility  of  error  on 
 any  one  of  these  points,  is  to  surrender  the  claims  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity  to  be  accepted  as  a  Revelation  from  God.  From  this 
 has  resulted,  not  only  an  extensive  diffusion  of  actual  un¬ 
 belief,  but  (what  is  worthy  of  our  deepest  attention)  that  a 
 large  number  of  religious  men  have  been  greatly  shaken  and 
 disquieted  in  their  faith. 
 
 This  evil  has  been  intensified  by  several  of  the  efforts  that 
 have  been  made  to  counteract  it.  Many  zealous  but  injudi¬ 
 cious  defenders  of  Christianity  have  propounded  solutions 
 of  these  difficulties  of  so  inadequate  a  character,  that  they 
 can  be  accepted  by  none  but  those  who  are  pledged  to 
 the  maintenance  of  a  particular  hypothesis.*  The  effect  of 
 
 *  I  adduce  one  of  a  very  extreme  character  from  a  recently  pub¬ 
 lished  work,  as  an  illustration  of  the  danger  of  such  methods.  Common 
 sense  for  eighteen  centuries  has  read  the  account  of  the  Crucifixion  as 
 affirming  that  Our  Lord  was  crucified  between  two  robbers.  A  recent 
 writer,  whom  it  will  be  unnecessary  to  name,  has  made  the  notable 
 discovery  that  He  was  crucified  between  four.  St.  Luke  designates 
 the  persons  crucified  with  Him  as  malefactors  ( Kcticovpyoi )  ;  the  other 
 Evangelists  call  them  robbers  (X rjarai).  This  writer  therefore  thinks 
 it  necessary  to  maintain  that  a  /caicovpyog  and  a  Xtjarr/g  were  crucified 
 on  each  side  of  Him.  This  is,  I  own,  a  very  exaggerated  instance,  but 
 it  will  serve  my  purpose  of  illustrating  the  mischief  which  has  resulted 
 from  propounding  inadequate  solutions  of  difficulties,  for  the  purpose 
 of  bolstering  up  a  favourite  theory.  Unhappily  such  forced  explana- 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT.  43 [ 
 
 j 
 
 solutions  of  this  kind  has  been  to  create  a  great  deal  more 
 unbelief  than  they  have  removed,  producing  as  they  do 
 the  impression  on  unbiassed  minds  that  the  defenders 
 of  Christianity  are  reduced  to  the  utmost  straits  by  the 
 
 objections  which  have  been  urged. 
 
 I  am  deeply  sensible  of  the  responsibility  attending  any 
 attempt  to  handle  this  question.  I  feel  however  that  its 
 importance  is  so  great  in  reference  to  the  present  aspects 
 both  of  scientific  and  popular  thought,  that  to  pass  it  over 
 in  silence  would  be  an  evasion  of  a  plain  duty.  I  by  no 
 means  wish  to  affirm  that  all  the  difficulties  which  are 
 agitating  men’s  minds  at  the  present  day  have  originated 
 in  the  supposed  necessity  of  maintaining  a  particular  theory 
 of  inspiration.  Many  of  them  are  closely  connected  with 
 questions  of  Theism,  and  in  the  higher  regions  of  thought 
 we  are  undoubtedly  approaching  a  great  crisis  between  the 
 principles  of  Atheism  and  Pantheism  on  the  one  side,  and 
 those  of  Theism  on  the  other.  Yet  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
 no  small  number  of  them  have  arisen  from  the  cause  I  have 
 mentioned,  and  from  that  which  is  closely  allied  to  it,  the 
 
 tions  have  not  been  adopted  only  by  persons  who  have  to  maintain  a 
 particular  theory  of  Inspiration.  We  have  a  remarkable  instance  of 
 one  in  Paley,  who  was  quite  free  from  prejudices  of  this  description, 
 in  his  attempt  to  solve  the  difficulty  about  Cyrenius  and  the  taxing. 
 No  scholar  at  the  present  day  will  for  a  moment  accept  his  translation 
 of  avrr)  r)  cnroypct<pt)  tt piort]  eytvero  riyenovtvovrog  rrjg  Zvpiag  Kvprjviov, 
 “  This  was  the  first  assessment  (or  enrolment)  of  Cyrenius,  Governor 
 of  Syria the  words  “  Governor  of  Syria”  being  used  after  the  name 
 of  Cyrenius  as  an  addition  or  title,  just  in  the  same  manner  as  an 
 inaccurate  modern  writer  might  have  said  that  a  particular  act  was 
 done  by  “  Governor  Hastings,”  although  in  truth  it  had  been  done  by 
 him  before  he  was  advanced  to  the  station  from  which  he  received  the 
 name  of  “Governor.”  The  simple  fact  is  that  the  words  rjyt/xovsvovTog 
 rrjg  Zvpiag  Kvprjvlov  never  could  have  borne  the  meaning  which  Paley 
 has  here  ascribed  to  them.  Whether  St.  Luke  was  right  or  wrong 
 in  his  statement  as  to  the  fact,  there  is  only  one  possible  interpretation 
 of  his  words,  namely,  “while  Cyrenius  was  Governor  of  Syria.  ’  Such 
 forced  explanations  are  far  more  dangerous  than  a  candid  admission 
 of  a  difficulty. 
 
432 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OE  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 desire  of  maintaining  the  traditionary  interpretations  of 
 certain  passages  in  the  Bible  as  the  only  admissible  ones. 
 This  is  unquestionably  the  case  with  many  of  the  difficulties 
 which  have  been  suggested  by  modern  science,  of  which  no 
 small  number  would  disappear  if  the  popular  theories  on 
 this  subject  were  abandoned  for  one  which  is  strictly  in 
 conformity  with  the  facts  and  phenomena  of  the  Bible 
 itself.  If,  for  example,  we  assume  that  inspiration  was  not 
 a  general  but  a  functional  endowment,  and  consequently 
 limited  to  subjects  in  which  religion  is  directly  involved, 
 and  that  in  those  which  stand  outside  it  the  writers  of  the 
 different  books  in  the  Bible  were  left  to  the  free  use  of 
 their  ordinary  faculties,  a  large  number  of  the  objections 
 which  are  popularly  urged  against  Revelation  from  the 
 stand-point  of  physical  science  and  modern  criticism  would 
 become  simply  nugatory. 
 
 I  am  aware  that  it  has  been  urged  that  it  is  impossible  to 
 separate  the  religious  element  in  the  Bible  from  the  various 
 other  subjects  that  are  closely  interwoven  with  it,  and 
 consequently  that  the  accuracy  of  all  must  stand  or  fall 
 together.  So  far,  however,  is  it  from  being  the  fact  that 
 there  is  any  real  difficulty  in  the  idea  that  God  may  have 
 seen  good  to  enlighten  particular  men  on  religious  subjects 
 and  to  leave  them  on  others  to  their  own  unassisted  powers, 
 that  it  is  strictly  analogous  to  the  mode  in  which  He  has 
 communicated  to  us  our  ordinary  knowledge,  and  therefore 
 it  affords  a  strong  presumption  that  He  has  adopted  the 
 same  course  in  communicating  a  Revelation.  Thus  not  only 
 has  each  man  special  mental  powers  which  qualify  him  for 
 grappling  with  particular  subjects,  and  leave  him  on  others 
 in  comparative  ignorance ;  but  the  information  conveyed  to 
 us  by  any  one  of  our  senses  conveys  to  us  no  knowledge  on 
 subjects  which  belong  to  the  special  function  of  another. 
 This  is  an  unquestionable  truth,  although  we  are  not  always 
 conscious  of  it  in  our  actual  experience,  as,  for  example,  in 
 the  case  of  vision.  In  the  fully  educated  state  of  this  faculty 
 we  judge  of  distance  instinctively;  though  the  power  to  do 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT.  433 
 
 so  is  not  any  portion  of  our  original  sense  of  sight,  but  is 
 derived  from  the  combination  of  vision  with  the  sense  of 
 touch.  Wliile  in  the  present  condition  of  our  consciousness 
 the  two  acts  are  undistinguishable,  we  know  that  the  func¬ 
 tion  of  the  eye  itself  is  strictly  limited  to  the  perception  of 
 coloured  objects  ;  and  that  in  the  proper  subject-matter  of 
 the  other  senses  it  leaves  us  destitute  of  information.*  In 
 this  respect  then  the  idea  of  special  functional  enlightenment 
 is  analogous  to  the  mode  of  the  divine  acting  in  nature ;  and 
 the  difficulties  which  it  involves  are  precisely  of  the  same 
 kind  as  those  which  we  experience  as  to  the  source  of  some 
 of  the  perceptions  of  our  senses.  If  therefore  God  has 
 adopted  the  same  mode  of  communicating  supernatural  and 
 natural  knowledge ;  and  consequently,  if  inspiration  did  not 
 confer  a  general  enlightenment  on  every  subject  which  came 
 within  the  mental  horizon  of  the  inspired  man,  but  only  a 
 functional  one,  we  are  at  once  freed  from  a  host  of  difficulties 
 which  are  at  this  moment  grievously  harassing  no  inconsider¬ 
 able  number  of  inquiring  minds,  and  which  form  the  armoury 
 from  which  many  of  the  weapons  employed  in  the  attack  on 
 Christianity  are  drawn. 
 
 In  considering  the  present  aspect  of  the  controversy 
 between  Science  and  Revelation,  it  is  of  the  highest  im¬ 
 portance  that  we  should  discern  clearly  what  constitutes  the 
 real  source  of  our  danger.  It  has  arisen  in  no  small  degree 
 from  theologians  under  the  influence  of  particular  theories 
 of  inspiration  having  put  in  claims  to  occupy  provinces  of 
 
 *  That  the  human  eye  only  acquires  the  faculty  of  discriminating 
 distance  by  means  of  a  gradual  education  of  the  organ  is  proved  not 
 only  by  the  fact  that  infants  are  apparently  unable  to  discriminate 
 distance  until  some  time  after  birth,  but  also  by  the  unquestionable 
 fact  that  grown  persons  who  have  been  blind  from  their  birth  and  in 
 after  life  obtained  the  use  of  their  eyes,  are  at  first  devoid  of  all  per¬ 
 ception  of  distance,  which  they  only  gradually  acquire  by  the  aid  of 
 experience  derived  from  the  other  senses.  Yet  in  the  fully  educated 
 state  of  the  faculty  the  perception  of  distance  is  not  only  united  with 
 that  of  vision,  but  we  are  incapable  in  consciousness  of  separating  the 
 one  from  the  other 
 
 28 
 
434  POPULAR  THEORIES  OP  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 thought  to  which  theology  had  no  legitimate  right.  That 
 this  has  been  the  case  in  past  times  is  undeniable.  The 
 story  of  Galileo  is  a  striking  case  in  point.  Theologians  of 
 his  day  were  firmly  persuaded  that  to  assert  that  the  earth 
 moved  round  the  sun,  and  not  the  sun  round  the  earth,  and 
 the  earth  on  its  axis,  was  to  contradict  the  Bible.  We  now 
 know  that  what  it  really  contradicted  was  not  the  Bible 
 itself,  but  the  Bible  interpreted  in  accordance  with  a  par¬ 
 ticular  theory  of  inspiration.  The  result  has  been  that 
 theology  has  had  to  retreat  from  an  untenable  position. 
 But  to  come  nearer  to  our  own  times.  Theologians  did  not 
 take  warning  by  this  great  disaster,  and  proceed  to  inquire 
 whether  the  principles  which  led  them  into  it  rested  on  an 
 adequate  foundation,  but  clung  as  closely  as  possible  to  their 
 former  theories.  The  science  of  geology  has  come  into 
 existence  almost  in  our  day.  Again  was  it  affirmed  that 
 this  new  science  contradicted  the  Bible ;  and  consequently 
 it  was  denounced  as  anti-Christian.  Many  of  us  can  well 
 remember  the  time  when  a  great  number  of  things  now 
 held  as  truths  by  most  of  those  whom  I  am  addressing, 
 would  have  been  denounced  as  of  the  most  dangerous 
 character.  The  positions  once  taken  on  this  subject  are 
 sufficiently  exemplified  in  the  earliest  editions  of  Hartwell 
 Horne's  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Bible ,  which  some 
 of  us  used  almost  as  a  text -book  ;  and  yet  they  were  liberal 
 compared  with  some  of  the  popular  views  of  their  day. 
 What  has  been  the  result  ?  Hew  ground  has  had  to  be 
 occupied;  old  theories  have  had  to  be  modified,  and  we 
 have  now  arrived  at  the  conclusion  that  the  defence  of  the 
 former  positions  was  not  vital  to  Christianity. 
 
 Nor  are  indications  wanting  that  similar  consequences 
 are  likely  to  ensue  from  other  subjects  of  modern  scientific 
 investigation ;  to  instance  one  of  them — the  antiquity  of 
 man.  In  using  this  term,  I  am  not  referring  to  his  enor¬ 
 mous  antiquity  as  deduced  from  his  supposed  existence  in 
 the  preglacial  period;  I  allude  to  the  evidences  furnished 
 by  the  early  history  of  civilization,  and  by  the  science  of 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT.  435 
 
 language,  in  opposition  to  the  belief  which  has  been  very 
 generally  held  by  theologians,  that  the  Bible  is  pledged  to 
 a  definite  chronology ;  and  that  the  supposition  that  the 
 interval  which  separates  us  from  the  first  man  can  exceed 
 seven  thousand  years  is  inconsistent  with  its  claim  to  be 
 accepted  as  a  divine  revelation. 
 
 I  by  no  means  wish  to  imply  that  scientific  men  in  their 
 controversies  with  theologians  have  been  always  in  the  right. 
 On  the  contrary  it  has  recently  been  made  painfully  evident 
 that  no  inconsiderable  number  of  them,  when  they  pass 
 beyond  the  special  subjects  of  their  studies,  have  propounded 
 theories  which  rest  on  a  very  slender  basis  of  fact,  and 
 endeavoured  to  impart  to  a  number  of  crude  speculations 
 the  justly  earned  weight  of  their  own  scientific  reputations.* 
 Still  it  is  an  undeniable  fact  that  science  steadily  Ddvances  \ 
 and  that  in  so  doing,  it  has  compelled  the  abandonment  of 
 positions  which  were  once  held  to  be  essential  to  the  defence 
 of  Revelation ;  and  it  is  no  less  clear  that  other  similar  posi¬ 
 tions  are  in  considerable  danger.  It  cannot  be  denied  that 
 the  recurrence  of  retreats  of  this  description  is  a  thing  which 
 in  the  interests  of  religion  is  pre-eminently  undesirable,  and 
 is  exercising  the  most  injurious  influences  at  the  present 
 moment.  Scientific  men  who  are  hostile  to  revealed  religion 
 are  never  wearied  with  taunting  us  with  the  abandonment 
 of  positions  which  theologians  once  declared  to  be  essential 
 
 *  We  have  a  remarkable  instance  of  this  in  Mr.  Darwin's  work 
 entitled  The  Descent  of  Man,  in  which  he  attempts  to  show  how 
 the  moral  nature  of  man  may  have  been  produced  by  a  process  of 
 slow  and  gradual  evolution  out  of  the  instincts  of  the  lower  animals. 
 Great  as  are  his  attainments  as  a  naturalist,  this  work  shows  clearly 
 that  he  has  not  mastered  even  the  elements  of  the  science  of  man’s 
 spiritual  and  moral  nature.  It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  so  many 
 scientific  men,  while  they  are  loud  in  their  denunciation  of  the 
 dogmatism  of  theologians  of  past  ages,  imitate  them  in  this  worst 
 aspect  of  their  conduct  in  giving  utterance  to  dogmatical  assertions 
 on  subjects  which  lie  outside  the  limits  of  their  special  investigations. 
 Such  dogmatism  seems  to  be  the  original  sin  of  the  human  intellect. 
 
 28* 
 
436  TOPULAR  THEORIES  OF  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 to  the  Christian  faith  ;  and  in  consequence  they  venture  to 
 predict  our  ultimate  expulsion  from  our  own  proper  terri¬ 
 tories.  What  then  is  the  plain  duty  of  theologians  under 
 these  circumstances  ?  I  answer,  thoroughly  to  investigate 
 the  principles  which  have  led  to  the  occupation  of  positions 
 which  have  thus  proved  to  he  untenable,  and  to  abandon 
 those  which  rest  on  no  adequate  foundation. 
 
 What  then,  is  the  cause,  as  far  as  theologians  are  con¬ 
 cerned,  of  this  unhappy  and  dangerous  warfare  which  is 
 now  proving  so  trying  to  the  religious  faith  of  multitudes  ? 
 To  this  question  there  can  be  only  one  answer.  Theologians 
 have  claimed  for  theology  departments  of  thought  which 
 form  no  legitimate  portion  of  its  domains,  but  which  really 
 belong  to  the  students  of  science.  This  course  they  have 
 been  led  to  adopt  under  the  influence  of  certain  a  priori 
 theories  respecting  the  nature  and  extent  of  inspiration,  and 
 to  adopt  modes  of  interpretation,  the  inevitable  result  of 
 which  has  been  to  bring  theology  into  collision  with  the 
 progress  of  modern  thought.  My  position  is,  that  this  mode 
 of  determining  on  mere  abstract  principles  what  inspira¬ 
 tion  must  have  been,  and  then  assuming  that  it  actually 
 has  been  so,  is  utterly  faulty  and  is  precisely  identical  with 
 those  methods  of  studying  physical  science  which  for  so 
 many  ages  rendered  it  barren  of  result.  I  contend  that  the 
 only  mode  of  arriving  at  any  theory  of  inspiration  which 
 will  rest  on  a  foundation  of  reality,  is  not  by  assuming  what 
 inspiration  must  have  been,  but  by  inquiring  what  it  actually 
 has  been ;  or  in  other  words,  by  founding  it  on  a  rigid 
 induction  of  the  facts  and  phenomena  of  the  Bible. 
 
 In  taking  this  ground  I  shall  at  once  proceed  to  shelter 
 myself  behind  the  authority  of  one  whose  name  will  be 
 heard  with  reverence  in  this  place,  the  greatest  of  all  English 
 theologians,  Bishop  Butler.  The  positions  laid  down  by 
 him  in  Chapter  III,  Part  II.  of  his  Analogy  seem  to  me  to 
 be  quite  adequate  to  meet  all  our  wants  at  the  present  day. 
 When  we  consider  that  a  great  portion  of  our  present  scien- 
 
TIIlJR  relation  to  scientific  thought. 
 
