¦HR j
¦¦ill

OLOGET

?£.> I' /I /('</ <(/

\) A/fa* A J Vht,LUL , J\e-^UUA)J

/sy $

THE NEW APOLOGETIC

FIVE LECTURES

TRUE AND FALSE METHODS OF MEETING
MODERN PHILOSOPHICAL AND CRITICAL
ATTACKS UPON THE CHRIS
TIAN RELIGION

BY
MILTON S. TERRY, DX>^ LL.D.
Professor in Garrett Biblical Institute, Evanston, III.

NEWYORK: EATON & MAINS
CINCINNATI : CURTS & JENNINGS
1897

Copyright by
EATON & MAINS,
1897.

n pi s4
TtT

preface

The following lectures are of the nature
of an introduction to the study of apologet
ics, rather than apology itself. Their main
object is to guard against erroneous methods,
and to suggest some few outlines of argu
ment which may be of service to the inter
ests of truth. The lectures have been read
before various bodies of ministers and theo
logical students, and have called forth many
expressions of desire to obtain them in
printed form. They are accordingly given
to the public as they were first written and
read. A considerable number of footnotes,
however, have been inserted, which it is
believed will add no little interest and value
to the volume.

Contents

i
Definitions and Historical Retrospect ... 7
II
The Philosophical Apology  41
III
The Literary-Critical Apology  7g
IV
The Apology of Comparative Religion . . . 119
V
The Positive Apology  157
5

^Definitions anb historical
Retrospect

"Every age must produce its own apologies, adapted
to prevailing tendencies and wants."— ScnafL Theological
Propaedeutic, p. 310.

XEbe Bew Hpolooetic

Definitions and Historical Retrospect
Every system of belief and practice ought
to be able to give a reason for its existence.
When a new doctrine is propounded it nat
urally invites the criticism and opposition
of those who think it false. It was to be
expected, therefore, that when Christian
ity began to be proclaimed as a new reli
gion it would meet with various kinds of
opposition, first from the Jew, and later
from the Gentile. Its adherents were called
upon to produce reasons for the new depar
ture. Under the pressure of opposition, and
often of bitter persecution, they sought to
convince their enemies that Christianity not
only had a right to exist, but was the highest
form of religion and worthy of the accep
tation of all men. Such a defense, or self-
vindication, of the Christian faith was called
by the early Greek fathers an apology
(dnoXoyia). The word has, therefore, in the
ological literature a meaning quite different

TLbc IRew apologetic
from that which it bears in common usage,
as when one is said to apologize for some
wrong which he has committed. The
Christian apology, so far from being an ac
knowledgment of error or of wrongs, is, on
the contrary, a vigorous defense against the
attacks of enemies. Such defenses, from
the nature of their contents, are also often
spoken of as " evidences of Christianity."
The defenses of the Christian faith have
naturally varied much, both in form and
contents, according to the nature of the dif
ferent attacks. A single apology, written
by this or that defender of the faith, was
called forth by some practical demand of
the time. But after many such works had
been written, and had come to form a dis
tinct class of theological literature, the study
of Christian evidences assumed the charac
ter of a science, and is now known by the
technical name of apologetics. As in all
other departments of research, so in theo
logical discipline, the accumulation of ma
terials must prepare the way for a scientific
use of them. As a matter of fact, practice
goes before theory ; and there was a large
number of Christian apologies before there
was or could be a science of apologetics. It
10

Historical Retrospect
is only during the present century that
apologetics, as a distinct branch of theolog
ical study, has attained to scientific defini
tion and treatment. Ebrard defines the
subject as ' ' that science which deduces from
the nature of Christianity itself what classes
of attacks are generally possible, what dif
ferent sides of Christian truth may possibly
be assailed, and what false principles lie at
the bottom of these attacks."*
In order to appreciate the nature and
scope of this great subject we must be ac
quainted with the various forms of opposi
tion with which Christianity has had to con
tend. Our first lecture will, accordingly, be
of the nature of an historical review and a
classification of attacks and apologies.
The Jewish opposition to Christ and his
teaching is recorded in the New Testament
and shows a spirit of bitterness and hatred.
The Jews said in their hasty passion, " He
casts out devils by the prince of devils ; "
' ' No good thing can come out of Nazareth ; "
' ' No true prophet can violate the Sabbath
as this man does ;" "He is opposed to Moses
* Apologetics; or. The Scientific Vindication of Christianity.
English translation by Stuart and Macpherson, vol. i, p. 3.
Edinburgh, 1886. 11

Zbc "Hew apologetic
and seeks to overthrow the temple and wor
ship of Israel;" " Being a man, he makes
himself equal with God." The later Jewish
opposition, against which Justin Martyr and
Origen wrote, was of much the same char
acter. Jesus of Nazareth, crucified as a
malefactor, did not satisfy the Messianic ex
pectations of his time. The Christians neg
lected the law, the ritual of sacrifice, the
rites of circumcision, and the Passover.
But, in thus breaking away from Judaism,
Christianity passed through a life and death
struggle. The malice and vituperation of
the fanatical party caused most of the first
persecutions, and could not be met by reason
or by appeals to sympathy. The passionate
bigot of any sect or age is blind to all ra
tional appeals, and the malice of Jewish
persecution of Christians continued long
after Jerusalem had been laid in ruins by
the Romans and the temple and its ritual
had been effectually destroyed.
The pagan opposition, so far as it arose
from ignorance and prejudice, was of much
the same character as the early Jewish.
When such writers as Tacitus and the
younger Pliny could call the new religion
"a destructive, perverse, and extravagant
12

Ifotstorical Retrospect
superstition" and "an unchangeable stub
bornness," we may well believe that less
considerate minds would have for it nothing
but words of execration. Hence, the charge
of atheism, superstition, want of culture,
and worship of a crucified malefactor came
evidently from persons too much blinded by
prejudice and contempt to bestow upon the
doctrines and life of the Christians any fair
amount of examination . Such assaults may
now be considered obsolete. For, while we
may occasionally meet with exhibitions of
ignorance and hatred of all religions, and
diatribes as bitter and satirical as any of the
old Jewish and pagan assaults, they no
longer command respect with earnest seek
ers after truth.
Aside from such ignoble attacks, the
forms of opposition which Christianity has
been called upon, first and last, to encounter
may be classed under three heads: (i) the
rationalistic-philosophical; (2) the literary-
critical ; and (3) those arising out of the study
of rival religions. All these may be traced
through the Christian centuries, although
they vary much from time to time, both in
ma'terials and methods. It is a grave mis
take to suppose that rationalism, higher
13

Ube Iftew apologetic
criticism, and the comparison of rival re
ligions are solely the products of modern
times. They have appeared, both in the
Church and outside of the Church, from the
days of the apostles onward.
I. THE PHILOSOPHICAL CONFLICT.
In the earliest outgrowth of Christianity
as a new religion it came into contact with
Greek and oriental philosophy. Long be
fore the days of the apostles many specula
tive philosophers had put forth their theo
ries of matter and of mind. Paul found at
Athens Epicurean and Stoic philosophers,
who " encountered him;" and it is said that
"all the Athenians and the strangers so
journing there spent their time in nothing
else but either to tell or to hear some new
thing." The apostle of the Gentiles after
ward admonished the Colossians to beware
of "any that make th spoil of you through
his philosophy and vain deceit, after the
tradition of men, after the elements of the
world, and not after Christ " (Col. ii, 8).
Justin Martyr, the first great apologist, in
forms us that in his own earnest search for
truth he first surrendered himself to a Stoic
philosopher, but, finding in him no knowl-
14

"OMstorical Retrospect
edge of God, betook himself to a professed
disciple of Aristotle. Disappointed again,
he sought the instruction of a very cele
brated Pythagorean, but with no more satis
factory results. Then he joined himself to
a wise Platonist and imagined for a time
that he himself had become wise ; but,
chancing to meet one day with an old man
who pointed out to him the insufficiency of
his doctrines and the excellency of the
teachings of the Hebrew prophets and the
Gospel of Christ, a holy flame was kindled
in his soul, and he found in Christ the only
safe and profitable philosophy. This ex
perience of Justin is an excellent example
of the search for truth which many a long
ing spirit has pursued. All such are like
the man of Jesus's parable — ' ' a merchant
seeking goodly pearls."
In view of discussions to follow, we will
do well at this point to refer briefly to the
ancient schools of Greek philosophy. Thales
is supposed to represent the earliest of these,
and tauprht that all nature is endowed with
life, everything is full of gods, and water is
the primordial element of the universe.
Anaximander rose to the lofty conception
of one original substance, which he called
15

TEbe "Hew apologetic
the infinite (to aneipov), out of which all things
arise and to which they return again. Ac
cording to Anaximenes, all things originate
in air ; but according to Heraclitus the origin
of all things and the principle of perpetual
motion are to be found in fire — a clear,
light fluid, not essentially different from
what Anaximenes meant by air. Out of
this original fire-fluid all nature is evolved,
the souls of men, as well as all things else.
Souls accordingly partake of the quality of
the natural environments and the soil from
which they spring. The wisest souls origi
nate in a dry land and climate ; hence the
intellectual greatness of the Greeks. But
the drunkard has a wet soul! Probably
these notions would not be indorsed by the
materialistic evolutionists of modern times.
According to Pythagoras, the regulating
principle of the universe is to be found in
the proportions and harmony of numbers,
and the heavenly bodies were supposed to
move according to a regular musical scale.
He also taught the doctrine of the transmi
gration of souls.
In Plato, however, we find a higher range
of thought. His philosophy was conspicu
ously spiritual and theistic, as compared
10

"Historical Retrospect
with the materialistic systems of most of his
predecessors. Spiritual entities are the only
real existences, and the material world is in
perpetual change, flowing into forms of be
ing and then flowing out. As the soul of
the world existed before the world, so all
human souls must have existed before the
bodies they inhabit. God is the first cause
of all things ; but it is difficult to make out
clearly whether, after all Plato says about
the supreme mind, intelligence, reason, and
the highest good, he really believed in the
personality of God. His doctrine of " ideas,"
the eternal and unchangeable archetypes
of all that is true and beautiful and good,
contains an element of mysticism, and has
mightily influenced the speculative tenden
cies of later theorists.
Such were some of the systems of thought
current in the Greek-speaking communities
when the Gospel of Christ began to be
preached. Long before this date the metrop
olis of Egypt had become a famous center
of intellectual culture. Not the Greek phi
losopher only, but the Roman rhetorician,
the Jewish rabbi, and the Asiatic mystic
confronted each other and put their various
theories to the test of reason. The Jewish
17

XCbc Hew apologetic
mind was there so deeply influenced by the
prevailing culture that it invented the alle
gorical method of interpreting those parts
of the Old Testament which seemed to be
inconsistent with the reigning philosophy.
To minds influenced by the various theories
of the philosophical schools, the doctrines
of salvation through Christ were naturally
offensive. When Paul, in his address at
Athens, referred to the resurrection of Jesus,
some of his hearers mocked; and that
mockery may be taken as an example of the
manner in which all the materialistic phi
losophers treated the Gospel message. The
Jews asked for signs; the Greeks sought
after wisdom; but the doctrine of Christ
crucified was a stumbling-block to the one,
and foolishness to the other.
The opposition of Greek culture and phi
losophy voiced itself powerfully in the writ
ings of five distinguished men — Lucian,
Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, and Julian. Of
these, the attack of Celsus, replied to by
Origen, will best serve to exhibit the nature
of the argument. For Celsus poses as a
Greek philosopher, and all his criticisms,
when resolved into their fundamental prin
ciple, are little else than the intellectual
18

Historical Retrospect
revulsion of a speculative mind against what
he regards as inconsistent with his own
philosophical assumptions. And is not this
in substance the ground of all subsequent
philosophical objections to Christianity?
Celsus is especially pronounced against the
Christian idea of the incarnation, or of God
manifesting himself among men. To his
way of thinking, such a manifestation would
be a transition from good to evil, from hap
piness to misery, and therefore repugnant
to all worthy conceptions of Deity. In like
manner, the simplicity of the Gospel, its
adaptation to the poor and unlearned, and
the lack of literary finish and perfection
in its written documents are all unworthy
of approval or authority from God. The
notion that man was made in the image of
God and stands at the head of creation was
a subject of ridicule with Celsus ; and he
compared the Jews and Christians "to a
flight of bats, or to a swarm of ants issuing
out of their nest, or to frogs holding coun
cil in a marsh, or to worms crawling to
gether in the corner of a dunghill, and
quarreling with one another as to which of
them were the greatest sinners, and as
serting that God, having abandoned the
19

XLbc IRew apologetic
regions of heaven, ' has become a citizen
among us alone, to whom he makes himself
familiar and tells us how we may be asso
ciated with him forever!'"*
Herein we have a fair sample of the phil
osophical objections to Christian doctrine
which the earliest apologists were called
upon to answer. The fundamental dualism
of matter and mind, so conspicuous in the
best forms of Greek philosophy, could not
adjust itself to the concept of the most high
God concerning himself with the petty af
fairs of the world. To those subtle thinkers
the anthropomorphism of the Bible was
simply preposterous,andthey hastily reached
the conclusion that Christianity was irra
tional, and even foolishness.
The higher speculations of Greek phi
losophy had much to do with the rise and
development of gnosticism — that one-sided
intellectualism which has been well called
the rationalism of the ancient Church.
This form of rationalism combined various
elements of Greek theosophy and Zoroas-
trian dualism, and was in its nature and
purpose a mighty effort to harmonize the
doctrines of Christianity with reason. The
* Origen, ad Cel., book iv, chap, xxiii.
20

Historical Retrospect
infinite God was assumed to be so absolute
and inaccessible that he could not be sup
posed to have any immediate relationship
with the world of matter. But from him
downward emanated various spirits, pow
ers, or aeons, which became more and more
defective the farther they were removed
from the original fount of being, until at
length, in the process of emanations, wisdom
delegated the Demiurge to form the world,
after which the Christ descends and will ul
timately deliver all spiritual beings from the
power of evil. It seems strange to us now
that such a congeries of fantastic ideas could
have fascinated the minds of many earnest,
thoughtful men. But such was the fact,
and Schaff pronounces gnosticism "the
grandest and most comprehensive form of
speculative religious syncretism known in
history. . . . The old world here rallied all
its energies to make out of its diverse ele
ments some new thing and to oppose to the
real, substantial universalism of the catho
lic Church an ideal, shadowy universalism
of speculation!"*
I have dwelt upon these earliest forms of
the philosophical attacks on Christianity in
* History of the Christian Church, vol. ii, p. 448.
21

Gbe Hew apologetic
order to show to what an extent they an
ticipate in general character all later oppo
sitions of philosophy and science to the
doctrines of the Christian faith. It is not
necessary, therefore, to enlarge upon the
skepticism and unbelief which arose in the
Middle Ages. The revival of learning in
the fifteenth century and the study of the
Greek and Roman classics fascinated many
minds, as they did the emperor Julian, and
led them to prefer the Platonic philosophy
to the dogmas of the Church and to adopt
pantheistic conceptions of the world. Bacon
and Descartes introduced new methods of
thought. The English deism, so far as it
moved on philosophical lines, was a protest
of reason against the idea of a special super
natural revelation. Toland maintained the
supremacy of reason in matters of religion,
and insisted on the impossibility of believ
ing anything above or contrary to reason.
Shaftesbury argued that philosophy and
common sense are quite sufficient to work
out the problems of natural religion and
theology, and he rejected as unnecessary
the idea of a revealed theology. Tindal
attempted to show that natural religion
is perfect in itself, and therefore cannot
22

Historical Retrospect
receive additions ; all that is important or
valuable in Christianity, he held, is as old
as the creation. Bolingbroke and Gibbon
presumed to account for the origin and rapid
spread of Christianity by means of natural
causes ; and Hume maintained that, in view
of the established uniformity of nature's
laws, no amount of human testimony can
prove a miracle.
The French infidelity which flourished in
the latter part of the eighteenth century
was an offspring of English deism, but it
added nothing to its philosophical thought.
It took on such low forms of satire and ridi
cule and displayed such obvious hatred of
all religion that it may be compared to the
bitter intolerance of early pagan assaults
upon the Gospel. Thomas Paine trans
planted some of these low attacks among
the common people of England and Amer
ica. In his best sentiments he was an
English deist ; but in his opposition to the
evangelical faith he exhibited the bitterness
and hatred of Voltaire.
More dignified and far more subtle and
profound was the philosophical rationalism
of Germany, which had genetic connection
both with English deism and French infi-

Zbc mew apologetic
delity. The Cartesian philosophy was de
veloped by Spinoza into a system of pan
theism, with its postulate of an eternal and
infinite substance, manifested in various at
tributes and modes. Later came Leibnitz,
with his theory of monadism, teaching that
all things contain an imperishable force,
which is the spontaneous cause ofthe changes
and evolutions of the universe. The sub
sequent development of speculative philos
ophy in Germany, from Kant to Hegel, has
been often traced. Its pantheistic trend is
acknowledged, and its general result has
been to eliminate the biblical idea of the
miraculous from human history.
The so-called "positive philosophy" of
Comte and his followers teaches that the
entire race of man, as well as each individ
ual, evolves through three successive states
— the theological, the metaphysical, and the
positive. In this last state we inquire no
more after the causes of things, but simply
observe phenomena and classify the facts
and laws of the same. It substitutes hu
manity for God, utilitarianism for religion
and the basis of morals, and glories in the
" worship of humanity."
To all this we must add a reference to the
24

Historical Retrospect
so-called ' ' conflict between modern science
and religion." It is alleged that the churchly
representatives of Christianity are disposed
to look upon modern science as a trouble
some enemy. The most notable point of
conflict is the picture of creation and the
origin of man as told in the opening chap
ters of the Bible. Such a miraculous crea
tion is declared to be inconsistent with the
doctrines of evolution, which, if not conclu
sively proven, are made to appear so prob
able that the scientific mind revolts from
the scriptural revelation.
II. THE LITERARY-CRITICAL CONFLICT.
The opposition of philosophy to Chris
tianity is based upon its assumed knowledge
and analysis of the nature of things. But
the literary - critical attacks are directed
against the written records which assume
to contain the special revelation of God to
men. Most of those who have assailed the
Christian faith on philosophical grounds
have also found fault with the writings of
the Old and New Testaments, when con
sidered as authoritative records of divine
revelation. The assault of Porphyry upon the gen-

XTbe IRew apologetic
uineness of Daniel's prophecies was one of
the earliest critical attempts to disprove the
claims of recorded prediction. It was a
specimen of ancient rationalistic higher crit
icism, and maintained that the Book of
Daniel was no real production of the times
of the Babylonian exile. The philosophical
critic pointed out the fact that the minute
prophecies of the eleventh chapter delineate
the wars of the Syrian and Egyptian kings
down to the latter part of the career of An-
tiochus Epiphanes, and then suddenly be
come vague, and end indefinitely. Hence
the natural conclusion that they were written
long after the days of Nebuchadnezzar and
Cyrus, and are examples of prophecy writ
ten after the events which it seems to pre
dict. This early effort of literary criticism
appears to have been a more dignified and
scholarly attack upon the claims of divine
revelation than any other of that ancient
time. Porphyry also condemned the cur
rent allegorical interpretation, and alleged
that there were discrepancies and contradic
tions in the sacred books.
In the twelfth century Abelard called at
tention to the contradictions of the Scrip
tures, but without apparently designing to
26

Historical Retrospect
shake the faith of anyone. He noticed the
corruption of the text, the number of spu
rious books, and altogether his teaching was
regarded as so heretical by the leaders of
the Church that he was prohibited from
teaching, and his work entitled Sic et Non
remained unpublished until modern times.
In 1670 Spinoza anticipated modern criti
cal controversies by arguing from internal
evidences that the Pentateuch could not
have been written by Moses, but that all
the books from Genesis to Second Kings
are one composite work, derived from nu
merous ancient sources, self-contradictory
in many parts, and probably arranged and
edited in their present form by Ezra.
The English deists, whose one common
ground was denial of the supernatural and
the sufficiency of natural religion, assailed
the genuineness and authenticity of many
of the biblical writings. For example, Col
lins, in his Discourse of the Grounds and Rea
sons of the Christian Religion (1724), not only
disparaged the trustworthiness of the text
of Scripture by magnifying the importance
of the various readings, but also argued
that Christianity itself, so far as it claims
to be a fulfillment of Old Testament
27

Qbe View apologetic
prophecy, is invalid and ialse ; he essayed
to show how the apostles and early Chris
tians accommodated the Messianic prophe
cies to the facts of Jesus's life and read
into them all manner of allegorical and
mystical meanings ; he maintained that the
essentials of the Gospel system are, at
best, only ideally true, and can be sup
ported only by a mystical use of the Scrip
tures. Woolston took pains to discover all
sorts of incongruities and extravagances in
the Gospel miracles; and, after having
proven, as he assumes, their incredibility
as historical facts, he proceeded to point
out an allegorical meaning in each of the
miracles which might be useful to anyone
who was not trammeled with the responsi
bility of maintaining the literal sense.
Others criticised the barbarous cruelty au
thorized by the God of Israel in the de
struction of the Canaanites.
This rationalistic handling of the Scrip
tures was taken up in Germany and carried
forward to extremes of refinement unknown
in other lands. Eichhorn explained away
the miracles of the Old Testament as hyper
bolical pictures of natural phenomena or ac
commodations of language to oriental modes
28

Historical Retrospect
of thought. Paulus applied the same method
of interpretation to the miracles of Jesus.
The transfiguration was nothing but a
waking dream of one of the disciples in the
midst of the glories of sunrise among the
mountains. The command for Peter to
cast his hook and from the mouth of the
fish first caught find money to pay the tax
meant only that, as Peter was a fisherman,
he should go and catch enough fish to pay
the amount of the tribute money required.
Next followed the mythical theory of
Strauss, and then the tendency theory of
Baur, and later still the legendary theory
of Renan — all of them invented to account
for the origin of Christianity without admit
ting the miraculous. The present passion
of rationalistic criticism is to analyze the
various books of the Bible into their origi
nal sources. The Pentateuch and all the
historical books, Job, Proverbs, Isaiah, and
Zechariah, are resolved into their constitu
ent elements and distributed among a num
ber of different authors. Even the Apoc
alypse of John is brought under the same
condemnation. The "synoptic problem"
is now to discover the literary origin of that
which is common to Matthew, Mark, and
n 29

TEbe *lew apologetic
Luke, and to work out a scientific explana
tion of the portions peculiar to each.
I need not continue this outline further.
So far as any of these facts and discussions
touching the origin, character, and inter
pretation of the Scriptures could be con
strued to the detriment of Christianity,
there have not been wanting men and women
eager to make the most of the case against
the claims of the evangelical faith. It is
easy to see, and it ought not to be over
looked, that criticisms well directed and en
tirely legitimate in themselves may have
been perverted and employed to antagonize
truths which, upon deeper study, may be
found to be unaffected by the substance of
the criticism.
III. THE CONFLICT OF COiMPARATIVE RE
LIGION.
The antagonism of other religions to
Christianity is a natural and necessary re
sult of the propagation of the Gospel in the
world. The teaching of Jesus and his
apostles first provoked the violent opposi
tion of the Jewish leaders. They looked
upon the. new religious movement as inim
ical to the temple worship, to the laws of
30