 437 
 
 tific  arid  critical  difficulties  were  unknown  wlieii  lie  composed 
 liis  great  work,  the  principles  which  he  has  enunciated  on 
 this  subject  are  a  striking  proof  of  his  profound  insight 
 into  the  realities  of  things.  It  may  be  said  of  Butler,  as 
 St.  Paul  said  of  Luke :  “  His  praise  is  in  the  Gospel  in  all  the 
 Churches,”  yet  it  is  surprising  to  what  a  degree  his  positions 
 have  been  disregarded  even  by  his  professed  disciples.  If 
 his  warning  voice  had  been  heeded,  we  should  have  been 
 spared  much  of  that  bitter  contest  in  which  theology  has 
 been  involved  with  modern  science.  Yet  by  the  eager 
 defenders  of  popular  theories  of  inspiration  against  the 
 progress  of  scientific  thought,  the  principles  which  were 
 laid  down  more  than  a  century  ago  by  the  greatest  defender 
 of  Christianity,  whose  orthodoxy  none  have  ever  ventured 
 to  impeach,  are  not  even  referred  to  in  this  controversy; 
 and  they  still  persist  in  affirming  to  be  vital  to  Christianity, 
 what  he  has  shown  to  be  unessential  to  its  defence.  The 
 words  of  the  old  Roman  Satirist  may  be  almost  quoted  here, 
 “  laudatur  et  alget.” 
 
 Stated  generally,  the  position  taken  by  Butler  amounts 
 to  a  denial  of  the  validity  of  all  theories  of  inspiration  which 
 are  erected  on  merely  a  priori  principles,  and  to  the 
 affirmation  that  the  only  firm  foundation  on  which  to  erect 
 any  theory  on  this  subject  is  the  careful  application  of  the 
 principle  of  induction.  But  it  will  be  desirable  that  I  should 
 briefly  state  his  special  positions.  His  text  is  subjoined  in 
 a  note.* 
 
 *  “  Now  if  the  natural  and  revealed  dispensations  of  things  are  both 
 from  God,  if  they  coincide  with  each  other,  and  together  make  up  one 
 scheme  of  providence,  our  being  incompetent  judges  of  the  one,  must 
 render  it  credible  that  we  may  be  also  incompetent  judges  of  the 
 other.  Since  upon  experience  the  acknowledged  constitution  and 
 course  of  nature  is  found  to  be  greatly  different  from  what  before 
 experience  would  have  been  expected,  and  such  as  men  fancy  there 
 lie  great  objections  against,  this  renders  it  beforehand  highly  credible, 
 that  they  may  find  the  revealed  dispensation  likewise,  if  they  judge  of 
 it  as  they  do  of  the  constitution  of  nature,  very  different  from  expec¬ 
 tations  formed  beforehand  ;  and  liable  in  appearance  to  great  objec- 
 
438 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OP  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 1.  As  a  priori  principles  are  inadequate  guides  to  the 
 knowledge  of  the  realities  of  the  Universe  ;  and  as  they  lead 
 
 tions;  objections  against  the  scheme  itself,  and  against  the  degrees  and 
 manners  of  the  miraculous  interpositions  by  which  it  was  attested  and 
 carried  on.  .  .  .  These  observations,  relating  to  the  whole  of  Christianity, 
 are  applicable  to  inspiration  in  particular.  As  we  are  in  no  sort  judges 
 beforehand,  by  what  laws  or  rules,  in  what  degree,  or  by  what  means, 
 it  were  to  have  been  expected  that  G-od  would  naturally  instruct  us ; 
 so  upon  supposition  of  His  affording  us  light  and  instruction  by  reve¬ 
 lation,  additional  to  what  He  has  afforded  us  by  reason  or  experience, 
 we  are  in  no  sort  judges  by  what  methods,  or  in  what  proportion 
 it  were  to  be  expected  that  this  supernatural  light  and  instruction 
 would  be  afforded  us.  We  know  not  beforehand  what  degree  or  kind 
 of  natural  information  it  were  to  be  expected  that  God  would  afford 
 men,  each  by  his  own  reason  and  experience  ;  nor  how  far  He  would 
 enable,  and  effectually  dispose  them  to  communicate  it,  whatever  it 
 should  be,  to  each  other ;  nor  whether  the  evidence  of  it  would  be 
 certain,  highly  probable,  or  doubtful ;  nor  whether  it  would  be  given 
 with  equal  clearness  and  conviction  to  all.  Nor  could  we  guess,  on 
 any  good  ground  I  mean,  whether  natural  knowledge,  or  even  the 
 faculty  itself  by  which  we  are  capable  of  attaining  it,  reason,  would 
 be  given  us  at  once  or  gradually.  In  like  manner  we  are  wholly 
 ignorant  what  degree  of  new  knowledge  it  were  to  be  expected  God 
 would  give  mankind  by  revelation,  upon  supposition  of  His  affording 
 one ;  or  how  far,  or  in  what  way  He  would  interpose  miraculously  to 
 qualify  them  to  whom  He  should  originally  make  the  revelation,  for 
 communicating  the  knowledge  given  by  it;  and  to  secure  their  doing 
 it  to  the  age  in  which  they  should  live,  and  to  secure  its  being  trans¬ 
 mitted  to  posterity.  We  are. equally  ignorant  whether  the  evidence 
 of  it  would  be  certain,  highly  probable,  or  doubtful ;  or  whether  all 
 that  should  have  any  instruction  from  it,  and  any  degree  of  evidence 
 of  its  truth,  would  have  the  same,  or  whether  the  scheme  would  be 
 revealed  at  once,  or  gradually  unfolded.  Nay,  we  are  not  in  any  sort 
 able  to  judge  whether  the  revelation  would  have  been  committed  to 
 writing,  or  left  to  be  handed  down,  and  consequently  corrupted  by 
 verbal  tradition  ;  and  at  length  sunk  under  it,  if  mankind  so  pleased, 
 and  during  such  time  as  they  are  permitted,  as  they  evidently  are,  to 
 act  as  they  will. 
 
 “  But  it  may  be  said,  that  a  revelation,  in  some  of  the  above  cir¬ 
 cumstances,  one,  for  instance,  which  was  not  committed  to  writing, 
 and  thus  secured  against  the  danger  of  corruption,  would  not  have 
 answered  its  purpose.  I  ask,  what  purpose  P  It  would  not  have 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT. 
 
 439 
 
 us,  when  we  yield  ourselves  to  their  guidance,  to  erroneous 
 views  of  its  actual  constitution,  so  they  must  be  equally 
 invalid  guides  as  to  what  must  be  the  contents  of  a  revela¬ 
 tion,  or  the  mode  of  its  communication. 
 
 2.  They  afford  us  no  reliable  information  respecting  the 
 amount  of  knowledge  which  God  would  be  pleased  to  com¬ 
 municate  in  any  given  revelation,  supposing  that  it  has  been 
 His  pleasure  to  impart  one. 
 
 3.  We  are  equally  unable  to  determine  what  method  He 
 would  employ  in  the  communication  of  such  knowledge ; 
 and  by  consequence  we  are  ignorant  of  the  nature  and 
 extent  of  the  divine  assistance  which  would  be  imparted  to 
 those  who  would  be  employed  in  its  communication.  Of 
 only  one  thing  we  have  a  priori  certainty,  that  if  God  gives 
 a  revelation,  it  will  realize  the  divine  purposes  in  giving  one, 
 but  the  precise  nature  of  those  purposes  we  can  only  learn 
 from  the  contents  of  the  revelation  itself. 
 
 4.  We  have  no  means  of  determining  in  what  degree  or 
 proportion  supernatural  illumination  would  be  afforded  ;  and 
 consequently,  our  a  priori  knowledge  fails  to  enable  us  to 
 determine  to  what  extent  an  element  of  human  frailty  would 
 be  permitted  to  underlie  the  record  of  that  revelation. 
 
 answered  all  the  purposes  it  has  now  answered ;  and  in  the  same 
 degree  ;  hut  it  would  have  answered  others,  or  the  same,  in  different 
 degrees.  And  which  of  those  were  the  purposes  of  God,  and  best 
 fell  in  with  His  general  government,  we  could  not  at  all  have  deter¬ 
 mined  beforehand . And  thus  we  see  that  the  only  question 
 
 concerning  the  truth  of  Christianity  is,  whether  it  is  a  real  revela¬ 
 tion;  not  whether  it  is  attended  with  every  circumstance  which  we 
 should  look  for.  And  concerning  the  authority  of  Scripture,  whether 
 it  is  what  it  claims  to  be,  not  whether  it  be  a  book  of  such  a  sort 
 and  so  promulgated  as  weak  men  are  apt  to  fancy  a  book  containing 
 a  divine  revelation  should.  And  therefore  neither  obscurity,  nor 
 seeming  inaccuracy  of  style,  nor  various  readings,  nor  early  disputes 
 about  the  authors  of  particular  parts,  nor  any  other  things  of  the  like 
 kind,  though  they  had  been  much  more  considerable  in  degree  than 
 the}’-  are,  could  overthrow  the  authority  of  Scripture,  unless  the 
 prophets,  apostles,  or  Our  Lord,  had  promised  that  the  book  con- 
 ta'ning  the  divine  revelation  should  be  secure  from  these  things.” 
 
440 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OP  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 5.  Equally  invalid  is  our  a  priori  knowledge  to  determine 
 how  far,  or  in  what  way,  “  God  would  interpose  miraculously 
 to  qualify  those  to  whom  He  should  impart  a  revelation,  for 
 communicating  the  knowledge  of  it  to  others  j  or  to  insure 
 their  transmission  of  it  to  posterity.” 
 
 6.  We  are  equally  ignorant,  if  a  revelation  were  commu¬ 
 nicated,  whether  the  record  of  it  would  be  committed  to 
 writing,  or  left  to  be  handed  down,  and  consequently, 
 
 corrupted  by  verbal  tradition,  and  at  length  sink  under 
 it,  if  mankind  so  pleased.” 
 
 7.  We  are  equally  ignorant  as  to  the  degree  in  which 
 
 obscurity,  or  inaccuracy  of  style,  or  various  readings,  or 
 
 disputes  about  the  authors  of  particular  parts  of  it,  or  any 
 other  thing  of  the  like  kind,”  would  become  mixed  up  with 
 its  contents  ;  and  consequently  we  have  no  right  to  assume 
 that  the  presence  of  such  things  is  inconsistent  with  the  idea 
 that  the  book  which  contains  them,  contains  also  the  record 
 of  a  divine  revelation. 
 
 8.  If  it  be  objected,  that  the  presence  of  such  imperfec¬ 
 tions  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  purpose  of  God  in 
 communicating  a  revelation,  the  answer  is,  that  we  have 
 no  knowledge  of  what  are  the  divine  purposes,  beyond 
 the  facts  of  a  given  revelation ;  and  that  such  facts  (be  they 
 what  they  may)  are  certain  to  be  consistent  with  those 
 purposes.  Hence  the  only  mode  of  forming  any  theory  as 
 to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  inspiration  that  guided  the 
 human  authors  of  the  Bible,  must  be  by  a  careful  investi¬ 
 gation  of  its  contents. 
 
 9.  The  only  mode  in  which  our  knowledge  of  the  contents 
 of  a  revelation  can  receive  enlargement  is,  by  a  careful 
 study  of  its  facts  and  phenomena,  in  precisely  the  same 
 way  as  we  acquire  increased  knowledge  of  the  Universe ; 
 and  there  is  no  valid  a  priori  objection  against  the  possibility 
 of  such  increase  in  knowledge. 
 
 Such  are  the  principles  laid  down  by  this  profound 
 thinker  more  than  a  century  ago,  as  to  our  inability  to 
 determine  on  mere  abstract  principles  the  extent  of  know- 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT. 
 
 441 
 
 ledge  which  would  be  communicated  in  a  revelation,  the 
 degree  of  divine  assistance  -which  must  be  vouchsafed  to 
 those  through  whom  it  is  communicated,  or  the  extent  to 
 which  an  element  of  human  imperfection  would  be  allowed 
 to  enter  into  its  record.  These  principles,  if  they  are  correct, 
 and  if  they  had  been  firmly  adhered  to,  would  not  only  have 
 been  sufficient  to  have  guarded  theologians  from  the  danger 
 of  taking  many  false  positions,  which  they  have  since  had 
 to  abandon,  but  are  adequate  to  meet  nearly  all  the 
 difficulties  which  have  been  suggested  by  the  progress 
 of  scientific  and  critical  investigation.  Would  that  theo¬ 
 logians  had  taken  their  ground  in  conformity  with  his 
 cautious  foresight ! 
 
 The  want  of  attention  which  the  principles  thus  laid  down 
 by  the  great  defender  of  revealed  religion  receive  at  the 
 present  day  is  not  a  little  remarkable.  Eager  combatants 
 rush  into  the  field  in  total  disregard  of  them ;  and  while 
 there  is  scarcely  a  writer  on  any  theological  question  who 
 has  not  been  proud  to  refer  to  the  name  of  Butler,  when¬ 
 ever  it  can  be  quoted  in  his  favour,  yet  on  this  subject  his 
 principles,  though  bearing  in  the  closest  manner  on  the 
 theological  controversies  of  the  present  day,  are  simply 
 ignored,  while  no  one  ventures  openly  to  impugn  them. 
 But  if  they  can  be  proved  to  be  unsound,  surely  some  voice 
 ought  to  have  been  raised  to  warn  the  student  of  his  danger. 
 The  time  was  when  the  writings  of  the  great  Bishop  were 
 profoundly  studied  in  this  University;  and  although  con¬ 
 troversies  have  since  assumed  an  atheistic  or  pantheistic, 
 rather  than  a  theistic  form,  may  the  day  be  far  off  when 
 they  will  cease  to  be  subjects  of  deep  interest  to  the  student. 
 Probably  every  Bishop  on  the  Bench  has  during  the  present 
 century  recommended  to  candidates  for  holy  orders  the 
 study  of  The  Analogy  ;  yet  surely  it  would  have  been  only 
 right,  in  the  case  of  a  work  which  has  been  thus  widely 
 accepted  by  Christians  of  all  denominations,  either  that 
 positions  of  such  importance  should  be  fully  accepted,  or 
 the  inaccuracy  of  his  reasonings,  if  such  there  be,  pointed 
 
442 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OF  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 out.  But  neither  has  been  done,  and  ardent  disputants  are 
 rushing  into  the  contest,  and  proclaiming  that  unless  their 
 own  particular  theories  of  inspiration  are  accepted,  the  truth 
 of  Christianity  is  imperilled.  Need  we  wonder  if  scientific 
 men  have  taken  them  at  their  word  ? 
 
 If  Butler's  principles  are  correct  (and  I  own  that  I  cor¬ 
 dially  accept  them),  all  our  current  theories  of  inspiration 
 err  in  being  based  on  a  priori  assumptions  or  on  expressions 
 found  in  particular  books,  as  to  the  degree  of  divine  assist¬ 
 ance  afforded  to  the  prophets  and  Apostles  on  special 
 occasions,  and  applied  to  Scripture  as  a  whole,  instead 
 of  on  a  careful  induction  of  the  facts  and  phenomena  of  the 
 Bible.  A  brief  statement  of  their  nature  will  make  this 
 plain. 
 
 1,  The  verbal  and  mechanical  theories  and  their  various 
 modifications.  I  shall  treat  these  two  theories  as  one, 
 because  except  as  to  some  minute  points  of  difference  they 
 are  practically  the  same. 
 
 This  theory,  though  now  scarcely  held  by  any  theologian 
 of  note,  embodies  in  some  of  its  modifications  most  of  the 
 popular  views  on  the  subject.  Of  all  the  theories  of 
 inspiration  this  is  the  most  thoroughgoing*  and  consistent. 
 Yet  so  completely  is  it  at  issue  with  the  facts  and  phenomena 
 of  the  Bible  that  few  of  its  advocates  venture  to  carry  it  out 
 with  logical  consistency.*  Its  central  idea  is  the  denial  of 
 
 *  There  is  one  point  at  which  the  most  rigid  adherents  of  this  theory 
 hesitate  to  carry  it  out  to  its  logical  consequences.  Yet  it  is  evident 
 that  if  it  has  any  value  at  all,  it  is  impossible  to  stop  where  they  do. 
 If  the  words  of  Scripture  are  throughout  the  dictation  of  the  Divine 
 Spirit,  the  style  of  its  different  books  must  be  His  style,  and  not  that 
 of  their  human  authors.  This  would  render  it  necessary  to  assume 
 that  their  style  is  the  most  perfect  and  perspicuous  possible — for 
 obscurity  of  style  is  not  only  a  human  imperfection  but  a  very  fruitful 
 source  of  error— and  that  the  sacred  books,  as  they  issued  from  their 
 writers  hands,  must  have  been  free  alike  from  errors  in  grammar  and 
 orthography.  If  this  was  not  the  case,  it  would  involve  the  admission 
 of  some  human  element  of  imperfection  (it  may  be  a  very  small  one, 
 but  still  it  is  a  real  one)  into  the  sacred  volume,  the  very  idea,  in  fact, 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT.  443 
 
 4 
 
 tliQ  presence  of  any  human  element  in  tlie  Bible.  The  sacred 
 writers  were  in  fact  the  mere  penmen  of  the  Divine  Spirit, 
 and  accordingly  not  only  ought  no  trace  of  human  imperfec¬ 
 tion  to  exist  in  the  book,  but  its  statements  on  every  point, 
 whether  of  philosophy,  science,  or  history,  must  be  infallibly 
 correct.  Such  a  theory,  I  need  not  say,  exposes  us  at  every 
 point  to  the  attacks  of  unbelief,  and  constitutes  one  of  the 
 most  dangerous  weapons  which  it  brings  to  bear  on  the 
 popular  mind. 
 
 2.  The  dynamical  theory.  This  theory  is,  I  believe,  held 
 almost  exclusively  by  professed  theologians,  being  one  diffi¬ 
 cult  of  comprehension  to  ordinary  men.  One  of  its  chief 
 objects  is  to  recognize  that  human  element  in  the  Bible,  the 
 presence  of  which  is  too  obvious  to  be  denied.  Yet  it 
 assumes  that  the  human  element  is  so  completely  inter¬ 
 penetrated  by  the  divine,  that  the  two  become  iu separably 
 
 which  this  theory  has  been  invented  for  the  purpose  of  excluding. 
 Here,  however,  the  facts  of  the  Bible  are  too  palpable  for  the  most 
 thoroughgoing  of  systematizers.  No  one  can  pretend  that  it  does  not 
 contain  obscurities  of  expression  ;  and  in  fact  every  one  who  reads  its 
 pages  instinctively  recognizes  the  modes  of  thought  of  its  different 
 authors.  Those  who  hold  this  theory  therefore  shrink  from  carrying 
 it  out  to  its  logical  conclusions.  In  this  respect  Mahomet  was  more 
 consistent.  He  held  a  theory  of  inspiration  analogous  to  the  verbal 
 and  mechanical  one ;  and  therefore  he  appeals  to  the  perfection  of  his 
 style  as  a  proof  of  its  divine  origin,  and  challenges  angels  and  men  to 
 produce  its  like.  The  whole  theory  is,  however,  so  completely  at 
 variance  with  the  facts  and  phenomena  of  the  Bible  as  to  constitute 
 a  striking  proof  of  the  length  to  which  even  intelligent  men  will  go 
 under  the  influence  of  a  'priori  prepossessions.  In  fact,  with  the 
 Gospels,  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  Pauline  Epistles  in  our 
 hands,  it  is  simply  marvellous  that  such  a  theory  should  ever  have 
 been  propounded ;  and  still  more  so,  that  it  should  have  been  so 
 extensively  accepted.  It  forms  one  of  the  many  proofs  of  the  eager¬ 
 ness  with  which  men  seek  for  an  infallible  guidance  which  God  has 
 denied  them,  instead  of  pursuing  truth  by  the  aid  of  those  faculties 
 which  He  has  imparted  to  them.  Thus  one  party  hope  to  find  such 
 guidance  by  assuming  the  infallibility  of  a  man  ;  and  the  opposite 
 party  by  assuming  that  of  a  book. 
 