Historical Retrospect
Moses, and to the honored customs of the
Israelitish nation. The main question was
the Messiahship of Jesus. The Christian
affirmed, the Jew denied. But the first
Christians were Jews, and their main apol
ogy was that Jesus was the Christ of whom
the prophets had spoken. They insisted
that Christianity was not essentially antago
nistic to the Hebrew faith, but rather sup
plementary to it. It was a fulfillment, not
a destroying, of Moses and the prophets.
The first statement of the Epistle to the
Hebrews sets forth the true relation of the
Gospel to the Old Testament: "God, hav
ing of old time spoken unto the fathers in
the prophets by divers portions and in divers
manners, hath at the end of these days
spoken unto us in his Son, whom he hath
appointed heir of all things."
But Christianity soon came into contact
with other religions tolerated in the Roman
empire. Upon the gods of Greece and.
Rome the early Christian teachers and
apologists made uncompromising war. They
ridiculed the idolatry of paganism, and
found no words too strong for denouncing
the licentious mysteries of the worship of
the Greeks. But, though Paul's labors at
31

tCbe mew apologetic
Ephesus led to great commotion among the
worshipers ' ' of the great Diana, and the
image which fell down from Jupiter," Paul
was neither a robber of temples nor a
blasphemer of the goddess Diana (Acts xix,
35 > 37)- IQ his address to the Athenians he
courteously acknowledged the religion of
the Greeks, and quoted one of their poets to
show that men are the offspring of God
(Acts xvii, 28). Origen, in his treatise
against Celsus, refers to the religious rites
of the Egyptians, the Persians, the Scythians,
and other nations, which Celsus seems to
have put forward as worthy of as much
respect as the doctrines of Christianity.
Whence it appears that the ancient apolo
gists were called upon to compare the claims
of the Gospel with those of many other
faiths which were then abroad in the world.
Tertullian asks why the Romans, on whom
Numa Pompilius laid such a heavy load of
superstition, should object to the Christians
worshiping God through Christ? Why
should not their religious rites receive as
much respect as those of Orpheus at Pieria,
Musaeus at Athens, Melampus at Argos, or
Trophonius in Bceotia? If the acceptance
and worship of Christ " transform a man
82

Historical Retrospect
and make him truly good, there is implied
in that fact the duty of renouncing what is
opposed to it as false." *
The rise of Mohammedanism in the
seventh century, and its conquests in Asia,
Africa, and Europe, forced a comparison of
its claims with those of Christianity. And
later, after the Crusades had ceased and
commercial intercourse had sprung up be
tween Christians, Jews, and Mohammedans,
favorable comparisons were sometimes
made, and in some places a liberal spirit
showed itself. In the old controversies
three views are traceable: (i) That all re
ligions are low superstitions, grounded in
fear, and that Moses, Christ, and Moham
med were the three greatest impostors of
the world; (2) that Moses and Christ were
true prophets of God, and Mohammed was
an impostor ; (3) that Moses and Jesus were
true prophets, but supplemented and super
seded by Mohammed. In 1621 a Persian
nobleman critically exposed the discrepan
cies of the Gospels, attacked the doctrine of
the Trinity, and defended the divine mis
sion of Mohammed. He maintained that,
so far as Mohammed's doctrines seemed
* Tertullian, Apol., xxi.
33

Zbc mew apologetic
opposed to those of Christ, the difference
was no greater than that between Christ
and Moses. He also held that the coming
of Mohammed was foretold in the words of
Habakkuk (iii, 3) : " God came from Teman,
and the Holy One from mount Paran. His
glory covered the heavens, and the earth
was full of his praise."
Among the English deists we find Chubb,
about the middle of the eighteenth century,
examining the relative claims of Christian
ity, Judaism, and Mohammedanism, expos
ing elements of error in them all, and re
jecting them all as revelations of God to
man. This was followed in 1791 by the
famous work of the French atheist Volney,
entitled The Ruins, or Meditations on the Revo
lutions of Empires. He imagines himself
meditating amid the ruins of Palmyra, when
there arises before him a vision of nations
and kingdoms rising and falling, and show
ing him, among other things, how all re
ligious ideas originate in fear of the ele
ments of nature. These are worshiped
under the symbolism of idols, accompanied
with the mysteries of priestcraft, and then
developed into dualism, and thence through
mythology and pantheism into monotheistic
34

Historical Retrospect
Judaism, which adores the soul of the
world; and lastly, through Persian and
Hindu systems, to Christianity, which, after
all, is only the worship of the sun under the
mystic name of Christ !
In our own time we find the comparative
study of religions developed into a science,
and chairs are established in our leading in
stitutions for the philosophical treatment of
this new department of theology. The va
rious opinions and comparative estimates of
religions may be classified under four heads,
as follows: (i) That which regards all re
ligion as superstition and essentially false ;
(2) that which treats all religions as equally
divine and authoritative; (3) that which
holds Christianity to be the only true re
ligion, and rejects all other religions as false
and worthless ; (4) that which recognizes the
elements of truth in all religions, but main
tains that Christianity is the ultimate and
absolute religion, to which all others must
sooner or later give way.
The brief historic sketch just given en
ables us at once to observe the range of con
troversy taken by those who have made is
sue with the claims of Christianity. It is
evident that we cannot intelligently grapple
35

Ubc mew apologetic
with new issues without some familiarity
with the old attacks and the old apologies.
It is a fact of incalculable significance that
Christianity has been on trial now for more
than eighteen centuries, and if its oppo
nents have not yet employed all available
weapons of assault it must be that they
have not yet been able to find them.
Nevertheless, it is generally acknowl
edged by men most competent to judge
that the older apologies are not adapted to
meet the demands of the present time. In
making such a statement, however, it is due
the past and the present to indicate more
clearly what the admission means. This
may be sufficiently done for our purpose in
a few concluding observations.
i. It must first of all be acknowledged
that the apologies of the Christian ages,
taken as a whole, form a magnificent con
tribution to the defense of the " faith once
delivered to the saints." The literature of
Christian apologetics constitutes a treasury
of the best religious thought of the centu
ries. It must not, therefore, be imagined
that the old apologies are useless now.
Many of them contain arguments of lit
tle value and some things unquestionably
36

Historical Retrospect
erroneous; but that same remark can be
made in reference to most of the contribu
tions made in former time to any depart
ment of science.
2. It should not cause us any surprise or
alarm to discover that in some things for
mer defenders of the faith made mistakes.
We certainly ought not to assume that a
defense of the fathers is the same as a de
fense of the faith itself. To err is human ;
and we might well presume in advance that
zealous advocates of any good cause would
be likely to fall into occasional blunders.
In some instances we find that the assailant
of Christianity was in the right, and its de
fender in the wrong. But in such cases it
will be seen that the apologist confounded
some nonessential thing with the truth itself.
3. One of the most glaring mistakes of
overzealous apologists has been an apparent
assumption that an opponent of the Gospel
must needs be a dishonest man. That is a
weak defense of any cause which goes about
trying to impeach the motives of an oppo
nent who claims to rest his case on valid
argument. 4. It will hardly be denied at the present
time that an earnest and sincere inquirer
37

Ube mew apologetic
after truth may fall into serious error. The
modern apologist, if he be wise enough to
learn from the past, will not proceed on the
assumption that his opponent has no truth
on his side. The more correct method will
study to be irenical, rather than polemical.
One of the qualities which has made Butler's
Analogy the immortal book it is is the calm
philosophical tone in which he shows all
readiness to concede that his antagonist has
some reason for his opposition to revealed
religion. 5. One very obvious lesson from what
we see to have been errors of the past is to
try not to do it again. Bold a priori assump
tions, self-confident assertions, and unwill
ingness to give patient and impartial study
to the theories of opponents are always prej
udicial to the cause of truth. It is as un
desirable as it is unpopular to be found in
bad company ; yet it is sometimes the case
that a man of questionable excellence may
be a zealous advocate of a great truth. We
shall see, farther on, that the law of gravi
tation was at first rejected by good men for
no better reason than that it was vigorously
advocated by the infidel Voltaire. We need
also to be occasionally reminded that great
38

Historical Retrospect
leaders in the Church have insisted on be
liefs that "science laughs at now."
6. Finally, the principle and method on
which we must agree to test every new issue
as it comes is the oldapostolic precept, ' ' Prove
all things; hold fast that which is good."
89

n
©l)e |31)ilo0opt)ical ^pologg

Ube pbilosopbical apologg

II

The Philosophical Apology
Philosophy, according to the simplest
meaning of the word, is the love of wisdom.
The human mind aspires to know things,
and by observation, reflection, experiment,
comparison, classification, and reason has
formulated many principles which are sup
posed to furnish a rational explanation of
the nature of the world. Hence philosophy,
in the fullest sense, is a product of human
thought resulting from efforts to determine
the principles, causes, forces, and laws which
underlie and explain the facts and phenom
ena of being. It is, accordingly, the fun
damental science, the science of all sciences,
and has for its object the ascertainment of
the truth of things — the whole truth, so far
as it may be known, and nothing but the
truth.* * " There is no province of human experience, there is noth
ing in the whole realm of reality, which lies beyond the domain
of philosophy or to which philosophical investigation does not
extend. Religion, so far from forming an exception lo the
all-embracing sphere of philosophy, is rather just that province
which lies nearest to it ; for, in one point of view, religion and
43

Ube mew apologetic
The true religion, therefore, has nothing
to fear from a true philosophy, but may de
rive advantage from it. Christianity chal
lenges investigation. She says, " Prove all
things ; hold fast that which is good ; "
"Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever
things are honorable, whatsoever things are
just, whatsoever things are pure, whatso
ever things are lovely, whatsoever things
are of good report ; if there be any virtue,
and if there be any praise, on these things
exercise reason" (Phil, iv, 8).
But there has been much philosophy and
science falsely so called; and also, be it
said, much religion falsely so called. The
pure-minded man seeks after that which is
true both in religion and philosophy, and
gives respectful attention to rational objec
tions made to the things which he holds
dear. Why should there be any conflict be
tween philosophy and religion, or between
science and religion? The answer is that
Christianity propounds a number of funda-
philosophy have common objects and a common content, and
in the explanation of religion philosophy may be said to be
at the same time explaining itself." — Caird, Philosophy of
Religion, p. 3. New York, 1894. 44

TLbc pbilosopbical apology
mental doctrines which appear inconsistent
with fundamental assumptions of certain
schools of philosophy. Prominent among
these doctrines are the following: (i) The
idea of a personal God, Creator and Up
holder of all things, infinite in perfections,
and yet concerned about the welfare of
mankind; (2) the doctrine of man as a
child of God, bearing his image, exercising
free will, and rebelling against his Creator :
(3) the doctrine of Jesus Christ as an incar
nation of God, and giving his life for the
redemption of sinful men ; (4) the ideas of
pardon of sin, fellowship with God, and
everlasting life after death. Such doctrines
very naturally provoked the opposition of
Stoic and Epicurean philosophers, and
through all the Christian ages they have
been assailed as inconsistent with some
teaching of philosophy. I. DUALISM.
One of the early systems of philosophy
which came into conflict with Christianity
was dualism, which affirms two eternal
principles as essential to explain the phe
nomena of the world. The theory com
mends itself to many minds as a very
45

Zbt mew apologetic
simple way of explaining certain facts
which all men have observed. The dualism
of good and evil, so conspicuous in the
world, seemed to many naturally traceable
to the dualism of mind and matter. In the
ancient speculations of Chinese philoso
phers there are found traces of this two
fold principle of material and immaterial
causation ; but a more remarkable develop
ment of the doctrine is found in the Per
sian system known as Zoroastrianism. Two
antagonistic powers, or principles, are con
ceived as the sources of light and darkness,
good and evil. The good principle is
called Ormuzd, the evil principle Ahriman.
This oriental dualism found further de
velopment in philosophical discussions of
the nature of matter and spirit, and led on
to the notion that spirit must be essentially
good, and matter essentially evil — a notion
which powerfully affected religious think
ing, and lies at the root of much of the as
ceticism of the later Jewish and early
Christian Churches. We observed in the
previous lecture how this dualism allied
itself with Greek philosophy and became
prominent in the fantastic speculations of
Gnosticism. It took a powerful hold of
46

Ubc pbilosopbical apologg
Christian thought in the Manichaean
heresy, and showed itself so subtle as to
captivate for many years a mind like that
of Augustine.
The old Gnosticism and Manichaeism are
now obsolete, and we are in position to in
quire, without passion or prejudice, What
great truth, if any, is there in dualism that
so many brilliant minds should ever have
been captivated by it? Is it not a fact that
there is a realm of darkness and a realm of
light? Good and evil force themselves on
human thought; and these are contrary,
the one to the other. Here is a real
dualism, and all thoughtful inquirers after
truth may well ask for some rational ex
planation. We need not wonder that the
distinction between mind and matter, so
obvious to human consciousness, was sug
gestive to the ancients of two eternal op-
posites. The great, honest question of dualism is
how to bridge the vast gulf between the
finite and the infinite, between matter and
spirit, good and evil. Christianity has
her simple and ready answer in the revela
tion of Jesus Christ. God is spirit, and the
source of all things. The material world
47

Ubc mew apologetic
has its ground and reason in him. Moral
evil is possible only in beings gifted with
intelligent moral freedom. Such beings
exist, and by abuse of their exalted gifts
have originated moral disorder in the uni
verse. When, where, and how this dis
order first broke out, why God allows its
existence, what purpose it may possibly
serve in his infinite world-plan, and how
the problem of evil is to work itself out in
the eternal future, no man is able to de
clare. But, according to the Gospel, Jesus
Christ has come into the world as a revela
tion of God, and through infinite wisdom,
power, and love "restoreth all things."
And this is, in substance, the old story of
the cross. It is the Christian philosophy of
the universe. It is, and always has been,
either offensive or unsatisfactory to some
minds. It does not pretend to solve all
mysteries ; but it is irreconcilable with that
dualism which sees in mind and matter
two eternal opposites, or assumes that
matter is essentially evil, or that God is
so separate from the world that he cannot
be supposed to limit himself into any per
sonal contact with man.
The Christian apologist, however, need
48

Ubc pbilosopbical apology
not feel any special obligation, as a Chris
tian, to define philosophically the nature of
matter and spirit and to determine the exact
relations of the two. It is very easy for
human speculation to transcend all certain
knowledge. Some Christian philosophers
need a little wholesome admonition touch
ing the limitations of human thought. We
may feel confident in postulating monism
against dualism and polytheism. But we
may well hesitate before the task of eluci
dating the mystery of God's relation to the
material universe. Who is sufficient for
such a task ?
There are two views now current touch
ing the origin of the material world. It
has been often said that God made the world
out of nothing. But that statement is extra-
biblical, and has been called into question
by many as without foundation in reason
or philosophy. Others, claiming to be de
vout theists, assert the possibility of the
eternity of matter and conceive it as in
some sense the eternal abode or manifesta
tion of God. They reject the idea of two
eternals, but affirm that matter has its
ground of existence in God and is eternally
dependent upon God. Whatever dualism
49

Zbc mew apologetic
such a postulate of reason may imply, it is
by its own definition the tentative hypoth
esis of a reverent monism.* Before such
possibilities of thought it seems to me quite
unnecessary for Christian apologists to take
alarm. So long as one infinite and eternal
Mind is acknowledged to be the ground and
reason of the world, the Christian Faith is
not disturbed. The revelation of God in
Jesus Christ offers us no authoritative de
liverance on the primordial possibilities of
matter or of mind. Whether matter was
* " It seems to us that the theological doctrine of creation
does not necessarily demand even that the matter of the
world should have had a beginning at all. It is possible to
hold that the world owes its existence entirely to the creative
power of God, and yet at the same time to maintain that the
world had no historical beginning. . . . We see a ray o(
light emanating from the sun, and we say that the ray owes
its being to the sun. If it were proved that there never was
a time in which that ray had not existed it would not in the
slightest degree shake our conclusion that it owes its existence
to the sun. What makes it a created or dependent object is
not the fact that at one time it began to be, but the fact that
at every time it is simply an emanation — that it has not at any
moment of its being a spark of heat or light which it does not
derive from its contact with that source from which it radi
ates. There is, therefore, no necessary antagonism between
the doctrine of a divine creation and the doctrine of a world
wh«se matter had no historical beginning." — Matheson, Can
the Old Faith Live tvith the New ? p. 101. Third ed., Edin
burgh, 1889. 50

Hbe ipbilosopbical apologs
originally created out of nothing, or is with
out beginning, or is an eternal manifesta
tion of God are questions of metaphysics,
rather than religion. It is wisdom in the
Christian apologist to refuse to complicate
the defense of the Gospel with such spec
ulative discussions. He is concerned to
maintain as essential doctrine the great
revelation that ' ' there is one God, and one
Mediator between God and man, Christ
Jesus, who is before all things, and in whom
all things hold together" (i Tim. ii, 5;
Col. i, 17). II. MONISM.
As against dualism, we may for our pres
ent purpose resolve all other philosophical
systems under one head and call it monism.
There are three schools of the monistic
philosophy, commonly known as material
ism, idealism, and pantheism. Materialistic
monism affirms that matter is the only real
and eternal substance, mind being but a
product of organization and a mode of mo
tion. Human thought is, therefore, only a
modal function of the brain. Idealistic
monism holds, on the contrary, that mind
is the only real substance. The external
61

Ube mew apologetic
world of sense is but the product of self-
conscious thought, having no objective real
ity apart from the thinking mind. Panthe
istic monism identifies mind and matter in
one eternal universal substance which con
stitutes the world of being. God and the
universe are one, without personality or in
telligence. Nature is God, ever changing
in outward forms, but unalterably fixed in
modes of operation. Human personality
and self-consciousness are only temporary
and incidental phases of the one infinite
substance. i. Let us look, first, at the postulates of
idealistic monism. It doubtless contains
some elements of truth ; otherwise it could
not so powerfully attract truth -loving minds.
So far as this system affirms that all things
have their origin and being in one eternal
Spirit, without whom nothing exists or can
exist, we offer no opposition, for this state
ment is in substance one of the fundamental
doctrines of our faith. Paul declared to the
men of Athens that "the God who made
the world and all things therein . . . him
self giveth to all life, and breath, and all
things, and ... in him we live, and move,
and have our being." You may call this
62

Gbe pbilosopbical apology
idealism if you will, but it is the truth of
God. Modern apologetics should have no
controversy with one who is disposed to
elaborate such an idealistic monism and ad
just it to a well-defined system of thought.
Philosophy may thus prove a helpful hand
maid of the Christian faith. But when ideal
ism is carried to the extreme of denying the
reality of the external world, and, with
Berkeley, insisting that the essence of all
objects perceptible or conceivable is only an
idea of the mind ; or, with Fichte, arguing
that the outer world, the order of nature,
and the very idea of God himself are self-
creations of the mind ; or, with Schelling,
constructing an idealism so transcendental
as to maintain that God, the absolute Spirit,
comesgradually to self -consciousness through
the act of creation and first knows himself
in man ; or, with Hegel, resolving all things,
even God himself, into an eternal process
of becoming, ever unfolding, but never
unfolded, having no independent self-con
sciousness apart from human consciousness,
but a sort of universal personality, which
realizes itself in every separate state of hu
man consciousness, and which, multiplied
by the individuals of the race, becomes so
53

TIbe mew apologetic
many different states of one eternal Mind —
when idealism is carried to such extremes
we shrink away from its dream-like theories
and feel instinctively that they are incon
sistent with the facts of our own conscious
ness. These theories are not sufficient to
furnish a satisfactory explanation of the idea
of God, the reality of the world, and the
consciousness in man of personal freedom
and responsible activity.
2. Let us consider next what materialis
tic monism has to say. It is probable that
the extravagance of modern idealism is
largely responsible for the remarkable
prevalence of materialism at the present
time. Scientific research has in recent
years disclosed so much in relation to the
laws and forces of the material world that
not a few jump to the conclusion that
natural science may yet account for every
thing. There is no room left in nature for
God. Nature is all the God we are to
recognize. The childish, unscientific He
brew saw Mount Sinai altogether in smoke
and the whole mountain quaking greatly,
and he imagined that a personal God de
scended upon it in fire and proclaimed
himself as Jehovah, who brought the
64

TZbc pbilosopbical apology
chosen nation out of the house of bondage.
But some prophets of modern science tell
us a vast deal about protoplasm, and chem
ical affinity, and the correlation of forces, and
light and heat as modes of motion; and
they parade all these, like so many golden
calves, before the simple child of faith and
say, "These are thy gods, O Israel, which
brought thee up out of the land of Egypt."
According to this theory the universe is
one material substance, existing in its
primordial elements from eternity. Matter
and its properties are all-sufficient to ac
count for whatever now exists. Persistent
and eternal forces inherent in matter are
the causes of all change and development.
The origin of life is no greater a mystery
with the atheistic materialist than is the
origin of evil with the speculative theolo
gian. "If it were given me," says Hux
ley, ' ' to look beyond the abyss of geolog
ically recorded time to the still more remote
period when the earth was passing through
physical and chemical conditions which it
can no more see again than a man can re
call his infancy, I should expect to be a
witness of the evolution of living proto
plasm from not-living matter. I should
55

Ubc mew apologetic
expect it to appear under forms of great sim
plicity, endowed, like existing fungi, with
the power of determining new protoplasm
from such matters as ammonium carbon
ates, oxalates, and tartrates, alkaline and
earthy phosphates, and water, without the
aid of light."* We observe that Huxley
here assumes everything. He says he
would " expect to see " what he has already
assumed as an essential part of his hypoth
esis. By assumption he has put into his
major premise what he expects to find.
Thorough-going materialism, moreover,
maintains that all the activities of human
thought are merely results of cerebral mo
tion. Self -consciousness is but an attribute
of matter under certain conditions. Feel
ing, intelligence, and volition are natural
functions of the matter of the brain — secre
tions, some say, of the brain-substance,
much as gall is a secretion of the liver.
These theories of modern materialism do
not seem to differ essentially from the
ancient atomic philosophy, which was
* Critiques and Addresses, p. 239. This oft-cited pas
sage is notable as an exhibition of the stern though mildly
expressed dogmatism of which an eminent scientist may be
come unconsciously possessed. 66

Zbz pbilosopbical apology
taught by Leucippus and Democritus hun
dreds of years before the Christian era.
Those old lights of science maintained that
the universe, including all spiritual being,
consists of indivisible atoms, which,
through differences of form, position, and
motion, give rise to all known phenomena
of matter, life, and mind. But modern
physical science has analyzed, defined, and
classified the elements of matter in a man
ner utterly unknown to the ancients.
What attitude, now, should the modern
Christian apologist hold toward this athe
istic philosophy?
( i ) First of all, we welcome at the hands of
men of science all real solutions of physical
phenomena which they are able to pre
sent. We hail with joy every new discov
ery in the mysteries of nature and the laws
of the material world. We have no fear of
the revelations of true science, and most
cheerfully accept them when they are
clearly shown. But we know that one may
be a great scientist and a poor philosopher.
Many and many a time has it been seen
that a man may have deep insight into
some grave question, and yet be purblind
to another less difficult to solve.
57

Ube mew apologetic
(2) We aver that materialism gives no
adequate explanation of the nature and
operations of the human mind. Its hy
pothesis of thought as a secretion of the
brain or a mere mode of action comes far
short of a sufficient explanation of the facts
of consciousness, of reason, of long and in
tricate trains of argument. Not many
thoughtful minds will soon accept and be
satisfied with the idea that Euclid's ele
ments of geometry, the epics of Homer
and Vergil and Milton, or the philosophical
speculations of Plato and Leibnitz and
Huxley and Herbert Spencer are nothing
more than the products of physical motion
in the gray matter of the brain.
(3) Materialism gives no adequate expla
nation of moral distinctions and the action
of conscience in the soul of man. Its fun
damental principles require that all moral
conditions and acts of the will be explained
as necessary results of certain physical move
ments of brain and nerves. The difference
between a criminal and a virtuous man is,
accordingly, due to some disorder in the
make-up of the bad man's brain and spinal
cord. All that we call moral evil is the nat
ural result of nervous and muscular disease !
58

Ube ipbilosopbical apology
(4) Materialism empties the facts and phe
nomena of religion of all significance and
value. A personal God, a loving Father of
the spirits of all flesh, a redeeming Christ,
and salvation from sin are so many delu
sions of the brain. They answer to no
realities, and therefore the sooner they are
exploded the better for mankind.
(5) The assumptions and assertions of
materialism may be offset by the opposite
assertions of idealism. It is just as reason
able and safe to deny the existence of mat
ter as of mind. I think, on the whole, I
have more sympathy with the idealist than
with the materialist. If one persistently
deny the reality of matter we may, perhaps,
reasonably hope that some day he will dash
his head against a stone and be converted.
But what method of persuasion can be ex
pected to affect him who denies the reality
of his own personal existence ? What are
we to think of reasoning with a man who
makes great show of reason, and appeals to
your reason as a reasoning being to prove
that there is no such thing as a rational
mind, and what you call reason is the com
plex movement of physical atoms over which
you have no real control? 59

XCbe mew apologetic
3. Pantheistic monism seeks to avoid the
extremes of idealism and materialism, and
yet to appropriate some elements of both.
According to this theory God and the uni
verse are one. But spirit is not reduced to
a mode of matter ; rather, matter seems to
be exalted into spirit. The one infinite,
however, is neither matter nor spirit, as
separate and distinguishable entities. It is
conceived as one substance or one being,
according as the idea of matter or of spirit
is made most prominent. In the system of
Spinoza, mind and matter are conceived as
different aspects or attributes of one infinite
substance. In Hegel's system the infinite
is conceived rather ideally as spirit, unfold
ing and objectifying itself in the processes
of the universe. So it appears that panthe
ists differ in their methods of conceiving the
nature and manifestation of the infinite.
But in general it is correct to say that the
essence of pantheism is the concept of all
things bound fast in infinite unity. The
phenomenal world is possessed and pervaded
by an impersonal, unconscious, or, it may
be, semiconscious anima mundi, or world-
spirit, which is, nevertheless, identical with
the world itself. The universe is a mani-
60

XLbc pbilosopbical apology
festation of God, and he is the sum total of
it all. The human spirit is only a transient
phase or shadow of the infinite, into which
it is again absorbed, like a bubble bursting
on the ocean. All causes and events are
connected by an infinite chain of necessity.
This pantheistic conception of the uni
verse has ever had a charm for thoughtful
minds. It is traceable in Hindu and Greek
philosophy ; and many in our day are cap
tivated by the idea of divine immanence,
and the broad and sublime suggestion that
all phenomena are so many immediate man
ifestations of Deity. And there is not a
little in all this which accords with well-
known doctrines of the Christian faith. For,
according to the Scriptures, God is in all
things and through all things. What a
pantheist was Jeremiah, who wrote of God
on this wise : ' ' Do not I fill heaven and
earth, saith Jehovah ? Can any hide himself
in secret places, that I shall not find him? "
(Jer. xxiii, 24.) Hear also how the Hebrew
Psalmist speaks : " Whither shall I go from
thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy
presence? If I ascend into heaven, thou art
there : if I make my bed in Sheol, behold,
thou art there. If I take the wings of the
61

Ubc mew apologetic
morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts
of the sea, even there shall thy hand lead
me" (Psalm cxxxix, 7-10). The Hebrew
heard God's voice in the thunder; the clouds
were his pavilion; he caused the grass to
grow, he filled the trees with sap, and wa
tered the hills with his rain. But the differ
ence between this Hebrew pantheism and
that of rationalistic philosophy is the ex
treme difference between theism and athe
ism. What boots it to call the whole uni
verse God, and yet say in the same breath
that it is a substance or a being without
conciousness, intelligence, or personality?
Such a God is no different from the fetich,
save, perhaps, in imaginable bulk ; and it
is a remarkable fact, often observed, that
pantheism in theory begets polytheism in
practice. Against pantheism we may urge nearly
all the objections we make to materialism.
It furnishes no adequate philosophy of the
human mind. It makes our intuitions of
moral responsibility a pitiable delusion.
Self-conscious personality, with its hope of
immortality, is only a delusive dream, and
destined to sink into nonentity when life's
fitful fever ends. Pantheism leads logically
C2

Gbe pbilosopbical apology
into a dreary nescience, a stark agnosti
cism, which effectually explodes the idea
of a personal God, and bids us worship the
universe instead. We would say to the ad
mirers of this vague system, ' ' Ye worship
ye know not what." We do know some
thing about matter and its laws ; we know
something about mind and its operations;
but what know ye? Substance, being, a
vast transcendental somewhat, which is
neither matter nor mind ! Everything tan
gible or thinkable is thus transformed into
one vast phantasm of unreality.
III. NATURAL SCIENCE.
In connection with questions of philoso
phy we must also notice some aspects of
what is often called ' ' the conflict of science
and religion." The supposed conflict is
chiefly in certain interpretations of Scrip
ture touching the origin of the world and
of man.
About the middle of the sixteenth cen
tury Copernicus promulgated the helio
centric theory of the solar system ; but,
dying soon after that time, his theory
attracted no general attention. But half a
century later a distinguished professor of
63

Ubc mew apologetic
mathematics at Pisa adopted the views of
Copernicus, and astonished the theologians
of the Inquisition by presuming to teach
that the sun was the center of the planetary
system, and that the earth revolved both
on its axis and also around the sun. The
defenders of the orthodox faith at once pro
nounced these views absurd, false in phi
losophy, and contrary to the Holy Scrip
tures. Galileo was required to kneel down
in sackcloth, and swear upon the Holy Gos
pels never again to teach such heresy. And
even after submitting to that self-stultifica
tion he was for the rest of his life virtually
treated as a condemned criminal.
Isaac Newton was born the year that
Galileo died. His great contribution to
science was the discovery and elaboration
of the law of gravitation. But this dis
covery brought him into collision with
theologians, who jumped to the conclusion
that a theory of holding the universe to
gether by means of natural law must logic
ally banish God 'from the world and lead
to atheism. And, indeed, why should they
not so judge when such an infidel as Vol
taire, who was living in London when
Newton died, was so enthusiastic over the
64

TLbc iPbilosopbical apology
idea that he went back to France and
labored hard to propagate the Newtonian
philosophy on the continent of Europe?
Behold, said some zealous apologists of the
Christian faith, how a blasphemous infidel
is pleased with Newton's theory! That
one fact alone was quite sufficient in the
minds of many to condemn the law of
gravitation, and smirch the theological
soundness of all who accepted it.
Contemporaneously with Newton's dis
coveries and continuing into our time, the
conflict between Genesis and geology has
attracted the attention of Christian apolo
gists. Scientific research has long since
concluded that the world was not created
in six days, and the labor of apologists for
the last hundred years has been to reconcile
this conclusion with the statements of the
Book of Genesis. It may be useful for
some of us to remember that ardent de
fenders of the Bible once insisted that the
fossils in the rock were originally created
there just as they now appear! Others
argued that they were deposited at the
time of the deluge. The dogmatic as
surance with which some very able theo
logians have been wont to speak on such
65

Gbe mew apologetic
subjects may be seen in the following
statement of Richard Watson, first pub
lished about seventy years ago : ' ' On the
antiquity of the human race geology has
been compelled already to give its testi
mony to the accuracy of Moses, and the
time is probably not far distant when a
similar testimony will be educed from it as
to the antiquity of the globe." *
But in spite of all such deliverances,
what is the testimony of science to-day?
Not only the immense antiquity of the
globe, but also the antiquity of man on the
earth far back of the period once com
monly supposed, is now the prevalent
opinion of scientific men ; and not only the
antiquity of man, but his evolution from
pree'xistent organic forms of a lower order.
Evolution is now the commanding hypothe
sis, and idealism, materialism, and panthe
ism all alike employ its facts and postulates
to establish their several theories of the
universe. The science of biology also
adds its strong testimony to confirm the
theory of evolution; and so the origin of
all organic forms, both of animal and vege
table life, is brought under the domain of
* Theological Institutes, vol. i, p. 251.
66

Zbe pbilosopbical apology
natural law, and the idea of immediate in
stantaneous creation by an extraordinary,
miraculous act of God seems about to be
relegated to the notions of a defunct
theology. There is, perhaps, no living issue of
philosophy or science with which Christian
apologetics may be supposed to have greater
concern at the present time than with
the postulates of evolution. Many among
us look upon the whole theory as inconsist
ent with the biblical doctrine of creation
and inimical to the Christian faith. Here,
then, is a grave question. How are we, as
theologians and apologists, to deal with the
doctrines of evolution ?
One way is to follow the example of the
older theologians, who promptly met and
refuted the Copernican theory and the law
of gravitation and the doctrines of geology
by the confident assertion that the new
fangled theory is preposterous, false in
philosophy, and contrary to the Holy Scrip
tures ; that is, we may reduce the issue to
this sole alternative — either to reject evolu
tion or give up the Bible and the Christian
faith. But would*it be a sign of wisdom,
or of folly, to hazard our religion on an
67

TLbe mew apologetic
issue like that? Have we learned nothing
from Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton? Does
any man of sober sense believe to-day that
such a question can be settled by bold as
sertion or by votes?
There is another and, I think, far better
way to meet such questions. It would
have been better had some of those theo
logians who opposed Galileo and Newton
reasoned on this wise : " Is it not possible
that God has arranged the solar system in
just such a manner as Copernicus and Gali
leo say, and may he not be running it
night and day, year in and year out, on
that very plan ? May we not conceive God
as ' upholding all things by the word of his
power,' and also in perfect harmony with
the law of gravitation?" The discreet
apologist will take a similar attitude touch
ing the hypothesis of evolution. Why
should we deem it a thing incredible that
God created the universe and all that is in
it in perfect harmony with the laws and
processes of evolution ? Is it not as reason
able to believe that God brought all things
into existence by a law of evolution as that
he continually upholds*all things by a law
of gravitation ?

XTbe pbilosopbical apology
I, for one, maintain that the only proper
method of treating such questions is to
leave them open to full and free discussion.
Many among us are strong in the convic
tion that the evolution of man from a
lower order of animal life has not been
proven. But the same thing* was once
properly and truly said of the Newtonian
law of gravitation. If the doctrine of
evolution be false we can safely leave it to
the searching tests of free investigation
and debate. If untrue, it will sooner or
later come to naught. But if it be true ye
cannot overthrow it, and may be found to
be fighting against God.
But some man will say, " Evolution con
tradicts the biblical record of creation by
the word of God." That, however, is a
matter of interpretation. There are more
ways of explaining the first chapters of
Genesis than there are of setting aside the
facts and arguments of science. Where is
the scholar who now holds to the literal
interpretation of the first chapter of the
Bible? We have the geological explana
tion, which aims to show that the six days
correspond with so many eras of develop
ment in the crust of the earth. Then we
69

Zbc mew apologetic
have the cosmological explanation, based
on the nebular hypothesis of the universe,
which makes the days so many aeons of
cosmical evolution. There also is the res
titution theory of Chalmers, which puts the
ages of geology between the first and
second verses of the chapter, and tries to
explain the rest literally. And there is
John Pye Smith's hypothesis of a local cre
ation ; and also the poetical interpretation,
which sees in the picture of six days of
labor and the sabbath rest an ideal or sym
bolical representation of great religion
truths. These numerous theories show
that it is much easier to adjust the biblical
record to a scientific hypothesis than it is
to refute the hypothesis. We know that
unique literary compositions are capable of
various explanations, but we cannot so
easily twist the testimony of the solid
rocks. The most explicit statement of Genesis
touching the creation of man is the familiar
passage, "The Lord God formed man of
the dust of the ground, and breathed into
his nostrils the breath of life; and man
became a living soul." Does this scripture
at all determine just how God created man ?
70

Ube pbilosopbical apology
The more carefully you examine it the
more certainly will you find that it is
remarkably indefinite on just those points
where you would like particular informa
tion. The theistic evolutionist declares
that the language admirably accords with
his theory. It teaches that man is a prod
uct of the organic union of matter and of
life, and, therefore, he most naturally
speaks of " mother earth " and Father God.
But how long a time it was during which
God was forming that dust into the organ
ism of a human body, and how long there
after he breathed therein before the man
became a living soul, are questions on
which neither this scripture nor any other
has a word to say. For aught that any
one can prove to the contrary, the prepara
tion of the dust may have required a
million years, and God may have been
breathing into his nostrils another million
years before he completed the evolution of
the first human soul.
IV. AGNOSTICISM.
There are many questions of philosophy
and science which cannot in the limits of
this lecture be so much as mentioned. But
71

Zbz mew apologetic
I will in conclusion make a passing allusion
to agnosticism. The earliest commingling
of Christianity and speculative philosophy
produced the systems of gnosticism. Is it
too much to hope that, as gnosticism was
one of the first philosophical troublers of the
Christian faith, the agnosticism of the nine
teenth century may be the last? Gnosticism
assumed to know almost everything ; agnos
ticism insists on knowing nothing of the
power that is back of all phenomena. The
ground of all things, the ultimate source
of being, says Herbert Spencer, is unknow
able, and we may not ascribe to it our no
tions of personality.
A careful study of the assumptions, both
of gnosticism and agnosticism, may perhaps
suggest to us something more rational and
satisfactory than either of these systems has
"been able to furnish mankind. The world
of thinking people, in spite of all the asser
tions of agnosticism, will probably go right
on believing and saying that there is all the
difference in the world between knowing
everything and knowing nothing. There
is between these unknowable extremes an
immense territory of which we know a great
deal, and there is to our thought a marvel-
72

XEbe pbilosopbical apology
ous degree of the manifestation of God in
it all.* We may all, however, derive some profit
able hints from agnosticism. It is well for
the Christian apologist to remember that,
according to the Scriptures, no man can ex
pect to find out the Almighty to perfection.
Let us acknowledge with becoming humility
* Matheson observes that gnosticism and agnosticism ' ' both
take it for granted that the essence of God is his infinitude ;
and from that premise they quite logically conclude that, if
infinitude cannot be known, God is therefore unknowable.
But we deny that the essence of God is infinitude. Infinitude
is not an essence ; it is a quality or attribute ; it is a certain
degree of intensity possessed by an object already existing.
, . . Were we to ask a seeker after God what he is seek
ing, and were he to answer that he was in search of the infi
nite, we should again ask, ' The infinite what ? Is it the in.
finite universe, or the infinite void or the infinite mind?' A
man may seek the infinite without seeking God. Infinitude
is a quality that belongs to time and space, and perhaps to mat
ter itself. That which makes God different from time and
space and matter is not his infinitude, but his nature ; and
therefore to know God is not to know his infinitude, but to
know his nature. Paradoxical as it may sound, it is as a finite
and not as an infinite being that God must be known. We
must form a definite conception of what he is, and then we
shall be at liberty to extend that conception indefinitely. If
the result of our efforts to extend it should only be to teach us
the impossibility of exhausting its contents, we shall at least
have the satisfaction of knowing that our inability to compre
hend God's infinitude has been taught us by our knowledge
of the nature of God himself." — Can the Old Faith Live with
the New ? pp. 63-66. 73

Ube mew apologetic
the limitations of human thought ; for some
are disposed to be " wise above what is
written." We have sometimes been tempted
to think that to certain overzealous and dog
matic defenders of our faith it would be a
benefit to be a little more agnostic.
What may we now conclude as to the true
method of philosophical apologetic? We
answer :
i . Nothing will be achieved by denunci
ation and proscription. The well-informed
and truly able apologist will abstain from
everything that assumes the air of supercil
ious antagonism to systems of speculative
thought which have engaged the best en
ergy of the most powerful minds. God for
bid that we should speak with contempt of
men like Spinoza and Hegel and Huxley
and Herbert Spencer, and deny the sincerity
of their inquiries after truth. The fact that
they have not been persuaded of the truth
of doctrines we hold dear should admonish
us of what Butler's Analogy emphasized,
namely, that the evidences of Christianity
belong to the class called probable, not de
monstrative. 2. Let us not refuse to take from any and
all these schools of philosophy whatever
74

Ube pbilosopbical apology
may help us to a better knowledge of the
truth. We may learn something from dual
ism, and idealism, and materialism, and
pantheism, and agnosticism. The true phil-
, osophical apology takes cognizance of all
opposing theories, concedes whatever truth
is apparent in any of them, and welcomes it
for its own sake. Able Christian apologists
have sometimes fallen into error, and their
opponents have been clearly in the right.
Let us not forget that some opinions once
denounced as heresy were subsequently
found to be in harmony with the law and
the prophets. After the way which some
call heresy, so now worship we the God of
our fathers.
3. It behooves us, especially in philosoph
ical discussions, to avoid confusing things
that differ. Passion and prejudice are too
often allowed to sway the judgment. We
may hastily reject a great truth for no better
reason than that it is heralded by a Voltaire
or a Thomas Paine. In his work on The
Miraculous Element in the Gospels (p. 27),
Professor Bruce makes the following obser
vation, which I think is an excellent illus
tration of the spirit and the attitude of the
true apologist : " It is very important to
75

XEbe mew apologetic
grasp the truth that modern agnosticism
and the doctrine of evolution, though often
associated in fact, are by no means insepara
ble. An impression to the contrary might
readily mislead the advocate of Christian
theism into a precarious policy of uncom
promising antagonism to prevalent scientific
views concerning the origin of the world, as
if to refute these were a matter of life and
death. I, for my part, have no sympathy
with such a view of the apologist's present
duty. I feel no jealousy of the doctrine of
evolution, and see no occasion for cherish
ing such a feeling. I do not profess com
petency to pronounce on the scientific pre
tensions of the doctrine; but I am very
sensible of the grandeur of the view which
it presents of the universe, and I am not
indisposed to accept it as truth, and to ac
knowledge the obligation thence arising to
adjust our whole mode of thinking on reli
gious questions to the new situation."
4. It ought not to be a matter of regiet
that some old arguments, once deemed con
clusive, give place to other modes of thought.
It is rather the sign of life and power in a
system that it can adjust itself to new con
ditions. It has come to pass that the time-
76

Zbc pbtlosopbical apology
honored argument from design, that most
popular of all arguments to ' ' prove the ex
istence of God from the light of nature " —
even that old teleological argument has
fallen into disrepute ; for pessimists employ
it to show that, if an intelligent Designer
planned the world of animal life, the greater
part of the evidence in hand goes to show
him up as a mighty, malevolent Gorilla,
rather than a benevolent Creator. And so,
in the hands of a Schopenhauer or a Hart
mann, the argument is made to prove to
some men's minds that, if this world is not
the worst possible world, it is wholly bad.
5. Finally, the Christian apologist can
afford to be liberal. His wisest method is
that of philosophical calmness and sobriety.
No good comes from denouncing and exas
perating men whom we think to be in
error. It is better, if possible, to make
friends of them. I would say to the ideal
ist, the materialist, and the N pantheist :
' ' You have taken hold of great truths.
Your systems contain elements which have
arrested the attention of philosophic minds
in all ages. But, I beseech you, observe
that the Christian concept of God and the
world accounts for more of the facts in
77

ftbe mew apologetic
question than any other. The biblical
idea of God and the world has been on
probation for several millenniums, and
claims to be more simple, more compre
hensive, and more rational than any other
philosophy of the universe."
We do not forget that many deceivers
have gone out into the world. It is also
true that many a seeker after truth has
missed his mark. The only safe and proper
method of procedure with all the issues
raised by philosophy and science is that
of the old Christian proverb, ' ' Prove all
things ; hold fast that which is good."
78

m

tlbe 2literary=CritfcaI apology

in

The Literary-Critical Apology
Biblical criticism is as old as the bibli
cal canon. A generation before our Lord
was born the rabbinical schools of Hillel
and Shammai disputed over the rank and
sacredness of the Books of Ecclesiastes and
the Song of Solomon and Ruth and Es
ther and Ezekiel. The old Church histo
rian Eusebius records the doubts existing
in his day touching the genuineness of the
Epistles of James, Second Peter, Second
and Third John, and the Book of Revela
tion. In the discussion of the authorship
of John's Apocalypse, Dionysius, Bishop of
Alexandria, produced one of the finest
specimens of higher criticism extant, tak
ing the ground that the book was not the
work of the apostle.
To many it may seem strange that such
criticism should ever have been regarded
as inimical to the Christian faith. But to
understand its reason we must note that
back of all literary criticism there are cer
tain philosophical principles. Critical at-
81

Ube mew apologetic
tacks upon the Bible usually assume some
postulate of philosophy. The allegorical
method of interpretation was the result
of influences which Greek and oriental
philosophy had exerted on the minds of
Alexandrian Jews. The mythical theory,
as applied by Strauss to the interpretation
of the Gospels, is a logical outgrowth of
certain doctrines of the Hegelian philoso
phy. The creation of the world in six
days, the universality of the flood, the sun
and moon standing still at the command of
Joshua, when taken as narratives of fact,
prejudice philosophical and scientific men
against the Bible and provoke assaults
upon the credibility of such narratives.
The oppositions of criticism are also pro
voked by extravagant claims which are
sometimes made for the Bible. Since the
time of the Reformation the Holy Scrip
tures have been exalted by Protestants, and
declared to be the only and infallible rule of
faith and practice. This seemed to be a
natural and necessary offset to the Romish
claim of an infallible Church. Whatever
truth there is in the doctrine of an infallible
Bible, it is so mixed up with corollaries
of questionable soundness that one hardly