444 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OP  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 united.*  It  will  be  seen  at  once  tbat  tbis  theory  is  of  a 
 purely  a  priori  character,  and  it  will  be  unnecessary  to 
 speak  further  of  it  here,  as  the  influence  which  it  exerts 
 on  present  controversies  is  very  inconsiderable. 
 
 3.  The  theory  of  plenary  inspiration.  Not  only  is  this 
 theory  also  based  on  purely  a  priori  principles,  but  its 
 vagueness  is  its  sufficient  condemnation.  It  defines  nothing. 
 Plenary  inspiration  means  full  inspiration,  but  this  leaves 
 entirely  open  the  question,  What  constitutes  full  inspira¬ 
 tion  ?  To  answer  this,  we  must  ascertain  what  were  the 
 divine  purposes  in  communicating  it;  and  this,  as  Butler 
 tells  us,  can  be  known  on  no  cl  priori  principle.  To  say  that 
 if  God  communicates  supernatural  assistance  He  will  realize 
 His  own  purposes  in  giving  it,  is  little  better  than  a  plati¬ 
 tude.  The  question  is,  what  are  those  purposes  ?  Are  they 
 to  communicate  all  truth,  or  only  religious  truth  ?  or  how 
 far,  to  use  ButleHs  language,  is  it  the  divine  purpose  to 
 exclude  from  the  record  of  Revelation  every  conceivable 
 form  of  human  imperfection  ?  All  these  points  must  be 
 determined  before  such  an  expression  as  (C  plenary  inspira¬ 
 tion  ”  can  have  any  definite  meaning.  The  plain  fact  is,  that 
 every  person  who  holds  that  the  Scriptures  have  been  given 
 by  inspiration  from  God  in  any  sense  whatever,  must  hold 
 that  the  inspiration  imparted  to  their  authors  must  have  been 
 
 *  borne  of  those  who  hold  the  dynamical  theory  of  inspiration  have 
 illustrated  it  by  affirming  that  the  divine  and  human  elements  are 
 united  in  the  Bible  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  person  of  Jesus 
 Christ.  This  illustration,  however,  throws  no  real  light  on  the  subject. 
 As  we  are  completely  ignorant  of  the  mode  of  this  latter  mystery,  such 
 a  comparison  is  only  an  attempt  to  illustrate  a  dark  subject  by  one 
 still  darker.  It  is  not  my  duty,  however,  to  discuss  the  merits  of  this 
 theory,  which  is  certainly  far  more  moderate  and  rational  than  some 
 of  those  which  are  popularly  current,  but  to  draw  attention  to  the 
 fact  that,  although  it  has  been  formed  for  the  purpose  of  finding  room 
 for  that  human  element  which  beyond  all  contradiction  exists  in  the 
 pages  of  the  Bible,  yet  in  all  other  respects  it  rests  on  an  a  priori 
 basis,  and  is  not  the  result  of  the  application  of  the  principle  of 
 induction. 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT.  445 
 
 ee  plenary  ”  in  reference  to  the  purposes  of  God  in  giving  it. 
 To  use  this  term,  therefore,  as  a  designation  of  a  particular 
 form  of  inspiration  can  serve  no  other  purpose  than  to  hide 
 from  ourselves  our  own  confusion  of  thought.* 
 
 4.  The  theory  of  superintendence.  The  object  of  this 
 theory  is  also  to  account  for  the  fact,  which  is  patent  to 
 every  reader  of  the  Bible  who  does  not  blind  his  eyes 
 to  palpable  realities — the  presence  of  a  human  element 
 in  its  pages,  but  at  the  same  time  to  guard  it  from  the 
 possibility  of  that  error  to  which  everything  human  is  liable. 
 To  effect  this  purpose,  it  has  been  assumed  that  while  the 
 various  writers  made  use  of  their  ordinary  faculties  in  the 
 composition  of  the  sacred  books,  such  a  controlling  influence 
 was  exerted  over  them  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  as  to  preserve 
 them  from  the  possibility  of  error,  not  only  on  points  con¬ 
 nected  with  religion,  but  on  every  other  subject  which  came 
 
 *  The  following  is  Dean  Alford’s  account  of  plenary,  as  distinct 
 from  verbal  inspiration,  which  he  heartily  rejected  :  “  If  I  understand 
 plenary  inspiration  rightly,  I  hold  it  to  the  utmost ,  as  entirely  con¬ 
 sistent  with  the  opinions  expressed  in  this  Section.  The  inspiration 
 of  the  sacred  writers  I  believe  to  have  consisted  in  the  fulness  of  the 
 influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  specially  raising  them  to  and  enabling 
 them  for  their  work  —  in  a  manner  which  distinguishes  them  from  all 
 other  writers  in  the  world ,  and  their  work  from  all  other  works.  The 
 men  were  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost, — the  books  are  the  outpouring  of 
 that  fulness  through  the  men — the  conservation  of  the  treasure  in 
 earthen  vessels.  The  treasure  is  ours  in  all  its  richness ;  but  it  is 
 ours,  as  only  it  can  be  ours,  in  the  imperfections  of  human  speech,  in 
 the  limitations  of  human  thought,  in  the  variety  incident,  first  to 
 individual  character  and  then  to  manifold  transcription,  and  the  lapse 
 of  ages.”  (Alford,  Prolegomena  of  the  New  Testament.)  While  agreeing 
 with  the  author  in  many  of  his  general  conclusions,  I  cannot  help 
 thinking  that  this  passage  fully  bears  out  the  remark  which  I  have 
 made  in  the  text,  as  to  the  confusion  of  thought  involved  in  this 
 theory  of  inspiration  ;  while  professing  to  define  it,  it  leaves  us  in  the 
 region  of  vagueness  and  uncertainty  to  such  a  degree,  that  it  is  only 
 in  a  very  qualified  sense  that  it  can  be  called  a  theory  at  all.  Several 
 of  his  previous  reasonings  on  this  subject  are  also  vitiated  by  resting 
 on  an  a  priori  basis. 
 
446 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OF  INSPIRATION: 
 
 withm  their  mental  horizon.  I  say  this  because,  unless 
 it  goes  to  this  extent,  the  expression  is  equally  vague  with 
 that  of  " plenary  inspiration/*  and  really  defines  nothing; 
 for  unless  the  superintendence  extended  to  the  entire  con¬ 
 tents  of  the  Bible,  it  would  leave  us  utterly  in  the  dark  as 
 to  the  limits  within  which  it  was  exercised.  The  a  priori 
 character  of  this  theory  is  at  once  manifest,  for  it  makes 
 no  pretence  of  having  been  arrived  at  by  an  induction  of 
 the  facts  and  phenomena  of  Scripture.  On  the  other  hand, 
 every  one  who  believes  in  inspiration  at  all,  must  likewise 
 believe  that  a  superintendence  of  some  kind  was  exercised 
 over  the  human  authors  of  the  Bible.  But  unless  we  lay 
 down  its  nature  and  limitations,  we  determine  nothing. 
 
 5.  One  more  theory  must  be  noticed  ;  that  which  affirms 
 that  a  special  inspiration  was  vouchsafed  to  the  authors  while- 
 they  were  engaged  in  the  composition  of  the  various  books, 
 different  from  the  ordinary  inspiration,  under  the  influence 
 of  which  they  acted  and  taught.  W e  know  as  a  matter  of1 
 fact  that  apostles  in  their  ordinary  actions  were  not  pos¬ 
 sessed  of  any  infallible  guidance.  The  author  of  the  Acts 
 of  the  Apostles  tells  us  that  Paul  and  Barnabas  separated 
 one  from  another  because  they  could  not  agree  about  taking 
 Mark  as  their  companion ;  and  Paul  expressly  informs  us 
 that  serious  doctrinal  errors  were  legitimate  deductions  from 
 the  inconsistent  conduct  of  Peter.  Hence  has  arisen  the 
 supposed  necessity  for  a  theory  which  will  discriminate 
 between  the  ordinary  inspiration  of  an  apostle,  and  that 
 which  he  possessed  when  composing  a  letter  or  a  Gospel  for 
 the  instruction  of  the  Church.  But  not  only  does  this 
 theory  contradict  the  express  assertions  of  St.  Paul,  that  his 
 oral  teaching  was  quite  as  authoritative  as  his  written  teach¬ 
 ing  (2  Thess.  ii.  15),  but  it  is  compelled  to  assume  that 
 if  one  of  the  converts  had  copied  down  an  ordinary  discourse 
 delivered  by  an  apostle,  or  an  affirmation  made  by  him  on  a 
 religious  subject  in  the  course  of  common  conversation,  it 
 would  not  have  been  equally  inspired  with  a  letter  dictated 
 by  an  amanuensis.  Hot  only  does  such  a  theory  rest  solely  - 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT.  447 
 
 j 
 
 on  ci  priori  assumption,  but  it  contradicts  the  express  asser¬ 
 tions  of  the  New  Testament.  The  influence,  however,  of 
 these  latter  theories  on  existing  controversies  is  compara¬ 
 tively  small.  Most  of  them  are  only  known  to  professed 
 students  of  theology.  But  the  “  verbal  ”  theory,  with  its 
 various  modifications,  continues  to  exercise  a  very  powerful 
 influence  on  the  public  mind,  and  thereby  exposes  us  to  the 
 sharpest  attacks  of  scientific  unbelief,  and  forms  the  chief 
 stumbling-block  in  the  way  of  a  large  number  of  anxious 
 inquirers. 
 
 I  now  proceed  to  examine  the  value  of  all  theories  of 
 inspiration  which  are  founded  on  a  priori  assumptions.  My 
 position  is  as  follows.  The  abstract  principles  on  which 
 they  are  based,  when  applied  to  the  facts  of  the  universe, 
 utterly  break  down  as  explanations  of  its  realities.  If  they 
 are  carried  out  to  their  logical  conclusions,  they  leave  us  in 
 the  presence  of  two  alternatives,  viz.,  the  necessity  of  either 
 denying  or  explaining  away  the  facts,  or  of  denying  that 
 the  universe  is  the  work  of  a  creator  who  is  all-powerful, 
 all-wise,  and  all-good.  Many  eminent  modern  unbelievers, 
 have  assumed  the  truth  of  these  principles,  and  have  arrived 
 at  this  conclusion  as  the  result.  If  we  admit  the  premisses, 
 the  conclusion  beyond  doubt  logically  follows.  A  few 
 illustrations  of  this  mode  of  reasoning  will  suffice. 
 
 1.  It  has  been  laid  down  as  a  self-evident  proposition, 
 that  if  the  universe  be  the  work  of  a  being  who  possesses 
 infinite  power,  it  ought  to  be  free  from  every  conceivable 
 defect  which  unlimited  power  could  have  removed.  But  in 
 the  universe  as  it  actually  exists,  there  are  unquestionable 
 instances  of  imperfection.  The  inference  has  been  therefore 
 drawn,  that  if  a  God  made  the  universe,  his  power  must  be 
 limited.  So  far  the  conclusion  legitimately  follows  from  tho 
 premisses,  and  the  only  mode  of  breaking  the  force  of  the 
 argument  is  to  deny  the  reality  of  the  assumption  which 
 lies  at  its  foundation. 
 
 2.  On  similar  principles  it  has  been  argued,  that  if  a 
 being  who  is  possessed  of  infinite  power  and  infinite 
 
448 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OP  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 wisdom  has  made  the  universe,  it  is  impossible  that  he  can 
 have  made  the  imperfect  structures  which  are  frequently  found 
 in  the  bodies  of  men  and  other  animals.  It  is  argued  that 
 such  imperfection,  if  due  to  an  intelligent  creator,  can  only 
 have  resulted  from  some  defect  in  his  power  or  his  wisdom. 
 Yet  the  fact  is  unquestionable  that  such  imperfections 
 do  exist.*  The  inference  therefore  is  drawn,  that  if  the 
 universe  is  the  work  of  a  God,  he  must  be  one  who  in  these 
 respects  is  subject  to  limitations. 
 
 3.  On  similar  principles  it  has  been  inferred  that  the 
 being  who  has  made  the  universe,  if  he  is  possessed  of 
 infinite  power  and  wisdom,  cannot  be  perfectly  benevolent ; 
 for  a  being  perfectly  benevolent  must  will  the  perfect 
 happiness  of  his  creatures.  Yet  the  existence  of  both 
 physical  suffering  and  moral  evil  is  unquestionable.  The 
 attempt  is  therefore  made  to  impale  us  on  the  horns  of  the 
 following  dilemma  : — If  the  Creator  is  perfectly  benevolent, 
 then  his  wisdom  or  his  power  must  be  limited ;  or  if  these 
 are  without  limits,  he  cannot  be  perfectly  benevolent. 
 
 #  ^  similar  inference  has  been  drawn  from  the  concep¬ 
 tion  of  perfect  justice.  It  is  unquestionable  that  the  present 
 moral  order  of  the  universe  is  not  a  perfect  manifestation  of 
 this  attribute.  Hence  it  is  inferred  that  the  Being  who  has 
 
 made  it  must  be  imperfect  either  in  justice,  in  wisdom,  or  in 
 power.f 
 
 *  Among  the  many  striking  illustrations  of  this  is  the  unquestion¬ 
 able  fact  that  parents  not  only  transmit  to  their  children  particular 
 diseases,  of  which  lunacy  and  idiotcy  are  distressing  examples,  but 
 even  a  tendency  to  particular  vices. 
 
 In  a  recently  published  work  entitled  “  Supernatural  Revelation, 
 or  First  Principles  of  Moral  Theology,”  the  writer  professes  to  give  a 
 quotation  from  this  page.  The  sole  importance  of  the  work  in 
 question  arises  from  the  position  of  its  author  as  Professor  of  Moral 
 Philosophy  m  the  University  of  Cambridge.  His  quotation  (p.  186) 
 is  as  follows:— “A  recent  Bampton  Lecturer  (1877)  says,  ‘It  is 
 unquestionable  that  the  present  order  of  the  universe  is  not  a  perfect 
 manifestation  of  justice.  Lvery  theist, 
 
 •■it  la  said  will  deny  that  the  impress  of  perfection  must  of  necessity  be  stamped  on  all  the 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT. 
 
 449 
 
 These  conclusions  are  inevitable  if  we  admit  the  truth  of 
 the  premisses.  Mr.  Mill  has  urged  them  in  hi3  posthumous 
 essays  with  an  unsparing  logic.  The  only  mode  of  escaping 
 from  the  inference  which  he  draws  is  one  which  will  be 
 accepted  by  every  theist,  namely,  by  denying  the  validity 
 of  his  assumption  that  the  impress  of  perfection  must  of 
 necessity  be  stamped  on  all  the  works  of  a  perfect  Creator. 
 
 From  these  reasonings  I  draw  the  following  conclusion. 
 It  is  impossible  that  the  same  a  priori  principles  which  are 
 unsound  when  applied  to  the  structure  of  the  universe  can 
 be  safe  guides  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  super' 
 natural  assistance  which  God  must  have  vouchsafed  in  the 
 communication  of  a  Revelation.  In  each  case  an  abstract 
 theory  has  been  laid  down  that  God  must  act  in  this  or  that 
 particular  manner.  In  the  one  it  is  assumed  that  if  a  God 
 of  infinite  power,  wisdom  and  benevolence  has  made  the 
 universe.  He  was  bound  to  realize  our  highest  conception  of 
 those  attributes  in  every  portion  of  His  creative  work.  This 
 we  know,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  He  has  not  done,  and 
 hence  it  has  been  inferred  that  if  the  evidence  justifies  our 
 recognizing  the  existence  of  a  God  at  all,  it  is  only  of  one 
 who  is  subject  to  limitations.  On  the  other  hand,  it  has 
 
 works  of  a  perfect  Creator.  It  is  assumed  (by  Mr.  Mill)  that  if  a  God  of  infinite  power, 
 wisdom  and  benevolence  has  made  the  Universe,  He  was  bound  to  realize  our  highest 
 conception  of  those  attributes  in  every  portion  of  His  creative  work.  This  we  know  as  a 
 matter  of  fact  He  has  not  done.” 
 
 l 
 
 The  reader  will  see,  on  comparing  this  professedly  continuous 
 quotation  with  my  own  words  as  printed  above,  that  it  is  actually 
 made  up  of  no  less  than  three  separate  sentences,  wrenched  from  their 
 context  in  three  distinct  paragraphs  ;  and  not  only  so,  but  the 
 Professor  has,  by  the  unwarrantable  insertion  of  the  three  words  “  by 
 Mr.  Mill,”  limited  my  application  of  the  false  assumption  in  question 
 to  that  writer,  whereas  the  whole  context  shows  that  I  intended  it  to 
 apply  equally  to  the  advocates  of  the  popular  theories  of  Inspiration. 
 He  then  goes  on  to  say :  “  In  Mr.  Mill’s  statement,  of  which  the 
 unsparing  logic  is  praised  by  the  Lecturer,”  &c.  Now,  this  praise  of 
 Mr.  Mill’s  unsparing  logic  on  my  part  is  a  purely  visionary  creation 
 of  the  Professor’s  own  imagination,  and  has  no  existence  in  fact ;  on 
 
 29 
 
450 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OP  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 been  assumed  that  if  a  God,  who  is  perfectly  wise  and 
 veracious,  has  made  a  revelation,  he  was  bound  to  exclude 
 from  its  record  every  vestige  of  human  imperfection,  and 
 to  impress  on  every  portion  of  its  contents  the  stamp  of 
 infallibility. 
 
 At  this  point  the  two  arguments,  while  continuing  to  rest 
 on  the  same  abstract  principles,  diverge  in  opposite  direc¬ 
 tions.  It  is  assumed  that  the  Bible  is  such  a  revelation. 
 On  the  principles  above  stated  the  inference  is  justly  drawn, 
 that  no  trace  of  error  or  imperfection  can  exist  in  any 
 portion  of  its  contents.  This  being  so,  the  advocates  of  this 
 theory  are  compelled  to  adopt  one  of  the  two  following 
 courses,  —  either  to  deny  the  truth  of  every  discovery  in 
 science,  history,  or  criticism,  which  is  at  variance  with  the 
 received  opinions  respecting  the  contents  of  Scripture ;  or 
 to  adopt  some  mode  of  interpretation  which  shall  bring  the 
 Scriptures  into  harmony  with  the  new  facts.  The  adoption 
 of  the  latter  course  is  perfectly  legitimate,  except  when 
 theologians  are  compelled  by  the  exigencies  of  their  position 
 to  put  interpretations  on  Scripture  which  are  inconsistent 
 with  the  obvious  meaning  of  its  writers.  Still  the  principle 
 is  a  correct  one,  for  if  the  Universe  and  the  Bible  are  both 
 
 tlie  contrary,  my  whole  argument  on  pp.  448,  449,  is  founded  on  the 
 principle  that  the  implied  premiss  which  alone  can  give  any  validity  to 
 Mr.  Mill’s  reasoning,  is  unsound ;  while  I  fully  admit  that  if  this 
 premiss  is  true,  Mr.  Mill’s  argument  is  unanswerable.  But  I  have 
 distinctly  denied  the  truth  of  this  premiss,  as  Professor  Birks  himself 
 states  (“  the  Lecturer  affirms  this  premiss  to  be  unquestionably 
 false”).  Professor  Birks  says  on  the  contrary,  “  it  is  rather  a  truth 
 expressly  revealed but  in  making  this  affirmation  he  introduces  the 
 conception  of  the  future,  a  question  wholly  outside  the  argument  of 
 Mr.  Mill  and  myself,  which  as  the  reader  will  observe,  deals  exclusively 
 with  the  past  and  present  condition  of  the  Universe.  As  to  the  origin 
 of  such  a  misrepresentation,  there  are  but  two  possible  alternatives  ; 
 either  the  quotations,  with  the  Professor’s  remarks  on  them,  are  the 
 result  of  a  carelessness  which  is  scarcely  credible,  or  of  a  reckless 
 disregard  of  fact.  May  the  cause  of  true  religion  not  suffer  from  the 
 advocacy  of  such  defenders ! 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT. 
 
 451 
 
 Revelations  from  the  same  God,  it  may  fairly  be  assumed 
 that  fresh  discoveries  in  the  one  would  throw  light  on  the 
 meaning  of  the  other.  The  only  danger  of  it  arises  from 
 the  temptations  to  which  it  exposes  theologians  to  put  non¬ 
 natural  interpretations  on  the  Bible. 
 
 Still  however  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  desirable  that 
 we  should  take  our  stand  on  principles  which  will  save  us 
 from  the  danger  of  having  to  make  any  more  retreats  from 
 untenable  positions  before  the  steady  advance  of  scientific 
 knowledge.  The  only  sure  mode  of  accomplishing  this  is 
 to  adopt  the  principle  laid  down  by  Butler,  that  all  theories 
 of  inspiration,  as  far  as  they  are  based  on  a  priori  principles, 
 are  unsafe  guides  to  the  realities  of  things,  and  that  the  only 
 way  in  which  light  can  be  thrown  on  this  question  is,  not 
 by  laying  down  how  God  must  have  acted,  but  by  inquiring 
 how  he  has  acted,  and  thus  bending  our  theories  of  inspira¬ 
 tion  into  conformity  with  the  facts  and  phenomena  of  the 
 Bible,  and  not  the  latter  into  conformity  with  our  theories. 
 By  pursuing  this  course  we  shall  be  able  to  welcome  truth 
 from  whatever  quarter  it  may  come. 
 
 Assuming  therefore  that  the  a  priori  principles  above 
 referred  to  are  utterly  invalid  as  guides  to  the  realities  of 
 things,  it  follows  that  the  only  mode  of  throwing  light  on 
 this  difficult  question  is. 
 
 First, 
 
 To  ask  the  sacred  writers  whether  they  have  made  any 
 such  definite  assertions  as  to  the  nature  of  their  own  inspi¬ 
 ration  as  would  enable  us  to  construct  a  theory  which  would 
 be  applicable  to  the  entire  Bible. 
 
 Secondly, 
 
 In  the  absence  of  any  such  affirmations  on  their  part 
 to  apply  the  principle  of  induction  to  its  contents,  in 
 precisely  the  same  manner  as  we  do  to  any  other  subject  of 
 investigation,  and  to  propound  a  theory  which  will  cover  the 
 existing  facts.  Other  road  to  truth  on  this  subject  there  is 
 none. 
 
 Such  a  method  is  in  conformity  both  with  common  sense 
 
 29* 
 
452 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OP  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 and  witli  sound  philosophy.  Surely  nothing  is  more  absurd 
 than  on  mere  abstract  principles  to  attribute  to  the  writer 
 of  a  Book  of  Scripture  such  a  degree  of  divine  assistance 
 as  he  himself  apparently  disclaims.  Let  us  take  an  illus¬ 
 tration  from  St.  Luke^s  Gospel.  If  the  verbal  or  mechanical 
 theory,  or  any  of  its  modifications,  is  correct,  every  word  in 
 this  Gospel  must  be  the  dictation  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  Yet 
 in  the  preface  the  information  as  to  the  sources  whence  the 
 author  derived  his  materials  is  of  a  most  definite  character. 
 He  tells  us  that  he  instituted  a  careful  investigation  into 
 the  truth  of  the  facts  which  he  has  narrated ;  and  that 
 while  he  was  not  an  eye-witness  of  them  himself,  he  has 
 compiled  his  narrative  from  the  testimony  of  those  that  were; 
 and  he  adds  that  the  purpose  he  had  in  view  was  that  his 
 readers  might  know  the  certainty  of  the  things  in  which 
 they  had  been  instructed.*  Yet  notwithstanding  these 
 affirmations,  the  exigencies  of  theory  have  induced  persons 
 to  affirm  that  the  contents  of  this  Gospel  were  dictated  by 
 the  Divine  Spirit.  I  fully  admit  that  there  is  nothing*  in 
 his  assertions  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  the  author 
 was  possessed  of  one  or  more  of  the  supernatural  endow¬ 
 ments  referred  to  in  the  Pauline  epistles,  as  extensively 
 bestowed  on  the  members  of  the  Apostolic  Church,  and 
 which  may  have  aided  him  in  his  inquiries  and  imparted 
 additional  strength  to  his  natural  faculties ;  but  it  is  plain 
 that  it  can  not  have  been  of  such  a  nature  as  to  have 
 superseded  their  use  or  rendered  human  sources  of  infor¬ 
 mation  unnecessary. 
 
 It  becomes  therefore  a  matter  of  the  greatest  importance 
 to  ascertain  whether  the  Bible  contains  any  such  definite 
 assertions  as  to  the  degree  of  the  supernatural  assistance 
 
 *  E7reiSrj7T(p  7 roXXol  tTrE\tipri<jav  dvardZaaScu  ditjyijmv  7 r;pl  ru>v  7rc7r- 
 \rjpo<t>oprinevu>v  iv  yplp  tt paypdriov,  kuQSoq  irapttoaav  i)p,Tp  oi  dpXr,g 
 avTOTcrai  Kai  vTrrjptrai  yevoperoi  tov  Xoyov  ttoU  Kctpot,  TraprjKoXov^Kon 
 dvuStv  7 raaiv  <XKpi(3u>g,  KaStZijg  <roi  ypdtycu,  Kpdria ts  QiotpiXe,  "1  va  iniyvfg 
 7Ttpl  wv  KCtTJ]XT]$T]Q  Xoyuv  Tt)v  datpaXtiav.—  (Luke  i,  1-4.) 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT.  453 
 
 afforded  to  its  authors  as  will  enable  us  to  found  on  them  a 
 theory  which  will  accurately  define  the  extent  of  their  in¬ 
 spiration.  Such  an  inquiry  may  safely  be  confined  to  the 
 New  Testament,  because  it  distinctly  affirms  that  the  en¬ 
 lightenment  possessed  by  the  apostles  and  prophets  of  the 
 New  Dispensation  was  greatly  in  excess  of  that  possessed 
 by  the  most  enlightened  men  of  the  old.  Now  although  the 
 writers  of  the  New  Testament  habitually  cite  the  Old  Testa¬ 
 ment  as  a  divine  book,  and  affirm  that  God  spake  in  it  on 
 various  definite  occasions,  yet  not  a  single  passage  exists  in 
 which  they  lay  down  the  degree  of  supernatural  enlighten¬ 
 ment  possessed  by  its  authors,  or  inform  us  how  far  a  human 
 element  entered  into  its  composition.*  Several  writers  of 
 the  Old  Testament  also  distinctly  appeal  to  historical  docu- 
 
 #  It  may  he  objected  that  the  assertion  is  very  common  that  the 
 Holy  Spirit  spake  in  and  by  the  prophets,  as  in  such  passages  as 
 “who  by  the  mouth  of  thy  servant  David  hast  said”  (Acts  iv.  25)  ; 
 and  “Well  spake  the  Holy  Ghost  by  Esaias  the  prophet  unto  our 
 fathers,”  &c.  (Acts  xxviii.  25) ;  and  many  others.  These  passages 
 unquestionably  affirm  that  in  each  specific  instance  the  prophets 
 spake  under  a  divine  influence  ;  yet  they  leave  us  without  information 
 as  to  its  precise  character  or  limits.  Still  less  is  it  possible  from  such 
 passages  to  construct  a  theory  of  inspiration  which  shall  be  applicable 
 to  the  entire  Bible.  Besides,  a  great  number  of  these  passages  leave 
 us  without  any  means  of  accurately  judging  whether  in  each  case  the 
 prophet  Rpake  by  special  suggestion  or  from  a  general  enlightenment, 
 by  which  he  was  able  to  penetrate  into  the  mind  of  God.  Still 
 further,  such  assertions  leave  us  without  any  information  on  the  point 
 which  is  all-important  in  reference  to  modern  controversies,  viz.,  how 
 far  the  divine  influence  conveyed  an  illumination  on  points  which  were 
 only  collateral  to,  and  not  of  the  essence  of,  the  prophetic  utterance. 
 But  whatever  opinion  we  may  form  as  to  the  extent  of  divine 
 illumination  which  such  passages  attribute  to  the  prophets  on 
 particular  occasions,  it  is  evident  that  to  infer  from  them  that  the  same 
 illumination  presided  over  the  composition  of  every  part  of  the  Bible, 
 including  the  whole  of  the  historical  books,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
 and  the  Canticles,  is  to  erect  a  pyramid  of  theory  on  an  apex  of  fact. 
 But  still  further,  the  quotations  made  by  the  writers  of  the  New 
 Testament  from  the  Old  have  a  very  important  bearing  on  the  entire 
 subject.  They  afford  the  strongest  proof  that  they  only  attributed 
 
454 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OP  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 ments  which  have  since  perished  as  the  authorities  for  their 
 statements,  in  the  same  manner  as  St.  Luke  grounds  his 
 assertions  on  the  testimony  of  eye-witnesses.* 
 
 The  most  important  passages  in  the  New  Testament 
 bearing  on  this  question  are  Our  Lord's  promises  made  to 
 His  followers  of  such  supernatural  enlightenment  as  was 
 
 the  general  sense,  and  not  the  words  in  which  it  is  conveyed,  to  the 
 influence  of  the  Divine  Spirit.  This  is  proved  by  the  great  freedom 
 of  quotation  which  is  used  in  such  references.  The  extent  of  this 
 can  only  he  fully  estimated  by  an  actual  comparison  of  the  cited 
 passages  with  their  originals  in  the  Old  Testament.  If  one  thing 
 connected  with  this  subject  is  more  certain  than  another,  it  is  that  the 
 mode  in  which  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  are  referred  to  and 
 quoted  in  the  New,  is  fatal  to  all  theories  of  mechanical  or  verbal 
 inspiration.  Various  theories  have  been  propounded  for  the  purpose 
 of  evading  this  difficulty,  but  all  are  destitute  alike  of  foundation  and 
 of  proof.  I  will  only  notice  one  of  them,  that  which  affirms  that  the 
 passages  as  cited  in  the  New  Testament  are  the  genuine  utterances  of 
 the  prophets  of  the  Old,  and  that  the  variations  from  them  in  our 
 present  Old  Testament  are  due  to  corruptions  in  the  text.  This  is 
 not  only  a  bare  assumption  made  for  the  express  purpose  of  supporting 
 a  theory,  but  it  creates  far  greater  difficulties  than  it  would  solve ; 
 for  if  errors  have  crept  into  the  Old  Testament  to  the  extent  to  which 
 they  must  have  done  in  the  instances  in  question,  it  follows  that  an 
 equal  amount  of  error  must  be  diffused  over  the  entire  volume,  of 
 which  these  quotations  form  but  a  small  portion.  The  theory  there¬ 
 fore,  if  true,  would  shake  our  confidence  in  the  text  of  the  Old 
 Testament  to  its  centre. 
 
 #  Even  if  in  accordance  with  the  authorized  version,  we  admit  that 
 in  2  Tim.  iii.  16  the  word  OtoTcvtvaTog  forms  a  portion  of  the  predicate 
 instead  of  the  subject  of  the  sentence,  it  leaves  the  question  as 
 to  the  mode  and  degree  in  which  this  divine  influence  acted  altogether 
 undetermined.  Our  version,  however,  has  represented  the  Apostle  as 
 making  a  nearer  approach  to  laying  down  a  theory  of  inspiration  than 
 the  Greek  does,  when  it  renders  the  word  OtoTcvtvoTOQ  “  given  by 
 inspiration  from  God.”  But  its  only  legitimate  meaning  is,  “breathed 
 into  by  God,”  and  this  leaves  the  extent  of  the  influence  indeterminate. 
 Thus  we  can  only  make  it  affirm  what  modern  theories  require,  by 
 first  assuming  that  it  does  so.  Not  one  word  does  it  assert  as  to 
 inspiration  conferring  a  divine  enlightenment  on  points  of  science, 
 philosophy,  history,  or  criticism ;  in  fact,  it  implies  that  it  did  not 
 
455 
 
 THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT. 
 
 necessary  to  qualify  them  for  propagating  His  religion  and 
 founding  His  Church.  That  He  promised  them  a  super¬ 
 natural  assistance  fully  adequate  to  enable  them  to  accom¬ 
 plish  this  work  is  expressly  affirmed;  but  nowhere  does 
 He  define  its  nature  or  extent.  His  three  most  definite 
 
 promises  are* — 
 
 First.  That  the  Divine  “  Spirit  should  guide  them/'  not 
 into  all  truth  generally,  but  into  all  the  truth,  which  the 
 context  plainly  limits  to  religious  truth. 
 
 A  second  assures  them  that  the  Spirit  should  teach  them 
 all  things,  and  refresh  their  memories  as  to  His  utterances. 
 
 A  third  that  He  would  impart  to  them  a  knowledge  of 
 
 the  future. 
 
 There  is  yet  one  more,  but  it  has  no  bearing  on  the 
 present  question,  viz.,  that  when  they  should  be  summoned 
 to  answer  before  the  established  tribunals,  the  Spiiit  would 
 suggest  to  them  the  proper  materials  for  their  defence. 
 
 extend  to  such  subjects,  for  it  affirms  that  Scripture  is  “  profitable  for 
 doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness, 
 that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  throughly  furnished  unto  all 
 good  works,”  As  to  its  profitableness  to  their  light  on  subjects  of 
 philosophy,  science,  history,  or  criticism,  it  is  not  only  utterly  silent, 
 but  by  its  silence  implies  that  such  points  formed  no  legitimate  portion 
 of  its  subject-matter,  and  it  would  be  quite  consistent  with  the  presence 
 of  a  fallible  human  element  in  the  Bible  in  connection  with  all  these 
 
 and  many  other  subjects.  < 
 
 *  The  following  are  the  express  promises  of  Our  Lord:  “  But  the 
 Comforter,  which  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom  the  Father  will  send  in 
 my  Name,  he  shall  teach  you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  jour 
 remembrance,  whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you.”  (John  xiv.  26.)  “But 
 when  the  Comforter  is  come,  whom  I  will  send  unto  you  from  the 
 Father ;  even  the  Spirit  of  truth,  who  proceedeth  from  the  Father,  he 
 shall  testify  of  me  :  and  ye  also  shall  bear  witness,  because  ye  have 
 been  with  me  from  the  beginning.”  (John  xv.  26,  27.)  “  Howbeit 
 
 when  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he  shall  guide  you  into  all  truth 
 (tig  Trjv  a\r)Quav  ttcktuv,  all  the  truth,  i.e.,  all  the  truth  alluded  to,  not 
 into  every  department  of  truth),  for  he  shall  not  speak  of  himself,  but 
 whatsoever  he  shall  hear,  that  shall  he  speak,  and  he  shall  show  you 
 things  to  come.  He  shall  glorify  me,  for  he  shall  receive  of  mine, 
 and  shall  show  it  unto  you.”  (John  xvi.  13,  14.) 
 
456 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OP  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 These  constitute  the  whole  of  Our  Lord's  promises  on  the 
 subject,  and  it  is  evident  that  they  are  inadequate  to  form 
 the  basis  of  a  general  theory  as  to  the  nature  or  extent  of 
 the  divine  assistance  afforded  to  the  human  authors  of  the 
 Bible.  All  that  we  can  affirm  is  that  it  was  adequate  to 
 qualify  His  disciples  for  the  work  which  He  directed  them 
 to  perform,  but  it  is  impossible  to  erect  upon  them  a 
 general  theory  of  inspiration,  or  to  determine  how  far  an 
 
 element  of  human  imperfection  would  be  permitted  to  enter 
 into  its  record. 
 
 Nor  do  the  assertions  in  the  Epistles  enable  us  to  get 
 beyond  this.  St.  Paul  has  several  times  informed  us  that 
 his  knowledge  of  Christianity  was  communicated  by  direct 
 revelation  from  Jesus  Christ;  but  he  nowhere  defines  the 
 nature  of  that  divine  guidance  under  which  he  acted,  or 
 claims  a  general  infallibility.  Not  a  single  passage  can  be 
 adduced  from  his  writings  which  implies  that  he  considered 
 himself  more  under  the  influence  of  the  Spirit  when  he 
 wrote  his  Epistles  than  he  was  in  his  ordinary  teaching ;  on 
 the  contrary,  they  make  it  clear  that  he  considered  both  to 
 be  of  equal  authority.  Several  passages  also  make  it  certain 
 that  he  was  capable  of  discriminating  between  those  utter¬ 
 ances  which  were  due  to  divine  enlightenment  and  those 
 which  were  the  result  of  his  mere  human  judgment.  Of 
 these  the  passage  which  I  have  chosen  for  my  text,  with  its 
 entire  context,  forms  a  very  remarkable  example.  Still  the 
 extent  of  the  influence  is  left  undetermined,  and  we  have 
 nothing  else  to  guide  us  except  his  oft  repeated  assertion 
 that  his  knowledge  of  Christianity  was  complete,  and  that 
 it  was  communicated  to  him  by  revelation.  But  all  this 
 does  not  give  us  a  hint  that  he  considered  himself  possessed 
 of^  a  supernatural  enlightenment  on  any  merely  collateral 
 subject  in  which  Christian  truth  was  not  directly  involved. 
 On  several  points  also  the  Apostle  claims  to  speak  with  the 
 full  authority  of  Christ ;  but  in  some  of  these  there  seems  to 
 be  a  reference  to  Our  Lord's  own  personal  teaching,  which 
 he  evidently  considered  to  be  of  a  higher  authority  °th an  his 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT. 
 