XLbc 3Literary*<Iritical apology
knows just what is really claimed for the
Holy Scriptures as a record of divine reve
lation. What authority is there to-day in
Protestantism to decide for us precisely
what "inspiration" means?
When men in the sixteenth and seven
teenth centuries were formulating creeds
and confessions of the Protestant faith they
found occasion to declare the divine
authority of the Holy Scriptures. It was
generally assumed that a book-revelation
from God must needs be perfect and in
fallible. The next step was to affirm that
every part of this sacred volume was
equally inspired. This proposition seemed
further to require that every word and let
ter, and even the vowel points, were in
spired of God. All this was very logical.
Once assume absolute perfection of the
book, and what remains but to insist that
every jot and tittle must partake of the
divine perfection?
But these teachings soon led to bitter con
troversy. Scholars observed that the Greek
of the New Testament lacked the perfec
tion and elegance of the old Attic writers.
Whereupon the so-called purists took alarm,
and learned enthusiasts, assuming that a
83

Ube mew apologetic
contrary opinion necessarily impeached the
honor of God's word, insisted, in the face
of glaring facts, that the New Testament
Greek was as pure and elegant as the clas
sical Greek. And that controversy was kept
up for a hundred years !
Along with this contest came also that
other about the inspiration of the vowel
points of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Bux-
torfs, the greatest Hebrew scholars of that
day, maintained this supposed necessary
adjunct of the current doctrine of inspira
tion ; and one of the Swiss Confessions em
bodied it as an article of the Christian faith.
Was the argument not a simple and con
clusive one ? The written word is a perfect
word, for it is the gift of God ; the vowel
points are a portion of this written word ;
therefore, the points are inspired.
But this kind of faith met a more serious
trial when, a little later, the science of lower
criticism began its work of comparing the
ancient manuscripts and discovering thou
sands of various readings in the different
copies of the New Testament. The ene
mies of the Bible seized upon these facts
and used them to cast doubt and uncertainty
upon the sacred records. Then there were
84

Ubc 3Literary=Critical apology
paroxysms of alarm. Those who argued
that every word and letter was inspired felt
the ground giving way under them. If the
Almighty infallibly dictated the words of
the original autographs, why has he not
preserved them?
Another form of attack was made on the
ground of immoralities alleged to be sanc
tioned by the Bible. The polygamy of the
patriarchs and of David and of Solomon ;
the apparent indorsement of slavery in the
laws of Moses ; the barbarous destruction of
the Canaanites by the command of God ; the
vow of Jephthah, and the inhuman sacrifice
of his daughter — these and other like mon
strosities recorded in the Old Testament were
declared utterly incompatible with the idea
that the Scriptures are the pure word of God.
Other attacks were based upon the alleged
discrepancies of the Bible. Statements in
the Books of Samuel and Kings do not
agree with the parallel passages in Chroni
cles. The Gospels also contain conflicting
and irreconcilable accounts of the same
transaction. And, finally, the old attack
of Porphyry on the genuineness of the Book
of Daniel is revived in these latter days, and
not on Daniel only, but also on Isaiah and

Ube mew apologetic
Zechariah. The Mosaic authorship of the
Pentateuch is set aside, and Ecclesiastes
and the Song of Songs are no longer at
tributed to Solomon.
In view of these inroads of criticism, the
devout Christian who accepts and loves his
Bible as the word of God may easily become
perplexed, and ask if, after such a sweep of
criticism, there is anything left of the old
Bible worth holding fast. Our concern is to
know how to meet the questions raised by
this kind of criticism. There are thousands
of thousands among us who have found the
Bible a most precious treasure. To every
one who has learned to appreciate its heav
enly truths it is indeed the very word of
the Lord. His soul kindles into holy flame
as he reads the story of Abraham and Jacob,
of Joseph and Moses, of Samuel and David.
The Psalms are heavenly manna to his heart.
The prophets are so many voices of God to
his soul, and their visions carry him away
into the heavenly places. In his New Tes
tament he comes face to face with the Lord
Jesus as with a familiar friend. Peter and
James and John and Paul speak to him as
so many apostles of the risen Saviour and
instruct him in the ways of life. What a
80

Zbe Xiterary*Critical apology
shock may one of these devout readers feel
if you say to him : ' ' There are more than
a hundred thousand various readings in the
different manuscripts of the New Testament,
and no man can now say for certain just
what were the words of Jesus or of Paul or
of John in several texts which you have
loved and written on your heart. The clos
ing words of the Lord's prayer — ' Thine is
the kingdom, and the power, and the glory '
— are not found in the most ancient copies,
and there is almost conclusive evidence that
they formed no part of the prayer as Christ
gave it. The beautiful story of the angel
that went down at certain seasons and trou
bled the waters of Bethesda (John v, 3, 4) is
an interpolation ; and the same is true of
the oft-cited story of the woman taken in
adultery (John viii, 1-11)."
In view of such results of the scientific
study of the Scriptures, is it any wonder
that some cry out : ' ' Away with your sci
ence ! Away with your criticism ! You are
tearing my dear old Bible to pieces ; nay,
ye are taking away my Lord, and I know
not where ye will lay him!" If the lower
criticism work such unhappy results, what
must the higher criticism do?
87

Ube mew apologetic
The Christian apologist, however, can
not avoid the demands of scientific criti
cism. What shall he do with these
questions of texts and dates and authors?
And what attitude shall the Christian min
ister assume on the subject? There are
three ways of dealing with the claims of
biblical criticism, some one of which we
shall be obliged to follow :
I. We may ignore them and keep still
about the whole subject of literary crit
icism. Some deem this best. Do not dis
turb the peace of pious souls, they sa)*-;
they know nothing about these things;
they are not able to understand the argu
ments and proofs employed, and will not
be benefited by any attempts to make
them wiser. Such a policy of silence, I
doubt not, is good for certain times and
places. It may be properly observed in
the ordinary worship of the Church. Com
mon discretion should prevent a minister
from parading such topics before a promis
cuous audience. There are even consider
able portions of the Bible itself which are
not suitable for public reading in the con
gregation. But are we to abstain from
meddling with these matters at all times
88

Gbe Xiterary*Critical apology
and places? That would be a deathblow
to all biblical science, and, in its very na
ture, self-stultifying. Such a principle of
silence is unworthy of men who love the
truth. 2. Another way of dealing with the mat
ter is to wage open warfare against the
results of criticism. So the purists of the
seventeenth century did with the belief
that the language of the New Testament is
not as pure as the classical Greek. So
others did with the denial of the inspiration
of the vowel points. And so did others
deal with the Copernican system and the
law of gravitation. But is it a sign of wis
dom or of honor for the defenders of
Christianity to keep up, age after age, that
kind of warfare ?
3. I venture to say that there is a more
excellent way. On such questions as those
now under consideration warfare is clearly
out of place. We cannot determine just
what Jesus or Paul said by a tilt at arms.
The fate of our modern Israel, so far as it
depends on settling matters of criticism,
cannot be decided by a duel between any
modern David and Goliath. The conflict,
if any, belongs to a different world of
89

Gbe mew apologetic
action. Assertions, boasts, threats all go
for nothing here. It is simply a subject
for careful inquiry and calm, intelligent
judgment. What are the facts, and what
is the truth about them ?
In attempting to present some of the
facts and methods of the higher criticism I
submit two propositions : (i) That the prin
cipal facts and conclusions of criticism may
be so presented to persons of ordinary intel
ligence as not to disturb their faith, even
though they overturn some of their cher
ished opinions ; (2) that those questions of
criticism which are not settled, or not
capable of being absolutely settled by
means within our reach, should never be
recognized in Christian apologetics as fun
damental or essential to our faith in Christ.
I shall resolve these two propositions into
one as I proceed, in some detail, to show
what higher criticism claims as facts, how
they may be fairly stated, and what rela
tion they sustain to modern apologetics.
I begin with the Book of Ecclesiastes.
Ancient tradition assigns its authorship to
Solomon. At the beginning of the book
we read, ' ' The words of the Preacher, the
son of David, king in Jerusalem." In the
90

Ubc %fterary=Gritical apology
twelfth and thirteenth verses of the same
chapter the writer says : "I the Preacher
was king over Israel in Jerusalem. And I
gave my heart to seek and to search out by
wisdom concerning all things that are done
under heaven." This language certainly
has all the appearance of a direct claim by
the author to be Solomon, the son of David.
And yet, with almost complete unanimity,
the great critics of our day regard the book
as one of the latest compositions of the Old
Testament. Harman's Introduction, which
the bishops of the Methodist Episcopal
Church prescribe as a regular study of all
candidates for the ministry, says : ' ' There
can be little doubt that it is the latest book
of the canon, and could not have been
written earlier than the time of Malachi;
but in all probability it was written still
later" (p. 318). Adam Clarke, the time-
honored authority in Wesleyan exegesis,
says that the attempts to overthrow the evi
dences of a post-exile date are ' ' often trifling
and generally ineffectual."
In this one example now before us we
have a fair illustration of the nature of
higher criticism. I have sometimes won
dered that those who make the loudest out-
91

TLbc mew apologetic
cry against such criticism when directed
upon the Pentateuch and Isaiah seem never
to have heard of this remarkable onslaught
on Ecclesiastes. In the face of the asser
tions of the book itself, we are told by
cautious and conservative scholars that the
work cannot be reasonably believed to be
the composition of Solomon. Their reasons
for this conclusion are mainly of three
kinds: (i) The Hebrew in which the book
is written belongs to the latest period of the
literature. This, of course, is a matter of
which the unlearned reader cannot judge.
(2) The tone, style of thought, forms of ex
pression, social and political allusions are
incompatible with what is elsewhere writ
ten of the character and reign of Solomon.
(3) The old Jewish literature abounds with
books which bear an assumed name. Such
are the Psalms of Solomon, the Apocalypse
of Baruch, the Ascension of Isaiah, and the
Book of Enoch, which Jude quotes in his
epistle. In the Old Testament Apocrypha,
First and Second Esdras and the Wisdom
of Solomon belong to the same class.
There are also other reasons which are not
readily explained to one who is not trained
in the details of literary criticism. It is
92

XCbe 3Literary=(Iritical apology
important to observe that the later Jewish
writers, also, were much given to the pro
duction of compositions bearing an assumed
name. And this kind of literature is found
among other peoples. The dialogues of
Plato purport to be conversations between
Socrates and his disciples ; but we all under
stand that they are the idealized language
of an idealized Socrates.
Such are the main grounds for rejecting
the Solomonic authorship of Ecclesiastes.
Whether or no they are sufficient to prove
the proposition I shall not here attempt to
say. But, so long as they have convinced the
majority of truth-loving scholars, it is not
expedient to withhold the knowledge of the
facts from the people out of fear of disturb
ing the faith of some pious souls. Nor is it
wise to go about declaring that all who do
not accept the genuineness of Ecclesiastes
are destructive critics, traitors in the Lord's
camp, undermining the faith of the Church,
and sowing the seeds of infidelity.
The facts being as I have stated, the
question of apologetics is simply how to
adjust the biblical revelation to such con
ditions. There could be no difficulty in
the case but for the assumption which some
93

Zbe mew apologetic
make that it is incompatible with the dig
nity and purpose of Holy Scripture that
it should contain a pseudograph. They are
hasty to declare that, if the book is not
the work of Solomon, it is a sheer forgery.
But is that the only alternative? Is it a
mark of wisdom for the apologist to force
that issue? Might not the student of
Greek literature as truly say, ' ' If the dia
logues of Socrates, as reported by Plato,
are not the real sayings of the great philoso
pher, they must be forgeries? " Where is
the necessity of insisting that the Bible
cannot be set in the same forms of literary
composition which are found among all
cultivated peoples? It is beyond contro
versy that the Scriptures were given at
different times and in many different forms.
It has been the boast of apologists that the
Bible, as a body of rich and varied litera
ture, is without a rival in the world. Why,
then, should not some of its parts have
been given in the idealistic way so common
in other literatures? Those who affirm that
the Bible cannot contain a book that as
sumes another than its real author's name
do so on the assumption of their own com
petency to declare, a priori, what the Bible
94

XCbe 3Literary*Critical apology
ought to be. The only sound and scien
tific method is, first, to make a careful sur
vey of all the facts in question, and then
proceed to formulate conclusions and
theories according to the facts ; not, first, to
set up an a priori dogma as to what the
Bible cannot be supposed to contain, and
then force opposing facts into agreement
with the self-made dogma.
Let us next examine the Book of Prov
erbs and see how the same disturbing issues
meet us there also. The book begins with
the title, " The proverbs of Solomon the
son of David, king of Israel." Most read
ers on opening the book would naturally
suppose that these words apply to the en
tire collection of proverbs at the head of
which they stand. But we find upon ex
amination that this book contains at least
eight different collections of proverbs, each
with a different heading. One collection
is attributed to Agur, the son of Jakeh
(xxx, i), and another is entitled "The
words of king Lemuel, the prophecy that
his mother taught him" (xxxi, i). An
other large collection is said to be " prov
erbs of Solomon, which the men of Heze
kiah king of Judah copied out " (xxv, i).
95

Ubc mew apologetic
Hezekiah lived some three hundred years
after Solomon, from which it appears that
the Book of Proverbs, as we now have
it, is a compilation made centuries after
the time of the famous son of David. You
might easily disturb a devout reader of the
Bible by merely calling his attention to
these facts and offering him no explana
tion. But there the facts are, clearly
recorded in the book itself ; and yet thou
sands have never in their reading stopped
to think how utterly inconsistent they are
with the title of the book placed at the
head of the first chapter. In i Kings iv,
32, it is said that Solomon "spake three
thousand proverbs;" but this book con
tains in all only nine hundred and fifteen
verses. What has become of the greater
portion of those spoken by the wise king?
Taking now the Book of Proverbs for
both proofs and illustrations, why should
we have any embarrassment or trouble in
teaching to old or young the following
things? 1. The title placed at the begin
ning of a book in the Bible is not necessa
rily a sure witness as to all that the book
contains. Along with this Book of Prov
erbs ascribed to Solomon there is bound up
96

Ube Xiterary=Critical apology
much other matter from various authors.
2. This book contains the clearest evidence
within itself of having been compiled cen
turies after the death of the wise man to
whom it is customary to attribute all the
proverbs. 3. There is no sufficient evi
dence to prove that Solomon was the real
author of any considerable number of the
proverbs of this book. He may have been
only a collector of proverbs. As the Book
of Ecclesiastes says of him, " Because the
preacher was wise, he . . . sought out,
and set in order many proverbs " (xii, 9).
4. The proverbs themselves are not de
pendent for their value on any of these
questions of authorship. "Go to the ant,
thou sluggard ; consider her ways, and be
wise," is just as wholesome advice and as
profitable for instruction in righteousness
whether first uttered by some one a thou
sand years after Solomon or a thousand
years before him. If anyone say that this
is detracting from the glory of Solomon,
it is quite sufficient to answer that he
stands in no need of a borrowed glory. It
is far better to seek after the truth than
after the glory of Solomon. The apocry
phal book entitled The Wisdom of Solo-
97

Zbz mew apologetic
mon is worthy to have come from even a
greater than Solomon ; but no one at this
day believes that it was written by Sol
omon, although in chapter ix, verses 7 and
8 this claim is evidently made.
Let us now pass from Solomon to his
father David and see how he fares at the
hands of modern criticism. The Christian
world is accustomed to speak of the
"Psalms of David" as if the one hundred
and fifty different songs of the Hebrew
Psalter were all composed by that sweet
singer of Israel, the son of Jesse. Accord
ing to ancient tradition, David was a gifted
musician and singer. When he brought
the ark to Jerusalem he instituted there a
service of song (1 Chron. xv). It is not
improbable that some kind of collection of
psalms was made in his day and under his
direction. It may have included some of
his own compositions. But our present
Book of Psalms consists of five distinct
books, or collections. Some of the psalms
are ascribed to the sons of Korah ; a num
ber to Asaph ; others to Ethan the Ezra-
hite, and Heman the Ezrahite; one is
ascribed to Moses ; two to Solomon ; and
the Septuagint ascribes a number to Hag-
98

tlbe 3Literary«Critical apology
gai and Zechariah. Psalms xiv and liii are
almost literally identical ; but they fall in
different collections, like the same hymn
repeated in different hymnals. Psalm
cviii, which falls in the fifth book, is com
posed of portions of Psalms lvii and lx,
which belong to the second book. These
facts show beyond all question that the
' Hebrew Psalter is neither the composition
nor the compilation of David. The book
contains songs of the exiles who sat down
by the rivers of Babylon and wept when
they remembered Zion (Psalm cxxxvii).
It appears to be a collection of centuries of
song in Israel, and the present arrange
ment into five books was evidently made
after the Babylonian exile.
And yet this whole collection has ever
been associated with the name of David.
New Testament writers refer to the book
as if it were the work of David. In He
brews iv, 7, the Holy Spirit is recognized
as speaking in the Psalms, and the writer
cites a passage from the ninety-fifth psalm,
using the simple formula, "saying in
David." But that psalm is not ascribed to
David in the Psalter. The best critics,
moreover, of all schools are now substan-
99

Ube mew apologetic
tially agreed that no dependence is to be
placed on the titles and superscriptions of
the psalms. All such notes as "For the
chief musician," " A prayer of David," " A
psalm of David," " Mich tarn of David,"
"Set to the Gittith," and "Selah" are of
the nature of musical notes and editorial
additions, and have no more to do with the
psalm itself than the names of tunes in
modern hymn books have to do with the
date and authorship of the hymns to which
they are appended.
In the light of these disclosures of criti
cism, let us now turn to the Book of Isaiah.
For more than a hundred years the lead
ing biblical scholars of Germany have
been insisting that the last twenty-seven
chapters are not the work of the son of
Amoz. The feeling aroused over this dis
cussion has been in some quarters almost
extravagant, and even now we hear or read
an occasional outburst of sweeping declara
tion that he who surrenders the Isaianic
authorship of those chapters saps the foun
dation of the Christian faith !
But here, as in the other cases, the lover
of the truth has only to ask, What are the
facts ? The first twelve chapters of the
ioo

TIbe Xiterary=Critical apology
book are a connected series, and no one has
doubted their Isaianic authorship. The next
eleven chapters are a group of prophecies
against heathen nations, and there is in
ternal evidence to show that some of them
are older, and some of them are later, than
the time of Isaiah. Chapters xxiv-xxvii
are a sublime apocalypse ; and the following
eight chapters are of a similar nature, but
refer to different subjects, and, so far as in
ternal evidence goes, may or may not have
been the work of Isaiah. Chapters xxxvi-
xxxix are a fragment of the history of the
times of Hezekiah, and identical in sub
stance with a portion of the Second Book of
Kings (xviii, 13-xxi, 11). Chapter xxxviii
contains a prayer which is entitled ' ' The
writing of Hezekiah king of Judah, when
he had been sick, and was recovered of his
sickness." Then follow the twenty-seven
chapters, in which it is written : ' ' Zion is
become a wilderness, Jerusalem a desola
tion. Our holy and beautiful house, where
our fathers worshiped, is burned with fire,
and all our pleasant things are laid waste."
This desolation is spoken of as a well-known
fact, not as something yet to be. And in
the same manner Cyrus is mentioned as one
101

XLbc mew apologetic
who has already made his appearance, whom,
Jehovah says, ' ' I have raised up from the
north" (xii, 25), " whose right hand I have
holden, to subdue nations before him "
(xiv, 1), and who is divinely called to say of
Jerusalem, "Thou shalt be built; and to
the temple, Thy foundations shall be laid "
(xliv, 28). Such statements and allusions,
it is claimed, are unnatural when referring
to events of the distant future, but have
great force and naturalness when supposed
to have been written near the close of the
Babylonian exile, soon after Cyrus had ap
peared upon the stage of history.
This is the verdict of criticism on the
Book of Isaiah. Whether correct or incor
rect, it is based upon the same reasonable
method of procedure which we have illus
trated in the Proverbs and the Psalms. Is
it self-evident, or is it safe and wise to say,
that a collection of prophecies of different
authorship and dates, headed by the name
of Isaiah, could not have been compiled as
well as a collection of proverbs under the
name of Solomon, or a collection of psalms
under the name of David ? We refer the
whole collection to Isaiah, as we refer
the Psalms to David, and the Proverbs to
102

Hbe Xiterary*Critical apology
Solomon. For purposes of reference or
quotation nothing else is so convenient or
practicable. But names and titles thus em
ployed in popular usage are no certain mark
of date and authorship.* Who can tell us
to-day who wrote the Books of Joshua,
Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and
Job? If such a magnificent poem as the
Book of Job is of unknown authorship, what
folly to affirm that the unique collection of
oracles in Isaiah xl-lxvi could not have
gone into circulation without the author's
name! It is not necessary to our purpose to pro-
* Who is to determine for us assuredly whether the names
"Samuel" and "Moses," as mentioned in Acts iii, 24, and
Luke xxiv, 27, denote the individuals or the books so named?
Compare the varying forms of reference to the same Old
Testament passage in Matt, xxii, 31, Mark xii, 26, and Luke
xx, 37. The citation of " Isaiah the prophet," after the man
ner of John i, 23, and xii, 38, is no necessaiy commitment
of the writer to the effect that all the contents of the Book
of Isaiah are from the son of Amoz. And when in John v,
46, 47, Jesus speaks of the " writings " of Moses, and says,
" He wrote of me," his statements cannot without violence
be construed into a declaration that " Moses wrote all the
Pentateuch." No one has a right to assume that such refer
ences and citations commit Jesus or any New Testament
writer to an authoritative dictum on the question of author
ship, unless at the same time it can be shown by a valid
exegesis that it was intended to express a critical judgment on
that question. 103

Ube mew apologetic
ceed further with illustrations of the nature
and methods of biblical criticism. The
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the
integrity of the Book of Zechariah, and the
dates and authorship of other portions of
the Old Testament and of the New are sub
jected to the same critical process. Some
of these questions are, of course, more
simple than others. In the discussion of
books like Deuteronomy and Daniel and
the Gospel of John questions of a more
serious character arise, and facts most diffi
cult on any hypothesis to explain confront
us. There is room for great differences of
opinion ; and not infrequently we meet de
vout and learned men who adopt one view
for a time, and upon further research change
about to the opposite hypothesis. And this
fact shows the need of greatest care and
caution. The main conclusion we should all reach
by this survey of the facts of criticism is,
that the apologetics of the present day should
recognize the great difference between ques
tions of literature and those of fundamental
doctrine. Whether Paul or Apollos or Bar
nabas or Luke wrote the Epistle to the He
brews is a question of literary history, and
104