 457 
 
 own.*  It  is  also  worthy  of  remark  that  any  equivalent  to 
 the  formula,  “  Thus  saith  the  Lord,”  with  which  the  pro¬ 
 phets  of  the  Old  Testament  introduce  their  utterances,  is 
 only  to  be  found  on  one  or  two  occasions  in  the  pages  of 
 the  New.f 
 
 *  Of  this  the  following  are  examples :  “  And  unto  the  married,  I 
 command,  yet  not  I,  but  the  Lord,  ‘  Let  not  the  wife  depart  from  her 
 husband,’  .  .  .  and  ‘  Let  not  the  husband  put  away  his  wife.’  ” 
 
 (1  Cor.  vii.  10,  11.)  Here  the  Apostle  is  directly  referring  to  the 
 teaching  of  J esus  Christ;  and  he  evidently  places  his  own  on  an  inferior 
 level  in  point  of  authority.  Again  :  “Now  concerning  virgins,  I  have 
 no  commandment  of  the  Lord,  yet  I  give  my  judgment  as  one  that 
 hath  obtained  mercy  of  the  Lord  to  be  faithful.”  (1  Cor.  vii.  25.) 
 Here  again  the  distinction  is  drawn  between  his  own  Apostolical 
 judgment  and  the  express  commands  of  Our  Lord.  The  context  shows 
 that  his  own  decision  on  the  points  in  question  was  not  intended  to 
 have  the  force  of  invariable  law,  but  to  be  subject  to  modification  in 
 conformity  with  the  peculiar  circumstances  and  character  of  the 
 individual.  So  again,  after  recommending  abstinence  from  marriage 
 under  certain  circumstances,  he  still  enforces  his  judgment  with  hesi¬ 
 tation,  as  though  it  might  be  influenced  by  the  peculiarities  of  his  own 
 mental  temperament,  in  the  following  words  :  “  But  she  is  happier  if 
 she  so  abide  after  my  judgment ;  and  I  think  also  that  I  have  the 
 Spirit  of  God.”  (1  Cor.  vii.  40) :  the  Greek  is  doKu>.  This  is  evidently 
 the  language  of  a  man  who  considers  that  his  judgment  is  entitled  to 
 the  highest  deference  in  consequence  of  the  illumination  of  the  Divine 
 Spirit  which  he  possessed;  but  who  yet  feels  that  he  does  not  on  such 
 a  subject  speak  with  an  infallible  authority.  This  is  strongly  con¬ 
 trasted  with  the  mode  in  which  he  speaks  elsewhere  in  this  same 
 epistle.  “  If  any  man  think  himself  to  be  a  prophet  or  spiritual,  let 
 him  acknowledge  that  the  things  that  I  write  unto  you  are  the 
 commandments  of  the  Lord.”  (1  Cor.  xiv.  37.) 
 
 t  The  habit  which  has  so  extensively  prevailed,  of  designating  the 
 entire  Bible,  and  even  our  own  interpretations  of  it,  as  “  the  Word  of 
 God,”  has  no  doubt  greatly  contributed  to  the  diffusion  of  the  popular 
 views  on  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  supernatural  guidance  imparted 
 to  its  writers.  The  very  form  of  the  expression  conveys  to  ordinary 
 minds  the  idea  that  every  word  in  it  is  the  dictation  of  the  Divine 
 Spirit.  Hard  language  has  been  applied  to  those  who  have  en¬ 
 deavoured  by  the  use  of  a  greater  accuracy  of  expression,  in  saying 
 that  the  Bible  contains  the  Word  of  God,  to  bring  about  a  greater  . 
 accuracy  of  thought.  Those  who  make  use  of  the  denunciations  to 
 
458 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OF  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 The  only  portion  of  the  New  Testament  which  can  be 
 regarded  as  propounding  a  theory  of  inspiration  is  St.  Paul’s 
 description  of  the  nature  of  the  enlightenment  conferred  by 
 “  the  Supernatural  Gifts/'’  and  of  the  mode  of  their  action. 
 To  these  I  have  already  alluded  for  a  different  purpose.  As 
 far  as  this  description  goes,  it  affirms  in  direct  terms  that 
 the  influence  was  not  a  general  one,  extending  to  every 
 faculty  of  the  mind,  and  conferring  an  absolute  infallibility, 
 but  a  limited  and  functional  one.  It  establishes  the  following 
 
 o 
 
 points  as  certain : 
 
 which  I  allude,  seem  either  to  be  ignorant  of  the  fact,  or  to  have 
 forgotten  it,  that  that  great  defender  of  the  Christian  faith,  Bishop 
 Butler,  must  be  included  among  those  whom  they  thus  condemn. 
 Throughout  the  chapter  to  which  I  have  so  often  referred,  he  care- 
 fully  distinguishes  between  the  book  which  contains  the  revelation 
 and  the  revelation  itself.  Thus  in  the  passage  above  quoted,  he 
 writes,  “  Unless  the  prophets,  apostles,  or  Our  Lord,  had  promised 
 that  the  book  containing  the  divine  revelation  should  be  secure  from 
 these  things.”  It  is  hardly  possible  to  over-estimate  the  confusion  of 
 thought  which  has  originated  from  this  inaccurate  use  of  language. 
 To  say  that  the  Bible  contains  the  Christian  revelation  is  accurate ; 
 to  say  that  it  is  the  Christian  revelation,  the  reverse.  In  like  manner; 
 to  affirm  that  it  contains  the  Word  of  God  is  accurate;  but  to  affirm 
 that  it  is  the  Word  of  God  is  misleading  ;  for  if  every  separate  portion 
 of  it  is  so,  not  only  must  my  text,  with  its  entire  context,  which  the 
 Apostle  affirms  that  he  uttered,  “  not  after  the  Lord,  but  as  it  were 
 foolishly,  in  this  confidence  of  boasting,”  but  such  expressions  as 
 “  the  salutation  by  the  hand  of  me,  Paul ;  Kemembcr  my  bonds,” 
 and  many  others  of  a  precisely  similar  import,  which  are.  evidently 
 the  utterances  of  the  human  Paul,  be  so.  It  should  be  observed, 
 once  for  all,  that  the  use  of  this  expression  is  not  justified  by  one 
 single  passage  in  the  New  Testament;  for  although  its  writers  affirm 
 that  God  spake  by  prophets,  and  generally  in  the  Scriptures  of  the 
 Old  Testament,  yet  nowhere  does  it  apply  this  designation  to  the 
 entire  Bible.  I  am  aware  that  it  will  be  replied,  that  it  is  very  con¬ 
 venient  to  designate  the  Bible  thus  for  popular  purposes ;  and  that 
 the  idea  has  become  so  fixed  in  the  popular  mind,  that  to  do  other¬ 
 wise  would  shake  the  belief  in  its  divine  character.  Its  convenience 
 I  shall  not  dispute  ;  but  matters  have  come  to  that  point,  where 
 questions  of  convenience  must  be  sacrificed,  when  their  result 
 is  to  impress  on  the  public  mind  theories  of  inspiration  which  imperil 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTFIC  THOUGHT. 
 
 459 
 
 1.  That  the  supernatural  gifts  conferred  a  special  enlight¬ 
 enment  on  a  definite  subject-matter  only. 
 
 2.  That  the  enlightenment  conferred  by  one  gift  conferred 
 none  on  the  special  subject-matter  of  another. 
 
 3.  That  the  enlightenment  was  not  general,  but  func¬ 
 tional. 
 
 4.  That  the  gift  operated,  when  once  conferred,  according 
 to  the  analogy  of  the  ordinary  faculties  of  the  human  mind. 
 
 5.  That  it  was  so  completely  functional,  that  the  gift  did 
 not  secure  its  possessor  from  the  danger  of  abusing  it. 
 
 6.  That  several  of  these  gifts  were  occasionally  united  in 
 one  individual :  in  which  case  they  conferred  a  more  extended 
 enlightenment ;  and  that  their  object  was  to  qualify  their 
 possessors  for  the  discharge  of  certain  offices  in  the  Church. 
 
 7.  Even  the  highest  gifts  did  not  convey  a  knowledge 
 which  was  perfect. 
 
 The  importance  of  the  Apostle’s  description  of  these  gifts 
 is  very  obvious.  The  conferring  of  them  was  the  distinct 
 fulfiment  of  Our  Lord’s  promises  of  supernatural  guidance 
 which  He  would  afford  to  the  apostles  in  the  conduct  of  their 
 mission.  This  is  repeatedly  affirmed  in  the  pages  of  the 
 New  Testament.*  Taking  these  gifts  therefore  as  a  whole, 
 
 the  belief  in  Christianity.  As  to  the  plea  that  to  use  more  accurate 
 language  would  shake  the  faith  of  the  people  in  Christianity,  the 
 first  question  to  be  determined  is,  Is  it  true  ?  and  if  it  be  not,  a  saying 
 of  Our  Lord  has  an  intimate  bearing  on  the  point  in  hand,  “Every 
 plant  which  my  heavenly  Father  hath  not  planted  shall  be  rooted 
 up.”  The  charge  of  rationalism  may  be  made  with  far  greater 
 justice  against  those  who  propound  a  priori  theories  out  of  their 
 own  subjective  consciousness  as  to  how  the  Bible  must  have  been 
 -written,  if  it  really  contains  a  divine  revelation,  than  against  those 
 who  reverently  inquire  of  its  authors  what  was  the  nature  and  extent 
 of  that  superhuman  guidance  under  the  influence  of  which  they 
 wrote. 
 
 *  hTot  only  is  this  rendered  certain  by  the  assertions  in  the  earlier 
 chapters  of  the  Acts,  but  we  have  St.  Paul’s  repeated  affirmation  to 
 the  same  effect,  of  which  the  following  is  an  example  : — “  Wherefore 
 when  he  ascended  up  on  high,  he  led  captivity  captive,  and  gave  gifts 
 unto  men.  .  .  .  And  he  gave  some  apostles,  and  some  prophets, 
 
460 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OF  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 they  must  be  considered  as  constituting  the  inspiration 
 which  was  possessed  by  the  Apostolic  Church.  Consequently 
 the  Apostle^s  description  of  them  constitutes  the  only  theory 
 of  inspiration  to  be  found  in  the  New  Testament.  As  such,, 
 it  stands  in  striking  contrast  to  all  those  which  have  been 
 laid  down  on  a  priori  principles,  and  have  obtained  so  wide  a 
 currency  in  the  Church.  It  follows  therefore  that  as  this 
 constitutes  the  only  direct  light  which  the  New  Testament 
 throws  on  the  subject,  any  further  information  which  we 
 require  can  only  be  obtained,  as  Butler  affirms,  in  the  same 
 way  as  we  acquire  it  in  all  other  subjects  of  human  inquiry, 
 by  a  careful  and  reverent  exercise  of  those  rational  faculties 
 which  God  has  given  us  on  the  investigation  of  the  facts  and 
 phenomena  of  the  Bible. 
 
 I  now  proceed  to  apply  the  principles  which  have  been 
 laid  down  by  Butler  to  the  solution  of  some  of  our  chief 
 .scientific  difficulties.  The  only  thing  which  would  render 
 them  inapplicable,  would  be  some  distinct  affirmation  in  the 
 New  Testament  bearing  on  the  question.  But  as  we  have 
 seen,  the  only  thing  which  it  contains  resembling  a  theory 
 of  inspiration,  instead  of  being  opposed  to  the  principles  of 
 Butler,  is  strictly  in  conformity  with  them.  I  shall  confine 
 my  observations  to  a  few  of  the  most  important  points  in 
 dispute. 
 
 I.  As  to  the  difficulties  suggested  by  Geology  in  connec¬ 
 tion  with  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis. 
 
 It  will  be  no  duty  of  mine  to  enter  on  the  vexed  question 
 of  the  interpretation  of  this  chapter.  This  has  already  been 
 
 and  some  evangelists,  and  some  pastors  and  teachers,  for  the  perfect¬ 
 ing  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministry,  for  the  edifying  of  the 
 body  of  Christ.  *  (Eplies.  iv.  8, 11, 12.)  Writing  to  the  Corinthians, 
 he  says,  “  I  thank  my  God  always  on  your  behalf,  for  the  grace  of  God 
 which  is  given  you  by  Jesus  Christ,  that  in  every  thing  ye  are  enriched 
 by  him  in  all  utterance,  and  in  all  knowledge  ;  even  as  the  testimony  of 
 Christ  was  confirmed  in  you;  so  that  ye  come  behind  in  no  gift, 
 waiting  for  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  (1  Cor.  i.  4-7.) 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT. 
 
 461 
 
 so  thoroughly  discussed,  that  it  would  hardly  be  possible  to 
 say  anything  fresh  on  the  subject.  One  point  may,  at  all 
 events,  be  considered  settled,  viz.,  that  the  meaning  which 
 lias  been  universally  attributed  to  it  until  comparatively 
 recent  times,  and  which  the  exigencies  of  a  particular  theory 
 of  inspiration  naturally  suggested,  is  in  direct  opposition  to 
 the  scientific  facts.  It  is  beyond  question  that  the  passage 
 has  produced  a  very  general  belief  that  the  entire  created 
 universe  was  brought  into  its  present  form  in  a  period 
 of  six  natural  days.  This  is  obviously  the  meaning  which 
 would  be  attached  to  it  by  a  reader  unacquainted  with  the 
 facts  of  science.  But  it  is  no  less  certain  that  when  the 
 passage  is  closely  scrutinized,  uninfluenced  by  any  particular 
 theory  as  to  the  nature  of  inspiration,  it  is  capable  of  bear¬ 
 ing,  without  offering  any  violence  to  it,  a  different  interpre¬ 
 tation.  All  modes  of  interpretation  however,  which  endea¬ 
 vour  to  accommodate  it  to  the  scientific  facts,  are  founded 
 on  the  assumption  that  the  narrative  is  couched  in  language 
 which  is  not  scientifically  correct,  but  pre-eminently  popu¬ 
 lar  ;  and  possibly,  that  the  entire  representation  was  seen  in 
 a  vision. 
 
 Adopting  then  one  or  more  of  the  modern  modes  of 
 interpretation  which  have  been  applied  to  it  under  the 
 influence  of  the  light  of  geological  discoveries,  how  stands 
 the  case  ?  Let  it  be  observed  that  a  great  peculiarity 
 attaches  to  this  passage  of  Scripture.  Other  narratives  are 
 founded  on  the  testimony  of  eye-witnesses.  This  one 
 cannot;  for  Creation,  from  the  nature  of  the  case,  could 
 have  had  no  witness.  There  are  only  two  alternatives  as  to 
 its  origin.  Either  the  facts  must  have  been  made  known  by 
 Revelation,  or  its  statements  must  have  been  the  result  of  a 
 lucky  guess  of  some  one  in  the  primitive  ages  of  the  world  ; 
 for  the  idea  that  the  knowledge  could  have  been  the  result 
 of  scientific  investigation  in  those  times  is  out  of  the  ques¬ 
 tion.*  The  question  then  is  a  very  important  one,  how  do 
 
 *  Some  of  the  recent  discoveries  in  connection  with  the  pyramids 
 may  possibly  suggest  the  idea  of  a  lost  scientific  age.  How  far  this- 
 
462 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OF  INSPIRATION: 
 
 the  statements  in  this  chapter,  when  interpreted  in  accord¬ 
 ance  with  modern  critical  methods,  stand  in  relation  to  the 
 unquestionable  facts  of  geological  science  ?  The  answer  of 
 even  the  most  determined  opponents  of  Revelation  must  be, 
 that  while  in  some  minute  points  they  are  not  absolutely 
 consistent  with  the  scientific  facts,  yet  they  make  a  marvel¬ 
 lously  near  approach  to  them.  This  is  the  more  remarkable 
 when  we  compare  them  with  the  numerous  cosmogonies  of 
 the  ancient  world.  These,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  are  not 
 only  unspeakably  grotesque,  but  bear  no  kind  of  resemblance 
 to  the  facts  disclosed  by  geological  science. 
 
 One  additional  fact  requires  notice.  I  have  no  wish  to 
 express  an  opinion  whether  Creation  may  have  been  effected 
 in  conformity  with  any  modern  theory  of  evolution ;  but  I 
 ask  attention  to  the  singular  fact,  that  there  are  two  expres¬ 
 sions  in  this  chapter,  which  an  evolutionist,  who  believes  in 
 Theism,  might  accept  as  a  popular  exposition  of  his  theory. 
 The  first  of  these  occurs  in  the  description  of  the  creation  of 
 the  marine  animals;  and  the  second,  in  that  of  the  land 
 animals.  In  both  cases  the  creation  is  ascribed,  not  to  an 
 immediate,  but  to  a  mediate  agency.  Thus  we  read,  (C  And 
 God  said,  Let  the  waters  bring  forth  abundantly ,  the  moving 
 creature  that  hath  life,  and  fowl  that  may  fly  in  the  open 
 firmament  of  heaven The  next  verse  affirms  that  this 
 actually  took  place ;  and  adds  that  “  the  ivaters  brought 
 forth  abundantly In  a  similar  manner  the  earth  is  com¬ 
 manded  to  produce  the  land  animals.  It  cannot  be  denied, 
 that  as  far  as  the  language  goes,  it  is  quite  consistent  with 
 such  a  theory  of  evolution  as  affirms  that  the  Creator  has 
 acted  through  a  principle  of  this  kind  as  the  intermediate 
 agent  in  effecting  His  creative  work.* 
 
 may  be  true  with  respect  to  the  mathematical  and  astronomical  data 
 in  question,  I  would  not  venture  to  express  an  opinion,  but  that  such 
 knowledge  could  have  extended  to  geological  science  there  is  not  one 
 particle  of  evidence. 
 
 *  It  is  not  within  my  province  in  these  Lectures  to  enter  into  dis¬ 
 cussions  respecting  questions  of  Theism.  Still  I  cannot  help  express- 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT. 
 