Ube Xiterary*Critical apology
its determination one way or another will
not affect the value of the epistle nor the
essentials of the Christian faith. The great
purpose of the Holy Scriptures is to make
' ' the man of God complete, furnished com
pletely unto every good work;" and we are
admonished that "every scripture, inspired
of God, is also profitable for teaching, for
reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness" (2 Tim. iii, 16). Its great
purpose and value, then, are not for instruc
tion in geology or astronomy or physics, but
for instruction in righteousness.
But are there any errors in the Bible?
The very question seems at first to startle.
And how shall such a question be answered ?
Is it a matter that can be settled by a vote ?
Let me suggest three ways of dealing with
this troublesome question :
1 . There is the a priori, dogmatic method
of affirming that there are and can be no
errors in a volume inspired of God. For
would it not be as impossible for God to in
spire an error as it would be for him to lie ?
2. It may be alleged, on the other hand,
that there are errors in the Bible. In Josh.
x, 40, it is written that Joshua drove out all
the Canaanites and utterly destroyed "all
105

Ube mew apologetic
that breathed;" but in Judges we are told
that after Joshua's death there were many
of the Canaanites yet abiding in all parts
of the country. In 2 Sam. xxiv, 24, it is
said that David paid ' ' fifty shekels of sil
ver" for Araunah's threshing floor; but in
1 Chron. xxi, 25, the price is put at "six
hundred shekels of gold." In Acts vii, 16,
Stephen makes an obvious blunder in saying
that the sepulcher in which Jacob and the
patriarchs were buried was at Shechem and
was purchased by Abraham of "the sons
of Hamor in Shechem;" but we read in
Genesis that the tomb was not at Shechem,
but at Hebron, and was purchased of "the
sons of Heth." Such errors might be cited
by the score.*
3. There is a third and, I think, better
way of dealing with this question of errors.
It is to neither affirm nor deny, but to say
to everyone sufficiently interested, "Come
and see," or, " Go and look." It is a ques
tion of fact, and not to be entertained as a
* Of course abundant efforts have been made at harmoni
zing such discrepancies. It has been said, for example, that
David paid down at first fifty shekels of silver to bind the bar
gain, and subsequently paid six hundred shekels of gold when
he took possession of the place ! But is such harmonizing
truly assuring and satisfactory ?
106

XLbc Xiterary^Critical apology
matter of doctrine. But some zealous dis
putant exclaims, ' ' Suppose we do, as a
matter of fact, find errors in the Scriptures ;
what becomes of the doctrine of divine in
spiration?" Let us, however, reverse the
question and say, ' ' Suppose you hold a doc
trine of inspiration that is clearly inconsist
ent with well-ascertained facts of the Scrip
tures ; what are you going to do with the
facts?" Now hear this parable. A certain man
had three sons, who fell to disputing one
day over the question whether a well-known
and fertile field of their father's contained
any stones. The first said, ' ' No, there cannot
be stones in a field that has been glorified
as that field has been." But the second son
said, "There are stones there, for I have
noticed them time and again." The first
son refused for a while to look at a speci
men, but when he did look he pronounced it,
not a stone, but a hard lump. At length
the third son said, ' ' Brothers, let us all go
out into the field and examine for ourselves."
Whereupon they went, and found various
small stones scattered here and there around
the field. But then they disagreed again
as to what should be done with the stones.
107

TLbc mew apologetic
The first son busied himself a long time in
going about the field and trying to cover up
all those troublesome stones with dirt. But
the next plowshare that passed through the
soil turned them up again to view. The
other two succeeded in removing a number
of the stones out of the field. But after a
while one of them asked, " Why should we
be so much concerned about these scattered
stones? They do no real harm to the field.
The fruits and grains grow just as well in
spite of them. Is it not the nature of this
soil to have such stones in it ? Why should
we have ever set up the notion that this field
must needs be without stones?"
The apologies of the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries are almost monotonous
with their threefold division of " external,"
"internal," and "collateral" evidences.
Many of the arguments have force, and the
internal and collateral evidences, when
clearly stated, have commanding value.
But much that went under the head of ex
ternal evidence is obsolete to-day. No one
now questions the main facts of historical
Christianity. The accuracy of the biblical
writers is often attested by ancient monu-
108

JLbc 3Literary=Gritical apology
ments and the results of scientific explora
tion in oriental countries.
Some modern preachers run into grave
mistakes in declaring that our sacred books
are older than those of other nations. An
tiquity is no sure proof of the value or su
periority of a writing. Were it true that
the Pentateuch and other portions of the
Bible antedate all other literature of an
tiquity, that in itself would be no certain
evidence of their real worth. The oldest
books are not necessarily the best books.
Such arguments, pressed to their logical re
sults, would prove the Old Testament to be
of greater value than the New. There is
also reason to believe that the most ancient
writings of Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia,
India, and China are as old as the very oldest
portions of the Hebrew Scriptures, if not
older. Some apologists have seemed to think that
it is conclusive proof of the antiquity of the
Book of Joshua to find that its statements
are remarkably accurate and confirmed by
the recent explorations in Palestine. Such
evidence substantiates the accuracy of the
narrative, but proves nothing as to the date
of the book itself. Nearness to the events
109

TTbe mew apologetic
recorded does not always insure the most
accurate history. The best histories of an
cient Greece and .Rome are not those writ
ten by the Greek and Roman authors mil
lenniums ago, but those written by German
and English scholars of the nineteenth cen
tury.* Among the external evidences, it was
formerly customary to appeal to the argu
ment from prophecy and its fulfillment.
But many of the old apologies were based
on erroneous interpretations of particular
prophecies; and, when it was commonly
* " The nervous eagerness with which some Christian men
clutch at every confirmation of the accuracy ofthe Scriptures
occurring among the results of modern historical and scien
tific inquiry is unworthy of the calm and immovable faith
in the spiritual substance of divine revelation which is neces
sary to the strength and joy of the Christian Church." — R. W.
Dale, in The Expositor of January, 1896, p. 3. It is always
gratifying to obtain from the monuments any confirmations
ofthe statements of Scripture ; but we should be sufficiently
discriminating to know that what confirms a statement of
historical fact may have no logical bearing on a question
of literary criticism. The Moabite stone, perhaps the most
valuable " find" of the century, is a monumental witness of
" Mesha king of Moab " (comp. 2 Kings iii, 4), and men
tions Chemosh, and Jehovah, and " Omri king of Israel,"
and the names of several well-known places in and about
Palestine ; but such coincidences confirm nothing in dispute,
and have no bearing on the question of the composition,
date, and authorship of the Books of Kings.
110

Ube 3Literary*Critical apology
assumed that prophecy is ' ' history written
beforehand," all manner of extreme and
absurd expositions of prophecy came into
vogue, and men searched in the Book of
Daniel and the Revelation of John to find
predictions of the Pope of Rome, and of
Mohammed, and of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Many premillennialists and second advent-
ists keep up this error in our day, and go
about presuming to tell the approximate day
and hour of the coming of Christ. The dis
use of the apologetic argument from proph
ecy is to a great extent a revolt from this
extravagant claim for prophecy itself. It
is not owing to disbelief in the supernatural,
but is a revulsion from the unnatural and
absurd. We recognize the supernatural in
the Scriptures, as we do in Christ, but we
reject the unnatural, the extravagant, the
prodigious. Predictions of the fall of As
syria and Babylon and Tyre and Egypt
were signally fulfilled, and the apologist
may still point to them and say, ' ' Behold
the finger of God." The Messianic prophe
cies of the Old Testament are like a golden
chain running through the Hebrew Scrip
tures and training the hearts of the people
of Israel to look for the blessed Christ of
in

Vbe mew apologetic
God. In them, perhaps more than in any
other one feature, we are able to show how
the Holy Scriptures are a great organism,
evincing divine as well as human elements.
A calm and faithful study of the human
elements in the Bible will aid us in appre
hending the infinite Mind that speaks there
in, and in appreciating his "eternal power
and Godhead."
The other main department of external
evidences, in the older apologetics, was de
voted to miracles. The argument from mira
cles was the most conspicuous feature in the
controversies with English deism; but it
must be confessed that it holds a much less
prominent position now. Fifty years ago
Trench, in his work on the Miracles of Our
Lord, observed that the opponents of Eng
lish deism in the seventeenth century imag
ined they could best refute their enemies
' ' by reducing Christianity to a sort of • re
vealed deism ' " (p. 76). In his recent book
on Apologetics Professor A. B. Bruce has
the following passage: " It must be con
fessed that miracles cannot be offered as
evidences of Christianity now with the con
fidence with which they were employed for
this purpose by the apologists of a past age.
112

Ube 3Ltterary=Critical apology
Men do not now believe in Christ because
of his miracles ; they rather believe in the
miracles because they have first believed in
Christ " (p. 376).
What I have to say about the apologetic
value of miracles will come in more appro
priately in connection with the person of
Christ. Here I only remark in passing that
miracles, whether real or false, are wonder
ful works to us because we do not know
how they were performed. They were not
violations or suspensions of the laws of
nature. They were in all cases wrought in
perfect consistency with the divine order of
the universe.* They need for their expla
nation only a sufficient knowledge of their
cause. The miracles of Christ have their
explanation in him. He was their sole suf-
* "A supernaturalism which tries to survive alongside of
naturalism, dividing the kingdom with it, will soon have
taken away from it ' even that which it seemeth to have. '
The only hope of a successful issue is to carry the war into
the enemy's quarters and to maintain what Carlyle called a
' natural supernaturalism,' that is, the doctrine, not that
there are single miracles, but that the universe is miraculous,
and that in order to conceive it truly we must think of it, not
as a mechanical system occasionally broken in upon from
above, but as an organism which implies a spiritual principle
as its beginning and as its end." — Caird, The Evolution of
Religion, pp. 319, 320. 113

XTbe mew apologetic
ficient cause. If we knew how they were
performed they would cease to be mysteri
ous to us. There are profoundest mysteries
in the person of Jesus Christ ; and he who
fully believes in his divine-human personal
ity has no trouble about the miracles. If
the infidel could only be brought to know
"Jesus as he is " he would apprehend the
all-sufficient cause and explanation of his
wonderful works, for his unique personality
is the greatest of all miracles.
As evidences or proofs of spiritual reali
ties, therefore, miracles are superfluous to
the Christian believer at the present day ;
and as for those who will not believe Moses
and the prophets, and Christ and the apos
tles, we have the highest authority for say
ing that they would not believe though one
rose from the dead.
As a general summing up now of the
spirit, principles, and methods of the true
literary-critical apology for the Bible, we
submit the following propositions :
i . First of all, we should have a definite
and rational conception of what the Bible is.
Half the attacks made against the Holy
Scriptures have been provoked by an ex
treme claim of supernaturalism for the
114

Ube 3Literary=Grftfcal apology
book itself. From the extravagant declara
tions we sometimes hear, one might natu
rally imagine that the Bible had formerly
dropped suddenly out of heaven all written
by the very finger of God and without de
fect of any kind. Our examination of the
results of criticism has sufficiently shown
that the true apology of the Bible will not
allow such pretentious claims.
2. The true apology will further take
pains to show that the Bible is a very hu
man book. It was written by men of like
passions with us, and bears all the marks
of variety in styles of thought and expres
sion characteristic of different writers. This
conspicuous human element admonishes us
not to set up claims of infallibility for the
whole book which the several writers do
not make for themselves.
3. The true apology will take pains to
examine all critical questions of date and
authorship and composition. If Moses did
not write the Pentateuch as we now have it
we shall never gain anything for the cause
of truth by insisting that he did. " Truth
never was indebted to a lie;" and the most
inane thing anyone can do in defense of the
Bible is to lie about it. 115

XLbc mew apologetic
4. Another thing not to be forgotten is
the fact that there were many revelations
of God's truth given to men before any part
of the Bible was written. In like manner,
the teaching of Christ and the preaching of
the apostles founded Christianity in the
world before there was any New Testament.
The essentials of the Gospel are not de
pendent upon the successful defense of the
traditional authorship of a written document.
I would not allow even the question of the
authorship of the fourth gospel to hold an
essential place in general apologetics. The
fundamental truths of Christianity can be
shown from the three synoptic gospels and
the four unquestioned epistles of Paul, our
enemies themselves being judges.
5. Finally, the great positive apology for
the Holy Scriptures is manifold. It may
be stated in four significant and suggestive
propositions : (1) These Scriptures are a rec
ord of progressive, divine revelation, from
the most ancient times down to the end of
the apostolic era ; (2) this revelation incul
cates all the great religious truths which
are anywhere recognized among men as
helpful to piety and virtue ; (3) these Scrip
tures are remarkably unique among all the
116

Zbc OLiterary=Critical apology
sacred books of. the world, and free from
the absurdities which abound in most of
the so-called Bibles of the nations ; (4) they
contain all those holy and helpful doctrines
and consolations which answer to the deep
est yearnings of the human heart and ever
tend to elevate and bless mankind.
The apology that substantiates these
claims has no need to resort to any ques
tionable methods and doubtful disputations.
117

IV

©l)c ^pologs of Comparative
fteligton

Zbe apology of Comparative iReligion

IV
The Apology of Comparative Religion
One of the most fascinating departments
of modern research is the study of compar
ative theology. It is now generally con
ceded that man is a religious being and will
worship God or something in the place of
God. The religious feeling may show itself
in the low forms of fetichism, in groveling
superstition, in sorcery and witchcraft, in
obscene rites and licentious and barbarous
abominations. The strange and irrational
extremes to which men will go in matters
of religion is one of the marvels of the
human mind.
But more commanding in modern thought
are the great religions like Brahmanism and
Buddhism, which number their adherents
by the millions and are pointed out as
mighty rivals of Christianity. The Chris
tian apologist is called upon to explain how
it is that two thirds of the human race are
either entire strangers to the Christian faith
or, having some knowledge of it, reject it
and prefer their own systems of belief. The
121

XLbc mew apologetic
modern Parsee, the Brahman, the Buddhist,
the Moslem, and the disciple of Confucius
deliberately reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ
and insist that their own religions are to be
preferred. It will not do in apologetics for us to
start out with the assumption that Chris
tianity is the only true religion, and that all
other religions are false. Nor can we any
longer make profitable use of the old dis
tinction of natural and revealed religion.
Ritschl is said to have once greatly startled
an American student by declaring, ' ' There
is no such thing as natural theology." But
is not the statement substantially correct?
Paul himself teaches that the invisible
things of God, as perceived in creation, are
a revelation of his eternal power and divinity
to the Gentile world (Rom. i, 20). So all
religion is revealed.*
* " The notion of revelation , nay, rightly understood, of a
supernatural revelation, is presupposed in the notion of re
ligion, or forms the inseparable correlate of It. There can
be no elevation of the finite spirit into communion with the
Infinite which does not imply divine acts or a divine process
of self-revelation. Neither thought nor the aspirations of the
religious nature can be satisfied with the rationalistic notion of
a merely subjective religion of opinions and beliefs, wrought
out by the purely spontaneous activity of the human mind,
and implying nothing more on the divine side than is involved
122

Zbc apology of Comparative "Religion
We sometimes speak of dead religions
and living religions. This fact alone should
suggest that religion itself has been a
growth in the history of humanity. As the
great nations of to-day are the outgrowth
and survival of nations that perished long
ago, so the living religions have inherited
much from those which no longer exist.
We may classify religions, according to
the ruling idea of God which they repre
sent, as pantheistic, polytheistic, dualistic,
and monotheistic. But this is hardly suf
ficient to comprehend all the lower forms of
religious belief and practice to be found
among men. Nor is Max Miiller's classifi
cation any more satisfactory, which dis
tributes religions, according to families of
languages, into Turanian, Semitic, and
Aryan; for the most diverse forms of
religion are found under any one of these
divisions, and Christianity, which was of

in the original creation of man's rational nature. A God who
does not reveal himself ceases to be God ; and religjpugileJiJ---
ing, craving after a living relation to its object, refuses t6 be
satisfied with a mere initial or potential revelation of the
mind and will of God — with a God Who speaks once for all,
and then through the whole course of history ceases to reveal
himself." — Caird, An Introduction1* to the Philosophy of Re
ligion, p. 60. New York, 1894. 123

Ube mew apologetic
Semitic origin, has made most of its con
verts among the Aryan races. Religion
itself is independent both of language and
of nationality. But we may divide all
religions into the three classes of tribal,
national, and universal religions. We have
all these classes represented at the present
time in the totemism of Alaska, the Con
fucianism of China, and the Christianity of
all lands. But we may also speak of
religions as individual and national — the
former, like Buddhism and Islam, tracing
their origin to an individual founder; the
latter, like the religions of ancient Egypt
and Babylon, being the slow growth of the
collective traditions and worship of an entire
nation, without recognition of an individual
founder. There is also the division into
nature religions and ethical religions, the
one including all the lower cults of animism
and polytheism ; the other distinguished as
lawgiving religions (nomothetic or nomistic)
or book religions, having sacred scriptures
of authority. This last named would include
Confucianism, Brahmanism, Buddhism, Zo-
roastrianism, Judaism, Mohammedanism,
and Christianity.
This glance at the many religions of the
124

Ube apology of Comparative IReligion
world and the numerous ways they may be
classified must impress every thoughtful
mind with the conviction that the nature of
man demands some kind of religion. We
ought also to observe that the missionary
religions of the world are individual reli
gions. Buddhism, Mohammedanism, and
Christianity have propagated themselves
beyond the lands where they had their
origin, and they are also lawgiving or book
religions. These facts suggest that the
highest and most powerful religions origi
nate in special revelations of God to an
individual, who thereby becomes the incar
nation of a divine ideal. To some extent
every such ideal is God manifest in flesh.
In the light of this proposition, the compar
ative-religious apology of Christianity re
solves itself into an answer to the question,
Which of the great religions reveals to man
the highest, holiest, best ideal of God?
But before we can intelligently discuss
that question we must take into considera
tion a number of facts which continually
meet us in such inquiries. There are at
least four different views of religion: (i)
There are some people now, as there always
have been a few, who regard all religion as
125

Zbc mew apologetic
a bane. With these we need not here
waste any time. (2) There is another class
who argue that all religions are in them-
¦ selves of equal worth, but Confucianism is
best for the Chinese, Islam is best for the
Arabian, and Christianity is best for the
European and American. (3) Then there
is the very opposite opinion, which the old-
time apologist assumed, that Christianity
is the only religion which is direct from
God and without error, and that all others
are essentially false and hateful in the
sight of God. But this view is obviously
inconsistent with the New Testament doc
trine that God has not left himself without
witness among the nations, but has deter
mined their appointed seasons and the
bounds of their habitations, gifting even the
heathen poets to utter great truths like the
fatherhood of God, and writing this law in
their hearts so that their consciences accuse
or excuse them, according to their deeds.
(4) There is a fourth opinion, adopted by
the best apologetics of to-day, according to
which there are many great truths in the
non-Christian religions, which truths are as
certainly from God as are the same truths
when accepted by Moses or Isaiah or Paul.
126

XLbc apology of Comparative IReligion
Accepting this last view as correct, it be
hooves us further to observe that in all
religions we may perceive at least four ele
ments: (i) A sense or concept of depend
ence on some higher Power ; (2) some kind
of reverence and worship of that Power ; (3)
a moral sense which involves the idea of re
wards and punishments ; and (4) some idea
of immortality and a future life. These,
then, may be recognized as essential ele
ments to be found, in some form, in all the
religions of the world.
Many have undertaken to give a compre
hensive definition of religion. I here select
one from Kellogg's lectures on The Genesis and
Growth of Religion which seems to me quite
satisfactory : ' ' Religion essentially consists
in man's apprehension of his relation to an
invisible Power, or powers, able to influence
his destiny, to which he is necessarily sub
ject, together with the feelings, desires,
and actions which this apprehension calls
forth." This definition is "applicable to
every form of religion, from the. lowest
superstition to the highest type of Chris
tianity," and has the merit of representing
religion itself as "an experience which has
to do equally with every part of our nature."
127

XTbe mew apologetic
A clear definition of religion goes far to
ward answering the question of its origin.
It shows it to be an essential experience of
human nature. Its universality and per
sistence prove its necessity to man.
But it would be an error to suppose that
we can best define religion by eliminating
from all its known forms those elements
which are common to all the religions of
the world, and then assume that such com
mon elements are the essentials of the high
est and best religion. On such a principle,
as Caird has shown, that which is highest
and most valuable in the highest religion
would be kept out of sight, and attention
directed only to such things as the lowest
forms of religion may exhibit. ' ' There
may be in religion ideas or doctrines which
are essentially and absolutely true, whilst
yet, in the actual experience of the world,
the knowledge of them may have come at a
late period of history, and even then only
to a limited section of the race. . . . To
leave out of view the bud or flower or fruit,
or to consider only what is common to these
with the seed and stalk or stem, would
not help us to the essential idea of the
plant. If, therefore, in the religious his-
128

Ube apology of Comparative "Religion
tory of the world we can discover any indi
cations of a progressive development, it is
not by leaving out of view what is peculiar
to Christianity — those ideas or doctrines
which constitute its special glory and ex
cellence — and taking account only of that
which it has in common with the earliest
and rudest nature-worship, that the essen
tial idea of religion is to be extricated."*
The modern apology ~ cannot well avoid
the question of the origin of religion. We
know much of the origin of Mohammed
anism, for it is only twelve hundred years
old. Christianity is less than two thou
sand years old, but claims that it is the pre
dicted outgrowth and fulfillment of the re
ligion of Israel. We know something of
the origin of Buddhism, but it goes back
six hundred years before our era and was a
revolt from the ancient Brahmanism of
India. The origin of Brahmanism is lost in
the mists of antiquity ; and so also is Con
fucianism, which is, perhaps, two thousand
years older than Confucius. Who can tell
us of the origin of the religions of ancient
Egypt and Assyria and Babylon and Persia
* See further in Caird, An Introduction to the Philosophy
of Religion, pp. 77, ff. 129

Ube mew apologetic
and Japan? And what shall be said of
those prehistoric cults of whose existence
we have only incidental knowledge, and
which passed away long before any of the
great religions now existing acquired their
present form?
It has sometimes been said that a per
fect religion was made known to Adam in
the garden of Eden, but became corrupted
in the successive generations of mankind,
save that here and there a great saint, like
Abraham and Melchizedek and Job, re
tained and transmitted the true knowledge
of God. But is this a fact so clearly de
monstrable that a Christian apologist can
safely accept it as an essential doctrine of
his system ? Look at the testimony, as far
as it is available. We readily trace the
Jewish people back to Abraham, but find
that his ancestors dwelt in old time among
the Chaldeans and served other gods.
Abraham lived about two thousand years
before Christ ; but what do we know of the
history of religion during the two or more
thousand years before his day? The bibli
cal narrative of those far-away centuries is
very fragmentary and of doubtful interpre
tation. There were between Abraham and
130

ftbe apology of Comparative "Religion
Adam only three persons who seem to
have been on favorable terms with God ;
and they were Abel, whom Cain soon put
out of the way, and Enoch, whom God
took, and Noah, the only righteous man of
his time. After the flood God made a cov
enant with Noah ; but both the patriarch
and his sons appear in a worse light there
after. Several centuries elapsed before the
call of Abraham, and there is not a shred
of evidence to show that the true original
religion was transmitted to him from any
of his ancestors ; but the contrary is matter
of record. It was not said to him, "Get
thee out of thy country, and away from thy
kindred and father's house, and I will
restore unto thee that true religion which
thy older ancestors once possessed, but
which thy later fathers have lost."
In view of this absence of knowledge it
is not a prudent or sagacious thing for the
Christian apologist to assume that the true
religion is a matter of ancient and primeval
revelation, which has since been transmitted
by means of tradition from one generation
to another.
A further fact important for us to recog
nize is that no one of all the great religions
131

Zbc mew apologetic
of the world is free from admixtures of
human imperfection. The Christian wiU be
very ready to concede this so far as all other
religions are concerned, but will hesitate at
the idea that his own system has any imper
fections. It is affirmed by some that Jesus
Christ gave a revelation of God so complete
that nothing can now be added to it or taken
away from it. That perfect revelation is
supposed to be embodied in the New Testa
ment. But the apologist who makes this
claim will be challenged in two ways :
i . First, it will be said that the different
books of the New Testament are not a per
fect report of all that Jesus said and did.
The discrepancies of the gospels make it
impossible to determine on many points just
what the words of Jesus were. If they all
disagree in reporting what he said at the
last supper and what was written in the title
on the cross, what assurance have we that
in any other saying his exact language has
been preserved? The language, style, and
doctrines of John and Paul and James are
so different that we must acknowledge a
considerable admixture of their own individ
ual ways of conceiving and stating the truth
of Christ. 132

Ube apology of Comparative "Religion
2. But, supposing we satisfy ourselves
that the perfect revelation of God in Christ
has been faithfully recorded in the New
Testament, where is there an infallible in
terpreter of these records? Where is the
individual or the Church in all Christendom
that speaks to-day with acknowledged au
thority on all the essentials of Christianity?
The Christian apologist must face the fact
that the Greek Church, the Roman Catholic
Church, the State Churches of England and
of continental Europe, all the other Protes
tant Churches, and all the heretical sects
which now exist or ever have existed under
the Christian name must all be taken into
account when he meets a Buddhist and un
dertakes to show that Christianity is the
perfect and absolute religion.
The Christian apologist must, I think, ac
knowledge that his own religion, as well as
all other religions, is not without its admix
ture of error and defect. A religion is
judged by all the facts which it represents ;
and the sum total of Christianity includes,
not only the New Testament, but all the
Churches and creeds and confessions and
worships of the Christian centuries. When,
therefore, you ask after the essentials of the
133

Ube mew apologetic
Christian religion you will have to set aside
many of the doctrines and practices of Hie
modern Church. And, furthermore, you
will find that even the New Testament con
tains many things which are not essential
elements of pure Christianity. You could
not assemble an ecumenical council of
Christendom to-day, or of any considerable
portion of the Church universal, and get
them to affirm, as did the council at Jerusa
lem in the days of Peter, James, and Paul,
that three out of four " necessary things "
for all the Churches to observe are absti
nence from eating blood and things stran
gled and meats that had been slain for sac
rifice.* Since, therefore, we are obliged to dis
criminate and reason in order to determine
what are the essential elements of Chris
tianity, we ought in all fairness to treat
other religions in the same way. We would
deem it most unfair for a Mohammedan to
visit a Roman Catholic province and ob
serve the adoration of the Virgin and im
ages of saints in the cathedrals, the con
fessional, the mass, the candles, the incense,
and the processions of Romish worship, and
*Acts xv, 28, 29.
134

ZEbe apology of Comparative "Religion
thereupon report that these were the essen
tials of Christianity. Is it not equally un
fair for a Christian to go to India and, after
witnessing the unclean and degrading forms
of Hindu worship and self-torture, conclude
that those practices are the essential ele
ments of original Brahmanism? It is said
that when the Roman Catholic missionaries
first encountered Buddhism in China they
were astonished to find that it, also, had
monks, hermits, vows of celibacy, tonsure,
rosaries, holy water, masses for the dead,
prayers in an unknown tongue, kneeling
before images in worship, and even a pope
in the Grand Lama of Thibet. Said one of
the Portuguese missionaries, ' ' There is not
a piece of dress, not a sacerdotal function,
not a ceremony of the court of Rome which
the devil has not copied in this country."
But all these accessories of modern Bud
dhism may be as far from the fundamental
teachings of Buddha as are the peculiarities
of Romanism from the teachings of our Lord.
All religions, therefore, are entitled in a
fair comparison to be judged according to
what is highest and best in them, rather
than by what is lowest and what may be
only incidental and accessory. The faithful
135

Xtbe mew apologetic
student of religions, seeking to know the
real truth, will not dwell on the supersti
tions and absurdities which have become
associated with a religion, and treat them
as essentials when there is any reason to
suppose that such superstitions are, as in
the case of Romish Christianity, not essen
tials, but accretions of a later time.
We may now indicate the true method of
apologetics in dealing with this subject.
Having made a fair analysis of the essen
tial elements of the religions that are sup
posed to rival Christianity, the great argu
ment must be to show that the religion of
Jesus Christ contains all these doctrines that
are of value and presents them in more per
fect and commanding form than any other
faith, and also supplements them with most
important truths unknown to other religions,
or at best so dimly revealed that Christianity
is needed as a fulfillment and completion.
If such superior claims of the Gospel can be
clearly proven it will hardly be necessary to
go further and point out the notable defects
and failure of other religions to meet all the
religious wants of man. And yet fidelity to
the truth may require us to call attention to
the defects of the rival systems.
136

"Cbe apology of Comparative "Religion
I will now endeavor to illustrate these
principles briefly by an application of them
to Confucianism and Buddhism, two of the
most influential systems of Asia.
Confucianism is preeminently the religion
of the Chinese Empire. Confucius, how
ever, was not its founder, and we should do
him the justice to remember his own claim
to be only a teacher and transmitter of the
ancient doctrines of his people. It is said
of him that " he would not affirm nor relate
anything for which he could not adduce
some document of acknowledged authority. "
The sacred books of China cite the words
and example of kings that lived before the
times of Abraham.
Among the chief facts of Confucianism
which require respectful study I will men
tion four: (i) The worship of Heaven or
Shang-ti ; (2) the worship of ancestors ; (3)
the worship of spirits ; and (4) the moral
code. In the ancient books known as the Shu
and the Shih we frequently meet the words
Tien, Heaven, Ti, Ruler, and Shang-ti, su
preme Ruler, or the great Power on high.
Dr. Legge maintains that the oldest Chi
nese conception of God is to be learned
137

TLbe mew apologetic
from the written characters of the language,
and that those ideagrams which represent
heaven, or the supreme Power, point to an
original monotheism. He says, also, that
the character pronounced " Shih" is the
symbol for manifestation or revelation, and
shows that the Chinese fathers conceived
the idea of communication between heaven
and men.* All this appears to be implied
in the imperial worship. No one but the
emperor can offer the great sacrifices. He
then stands forth in his royal dignity and,
like a great high priest, performs for him
self and his dynasty and all the millions of
his subjects the various acts of worship.
The following are specimens of prayers
offered on such occasions : ' ' To thee, O
mysterious Worker, I look up in thought.
How imperial is the expansive arch where
thou dwellest. . . . My heart is but as that
of an insect. Yet have I received thy fa
voring decree appointing me to the govern
ment of the empire. I deeply cherish a
sense of my ignorance and blindness, and
am afraid lest I prove unworthy of thy great
favors. Therefore will I observe all the
* The Religions of China, by James Legge, pp. 10-13.
New York, 1881. 138

tlbe apology of Comparative "Religion
rules and statutes. . . . Far distant here, I
look up to thy heavenly palace. Come in
thy precious chariot to the altar. Thy serv
ant bows his head to the earth, reverently
expecting thine abundant grace."* Who
will presume to argue, when he reads such
sentiments, that worship and prayers of
this sort were invented without any inspi
ration from the Almighty?
In the worship of Shang-ti the emperor,
as the representative of all his people, stands
alone ; but the worship of their ancestors is
the privilege and practice of all the Chinese
people. The doctrine of filial piety is funda
mental to the Confucian system. In one of
the classic books it is written : "Filial piety
is the root of all virtue, and the stem out of
which grows all moral teaching. . . . The
services of love and reverence to parents
when alive, and those of grief and sorrow
to them when dead, completely discharge
the fundamental duty of living men. The
righteous claims of life and death are all
satisfied, and the filial son's service to his
parents is completed." Confucius is said to
* Quoted from Legge's Notions of the Chinese Concerning
God and Spirits, in Culbertson's Darkness in the Flowery
Land, p. 36. New York, 1857. 139

Zbc mew apologetic
have completed his duty of filial devotion
by remaining three years in strict seclusion
near his mother's grave.
" Three years the infant in its parent's arms ;
Three years the mourner at his parent's grave."
The imperial worship includes, also, the
worship of ancestors, and the following is
a part of a royal prayer : " I think of you,
my sovereign ancestors, whose glorious
souls are in heaven. As from an overflow
ing fountain run the happy streams, such is
the connection between you and your de
scendants. I, a distant descendant, look
back and offer this bright sacrifice to you,
the honored ones from age to age."*
In the imperial worship there is also a
recognition of multitudes of spirits; and
tribute is paid, not only to departed sages
and heroes, but to spirits of the sky and
stars, the clouds, rain, wind, and thunder;
to spirits of the mountains and the rivers and
the trees, and of the seasons of the year.
These spirits are not called gods, but they
are conceived as ministers of Heaven. The
spirits of renowned ancestors, heroes, emi
nent sages, and virtuous women seem to
have gone through a sort of apotheosis and
* l-^gg6' The Religions of China, p. 82.
140

XTbe apology of Comparative "Religion
become presiding intelligences or tutelary
spirits, whose powers of intercession may
be Of great value to those on earth.
The emphasis which Confucianism puts
on moral law is worthy of special attention.
It inculcates domestic virtue, and bids men
guard their motives, their thoughts, their
words, and their actions. It extols wisdom
and filial piety, and builds the whole admin
istration of civil government thereon. It
enjoins truthfulness, sincerity, diligence,
temperance, and politeness. While there
is in China, as in all other countries, no lack
of vice and crime, the great body of the
people appear to be industrious, contented,
and happy. They call their country ' ' the
flowery land," "the central land," "the
middle kingdom," and they speak of them
selves as " the black-haired people."
One may say, after the manner of the old
Hebrew prophets, that China is a land
greatly favored of God. Has not her re
markable reverence for parents insured to
her the blessing of ' ' the first command
ment with promise ? " Surely her days have
been long upon the land which God has
given her. Confucius was nearly contem
porary with Sakya-muni in India, with
10 ~™

ftbe mew apologetic
Cyrus in Persia, with Zerubbabel in Jerusa
lem, and Pythagoras in Greece. And yet,
centuries before Confucius, twenty-three
hundred years before our Christ, and long
before Abraham migrated from Ur of the
Chaldees, China was governed by the good
king Yao, of whom it is written : ' ' He was
reverential, intelligent, accomplished, and
thoughtful — naturally so, and without effort.
The bright influence of these qualities was
felt throughout the four quarters of the
land. He united and harmonized the myr
iad states, and so the black-haired people
were transformed. The result was univer
sal concord."
We have now briefly noted some of the
chief excellences of Confucianism. Much
more might, of course, be said. Probably
the greatest saying attributed to Confucius
himself is his enunciation of the golden
rule. When once asked if he could express
in one word an abiding and comprehensive
rule of conduct he replied: "Is not 'reci
procity ' such a word ? What you do not
want done to yourself do not do to others."
This negative precept has been extolled as
antedating Jesus Christ by at least four
hundred years. 142

Zbc apology of Comparative "Religion
What now has the Christian apologist to
say to such facts and claims as these? If
he pursue the method of Paul he will, first
of all, give full credit for whatever good
things the rival religion can fairly claim.
He should, furthermore, acknowledge that
all those good things are of God. ' ' Every
good gift and every perfect boon is from
above, coming down from the Father of
lights," whether it be manifest in Chris
tianity, in Judaism, in Buddhism, or in Con
fucianism. God has been ever working
among the nations. May it not be true that
all the ancient systems of thought and wor
ship have been a preparation of the world for
Christ? It is almost a commonplace of the
modern philosophy of history to affirm that
Greek culture and Roman law prepared the
world for the coming of Christ, as truly, if
not to the same extent, as did Moses and
the prophets. Why, then, should we be
slow of heart to believe that in far Cathay
the worship of Shang-ti, the reverence of
ancestors, and the high regard for ethical
excellence may also be a divinely ordered
preparation of the Chinese nation for a full
ness of times when the Light of heaven
shall fill that Middle Kingdom with a higher
143

Xlbe mew apologetic
faith ? * We have no word of the Lord to
justify us in uttering divine judgment on
the countless millions of those " black-
haired people " and assigning them to eter
nal perdition because they have no knowl
edge of Moses and the prophets and the
Christ. We have more reason to say that
this ancient system, older than Moses and
the prophets, older than Melchizedek and
Abraham, numbering its votaries by hun
dreds of millions when Judaism could only
speak of millions, has by its twilight stars
* " We do not pay any real homage to the supernatural by
disconnecting it as much as possible from the natural and
human ; we render only a spurious tribute to the divine Author
of revelation by supposing that all that through the long lapse
of ages men had believed concerning him was error and false
hood, and that the religious ideas of the past must be wiped
clean out of the human spirit in order that the new message
from heaven might be written upon it by the finger of God.
. . . The Christian apologist in our day usually finds one of
his strongest arguments for the divine origin of Christianity in
the fact that it meets the unconscious longings of heathendom.
It is now one of the recognized lines of apologetic thought to
trace anticipations of Christian doctrine in the pre-Christian
religions, and to point out the guesses at truth, the fore-
shadowings of moral and spiritual ideas, which, under many
errors and superstitions, can be detected in the sacred books
of India and China and Persia, and, in general, in the
religious notions, rites, observances, institutions of the
heathen world."— Caird, An Introduction to the Philosophy
of Religion, pp. 333, 334. 144

Ube apology of Comparative "Religion
turned myriads to a moral life and to
thoughts of a spiritual world. How many
may have found, in such worship as they
knew and loved, a light that led them out of
their darkness into the glory of celestial
sunrise? I venture to think that the missionary of
Christ who takes pains to find out all the
good things he can among those whom he
seeks to convert from their ancestral wor
ship, and gives them credit for the same,
will find readier access to their hearts than
is possible by an attitude of direct hostility.
Having first secured attention to whatever
truths are held in common, he will have
prepared the way for advancing the superior
claims of his own system. This was Paul's
method when he addressed the men of
Athens. And the modern apostles of Christ
to China should, as often as practicable,
take their texts from the altars of the Con
fucian faith and utilize whatever truth they
may suggest as a means of setting forth the
Saviour who is ignorantly worshiped. He
can present a clearer and more affecting
view of the Power above the heavens than
attaches to the Chinese concept of Shang-ti ;
for he can reveal him as " our Father who
143

Ubc mew apologetic
is in heaven." He can proclaim a venera
tion for parents as deep and true as theirs,
and at the same time free from the extrava
gance and superstition that attach to their
ancestral worship. He can tell them of
angels and principalities and powers supe
rior to their pantheistic notions of the
spirits of the wind and the clouds and the
rivers. He can show them an ethical code
even superior to that which is their national
boast and glory. The old Chinese philoso
pher Lao-tsze, his older contemporary, sur
passed Confucius's golden rule by the
higher maxim, " Return good for evil."
Confucius is said to have been puzzled over
Lao-tsze's doctrine, and finally rejected it,
saying, " If you return good for evil, what
will you return for good?" "Nay," he
added, "recompense injury with justice,
and return good for good."
The Christian apologist, recognizing that
Confucianism is in some measure, like
Judaism, a preparation for something bet
ter, may imitate the manner of Christ and
say: "Ye men of China, it was said by
your ancient teacher, ' Let the emperor wor
ship Shang-ti for his people;' but I say
unto you, ' Let every man pray for himself
1-16

XTbe apology of Comparative "Religion
directly to the God of heaven.' It was said
by your men of old time, ' Be like your
fathers, imitate their ways, and perpetuate
the old customs amid all the changes of the
world;' but I say unto you, ' Become better
than your fathers, seek new light and power
from your heavenly Father, and improve
the individual, the family, and the State by
the acquisition of all useful knowledge.' "
The Christian apologist will also, at the
proper time, show the defects of Confucian
ism on many things which are of the ut
most importance to religion. He will allege
its vague and unsatisfactory concept of God
as compared with the God and Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ. He will expose the
error of excluding the masses of the people
from the worship of the God of heaven and
restricting such worship to the imperial
household. Confucianism, moreover, has
no clear doctrine of a future life and of re
wards and punishments. There is no such
thing as sin, in the sense of damning guilt,
to the thought of a Chinaman ; and his word
for sin is identical with that which denotes a
breach of etiquette. To his mind a bad life
is simply a bad policy, and is likely to result
in untimely death. Finally, Confucianism
147

Zbc mew apologetic
knows no doctrine of redemption. It has
no conception of atonement for sin, no
idea of the pardon and regeneration of the
guilty soul or of sanctification and prog
ress in spiritual life. It has no song of sal
vation, no blissful hope of resurrection from
the dead. In all these doctrines, and others
that might be mentioned, we may trium
phantly demonstrate the superiority of the
religion of the Gospel of Christ.
In the same general way we may illus
trate this apologetical method with Bud
dhism, that other great rival of Christianity,
which numbers its adherents by the hun
dreds of miflions. Modern Buddhism is
the^rowth of nearly twenty-five hundred
years ; and it has been modified and adapted
to meet the conditions of different coun
tries into which it has been introduced. It
would be easy to show that, in spite of its
boasted revolt from Brahmanism, Bud
dhism has never escaped the damaging
leaven of fatalism, transmigration, panthe
ism, and pessimism which permeates so
much of Indian thought. But our plan is
to inquire for the very best things that
can be said for Buddhism. What are the
excellences of this wonderful system, that
148

Ube apology of Comparative "Relfgion
anyone should presume to hold them up
in rivalry of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
We pass over the questions of philosoph
ical Buddhism and doubtful traditions of the
life of Gautama, and examine the moral
code. The great commandments of Bud
dhism are often put in the form of a dec
alogue, and are in substance as follows:
I. Thou shalt not kill. 2. Thou shalt not
steal. 3. Thou shalt not lie. 4. Thou shalt
not become intoxicated. 5. Thou shalt not
commit adultery. 6. Thou shalt not eat
solid food after noon. 7. Thou shalt not
visit scenes of amusement. 8. Thou shalt
not use ornaments or perfumes. 9. Thou
shalt not use luxurious beds. 10. Thou
shalt not accept gold or silver. The first
five of these commandments are fundamen
tal and obligatory ; but the others are ac
knowledged to be of less importance. So
far as they correspond with the Hebrew
decalogue, Judaism, Christianity, and Bud
dhism are one. But we must bear in mind
that laws against murder, theft, lying, and
adultery are older than any of these re
ligions and are written in the hearts of all
men. We may safely challenge comparison of
149

XTbe mew apologetic
these ten commandments, when taken as a
whole and set in their best form, with the
decalogue of Judaism and Christianity.
Such comparison reveals the notable de
ficiency of Buddhism. It has no doctrine
of God, no Sabbath rest, no law of honor
ing father and mother. For apologetic pur
poses these defects of Buddhism are alone
sufficient to nullify its claim of superiority.
Original Buddhism knows no God, and this
one fundamental defect vitiates its value as
a system of religion. A bishop of Calcutta,
once observing a devout Buddhist praying
in a temple, asked him for what he was
praying. " For nothing," he replied. "But
to whom have you been praying? " asked
the bishop. "To nobody," he replied.
Significant illustration of the purposeless
character of Buddhist praying — praying for
nothing, to nobody ! What is the basis of
morality and what the nature of prayer
apart from belief in a personal God? In its
outward form the morality may be blame
less, and even beautiful, and the act of
praying may be a sign of deep devotion ;
but how empty must be morality and wor
ship without the doctrine of an adorable
and compassionate God ! Only contrast the
150

Ube apology of Comparative "Religion
depth and beauty of Jesus's summary of all
the law and the prophets : ' ' Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thy heart,
and thy neighbor as thyself."
But the boast and glory of Buddhism are
the so-called "four noble truths." If the
system has anything that can be rationally
claimed to rival or surpass Christianity it
must be sought in these. Briefly stated,
they are as follows: I. All existence is
evil. 2. This evil is the consequence of
desire. 3. Desire and its resultant evils
may be made to cease. 4. There is an
eightfold path by which to obtain exemp
tion from all evil and desire.
We might pause at this point and chal
lenge every one of these four proposi
tions. But, remembering that such univer
sal propositions are likely to contain some
elements of truth, we waive criticism until
we examine the " eightfold path." That
wonderful way, which is to lead men out
of all evil, is said to consist of (1) right
belief; (2) right judgment; (3) right utter
ance; (4) right motives; (5) right occupa
tion ; (6) right obedience ; (7) right mem
ory; (8) right meditation. All these eight
things seem very good. To be right in all
151

tlbe mew apologetic
manner of thought, feeling, and action is
a consummation devoutly to be wished.
The many good things which Buddhism
may claim to have accomplished accord
with the teaching of this eightfold path.
It breathes a humane spirit, inculcates tol
eration, peace, and good conduct, is averse
to war, treats woman better than any other
oriental religion, and proclaims that there
is no rest in the outer fashions of the
world. But the seeker after truth will reasonably
ask why so many right things have pro
duced so many wrong things as we find in
the historical development of Buddhism.
The name " Buddha " means "the enlight
ened one;" but we do not find that his
system sheds any remarkable light on
the problems of being. His right doc
trine means simply the peculiar doctrines
of Buddhism. Right judgment is dis
played by forsaking one's home and fam
ily. Right occupation of the highest
grade is the life of a mendicant dependent
on the alms of others. Practically, this
boasted eightfold path begins with indefi
nite assumptions, and ends in a dreamy
and dreary mysticism. Assuming that all
152

Ube apology of Comparative "Religion
evil originates in desire, it seems to seek
the destruction of desire by the annihila
tion of the conscious personality of the in
dividual. The goal of noblest being is to
attain a sort of absorption into the final
rest of what is called Nirvana, but which is
so intangible to thought that the profound
est students of the system are unable to
agree on just what is intended by that
word.* Christianity and Buddhism alike testify
that ' ' the whole creation groaneth and
travaileth together until now." But how
opposite their ideas of salvation ! Bud
dhism would escape suffering by the anni
hilation of the conscious sufferer ; Christian
ity lifts up the sublime watchword, ' ' Perfect
through suffering." Buddhism sees noth
ing good in the body and tortures it by
ascetic mortification; Christianity says,
* Put over against this eightfold path Paul's sixfold exhor
tation to the Philippian brethren to observe "whatsoever
things are true, whatsoever things are honorable, whatsoever
things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever
things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report"
(Phil, iv, 8). These six things are as good in the abstract
and as comprehensive as all the eight things, so fundamental
and exhaustive, of the Buddhist way of salvation ; but how
far short they come of exhausting what the Christian teacher
has to say of the way of life ? 153