 463 
 
 Still  close  as  is  tlie  resemblance  between  tlie  geological 
 record  and  this  chapter,  thus  interpreted,  it  must  be  candidly 
 
 ing  an  opinion  that  the  attempt  -which  has  been  made  in  certain 
 quarters  to  denounce  all  theories  of  evolution  as  essentially  Atheistic 
 or  Pantheistic,  is  pre-eminently  unwise.  Theories  of  evolution  which 
 assume  the  possibility  of  creating  the  universe  and  its  present  order 
 by  the  action  of  the  blind  forces  of  nature,  without  the  intervention  of 
 an  intelligent  Creator  immanent  in  and  directing  and  controlling  them, 
 are  undoubtedly  of  this  character,  and  have  imparted  in  the  eyes  of 
 many  a  plausibility  to  atheistic  and  pantheistic  theories  of  the  origin 
 of  the  universe  of  which  they  were  previously  destitute ;  and  it 
 is  undeniable  that  this  has  been  one  of  the  results  with  which 
 Mr.  Darwin’s  theories  have  been  attended,  although  he  himself  has 
 disclaimed  any  such  intention.  But  it  is  no  necessary  consequence  of 
 a  theory  of  evolution  that  it  should  exclude  the  conception  of  an 
 intelligent  Creator.  Bather,  when  such  theories  are  closely  scruti¬ 
 nized,  they  are  found  to  be  powerless  to  produce  any  result  without 
 one.  As  regards  the  Bible,  it  is  beyond  question  that  it  teaches 
 not  only  that  God  is  distinct  from  and  above  the  universe,  but  that 
 He  is  immanent  in  it,  and  constantly  energizing  in  its  forces.  This 
 being  so,  there  is  no  more  difficulty  in  supposing  that  the  Creator^ 
 after  having  given  existence  to  the  substance  of  the  universe,  has  used 
 some  process  of  evolution  as  one  of  the  means  through  which  He  has 
 carried  on  His  creative  work  than  that  He  has  called  each  separate 
 species  into  existence  by  what  is  called  direct  and  immediate  creation. 
 As  to  what  immediate  creation  is,  we  are  utterly  ignorant,  and  our 
 a  priori  knowledge  entirely  fails  to  determine  the  modus  operandi  in 
 which  God  must  have  carried  on  His  creative  work.  If  the  know¬ 
 ledge  of  this  is  ever  attained,  it  will  be,  not  by  the  abstract  specula¬ 
 tions  of  theologians,  but  by  a  careful  study  of  the  facts  of  the 
 universe.  One  thing  is  certain  upon  any  theory  of  creation,  that  in 
 the  production  of  each  individual  of  a  species,  God  does  act  in  con¬ 
 formity  with  a  principle  of  evolution,  and  not  of  direct  creation; 
 every  individual  man  having  been  in  this  manner  unquestionably 
 produced  from  the  first  parents  of  the  human  family  through  a  process, 
 part  of  which  is  known  to  us,  but  the  remainder  is  buried  in  impene¬ 
 trable  obscurity.  Consequently,  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  unwise 
 to  affirm  that  the  idea  that  God  has  used  a  principle  of  evolution  as 
 one  of  the  means  through  which  He  has  effected  His  creative  work, 
 is  essentially  atheistic  or  pantheistic.  One  thing  is  certain.  Whilo 
 this  theory  has  obtained  an  extensive  acceptance  among  scientific 
 men,  the  data  which  are  as  yet  in  our  possession  are  inadequate 
 
404 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OF  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 admitted  that  tlie  geological  facts  do  not  exactly  correspond 
 in  all  their  minuter  details  with  the  events  as  they  are  here 
 narrated.  Are  we  then,  in  conformity  with  some  a  'priori 
 theory  of  inspiration,  to  put  a  strain  upon  the  language  of 
 the  chapter,  which  it  will  not  bear,  or  deny  the  scientific 
 facts ;  or,  if  we  can  do  neither,  abandon  our  belief  in 
 Christianity  as  a  divine  revelation  ?  I  reply,  that  there  is  a 
 more  rational  alternative,  viz.,  to  apply  Butler's  principles 
 to  the  case  before  us. 
 
 First :  the  leading  idea  of  the  whole  chapter  is  not  a 
 scientific  but  a  religious  one ;  its  object  being  to  affirm  that 
 the  Universe  is  the  work  of  one  almighty  and  intelligent 
 Creator.  This  being  its  obvious  aim,  it  is  strictly  in  con¬ 
 formity  with  the  above  principles,  that  the  scientific  arrange¬ 
 ment  being  entirely  subordinate  to  the  main  purpose,  may 
 have  been  accommodated  to  the  religious  one.  Butler's 
 principles  firmly  establish  the  fact,  that  we  have  no  a  priori 
 
 to  justify  a  positive  and  dogmatical  affirmation  on  the  subject.  Our 
 duty  is  therefore  to  hold  ourselves  in  a  state  of  expectancy,  free 
 from  all  a,  priori  theorizing,  and  ready  to  accept  the  truth  from  what¬ 
 ever  quarter  it  may  come.  If  we  keep  ourselves  steadily  in  this 
 position,  we  shall  avoid  the  danger  of  having  to  beat  any  further 
 retreats  before  the  advance  of  scientific  knowledge.  In  whatever  way 
 it  may  be  ultimately  proved  that  the  universe  has  been  constructed* 
 it  will  never  be  discovered  to  have  been  built  by  the  sole  action  of  the 
 blind  forces  of  nature,  without  the  interposition  of  an  intelligent 
 Creator.  In  speaking  of  theories  of  evolution,  it  should  ever  be 
 kept  in  mind  that  there  are  many  others  besides  the  Darwinian  in 
 conformity  with  which  the  Creator  may  have  partially  energized  in 
 His  creative  work.  Scriptural  Theism  unquestionably  affirms  that  the 
 forces  of  the  universe  are  a  constant  manifestation  of  the  energies  of 
 God.  A  theory  which  contemplates  the  universe  as  a  self-acting 
 machine  which  was  once  constructed  by  God,  but  the  forces  of  which, 
 when  once  brought  into  existence,  continue  their  everlasting  operations 
 independently  of  His  immanence  in  them,  and  grind  out  a  succession 
 of  results  with  faultless  precision,  independently  of  His  intelligent 
 control,  may  be  abstractedly  consistent  with  Theism,  but  hardly  with 
 the  Theism  of  the  Bible,  which  contemplates  God,  not  merely  as  a 
 perfect  mechanist  or  chemist,  which  this  theory  represents  Him  to  be* 
 but  as  a  Father. 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT.  465 
 
 certainty  that  a  revelation,  whose  one  great  object  is  the 
 communication  of  religious  truth,  must  be  minutely  accurate 
 on  points  of  scientific  knowledge  in  the  record  which  contains 
 
 it,  on  pain  of  forfeiting  its  character  as  a  revelation  from 
 God. 
 
 Secondly :  the  narrative  nowhere  affirms  that  its  contents 
 were  communicated  by  immediate  revelation  to  the  author 
 of  the  Book  of  Genesis.  There  is  nothing  whatever  to 
 imply  that  they  were  not  in  existence  long  prior  to  his  time, 
 01  that  the  writer  did  not  find  them  already  in  existence,  and 
 incorporate  them  into  his  work.  He  is  in  fact  very  particulr 
 in  informing  us  what  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  were  communi¬ 
 cated  to  him  by  special  revelation  ;  but  he  gives  us  no  hint 
 whatever  that  he  derived  his  knowledge  of  any  part  of  the 
 book  of  Genesis  in  this  way.  As,  however,  it  is  certain  that 
 the  contents  of  this  chapter,  unless  they  were  the  result  of 
 a  lucky  guess,  must  have  been  the  subject  of  some  primitive 
 revelation,  it  follows  that  during  some  period  the  vehicle 
 of  its  transmission  must  have  been  a  traditionary  one. 
 It  is  impossible  to  compare  the  different  ancient  cosmo¬ 
 gonies  without  seeing  that  they  possess  many  points  in 
 common,  and  that  they  are  iu  all  probability  as  many 
 different  versions  of  some  primeval  account,  of  which  the 
 grotesque  elements  are  subsequent  interpolations  in  the 
 course  of  oral  transmission.*  Here  then  we  may  invoke 
 Butler  s  principle,  that  we  have  no  a  'priori  certainty  that 
 God  would  interfere  to  prevent  the  account  from  under¬ 
 going  some  degree  of  corruption  in  the  course  of  such 
 transmission;  and  consequently,  that  this  may  have  been 
 the  source  of  its  minuter  divergencies  from  the  strict 
 accuracy  of  scientific  facts.  If  this  be  so,  it  follows  on 
 the  same  principles,  that  we  have  no  right  to  affirm  that 
 
 #  This  is  strongly  confirmed  by  the  discovery  of  the  genuine  Chaldean 
 cosmogony  by  the  late  Mr.  G-.  Smith.  Its  close  resemblance  to  that  in 
 Genesis  is  unmistakable,  the  latter  being  the  monotheistic  account  of 
 
 Creation,  and  the  former  being  the  same  account  exhibited  in  a 
 polytheistic  dress. 
 
 30 
 
466 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OP  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 a  supernatural  enlightenment  must  have  been  imparted  to 
 the  author  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  to  enable  him  to  correct 
 them.  The  practice  therefore  which  has  been  adopted  by 
 numerous  defenders  of  Christianity,  of  representing  that 
 its  truth  must  stand  or  fall  with  our  ability  to  reconcile 
 every  statement  of  this  chapter  with  the  minutest  accuracy 
 of  scientific  facts,  cannot  be  too  strongly  reprobated.  If 
 the  writer  had  expressly  affirmed  that  he  had  received  every 
 word  of  it  by  immediate  revelation  from  God;  and  that 
 such  revelation  was  intended  to  be  scientifically  correct,  the 
 presence  of  errors  in  his  narrative  would  have  been  incon¬ 
 sistent  with  his  pretensions.  But  as  Butler  has  well 
 observed,  the  presence  of  errors  of  this  kind  would  only 
 invalidate  a  revelation  if  the  record  of  it  contained  a  definite 
 promise  that  it  should  be  exempt  from  them. 
 
 II.  As  to  the  antiquity  of  Man.  According  to  the 
 popularly  accepted  theories  of  inspiration,  the  Scriptures 
 are  pledged  to  a  system  of  Chronology  which  affirms  that 
 not  more  than  about  seven  thousand  years  can  have  elapsed 
 since  the  first  creation  of  man,  nor  more  than  about  five 
 thousand  years  since  the  Flood  ;  and  any  alleged  dis¬ 
 coveries  of  science  which  prove  that  man  has  existed  on 
 the  earth  for  a  longer  period  are  consequently  inconsistent 
 with  the  claims  of  the  Bible  to  contain  a  divine  Kevelation.* 
 
 So  strong  has  been  this  conviction  that  to  this  hour  no 
 inconsiderable  number  of .  Bibles  continue  to  be  printed 
 with  this  chronology  in  their  margins,  a  practice  which  has 
 led  many  people  to  view  it  as  of  equal  authority  with  the 
 sacred  text.  But  the  investigations  which  have  recently 
 
 *  Thus  the  question  has  been  eagerly  debated  as  to  the  exact  time 
 of  the  Israelites’  sojourn  in  Egypt,  or  whether  the  interval  of  450 
 years  which  St.  Paul  assigns  to  it  in  his  address  to  the  Jews  in  the 
 synagogue  at  Antioch  in  Pisidia,  is  correct,  as  though  the  life  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity  depended  on  the  issue.  As  we  have  seen,  we  have  neither  a 
 priori  nor  a  posteriori  knowledge  that  an  apostle  must  have  received 
 supernatural  illumination  on  the  subject  of  Chronology.  Why  might 
 not  St.  Paul  have  adopted  that  which  he  knew  to  be  currently  accepted 
 by  those  whom  he  addressed  P  If  he  had  done  otherwise  he  would 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT.  407 
 
 been  so  successfully  prosecuted  in  tlie  early  history  of  civi¬ 
 lization,,  and  the  discoveries  which  have  been  made  in  the 
 science  of  language,  have  gone  a  great  way  to  show  that 
 this  position  will  also  prove  as  untenable  as  those  which 
 have  already  had  to  be  abandoned ;  for  the  period  which 
 the  received  chronology  lays  down  as  separating  the  date 
 of  the  building  of  Solomon's  temple  from  that  of  the 
 deluge  seems  inadequate  to  meet  the  demands  that  are 
 made  upon  us  by  the  growth  of  civilization  and  of  lan¬ 
 guage. 
 
 I  am  not  here  alluding  to  the  demands  made  by  a  par¬ 
 ticular  School  of  Geologists  for  millions  of  years  since  the 
 first  appearance  of  man  on  this  planet,  but  to  the  longer 
 interval  of  time  than  that  which  according  to  the  received 
 system  separates  the  deluge  from  the  present  day,  which 
 has  been  proved  to  be  absolutely  necessary  by  the  evidence 
 of  the  gradual  growth  of  civilization  and  of  language.  The 
 facts  may  be  briefly  stated.  We  are  now  in  the  possession 
 of  data  which  prove  the  existence  of  an  advanced  state 
 of  civilization  at  a  very  early  period,  say,  between  three 
 and  four  thousand  years  before  Christ.  This  civilization, 
 as  in  the  case  of  Egypt,  is  united  with  a  very  complicated 
 system  of  theology.  The  evidence  is  incontestable  that 
 neither  of  these  came  into  existence  spontaneously,  but 
 that  both  have  been  gradually  developed.  Whichever 
 theory  we  may  adopt  as  to  whether  man  originated 
 in  a  highly  civilized  or  in  a  savage  state,  it  is  equally 
 certain  that  the  condition  of  things  disclosed  by  the 
 remains  of  antiquity  could  only  have  grown  up  during* 
 a  long  period,  which  must  be  added  on  to  our  earliest 
 
 have  incurred  the  danger  of  diverting  their  attention  from  the  all- 
 important  question  of  the  IVfessiahship  of  Jesus  to  the  discussion  of 
 his  new  and  previously  unheard-of  Chronology.  To  determine  the 
 true  Chronology  of  Scripture  is  in  itself  a  study  of  great  interest ; 
 but  to  do  so  as  though  the  accuracy  of  every  statement  in  it  was  vital 
 to  Christianity,  is  to  place  a  needless  stumbling-block  in  the  way  of 
 both  believers  and  unbelievers. 
 
 30  * 
 
468  POPULAR  THEORIES  OF  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 historic  date.  Thus,  if  man  began  as  a  savage,  he  must 
 have  elevated  himself  to  that  state  of  civilization  which 
 the  earliest  monuments  of  Egypt  and  other  countries 
 disclose,  by  a  gradual  growth  which  must  have  required 
 a  long  interval  of  time.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  he  began 
 in  a  highly  civilized  condition,  and  was  possessed  of  a  pure 
 theology,  a  very  considerable  period  must  have  elapsed 
 before  the  complicated,  and  in  many  respects,  degraded 
 Egyptian  theology  could  have  grown  out  of  this.  I  select 
 this  merely  as  a  single  illustration  of  the  large  mass  of 
 evidence  which  is  daily  accumulating  upon  us. 
 
 These  considerations  acquire  an  increased  force  which  is 
 becoming  irresistible  by  the  investigations  which  have  been 
 made  into  the  origin  and  growth  of  language.  Not  only  is 
 it  certain  that  the  Sanskrit,  the  Latin  and  the  Greek,  and 
 several  others  originated  out  of  a  common  language  at  a 
 period  of  very  remote  antiquity,  but  this  common  language 
 and  all  the  other  primitive  languages  have  had  a  long  history 
 of  their  own,  during  which  they  have  gradually  diverged 
 from  some  original  and  common  stock.  The  evidence  of 
 all  this,  which  is  accumulating  on  us  with  a  rapid  pace,  is 
 incompatible  with  the  popularly  accepted  theories  about  the 
 date  which  must  be  assigned  to  the  deluge,  or  even  to  the 
 creation  of  man,  on  the  supposed  authority  of  the  Scriptures 
 of  the  Old  Testament.  Nor  will  the  confusion  of  tongues  at 
 Babel  free  us  from  the  difficulty,  as  the  evidence  is  incon¬ 
 testable  that  after  the  formation  of  the  original  varieties 
 these  various  languages  have  passed  through  a  long  period 
 of  gradual  growth. 
 
 On  the  other  hand,  when  we  consider  the  data  which  the 
 book  of  Genesis  furnishes  for  the  construction  of  a  system 
 of  chronology,  it  is  evident  that  they  are  of  an  extremely 
 meagre  character,  and  have  little  or  no  value  independently 
 of  a  particular  theory  of  inspiration.  The  date  of  the  build¬ 
 ing  of  the  Temple  by  Solomon  is  tolerably  certain,  but 
 beyond  this  we  get  involved  in  obscurity  and  mists,  which 
 gradually  thicken  into  intense  darkness.  Not  only  are  the 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT.  469 
 
 numbers  subject  to  grave  suspicion,  but  for  a  long  interval 
 the  sole  authority  is  a  list  of  persons,  who  are  said  at  a 
 certain  age  to  have  begotten  their  sons,  some  of  whose 
 names  bear  every  appearance  of  not  being  the  designations 
 of  individuals  but  of  nations.  Still  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
 if  it  is  necessary  to  accept  the  theories  of  inspiration  of 
 which  I  have  been  speaking,  as  vital  to  Christianity,  the 
 conclusion  that  a  period  of  little  more  than  5000  years  must 
 separate  us  from  the  second  beginning  of  the  human  race, 
 and  7000  years  from  the  first  origin  of  man,  logically  follows 
 from  the  premisses.* 
 
 It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  present  state  of  this  contro¬ 
 versy  is  causing  anxiety  to  a  large  number  of  inquiring  and 
 deeply  religious  minds.  Under  the  influence  of  current 
 theories  of  inspiration,  the  opinion  has  been  widely  diffused 
 that  if  the  dates  of  the  creation  of  man  and  of  the  deluge 
 must  be  carried  up  several  thousand  years  higher  than  those 
 which  have  hitherto  been  commonly  assigned  to  them,  the 
 position  of  Christianity  as  a  divine  revelation  is  seriously 
 imperilled.  On  the  other  hand,  opponents  taking  advantage 
 of  this  state  of  thought,  loudly  proclaim  that  the  disproof 
 of  the  received  system  of  Chronology  is  nothing  short  of 
 the  demolition  of  the  claims  of  the  Bible  to  be  a  record  of  a 
 divine  revelation. 
 
 What,  then,  is  the  remedy  ?  I  reply,  the  cordial  accept¬ 
 ance  of  the  principles  laid  down  by  Butler.  These  difficulties, 
 and  the  unedifying  discussions  between  theologians  and  men 
 of  science  might  have  been  avoided  if  his  warnings  had  been 
 heeded,  and  theories  of  inspiration  had  not  been  propounded 
 
 *  The  absurdity  of  the  popular  theories  of  inspiration  is  exhibited 
 in  a  striking  light  by  the  fact  that  each  of  the  three  copies  of  the  Old 
 Testament  which  we  possess  furnishes  us  with  a  different  system  of 
 Chronology  ;  and  it  is  now  impossible  to  ascertain  for  certain  which, 
 if  any  of  them,  was  the  one  adopted  by  the  author  of  the  book  of 
 Genesis.  They  cannot  be  all  true,  and  may  be  all  false. 
 