Zbc mew apologetic
" Glorify God in your body." Buddhism
says, ' ' Withdraw from the world and let it
alone;" Christianity says, "Overcome the
world and make it better." Buddhism in
culcates inactivity, repose, solitude; but
Christianity says, ' ' Be diligent, and work
while the day lasts." The highest style of
Buddhist saint is a hermit clothed in rags,
and seeking by self-mortification to lose his
conscious being in Nirvana ; the Christian
saint is rather the happy, cheerful man,
clothed with all outward and inward graces,
dwelling in the midst of an esteemed fam
ily, loving God and his neighbor, and
laboring to make all around him better.
Buddhism has no blessed hope of heavenly
felicity with the saints in light, but only
the vague and mystic ideal of absorption in
the universal essence ; Christianity points
the believer to the heavenly Father's house
of many mansions, and assures him that
' ' the Lamb that is in the midst of the
throne shall be their shepherd, and shall
lead them to fountains of waters of life, and
God shall wipe away every tear from their
eyes." It is not necessary to proceed further
with this argument. If Christianity is, be-
154

Zbz apology of Comparative "Religion
yond all question, superior to Confucian
ism and Buddhism, it is quite needless to
inquire further among the other religions
of the world. They have all been searched
out sufficiently to warrant the statement
just made. In view of the analysis of the
two most conspicuous religions which can
be well supposed to rival Christianity, what
becomes of the notion that one religion is
as good as another, or what reason is there
in the idea that Confucianism is better for
the Chinaman than the Gospel of Jesus?
Deeper and sounder reasons there are for
believing that the millions of the ' ' black-
haired people " must come into possession
of a religion more spiritual than Confucian
ism before they can rise to a higher and
more progressive civilization. The same
is to be said of the devotees of Buddha.
So long as a dirty, ragged mendicant is the
highest ideal of a saint, there is room for a
purer religion.
Our conclusion from this comparative
study of the religions of the world may be
stated in the following propositions :
i . There are elements of truth in all re
ligions, and the Christian apologist should
fairly and frankly acknowledge this fact
155

Ube mew apologetic
whenever he is called upon to defend his
own faith against the claims of a rival re
ligion. His own defense may be made more
valid and convincing by affirming this prop
osition than by denying it.
2. In the nature of things, that religion
must be most authoritative which can best
prove its superior fitness to meet all the re
ligious wants of man and supply them in
the most helpful form. No apology for
Christianity is more far-reaching and con
trolling than this very plea. We maintain
that there is no excellence known to any re
ligion and no element needful to supply the
spiritual wants of man which are not to be
found in the Gospel of Christ.
3. We maintain, accordingly, that Chris
tianity is sooner or later to become the uni
versal religion. Moonlight is better than
starlight, and sunlight is better than both.
And, as the moon and stars become invisi
ble before the greater light that rules the
day, so must all the lesser religions disap
pear as the Sun of righteousness arises with
universal healing in his wings.
156

V
Stye fl)00iittie ^jwtogg

n

Ube positive apology
v
The Positive Apology
The preceding lectures of this course
have been largely negative in their charac
ter. Their aim has been to suggest the
Christian apologist's best method of defend
ing his faith against the skeptical attacks
of philosophy, criticism, and rival religions.
Toward some of these forms of assault the
wise and thoughtful apologist will assume
only a negative attitude. He will remember
that, in some of their opinions and methods,
the older defenders of the faith were in the
wrong. The modern apology must differ
from those of former times in displaying a
keener analysis of the issues raised. Some
time-honored doctrines need restatement
and adjustment to the changed conditions
of the modern world. We must learn to
distinguish between apologetics and polem
ics. Our task is not to fight Arianism,
Socinianism, Calvinism, Arminianism, and
Universalism. It is rather with those who
deny the claims of Christianity itself that
the apologist has to contend. 159

Ubc mew apologetic
Accordingly, when called to defend our
religion against assailants who question its
fundamental truths, our position is one of
defense, and not of aggression. But, if we
are confident of the truth of our cause, we
will not stop at the negative standpoint of a
mere defense of our religion. Christianity
has her positive apology. We are not
ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, but rather
bold and persistent to declare and urge its
claims on all the world. At the proper times
and places we shall appropriate in substance
the words of our divine Master, and say to
all the other religionists of the world, "Ye
worship ye know not what ; we know what
we worship." For the absolute and univer
sal religion is the outgrowth and blossom
ing of the Hebrew and Jewish revelation,
and God, who "spoke in old time unto the
fathers by the prophets, hath in these last
days spoken unto us by his Son whom he
hath appointed heir of all things."
i. In presenting, now, a number of the
various arguments of our positive apology,
the first and fundamental contention is that
Christianity is not simply one of the great
religions of the world, but the religion, which
alone has in it all the elements essential to
160

Qbe positive apology
the spiritual needs of man. Other religions
have many good things ; Christianity has all
good things. Christ is not merely one
among many masters ; he is the Lord and
Master of all, "the way, the truth, and the
life," " the first and the last," the Prophet,
Priest, and King. His name is to be hon
ored above every name, " that at the name
of Jesus every knee should bow, of things
in heaven, and things on earth, and things
under the earth, and that every tongue
should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to
the gloryof God the Father" (Phil, ii, 10, 1 1).
2. I mention, next, as an evidence of
the indestructible vitality of Christianity,
its remarkable survival of the many errors
and follies of its adherents. One of the
horrible infatuations which possessed great
leaders of the Church for a thousand years
was the supposed necessity of burning here
tics. This was in part an inheritance from
ethnic barbarism ; and the Roman Church
quite naturally appropriated it from the cus
toms of the empire. It also assumed to de
rive authority for it from the old Mosaic
law : ' ' Thou shalt not suffer a witch to
live." Another deplorable fact of history
has been the quarrels of Christendom over
161

•Sbe mew apologetic
matters of no importance, such as forms of
observing divine worship, images of saints
in churches, prerogatives of ministers, the
merit of fasts and pilgrimages and relics.
There are denominations of Christians whose
chief reason for existence is in some ques
tion of dress, or in keeping Saturday for
the Sabbath, or in the mode of baptism, or
in the opinion that a Christian man ought
not to vote under a government that does
not recognize God in the national Constitu
tion. One of the denominations of Chris
tians in the United States claims to be the
only true Church of God in America be
cause its clergy are said to be the only min
isters whose ordination has come, without a
break, through human fingers, from the
apostles down ! Is it any wonder that great
religious natures, like that of Abraham
Lincoln, while profoundly convinced of the
divinity of Christianity, decline to commit
themselves to the shibboleths of Churches
that keep up such controversy over little
things? Now, the religion which, in spite
of all these aberrations of human frailty,
has held its steady, onward sway until it is
recognized as preeminently the religion of
the most commanding nations of the world
162

Ubc positive apology
— that religion must needs be essentially
divine. 3. As an offset to the humiliating facts
just mentioned, it is to be further remarked
that Christianity is the religion of free
thought. We invite the fullest possible in
vestigation, and are most happy to submit
our doctrines and all our special claims to
the impartial judgment of mankind. Chris
tianity is the religion of science and culture,
the patron of all ennobling art and litera
ture. We have no fear that this holy re
ligion will be harmed by exposure to the
most searching light. If such tests but
purge away the accretions of error, which
are no real elements of the system, they
will serve only to set in clearer light the
fundamental excellences of the Gospel and
vindicate its right to the general acceptance
of mankind. We urge no plea for Chris
tianity with greater confidence than that it
is a rational religion, and not to be com
promised by that assumption of some for
mer apologists who imagined that they
were exalting the truth of God by positing
revelation against reason.
4. We urge, further, that Christianity is
the great missionary religion of the world.
163

Ube mew apologetic
One element of its superior efficiency is its
rational and self-evidencing power. We
are bold to go to any non-Christian people
and say, " We have a better system of
thought and life than yours. Come and let
us reason together." Does Confucianism
honor parents and the dignity pf moral law?
Christianity honors father and mother more
rationally than by superstitious forms of
ancestral worship, and it exalts ethical
purity on deeper principles by making all
the law and the prophets hang upon the
great commandment of love, first, of God
and, secondly, of man. We oppose a pure
Gospel of salvation against the polytheism
and pantheism of India, confident that at
this hour it is effectually sapping the foun
dations of Brahmanism in that ancient land
of the Veda. How beautiful is the Christian
doctrine of the incarnation as contrasted with
the avatars of Hindu mythology? When in
1864 Bishop Thomson organized the first
India Mission Conference he said : " I envy
the brother to be stationed at Sambhal. Be
neath that temple, guarded and venerated as
the cradle of an incarnate deity, I would
preach as Paul did at the altar of the un
known God." 164

Ube positive apology
In that spirit we go forth into the pres
ence of all the religions of the world and
insist that they have no truth or excel
lence which we cannot parallel and sur
pass. And, beyond the best that they
can show, the Christian system provides
for the remission of sin, the purification
of the heart, the sanctity of the home
and family, and it is entitled more than
any other to be called ' ' the religion of
humanity." Where other religions offer
to the hungering and thirsting spirit only
stones and serpents, Christianity offers the
bread of heaven and the water of eternal
life. 5. As another positive argument for the
Christian faith we point to the religious
experience and life of the true disciple of
Jesus. Conscious of sin and guilt, he does
not, like the Brahman and the Buddhist, go
about seeking through bodily tortures to
rescue himself from the evil ; but he repents
of his sin, accepts the Lord Jesus as his re
deeming Saviour, and, being justified by
faith, has peace with God, and holy joy, and
blessed hope, and freedom from condem
nation. And, besides all this, giving all
diligence, he adds to his faith virtue ; and to
165

Ube mew apologetic
virtue, knowledge ; and to knowledge, tem
perance ; and to temperance, patience ; and
to patience, godliness. "The time past,"
he says, " is sufficient to have wrought the
will of the Gentiles, and to have walked in
lasciviousness, winebibbing, carousing, and
such like ; henceforth I walk in the Spirit,
and do not fulfill the lusts of the flesh."
We point to the conversion of such men
as Saul of Tarsus, and Augustine, and
John Bunyan, and to the saintly lives
and triumphant deaths of an innumerable
company who have made the world better
than they found it, and we say, " These
are some of the positive evidences of Chris
tianity." 6. We hold up as another reason of our
devotion to Christianity its blessed adapta
tion to the necessities and longings of man's
spiritual nature. What significance to the
Christian consciousness have such expres
sions as " peace with God," " the righteous
ness of faith," " full assurance of hope,"
"joy in the Holy Ghost," "the love of
Christ which passeth knowledge!" What
elevation of spirit in a prayer which con
fidingly invokes ' ' the God of our Lord
Jesus Christ, the Father of glory," to give
166

XLbc positive apology
' ' unto you a spirit of wisdom and revela
tion in the knowledge* of him ; having the
eyes of your heart enlightened, that ye may
know what is the hope of his calling, what
the riches of the glory of his inheritance in
the saints, and what the exceeding great
ness of his power to us- ward who believe,
according to that working of the strength
of his might which he wrought in Christ,
when he raised him from the dead, and
made him to sit at his right hand in the
heavenlies, far above all rule, and authority,
and power, and dominion, and every name
that is named, not only in this world, but
also in that which is to come " (Eph. i, 17-
21). Where in all literatures, or in all the
fondest dreams of human imagination, can
there be found a balm so healing and per
manently soothing to the soul as these
words have been to Christian believers dur
ing all the centuries ?
Christian hymnology has caught the in
spiration of these heavenly thoughts and
woven them into the songs of the Church,
* We may note the suggestive Greek word i-Kiyvuoie, here
translated " knowledge." It means full, thorough, correct
knowledge. The Christian who has the full knowledge of
Christ here invoked is not a gnostic, much less an agnostic,
but he is an epignostic. 167

"Cbe mew apologetic
so that all over the world myriads of hearts
and voices are saying :
" Lord, how secure and blest are they
Who feel the joys of pardoned sin ! "

" Jesus, where'er thy people meet,
There they behold thy mercy-seat."

" Jesus ! the name that charms our fears.
That bids our sorrows cease."

" How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in his excellent word ! "

" We may not climb the heavenly steeps
To bring the Lord Christ down ;
In vain we search the lowest deeps.
For him no depths can drown.
" But warm, sweet, tender, even yet
A present help is he ;
And faith has yet its Olivet,
And love its Galilee."
That religion is positively full of comfort
and assurance whose divine Founder, speak
ing as from the bosom of the eternal
Father, says, "Come unto me, all ye that
labor and are heavy laden, and I will give
168

TTbe positive apology
you rest." And millions of human hearts
are every day responding :
"Jesus, Lover of my soul,
Let me to thy bosom fly."

" Rock of ages, cleft for me.
Let me hide myself in thee."

" I know thee, Saviour, who thou art,
Jesus, the feeble sinner's Friend ;
Nor wilt thou with the night depart,
But stay and love me to the end :
Thy mercies never shall remove ;
Thy nature and thy name is Love."
7. Another positive claim of the Chris
tian religion is its beneficial effects on human
society. It everywhere makes for peace
and righteousness. Unlike much that goes
abroad to-day under the name of socialism
and scatters pessimistic seeds of anarchy,
Christianity teaches the only true sociology.
For sociology, in the deepest and truest
sense, is only one phase of Christian soteri-
ology. Those would-be reformers who re
fuse to recognize the facts of sin and guilt
in the human heart cannot produce a sound
system of sociology. He who professes to
observe the Golden Rule and love his
169

XLbc mew apologetic
neighbor as himself will not be the highest
success unless he first know what it is to
love God with all his heart. The Lord Je
sus said, "Ye must be born again." All
radical and successful reforms in human
life and society must begin in the indi
vidual heart. In his Notes on the Miracles,
Trench beautifully suggests how the first
miracle that Jesus wrought, in Cana of Gal
ilee, is a symbol of his entire redeeming
work among men. "Apart from all that
is local and temporary," he says, " this mir
acle may be taken as the sign and symbol
of all which Christ is evermore doing in
the world — ennobling all that he touches,
making saints out of sinners, angels out of
men, and in the end heaven out of earth, a
new paradise of God out of the old wilder
ness of the world" (p. 98).
8. This glorious thought connects nat
urally with another which should be men
tioned as a positive feature of the Gos
pel of the blessed God. The goal toward
which Christianity ever aims and moves is
the regeneration and restitution of all things.
"We look for a new heaven and earth,
wherein dwelleth righteousness." The
golden age of Christianity is in the future,
170

Ube positive apology
not in the past. The kingdom of God and
of Christ is like the mustard seed, and the
leaven, and the stone cut out of the moun
tain which rolled onward until it filled the
earth. The New Jerusalem of John's
Apocalypse is not so much a picture of
celestial life in some " far-away home of
the soul " as it is of heaven coming down
to earth, the tabernacle of God among
men. And so we believe the word of
prophecy, that " the earth shall be filled
with the knowledge of the glory of God,
as the waters cover the sea " (Hab. ii, 14).
" The Gentiles shall come to thy light,
and kings to the brightness of thy rising"
(Isa. Ix, 3). All nations shall delight to
walk in his ways ; ' ' and they shall beat
their swords into plowshares, and their
spears into pruning hooks: nation shall
not lift up sword against nation, neither
shall they learn war any more " (Micah
iv, 3).
9. Among the positive arguments for
Christianity we must not fail to mention
her Holy Scriptures, which are so unspeak
ably profitable for teaching, for correction ,
for rebuke, for consolation, for instruction
in righteousness. This divine purpose of
171

Zbe mew apologetic
the Bible is not weakened, but rather
strengthened, by the most searching criti
cism. The more thorough the criticism,
the more clearly is it seen that the divine
power is not in the letter which killeth,
but in the spirit which giveth life. Bring
forward all the rival scriptures of the
world ; memorize the noblest Vedic hymns ;
select the choicest sayings of Buddha from
the voluminous Tripitaka ; search the Con
fucian classics and the sacred books of
Babylon and Assyria and Persia; peruse
Egyptian ritual and Moslem Koran and
Scandinavian Eddas; and then come back
to the Christian's Bible and you will say,
' ' Those scriptures of the nations are a
gloomy and confusing wilderness, lighted
by here and there a noticeable star; but
the Scriptures of the Old and New Testa
ments are a paradise of God, having many
,a tree of life with healing leaves, and over
and through it all the Sun of righteousness
shines with perennial rays." Blessed is
the man who, like Timothy, has from
childhood known these Holy Scriptures,
which are able to make him wise unto sal
vation through faith in Jesus Christ.
io. But the great and crowning apology
172

"Cbe positive apology
of Christianity is Jesus Christ himself. His
commanding personality can never fail to
attract the respectful attention of all truth-
loving minds ; and the apologetic argument
derived from that unique and adorable per
sonality is now generally recognized as both
fundamental and final. This argument has
been worked into the best literature and the
best preaching of these latest times. It has
been presented in so many ways that one
hardly knows how to make a selection from
the rich stores of thought that have accumu
lated about this one ideal. Who is this, we
ask, and what the explanation and signifi
cance of One who appears among men as
holy, harmless, undefiled, tempted like other
men, but without sin ? " This Jesus of Naz
areth," said the late Dr. Philip Schaff,
' ' without money and arms, conquered more
millions than Alexander, Caesar, Moham
med, and Napoleon ; without science and
learning, he shed more light on things
human and divine than all the philosophers
and scholars combined; without the elo
quence of schools, he spoke words of life
such as were never spoken before or since,
and produced effects which lie beyond the
reach of orator or poet ; without writing a
173

Gbe mew apologetic
single line, he has set more pens in motion
and furnished themes for more sermons,
orations, and discussions, learned volumes,
works of art, and sweet songs of praise
than the whole army of great men of ancient
and modern times. Born in a manger and
crucified as a malefactor, he now controls
the destinies of the civilized world and
rules a spiritual empire which embraces one
third of the inhabitants of the globe."*
How shall we account for this remarkable
phenomenon of human history ? It is no
longer a question whether this Jesus of
Nazareth lived, suffered, and died. No
man of average information and sobriety
denies to-day the main facts of Jesus's life.
The great task of those who deny his di
vinity is to produce some rational explana
tion of a life so marvelous. The difficulty
of this task will appear more clearly when
we consider more in detail a number of the
facts in the life and character of Jesus :
(i) A first consideration is the impossibil
ity of finding anything in the outward con
ditions of the life of Jesus sufficient to ac-
* The Christ of the Gospels, p. 37. Reprinted, with revi
sions and additions, from the British and Foreign Evangel
ical Review. 174

Ubc positive apology
count for his immense influence and power.
This argument has been elaborated with
great ability by Dr. John Young, of Edin
burgh, in his little volume entitled The
Christ of History* Attention is called to
the obscure parentage of Jesus, the con
tempt that attached to his home in Nazareth,
his occupation as a carpenter, his association
through life with the poor and lowly, his
dependence during his public career on the
benevolence of his friends, and the notable
fact that he mingled freely with publicans
and sinners. He was not learned in the
usual conception of learning. He obtained
no friendly recognition from those in power.
Even Nicodemus and Joseph of Arima-
thaea dared not openly avow him. There
was nothing, therefore, in his social position
to account for his remarkable influence on
his generation. On the contrary, every
thing of this kind was against him.
The shortness of his public career is
another fact to be noted. His first thirty
years were spent in comparative obscurity.
The only event likely to attract attention
was his appearance in the temple when he
* The Christ of History : an Argument Grounded on the
Facts of his Life on Earth. New York, 1866.
175

XEbc mew apologetic
was twelve years old; but there is no evi
dence that it created any lasting impression
except in the heart of his mother. His
public ministry lasted little more than three
years. Some, both in ancient and modern
times, have argued that it lasted less than
two years. Origen says, " He taught only
during a year and some months, but the
whole world became filled with his doc
trine, and with faith in his religion."
The great sages who have made a lasting
impression on the thought of the world
lived to mature age, and so had the oppor
tunities of many years to inculcate their
ideas. Confucius and Buddha lived to
propagate their doctrines for nearly half
a century. But how utterly inadequate, on
all ordinary probabilities, were two, three,
or even four years for Jesus to secure the
boundless fame and influence :which attach
to his personality?
Consider, further, how the ignominy and
shame of crucifixion between two robbers
must have blighted the hopes of his follow
ers. The unbelieving Jew, the arrogant
scoffer, and the most extreme rationalist
have never had any difficulty in believing
that Jesus died according to the Scriptures.
176

XLbc positive apology
The satire of Lucian stigmatized Jesus as
" the crucified sophist." An ancient graf
fito, discovered at Rome amid the ruins of the
palace of the Caesars, presents a vile carica
ture of Christian worship under the figure
of a short man standing in the attitude of
adoration before the crucified image of a
man with the head of an ass. Under it, in
rude Greek letters, is the inscription,
" Alexamenos worships his God! " How,
now, could any man, in the face of such re
proach and shame and derision, multiply
his influences and the number of his fol
lowers age after age, until all that calumny
is silenced and the cross itself has become
the symbol of that which is most sacred to
human thought?
We know well enough that here and
there a great genius has at times risen
above the conditions of obscure birth and a
life of poverty. These alone are no in
superable obstacle to triumphs of genius.
But when you add all the other facts re
ferred to the spectacle becomes sublimely
unique. You will look in vain through all
the annals of history to find another men
who, with all those conditions against him,
in a ministry of three years, cut off by
177

Ube mew apologetic
shameful crucifixion, has commanded a
thousandth part of the influence which the
name of Jesus has in the world to-day.
(2) The next fact to be noticed is the power
and authority of his teaching. ' ' Never man
spoke like this man." He taught the mul
titudes ' ' as one having authority, and not
as the scribes." He wasted no time over
idle speculations, such as characterize much
of the Socratic wisdom and fill pages of
Plato and Aristotle. He talked very ex
temporaneously, but he talked to amazing
purpose. There is nothing in his method
that looks like the policy of a man calcu
lating on effects or shaping means to ends.
He scandalized the Jewish teachers of his
time by his free handling of national cus
toms. His ideal of the long-expected Mes
siah was very different from that which
was current among the Jewish people. He
boldly assumed to supplement, and even
set aside, what was said by them of old
time. He made himself greater than Moses
and the prophets. He spoke in parables
which remain to this day as jewels in the
literature of the world. And when sur
rounded by his enemies and an excitable
crowd he did not shrink from employing
178