 This  being  so,  nothing  can  be  more  unwise  than  to  discuss  this 
 question  as  though  the  truth  of  Christianity  was  in  any  way  depen¬ 
 dent  on  its  solution. 
 
470 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OP  INSPIRATION  *. 
 
 as  vital  to  Christianity  whose  sole  ground  of  validity  is 
 that  they  correspond  with  the  a  priori  conceptions  of  those 
 who  have  invented  them.  The  whole  difficulty  vanishes  as 
 soon  as  it  is  fairly  recognized  that  we  have  no  evidence 
 whatever  that  the  divine  enlightenment  imparted  to  the 
 human  authors  of  the  Bible  must  have  extended  to  questions 
 of  Chronology  and  other  kindred  subjects.  The  author  of 
 St.  Matthew's  Gospel  has  unquestionably  omitted  three 
 links  in  the  genealogy  of  Jesus  Christ,  so  that  a  person 
 whom  he  designates  as  the  son  of  another  was  in  reality  his 
 great  grandson.*  If  such  an  omission  has  taken  place  where 
 we  can  verify  it  by  a  reference  to  the  Book  of  Kings,  it  is 
 impossible  to  be  sure  that  protracted  intervals  of  time  have 
 not  been  omitted  in  the  scanty  materials  which  constitute 
 the  chronological  basis  of  the  Book  of  Genesis.  The  proper 
 reply  to  all  difficulties  of  this  kind  is  that  we  have  no 
 certainty  derived  either  from  an  a  priori  or  an  a  posteriori 
 source  that  the  writers  of  the  Bible  possessed  a  superhuman 
 guidance  on  subjects  of  this  description ;  and  cur  duty  is 
 not  merely  to  hold  such  opinions  secretly  within  our  own 
 bosoms,  but  openly  to  announce  and  act  on  them,  in  order 
 that  the  many  stumbling-blocks  which  now  endanger  the 
 faith  of  thousands  may  be  removed  out  of  their  way. 
 
 III.  A  similar  course  of  reasoning  may  be  applied  to  the 
 numerous  questions  which  have  been  so  eagerly  debated 
 about  the  deluge  and  its  alleged  universality.  Here  again, 
 if  a  rigid  a  'priori  theory  is  assumed  which  requires  absolute 
 accuracy  of  expression  in  the  record  of  Revelation,  there 
 can  be  no  doubt  that  the  Book  of  Genesis  affirms  its  univer- 
 
 *  The  three  omitted  names  are  Ahaziah,  Joash,  and  Amaziah. 
 Various  reasons  have  been  assigned  for  the  omission,  but  they  are 
 all  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  verbal  inspiration  or  any  of  its 
 modifications.  This  however  is  far  from  being  the  only  difficulty  con¬ 
 nected  with  the  genealogy.  The  fact  of  the  omission  is  not  removed 
 by  any  possible  explanation  of  its  cause ;  and  this  renders  it  highly 
 probable  that  in  the  genealogies  of  the  Old  Testament,  especially  in 
 those  of  remote  times,  other  omissions,  and  extending  over  far  greater 
 intervals  of  time,  may  have  taken  place. 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT. 
 
 471 
 
 sality  ;  and  renders  it  necessary  to  assume  tlie  performance 
 of  a  number  of  stupendous  miracles  by  means  of  which  the 
 different  animals  of  whose  existence  the  narrative  does  not 
 give  us  the  smallest  hint,  were  conveyed  into  the  ark.  In  a 
 similar  manner  it  throws  on  Revelation  the  weight  of  a  whole 
 mass  of  difficulties  connected  with  questions  of  physical 
 science,  under  which  the  faith  of  multitudes  has  been  made 
 to  stagger.  We  cannot  wonder,  when  such  principles  have 
 been  laid  down  by  popular  writers  on  theology,  if  a  large 
 number  of  the  students  of  science  have  taken  them  at  their 
 word,  and  boldly  announced  that  their  discoveries  are  incon¬ 
 sistent  with  the  claims  of  Christianity  to  be  accepted  as  a 
 divine  revelation.  But  if  we  apply  to  this  subject  the  prin¬ 
 ciples  which  were  laid  down  by  the  great  defender  of  Chris¬ 
 tianity  more  than  a  century  ago,  the  difficulties  in  question 
 cease  to  have  any  real  existence.  They  may  still  remain 
 subjects  of  profound  interest;  but  whichever  way  they  may 
 ultimately  be  determined  by  the  increase  of  our  scientific 
 knowledge,  they  will  no  longer  be  regarded  as  vital  to  the 
 acceptance  of  Christianity  as  a  divine  revelation. 
 
 IY.  The  same  principle  is  applicable  to  a  numerous  class 
 of  critical  questions  as  to  the  date  and  authorship  of  the 
 sacred  books.  I  by  no  means  wish  to  deny  the  deep  interest 
 of  many  of  these  questions,  or  for  one  moment  to  deprecate 
 their  study,  but  only  to  correct  the  popular  idea  that  the 
 life  of  Christianity  is  involved  in  their  solution.  Thus  we 
 have  had  endless  discussions  about  the  Pentateuch,  its 
 authorship  and  date,  and  the  number  of  documents  out  of 
 which  it  has  been  composed.*  Questions  of  this  kind, 
 which  are  involved  in  deep  obscurity,  and  of  which  the 
 
 *  I  may  add  that  questions  about  the  accuracy  of  the  Biblical  num¬ 
 bers,  especially  of  those  contained  in  the  Pentateuch,  are  often  eagerly 
 debated  as  though  the  truth  of  Christianity  was  dependent  on  the 
 result.  I  observe,  in  the  first  place,  that  nothing  is  more  likely  to  get 
 corrupted  in  transmission  than  numbers.  Secondly,  if  Butler’s  prin¬ 
 ciples  are  correct,  we  have  no  a  ‘priori  knowledge  that  supernatural 
 enlightenment  would  be  afforded  on  such  subjects  to  those  through 
 
472 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OP  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 evidence  at  best  is  small,  seem  to  have  a  particular  attrac¬ 
 tiveness  to  a  numerous  class  of  learned  men.  In  many 
 cases  the  uncertain  character  of  the  evidence  is  only  sur¬ 
 passed  by  the  boldness  of  the  theories  which  have  been 
 erected  on  it.  A  late  eminent  writer,  who  holds  it  to  be  a 
 composite  work,  has  with  the  most  astounding  self-confi¬ 
 dence  affirmed  that  he  can  discriminate  the  portions  which 
 have  been  derived  from  these  different  documents,  and 
 ascribe  them  to  their  respective  authors.  It  is  admitted 
 however  on  all  hands  that  considerable  portions  of  the 
 Pentateuch,  if  not  written  by  Moses,  are  genuine  repre¬ 
 sentations  of  Ins  teaching  and  institutions.  This  being  so, 
 I  fall  back  on  the  position  taken  by  Butler,  as  inherently 
 sound,  that  Neither  disputes  about  the  authorship  of 
 different  parts  of  the  Bible,  nor  any  other  things  of  the  like 
 kind,  though  they  had  been  much  more  considerable  than 
 they  are,  could  overthrow  the  authority  of  Scripture  unless 
 the  prophets,  apostles,  or  Our  Lord  had  promised  that  the 
 book  containing  the  divine  revelation  should  be  secure  from 
 these  things.”  If  the  principle  thus  enunciated  by  this 
 great  defender  of  Christianity  is  correct,  it  ought  to  have 
 been  accepted  as  their  guide  by  all  those  who  have  engaged 
 in  modern  controversies  on  these  and  kindred  subjects. 
 
 Y.  My  space  will  only  allow  me  very  briefly  to  apply  the 
 same  principle  to  the  discrepancies  which  are  alleged  to 
 exist  in  the  Gospels.  These  have  been  magnified  to  an 
 extent  that  is  absurd.  A  large  number  of  them  admit  of  an 
 easy  reconciliation  under  the  guidance  of  common  sense. 
 Others  arise  from  the  fragmentary  nature  of  the  narrative 
 and  our  ignorance  of  the  entire  facts.  Not  a  few  of  the 
 remainder  owe  their  origin  to  the  fact  that  the  events  have 
 
 whom  a  revelation  was  communicated.  Thirdly,  we  have  no  promise 
 of  Christ  that  such  knowledge  should  be  imparted,  nor  is  there  any 
 affirmation  of  prophet  or  apostle  bearing  on  the  subject.  This  being 
 so,  when  theologians  discuss  the  subject  in  the  way  to  which  I  have 
 referred,  they  not  only  place  a  false  issue  before  unbelievers,  but 
 pursue  a  course  which  endangers  the  faith  of  believers. 
 
THEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT.  473 
 
 *  j 
 
 been  grouped  in  reference  to  the  religious  purpose  of  the 
 author  rather  than  in  the  order  of  strict  historical  sequence. 
 Of  a  few  the  reconciliation  is  difficult.  Of  these  the  three¬ 
 fold  account  of  the  miracle  at  Jericho  may  be  mentioned  as 
 an  example,  St.  Matthew’s  Gospel  affirming  that  two  blind 
 men  were  cured,  while  it  is  the  obvious  meaning  of  St.  Mark’s 
 narrative  that  only  one  was  cured  at  the  entrance  to  the 
 city,  and  of  that  of  St.  Luke,  that  a  single  blind  man  was 
 cured  by  Our  Lord  after  he  had  passed  through  the  city. 
 This  difficulty  is  increased  by  the  fact  that  words  and 
 actions  so  closely  alike  are  attributed  both  to  Our  Lord 
 and  to  the  blind  men,  that  it  is  hardly  possible  to  believe 
 that  they  were  repeated  twice  over  in  the  manner  in  which 
 they  are  given  in  St.  Mark’s  and  St.  Luke’s  Gospels ;  and 
 even  this  would  leave  the  statement  in  St.  Matthew  un¬ 
 explained,  that  two  blind  men  were  cured  by  Our  Lord  as 
 He  departed  from  Jericho.  The  attempted  reconciliations 
 of  this  discrepancy  are  all  very  forced  and  unnatural,  and 
 do  far  more  mischief  to  the  historical  character  of  the  Gos¬ 
 pels  than  the  candid  admission  of  its  reality.  With  respect 
 to  difficulties  of  this  description  (and  they  are  very  few*), 
 the  best  solution  will  be  found  in  the  principle  laid  down  by 
 Butler,  that  it  is  impossible  to  affirm  that  if  the  contents  of 
 the  Gospels  were  left  to  be  handed  down  by  tradition  during 
 the  first  thirty  years  of  the  existence  of  the  Church,  inaccu¬ 
 racies  may  not  have  been  introduced  in  the  process.  A 
 careful  study  of  the  parallel  narratives  will  impress  the 
 student  with  the  conviction  that  they  must  have  passed 
 
 *  Another  very  striking  instance  is  the  apparent  disagreement 
 between  the  Synoptics  and  St.  John  as  to  the  day  on  which  Our  Lord 
 celebrated  the  Last  Supper,  and  its  Paschal  character.  Every  effort 
 of  ingenuity  has  been  exhausted  on  this  controversy,  and  a  vast  mass 
 of  literature  has  grown  out  of  the  attempts  to  solve  the  difficulty.  Still, 
 if  after  perusing  the  most  elaborate  disquisitions  on  the  subject  one 
 reads  the  simple  narrative  of  the  Evangelists,  one  cannot  avoid  feeling 
 that  the  difficulty  remains.  It  seems  far  more  satisfactory,  there¬ 
 fore,  to  have  recourse  to  the  principle  of  Butler,  that  it  has  been 
 occasioned  by  the  Synoptics  having  passed  through  a  period  of  oral 
 
474 
 
 POPULAR  THEORIES  OE  INSPIRATION  : 
 
 through,  some  period  of  oral  transmission.  To  this  all  their 
 phenomena  point.  It  is  therefore  quite  rational  to  affirm,  if 
 any  of  the  alleged  discrepancies  are  real,  that  this  is  the 
 source  in  which  they  have  originated,  and  that  we  have 
 neither  any  a  priori  certainty,  nor  promise  of  Our  Lord,  nor 
 assertion  of  His  Apostles,  that  the  writings  of  the  New 
 Testament  must  be  free  from  errors  of  this  description, 
 which  after  all  are  powerless  to  affect  its  general  historical 
 character.  The  only  wonder  is,  not  that  they  exist,  but 
 that  they  are  so  few  in  number. 
 
 A  large  majority  of  the  other  difficulties  which  arise  in 
 connection  with  the  present  aspects  of  modern  thought,  as 
 far  as  they  are  not  Atheistic  or  Pantheistic,  may  be  solved 
 on  the  same  principles.  The  following  proposition,  which 
 goes  to  the  root  of  the  entire  difficulty,  seems  so  self-evident 
 as  to  require  simply  to  be  stated  to  insure  its  acceptance  as 
 true.  Principles  of  investigation  which,  when  applied  in 
 past  ages  to  the  study  of  the  constitution  of  the  universe, 
 have  not  only  been  barren  of  good  result,  but  have  led  to 
 positive  errors,  cannot  be  safe  guides  to  truth  when  applied 
 to  the  study  of  Revelation.  Let  these  then  be  abandoned  ; 
 and  let  those  which  have  unfolded  to  us  what  is  the  real 
 constitution  of  the  universe  be  substituted  in  their  place. 
 This  will  lead  to  an  enlarged  view  of  the  realities  of  Revela¬ 
 tion,  and  enable  both  revelations  of  God — the  one  made  in 
 the  created  universe,  and  the  other  in  the  person  of  Jesus 
 Christ  our  Lord — to  be  studied  in  harmony. 
 
 I  conclude  with  the  words  of  the  great  Bishop,  which 
 cannot  be  too  deeply  impressed  on  the  mind  of  every  student : 
 
 transmission  before  they  were  committed  to  writing.  A  similar 
 principle  is  the  best  solution  of  an  apparent  discrepancy  between  the 
 Synoptics  themselves  as  to  the  precise  day  on  which  the  different 
 events  in  Passion  Week  occurred,  and  of  those  other  apparent  discre¬ 
 pancies  on  the  reconciliation  of  which  so  much  ingenuity  has  been 
 expended.  They  have  only  a  real  importance  when  the  truth  of 
 Christianity  is  complicated  with  that  of  a  particular  theory  of  inspi¬ 
 ration. 
 
TIIEIR  RELATION  TO  SCIENTIFIC  THOUGHT.  475 
 
 J 
 
 — “  And  as  it  must  be  owned  tbat  tbe  whole  scheme  of 
 Scripture  is  not  yet  understood,  so  if  it  ever  comes  to  be 
 understood  before  the  restitution  of  all  things,  and  without 
 miraculous  interpositions,  it  must  be  in  the  same  way  as 
 natural  knowledge  is  come  at — by  the  continuance  and  pro¬ 
 gress  of  learning  and  liberty,  and  by  particular  persons 
 attending  to,  comparing,  and  pursuing  intimations  scattered 
 up  and  down  in  it,  that  are  overlooked  and  disregarded  by 
 the  generality  of  the  world.”  What  then  is  the  inference  ? 
 Both  must  be  studied,  not  under  the  guidance  of  abstract 
 and  unverifiable  theories,  but  by  the  light  of  patent  and 
 incontrovertible  facts.  If  this  course  be  pursued,  the  three 
 great  revelations  of  God — in  the  material  universe,  in  the 
 moral  nature  of  man,  and  in  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ  our 
 Lord — will  constitute  one  harmonious  whole,  each  throwing 
 light  on  the  other  during  the  ages  of  the  future,  until  in 
 the  dispensation  of  the  fulness  of  time  all  things  are  gathered 
 together  in  Christ  in  one,  whether  they  be  things  on  earth 
 or  things  in  heaven. 
 
476 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTE  (PP.  11 6-129;. 
 
 The  foregoing  Lectures  were  composed,  and  the  greater  portion 
 of  them  in  type,  before  the  publication  of  Professor  Mozley’s 
 Lectures,  entitled  “Puling  Ideas  in  Early  Ages.”  It  was  there¬ 
 fore  impossible  for  me  to  notice  the  positions  taken  in  them  with 
 regard  to  the  evidential  value  of  miracles,  which  apparently 
 present  some  points  of  divergency  from  those  adopted  by 
 him  in  his  Bampton  course.  The  very  interesting  discussions 
 on  the  alleged  imperfection  of  the  moral  teaching  of  the  Old 
 Testament,  and  Professor  Mozley’s  mode  of  meeting  the  difficulty 
 form  no  legitimate  portion  of  the  present  argument.  I  shall 
 therefore  confine  my  observations  to  the  subject  of  miracles. 
 
 The  propositions  laid  down  in  the  Lecture  on  the  Sacrifice  of 
 Isaac  are  as  follows  : 
 
 1.  That  the  general  rule  laid  down  in  Scripture  is,  that 
 miracles  are  evidences  of  the  divine  will ;  and  that  a  command 
 which  has  the  warrant  of  a  miracle  may  be  regarded  as  coming 
 from  God. 
 
 2.  While  this  is  the  general  principle,  a  collateral  principle  is 
 recognized  in  Scripture,  that  miracles  may  be  permitted  by  God 
 for  the  purpose  of  trial. 
 
 3.  When  a  miracle  contradicts  any  clear  knowledge  we  have  of 
 the  divine  will,  in  such  cases  it  does  not  bear  its  primary  and 
 most  natural  interpretation  as  an  evidence  of  the  divine  will  ; 
 but  the  secondary  interpretation  as  a  trial  of  moral  strength  in 
 resisting  that  apparent  evidence  of  the  moment,  and  from  with¬ 
 out,  in  favour  of  the  more  real  evidence  of  His  will  which  wo 
 have  from  antecedent  sources  and  from  within. 
 
 4.  A  miracle  cannot  authorize  the  acceptance  of  any  doctrine 
 manifestly  opposed  to  the  Gospel  revelation. 
 
 5.  The  rule  of  Scripture  in  substance  is,  that  no  great  moral 
 or  religious  principle  or  law  of  conduct,  of  which  we  are  prac¬ 
 tically  certain  on  general  antecedent  grounds,  can  be  upset  even 
 by  a  real  miracle ;  but  that  when  the  two  come  into  collision,  as 
 evidence,  the  miracle  must  give  way,  and  the  moral  conviction 
 stand  5  that  no  miracle  in  short  can  outweigh  a  plain  duty  5  and 
 that  a  real  miracle  might  be  wrought,  and  yet  it  would  be  wrong 
 to  do  the  act  which  the  miracle  enjoined. 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTE. 
 