•Ibe positive apology
such language as, ' ' Woe unto you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites; for ye shut up
the kingdom of heaven against men." "Ye
cleanse the outside of the cup and of the
platter, but within they are full of extortion
and excess." "Ye are like wh ited sepul-
chers, full of dead men's bones and all un
cleanness." " Ye blind guides ! " " Ye ser
pents, ye generation of vipers, how shall ye
escape the judgment of hell?" Such lan
guage evinces the Teacher who is confident
in truth and sublime in his consciousness of
divine power.
(3) Observe in the next place the mar
velous self-expression of this prophet of
Nazareth. Who and what is he that, with
a quiet and calm assurance, says: "I am
the light of the world. ... I am the way,
and the truth, and the life. ... I am the
bread of life. ... If any man eat of this
bread, he shall live forever. ... I am the
resurrection, and the life. . . . Whosoever
liveth, and belie veth in me, shall never die.
. . . Before Abraham was, I am. . . . And
if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw
all men unto me." These sayings, to be
sure, are all in the gospel of John, and
some argue that they are the idealized por-
179

Ubc mew apologetic
trait of a Christian writer a hundred years
after the death of Jesus. But even if the
fourth gospel be allowed such a character
we may still ask, Whence came this glorious
ideal? The synoptic gospels witness the
same calm self-assumption. He declares his
authority on earth to forgive sins (Matt.
ix, 6; Luke v, 24), and declares himself
Lord of the Sabbath day (Matt, xii, 8 ;
Mark ii, 28). He not only assumes to be
greater than Solomon and greater than the
temple (Matt, xii, 6, 42), but he says: "All
things have been delivered unto me of my
Father : and no man knoweth the Son, save
the Father ; neither doth any know the Fa
ther, save the Son, and he to whomsoever
the Son willeth to reveal him. Come unto
me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden,
and I will give you rest" (Matt, xi, 27, 28;
Luke x, 22). He also speaks of his coming
in the glory of his Father and the holy an
gels and rewarding every man according to
his works. At the last supper, in giving
the bread and wine, he said, "Eat and
drink of these, for they are my body and
my blood."
Dr. BushneU lays great stress on these
"astonishing pretensions of Jesus." " Was
180

XTbe positive apology
there ever displayed," he asks, "an example
of effrontery and spiritual conceit so prepos
terous? Was there ever a man that dared
put himself on the world in such preten
sions — as if all light was in him, as if to
follow him and be worthy of him was to be
the conclusive or chief excellence of man
kind? What but mockery and disgust does
he challenge as the certain reward of his
audacity ? But no one is offended with Jesus
on this account ; and — what is a sure test of
his success— it is remarkable that, of all the
readers of the Gospel, it probably never oc
curs to one in a hundred thousand to blame
his conceit or the egregious vanity of his
pretensions. . . . For eighteen hundred
years these prodigious assumptions have
been published and preached to a world that
is quick to lay hold of conceit and bring
down the lofty airs of pretenders ; and yet,
during all this time, whole nations of people,
composing as well the learned and powerful
as the ignorant and humble, have paid their
homage to the name of Jesus, detecting
never any disagreement between his merits
and his pretensions, offended never by any
thought of his extravagance. In which we
have absolute proof that he practically main-
181

Gbe mew apologetic
tains his amazing assumptions. Indeed, it
will even be found that, in the common ap
prehension of the race, he maintains the
merit of a most peculiar modesty, produc
ing no conviction more distinctly than that
of his intense lowliness and humility. His
worth is seen to be so great, his authority
so high, his spirit so celestial, that, instead
of being offended by his pretensions, we
take the impression of one in whom it is
even a condescension to breathe our air." *
(4) Another conspicuous fact which places
Jesus far above and apart from other men
is his sinlessness. One of his most memo
rable sayings is, ' ' Which of you convinceth
me of sin? " This phase of our Lord's char
acter is made the subject of Karl Ullmann's
volume entitled The Sinlessness of fesus an
Evidence of Christianity. The book is one
of the most important contributions to the
literature of apologetics made in modern
times, f
The sinlessness of Christ is evinced, not
from his own testimony only, but by the
entire portraiture of his spotless character
"Nature and the Supernatural, chap. x. pp. 289-291.
New York, 1859.
f English translation by Sophia Taylor. Edinburgh, 1882.
182

Ube positive apology
as presented in the four gospels, and by the
additional testimony of the apostolical writ
ings. These all witness that he was ' ' holy,
harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners ; "
that he "did no sin, neither was guile found
in his mouth ;" that he "was tempted in all
points like as we are, yet without sin." He
is called "a Lamb without blemish and
without spot." From childhood up to the
end of his life he maintained a record of
spotless purity. He is called "the Right
eous " and "the Holy One." Pilate and his
wife show, in their testimony to the fault
less character of "that just man," what a
profound impression his blamelessness had
made on those without the immediate circle
of his followers. Not the slightest shadow
was ever cast upon his moral excellence.
He assumed power and authority to forgive
the sins of others, but never allowed or ac
knowledged the least need of repentance on
his own part. And no one ever declared
the terrible nature of sin or disclosed its
"exceeding sinfulness" more searchingly
than he.
What a mighty apology for Christian
ity, then, is this immaculate purity of its
Founder? Some few sticklers, sorely be-
183

Ubc mew apologetic
stead, have presumed to find fault with his
cursing a barren fig tree, his driving the
money changers out of the temple, and his
calling the hypocritical scribes and Phari
sees a brood of vipers. But it is evidence
of the hopelessness of their aim when these
sublime and significant acts in Jesus's min
istry are viewed with such an evil eye.
(5) It remains now to speak, in conclu
sion, of the supernatural element in this
adorable personality. If it has been made
clear that the natural conditions of his
earthly life furnish nothing sufficient to ac
count for his transcendent influence in the
world ; if his doctrines are far in advance
of those of any other religious teacher of
the ages ; if his amazing but calm expres
sion of a consciousness of power over life
and death— power to forgive sins, power in
heaven as well as upon earth— implies such
unity with God as no other man has ever
known ; and if, with all this, he stands be
fore the world as a character of immaculate
purity whom no man Can convict of sin, our
only rational conclusion is that he must have
been something more than man. What,
then, is that "unknown quantity" which will
solve the problem of such a transcendent life ?
184

ZTbe positive apology
If we allow the Scriptures to explain
themselves, and accept that solution which
the Christian Church has held for nineteen
centuries, we simply affirm that Jesus Christ
was a supernatural incarnation of devine
wisdom and power. We believe the per
sonality of Jesus and the facts of his life
are explicable in no other way. But this
hypothesis logically explains the mystery,
and it is the obvious doctrine of the New
Testament. Why not accept it as the true
solution? We may well say in the words of
John Milton : "If our understanding have
a film of ignorance over it or be blear with
gazing on other false glisterings, what is
that to truth? If we would but purge with
sovereign eyesalve that intellectual ray
which God hath planted in us, then we
would believe the Scriptures protesting
their own plainness and perspicuity, call
ing to them to be instructed ; not only the
wise and the learned, but the simple, the
poor, the babes."*
The miracles of Jesus were numerous
and of a varied character. There were
miracles in the realm of nature, such as
multiplying the loaves, walking on the
* Reformation in England, book i.
185

Zbe mew apologetic
water, and stilling the tempest ; miracles of
healing, which comprise the greater num
ber of the mighty works of Jesus ; and the
miracles of resurrection, of which we have
the four examples of Jairus's daughter,
the son of the widow of Nain, Lazarus, and
Jesus Christ himself. The one great fact to
be noticed in all these miracles is their pro
found significance in the self-revelation of
our Lord. You cannot separate the mighty
works from the teaching of Jesus, for his
works and words form one harmonious
whole. The most searching criticism finds
that the earliest oral tradition and written
sources of the synoptic gospels must have
been to a remarkable extent a " miracle -
gospel." This fact is an insuperable dif
ficulty in the way of the naturalistic and
the mythical theories of the origin of the
Gospel narratives. They utterly fail to
solve the wonderful problem. The earliest
sources of the synoptic gospels were too
near the facts recorded to admit the sup
positions of the rationalistic theories; and
we must conclude that the original tradi
tion, received from eyewitnesses, reported
the miracles as accepted facts.
The new apologetic, however, will not
186

TEbe positive apology
define miracles after the fashion of the
eighteenth century. The men who replied
to Hume's famous argument virtually ad
mitted that, if miracles were not violations
of the order of nature, they were, at all
events, a suspension of nature's law or a devi
ation from them contrary to the established
constitution of the world. The theistic doc
trine of evolution has changed this entire
concept of the order of nature. The world
is not an inanimate machine, attached to
certain "laws of nature" and left to run
itself. It is, rather, a continuous manifes
tation of God, who immediately upholds
and rules all things, . visible and invisible.
In the whole realm of nature we recognize
the abiding truth of Jesus's word, "My
Father worketh hitherto, and I work."
Each new departure from the past is but an
onward step in the progress of God's eter
nal plan of the world. The exodus of
Israel from Egypt, the Babylonian exile
and its discipline for the Jewish people,
the conversion of Paul, the evolution of
Martin Luther and John Wesley and George
Washington, are all parts of one great
order of nature, carried onward by the
direction of one eternal Mind. Jesus Christ
187

XLbc mew apologetic
is himself an evolution from the bosom of
the everlasting Father ; and his resurrection
from the dead was an essential part of the
sublime manifestation. The miracles of
Jesus, according to this view, were no more
violations, or suspensions, or deviations
from the order of nature than are any other
works wrought for a definite purpose by one
who knows what he is doing.* Which is
* Beyond this general but truly scriptural conception, is
there not a latent fallacy in any formal attempt to define a
miracle ? A definition that assumes to be full and exhaustive
implicity assumes to explain what, in the nature of things, is
beyond human knowledge. When we have said that a mira
cle is " a wonderful work of God " we have gone to the ex
tent of our ability to define. The same difficulty meets us in
any attempt to define a "special providence" or "special
answers to prayer.'' These are all wonderful works of God,
inexplicable by us except in general terms. We can only say
that these are parts of His ways who is past finding out.
They are not violations of his laws, or deviations from his es
tablished plans and purposes. This seems to have been, in
substance, the answer of Peter and John, when all the people
were wondering greatly over the miraculous cure of the lame
man. " Why fasten ye your eyes on us," said Peter, " as
though by our own power and godliness we had made this
man to walk ? The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of
Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Child Jesus.
. . . And upon the faith of his name hath his name made
this man strong, whom ye behold and know " (Acts iii, 12,
13, 16). Here is no other explanation or definition than that
the miracle was a wonderful work of God, wrought through
faith in his name. 188

Gbe positive apology
the grander concept — a mechanical process
of inert matter, requiring occasional inter
positions from without ; or a continual un
folding, a series of surprises, an evolution
planned and guided from first to last by the
perfect wisdom of supreme Intelligence?
The miracles of Jesus are, therefore, a
part of the Messianic plan and order of the
manifestation of the eternal Father. It is
significant that so large a proportion of
them were miracles of healing. These all
emphasized the great fundamental truth
that his mission was for the restoration of
humanity from the curse of sin. Hence,
to the sick of the palsy it was as suitable
for him to say, " Thy sins are forgiven," as
to say, "Arise and walk." The nature-
miracles proclaim him Lord of the elements,
as well as the Physician of the souls and
bodies of men. His casting out demons
displayed his power over all the unseen and
mysterious forces of the spiritual world.
His raising others from the dead and his
own resurrection were but the natural illus
trations of his marvelous saying, ' ' I am the
resurrection and the life." And so all his
mighty works were in splendid harmony
with the purpose of his mission of salva-
189
13

Gbe mew apologetic
tion. Utterly unlike the wizards that have
performed strange feats to awe and con
found the vulgar crowd, he never wrought
a prodigy for the mere purpose of miracu
lous display. He gave no sign when it was
demanded by the unbelieving multitude,
nor would he come down from the cross at
the challenge of his crucifiers.*
* Very important for the proper understanding of our Lord's
miracles are the statements put forward in John's gospel in
their defense. Thus, in John ix, 3-5: "Jesus answered,
Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents : but that the
works of God should be made manifest in him. We must
work the works of him that sent me, while it is day : the
night cometh, when no man can work. When I am in the
world, I am the light of the world." Again, in x, 32, 37, 38 :
" Many good works have I showed you from the Father ; for
which of those works do ye stone me ? . . If I do not the
works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do them,
though ye believe not me, believe the works : that ye may
know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the
Father." Again, in xiv, 10-13: "Believest thou not thatl
am in the Father, and the Father in me ? the words that I say
unto you I speak not from myself : but the Father abiding in
me doeth his works. Believe me that I am in the Father,
and the Father in me : or else believe me for the very works'
sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me,
the works that I do shall he do also ; and greater works than
these shall he do ; because I go unto the Father. And whatso
ever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father
may be glorified in the Son.'' Once more, in xv, 22-24 : " If
I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin :
but now they have no excuse for their sin. ... If I had not
done among them the works which none other did, they
190

Gbe positive apology
The evidential value of the miracles of
Jesus must, accordingly, be viewed in closest
connection with his divine personality and
the nature of his mission in the world.
Apart from these considerations, they can
not be put forward as evidences of Christian
ity to a modern unbeliever. As we showed
in a former lecture, no man now believes in
Christ because of his miracles wrought two
millenniums ago ; we rather believe the mir
acles because we have first come to believe
in Christ. And now those miracles stand
in the sacred records as so many conspicuous
illustrations, symbols, and types of the re
demptive work he is continually carrying
forward in the world. Every recorded mir
acle is not only an attested fact, but also a
parabolic lesson of the kingdom of Christ.
He ever remains greater than his miracles.
They are but as shadows of his mighty per
sonality.* The miracle in itself is nothing
had not had sin ; but now have they both seen and hated
both me and my Father." All these statements show the in
separable connection between the mighty works and the
mighty words of Jesus, and their essential relation to the reve
lation of God in Christ.
* Hence the moral insignificance of mere prodigies. Sepa
rated from a great and good personality and without a purpose
worthy of God, they can only be defined as wonderful works of
darkness. Men have witnessed many such works at the hands
191.

Ube mew apologetic
except as you know its cause and purpose.
" No man hath seen God at any time; the
only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of
the Father, he hath declared him;" and the
miracles of the gospels will continue as long
as the world stands to be symbolic revela
tions of the love of God to man.
In view of the great noise made in some
places over alleged "faith cures" and the
pretensions of "Christian science" (falsely
so called), we do well to observe the com
parative estimate which our Lord put upon
his miracles. While conceding that some
might believe because of the works he
wrought, yet, as a rule, he disparaged the
relative value of mere signs and wonders.
When the disciples exulted that devils were
subject to them in his name he said, ' ' Re
joice rather that your names are written in
heaven." In his Life and Times of fesus the
Messiah, Edersheim avers that the miracles
of Christ, so far from being anything in
which he took delight, were rather a part of
his humiliation.* They were of the nature
of magicians, sorcerers, necromancers, adepts in what have
been well called " the black arts." They could never give any
sufficient account of themselves to justify their performance.
* The Life and Times of yesus the Messiah, vol. i, p. 489.
London and New York, 1883. 192

TTbe positive apology
of a condescension to human weakness, in
order to prepare the way for something bet
ter. So it is with a sigh of pity that he
says : ' ' Except ye see signs and wonders,
ye will not believe." With much long-suf
fering he showed his hands and side to
Thomas, and added with profound signifi
cance, ' ' Blessed are they that have not seen,
and yet have believed." In the face of all
these teachings, there are those who keep
on crying, "Show us a sign, and we will
believe." Some would seem to be willing
to crucify the Son of God afresh every day
if they could only see him come down from
the cross, for no higher purpose than to con
found a scoffing crowd. They would mag
nify one prayer test above all the lessons of
the Sermon on the Mount. They set a
higher value on one alleged faith cure, that
has made a local sensation, than on the whole
record of a saintly life, that has made no
greater show in the world than to visit the
fatherless and widows in their affliction and
keep unspotted from the world. Jesus
wrought miracles of exceptional character,
but took pains to say to his disciples that he
that believed on him should do greater
works than these (John xiv, 12). He that
193

"Cbe mew apologetic
converts a sinner from the error of his ways,
and so saves a soul from death, is greater
than he that heals a palsied arm. They
who go about making a great noise over
miracles of flesh and blood turn men's
thoughts away from better things and cul
tivate morbid superstition, rather than faith
in Christ. The deepest, highest, broadest
apology for Christianity is ' ' the love of God
richly shed abroad in the heart" by the
power of the Spirit, and ' ' Christ in you, the
hope of glory." This far-reaching truth led
Paul to say : ' ' Though I speak with the
tongues of men and angels, . . . and have
all faith so that I could remove mountains,
and have not love, I am nothing."
Recognizing, now, the miracles of Jesus
as a part of his revelation of the Father, we
must not forget that the Lord Christ himself
is unspeakably greater than his miracles,
and he for whom any miracle is wrought
must needs be greater than the miracle.
Hence, the supreme argument for Christian
ity is the adorable Personality back of the
miracles. The signs and wonders wrought
by Jesus long ago, in gracious condescension
to temporary conditions, are of little value
to us now except as they symbolize the
194

Zbe positive apology
greater works which the blessed Gospel is
now and continually working.
And here we conclude our positive apol
ogy, pointing to the adorable personality of
the Christ of God. By his birth and humble
life, by his sympathy and sorrow, by his in
comparable doctrine, by his wonderful ex
pressions of conscious union with God the
Father Almighty, by the sinlessness of his
character and the laying down of his spot
less life for the sins of men, by his resurrec
tion from the dead and the miracles of his
grace, which repeat themselves a thousand
thousand times each day by the power of the
Spirit in the hearts of men — by all these
facts and more, the Gospel of his love sounds
its perpetual call and cries, ' ' If any man
willeth to do his will, he shall know of the
doctrine, whether it be of God."
" O thou almighty Lord,
Our Conqueror and King,
Thy scepter and thy sword,
Thy reigning grace, we sing :
Thine is the power; behold we sit
In willing bonds beneath thy feet."
195

Ifnbey

Abelard, 26.
Agnosticism, 71-74.
Associated with evolution,
76.
Allegorical interpretation, 18,
26, 82.
Analysis, critical, 29.
Anaximander, 15.
Anaximenes, 16.
Apologetics, defined, 10.
Distinguished from Polem
ics, 159.
Bacon, 22.
Baur, 29.
Berkeley, 53.
Bible, discrepancies of, 85.
Errors in, 105-108.
Extravagant claims for, 82.
Great purpose of, 105.
Immoralities in, 85.
Infallibility of, 82, 85.
Interpolations in, 87.
Perfection of, 83.
Preciousness of, 86.
Various forms of composi
tion in, 87.
Various readings in, 87.
Biology, 66.

Bolingbroke, 23.
Brahmanism, 121, 122, 124,
129.
Bruce, 75, xi2.
Buddhism, 121, 122,124, I29>
148-154.
BushneU, 180.
Butler, 38, 74.
Buxtorf, 84.
Caird, 43, 44, 113, 122, 123,
128, 129, 144.
Celsus, 18, 19.
Christ, person of, 173-195.
Christianity, adaptation to
spiritual needs, 166, 167.
Doctrines of, 45.
Effects on society, 169.
Errors of its friends, 161.
Experience and life of, 165.
Goal of, 170, 171.
Hymnology of, 167-169.
Missionary religion, 164.
Religion of free thought,
163.
Scriptures of, 171, 172.
The religion, 160.
Chubb, 34.
Clarke, 91.

197

flnbej

Collins, 27.
Comte, 24.
Confucianism, 124, 137-148.
Copernicus, 63, 89.
Criticism, Higher, 81, 87, 88,
90, 91, 92, 97, 98, 100,
102, 104.
Criticism, Lower, 84, 87.
Cyrus in Isaiah, 102.
Dale, no.
Daniel, Book of, 26.
Deism, 22, 27, 34.
Democritus, 57.
Descartes, 22, 24.
Design, argument from, 77.
Dionysius, 81.
Dualism, 20, 45, 46, 47.
Ebrard, II.
Ecclesiastes, Book of, 90-93.
Edersheim, 192.
Eichhorn, 28.
Eusebius, 81.
Evolution, 66-71.
Fichte, 53.
French infidelity, 23.

Greek philosophy, 14-17, 61.
Harman, 91.
Hegel, 24, 53, 60, 82.
Heraclitus, 16.
Hierocles, 18.
Hillel, 81.
Hindu philosophy, 61.
Hume, 23, 187.
Huxley, 55, 56.
Idealism, 51, 52-54, 59, 66.
Inspiration, 83, 107.
Isaiah, Book of, 100-103.
Jewish opposition, n, 30.
Judaism, 124.
Julian, 18.
Justin Martyr, 14.
Kant, 24.
Kellogg, 127.
Lao-tsze, 146.
Legge, 138, 139, 140.
Leibnitz, 24.
Leucippus, 57.
Lucian, 18, 177.

Galileo, 64.
Genesis and geology, 65.
Genesis, interpretations of,
69-71.
German rationalism, 23, 28.
Gibbon, 23.
Gnosticism, 20, 21, 46, 47, 72.
Gravitation, law of, 38.

Manichseism, 47.
Materialism, 51, 54-59, 66.
Matheson, 50, 73.
Matter, origin of, 49, 5a
Milton, 185.
Miracles, argument from,
112-114, 185-194.
Jesus's estimate of, 192-194.

198

"IfnOej

Mohammedanism, 33, 34,
124, 129.
Monism, 51.
Monuments, apologetic value Renan, 29,
of, 108-110.
Mueller, 123.

Religions, classification of,
123, 124.
Imperfections of, 132-134.

Newton, 64.
Origen, 19, 32.
Pagan idolatry, 31.
Pagan opposition, 12.
Paine, 23.
Pantheism, 51, 52, 60-63, 66.
Parable of the stones in the
field, 107.
Paulus, 29.
Philosophy, defined, 43.
Underlying criticism, 81, 82.
Plato, 16, 94.
Pliny, 12.
Porphyry, 18, 25, 26, 85.
Positive philosophy, 24.
Prophecy, argument from,
110-112.
Proverbs, Book of, 95-97.
Psalms, Book of, 98-100.
Pseudographs, 92-94.
Purists, 83, 84, 89.
Pythagoras, 16.
Religion, comparative, 30, 35.
Definition of, 127, 128.
Different views of, 125, 126.
Elements in, 127.
Transmission of, 130, 131.

Schaff, 21, 173.
Schelling, 53.
Science, 25, 63-71.
Shaftesbury, 22.
Shamrnai, 81.
Sociology, 169.
Spencer, 72.
Spinoza, 24, 27, 60.
Socrates, 94.
Solomon, Wisdom of, 97, 98.
Strauss, 29, 82.
Synoptic problem, 29.
Tacitus, 12.
Tertullian, 32.
Thales, 15.
Tindal, 22.
Toland, 22.
Totemism, 124.
Trench, 112, 170.
Ullmann, 182.
Volney, 34.
Voltaire, 64.
Watson, 66.
Woolston, 28.
Young, 175.
Zoroastrianism, 46, 124.

199

08844 351 1