 477 
 
 6.  A  miracle  may  be  evidence  of  a  divine  command  to  do  a 
 particular  act,  to  a  man  whose  moral  conceptions  are  low,  and 
 yet  be  no  evidence  to  one  in  whom  they  are  of  a  more  elevated 
 character.  Consequently,  miracles  may  have  been  evidence  of 
 divine  commands  to  former  ages,  which  would  wholly  fail  to 
 prove  such  commands  at  the  present  day.  From  this  it  follows 
 that  a  miracle  may  in  some  former  age  of  the  world  have  formed 
 an  adequate  attestation  of  a  supposed  divine  command  to  kill  a 
 son  ;  but  if  it  were  wrought  at  the  present  day  in  attestation  of 
 a  similar  command,  it  would  be  our  duty  to  reject  it. 
 
 If  these  are  accurate  accounts  of  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  the 
 evidential  character  of  miracles,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  only 
 effect  of  their  performance  would  be  to  throw  a  plain  man  into 
 a  state  of  hopeless  uncertainty  as  to  what  they  really  substan¬ 
 tiated,  or  what  line  of  duty  they  prescribed  to  him.  In  this 
 note  I  shall  draw  attention  to  a  few  only  of  the  difficulties 
 involved  in  the  views  thus  enunciated. 
 
 As  Dr.  Mozley  considers  that  miracles  may  be  performed  not 
 only  as  evidences  of  a  divine  command,  but  for  the  purposes  of 
 trial,  it  becomes  a  matter  of  the  highest  importance  to  ascertain 
 whether  miracles  wrought  for  this  latter  purpose  are  performed 
 by  the  finger  of  God,  or  by  the  power  of  Satan.  He  admits 
 that  real  miracles  may  be  performed  for  the  purpose  of 
 substantiating  a  doctrine  or  a  command  which  we  are  never¬ 
 theless  morally  bound  to  reject  or  to  disobey.  But  if  any 
 such  are  alleged  to  be  performed  by  God,  it  brings  us  face 
 to  face  with  a  question  of  the  greatest  difficulty,  viz.,  whether  it 
 is  consistent  with  His  character  to  perform  miracles  of  this 
 description.  If  on  the  other  hand  they  are  alleged  to  be  Satanic, 
 this  opens  the  all-important  question,  How  are  such  miracles  to 
 be  distinguished  from  the  miracles  of  God  P  for  if  there  is  no 
 clear  mode  of  discriminating  between  them,  the  evidential  value 
 of  miracles  would  be  utterly  destroyed.  Yet  no  hint  is  given 
 us  how  these  important  questions  are  to  be  determined. 
 
 But  further  :  if  miracles  are  performed  for  the  purposes  of 
 trial,  they  cannot  be  the  sole  and  adequate  attestations  of  a 
 revelation.  In  such  a  case  a  person  who  witnesses  a  miracle 
 may  justly  entertain  a  doubt  whether  it  was  wrought  to  prove  a 
 doctrine,  or  to  justify  a  command ;  or  to  test  his  religious  or 
 moral  principles,  as  to  whether,  despite  of  the  miiacle,  he  would 
 
473 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTE. 
 
 follow  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience.  It  is  impossible  that 
 miracles  can  subserve  the  two  opposite  purposes  of  being  evi¬ 
 dences  of  a  divine  command,  and  tests  of  faith,  unless  those 
 wrought  for  the  latter  purpose  bear  some  mark  which  clearly 
 distinguishes  them  from  the  former. 
 
 Let  us  now  consider  Dr.  Mozley’s  third  position.  Assuming 
 its  truth,  it  follows  that  the  evidence  afforded  by  a  miracle 
 cannot  overbear  the  clear  dictates  of  our  conscience ;  but  when 
 ever  it  runs  counter  to  them,  we  are  bound  to  reject  the  miracle 
 as  being  a  trial  of  moral  strength ;  or,  in  other  words,  a  tempta¬ 
 tion.  But  the  consciences  of  many  earnest  men  are  frequently 
 misinformed.  Thus  St.  Paul  tells  us  that  he  was  acting  strictly 
 in  conformity  with  his  conscientious  convictions,  when  he  perse¬ 
 cuted  the  Christians  to  the  death.  If  Dr.  Mozley’s  position 
 therefore  is  correct,  he  was  justified  in  rejecting  the  miracles 
 wrought  by  the  apostles  in  attestation  of  Our  Lord’s  resur¬ 
 rection,  as  permitted  for  the  purpose  of  testing  the  firmness 
 of  his  adhesion  to  the  Mosaic  dispensation. 
 
 So  with  respect  to  the  fourth  proposition,  that  a  miracle  cannot 
 authorize  the  acceptance  of  any  doctrine  manifestly  opposed  to 
 the  Christian  Revelation.  This  must  have  been  equally  true  of  the 
 Jewish  Revelation.  But  who  is  to  be  the  judge  when  doctrines: 
 manifestly  contradict  either  of  them  ?  There  can  be  no  other 
 court  of  appeal  but  the  conscience  of  the  individual.  Now 
 as  the  obligation  to  obey  the  Jewish  ceremonial  law  rested, 
 according  to  the  general  principles  laid  down  by  Dr.  Mozley 
 in  his  Bampton  Lectures,  on  the  evidence  of  miracles,  it 
 follows  that  a  Jew  would  have  been  justified  in  coming  to  the 
 conclusion  that  the  miracles  wrought  in  attestation  of  a  system, 
 such  as  Christianity,  which  was  intended  to  supersede  it,  were 
 merely  trials  of  his  moral  strength,  and  therefore  that  it  was 
 his  duty  to  reject  them.  This  being  so,  it  follows  that  the 
 Judaizing  Christians  of  the  Apostolic  Churches  were  not  without 
 substantial  reasons  for  rejecting  the  validity  of  St.  Paul’s  Apos¬ 
 tolical  Commission,  notwithstanding  his  plea  that  he  possessed 
 a  miraculous  attestation;  for  they  could  plead  against  it,  not. 
 only  the  fact  that  Our  Lord  was  circumcised,  but  that  He 
 himself  was  an  observer  of  the  Jewish  rites,  and  never  directed 
 their  abolition  during  the  whole  course  of  His  ministry.  Con¬ 
 sequently,  as  the  Pauline  doctrine  of  the  abolition  of  circumcision 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTE. 
 
 479 
 
 was,  to  use  the  words  of  Dr.  Mozley,  “a  manifest  contradiction” 
 of  the  fundamental  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament  and  received 
 no  support  from  the  direct  teaching  of  Our  Lord,  the  Judaizing 
 sections  of  the  Church  were  fully  justified  in  denouncing  St.  Paul 
 as  a  false  apostle,  notwithstanding  the  miracles  which  it  was 
 admitted  that  he  performed. 
 
 But  further :  Dr.  Mozley  affirms  in  his  first  Bampton  Lecture, 
 that  the  only  thing  which  would  justify  any  rational  man  in 
 accepting  the  truth  of  many  of  Our  Lord’s  declarations  respecting 
 Himself,  is  the  evidence  of  miracles.  But  according  to  the  prin¬ 
 ciples  laid  down  in  the  Lecture  we  are  now  considering,  would 
 not  those  who  witnessed  Our  Lord’s  miracles  have  been  justified 
 in  rejecting  them  as  affording  evidence  of  such  “  incredible 
 assertions”  on  the  ground  that  they  were  intended  for  the  pur¬ 
 poses  of  trial  in  resisting  that  “  apparent  evidence  of  the  moment, 
 and  from  without,  in  favour  of  the  more  real  evidence  from  ante¬ 
 cedent  sources,  and  from  within  ?” 
 
 I  fully  agree  with  Dr.  Mozley,  that  no  miracle  can  jnstify  us 
 in  the  breach  of  a  plain  duty,  for  the  simple  reason  that  it  is 
 incredible  that  God  would  ever  allow  one  to  be  performed  for 
 such  a  purpose.  If  an  apparent  miracle  is  performed  which 
 commands  us  to  commit  an  act  which  we  believe  to  be  immoral, 
 the  legitimate  conclusion  is,  that  it  is  an  act  of  legerdemain,  a 
 fraud,  or  the  result  of  some  mental  hallucination  on  our  part. 
 The  supposition  that  real  miracles  are  wrought  for  the  purposes 
 supposed  by  Dr.  Mozley,  would  involve  simple-minded  men  in 
 such  a  mass  of  difficulties  as  would  deprive  them  of  all  evidential 
 value.  The  miracles  recorded  in  the  Gospels  were  not  performed 
 for  the  benefit  of  the  select  few  who  constitute  a  kind  of  spiritual 
 aristocracy,  but  of  the  masses  of  mankind. 
 
 With  respect  to  the  general  proposition  that  miracles  may  be  a 
 justification  of  particular  acts,  to  an  age  when  the  moral  standard 
 is  low,  while  they  would  fail  to  afford  any  such  justification  to  a 
 more  elevated  one,  it  must  be  remembered,  that  even  in  ages  of 
 deep  moral  degradation,  all  are  not  sunk  to  the  same  dead  level. 
 To  such,  miracles  would  not  be  evidences  of  a  divine  command, 
 but  trials  of  moral  strength.  To  take  an  illustration  from 
 modern  times.  War  does  not  violate  the  general  conscience  of 
 the  Christian  Church  at  the  present  day.  A  miracle  therefore, 
 according  to  the  principles  laid  down  by  Dr.  Mozley,  might  justify 
 
480 
 
 SUPPLEMENTARY  NOTE. 
 
 a  particular  war  as  an  actual  divine  command  to  wage  it.  But 
 a  section  of  the  Christian  Church,  the  Quakers,  believe  war  to  be 
 contrary  to  the  principles  of  the  Gospel.  To  such  therefore  a 
 miracle  wrought  for  the  purpose  of  sanctioning  it,  would  be 
 simply  a  trial  of  moral  strength.  It  follows  therefore,  that  if 
 the  evidential  character  of  miracles  is  correctly  set  forth  in  the 
 positions  I  am  considering,  it  is  of  a  nature  so  vague  and 
 indefinite,  as  to  be  valueless  for  the  purposes  of  proof. 
 
 There  is  one,  and  only  one,  adequate  explanation  of  the 
 imperfections  of  portions  of  the  morality  of  the  Old  Testament. 
 It  is  to  be  found  in  an  utterance  of  our  Blessed  Lord  himself ; 
 “  Moses,  for  the  hardness  of  your  hearts,  wrote  you  this  precept.” 
 
 As  far  as  the  Sacrifice  of  Isaac  is  concerned,  the  question 
 whether  miracles  will  justify  such  commands  is  simply  irrele¬ 
 vant,  for  the  narrative  in  Genesis  does  not  contain  a  hint  that  a 
 miracle  was  wrought  for  its  justification.  All  that  it  tells  us 
 is,  that  an  intimation  was  conveyed  to  the  patriarch  (of  the 
 precise  mode  in  which  the  communication  was  made  we  are  not 
 informed),  to  offer  his  son  as  a  burnt  sacrifice,  and  that  Abraham 
 recognized  in  it  a  divine  command.  But  not  one  word  is 
 said  about  the  performance  of  a  miracle  in  attestation  of  its 
 reality.  This  idea  can  be  only  introduced  into  it  by  assuming 
 that  the  command  itself  constituted  a  miracle.  I  fully  admit 
 that  when  God  commands  us  to  perform  a  particular  act,  He  can 
 give  us  the  fullest  assurance  that  the  command  is  from  Him. 
 But  to  class  together  supernatural  communications  made  to 
 individuals,  and  our  Lord’s  miracles  under  a  common  term,  is  to 
 invite  confusion  of  thought.  In  no  ordinary  sense  of  the  term 
 can  it  be  said  that  Abraham’s  sacrifice  of  Isaac  was  authorized 
 by  the  evidence  of  the  miracle  wrought  as  an  attestation  that  the 
 command  came  from  God.  I  can  only  again  express  my  con¬ 
 viction  that  if  the  positions  laid  down  by  Dr.  Mozley  in  these 
 Lectures  are  accurate  accounts  of  the  functions  which  miracles 
 perform  in  connection  with  Christianity,  they  are  simply  destruc¬ 
 tive  of  their  evidential  character. 
 
 G.  NORMAN  AND  SON,  PRINTERS,  HART  STREET,  COVENT  GARDEN,  LONDON. 
 
LIST  OF  BOOKS  PUBLISHED 
 
 BY 
 
 FREDERIC  NORGATE, 
 
 7,  KING  STEEET,  COVENT  GAEDEN,  W.C. 
 
 Anselm  (Archiepisc.  Cantuar.)  Cur  Deus  Homo  ?  libri  II. 
 Foolscap  8vo.  sewed ,  Is  6d — cloth,  2s 
 
 The  Apocryphal  Gospels,  and  other  Documents  relating  to  the 
 
 History  of  Christ.  Translated  from  the  Originals  in  Greek,  Latin, 
 
 Syriac,  etc.,  with  Notes,  Scriptural  Eeferences,  and  Prolegomena,  by 
 
 B.  Harris  Cowper.  Crown  8vo.  Fifth  Edition.  6s 
 
 “  Both  the  translation  and  the  introduction  are  most  praiseworthy  ;  his  survey  of  the 
 literature  of  the  subject  is  complete,  without  being  diffuse.” — Literary  Churchman. 
 
 “  A  convenient  and  scholarly  edition  ;  the  introduction  is  extremely  able,  and  marked  by 
 a  close  acquaintance  with  all  the  works  which  bear  on  the  subject. "-—Spectator. 
 
 Apocryphal  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  Edited  and  Translated  from 
 Syriac  MSS.  in  the  British  Museum  and  other  Libraries,  by  W.  Wright, 
 ll.d.,  etc.  2  vols.  8vo.  25s 
 
 S.  John  Chrysostom  on  the  Priesthood.  In  Six  Books,  newly 
 
 Translated  from  the  Greek,  with  an  Introduction,  etc.,  by  B.  H.  Cowper. 
 
 Crown  8vo.  6s 
 
 “  A  faithful  rendering  of  a  book  which  still  remains  one  of  the  most  valuable  as  it  is 
 certainly  the  most  remarkable  of  all  the  treatises  on  the  Priesthood . "—Literary  Churchman. 
 
 Ethics  and  Theology.  Papers  and  Discourses  in  aid  of  Spiritual 
 Morality  and  Intelligent  Faith.  By  Henry  Footman,  m.a.,  author  of 
 “  Eeasonable  Apprehensions,”  etc.,  etc.  Crown  8vo.  3s  6d 
 
 German  Culture  and  Christianity.  Their  Controversy  in  the 
 
 Time  1770-1880,  by  Joseph  Gostwick.  8vo.  10s  6d 
 
 “  An  instructive  and  most  useful  volume.” — Literary  Churchman. 
 
 “  A  laborious  and  able  contribution  to  Christian  defence.” — Spectator. 
 
 Christian  Beliefs  reconsidered  in  the  Light  of  Modern  Thought. 
 By  the  Eev.  George  Henslow,  m.a.,  f.l.s.  Crown  8vo.  5s 
 
 A  Gauntlet  to  the  Theologian  and  Scientist.  By  Thomas 
 Clarke,  m.d.,  Formerly  Lecturer  on  Materia  Medica  and  Therapeutics  in 
 the  Leeds  School  of  Medicine,  Author  of  “  Alpha,  or  God  in  matter,” 
 “God  in  Man,”  etc.  Crown  8vo. 
 
 os 
 
Davidson  (Dr.  S.)  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  critical, 
 
 historical  and  theological.  3  vols.  8vo.  (pub.  at  42s)  31s  6 cl 
 
 Ancient  Syriac  Documents  relative  to  the  Earliest  Establish¬ 
 ment  of  Christianity  in  Edessa  and  the  neighbouring  Countries,  from  the 
 Year  after  Our  Lord’s  Ascension  to  the  beginning  of  the  Fourth  Century. 
 Discovered,  edited,  translated,  and  annotated  by  the  Rev.  W.  Cubeton, 
 d.d.  With  a  Preface  by  W.  Weight,  ll.d.,  etc.  4to.  31s  6d 
 
 Bengelii  (Dr.  J.  A.)  Gnomon  Novi  Testamenti  in  quo  ex 
 navita  verborum  vi  simplicitas,  profunditas,  concinnitas,  salubritas 
 sensuum  coelestium  indicatur.  Edit.  III.  per  filium  superstitem  E.  Bengel 
 quondam  curata  Quinto  recusa  adjuvante  J.  Steudel.  Royal  8vo.  12s 
 
 Hardy  (R.  Spence)  The  Legends  and  Theories  of  the  Buddhists 
 compared  with  History  and  Science ;  with  introductory  notices  of  the 
 life  and  system  of  Gotama  Buddha. '  Second  Edition.  Crown  8vo.  7s  6d 
 
 Cowper  (B.  H.)  Syriac  Grammar,  translated  and  abridged  from 
 
 the  Work  of  Dr.  Hoffmann,  with  Additions.  8vo.  7s  Gd 
 
 - -  Syriac  Miscellanies,  or  Extracts  relating  to  the  First  and 
 
 Second  General  Councils,  and  various  Quotations,  Theological,  Historical, 
 and  Classical.  8vo.  3s  Gd 
 
 - Analecta  N  icaena.  Fragments  relating  to  the  Council  of 
 
 Nice.  The  Syriac  Text  from  an  ancient  MS.  in  the  British  Museum, 
 with  a  Translation,  Notes,  etc.  4to.  5 s 
 
 The  Book  of  Genesis,  in  Hebrew,  with  various  Readings,  Notes, 
 
 etc.,  by  the  Rev.  C.  H.  H.  Weight,  m.a.  8vo.  5s 
 
 The  Book  of  Jonah,  in  Chaldee,  Syriac,  FEthiopic,  and  Arabic, 
 with  corresponding  Glossaries,  by  W.  Weight,  ll.d.,  Professor  of  Arabic 
 in  the  University  of  Cambridge.  8vo.  4s 
 
 Phillips  (R  ev.  G.,  d.d.,  President  of  Queen's  College ,  Cambridge) . 
 Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  designed  chiefly  for  the  use  of  Hebrew 
 Students  and  Clergymen.  2  vols.  8vo.  21s 
 
 The  Book  of  Ruth,  in  Hebrew  with  various  Readings  and 
 Commentary,  by  the  Rev.  C.  H.  H.  Weight,  m.a.  8vo.  7 s  6 d 
 
 Tattam  (Dr.  H.)  Grammar  of  the  Egyptian  Language,  as  con¬ 
 tained  in  the  Coptic,  Saliidic,  and  Bashmuric  Dialects;  together  with 
 Alphabets  and  Numerals  in  the  Hieroglyphic  and  Enchorial  Characters. 
 Second  Edition,  revised  and  corrected.  8vo.  9s 
 
/ 
 
 <5 
 
 7  . 
 
 .^•'■""W- • "£A^ 
 
 /;  !-■ 
 
 m 
 
 / 
 
 r  <•  " 
 
 /J 
 
 / 
 
 /&  £ 
 
 > 
 
 ^yvVW'U^w 
 
 ff&HSti 
 
 fi 
 
 j^n^AZi^'L-  f^'i^  L-'(  • 
 
 'iwt 
 
 UqAaA,